CIAR: Entre confidencialidad y transparencia: arbitraje y transferencias de armas

"Entre confidencialidad y transparencia: arbitraje y transferencias de armas"
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez y Lucia Scripcari
CIAR Global
11 de Febrero del 2020
Publicado:  https://ciarglobal.com/entre-confidencialidad-y-transparencia-arbitraje-y-transferencias-de-armas/

Wilder Alejandro Sánchez y Lucia Scripcari* ponen en contexto la industria armamentística y sus nexos con el arbitraje internacional poniendo el foco en un tema tan candente como es la consecución de transparencia en sectores que buscan especialmente confidencialidad. Publicado originalmente en inglés en International Policy Digest (“Between Confidentiality and Transparency: Arbitration and Arms Transfers“).

La venta de equipos militares es una industria global conocida por su alto grado de secreto. Después de todo, las fuerzas armadas no quieren que adversarios potenciales sepan qué tipo de equipo están comprando, los aspectos técnicos de dichos sistemas, cuántos sistemas/plataformas se están adquiriendo y otros detalles sobre equipos militares que podrían poner en peligro la seguridad nacional. Del mismo modo, el arbitraje puede ser confidencial, eso es lo que hace que el procedimiento arbitral sea más atractivo para los clientes que acudir a los tribunales de justicia, que harían públicas sus decisiones.

En 2018, una filtración de WikiLeaks de miles de documentos confidenciales, incluidos muchos de la Cámara de Comercio Internacional (ICC), proporcionó una idea de la cantidad de dinero involucrada en acuerdos de defensa, así como otra información confidencial conocida solo por las partes involucradas y los árbitros del caso.

Seguir Leyendo...

VOXXI: Wikileaks publishes new documents about Peru and Bolivia

Wikileaks publishes new documents about Peru and Bolivia
W. Alejandro Sanchez

VOXXI
February 25, 2013
Originally published:  http://www.voxxi.com/wikileaks-new-documents-peru-bolivia/

Wikileaks, an international organization known for publishing confidential information such as classified government documents, recently put online thousands of new documents. These include a plethora of e-mails from STRATFOR, a global intelligence consultancy, regarding Latin American governments and issues. We will discuss some of the most interesting STRATFOR statements relating to Peru and Bolivia that have been discovered so far.

Articles released by Wikileaks about Peru

Peruvian President Ollanta Humala was heavily critiqued on a number of communiqués. One correspondence accuses him of being unable to make decisions by himself and of being influenced by his wife, Nadine Heredia, a supposed Marxist. These accusations are not new considering Humala has been consistently criticized by Peruvian opposition figures who consider him a radical leftist and believe his political decisions are too influenced by the First Lady. During the 2011 presidential campaign, he was often accused of being a Peruvian-version of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who publicly supported Humala as a candidate

Prior to his election, Humala was known to show sympathy for leftist ideologies. However, he has considerably softened his ideas. In May 2011 he admitted that he had been too “radical” during the 2006 elections and that “if politicians don’t change, then they don’t help.” In fact, he has maintained pro-free trade and pro-investment postures since coming to power, which has allowed Peru to maintain promising economic growth. For example, in November 2012 the Peruvian president traveled to France, Spain and Portugal to seek financial investment from these European nations. Moreover, under Humala, Peru became a member of the Alliance of the Pacific, a group of nations (which include Mexico, Colombia and Chile), that embrace liberal economic- initiatives.

In addition, the Peruvian head of state has maintained good relations with the United States. For instance, President-elect Humala traveled to Washington in July 2011 to meet with President Barack Obama. Moreover, the Peruvian media has speculated that the U.S. may assist Peru in building a new military base in the VRAE , an Andean region where narco guerrillas operate.

More problem for Humala is that the STRATFOR emails also discuss how Alexis Humala, one of the President’s brothers, posed as a special presidential envoy when he travelled to Russia in 2011 (this incident was reported by the Peruvian media). The Russian government made an offer to the President’s brother, allowing Moscow to supply Peru with military equipment in exchange for natural resources. This has brought a new scandal to Lima, given that Alexis is not a government negotiator.

Sadly, President Humala’s image has been undermined by the controversial, and sometimes violent, deeds of his family members. Another brother, Antauro, is currently in prison for orchestrating a failed military coup in Andahuaylas in January 2005. Several police officers were killed in a standoff between Antauro and his followers against government forces.

To what extent the President was aware of his brother’s Alexis’ actions in Moscow still remains unclear. In any case, the level to which Humala’s family is involved in the country’s political affairs is more worrisome than the age-old accusations of the President being a Marxist.

Articles released by Wikileaks about Bolivia

Bolivia’s President Evo Morales, left, and his Prime Minister David Choquehuanca. (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos)

Regarding Bolivia,  a STRATFOR analyst, in 2010 e-mail, described President Evo Morales as a “fourth grade educated, narco-trafficking, murderous thug […] He is NOT the messiah and genius that everyone touts him to be.” This email came in response to the baffling declarations made by Morales during a conference where he said that consuming hormone-injected chicken causes baldness and homosexuality.

Regardless of the absurdity of the Bolivian president’s statement, the STRATFOR email is a particularly vicious characterization of the Bolivian head of state. Nevertheless, the analyst’s opinion can be used to summarize the tense relations between Morales and Washington ever since he came to power. The accusation that Morales is involved in narco-trafficking stems from events, such as when he kicked out not only the U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia, Philip Goldberg, but also the DEA, in 2008.  In another polemic move, Bolivia withdrew from the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in 2011. (Bolivia returned to the convention in early 2013, but with “a new reservation allowing for the traditional uses of the coca leaf”).

Meanwhile, in an August 16, 2011 email, a STRATFOR analyst questioned whether some Peruvian citizens detained in Bolivia were members of the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) as the Bolivian government claimed. Sendero is a Peruvian terrorist movement that originated in the early 1980s and has become heavily involved in drug trafficking in order to finance its operations.  The aforementioned email was likely referring to the arrest of four Peruvians in early August 2011, who were accused of attempting to recruit Bolivians to join Shining Path.

In reality, the Peruvian insurgent group is particularly weak, especially after the capture of its last leader, known as Artemio, in February 2012. Hence, it is debatable how much of a presence Peruvian insurgents have in Bolivia; at most, Shining Path could aim to have a small cell operating there to increase ties with local drug trafficking cartels. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Bolivia is one of the major producers of cocaine in the world, and its corrupt local officials, weak security forces and unmonitored borders have allowed for international criminal entities to have a growing presence in the country. Even if Shining Path is not particularly active in Bolivia, an obvious concern is that other criminal networks, originating from Mexico, Colombia or Brazil, may successfully carry out operations in that country.

Conclusions

Wikileaks has made thousands of new confidential documents available that address Latin American affairs. For example, some documents show STRATFOR’s suspicions that Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the leader of the dreaded Sinaloa Cartel, may be hiding in Guatemala. Nevertheless, other emails reveal facts that regional analysts and experts already knew. If anything, some emails show that assumptions and stereotypes are still alive, such as claiming that Peru’s President Humala may be a Marxist in spite of his numerous pro-capitalist initiatives. Regarding  Bolivia’s Morales, his ludicrous statements (such as linking chickens with homosexuality) and his still tense relations with the U.S. as well as his posture on the growth of coca mean that critiques regarding his policies to fight drug trafficking will continue.

Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/wikileaks-new-documents-peru-bolivia/#ixzz2LxWQn1VQ

IPD: UK-Latin American Relations after the Assange Scandal

W. Alex Sanchez
Research Fellow, Council on Hemispheric Affairs
International Policy Digest
August 19, 2012
Originally published in:  http://bit.ly/Ne74Ah

On August 2nd, I wrote a brief commentary for International Policy Digest with my thoughts about Ecuador’s foreign policy which I argued that, while Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa is not necessarily as ambitious as his Venezuelan friend and counterpart, Hugo Chavez (nor does he have the same amount of resources) Quito has carried out several interesting foreign policy initiatives in the past few years.

Among the issues that I mentioned was that Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was in Ecuador’s embassy in London. I also stated that I had mixed feelings about what should be Assange’s ultimate fate, meaning whether he should be extradited from the UK to Sweden over sexual assault allegations (and possibly to the U.S.) or receive asylum.

In the past 72 hours Ecuador has granted Assange asylum thus creating a diplomatic storm between London and Quito.

The whole situation has become a circus, with journalists and police camped outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London. There are a plethora of issues that are currently being discussed, including whether the British government can forcefully enter the embassy and physically remove Assange. The BBC recently reported that “UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said there was ‘no legal basis’ to allow Mr. Assange safe passage out of the country and warned that the case could go on for a ‘considerable’ time. In a statement issued after the Ecuadorean decision, Mr. Hague said that Britain was under a ‘binding obligation’ to extradite him to Sweden.”

Putting the Scandal in the Greater Sphere

Whatever happens to Assange will also affect relations between the UK and Ecuador.  While this, at first glance, may not sound like a big issue, it will be as it will also affect the relations between the United Kingdom and the rest of Latin America.

Over the past several years, the UK has been trying to revamp its foreign policy towards different regions, such as Latin America and the Caribbean. For the sake of brevity, I will direct readers to my organization’s November 2011 publication on UK-Latin America relations.

Nevertheless, London’s attempts to improve relations with Latin America have faced major challenges over the years, namely, Argentina’s dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas islands.

This dispute became even tenser this year as 2012 marked the 30th anniversary of the 1983 war between the two countries. There have been plenty of nationalistic declarations from both Buenos Aires and London, both from the governments and the population in general (particularly on the Argentine side). This situation did not help improve London’s relations with other South American governments as Buenos Aires was adamant to rally regional unity around its claim for the islands. For example, at one point Peru was pressured into not allowing a British warship, the HMS Montrose, to dock in the port of Callao, as Buenos Aires regarded this as a way of dissent. It is worth noting that, apart from the Montrose incident, Lima and London enjoy strong diplomatic and trade relations.

Trying to Figure Out the Future

As with any developing story, particularly when it involves inter-state relations, it is too early to make accurate predictions of what will be the future of UK-Ecuador and UK-Latin America relations as a whole, after the Assange scandal. Much will depend on whether the Australian citizen actually is able to travel to Ecuador and for how long he chooses to remain there.

As a recent commentary in MercoPress called it, the Assange-Ecuador issue could become, if it continues, a new “Falklands” type of situation, which hampers London’s initiatives in the region.

Certainly trade will continue to be a major factor, and it’s doubtful that regional states, in Latin American or the Caribbean, that have heavy commercial relations with the UK, will put them in jeopardy to demonstrate solidarity with Ecuador. Then again, tense diplomatic relations are generally unwanted by everyone, that’s just what we may get.

Several major Latin American organizations such as ALBA, UNASUR and theOrganization of American States are in the process of organizing emergency summits to discuss the Quito-London diplomatic crisis. In the meantime, the member states of the Quito-friend and Hugo Chavez-led ALBA, have already pronounced themselves rejecting “the threats” by the UK government and have expressed their “unfailing solidarity” with Quito’s position.

The way the Assange issue plays out will have important repercussions for the future of the UK’s relations with Latin America. Should Assange be able to actually travel to Ecuador and stay there for any period of time, will there be any kind of backlash from London or Washington?

Will Ecuador become more diplomatically isolated? The coming days will hopefully clear the air, particularly regarding what diplomatic positions other Latin American governments take.

In any case, it seems clear that London’s attempts to have deeper relations with Latin America as a whole, now that the Falkland’s issue seems to be calming down, have just gotten that much more difficult.

IPD: Figuring out Ecuador’s Foreign Policy: From Lukashenko to Assange

W. Alex Sanchez
Research Fellow, Council on Hemispheric Affairs
International Policy Digest
August 2, 2012
Originally published in: http://t.co/DzGoLrHI

A July 31st guest post in Latin America’s Moment, a blog of the Council on Foreign Relations handled by Shannon O’Neil (a Senior Fellow for Latin American Studies at CFR), discusses the differences between Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa and his eccentric Venezuelan counterpart, Hugo Chavez.

To summarize, the blog post compares and differentiates the two leaders, arguing that the “left-leaning presidents share a common rhetoric (frequently labeling opponents as oligarchs or imperialists), charismatic personalities, a disdain for (and often exaggeration of) U.S. influence in the region, and a taste for forging relationships with some of the world’s most notorious pariah states (Iran and Belarus).”

Nevertheless, Stephanie Leutert, the guest blogger on Latin America’s Moment argues that Correa cannot hope to become a new Chavez (should the Venezuelan leader loose the presidency due to the upcoming election or for health reasons).

“With double the population, triple the landmass, and five times more annual oil production, Venezuela has been able to back up its initiatives with significant funds. While Correa’s rhetoric is as feisty, his bank account is much less, limiting his ability to guide South America’s affairs,” Leutert writes.

Both sides of the coin are very true. However, the analysis does fall short of highlighting how, while small, Ecuador has carried out some provocative foreign policy initiatives during the Correa government and it has become fairly well noticed in the international arena.

One of Correa’s most famous, anti-Washington moments came when Ecuador chose not to renew an agreement with the U.S. over the renting of the military installations in Manta. The last American troops left that country in 2009 after a 10 year period in which the base was used for anti-drug U.S. military operations. Subsequently Washington opened a number of bases in neighboring Colombia.

More recently, Ecuador has had some other interesting foreign policy initiatives. For example, in late June/early July, Alexander Lukashenko, the president of Belarus and known as the “last dictator of Europe,” visited Ecuador. A number of security agreements were signed during the meetings between Correa and the controversial European head of state.

In addition, in mid-July, a Chinese ship used to train young naval cadets, arrived at Guayaquil. Of course, growing relations between militaries, particularly between China and Latin American states, is nothing new, but this is always an interesting development worthy of being mentioned as it shows how Beijing is finding new potential allies on the other side of the Pacific.

But even more newsworthy is the fact that the Australian Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is currently in the Ecuadorean embassy in London despite requests for extradition by the Swedish government. According to Reuters, Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino has promised to wait until the end of the London Olympic Games on August 12 to announce a decision.

As a security researcher, I have learned a lot from the thousands of documents WikiLeaks has made public and have used them extensively for my professional work. Hence, I have mixed feelings regarding what should be Assange’s fate. I do, however, find it intriguing that it was Ecuador, out of all countries, who offered Assange asylum.

In any case, returning to CFR’s argument that Correa is no Chavez, this is most likely true. But thanks to a number of initiatives, Correa has made sure that Ecuador has become noticed in the international arena, to the point that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently commented that, regarding the relationship of economic development and culture, “and that exists also between other countries that are near or next to each other. Chile and Ecuador; Mexico and the United States,” Romney said at a fundraiser in Jerusalem’s King David Hotel. Romney added that culture “makes all the difference.” Seems even Republican politicians are talking about Ecuador these days.

For the record, between Ecuador and Chile there is a country called Peru that has experienced major economic growth over the past few years. However, unlike Correa, Peru’s last president, Alan Garcia, or especially the incumbent, Ollanta Humala, have not tried to behave or be compared to Chavez. If anything, Humala has distanced himself from the Venezuelan leader as much as possible.

Entrevista: Wikileaks acorrala a EE.UU.

Miguel Vivanco
Corresponsal
El Comercio (Perú)
Domingo 5, 2010




Washington. El escándalo desatado por Wikileaks, tras la publicación en su portal de Internet de un lote de 250.000 documentos reservados, emitidos por el Departamento de Estado y el Pentágono, sigue causando desconcierto en el mundo. Todos quieren conocer detalles de la red de ‘hackers’ (piratas) que filtraron la información, quiénes financiaron las operaciones de espionaje y las consecuencias diplomáticas en el futuro próximo. En América Latina, varios gobiernos anhelan saber cuánta verdad o mentira encierran las 20.000 páginas redactadas desde las embajadas estadounidenses que operan en la región, las cuales serán divulgadas pronto. En los últimos días, se conocieron contenidos de cables reservados referentes a las pasadas elecciones presidenciales en el Perú, la destitución illegal del presidente Manuel Zelaya en Honduras y el buen nivel de cooperación existente entre Estados Unidos y Brasil. Pero también se revelaron comentarios nada diplomáticos, como la estabilidad mental de la presidenta argentina Cristina Fernández, la existencia de un tumor nasal del mandatario boliviano Evo Morales, la informalidad extrema del presidente venezolano Hugo Chávez y el acercamiento del presidente ecuatoriano Rafael Correa a Irán. La efectividad de los servicios de inteligencia estadounidenses hoy es cuestionada no solo por la Casa Blanca y el Capitolio, sino por el ciudadano común.

Extrañas finanzas

Luego del escándalo, iniciado en mayo del 2010 cuando el ‘hacker’ colombiano estadounidense Adrián Lamo delató al soldado Bradley Manning de ser una de las fuentes que filtró a Wikileaks miles de documentos secretos sobre la guerra en Afganistán y en Iraq, recién en Washington empezaron a rastrear en serio las fuentes de financiamiento de dicho portal.

A partir de ese momento, todos escudriñaron el pasado del australiano Julian Assange y las razones que lo motivaron para poner en aprietos al Gobierno de Estados Unidos. Ahora se sabe que la fundación alemana Wau-Holland Stiftung, creada en memoria de uno de los fundadores de la más conocida organización de ‘hackers’ germanos, el Chaos Computer Club, gestiona la mayoría de los donativos que financian el funcionamiento de Wikileaks. Winfried Motzkus, presidente de esa organización, admitió esta semana que su fundación ha subvencionado, hasta ahora, con 750.000 euros el mantenimiento de los servidores y transmisión de datos de Wikileaks, así como los salarios y dietas de los diez empleados de la web especializada en revelar informaciones secretas y confidenciales.

Pero el FBI investiga si el financiamiento podría provenir únicamente de fuentes privadas o existen conexiones secretas con algunos gobiernos enemigos o grupos radicales. Ahora existe un equipo especial que investiga a fondo las condiciones secretas o económicas que habrían aceptado los diarios “The Guardian” (Inglaterra), “The New York Times” (Estados Unidos), “Le Monde” (Francia), “El País” (España) y el semanario “Der Spiegel” (Alemania) para publicar los documentos. Lo sorprendente es que ya se recaudaron US$90.000 para financiar la defensa de Manning, sobre quien pesa una eventual condena de 52 años de prisión.

Puntos de vista

El peruano Alejandro Sánchez Cornejo, analista en temas de seguridad nacional del Consejo para Asuntos Hemisféricos (COHA) de Washington, calificó como bochornoso el escándalo generado por Wikileaks, el cual puede generar falta de confianza y distanciamiento diplomático entre Estados Unidos y los países de América Latina. “Desde ahora, presidentes, funcionarios y diplomáticos pensarán dos veces antes de compartir sus puntos de vista con los representantes estadounidenses. La desconfianza, el desconcierto y el temor van a generar ciertas reservas en el flujo de información que proviene de América Latina”, comentó nuestro compatriota. Sánchez agregó que el caso Wikileaks no afectará la estabilidad democrática de EE. UU., pero hay que tener cuidado con las consecuencias que podría tener en América Latina, debido a la divulgación de documentos secretos. “Es bueno recordar que se necesitó de un video para terminar con el gobierno de Alberto Fujimori en el Perú. Ese video provocó la caída del poderoso asesor Vladimiro Montesinos y cientos de funcionarios corruptos. La pregunta es qué podría suceder con la democracia en América Latina si se revelan temas secretos”, enfatizó el analista. También descartó que la filtración de documentos fuese instigada por la extrema derecha o el Partido Republicano contra el presidente Barack Obama. “La mayoría de cables habla de la guerra en Iraq cuando Bush era presidente”, agregó.

Para Peter Hakim, ex presidente de la fundación Diálogo Interamericano, las revelaciones de Wikileaks han causado una inesperada complicación en la estrategia diplomática que pretende desarrollar el gobierno del presidente Barack Obama en América Latina. “Lo que se ha dicho sobre Latinoamérica no es sorprendente ni particularmente vergonzoso. Las revelaciones de Wikileaks han creado cierta incomodidad en las relaciones entre la region y Washington. La preocupación radica en qué tipo de contenidos podrían ser revelados en futuros documentos”, comentó el analista político. Hakim precisó que ni los ciudadanos de Latinoamérica ni los de cualquier otra región del mundo podrán evitar la agonía de saber exactamente qué es lo que Washington piensa de sus países o sus dirigentes. “Hoy se ha liberado una fracción minúscula de los 250.000 documentos –cerca de 20.000 de ellos provienen de embajadas de EE.UU. en América Latina– prometidos por Wikileaks, pero losmateriales que se han publicado dan una idea de lo que queda porvenir”. Π