Wikileaks. Cable 65100

id: 65100
date: 5/23/2006 13:25
refid: 06LIMA2017
origin: Embassy Lima
classification: CONFIDENTIAL
destination:
header:
VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHPE #2017/01 1431325
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 231325Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY LIMA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0593
INFO RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 3412
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 6754
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 9468
RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ MAY QUITO 0353
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 0536
RUMIAAA/CDR USCINCSO MIAMI FL
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHINGTON DC

————————- header ends ————————

C O N F I D E N T I A L LIMA 002017

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/19/2016
TAGS: PGOV, PINR, PHUM, PE
SUBJECT: PDAS SHAPIRO/AMBASSADOR MEET WITH HUMALA

Classified By: Ambassador Curt Struble for Reasons 1.4 (b,d)

1. (U) Visiting PDAS Charles Shapiro and Ambassador Struble
met for one hour on May 17 with nationalist Presidential
candidate Ollanta Humala. The latter was accompanied for
part of the meeting by his candidate for First Vice
President, Gonzalo Garcia.

2. (C) Humala, who assumed a low key and friendly manner
throughout, opened by saying that he wanted to have good
relations with the United States, which he considered an
important partner on issues like coca and biodiversity.
Saying he would speak frankly, Humala voiced concern about
the revelation last week that his U.S. visa had been revoked
— both because it was news to him and because the timing
appeared aimed at influencing the election. Ambassador
Struble reminded the candidate that one of his spokesmen had
publicized the revocation — something that the Embassy would
not have done. The Ambassador gave Humala a copy of the
revocation certificate and explained that we had only
recently become aware Humala did not previously receive the
notice, but reminded the candidate that the Embassy had
repeatedly tried to speak with him about his visa since
learning this January that he might travel to the U.S. The
Ambassador explained that the revocation was prudenial based
upon statements from the time indicating that Ollanta was
involved with his brother,s uprising in Andahuayas during
which several policemen were killed. Simply declaring that
the old visa was valid again, as Humala had insisted, was not
possible; U.S. immigration systems show the old visa as void
and a new one would have to be applied for. Humala observed
that he had never been charged in connection with the
Andahuayas uprising and said that he had only called upon
Peruvians to employ their constitutional right to rebel.
While showing no rancor, he said that he did not plan to
apply for another visa.

3. (C) Ambassador Shapiro said that the United States
intended to work constructively with whoever was elected
President in Peru. The key issue for us was not whether
governments were of the left or the right but rather poverty.
Peru appeared close to making an economic and development
breakthrough; the U.S. sought to promote inclusion of the
poor in economic opportunity. Humala responded that he
likewise did not believe in left/right axis, agreeing the
problem was the poor; he was not part of any bloc, was not
anti-Chilean and was not anti-American. Shifting to new
ground, he said he did believe in the need to revise Peru,s
anti-narcotics approach. Peru should cut off diversion of
precursor chemicals, give priority to interdiction, and
resume its aerial interdiction program.

4. (C) Ambassador Struble said that the principal concern of
the United States was that Peru’s anti-narcotics policy be
viable, meaning that it result in reduced illegal drug
production rather than increases, despite great effort and
expenditure. The Ambassador noted that the situation Peru
faced with coca was not static. Colombia recognized that
coca fed violence in the country and was committed on
national security grounds to eradicate all it could. That
was driving up prices in Peru and Bolivia, and cultivation
was increasing. Ambassador Shapiro observed that experience
showed voluntary eradication did not work without the
incentive of a credible forced eradication program. Humala
said that he would permit forced eradication if alternative
development were offered but refused. He added the
significant condition that the alternative products had to
offer farmers a level of income similar to coca. Humala
repeated the “zero cocaine, not zero coca” slogan his
campaign has borrowed from Bolivia,s Morales. Coca should
be part of the agricultural agenda, he said, saying he would
move the issue from the Ministry of Interior/police to the
Ministry of Agriculture. (Comment: Humala’s understanding
of narcotics trafficking in Peru is very shallow. He was
clearly unaware that only a small portion of cocaine now
moves out of Peru by air and that no licit product grown in
the coca zone commands prices as high as what
narcotraffickers will pay for coca. He did not give the
impression, however, of someone whose policy towards the
coca/cocaine problem would be altered by exposure to the
facts.)

5. (C) Humala next reiterated his concern that the United
States was intervening in Peru,s election. Apart from the
visa issue, he cited the Ambassador’s April meetings with
Lourdes Flores and her campaign team. Ambassador Struble
replied that he had simultaneously requested meetings with
Flores and Humala after the first round of elections; Flores
accepted while Humala had not. Such meetings were customary
diplomatic practice, Struble said, noting that Humala had
himself met with a number of foreign Ambassadors. The
alleged meeting with Flores” campaign team would likewise
have been quite normal, the Ambassador observed, but in fact
that was not what happened * it was a lunch with an old
Peruvian friend and his colleagues, one of whom was a
prominent advisor to Flores. Humala said he wanted all
foreign countries — Venezuela, Argentina and the U.S. — to
avoid actions that could be deemed interference in Peru,s
electoral process. Ambassador Struble replied, “We have our
first agreement * we want the same thing,” holding out his
hand to shake on it — a hand Humala accepted.

6. (C) Asked for his views on Colombia, Humala said that he
recognized the legitimacy of President Uribe and did not want
the Colombian conflict to enter Peru. He was ready to
cooperate with the United States on the matter though he
would always be respectful of Colombian sovereignty. Humala
said that he would reinforce the border; he did not want Peru
to be an R&R zone or logistics base for the FARC.

7. (C) Humala asked whether the US Embassy had a financial
relationship with Human Social Capital (CHS), a consulting
firm headed up by former Minister of Interior Rospigliosi.
The Ambassador said that the Embassy valued the analyses
produced by CHS and was among its clients. Anticipating the
reason for Humala,s question (Rospigliosi is also a
columnist and has been very critical of Humala), the
Ambassador noted that questions sometimes arise as to whether
groups that receive funds from the US Embassy are expressing
our viewpoint. In fact, our assistance partners receive
funds from various sources and usually have broader agendas
than the issue on which we work together. NGOs that receive
US funding have at times publicly criticized U.S. policies.
Humala asked whether he could have a list of NGOs the Embassy
worked with. The Ambassador said that the information was
available on the web. When Humala reiterated that he would
like a list, the Ambassador said he would send something
over.

8. (C) Gonzalo Garcia, in the only intervention he made
during the meeting, said he would like to organize a meeting
between Humala,s economic team and Embassy counterparts.
The Ambassador agreed and promised to follow up.

9. (C) Concluding the meeting, Humala said that his speech
struck many as radical, but that was just because he reveals
how many Peruvians see their situation. He spoke of the
concern many Peruvians have that they do not benefit from
their natural resources, citing the Camisea project, and that
they have been disadvantaged by corrupt deals, citing
Yanacocha. He recalled that the U.S. Congress had recently
blocked an Arab-owned firm from controlling U.S. ports and
said that his concerns about Chilean control of Peruvian
ports was similar — not directed against Chile, but by a
concern that a Chilean operator of Peruvian ports would not
work hard to compete against facilities in Chile.

————
COMMENT:
————

10. (C) This meeting was positive in that it opened a line
of communication and defanged the visa issue, which has now
passed entirely from view. It served to confirm, however,
what we have heard from some of the people within Humala,s
organization who are friendlier towards us — the candidate
looks at us through a very paranoid lens. END COMMENT.
STRUBLE

===================CABLE ENDS============================

Share via emailShare on Facebook+1Share on LinkedInShare on Twitter

Publicado el Domingo 03 de julio, 2011 a las 19:55 | RSS 2.0.

Deje un comentario

Web por: Frederick Corazao