Hugo Chávez vs. Alan Garc'ia

Carlos Alberto Montaner

It was a real genocide. Twenty-four Peruvian policemen had their throats slit by indigenous natives in a remote corner of Amazonia. Nine Indians also died in the battle, but the casualty list may be longer. The direct cause of the conflict is the indigenous communities' discontent with the exploitation of farms and the exploration for gas and oil -- sanctioned by a Congressional act -- in land that they claim as part of their natural habitat. The indirect cause may be the long hands of Hugo Chávez and his spear carrier, Evo Morales.

For the past many years, the harebrained idea has circulated in the Andean region of establishing an ethnic nation with various peoples of pre-Columbian origin who have not been totally assimilated by the Western culture. Among these are certain Aymará, Quechua and other minority groups from the jungle regions.

The episode is most dangerous for Peruvian stability. The matter transcends a simple local revolt. The potential for demolition wielded by Chávez's collectivist left, added to indigenism and ecologism, can be lethal. Similar events led to President Gonzalo Sánchez de Losada’s ouster, persecution and exile in 2003, and opened the door for Evo Morales and his antidemocratic, antirepublican project.

All it took was for the political class, including Vice President Carlos Mesa, who inherited power temporarily, to side with the mutineers and renounce institutionalism (with a mixture of opportunism and suicidal bent) to eventually plunge Bolivia into the expanding chaos of that fuzzy authoritarian and impoverishing amalgam called "21st-Century socialism."

Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales hate Alan García intensely and don't have to look for excuses to try to destabilize Peru. The Bolivarian project has its own ideological alibi. It is a political current that believes in and practices "revolutionary internationalism" wherever and whenever it pleases, but shrieks and protests against "imperialist meddling" when a "foreigner" dares to criticize it, as happened recently in Caracas when some intellectuals -- like Peruvians Mario and Alvaro Vargas Llosa and Enrique Guersi, the Colombian Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza and the Mexicans Jorge Castañeda and Enrique Krauze, among three dozen valuable brains -- dared to opine about Venezuela's desolate reality.

For now, Peru's democratic political spectrum remains firmly on the side of institutionalism, with the exception of Ollanta Humala (Chávez's man in Lima) and a few groups of ultracommunists, but one should never underestimate the uncontrollable temptation of power seekers to engage in Cain-like behavior.

Although many Venezuelans today do not remember this, the event that undermined the political parties and opened the road for Hugo Chávez was the unjust removal of Carlos Andrés Pérez in 1993 over an alleged misappropriation of funds. In reality, CAP's ouster was fueled by sectarian hatred and rivalry. Like the Pharaohs, CAP (without meaning to) took Adecos and COPEIans to his grave. Almost six years later, Chávez entered Miraflores Palace on an anti-party platform.

I agree with President Alan García that 80 percent of Peruvians agree to the exploitation of the natural resources the country has, wherever they can be found, not only for the benefit of investors, multinational corporations or native entrepreneurs, but also (and especially) to lift out of poverty that 40 percent of pathetic human beings who survive on less than 2 dollars a day, frequently go to sleep hungry and lack resources to buy medicine.

The environment needs to be protected, yes, but that's not what really compels this coalition of comrades. History demonstrates that many ecologists -- speaking a pseudo-scientific jargon that is hardly serious but very effective -- hand in hand with the enemies of progress (such as the indigenists), are always ready to impede the creation of wealth and sources of employment, no matter how harmful that attitude may be to the neediest people.

If the Peruvians allow themselves to be dragged down by the contrarians, and if the political class succumbs to the intimidation of the troublemakers and, in so doing, destroys the government, everyone will pay an exceedingly high price. In the past 10 years, Peru has been one of the most successful countries in Latin America and has managed to reduce poverty by 15 percent. All that could be for naught. Another cycle of hopelessness and chaos may begin. It has happened in the past.

June x, 2009

Print this page