Havana Cuba. – Last week, in these same pages, I was published one more journalistic work. In it, among other things, I referred to the television appearance made by the Peruvian Pedro Castillo. In it, the still president announced the dissolution of Congress, a curfew and the installation of a “national emergency government”. The politician went for wool, but he came out shorn: in a matter of hours he was dismissed by the Legislature and arrested.
Don Pedro had tried to perpetrate what in political jargon is known as a “self-coup”, an attempt to subvert the constitutional order carried out from power itself. It is something with which Peruvians have quite recent experiences, because it was exactly what Alberto Fujimori did in 1992. The difference is that the son of Japanese, to make his move, had the support of the military leadership. Castillo, more clumsy or desperate, undertook this adventure without having that support.
In my writing, in which I alluded to the self-coup of the man with the big hat, I expressed a hope: that, given the enormity of what the dismissed man tried to do and in view of his failure, other Latin American leftist leaders would become “goats with nonsense”, not taking for granted what happened in the Andean country. Now I must admit that, in making that presumption, I was partly right, but not all of it.
It is true that with Pedro Castillo there has not been unanimous support, as there is with the corrupt Cristina Fernández de Kirchner or there was in his time with the Honduran Mel Zelaya. And it is true that unconditional support for the Peruvian would have represented a degree of self-confidence that would be difficult to overcome. If this gentleman made his unconstitutional attempt before the television cameras! In full view of all his people and his world!
But despite this last circumstance, he has not lacked some support. In the first place, between elements of the extreme left in his own country, who have carried out subversive actions, which include the seizure of airports. Second, between foreign cronies; this includes the official Cuban press and the ineffable AMLO (Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador).
Until now, the head of state of the Aztec country has embarked on this solo adventure. In doing so, he has shown frankly surprising recklessness or daring. He has opined that Castillo’s partner should not be removed from him and has ruled that “the Peruvian Constitution has a problem, an anti-democratic failure of origin.”
If it wasn’t so pitiful, it would be laughable. AMLO, who indignantly rejects any pronouncement by a foreign politician who has signs of interference in the internal affairs of Mexico, has no qualms about perpetrating this rude interference in those issues that are the exclusive concern of Peru. He even dared to rule that Castillo is still the legitimate president of that country!
The Castro government has acted with more moderation. On Friday, December 9, President-designate Miguel Díaz-Canel stated that the removal and arrest of his former Peruvian colleague was “the result of a process led by the dominant oligarchies to subvert the popular will.” This statement implies a clear manipulation of what happened, but this seems little compared to AMLO’s debauchery.
In a more diplomatic tone, the current Cuban boss affirmed that “it is up to the Peruvian people to find solutions to their challenges by themselves, by virtue of their legitimate interests”; he also stressed that those decisions “must be respected.” Castroism has entrusted the defense at all costs of the indefensible Castillo to its own propagandists, who we already know that, although they display titles of “journalists”, they say and write only what the Ideological Department authorizes or—better—orders them.
Prominent example of the above is an article by Marina Menéndez Quinteropublished on Saturday by rebel youth. Its mere title is a challenge to common sense: “Whose hit?” In the opening paragraphs, the colleague argues her statement: “The right had condemned him from his very election.” Later, she addresses his removal, stating that it is a “nevertheless dark event.”
To justify this surprising statement, Mrs. Menéndez invokes “testimonies from figures close to the government, who allege that dismissing the legislature was not what the president had planned to do that fateful day.” Further, the colleague argues: “Some claim that he was set up”; she later says that he “was deceived”. Rare assertions when the then president appeared on television with his face! But of that – not a word!
Likewise, this little paragraph, also related to the now ousted man, seems worth mentioning. I confess that this passage aroused my hilarity: “Possibly, the last action that would mark his involuntary distance from the masses would be his detachment of the enormous rondero hat that until a few months ago characterized the genuineness of his figure.”
Some of Castillo’s defenders, in a demagogic manner, invoke the majority of votes he received during the presidential runoff. They do not mention that they were exactly the same votes that Dina Boluarte, his running mate, who is the person who, in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, has assumed the head of state, obtained.
Let us hope that, as happened months ago in Chile, the subversive excesses that are now destabilizing Peru will cease. We trust that, ultimately, that sister country will continue to develop its economy, and that it will continue to do so in freedom and democracy.
Receive information from CubaNet on your cell phone through WhatsApp. Send us a message with the word “CUBA” on the phone +525545038831, You can also subscribe to our electronic newsletter by giving click here.
