The Menges' Americas Report

The Honduran Crisis could be a Latin American Yalta.

2009-07-16T08:18:00.000-07:00

The Honduran Crisis could be a Latin American Yalta.

By Luis Fleischman. *

As the Honduran crisis is still unresolved and attempts at mediation continue, the case has presented an interesting challenge whose outcome could be crucial for the future of the region and the United States.

For the time being Costa Rican President, Oscar Arias, is trying (so far unsuccessfully) to mediate between the current President of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, and ousted Honduran President, Manuel Zelaya. The Obama Administration did the right thing by encouraging President Arias’s intervention as well as opposing Zelaya’s demand that a deadline be set for his return to power.

Yet, the Obama Administration, in principle, has supported the return of Zelaya to power as part of any settlement. This point requires further analysis because we are not merely dealing with an internal Honduran problem but also with a problem that has far reaching regional and international implications.

Zelaya was, indeed, democratically elected. In his attempt to pursue a constitutional reform via referendum he engaged in a violation of the constitution as it was sanctioned by the Honduran Supreme Court and the national Congress. The military intervened to prevent Zelaya from carrying out unconstitutional measures. Because that action involved a military intervention, it prompted negative reactions in the U.S., Latin America and Europe.

The action by the Honduran military was aimed at preventing Zelaya from doing what is being done in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador: that is strengthening the prerogatives of the executive power via a constitutional reform and using that as a stepping stone towards dictatorship.

In order to understand the severity of Zelaya’s actions, we have to imagine a situation where President Barack Obama tries to pass legislation on health care, immigration, or any other policy. For Obama to expect full support in Congress or even full support in the Democratic Party would be unrealistic. Yet President Obama would be so eager to pass legislation or implement policy in all these areas, that instead of negotiating with Congress, he appeals to popular referendums taking advantage of his current popularity. Thus, because Obama is annoyed at Congressional resistance and because he is aware of his popularity, he calls for a constitutional reform via a popular referendum that approves a constitution that increases the power of the President to carry out a “socially just policy”. Would not America be outraged at such an action? That is exactly what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela, what Evo Morales did in Bolivia, what Rafael Correa did in Ecuador and what Zelaya tried to do in Honduras.

Zelaya’s actions also raise a serious suspicion regarding his dealings with Hugo Chavez. In other words, it sounds like in exchange for economic support and other types of agreements beneficial to Honduras, President Zelaya seems to have compromised his country’s constitution and its democracy. This adds an element of corruption to a man who was elected as head of the liberal party, a party that holds conservative economic views, quite the opposite of views held by Chavez. Certainly leaders can change their minds about certain things. But how can we explain Zelaya’s quick ideological turn around? One thing is to accept Venezuelan largess but another thing is to move his country into a Chavista sphere of influence by showing disdain and undermining state institutions. This raises eyebrows as to whether Zelaya’s move could have been part of an unwritten agreement between him and Chavez. If this is the case we are talking about a major case of political prostitution where a whole country is put up for sale by a single man. If this is the case, Zelaya needs to be investigated on grounds of corruption.

If the Obama Administration insists on the principle that any settlement should return Mr. Zelaya to power we may be facing a case of a Latin American Yalta.

The Yalta conference that took place early in 1945 between U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, paved the way for the subjugation of Poland and later countries such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia into the Soviet sphere of influence. At the time of the Yalta conference, the Soviets had the advantage of having their troops in the heart of Europe. This card was strongly used by Stalin to get strategic and political advantages from Roosevelt and Churchill in the negotiations.

In the current Latin American situation, Chavez has an advantage comparable with Stalin’s during Yalta. Chavez is a) generous oil producer and distributor of wealth among Latin American countries b) Chavez has integrated into his sphere of influence countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and probably El Salvador and Paraguay plus a few small Caribbean nations. c) In addition, populist governments such as Argentina support Chavez, and social democracies such as Brazil, Chile and Uruguay have displayed indifference towards the Chavista phenomenon or have been apologists of the dictator. D) The organization of American States (OAS) under the leadership of Jose Miguel Insulza has de-facto empowered Chavez by conspicuously ignoring his anti-democratic steps against the rule of law, the political opposition, and the media and against his own interference in the internal affairs of other countries in an attempt to influence their political outcomes. In other words, losing the battle in Honduras means a big victory for Chavez and the spread of dictatorship in Latin America.

At the minimum the Obama Administration needs to do no harm in this situation. By isolating Honduras and threatening to stop all financial aid, we are inadvertently strengthening the Chavista countries while discouraging Honduran resistance to dictatorship.

The best solution would be to move forward with the scheduled November elections without restoring Zelaya. However, if the Administration’s idea is to restore Zelaya in order not to be an accomplice to a coup d’état, it needs to be done in a certain way. If restored, Zelaya should face impeachment over his constitutional violations and also undergo an investigation as to how exactly his dealings with Chavez are related to his project of constitutional reform.

These phenomena of “elected dictatorships” need to be exposed for what they are and countries need to find legal mechanisms of protection against them. Honduras has taken a stand against dictatorship and provided us with a “wake up” call.

*Dr. Luis Fleischman is Senior Advisor for the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C.

The Bolivarian Revolution Zeroing in on Peru.

2009-07-16T08:16:00.001-07:00

The Bolivarian Revolution Zeroing in on Peru.

By Nicole M. Ferrand. *

Today, Peru is one of the strongest economies in Latin America. In 2007, the Peruvian economy grew 9% and continued at that rate through 2008, only slowing in 2009 due to the world economic crisis. However, it remains structurally strong with a gross domestic product that surged 9.84% in 2008; it’s fastest pace since 1994. In addition to achieving economic growth, Peru has also successfully implemented market friendly policies, and increased property rights while recently ratifying a mutually beneficial Free Trade Agreement with the United States. Economists agree that things are looking up for Peru. Unfortunately, this doesn’t sit well with some; in particular Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez who has targeted countries that develop peacefully because their success proves to the world and the majority of Venezuelans that his policies are completely misguided.

In June 2009, Peru was rocked by violent confrontations between normally peaceful indigenous groups in the city of Bagua and local police. Bagua is a province of the Amazonas region, which is located in the north and central part of the department of Amazonas, rich in oil and gas resources.

Peru has started to restructure their economy under a 2006 free trade deal with the U.S. and key is a focus on property rights and titling of property, which is essential for capital formation. Earlier this year, President Alan Garcia used his executive authority to give title to land in the north of Peru and government officials spoke with indigenous people there, 400,000 of whom still live in Peru’s Amazon. In January of 2009, Garcia gave them title to 12.4 million hectares of land and another 15 million hectares were set aside for ecological sanctuaries.[1]

In an unprecedented move, native groups, led by indigenous leader Alberto Pizango, started to violently demonstrate to “reclaim” more than half of the land that was to be kept as sanctuary. Pizango, 43, a member of the Shawi-Campu Piavi tribe of the Loreto region had worked as a teacher in Yurimaguas in the Loreto region until he was elected president of Aidesep, in December 14, 2008. Aidesep is the Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle (Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana), which in reality is a radical proponent of “indigenous rights” and a vicious opponent of free market policies.[2] Ideologically, Aidesep is aligned with the Peruvian Communist Party, and former presidential candidate, radical leftist Ollanta Humala, Chavez’s handpicked candidate for the presidency of Peru.

These demonstrations were accompanied by propaganda that blamed the Garcia regime for, according to them, “robbing land and refusing to talk.” The natives appeared defiant on TV with spears and feathers while leftist organizations and the mainstream media began to portray Peru as an oppressive state that doesn't deserve free trade because it exploits its population.

During this time, a major highway in Bagua had been blocked for fifty-five days by approximately five thousand indigenous protesters. Many analysts agreed that the tactics used by these people looked eerily similar to the ones used by radicalized indigenous protesters in Bolivia in recent years.[3] In such demonstrations, roadblocks are basically used to isolate cities by halting shipments of food, medicine and energy, as well as trade, to make the government give concessions to avoid major confrontations. Garcia had sought to avoid conflict by engaging Aidesep in dialogue for more than five weeks, seeking agreements to end the road and river blockades. But its leader, Pizango, would not cooperate and it was clear from the start that he was looking for a violent row with the government to gain supporters, delegitimize the government and appear as a victim of the “inhuman” free trade agreement signed with the United States. The native leader had a clear agenda with the mindset to cause unrest and plenty of cash to mobilize people. Insiders close to Pizango said from the beginning that he was operating under Hugo Chavez’s orders, which had provided him and his followers with financing, promising them a safe haven just in case things went south. On the other hand, if successful, Pizango and Aidesep would achieve great riches, paving the way for Ollanta Humala to become president, and converting Hugo Chavez into the supreme leader of yet another Latin American nation, in addition to Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

On June 4^th, the local police received orders to end the blockade of the Belaúnde Terry highway, one of the country’s principal land routes for the transport of passengers and goods, which passes through Bagua. Unfortunately, the officers in charge of the operation, under-estimated the violent protesters. Only three hundred police officials were deployed without adequate anti-riot gear and when they tried to clear the highway on June 5, they were attacked by several thousand protesters, many of whom were armed. A total of thirty-three people died including twenty-four unarmed police officers whose throats were brutally cut by the natives.[4] Only nine indigenous protesters were killed but only after they clashed with their own forces who were members of Aidesep.

Police investigations indicate that Pizango ordered armed gunmen to attack the police and that he personally approved the executions of the police officials. The Peruvian government has already charged Pizango with homicide[5] but the native leader has been granted asylum by Nicaragua’s President, Daniel Ortega. Pizango now lives comfortably in Managua and openly gives speeches promoting Chavez’s cause while thousands of Peruvians yell for his return.

President Alan Garcia said the government will continue seeking dialogue with the country’s indigenous groups while also giving Peru’s national police commanders orders to “dialogue faster and act immediately” when confronted with road blockades and other indigenous protests which disrupt the free transit of people and goods. Interestingly, Garcia blamed the violence in Bagua on “external” forces, which are competing with Peru’s oil and gas resources. Clearly, he was referring to Venezuela and Bolivia.

There is mounting evidence that the Chavez regime provides financial support to Pizango and Aidesep. Venezuelan funds seem to be flowing to the protesters through Ollanta Humala and the ALBA houses, grass roots support centers named after Chavez’s alternative trading bloc, known as the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. The Peruvian congress is actively working on closing these “medical centers” and those lines of financing. Peruvian newspapers claim that radical Bolivian indigenous militants supported by Evo Morales are also working with radical Peruvian indigenous groups including Pizango’s group. These people are extremely poor, so you have to ask how they can afford to travel large distances, camp, obtain weapons and feed themselves for weeks at a time.

Separately, Chavez and Morales hold other grudges with the Garcia regime when it gave asylum to top Venezuelan dissidents, including Manuel Rosales, who ran against Chavez for president in 2006, and Carlos Ortega, the oil workers union boss who crossed Chavez. More recently, Peruvian writer, Mario Vargas Llosa, delivered a highly critical and apparently quite effective speech that ridiculed Chavez at a conference in Caracas. With regards to Bolivia, Peru granted political asylum to three former Bolivian cabinet officials accused of involvement in the killing of sixty-three demonstrators in the Andean city of El Alto in 2003 during the Sanchez de Lozada administration.[6]

In fact, local authorities have known for some time that Pizango and Aidesep are associated with the Congreso Bolivariano de los Pueblos (CBP), which was created in 2003 by Chavez to finance and promote his Bolivarian revolution together with the ALBA houses. The CBP is a consortium of indigenous groups in various Latin American countries that embraces a radical strategy and openly supports the idea that if the revolution cannot achieve power peacefully and democratically, it will trigger social, economic and political unrest.[7] To accomplish such a goal, they portray themselves as oppressed, and engaged in class warfare between the poor and the “mean imperialist elites,” lead by the “Satan” U.S.

Bolivia initially denied any involvement with the violence in Bagua, but President Morales finally said he supported Pizango’s indigenous movement. “It’s not possible that most reviled (people) in Latin American history should be humiliated as we have just seen,” Morales declared, adding that the “Indigenous movement of Latin America is a great defender of the planet Earth, of the environment, and that is why the struggles to defend equality and social justice will continue.” In addition the Bolivian President has called the government crackdown “genocide,” stating that “free trade agreements break up harmonious human relationships with nature; they illegally sell natural resources and national cultures; they privatize basic services; they try to patent life itself.”[8] Peru responded to the genocide comment by recalling its ambassador to Bolivia for consultation. The government has stated that there is no excuse for Morales to refer to the Bagua incident as “genocide” since a United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and the fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples ratified this past week that no genocide had occurred. The Garcia government sees the Morales administration as meddling in Peruvian sovereignty and has even publicly implied that Bolivia has manipulated the Peruvian indigenous groups in order to stir them to action. Separately, Bolivian Justice Minister, Celima Torrico, accused the Garcia government in Peru of unleashing a “bloody repression” against the country’s indigenous population.

For her part, Venezuela’s Minister of Indigenous Peoples, Nicia Maldonado, launched a furious public tirade against Garcia, accusing him of perpetrating “genocide…a terrorist act,” and “confirming (he) is a fascist.” “Unlike the Chavez government,” she added, Garcia has confirmed he “hates the people, hates the poor, hates the indigenous tribes” of Peru. “We absolutely and categorically condemn this genocide against our brothers of the Peruvian Amazon jungle,” Maldonado continued. She also said, without offering any proof, that Peruvian police had burned some bodies and thrown others into rivers in order to obscure the number of people killed.[9] By publicly embracing Pizango’s cause, they have given the indigenous leader international political recognition, which makes him seem more influential in Peru than he actually is.

After these incidents, the Garcia administration was forced to repeal the two decrees that caused the crisis in the first place. President Garcia even admitted that it was a mistake not to consult the heads of the indigenous groups prior to implementing the decrees. This may signify that the political elite in Peru is coming to terms with the fact that Peruvian indigenous groups are much better organized now than they were in the past.

The problem with these protests and what has the government confused is that, according to the polls, the overwhelming majority of Peruvians, over 80%, including a substantial percentage of its indigenous people support sustained economic development of the country’s abundant energy and mineral resources. So it is clear that someone is manipulating these people with the sole purpose of crippling the economy and destroying Garcia’s popularity while setting up a radical like Ollanta Humala for election as president in 2011. Peru would then be the next Marxist revolutionary and anti – American regime of the Chavez – Morales – Ortega – Correa axis. This would leave Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe almost alone at the mercy of the FARC.

The implications of the conflict in Bagua are ominous for Peru and for the stability of the region. Garcia faces powerful enemies who have instigated violence inside the country; especially Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. In addition, he has to contend with powerful organizations dedicated exclusively to “protecting the environment at all costs” and preserving, intact, the world’s remaining indigenous cultures and tribal societies. A case in point is the NGO, Amazon Watch, infamous for supporting the harassment of Chevron in Ecuador and paying protesters and launching a new campaign against “Big Oil.” Peru has the world’s third largest tropical rain forests, after Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Deforestation rates in Peru are significantly lower than in Brazil, Ecuador or Colombia and the Andean nation has large reserves of oil, gas and minerals in its rain forests. But these resources remain untapped, and the forces against Garcia want to make sure they remain unexploited – at least until the radicals take power in Peru.[10]

Unfortunately, not many are at Mr. Garcia’s side since Chavez has transformed the Organization of American States (OAS) into his echo chamber. By generously giving away oil to companies such as PetroCaribe and many nations represented in the OAS, Chavez has brought them around to his revolutionary cause. So far the Obama Administration treats Chavez as a nuisance to be left alone but not challenged or reckoned with in any substantial way. Brazil’s President Lula da Silva avoids direct confrontation with Chavez but in regional disputes always sides with the Chavista countries, as does Argentina. Looking South, Chile’s Michele Bachelet is unlikely to back Garcia in a diplomatic standoff with Chavez and Morales since OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza is Chilean and has sat placidly as Chavez has devoured democracy in his own country. Chilean diplomacy will stay away as long as its territory is left alone.

It is clear that President Garcia faces increasing pressure from Venezuela and Bolivia and that subversive groups are likely to increase its operations inside the country to intensify the conflict and destabilize the regime. Colombia and Brazil would be wise to cooperate on the intelligence front to protect their territories from this violence.

The Bagua attacks could provide an opportunity for Mr. Garcia to balance strong economic growth with social programs, even in the most remotes areas. The goal should be to stop fostering conditions for the emergence of radicals who only want violence and conflict with the current government.

Radicals in the Peruvian Congress from the Nationalist Party wanted to impeach Prime Minister Yehude Simon and Interior Minister Mercedes Cabanillas for the clashes, placing the Garcia regime in a precarious position to govern; fortunately sanity prevailed: Congress gave them a vote of confidence and it appears that democracy still has a chance in Peru. But the situation is far from over and the upcoming months will be vital for the stability of Latin America.

*Nicole M. Ferrand is the editor of “The Americas Report” of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project. She is a graduate of Columbia University in Economics and Political Science with a background in Law from Peruvian University, UNIFE and in Corporate Finance from Georgetown University.

[1] Chavez's War On Free Trade In Peru. Investor’s Business Daily. June 9, 2009.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Miembros de Sendero y el MRTA se infiltraron en las protestas del Cusco. June 24, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Gobierno asegura que policías en Bagua fueron asesinados a sangre fría. June 6, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[6] Investor’s Business Daily – Ibid.

[7] Perú: Gobierno denuncia que los indígenas traman un golpe de Estado. June 8, 2009. Infolatam.

[8] Evo Morales vuelve a criticar: "Lo que pasó en Perú es el genocidio del TLC." July 13, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[9] Ministra Venezolana: Hubo un genocidio en Perú en protestas de nativos. June 8, 2009. Radio Programas del Peru.

[10] Los Movimientos Populares Indígenas en la encrucijada. July 1, 2009. Indymedia.

The Bolivarian Revolution Zeroing in on Peru.

2009-07-16T08:16:00.000-07:00

The Bolivarian Revolution Zeroing in on Peru.

By Nicole M. Ferrand. *

[1] Chavez's War On Free Trade In Peru. Investor’s Business Daily. June 9, 2009.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Miembros de Sendero y el MRTA se infiltraron en las protestas del Cusco. June 24, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Gobierno asegura que policías en Bagua fueron asesinados a sangre fría. June 6, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[6] Investor’s Business Daily – Ibid.

[7] Perú: Gobierno denuncia que los indígenas traman un golpe de Estado. June 8, 2009. Infolatam.

[8] Evo Morales vuelve a criticar: "Lo que pasó en Perú es el genocidio del TLC." July 13, 2009. El Comercio, Peru.

[9] Ministra Venezolana: Hubo un genocidio en Perú en protestas de nativos. June 8, 2009. Radio Programas del Peru.

[10] Los Movimientos Populares Indígenas en la encrucijada. July 1, 2009. Indymedia.

Time to Reject All Dictatorship in Latin America.

2009-07-03T11:39:00.001-07:00

Time to Reject All Dictatorship in Latin America.

By Luis Fleischman.*

The June 28 coup d’état in Honduras that deposed President Manuel Zelaya raised international concern. Brazilian President Lula Da Silva stated that he will not recognize any other president except Zelaya. Most countries in Latin America echoed Lula’s sentiment. President Obama also indicated the inadmissibility of deposing an elected president.

Let us face one truth. Coup d’états no doubt look and sound like the opposite of democracy because in fact they depose an elected president or leader by force. The traumas of the 1970’s, particularly after the 1973 coup against Chilean president Salvador Allende and the distress caused by a possible U.S. support for the coup as well as U.S. support for all the South American military dictatorships has generated among us a natural rejection for such actions.

It is good that the U.S. no longer supports coups and it is good that the U.S. no longer seeks to support them in the future.

Yet, what the U.S. State Department, the Obama Administration and the rest of the Latin American countries have not yet publicly acknowledged is the inadmissibility of creating a dictatorship using democratic practices as means for despotic projects.

Manuel Zelaya was trying to pass a non-binding referendum on the issue of constitutional reform. Zelaya says the constitution protects a system of government that excludes the poor, but has not specified what changes he will seek. Yet, he went ahead against a decision by the Supreme Court and by the Honduran Congress to hold the referendum. The goal of such a referendum, according to Zelaya, himself, was to begin a consultation with the purpose of commencing to move from a “representative democracy to a participatory democracy”.

What does this mean? In very simple words what Zelaya had attempted was to repeat the experiences of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. The formula is simple: social problems cannot be solved under the current constitution. A new constitution would eventually provide maximum power to the elected leader. Congress is useless unless it supports the goal of the president and the goals of the president are to impose social justice from above without congressional debate and with direct support from the people. Congress, that embodies the mechanism through which debate takes place while taking into consideration a number of interests and groups, is perceived by these reformers as nothing but an obstacle to the goals of those leaders who believe in the absolute rightness of their social and political program. Therefore, participatory democracy means that the people vote to give full powers to the president to carry out the will of the majority. Thus, participatory democracy is only the act of voting. After that there is no more participation because participation is embedded in the will of the president. In fact, there is not even a need for debate, or discussion. In other words, this is a dictatorship legitimized by popular vote, a form of tyranny.

The Organization of American States under the mediocre leadership of Miguel Insulza backed Zelaya even before the coup took place. On Friday June 26, the OAS and all the countries backed Zelaya even after the Supreme Court and Congress made a decision not to support a referendum that Zelaya conveyed a few days before. Such a hasty decision to hold a referendum not only reduces the time needed to hold the debate but also the 1982 Honduran constitution states that “any politician who promotes presidential re-election will be barred from public service for 10 years.”

Thus, the OAS interfered in the internal affairs of Honduras in favor of a president with a despotic project. The fact that referendums and elections have taken place in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia is not a reflection of democratic practices but a reflection of the will of dictators to consolidate power via popular referendums while skipping institutional democratic procedure.

Countries in Latin America have always been morally weak and they are getting worse as time goes by. Brazilian President Lula Da Silva declared, without any foundation, that the recent presidential elections in Iran were fair and there was no fraud. Lula, who during the Brazilian dictatorship of the 1970’s, wished that the international community would speak against it, showed little sensitivity towards the people of Iran who courageously confronted a highly repressive theocracy. Likewise, he signed, along with Arab countries a joint- resolution defending the genocidal policies of the government of Sudan against the people of Darfur. Lula rejoiced over the economic crisis of the Western countries stating that the recession was caused by “blond white people” and has shown that he is unable to move beyond the narrow-minded and obsolete anti-imperialism of the third world. Additionally, his tolerance and sometimes promotion of Hugo Chavez is worrisome. It reflects his inability to lead a modernizing, emerging country like Brazil and less so to be a reliable regional leader.

Furthermore, Latin American countries have lobbied for Cuba’s admission into the OAS while ignoring the demolition of democracy at the hands of Hugo Chavez who: destroyed congress; subjugated the courts and the national electoral council to presidential prerogatives; restricted freedom of the press and persecuted press institutions that criticized him; who took over local governments that were not part of his party or movement; persecuted and forced into exile political opponents; and now is also using common criminals to assassinate union leaders who “dare” to act independently of his will. The democratic charter of the OAS does not seem to be worthy of the paper it is written on. Latin American leaders have destroyed it.

The moral character of most of today’s Latin American leaders is deplorable. President Barack Obama cannot manage policy in this continent by pleasing the prevailing moral lightweight approach in Latin America. Furthermore, the model that President Zelaya pursues is usually followed by a foreign and regional policy that includes alliances with Iran, links to drug cartels and a systematic policy aimed at expelling U.S. influence in the region. In fact, as I write these lines reports have emerged that President Zelaya may have allowed tons of cocaine to be flown into Honduras on its way to the United States, allegedly to circumvent Mexico’s government crack down on cartels. According to the allegations the shipments were carried by Venezuelan planes.

If President Obama is to deplore the coup in Honduras, he must do the same with the Chavez-inspired new dictatorships. He will also have to use his influence to help the continent move away from the anti-democratic practices promoted by Hugo Chavez and his allies. To date, the President has espoused a foreign policy that is basically a public relations policy with needless expressions of admiration in hyperbole for mediocre leaders, seemingly unconcerned by the dangers mentioned above.

*Dr. Luis Fleischman is Senior Advisor for the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington D.C

The Growing Afghanization in Latin America.

2009-05-26T14:41:00.000-07:00

The Growing Afghanization in Latin America.

By Luis Fleischman. *

When President Barack Obama was criticized for his over friendly interaction with Hugo Chavez during the Summit of the Americas, he responded by saying that the U.S. has nothing to fear from a country that has an economy six hundred times smaller than ours.

This curious remark by our President brings another logical question to mind: how big is Al Qaeda’s economy in comparison to ours? It is likely that Al Qaeda’s assets are substantially smaller than oil-rich Venezuela’s. Likewise, Iran’s economy is not comparable to the American economy, even in a time of recession and economic crisis.

It is then logical to ask whether national or regional security is endangered in relation to economic capability or in an era of asymmetric wars. Does a country or an entity need to be economically or (even militarily) superior to those who oppose it in order to generate a situation of instability and threat?

The Obama Administration knows the right answer. Otherwise, the President and his national security team would not be so aggressively pursuing a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What this Administration most fears in that area of south-central Asia is the collapse of the state in Pakistan and the inability to produce governability in Afghanistan. Both countries are located thousands of miles away from the United States but still the U.S. government recognizes that a situation of anarchy or Taliban rule in both countries would lead to regional instability. That, in turn, could lead to a situation of chaos with the danger that rogue elements could not only posses a nuclear weapon but also could take over in those places where state authority vanishes.

Obama’s public relations strategy in Latin America, mostly aimed at opening a new page in U.S.-Latin American relations, is consistent with Bush’s policies. In both the Bush and the Obama Administrations, the leading agency in charge of this policy seems to be the State Department whose philosophy is to try to improve the image of the United States in Latin America in order to mitigate the effect of anti-Americanism in the area. Not confronting Hugo Chavez and his allies appears to be a device aimed at portraying them as the instigators and the U.S. as the civilized and reasonable actor. Obama’s apologetic appearance in Trinidad & Tobago was consistent with this conception.

There are a number of elements missing in that view. In previous issues of the “America’s Report” we have described Chavez’s intentions at revolutionizing the area by supporting anti-establishment groups and candidates like himself across the region. We also reported that Chavez has designed a new regime based on absolutism and the elimination of civil and political rights while evangelizing these anti-democratic ideas throughout the region. He has built alliances with rogue states on the basis of anti-Americanism while attempting to remove America’s anti-drug and military presence. His wish to eliminate the American sphere of influence and bring other actors such as China, Iran and Russia into play is more than evident. However, there is one aspect not previously mentioned which deserves more attention, especially for U.S. foreign policy makers; that is the spread of anarchy at the expense of state authority.

A case in point is the Clinton Administration’s introduction of Plan Colombia in order to help Colombia fight the drug cartels and the FARC which by then had taken over forty (40) percent of Colombian territory. At that time, dangerous non-state actors took over this large portion of a democratic state in the Western Hemisphere. It is because of the hard work of President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia that this situation has been largely reversed. In Venezuela and other countries allied with Chavez, not only are we seeing the consolidation of socialist autocracies but also the proliferation of dangerous non-state actors.

Today, Venezuelan airports are being freely used by drug cartels to export drugs to Europe and the U.S.; Chavez and Correa have helped the FARC in the fight against Colombia; Hezbollah cells have increased their fund-raising and other activities in the area with the support of Hugo Chavez; Iran and drug cartels cooperate under the auspices of Chavez; the Maoist Shining Path is reviving its activities in Peru, probably with the help of elements associated with Chavez. In Venezuela Hezbollah and other Islamists are empowered by the regime while Chavez, himself, has made chaos into official policy.

It has been reported that 454 leaders of independent unions have been murdered by parallel official “union” mercenaries. It was also reported that the union leader representing the Toyota workers was murdered after reaching a deal with the Japanese company. The government did not like the deal because an official union leader was able to negotiate a peaceful resolution to a labor conflict. These mercenaries are allegedly criminals recruited in the prisons by the Chavez government. Criminality has already taken on a life of its own which would be difficult to control even if Chavez were no longer president. High-level criminality could serve drug cartels and radical Islamist groups like Hezbollah, or the FARC. More and more potential seditious, underground and criminal groups are encouraged as these Chavez-type regimes advance in the region.

In other words, the monsters fed by the Chavista alliance now have a life of their own and are likely to survive even after their sponsors are gone.

That being the case, what will be the situation in Latin America? Perhaps, it could mean that Colombia’s anarchical syndrome of the 1980’s and 1990’s will expand further. In other words, a situation similar to Afghanistan and Pakistan is likely to become omnipresent and irreversible. If in Afghanistan and Pakistan the danger is coming from the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the warlords and other non-state powerful actors, what makes us think that in Latin America we will be able to control a similar coalition of the drug cartels, the FARC, Hezbollah and the free criminals of the Chavez regime?

Curiously enough, President Woodrow Wilson was very concerned about developments in Mexico during the Mexican revolution early in the 20^th century. Order and stability in Mexico were crucial to U.S. policy makers. Wilson and other U.S. administrations supported regional stability. Today, the challenge is even more serious as drug cartels and terrorist groups are far more sophisticated. Latin American countries seem to be apathetic to this possible development or may be they expect some other country to come to their rescue.

The Organization of American States (OAS) whose president is Miguel Insulza has looked the other way while these developments have taken place. The OAS not only has ignored Chavez’s aggression towards their neighbors but it has also ignored assaults on democracy. As the example of Chavez shows us, the collapse of democracy leads not only to authoritarianism but also to chaos and criminalization of society.

Latin American leaders, aren’t you concerned? The advance of drug cartels, terrorist groups and criminality at the expense of state authority is, in the minds of the OAS leaders, only an American problem. They appear to be more concerned about America attempting to somehow influence them than about the dangers coming from the elements mentioned above. This is why they were delighted by Obama’s “different approach”, as if the U.S. is really their problem. To the contrary, it is in their collective interest to work with the United States against this phenomenon while there is still a chance to do so peacefully.

* Dr. Luis Fleischman is a senior advisor to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington DC.

Ollanta Humala: Peru’s worst nightmare.

2009-05-26T14:38:00.000-07:00

Ollanta Humala: Peru’s worst nightmare.

By Nicole M. Ferrand. *

The Peruvian presidential elections, to be held in 2011, will be very important for the future of that country. The two candidates that are in first and second places in the polls are conservative Keiko Fujimori, daughter of former President Alberto Fujimori running for “Fuerza 2011,” and leftist radical, leader of the “Nationalist Party,” Ollanta Humala Tasso. Humala Tasso’s candidacy has been plagued by accusations that he is an extremist, that he has murdered and tortured police officers and that he is being financed by Hugo Chávez. He has been accused of having an extremely close relationship with Chavez and with the Venezuelan funded ALBA houses.

Ollanta Humala became the leader of the “Partido Nacionalista Peruano” (the Peruvian Nationalist Party) and ran for the presidency in 2006 on the Union por el Peru (UPP) ticket,[1] but fortunately lost in a runoff to current President Alan García when the population became fearful of his Chavista connections.

[1] Ibid.

Now he plans to run in the upcoming elections and has been trying to convince voters that he has distanced himself from the Venezuelan leader.

Humala Tasso is the son of Isaac Humala, an ethnic indigenous lawyer, member of the Communist Party of Peru, and ideological leader of the “Etnocacerista movement.”[1] He is also brother of Antauro Humala, former member of the military who is now in jail for participating with Ollanta in an uprising in Andahuaylas where they attacked a police station during the Fujimori regime and allegedly tortured and killed several police officers in the year, 2000. During this revolt, some 150 former soldiers were reported to have been in a convoy attempting to join up with Humala to overthrow the government. In the aftermath, the Army sent hundreds of soldiers to capture this group but Humala and his men managed to hide until President Fujimori was impeached from office and Valentín Paniagua was named interim president. Later Humala was pardoned by Congress and allowed to return to military duty. He was sent as military attaché to Paris, then to Seoul until December 2004, when he was forcibly retired.[2] Antauro was arrested but still was a candidate for congress in the April 2006 elections.

[1] Justin Vogler (April 11, 2006). “Ollanta Humala: Peru’s next President?” Upsidedownworld.

[2] “Historia de Ollanta.” November 1, 2000 BBC Mundo. (Spanish).

On March 17, 2006 Humala’s campaign came under attack as his father said, “If I was President, I would grant amnesty to Shining Path terrorist, Abimael Guzmán and the other incarcerated members of his group”. He made similar statements about amnesty for Víctor Polay, the leader of the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, and other leaders of the MRTA.[1]

When Ollanta Humala lost the election to Alan García, there was great relief in the region, especially in Washington, as the prospect of another country falling under Hugo Chavez’s influence seemed to disappear. However, as time passes and candidates intensify their electoral campaigns, the menace of Ollanta Humala looms once again.

Even though the allegations of an alliance with Hugo Chavez have been strongly denied by Humala Tasso and the Venezuelan President, there is mounting evidence to the contrary. During the “Nacionalista” campaign of 2005-2006, there was intelligence information that Chávez was sending money to Humala via suitcases through Bolivia, not only to finance his political aspirations, but also to create unrest and chaos in Perú. Indeed, efforts were made to block and close main avenues, to sponsor massive and violent protests in an attempt to destabilize the Toledo regime, as well as to promote a coup to place Humala and his nationalist party in power. In addition, Humala traveled several times to Caracas to meet with Chavez.

For some time now, Peruvians have been outraged at Chavez, Bolivian President, Evo Morales and Humala for illegally using their territory to establish the infamous “Houses of Alba.” The Alba Houses are being used to promote the Chavista agenda inside Peru and are seen by them as the engines for revolutionary change in the 21st century. Unlike the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), who have attacked the institutions of Colombia's democracy from their bases in the mountains for the last 40 years, the ALBA houses are right in the middle of cities and towns. Their activists undermine democracy from within (as Chavez and Morales have already demonstrated) by taking power through democratic elections and then methodically changing laws to subvert it.”[2]

As Andrés Oppenheimer accurately points out in an interview with the Peruvian newspaper, El Comercio: “On the surface, the ALBA houses appear to be simply benevolent local associations offering literacy programs and delivering health care with Chavez-paid, Castro-supplied Cuban doctors. Local Peruvian Chavistas who operate the ALBA houses claim that they are merely engaged in charity work and point to the 5,000 impoverished Peruvians they have sent to Venezuela for eye surgery. What the ALBA house landlords fail to mention is that, at the same time, they are indoctrinating poor, mostly young Peruvians in the ideology of the extreme left and terrorism. The Cuban doctors frequently operate as Cuban intelligence officers. Although the Chavez government insists that it is not supporting the ALBA houses, Peruvian officials have said that Chavez's financial support for the houses is being funneled through Bolivia. In the Bolivian capital of La Paz, Chavistas are building a large “Bolivarian Common Embassy.” There they have assembled a group of young Peruvians from the main cities in the south (Cuzco, Puno, and Tacna) to receive indoctrination and military training.”[3]

In reality, the intended purpose of these “houses” in Perú is to create a support system for the potential presidency of Ollanta Humala, and to help him advance Chavez’s totalitarian policies by force. Just to be clear of whom is in charge and to whom they are to pledge allegiance; there are pictures of Hugo Chávez all over the ALBA centers together with massive information on “the benefits of the Bolivarian Revolution.” ALBA workers prey on the needy and offer them free eye treatments in Venezuela and Cuba in exchange for their loyalty to the Chavista Revolution and to Ollanta Humala. They are told to vote for the leftist candidate, convince their friends and family to do so in order for them to receive the aid they need. Many of the people that underwent eye surgery were later found participating in violent protests led by Humala.

The people joining the Chavez – Alba project are being trained to silence critics and to ultimately take over national and international property to promote and solidify the Bolivarian Revolution. In summary, these are centers of indoctrination for future Chavistas.

Not only is money being sent through suitcases. There are individual couriers that illegally enter Peru with cash to be funneled to the ALBA centers, to the Venezuelan embassy in Lima and to Humala, himself. Moreover, the local newspaper, Correo, has obtained information about the bank accounts of Nadine Heredia Alarcón, Humala Tasso’s wife. This would seem to prove that Chavez is not only invested in preparing a grassroots movement to carry out his plans through the ALBA project, but that he is preparing the leadership to implement his plans in Perú. According to financial statements, Mrs. Humala has received regular payments from two well - known Venezuelan businesses with ties to the Chávez government.

Heredia alleges that the bank transfers she has received (reportedly amounting to $500,000 in less than a year) are actually her professional fees as a communications consultant for some companies based in Venezuela. However, many locals are convinced that Heredia is trying to hide the fact that her husband's party (PNP) would be receiving Chavista funds from Venezuela to finance his presidential campaign and aid the ALBA houses.

The Government’s reaction

In early May, the Peruvian Congress voted unanimously to investigate the functions, organization and financing of the ALBA houses to determine whether Chavez is using his oil riches to expand his political movement into Peru. The motion was presented by the Congress’ National Defense Commission and approved 96-0. The investigative commission then issued a statement giving the Justice System the authority to close the ALBA centers. This commission found that these centers were in fact centers of propaganda for Chavez’s socialist revolution. Congress members are currently developing a legal mechanism to prevent international aid from infiltrating local politics.

The Commission that investigated Chavez’s meddling through these “social” centers, revealed disturbing information about the awful conditions of the eye surgeries offered by ALBA under the project name “Operación Milagro” (Operation Miracle[4]). Operation Miracle operates in many countries in Latin America, the Caribbean and in Africa. The allegations are that the doctors performing the surgeries are intelligence agents for the Cuban and Venezuelan governments that are there to indoctrinate people. Other accusations are that they enter the country illegally through neighboring countries or using fake documentation and smuggle with them revolutionary propaganda and money to fund social unrest. The so-called “doctors” also come with a literacy campaign to “teach people to read and write,” when actually this is material used for training purposes.

The Government on Humala

The Peruvian government is also investigating Ollanta Humala and his wife. According to a local bank, “Banco de Crédito del Peru,” Nadine Heredia de Humala has been receiving monetary transfers from two Venezuelan companies: “The Daily Journal,” a local English language newspaper that has been out of circulation since November of last year, and “Venezolana de Valores” (Veneval) which offers custody, compensation and liquidation of securities in the Venezuelan market.

According to an ongoing investigation into these transfers, Mrs. Humala receives $4,000 every month from the Daily and $11,000 from Veneval. The problem is that she is supposed to serve as a correspondent, even though she has never published an article. When questioned, the representative from the Daily said that they sometimes don’t publish all the articles. Mrs. Humala must have negotiated an extremely good deal if she is getting paid for doing nothing. When asked about how Mrs. Humala was receiving her salary in dollars when the Venezuelan government has strict control over U.S. currency, Mr. Lopez responded by saying that the Daily has accounts in several countries and from there they send the transfers. He then said he would only respond by e-mail but never got back to answer more questions.

Suspicions about the Humala’s began when Heredia de Humala used an alleged “contract” with the journalistic entity to obtain a mortgage of $100,000, which was approved by the financial institution (BCP). With this money, she bought a $160,000 house in the district of San Borja two years ago.

The president of the board of the Daily, Julio Augusto López Enríquez, born to Peruvian parents, together with other Venezuelan investors, bought the newspaper on March 1, 2006, five weeks before the 2006 Peruvian general elections. It has been reported that the business partners paid U$1,000,000 for the company. Mr. López traveled to Peru in 2006 and openly supported then-candidate, Ollanta Humala.

In Caracas it is well known that Mr. Enríquez is a prominent member of the so-called “bolibourgeoisie,” which include the people that illegally became rich with Chavez. Venezuelan journalists have revealed that López is a businessman that has enterprises with Chavista members of the military from where he obtained millionaire contracts and that’s where his fortune comes from. His main “partners” are retired general Jorge Luis García Carneiro, former minister and current mayor of the state of Vargas, who was crucial in Chavez’s return to the presidency in April 2002 when he was temporarily ousted and General Clíver Alcalá Cordones, commander of the districtof Valencia, Carabobo.

What has many Peruvians outraged is that in addition to being so closely associated with Chavez, it has been revealed that Mrs. Humala has a close relationship and is on the payroll of General Carlos Indacochea, part of Vladimiro Montesinos’[5] corruption ring. Indacochea’s company in Arequipa, Apoyo Total S.A., that has paid Nadine Heredia U$5,555 per month since June 2, 2007 is run by Mariela Indacochea, the former general’s sister. According to public registry records, Mariela is the person responsible for representing her brother Carlos, now an ex-felon, in all “legal, judicial, political and police matters.” It was also discovered that several family members of the Humala’s have “donated” huge amounts of cash to the campaign. The question is since they have no sources of income, where are they getting the money? Is it being sent from Venezuela to them through illegal accounts or personally through emissaries?

The Peruvian Congress is taking action to investigate the Humala’s funding, which could be illegal under Peruvian law and raises questions about where their money is coming from.

Nadine Heredia has decided not to respond saying that it is private money and that the government should investigate the current first lady’s finances, Mrs. Pilar Nores de Garcia, because she manages public funds. When asked about evidence, Mrs. Humala became upset and said she was being politically persecuted.

It is extremely important for the Humala’s to reveal who finances their political campaign especially if the “Nacionalista” wants to become president and she, first lady. Nobody is saying that the Humala’s cannot be gainfully employed, but it is awfully suspicious that their bank accounts have grown exponentially and that most of the funds are coming from Venezuela, from a Journal that doesn’t even circulate. The population seems to understand Ollanta Humala’s agenda since the polls reveal he is losing support. The Peruvian government’s reaction has been well received and hopefully they will find more evidence to set the record straight once and for all on Mr. Humala and his plans for Peru. It is also important to understand exactly how the money is getting from Chavez to Mrs. Humala and the ALBA houses. Why not answer the questions if there is nothing to hide?

*Nicole M. Ferrand is a research analyst and editor of "The Americas Report" of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project. She is a graduate of Columbia University in Economics and Political Science with a background in Law from Peruvian University, UNIFE and in Corporate Finance from Georgetown University.

[1] “Antauro Humala dice que su hermano es Capitan Carlos.” February 6, 2006 El Universal (Spanish).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Andres Oppenheimer, "Alan García, Chávez y las casas del ALBA," El Comercio, March 18, 2008.

[4] Operación Milagro (Operation Miracle) is a joint health program between Cuba and Venezuela, set up in 2005. Many critics insist that the level of Cuban medical qualifications is very low and in reality, they are "political agents" who have come to Venezuela to indoctrinate the workforce. Opposition supporters in Venezuela have called Cuban doctors “Fidel's ambassadors.” Two defected doctors have claimed that they were told their job was to keep Chavez in power, by asking patients to vote for Chávez in the 2004 recall referendum. Operation Miracle currently operates in Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay, Mali, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, the Grenadines, Suriname and Angola.

[5] Vladimiro Montesinos was long-standing head of Peru’s Intelligence Service, Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional (SIN), under President Alberto Fujimori. In 2000, secret videos were televised revealing him bribing an elected congressman to leave the opposition and join the Fujimorista side of Congress; the ensuing scandal caused Montesinos to flee the country, hastening the resignation of Fujimori.

Banking 101 with Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

2009-05-07T09:44:00.000-07:00

Banking 101 with Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

By Nicholas Hanlon*

The leaders of Iran and Venezuela have created an impressive network of trade and international influence with which they openly oppose the United States. Whether the funding goes to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Hezbollah, the purchase of Latin American politicians, or the further consolidation of Chavez’s power at home, this mobilization of strategic advantage has reached a global status in international finance. The anti-free-trade bloc, known as ALBA, and the new oil consortiums with Russia and Iran are symptomatic of a rising alternative economic system where there are no checks on tyranny. Now, in the same month when the U.S. Treasury named six New York based Iranian front companies who move money for the proliferation of sanctioned weapons technology to Iran’s nuclear program, Venezuela and Iran have inaugurated a joint bank to fund development projects. These projects benefit Iran and Venezuela as they jockey petrol dollars and, if needed, subsidize them with profits from organized crime, cocaine traffic, and other forms of illicit trade all while oppressing civil liberties. Hugo Chavez hopes to create similar joint development banks with Syria and Qatar.

The Americas Report has chronicled how these unchecked advances will lead to the ability of foreign powers to leverage U.S. foreign policy in ways never imagined. This past month, and even this past year, has demonstrated that our ability to slow or handicap Iran’s circumvention of sanctions is instructive but insufficient. Hence, funding for the Iranian-Venezuelan agenda will become increasingly autonomous from the international finance system. This means that despite the drop in oil consumption and declining prices, the overt intentions of both the Islamic Revolution and the Bolivarian Revolution are now more inter-connected. Counter terrorism analysts and U.S. foreign policy makers must use the rhetoric of these revolutions as context for the formation of their own strategies.

On April 3^rd, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated ‘The Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank.” Each country has put up their own half of an initial capital base of 200 million dollars, which they plan to raise to 1.2 billion. The new bank is the offspring of The Export Development Bank of Iran. Known in Venezuela as the Banco Internacional de Desarrollo, this Iranian institution is under sanctions from both the U.S. Treasury and the international community for its alleged involvement in Iran’s nuclear program. Chavez and Ahmadinejad must find new ways to finance Iran’s nuclear program among other suspect programs because sanctions are having some effect. Ultimately, they prefer a completely new and alternative way to fund their endeavors. The joint bank marks another historical step in the geo-strategic repositioning of the United States’ enemies in their alliance against the West. With each bit of influence that Chavez buys in Central and South America with Venezuelan petrodollars, Iran either takes a cut in terms of assets, influence, or increased operational capabilities. The joint bank will add to the perception of legitimacy in Chavez’s financial transactions.

On April 7, 2009 the U.S. Department of the Treasury named a “Chinese individual and six Iranian entities under Executive Order 13382 for their connection to Iran's missile proliferation network. Additionally, Treasury identified eight aliases used by E.O. 13382 designee LIMMT Economic and Trade Company, Ltd. ("LIMMT") to circumvent sanctions. E.O. 13382 is an authority aimed at freezing the assets of weapons of mass destruction proliferators and those who support them.”1 The Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Stuart Levey, appealed to the authority of the Security Council and international obligations to stop the fake companies from procuring “centrifuge and missile technology for Iran.”[i] The New York County District Attorney's Office filed a criminal indictment against the procurement network on the same day. In March, the Treasury designated companies associated with Iran’s Bank Melli for the banks part in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The U.S., the E.U., and Australia had already named Bank Melli as a proliferator. The bank maintained accounts and provided letters of credit and financial services for Iranian front companies who were moving materials for and giving support to sanctioned activities.

All of this occurred in the last several months. Yet, these are almost arbitrary headlines of a thirty-year-old all out overt asymmetrical war against the U.S. and its allies that began in 1979 for Iran and dates back even further for the leftists in Central and South America. What is new here are the exponential strategic leaps forward that Iran has gained from its alliance with Hugo Chavez. Douglas Farah summed up the relationship on his blog last year like this;

“So, Iran sponsors Hezbollah and allies with Chavez. Chavez sponsors the FARC and allies with Iran. The FARC has the dope; Hezbollah has the international distribution network, having been involved in heroin traffic and organized criminal activities for years.

What is alarming to me is that, despite Hezbollah’s stated intention to attack the United States and Iran’s evident interest in having the ability to strike at the United States, this alliance (and the Chavez-Iran alliance) attracts very little attention at senior policy levels.”[ii]

That lack of attention Farah mentions has continued in the present Administration. It begs the question; would the leader of the free world have been duped into such photo ops in Trinidad had he been properly briefed on Chavez’s willful facilitation of the FARC and Hezbollah, let alone his dictatorial behavior inside Venezuela? Such choice propaganda material will undoubtedly reinforce the propaganda machines that power oppressive leftist regimes in Cuba and their aspiring counterparts like Ortega in Nicaragua, the FMLN in El Salvador, and Zelaya in Honduras. This goes especially for Iran. One specific example of the benefits of the Iran-Venezuela-Hezbollah network surfaced last June when the Treasury department named a Venezuelan diplomat in Damascus as a Hezbollah fundraiser. Ghazi Nasr al Din, former Charge d' Affaires at the Venezuelan Embassy in Damascus, gave Hezbollah donors information on bank accounts where the deposits would go directly to Hezbollah. Adam J. Szubin, Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), had this to say;

"It is extremely troubling to see the Government of Venezuela employing and providing safe harbor to Hezbollah facilitators and fundraisers. We will continue to expose the global nature of Hezbollah’s terrorist support network, and we call on responsible governments worldwide to disrupt and dismantle this activity,"[iii]

Several analysts have suggested that any threat posed by Chavez will decrease with the price of oil but it appears that he has found ways around this. Keep in mind that Chavez consolidated power in the electorate with the promise of poverty reduction programs, known as “misiones”, at a time when oil revenue was abundant. So, when Chavez creates a new development bank with Iran it is good to take a step back and get a snap shot of each countries development projects, accounting, and expenditures.

In the 2008, March/ April edition of Foreign Affairs, the former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly from 2000 to 2004 analyzed Chavez’s poverty program and presented evidence that there was a negative impact of the “Revolution” that actually hurt the poor of Venezuela the most. According to Francisco Rodriguez;

“Neither official statistics nor independent estimates show any evidence that Chávez has reoriented state priorities to benefit the poor. Most health and human development indicators have shown no significant improvement beyond that which is normal in the midst of an oil boom. Indeed, some have deteriorated worryingly, and official estimates indicate that income inequality has increased. The "Chávez is good for the poor" hypothesis is inconsistent with the facts.”[iv]

Rodriguez further explains how Chavez has been able to maintain the perception of success through political maneuvering. The real lack of success is partly due to corruption and mismanagement, which Rodriguez attributes to the assertion that Chavez’s “Empty Revolution” is no different in practice from his Washington Consensus predecessors. Yet, where does all that oil money go? A popular view among regional analysts is that Chavez has staved off dissention in the military ranks by buying toys for his generals. That is certainly not the only factor that stands between Venezuelan military elites and Chavez’s grasp on power. However, the price tag on Chavez’s military expenditures explains a lot.

Jane’s Defense Weekly reported last November that Venezuela’s Defense Ministry increased its defense spending by 25% for the 2009 budget. In the years, prior Chavez had amassed a military that defies conventional necessity. In monetary terms, Ben Miller sums it up in a previous Americas Report as follows;

“According to the National Budget Office, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has tripled his country’s defense budget since 2000 to a whopping $3.3 billion in 2008. Chavez's biggest purchases from Russia came in 2006 when, in that year alone, he signed deals for over $3 billion in weapons.[1] Between 2004 and 2005, Venezuela doubled the value of the major conventional weapons it imported from$13million to $27million.

This number then sky-rocketed to $406 million over the next 12 months, causing Venezuela to surpass other nations such as Argentina, France, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, and Afghanistan in the index.[1] The large majority of the weapons it received came directly from Russia.”[v]

In terms of hardware this amount of spending on unneeded military expenditures would be scandalous were there true freedom of the press in Venezuela. Among the hardware are Russian T-72 tanks which military analysts find hard to imagine a use for in the jungle with no outside threat. Combined with the 50 helicopters in Venezuela’s last order from Russia they do have the hardware to oppress a resistance movement, arm revolutionary terrorists, and to become the dominant military power in the region. In the end, Chavez’s bills are piling up, he is successfully consolidating his power, and new revenue sources are opening to reinforce an increasingly oppressive regime.

The official statement of the Financial Action Task Force, the primary international body for countering terrorist financing and money laundering, is “that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s lack of comprehensive anti-money laundering / combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime represents a significant vulnerability within the international financial system.”[vi] Many consider this an understatement and cite the common pet name for Iran in the international finance community as the “central banker of terror.” There is no place for “anti-money laundering” and “combating the financing of terrorism” when those are the primary means of advancing Iran’s foreign policy. Iran’s overt government policy to support terrorist organizations is completely consistent with the agenda of the Islamic Revolution and Ahmadinejad’s statements about the new Iran-Venezuela Joint Bank. Ahmadinejad said of the inauguration, "What happened today represents a strong will to build a new world.” These words may seem typical for the christening of a grand endeavor were they not spoken by a head of state known for envisioning a world without America and the annihilation of Israel.

Hugo Chavez has made many statements outlining his intentions to create an alternative international finance system. In fact, the new communist trade bloc in the Americas bares the title, "The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas" (ALBA). Of ALBA, Chavez said, "A new political, economic, and geopolitical map can be perceived in Latin America and the Caribbean." Like the joint bank with Iran, an aversion to liberal democracy and dictatorial tendencies seem to be the common requirement for membership. ALBA includes Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, Dominica, and Nicaragua. Therefore, as the revolutionary vision progresses in Latin America and the Caribbean, Hugo Chavez has turned to the Middle East to globalize this anti-capitalist alternative. He said at the bank inauguration “This is part of a strategy to form a new financial architecture between us”. Chavez rarely misses an opportunity to denounce capitalism and ridicule the International Monetary Fund. He described the recent G20 pledge of $1 trillion to the IMF as, “entrusting beef to vultures.” The assumption being that he and his anti-western counterparts are a trustworthy alternative.

*Nicholas Hanlon is a foreign affairs writer and researcher at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. He is a graduate of Georgia State University and has a BA in Political Science with a concentration in International Affairs and a Minor in French.

[i] PRESS ROOM Treasury Designates Iranian Proliferation Network and Identifies New Aliases April 7, 2009 tg-84, U.S. Department of the Treasury, http://treas.gov/press/releases/tg84.htm

[ii] Douglas Farah, The Hezbollah-Latin American Ties Become More Evident, Oct 24, 04:17 http://www.douglasfarah.com/?pg=6

[iii] PRESS ROOM Treasury Targets Hizballah in Venezuela June 18, 2008 hp-1036, U.S. Department of the Treasury, http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1036.htm

[iv] Rodriguez, Francisco, An Empty Revolution, Foreign Affairs March / April 2008

[v] Miller, Ben, The Russian – Venezuelan Strategic Alliance The Americas Report October 6, 2008

[vi] FATF, FATF STATEMENT ON IRAN, Paris, 11 October 2007

* Nicholas Hanlon is a foreign affairs writer and researcher at the Center for Security Policy in Washington D. C.

TRANSACCIONES BANCARIAS ENTRE CHAVEZ Y AHMADINEJAD.

2009-05-07T09:42:00.000-07:00

TRANSACCIONES BANCARIAS ENTRE CHAVEZ Y AHMADINEJAD.

Por Nicholas Hanlon.*

Traducido Por Nicole M. Ferrand.*

Los lideres de Irán y Venezuela han creado una impresionante red de comercio e influencia internacional con la que se oponen abiertamente a los Estados Unidos. Ya sea fundando el programa nuclear Iraní, comprando alianzas en países latinoamericanos o consolidando aún mas el poder de Chávez en Venezuela, esta movilización estratégica a alcanzado un estatus global en finanzas internacionales. El bloque anti- mercado conocido como el ALBA y los nuevos consorcios petroleros con Rusia e Irán son sintomáticos de un sistema económico alternativo donde no existe el control sobre la tiranía. Justo en el mismo mes que el Tesoro americano acusa a seis empresas Iraníes basadas en Nueva York de transferir dinero ilegalmente para desarrollar tecnología nuclear, Venezuela e Irán han inaugurado un banco para financiar “proyectos de desarrollo.” Lo peligroso es que estos fondos pueden provenir del lavado de dinero, del crimen internacional, del tráfico de cocaína y de otras formas de comercio ilegal. Esto ocurre mientras estos dos lideres oprimen las libertades civiles en sus países. Y esto no queda aquí; Chávez piensa hacer lo mismo con Siria y Qatar.

El Reporte de las Américas ha venido siguiendo las actividades conjuntas entre Chávez y Ahmadinejad y sus esfuerzos para contrarrestar las políticas de los Estados Unidos utilizando los métodos menos imaginados. Las actividades de Irán en America Latina nos han demostrado que la habilidad de EEUU para impedir que Irán evada las sanciones internacionales es insuficiente. Por ello, la financiación para las operaciones conjuntas entre Irán y Venezuela se llevan a cabo cada vez con mayor independencia del sistema financiero internacional. Esto significa que a pesar que el precio del petróleo ha bajado, las intenciones de la Revolución Islámica y la Revolución Bolivariana están ahora interconectadas. Los analistas contra el terrorismo y los expertos en política internacional deben entender y utilizar la retórica de estas revoluciones para crear sus propias estrategias.

El 3 de Abril del 2009, Hugo Chávez y Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inauguraron “El Banco binacional Venezolano – Iraní. Cada país ha puesto como capital inicial 200 millones de dólares, y los activos del banco se estiman en 1.2 billones. Esta entidad bancaria es parte del Banco de Desarrollo de Exportaciones de Irán. Conocido en Venezuela como el Banco Internacional de Desarrollo, esta institución iraní, está bajo sanciones del Tesoro Americano y de la Comunidad Internacional por su supuesta implicancia en la financiación de desarrollo de tecnología nuclear en Teherán. Esta iniciativa financiera conjunta marca un paso histórico en el reposicionamiento estratégico de los enemigos de Estados Unidos. Con cada pedazo de influencia que Chávez compra de Centro y Sudamérica con los petrodólares Venezolanos, Irán gana también en términos de influencia o en capacidad operacional. Este banco además dará una percepción de legitimidad a las transacciones financieras de Chávez.

El 7 de Abril del 2009, el Departamento del Tesoro Norteamericano designó a “un individuo chino iraní y seis entidades en virtud de la Orden Ejecutiva 13382 por su conexión a la proliferación de misiles de Irán.” Además, “la Tesorería ha identificado ocho alias utilizados por EO 13382 designado LIMMT Económico y Comercio Company, Ltd. ( "LIMMT") para eludir las sanciones. La O.E. 13382 busca congelar los bienes de las instituciones que promueven la proliferación de Armas de Destrucción Masiva y sus socios para aislarlos de los sistemas financieros y comerciales de los Estados Unidos.” El subsecretario del Tesoro de EU para Terrorismo e Inteligencia Financiera, Stuart Levey, apeló a la autoridad del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas para que impida a compañías falsas recaudar fondos para “tecnología nuclear para Irán.”[1] La procuraduría de la ciudad de Nueva York emitió una acusación contra estas entidades ese mismo día. Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea y Australia han nombrado al Banco Melli como proliferador por su papel en los programas nucleares y de misiles balísticos de Irán. Este banco, mantuvo cuentas y proporcionó cartas de créditos y servicios financieros para compañías pantallas iraníes que ayudaban a las empresas en cuestión.

Estos son sólo titulares tomados al azar que forman parte de una guerra asimétrica contra los Estados Unidos y sus aliados que comenzó en 1979. La novedad es que el esfuerzo Iraní ha ganado mucho gracias a su alianza con Hugo Chávez. Douglas Farah resumió la relación entre estos dos lideres así:

“Irán patrocina a Hezbollah y se alía con Chávez. Chávez ayuda a las FARC y se alía con Irán. Las FARC tienen la droga, Hezbollah tiene la red de distribución, y la experiencia de haber participado en tráfico de heroína y actividad criminal por años.”

“Lo que es alarmante es que, a pesar que la intención de Hezbollah de atacar a Estados Unidos y su evidente interés en tener la habilidad de poder efectivamente hacerlo, esta alianza (entre Chávez e Irán) causa muy poca alarma entre lideres de alto nivel.”[2]

La falta de atención de la que Farah habla continúa con Obama. Nos podemos preguntar: ¿puede el Presidente de los Estados Unidos haberse tomado fotos tan alegremente si hubiera estado informado sobre el apoyo que Chávez da a las FARC y Hezbollah y sobre su comportamiento dictatorial en Venezuela? Estas fotos, sin duda, serán usadas para avanzar las agendas de líderes opresivos en Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador y Honduras. Un ejemplo de los beneficios de la alianza de la red Irán-Venezuela-Hezbollah salió a la luz el pasado Junio cuando Washington acusó a un diplomático venezolano, Ghazi Nasr al Din, de trabajar para Hezbola y acusó al Gobierno de Caracas de “dar refugio” a agentes de ese grupo radical chií. Al Din fue el encargado de negocios diplomáticos de Venezuela en Damasco y ahora trabaja como director de asuntos políticos en la embajada de ese país en Líbano. El gobierno estadounidense afirma que al Din utilizó su posición como diplomático y presidente del Centro Shi’ a Islamic con sede en Caracas para dar asistencia financiera a Hezbolá. Es sospechoso de asesorar a donantes de ese grupo extremista islámico y de aportar información específica bancaria en que los “depósitos de donantes irían directamente a Hezbolá”, dijo el departamento. También fue acusado de organizar un viaje de miembros del grupo terrorista a Irán. Adam J. Szubin, Director de la Oficina de Control de Bienes Extranjeros (OFAC) dijo:

“Es extremadamente perturbador ver que el gobierno de Venezuela emplea y provea un refugio seguro a facilitadores y financistas del (movimiento radical chiíta) Hezbolá. Continuaremos exponiendo la naturaleza global de la red de apoyo al terrorismo de Hezbolá.”[3]

Muchos analistas han sugerido que la amenaza de Chávez decrecerá con la caída del precio del petróleo, pero parece que el líder Venezolano le ha encontrado la vuelta a este problema. Hay que tener en cuenta que Chávez consolidó su poder prometiendo al electorado eliminar la pobreza con programas llamados “misiones,” en tiempos que los ingresos por el petróleo eran abundantes. Entonces, cuando Chávez crea un nuevo Banco de Desarrollo con Irán, es bueno tomar distancia y tomar nota de los proyectos de desarrollo, contabilidad y gastos de estos dos países.

Es más, según expertos “el gobierno de Chávez no ha hecho más que los gobiernos venezolanos del pasado para combatir la pobreza y sus muy promocionados programas sociales han tenido un escaso efecto'', acotó Francisco Rodríguez, ex economista jefe de la Asamblea Nacional en Venezuela entre el 2000 y el 2004, en un estudio publicado en la revista Foreign Affairs el año pasado.

“Ni las estadísticas oficiales ni los cálculos independientes muestran pruebas de que Chávez ha reorientado las prioridades del Estado para beneficiar a los pobres'”, afirmó Francisco Rodríguez, economista de la Universidad Wesleyan en Connecticut. también llamó la atención sobre el hecho de que las políticas económicas del gobierno, incapaces de contener la inflación, terminan afectando a los más pobres, que ven su capacidad de compra reducida por la inflación. Que Chávez es bueno para los pobres, es una hipótesis que no se ajusta a la realidad.”[4]

Rodríguez también explica que Chávez ha logrado mantener la impresión de que sus programas son exitosos gracias a su manejo político. Pero la verdadera falta de éxito se debe a la corrupción y a la mala gestión, a lo que Rodríguez se refiere como una “Revolución Vacía.” Pero ¿donde va todo el dinero del petróleo? La mayoría opina que Chávez ha logrado mantener al ejercito unido dándoles a sus generales todo lo que necesitan. Aunque esa no es la única razón, los gastos en armamento revelan mucho.

El Semanal de Defensa Jane publicó en Noviembre del 2008 que el presupuesto del Ministerio de Defensa incrementó en un 25% para el año 2009. Desde que subió al poder, Chávez ha logrado acumular material militar que desafía toda necesidad convencional. En términos económicos, Ben Miller, resumió este punto en una edición anterior del Reporte de las Américas:

“De acuerdo a la Oficina de Presupuesto Nacional, el Presidente Venezolano Hugo Chávez ha triplicado el presupuesto militar desde el año 2000 alcanzando los $3.3 billones en el 2008. Las compras más grandes de Chávez fueron a Rusia en el 2006, país con el que firmó contratos que llegaron a los $3 billones de dólares.[5] Entre el 2004 y el 2005, Venezuela duplicó el valor de la importación de armas convencionales de $13 millones de dólares a $27 millones de dólares.

Esta cantidad se disparó a $406 millones en los siguientes 12 meses, causando que Venezuela sobrepasara a otros países como Argentina, Francia, Siria, Irak y Afganistán. La gran mayoría del armamento que recibió Venezuela fue de Rusia.”[6]

Esta cantidad de dinero gastada en armamento pesado innecesario, sería una noticia escandalosa si hubiera libertad de prensa en Venezuela. Tanques Rusos T-72, totalmente inútiles en la selva si Venezuela es atacada. Pero este equipo aunado a 50 helicópteros que el gobierno de Chávez compró a Rusia, sí podrían ser utilizados para oprimir cualquier movimiento de resistencia, para armar grupos terroristas y para convertirse en la fuerza militar dominante de la región. Por el momento, el poder de Chávez sigue creciendo.

El Grupo de Acción Financiera Internacional (GAFI), organismo supranacional que une a los ministros de Finanzas de los siete países más industrializados (Alemania, Canadá, Estados Unidos, Francia, Italia, Japón y Reino Unido), dice que “la falta de políticas contra el lavado de dinero, para prevenir y combatir la financiación de grupos terroristas en la República Islámica de Irán representa una gran vulnerabilidad en el sistema financiero internacional.[7] Muchos han apodado a Irán como el “centro banquero del terror.” No se puede combatir estos crímenes en un país donde estas son políticas de estado utilizadas por el gobierno. El gobierno de Ahmadinejad apoya a organizaciones terroristas lo que es completamente consistente con la agenda de la República Islámica de Irán y las declaraciones de Ahmadinejad durante la ceremonia de inauguración del Banco Venezolano – Iraní “Lo que ha ocurrido hoy representa una fuerte voluntad para construir un mundo nuevo.” Estas palabras pueden parecer típicas para un acto así, cuando no están siendo dichas por una cabeza de estado que tiene una visión del mundo sin Estados Unidos y si Israel.

Hugo Chávez ha hecho declaraciones delineando sus intenciones de crear una alternativa internacional financiera. De hecho, el nuevo bloque comercial comunista de las Américas tiene el titulo de “La Alternativa Bolivariana de las Américas (ALBA). De Alba, Chávez dice: “Un nuevo mapa político, económico y geopolítico se puede percibir en America Latina y el Caribe.” Como el banco conjunto con Irán, una aversión a la democracia liberal y con tendencias dictatoriales, parecen ser el común denominador de los países miembros. Los miembros de ALBA son Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, Dominica, y Nicaragua. Por ello, mientras que la visión revolucionaria progresa en Latinoamérica y el Caribe, Hugo Chávez ha recurrido al Medio Oriente para globalizar su alternativa anti-capitalista. El dijo durante la inauguración: “Esto es parte de una estrategia para formar una nueva arquitectura financiera entre nosotros.” Chávez raramente desperdicia una oportunidad para denunciar al capitalismo y ridiculizar al Fondo Monetario Internacional. El describió el reciente compromiso de $ 1 trillón al G20 como “darle carne a los buitres.” Se asume que él y sus aliados son una alternativa confiable.

*Nicholas Hanlon es escritor e investigador en el “Center for Security Policy en Washington DC. Es graduado de la Universidad de Georgia. El Sr. Hanlon estudió Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales.

*Nicole M. Ferrand es analista y editora del “The Americas Report” del Menges Hemispheric Security Project en el Center for Security Policy en Washington DC. Se graduó de la Universidad de Columbia en Economía y Ciencias Políticas. Estudió Derecho en la Universidad UNIFE y Finanzas Corporativas en Georgetown University.

[1] [1] PRESS ROOM Treasury Designates Iranian Proliferation Network and Identifies New Aliases April 7, 2009 tg-84, U.S. Department of the Treasury, http://treas.gov/press/releases/tg84.htm

[2] Ibid.

[3] Douglas Farah, The Hezbollah-Latin American Ties Become More Evident, Oct 24, 04:17 http://www.douglasfarah.com/?pg=6

[4] Ibid.

[5] PRESS ROOM Treasury Targets Hezbollah in Venezuela June 18, 2008 hp-1036, U.S. Department of the Treasury, http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1036.htm

[6] Rodriguez, Francisco, An Empty Revolution, Foreign Affairs March / April 2008.

[7] Miller, Ben, The Russian – Venezuelan Strategic Alliance The Americas Report October 6, 2008.

Una Cruzada Ideológica contra Alberto Fujimori.

2009-04-24T17:11:00.000-07:00

Una Cruzada Ideológica contra Alberto Fujimori.

Por Nicole M. Ferrand.*

El 7 de Abril del 2009, el ex – Presidente del Perú, Alberto Fujimori, fue sentenciado a 25 años de cárcel por “ordenar dos (2) masacres” que resultaron en veinticinco (25) muertes durante su tiempo en la Presidencia de la Republica desde 1990 hasta el 2000.[1] Esto a pesar que ninguno de los ochenta (80) testigos llamados a declarar pudieron acusar a Fujimori de haber ordenado matanzas, secuestros o desapariciones forzosas, a pesar de haber sido intimidados por los mismos jueces quienes les ofrecieron, en más de una oportunidad, dejarlos libres antes de tiempo si culpaban al ex – Gobernante. Pero los testigos simplemente no pudieron; uno tras otro hasta los testigos clave de la parte querellante, los miembros del “Grupo Colina”[2] quienes supuestamente llevaron a cabo estos ‘asesinatos,’ enfáticamente negaron haber recibido órdenes de Fujimori para cometer esos ‘crímenes’; es más; de acuerdo a sus manifestaciones, jamás, si quiera, lo conocieron personalmente.

[1] Estas “masacres” ocurrieron en 1991 y 1992.

[2] Grupo creado en los 90s que supuestamente operaba bajo las órdenes de Vladimiro Montesinos, jefe del Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional (SIN). El líder de Colina era el capitán Martin Rivas que a su vez, le respondía al General Rivera Lazo. Supuestamente Lazo recibía órdenes de Montesinos, cargo que nunca ha sido probado.

Según una reciente encuesta de opinión, dos tercios de la población piensa que Fujimori fue encontrado culpable sin ninguna prueba y muchos líderes de opinión, expertos y abogados coinciden.

De acuerdo a la mayoría de expertos en la materia, Fujimori fue condenado incluso antes de haber pisado las salas de ese tribunal. El juicio que se convirtió en un show y que fue televisado en su totalidad, fue un completo fraude. Primero que nada, los tres jueces que condenaron al ex Presidente, Cesar San Martín, Víctor Prado Saldarriaga, y Hugo Príncipe Trujillo, condujeron el caso aún cuando, durante régimen de Alberto Fujimori, fueron separados de sus puestos en el Departamento de Justicia por liberar a supuestos terroristas y criminales mientras se dedicaban a acusar a miembros de las fuerzas armadas de ser ‘muy duros’ en sus tácticas de combate. Es evidente que los ‘magistrados’ vieron en este juicio la oportunidad de vengarse.

Como resultado, durante el proceso legal en contra del ex – Presidente, San Martín, Prado y Trujillo estaban claramente en contra del acusado no pudiendo si quiera esconder su profundo desprecio por el ex líder, aún cuando las cámaras rodaban. Abiertamente reprendían a cualquier testigo que mostrara simpatía por el ex Presidente o cuando no podían implicarlo. Lo que es peor aún, los tres “magistrados” redactaron la sentencia incluso antes que la defensa terminara de presentar su caso. Por ello muchos concuerdan que la corte impuso una Sentencia Ideológica, que no está basada en hechos sino en prejuicios personales, opiniones y argumentos. Con este veredicto lo que querían era castigar a Fujimori por adoptar medidas económicas neoliberales y por mantener una postura fuerte contra el terrorismo, lo opuesto a lo que ellos absurdamente creen.

Por que ideológica?

Después de la caída de la Unión Soviética, muchos socialistas y comunistas buscaron reciclarse para no desaparecer y trabajaron incesantemente para ocupar puestos en el Departamento de Justicia en varios países de América Latina. Muchos pensaron que al hacerlo, podrían utilizar sus puestos en contra de sus enemigos cuando se presentasen oportunidades legales. Otros decidieron organizarse y formar Organizaciones No Gubernamentales (ONG’s como ‘Aprodeh’) bajo el pretexto de defender los ‘derechos humanos’ con la clara intención de aliarse con jueces locales para imponer sus ideas socialistas en los países donde decidían operar.

En este contexto, fue bajo Alberto Fujimori que la izquierda prácticamente desapareció del escenario político y que el Perú logró derrotar a lar organizaciones terroristas marxistas Sendero Luminoso y el Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru. El ex Presidente tomó la valiente decisión de implementar políticas eficaces que resultaron en la derrota de estas dos organizaciones criminales, pero que también le ganaron el odio de la izquierda que, hasta el día de hoy, siguen siendo sus enemigos mas acérrimos. Nunca le podrán perdonar a Fujimori que haya logrado derrotar a sus aliados políticos. Por sus logros, el 60% de la población consideran que Fujimori fue el mejor Presidente de la historia del Perú.

Es importante entender que Fujimori heredó un país en total caos donde la violencia estaba fuera de control y donde la hiperinflación alcanzaba niveles del 18,000%. El ex – presidente logró derrotar a SL y al MRTA, quienes desde los ochenta, sistemáticamente mataron a mas de 25,000 personas, incluyendo a miembros de las Fuerzas Armadas y la policía, quienes valientemente lucharon contra estos criminales en las circunstancias más difíciles. Además, los terroristas dejaron miles de heridos, huérfanos y viudas dejando a la población en la miseria absoluta.

En el frente económico, SL y el MRTA hicieron lo posible para destruir el país y condenar a sus ciudadanos a vivir en pobreza. Por otro lado, Fujimori adoptó el modelo neo-liberal alcanzando el mayor crecimiento en America Latina desde el 2002 al 2008, con un promedio de 6.7%. Esta es otra razón por la que la izquierda ha perseguido a Fujimori sin cesar; Fujimori demostró que sus políticas producían resultados en lugar del modelo socialista que ya ha fracasado en Latinoamérica.

El experto legal Peruano, Enrique Ghersi, dio una entrevista al diario “Correo” después de saberse la sentencia.[1] En sus declaraciones dijo que el proceso debía anularse por completo. Primero que nada, los tres jueces que lo encontraron culpable nunca debieron ver el caso debido su clara hostilidad hacia el ex Presidente. Además, de acuerdo a las leyes peruanas, los abogados querellantes deben probar la participación personal del acusado en el crimen del que se le acusa. En este caso, alguno de los testigos acuso a Fujimori de ordenar la matanza de quince (15) personas que fueron confundidas por terroristas de Sendero Luminoso en Barrios Altos a las afueras de Lima el 3 de Noviembre de 1991? No. Alguien pudo implicarlo personalmente de mandar a matar en Julio de 1992, a un profesor universitario y nueve estudiantes de la Universidad La Cantuta en Lima? No. Los abogados demandantes no presentaron ninguna prueba que indicase que Fujimori haya sido responsable de ordenar estos actos. Por ello, el juicio fue político.

Después del veredicto, la ‘izquierda caviar[2], los autodenominados ‘intelectuales’ (como el escritor Mario Vargas Llosa a quien Fujimori derrotó en 1990 y que desde ese entonces tiene una amargura tremenda contra el ex presidente), Salomón Lerner de la infame “Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación” a quien la mayoría de Peruanos considera un traidor, y los medios de comunicación afines, reaccionaron con alegría felicitando la decisión de la corte diciendo que Fujimori había sido acusado de cometer ‘crímenes de lesa humanidad,’ lo que no es verdad. Hubieran querido que sea así pues, si era hallado culpable de este delito, ninguna corte o autoridad podría invalidar o anular la sentencia. Según Ghersi, los párrafos que mencionan esta tipología, sólo están al principio de la sentencia y sólo se mencionan como consideración. No fueron utilizados para efectivamente sentenciar el ex – Presidente, lo que significa que el veredicto, en teoría, podría ser anulado. ¿Por qué no pudieron los jueces sentenciarlo por crímenes de lesa humanidad por más que quisieran? Pues porque la Corte Suprema de Chile, país donde vivió Fujimori antes de ser extraditado al Perú, negó su extradición por ese delito porque las ‘pruebas’ presentadas fueron rechazadas como insuficientes.

Estos dos ‘crímenes’ fueron llevados a cabo por miembros de las fuerzas armadas que ocupaban rangos menores quienes no tenían la posibilidad de, si quiera, contactar al ex – Presidente directamente. Estos soldados tenían que actuar bajo una presión terrible, en un clima donde la violencia y la muerte dominaban en el Perú desde que los terroristas de SL y del MRTA comenzaron a atacar a la población. Como fue evidente en el juicio, nadie pudo implicar al ex Presidente de ordenar estos supuestos crímenes. Es más, los mismos miembros del “Grupo Colina” que eran los testigos clave en el juicio, aseguraron uno tras otro que nunca conocieron personalmente a Fujimori.

El crimen de Barrios Altos fue un error de inteligencia, los responsables están en la cárcel y han expresado, en más de una oportunidad, su pesar. Pero el incidente de La Cantuta fue distinto. Ocurrió solo días después de la bomba que explotó en Tarata[3] cuando los miembros de las Fuerzas Armadas estaban bajo tremenda presión por encontrar a los responsables del ataque. Los supuestos culpables se estaban escondiendo en el campus universitario.[4] Como se pudo demostrar durante el juicio: los acusados nunca conocieron a Fujimori. La corte decidió, que era “indirectamente culpable,” un completo invento de estos jueces que, como simplemente no tenían ninguna prueba en contra de él, tenían que culparlo de cualquier crimen para enviarlo a la cárcel como tanto querían.

Es importante entender que había una guerra civil en el Perú cuando Fujimori asumió la presidencia. Los terroristas mataban inocentes por todo el territorio y los militares tenían que hacer lo posible por defender a la población. En este proceso, es difícil y duro de decir, pero a veces se cometen errores involuntarios y personas inocentes mueren. Hay que poner las cosas en perspectiva: veinticinco (25) personas perdieron la vida en estos ‘crímenes’ que los jueces atribuyen a Fujimori, pero estos ocurrieron en el proceso de salvar a miles de personas de una muerte segura en manos de SL y del MRTA.

Esta sentencia, además de ser errónea, sienta un precedente peligrosísimo en el Perú. Las actividades terroristas han incrementado debido a las políticas antiterroristas ineficaces de Toledo y García. La semana pasada, Sendero Luminoso, asesinó a catorce (14) soldados en Apurímac. Si el terrorismo avanza más, ¿quien se va a atrever a ordenar alguna acción en contra de este grupo si al final pueden ser acusados como Fujimori por luchar contra estas agrupaciones de izquierda? Si las fuerzas armadas trágicamente cometen algún error y un inocente muere, esta sentencia asume que el Presidente “tenía o tiene que saber” todas las acciones de sus subordinados y que “seguramente” él lo ordenó. Entonces, ya no hacen falta las pruebas en los juicios en el Perú de ahora en adelante.

Desafortunadamente, las ramificaciones de esta veredicto no sólo se sentirán en el Perú. Los Presidentes Álvaro Uribe de Colombia que desde hace años lucha contra las FARC, Felipe Calderón de México en su conflicto contra los carteles de drogas, o cualquier líder conservador de la región que se vea en la obligación de combatir algún grupo terrorista u organización izquierdista, puede decidir no hacerlo para evitar ser perseguidos en sus respectivos países una vez que dejen el poder. Como anteriormente lo mencionamos, muchos analistas han mostrado preocupación por el hecho que socialistas reciclados se están moviendo para ocupar cargos importantes en los Departamentos de Justicia por toda America Latina y, junto a las autodenominadas ONG de derechos humanos que sólo defienden a terroristas y criminales, perseguirán a los que consideran sus enemigos cuando el escenario político esté a su favor.

En el caso Peruano, la gran mayoría de la población ha rechazado la sentencia y muchos simpatizantes e independientes que reconocen los logros de Fujimori, han salido a las calles a protestar este sentencia. Su hija, Keiko Sofia Fujimori Higuchi, candidata a la presidencia de la Republica para las elecciones del 2011, ha dicho que si sale elegida, perdonará a su padre añadiendo: “Esta sentencia será un boomerang para los que persiguen y son enemigos de Fujimori. Hay muchísima gente que apoya a mi padre. Esta sentencia no es una derrota para el Fujimorismo. Al contrario; nos fortalece, y la reacción contra la condena se multiplicará.” Creo que todos podemos coincidir que las próximas elecciones serán un referendo con respecto al legado de Fujimori.

*Nicole M. Ferrand es analista y editora del “The Americas Report” del Menges Hemispheric Security Project en el Center for Security Policy en Washington DC. Se graduó de la Universidad de Columbia en Economía y Ciencias Políticas. Estudió Derecho en la Universidad UNIFE y Finanzas Corporativas en Georgetown University.

[1] “Es una sentencia ideológica.” Entrevista a Enrique Ghersi. 14 de Abril del 2009. Diario Correo. Perú.

[2] Expresión Política utilizada para a aquellos que proclaman tener ideas de izquierda pero que tienen una vida lujosa o alejada de los ideales propios de las políticas de izquierda.

[3] Atentado en Miraflores de 1992 consistió en la explosión de un coche bomba en la cuadra 2 de la calle Tarata, en pleno corazón de Miraflores de la ciudad de Lima, Perú realizada el 16 de julio de 1992 por Sendero Luminoso. Dos vehículos, cada uno equipado con una tonelada de explosivos, explotaron en la mencionada calle a las 9:15 pm., matando a 25 e hiriendo a unas 200 personas.1 La onda expansiva destruyó o dañó 183 casas, 400 negocios y 63 automóviles estacionados.

[4] En el campus de la Universidad, elementos radicales de Sendero Luminoso y el MRTA tuvieron una fuerte presencia. En la madrugada del 18 de Julio de 1992, 2 días luego de la explosión del coche bomba en Lima en la céntrica calle miraflorina de Tarata, miembros del Grupo Colina entraron a las residencias de la Universidad Enrique Guzmán y Valle. Una vez dentro, las tropas forzaron a todos los estudiantes a salir de sus habitaciones y echarse boca abajo en el piso. Nueve estudiantes, sospechosos de estar conectados a la explosión de Tarata, – Bertila Lozano Torres, Dora Oyague Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz Perea, Armando Richard Amaro Cóndor, Robert Édgar Teodoro Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo Meza, Felipe Flores Chipana, Marcelino Rosales Cárdenas, y Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa – fueron separados de los demás y llevados aparte. Mientras tanto, en las residencias de los profesores, un grupo de soldados irrumpió a la casa del profesor Hugo Muñoz Sánchez. Luego de registrar su dormitorio, se llevaron al profesor. Ninguna de las diez víctimas fue vuelta a ver.

Obama Goes South-an Analysis of the Summit of the Americas

2009-04-24T17:05:00.000-07:00

Obama Goes South-an Analysis of the Summit of the Americas

By Sol Sanders and Grady Means*

For more than a half century, dating from FDR and Cordell Hull's "Good Neighbor" policies, U.S. diplomacy in Latin America has been focused on encouraging democracy, free markets, and economic development. Over those five decades there have been huge successes – and there have been dramatic failures.

An historical perspective, however, shows remarkable overall progress:

The 1980 map of Latin America was largely one of authoritarian, often military governments, generally controlled by small oligarchies, with hyper-cyclical, commodity-based economies, nearly all plagued by huge debt and hyper-inflation.

However, by 2000, Latin America was largely an array of broad-based popularly elected regimes, structured and diversified economies with low to moderate inflation and manageable debt. The problems of severe poverty, economic inequity, and drug cartels remained, but significant progress had been made.

The U.S., as the largest foreign direct investor and the largest supplier of development aid and offering the largest market for Latin American exports, as well as the most active supporter of centrist democratic movements, played a significant role in this massive transition.

For the most part, it is a record for which every American whatever his domestic political allegiance can be proud. Despite the overwhelming demands of the war on terrorism after 9/11 there were important continuing new initiatives by the Bush Administration in this tradition. Chief among these was a proposal for a hemisphere-wide free trade zone, which would boost investment in the Latin countries as well as expand trade along the lines of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

President Barack Obama seems to be largely unaware of this history. Rather, he seems persuaded by radical critiques of the U.S. role -- such as presented in the book Chavez gave him at the summit. By the way, this book was repudiated by its author, and is an unbalanced screed on American and European transgressions over centuries. Curiously, there was little in Obama's campaign oratory about opposing abuses of human rights in Latin America.

His tolerance – and what much of his audience interpreted as acceptance -- for the most radical denunciations of the U.S. role at the recent Western Hemisphere summit was shocking. Obama's seeming contrition before an avalanche of vicious attacks on the U.S. will simply discourage democratic allies and reconfirm the views of the autocrats that he may be weak and perhaps feckless. In fact, as one observer noted, Obama passed up a priceless opportunity to defend freedom in a region where it always seems in jeopardy. Instead, even a leftwing critic noted that Obama had let Latin American leaders off the hook by not holding Castroite Cuba to the standards they apply to Washington's actions.

Instead, the Hemisphere has been treated to some incomplete early Obama Administration policy initiatives. These include a largely rhetorical outreach to Mexico which continues the policies of the previous administration; an amendment of regulations regarding migration and remittances to Castroite Cuba; and his personal, enthusiastic encounter with the leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. These signals by the new Administration could be seen as false steps that reward our enemies in the Hemisphere while ignoring or giving too little to our friends.

The response to his reduction of restrictions on Americans visiting Cuba and limits on remittances has been met by no concessions from the Castro Brothers. In fact, Fidel Castro has quickly rejected the spin the White House placed on Raul Castro’s one speech phrase suggesting negotiations might proceed without pre-conditions.

Neither his earlier pre-inauguration meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon nor his stop enroute to the Summit produced any new initiatives or impetus to what had been increasingly lagging Bush Administration aid efforts to boost relations with our southern neighbor. He still faces the problem of producing a winning policy on U.S. immigration, which is as important to the Mexican government as a successful attack on the drug cartels. He has added new tangles to the relatively minor problem of trucking across the international border which has led Mexico to slap on countervailing duties in defiance of the North American Free Trade Agreement in what they insist are U.S. violations.

Meanwhile, Chavez has been destroying Venezuela's free society, while helping the Iranians establish a beachhead in the Hemisphere. At the very moment Obama's summit tête-à-tête with Chavez was being aired on Venezuelan State Television – obviously as a prop for the Caudillo’s declining popularity – a leader of the opposition, the mayor of Maracaibo sought the traditional Latin American refuge in Peru to avoid assassination after being in hiding for months. The opposition mayor of Caracas, the largest city and capital of the country has been shorn of his prerogatives. Chavez, through a plebiscite in February, is aiming toward a “lifetime presidency”, one of the basic relics of Latin America’s past that U.S. policy had hoped to have overcome.

At an international meeting where he was being welcomed – sometimes on terms bordering on racist – the U.S. President did not seize the initiative. He might at least have announced that he would renounce his campaign stand and move his fellow Democrats to finally lift their opposition to the long languishing free trade agreement with Colombia -- the kind of economic initiative and reward intended for U.S.' allies in the Hemisphere.

There was no follow up on his now almost standard mantra of condemning past American actions in what the President has called the necessity to “reverse the mistakes of the past to start a new dialogue.”

What did the President do?

Obama tried to make friends among the Latin American leaders – notably the most repressive. Although there was an obvious agenda based on earlier programs, he did little to advance U.S. interests or to even suggest what Obama Administration policy will be other than to say that it will be “different than his predecessor’s.” To a large degree, Obama seemed to have his eye on U.S. audiences and politics. He seemed proud that our former sworn enemies appeared to like him and applaud him – especially our traditional enemies in the region. He failed to see that whether they like him is largely irrelevant as they now just see him as more malleable than his “predecessors”.

Did the U.S. gain or lose?

The U.S. Lost Serious Ground at the Summit:

· Our enemies in Latin America got the strong impression that we will be tolerant not only of their suppression of democracy at home but accept their links to terrorist groups and nations.

· Democratic forces in Latin America got the impression that the U.S. is no longer interested in actively supporting democracy, market economies, or free trade – very discouraging to those who have followed the U.S. lead and struggled to advance the region over the last 20 years. In the post-summit press conference, Obama seemed to accept the left’s critique of “the Washington consensus” which in fact only puts forth what have historically been U.S. aims for the region.

· China, Russia, and Iran got the strong impression that this President will not defend American strategic interests in the region, long considered "America's backyard". Russia will see a green light for its rather feeble attempts to make trouble for the U.S. in the region and China will see a green light for aggressive commercial efforts and perhaps new naval bases – all of which could create a strategic military nightmare for the U.S.

· Absolutely no adversary will interpret the friendly smile and the “apologies” as an “opening” to negotiate strategic interests or to change their policies. As was evident from the insults from Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, conversations constructive to U.S. interests will be even more difficult after this summit.

That is why, in our news digest “WorldBuzz.com,” we gave him a D- for last week’s Latin American Summit.

In Latin America, with its long history of intimate [and sometimes difficult] relations with the U.S., perhaps more than elsewhere, fostering good relations requires a deep understanding of culture and history, as well as politics and political objectives – and not least economic relationships. If further progress is to be made – especially in the midst of a worldwide credit crunch and recession which is more slowly but inevitably impacting Latin America -- a very clear plan and strategy is necessary to meet the issues.

What are those issues, many of them urgent and in need of attention by administrators as well as policymakers in Washington?

- Mexico:

Drug wars: The Mexican cartels are growing in strength and carrying their battles into the U.S. A destabilization of the Mexican government could lead to serious border frictions and even resultant unrest among illegal and legal Mexican immigrants in the U.S. Pres. Felipe Calderon has taken aggressive and brave action to challenge the cartels. He needs U.S. help. Obama did not conclude any agreement or begin to deliver on the already promised military equipment needs of the Mexican government in fighting the cartels, nor was progress made on any related issues. Instead Obama apologized for the guns crossing the border from the U.S. to Mexico. This turns out to be inaccurate. [They are mostly coming from Central America, pistols are not the problem and assault rifles are freely available on the world's grey markets -- including the notorious AK47.].

U.S. drug market: The Mexicans complain that the huge U.S. demand for drugs drives the illegal drug trade through Mexico. Obama has responded by having the U.S. Attorney General indicate that restrictions on medical marijuana should be removed, opening a major new channel for illegal drugs.

- Border control – trucking issue: the festering issue over Mexican truck drivers coming into the U.S. has prevented Mexico from agreeing on a pre-screening process for cargo crossing the border. This has created gigantic border delays and much less effective vehicle checks. The issue is partly caused by an Obama consideration to the Teamsters Union, and seems to ignore the broader national security issue.

- Economic growth and stability: The declining price of oil has badly hurt the Mexican economy. Obama has indicated that he wants to re-negotiate certain aspects of the NAFTA, creating further uncertainty for Mexico [as well as Canada] and investors. In addition, his seeming advocacy of the “buy-America” aspects of the bailout initiatives creates further confusion in Mexico’s key export market.

- Venezuela:

Authoritarianism: the declining price of oil has under-cut Chavez’s primary political payoff tool and weakens his hold on power. In response Chavez is moving quickly and aggressively to full dictatorial power. Chavez cannot cooperate with Obama on moving back to democracy or lessen brutality and repression because he would quickly lose power. Obama’s friendly embrace with Chavez and accepting his “gift” discourages democratic forces fighting to reverse Chavez’s brutal seizure of power.

Regional aggression: Obama seems to be unaware of official U.S. government public documentation of Chavez’ aid and trafficking with the narco-terrorists in Colombia. There is circumstantial evidence that his regime either collaborates or ignores the encroachment of the Mexican drug cartels working through Venezuela with the Colombian narco-terrorists.

Iran: Chavez and Iran have a close working relationship to overthrow democratic regimes in the region, to train terrorists, and find ways to work against the U.S. Chavez gets training from the Republican Guard, has set up a bank with Iran, and supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Chavez reportedly provides Venezuelan passports to Iranian operatives so the can enter countries like Mexico secretly and link to Mexican cartels. Obama’s “soft” tone with Chavez will only tighten the relationship with Iran since they have less to fear from the U.S.

- China: China is working with Venezuela on oil development and seeking Caribbean bases for the Chinese navy. Obama can do little or nothing to reverse this relationship, but overly friendly gestures to Chavez will only encourage more aggressive PLA movement into the Hemisphere.

- Russia: Russia is seeking military air basing agreements with Venezuela for planes that can carry nuclear weapons. Russia will take the same view as China – that Obama is no threat to their ambitions in the Hemisphere to offset U.S./NATO power in Europe.

- Cuba: It is still a highly repressive, totalitarian regime, which shows little or no sign of change in the near future. Obama made a number of concessions and got nothing in return (even China releases a few political prisoners as a sign of “good will.”). Fidel Castro made sure, after the summit, to reconfirm that Obama’s actions did nothing more than re-confirm the legitimacy of the “Revolution.”

- Colombia: Uribe is the other Latin American leader who has aggressively taken on the drug gangs and the terrorist, Venezuelan-supported FALN. While Obama was courting the tyrants, he gave little attention to an important ally. In addition, by refusing to throw his weight against the Congressional Democrats blocking a new free-trade agreement with Bogota, he under-cuts the political position of Uribe, and suggests what it means to be a partisan of the U.S. in Latin America.

- Chile and Peru: Obama failed to recognize the tremendous success of these democracies and free-market economies as models, along with Brazil, for the rest of Latin America.

- Nicaragua: Obama sat passively through a one hour, anti-American harangue without comment. Then gave one of his First-Fist bumps to Ortega in spite of his efforts to renew Sandinista repression in Nicaragua and develop alliances with anti-American dictators throughout the world. The kind of menace even a relatively small anti-democratic regime in Central America poses is the news that Daniel Ortega is working with Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister of Thailand, trying to bring down the present government in Bangkok from exile with his billions.

What did the President do?

Obama tried to make friends among the Latin American leaders – notably the most repressive. Although there was an obvious agenda based on earlier programs, he did little to advance U.S. interests or to even suggest what Obama Administration policy will be other than to suggest that it will be “different than his predecessor’s.” To a large degree, Obama seemed to have his eye on U.S. audiences and politics. (He was proud that the former sworn enemies appeared to like him and applaud him – especially our traditional enemies in the region). He failed to see that they whether they like him is largely irrelevant but that they just see him as more malleable than his “predecessors”.

Did the U.S. gain or lose?

The U.S. lost serious ground at the summit:

· Our enemies in Latin America got the strong impression that we will be tolerant not only of their suppression of democracy at home but accept their links to terrorist groups and nations.

· Democratic forces in Latin America got the impression that the U.S. is no longer interested in actively supporting democracy, market economies, or free trade – very discouraging to those who have followed the U.S. lead and struggled to advance the region over the last 20 years. If they had any doubts, in the post-summit press conference Obama – whether he actually understands the concept or not – accept the left’s critique of “the Washington consensus” which in fact only sloganizes what have been U.S. aims historically for the region.

· China, Russia, and Iran got the strong impression that this President will not defend American strategic interests in the region long considered "America's backyard". Russia will see a green light for [its rather feeble attempts to make trouble for the U.S. in the region] and China will see a green light for aggressive commercial efforts and perhaps new naval bases – all of which could create a strategic military nightmare for the U.S.

· Drug leaders saw a President who appears sympathetic toward further legalizing drug use and who will not “walk the walk” on supporting Mexico in fighting the cartels. Attorney General Holder has already announced a relaxation of prosecution of violations of the sale of "medical marijuana".

Bottom Line:

· Unprepared

· Uninformed

· Ineffective

· Weak

Naïve
D-

*Sol Sanders and Grady Means, the managing editor and the publisher of http://worldbuzz.com/. Mr. Sanders has been an international journalist for over 50 years and served as the International Outlook Editor for Business Week and is the author of the book “Mexico: Chaos on Our Doorstep.” Mr. Means served in the White House with Vice President Rockefeller and as a management consultant led many privatization initiatives throughout Latin America.

Una Cruzada Ideológica contra Alberto Fujimori.

2009-04-20T07:17:00.000-07:00

Una Cruzada Ideológica contra Alberto Fujimori.

Por Nicole M. Ferrand.*

El 7 de Abril del 2009, el ex – Presidente del Perú, Alberto Fujimori, fue sentenciado a 25 años de cárcel por “ordenar dos (2) masacres” que resultaron en veinticinco (25) muertes durante su tiempo en la Presidencia de la Republica desde 1990 hasta el 2000.[1] Esto a pesar que ninguno de los ochenta (80) testigos llamados a declarar pudieron acusar a Fujimori de haber ordenado matanzas, secuestros o desapariciones forzosas, a pesar de haber sido intimidados por los mismos jueces quienes les ofrecieron, en más de una oportunidad, dejarlos libres antes de tiempo si culpaban al ex – Gobernante. Pero los testigos simplemente no pudieron; uno tras otro hasta los testigos clave de la parte querellante, los miembros del “Grupo Colina”[2] quienes supuestamente llevaron a cabo estos ‘asesinatos,’ enfáticamente negaron haber recibido órdenes de Fujimori para cometer esos ‘crímenes’; es más; de acuerdo a sus manifestaciones, jamás, si quiera, lo conocieron personalmente.

[1] Estas “masacres” ocurrieron en 1991 y 1992.

Según una reciente encuesta de opinión, dos tercios de la población piensa que Fujimori fue encontrado culpable sin ninguna prueba y muchos líderes de opinión, expertos y abogados coinciden.

Como resultado, durante el proceso legal en contra del ex – Presidente, San Martín, Prado y Trujillo estaban claramente en contra del acusado no pudiendo si quiera esconder su profundo desprecio por el ex líder, aún cuando las cámaras rodaban. Abiertamente reprendían a cualquier testigo que mostrara simpatía por el ex Presidente o cuando no podían implicarlo. Lo que es peor aún, los tres “magistrados” redactaron la sentencia incluso antes que la defensa terminara de presentar su caso. Por ello muchos concuerdan que la corte impuso una Sentencia Ideológica, que no está basada en hechos sino en prejuicios personales, opiniones y argumentos. Con este veredicto lo que querían era castigar a Fujimori por adoptar medidas económicas neoliberales y por mantener una postura fuerte contra el terrorismo, lo opuesto a lo que ellos absurdamente creen.

Por que ideológica?

Después de la caída de la Unión Soviética, muchos socialistas y comunistas buscaron reciclarse para no desaparecer y trabajaron incesantemente para ocupar puestos en el Departamento de Justicia en varios países de América Latina. Muchos pensaron que al hacerlo, podrían utilizar sus puestos en contra de sus enemigos cuando se presentasen oportunidades legales. Otros decidieron organizarse y formar Organizaciones No Gubernamentales (ONG’s como ‘Aprodeh’) bajo el pretexto de defender los ‘derechos humanos’ con la clara intención de aliarse con jueces locales para imponer sus ideas socialistas en los países donde decidían operar.

Es importante entender que Fujimori heredó un país en total caos donde la violencia estaba fuera de control y donde la hiperinflación alcanzaba niveles del 18,000%. El ex – presidente logró derrotar a SL y al MRTA, quienes desde los ochenta, sistemáticamente mataron a mas de 25,000 personas, incluyendo a miembros de las Fuerzas Armadas y la policía, quienes valientemente lucharon contra estos criminales en las circunstancias más difíciles. Además, los terroristas dejaron miles de heridos, huérfanos y viudas dejando a la población en la miseria absoluta.

En el frente económico, SL y el MRTA hicieron lo posible para destruir el país y condenar a sus ciudadanos a vivir en pobreza. Por otro lado, Fujimori adoptó el modelo neo-liberal alcanzando el mayor crecimiento en America Latina desde el 2002 al 2008, con un promedio de 6.7%. Esta es otra razón por la que la izquierda ha perseguido a Fujimori sin cesar; Fujimori demostró que sus políticas producían resultados en lugar del modelo socialista que ya ha fracasado en Latinoamérica.

El experto legal Peruano, Enrique Ghersi, dio una entrevista al diario “Correo” después de saberse la sentencia.[1] En sus declaraciones dijo que el proceso debía anularse por completo. Primero que nada, los tres jueces que lo encontraron culpable nunca debieron ver el caso debido su clara hostilidad hacia el ex Presidente. Además, de acuerdo a las leyes peruanas, los abogados querellantes deben probar la participación personal del acusado en el crimen del que se le acusa. En este caso, alguno de los testigos acuso a Fujimori de ordenar la matanza de quince (15) personas que fueron confundidas por terroristas de Sendero Luminoso en Barrios Altos a las afueras de Lima el 3 de Noviembre de 1991? No. Alguien pudo implicarlo personalmente de mandar a matar en Julio de 1992, a un profesor universitario y nueve estudiantes de la Universidad La Cantuta en Lima? No. Los abogados demandantes no presentaron ninguna prueba que indicase que Fujimori haya sido responsable de ordenar estos actos. Por ello, el juicio fue político.

Después del veredicto, la ‘izquierda caviar[2], los autodenominados ‘intelectuales’ (como el escritor Mario Vargas Llosa a quien Fujimori derrotó en 1990 y que desde ese entonces tiene una amargura tremenda contra el ex presidente), Salomón Lerner de la infame “Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación” a quien la mayoría de Peruanos considera un traidor, y los medios de comunicación afines, reaccionaron con alegría felicitando la decisión de la corte diciendo que Fujimori había sido acusado de cometer ‘crímenes de lesa humanidad,’ lo que no es verdad. Hubieran querido que sea así pues, si era hallado culpable de este delito, ninguna corte o autoridad podría invalidar o anular la sentencia. Según Ghersi, los párrafos que mencionan esta tipología, sólo están al principio de la sentencia y sólo se mencionan como consideración. No fueron utilizados para efectivamente sentenciar el ex – Presidente, lo que significa que el veredicto, en teoría, podría ser anulado. ¿Por qué no pudieron los jueces sentenciarlo por crímenes de lesa humanidad por más que quisieran? Pues porque la Corte Suprema de Chile, país donde vivió Fujimori antes de ser extraditado al Perú, negó su extradición por ese delito porque las ‘pruebas’ presentadas fueron rechazadas como insuficientes.

Estos dos ‘crímenes’ fueron llevados a cabo por miembros de las fuerzas armadas que ocupaban rangos menores quienes no tenían la posibilidad de, si quiera, contactar al ex – Presidente directamente. Estos soldados tenían que actuar bajo una presión terrible, en un clima donde la violencia y la muerte dominaban en el Perú desde que los terroristas de SL y del MRTA comenzaron a atacar a la población. Como fue evidente en el juicio, nadie pudo implicar al ex Presidente de ordenar estos supuestos crímenes. Es más, los mismos miembros del “Grupo Colina” que eran los testigos clave en el juicio, aseguraron uno tras otro que nunca conocieron personalmente a Fujimori.

Es importante entender que había una guerra civil en el Perú cuando Fujimori asumió la presidencia. Los terroristas mataban inocentes por todo el territorio y los militares tenían que hacer lo posible por defender a la población. En este proceso, es difícil y duro de decir, pero a veces se cometen errores involuntarios y personas inocentes mueren. Hay que poner las cosas en perspectiva: veinticinco (25) personas perdieron la vida en estos ‘crímenes’ que los jueces atribuyen a Fujimori, pero estos ocurrieron en el proceso de salvar a miles de personas de una muerte segura en manos de SL y del MRTA.

Esta sentencia, además de ser errónea, sienta un precedente peligrosísimo en el Perú. Las actividades terroristas han incrementado debido a las políticas antiterroristas ineficaces de Toledo y García. La semana pasada, Sendero Luminoso, asesinó a catorce (14) soldados en Apurímac. Si el terrorismo avanza más, ¿quien se va a atrever a ordenar alguna acción en contra de este grupo si al final pueden ser acusados como Fujimori por luchar contra estas agrupaciones de izquierda? Si las fuerzas armadas trágicamente cometen algún error y un inocente muere, esta sentencia asume que el Presidente “tenía o tiene que saber” todas las acciones de sus subordinados y que “seguramente” él lo ordenó. Entonces, ya no hacen falta las pruebas en los juicios en el Perú de ahora en adelante.

En el caso Peruano, la gran mayoría de la población ha rechazado la sentencia y muchos simpatizantes e independientes que reconocen los logros de Fujimori, han salido a las calles a protestar este sentencia. Su hija, Keiko Sofia Fujimori Higuchi, candidata a la presidencia de la Republica para las elecciones del 2011, ha dicho que si sale elegida, perdonará a su padre añadiendo: “Esta sentencia será un boomerang para los que persiguen y son enemigos de Fujimori. Hay muchísima gente que apoya a mi padre. Esta sentencia no es una derrota para el Fujimorismo. Al contrario; nos fortalece, y la reacción contra la condena se multiplicará.” Creo que todos podemos coincidir que las próximas elecciones serán un referendo con respecto al legado de Fujimori.

[1] “Es una sentencia ideológica.” Entrevista a Enrique Ghersi. 14 de Abril del 2009. Diario Correo. Perú.

[2] Expresión Política utilizada para a aquellos que proclaman tener ideas de izquierda pero que tienen una vida lujosa o alejada de los ideales propios de las políticas de izquierda.

An Ideological Crusade Against Alberto Fujimori.

2009-04-17T13:52:00.000-07:00

An Ideological Crusade Against Alberto Fujimori.

By Nicole M. Ferrand. *

Last week, on April 7^th 2009, former Peruvian President, Alberto Fujimori, was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for “ordering two (2) massacres” that left twenty five (25) people dead during his time in office from 1990 until 2000.[1] None of the trial’s eighty (80) witnesses could implicate Fujimori of ordering any killings, kidnappings or disappearances. This was in spite of being constantly intimidated and pressured to do so by the prosecutors and even the judges, who offered to lessen their time in jail if they accused the former leader. These individuals simply could not; one after the other, even the star witnesses of the prosecution, the members of ‘Grupo Colina’[2] who allegedly carried out the ‘murders,’ emphatically denied that Fujimori ordered them to carry out these actions; in fact they declared they never even met him. According to a recent opinion poll, two thirds of the population says that Fujimori was found guilty without any poof or evidence and local opinion leaders, experts and lawyers agree.

According to most legal experts, Fujimori was convicted even before he set foot in the courtroom. They argue that the televised show-trial that lasted sixteen (16) months was a complete sham. First of all, the three judges who condemned the former President, Cesar San Martin, Víctor Prado Saldarriaga, and Hugo Príncipe Trujillo, were given this task even though they were laid off from their jobs in the Justice Department during the Fujimori regime. The charge was that they set terrorists and criminals free while accusing the police and the armed forces of being “too harsh” in their combat tactics. It is clear that, with this trial, they saw an opportunity to get revenge.

As a result, during the legal process against the former President, San Martin, Prado and Trujillo were overtly against the defendant not even being careful enough to hide their contempt for him when the cameras rolled. They scolded any witness that spoke favorably of the former leader. What is even worse, they redacted the sentence even before the defense had finished presenting their case. That is why many agree that the court issued an Ideological Sentence, one that is not based on facts but on personal bias and that the magistrates and their allies punished Fujimori for adopting neo-liberal policies and a tough stance against terrorism, the opposite of what they so misguidedly believe in.

Why Ideological?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many socialists and communists were able to recycle themselves and worked relentlessly to find positions within the Justice System in many Latin American countries. They thought this would be useful as a weapon against their political foes when legal situations arose. Others decided to organize themselves and form Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s such as ‘Aprodeh’) under the umbrella of Human Rights with the clear agenda of aligning themselves with friendly judges to force their socialist ideals on the judicial systems of the countries where they decided to operate.

In this context, it was under Alberto Fujimori that the left was ousted from the political scene and that Peru was successful in defeating the left-wing terrorist groups, Shining Path and the Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru. The former President made the bold but correct decision to implement and carry out effective policies that ultimately led to the demise of these groups but that also gained him the wrath of the left who, until today, remain his sworn enemies. They could never forgive Fujimori for being able to take their proxies out of the political scene. For his achievements Fujimori, as of today, still enjoys 60% of the population’s support. This people, in addition, consider him the best President in the history of Peru. (Please see ‘The Americas Reports’ from October 7, 2007 and from October 18, 2007 titled “Fujimori: the other side of the Story” by Nicole M. Ferrand, parts I and II respectively).

It is important to note that Fujimori inherited a country in total chaos where violence was rampant and where hyperinflation reached 18,000%. The former leader was able to destroy the insurrection by the terrorist groups Shining Path and MRTA who, since the 80’s, systematically killed more than twenty-five thousand (25,000) people, including members of the armed forces and the police who bravely fought against these criminals under the most difficult circumstances. In addition, these terrorists left thousands injured and created thousands of orphans and widows, leaving the population in misery.

On the economic front, the SL and the MRTA, incessantly worked to destroy the nation and condemn the citizenry to lives of poverty. On the other hand, Fujimori adopted market-friendly policies achieving Latin America’s strongest economic growth from 2002-2008, averaging 6.7%. This is another reason why the left has gone after him with a vengeance: Fujimori was able to demonstrate with his policies that a free market produces results in clear contrast with the socialist model that has already failed in Latin America.

The Peruvian legal expert, Enrique Ghersi, gave an interview for the local newspaper “Correo,” after the sentence was read.[1] He stated that the process should be declared null and void. First of all, the three judges that convicted Fujimori should have never been given this responsibility since they were openly biased against the defendant. In addition, according to Peruvian law, the prosecutors needed to be able to prove the personal involvement of any defendant in the alleged crime for which he or she is being accused. Did any of the witnesses accuse then-president, Alberto Fujimori of ordering the killings of fifteen (15) people allegedly mistaken for Shining Path terrorists in Barrios Altos, in the outskirts of Lima on November 3^rd 1991? No. Could anyone implicate him personally of ordering the killing in July 1992, of a university professor and nine students from La Cantuta University in Lima? No. The prosecutors could never produce a single piece of evidence indicating that Fujimori gave the orders for these two actions to occur and that is why the trial was political.

After the verdict, the ‘caviar left’[2], the so-called ‘intellectuals’ (such as writer Mario Vargas Llosa whom Fujimori defeated in 1990 and who has remained bitter ever since), Salomon Lerner from the infamous “Commission of Truth and Reconciliation” who most Peruvians consider a traitor, and the mainstream media, immediately reacted by praising and congratulating the court’s decision erroneously stating that Fujimori had been convicted of ‘crimes against humanity’, which is not the case. They would like this to happen because, according to them, if he is convicted of this crime, no court or authority could pardon him or overrule the verdict. But according to Ghersi, the paragraphs that mention this type of crime have only been included in the beginning of the sentence and only as a consideration and were not used to effectively sentence the former President. So the verdict could theoretically be annulled. Why couldn’t the judges sentence him with ‘crimes against humanity’ as much as they wanted? Simply because Chile’s Supreme Court, the country where Fujimori lived before being extradited to Peru, denied his extradition for that crime because the ‘evidence’ presented was rejected outright as insufficient.

These two crimes were carried out by low ranking members of the armed forces, who had no possibility of contacting the President directly, acting under extreme circumstances, in a climate of death and violence that plagued Peru since the terrorists of the SL and the MRTA started their merciless attacks on the population. As was left clear during the trial, no one could accuse Fujimori of ordering these killings. In fact, the members of the “Grupo Colina” who were the key witnesses during the trial assured one after the other that they never met the President.

The Barrios Altos crime was an honest intelligence mistake and the people responsible are in jail and have repeatedly expressed their regrets. On the other hand, the La Cantuta incident is a different story. It occurred just days after the Tarata bombing[3]when the military was under extreme pressure to capture the ones who carried out the attack. The alleged culprits were actually hiding in the university campus.[4] As the trial was able to demonstrate: according to the Colina members, they never met, spoke or heard from Fujimori so it was impossible for him to order these men to kill anyone. The killings occurred in the most desperate of circumstances by men who were fighting against an enemy that hid among the innocent. And, most importantly, Fujimori never ordered these actions. This ‘court’ decided that he was ‘indirectly guilty,’ a complete and utter invention of these ‘judges.’ But since they that had nothing on him, they came up with this ridiculous reason to send him to jail.

It is extremely important to understand the following: there was a civil war going on in Peru while Fujimori was President. The terrorists carried out deadly attacks daily all over the country while the military had to fight them in order to protect Peru’s citizens. In this process, it is sad and hard to say, but sometimes mistakes are made and innocent people die. It is important to put things into perspective: twenty-five (25) people died in these two ‘murders’ that the three judges attribute to Fujimori, but they occurred in the process of saving thousands of people from certain death or harm at the hands of the SL and the MRTA.

This sentence, in addition to being wrong, sets a very dangerous precedent in Peru. Terrorist activity has emerged and is on the rise due to extremely soft policies taken by the Garcia and the Toledo Administrations. Just last week, the Shining Path murdered fourteen (14) soldiers in the Apurimac region. If these terror activities spread, who will dare order any action against these groups since they could end up being accused like Fujimori of fighting against these left-wing organizations? If the armed forces tragically commit a mistake while in combat against terrorist groups that results in the death of an innocent, this sentence absurdly assumes that the President “has to know” all the actions of his subordinates and that “most probably,” he ordered them. So, in essence, you don’t need any proof or evidence in any trial in Peru from now on.

Unfortunately, the ramifications of this verdict will not only be felt in Peru. Presidents Alvaro Uribe of Colombia who is fighting the FARC and Felipe Calderon from Mexico who is waging a war against the drug cartels, or any other conservative leader in the region that is faced with the decision to combat any left-wing terrorist group or organization, could decide to soften their policies to avoid being persecuted by the left in their respective countries when they leave office. As already stated, many analysts have raised their concerns that recycled socialists have moved at an alarming pace to occupy high positions in the Justice Systems all over Latin America and together with the so-called “Human Rights” NGO’s that only protect terrorists and criminals, will go after them with a vengeance when the political tide turns in their favor.

In the case of Peru, the vast majority of the population has already rejected the verdict and many supporters or independents that recognize Fujimori’s achievements have gone to the streets to express their frustration with the sentence. His daughter, Keiko Sofia Fujimori Higuchi, who is a candidate for the presidency in 2011, and who is leading in the polls, has already declared that, if elected, she would pardon her father, adding: “Such a tough sentence will be a boomerang for Fujimori’s persecutors and enemies. There are many people who support my father. The ruling is not a defeat of Fujimorism. On the contrary, it strengthens us, and the reaction (against it) will multiply.” I think we can all agree that the next elections will be a referendum on Alberto Fujimori’s legacy.

*Nicole M. Ferrand is a research analyst and editor of "The Americas Report" of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project. She is a graduate of Columbia University in Economics and Political Science with a background in Law from Peruvian University, UNIFE and in Corporate Finance from Georgetown University.

[1] “Es una sentencia ideologica.” Entrevista a Enrique Ghersi. April 14, 2009. Diario Correo. Peru.

[2] Term to describe someone who claims to be a socialist without feeling the need to espouse an appropriate lifestyle. A person is not really sincere in their beliefs. Hypocrisy is generally implied.

[3] A terrorist attack in the upper scale district of Miraflores, where two trucks, each packed with 1,000 kg of explosives, exploded on the street at 9:15 pm, killing 24 and wounding up to 200. The blast destroyed or damaged 183 homes, 400 small businesses and 63-parked cars.

[4] In the La Cantuta University’s campus, the SL and the MRTA had such a strong presence that they basically run the place and explosions were a daily occurrence. In the pre-dawn hours of 18 July 1992, two days after the Tarata bombing, six members of the Grupo Colina raided the dorm of Enrique Guzmán in La Cantuta forcing all the students to leave their rooms and lie on the floor. Nine students and a professor linked to the Tarata Bombing — Bertila Lozano Torres, Dora Oyague Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz Perea, Armando Richard Amaro Cóndor, Robert Édgar Teodoro Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo Meza, Felipe Flores Chipana, Marcelino Rosales Cárdenas, and Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa — were separated from the others and taken away. They were never seen again.

[1] These “massacres” occurred in 1991 and 1992.

[2] Group created in the early 1990’s, which allegedly operated on the orders of Vladimiro Montesinos, head of the National Intelligence Service (SIN). The head of Colina was Captain Martin Rivas who in turn was under the command of General Rivero Lazo. Rivero Lazo allegedly took orders from Montesinos but this link has never been proven.

An Ideological Crusade Against Alberto Fujimori

2009-04-17T09:14:00.000-07:00

An Ideological Crusade Against Alberto Fujimori.

By Nicole M. Ferrand.*

[1] These “massacres” occurred in 1991 and 1992.

According to most legal experts, Fujimori was convicted even before he set foot in the courtroom. They argue that the televised show-trial that lasted sixteen (16) months was a complete sham. First of all, the three judges who condemned the former President, Cesar San Martin, Víctor Prado Saldarriaga, and Hugo Príncipe Trujillo, were given this task even though they were laid off from their jobs in the Justice Department during the Fujimori regime. The charge was that they set terrorists and criminals free while accusing the police and the armed forces of being “too harsh” in their combat tactics. It is clear that, with this trial, they saw an opportunity to get revenge.

Why Ideological?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many socialists and communists were able to recycle themselves and worked relentlessly to find positions within the Justice System in many Latin American countries. They thought this would be useful as a weapon against their political foes when legal situations arose. Others decided to organize themselves and form Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s such as ‘Aprodeh’) under the umbrella of Human Rights with the clear agenda of aligning themselves with friendly judges to force their socialist ideals on the judicial systems of the countries where they decided to operate.

It is important to note that Fujimori inherited a country in total chaos where violence was rampant and where hyperinflation reached 18,000%. The former leader was able to destroy the insurrection by the terrorist groups Shining Path and MRTA who, since the 80’s, systematically killed more than twenty-five thousand (25,000) people, including members of the armed forces and the police who bravely fought against these criminals under the most difficult circumstances. In addition, these terrorists left thousands injured and created thousands of orphans and widows, leaving the population in misery.

On the economic front, the SL and the MRTA, incessantly worked to destroy the nation and condemn the citizenry to lives of poverty. On the other hand, Fujimori adopted market-friendly policies achieving Latin America’s strongest economic growth from 2002-2008, averaging 6.7%. This is another reason why the left has gone after him with a vengeance: Fujimori was able to demonstrate with his policies that a free market produces results in clear contrast with the socialist model that has already failed in Latin America.

The Peruvian legal expert, Enrique Ghersi, gave an interview for the local newspaper “Correo,” after the sentence was read.[1] He stated that the process should be declared null and void. First of all, the three judges that convicted Fujimori should have never been given this responsibility since they were openly biased against the defendant. In addition, according to Peruvian law, the prosecutors needed to be able to prove the personal involvement of any defendant in the alleged crime for which he or she is being accused. Did any of the witnesses accuse then-president, Alberto Fujimori of ordering the killings of fifteen (15) people allegedly mistaken for Shining Path terrorists in Barrios Altos, in the outskirts of Lima on November 3^rd 1991? No. Could anyone implicate him personally of ordering the killing in July 1992, of a university professor and nine students from La Cantuta University in Lima? No. The prosecutors could never produce a single piece of evidence indicating that Fujimori gave the orders for these two actions to occur and that is why the trial was political.

After the verdict, the ‘caviar left’[2], the so-called ‘intellectuals’ (such as writer Mario Vargas Llosa whom Fujimori defeated in 1990 and who has remained bitter ever since), Salomon Lerner from the infamous “Commission of Truth the Reconciliation” who most Peruvians consider a traitor, and the mainstream media, immediately reacted by praising and congratulating the court’s decision erroneously stating that Fujimori had been convicted of ‘crimes against humanity’, which is not the case. They would like this to happen because, according to them, if he is convicted of this crime, no court or authority could pardon him or overrule the verdict. But according to Ghersi, the paragraphs that mention this type of crime have only been included in the beginning of the sentence and only as a consideration and were not used to effectively sentence the former President. So the verdict could theoretically be annulled. Why couldn’t the judges sentence him with ‘crimes against humanity’ as much as they wanted? Simply because Chile’s Supreme Court, the country where Fujimori lived before being extradited to Peru, denied his extradition for that crime because the ‘evidence’ presented was rejected outright as insufficient.

The Barrios Altos crime was an honest intelligence mistake and the people responsible are in jail and have repeatedly expressed their regrets. On the other hand, the La Cantuta incident is a different story. It occurred just days after the Tarata bombing[3]when the military was under extreme pressure to capture the ones who carried out the attack. The alleged culprits were actually hiding in the university campus.[4] As the trial was able to demonstrate: according to the Colina members, they never met, spoke or heard from Fujimori so it was impossible for him to order these men to kill anyone. The killings occurred in the most desperate of circumstances by men who were fighting against an enemy that hid among the innocent. And, most importantly, Fujimori never ordered these actions. This ‘court’ decided that he was ‘indirectly guilty,’ a complete and utter invention that these ‘judges.’ But since they that had nothing on him, they came up with this ridiculous reason to send him to jail.

In is extremely important to understand the following: there was a civil war going on in Peru while Fujimori was President. The terrorists carried out deadly attacks daily all over the country while the military had to fight them in order to protect Peru’s citizens. In this process, it is sad and hard to say, but sometimes mistakes are made and innocent people die. It is important to put things into perspective: twenty-five (25) people died in these two ‘murders’ that the three judges attribute to Fujimori, but they occurred in the process of saving thousands of people from certain death or harm at the hands of the SL and the MRTA.

This sentence, in addition to being wrong, sets a very dangerous precedent in Peru. Terrorist activity has emerged and is on the rise due to extremely soft policies taken by the Garcia and the Toledo Administrations. Just last week, the Shining Path murdered fourteen (14) soldiers in the Apurimac region. If these terror activities spread, who will dare order any action against these groups since they could end up being accused like Fujimori of fighting against these left-wing organizations? If the armed forces tragically commit a mistake while in combat against terrorist groups that results in the death of an innocent, this sentence absurdly assumes that the President “has to know” all the actions of his subordinates and that “most probably,” he ordered them. So, in essence, you don’t need any proof or evidence in any trial in Peru from now on.

Unfortunately, the ramifications of this verdict will not only be felt in Peru. Presidents Alvaro Uribe of Colombia who is fighting the FARC and Felipe Calderon from Mexico who is waging a war against the drug cartels, or any other conservative leader in the region that is faced with the decision to combat any left-wing terrorist group or organization, could decide to soften their policies to avoid being persecuted by the left in their respective countries when they leave office. As already stated, many analysts have raised their concerns that recycled socialists have moved at an alarming pace to occupy high positions in the Justice Systems all over Latin America and together with the so-called “Human Rights” NGO’s that only protect terrorists and criminals, will go after them with a vengeance when the political tide turns in their favor.

In the case of Peru, the vast majority of the population has already rejected the verdict and many supporters or independents that recognize Fujimori’s achievements have gone to the streets to express their frustration with the sentence. His daughter, Keiko Sofia Fujimori Higuchi, who is a candidate for the presidency in 2011, and who is leading in the polls, has already declared that, if elected, she would pardon her father, adding: “Such a tough sentence will be a boomerang for Fujimori’s persecutors and enemies. There are many people who support my father. The ruling is not a defeat of Fujimorism. On the contrary, it strengthens us, and the reaction (against it) will multiply.” I think we can all agree that the next elections will be a referendum on Alberto Fujimori’s legacy.

*Nicole M. Ferrand is a research analyst and editor of "The Americas Report" of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project. She is a graduate of Columbia University in Economics and Political Science with a background in Law from Peruvian University, UNIFE and in Corporate Finance from Georgetown University.

[1] “Es una sentencia ideologica.” Entrevista a Enrique Ghersi. April 14, 2009. Diario Correo. Peru.

[4] In the La Cantuta University’s campus, the SL and the MRTA had such a strong presence that they basically run the place and explosions were a daily occurrence. In the pre-dawn hours of 18 July 1992, two days after the Tarata bombing, six members of the Grupo Colina raided the dorm of Enrique Guzmán in La Cantuta forcing all the students to leave their rooms and lie on the floor. Nine students linked to the Tarata Bombing — Bertila Lozano Torres, Dora Oyague Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz Perea, Armando Richard Amaro Cóndor, Robert Édgar Teodoro Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo Meza, Felipe Flores Chipana, Marcelino Rosales Cárdenas, and Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa — were separated from the others and taken away.

After the referendum: What’s next for Venezuela?

2009-02-20T05:36:00.000-08:00

After the referendum: What’s next for Venezuela?

By Nicole M. Ferrand.*

Unfortunately, last Sunday’s February 15th Venezuelan referendum passed 54% to 46%, ending term limits for President Hugo Chávez and other elected officials. Even though the results are not surprising since the polls predicted this outcome, the response of the international community and the electoral observers was shocking; they unanimously said that even though some irregularities did occur, the referendum was ‘fully democratic,’ basically legitimizing Chavez’s outrageous power grab.

Not by any means were these regular elections. Venezuelans were subjected to a brutal campaign as the government threw all the power of the State behind Chavez. There was open political activity in public buildings and state employees had to donate one day’s paycheck to the campaign and attend electoral activities during working hours. The entire Venezuelan nation was blackmailed by Chavez as he threatened civil unrest if he didn’t win the referendum.

Opposing journalists and media outlets, that have been targets throughout Chavez’s presidency, were viciously attacked prior to February 15th and the few international observers who dared to question the regime’s methods were expelled from Venezuela. The news outlets that reported irregularities were threatened as Chavez himself sent the army to destroy opposition media buildings and physically attack newsmen and women. Some independents were even kidnapped and there were assassination attempts against anyone who became a threat to Chavez.

The opposition did all it could but in the end the vast amount of resources Chavez had at his disposal were impossible to counteract. In addition, they could not unite and stand behind a figure who could challenge Chavez directly. This remains a problem for the opposition. The students who spearheaded the opposition and had mobilized since the referendum was announced were constantly intimidated and harassed and its leaders assaulted. Chavez went as far as demanding that police “throw tear gas, and of the strong kind” at any student demonstration.

The referendum was never free and fair. The media covered Chavez 100 to 1 and overall the process was the most outrageously unequal and abusive ever. Venezuela is not democratic and has not been since Chavez decided to turn it into a dictatorship. He has used the state’s resources to stay in power and has worked to build an apparatus that ensures his victory in whatever election if he should decide to hold.

Chavez rushed the vote on the referendum because he was well aware that with falling oil prices he could not longer continue funding the ‘social programs” and governmental handouts that made him so popular. He knew that sooner rather than later he would lose support because he would have to make unpopular decisions due to Venezuela’s financial crisis. To silence any current or future critics his repressive methods will increase. In order to increase state revenues a takeover of the private sector will most likely accelerate, irreversibly damaging Venezuela’s economy for decades to come.

Analysts have been extremely worried about freedom of expression in Venezuela and after Sunday’s elections, things will definitely worsen. The opposition media which has been targeted all along will face huge obstacles and the opinions and news information will have to toe the government’s line if they want to continue operating.

During the period prior to the referendum, the tactics of fear, lies and blackmail were used openly and widely. Sadly, they worked. It is likely that many Venezuelans who have the means will now go into exile and those who don’t have that option will continue to live in tyranny. What is worse, Chavez’s victory means that Iran will continue to expand its operations in the region, thereby creating a very dangerous and ominous situation.

We have to do everything we can to continue informing and spreading the word on what’s happening inside Venezuela because this is not only about the future of that country; it is also about the future of Latin America and the national security of the United States.

*Nicole M. Ferrand is a research analyst and editor of "The Americas Report" of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project. She is a graduate of Columbia University in Economics and Political Science with a background in Law from Peruvian University, UNIFE and in Corporate Finance from Georgetown University.

2009-02-03T10:19:00.000-08:00

The Menges Hemispheric Security Project

Venezuela News Brief: VENEZUELA SPEAK OUT I

Two weeks prior to the December 2nd, 2007 Referendum, the staff at the Americas Report published English/Spanish news briefs covering the events inside Venezuela. We will do the same prior to the February 15th Referendum as a way of showing our respect for and support of the Venezuelan opposition. It is hoped that once again the Venezuelan people will vote to contain Mr. Chavez’s ambitions and defeat an ever growing tyranny.

The Venezuelan people are being called upon once again to vote to perpetuate Mr. Chavez in power, indefinitely. The Venezuelan president has scheduled his referendum for February 15th, a little less than two weeks from today. Since Chavez didn’t obtain the desired results in the December 2, 2007 referendum, he is imposing another electoral exercise on his people, hoping this time they will give him the answer he wants. But conditions have worsened inside Venezuela, both economically, in terms of inflation and scarcity of consumer goods and socially in terms of an increase in crime and a decrease in civil liberties. If anything, Chavez is losing popularity even among his core constituency. So what reasons would Venezuelans have now to give Mr. Chavez even more power over the government and thus over their lives?

Hopefully all eligible Venezuelans will vote in spite of intimidation tactics being used by Mr. Chavez and his gangs and hopefully he will be prevented from “cooking” the results. This election could be a turning point for the Venezuelan people whose lives could be made much more difficult if Chavez wins and further consolidates his power. Mr. Chavez’s actions over the last ten years are indicative of a leader whose intense hatred of the United States overrides whatever considerations he might otherwise have had for the well being of the Venezuelan people. In this regard the Venezuelan people are only a tool to be used in his efforts to damage and undermine the “enemy.”

In order to assist in accomplishing his goals, the Venezuelan President has formed and strengthened his alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran whose operatives he will use to further his revolution and to impose his will. If Chavez is victorious on February 15th, it is likely he will tighten his grip on power by squashing all dissent, imprisoning members of the opposition, further limiting private enterprise and creating more effectives ways of spying on his people. The Venezuelan people must muster the courage and once again speak out and save themselves from an ever more bleak future and must do this themselves because there is no one else to rely on.

January 2, 2009

Hundreds rally opposite Venezuelan consulate – JTA.
Hundreds rallied in front of the Venezuelan consulate in New York following the vandalizing of a Caracas synagogue. The rally, organized on short notice Monday afternoon, expressed solidarity with the Venezuelan Jewish community and accused the country's president, Hugo Chavez, of fomenting an anti-Jewish atmosphere in which such anti-Semitic violence was inevitable. Demonstrators called on the Chavez government to bring the perpetrators of the attack to justice. Chavez has condemned the attack.
“We hold you accountable,” veteran activist Rabbi Avi Weiss told the crowd as footage of Chavez delivering a speech played behind him on a video screen behind the consulate window. The rally was responding to an attack over the weekend on the Mariperez Synagogue in the Venezuelan capital. According to reports, 15 armed men overpowered a security guard before desecrating religious objects, painting threatening messages on the walls and stealing community information. At the rally, local political figures and Jewish communal officials led the crowd in chanting “Never Again” and its Spanish translation, “Nunca Jamás.” Manuel Kohn, a Venezuelan Jew who has lived in the United States for nearly 50 years, addressed the protesters, describing his native country's history of hospitality to Jews and other minorities. “God bless you all, God bless Venezuela, and never again,” Kohn said. David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, sounded an ominous warning in noting the theft of administrative information about the local Jewish community. “Historically,” Harris told JTA, “that has never ended well.”
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/02/03/1002728/hundreds-rally-opposite-venezuelan-consulate

Visit it our blog at: http://themengesproject.blogspot.com/ and leave us your comments!

Nancy Menges
Editor in Chief

Nicole M. Ferrand
Editor

For any questions, comments, or those interested in receiving this report in the future or seeking to have their email removed from our list please contact Nicole M. Ferrand at our new e-mail address: themengesproject@centerforsecuritypolicy.org . If you have news stories that you think might be useful for future editions of this report please send them, with a link to the original website, to the same e-mail address. If you wish to contribute with an article, please send it to the same address, with your name and place of work or study.

*****

Venezuela Habla I

Dos semanas antes del referéndum del 2 de Diciembre del 2007, el equipo del “Americas Report” publicó en Ingles y en castellano, noticias diarias acerca de los últimos acontecimientos en Venezuela. Ya que el Sr. Hugo Chávez sigue empeñado en ser Presidente de por vida y ha elegido el 15 de Febrero para el referéndum, decidimos hacer lo mismo en muestra de apoyo a la oposición Venezolana. Esperamos, una vez más, que el pueblo de Venezuela logre frenar las ambiciones de Chávez.

Los venezolanos han sido una vez mas llamados a las urnas a votar y así ayudar a perpetuar a Chávez en el poder indefinidamente. Como no salió victorioso en el 2007, ahora vuelve a llamar a la población a ver si esta vez le dan el resultado que él quiere. Pero las condiciones en Venezuela han empeorado. La inflación ha aumentado, hay escasez de productos alimenticios, una alta criminalidad y menos libertades. Es más, las cosas están tan mal que Chávez está perdiendo popularidad dentro de su propio partido. ¿Qué razones podrían tener los venezolanos para darle más poder a Chávez sobre el gobierno y sobre sus propias vidas?

Ojalá que los electores acudan a las urnas, voten a pesar de ser intimidados por Chávez y su pandilla y así impidan que ocurra un masivo fraude. Esta elección puede ser el punto de quiebre para el pueblo venezolano cuyas vidas podrían ser aún mas difíciles si Chávez gana y se queda en el poder. Las acciones del presidente venezolano en el transcurso de diez años han demostrado que su odio hacia los Estados Unidos está por encima de cualquier consideración que pueda tener acerca del bienestar de su pueblo. En este sentido, los votantes son sólo herramientas a ser utilizadas por él en sus esfuerzos por dañar y destruir al “enemigo.”

Para lograr sus objetivos, el Presidente Venezolano ha fortalecido su alianza con la elite de la República Islámica de Irán a quien utilizará para promover su revolución e imponer su voluntad. Si Chávez gana el 15 de Febrero, lo más probable es que intensifique su poder, silenciando completamente a la oposición y hasta encarcelando a miembros de la oposición. El pueblo venezolano debe armarse de valor, una vez más expresar su rechazo y lograr salvar su futuro y lo deben hacer ellos mismos ya que no hay nadie que lo pueda hacer por ellos.

2 de Enero del 2009

Protestan frente al consulado de Venezuela en Nueva York por ataque a sinagoga – El Universal.
Más de 250 judíos, venezolanos y estadounidenses, preocupados por los derechos civiles se congregaron frente al Consulado de Venezuela este lunes protestar pacíficamente contra los ataques a la sinagoga el Maripérez, así como contra lo que consideran una campaña de antisemitismo en el país, instigados por el discurso violento en sectores oficiales. El evento fue organizado por voluntarios, y fue apoyado por diversas organizaciones, incluyendo el Anti-Defamation League, la junta de Relaciones Comunitarias Judías, el Comité Judío Americano, y el Centro Simón Wiesenthal. La protesta incluyó discursos de representantes de éstas organizaciones, y de otros oradores incluyendo a David Weprin, Presidente del Comité de Finanzas de la Ciudad de Nueva York, y Ross M. Wallenstein, Asistente del Gobernador Para Asuntos Comunitarios, Gobierno del Estado de Nueva York. La protesta, organizada en las últimas 48 horas, se realizó en respuesta a una agresión el viernes pasado en contra de la sinagoga más antigua de Venezuela. En un ataque bien orquestado, 15 hombres armados sometieron a dos guardias de seguridad y profanaron el templo, dañando objetos religiosos y pintando consignas en las paredes cargadas de epítetos raciales como "Muerte a Los Judíos", y "Judíos Fuera". "Los judíos han vivido en Venezuela por más de un siglo en el clima de paz, hermandad y tolerancia que Venezuela siempre ha exhibido, y durante las últimas semanas han sido víctimas de la politización del anti-semitismo. Esto no puede ser tolerado," dijo Daniel Benhayon, uno de los organizadores de la protesta. Como resultado de los eventos en Gaza, el gobierno Venezolano ha adoptado un tono agresivo y peligroso, incitando el odio y -con o sin intención- induciendo a sus seguidores a pintar swásticas en sinagogas, en plazas públicas y en universidades a través del país. El ataque del viernes no fue un incidente aislado. Varios líderes religiosos han sido amenazados y el colegio judío de Caracas fue allanado por el gobierno en el 2007 en busca de armas. Ninguna fue encontrada, informa la nota enviada por los organizadores del evento. En medios televisivos, radiales y de prensa escrita pertenecientes al gobierno se han emitido durante meses mensajes que explotan los estereotipos más denigrantes de vertientes antisemitas. Los oficiales gubernamentales no han hecho esfuerzo para detener la depredación, amansar el tono, o garantizar la seguridad de aquellos en peligro. "El gobierno venezolano tiene una oportunidad única en sus manos. Venezuela siempre ha sido un país de hermandad y tolerancia. Llevar a esos 15 hombres armados que no sólo profanaron una sinagoga, sino el nombre de todos los venezolanos sentará un precedente único de respeto a los derechos de todos los ciudadanos venezolanos, sin importar que credo profesen. Los judíos deben ser protegidos, como todos los ciudadanos," dijo Rubén Daniel Kliksberg, otro de los organizadores del Evento.
http://deportes.eluniversal.com/2009/02/02/pol_ava_protestan-frente-al_02A2213127.shtml

Nancy Menges
Directora

Nicole M. Ferrand
Editora

Para comunicarnos cualquier duda o para hacernos comentarios, para aquellos interesados en recibir este Reporte o para aquellos que deseen ser removidos de la lista de contactos, por favor contactar a Nicole M. Ferrand a o themengesproject@centerforsecuritypolicy.org. Si desea contribuir con alguna noticia que pueda ser útil para futuras ediciones, por favor envíela a la misma dirección, con el link de la página web original. Si desea contribuir con algún artículo, lo puede hacer enviándolo a la misma dirección con su nombre completo y su lugar de trabajo o estudio.

Terrorists buying Latin American Passports to enter the US?

2009-01-29T15:41:00.000-08:00

Terrorists buying Latin American Passports to enter the US?
By Nicole M. Ferrand.*

Last week, as part of our news stories we posted an article from “The San Antonio Express-News” about three Afghani Muslim men caught carrying stolen Mexican passports with their pictures and data while en route to Europe. It was revealed by authorities that the documents were genuine and that these men had purchased them for U$10,000 each. In light of this information, we at “The Americas Report” decided to investigate whether this modus operandi could be used by people who pose a real threat to U.S. national security and what we found is alarming.

Our Staff has published articles about the presence of Hezbollah in Latin America, especially in Argentina, Venezuela and the Tri – border region (between Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil which intelligence officials usually refer to as “The Muslim Triangle meeting zone.”) We wrote a piece about the Iranian presence in Nicaragua, where they are planning to build a dry canal connecting both coasts. Iran also has a huge embassy in Managua where diplomats enjoy immunity and the full support of President Daniel Ortega.

Our team also wrote an article on Iran Air’s weekly flights between Tehran, Damascus and Caracas where only officials, high ranking intelligence operatives and military personnel from these countries are allowed to travel without needing visas, and where any type of material can be transported. We also published a story about how the Venezuelan government has already issued passports and official documents to members of Hezbollah and Hamas because President Chavez believes in their cause and is a strong supporter of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

With this in mind, there is a real possibility that any of these individuals having access to stolen, doctored passports, and thus to U.S. visas could enter this country with the purpose of carrying out terrorist attacks. In fact, it has already happened: four of the nineteen hijackers from 9/11 carried passports that had been “manipulated in a fraudulent manner.” The Saudi documentation was genuine, and so were the U.S. visas. Investigators believe the hijackers obtained new passports after telling Saudi authorities they had “lost” their old ones, presumably to cover up trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then, knowing that brand new passports would raise questions, the hijackers artificially aged them and forged entry and exit stamps. When asked, a veteran counterterrorism expert said that “without a microscopic forensic examination, a routine inspector wouldn’t have ascertained that the stamps weren’t valid.”[1]

It now seems that any person wanting to attack this country could use doctored or manipulated passports or could simply travel to Mexico and pay a Coyote to illegally cross the border.

For some time now, experts agree that South America has become a place of preference for terrorists that want to travel to the United States. A case in point is that in 2005, Mr. Minas Mirza of Warren, Michigan along with three others were charged with smuggling people into the U.S. through South America ever since 2001. In guilty pleas, they admitted helping dozens of Iraqis and Jordanians travel to the United States on European passports. In fact, these travel documents had been stolen and then doctored in Lima, Peru and purchased by Mirza there from a “broker.”

A 2007 NBC News investigation uncovered a black market for stolen passports in Latin America.[2] A reporter from this network disguised as a tourist was able to obtain entire new identities and official passports from Peru, Spain and Venezuela and travel throughout the hemisphere without ever raising suspicion.

The journalist had a hidden camera and was able to film “brokers” in the streets of Lima carrying bags full of stolen identities such as birth certificates, driver’s licenses and passports from a variety of countries such as Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Canada, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Britain and Switzerland. European passports sell for much more money since its citizens don’t need visas to enter the United States.

These “brokers” usually charge $500 to $1,000 to forge the documents to the client’s preferences, promising “very high quality.” These “merchants” deal in the open and many have contacts inside some embassies, consulates and local government buildings who can easily obtain any official stamps or signatures needed in the process. It is worth noting that these people will do business with anyone: criminals, drug-dealers and even terrorists. It’s all about money for them. For an even higher price these “vendors” offer to hire “high – end coyotes” that will cross the border from Mexico taking good care of their clients.

These “brokers” offer a variety of “services.” The most common is the one used by people who look like the original passport holders. A more sophisticated scheme is using stolen passports, changing the original picture and meticulously replicating the special security features. An even more complex and expensive method is when an insider in a consulate steals blank official passports from the stock before names or pictures have been added and then sells them to illicit brokers who customize and sell them.

The “dealers” work in stages: first they meet with the potential client to assess their needs and discuss price details. A few days later, half of the money is paid in advance and then this same vendor brings the documents to the client to sign, and provides a fraudulent birth certificate. The only thing the buyer needs to provide in addition to the money is the passport picture, which can be taken nearby. The following week, they have a meeting in a public place where the broker “suggests” a flight itinerary for his client: he would travel with the Spanish passport to Bolivia, Argentina, Mexico and then to New Jersey to attain enough stamps in his new passport to enter the U.S. without raising suspicion. Together they make up a fake story to tell the authorities, if questioned, and come to the conclusion that the journalist in disguise would also need Peruvian documentation because the claim is that he has “double nationality.”

A few days later, the full amount is paid and both passports are delivered in person. To the surprise of the reporter, these passports are real and original. A local then explains that since the buyers usually want proof that they made a good deal, they promptly take the documentation to be verified with the broker at their side. Often, the documents are verified by corrupt officials from the RENIEC, the Peruvian agency in charge of issuing identity documents, who are associates of the “brokers.” Within a few days, the client obtains a real Peruvian identity document with the new name and photo. The dealer explains that it will take a couple of weeks for the issued name to appear in the official database. All is done in plain sight.

To prove his case, the undercover reporter traveled with the new documents to Chile, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela and was amazed to find out that his name was actually in the official Peruvian database. In Caracas, he contacted an “associate” of the “vendor” he met in Lima who also said he could provide a Venezuelan passport claiming it would be a better deal since nationals can travel without visas to Mexico, Spain, Germany and England. He “bought” the new passport and then flew to Mexico. Then he traveled to Tijuana where he is seen walking along the U.S./Mexican border without anyone asking him any questions. He did not try to enter the U.S. with the fake ID’s.

In the tapes, both the Peruvian and Venezuelan brokers can be seen insisting that with more time and money they could get a U.S. visa for their client providing him with a fake but official birth certificate, a passport, an identity document, a fraudulent bank account and a regular paycheck to be submitted to the United States embassy where he would then be granted an interview and then a visa. They claim to have done it before. The journalist refused to do this but had no doubt that the transaction would have been successful.

The bottom Line
It is just a matter of time, if it has not already happened, before a terrorist, is able to get to the United States using a stolen, doctored passport. However, without going to all that trouble, it is now possible to go to Mexico where there is a growing Muslim community and contact an illegal human smuggler and with his help cross the border in to the U.S.

As the threat of terrorism from the Western Hemisphere increases, which is likely because of the nexus between Venezuela, Iran, radical Islamic groups and the drug cartels, it becomes imperative for U.S. agencies responsible for protecting the American public to become more vigilant. It is also the responsibility of Latin American countries to be watchful for members of Al Qaeda or any other Middle Eastern terrorist network traveling throughout the region in order to reach the United States. Therefore the availability of official documentation for sale to the highest bidder is a serious problem and deserves serious attention.

*Nicole M. Ferrand is a research analyst and editor of "The Americas Report" of the Menges Hemispheric Security Project. She is a graduate of Columbia University in Economics and Political Science with a background in Law from Peruvian University, UNIFE and in Corporate Finance from Georgetown University.

[1] 9/11 Hijackers: The Passport Scam. February 9, 2004. Time Magazine.
[2] Information from an Investigative Report: “Enemies at the Gate.” NBC News. December 28, 2007. By Richard Greenberg, Adam Ciralsky, Stone Phillips.