Free Fujimori !!!

Share and discuss news about Peru.

Moderators: ExpatPeruMods, Alan

User avatar
tupacperu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Lima-Pimentel Beach-PhoenixAZ
Contact:

Free Fujimori !!!

Postby tupacperu » Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:21 am

After following the trial, there was an implication of guilt but the proof was weak. Personally think Fujimori should be free with time served.
Alan Garcia has to be shaking in his shoes.

Good to see some foreigner have the same opinion. Most tend to follow the popular trend.

http://www.studlife.com/forum/free-fujimori-1.1652436

Free Fujimori
International Affairs with Caleb Posner
Caleb Posner

Staff Columnist

Print this article
Share this article Published: Friday, April 10, 2009

Updated: Friday, April 10, 2009

This past Tuesday, Alberto Fujimori, the 70-year-old former President of Peru, was convicted of murder by a panel of three judges just outside of Lima and sentenced to a 25-year prison sentence. He was convicted not because he pulled a trigger but because during his decade in power, it is alleged that he ordered a branch of Army Intelligence to perform strategic executions. The degree to which he deserved conviction remains questionable, but aside from that, it is imperative that we consider the situation in Peru when Fujimori came to power, as compared to the shape he left it in.

Peru first returned to democratic elections in 1980, after a dozen years of military dictatorship. At this time, the student-driven, communist Maoist Shining Path group was offered the opportunity to participate and present their platform to the voting public. Instead, they began a ruthless campaign of guerilla warfare, which by 1992 had resulted in more than 20,000 deaths. In 1989 alone, the Shining Path murdered 100 politicians as part of a campaign to prevent voting throughout Peru, because they believed that voting enforced a capitalist system that they found despicable.

But the problems that President Fujimori inherited did not end with the security threat posed by the communist insurgency. In his term as president, predecessor Alan García drove businesses out of Peru through a series of anti-market actions, including his efforts toward the nationalization of private banks in 1987. By the time he left office, there had been 2.2 million percent national inflation, a decline in wages to a three-decade low, and a 20 percent loss of GDP. In addition to draining the national reserves, Garcia left Peru owing more than $14 billion to foreign nations.

Undoubtedly, then, Fujimori was burdened with the task of addressing two epic problems that, on their own, would have overwhelmed lesser men. Yet he rose to the dual challenge with remarkable ease. He suppressed the Shining Path terrorist organization and restored governmental authority to all of Peru. It is only in the years since he left office and power was turned over to less competent politicians that the splinter factions of the Shining Path organization have begun to function once again. Still, their resurgence has been greatly limited in scale thanks to the measures taken by Fujimori.

Moreover, the way Fujimori salvaged Peru’s economy is praiseworthy at the least. He cut price controls and government subsidies, opened the country up to investments and simplified taxation and tariff laws. His willingness to make drastic marketing reforms secured IMF loan guarantees, which he put to good use. In 1994—just four years after he took office—Peru was posting a 13 percent growth rate, the highest in the world. Total GDP growth during Fujimori’s time in office was an impressive 44.6 percent, and his administration built up a $10 billion foreign currency reserve.

In essence, Fujimori saved Peru from itself. He turned around one of the world’s most volatile economies and reintegrated it in the international order, thereby building a foundation for gradual improvement in the quality of life for his citizens. He also brought an end to the bloody violence and instability that threatened the social order and basic human rights of his people.

It is possible that, during his attempts to suppress the insurgency and revive the economy, Fujimori inadvertently violated the law. But in light of the questionable nature of the accusations brought against him, and the positive legacy of his rule, his imprisonment is inappropriate. Rather, pending proper alteration to the term limit laws, Fujimori should be free to run for office once more, as he has expressed an interest in doing so. This is especially reasonable, given the fact that his incompetent predecessor who caused so much more damage is once again serving as president.
User avatar
americorps
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3841
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:16 pm
Location: Lima

Postby americorps » Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:02 pm

he also says nazism is the typical liberal ideology and has several rebukes for racism and religious bigotry by various editorialists and respected journalists.

It goes to show, just because it is written on the internet does NOT mean it is a credible source.
User avatar
rgamarra
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2392
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:24 am

Postby rgamarra » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:05 pm

Garcia is not shaking in his boots, instead he's walking around with his chest held high b/c he waited out the statute of limitations.

According to a BBC journalist, Fujimori's conviction was proof that "Peru can run a free & fair trial."

I think it's rather hypocritical of Latin America to praise the likes of Fidel Castro and condemn Fujimori.

Garcia is also tied to innocents being killed, but just like his first disastrous term, Peru and the world have seemed to forgotten that too.
timothy
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:06 pm
Location: Isaan

Postby timothy » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:45 pm

Americorps wrote:he also says nazism is the typical liberal ideology and has several rebukes for racism and religious bigotry by various editorialists and respected journalists.

It goes to show, just because it is written on the internet does NOT mean it is a credible source.




Americorps,

Your logic and what you say is basically true and sound.

However, your Frame of Reference might be flawed simply because you (and all of us Expats) are not native Peruvians.

Judging Peruvian acts and behaviors by our standards is inherantly flawed.
timothy
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:06 pm
Location: Isaan

Postby timothy » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:52 pm

Sorry !!!


Back to the subject,

Free Fujimori! (a Peruviophile/American's view from afar)
User avatar
americorps
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3841
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:16 pm
Location: Lima

Postby americorps » Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:55 pm

Timothy,

2 things, I reject the fact that expat opinions are not valid.

That being said, I was referring to the author of tupacs article, not Fujimori.
timothy
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:06 pm
Location: Isaan

Postby timothy » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:22 pm

Mr. K

I would never imply that your, or any ExPat's opinions are invalid.

To do so would be to 'invalidate' myself. I am not ready to delete myself, not yet, anyhow.


My implication is that

unless we were born Peruvian, and lived thru the Fujimori/Shining Path days as Peruvians

we can only sit on the fence post and speculate ... why?

Shouldn't we be observers rather than participants?

Peruvians have, and will continue evolve, in their own way. Rightfully so.
User avatar
americorps
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3841
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:16 pm
Location: Lima

Postby americorps » Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:49 pm

I actually appreciate Peru a lot, but i do not consider blowing innocent people away something only frowned upon in Western values.

Also, having lived through Chiapas, and 9-11 in DC, I can also appreciate the knee-jerk reaction to fear. It can blind judgement.

But I believe as a Christan and as a Human value that if you become a terrorist, even to fight terrorism, then you have failed humanity and you have lost.

I reject that is a western only value and I will never be reticent to offer that opinion. I doubt I will change many minds, but the core value is so strong within me that I will not look the other way.
Jimmy111
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:53 am
Location: Callao

Postby Jimmy111 » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:45 am

You really need to remember the times.
In 1980 Belaunde was elected. Prior to him Peru's government was coup after coup after coup back till the revolution.
The Shining path was not the only terrorist group in Peru at that time. There were many including Tupac Amaru. Many of the soliders in the leftist groups were soliders from the previous dictatorship.
When Fujimori was elected things were really bad and the terrorists were winning.
He suspended the constitution and the congress and fought the war with the terrorists. After the war a new constitution was drafted and a new Peru emerged. Peru is much better now for what Fujimori did. It is fairly stable and doing well economicly.
Fujimori served for 3 terms (15 years) before he resigned because of corruption charges. He was never in this time acused with human rights violations of any sort. It wasent untill the congress voted to fire him that he was accused of human right violations. This was in an effort to have him extradited from Japan.

Im all for him being charged with corruption and embelezelment but the human rights case really stinks. In reality the current government does not even have the authority to charge him with anything that occured prior to the new constitution. Personally I think it is all an effort to keep him quiet because many of the people involved in the coruption charges are very powerful people in Peru now.
User avatar
mammalu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2251
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:46 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Postby mammalu » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:47 am

timothy wrote:Mr. K

My implication is that

unless we were born Peruvian, and lived thru the Fujimori/Shining Path days as Peruvians

we can only sit on the fence post and speculate ... why?

Shouldn't we be observers rather than participants?

Peruvians have, and will continue evolve, in their own way. Rightfully so.


...and WE VOTE! (at least some of us posters can vote). Let's see if our voices are heard that way. That will be interesting. :!:
Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong." ! Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
sbaustin
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Peru
Contact:

Postby sbaustin » Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:22 pm

I may not agree with Americorp's opinions, but I'm not sure why he is receiving so much grief just for expressing them. That's all he is doing and his posting was about the author and source and not Fujimori's situation.

Anyways, from my discussions with Peruvians and my own research, I think that Fujimori is unjustly being punished but at least he is being prosecuted in the terms of the Peruvian law and not by a dictator that wants to decide the outcome. We have to at least be thankful as Expats living here (those that are) that Peru is following the steps of a democracy and hopefully all future Presidents will remember that their decisions have consequences.
Jimmy111
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:53 am
Location: Callao

Postby Jimmy111 » Sat Apr 11, 2009 5:39 pm

The problem is if a President has to fear procecution he wont make the hard decisions that he is there to make. Presidents dont make laws. That is the congresses job. The president is there to act. Because as we all know. the congress wont.

About the Peruvian justice system. They do try to make it right but the reality is that it does not work at all. It does not work much differently than a dictotarship does. The one with the power is the one that wins.
User avatar
sbaustin
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Peru
Contact:

Postby sbaustin » Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:09 pm

Jimmy111 wrote:The problem is if a President has to fear procecution he wont make the hard decisions that he is there to make.


No president should have carte blanche power. I disagree entirely with the quoted statement. Every President should fear prosecution for doing something illegal, that is the point of the laws otherwise you have dictators like Castro and wannabe dictators like Chavez.
Jimmy111
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:53 am
Location: Callao

Postby Jimmy111 » Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:31 pm

Fujimori was acting within his official capacity of comander in chief to protect his Nation.

This is why when you elect a president "Character"and "History" are so important.

Also if he really did something wrong, why was he re-elected for another 2 5 year terms

Just for the record here is what the US supreme court says about presidential immunity and why a president requires immunity.

2. Petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts. Pp. 744-758.
(a) Although there is no blanket recognition of absolute immunity for all federal executive officials from liability for civil damages resulting from constitutional violations, certain officials -- such as judges and prosecutors -- because of the special nature of their responsibilities, require absolute exemption from liability. Cf. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478. Determination of the immunity of particular officials is guided by the Constitution, federal statutes, history, and public policy. Pp. 744-748.
(b) The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation-of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts. Pp. 748-754.
(c) The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the "outer perimeter" of his duties of office. Pp. 755-757.
(d) A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical statute. Pp. 757-758.
User avatar
sbaustin
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: Peru
Contact:

Postby sbaustin » Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:44 pm

Jimmy111 wrote:Fujimori was acting within his official capacity of comander in chief to protect his Nation.

This is why when you elect a president "Character"and "History" are so important.

Just for the record here is what the US supreme court says about presidential immunity and why a president requires immunity.

2. Petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts. Pp. 744-758.
(a) Although there is no blanket recognition of absolute immunity for all federal executive officials from liability for civil damages resulting from constitutional violations, certain officials -- such as judges and prosecutors -- because of the special nature of their responsibilities, require absolute exemption from liability. Cf. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478. Determination of the immunity of particular officials is guided by the Constitution, federal statutes, history, and public policy. Pp. 744-748.
(b) The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation-of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts. Pp. 748-754.
(c) The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the "outer perimeter" of his duties of office. Pp. 755-757.
(d) A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical statute. Pp. 757-758.


I agree with your statement about character and history being important however I entirely disagree with using a reference from the US supreme court with relation to Peru and the notion that a President should be outside the law. If the laws need to be amended they should be, but when you have a President outside the law what stops them from becoming a Dictator like what Chavez is trying to do or what Castro did?

I think that Fujimori was protecting Peru and don't think he should have been found guilty, however generally speaking, I don't agree with your general statements about allowing a President to do what he/she wants.
Last edited by sbaustin on Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
americorps
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 3841
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:16 pm
Location: Lima

Postby americorps » Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:45 pm

While the separation-of-powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.


This is Peru, not the US, but I believe this was pretty well covered with Fujimori's trial.
Jimmy111
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:53 am
Location: Callao

Postby Jimmy111 » Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:00 pm

Yes, it is the USA. But it makes sense as far as presidential immunity goes.

The Concept of Presidential Imunity is from the origins of Democracy and is a Concept that has been observed by all modern democracies. It is a basic part of the concept of seperation of powers. It is sad that Peru recinded it. It was a big mistake.

If Fujimori did nothing, Peru would not be Peru today.

By the way. The Peruvian constitution says:
Artcle 117
During his term of office, the President of the Republic may on1v be accused of. treason.
preventing presidential, congressional, regional, or municipal elections; dissolving
Congress not in accordance with Article 134 of the Constitution; and preventing its
convening or operation or that of the National Election Board or other entities involved in
the election process

It does not say anything about Human rights.

But Article 137 says that he can suspend Constitutional rights during an emergency.

Article 137
The President of the Republic, acting with the consent of the Cabinet, may, for a specific
period of time, in all or part of the territory, and while reporting to Congress or the-
Swding Committee, orcicr the type of state of emergency outlined in this article:
1. a state of emergency in the case of disturbances of the peace or the domestic order,
disasters, or serious circumstances affecting the life of the nation. Under such conditions,
constitutional rights relating to personal freedom and security, the inviolability of the
home, and the freedom to assemble and mo~e about within the territory, as provided in
paragraphs 9. 11, and 12-of Article 2 and paragraph 24 of the same article, may be
curtailed-or suspended.- Under no circumstances may the punishment of exile be
imposed.
The state of emergency may not exceed 60 days. Its extension requires a new order.
Under a state of emergency, the Armed Forces assume control of domestic law and order
when the President of the Republic so orders.
2. a state of siege in the case of invasion, foreign or civil war, or the imminent danger that
such an event might occur, accompanied by a specific list of the fundamental rights that
are not curtailed or suspended. Such a state of siege may not exceed 45 days. When a
state of siege is declar~d, Congress has the right to convene. Its extension requires
congressional approval.
Last edited by Jimmy111 on Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
timothy
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 11:06 pm
Location: Isaan

Postby timothy » Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:02 pm

sbaustin wrote:I may not agree with Americorp's opinions, but I'm not sure why he is receiving so much grief just for expressing them. That's all he is doing and his posting was about the author and source and not Fujimori's situation.



To respond: I enjoy Americorps posts, and his strong beliefs and opinions. He tends to get a bit more grief than the average person because of his foreceful opinions.

In Australia, they call it "The Tall Puppy Syndrome".

If one of the many puppies in the litter stands up a bit too tall, barks a bit too much, and garners too much attention, the other puppies will do their best to bring him/her down to their level.
Jimmy111
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:53 am
Location: Callao

Postby Jimmy111 » Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:15 pm

He gets grief because his posts lean to the Rude and Crude side sometimes.

Not because of his views.

His views are to the left and most people here are left leaning. So It suprises me sometimes when he is snapped at...

Personally even thou I dont agree with him 95% of the time I respect his outspokeness and drive to make a point. It is very important to speak your mind.
User avatar
Kelly
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3898
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:28 pm
Location: Lima, Peru
Contact:

Postby Kelly » Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:56 pm

rgamarra wrote:Garcia is not shaking in his boots, instead he's walking around with his chest held high b/c he waited out the statute of limitations.


Does Peru have a statute of limitations on murder?
User avatar
mammalu
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 2251
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:46 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Postby mammalu » Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:38 am

Kelly, I asked myself the same question. Maybe they do not call it 'murder' now, but who knows will happen when AG leaves the presidency.

Americorps's bark is way too big. I have met him and he is is one of the most sincere and kindest people I've met. But we disagree sometimes. :evil:
Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong." ! Abraham Lincoln
JoshS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:15 pm

Postby JoshS » Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:30 pm

After Fujimori’s sentence I followed these news with interest. It’s my understanding based on facts and research that Fujimori’s administration was one of the most corrupt in Latin America. So, some of his popularity among peruvians is really beyond any logical understanding.

Among other things, Fujimori applied "shock therapy" economic policies which prioritized debt payments to foreign banks in order to qualify for more loans. Peru's foreign debt, however, stood at almost $26 billion in 1996--$4 billion more than in 1990.

He moved to open up Peru's markets to deeper foreign free market penetration aligning it more with the ‘Washington Consensus’ and also cooperated with Washington's escalation of its military presence in the region, organized under the pretext of combating terrorism and the drug trade.

The government passed other measures favoring big business, including laws that making it easier for employers to lay off workers, and excluding young workers from the social security system and eligibility for the minimum wage. By 1997, 173 of 183 state-run enterprises had been privatized. All in detriment of most of the population and the local economy.

It’s course well known the regime dealt a deadly blow to Shining Path by going after its weak point--the central leadership. Once the sect's chief and cult figure, ex-philosophy professor Abimael Guzmán, was captured and paraded on television signing a humiliating "peace" agreement, the group shattered into pieces and, while still lingering on, has gone into decline.

Meanwhile, after a half decade of popularity, Fujimori's appeal began to wear thin as the living standards of working people and the middle classes continued to erode. Today, long after his regime, two-thirds of people of working age are unemployed or underemployed. Half the population lives under the official poverty line. Disease, illiteracy, and lack of decent housing afflict millions, with no change in sight.

Here’s a very interesting account of the rise and fall of Fujimori, the Vladivideos, Montesinos's partnership and net of corruption by Maxwell A. Cameron, Department of Political Science – University of British Columbia

http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/peru/ar ... n%20Ch.pdf

There's also another interesting reading, aspects of his regime most people don't talk about:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals ... 3burt.html

Scholarship on the decade-long rule of Alberto Fujimori emphasizes the surprising popularity and support for Fujimori's rule. This essay, which analyzes the politics of fear in Fujimori's Peru, suggests that this presents a partial view of the nature of Fujimori's authority.

Drawing on a Gramscian conceptualization of power, it explains how coercion achieved a consensual façade by manipulating fear and creating a semblance of order in a context of extreme individual and collective insecurity. It traces the roots of this insecurity in the economic crisis and political violence of the 1980s and 1990s, and explains how the Fujimori regime manipulated fear and insecurity to buttress its authoritarian rule.

This essay also complements existing studies on Peruvian civil society, which point to economic factors, such as the economic crisis of the 1980s and neoliberal reforms, to explain civil society weakness. This paper explores the political factors that contributed to this process, particularly the deployment of state power to penetrate, control and intimidate civil society.
jamesc27
Member
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:37 pm
Location: Santiago de Surco, Lima and SF Bay Area Ca
Contact:

Fujimori should have stayed in Japan

Postby jamesc27 » Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:40 pm

I think it is also important to remember how he left office and how he disregards the law in general in Peru.
He faxed in his resignation from Japan as Montesinos and SIN role in obstructing democracy, buying the election through bribing television, businessmen, judges and opposition candidates was unraveling.
He was granted asylum and treated like a hero in Japan which refused to extradite him and paid him handsomely despite Interpol warrants out for his arrest on corruption charges. He was living off the largesse of japan. He thumbed his nose at Peru, Peruvians and Peruvian law.
He had it made, then he listened unwisely to some of his sycophants telling him he had lots of support to win the election of 2006.
Fujimori, egotistically and stupidly believed them and ignored international law.
Fujimori thought he could waltz in through Mexico and Chile, ignore interpol, Peruvian law and take Peru over again.
He bribed his way through mexico, but was caught in Chile, surprised and naive. Fujimori was arrogant, greedy, power hungry and in the end stupid. Even now he mocks peruvian law and the judicial system. If he was so great for Peru, why does he mock and run away from his own country? because he is guilty. He should have stayed in japan, Fujimori deserves whatever he gets for being stupid enough to come back.
Fujimori/Montesinos corruption link:
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/3823/Montesinos_0421.pdf
User avatar
tomsax
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:28 pm

Postby tomsax » Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:02 am

It is true that innocent civilians will always get caught in the crossfire of war. But what Peru had with Fujimori/Montesinos and also with Alan Garcia in the 1980s was something much more sinister. In particular Quechua speaking indigenous communities were targeted by both the terrorist and government forces. They had little to do with Sendero or MRTA which were organisations set up by political university activists in cities. Urban communities were not targeted in the same way just because they had more political clout and because urban prejudices against highland communities tends to make them a scapegoat. I find it ironic that Fujimori was convicted for Cantuta which was one of the few incidences of targeting groups in Lima. The many other incidents in rural areas have long ago being swept under the carpet.

I also agree the Fujimori’s government was incredibly corrupt. It used bribery and threats of violence to maintain power and corrupted and intimidated the media. As time went on it became more and more authoritarian and contemptuous of democracy, not to defeat terrorism but just to keep its hold on power.

I can understand people being grateful to Fujimori for his part, and I am sure that it was a significant part, in defeating Sendero and the MRTA and for improved economic policies. I think Fujimori was very shrewd in winning not just a military but a political battle in the highlands. There was a lot of spending of money gained from the privatisation on improved services and infrastructure in rural areas. I think he realised that his support could come from these sectors so he spent money on them in the same way that Chavez has done in Venezuela. Like with Chavez I think that was fair enough.

But another large chunk of the money gained from privatisation was squandered through corruption.

And like my wife says, who lived through it all, just because he did some good things shouldn’t make you blind to all the bad things.

It’s crazy for Keiko and her supporters to claim that Montesinos was to blame for all the terrible things while Fujimori should gain credit for all the good. People from all over the world were telling him what Montesinos was up to. When I mentioned the charges to friends in Lima in the 1990s I was given the familiar line that this was just anti-Fujimori propaganda. Well it all turned out to be right, didn’t it? If he didn’t know what was going on he was stupid, but we know he wasn’t stupid. He could have done something about it, but he didn’t, which made him complicit.
Tom

Return to “Peru News and Views”

Login  •  Register