|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
xeno439
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: Should we bomb Venezuela? |
 |
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060128/ts_alt_afp/venezuelaglobalizationuschavez_060128084406
This guy never quits. Does he want us to blow his country to hell?
They give us much more oil that Iraq ever did.
| Quote: |
| he United States imports 1.5 million barrels a day from Venezuela, almost half the South American country's total output. |
It's too bad that every country that produces oil has issues. Of course, we have are obsessed with the black stuff, so I guess we can't just cut them off now can we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We should watch but ignore Venezuela. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have they started to price oil contracts in Euros?
That would be the trigger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Real men don't buy oil from those who are the enemy. When it comes to energy policy The US -read Bush has no guts, and zero self respect.
Pathetic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This alliance, of course, interests me...
| Quote: |
| The firebrand former paratrooper, clad in his trademark red shirt, turned to US anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and said: "I love you, too," after she blew him a kiss to thank him for praising her campaign against the US war in Iraq, in which her son, a US soldier, was killed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
patchy
Joined: 26 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Good on him! I like him - he tells it straight up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
This alliance, of course, interests me...
| Quote: |
| The firebrand former paratrooper, clad in his trademark red shirt, turned to US anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and said: "I love you, too," after she blew him a kiss to thank him for praising her campaign against the US war in Iraq, in which her son, a US soldier, was killed. |
|
Can't wait for Bob to back Cindy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peemil
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Location: Koowoompa
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Does he want us to blow his country to hell? |
You can't go round blowing places back to the Stone Age everytime someone disagrees with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peemil wrote: |
| ...everytime someone disagrees with you. |
Sounds like you do not have a solid grasp on Chavez. What he is doing goes far beyond mere disagreement, even if he is just rabble-rousing...
| Quote: |
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez urged activists around the world on Sunday to protest against U.S. dominance and the war in Iraq, saying: "Down with the U.S. empire!"
Chavez made the sharp remarks while speaking to activists invited to his weekly broadcast on the final day of the World Social Forum.
"Enough already with the imperialist aggression!" Chavez said, referring to U.S. military involvement in places from Iraq to Panama. "Down with the U.S. empire! It must be said, in the entire world: Down with the empire!"
"In this century, we have to bury the empire, and may there never again be empires in the world," he said to rousing applause from an audience of supporters and international activists.
He spoke with his arms wrapped around the shoulders of visiting American peace activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, and Elma Beatriz Rosado, the widow of slain Puerto Rican nationalist Filiberto Ojeda Rios.
Chavez said Sheehan told him during a meeting Saturday night that "soon, in Holy Week, she is going to put up her tent again in front of Mr. Danger's ranch." Sheehan gained international notoriety last year when she set up a protest camp near Bush's Texas ranch.
"She invited me to put up a tent. Maybe I'll put up my tent also," Chavez said to applause. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/01/29/chavez.sheehan.ap/index.html
Here's an excerpt where it seems clear enough to me that he's declared his regime to be our enemy. And if he's going to declare himself our opponent so forcefully, then one is certainly justified in asking why we should not oppose him, even though I do not think "bombing Venezuela" is an appropriate response...
| Quote: |
Ch�vez's warm and public friendship with Cuban President Fidel Castro and significant trade relationship with Cuba have markedly compromised the U.S. policy of isolating Cuba diplomatically and economically. Long-standing ties between the U.S. and Venezuelan militaries were also severed by Ch�vez. Ch�vez's stance as an OPEC price hawk has not made him popular in the United States, as Venezuela had long lobbied OPEC producers towards lower production ceilings. When Venezuela held the OPEC presidency in 2000, Ch�vez made a ten-day tour of OPEC countries in a bid to promote his policies, and in the process became the first head of state to meet Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War. The visit was controversial at home and in the United States, despite Ch�vez observing the ban on international flights to and from Iraq�he drove from Iran, his previous stop.
Ch�vez and Argentine President N�stor Kirchner discuss energy and trade integration projects for South America. They met on November 21, 2005 in Venezuela as a gesture of mutual solidarity in their opposition to the Washington Consensus and the FTAA proposal (Office of the Argentine Presidency). Ch�vez's foreign policy conduct and anti-Bush rhetoric has occasionally reached the level of personal attacks. In response to the ousting of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in February 2004, Ch�vez referred to U.S. President George W. Bush as a pendejo ("jerk"). In a later speech, he made personal remarks regarding Condoleezza Rice, referring to her as a "complete illiterate" with regards to comprehending Latin America.
Additionally, although Ch�vez typically enjoys fair to excellent relations with fellow Latin American leaders, there have been examples of heated disputes between them. On November 10, 2005, Ch�vez, stated regarding Mexican President Vicente Fox in a talk before supporters in Caracas that he was saddened that "the president of a people like the Mexicans lets himself become the puppy dog of the empire" for what he alleged was Fox's obsequience to U.S. trade interests in his promotion of the newly stalled FTAA. Additionally, on the November 13, 2005 episode of his weekly talk show, Al�, Presidente!, Ch�vez stated that the Mexican president was "bleeding from his wounds" and warned Fox to not "mess" with him, lest he "get stung". Fox, upon hearing of the remarks, expressed his outrage and threatened to recall the Mexican ambassador to Venezuela if the Venezuelan government did not promptly issue an apology. However, rather than apologizing, Ch�vez simply recalled Venezuela's own ambassador to Mexico City, Vladimir Villegas. The Mexican ambassador to Caracas was recalled the following day. Although ties between the two countries have been strained, neither country will say that diplomatic ties have been indefinitely severed. Several groups in both Mexico and Venezuela are working to restore the diplomatic relationship between the two countries.
In two highly-publicized episodes, Ch�vez has attempted to score rhetorical points against the U.S. government with offers of petroleum-related aid. After Hurricane Katrina battered the United States� gulf coast in late 2005, the Ch�vez administration was the first foreign government to offer aid to its "North American brothers". Ch�vez offered tons of food, water, and a million barrels of extra petroleum to the U.S. He has also proposed to sell, at a significant discount, as many as 66,000 barrels of heating fuel to poor communities that were hit by the hurricane, and offered mobile hospital units, medical specialists, and power generators. The Bush administration opted to refuse this aid. Later, in November 2005, officials in Massachusetts signed an agreement with Venezuela to provide heating oil at a 40% discount to low income families through Citgo, a subsidiary of Petr�leos de Venezuela. Ch�vez has stated that such gestures comprise "a strong oil card to play on the geopolitical stage" and that "[i]t is a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest country in the world, the United States." |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On Chavez's "down with the evil empire" rants and his charges that Rice knows nothing about Latin American affairs (which might be true): it never ceases to amaze me that people like him have an exceedingly selective recounting of historical events.
After the 1898 Spainish War, the U.S. got into the empire business. Let's not forget how and why this happened, however.
Working with the British, and against aggressive and reactionary imperial forces from Russia and Spain, and several others, the U.S. declared the western hemisphere off limits to colonialism. This was the Monroe Doctrine (early ninteenth century).
Later, after the Spanish War, and before that, the British fleet's 1895 withdrawal from the Caribbean in deferrence to the new U.S. sphere of influence and new naval realities, President Roosevelt amended this doctrine.
There were other pressures. Here's a Wikipedia summary on the origins of "the Roosevelt Corollary":
| Quote: |
Roosevelt was preoccupied with events in what he considered the United States' special sphere of influence: Latin America. Early in his presidency, he was fixated especially on the prospects of penetration into the region by the German Empire. Unwilling to share trading rights, let alone military control, with any other nation, Roosevelt embarked on a series of ventures in the Caribbean and South America that established a pattern of U.S. imperialism in the region that would long outlast his presidency.
Crucial to Roosevelt's thinking was an incident early in his presidency. When the government of Venezuela was no longer able to placate the demands of European bankers in 1902, naval forces from Great Britain, Italy, and Germany erected a blockade along the Venezuelan coast and even fired upon coastal fortifications to remind the Venezuelan caudillo of his debt to some of their nationals. At first content to stand by and allow Venezuela to weather this assault, Roosevelt soon became suspicious of German intentions when German ships began to bombard a Venezuelan port. The German naval bombardment set off rumors that Germany planned to establish a permanent base in the region. In 1903, Roosevelt warned the Germans (according to his own later account) that Admiral Dewey and his fleet were standing by in the Caribbean and would act against any German effort to acquire new overseas colonies. Thus, Roosevelt matched threat with threat; the German navy finally withdrew and the Europeans quickly retreated into the safer field of international diplomacy.
The incident helped to persuade Roosevelt that European intrusions into Latin America could result not only from aggression but from internal instability or "irresponsibility" (such as defaulting on debts) within the Latin American nations themselves. This left the United States and President Roosevelt with an even greater determination to shut European imperialism out of the Western Hemisphere. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
So an important part of the context of U.S. imperialism in the Caribbean Basin, then, was strategic denial of that basin to aspiring European powers.
It is also important to realize that the Latin Americans were utterly irresponsible financially, unable to govern themselves, and thus always getting themselves in way more trouble than they were worth.
So, "down with the empire!" Chavez chants. That's fine. But if the U.S. went down, someone else would replace them in the Caribbean Basin -- from outside the basin, that is. Because problematic Hispanic culture will always create problematic and highly unstable Hispanic govts in that part of the world, and they will always need a more mature power to guide them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Because problematic Hispanic culture will always create problematic and highly unstable Hispanic govts in that part of the world, and they will always need a more mature power to guide them. |
Kipling lives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't believe me?
Here's a backgrounder on Brazil's current mess:
| Quote: |
What are the main allegations?
It is alleged that the governing PT, which has a minority in Congress and rules through a parliamentary coalition, secured support for its coalition in two ways.
First, it is accused of paying monthly bribes of $12,000 to lawmakers from other parties; second, it allegedly manipulated the system of appointments to state-run companies.
The PT-led government allegedly handed out top jobs to the nominees of parties that supported its legislative program. Also, the PT is accused of supplying undeclared funds to an allied party during last year's municipal elections.
How serious are the allegations?
The bribery allegation is extremely serious, even in a country familiar with official corruption.
The accusation that appointments were manipulated comes as less of a surprise - historically, job-related horse-trading between parties has been a regular feature of Brazilian political life.
The campaign finance allegation relates primarily to the PT rather than the government. But it could lead to a broader investigation of the often murky world of electoral funding in Brazil.
The PT has repeatedly denied paying bribes to lawmakers from other parties. It also denies supplying undeclared campaign funds to other parties.
Who is making the claims?
The allegations were made in June by Roberto Jefferson, a lawmaker for the Brazilian Labour Party (PTB) in the lower house of Brazil's parliament. He says the PTB was offered bribes by the PT, but refused to accept them.
Roberto Jefferson is himself under investigation following alleged corruption in the state-run postal service. Opponents say he is making wild accusations as a form of political blackmail. His performances at parliamentary hearings have been calm and assured, but he has produced no firm proof to support his claims.
What evidence is there to support the claims?
At this stage the evidence is circumstantial. Several lawmakers claim to have heard of a bribery scheme, but no one has come forward to say they were personally offered money by the PT.
The police are investigating large cash withdrawals from the company bank accounts of Marcos Valerio, an advertising executive who held several contracts with the government. The withdrawals occurred around the time of key votes in parliament.
The PT strongly denies opposition claims that Marcos Valerio was the "bagman" who organised the alleged bribery ring. But after initial denials, it has acknowledged a past financial relationship with Valerio. In 2003 he personally guaranteed two bank loans to the party, and in July 2004 he paid a $150,000 instalment on one of the loans.
Such loans were not in themselves illegal. But Mr Valerio assisted the PT at a time when his advertising companies were being paid for work with state-run companies and government ministries. Opposition lawmakers allege that Mr Valerio was, through those contracts, funnelling taxpayers' money to the PT. Both Mr Valerio and the PT deny the claim.
Who has resigned?
The PT has acknowledged making mistakes and providing misleading information about its relationship with Mr Valerio.
In early July, the revelations forced four members of the Party's executive to step down: Jose Genoino (PT president), Delubio Soares (treasurer), Silvio Pereira (general secretary) and Marcelo Sereno (communications). All deny any wrongdoing.
In June the president's influential chief of staff, Jose Dirceu, was forced to resign.
The principal accuser, Roberto Jefferson, has alleged that Mr Dirceu knew about the alleged bribery ring. Mr Dirceu insisted that he was quitting government "with clean hands".
Is the president in any way implicated?
No one has suggested that President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva ("Lula") was personally involved in the alleged vote-buying scam, and a majority of Brazilians firmly believe he is honest.
But the government has acknowledged that Lula was personally informed about the allegations by Roberto Jefferson in March 2005. At the time, he ordered two colleagues to look into the allegations. They reported back that a parliamentary inquiry had investigated similar claims in October 2004, and found no evidence of wrongdoing.
What's the worst-case scenario for Lula?
If it were proved that a bribery scam did exist, and that the president knew about it and failed to act, he could be accused of what's known as a "responsibility crime". That would be the first step towards an impeachment process.
But this is not likely at this stage. For now, most politicians and commentators believe it would be disastrous for Brazil's image if Lula were forced out of office. They also fear that that impeachment proceedings would trigger an economic crisis.
Instead, one possible way out is for Lula to agree not to run for re-election next year. Lula might be reluctant to accept such an exit strategy.
But the latest opinion polls show his popularity has fallen badly and that he would now lose a presidential election to an opposition candidate.
What are the broader consequences of all this?
Whatever the outcome, this affair has seriously dented the PT's image as a party of honest government.
In 2002, millions of Brazilians voted for Lula in the hope that he would change a political culture that many saw as corrupt and favouring vested interests. The suspicion now is that the PT has delivered more of the same.
Also, this affair may send shockwaves around the region.
As Brazil's first elected working-class president, Lula was initially hailed as the saviour of South America's left. Many other countries have since elected left-leaning leaders, who have emphasised the importance of reducing the continent's vast inequalities.
But suddenly Lula, as the movement's figurehead, is fighting for political survival. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4676435.stm
...on Argentina's mess:
| Quote: |
Argentina's miseries now cry out in the headlines: riots and violence, a farcical procession of presidents-for-a-day, and the gathering doom of default and devaluation. But behind the headlines lurk deeper ills that gnaw away at the foundations of the country's political and economic life. Those ills helped to bring about the current crisis, and they will persist long after the media spotlight now on Argentina fades away.
Argentina's woes are many, but underlying them all is the dilapidated state of its political and legal institutions. According to an annual index of corruption levels published by Transparency International and based on surveys of business people, academics and risk analysts around the world, in 2001 Argentina ranked a dismal 57th out of 91 countries. Worse, in other words, than Botswana, Namibia, Peru, Brazil, Bulgaria, and Colombia, and on par with notoriously corrupt China.
Uncompetitive
The same results came through in the 2000 Global Competitiveness Report, coproduced by Harvard University and the World Economic Forum, which surveyed business leaders from 4,022 firms in 59 countries on their perceptions of business conditions. Again, Argentina languished near the bottom: 40th for the frequency of irregular payments to government officials; 54th in the independence of the judiciary; 55th in litigation costs; 45th for corruption in the legal system; and 54th in the reliability of police protection.
It wasn't always this way. The disrepair of Argentina's institutional infrastructure is a legacy of its Per�nist past. Look, for example, at the crucial question of judicial independence. Prior to the descent into statism, justices of Argentina's Supreme Court enjoyed long tenures undisturbed by political interference. At the beginning of Juan Per�n's first administration in 1946, Supreme Court justices averaged 12 years on the bench.
It's been downhill since then. Since 1960, the average tenure has dropped below four years. After Per�n (he left the presidency for the second time in 1974), five of 17 presidents named every member of the court during their term, a distinction that had previously been limited to Bartolom� Mitre, the country's first constitutional president (1862-1868). And so, while before Per�n, it was typical for a majority of the court to have been appointed by presidents from the political opposition, that was no longer the case. The Supreme Court, the supposed bulwark of the rule of law, was reduced to a puppet of executive power.
The pro-market reforms of the early 1990s brought little improvement. President Carlos Menem, who deserves credit for stabilizing the currency and privatizing industries, nonetheless persisted in traducing the integrity of the country's institutions. Faced with a politically hostile Supreme Court, Mr. Menem responded with a court-packing scheme -- he expanded the court from five to nine members and filled the new slots with political supporters.
His transgressions did not stop there: Allegations of corruption swirled throughout his two terms in office. Those charges finally caught up with him in June of last year, when the former president was arrested for his alleged role in an illegal arms-shipments deal. But after five months of house arrest, Mr. Menem was set free by his hand-picked Supreme Court.
Corruption in Argentina extends far beyond Buenos Aires. To get a first-hand look at the problem, I visited the northwestern province of Tucum�n earlier this year. During the "dirty war" of the 1970s, Tucum�n served as a refuge for pro-Castro guerillas and was roiled by bloody fighting. Today it is better known as home to the world's largest producer of lemons, as well as a now-declining sugar industry, and its problems are more prosaic: bloated and corrupt bureaucracy, and a backward and unreliable legal system.
The public sector in Tucum�n, for example, serves primarily to enrich politicians and fund patronage jobs. Out of a formal work force of some 400,000, there are nearly 80,000 provincial and municipal government employees and another 10,000 federal government workers. Elected officials siphon off small fortunes for themselves: The annual salary for provincial legislators is roughly $300,000.
Tucum�n is by no means noteworthy for such abuses. In the impoverished province of Formosa on the country's northern border, about half of all formally employed workers are on the government payroll, and many show up only once a month -- to collect their paychecks.
Such profligacy lies at the root of Argentina's present financial crisis. Government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product climbed to 21% in 2000 from 9.4% in 1989 despite the fact that sweeping privatizations were alleviating significant fiscal burdens.
And while the country's mess may begin in the capital, free-spending provincial officials bear much of the blame as well. Operating expenses at the provincial level rose 25% from 1995 to 2000 even though inflation was nonexistent. The spending binge was financed by an unsustainable runup of external debt -- the reckoning for which has now arrived.
Meanwhile, as the public sector ballooned uncontrollably, vital government responsibilities went unfulfilled, among them the provision of a legal system that promptly and reliably vindicates the rights of the citizenry. As a result, the acute financial traumas that now beset Argentina are compounded by a business environment that is profoundly hostile to investment, dynamism, and growth.
In San Miguel de Tucum�n, the capital of Tucum�n province, I spoke with Ignacio Colombres Garmendia, the head of a major law firm in town. "The legal system is absolutely vital for our region's economic development," he noted, "but the politicians are blind to it. It's hard to see what doesn't happen because of a bad legal climate, and so nobody knows about it. But every day I see deals collapse -- I see potential investors who decide not to come to Tucum�n -- because of the legal risks. They call and ask me about this or that legal issue, and I have to tell them, and they say 'Thank you very much' and that's the end of it. 'The world is a big place,' a client told me once, 'and we don't need Tucum�n.'"
It takes an average of five years to foreclose on a commercial mortgage in Tucum�n. And given the punishingly high interest rates that prevail now in Argentina, delays like that can render even excellent collateral insufficient to cover the amount ultimately due. In a vicious circle, the risks caused by delay and uncertainty serve to drive interest rates up even higher. And, lo and behold, the net effect of a system that leaves investors and creditors so badly exposed is simple: less investment, less financing, and less growth and opportunity.
Market Economy
It is fashionable now to blame Argentina's problems on the free market. The country's latest president, old-school Per�nist and unabashed protectionist Eduardo Duhalde, has joined the anti-market chorus by vowing to break with the "failed economic model" of the past decade. But Argentina's tragic crack-up occurred not because pro-market reforms went too far, but because they did not go nearly far enough.
A healthy market economy requires not just the absence of statist controls; it requires the presence of sound institutions. And although the reforms of the Menem era made strides toward meeting the former requirement, they ignored the latter altogether. Today Argentina is suffering grievously from that oversight. Until it is corrected and the country's ramshackle political and legal systems are overhauled, there is little hope that a stable and prosperous Argentina can emerge from the wreckage. |
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/lindsey-020109.html
...an incident in Ecuador:
| Quote: |
According to reports in the centrist Guayaquil newspaper, El Universo, Ecuador�s navy has lost US$17.9 million in an arms deal gone wrong. In 1997, the Ecuadorian navy contracted Panamerican Organization Properties (POP), a Panamanian company, to act as a middleman in the purchase of two Bell helicopter gunships. Five years and nearly US$18 million later, the helicopters still have not arrived. A criminal investigation is under way in Panama and Ecuador, high-ranking Ecuadorian naval officers may face court-martials, and Panama�s foreign minister, Jos� Miguel Alem�n Healy, has been indirectly tarred by the scandal.
Records on file at Panama's Public Registry show that POP was registered on March 30, 1982, with US$300,000 in seed money. The attorney who registered the company was one Jos� Miguel Alem�n Healy, who now serves as Panama's Foreign Minister. The documents list the law firm in which Alem�n is a partner, Icaza, Gonz�lez-Ruiz y Alem�n, as POP's resident agent in Panama.
On May 16, El Universo reported that the Ecuadorian national comptroller's office had confirmed that POP had defrauded the National Defense Council (JDN, by its Spanish initials) of millions of dollars in the deal. Comptroller Alfredo Corral determined that POP had forwarded only US$9,212,800 of the US$17,900,000 it had received from the JDN. Of the roughly US$9.2 million that did make it to its final destination, US$3 million reportedly went to Texas-based Bell Helicopter Textron; the remainder went to Heli-Ayne Systems, which had been contracted to outfit the helicopters with anti-submarine systems. |
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/612.cfm
...and Peru:
| Quote: |
The outgoing Peruvian state attorney, who has been overseeing the investigation into corruption under disgraced former president Alberto Fujimori, says he expects the inquiry will last more than five years.
The official, Jose Ugaz, is to present a report on his findings later on Thursday, when he hands over to his successor, Luis Vargas Valdivia.
People are seeing the end of a decade of immunity, today there are high-level officials in jail, which is unprecedented in Peru and the world
Jose Ugaz
Mr Ugaz told Reuters news agency that he believed Mr Fujimori's former intelligence chief, Vladimiro Montesinos, was still trying to use his influence despite being in jail.
A videotape of Mr Montesinos showing him giving a $15,000 bribe to a newly-elected congressman brought down the Fujimori administration in 2000.
Since then, a vast corruption network involving scores of Peruvian officials has been uncovered.
Mr Montesinos is being held in a naval base prison he had designed himself. He faces charges ranging from money-laundering to organising death squads and could be sentenced to life imprisonment if convicted.
Mr Fujimori took refuge in Japan, which has refused to extradite him.
Volume of evidence
Mr Ugaz was appointed in 2000 by Mr Fujimori - then still in power - to investigate Mr Montesinos.
Fujimori has resisted efforts to bring him back to Peru
The state attorney said so far that 130 people had been put in jail, $65m repatriated and $30m worth of goods seized or frozen in connection with the scandal.
A total of 1,400 people have been under investigation.
But the sheer volume of evidence that has appeared since the videotape of Mr Montesinos was released has revealed a huge web of corruption and human rights abuses.
Mr Ugaz said that the only institutions unaffected were the Roman Catholic Church and the ombudsman's office.
"People are seeing the end of a decade of immunity," he said. "Today there are high-level ... officials in jail, which is unprecedented in Peru and the world," he said.
He added that there were government ministers with corruption links, but that they were not a threat.
"I don't believe they can impede our investigation, although we know that Montesinos, through his emissaries, is making threats," he said. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1794129.stm
Take U.S. influence away from this child-like, temper-tantrum-throwing region and all will come up roses? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think it would make a difference if the US was there or not. I thought you were saying that some western power needed to have a lot of influence to bring stablility to those countries.
And you have to admit there is a lot more stablility in Latin America now than previously. For instance, brazil has moved from coup d'etats and dictatorships to bribery scandals, a plague that is found in all political systems in the world (including South korea's first elected president).
If you don't think the region has developed at all politcally in the last couple decades, then I think you're being a little narrow minded there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deessell
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I like him too. I wish him well but feel he may not live long enough to have a huge impact. I would be interested in working there and getting a good look at what's going on with social reform. Interesting times ahead for South America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
