A large poster in the national bus terminal, about a major public work in progress.
Bone of contention
note and photo by Eric Jackson
On Friday, February 10, members of the SUNTRACS construction workers union, whose leaders are part of the November 29th National Liberation Movement (MLN-29), along with other groups in that political group — the Revolutionary Student Front (FER-29), the National Front for the Defense of Economic and Social Rights (FRENADESO) and the Broad Front for Democracy political party (FAD) — blocked streets in the metro area and some other parts of Panama. It was billed as a protest against corruption but this faction of the left has had little to say about Odebrecht as the national and international bribery scandal has been brewing.
So what’s THAT all about? Odebrecht is a conglomerate but at the center of it is one of the world’s largest construction companies. For their public works projects here — under great suspicion of having been procured by bribery — the people who do the actual work are construction workers represented by SUNTRACS. Throw Odebrecht off the job and it might entail something that union leader Saúl Méndez is warning about, disruption of the job with layoffs for workers whom he represents.
But what’s a commie radical movement to do when all the other commie radicals — as well as most business and conservative groups in the country — are protesting about the systematic government corruption of which Odebrecht is the poster child?
Well, call out SUNTRACS and friends to block traffic to protest corruption on a Friday. That sort of covers the movement from allegations of being soft on corruption, and after the morning’s protests are over gives the union rank-and-file a longer weekend.
The big Odebrecht project now underway is Line 2 of the Metro commuter train system. It would be disruptive to throw the confessed criminal company off the job, but as they do a lot of the work through subcontractors giving them the boot may not have to involve a shutdown of the project. It would largely depend on how the government managed any expulsion of the Brazilian company.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
After my last article, in which I mentioned that the Arabs started the 1948 war after the partition resolution of the UN, I received several furious messages.
The writers, who (I suppose) were born after the events, accuse the Zionists of starting the war in order to expel the Arab population.
Since I took part in the events — I was 24 years old at the time — I feel that it is my duty to describe what really happened, as truthfully as possible. (I have written two books about it, one during the war and one immediately after.)
To describe the atmosphere in the country just before the war, let me recount one of the great moments of my life.
In the late summer, an annual folk dance festival took place in a natural amphitheater in the Carmel mountains. About 40 thousand young men and women were assembled, a very large number given that our total population was only about 635,000.
At the time, a commission of the United Nations (UNSCOP) was touring the country in order to find a solution to the Jewish-Arab conflict.
We were watching the dance groups — among them one from a neighboring Arab village, who danced the Debka with such enthusiasm that they just couldn’t stop — when the loudspeakers announced that members of the UN commission were visiting us.
Spontaneously, all the thousands of young men and women stood up and broke into the National Anthem with such vigor that the echo resounded from the mountains around us.
It was the last time that my generation was assembled. Within a year, thousands of those present were dead.
Following the recommendation of that commission, the General Assembly of the UN resolved on November 29, 1947, to partition Palestine between a Jewish and an Arab state, with Jerusalem as a separate unit under international rule.
Though the territory allotted to the Jewish state was small, the Jewish population realized the immense importance of statehood. It was just three years after the end of the Holocaust.
The entire Arab world opposed the resolution. As they saw it, why should the Arab population of Palestine pay the price for the Holocaust committed by Europeans?
A few days after the resolution, a Jewish bus was shot at. That was the beginning of Phase 1 of the war.
To understand the events, one must consider the situation. The two populations on the country were closely intertwined. In Jerusalem, Haifa and Jaffa-Tel Aviv, Arab and Jewish quarters were situated close together.
Every Jewish village was surrounded by Arab ones. To exist, they needed use of the highroads, which were dominated by Arab villages. By now, shootings broke out all over the country. The British were still nominally in charge, but tried to get involved as little as possible.
The underground Jewish paramilitary organization, called Haganah (“Defense”), was responsible for keeping the roads open. Jewish traffic moved in convoys, defended by Haganah members, male and female. The females were needed, because they could hide the illegal weapons under their clothes.
The Arab side had no centralized command. Attacks were undertaken by villagers, many of whom had old rifles at home. Since some of these fellahin were quite primitive, atrocities happened. Our side retaliated the same way. As a result, this became a very bitter struggle.
One group of Haganah fighters, composed of university students, who rushed to the defense of a Jewish settlement bloc, was ambushed and killed to the last man. We saw photos of their severed heads paraded through the streets of Arab Jerusalem.
The inevitable strategy of the Jewish side was to remove the Arab villages along the highways. Jewish villages were told to stay put, whatever the price, though a very few of the most exposed ones were evacuated.
In February, 1948, the British evacuated a Tel Aviv area, and this became the nucleus of the Jewish state. The British left at the same time some compact Arab areas, too.
By the end of March, both sides had already suffered heavy casualties. Phase 2 began.
On April 1, my company was rushed to the improvised port of Tel Aviv to receive a large shipment of Soviet bloc arms. A year before, in a surprise move, the Soviet bloc in the UN had started to support the Zionist side. Stalin, as anti-Zionist as anybody could be, had probably decided that a Jewish state in Palestine was better than a British-US military base.
We spent a day removing the grease from the rifles, which had been produced by the Czechs for Hitler’s army but were too late for World War II. That was the beginning of Phase 2 of the war.
The Jewish quarters of Jerusalem were cut off by the Arab villages on the road. Our operation, the first big one of the war, was to open the road.
A stretch of road, several kilometers long, passed though a narrow gorge, with steep hills on both sides. Bab-al-Wad (Arabic for “Gate of the Valley”) was the terror of every soldier. If we were shot at from above, we would have to get out, climb these hills under fire and fight on top. Not a very pleasant prospect.
A huge convoy of 135 trucks had been assembled, and it was our job to get them to Jerusalem. My squad was allotted a truck carrying cheese, and we tried to arrange some cover between the crates. Luckily, we got through without being attacked. We entered Jerusalem on a Shabbat, masses of religious Jews left the synagogues and received us with immense joy, it resembled de Gaulle’s entry into Paris. (By chance, a photographer took my picture there.)
We returned unscratched. Ours was the last convoy to get through — the next one was attacked and had to turn around. Several costly battles to open the road, which was now blocked by an irregular Arab volunteer force from abroad, failed. We lost a hundred dead.
The road remained closed for decades. Our army found an alternative route which we called the Burma Road, after the British route from India to China in World War II.
By that time it became clear that the regular armies of the surrounding Arab countries were about to enter the war. This changed the character of the fight entirely.
In preparation for the battle, the Israeli army “cleared” large stretches of land of their Arab inhabitants, so as not to leave Arab concentrations behind our lines. This could still be justified by tactical necessity.
On May 14, the last of the British left, and the next day the regular armies of five Arab states — Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, with some help from Saudi Arabia — entered the war. They were regular troops, trained and equipped by their former British and French overlords, and had artillery and air power, which we still lacked.
On paper, the Arab side enjoyed a huge superiority in armaments, training and (I am not sure) numbers. But we had three advantages. First, we knew that we were fighting for our lives, quite literally, with our backs to the wall. We had a unified command, while the Arab armies competed with each other. And third: the Arabs had a profound contempt for us. Who has ever heard of Jews fighting? Also, in tactical terms, we had the advantage of “inner lines,” being able to quickly move forces from one front to another.
The following weeks — Phase 3 — saw the most desperate fighting of the entire war, battles that resembled World War I. I saw battles in which almost all our fighters were killed or wounded, and a solitary last machine gun kept firing. There were hours when everything seemed lost.
But then, slowly, the fortunes of war turned. By the end of this round, we were alive and fighting, standing our ground.
Phase 4 still saw some pitched battles, even an attack with bayonets. But our side scented victory. It was then that the mass expulsion of the population of Arab towns and villages became obviously conscious government policy. At that point in time I was severely wounded and left the front.
When everybody on both sides was exhausted, the war ended with a set of armistices, which defined the recognized borders of Israel.
Within these borders, very few Arabs were left. But an almost forgotten fact is that not a single Jew was left in the areas conquered by the Arab side. Fortunately for us, these areas were few and small compared to the large areas conquered by our side. The term “ethnic cleansing” was not yet invented.
These are the facts. Everybody can build on them any interpretation and ideology they fancy.
But, please, no Trumpian “alternative facts.”
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
A small crowd gathered to keep the faith and maintain the pressure on February 8. The defenses of those against whom they protested began to crumble the next morning. Photo by Eric Jackson.
President Varela accused: Odebrecht and
Panama Papers scandals merge and explode
by Eric Jackson
As the sun was setting on February 8, a pair of buzzards on a nearby rooftop looked on as some of there featherless peers were gathered in Parque Porras, protecting across from the attorney general’s office. Few in the small crowd were under 40, and despite the bullhorns and the occasional chants a sense of quiet desperation prevailed. Were the same crooks as always going to get away with crimes they clearly committed, with Panamanian society walking right by after the most cursory of glances? Were public officials’ declarations that there is a list of politicians who took money from the Brazilian criminal combine Odebrecht but that the list must remain secret to protect Odebrecht’s privacy going to stick? Would all of the declarations by foreign governments about Odebrecht crimes in and through Panama, with well connected Panamanian accomplices, going to be officially ignored? What could be done by such a small band of dissidents to keep up the pressure?
The following day Attorney General Kenia Porcell’s minions moved into action, citing evidence provided by authorities in Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, the United States and Switzerland. Once again they raided the Panama City offices of Mossack Fonseca — this time neither to discover and punish the source of the Panama Papers leaks nor to stop the shredding of documents, but in search of corroboration of some specific information. The law firm’s founding partners, Jüergen Mossack and Ramón Fonseca Mora, were taken in for questioning. On his way into the Avesa building on Via España to answer prosecutors’ questions an enraged Fonseca — this time last year minister without portfolio and right-hand man in President Juan Carlos Varela’s cabinet and VP and effective day-to-day leader of the president’s Panameñista Party — lashed out.
The allegation here was not “The Panama Papers” per se, but that the Mossack Fonseca law firm had helped the Brazilian company Odebrecht launder bribe money for officials of several countries through Panama and through a number of other jurisdictions. The claim that companies incorporated by Mossack Fonseca had been used as shells in corruption within Brazil had been out there for a long time. But over the previous few days former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo and current Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos had been accused of taking money from Odebrecht through companies or money laundering networks set up by Mossack Fonseca.
“Mossack Fonseca has no relationship with Odebrecht, nor with any other Lava Jato company,” Fonseca told reporters. (Lava Jato, “car wash” in Brazilian Portuguese, is the name of the Brazilian police investigation of corrupt dealings by the Petrobras state-owned oil company, the Odebrecht group of companies built around one of the world’s largest construction firms, and the Braskem chemical company that’s a partnership between Petrobras and Odebrecht. The scandal has shaken Brazilian politics to its core and is nowhere close to over there.) “They’re looking for a scapegoat, for someone to distract attention,” Fonseca said of the prosecutors.
Distract attention from what? Fonseca accused the president and a pair of Panameñista legislators of meeting with the president Supreme Court magistrate, José Ayú Prado, to arrange for the latter to coordinate his decisions with President Varela’s actions. He dropped an even bigger bombshell:
President Varela told me — may lightning strike me if I lie — that he had accepted donations from Odebrecht because he couldn’t fight everyone.
The president’s supporters predictably dismissed the statement as a convenient lie by a man in trouble and seeking to divert attention, some pointing to the hearsay nature of Fonseca’s allegation. National Assembly president Rubén De León, a member of the PRD whose caucus seems to be in disarray about the claims, summed up the traditional response of Panama’s political caste: “Whoever accuses must produce sufficient proofs to demonstrate that the declarations are made with certainty.”
The operating presumption in De León’s scheme is that only someone who is desperate or mad would accuse a president and that nobody would second the allegation. But it may be that no other Panamanian need come forward to back up Fonseca’s story. There may be witness testimony from within Odebrecht, and documentary evidence in prosecution hands, to corroborate what Fonseca said.
Law professor Miguel Antonio Bernal, the principal organizer of the vigil in Parque Porras, opined that “the confessions of Fonseca Mora corroborate what is known.” Independent legislator and former attorney general Ana Matilde Gómez pointed out that while Fonseca’s statement isn’t sufficient to bring charges against Varela in the legislature, the current attorney general’s move against Mossack Fonseca was not some whim carried out without a foundation of information and investigation. Although she noted that the statement was made via the media and not under oath in a judicial proceeding, Gómez warned that Foncesca’s word could not be discounted because he was an insider in Varela’s political operation. “This is something that has to be verified,” she concluded.
Because it was Fonseca alleging what he said that Varela told him, wouldn’t this be hearsay? Indeed. In the Common Law system that prevails in the USA, hearsay is generally not permitted into evidence. However, if Varela said what he said, that would be an admission against penal interest and an exception to the ban on hearsay would apply. In Civil Code jurisdictions like Panama, the strict ban on hearsay isn’t in effect but such evidence is generally considered unconvincing unless corroborated by extrinsic proofs.
After a full day of questioning, prosecutors ordered Fonseca, Mossack and a third lawyer at their firm jailed pending further interrogation.
Meanwhile President Varela and his current inner circle — like Ramón Fonseca Mora — were issuing stern denials. The president said that he had never taken money from Odebrecht, and within less than a day had authorized the Electoral Tribunal to release his list of campaign donors. But from proceedings in other countries we know that Odebrecht usually paid off politicians, either as outright bribes or in the form of campaign contributions, via intermediaries that couldn’t readily be identified with the Brazilian company. Such is one of the luxuries of Panamanian corporate secrecy.
And what about Fonseca’s denial? He qualified his distancing from the Lava Jato shell companies, some of which his law firm did create. “The law doesn’t require you to know the final destination of companies, as is being asserted now,” he complained. Just because Mossack Fonseca created a shell company doesn’t mean that it will never be transferred without the law firm’s knowledge or control, the argument goes. But in the world of “off the shelf” shell companies, the law firm creators often know, and will sometimes advise, one or more transfers of a given company — whether for real or just on paper — in order to throw any investigator off if its tracks.
The case for which Mossack and Fonseca are being held is not about Odebrecht bribing Panamanian public officials. It’s about the firm setting up shells to hide bribery in other jurisdictions, offenses under Panama’s money laundering laws. One reason that bribery of Panamanians isn’t in the case is about constitutional jurisdiction. As to any sitting legislator, the Supreme Court is the only institution with jurisdiction to act. As to the president it’s only the National Assembly that has the power to investigate, prosecute and try. If the prosecutors of the Public Ministry find evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Varela or one or more legislators, they must stop the line of inquiry as to those officials and hand that part of their files over to the appropriate authorities.
The legislators have their own distractions. Pending before the Supreme Court is an appeals court ruling that absolved jailed ex-magistrate Alejandro Moncada Luna’s alleged money laundering accomplices on the theory that Moncada Luna’s plea bargain in his own case bars investigation or prosecution of accomplices who were not parties to that case for crimes that they may have committed. The legislature is considering Proposed Law 245, meant to encourage plea bargaining that would help clear up the monumental backlogs in this country’s criminal court dockets. But the appeals court ruling and the possibility that the high court will accept it means that Bill 245 could be used to have Odebrecht cop a plea to a criminal charge, with that deal then being used to bar any inquiry about legislators who took money from Odebrecht. In the face of a great public uproar, the legislators moved to amend the proposal. They added a provision that public officials convicted for corruption offenses could not avoid prison time by paying a fine. Which may be all well and good, but it doesn’t address the main concern about the proposed law.
To peruse the public record of every country in which Odebrecht’s criminal operations have been seriously investigated and in which the gist of what investigators have found have been revealed would lead to an expectation with respect to Panama. Most probably Odebrecht paid off most politicians of each major political party. If the hue and cry goes out to drive off the politicians who took Odebrecht money, that is almost surely the great majority of Panamanian legislators.
PRD party leader and legislator Pedro Miguel González implicitly acknowledges this problem and calls for and end to all corporate contributions to political campaigns. But his and the two other major parties in the legislature each lack a coherent and unified response to the unfolding scandal. The talk is becoming ominous.
From Cambio Democratico’s former security minister, José Raúl Mulino, himself the target of criminal investigations, the solution is to remove both President Varela and Attorney General Porcell. Veteran PRD campaigner Balbina Herrera talks about the possibility of a “technical coup.” Ana Matilde Gómez says that Porcell seems to be doing the right thing, doubts that as it now stands the legislature has what it would need to remove Varela, but thinks that the president may have lost so much support in the legislature that he may not be able to rule as a matter of political reality, regardless of the legal niceties.
Stay tuned. The ragtag little swarm of gadflies will be back in greater numbers. Other shoes are likely to drop. Panama is in institutional crisis mode and there seems to be no quiet and easy way out.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
Viene el Festival de Congos y Diablos de Portobelo
por Roberto Enrique King, foto por Alfredo Maiquez
La Fundación Portobelo y el Grupo Realce Histórico anuncian la realización el sábado 18 de marzo próximo de la edición número 10 del Festival de Congos y Diablos de Portobelo, el máximo evento con que cuenta la cultura afrocolonial panameña, que se ha constituido en indiscutible atractivo cultural y turístico para propios y extraños, que abarrotan las calles de la histórica población para disfrutar de las manifestaciones autóctonas de esta área de la provincia de Colón.
Los organizadores de este encuentro folklórico están en proceso de gestión de patrocinios, y ya cuentan con la confirmación como principales aliados gubernamentales de la Autoridad de Turismo de Panamá y del Instituto Nacional de Cultura, instituciones que vuelven a sumarse a este esfuerzo cultural que surgió de la inquietud de sus propios moradores por mantener sus tradiciones, y que deja indiscutibles ganancias culturales, económicas, turísticas y de imagen para la comunidad de Portobelo.
Este 10° festival celebra también la tenacidad y persistencia de sus organizadores, que lo han logrado mantener a través de todo este tiempo, y contará con una Feria Artesanal y Gastronómica, en donde se podrá disfrutar, desde mediodía, de comidas propias de la región, lo mismo que admirar y adquirir variadas artesanías; a las 2 pm el gran encuentro de grupos de diablos y congos, que tendrá lugar en un escenario frente al parque principal y el cierre con un Congo abierto en el parque para que público y participantes bailen y disfruten al máximo. Más info en redes y al 6398-1875.
~ ~ ~
Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web
HE LIES! Photo by the House Committee on Foreign Relations.
Elliott Abrams for Deputy Secretary of State: a rude shock for Latin America
by Taylor Lewis and Kate Teran
With the Trump Administration sponsoring what has been described as one of the most controversial cabinets in contemporary US history, it is critical for those who are interested in such political concerns to not only look at those at the highest level of policy making, but also those who are called upon to support them, particularly the individual being considered for the position of Deputy Secretary of State. On February 6, it was revealed by Politico that Elliott Abrams is under serious consideration for the position. An appointment that would place him directly below Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.[i] Elliott Abrams is a US diplomat who served during both the Reagan and H.W. Bush Administrations. Under President Reagan, he served as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. Under George H.W. Bush, he served as Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy, Special Assistant to the President, and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs.[ii] Given his experience, Abrams would appear to be a uniquely qualified choice below Tillerson, who, as the former CEO of Exxon Mobil, has little to no experience working within the US foreign policy positions and its operational base.
Despite his relevant qualifications, however, Elliott Abrams is infamous for withholding a whole series of information from his supervisors and providing false information to Congress at least three times during the investigation into the Iran-Contra Affair during the 1980s, as well as supporting the governments of Guatemala and El Salvador which were actively promoting genocide during the same decade. In 1991, Abrams was convicted and sentenced on two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. He was later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, who then appointed him back into his administration.[iii] Given that Latin America and the Caribbean have enjoyed an increasing degree of independence and integration in the past two decades, a return to Reagan style interventionism would directly jeopardize diplomatic ties to the region that would have called for continued, stable bilateral relations. In fact, Abrams inflicted such irreparable damage to Washington’s reputation and lack of respect for Latin American opinions or concerns that the name of Elliott Abrams is already guaranteed to go down in infamy.
More generally, the Trump Administration’s repeated inability to seek out even remotely qualified candidates for both cabinet and diplomatic positions is sure to affect the future of US-Latin American relations in a negative manner for years to come.
Moreover, the consideration of Abrams for deputy secretary of state has brought renewed attention to widespread criticism that the Trump administration has been remarkably shortsighted and off-handed in its selection of cabinet members and its methodology to select diplomats thus far. Additionally, the announcement of Mr. Abrams’s candidacy became more troubling with President Trump’s recent claim in an interview with Fox News in which Bill O’Reilly alleged that “Vladimir Putin is a killer,” to which Trump replied, “We have a lot of killers. Well, you think our country is so innocent?””[iv] This comment, while possibly nothing more than “political theater” begs the question of whether Trump’s administration could be aiming its sights at a new foreign policy agenda that shamelessly uses hegemonic strength to leverage its control of Latin American markets at a detrimental cost to Latin America.
Iran-Contra Affair and other controversial precedents
Elliott Abrams is an unprincipled Cold War hardliner who has not easily conceptualized the right of self-representation as evidenced by his exceptionalist approach to Latin America in the 1970-80’s. The Iran-Contra Affair began during the Carter Administration, but escalated under President Reagan as a direct result of his administration’s “anything goes” approach to Nicaragua and Iran.. In Nicaragua, Reagan signed an order on December 1, 1981 that directed the CIA to support the paramilitaries of Nicaragua, the Contras, with the funds and arms they would need to defeat the Sandinistas.[v] In the mid-1980s, with the codification of the Reagan Doctrine, which called for “supporting democratization everywhere,” it quickly became clear that US operations in Nicaragua were not intended to protect the Nicaraguan people from the danger of the Sandinistas, but rather, an attempt to impose enhanced control by Washington over foreign governments at any cost . In order to do so, and to prevent public disapproval, the Central Intelligence Agency carried out a series of secret attacks against the Sandinistas without prior approval from Congressional intelligence oversight committees.[vi]
One of the leading figures in spearheading these efforts was Abrams, who sought to continue funding the Contras illegally after the formation of the 1982 Boland Agreement, effectively shutting down United States funding of the Contras. To accomplish this, he and others in the US government sold armaments to militaries around the world and funneled a portion of the revenue received from these transactions to the Contras. Afterwards, when John Kerry (D-MA), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asked Abrams during a committee hearing if he knew of any foreign country that financially supported the Contras, he replied, “I don’t know. But not that I am aware of and not through us.”[vii]
Perhaps one of Abrams’s most nefarious actions, aside from evading congressional legislation, was his attempt to protect General Efrain Rios Montt, the Guatemalan dictator whose murderous regime decimated a large number of indigenous populations in the 1980s. According to a report from the United Nations, between 1960 and 1996 in Guatemala, “more than 200,000 died or were subjected to forced disappearance, over 80 percent from Mayan indigenous populations.”[viii] Furthermore, the commission found that “the state was responsible for systematic violence — including extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, sexual violence, death squads, the denial of justice, and other crimes and violations.”[ix] In spite of the rampant violence that plagued Guatemala for more than 30 years, Abrams praised General Efrain Rios Montt’s regime as having “brought considerable progress” to the Guatemalan people, going so far as to urge Congress to consider funding his efforts.[x] Moreover, while Elliott Abrams was Assistant Secretary of State, 98 percent of Guatemalans who attempted to seek refuge in the United States were refused asylum and were forced to return to the war zones they once called home.[xi]
The indigenous people of Guatemala were not the only ones to suffer at the hand of Elliott Abrams’s fatal decisions regarding US intervention in the 1980s. Between 1980 and 1992, the Salvadoran Civil War took close to 75,000 lives largely as a result of the US inability to appropriately address the rampant violence the US was funding. In 1982, when reports first emerged out of El Salvador of the El Mozote Massacre, in which hundreds of Salvadoran civilians were slaughtered by the El Salvadoran military, Abrams denounced these reports as “not credible” and “propaganda,” despite recent reports that he was well aware of the reality of the situation at the time.[xii] Because of Abrams’s claim that the massacre was nothing more than “fake news,” US dollars continued to flow into the hands of the Salvadoran military which resulted in the death of thousands of innocent Salvadorans.
Looking forward
Even members of the Republican Party, who widely supported Trump’s selection of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, have spoken out against Abrams as a war criminal who is unfit for the job. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) wrote on February 6, “I hope Secretary Rex Tillerson will continue the search for expert assistance from experienced, non-convicted diplomats who understand the mistakes of the past and the challenges ahead.”[xiii]
Many Republicans favor Paula Dobriansky for the position, a former diplomat to the UN under George W. Bush, who is well liked on both sides of the aisle and has been lauded for her role in the creation of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015.[xiv] If Abrams were to be appointed and confirmed, testimonies like Rand Paul’s seem to suggest an unavoidable chasm between President Trump, his inner circle, and the traditional Republicans of his party.
The appointment of Elliott Abrams as Deputy Secretary of State would send a message to Latin America that the United States is either unwilling or unable to learn from its past. By putting Abrams in such a key position, the United States would be effectively telling the world that they are willing and able to impose a neoliberal agenda even at the expense of regional peace and independence, and that a man who is almost universally despised by the Latin Americans is somehow being outrageously rewarded for his great misdeeds. Ultimately, the wounds of these wars that Abrams played such a critical role in have not yet healed, as Central American war criminals of the 1970s-80s continue to live with impunity and victims must learn to live in a post-war society.
Ultimately, the wounds of these wars that Abrams played such a critical role in have not yet healed, as Central American war criminals of the 1970s-80s continue to live with impunity and victims must learn to live in a post-war society.
by Taylor Lewis and Kate Teran Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs
Additional editorial support by Brandon Capece, Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs
Notes
[i] Crowley, Michael, John Bresnahan and Burgess Everett, Mike Zapler, Jack Shafer, Joshua Zeitz, Rich Lowry, and Justin Gest. “Trump sizes up a critic for high-level State Department job.” POLITICO. February 6, 2017. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-state-elliott-abrams-234671.
[ii] “Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs – The Legal Aftermath – Elliott Abrams.” Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs – The Legal Aftermath – Elliott Abrams. https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/profile-abrams.php.
[iii] Harris, Gardiner. “Elliott Abrams, Neoconservative Who Rejected Trump, May Serve Him.” The New York Times. February 6, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/us/politics/donald-trump-elliott-abrams.html?_r=0
[iv] Beinart, Peter. “For Trump, ‘We Have a Lot of Killers’ Isn’t a Criticism.” The Atlantic. February 6, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/for-trump-we-have-a-lot-of-killers-isnt-a-criticism/515748/.
[v] “Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs.” Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs. https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/timeline-n-i.php.
[vi] “Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs – The Iran-Contra Affairs.” Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs – The Iran-Contra Affairs. https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/n-contrasus.php.
[vii] “Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs – The Legal Aftermath – Elliott Abrams.” Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs – The Legal Aftermath – Elliott Abrams. https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/profile-abrams.php.
[viii] “Efrain Rios Montt Background.” International Justice Monitor. https://www.ijmonitor.org/efrain-rios-montt-and-mauricio-rodriguez-sanchez-background/.
[ix] “Efrain Rios Montt Background.” International Justice Monitor. https://www.ijmonitor.org/efrain-rios-montt-and-mauricio-rodriguez-sanchez-background/.
[x] Alterman , Eric. “The Upside of Genocide.” The Nation. June 29, 2015. https://www.thenation.com/article/upside-genocide/.
[xi] “Guatemalan Migration in Times of Civil War and Post-War Challenges.” Migrationpolicy.org. September 25, 2015.http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/guatemalan-migration-times-civil-war-and-post-war-challenges/.
[xii] Alterman , Eric. “An Actual American War Criminal May Become Our Second-Ranking Diplomat.” The Nation. February 02, 2017. https://www.thenation.com/article/an-actual-american-war-criminal-may-become-our-second-ranking-diplomat/.
[xiii] “Rand Paul: Do not let Elliott Abrams anywhere near the State Department.” Rare. February 07, 2017. http://rare.us/rare-politics/rand-paul-do-not-let-elliott-abrams-anywhere-near-the-state-department/.
[xiv] “State Department: Bush-era climate figure a finalist for No. 2 slot.” State Department. Friday, February 3, 2017. http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060049505.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
[Editor’s note: The following is Coretta Scott King’s 1986 statement to a Senate committee opposing the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be a federal judge. This statement was kept out of the record by the late Senator Strom Thurmond at the time, and when Elizabeth Warren began to read it into the record in opposition to the nomination of Sessions to be attorney general Senator Mitch McConnell silenced Senator Warren. But male senators continued to read the statement into the record and it has become a compelling part of US and international public discourse. What began as a slap in the face to the African-American minority has blossomed into an insult to the female majority. Should Warren choose to run for president, this incident will boost her chances and qualifications.]
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
In her travels since graduating from Columbia University, Catherine Johannet taught English in Vietnam and visited other countries before she came to Bocas. Photo that has been circulating on social media.
Leaks: Johannet was struck on the head with
a rock, strangled with a piece of her clothing
by Eric Jackson
Through the investigators’ veil of secrecy, certain things have leaked out about the disappearance and death of Catherine M. Johannet, who left Isla Colon on a water taxi headed for a visit to Red Frog Beach and whose body was later found on a forest trail on Isla Bastimentos. Preliminary reports are that she was hit on the head with a rock and then strangled with an article of her clothing.
It had been previously reported that the FBI is participating in the investigation and La Prensa reported on February 7 that raids had been conducted on Isla Bastimentos. No arrests or charges are reported as of early on the morning of February 8.
As expected, there is a lot of discussion about the case in the community and on social media. The litany of crimes against foreigners is being recited by some, although any true version of the homicides in Bocas will point the finger most of all at other foreigners. The instances of crime by water taxi drivers that are central to transportation in the Bocas del Toro Archipelago are noted, as can be said about crimes involving taxi drivers in the metro area as well. Surely investigators would want to identify and talk to the water taxi driver with whom Johannet left Isla Colon, which would not at all be the same as accusing him. There are warnings about women going places alone and about “bad areas” of Bocas for tourists to avoid.
The official secrecy is routine. It doesn’t help with the morbid speculation or “get tough on crime” demagoguery. Nor will the lack of official information do much to protect the Panamanian tourism industry, which will inevitably suffer from the publicity generated by this crime. If the avoidance of a media circus helps with the prompt solution of this murder mystery — and worldwide, murders in which the killer and victim did not know one another are usually difficult to solve — it may mitigate the damage that will be done to Panama’s reputation as a tourist destination and allow the entire community to breathe a bit easier.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
This is an “off year.” Except for possible special elections to fill vacancies, there will be no voting for either chamber of the US Congress. But there are two governor’s races that have often been bellwethers for things to come, the contests in Virginia and New Jersey. In both of these states the governors are term-limited, so new national figures may arise from those races. There are legislative races in Virginia and New Jersey. Because there was gerrymandering, a court has ordered elections to be held this year for the lower house of the North Carolina legislature, but that’s being appealed and may or may not happen.
There are many municipal elections this year, with New York and Los Angeles leading the list of mayoral races. Also electing mayors are Boston, Charlotte (NC), Atlanta, Miami, Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Jackson (MS), San Antonio, Albuquerque, San Bernardino and Seattle. Here and there people will be voting for city councils, school boards, county commissions and many other elected bodies or offices.
Turnout in off years is usually lower, which means that committed minorities can have more clout than usual. For voters living overseas, there are other considerations that often keep the vote turnout down. People who are dual citizens or who have lived abroad for a long time and have no plans to go back often let go to their old state and local ties even if who runs the US federal government is of the utmost importance to them. This year Republicans will be looking to consolidate gains and Democrats will be looking to stage comebacks in many places. With a closely divided and sharply polarized national electorate, look for surprises.
The American Citizens Services section of the US Consulate in Panama has sent out the following message about voting this year:
Just voted in November? Still traveling or living overseas? You should register and request your absentee ballot to vote again in 2017 to ensure your election office knows where to send your ballot for any upcoming special elections for federal office. Some states are also holding gubernatorial or other statewide elections this year.
The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) recommends all overseas US citizens send in a completed Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) early every year. The FPCA is the registration and ballot request form accepted by all states and territories.
You can use theFPCA online assistant, complete thefillable PDF version, or pick up a hard copy version from your nearest US Embassy or Consulate. Be sure your contact information is accurate in case your election office needs to reach you.
If you’d like more information on the Federal Voting Assistance Program or need help with the absentee voting process please go to FVAP.gov or call FVAP at 703-588-1584 (toll free 1-800-438-VOTE or DSN 425-1584) or emailvote@fvap.gov.
Toll-free phone numbers from 67 countries are listed on the FVAP website. You can also find FVAP on Facebook atfacebook.com/DoDFVAP or follow@FVAPon Twitter.
~ ~ ~
These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.
Somos moradores de una urbanización resultante de los esfuerzos y afanes de 152 familias de clase media quienes gracias a una cooperativa presidida por el Dr. José Leonardo Días Castillo construimos nuestra barriada a partir de 1973.
Villa Soberanía se encuentra entre La Alameda y La Locería. Tenemos acceso desde la Vía Ricardo J. Alfaro por la calle del Taller de Ricardo Pérez y por la Vía Juan Pablo II.
La calle que nos permite ingresar a nuestra urbanización desde la Vía Ricardo J. Alfaro entre el Colegio Internacional de María Inmaculada en La Alameda y el sitio en el que se encuentran los Talleres de Ricardo Pérez fue construida parcialmente con nuestros recursos y parcialmente gracias a gestiones que adelantamos ante el MOP (Ministerio de Obras Públicas).
Entre los pioneros y primeros moradores de nuestra urbanización habíamos: médicos, enfermeras, laboratoristas, trabajadoras sociales, ingenieros, visitadores médicos, docentes (maestros y profesores), funcionarios públicos, comerciantes, etc.
El nombre de nuestra barriada fue propuesto por el autor de estas líneas, en una de las reuniones de la cooperativa que realizábamos en la casa comunal de La Locería, todos los jueves. Se aproximaba el 15 de marzo de 1973 cuando se realizó en nuestro país por segunda vez, fuera de su sede en Nueva York, una reunión del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, sesión en la cual el General Omar Torrijos Herrera, en nombre de nuestro país denunció el enclave colonial denominado Zona del Canal y reclamó la soberanía en todo nuestro territorio. Se realizaron dos reuniones para escoger y ratificar la decisión de la asamblea general de los cooperativistas de designar a nuestra urbanización con el nombre de Villa Soberanía.
Con el transcurrir de los años se instalaron en las proximidades de nuestra urbanización:
1. El Colegio Internacional María Inmaculada de La Alameda
2. El taller de Ricardo Pérez.
3. La empresa SAR de limpieza (cuya entrada principal está en la Vía Juan Pablo II y el acceso a los depósitos se encuentra en la calle que hemos identificado como la calle de los Talleres de Ricardo Pérez).
Desde que aparecieron en el área los citados vecinos estos paulatinamente han ido ocupando gran parte de la estrecha vía. En la calle no hay espacio para los peatones, no existen aceras en la abrumadora mayoría de su extensión.
Tras esta, un tanto extensa, introducción deseo denunciar que la estrecha calle que comunica nuestra urbanización con la Vía Ricardo J. Alfaro es ocupada y a menudo bloqueada por autos, microbuses y camiones estacionados a ambos lados de la misma por clientes y trabajadores del taller, por los camiones de la empresa SAR de limpieza y el Colegio Internacional María Inmaculada ubicado en La Alameda.
Es preciso destacar que la dificultad en el tránsito por la vía que nos ocupa no solamente es para el movimiento de los autos sino también para los jóvenes y trabajadoras que recorren la misma a pie sorteando los autos y camiones y exponiéndose a ser atropellados debido a que no hay aceras para los transeúntes.
Las fotos que ilustran este mensaje fueron tomadas el sábado 4 de febrero 2017 a las 12:00 meridiano en tres segmentos de la ruta.
En una nota posterior nos referiremos al acceso a nuestra barriada desde la Vía Juan Pablo II operación que a menudo no es nada fácil.
La denuncia sobre lo señalado en esta nota ya sido hecha ante las autoridades competentes y la volveremos a presentar con la esperanza que llegará el momento que las empresas señaladas tomen las medidas pertinentes para que los moradores de Villa Soberanía podamos usufructuar del derecho al libre tránsito y el acceso a nuestra urbanización, no solo en auto sino también caminando (con seguridad, sin estar expuestos a ser arrollados por un auto por la falta de espacio existente en la actualidad para los peatones).
Entre los moradores de nuestra barriada hemos comentado que resulta inexplicable que dos empresas y una escuela tan conocidas en nuestro medio no sean más considerados con sus vecinos de Villa Soberanía.
~ ~ ~
Estos anuncios son interactivos. Toque en ellos para seguir a las páginas de web
