The place where Colombia, Peru and Ecuador come together is the greatest cocaine-trafficking air corridor in the world. Small aircraft regularly fly coca paste across the Andes Mountains from Peru.
That’s why a CIA plane, contracted to do intelligence as part of a drug interdiction operation with the Peruvian government, suspected on Friday that a small Cessna carrying a family of Baptist missionaries was running drugs.
According to statements by a U.S. intelligence official, the three-person U.S. surveillance crew, who were civilian contract employees of the CIA, informed a Peruvian A-37 fighter jet on patrol about its suspicions, but asked it to check its identity before taking any action. The U.S. crew communicated only with the Peruvian air force liaison on board the surveillance plane. By agreement, U.S. personnel are not in the Peruvian chain of command and have no authority to control their actions. Despite the American objections, the Peruvian officer on board the CIA plane instructed the jet crew to fire on the suspicious Cessna, according to the official.
Many questions still linger about what exactly led to the fatal events. But onlookers say that they saw the jet fire machine-gun rounds into the Cessna, and watched the tiny plane crash into the river. Though Peruvian onlookers were able to rescue the Cessna’s pilot from the water, Veronica Bowers and her 7-month-old daughter, Charity, had already been killed — according to reports, a single bullet passed through the child’s skull as she sat in her mother’s lap, then entered the mother’s body.
Why did they die, and what could have prevented this terrible event? Very few questions have been answered at this point, and it will likely be weeks before an investigation can offer the public more information.
Contributing to the confusion is the fact that drug interdiction flights, like all of our military anti-narcotics operations in Latin America, are secretive and complex. They involve not only the military operations of the home governments, which themselves lack transparency, but an elaborate system of U.S. foreign aid from a variety of agencies, including the departments of Defense and State, the U.S. Customs Service, the CIA and the Drug Enforcement Agency, which provide host nations with military training, equipment and intelligence. Making matters even murkier is the presence of numerous American mercenaries, hired as freelance pilots, ground crews and intelligence personnel by both the host nations and the United States.
In the past five years, Peru has reportedly shot down roughly 30 planes it suspected of drug running, and grounded many more. Coca cultivation in the Andean nation has fallen by as much as 60 percent as a result of joint U.S.-Peru anti-drug efforts, whose main focus is air interception, the U.S. administration said.
On Monday, the Bush administration ordered U.S. surveillance flights suspended pending an official investigation. But, anxious to avoid jeopardizing an interdiction program that has been, at least in its immediate region, a rare success, the administration downplayed the event, acknowledging that it was a “tragic error” but calling it an “isolated incident.” The administration stopped short of blaming the Peruvian government, but said its military failed to follow proper rules of engagement, and that it acted too hastily by firing against the plane.
The Peruvian military denied any wrongdoing, saying it followed proper procedure — leaving unanswered the question of how a procedure could be “proper” that resulted in the death of innocent civilians.
The Bowers tragedy throws a spotlight on the $48 million in narcotics control aid that the U.S. government gave to Peru last year, as well as the $32 million that came as part of Plan Colombia, the military anti-narcotics campaign implemented last year in Andean drug-producing nations. It is certain to lead to hard questions about the viability of American participation in the interdiction program — questions concerning not just the competence of America’s military partners in the region but the sprawling, internecine war on coca production itself, a war critics charge is unwinnable. Despite the fact that coca production in Peru has dropped, coca production in the region as a whole has increased, as growers pressured out of Peru have moved into Colombia.
Salon asked Adam Isacson, a senior associate at Washington’s Center for International Policy, what this tragedy can tell us about our involvement in the drug war.
Is Peru the only government that has a policy to shoot down planes involved in drug trafficking? And what is the role of the U.S. in that policy?
What we do is hand off the intelligence to that country’s military, and it’s really up to them what they do with it. Peru has chosen to shoot down. It’s often called jokingly the “You fly, you die” policy. Colombia says they shoot down, but they don’t do it very often. What they do more often is just sort of force down planes and then strafe them on the ground. Venezuela hasn’t done much of anything lately. But the real air transit point is between Peru and Colombia, from the growing areas to the processing areas.
Why does Peru have that policy?
I imagine they adopted that policy with a lot of encouragement from the United States back in the mid-’90s. Certainly we were pleased when [disgraced former President Alberto] Fujimori and [fugitive former spy chief Vladimiro] Montesinos adopted that policy.
What do you make of all the confusion between the Cessna, the CIA plane and the Peruvian jet?
We’re not going to know that for a while; that’s going to be for the investigation. When we hand over this sort of intelligence to the Peruvians, though, there’s either an implied or a specific agreement that they are going to follow procedures — trying to communicate with the plane, dipping your wings, shooting a warning shot. It doesn’t look like they did any of that.
It looks like they just fired?
That’s what we’re hearing from the first eyewitness accounts. If that’s true, than it’s more than just a few miscommunications. It’s a complete neglect of what they’ve been told to do. We’re just not going to know until they do a real investigation.
If this mission was part of our anti-narcotics aid to Peru, why was the CIA involved?
It’s inter-agency, they like to say. The defense department is supposed to be in the lead on this, but of course the CIA are one of the many agencies involved. And since they have access to a lot of the good equipment, it makes sense that that was a CIA plane. I’m not sure, but I think there was a private contractor involved too, whether they own the plane or whether they were pilots — pilots are always in short supply — I’m not sure yet what their role was. But there were CIA and contractors and a Peruvian air force official on board the plane that was watching that gave the information to the jet.
What does this tragedy draw our attention to?
More than anything, I think it just draws attention to the militaries we’re working with in that region. The fact that this was done with U.S. intelligence, with a plane given by the U.S., by pilots and airmen trained and equipped by the U.S. — everything there was paid for, bought and sold by us. The A-37 was given to Peru for counternarcotics purposes.
It’s time that we started looking a little more closely at who we’re giving this stuff to. These are institutions with long histories of corruption and human rights abuses. So that obviously calls into question their professionalism and what they can be relied on to do. We may be lucky that this hasn’t happened before.
Are these interdiction missions part of Plan Colombia?
This predates Plan Colombia, it’s something they’ve been doing since at least the mid-’90s, but it is being beefed up somewhat by the money that was in last year’s Plan Colombia aid package. Again, I’m not sure where the intelligence plane took off from, but it probably took off from this site in Manta, Ecuador, which is getting a lot of money for refurbishment and construction from the Plan Colombia aid package.
What other countries do these flight missions?
Looking for suspicious aircraft is something we do really everywhere from Bolivia all the way up to the border of Mexico. It’s most intense, though, in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia, where obviously the cocaine comes out of first and also where a lot of the coca paste gets taken to be processed into crystal cocaine — that’s what a lot of the flights going out of Peru do.
Does this relate at all to the flight that killed U.S. Army pilot Jennifer Odom in Colombia last year?
That plane was doing signals intelligence — they were actually listening in to stuff going on on the ground. Whereas this one was doing visual, looking up signals that had already been found by radar sites within the region, trying to ID the plane, I think. So it’s a little different, but it’s part of the same effort. It’s all counterdrug and all gathering intelligence by air. The Jennifer Odom plane was certainly a lot more sophisticated than what the CIA was using.
Peru has certainly gone through a lot of big changes in the past year, including the corruption scandal that brought down President Alberto Fujimori and his spy chief Vladimiro Montesinos. How is that affecting the counternarcotics efforts in Peru?
To the best I can tell, it’s not having much effect on what’s going on. All the political turmoil is in Lima, on the coast, and most of the counternarcotics stuff is happening well over the Andes. For most Peruvians, it might as well be on a different planet. So the work with those particular units of the police, the air force, the navy, has probably remained about the same.
Actually, now that Fujimori is gone, it’s probably a little more politically palatable to start jacking up military aid, which is something that’s going to happen in 2002 if you look at George Bush’s request. The only thing that might have been disrupted over the past few months is the fact that many of the officers loyal to Montesinos were forced out. So there may be some intelligence gathering and command and control [may] have been disrupted a little bit. But that’s probably the only way it’s been weakened.
How has the implementation of Plan Colombia affected Peru?
Last year, the only money in Plan Colombia for Peru was about $32 million for helicopters. Since Peru had just stolen an election, it wasn’t really politically palatable or possible to give it to them. But they’re going to get more next year.
A lot of people are speculating that most of the aid for Colombia’s military is being concentrated in an area right along Colombia’s border with Ecuador and Peru, that we’re going to be pushing not just drug trafficking but also violence and refugees into Ecuador and Peru. So we may see an increase in coca and violence on the other side of the border.
That spillover is a big worry about Plan Colombia — that’s probably one reason why they’re proposing $90 million in military aid for Peru now. You push the coca growers out of one place, coca’s still profitable, so they might just cross the river and start cutting down jungle on the Peruvian side.
Does that military response have anything to do with their “shoot ‘em out of the sky” approach?
I think that attitude has been around for a while now. They’ve shot down about 30 planes in the past five years or so.
Why don’t we hear more about them? Have there been any more Americans killed, or any conflicts in the air between drug trafficking planes and intelligence or military planes?
If there have been dogfights in the air, I don’t know about them. I think usually they’re shooting down these little Cessna planes. According to official U.S. reports, they’ve always been narcos, and we’ve had no basis to challenge that and we’ve been assured that when they do shoot them down, it’s after trying to contact them several times, trying to signal to them in the air, firing warning shots, and only if they keep going do they shoot them down or force them down. But this mistake last week makes you wonder how often they are asking questions first before they shoot.
In general, this whole operation happens with almost no transparency. You’re asking me some very basic questions here and I’m still only able to give you very basic answers. Why is the CIA involved? What are these contractors? How do they chose their targets? We don’t know and nobody’s really asking.
Who is in charge of the oversight of these missions?
The oversight eventually falls on Congress — the international relations and armed services committees that are paying for this stuff. When staffers go down there they get flown to these bases and shown some select professional troops and a PowerPoint presentation telling them how effective they’ve been. But nobody asks questions about how we can avoid situations like this one.
Rather than have congressional staff, who are really overworked and underpaid, do all of this, [the agencies] should be forced to make information about this more and more accessible, so that there could be more of an evaluation of where we’re headed with this.
MEXICO CITY — At El Mirador, a cantina frequented by Mexico’s political and economic elite, you can see a fine selection of spirits and a menu that features dishes like pickled pigs’ feet and beef tongue tacos.
But what you won’t see are women.
El Mirador, a relic from the country’s machista past, politely refuses to serve them. The bathroom has only a urinal and a sink.
So it may have come as a surprise to some when Mexico’s PAN party decided to nominate Josefina Vazquez Mota, a woman, for president – the first time a woman has ever been nominated by a major Mexican party.
Accepting her nomination, Vazquez Mota, a longtime government official, said, “I will be the first woman president of Mexico in history.”
Even if they are not yet welcome in the cantina at El Mirador, women are making noticeable inroads into other areas of Mexican political life.
With the real possibility that Mexico may join Latin American countries like Argentina, Brazil and Chile in electing a female to the highest office, her nomination marks a slow but steady erosion of Mexico’s macho culture, a way of life that lives on in the upper echelon of Mexican business world.
“Back in the 1950s all the cantinas in Mexico City were only for men. It’s the embedded machismo culture,” Ramon Peña-Franco, a former media analyst who worked for Mexico’s current leader Felipe Calderon.
Men gathered in cantinas to drink and play dominoes, while women stayed at home.
While the ban on women is not explicitly stated, it is enforced through the polite entreaties of waiters who explain the “tradition.” A woman in the men-only cantina might “make the other guests uncomfortable,” the Mirador manager said.
More than in the U.S. or the UK, the main stage of Mexico’s business arena continues to be dominated by men. However, more women have begun working in finance, information technology, media and manufacturing. Mexico has also seen an increasing number of female governors and cabinet members in the public sector.
And slowly, old social mores are beginning to evolve.
In 2006 many Mexican states updated the language used in marriage ceremonies, eliminating vows that asked men to treat their wives “with the magnanimity and generous benevolence that the strong should give to the weak,” and asked women to “give to her husband obedience [and] avoid awakening the most irritable and hard part of his character.”
Monica Morales, a financial analyst who was married in Mexico City in 2011, explained that the traditional language that was historically used in nuptial proceedings is too “macho.”
“Now, not even my grandmother would support it,” she said.
“Even my friends who want the most traditional weddings wouldn’t use it,” she said.
Some arenas of public life are evolving as well.
An electoral reform enacted in 2002 requires that major parties select female candidates for at least 30 percent of the seats they campaign for in the country’s congress. In 2003, the first election under the new rules, female candidates won 23 percent of the seats.
Now, women hold 30 percent of the seats in Mexico’s congress, compared to just 17 percent in the U.S.
Still, despite recent progress in the political arena, women have not yet broken through into the highest levels of Mexico’s corporate world.
Unlike in Mexico’s congress, very few seats in the country’s board rooms are filled by women. Only one of Mexico’s top 20 largest publicly traded companies has appointed a female board chair. Not one of Mexico’s largest companies has a female CEO.
When it comes to leading businesswomen in Mexico, Ramon listed “the owner of Grupo Modelo, Maria Asuncion Aramburuzabala. She’s the wealthiest woman in Mexico.”
“Other than that… I don’t think I can remember,” he said.
In July, Mexicans will vote to replace Felipe Calderon, whose six-year term has been plagued by violence from a five-year war on the drug cartels.
Many voters are ready for a change.
“This is a historic nomination, it has the potential to change the dynamics of the presidential race,” said Shannon O’Neil, a Mexico expert from the Council of Foreign Relations, a think-tank in New York.
It is still unclear whether Vazquez Mota, who has served both as secretary of social development, and later education, can convince voters to elect her.
Vazquez Mota’s main rival in the race to Los Pinos, the president’s office, is Enrique Peña Nieto, the candidate from the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI.
The party ruled Mexico as a de facto autocracy for seven decades until it was ousted from the presidency by a candidate from the PAN in 2000, is campaigning hard as well.
Peña Nieto is currently leading in the polls, and most analysts consider him to be the favorite.
Peña Nieto, though, has faced a number of missteps so far in his campaign. At a recent event in Guadalajara, he couldn’t name three books that have influenced his life. After failing to correctly state the price of a kilo of tortillas, a staple in most families’ diets, he shrugged off criticism, saying, “I’m not the woman of the house.”
Vestiges of the macho culture, after all, are still very much present in everyday Mexico.
As the rules change, other aspects of the country’s public life have evolved with time. In 2008, for instance, Mexico City banned smoking in bars and restaurants.
The cantinas begrudgingly complied.
Seated at a table at the Mirador, Ramon said, “Machismo is rooted, so it’s been harder [to change] in Mexico than anywhere else.”
By the exit, there was a table of men in their seventies finishing a game of dominos, getting ready to leave.
“The role of women in political life is changing,” Shannon, the Mexico expert, said.
“The real challenge for women in Mexico, and elsewhere, is to increase the numbers and the breadth of their participation and say in the way things are run.”
MAIQUETIA, Venezuela — An hour’s drive from Caracas, thousands of people gathered in this coastal barrio at Venezuela’s national airport, which was recently given the dubious honor of being the worst in Latin America.
Clad in blue T-shirts and waving tiny red, yellow and blue flags, the lively crowd sang and danced, waiting for the arrival of the man who is the first serious threat to President Hugo Chávez in his 13-year tenure.
Henrique Capriles Radonski is the frontrunner for primaries due to take place on Sunday, in preparation for October’s presidential election.
For the first time in its disjointed history, the opposition he is about to command has finally united to take on the socialist president.
When he arrives, el pueblo — “the people,” as Chávez affectionately calls them — crowds around him.
The 39-year-old Capriles has risen up the political ladder in Venezuela over the last decade, once a mayor and now governor of the country’s second-most populous state, Miranda.
This gives him credibility among those he is trying to woo.
“He’s young, but he comes with experience,” gushed Theresa Carinero, 56, clad in a T-shirt and bandana emblazoned with the candidate’s name, and waving his flag.
Capriles’ support comes largely from people like Carinero, which offers him an advantage over previous opposition candidates.
Former competitor Leopoldo López, who has thrown his support behind Capriles, won the backing of wealthy expatriates, but largely neglected voters at home.
López in 2008 was banned from political office on a corruption charge that never went to court. He denied the allegations and took his case against the Venezuelan state last year to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which overturned the ruling. But Chavez’s government declined to honor it.
In the awkward position of being able to stand for elections but not hold office, López shifted his considerable momentum to Capriles just two weeks ago.
At the rally in Maiquetía, Lopez flanked the main man as he greeted the throngs of supporters.
“It’s not sufficient to just talk about the problems,” Capriles told GlobalPost. “We have to fight against poverty.”
Capriles has based his campaign on improving education, which he sees as a long-term solution to the country’s insecurity and deep poverty. Capriles’ methods are not to shout down Chávez — indeed, he praises many of the president’s ideas — but to change things little by little, on a case-by-case basis, he said.
But it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to unseat El Comandante, as his supporters know him. Chavez has been in power for 13 years. And with world oil prices pushing $120 a barrel, Chavez, head of an oil-rich state, has a full campaign war chest. This week, Venezuela’s state oil company reported a 35 percent increase in profits last year.
“Chávez has begun his campaign, spending a lot of money,” said Luis Vicente Leon, a local pollster.
The president also remains very popular, largely because of the vast number of social programs he has put in place, funded by Venezuela’s vast oil wealth.
According to recent figures from local polling firm Hinterlaces, Chávez is bathing in an outstanding 64 percent approval rating.
Housing, health and other programs have been the cornerstone of Chávez’s tenure.
Critics charge the programs offer only aid, and no new vision for the future. “Why doesn’t Chávez propose a real solution, rather than fixing the odd house just for publicity?” said 24-year-old Yesman Utrera, speaking in his own barrio in the east of Caracas.
He added: “Everyone has a friend of a friend who’s been helped by the government.”
It was a severe lack of wealth distribution that helped bring Chávez to power in the first place.
While Chávez was studying at Caracas’ military academy in the late ’80s and early ’90s, Venezuelans were growing increasingly disaffected with the authorities, pocketing all the oil wealth while bringing neo-liberal reforms to the masses. Chávez capitalized on the disaffection with his 1992 coup attempt against then President Carlos Andrés Pérez.
Despite ending up in prison as the coup failed, Chávez became a national hero, personifying the struggle against a corrupt elite. This would carry him to the Miraflores presidential palace six years later.
Venezuelans haven’t forgotten the Perez regime. Pablo Perez, who isn’t related to the former president, has campaigned under that old party’s banner. But he is still tainted by association. “Pablo Perez isn’t going to win the primary because he’s from the AD,” said Carlos Romero, a political analyst working at Caracas’ Central University of Venezuela, referring to the party’s Spanish initials.
“I’m not part of the old establishment,” Capriles said. He also takes pains to distance himself from any U.S. connection. Though he is fluent in English, he is reluctant to speak the language on camera, pre-emptively parrying attacks from Chávez on any sympathy for the “Yankee empire,” as the president describes Washington’s domain.
Demonstrating a broader shift in Latin American politics, Capriles is also taking a leaf out of the book of former Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
Lula, as Brazilians affectionately know him, has come to represent a more moderate Left, able to support the poor while also working with business and Washington — a shift from men like Chávez and Fidel Castro in Cuba, who position themselves as being against the West.
Lula managed to unite a free market economy with social projects which have given concrete aid to the poor. Brazil is now the world’s most powerful emerging market and Lula is considered responsible for this and the country’s 7.5 percent GDP growth in 2010.
Capriles’ admiration of Lula is evident in social projects in Miranda, the state which Capriles currently governs. For example, he’s sponsored cooking lessons for the poor to help them set up small businesses, in direct imitation of Lula’s Hambre Cero (Zero Hunger) projects in Brazil.
Ultimately, it is popular support through projects such as this that will win it for either Capriles or Chávez in October.
“I wish Chávez a long life,” said Capriles, referring to the president’s cancer scare last year, “so that he sees the change that is coming.”
A significant portion of the seed money that created Mitt Romney’s private equity firm, Bain Capital, was provided by wealthy oligarchs from El Salvador, including members of a family with a relative who allegedly financed rightist groups that used death squads during the country’s bloody civil war in the 1980s
Bain, the source of Romney’s fabulous personal wealth, has been the subject of recent attacks in the Republican primary over allegations that Romney and the firm behaved like, in Rick Perry’s words, “vulture capitalists.”One TV spot denounced Romney for relying on “foreign seed money from Latin America” but did not say where the money came from. In fact, Romney recruited as investors wealthy Central Americans who were seeking a safe haven for their capital during a tumultuous and violent period in the region.
Like so much about Bain, which is known for secrecy and has been dubbed a “black box,” all the names of the investors who put up the money for the initial fund in 1984 are not known. Much of what we do know was first reported by the Boston Globe in 1994 when Romney ran for U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy.
In 1984, Romney had been tapped by his boss at Bain & Co, a consulting firm, to create a spin-off venture capital fund, Bain Capital.
A Costa Rica-born Bain official named Harry Strachan invited friends and former clients in Central America to a presentation about the fund with Romney in Miami. The group was impressed and “signed up for 20% of the fund,” according to Strachan’s memoir. That was about $6.5 million, according to the Globe. Bain partners themselves were putting up half the money, according to Strachan. Thus the Central American investors had contributed 40 percent of the outside capital.
Back in 1984, wealthy Salvadoran families were looking for safe investments as violence and upheaval engulfed the country. The war, which pitted leftist guerrillas against a right-wing government backed by the Reagan administration, ultimately left over 70,000 people dead in the tiny nation before a peace deal was brokered by the United Nations in 1992. The vast majority of violence, a UN truth commission later found, was committed by rightist death squads and the military, which received U.S. training and $6 billion in military and economic aid. The Reagan administration feared that El Salvador could become a foothold for Communists in Central America.
The notorious death squads were financed by members of the Salvadoran oligarchy and had close links to the country’s military. The death squads kidnapped, tortured, and killed suspected leftists in urban areas fueling an insurgency that retreated to rural areas and waged war on the government from the countryside. The war, which lasted 12 years, triggered an exodus that brought more than 1 million Salvadorans to the United States.
There is no evidence that any of Bain Capital’s original investors were involved in these sorts of activities. But the identities of some of the investors remain secret, and there are family names that raise questions.
Four members of the de Sola family were among the original Bain investors, or “limited partners” in the company, the Globe reported. Their relative and “one-time business partner,” Orlando de Sola, was an important figure in El Salvador. A well-known right-wing coffee grower with an (in his words) “authoritarian” vision for the country, de Sola spent time living in Miami but was also a founding member of the right-wing Arena party, lead by a U.S.-trained former intelligence officer named Roberto D’Aubuisson.
Craig Pyes, an investigative reporter then with the Albuquerque Journal, wrote a series on the rightist death squads based on extensive on-the-ground reporting in El Salvador in the early 1980s with Laurie Becklund of the Los Angeles Times, while the death squads were still active.
Pyes, who has since won two Pulitzer Prizes and is now a private investigator in California, says that no one has produced any proof that de Sola directly funded death squads.
“However,” Pyes says, “he was in the inner circle of the group around D’Aubuisson at the time that D’Aubuisson was well known to be involved in the death squads. De Sola’s name appears in a December 1983 FBI cable as one of 29 people suspected by State Department officials of furnishing funds and weapons to Salvadoran death squads.”
De Sola’s name also turned up in a notebook, seized from an aide to D’Aubuisson named Saravia, that detailed the finances of D’Aubuisson’s terrorist network, according to Pyes.
The Saravia notebook, reviewed by U.S. officials, listed weapons purchases, payments, and what appear to be descriptions of violent plots by rightists, including the assassination of El Salvador’s Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero in 1980. Asked about the notebook by the New York Times in the late 1980s, de Sola denied that he had ever helped finance political violence. De Sola could not be reached for comment for this story.
Romney, for his part, who was much more accessible to the press in 1994, told the Globe that year that “we investigated the individuals’ integrity and looked for any obvious signs of illegal activity and problems in their background, and found none. We did not investigate in-laws and relatives.” He also said that Bain had checked the names of the Bain investors with the U.S. government. Given the policy of the Reagan administration at the time, though, it’s not clear going to the government would have been the most effective vetting mechanism.
It’s impossible to fully explore the backgrounds of the original Bain investors because we don’t know all their identities, including the names of the four members of the de Sola family mentioned by the Globe. Neither the Romney camp, Bain Capital, nor Strachan — the Bain executive who recruited the Central Americans — responded to requests for comment.
During his first presidential bid in 2007, Romney more than once touted the Central American investors in Bain while trying to woo Hispanic voters. In a speech in March of that year to the Miami-Dade Lincoln Day Dinner, Romney actually specified five of the original “partners” in Bain Capital — but the de Sola family was not among those he named.
And that August he told the Miami Herald, “The investments for the company that I started, Bain Capital, came largely from Latin America. My largest single investors came from El Salvador, Ecuador, Colombia and Guatemala. And so I feel a deep kinship to people in Latin America.”
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez revealed that he is fighting cancer after having a tumor removed in Cuba, raising uncertainty about Venezuela’s political future even as he assured his country he expects to fully recover.
Chavez was noticeably thinner and paler as he appeared on television Thursday night, reading from a prepared speech with a serious and at times sad expression. He said he is resolved to “be victorious in this new battle that life has placed before us.”
Chavez’s admission shook the political landscape of a country he has dominated for his more than 12 years in power, and who had vowed to win re-election next year and govern for another decade or more.
There is no obvious successor to the charismatic Chavez within his Bolivarian movement, and his illness may also affect his leadership within the ALBA alliance of leftist Latin American nations.
Chavez said he had two operations in Cuba, including one that removed a tumor in which there were “cancerous cells.” The 56-year-old president said the surgery was performed after an initial operation nearly three weeks ago to remove a pelvic abscess.
A military chief, Gen. Henry Rangel Silva, assured the country on Friday that Venezuela’s stability “is guaranteed.”
“President Chavez will continue because he hasn’t truly stopped exercising his functions as president,” Rangel Silva said on state television. He said Chavez was recovering smoothly and had been on top of his duties while in Cuba.
“He will be in our country soon,” Rangel said, without saying exactly when Chavez was expected to return.
Chavez said the tumor was in the pelvic region but didn’t say exactly where or what type of cancer was involved. He said he is continuing to receive treatment in Cuba but did not elaborate.
He said it was a mistake not have taken better care of his health through medical checkups.
“What a fundamental error,” he said at a podium, flanked by the Venezuelan flag and a portrait of 19th-century independence hero Simon Bolivar, the namesake of his Bolivarian Revolution political movement.
“Now I wanted to speak to you from this steep hill, from which I feel that I’m coming out of another abyss,” Chavez said. “I wanted to speak to you now with the sun of daybreak that I feel is shining on me. I think we’ve achieved it. Thank you, my God.”
Expressing confidence that he will continue to get better, Chavez said: “I invite you all to continue climbing new summits together.”
Chavez didn’t say how much longer he expects to remain in Cuba recovering, and there was no information on when or where his message was recorded.
His appearance came after days of anxious speculation among Venezuelans about Chavez’s health. State television on Tuesday had shown photos and video of Chavez chatting animatedly with Fidel Castro, but officials had been vague about the reasons for Chavez’s continued seclusion in Cuba.
Citing Chavez’s health, the government announced Wednesday that it was canceling a two-day summit of Latin American leaders that Chavez would have hosted next week on the 200th anniversary of Venezuela’s declaration of independence from Spain.
Chavez’s revelation, and the lack of any return date, is likely to further generate speculation in Venezuela about which of the president’s allies could potentially take his place if necessary. Vice President Elias Jaua has led government events in Chavez’s absence, and the leftist president’s elder brother, Adan, recently stepped up his public profile by rallying supporters at a weekend prayer meeting for Chavez’s health.
Chavez supporters gathered in Plaza Bolivar in downtown Caracas late Thursday chanting before television cameras: “Chavez, friend, the people are with you!”
There was no immediate reaction from the main opposition coalition, which earlier had demanded that the government provide details about Chavez’s condition.
Chavez said his first surgery took place June 11 for a “strange formation in the pelvic region that required an emergency operation due to the imminent risk of a generalized infection.”
He said when he arrived in Cuba after visits to Brazil and Ecuador, he had intended to have a simple checkup for a knee injury that had forced him to use a cane in recent weeks. But he said Castro had questioned him “like a doctor” and that tests confirmed the need for urgent surgery.
After that initial operation, Chavez said, doctors began to suspect other problems, and Castro gave him the news of the tumor. A series of tests “confirmed the presence of an abscessed tumor with the presence of cancerous cells, which made necessary a second operation that allowed for the complete extraction of the tumor,” Chavez said.
He didn’t say when the second operation was performed.
Chavez said his condition has been “evolving satisfactorily while I receive a complementary treatment to combat the different types of cells found, and thereby continue on the path to my complete recovery.”
After Chavez’s speech, the vice president appeared on television at the presidential palace, calling for support and unity among Venezuelans.
“There is no time for sadness, but rather for courage and for work,” Jaua said. “Unity is what’s needed at this time.”
Under Venezuela’s constitution, the vice president would take the president’s place during “temporary” absences of up to 90 days. And Jaua would serve the remainder of Chavez’s six-year term if the socialism-preaching president were to die or resign.
With a presidential election looming next year, it’s unclear who might step forward to run in Chavez’s place if the president were to pull out of the race.
During the past few weeks, Chavez has largely remained out of sight, and some of his opponents had accused the government of maintaining secrecy about his ailment.
Chavez last spoke publicly in a call to Venezuelan television on June 12, after his first surgery.
Some opposition politicians had called for the president to temporarily cede his duties to the vice president while recovering in Cuba.
Chavez’s allies, however, insisted he remained firmly in control of government affairs, even as he has been recovering.
The leftist leader has been in office for more than 12 years and plans to run for re-election in 2012. He did not address that issue on Thursday.
Venezuelan pollster and analyst Luis Vicente Leon said on Twitter that Chavez will likely enjoy an initial boost in his approval ratings due to public sympathy, but that “the political risks for Chavez are notably amplified” due to his condition.
In videos released Wednesday, Chavez smiled and discussed Latin American history and his days as an army paratrooper with Castro. Two of Chavez’s daughters and a granddaughter joined in the encounter.
Finishing his speech Thursday, Chavez recited a revolutionary slogan often used by Castro: “Forever onward toward victory! We will be victorious!”
Before finishing, he added: “Until my return!”
After his appearance, some of his closest allies went on state television. National Assembly president Fernando Soto Rojas, who days earlier had denied rumors that Chavez was diagnosed with cancer, said the president is in good hands in Cuba.
“We wish for him to get better soon! Onward, commander!”
Associated Press writer Fabiola Sanchez contributed to this report.
President Barack Obama is cutting his trip to Latin America short, and will leave Wednesday morning, hours before his originally scheduled departure.
The White House says Obama will leave El Salvador, the final stop on his five-day trip, after holding a conference call with his national security team to discuss the situation in Libya.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.
President Barack Obama opened the final leg of his Latin American tour Tuesday in El Salvador, a critical partner on immigration and narcotics wars, issues of increasing concern to the United States.
Obama, along with wife Michelle Obama and their two daughters, arrived in the capital San Salvador Tuesday afternoon under a blistering sun following stops in Brazil and Chile. After being greeted at the airport by children in traditional dress bearing candy, the president and first lady were welcomed at the national palace by El Salvador’s President Mauricio Funes and his wife Vanda Pignato. The two couples stood at attention in front of the flags of both their countries as the national anthems of El Salvador and the United States were played. Obama and Funes then headed into a private meeting at the palace, to be followed by a joint news conference.
Much of Obama’s five-day tour of Latin America has been overshadowed by events in Libya, where the U.S. and international partners are launching military strikes to protect civilians from attacks by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. The White House said Obama was briefed on developments there by his national security team Tuesday during a conference call from Air Force One. He also spoke with British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy while en route to El Salvador, to discuss NATO’s roll in the Libya offensive.
The White House shuffled Obama’s schedule in El Salvador, moving up a visit to the tomb of slain Roman Catholic Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero, originally scheduled for Wednesday, to Tuesday evening. The move raised the prospect that Obama might return to Washington ahead of schedule.
Among the issues on Obama’s agenda in El Salvador –the only Central American country on his Latin America trip — is the rising crime south of the U.S. border, from which El Salvador is hardly immune. It has seen murder rates rise amid an influx of drugs and displaced traffickers from crackdowns in Colombia and Mexico.
El Salvador also has one of Central America’s highest rates of emigration, especially to the United States. About 2.8 million Salvadoran immigrants living in the United States sent home $3.5 billion last year, so laws that crack down on immigrants can significantly affect the Salvadoran economy.
Obama can offer little to fix El Salvador’s devastating crime and fragile economy. Fiscal pressures have limited the amount of money the U.S. government can provide as part of its drug-fighting efforts, and congressional politics have made it difficult to restart talks about overhauling the nation’s immigration laws.
In a broad-ranging speech in Chile on Monday that spelled out his policy in Latin America, Obama called on the region’s rising economies to take more responsibility and play a larger role both in the region and around the globe.
He also described U.S. initiatives in Latin America to help curb the proliferation of drugs. Congress approved $1.8 billion for the so-called Merida Initiative to fight drugs in Mexico. After complaints that Central America was shortchanged, Congress created a separate Central America Regional Security Initiative with a total of $248 million so far. Central American leaders say that has not been enough.
Obama also prodded the region to fight poverty, lauding countries that have pushed more of their population into the middle class.
“We’ll never break the grip of the cartels and the gangs unless we also address the social and economic forces that fuel criminality,” he said Monday.
Funes, who despite being elected with support from former Marxist guerillas has charted a moderate course in El Salvador, agrees with Obama that all countries in the region need to contribute to a solution.
Some Central American leaders have expressed annoyance that Obama chose to meet with Funes instead of a broader group of Central American leaders. But Latin America policy experts said it was important for Obama to endorse Funes’ pragmatic approach despite the leftist inclinations of his party.
Funes said he would raise the issue of security with Obama in regional terms. “Security cannot be seen as exclusively an issue in El Salvador, or Guatemala or Nicaragua,” he said recently. “Central American countries all suffer from the same problem.”
Obama conceded Monday that the United States also bears a burden when it comes to gun trafficking.
“Every gun or gunrunner that we take off the streets is one less threat to the families and communities of the Americas,” he said.
But Obama, in calling for a new discussion on guns, recently declined to endorse the very gun control measures he had supported in the past.
Josefina Vasquez Mota (Credit: AP Photo/Alexandre Meneghini) 
Henrique Capriles Radonsk (Credit: AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos) 
Mitt Romney (Credit: Jessica Rinaldi / Reuters) 
In this frame grab taken from Venezolana de Television, VTV, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez delivers a televised speech aired from Cuba, Thursday, June 30, 2011. Chavez said he underwent a second surgery in Cuba that removed a cancerous tumor. It was unclear when and where the message was recorded. (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos)(Credit: AP) 
U.S President Barack Obama waves at the Centro Cultural La Moneda Palace before his speech to Latin America in Santiago, Chile, Monday March 21, 2011. Obama is in Chile as part of a three-country, five-day tour of Latin America. (AP Photo/Roberto Candia)(Credit: AP) 
