The Americas Blog seeks to present a more accurate perspective on economic and political developments in the Western Hemisphere than is often presented in the United States. It will provide information that is often ignored, buried, and sometimes misreported in the major U.S. media.
Spanish description lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nunc in arcu neque. Nulla at est euismod, tempor ligula vitae, luctus justo. Ut auctor mi at orci porta pellentesque. Nunc imperdiet sapien sed orci semper, finibus auctor tellus placerat. Nulla scelerisque feugiat turpis quis venenatis. Curabitur mollis diam eu urna efficitur lobortis.
The long-running dispute between Argentina and the “vulture funds” took a turn to the bizarre this week. “Vulture funds” buy up defaulted debt of developing countries for pennies on the dollar then use lawsuits and other means to attempt to force repayment of the full face value. Now, the vultures have become pirates, holding an Argentine naval ship for a $20 million ransom, Reuters reports:
A court in Ghana upheld as legal on Thursday the detention of an Argentine naval vessel seized under a court order by creditors pursuing the South American nation over its 2002 debt default.
Argentina declared a sovereign default a decade ago and now faces a raft of lawsuits in U.S. courts by bondholders seeking state asset freezes to recover the value of defaulted bonds.
The Libertad, a navy frigate with 200 crew, was detained in Ghana’s eastern port of Tema on October 2 under a court order sought by NML Capital Ltd, an affiliate of the investment firm Elliott Management.
Elliot Management is run by billionaire Paul Singer, who has a long history of this sort of action. Singer took both Peru and Congo to court, eventually receiving at least $140 million for debt which he paid just a fraction of that for. Even the former head of Goldman Sachs called the vulture funds’ investment strategy of targeting poor countries immoral: “I deplore what the vulture funds are doing,” said Former Treasury Secretary Paulson to the House Financial Services Committee in 2007.
The backstory: in 2001 Argentina defaulted on some $81 billion (plus interest) of debt as a result of a severe economic collapse. Argentina has since reached agreement with holders of some 95 percent of this debt. Yet some “vulture funds” have refused to make a deal, seeking instead to use legal recourse to try to recoup the debt’s “full value”. Of course, these funds bought the debt for extremely low prices – in the case of NML, Bloomberg reported that they bought at least $182 million in debt for just 20-30 cents on the dollar. Of 15 bondholders who hold at least $25 million, nine of them are based in the Cayman Islands, including NML.
Nevertheless, they have enlisted the help of the U.S. congress to fight Argentina. The American Task Force Argentina, made up of many of the vultures, has spent over $3 million since 2007 lobbying against Argentina, while Singer himself has given over $1 million to Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. A “Stop VULTURE Funds Act” introduced in the 111th Congress by Rep. Maxine Waters never made it off the ground, and was not even introduced this legislative cycle. Meanwhile, Western Hemisphere Subcommittee Chair Connie Mack (R-FL) is the main sponsor of a bill designed to get Argentina to pay NML nearly $2 billion. While it is highly unusual for a bill to focus on a single country, it is not a surprise given that NML is Mack’s largest contributor. Fortunately, FiveThirtyEight gives Mack a 3 percent chance of winning the race for Bill Nelson’s Senate seat.
If the U.S. government wants to root out pirates in Africa, it should start with our own.
The long-running dispute between Argentina and the “vulture funds” took a turn to the bizarre this week. “Vulture funds” buy up defaulted debt of developing countries for pennies on the dollar then use lawsuits and other means to attempt to force repayment of the full face value. Now, the vultures have become pirates, holding an Argentine naval ship for a $20 million ransom, Reuters reports:
A court in Ghana upheld as legal on Thursday the detention of an Argentine naval vessel seized under a court order by creditors pursuing the South American nation over its 2002 debt default.
Argentina declared a sovereign default a decade ago and now faces a raft of lawsuits in U.S. courts by bondholders seeking state asset freezes to recover the value of defaulted bonds.
The Libertad, a navy frigate with 200 crew, was detained in Ghana’s eastern port of Tema on October 2 under a court order sought by NML Capital Ltd, an affiliate of the investment firm Elliott Management.
Elliot Management is run by billionaire Paul Singer, who has a long history of this sort of action. Singer took both Peru and Congo to court, eventually receiving at least $140 million for debt which he paid just a fraction of that for. Even the former head of Goldman Sachs called the vulture funds’ investment strategy of targeting poor countries immoral: “I deplore what the vulture funds are doing,” said Former Treasury Secretary Paulson to the House Financial Services Committee in 2007.
The backstory: in 2001 Argentina defaulted on some $81 billion (plus interest) of debt as a result of a severe economic collapse. Argentina has since reached agreement with holders of some 95 percent of this debt. Yet some “vulture funds” have refused to make a deal, seeking instead to use legal recourse to try to recoup the debt’s “full value”. Of course, these funds bought the debt for extremely low prices – in the case of NML, Bloomberg reported that they bought at least $182 million in debt for just 20-30 cents on the dollar. Of 15 bondholders who hold at least $25 million, nine of them are based in the Cayman Islands, including NML.
Nevertheless, they have enlisted the help of the U.S. congress to fight Argentina. The American Task Force Argentina, made up of many of the vultures, has spent over $3 million since 2007 lobbying against Argentina, while Singer himself has given over $1 million to Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. A “Stop VULTURE Funds Act” introduced in the 111th Congress by Rep. Maxine Waters never made it off the ground, and was not even introduced this legislative cycle. Meanwhile, Western Hemisphere Subcommittee Chair Connie Mack (R-FL) is the main sponsor of a bill designed to get Argentina to pay NML nearly $2 billion. While it is highly unusual for a bill to focus on a single country, it is not a surprise given that NML is Mack’s largest contributor. Fortunately, FiveThirtyEight gives Mack a 3 percent chance of winning the race for Bill Nelson’s Senate seat.
If the U.S. government wants to root out pirates in Africa, it should start with our own.
An Associated Press article dated October 9 states that Venezuela has
“ at least 2.4 million national government employees, making up 8 percent of the country’s population. By comparison, the United States, with tenfold the population, has almost the same number of federal employees, at 2.7 million.”
If Venezuela really had 10 times as many public employees as the U.S., relative to its labor force, this would be amazing. However it is not true.
Venezuela actually has, according to the latest statistics, 2.49 million public employees – including all levels of government. With a labor force of about 13.5 million, this is about 18.4 percent of the labor force. (Labor force is a better denominator than total population because of different demographics between countries).
The U.S. as of September 2012 had 22 million public employees, or 14.2 percent of the labor force. Thus the difference in public employment between Venezuela and the U.S. is therefore about 4 percentage points.
One reason for the AP’s misleading comparison is that it does not take into account that most public employees in the U.S. (19.2 million of 22 million) are employed at the state and local level. In most other countries, including Venezuela, the reverse is true.
Of course the U.S. has a relatively low level of public employment compared to other high-income countries. France, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway all have public sector employment percentages in the 20s, with France at 22 percent and Norway at 29 percent.
In this article, the author is using Venezuela’s public employment to argue that Chávez had a big advantage over his opponent in the recent election. However this is not clear. Most of the wealth and income of the country still belongs to people who oppose the government, and several studies show that the majority of the media (pdf) was biased in favor of Capriles. Whether Chávez’s speeches on television could compensate for this overall media bias against him is not at all clear.
Political scientist Justin Delacour, who has studied media coverage of Venezuela for many years, argues that this article shows a considerable double standard on the part of AP. He writes: “I cannot recall one time in all my years of reading AP reports that these sorts of electoral advantages have ever been discussed by your newswire. It is only when a left-wing party acquires significant PR resources that your newswire is suddenly so concerned about fairness on the PR front in a country’s electoral process.” He notes that most media in Latin America are biased in favor of right-wing or center-right parties, but that has not been an issue in AP reporting.
An Associated Press article dated October 9 states that Venezuela has
“ at least 2.4 million national government employees, making up 8 percent of the country’s population. By comparison, the United States, with tenfold the population, has almost the same number of federal employees, at 2.7 million.”
If Venezuela really had 10 times as many public employees as the U.S., relative to its labor force, this would be amazing. However it is not true.
Venezuela actually has, according to the latest statistics, 2.49 million public employees – including all levels of government. With a labor force of about 13.5 million, this is about 18.4 percent of the labor force. (Labor force is a better denominator than total population because of different demographics between countries).
The U.S. as of September 2012 had 22 million public employees, or 14.2 percent of the labor force. Thus the difference in public employment between Venezuela and the U.S. is therefore about 4 percentage points.
One reason for the AP’s misleading comparison is that it does not take into account that most public employees in the U.S. (19.2 million of 22 million) are employed at the state and local level. In most other countries, including Venezuela, the reverse is true.
Of course the U.S. has a relatively low level of public employment compared to other high-income countries. France, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway all have public sector employment percentages in the 20s, with France at 22 percent and Norway at 29 percent.
In this article, the author is using Venezuela’s public employment to argue that Chávez had a big advantage over his opponent in the recent election. However this is not clear. Most of the wealth and income of the country still belongs to people who oppose the government, and several studies show that the majority of the media (pdf) was biased in favor of Capriles. Whether Chávez’s speeches on television could compensate for this overall media bias against him is not at all clear.
Political scientist Justin Delacour, who has studied media coverage of Venezuela for many years, argues that this article shows a considerable double standard on the part of AP. He writes: “I cannot recall one time in all my years of reading AP reports that these sorts of electoral advantages have ever been discussed by your newswire. It is only when a left-wing party acquires significant PR resources that your newswire is suddenly so concerned about fairness on the PR front in a country’s electoral process.” He notes that most media in Latin America are biased in favor of right-wing or center-right parties, but that has not been an issue in AP reporting.
Pop star Lady Gaga visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange this week at the Ecuadorean embassy while in London, meeting with him for a reported five hours.
Perhaps Lady Gaga understands some things that seem to elude the majority of the media: Assange’s importance as a defender of freedom of the press and freedom of information.
Assange remains at the embassy while the Ecuadorean government attempts to negotiate a solution to the stand off with Swedish authorities – who refuse to guarantee Assange would not be extradited from Sweden to the U.S., to face possible charges under the Espionage Act, despite appeals from the likes of Amnesty International – and the U.K. – which refuses to guarantee Assange safe passage.
Gaga dressed as a witch, in a possible reference to the “witch-hunt” against Assange, which Assange denounced in an August speech from the embassy.
Pop star Lady Gaga visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange this week at the Ecuadorean embassy while in London, meeting with him for a reported five hours.
Perhaps Lady Gaga understands some things that seem to elude the majority of the media: Assange’s importance as a defender of freedom of the press and freedom of information.
Assange remains at the embassy while the Ecuadorean government attempts to negotiate a solution to the stand off with Swedish authorities – who refuse to guarantee Assange would not be extradited from Sweden to the U.S., to face possible charges under the Espionage Act, despite appeals from the likes of Amnesty International – and the U.K. – which refuses to guarantee Assange safe passage.
Gaga dressed as a witch, in a possible reference to the “witch-hunt” against Assange, which Assange denounced in an August speech from the embassy.
In a stunningly one-sided article two days before the Venezuelan election, the New York Times creates a frightening picture of a deteriorating society in which citizens are afraid to vote against the incumbent president, Hugo Chavez:
“I’m not going to take the risk,” said Fabiana Osteicoechea, 22, a law student in Caracas who said she would vote for Mr. Chávez even though she is an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Capriles. She said she was certain that Mr. Chávez would win and was afraid that the government career she hopes to have as a prosecutor could be blocked before it begins if she votes the wrong way.
“After the election, he’s going to have more power than now, lots more, and I think he will have a way of knowing who voted for whom,” she said. “I want to get a job with the government so, obviously, I have to vote for Chávez.”
OK, so she is giving the NYT her name but afraid to vote in an election that international observers believe to be conducted by a secret ballot. Strange. This might have made an inquisitive reporter do a google search on her name.
He would have found this among dozens of opposition tweets:
Venezuela hay un camino … 07-Oct hagamos de este dia un dia historico yfrog.com/obo6sxqj
— Fabiana Osteicoechea (@Fabiana_OST) August 25, 2012
So, she tweets constantly against the government but is afraid to vote against it in an election process that Jimmy Carter said, a few weeks ago, was the best in the world.
The rest of the article is about as believable as this witness. For those who don’t follow the NYT coverage of Venezuela, for years it has not been very distinguishable from that of Fox News. Or the Washington Post. Hence the consensus of all Very Serious People on Venezuela that it is a scary, authoritarian place to live.
The article also pretends that Chávez has an advantage in the media; however the government has only a small portion of the media, with most remaining pro-opposition.
UPDATE (5:00pm): The Carter Center has told the media that fears of electoral fraud in Venezuela are unfounded.
In a stunningly one-sided article two days before the Venezuelan election, the New York Times creates a frightening picture of a deteriorating society in which citizens are afraid to vote against the incumbent president, Hugo Chavez:
“I’m not going to take the risk,” said Fabiana Osteicoechea, 22, a law student in Caracas who said she would vote for Mr. Chávez even though she is an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Capriles. She said she was certain that Mr. Chávez would win and was afraid that the government career she hopes to have as a prosecutor could be blocked before it begins if she votes the wrong way.
“After the election, he’s going to have more power than now, lots more, and I think he will have a way of knowing who voted for whom,” she said. “I want to get a job with the government so, obviously, I have to vote for Chávez.”
OK, so she is giving the NYT her name but afraid to vote in an election that international observers believe to be conducted by a secret ballot. Strange. This might have made an inquisitive reporter do a google search on her name.
He would have found this among dozens of opposition tweets:
Venezuela hay un camino … 07-Oct hagamos de este dia un dia historico yfrog.com/obo6sxqj
— Fabiana Osteicoechea (@Fabiana_OST) August 25, 2012
So, she tweets constantly against the government but is afraid to vote against it in an election process that Jimmy Carter said, a few weeks ago, was the best in the world.
The rest of the article is about as believable as this witness. For those who don’t follow the NYT coverage of Venezuela, for years it has not been very distinguishable from that of Fox News. Or the Washington Post. Hence the consensus of all Very Serious People on Venezuela that it is a scary, authoritarian place to live.
The article also pretends that Chávez has an advantage in the media; however the government has only a small portion of the media, with most remaining pro-opposition.
UPDATE (5:00pm): The Carter Center has told the media that fears of electoral fraud in Venezuela are unfounded.
Some press reports have noted Venezuela’s economic growth lately, in looking at Chávez’s track record in the run-up to Sunday’s presidential election. For example, the Associated Press wrote that “the economies of Brazil, Chile, Peru and Argentina all have expanded more rapidly than Venezuela’s since Chávez took office in 1999, recording average growth between 3 and 5 percent a year.”
It is important to have a reasonable base of comparison. It is not reasonable, for example, to include the years 1999-2003 in looking at the Chávez government’s growth record. During these years, the government did not have control over the national oil industry; even worse, it was controlled by people who, according to the prominent Venezuelan opposition journalist Teodoro Petkoff, had a strategy of “military takeover.” Not only the military coup of 2002, but the management-led oil strike of 2002-2003 was devastating to the economy, inflicting a loss of about 29 percent of GDP.
For an analogy, imagine that in the U.S. the Federal Reserve were controlled by people who were trying to destroy the economy so as to topple the government. Clearly it would not be reasonable to hold the executive branch responsible for the resulting state of the economy.
However, for economists it would also not be fair to measure growth in Venezuela from 2003, since that would be measuring from the bottom of a deep recession.
A reasonable comparison would be to use 2004, since by that year the economy had recovered to its pre-recession GDP. By that measure, as seen in the table below, Venezuela has had decent growth. If compared to the countries cited by AP, Venezuela’s growth is significantly better than Brazil and slightly higher than Chile. Argentina and Peru are the outliers during this period, the fastest growing economies in the region. Mexico is the outlier at the low end, the worst performing economy in the region.
Of course the better measure would be per capita GDP growth, and Venezuela would do somewhat worse there by comparison because it has higher population growth than some of its neighbors. But the press doesn’t use that figure, and the point of this exercise is just to show that if we are going to evaluate economic performance under Chávez, it’s really not fair to include the 1999-2003 years.
For Venezuelans, another relevant comparison might be to the pre-
Chávez years. From 1980-1998, Venezuela was the worst-performing economy in South America, in a period during which the region suffered its worst long-term growth failure in a century. Per capita income actually fell by 14 percent, and inflation was much higher (33 percent annually) than during the Chávez years (22 percent average).
Some press reports have noted Venezuela’s economic growth lately, in looking at Chávez’s track record in the run-up to Sunday’s presidential election. For example, the Associated Press wrote that “the economies of Brazil, Chile, Peru and Argentina all have expanded more rapidly than Venezuela’s since Chávez took office in 1999, recording average growth between 3 and 5 percent a year.”
It is important to have a reasonable base of comparison. It is not reasonable, for example, to include the years 1999-2003 in looking at the Chávez government’s growth record. During these years, the government did not have control over the national oil industry; even worse, it was controlled by people who, according to the prominent Venezuelan opposition journalist Teodoro Petkoff, had a strategy of “military takeover.” Not only the military coup of 2002, but the management-led oil strike of 2002-2003 was devastating to the economy, inflicting a loss of about 29 percent of GDP.
For an analogy, imagine that in the U.S. the Federal Reserve were controlled by people who were trying to destroy the economy so as to topple the government. Clearly it would not be reasonable to hold the executive branch responsible for the resulting state of the economy.
However, for economists it would also not be fair to measure growth in Venezuela from 2003, since that would be measuring from the bottom of a deep recession.
A reasonable comparison would be to use 2004, since by that year the economy had recovered to its pre-recession GDP. By that measure, as seen in the table below, Venezuela has had decent growth. If compared to the countries cited by AP, Venezuela’s growth is significantly better than Brazil and slightly higher than Chile. Argentina and Peru are the outliers during this period, the fastest growing economies in the region. Mexico is the outlier at the low end, the worst performing economy in the region.
Of course the better measure would be per capita GDP growth, and Venezuela would do somewhat worse there by comparison because it has higher population growth than some of its neighbors. But the press doesn’t use that figure, and the point of this exercise is just to show that if we are going to evaluate economic performance under Chávez, it’s really not fair to include the 1999-2003 years.
For Venezuelans, another relevant comparison might be to the pre-
Chávez years. From 1980-1998, Venezuela was the worst-performing economy in South America, in a period during which the region suffered its worst long-term growth failure in a century. Per capita income actually fell by 14 percent, and inflation was much higher (33 percent annually) than during the Chávez years (22 percent average).
Newsweek has a commentary piece this week by Venezuelan journalist Boris Muñoz which cites anonymous sources as suggesting that Hugo Chávez’s cancer is but a cleverly designed conspiracy meant to distract Venezuelans from the country’s problems:
As someone very close to Chávez told me (anonymously as he feared falling out of favor with the supreme commander), it was a welcome distraction from the wear and tear of years of failed policies. Chávez “has drawn attention away from the big problems of his administration such as its incompetence, corruption, and bureaucracy, and the nation’s criminal violence,” the source said. “He has created this dramatic scenario to … seduce the masses because he knows that, terminally ill or not, this is his last chance.”
…
Indeed, even some members of his inner circle suspect that Chávez’s long battle with cancer is really an elaborate charade masterfully orchestrated in complicity with the government of Havana— and one that might win him yet another term, perpetuating his presidency for another six years.
Never mind for a minute the idea that someone “very close to Chávez” describes his administration as “incompetent” and “corrupt” – “members of his inner circle” suggest Chávez never had cancer at all! With the help of those ingenious Cubans, he successfully duped the Venezuelan people – and so many naïve journalists, including Dan Rather – into believing he was in a life and death struggle against illness, even appearing take on a more plaid complexion, and have his hair fall out! In publishing this article, Newsweek has moved into Weekly World News territory, ala stories such as “Dick Cheney is a Robot” or the harder to believe “Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby.”
While considering this sinister plot, recall how derisively the media generally reacts to Chávez’s assertions regarding assassination plots and U.S. government subterfuge in Venezuela – even though the U.S. role in the 2002 coup, in which Chávez was removed from office is well documented.
Newsweek has never reported the Venezuelan government’s slashing poverty in half, cutting extreme poverty by 70 percent, or even Venezuela’s strong economic growth once the government got control over the oil sector. And Newsweek has barely reported (save for this 2004 article) on one of the most important stories in Latin America’s modern history, one which helps explain the region’s shift to the left: the historic and unprecedented economic failure from 1980 – 2000. But it has plenty of space for wild Hollywood-style conspiracy stories.
Newsweek has a commentary piece this week by Venezuelan journalist Boris Muñoz which cites anonymous sources as suggesting that Hugo Chávez’s cancer is but a cleverly designed conspiracy meant to distract Venezuelans from the country’s problems:
As someone very close to Chávez told me (anonymously as he feared falling out of favor with the supreme commander), it was a welcome distraction from the wear and tear of years of failed policies. Chávez “has drawn attention away from the big problems of his administration such as its incompetence, corruption, and bureaucracy, and the nation’s criminal violence,” the source said. “He has created this dramatic scenario to … seduce the masses because he knows that, terminally ill or not, this is his last chance.”
…
Indeed, even some members of his inner circle suspect that Chávez’s long battle with cancer is really an elaborate charade masterfully orchestrated in complicity with the government of Havana— and one that might win him yet another term, perpetuating his presidency for another six years.
Never mind for a minute the idea that someone “very close to Chávez” describes his administration as “incompetent” and “corrupt” – “members of his inner circle” suggest Chávez never had cancer at all! With the help of those ingenious Cubans, he successfully duped the Venezuelan people – and so many naïve journalists, including Dan Rather – into believing he was in a life and death struggle against illness, even appearing take on a more plaid complexion, and have his hair fall out! In publishing this article, Newsweek has moved into Weekly World News territory, ala stories such as “Dick Cheney is a Robot” or the harder to believe “Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby.”
While considering this sinister plot, recall how derisively the media generally reacts to Chávez’s assertions regarding assassination plots and U.S. government subterfuge in Venezuela – even though the U.S. role in the 2002 coup, in which Chávez was removed from office is well documented.
Newsweek has never reported the Venezuelan government’s slashing poverty in half, cutting extreme poverty by 70 percent, or even Venezuela’s strong economic growth once the government got control over the oil sector. And Newsweek has barely reported (save for this 2004 article) on one of the most important stories in Latin America’s modern history, one which helps explain the region’s shift to the left: the historic and unprecedented economic failure from 1980 – 2000. But it has plenty of space for wild Hollywood-style conspiracy stories.
It didn’t receive much attention in the international media, but an important report on the May 11 DEA-related shooting incident in Ahuas, Honduras, which killed four people and injured several others, was released at the end of August. Its conclusions and recommendations are consistent with many in the report that CEPR released, also in August (co-authored with experts from the human rights organization Rights Action): the U.S. DEA appears to have taken a lead — not merely a “supportive” role — in the operation; the “official” story presented by Honduran and U.S. officials has several important inconsistencies; and that the U.S. government should conduct its own, independent investigation of the incident (a thorough investigation, to be made public, looking at all the evidence – as opposed to the internal DEA investigation which does not seem to have gone anywhere). Notably, the report departs sharply from the conclusions reached by the official Honduran investigation, as recently reported to the Associated Press.
But the report’s significance lies not merely in its conclusions, but its source: is by the National Commission of Human Rights, a Honduran government agency that has been criticized for turning a blind eye to many human rights violations and for supporting the June 2009 coup d’etat. The report was issued under the leadership of human rights ombudsman Ramon Custodio, and his calls for an independent U.S. investigation were reported in the Honduran press (even if they were ignored by the U.S. media). The report is also important because it is based on interviews of the Honduran Tactical Response Team members involved in the May 11 operation – interviews which the CEPR/Rights Action researchers were not able to conduct.
The original report in Spanish is posted here; we have posted a translation to English here. It finds:
– “All members of the TRT have stated that they only receive orders from American superiors and that they don’t report anything, neither before nor afterwards, to their legal Honduran superiors, given that they ultimately don’t deal with orders or logistics of any sort.”
– “The Honduran authorities have not been able to interview the FAST Team members of the DEA because they are unable to identify them, even though they have made statements to CNN.”
– “The declarations of the police officers who participated in the operation are contradictory in various parts, both between themselves as well as with the declarations of the victims.”
– The report mentions that, according to the TRT members, the automatic rifle and ammunition mentioned among the objects confiscated during the operation, were found not in the “drug boat” but in another pipante docked at the Landin.
– The report casts doubt on a key part of the TRT testimonies, stating that “A logical and reliable explanation has not been provided as to how the pipante with the victims, coming from Barra Patuca, was able to come close to the boat with the FAST and TRT personnel and the drugs, without difficulty given that one or two helicopters were flying over the boat to protect it and provide it with preventive security.”
It is notable that the report makes reference to this CNN video, in which now-former DEA attaché in Honduras, Jim Kenney, explains his responsibility for the vetting and training of the TRT agents.
And here are some of the recommendations that the report makes:
– “CONADEH – in the most respectful way- requests that the Senate Judiciary Committee of the United States and the Judicial Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States of America begin an in depth investigation of the issues raised during this operation.”
– “We advise the National Police and the Armed Forces to cease to allow foreigners to have direct command over our personnel again.”
It didn’t receive much attention in the international media, but an important report on the May 11 DEA-related shooting incident in Ahuas, Honduras, which killed four people and injured several others, was released at the end of August. Its conclusions and recommendations are consistent with many in the report that CEPR released, also in August (co-authored with experts from the human rights organization Rights Action): the U.S. DEA appears to have taken a lead — not merely a “supportive” role — in the operation; the “official” story presented by Honduran and U.S. officials has several important inconsistencies; and that the U.S. government should conduct its own, independent investigation of the incident (a thorough investigation, to be made public, looking at all the evidence – as opposed to the internal DEA investigation which does not seem to have gone anywhere). Notably, the report departs sharply from the conclusions reached by the official Honduran investigation, as recently reported to the Associated Press.
But the report’s significance lies not merely in its conclusions, but its source: is by the National Commission of Human Rights, a Honduran government agency that has been criticized for turning a blind eye to many human rights violations and for supporting the June 2009 coup d’etat. The report was issued under the leadership of human rights ombudsman Ramon Custodio, and his calls for an independent U.S. investigation were reported in the Honduran press (even if they were ignored by the U.S. media). The report is also important because it is based on interviews of the Honduran Tactical Response Team members involved in the May 11 operation – interviews which the CEPR/Rights Action researchers were not able to conduct.
The original report in Spanish is posted here; we have posted a translation to English here. It finds:
– “All members of the TRT have stated that they only receive orders from American superiors and that they don’t report anything, neither before nor afterwards, to their legal Honduran superiors, given that they ultimately don’t deal with orders or logistics of any sort.”
– “The Honduran authorities have not been able to interview the FAST Team members of the DEA because they are unable to identify them, even though they have made statements to CNN.”
– “The declarations of the police officers who participated in the operation are contradictory in various parts, both between themselves as well as with the declarations of the victims.”
– The report mentions that, according to the TRT members, the automatic rifle and ammunition mentioned among the objects confiscated during the operation, were found not in the “drug boat” but in another pipante docked at the Landin.
– The report casts doubt on a key part of the TRT testimonies, stating that “A logical and reliable explanation has not been provided as to how the pipante with the victims, coming from Barra Patuca, was able to come close to the boat with the FAST and TRT personnel and the drugs, without difficulty given that one or two helicopters were flying over the boat to protect it and provide it with preventive security.”
It is notable that the report makes reference to this CNN video, in which now-former DEA attaché in Honduras, Jim Kenney, explains his responsibility for the vetting and training of the TRT agents.
And here are some of the recommendations that the report makes:
– “CONADEH – in the most respectful way- requests that the Senate Judiciary Committee of the United States and the Judicial Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States of America begin an in depth investigation of the issues raised during this operation.”
– “We advise the National Police and the Armed Forces to cease to allow foreigners to have direct command over our personnel again.”
