COHA Espanol: La Tierra de lo Bizarro: El Cartel Del Golfo Ayuda A Damnificados De Tamaulipas

La Tierra de lo Bizarro: El Cartel Del Golfo Ayuda A Damnificados De Tamaulipas
W. Alejandro Sanchez
Council on Hemispheric Affairs - Espanol
September 30, 2013
Originally published: http://cohistas.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/la-tierra-de-lo-bizarro-el-cartel-del-golfo-ayuda-a-damnificados-de-tamaulipas/

El Huracán Ingrid, que azotó a varias comunidades del noreste mexicano particularmente en la región de Tamaulipas, ha pasado a segundo plano. Lo bizarro, a falta de una mejor palabra, es quienes han prestado ayuda a los damnificados de esa región. Usualmente cuando hay un desastre natural, los primeros en responder son las agencias de un gobierno: por ejemplo en Estados Unidos las agencias federales y la sociedad civil prestaron ayuda a los miles de damnificados luego del Huracán Katrina de 2005 y en Perú, el gobierno se movilizó luego que un gran terremoto destruyera extensas áreas en la Región Ica en el 2007. Sin embargo en el antes mencionado estado de México, los primeros en ayudar a varias comunidades han sido bandas criminales. Específicamente, el Cartel del Golfo (CDG) ha dado víveres y medicamentos a los damnificados   en esta región a causa de Ingrid. Esta iniciativa no hace sino incrementar la popularidad y legitimidad de este cartel entre la sociedad civil mexicana, algo que debería ser visto como muy alarmante para el futuro del gobierno de ese país.

Ingrid y el CDG

El Huracán Ingrid, de Categoría 1, golpeó al Valle del Rio Grande a mediados del mes de Septiembre, seguido por la Tormenta Tropical Manuel. Varias comunidades de la región, tanto de Tamaulipas como del Estado de Texas en Estados Unidos, han sido particularmente afectadas. Se han perdido alrededor de 100 vidas en México y hay más de 60 desaparecidos de acuerdo a los últimos reportes.[1]

La devastación fue tan masiva que varias comunidades quedaron muy golpeadas, con efectos poco predecibles. Por ejemplo, las fuertes tormentas provocaron la inundación de pantanos cerca a las comunidades urbanas de Tampico, Madero y Altamira. El resultado del paso de los fenómenos naturales es que los cocodrilos de pantano que habitan las zonas antes mencionadas fueron desplazados de su ecosistema por las lluvias, que los empujaron a zonas urbanas. Entre los tres municipios antes mencionados, ya se han capturado 25 cocodrilos, de 0.5 a 3 metros de longitud.[2]

Sin embargo no ha sido la devastación de esta región (que en algunos medios periodísticos abrió un debate del cambio climático y el calentamiento global y como afectan a Latino América) ni los cocodrilos, los que han hecho noticia.[3] Ni siquiera la falta de ayuda inmediata de parte del gobierno mexicano y las fuerzas de seguridad es lo más saltante de esta trágica historia. Más bien, lo más destacado de Ingrid y Manuel es que el Cartel del Golfo ha dado víveres y medicinas a los ciudadanos mexicanos afectados en Tamaulipas. Según se ha reportado en varios medios periodísticos, “varias toneladas de víveres a cientos de habitantes de Aldama y municipios del sur del Estado.”[4] De acuerdo a las imágenes del video en YouTube y reportes periodísticos, varias camionetas entraron al centro comercial de Andama y repartieron víveres necesarios como agua, arroz, harina de maíz, leche, jugos y galletas.[5]

Es más, el Cartel del Golfo está usando como un medio publicitario, tanto la devastación como la ayuda que ha proporcionado a los afectados en la región. Específicamente un video ha aparecido en YouTube, aparentemente creado por miembros del CDG, en donde se muestra “el lado humano” de la organización, que ayuda a los pobladores de Tamaulipas. Es más, los famosos memes (fotos con una leyenda pequeña), no se han hecho esperar. En uno, se aprecia una foto de miembros del CDG repartiendo víveres a personas que usan paraguas para protegerse de la lluvia – la leyenda de la foto dice “Si ayudan es porque tienen corazón.”[6]

El hecho que un grupo criminal como el CDG pueda llevar a cabo este tipo de iniciativas es preocupante. Algunas de las varias preguntas que uno se tiene que hacer incluyen: ¿En donde estaban las autoridades estatales y federales? ¿Es que conocían de esta iniciativa y la aprobaron o es que ocurrió sin su conocimiento? ¿Cómo adquirió el CDG los víveres que repartió?

Latino América: Entre El Terror y Ganar Adeptos

Sería erróneo declarar que este tipo de iniciativas son nuevas en la realidad Latino Americana. La verdad es que, a la par que existen grupos violentos en la región, también hay otros grupos que son violentos, pero que llevan a cabo obras e iniciativas para ganar el apoyo de la población local donde operan.

Ejemplos de movimientos armados y extremamente violentos en Latino América abundan, uno de ellos es el grupo insurgente Maoísta-Socialista del Perú, llamado Sendero Luminoso. Este movimiento terrorista sembró el terror en el país andino durante la década de los ochenta y principios de los noventa, con el objetivo de traer abajo al gobierno y crear uno nuevo con su líder, Abimael Guzmán, como nuevo jefe de estado (el nombre de guerra de Guzmán era Presidente Gonzalo). Varios especialistas y académicos peruanos que han estudiado a Sendero lo describen como un grupo “mesiánico.” Es decir, Sendero vio a cualquier individuo o entidad como el enemigo, si es que este no aceptada la ideología senderista/maoísta. No es sorpresa cuando se lee reportes de como Sendero llevó a cabo una guerra contra el gobierno peruano y las fuerzas del orden. Pero estos insurgentes también atacaron repetidamente a entidades civiles, como federaciones de trabajadores. Además, Sendero fue particularmente brutal contra los miembros de la Iglesia Cristiana (sin importar su denominación) ya que el mando senderista veía a la religión como el enemigo. Dado estos actos de extrema violencia, Sendero perdió adeptos y seguidores entre la población peruana, lo que ayudó a que se debilite militarmente.

Por otro lado, han habido entidades criminales cuyos líderes han querido mantener un apoyo entre una población, ya sea por razones personales (por ejemplo, el ego de un líder) o por razones operacionales (para tener seguidores que sirvan como informantes o que den ayuda a miembros de una organización criminal). Un ejemplo de un líder criminal que quería ser adorado es Pablo Escobar, líder del Cartel de Medellín en Colombia hasta que fue eliminado por agentes de seguridad en 1993. Como bien lo describió Mark Bowden en su famoso libro “Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World’s Greatest Outlaw,” Escobar no quería ser simplemente poderoso y rico, quería ser amado por el pueblo como un “Robin Hood” colombiano. Esta ambición se evidencia en  todas las obras sociales que el colombiano llevó a cabo en su natal Antioquia para ganar el apoyo de la población local, como la construcción de campos de futbol, torres eléctricas y  donaciones a las parroquias locales, entre otras.

Hasta el Sendero Luminoso del 2013, aun debilitado, está intentando ganar seguidores y simpatía entre las nuevas generaciones ya sea vía la palabra o el dólar, en vez de la violencia. Por ejemplo, una ONG peruana llamada MOVADEF (Movimiento por Aministia y Derechos Fundamentales) tiene como secretario general a Alfredo Crespo, el abogado de Abimael Guzmán.[7] El objetivo de esta organización es enseñar a las nuevas generaciones de peruanos una versión distorsionada de la historia del Perú, donde Abimael Guzmán y sus seguidores son perseguidos políticos, no terroristas, y los crímenes que se les imputan (como las masacres en los Andes peruanos) son o invenciones del Estado o crímenes llevados a cabo por el Estado pero que fueron atribuidos a Sendero. En la Amazonía peruana, es sabido que el nuevo Sendero paga en dólares a los campesinos pobres a cambio de víveres, el cultivo de coca (la base de la cocaína) y otros tipos de ayudas.

Finalmente, los carteles mexicanos no se quedan atrás en cuanto a ganar adeptos vía obras sociales, a mediados del 2012, hubo una controversia grande en México cuando se hizo conocido que una inmensa capilla en Pachuca, en el centro del país, había sido construida con dinero de sangre. Es decir, los fondos para construirla habían provenido del entonces líder del cartel de los Zetas, conocido como “El Lazca.” [8] Aunque la iglesia fue bautizada como el “Centro de Evangelización Juan Pablo II,” rápidamente se le re-bautizó popularmente como una “narcocapilla.”[9]

Un año después, en Julio del 2013, ha habido nuevas acusaciones de que la Iglesia católica en México está recibiendo donaciones de los carteles. Debido a esto, el Monseñor de Hermosillo, José Ulises Macías Salcedo, declaró a la prensa que “He sido cuidadoso en ese aspecto. Cuando alguien ofrece ciertas cantidades de dinero pregunto de donde proviene. Y si cuando reconocen con humildad, les digo que no puedo aceptárselo.”[10] Es difícil pensar que, dado las millonarias cantidades de dinero que los carteles mexicanos manejan hoy en día, los miembros de la Iglesia católica en México (o de cualquier otra fe) sean impunes a la corrupción y otros actos ilegales.

Conclusión

La destrucción en el Estado mexicano causada por el Huracán Ingrid es una gran tragedia, por el lado que se le vea. Pero más preocupante es que fue el Cartel del Golfo y no el gobierno mexicano quien  prestara ayuda el  a los damnificados de las comunidades de este estado. El mismo cartel al que se le acusa de haber botado 49 cuerpos mutilados por una carretera en Nuevo León en el 2012; es el mismo que ahora quiere demostrar que tiene un corazón y quiere ayudar a sus compatriotas de Tamaulipas.[11]

Esta una situación irónica, bizarra, pero no única. Grupos violentos como el Cartel de Medellín de Pablo Escobar durante la década de los ochenta, o el Cartel de los Zetas y Sendero Luminoso en años recientes, también han intentado ganar simpatía entre sus respectivas poblaciones. Esperaremos conocer la respuesta que llevará a cabo el gobierno mexicano.

W. Alejandro Sánchez, Analista de Seguridad y Research Fellow en el Consejo de Asuntos Hemisféricos

Ésta es una contribución gratuita producida por el Consejo de Asuntos Hemisféricos. Si desea republicarla, por favor ponga nuestra información institucional. Los derechos exclusivos pueden ser negociados.

Si desea obtener más información sobre los asuntos interamericanos, les sugerimos que visite la página de Latin News, haciendo un clic aquí.

Citaciones 

[1] “Ciclones ‘Ingrid’ y ‘Manuel’ dejan 101 muertos y 68 desaparecidos en Mexico.” El Comercio (Peru). September 21, 2012. Accessed September 27, 2013 http://elcomercio.pe/actualidad/1633984/noticia-ciclonesingrid-ymanuel-dejan-101-muertos-68-desaparecidos-mexico

[2] “Capturan 25 cocodrilos en Tamaulipas tras paso de ‘Ingrid.’” El Universal (Mexico). Estados. September 22, 2013. Accessed September 26, 2013   http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/estados/2013/capturan-cocodrilos-tamaulipas-tras-paso-ingrid-952706.html

[3] Whitney Eulich. “Mexico’s Storms: Should governments put emphasis on climate change prevention?” The Christian Science Monitor. Latin America Monitor. September 24, 2013.  Accessed September 27, 2013  http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2013/0924/Mexico-s-storms-Should-governments-put-emphasis-on-climate-change-prevention

[4] “Cartel del Golfo repartee toneladas de despensas a afectador por ‘Ingrid’ en Tamaulipas.” Proceso (Mexico). September 22, 2013. Accessed September 26, 2013   http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=353468

[5] “Cartel del Golfo repartee toneladas de despensas a afectador por ‘Ingrid’ en Tamaulipas.” Proceso (Mexico). September 22, 2013. Accessed September 26, 2013   http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=353468 Also see: Ildefonso Ortiz. “Tamaulipas floods Twitter with Ingrid alerts; video appears to show Gulf Cartel dabbling in disaster relief.”The Monitor. September 23, 2013. Accessed September 27, 2013  http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_e18ec87e-24a8-11e3-8605-0019bb30f31a.html

[6] “Cartel del Golfo repartee toneladas de despensas a afectador por ‘Ingrid’ en Tamaulipas.” Proceso (Mexico). September 22, 2013. Accessed September 26, 2013   http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=353468

[7] “Denuncian a dirigente del MOVADEF Alfredo Crespo.” La Republica (Peru). Politica. January 2, 2013. Accessed September 25, 2013  http://www.larepublica.pe/02-01-2013/denuncian-dirigente-del-movadef-alfredo-crespo

[8] Ignacio de los Reyes. “Iglesia y narco en Mexico: entre la amenaza y la complicidad.” BBC Mundo. March 22, 2013. Accessed September 27, 2013  http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2012/03/120322_mexico_iglesia_narco_visita_papa_aw.shtml

[9] Ignacio de los Reyes. “Iglesia y narco en Mexico: entre la amenaza y la complicidad.” BBC Mundo. March 22, 2013. Accessed September 27, 2013  http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2012/03/120322_mexico_iglesia_narco_visita_papa_aw.shtml

[10] Jose Trinidad Mendez. “Iglesia niega dadivas de carteles.” Periodico AM (Mexico). Local. July 17, 2013.  Accessed September 26, 2013 http://www.am.com.mx/leon/local/iglesia-niega-recibir-dadivas-de-carteles-32630.html

[11] Geoffrey Ramsey. “Mexico arrests 8 ‘Gulf Cartel Members’ over Nuevo Leon Massacre.” InSight Crime. May 18, 2012. Accessed September 27, 2013   http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/mexico-arrests-8-gulf-cartel-members-over-nuevo-leon-massacre

COHA Policy Memo: Brazil's Foreign Policy: Putting the B in BRICS

Brazil's Foreign Policy: Putting the B in BRICS
COHA Policy Memo #1
by W. Alejandro Sanchez and Amandha Lopes
Council on Hemispheric Affairs
April 25, 2013

HTML Version: http://www.coha.org/22387/

PDF Version: http://goo.gl/rAKnF

Latin America: Water Politics, Coups and James Bond

W. Alex Sanchez
Research Fellow, Council on Hemispheric Affairs
Originally published by COHA, available: http://bit.ly/KXonDP

June 15, 2012

James Bond, the fictitious British spy created by Ian Fleming, has been the protagonist of more than 50 novels and more than 20 films since 1953, becoming a world-renowned icon in the process. The plot of Quantum of Solace (the22nd film in the Bond series, released in 2008) revolves around Bond’s attempts to prevent a group of powerful individuals from orchestrating a military coup in Bolivia and, with the aid of a corrupt Bolivian army general, taking control of the country’s water sources.

While the movie received numerous reviews, it has not, to this point, been analyzed from an academic point of view. This is a mistake as the issue of control of water is certain to increase in importance in the near future. For Bolivia, and most other Latin American countries whose natural resources are increasingly vital sources of power, the message of Quantum of Solace is all too relevant.

Hollywood and International Relations
It has become fairly common for scholars to apply international relations theories to TV and film. In 2011, Foreign Policy published an article analyzing the television series Game of Thrones, based on the books written by George R.R. Martin, from the perspective of international relations theory. (1) Dr. Kelly DeVries of Loyola University recently published another article comparing international affairs to Game of Thrones in Foreign Affairs. (2) Over the years, the Bond stories have also been analyzed from an academic point of view. For example, in 2005 a group of academics published a book titled “Ian Fleming and James Bond: the Cultural Politics of 007.” (3)

Some James Bond films have been polemical. In Die Another Day (2002),  Bond battles against a North Korean army officer who wants to use a powerful satellite to attack the Demilitarized Zone and carry out an invasion of South Korea. When the film premiered, many South Korean citizens called for a boycott of the movie because of its negative portrayal of North Korea. (4)
 Similarly, when Quantum of Solace premiered, the Bolivian government protested. Bolivia Deputy Minister for Culture Pablo Groux said the film portrayed Bolivia as “a country of drug traffickers.” (5) Moreover, some scenes depicting Bolivia were actually filmed in Chile, which did not sit well with the Bolivian government. The Bolivian deputy minister argued that his country has perfect landscapes for filming a movie, and that the producers should not have hired Chilean citizens to pass as Bolivians. (6) It is important to remember that La Paz and Santiago have had tense relations since the 19th century War of the Pacific, from which Chile emerged victorious and Bolivia lost its coastal territories and become a landlocked country.

Quantum of Solace in IR Terms
In Quantum of Solace, a shadowy organization wants to gain control of massive water resources in Bolivia, putting the country in an ideal position to set prices for access to water for both the Bolivian population and international consumers. In reality, the struggle for control of natural resources throughout Latin America, particularly in Bolivia but also in other countries, has already begun.

Another relevant part of the plot is that Bond has to prevent an exiled, corrupt Bolivian general from staging a military coup—assisted by foreign powers—to overthrow the government in La Paz. Unfortunately, the real Bolivia does indeed have a long and complicated history of military coups. In fact, regime changes have continued to occur in Bolivia and throughout the region over the last decade.

Quantum of Solace. Credit: Reuters

Finally, in the movie, the villains comprise a varied group of powerful individuals, including a rich “environmentalist” who supports the coup because he wants to buy a seemingly barren portion of Bolivian desert from the corrupt military officer. If successful, his company would gain control over Bolivia’s sole water utility. This raises the question of how international companies are regarded in Latin America today.

Water Politics in Latin America
The most high-profile incidents concerning water in Cochabamba, Bolivia, occurred between 1999 and April 2000. The conflict is commonly known as “Cochabamba Water Wars,” or simply Bolivia’s Water Wars. An April 2006 Inter Press Service article reported on the legacy of those “wars,” characterizing them as protests by locals against the Bolivian subsidiary Aguas del Tunari, which was owned by a consortium of the U.S. transnational company Bechtel, Italy’s Edison, and Spain’s Abengoa. (7) The consortium hiked water rates to local water consumers by as much as 200 percent after winning a 40-year concession in closed-door negotiations. With such price increases, water bills amounted to between 20 percent and 30 percent of the income of poor households. (8)

 Expounding on the effects of top-down privatization in his book “Dignity and Defiance: Stories from Bolivia’s Challenge to Globalization”, Jim Shultz, director of the Cochabamba-based Democracy Center, argued:

The contract gave Bechtel and its co-investors control of the city’s water company for forty years and guaranteed them an average profit of 16 percent for each one of those years, to be financed by the families of Cochabamba. No one at the negotiating table could have had any doubt what that would mean for Cochabamba water bills. (9)

In other words, the process of water privatization that transpired in Bolivia in 2000 is eerily similar to the premise of Quantum of Solace.

Bolivia's Water Wars. Credit: Jorge Ilieff

Water-related incidents have also occurred in other countries. For example, in late 2011, Newmont Mining Corporation’s proposed gold and copper mining project in northern Peru provoked major protests due to concerns that it would pollute local waterways vital for both human consumption and irrigation projects. Newmont’s extraction plans, known as the Conga project, could extract as much as 580,000 to 680,000 ounces of gold per year. (10) The project’s fate is currently unclear, as new discussions are taking place between the Peruvian government and the company. According to the online news service Marketwatch, “Recently Newmont said in a presentation posted on its website that first potential production for Minas Conga is now scheduled for early 2017. The company had previously said that it expected production to start in late 2014 or early 2015.”  (11) In early June, the Peruvian government declared that it was awaiting Newmont’s decision on whether to continue developing the project or not, after Lima gave the international company new environmental conditions. (12)


Tensions regarding proprietorship of water have also appeared in Colombia. According to the Colombian project of the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Greystar Resources Ltd. of Canada had planned to build an open-pit mine (for gold and silver) in Angostura, the heart of Colombia’s Santurban wilderness of high-altitude forests and wetlands called paramos. (13) Colombia’s Ministry of Environment, however, denied Greystar’s environmental license application in May 2011. For the time being, this means that the forests and wetlands are safe.

Meanwhile, in Chile, the Mapuches indigenous to Chile have consistently protested against the construction of a hydropower plant on the Panqui River that would flood several of their communities. (14) Last February, five Mapuche-Pehuenche communities also complained that the municipal government of the southern Lonquimay region had yet to provide them with access to potable water. (15)

Coups in Latin America
In addition, regarding the potential for a military coup in Bolivia in the film, it is true that the Andean nation has a troubled history of civilian and military coups. Indeed, the country has suffered numerous military overthrows since the 1960s. Among some of the most notable coups in Bolivia are those that occurred in 1964, led by Vice President Rene Barrientos; in 1971, led by Colonel Hugo Banzer Suarez; and in 1980, led by General Luis Garcia.

Credit: Archivo Lucio Flores / La Razon (Bolivia)

Although the era of military coups in Bolivia seems to have ended, the country continues to be a nation marred by violence and governmental instability. The last row of regime-changing civil unrests occurred in 2003, when, under pressure after more than 80 people were killed during massive protests against natural gas exports to Chile, President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada resigned. (17) In the aftermath, Sanchez de Lozada’s vice-president, Carlos Mesa, ascended to what would be a short-lived presidency. Mesa submitted his resignation in March 2005 when he was unable to restrict the nationwide protests against fuel prices, and civic and business leaders in the province of Santa Cruz called for greater autonomy. (18) While the Bolivian Congress originally rejected Mesa’s resignation, he resubmitted it in June of the same year and was finally permitted to step down in the face of continued popular protests. (19) Finally, in 2008, major protests in the eastern Bolivian provinces of Beni, Chuquisaca, Pando, Tarija, and Santa Cruz threatened to topple Evo Morales’ government. (20)

Unfortunately, coups have continued to occur in Latin America in the past decade, though not as violently or as frequently as in previous eras. In 2002, for example, major protests in Venezuela overthrew the Hugo Chavez-led government and temporarily installed an opposition government, though this Chavez returned to power two days later. (21)  It is widely believed that U.S. intelligence services were, at the very least, aware of the potential for a coup in that country. (22) Two years later, in 2004, demonstrations forced President Jean-Bertrand Aristide from power in Haiti . Also, in 2009, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya’s push for constitutional reforms were strongly disputed by the Honduran Congress and armed forces, and his persistence ultimately led to his deposition. (23) In June 2009, Zelaya was removed from the presidential palace and exiled by the Honduran military to Costa Rica in the middle of the night, still wearing his pajamas. (24) Most recently, in 2010, police officers and soldiers organized significant protests in Ecuador, during which President Rafael Correa was tear-gassed by his own police. While Correa survived the protests and maintained his position as head of state, he called the protests “an attempted coup, an attempt to destabilize the government, which failed thanks to the Ecuadorean people.” (25)

International Companies
At variance with the corporation portrayed in the Bond film, not all firms pursuing resource extraction projects have dishonorable intentions. However, many of the populations of communities where multinational corporations operate feel that their local resources are being drained for someone else’s profit. For example, the 2000 Water Wars in Bolivia saw the population of Cochabamba pitted against Aguas del Tunari, which had hiked up the price of water exponentially after receiving proprietary recognition from La Paz.
 Furthermore, there are ongoing concerns regarding resource extraction, such as the threat of pollution—or all-out destruction—of the environment and the way of life of local populations. In order to counter Newmont’s bad publicity in Peru, Roque Benavides, the president of a partnering company, has tried to improve the company’s image among the inhabitants of Cajamarca where the Conga project is located. He recently said, “A social disaster destroys share price. … Let’s say I have interest in the shares continuing to grow, and we will not get into a project that goes against the company and that goes against my countrymen.” (26) Nevertheless, the Conga project remains highly unpopular among the population, and those who speak in favor of it are ostracized. In mid-May, former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo was scheduled to give a conference in Cajamarca, but was unable to do so because of his declarations in favor of the Conga project, which prompted protesters to throw trash on the streets where the conference was to be held. The former head of state was even impeded from getting out of his car. (27) Toledo eventually returned to his hotel in the northern city and the conference was cancelled.

Conclusions
Hollywood has become a growing source of inspiration for analyses by IR scholars due to the plausible plots that are being used by screenwriters. Quantum of Solace portrays powerful individuals attempting to carry out a regime change in Bolivia in exchange for control over the country’s water resources. While such plans are not as ambitious as those carried out by other Bond villains, they reflect a reality seen in many parts of Latin America.
A number of Latin American nations, Bolivia in particular, have a history of military and civilian coups. While these have not been as common in recent years, Bolivia continues to have historically shaky governments: since the Water Wars in 2000, two presidents have resigned due to resource-related protests, and major protests have threatened to topple the current Morales administration. It is important to mention that in contrast to the South Korean boycott provoked by Die Another Day, the author of this report has not been able to find any indigenous objection regarding how the Bolivian government and military were portrayed in Quantum of Solace. Nevertheless, Bolivian government officials protested how their country was portrayed while Chile protested the use of Chilean territory and people in the film as they were portrayed as Bolivian. (28)

The type of villains in the latest Bond movie may not be as ambitious as the ones in previous films, but both regime change and control (and the protection) of vital natural sources are real issues in Latin America. Undoubtedly, Hollywood will continue to produce big-budget films starring superheroes with marvelous powers, a stretch of the imagination for the time being. But when it comes to the struggle for control, and protection, of profitable natural resources − be they gold, oil, or something as common as water− these plots reflect real social and political tensions, as IR scholars and experts well know.

To view citations, click here.

Commentary: Peru Finds Itself Snared in the Falklands/Malvinas Dispute

Commentary: Peru Finds Itself Snared in the Falklands/Malvinas Dispute

This analysis was prepared by W. Alex Sanchez, Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

April 30, 2012.

Originally published in: http://bit.ly/IF2lon

Thirty years after a bloody war between the United Kingdom and Argentina, the longstanding territorial conflict over the Falklands/Malvinas islands continues to simmer. In recent months Buenos Aires has attempted to attract international support for its claim to the islands, particularly from fellow South American countries. Several regional states have stated their perfunctory support for Argentina, in some cases going so far as to accept a blockade on the Falklands, refusing vessels flying the islands’ flag to dock in their ports. One state that is in a particularly troubling position regarding which side to back is the Andean nation of Peru, as exemplified in a recent incident regarding the British frigate HMS Montrose.

Peru and the UK: a Troubled Historical Relationship

Though geographically distant, Peru and the United Kingdom often have had a troubled relationship, due to the Falklands sovereignty dispute, which is part of even greater geopolitical issues troubling South America. Though geographically distant, Peru and the United Kingdom’s relationship is characterized by a rocky past. Current tensions are rooted not only in the Falklands sovereignty dispute, but also in greater geopolitical issues to be found in South America.

In the 19^th century, Peru, along with Bolivia as its ally, fought a bloody war against Chile, which became known as the War of the Pacific (1879-1883). The origins of this conflict centered on Chile’s desire for control over the mineral-rich coastal regions of Bolivia (Antofagasta) and Peru (Arica, Tarapaca and Tacna). Towards the end of the conflict with Peru, the Chilean army was able to occupy and then ransack Lima, thanks to Chile’s striking naval advantage. Chile eventually emerged victorious and, as part of the spoils of war, it gained valuable territory from Peru and Bolivia, turning the latter into a landlocked country. The Chilean government and its military have been able to profit from the minerals it gained from to the war, particularly from copper deposits.

What is not so well known is the role of the British Empire during the War of the Pacific, as London was an active supporter of Santiago. The British provided Chile with both warships and experienced naval officers, which proved to be a defining factor in the conflict. Peru has never forgotten the British military’s aid to Santiago, as the War of the Pacific became a critical milestone in Peruvian history, serving as an inspiration and source of nationalism that swept the country and an abiding distrust towards Chile.

Far from being ancient history, this 19^th century  war would have repercussions in the 20^th century, when the military junta in Argentina, facing a crippling economy, decided to launch an ambitious military offensive to gain control of the Malvinas and to distract the Argentine population from problems in the country. During the war, the Peruvian government played a dual role. On the one hand, then-President Fernando Belaunde Terry attempted to serve as a mediator between Buenos Aires and London in order to bring the conflict to an end.[1] Meanwhile, and more critically, Peru provided Argentina with Exocet missiles and Mirage warplanes that were later used against UK forces.[2] In fact, it is believed that a Peruvian Exocet missile was used by Argentina to sink the HMS Sheffield.[3]

It is worth noting that Chile, then ruled by General Augusto Pinochet, provided the UK with critical intelligence data that was used against Argentina’s military.[4] Santiago and Buenos Aires have had a historically tense relationship, not only because of Santiago’s role during the 1982 war, but because of a 1978 incident in which the two countries came close to combat as a result of a border dispute over the Beagle channel that was avoided thanks to Papal intervention.[5]

Most recently, an important incident occurred in 1995 which shook Lima’s position on the Falklands. On that occasion, Ecuador and Peru waged a non-declared military conflict known as the Cenepa War which lasted several weeks over a region that has been contested for decades, serving as the casus belli for two brief wars in 1941 and 1981. What makes this incident germane to the Falklands dispute was that Argentina, under President Carlos Menem, sold weapons to Ecuador, which were used against Peruvian troops.[6] For Peru, this was seen as a stab in the back from an ally to which Lima had previously provided vital military equipment and assistance during the 1982 war. Furthermore, Argentina is, along with the U.S., Brazil and Chile, one of the four guarantors in charge of maintaining the peace between Ecuador and Peru since the 1941 war. In view of Buenos Aires’ backing of Quito during the Cenepa War, Lima, particularly its military circle, may see little reason to continue supporting Buenos Aires regarding the Falklands.

After a 35-month trial, Menem and 17 other members of his government were ultimately found innocent of illegally selling guns to Ecuador and other countries.[7] In an interview with COHA a retired Peruvian colonel, who wanted to remain anonymous, stated that “it’s a shame no one will be punished for this crime, considering the historically close relations between Lima and Buenos Aires.”[8] In addition, Dr. Christian Maisch, an associate dean at the American University argued that “it’s important to stress that the illegal weapon sales were carried out by opportunistic government officials during the Menem government. This was apparently a traición oportunista [opportunistic betrayal] by some corrupt officials and not necessarily a policy formally approved by the Argentine government or supported by the will of the Argentine people.” The diplomatic historian went on to highlight the strong ties between Peru and Argentina, dating back to the 19^thcentury independence movements, particularly the one led by Argentine General José de San Martín, which facilitated Peru’s independence from the Spanish Empire.[9]

The 2012 Montrose Incident

The year 2012 marks the 30^th anniversary of the Falklands/Malvinas war and unanticipated tensions between Argentina and the United Kingdom have reignited. For example, Buenos Aires officials have declared that London is militarizing the South Atlantic. [10] This aggressive statement was in response to the deployment of a British warship to the islands, as well as the deployment of Prince William, a RAF search and rescue pilot, to the archipelago.[11] London stated that such military deployments are routine, but, in all fairness, a critical development regarding this particular move was that London had originally dispatched a frigate, the HMS Montrose, to the South Atlantic. The Montrose’s posting in the region was abbreviated, however, when it was decided that it should be replaced by another vessel, the destroyer HMS Dauntless, considered to be one of the most modern warships in the world.[12] The conservative Daily Mail stated that “naval chiefs admit sending the warship [the Dauntless] to the region will deliver a strong signal that Britain has no intention of relinquishing the Falklands.”[13]

Photo property of the Royal Navy ( http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/)

Peru fits in this latest round of tensions between Buenos Aires and London, as the Ollanta Humala government has also declared its support for Argentina’s claim to the islands. The problem arose when Lima also authorized the HMS Montrose to make a port of call in Callao, the major Peruvian port next to Lima. From what is understood, the Peruvian Congress, originally declared that the Montrose could dock in Callao but, shortly afterwards, the Peruvian executive reversed this decision and said the British warship could not do so.[14] These somewhat confusing instructions proved to be an embarrassment for the Ollanta government, as the international media argued that Peru was breaking rank from South America’s strong support of Argentina. [15]  Peruvian opposition parties stated that Peru was having a “contradictory” and even subservient relationship with Argentina.[16]

In the end, the Peruvian government maintained its solidarity with Argentina,[17] while the British government called Lima “unfriendly” for cancelling the Montrose’s visit.[18] In an interview with COHA, a British diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous, explained that “we think that the Montrose visit would have added another element of co-operation to the bilateral relationship.  And that is very much our ambition.”[19] Meanwhile, a Peruvian Congresswoman, Lourdes Alcorta, stated that “acá metieron la pata totalmente. Una cosa es la actitud solidaria que pueda haber con Argentina por el tema de las Malvinas, pero no se puede maltratar otros países”  (“everyone here screwed up. One thing is that we should have a solidarity act with Argentina over the Malvinas, but we cannot be rude to other countries”).[20]

After the incident, the Peruvian Defense Minister, Alberto Otarola, declared that “in the [Defense Ministry] we were in favor of accepting the frigate’s visit.”[21] The Peruvian Defense Minister also stated that it is the Peruvian Congress and Ministry of Foreign Affairs that formulate Peruvian foreign policy, including which foreign ships can dock in Peruvian ports. While true, this can also be interpreted as the Peruvian defense ministry and military indirectly indicating that they wished to have stronger defense links with the British military, but that the civilian government was ultimately responsible for the failure of the Montrose to obtain the requisite docking permission in some Peruvian facility. Ultimately, the Montrose sailed on to Colombia and Panama and the British warship was allowed to dock in those countries. The aforementioned British diplomat explained to COHA:

 I am not aware that either of those governments came under Argentine pressure or were challenged about compromising regional solidarity.  They took the view, as do most in the region, that it is perfectly possible to have a full and productive bilateral relationship with the UK whilst maintaining a difference of view on the Falklands issue.[22]

Hence, it is debatable why Lima was so keen to reject the HMS Montrose to the point of becoming a regional embarrassment, when two other Latin American nations welcomed the British warship within their territorial waters.

London – Lima Relations Today

While perhaps not London’s major interest in Latin America, it is important to highlight that Peru and the United Kingdom currently have generally good relations, particularly regarding trade. The UK is the second biggest foreign investor in Peru; UK imports from Peru rose by 14% last year, and overall bilateral trade went up 17%. According to the online daily, The Peruvian Times, British businesses have more than US$4.45 billion invested in Peru.[23]

The aforementioned British diplomat explained to COHA that “we had an excellent bilateral trade event in London only last month, at which our Minister for the Americas, Jeremy Browne, gave a keynote address.  And our Financial Secretary met with Peru’s Economy and Finance Minister.”[24]  After the Montrose incident, there were concerns that Lima-London relations would suffer, but  Minister Browne and Peru’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Rafael Roncagliolo, spoke on the phone and stated that both governments are committed to maintaining and strengthening relations.[25] In another attempt to generate closer relations, according to the aforementioned The Peruvian Times, a group of high-profile Peruvian officials visited London this month as part of a business delegation. The delegation included the Peruvian Minister of Finance, Luis Miguel Castilla, Central Bank president Julio Velarde, and Roberto Hoyle, president of the Lima Stock Exchange, as well as the British Ambassador to Peru, James Darius.[26]

The tensions surrounding the Falklands/Malvinas occurred at a time when London was reorganizing its foreign policy to reach out to areas like Latin America, the Caribbean and Africa. Because of its economic boom in recent years Peru is a high-profile target for British diplomatic and investments opportunities. On the other hand, at the time of the Montrose incident, Alfredo Ferrero, a former Peruvian Minister for External Trade and Tourism, critiqued Argentina’s economic model. He stated that the Argentine government is very protectionist and bilateral trade between Lima and Buenos Aires is not the best. He also said that “tenemos problemas para venderles nuestros productos” (“we have problems selling them our products”).[27]

Unraveling Geopolitics in South America

The Falklands have demonstrated just how complex South American politics are, and the recently concluded Summit of the Americas held in Cartagena, Colombia, is a perfect example. In a not-so-surprising development, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner stormed out of the Summit after the attending heads of state could not agree on a declaration regarding the Falklands/Malvinas dispute (and the controversy over Cuba’s attendance).[28] To be fair, the Summit had little chance of accomplishing any kind of groundbreaking resolution, as there were at least three divisive topics on the table: the Falklands/Malvinas, Cuba, and the future of the hemispheric war on drugs, including the debate on possibility ending drug prohibition in favor of decriminalization.

Members of Union of South American Nations (Union de Naciones Suramericanas – UNASUR), generally have declared themselves in favor of Argentina’s position, but this does not exactly mean that a blank check has been drawn in support for Buenos Aires. The Uruguayan government, for example, supports Argentina, but Montevideo has not prevented its citizens from carrying out business with the islanders. For example, in early February 2012, a group of Uruguayan businessmen traveled to the islands,[29] without Montevideo preventing them from doing so.[30] Then again, Uruguay’s support for Buenos Aires has been tenuous at best as the two countries have had a heated, if bloodless, border dispute for years over a proposed pulp mill that Uruguay had wanted to construct close to the border with Argentina, which would have heavily polluted water sources along the border.[31]

In any case, Argentina is relying on a statement by UNASUR for regional unity.[32] In fact, it was arguably UNASUR’s support of Buenos Aires that provided the additional pressure on Lima to deny the Montrose entry. Then again, diplomatic pressure was not enough to move Colombia and Panama (not a UNASUR member) to deny the British frigate its decision to make a port call.

A final factor regarding Lima’s decision to bow to Argentina’s pressure may have to do with a maritime border dispute Lima has with Santiago. The Chilean government lays claim to a sizable amount of Peruvian territorial waters, and there are concerns over what would happen if the dispute escalates.[33]  For the time being, the dispute is at a stalemate as both countries have turned to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, which is set to issue a finding by 2013.[34] Peru may be trying to gain international support for its case; hence Lima is supporting Argentina over the Falklands/Malvinas.  Dr. Maisch argues that “Lima should maintain its current and historical position regarding the Falkland/Malvinas dispute because it is the right thing to do, both legally and politically.” He does not believe, however, that “Peruvian support for Argentina will necessarily translate in Argentine support for Peru in the latter’s dispute with Chile.” He thinks:

Switching support from Argentina to the United Kingdom on the Falkland/Malvinas dispute would make Peru look inconsistent and would not likely result in any diplomatic benefits for Lima in its maritime dispute with Santiago.  Chile and the United Kingdom have had strong historical ties going back over a century, and even if Lima were to change its position on the Falkland/Malvinas dispute, there is little chance that London would support Peru in its maritime dispute with Chile.  Moreover, that maritime dispute has already moved from the field of diplomatic negotiations (where allies can sometimes play a helpful role) to the realm of judicial adjudication before the ICJ, where cases should be decided on their legal merits.[35]

Should Peru Have a Bigger Role in the Falklands/Malvinas?

After the Montrose incident, President Ollanta Humala stated to the Peruvian media that “no somos satelite, ni colonia de nadie, no aceptamos imposiciones de nadie” (“we are not a satellite, no one’s colony, we do not accept impositions from anyone”).[36] While such statements are bold, it seems likely that Lima did not bend to pressure from London, but from Buenos Aires and UNASUR. On the other hand, Colombia and Panama agreed to host the HMS Montrose and it did not end in Argentina breaking its diplomatic relations with either country. Hence, it could be argued that Peru could have withstood the diplomatic heat from Buenos Aires and UNASUR if it had gone through and accepted a visit from the British warship.

Should Peru become more engaged in the Malvinas/Falkland dispute? An argument can be made that the Peruvian diplomatic corps could try promoting a confidence building mechanism such as multinational naval exercises in the South Atlantic combining British naval forces (like the Dauntless and Montrose) with those from Argentina and other regional states (such as the U.S. Brazil, Uruguay and Peru). Considering that the Argentine government has declared that London is militarizing the South Atlantic, multinational exercises would ideally serve to demonstrate that the British navy is not a threat to Argentine national security.  Finally, such multinational military exercises would be good for the Peruvian navy, as it would have the opportunity to carry out highly desirable naval exercises with the more developed and better-equipped British navy.

Unfortunately, such an idea, while theoretically viable, is unlikely to happen. London has stated that it is willing to discuss any kind of initiative regarding the disputed islands, including regional naval exercises, aside from sovereignty. On the other hand, if Argentina participates in such exercises, it could be perceived as an indirect validation of the presence of the British navy in the area, which would amount to political suicide for any administration in the Casa Rosada.

As for Peru’s role, it would probably be best for Lima to maintain its neutrality regarding the dispute of the islands instead of trying to become an active participant in mediation attempts between Buenos Aires and London, as this could easily backfire. With that said, while it makes sense for the Peruvian government to maintain its historical pro-Argentina stance for the sake of regional unity, Lima should continue strengthening financial and defense relations with London, by promoting more investment and accepting a routine port of call by a warship from a friendly foreign government.

 Finally, while Peru can certainly carry out naval exercises with other states that possess modern navies (like the U.S. or other European countries) it is certainly in Lima’s (and its military’s) best interest not to restrict itself from gaining the valuable military expertise it could gain from the British navy, simply to maintain diplomatic unity towards Argentina and its protracted territorial dispute. The retired Peruvian army officer concluded by saying that "it is in Peru’s national interest to maintain solidarity with friendly nations, but this policy should not mean missing the possibility to strengthen defense relations with other friendly nations." [37] In other words, Lima’s support for Buenos Aires on the Malvinas/Falklands and stronger defense relations with the British navy should not be seen as mutually exclusive objectives.