A Real Indian from Peru: the U.S. Challenge

In Peru, often called the country-heiress of the Inca Empire, results of the presidential election were summed up. This South American country is going to be run by a left-wing representative, Ollanta Humala, head of the bloc named Peru Wins. The U.S. has traditionally disliked left-wing representatives; therefore, to some extent, it means defeat for the U.S.

The intrigue of the presidential election in Peru was spun to a dashing point. A few months ago, the polls showed Humala had virtually no chance of reaching the second round, let alone of winning the election. However, already in the first round, which took place on April 10, he managed to confound the skeptics by winning with a result of 29 percent. The second place was taken by the daughter of the former dictator, Keiko Fujimori, leaving her just six percent behind. As a result, these two politicians went into the second round.

Ollanta Humala is one of the few Latin American leaders representing the indigenous people of the continent, the Indians. Besides him, there is only the president of neighboring Bolivia, Evo Morales, who belongs to this race. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the main fighter against the U.S. in the Western Hemisphere, also has the Indian blood flowing in his veins. However, unlike Humala and Morales, he can hardly be called a full-blooded Indian.

The name Humala is quite widely known in Peru. In the past, like Chavez, he was a military man in the cadre and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. In 1995, the elected president took part in the border conflict with Ecuador. Five years later, he raised a revolt against Alberto Fujimori, the head of state at that time and the father of his current rival in the election. Back in 2005, Humala’s brother rebelled in the city of Andahuaylas.

The Indian colonel already participated in presidential elections five years ago. Back then, Humala went to the people with a promise to deal with corruption cases of the former right-wing president Alejandro Toledo. He vehemently criticized the United States and called Latin American countries to joint action against the Yankees. If one is to believe the notorious WikiLeaks site, Humala’s opponent, Alan Garcia, and his people sought support in Washington.

Apparently, the Americans have provided it, at least because Hugo Chavez had openly supported Humala. Praising his Peruvian “comrade”, the Venezuelan leader didn’t feel shy to make sudden attacks on the U.S. and Alan Garcia. Chavez called the latter “the biggest corrupt official in the history of Peru.” But Garcia was the one chosen. Experts believe that the excessive zeal of “the Violent Hugo” rendered Humala a bad service.

It’s been five years since then, and Humala has become more experienced. He no longer looks like a Chavez protégé and there is less radicalism in his speeches. Nobody heard curses addressed to the States come from his mouth. He even swore on the Bible that he would not follow the same path of limiting democratic freedoms as the Venezuelan leader did. Humala has promised that he would respect democracy and, “being president, he would act only within the framework of the constitution and respect the rule of law.”

He also announced his intention to become closer partners with Brazil. The last two Brazilian presidents, although they are not radical anti-Americanists, could hardly be called supporters of the United States. Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Russeff talked about Brazil as an alternative to Washington but in Latin America. Compared with the Chavez trouble, the U.S. had even more trouble with them. Humala never became a pro-American politician.

Strictly speaking, Humala’s program had a set of slogans that hardly suited the right-wing pro-U.S. politician. There were slogans of social justice, strengthening state regulation of the economy, a more equitable distribution of income from mining and exports of mineral resources. Given that U.S. firms play a prominent role in the economy of Peru, Washington is unlikely to enjoy the way the income is going to be redistributed.

Who was the rival of Humala? It was Keiko Fujimori, the leader of the right-wing bloc called Power 2011. She spoke with even more right-oriented slogans. She promised to uphold a favorable tax policy for big businesses. At the same time, she promised to extend pension insurance and expand free education for poorer people. Her speech was no different from her opponent’s.

The Peruvian of Japanese descent could have won if she didn’t have the shadow of her father, Alberto Fujimori, who was president in the 1990’s, hanging over her. Today, he is serving a 25-year sentence in prison for corruption, abuse of power and formation of death squads that were employed to physically eliminate his opponents. It is believed that, on the order of the pro-U.S. Fujimori, at least 25 of leftist activists were destroyed. At the same time, the dictator was not able to improve the state of economy.

Was Keiko Fujimori the American protégé? She might have been, but Washington didn’t support her openly. One way or another, almost all opinion polls indicated a victory for her. It’s true that such a choice wasn’t much liked in Peru. A famous local writer and Nobel laureate, Mario Vargas Llosa compared the choice between Humala and Fujimori with “a choice between AIDS and cancer.” In the end, he somehow took Humala’s side.

As a result, the campaign scales tipped in favor of “a real Indian”, Humala. Nearly 51.5 percent voted for him, while his opponent received just 48.5 percent. If nothing happens, this very politician will run this rather big country with a population of 30 million people. There are oil and gold, silver and copper in the depths of this country, while at least 45 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. They, of course, are eager for redistribution of wealth.

Time will tell what policy Humala chooses, the policy of “a radical socialist” following the example of Chavez or a reformist of the “moderate left” as in Brazil. Given the slight advantage he’s got in the election, the Brazilian way will be more favored by the people. Still, people are not used to excessive left-wing radicalism in a country that has been run by the right-wing party for 40 years.

One way or another, Humala’s victory means defeat for the U.S. in South America. Whereas previously, they could rely on the axis of Colombia-Peru-Chile, now the middle link is more likely than not to “drop out”. The country, the successor of the Inca Empire, may join, if not the radical anti-American bloc ALBA, where the first violin is played by Chavez and the Bolivian leader Morales, then certainly that of Brazil and Argentina, which, though not so openly, still wants to reduce U.S. influence in the region to a minimum.