Why Washington is worried about Peru

[CHIMO]

In just a few days, on Sunday 5 June, an election will take place that will have a significant influence on the western hemisphere. At the moment, it is too close to call. Most of official Washington has been relatively quiet, but there is no doubt that the Obama administration has a big stake in the outcome of this poll.

The election is in Peru, where left populist and former military officer Ollanta Humala is facing off against Keiko Fujimori, the daughter of Peru's former authoritarian ruler Alberto Fujimori, who was president from 1990-2000. Alberto Fujimori is in jail, serving a 25-year sentence for multiple political murders, kidnapping and corruption. Keiko has made it clear that she represents him and his administration, and has been surrounded by his associates and former officials of his government.

Fujimori was found to have had "individual criminal responsibility" for the murders and kidnappings. But his government was responsible for many more widespread murders and human rights abuses, including the forced sterilisation of tens of thousands of women, mostly indigenous.

Between the two candidates, whom do you think Washington would prefer?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/02/peru-venezuela

[John_Adams]

1. A former military officer or a woman...

Peru Stocks Jump Most in Two Years as Presidential Polls Show Dead Heat

Peru’s benchmark stock index jumped the most in more than two years, erasing yesterday’s decline, after polls showed former army renegade Ollanta Humala hasn’t taken a lead over Congresswoman Keiko Fujimori in opinion polls before this weekend’s presidential runoff.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-02/peru-stocks-plunge-most-since-2008-on-bets-for-humala-victory.html

[JackRiddler]

3. Uh, that is definitely not a useful way of viewing this election.

The woman, as you say, is running on her father's record of dictatorship.

[JackRiddler]

2. Unfortunately I don't need to click to guess the answer to the question at the end of that...

You know, I managed to miss it altogether, this comeback for the Fujimori clan. How is it even possible?!


(Fujimori and Humala after a debate)

Anyway, the hardly shocking answer follows:

Humala's opponents argue that Peru's democracy would be imperilled if he were elected, pointing to a military revolt that he led against Fujimori's authoritarian government. (He was later pardoned by the Peruvian Congress.) But his record is hardly comparable to the actual, proven crimes of Alberto Fujimori.

Humala is also accused of being an ally of Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez. He has distanced himself from Chávez, unlike in his 2006 campaign for the presidency. But all of this is just a rightwing media stunt. Chávez has been demonised throughout the hemispheric media, and so rightwing media monopolies have used him as a bogeyman in numerous elections for years, with varying degrees of success. Of course, Venezuela is also irrelevant to the Peruvian election because almost all governments in South America are "allies of Chávez". This is especially true of Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and Uruguay, for example, all of whom have very close and collaborative relations with Venezuela.

As in many other elections in Latin America, rightwing domination of the media is key to successful scare tactics. "The majority of TV stations and newspapers have been actively working for Fujimori in this election," said Levitsky.

The thought of another Fujimori government is so frightening that a number of prominent conservative Peruvian politicians have decided to endorse Humala. Among these is the Nobel prize-winning novelist Mario Vargas Llosa, who hates the Latin American left as much as anyone. Humala has also been endorsed by Alejandro Toledo, the former Peruvian president and contender in the first round of this election.

Score one for Vargas Llosa.

Why must the USG almost always compulsively choose the wrong way?

.

[Peace Patriot]

4. That's our gov't! Murder and forced sterilizations of the Indigenous are better than a leftist prez

in yet another Latin American country!

I was commenting yesterday that there didn't seem to be any depth of corruption too low for the U.S. government to support, in order to see to the interests of U.S.-based transglobal corporations and war profiteers in LatAm. I was talking about Colombia and mafioso Alvaro Uribe, who ran Colombia as a vast criminal enterprise during the Bush Junta. This raises SERIOUS questions about U.S. military and U.S. military 'contractor' (and U.S. embassy) activities in Colombia that will never be asked (or answered) here.

The Obama administration is more into appearances--or at least has been since their disaster in Honduras, which prompted not just leftist LatAm governments but EVERY government in LatAm to sign on to CELAC, which has been called the anti-OAS and which the U.S. and Canada have pointedly not been asked to join. So-o-o, after Obama/Clinton/Panetta ran some palm fronds over Junior's bloody trail in Colombia (a little "cleanup" job that always brings Harvey Keitel in "Pulp Fiction" to mind)--a must-do, apparently, for the Bush Cartel--they are keeping a low profile. Dilma Rousseff likely gave them an earful about how bad the U.S. looks right now, in LatAm, when Obama visited Brazil recently.

It's interesting how much Weisbrot has to reach, and how little he has to go on, as to U.S. hopes for a return of the Fukimora horrors in Peru (--cuz that'll help U.S. and Canadian transglobal mining interests, among others). He is no doubt right. But he has to rely on political experts rather than anything the U.S. embassy or "Washington" has said about it. They are lying low. If they openly backed Fujimora (rather than just with covert activities), it would exacerbate the loathing with which the U.S. is regarded in the region. There are many reasons for this loathing--not just Colombia and Honduras. Much of the region is in revolt against U.S. "free trade the rich," the U.S. "war on drugs" and other disastrous policies of long standing--with the history of U.S.-backed dictatorships and attendant horrors pre-dating those. It's been a long build-up, with Latin Americans meanwhile doing successful civic work on their democracies, and at long last electing many governments that actually serve the interests of their people, and--very important--who are working together and achieving collective clout in throwing off U.S. dictation and establishing the region's independence.

The upshot of this amazing political revolution is that LatAm is becoming more of a "level playing field" in global trade. No longer can Exxon Mobil & brethren dictate the terms of doing business in LatAm. U.S. corps have to compete--with China, with Russia, with EU countries and others, including LatAm and other "global south" countries--because LatAm countries have established their independence and their cooperation with each other. So either the U.S. starts a fourth oil war--to tear the region apart, a plan that I have no doubt at all is on the Pentagon's Big Dartboard--or they learn to play nice--to compete, to lose sometimes, and to contribute toward the social justice in the region as the price of doing business. It appears that Oil War IV has been put off, at least for now. This may have been one of the things Rousseff told Obama--that Brazil would not tolerate an attack on Venezuela and Ecuador. And a new strategy is in progress--of "playing nice" or rather appearing to "play nice," while subtler efforts at "divide and conquer" go forward (subtler than the Bushwhacks were capable of). It would be counter-productive in these circumstances for "Washington" to seen as interfering once again.

One final thought: I think there's something wrong with these pre-election polls in Peru. I would expect Humala to have at least a 10% edge over this dictator's daughter, based on how things are going in that region of South America. I'm not sure what's wrong. It could be that Humala has blown it by going "centrist" and has alienated the poor majority and the Indigenous, or the latter are withholding judgment until the last minute. If this is the case, then the polls are not wrong. They are reflecting leftist disaffection. That's a possibility; however, if I was going to guess, I'd guess that Humala is going to win with a healthy majority. The poor and the Indigenous will come out for him, in sufficient numbers to counter Fujimora's votes among the nouveau riche in the urban areas and among some middle class/upper class women.

I don't think Chavez is a downside for Humala and I think he's getting bad advice on that, or believing too much of what he reads in the Wall Street Urinal and the rest of the rancid press. Chavez, and--probably more important--Morales' endorsements of Humala in the last election gained him 15 points in the voting! He almost beat Garcia because of their endorsements. It brought out the Indigenous vote! (There is no other place those votes could have come from.) But the corpo-fascist press has deemed otherwise. I think they are dead wrong. Anyway, THAT may be why this race looks so weird--that a portion of the poor and the Indigenous are withholding judgement.

The other thing that may be wrong is that the pollsters are not adequately polling the poor and the Indigenous. It doesn't make any sense to me that half of Peru's voters would favor Fujimora. I'm going to have to look at the poll numbers again, to see what percentage say they are undecided. Is this a 35% vs 35% situation, with 30% undecided, or a 49% vs 49% situation, with only 2% undecided? Also, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the pollsters are corrupt. I witnessed the corruption of the Edison-Mitofsky exit polls here, in 2004, and I think corporate interests can and do fiddle polls.

[Ghost Dog]

5. I read that the 'undecideds' in these polls are many, But it's very polarized by now:

Las encuestas evidencian que muchos acudirán a las urnas a disgusto. Según el más reciente sondeo de Ipsos Apoyo, el 40% del electorado no votaría en ningún caso por Humala y el 39% no lo haría por Fujimori. Precisamente gracias a la división de las alternativas centristas los dos candidatos con mayor porcentaje de rechazo ciudadano lograron llegar a la segunda vuelta. Y, puesta a elegir entre el perturbador pasado del fujimorismo y el incierto futuro que representa el humalismo (en Perú el voto es obligatorio), la sociedad ha entrado en una espiral creciente de crispación que se plasma en incidentes violentos, agrias polémicas en los medios de comunicación y, sobre todo, disputas en las calles y dentro de los hogares. - http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/eleccion/renida/historia/Peru/polariza/toda/sociedad/elpepiint/20110602elpepiint_7/Tes

The polls show that many people will vote under protest. According to the latest poll by Ipsos Apoyo, 40% of the electorate would under no circumstances vote for Humala, and 39% under no circumstances for Fujimori. Precisely because there was a division of votes among centrist candidates, the two candidates with the highest levels of public rejection reached the second round of voting. And, forced to decide between Fujimorism's disturbing past and the uncertain future Humalism represents (in Peru it is obligatory to vote), society has entered a growing spiral of tension which is being expressed in incidents of violence, bitter arguments in the media, and, above all, disputes amongst people in the streets and within families.

[Peace Patriot]

6. Thanks for the info! I wonder how much U.S. "free trade for the rich" has corrupted and retarded

Peru so that it cannot progress politically and socially the way most of its immediate neighbor countries are progressing (Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador) and the region as a whole is progressing, wherever leftists have won elections (Venezuela, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay). The Peruvian people have no control over their rich mineral resources and the government has no plan for ending poverty. The "Wall Street" plan for ending poverty, of course, doesn't work and exacerbates the rich/poor divide. ("Trickle down" is a cruel joke.) The creation of an artificial urban elite addicted to imports and the "fast life," with "U.S." fantasies of becoming billionaires, is both temporary and unsustainable. The "crash" will come, and Peru will have nothing to show for it. This has happened time and again, where the U.S. has gotten its talons into a LatAm economy. But, possibly worst of all, Peru is thus divided from the countries that are doing well--the ones that have already recovered from U.S. "neo-liberalism" and are solving problems--of poverty, of lack of educational opportunities, of foreign resource looting and "neo-liberal" looting of "the commons," of IMF/World Bank loan sharks, etc.--and, indeed, are working together in a remarkable new spirit of cooperation that is summed up by the Venezuela-Brazil alliance and its philosophy of "raising all boats." The U.S. has sold Peru a bill of goods--or rather has sold it to a few, those who dominate political discussion (the urban elite) and get trumpeted and echoed by the corpo-fascist media--and has cut Peru off from regional progress and its natural allies.

It's no wonder there is bitter debate. It's called "divide and conquer" and has been a U.S. tactic in LatAm for more than a century. Peruvians need to unite behind the progressive candidate--Humala-- and aim for, a) gaining control of their natural resources and their economy (wresting control away from the U.S.), and b) sharing the wealth, and ending poverty (in alliance with the progressive governments of the region). They probably also desperately need a "food security" policy--undoing harm to local agriculture including rejection of the U.S. "war on drugs" (a war on poor farmers in the interest of Monsanto, et al, that infuses fascist militarism into a country like a lethal injection of poison).

One thing I want to argue with, in your analysis, is that Humala and Fujimora represent extremes of left and right. And if Peruvians are perceiving it that way, they are very mistaken.

The LEFTIST policies that I have summarized above are NOT "extremist." They are COMMON SENSE. They are, in fact, the political "center" (what is best for everybody). That is why they are WORKING. Venezuela, for instance, has cut poverty in half and extreme poverty by more than 70%. And they have, for instance, doubled the number of people attending college. This is very, very GOOD for the country. And this is the direct result of the Chavez government gaining control over Venezuela's oil resource and setting strict terms for its use by multinationals including a large percentage of the profits going to Venezuela's social programs. Venezuela was recently designated "THE most equal country in Latin America," on income distribution, by the UN Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean.

Societies with huge rich/poor discrepancies, such as we have seen in U.S. exploited LatAm countries, are inherently unstable and WILL collapse. Everybody will lose if a majority of the population can't get an education, can't find decent jobs, can't put food on the table, feel powerless and hopeless. And alliances with other countries with similar goals is also COMMON SENSE. Venezuela's alliance with Brazil, for instance, has provided Venezuela with a bulwark against U.S. interference, while Venezuela has inspired a better oil policy in Brazil (requirement of oil profits for social programs). Alliance with the U.S., on the other hand, is a prescription for ruin! The bulk of the profits will go elsewhere, out of the country, into the pockets of foreign billionaires, with creation of a tiny rich elite that is out of touch with reality, and a seething population of extremely poor people--the majority--that will have few choices, and will hopefully choose the peaceful ones (massive peaceful protest--as in Bolivia and many other rightwing/U.S. ruined countries--to force the rightwing elite out of power and reform the political/economic system).

Peru could transition into the 21st century peacefully, with Humala as president, or descend into social chaos and backtrack into the fascist era of violent repression, with Fujimora. Eventually--and inevitably--it will be forced to reform, and its benighted U.S. ally, itself on the verge corpo-fascist-induced bankruptcy, will be no help at all.

Lula da Silva realized this (when he blurted out his criticism of the "blue-eyed wonders of Wall Street"). Hugo Chavez and the people of Venezuela, of course, realized it before anybody. Nestor Kirchner in Argentina realized it (and allied with Venezuela; Argentina was in full "neoliberal" collapse, at the time). Rafael Correa, in Ecuador, Evo Morales, in Bolivia--all the new leaders, and the people who have supported them--have had this realization: The U.S. is no ally; its policies are ruinous to LatAm countries. This vast exploitation and dictation by the U.S. must end and LatAm countries need to act together to end it.

Will Peru join this regional progressive movement or will it self-destruct? That is how I see this election. Joining the regional progressive movement is NOT extremist. It is the sensible choice. Open the government to all of the country's people. Share the wealth. "Raise all boats." Forge strong alliances with other countries who are doing the same.

The charge against Humala that he once led a rebellion is a total shibboleth. Brazil now has a president--Lulu's successor, Dilma Rousseff--who was a member of an armed leftist group fighting Brazil's U.S.-backed rightwing dictatorship, and who was imprisoned and horribly tortured by them (--the torturers trained by the USA). Lulu da Silva himself was imprisoned by that dictatorship for being a steelworkers' union leader. Uruguay now has a president who was also a member of an armed leftist group and suffered imprisonment because of it. Venezuela has a president who, as a young military officer, led a group of leftist military in a failed rebellion against the rightwing government which had slaughtered hundreds of peaceful protestors. Bolivia now has a president, Evo Morales, who was a labor union organizer (coca leaf farmers' union) and was detained and beaten up by the police. Nicaragua now has a president who was head of the armed rebellion against Nicaragua's U.S.-backed fascist government. These and other types of rebellion against fascist rule are now badges of honor.

Latin America's remarkable leftist democracy movement was formed in resistance to U.S.-backed fascist government. This movement represents Latin America's future and "unity" is its name. If "divide and conquer" succeeds in Peru, it will not stop this vast progressive movement. It will merely mean that Peru won't be part of it--for a very long time, in any case. Peru will have to catch up--and in the meantime may descend into Colombia-type mayhem.

I will be very sorry for Peru if Peruvian voters buy this corpo-fascist crap that the Left is "extremist." Quite the contrary is true. Humala and the regional Left represent the best interests of Latin America as a unified, cooperating, social justice-minded new force in the world. It will be very unfortunate if Peru is left behind because too many of its voters couldn't see through this propaganda.

[benld74]

7. The one that takes the least amount of bribes from the USA