editorial

Balbina, Hugo, the press
and interest groups

Balbina Herrera says she's tired of --- what?

She told La Estrella --- whose principal owner Abdul Waked has been among her major financial backers in the past --- that she's tired of dirty campaigns, offensive web pages, unscrupulous emails and defamatory news.

At the moment what she's most angry about is a vilification campaign that seeks to associate her with Hugo Chávez, either via unsubstantiated rumors that her campaign is receiving funds from Venezuela or by a guilt by indirect association ploy that plays up associations between Balbina and a Colombian politician who has worked with Chávez in efforts that have obtained the release of several hostages by the FARC guerrillas. This campaign comes, she says, from within the PRD.

If one cares to examine which mainstream media have participated in these attacks and the business circles in which the people who control them run, and which individuals are known to have participated in the online gossip and innuendo about the supposed influence of Hugo Chávez in Panama, it's coming from people in the business community, particularly some folks who are or were tied to the banking sector.

It does seem that supporters of Herrera's opponent in the presidential primary, Juan Carlos Navarro, may have something to do with feeding the stories about Balbina and Hugo's supposed ties, and in general about Balbina being part of a supposed “leftist tendency” in the PRD.

The scurrilous emails? Well, now we have Panama's retarded political elites again copying the worst things about US society, this time glomming onto the Karl Rove - style political tactics that have offended most of the American electorate after years in which they were so very effective.

“Defamatory news” and “offensive web pages?” OK, now Balbina gets into whining about media that she does not control. The fact is that she has for years had unscrupulous so-called journalists on her payroll to plant favorable fluff stories in the mainstream media. The facts are that she was one of the principal civilian political operatives of the Noriega regime that closed down newspapers and passed a journalist licensing law; that as a legislator she supported the abusive and much abused calumnia e injuria law; and that as a member of the Torrijos administration and within the Housing Ministry she went well out of her way to exclude access to the government by journalists whom she and her party do not control. She has been a part of the government information control strategy that has sought with some success to drive critical voices and reporters who ask hard questions off of television and out of the mainstream media. And now that the mainstream media have lost so much of their credibility and people are ever more turning to a ragtag collection of Internet media to seek news and express their opinions, Balbina is attacking the online press.

Yes, we know. By and large the PRD would like to have something like the Cuban press, only with capitalist instead of communist propaganda. Balbina's real complaint isn't with scurrilous media, it's that for a change the scurrilous media are attacking her. What else could she expect, when her primary opponent has such close ties to the ad cartel?

And what about Hugo Chávez interfering in Panamanian politics?

First of all, we should recognize that due to ever more important regional and global economic forces, politics will naturally and in many cases legitimately cross international boundaries. Balbina Herrera, a member of a Torrijos cabinet that hired lobbyists to work the US Congress about a US-Panama free trade pact, which solicited and got a Venezuelan endorsement of a “yes” vote in the Panama Canal expansion referendum, and which has in many cases promoted the interests of Colombian developers over the Panamanian people, can't come to this argument without multiple stains of foreign influence. Nor do the businesspeople, corporate lawyers and banking industry apologists who are seeking to tar various individuals, groups and alternative media with the broad brush of alleged ties with Hugo Chávez.

The existence of foreign ties is not an issue, but the nature and qualities of those ties is. The existence of undue campaign contributor influence on our public officials and candidates is a very important issue, but we should never be so naive as to think that only foreign paymasters can be a bad influence. Nor should we accept any double standards that reject Venezuelans but accept Colombians who seek to influence our elections.

What's one of the major realities behind all the Chávez-baiting? It's because under the Venezuelan president's leadership a number of South American countries have established the Banco del Sur as an alternative to the present galaxy of international financial institutions and a bunch of people with established ties and vested interests see that as a threat. It's because MERCOSUR --- with which Chávez has been having difficulties of late --- is establishing itself as a Latin American alternative to the NAFTA-based economic integration model and oligarchs who have habitually cashed in on their ties with the Americans are uptight about that.

Is Venezuela interfering in Panama's sovereign affairs by supporting the candidacy of Balbina Herrera? First, there has been no credible evidence presented to support that charge. Second, if it were true it would be a cause for some concern, both as a matter of Panamanian sovereignty but also to Panama's Chavistas, who would have to be embarrassed by such a dumb move on the part of their main man.

Is Venezuela interfering in Panama's sovereign affairs by the existence here of organizations committed to Hugo Chávez's Bolivarian movement? No more so than the United States is interfering in Panama's sovereign affairs by the existence here of organizations committed to economic integration on the US model. There are legitimate concerns in each case, but no reasons for hysteria in either. Everybody pretty much knows who's who and what's what when a little group of people goes marching down the street in red berets or when the American Chamber of Commerce issues a position paper. Panamanians of all persuasions would do well to know what each is saying, even if they disagree.

One of the most important boundaries between proper and improper foreign influence is with respect to the financing of our political campaigns. That border is best defended by more transparency in the political process. But notice that as president of the legislature and later as a cabinet member, Balbina Herrera never led any movement for laws requiring the full, timely and routine disclosure of campaign contributions.

And there you have it --- Balbina the defender of a corrupt tradtional way of doing public business, now complaining when some of the things she championed come back to haunt her. She got indignant when others complained of how she manipulated the news by hiring reporters to insert fluffy panegyrics on her behalf, and now gets indignant when those who are not her friends manipulate the news to insert scurrilous attacks against her.

Balbina complains about the online press, which she and the Torrijos administration for years pretended does not exist and which now quite reasonably acts as if it owes her and the administration she served precious little.

Forget about the corny right-wing screeds. The real issues are whether we really want a president who's that self-centered, and whether Panama can tolerate five more years of continued and even strengthened government information control games.

Things fall apart for the
Bush administration

Now the memos that conclusively prove a conspiracy to commit torture and war crimes at the very top of the US government are part of the public record.

Now, too, former military prosecutors are testifying for the defense at the Guantanamo terrorism trials, explaining how the proceedings have been rigged on orders from above.

Now, too, The New York Times has been publishing the details of an elaborate news manipulation by the Pentagon and Bush administration.

The Democrats may yet blow it and let the GOP retain control of the White House in the November elections. Still, there is a record of misconduct that's going to shape American politics for many years to come. The choice in this year's election is whether that record will be a series of precedents to guide future governments as to how things should be done, or whether they will be taken as infamous examples of what should never again be done.

Bear in mind...