Ecuador’s expulsion of U.S. Ambassador Heather Hodges will bring repercussions: The U.S. has replied by expelling the Ecuadorian Ambassador in Washington, Luis Gallegos. President Correa of Ecuador has called for solidarity with his country.
This latest incident brings to light the long chain of U.S. intervention in Ecuador’s internal affairs that has not yet ended.
Ecuador’s decision to “throw out” the U.S. ambassador affects the relations between the two countries. In a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks (dated July 10, 2009) released by Spain’s El Pais newspaper, the U.S. ambassador in Quito reported alleged acts of corruption in the National Police, led by the former commanding general, Jaime Hurtado. The cable also signaled that President Correa appointed him to that high office knowing that he was involved in corruption in order to easily manipulate the general.(1)
Made aware of the publication of this cable, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño demanded an explanation from Ambassador Hodges, receiving as an answer that “they are stolen documents,” and no other explanation was necessary. In similar terms, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuelo told Patiño, “I am sorry, but there are millions of cables coming to the State Department and it’s impossible to know which have been filtered.”*
Patiño said that the measure taken by the government of Ecuador with respect to Ambassador Hodges—who will leave Ecuador on Sunday, April 10—was not due to reports of corruption in the National Police but to two false statements contained in the cable she signed: first, that the president had named General Hurtado knowing that he was regarded as corrupt, and second, that Correa would appoint a corrupt official in order to manipulate the Police. “That is the height of impudence, the height of slander,” Patiño said to the press in Ecuador.
The foreign minister, however, added that oversight agencies will be allowed to make inquiries over the information related to alleged police corruption. In fact, the national attorney general began an investigation on Wednesday into the reports of corruption and called five officials mentioned in the cables to testify.
For his part, President Correa said today in an interview with the coordinator of popular radio that no one doubts there is corruption in the National Police, adding that this was demonstrated in the attempted coup perpetrated on Sept. 30, 2010. (2)
Beyond Reports
The work of all ambassadors is to report on the economic, political and social situations in the country to which they are assigned. To this function should be added that of representing and defending the interests of their own country.
It’s another thing, however, “to offend, to lie, to invent things. That is very different. It’s normal to report but another thing to distort the truth and consciously lie, because President Correa isn’t a president who has a low profile; he has a very high profile and people know it, with his strengths and his weaknesses. Therefore it cannot be supposed or worse put in a report that he could have made a decision like that,” said Patiño.
Where There Was Fire, Ashes Remain
The WikiLeaks cable of July 10, 2009, and others reveal that the U.S. embassy in Quito could have provided detailed internal information about the National Police. Is this a legacy of the control and influence that the U.S. maintains in the police ranks?
“Where there was fire, ashes remain, and possibly ashes remain in this case,” commented Foreign Minister Patiño.
For his part, President Correa stated that “It cannot be permitted that Ambassador Hodges speak directly of her informants in the National Police and Armed Forces … She implies the U.S. has infiltrated the police and army,” according to the government newspaper El Ciudadano.
Correa also indicated that the accusation against Hurtado was possible because it was he who eliminated the Special Investigations Unit of the Police (UIES), which was previously controlled by the U.S. Embassy. He recalled that this was the motive for the expulsion of two CIA agents.
It is necessary to note that, a few years ago, the U.S. controlled Ecuador’s political and military intelligence agencies, which responded more to the embassy than to the Ecuadorian authorities.
“It is evident that the United States government has in the UIES and in the National Antinarcotics Directorate the state instruments of greater cooperation to execute its foreign policy in matters of drug trafficking, terrorism and immigration,” noted a report by a commission for the investigation of Ecuador’s military and police intelligence services, created by President Correa on May 15, 2008.
Correa cut the umbilical cord that united the U.S. Embassy with the police and army intelligence agencies. After the Colombian attack on a FARC camp on the border with Colombia (on Mar. 1, 2008), serious flaws were discovered in these agencies, whose chiefs reported first to the U.S. or Colombia before Ecuador.
As a result, Correa restructured the intelligence agencies, dissolving the UIES. He also expelled Max Sullivan, the first secretary at the embassy, and diplomat Armando Astorga, for his interference in Ecuador’s internal security affairs, specifically in the UIES.
The U.S. Embassy directly funded the UIES (in the amount of $2,556,000 annually) for “all administrative, logistical, intelligence, and operational processes.” This “assistance” was provided under a “verbal agreement” between the U.S. and UIES, and not in accordance with national needs but rather with parameters set by the U.S.-led International Anti-Drug Network. This situation of dependence could lead to extreme situations in which the U.S. interferes in the recruitment and personnel of UIES, who could be periodically subjected to lie detector tests monitored by U.S. specialists, according to the above-mentioned report by the commission investigating intelligence agencies.
When the “verbal agreement” was terminated, Sullivan took UIES vehicles and computers that contained information vital for Ecuador’s security. That is why the government ordered his expulsion, according to former Foreign Minister Fander Falconí.
The UIES, created in 1985 by the rightist regime of León Febres Cordero to confront insurgent groups, had a clandestine function, and its objectives were not only insurgent groups (whose leaders were executed extra-judicially) but also social and human rights groups, political opponents and leaders of public opinion who were considered “a threat to internal security,” according to an investigation by the Truth Commission. (3)
In a cable from Feb. 10, 2009, Ambassador Hudges laments that “on Feb. 4, Ecuadorian Police Commander General Jaime Hurtado ordered the transfer of three heads and 20 members of police units critical to the success of Ecuador’s fight against narco-terrorism.” (4)
And referring to the UIES the cable notes, “The unit was vetted by and has maintained excellent operational cooperation with the Embassy in counter-insurgency and counter-drug operations. The UIES was instrumental in the seizures of Simon Trinidad, FARC secretariat member, and Nelson Yaguara, alias Commander Uriel, responsible for the attack on Colombian military base Teteye.” (5)
Cooperation Will Be Maintained
Two measures taken by Correa that have not been welcomed by the U.S. are: the decision of the government of Ecuador not to renew the agreement for the use of Manta as a U.S. military base and to reject the signing of a Free Trade Agreement with the U.S.
In October 2008, Ecuador’s Defense Minister, Xavier Ponce, released a report by a commission created by President Correa in which it was concluded that the CIA had infiltrated the police and armed forces, which was evident in the Colombian incursion into Ecuadorian territory on March 1, 2008.
After the release of this report, Ambassador Hodges avoided referring to its contents and said that “collaboration between the U.S. and Ecuador is ongoing” and that the U.S. “works with the government of Ecuador, with the military and with the police for very important goals.”
The cable revealed by WikiLeaks demonstrates the U.S. strategy: not to openly confront Correa’s government but to attempt to influence it by neutralizing the position of officials who want to “remove the influence of the government of the United States.” This could change with the latest diplomatic incident.
A tool of the U.S. strategy to maintain its influence in Ecuador has been economic assistance. According to a press release by the U.S. Embassy in Quito from January 2011, this support exceeded $70 million in 2010, of which $18 million was designated for military assistance, more than $8 million for the drug war and other transnational crime, about $4 million for democracy and governance, about $10 for economic growth and $450,000 for counterterrorism, among others. Will this change given the recent impasse?
Notes:
1)http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/corrupcion/policial/Ecuador/generalizada/elpepuint/20110404elpepuint_12/Tes
*Editor’s Note: These quotations, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
2) http://www.elciudadano.gov.ec/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23157:ecuador-buscara-solidaridad-regional-en-caso-de-represalias-de-estados-unidos&catid=40:actualidad&Itemid=63
3) Informe de la Comisión de la Verdad, “Sin Verdad no hay justicia”, Quito, 2010, tomo 2, p. 177.
4) http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Cable/apoyo/Correa/ataques/EE/UU/elpepuint/20110404elpepuint_15/Tes
5) ibid
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.