Tag Archives: Hugo Chavez

Chavez’s dangerous intervention in Peru

 

In recent weeks, there have been massive protests in different regions of Peru that have turned extremely violent due to the infiltration of terrorist groups such as "Shining Path," "Patria Roja" and others. The protests first began as a national strike by the left-wing Peruvian education workers’ union (SUTEP), and soon others from the construction workers’ union (CGTP), farmers and miners joined, and the demonstrations grew in size and became more widespread with thousands of participants. The protesting teachers (SUTEP) object to a new law which obliges them to take a proficiency test. The test is part of the government’s attempt to reform and improve the standard of Peru’s state education. But union leaders say it will mean hundreds of arbitrary sackings, a version that has been vehemently denied by the Peruvian government but that has been carefully used by union leaders to manipulate the teachers to march.

There have been violent clashes with the police, and the authorities have detained more than 100 union leaders. In the southern region of Puno, protestors stormed an airport and a railway station, and three people have been killed in different clashes across the country. A tourist train on its way to Machu Picchu was pelted with stones, and in the city of Trujillo, striking teachers tried to throw eggs and tomatoes at President Garcia, clashing with his supporters. Several police officers were held hostage by angry demonstrators in the same city but later released.

Although some of the demands of the population are legitimate, analysts are convinced that the demonstrations are being promoted by Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez, with the intent of destabilizing the country. Peru’s Prime minister, Jorge del Castillo, has spoken out against the Union and regional leaders saying that followers of President Chávez, especially in Puno, are internally interfering with Peru’s government in an attempt to weaken the Garcia regime. "There is foreign tampering in Peru’s internal policies that aim to destabilize the country" declared the Prime Minister. "This comes from the Chávez movement. He is trying to do here what he has done in Nicaragua and other parts of Latin America". Prime minister del Castillo stated that this was his personal opinion and that he would present his ideas to Peruvian President Alan Garcia and his cabinet. He explained that the events were "unacceptable and that the time has come to look more closely into this and decide what action to take."[1]

The relationship between Peru and Venezuela has been tepid since President Hugo Chavez and Peru’s President Alan Garcia exchanged insults during the 2006 Peruvian Presidential elections. At that time, Chavez openly supported Garcia’s opponent, Ollanta Humala. Since then there has been some attempts at improving the relationship between Lima and Caracas. On July 20, 2007, the protests seemed to have calmed down. Government officials have decided to start meetings with union leaders to listen to their demands and needs, and the SUTEP and CGTP have accepted the government’s offer. The problem is that huge segments of the population feel abandoned, since efficient conduits of communication between the "campesinos" and the government were stopped during the government of Alejandro Toledo. This method was first implemented during President Alberto Fujimori’s regime, and proved to be extremely efficient. Some small groups remain hostile but the government’s attitude has been well received by the majority of the demonstrators.

Chavez’s strategy

In recent elections in Latin America, especially in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Nicaragua, there have been allegations that the Chavez regime was directly intervening in the internal affairs of the above mentioned countries by allegedly financing and supporting candidates that would help him promote his Bolivarian Revolution, a plan of action that was concocted together with Fidel Castro. Chavez takes advantage of any social unrest in any Latin American country, and then steps in to promote them even more and win sympathizers for his "Bolivarian Revolution." This strategy worked in Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador but backfired in Peru when Alan Garcia defeated Ollanta Humala. The Venezuelan President’s strategy is to create social unrest and promote massive protests to topple an incumbent of his disliking in order to replace him with one of his own followers.

 

Evidence of Chavez’s intervention in Peruvian protests

Why many analysts believe Mr. Hugo Chavez is behind Peru’s social convulsion? There are many indications. First, when the protests began, Ollanta Humala reappeared as a prominent figure saying that Peru was undergoing a deep political crisis and that Alan Garcia should end his term in office soon.[2] In TV news programs, there were images of Humala being shielded from the protesting masses by bodyguards and heavy sticks. People around him were chanting his name and he was encouraging the demonstrators to continue marching. When he was candidate for the Presidency of Peru, there were allegations that cash was being sent through the Venezuelan consulate to Mr. Humala’s campaign management. Now, according to the newspaper "Expreso" from Peru, it is said that Humala receives $600,000 dollars from Hugo Chavez to finance demonstrations and promote social unrest to destabilize the country.[3]

Secondly, Prime Minister Jorge del Castillo has said that Chavez is trying to pressure Peru into joining an alliance with Venezuela, Cuba and Bolivia called the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), which Chavez bills as an alternative to U.S. free trade agreements. ALBA, which is named after the 19th century independence leader Simon Bolivar, is opening an office in the southeast Peruvian city of Puno. "ALBA is an organization made up of four countries (Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia). I don’t think they can make an NGO work here nor do I think that it’s ethical for them to just come in here and tomorrow say we are going to open an office in Peru," del Castillo said.[4]

Regarding this point, the Regional President of Puno, Hernán Fuentes, has been harshly criticized for making the decision to establish the ALBA office given that Peru has nothing to do with this trade agreement. In spite of the government’s concern and rejection of the presence of ALBA offices, Mr. Fuentes has announced that another ALBA office will be established in Juliaca. Fuentes has explained that the presence of the offices will aid in health services and assist in education. He has expressed his plans to place more ALBA offices in different parts of the province when possible. Fuentes has even said that President Alan Garcia and Prime Minister Jorge del Castillo "are not welcome" in Puno but rather that President Garcia should leave the country and establish himself in the United States.[5]

In addition, Fuentes said that he didn’t need an authorization from the government to open an ALBA branch in his jurisdiction, which is not true since he needs governmental consent. Even more, in his office in Puno, there is a picture of Hugo Chavez instead of a photograph of the President of Peru, Alan Garcia, though the law clearly establishes that in every government office there must be a visible image of the President. After learning this, Prime Minister Jorge del Castillo said that if Mr. Fuentes likes Hugo Chavez so much, he should go and live in Venezuela. He then said that some authorities in Puno want to build a "Bolivarian Hospital" run by Cuban doctors and paid for by Venezuela in a site that was destined to be used to erect a public hospital and that "we all know where that money comes from and the price that will be paid for it [by Fuentes and his followers]."[6]

Third, two lawmakers from Humala’s ‘Nationalist Party,’ Yaneth Cajahuanca Rosales and Werner Cabrera, mysteriously traveled to Venezuela the last week of May and returned on June 4, just days before a strike broke out in Iquitos, Puno, Casapalca and Ucayali. They traveled together and returned to Peru together as well. According to immigration officials, Mr. Cabrera had already visited Caracas on February 23, 2007 but his passport was not stamped when he returned to the country, so nobody knows the exact amount of days he spent in Venezuela. It is important to clarify that the congressman openly declared himself a "Chavista" and follower of Hugo Chavez in a TV program and even recognized that Ollanta Humala was behind the strikes.[7] Some analysts are speculating that the visit was programmed to arrange last minute details for the demonstrations that would soon plague Peru.

Fourth, the business attaché of the Venezuelan embassy in Lima, Ramon Lopez Martinez, has become very close to the President of the Peruvian National Confederation of Commerce (CONACO), Humberto Sánchez Palacios. Months ago, Caracas invited 50 businessmen to show them the ‘benefits of ALBA.’ While there, the Peruvian ‘delegation’ was ‘instructed’ on the benefits of the ‘Bolivarian ideals.’ Even more, Sánches Palacios decided to ‘lend’ the ninth floor of the CONACO building to facilitate the business operations of Lopez Martinez in Peru.[8]

Fifth, after the marches in Puno, Venezuelan diplomatic officials now have their eyes set on another city, Loreto. Virly Torres, commerce manager of the embassy of Venezuela in Lima, and her colleagues held a meeting with Salomón Abensur Diaz, mayor of that municipality, on May 18, 2007. The Venezuelan officials spent a few days there and coincidently, 72 hours after, a massive strike began in Loreto which left millions of dollars in losses. The coordinator of the meeting between Torres and Abensur was lawmaker Victor Isla from the Nationalist Party of Ollanta Humala. The first accord between the two parties was the realization of "Misión Milagro" (Mission Miracle), an instrument Hugo Chavez used to attract locals from different areas under the umbrella of a ‘humanitarian program.’ One hundred and ten people with eye problems were transported to Caracas in an official Venezuelan airplane in order to undergo eye surgeries performed by Cuban doctors. The municipality covered the costs of the passports, which amounted to $4,400 dollars.[9]

Finally, there are claims that "Chavista" agents from Venezuela and Cuba are already in Peru and that they came through Bolivia and then Puno using local hospitals and the offices of ALBA to co-opt sympathizers to destabilize the country. Analyst Alberto Bolivar says he has evidence regarding the presence of Venezuelan military and civilian personnel and that this situation has been promoted by the existing friendship between Fuentes and Chavez.[10]

The bottom line

Battling extreme poverty continues to be a challenge for Peruvian authorities and should be a priority of the current regime. People’s needs must be heard and in order for this to happen, direct channels of communication and dialogue should be re-established between the people, the regions and the Central Government.

It would be wise for President Alan Garcia to consider breaking off diplomatic relations with Venezuela for interfering in the internal affairs of Peru. In addition, the Peruvian authorities should close down any existing Alba office in the nation and should bring charges against Fuentes for breaking the law and for behaving as if Puno was separate from the rest of the country. In this regard, Fuentes’s activities and links to the "chavismo" movement should be a deeply investigated. The sovereignty of the nation is being threatened by Chavez and, unless Garcia takes direct action to thwart him, Peru might fall just in the same way as Bolivia.

"The Americas Report" has shown in several articles Chavez’s eagerness to extend his tentacles all over Latin America. He takes advantage of marginal sectors of the population to co-opt potential followers and destabilize a country to place one of his cronies in power and has been trying to increase Venezuela’s political influence by offering favorable credit deals and swapping oil for agricultural exporters to poor countries. Leaders in the region must be aware of the potentially dangerous scenario of the Venezuelan President’s meddling in the internal affairs and politics of any nation. Just as he did in Bolivia and Ecuador, he will create, promote and possibly finance social unrest in different countries of Latin America to finally realize his dream of the "Bolivarian Revolution of the XXI Century."

Notes

[1] Jorge del Castillo dice que hay injerencia de Hugo Chávez en las protestas en Puno. June 30th, 2007. Diario "El Comercio", Perú.

[2] Injerencia chavista denuncian en Perú. July 6, 2007. El Universal, Venezuela.

[3] "Humala recibe US$ 600,000 mensuales" July 24, 2007. Diario Expreso, Perú.

[4] Del Castillo: El chavismo pretende desestabilizar el país. July 5, 2007. Diario Expreso, Perú.

[5] Fuentes falta el respeto a García y lo declara "persona no grata." July 10, 2007. Diario Correo, Perú.

[6] Del Castillo arremete contra Merino y Fiscalía por protestas. July 12, 2007. Diario Correo, Perú.

[7] ¿A qué viajaron Cajahuanca y Cabrera a Venezuela? July 5, 2007. Diario Expreso, Perú.

[8] Chavismo busca capturar Conaco. July 14, 2007. Diario Correo, Perú.

[9] Loreto, el próximo blanco político del chavismo. July 17, 2007 Diario Correo, Perú.

[10] Agentes chavistas captan a peruanos en el altiplano. July 2, 2007. Diario Expreso, Perú.

Chavez’s dangerous intervention in Peru

In recent weeks, there have been massive protests in different regions of Peru that have turned extremely violent due to the infiltration of terrorist groups such as "Shining Path," "Patria Roja" and others. Although some of the demands of the population are legitimate, analysts are convinced that the demonstrations are being promoted by Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez. Peru’s Prime minister, Jorge del Castillo, has spoken out against the Union and regional leaders saying that followers of President Chávez, especially in Puno, are internally interfering with Peru’s government in an attempt to weaken the Garcia regime. An analysis of the situation.

NEWS:

  • Chavez threatens to throw out foreigners who criticize him. Chavez sets unlimited terms for President. Venezuela to buy $1 billion worth of arms from Belarus. Chávez visits Nicaragua. Chávez inaugurates refinery in Nicaragua. Venezuela : a hub for cocaine smuggling. Venezuela may regulate RCTV although signal is transmitted through cable.
  • Peru : "Ollanta Humala receives $600,000 dollars from Hugo Chavez every month."
  • Ecuador : Correa says he fears for his life. Ecuador re-negotiates foreign oil deals.
  • Bolivians at war over move of capital city. Morales seeks indefinite re-election terms. Bolivia : new economic model in Progress.
  • Uribe: Colombia has overcome paramilitarism.
  • Argentina : Presidential Candidate Cristina Kirchner Visits Spain. Argentina : 13th anniversary of the AMIA bombing. Kirchner approval drops to less than 50%. Analysis of the current inflation problem in Argentina by Chief Economist of Standard Chartered Bank, Doug Smith.
  • Peru offers air base access to U.S.

View the full version of the Americas Report (PDF)  

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: mengesproject@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.

The meaning of Kirchner’s recent defeat

 

In a recent election for the mayoralty of the city of Buenos Aires, the candidate of Argentinean president, Nestor Kirchner, was defeated by a huge margin of sixty one to thirty four percent. The Peronist party, to which Kirchner belongs, was also defeated in the southern province of Tierra del Fuego. Mauricio Macri, a candidate defined as being center-right was elected in Buenos Aires and in the South, the winner was Fabiana Rios, a candidate who describes herself as center-left.

Most analysts agree that the victory of these candidates does not mean that Kirchner’s party will not prevail in the upcoming presidential election which will be on October 28, 2007. However, there are reasons to believe that these political setbacks of Kirchner’s candidates indicate more.

[More]Curiously, Macri, the winner in Buenos Aires, presented an agenda that was in many aspects the total opposite of Kirchner’s style and content. Macri, one of the wealthiest entrepreneurs in Argentina, benefited a great deal from the privatizations of the 1990’s. He ran on a platform that promised greater efficiency in the provision of government services (mostly in public education, health and transportation), and more security in a city where crime has increased tremendously. He also repudiated political clientelism, a practice that has characterized most governments, including Kirchner’s. Macri is seen to represent values which the average Argentinean considered important for the functioning of a good government. In a society characterized by a lack of legal security, corruption, chaos, impunity, and economic uncertainty, Macri presented what Argentine journalist Eduardo Aliverti defined as non-ideological programs:1 law, order, stability, and security. The vote for Macri represented an expression of tiredness, with the political class, long considered to be opportunistic and useless, among Argentineans.

These recent election results might also be seen as resistance to the populism practiced by Kirchner and, in a way, the rejection of what Cristina Kirchner – the President’s wife and the next Presidential candidate on behalf of the peronist party has indirectly referred to as a new spirit in Latin America guided by neo-populisms.2 The vote for Macri very well may speak speaks for an important urban, upper, middle and middle-lower class group that has become concerned with Kirchnerbs policies.

The government of Kirchner is viewed as a moderate form of populism. An argentine political analyst, Marcos Novaro, says that Kirchner is not a populist like Chavez (who rejects free trade, neo-liberal economics, liberal democracy and is anti-American), nor is he like the former Chilean president Ricardo Lagos (who supports free-market, liberal-democracy, and integration with the developing world).3

Indeed, Kirchner has not gone as far as Hugo Chavez in destroying the private sector, nor has he carried out large scale nationalizations in the name of socialism. Neither has he subordinated the whole arc of the political party system under the wing of a political movement that has the monopoly on truth as Chavez did. However, Kirchner is not exactly a model of an enlightened leader who respects the principles of the free market, or the laws of a true republican democracy. The Kirchner regime or "style K," as the Argentinean press calls it, is a model of populism that includes elements of authoritarianism less flamboyant than Chavezbs but highly problematic nonetheless.

His unprecedented four-year popularity has been sustained by an incredible economic growth which has been at eight percent each year, mostly due to increases in prices of Argentinean commodities in the world market, a situation no different than the one Juan Domingo PerC3n experienced during the post World War II years. This economic growth has enabled Kirchner to promote policies based on strong state intervention, redistribution and anti-corporatism.

From the beginning, Kirchner adopted a popular anti-business ideology and attitude,4 which worked well with the Piqueteros–the groups formed by unemployed, residents of the shantytowns and others– whose demonstrations with brought down the government of Fernando de De La RC:a in 2001. He proceeded to intimidate companies, corporations, supermarkets and other businesses in an effort to force them to lower the price of their products. These actions, which are against the laws of a free market system, were carried out in the name of the people, or "the consumer" who could not afford the market prices.

In the same vein, Kirchner organized an overall boycott of Shell Oil Company, using the Piqueteros to demonstrate in front of the company headquarters and force the company to lower the gas prices. Shell could not resist the governmentbs coercive pressure and went on to comply with the "request" to lower the prices. Esso (Exxon) followed. Kirchner repeated the same assault on the supermarkets when their productsb prices rose. The government again blamed Argentinean inflation on companies that "seek profit and care very little about the people." According to Kirchner "supermarkets have united to raise the prices at the expense of Argentineans." He demanded that supermarkets "work for the country and leave the people alone." He also promised that the "government will organize the consumers (against the corporations)".5

The supermarkets, having learned from the Shell experience, proceeded immediately to comply with the governmentbs demand. Here we see not only an unconstitutional act of bullying, but an old fascist and totalitarian method where the state mobilizes people. In a normal constitutional state, the government would respond to mobilizations or protests and intervene to solve the conflict or, in the worst case scenario, would impose a binding mediation. But to become an active part of the conflict by mobilizing and using intimidation is clearly typical of non-democratic regimes.

In the last few months, an energy crisis has taken place in Argentina. Power outages threaten to paralyze the country and leave many people at the mercy of a colder than usual winter. This crisis can be attributed to numerous factors including the lack of water caused by drought in the rivers that provide hydroelectric energy, an increase in public demand, an increase in exports of gas to Chile, and a drop in the production of gas.6 The Kirchner government, after denying the existence of this crisis, stated "the crisis is the consequence of lack of investment on the part of the energy companies". Kirchnerbs price control policies caused a general tendency for companies not to invest in Argentina. Despite this fact, the governmentbs chief of staff, Alberto Fernandez, categorically asserted that "even if the prices rise, increases in investments are not guaranteed."7 Thus, what can be concluded from this statement is that the lack of investment or re-investment is not related to the governmentbs policy of price control (that discourages further production and investment), but to an intended "anti-people" policy on the part of the corporations.

The government then moved to take over MetroGas, the company in charge of gas distribution, for having interrupted such distribution as a result of the need to keep the reserves given increasing expected demands in the short run. While the government agreed not to take over the company, it succeeded in forcing the director out of office.8 This action was harshly criticized by the private sector that accused the government of violations of property rights and creating an improper climate for new investments.9

Kirchnerbs threat to cancel contracts with foreign companies if they do not re-invest in Argentina has become a common practice. This is a bit of nationalism in an era of globalization. His obsolete Third World conceptions of foreign capital imperialism seem to go against his need for investments. For example, in the sector of electric transportation, foreign investments are not welcome.10 According to some statistics and reports, the percentage of foreign direct investment in Argentina is one of the lowest in Latin America.11 There is no doubt that Kirchnerbs policies are mainly responsible for this situation. Moreover, Kirchnerbs anti-business war frightens not only the big businesses but also the small businessman and the merchant who feels vulnerable by his anti-capitalistic discourse. After all, the small businessman seeks "his own profit," as he should, but for Kirchner this basic 19th century principle, can "conspire" against the "common interest". Even though Kirchner has expressed strong support for national industry (which also benefited from the countrybs economic growth), it is pretty obvious that the private sector knows that its power can be curtailed by a random and capricious president. It is this sense of arbitrariness that is intimidating because it flies in the face of law and justice.

Kirchnerbs mindset contains a mixture of anti-establishment sentiments. His discourse is a combination of vulgar Marxism with what the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche calls "a rebellion in slave morality," namely, a sort of resentment against those perceived as being powerful. It is an angry discourse that contains conspiracy theories that attack big capital, the corporation, globalization, foreign businesses and others. This plays well with the naturally chaotic and often violent mind of the Piqueteros, whose political activity is in the streets and whose slogan is the simplistic dual formula of "friend and enemy," "good and bad." The Piqueteros, who come from the most marginal sectors of society, (many of whom are literally lumpemproletariat, not even members of the working class), have become experts at spreading this anger, supported by a bunch of enthusiastic journalist and intellectuals who celebrate the fact that the left is finally in power.12

What is interesting about Kirchner is that one of his objectives was to distinguish himself from the government of former President Carlos Menem (1990-1999). However, Kirchnerbs government has not scored improvements in the area of good government or even rights. Menem was accused of authoritarianism, as the executive power gained ground at the expense of the legislative and the judiciary. He was also accused of disparaging his criticizers, particularly the press. However, Kirchner is not much different.

Kirchner and his partners approved a law of financial administration which gives unlimited powers to government administrators to re-allocate budgets, a function usually carried in coordination and with the approval of Congress. Not only has Kirchner "bulldozed" the legislative branch, but he also tried to gain more control over the Judiciary. The legislature passed, and Kirchner quickly signed,13 a new law that reduced the number of professional and academic members of the Council in charge of appointing judges. The new law enables a political majority over the professional members of the Council. The law also denies a place for the second minority in Congress in order to make it easier for the majority party to exercise influence. It also allows the Council to meet without the presence of its professional and academic members.14 Kirchner and his accomplices in Congress passed a law that gives them control over judicial appointees, defining the future relation between the executive and judiciary, which is the virtual subordination of the latter to the former.

Kirchner has also grown increasingly intolerant of the press calling the free press "opposition." He has been cited by the press for not allowing them access to information on government activities, and, for boycotting certain journalists. Indeed, President Kirchner applied his influence on Congress to defeat "The Public Information Act" (Ley de Acceso a la InformaciC3n PC:blica), that would have enabled more transparency and access by citizenry to government activities.15 Cristina Kirchner became a vocal opponent of this law and a key player in the anti-press crusade.

It is not surprise that Kirchner has established strong relations with President Chavez of Venezuela. The most common belief among the people and the media for the relationship is pragmatic to receive cheap oil and to secure an additional source of foreign aid to counterbalance the weight of the International Monetary Fund. Interestingly, while Argentina faces an energy crisis, experts think that fuel-oil imported from Venezuela cannot resolve the Argentinean energy problem in the long run and scarcely in the short run.16 It seems Kirchner has become an ally of Hugo Chavez because he feels that he represents a new spirit in Latin America. This alliance is not mere coincidence. Kirchnerbs bullying of the private sector, his increasing executive decisionism, his take-over of the judiciary, his arbitrariness, his alliance with the highly tumultuous Piqueteros, and his pro-Chavez foreign policy, have frightened the Buenos Aires urban educated population. They want to continue down the path of modernization, respect for private capital, the rule of law and the need for a legal order that can guarantee rights, liberty and ensure that economic transactions are subject to legal protection. The vote for Mauricio Macri in Buenos Aires may well be a reflection of these feelings, and, perhaps, the beginning of the end of the Kirchner era.

Dr. Luis Fleischman is an advisor to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington DC. He is also an adjunct professor of Political Science and Sociology at Wilkes Honor College at Florida Atlantic University.

Behind Kirchner’s defeat

In a recent election for the mayoralty of the city of Buenos Aires, the candidate of Argentinean president, Nestor Kirchner, was defeated by a huge margin of sixty one to thirty four percent. The Peronist party, to which Kirchner belongs, was also defeated in the southern province of Tierra del Fuego. Mauricio Macri, a candidate defined as being center-right was elected in Buenos Aires and in the South, the winner was Fabiana Rios, a candidate who describes herself as center-left. Analysis and implications.

Main News:

  • Peru: Violent protests continue all over the country.
  • Plenty of democracy in Venezuela, according to OAS.
  • RCTV back on the air, on paid television.
  • Brazil plane crash kills approximately 200 people.
  • Peru: 7 Iraqis arrested with fake passports. Planned to travel to US.
  • Vladimir Villegas: ChC!vez’s Chess Piece in Mexico. IMPORTANT.
  • IACHR removes Venezuelan rapporteur for discrediting the Commission. Venezuela: New anti-aircraft defense system this year. More Venezuelans seek asylum in US, fleeing Chavez’s policies. ChC!vez imposes its warlike theses with new minister of Defense. Chavez expropriates luxury hotels. Hugo Chavez seeks unlimited presidential terms.
  • Canada announces start of free-trade talks with Colombia and Peru.
  • Bolivian President to Nationalize Railways.
  • Democrats say no to free trade with Colombia. Delay with Peru and Panama.
  • Argentina ‘s Economy Minister Resigns after $64,000 in cash are found in her office.

View full version of the Americas Report

View the "The Meaning of Kirchner’s recent defeat" Security Forum

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: mengesproject@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.

“Fixing” US-Latin American relations

 

The Menges Hemispheric Project is always monitoring the latest legislative events regarding Latin America.  Nancy Menges, Editor in Chief, has already testified in Congress and the Project is sometimes asked to name experts for the panels or testify through staff members.  The current discourse is quite vibrant.  

On June 19th the House Foreign Affairs Committee debated how to "fix the broken relationship with Latin America". We decided to give our readers excerpts of the introductory remarks of Rep. Lantos (D-CA) and the response of Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN).  These show that our topics shape the discourse and deliver early insider views.  

The typical party affiliations are an inextricable part of the average debate but the topics, as highlighted by representatives from both sides of the aisle, have picked up on the growing concerns about increased anti-Semitism in the region as well as Ethanol, Free trade and Chavez; the Democrat chairman Lantos and the Republican Dan Burton highlight the topics which have been brought up by our writers.

Federal News Service:

June 19, 2007 Tuesday

HEARING OF THE HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE; SOUTH AMERICA AND THE UNITED STATES: HOW TO FIX A BROKEN RELATIONSHIP; CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE TOM LANTOS (D-CA); WI .

House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Congressman Tom Lantos, Chairman

South America and the United States: How to Fix a Broken Relationship

Opening Remarks of Chairman Lantos at hearing.

Hugo Chávez’s anti-Americanism could not have come at a worse time for our relationship with our neighbors to the south. Chavez jets off to visit the most reprehensible despots in the world – in North Korea, in Iran, in Cuba – probably just because they have been identified by the United States as rogue regimes. He signs arms deals with these and other countries in a quest to militarize Venezuela to the teeth for no discernable purpose. And he makes friends with despicable perpetrators of violence: Ahmadinejad in Iran, Nasrallah of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad of Syria, and the late Holocaust denier Norberto Ceresole of Argentina. I am deeply disturbed that anti-Semitism is on the rise under Chavez, accompanied by support for Islamic terrorist groups.

With his own people, Chávez angles toward his own brand of authoritarianism. Chaotic, retributive land seizures in Venezuela have led to violence, injustice, and crop shortages. Recently, Chavez crossed yet another dangerous line: curtailing freedom of the press. He closed the independent television station RCTV in a bid to consolidate power and squelch opposition. An international backlash and ongoing student protests seem only to have emboldened him. No sooner did he shut down RCTV than he threatened to do the same with Globovisión, the last remaining TV channel he does not yet control.

Confounding the problem is the gutless response of the Organization of American States, which held its General Assembly days after the closing of RCTV and could not muster the courage to express even a word of concern. Adding salt to this ulcerating sore, OAS Secretary General Insulza just days later practically ripped up and tossed away the hemisphere’s main pro-democracy instrument, the Inter-American Democratic Charter, saying he doesn’t believe it should be used to pressure OAS member states. This whole episode is a stark reminder that the United States can no longer even mobilize the regional body established to address this sort of outrageous maneuver by Chavez.

The sapping of U.S. influence in this region has had wide-ranging ripple effects.   In Chavez’s shadow and with his oil money, the democracies in Ecuador and Bolivia are becoming increasingly undemocratic. Both countries have recently turned on their own media, and both are in the process of altering their constitutions. In Paraguay, we hear similar echoes.

Argentina is in many ways living in its past and grapples daily with the shadow of its 2001 economic collapse.   President Kirchner’s government has presided over a significant turnaround – with more than eight percent annual growth over the past three years – but he seems to listen to Mr. Chavez’s advice with alarming regularity.

There are governments in the region that are strongly democratic. These countries ought to step into the vacuum and re-claim regional leadership from Chavez.   Brazil and Chile, with two strong and visionary leaders, are the standouts.   Peru and Uruguay also hold considerable promise.  

Colombia is on the list of standouts as well, and President Uribe has made significant strides in providing security for his people.   But his troubles at home are significant, with corruption and the drug trade all too powerful. He has more than enough problems to keep him busy without saddling him with the heavy lifting in the region that used to be the role of the United States.

All of these countries show that responsible governments can and should boost economic growth and reduce inequality without enacting authoritarian policies. Our ability to shepherd them into the power void will go a long way toward reestablishing our positive influence in South America.

We have ignored South America as a partner for far too long. We have allowed Chavez to define us to our neighbors. That must stop before we reach a point of no return, a South America where most national leaders resort to the political expedients of coercion and authoritarianism.   We share central values with the rest of the region: democracy, open markets, and free speech.

REP. DAN BURTON (R-IN) :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Regarding our influence in Central America and South America and trying to change governments, I’d just like to remind the panelists that Fidel Castro tried to cause revolution throughout Central and South America, and he was successful somewhat. He sent Che Guevara down there, and Che Guevara unfortunately got killed or fortunately got killed depending on how you look at it. And right now we have Hugo Chavez who’s a blood brother of Fidel Castro, and he has used millions and millions of dollars to influence the elections in Bolivia and Nicaragua and elsewhere.

And I don’t hear a great deal of mention about that. It’s always the United States and how the United States is interfering. We have a vested interest in democracy and freedom in our hemisphere, and I don’t see anything wrong with the United States being concerned about who is put on the U.N. Security Council that may be an impediment to freedom and democracy in this hemisphere. Venezuela obviously would be an impediment. Chavez wants to do everything he can to drive us nuts, and he to some degree has been successful. And he continues to keep his country in an uproar by going on television every other week or every week and saying that we’re going to invade and we’re going to try to kill him.

So he’s not a dumb politician. He’s pretty smart. And one of the things that I have a concern about regarding Iran being involved in South America and Central America is they are in the process of developing a nuclear capability. Chavez is right now buying weapons systems, submarines, airplanes, guns, everything else he can get his hands on with the money he’s getting from us and elsewhere. And if Iran is able to develop a nuclear capability, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Chavez would try to get some kind of a nuclear capability in his country to further influence the United States and our activities in Central and South America .

And that’s one of the reasons why I think it’s extremely important that we do pay attention to Iran’s involvement with Chavez, because Chavez now has a history of trying to build up a real military capability, and he’s in the process of doing it right now. Iran is developing a nuclear capability, and I’m not sure we’re going to be able to stop them unless we take very strong action because many of our European counterparts aren’t being cooperative in trying to put economic and diplomatic pressure on them.

Regarding our energy problem, we do get quite a bit of our oil from Mexico, Venezuela, and elsewhere in Central, South America . As a matter of fact, my information is we get almost half of our oil and gas from South America . And it’s extremely important that we recognize that fact. And that’s another reason why I really believe my colleagues ought to take a hard look at energy independence. We’ve been talking about that since Jimmy Carter when we had those long gas lines. Now we have gasoline — $3 plus per gallon and going up, and we know we can get between $1 and $2 million barrels of oil a day out of the Anwar, and we’re not doing anything about it.

We know that we could drill offshore around the southern coast of the United States and get oil. As a matter of fact, Cuba has cut a deal with China, and China’s going to be drilling within 45, 50 miles of Cuba, or 40 miles inside that agreed to zone, and there’s no doubt in my mind they’ll be drilling into some reserves that probably are in United States waters, and they’ll be getting those away from us. So I think we ought to take a hard look at — and we’ve got an estimated 500 year supply of natural gas, so I just say to my colleagues I think we ought to start looking at energy independence so we don’t have to deal with these problems down the road.

And finally, these free trade agreements — I want to just say to my colleagues or my friends on the dais there, or at the witness table — we really need to fulfill our obligations on the free trade agreements. Poverty is one of the biggest problems that Latin America has, and that’s why these radical leftists down there have been successful and will be successful. We’ve got to create an environment where people can get jobs, and the best way to do that is to extend these trade preferences and to have more free trade agreements, not less.

The Chile free trade agreement, for instance – we’ve seen trade between us and Chile increase by 154 percent since that agreement went into place. Our exports to Chile have gone up by $4 billion in three years. Their exports to the United States has gone up by $6 billion, and that means jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs fight poverty, and when you fight poverty you fight the radicals. And that’s why it’s extremely important that my colleagues on the other side of the isle pay attention to these free trade agreements and these trade preferences, because if they kill them they’re playing right into the hands of the leftist-like Chavez down there.

China’s double-standard on debt

Communist China has done it again.   Desperate for new sources of energy, the Chinese are moving into an oil-rich nation eschewed by others. In this case, however, the country in question is not a state-sponsor of terror or other pariah state.   Rather, it is Iraq, a country the United States has gone to great lengths to make a member in good standing of the Free World – free, among other things, of the influence of those like PRC who had close ties to Saddam Hussein.

Yet now, according to the Financial Times, the Iraqi government last Friday "revived a contract signed by the Saddam Hussein administration allowing a state-owned Chinese oil company to develop an Iraqi oil field."  [More]The deal to develop the al-Ahdab field in Iraq was signed with China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) in 1997 and was valued at the time to be worth $1.2 billion. What is more, the FT reported that Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani announced that "Baghdad welcomed Chinese oil company bids for any other contract in the country through a ‘fair and transparent bidding process’ to be laid out in the new oil law under discussion in Iraq’s parliament."

Part of the impetus behind the free Iraqi government embracing CNPC – the PRC’s largest state-owned oil company and an instrument for its partnerships with the world’s most odious regimes – is a harsh reality: China is one of all too few investors who appreciate the strategic opportunities inherent in securing a foothold in Iraq today and are able to accept, and mitigate, the risks associated with doing business there.

Euchring Iraqi Sovereign Debt

Another consideration, however, has to do with the matter of Iraqi sovereign debt to Communist China dating from Saddam Hussein’s time and estimated to be worth as much as $10 billion.   The PRC has insisted that the successor government in Baghdad is responsible for its predecessor’s liabilities.  

The Financial Times noted Friday that a seeming breakthrough occurred d uring a visit to China last month by Iraq’s president, Jalal Talabani. Beijing announced that "a ‘large margin’ of Iraqi debt would be canceled, although no specific figures were released." As the Communists are fond of observing, this is hardly a coincidence, comrade. China used the leverage of a promise to forgive what is, as a practical matter, uncollectable Iraqi debt to secure renewed access to Iraqi oil.

There is a special irony to China’s adamance on the subject that successor governments are responsible for their predecessors’ sovereign debts. After all, American and other investors are estimated to be holding Chinese sovereign bonds issued by pre-Communist regimes worth roughly $260 billion – bonds the PRC has, to date, refused to honor.   While British holders of such Chinese bonds were given a discriminatory settlement back in 1987, their American counterparts have been left holding the bag.

Congress Tackles the Issue

Now, though, U.S. legislators are considering a bill that could induce China to be more forthcoming.   House Concurrent Resolution 160, introduced last month by Rep. Lincoln Davis, Democrat of Tennessee, would deny the PRC access to the U.S. capital markets until such time as, among other things, Communist China "fully honors repayment of its outstanding defaulted public debts owed to United States citizens."

Such a penalty for China’s effective default would be a first.   Until now, there have been no material costs to China for reneging on these debts.   Its bond ratings were not affected.   Neither has there been any impediment to the PRC’s ability to bring to American and other international exchanges various "bad actors" – often state-owned companies, like CNPC, PetroChina and Sinopec, engaged in activities inimical to vital U.S. security, economic and/or humanitarian interests.

In the absence of any serious, let alone sustained, effort by the Executive Branch and the Congress to resolve this corrosive bilateral problem, is it any wonder that there has been no satisfactory resolution to other financial abuses by China?   These include: Beijing’s manipulation of its currency; its underwriting of the genocidal regime in Sudan; and China’s worrisome financial (and other) ties with Iran, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela and North Korea, etc.  

The adoption by both houses of Congress of legislation like H. Con. Res. 160 should be but the first of several steps taken to induce the PRC to clean up its sovereign debt.   For example, as legislative and other measures are developed to counter China’s currency manipulation, provisions should be included requiring Beijing to make good on its defaulted sovereign bonds.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and other credit-rating agencies should be required to take into account China’s defaulted bonds in their ratings and disclosure requirements.   And targeted financial sanctions against the PRC should be promulgated in the event China continues to ignore its long-standing financial commitments.

Last, but not least, American and other vendors should be encouraged to settle accounts with China by using the legal tender of Chinese sovereign bonds.   In this fashion, Beijing can be held accountable for its debts, with minimal impact on trade and other relations.

The Bottom Line

If China can use sovereign debt owed it – even debt incurred by previous governments as despicable as that of Saddam Hussein – to euchre freedom-aspiring Iraqis into making strategically momentous concessions, the least the United States can do is ensure that the Communist Chinese are held to no lesser standard.   Sauce for the goose, after all, must be sauce for the Beijing duck.

Czech Parliament writes to Chavez on RCTV

In this week’s report, we publish a letter written by 41 Czech MPs to President Hugo Chavez (June 6 th), requesting that he not shut down RCTV. This document follows other similar declarations by the European Parliament, the U.S. Senate, the Chilean Senate and the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights.

ArtC-culo: " Carta enviada por el Parlamento Checo a Hugo Chavez sobre el cierre de RCTV."

A continuacian les presentamos una carta que le escribieron 41 diputados checos al presidente Hugo Chavez (6 de junio), en la que le piden que reconsidere su decisiC3n de cerrar RCTV. Esta declaracion se suma a las pronunciadas en dC-as pasados por El Parlamento Europeo, el Senado de los Estados Unidos, el Senado de Chile y la Comision Interamericana para los Derechos Humanos. Por lo tanto, les pedimos su colaboracion para distribuirla.

NEWS:

  • Latin America Disturbingly Silent on Venezuela (commentary).
  • Andean Summit Opens in Bolivia.
  • Evo Morales visits Fidel Castro. Bolivian Government Takes Control of Two Oil Refineries.
  • Brazil: Lula troubled by corruption.
  • Chavez orders supporters to give up extra possessions. Chavez-Brazil rift: dispute over Mercosur membership. Even off air, Venezuela’s RCTV goes on. Chavez visits Castro. Venezuela : 20 Percent Inflation Rate. Students and Journalists continue with protests over RCTV.
  • Ecuadorian President embraces Bank of the South. Business sector wary of Ecuador’s Correa.
  • Nicaragua: President Visits Iran to Ink Deals.
  • U.S. Helping Latin American Businesses.
  • Colombia: FARC reject government plan to release hundreds of jailed guerrillas.  Uribe in the United States to discuss FTA.

View the full version of the Americas Report (PDF)

Ver la versiC3n completa del Informe de AmC)ricas (PDF)

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: mengesproject@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.

Putin’s ploy

Chess is the national sport of Russia.  It is, therefore, as Soviet Communists like Vladimir Putin used to say, "no coincidence, comrade" that the proposal on missile defense that he rolled out at last week’s G-8 meeting was a sophisticated gambit, a crafty effort not to advance the protection of Europe and the United States from future Iranian missiles, but to block such anti-missile defenses.  Call it Putin’s ploy.

In fact, in the manner of an accomplished master of the game – for example, his democracy-advocating nemesis, Garry Kasparov – Putin is playing on several different chess boards simultaneously. 

First, there is the US-Russian relationship.  An enemy is required by every would-be totalitarian – and it is increasingly clear that, despite his laughable claim to being "the last democrat," Putin’s behavior has the hallmarks of a new czar.  For Vladimir Putin, it is us.  By building up the notion that we are a threat, he is able to garner popular support for his growing consolidation of power and even repression at home.  He is also able to justify a new military build-up and adventurism abroad in league with the likes of world-class anti-Americans like Iran’s mullahs, China’s  Communist leadership, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Il of North Korea.

Then, there is the Russian-European "board."  Putin has reverted to traditional Kremlin behavior towards Europe: bullying, coercing and blackmailing, using threats of nuclear attacks and energy cut-offs and other forms of economic pressure  Taking a move out of Stalin’s playbook, the man-who-would-be-Czar has even attacked one of the Baltic states, Estonia, albeit with cyber-warfare, not the old fashioned kind.

Finally, Vladimir Putin is trying to affect U.S.-European relations.  His service in the KGB during the American-led effort to place intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe nearly a quarter century ago clearly left its mark on Putin.  He is not only nostalgic for the Soviets’ superpower status that began to unravel when that deployment went forward.  He is also well-versed in the type of divide-and-conquer strategy that narrowly failed to topple key NATO governments and prevent the INF missiles from being fielded. 

Today, the Kremlin is hoping to capitalize on U.S.-European strains over Iraq and to use the wedge of opposition to Bush Administration plans to deploy a very modest anti-missile capability in Poland and the Czech Republic to create, and fill, a vacuum of power on the continent.

The Putin ploy seeks to advance these purposes in several ways:

The Russian president has offered a Russian radar in Azerbaijan as an alternative to the detection and tracking radar slated under the Bush plan for the Czech Republic.  Never mind that the Kremlin’s obsolescent radar is not designed for the kind of sophisticated discrimination of warheads from decoys inherent in the proposed, modern American system.  The idea is not to do the job.  Rather, it is to confuse the issue, give Czech opponents an apparent alternative to having the new radar based in their country, and make the U.S. appear unreasonable.

Similarly, Putin has proposed that instead of 10 anti-missile interceptors slated for deployment in Poland, the United States put interceptors in Turkey, Iraq and at sea on warships equipped with the Aegis defensive system.  This gambit gives Polish critics an out, while affording a chance further to roil the United States’ relations with Turkey and Iraq. 

The Kremlin has long sought to undermine the incalculably important strategic alliance between America and Turkey – already frayed at the moment by the anti-U.S. agenda of the Islamist government in Ankara and the growing tensions between the two countries over Iraq’s Kurdistan. And at a moment when the idea of "getting out of Iraq" is all the rage in American elite circles, committing to the long-term basing there of anti-missile systems is clearly not on.

The idea of making Aegis warships all they can be when it comes to anti-missile defenses is, of course, a great idea.  That is not what Putin has in mind, however.  And, unless a man who does – the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff-designate, Adm. Mike Mullins –has his way, these missile defense ships will remain incapable of providing the sort of robust protection to Europe and the United States that they could, and that we need.

For good measure, Putin has thrown in two other problematic ideas:  1) There is no need to rush on European missile defenses, since he claims the Iranians have no missiles capable of reaching Europe, nor any plans to build them.  And 2) Russia must be involved in the decision-making about any anti-missile deployments.

The first is patently untrue.  Iran’s current Shahab-3 missile could reach parts of NATO territory.  And there are unmistakable signs that the mullahs in Tehran intend to develop a Shahab-4 which will be able to attack much, if not all, of the European continent.

The most insidious aspect of Putin’s ploy is his insistence, through seduction or intimidation, that Russia be a party to any decisions about the deployment – and perhaps the employment – of missile defenses for Europe.  This would be tantamount to allowing one of the Tehran regime’s most important allies and one of its nuclear enablers to determine whether and how our European partners and interests will be protected against the threat posed by Putin’s friends in Iran.

All this is expected to be discussed further in July when Vladimir Putin is honored with a trip to the Bush family compound in Maine.  President Bush will be under greater pressure to surrender American freedom of action on missile defense there than any U.S. leader since Ronald Reagan, who was tempted to do so by Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik two decades ago.  Now, as then, the response to the Kremlin’s gambit must be "Thanks, but not thanks."

RCTV: Dictatorship, Chavez style

Over the protests of Venezuelans, Hugo Chavez has silenced RCTV. Reuters photo

At last, and sadly for those who believe in Democracy and who have been trying to alert the world of the dangers of the Hugo Chávez Regime, Venezuela is now a dictatorship. If someone had any doubts, the closing of RCTV is enough proof of the intolerance of the Chávez government.

Although the news has received worldwide condemnation from the European Parliament, the Chilean Congress, press freedom groups, the US and leaders from many countries who have urged Chávez to reverse the closure, their plea fell on deaf ears because, as he himself declared just recently: "It’s over…Say what they say, do what they do, howl where they want, the license will not be renewed."1 [More]Although it has become a hot topic of the international press, US TV stations and the media in general have demonstrated poor coverage of the Venezuelan situation.

What has really surprised many observers is Brazil’s response. Even though Lula has been an ally of Hugo Chávez for a long time, that didn’t stop the Brazilian Senate from condemning Venezuela’s refusal to renew the license of RCTV. Chávez responded by saying that the institution was acting as a "parrot" of the U.S. Congress and added it would be easier for Brazil to return to rule as a Portuguese colony than for his government to renew the RCTV license. Lula ordered Brazilian diplomatic officials to summon Venezuela’s ambassador to explain the Venezuelan leader’s comments. The presidents of Brazil ‘s lower house and Senate both issued statements condemning Chávez’s declarations. "The presidency of the Chamber of Deputies declares vehement repudiation of the capricious and irresponsible declarations of the president of Venezuela, which don’t befit the stature required of a head of state," said lower house chairman Arlindo Chinaglia.2

Since having obtained the power to rule by decree, Chávez has nationalized telecommunications and electricity companies, taken over oil fields developed by multinationals, and formed a single pro-regime political party. However for Venezuelans, the loss of RCTV was the greatest shock of all. In order to further Chávez’s quest for total control, it was no surprise that he decided to go after the media. For 53 years, RCTV has been part of Venezuela’s culture, offering the public, comedies, soap operas, and game shows. But on May 27 th, Chávez sent in troops to seize RCTV’s broadcast equipment. The TV channel has been replaced on the airwaves with pro-Chávez programming run by a state-funded network called "Venezuelan Social Television."

Many believe that power has become so centralized in Venezuela that there are no checks and balances and the executive controls the Congress, the Supreme Court, the electoral commission, and the military. RCTV and Globovisión, in a way, did the job these institutions failed to do, publicly denouncing the wrongdoings of Chávez’s regime and that is why one was shut down and the other has been threatened with closure if it doesn’t stop covering the demonstrations.

Aware of the controversy the closing of RCTV would create, the Venezuelan Government made an all out effort to tell their absurd side of the story arguing that they were not closing the TV channel, they were just not renewing the license and that they made the decision based on RCTV’s support of the April 2002 "Coup." (The Supreme Court ruled that what occurred was not a coup). The reality is that Chávez doesn’t want any opposition and RCTV represented that.

Protests against the move continue to grow and expand across Venezuela, with students and others taking to the streets in many cities . Independent press agencies have reported that there are thousands of demonstrators, while the government has minimized the number count. The police have acted with extreme violence and there is information that many protesters have been jailed and many others have been injured.

Hugo Chávez seems unmoved by the concerns voiced by international press freedom groups that liberty of expression is under attack in his country. In fact, the Chávez regime has launched an investigation of another broadcaster, Globovisión , accusing it of using subliminal messages to incite an assassination attempt on the president. Chávez called Globovisión an enemy of the state, attacking its coverage of the protests against RCTV’s closure. "Enemies of the homeland, particularly those behind the scenes, I will give you a name: Globovisión. Greetings, gentlemen of Globovisión, you should watch where you are going," Mr. Chavez said. "I recommend you take a tranquilizer and get into gear, because if not, I am going to do what is necessary." CNN is also under scrutiny.3 Chávez doesn’t want the media to report or cover the protests and will stop at nothing to achieve that.

It seems RCTV is not going down quietly. It has found a way to continue its daily broadcasts, on YouTube . Although the station is officially off the air, CNN’s Harris Whitbeck said its news department continues to operate on reduced staffing, and the three daily hour-long installments of the newscast "El Observador" are uploaded onto YouTube by RCTV’s Web department. In addition, RCTV’s Colombia-based affiliate, Caracol, has agreed to transmit the evening installment of "El Observador" over its international signal. The program, which will run at midnight, could reach about 800,000 people in Venezuela. Although this is drastically reduced from RCTV’s previous audience, its continued presence is a sign of hope for the staff. "We’re just doing our job as journalists," said an employee of RCTV. "As long as somebody is seeing us, we consider what we are doing to be valid."4

Not far away, Ecuador and Bolivia are following the ideas of their mentors Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez with regards to the press and have already announced their plans. Morales proposed creating a tribunal to oversee the operations of privately owned press and broadcast outlets and Mr. Correa announced over the weekend that he would order a review of the broadcasting licenses of opposition news channels in his country. "The main adversaries of my presidency, of my government, are certain communications media," Mr. Morales said at the Fifth World Conference of Artists and Intellectuals in Defense of Humanity, a Venezuelan-backed group supporting "the process of change in Latin America." Meanwhile, Mr. Correa issued a statement saying that "radio and TV frequencies have been granted in ways that are frequently dark and it’s time to analyze the matter." He accused owners of major news outlets of using political influence to get their broadcasting licenses and using the press "to defend private interests that are often corrupt." He also announced legal action against Ecuador’s opposition newspaper "La Hora".5

Freedom of expression and freedom of information are fundamental rights of human beings and they are under attack in Venezuela, and possibly in Bolivia and Ecuador. It appears that Chávez is trying to suppress any possible outlet for further opposition. Unfortunately, without an independent media that is able to report what is going on, the opposition will most likely be silenced, and their ability to oppose Chávez and his ever tightening grip on power will become ever more dangerous.

Once the curtain falls on freedom of speech, the outside world will lack the necessary information to protect those who have the courage to stand up against this growing tyranny.

Notes

1 Chávez silences critical TV station – and robs the people of their soaps. May 23, 2007. The Guardian.

2 Senado brasileño repudia declaraciones de Chávez. June, 2007. El Universal.

3 La oposición venezolana pide un referéndum sobre el cierre de RCTV y los estudiantes vuelven a la calle. May 30, 2007. El Pa í s.

4 Silenced Venezuelan TV station moves to YouTube. June 3 rd, 2007. CNN.

5 Morales dice que los medios son su "primer adversario." May 25, 2007. La Prensa.  

Are the Democrats pushing Colombia away?

House leaders: ignoring U.S. allies in Colombia, claiming "friendship" with Syria.

The Americas Report has have been covering the most recent events in Colombia and Mr. Uribe’s efforts to get the funds necessary to continue with ‘Plan Colombia’ and to ratify a much expected Free Trade Agreement. But the Para-politics scandal in February 2007, which prompted the resignation of Colombia’s Foreign Minister María Consuelo Araujo, and which implicated several top ranking officials of the Uribe administration, has complicated U.S.-Colombia relations.

On January 26, 2007 we ran a full story on the importance of ratifying the FTA with Colombia and Perú.1 On February 23, 2007 we covered the ‘Paragate scandal’ in detail2 and on April, 2007 our Editor in Chief, Nancy Menges was asked to submit a statement for the hearing before the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Relations on US-Colombia Relations. The hearing took place on April 24, 2007 and was held to consider continued funding for Plan Colombia and ratification of a free trade agreement between The United States and Colombia. The statement supported the recent accomplishments of the Uribe Administration in demobilizing the paramilitaries and encouraged members of Congress to move forward with Plan Colombia and FTA.3

In these reports we have concluded that "Over the course of many years, the United States has been trying to get the cooperation of Colombia to combat narcotics trafficking and the free trade agreements were promised as a sign of recognition for their success on this front. No one can deny Uribe’s success since he has enacted tough policies to confront not only drug-trafficking but also the terrorist group inside Colombia, known as the FARC which is greatly responsible for the narcotic trafficking problem in South America. The Colombian FTA must be approved by the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees before they can be considered by the full Congress. The midterm U.S. elections that gave the Democrats control of Congress in January 2007, have delayed the much anticipated ratifications. President George W. Bush and his advisors are aware that these agreements are not just about trade. Latin America, under the leadership of Hugo Chavez, is radically turning towards the left, posing a threat to the stability of the region with Venezuela forming dangerous alliances with China, Russia, Syria and Iran. Since Alvaro Uribe became President of Colombia, the FARC has been expelled from the populated Bogotá – Medellín – Cali triangle. For the first time in years, Colombians can drive between most of the country’s cities without risk of abduction or extortion."4

Sadly, some Democrats in Congress and in the top echelons of US politics don’t seem to get the picture. Sen. Patrick Leahy , Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee dealing with foreign aid, last month held up $55.2 million in military aid to Colombia stating: "I have withheld the release of those funds because I – and other Members of Congress – are concerned about reports of paramilitary infiltration of the Colombian government and military, as well as extrajudicial executions by the military.5

According to Robert Novak, during Uribe’s most recent visit to the US, "Hopes that the Democratic majority in Congress might perceive the importance of supporting Colombia were dashed April 20 when Al Gore canceled a joint appearance with Uribe at an environmental event in Miami. Gore cited allegations of Uribe’s association with paramilitary forces a decade ago, charges vehemently denied by the Colombian president. Gore’s snub legitimized what the new congressional majority seems intent on doing. Democrats follow both left-wing human rights lobbyists and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney’s protectionist campaign against the Colombian free-trade agreement. Rep. Sander Levin, Chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, as usual echoes labor’s line against the bill. In the wake of Uribe’s visit to Washington, two prominent House Republicans — former speaker J. Dennis Hastert and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking minority member of the Foreign Affairs Committee — made a quick trip to Colombia. Visiting there for the first time in many years, they were struck by the progress. They met with Colombian national police who had just returned from Afghanistan, where they advised NATO forces on techniques for dealing with narco-terrorists."6

Regarding Nancy Pelosi, Novak states "Uribe got nothing from his meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders. After the meeting, Ms. Pelosi issued a written statement: "Many of us [Democrats] expressed our growing concerns about the serious allegations of connections between illegal paramilitary forces and a number of high-ranking Colombian officials."7 Uribe went home nearly empty-handed since military aid remains stalled, overall assistance is reduced, and the vital U.S.-Colombian trade bill looks dead. Uribe is the first Colombian president to crack down on his country’s corrupt army officer hierarchy and to assault both right-wing paramilitaries and left-wing guerrillas, but last week he confronted Democrats wedded to outdated claims of civil rights abuses and rigidly protectionist dogma. This is remarkable U.S. treatment for a rare friend in South America, where Venezuela’s leftist dictator, Hugo Chávez, can only exult in Uribe’s embarrassment as he builds an anti-American bloc of nations."8

Many Democrats seem unaware of the fact that although many of those implicated come from Mr. Uribe’s Conservative Party, (his former intelligence chief is under investigation), Uribe has not been charged with any wrongdoing . Quite the contrary, it was under his administration that more than 30,000 right-wing paramilitary fighters were demobilized last year. This initiative has facilitated the current investigations, which Mr. Uribe and his government have supported and funded.9 In addition, Democrats should consider the fact that, despite the scandal, Uribe supporters in Colombia have rallied around their president. An opinion poll released this week showed that Uribe has an approval rating of 80.4%, up from 73% a month ago.

Colombian Vice President Francisco Santos Calderón recently said in a television interview that failure to ratify the free-trade agreement would "send a message to the external enemies of the United States" (meaning Venezuela’s Chávez) that "this is how America treats its allies." He added that Colombia might "have to reevaluate its relationship with the United States." He did not specify how Colombia might revise relations with the United States, its top trade partner and source of billions of dollars in military and counter-narcotics aid to help Bogotá fight leftist guerrillas and drug traffickers.10

We believe that it is of utmost importance to help our allies and honor our commitments, especially with respect to Colombia’s Uribe who has been working very hard to destroy terrorism, even though his life has been threatened many times, install free markets, and make his country a more stable place to live. A few years ago this was hard to imagine. The stock market has gone up 500% since he’s taken office. The debt has been repaid early, the peso is soaring, unemployment is down one-third since he took office, foreign and domestic investment has skyrocketed and Colombians have regained confidence and are optimistic about the future. The economy grew at 5% last year and crime has nearly evaporated.

It is hard to understand the Democrats’ ‘strategy’ towards Latin America. Nancy Pelosi criticized President Uribe but had no problem traveling to Syria to meet President Bashar al-Assad. According to the "The American Spectator", Pelosi is planning a visit to Venezuela to meet with Hugo Chávez — one of the world’s most outspoken enemies of the United States, and apparently is planning to travel to Iran.11 Why snub Mr. Uribe, who has been doing everything he can to fight drug trafficking and terrorism and has been a loyal ally of the US and show interest in approaching Mr. Chavez instead? Why embrace Syria, who is an enemy of this country and sponsors terrorism, or Iran? If these prominent Democrats continue with this attitude towards Colombia and other allies, it could certainly send mixed messages to other countries who might be rethinking their alliances in the region, a potentially dangerous situation considering Chávez’s eagerness to win over friends to advance his so-called ‘Revolution.’

NOTES

1 "The Americas Report" January 26, 2007. http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/modules/newsmanager/center%20publication%20pdfs/americas%20report%20january%2026,%202007.pdf

2 "The Americas Report" February 23, 2007. http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/home.aspx?sid=56&categoryid=56&subcategoryid=91&newsid=11574

3 "The Americas Report" April 25, 2007. http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/modules/newsmanager/center%20publication%20pdfs/the%20americas%20report%20april%2025%202007.pdf

4 "The Americas Report" January 26, 2007. http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/modules/newsmanager/center%20publication%20pdfs/americas%20report%20january%2026,%202007.pdf

5 Colombian Seeks to Persuade Congress to Continue Aid. April 30, 2007. The New York Times.

6 How to Lose an Ally. By Robert Novak. May 10th, 2007. The Washington Post.

7 Pelosi le expresa a Uribe su preocupación por escándalo de la ‘parapolítica.’ May 3, 2007. Radio Caracol, Colombia.

8 How to Lose an Ally. By Robert Novak. May 10th, 2007. The Washington Post.  

9 Pelosi le expresa a Uribe su preocupación por escándalo de la ‘parapolítica.’ May 3, 2007. Radio Caracol, Colombia.

10 Colombia says may review US ties without trade deal. May 8, 2007. Reuters.

11 Nancy Plays Hard to Get. The American Spectator. April 27, 2007.