Warning #1 - 90 Day Update
Peruvian Unrest and Congressional Inaction
Back in January, I published my first Warning about the situation in Peru. Since then things have slowly devolved into a steady state of protests, ongoing prosecution of ex-President Castillo, condemnation of current President Boularte, and failed attempts by the Peruvian Congress to come to an agreement on early elections. The status quo was much stronger than I would have ever thought.
None of the protester’s demands (Castillo’s reinstatement, Boularte’s resignation, new elections, and a new Constitution) have been met and there is little indication that any of them will be in the future. There have been moves by the government to improve infrastructure and increase aid in the South, so the protests have had concrete results. Just not the results the protesters demanded.
The failure of Congress to act on early elections is a great example of why the body had a 6 percent approval rating in the February 2023 poll by La Republica newspaper and the Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Members are seen as self-serving and not at all interested in responding to the public. Arguments about when the elections should be held, if Legislators can run in new elections (there is a one-term limit law in Peru), and if there should be a simultaneous constitutional referendum have combined to kill five early election proposals in committee. The “No” votes have come from both sides of the ideological spectrum.
The prosecution of ex-President Castillo for acts against the Peruvian Constitution and corruption continues to move forward. His defense team is also working to, very publically, develop a strategy. On 17 March, two of Castillo’s lawyers, a Peruvian and an Argentine, were in the Spanish language press with separate interviews about his Constitutional case. The Argentine lawyer, Leonardo Croxatto, was interviewed by the Spanish newspaper “El Pais” in Bogata, Colombia following a meeting with Colombian President Gustavo Petro. Evidently, Castillo wrote Croxatto via Petro to ask him to run his defense team. Croxatto plans to run a “nothing happened here” defense based on the fact that Castillo failed on so many levels in his autocoup attempt. The best line from the interview, “[the event that occurred] was no coup, it was an atypical event,” typifies the defense strategy. The Byzantine legal arguments spun by Croxatto in the interview really show the convoluted Argentine legal thinking I encountered during my Master’s program in Military Strategy course at the National Defense School in Buenos Aires.
The other interview, with Wilfredo Robles, a Peruvian lawyer and convicted terrorist, isn’t quite as eloquent in describing the defense strategy. His best line of defense was that "[the coup] was an ineffective act, devoid of any formality and impossible to execute.” He also said that the coup was only a political act, meant to be Castillo’s final card in his conflict with Congress. Well, if nothing else he is correct that the coup was Castillo’s final act as President.
Left unsaid was any defense against the corruption charges Castillo also faces for being the head of an alleged ring of people diverting public funds in various government-owned companies to family and friends. The only thing I’m sure about there is the “nothing happened here” defense won’t work here because the money was spent.
One of the indications to watch I highlighted in the original warning was the progress or lack thereof in the investigations regarding the use of deadly force by Peruvian security forces that has resulted in the deaths of 48 Peruvians. I believe this issue has the potential to explode in the face of the government if it’s not handled correctly. If the recent article about testimony given by the ex-Minister of Defense, Alberto Otárola, is an example of how the government is addressing the deaths, they may have problems. Otarola said that neither he nor the President had any role in ordering or not the use of force against demonstrators. He also denied that any specific written orders to guard civilian lives were given to the heads of the Security Forces because none were needed in addition to the laws currently in effect. He also said that he, as Minister of Defense, had no role in planning or approving any operations taken by the Armed Forces. In fact, he said he didn’t even review any plans because that’s the role of the senior commanders of the Armed Forces. One has to wonder after reading this article what exactly is the role of the Minister of Defense in Peru.
The New York Times recently released this extensive article (free link) about some of the worse abuses of deadly force during the early protests. It was frankly shocking to see photos and videos of troops and police using assault weapons against unarmed protesters up to two hundred yards away. With the evidence collected in this article plus what the investigators find on the ground, one hopes that the legal system in Peru can bring those responsible to justice. If they are not, I fear that the blowback may be significant.
So, what does all this mean for the situation in Peru? At the moment I believe it is again safe to travel or work in most of Peru. I would avoid Lake Titicaca and the area around Puno due to continuing blockades and strikes. Cusco, Machu Picchu, and Arequipa all seem to have come to an agreement with protesters which will allow tourism to restart. While it is certainly worth keeping an eye on the situation, it seems the main crisis has passed.