Looking
Askance at Bush's Peru Visit
by J. H. Huebert
Chicago Maroon
April 12, 2002
When
President Bush made his first visit to Peru last month, it reminded me
of my own first visit to that vibrant country just this past December.
In my month-long stay, however, I had time to experience a bit more of
Peru than the president did, exploring the country from the Pacific
coast to Lake Titicaca, from the Nazca Lines to the Inca Trail, where,
with a team of 11, plus two guides and 13 porters, I made the three-day
hike up Machu Picchu to the legendary lost city of the Inca.
During that upward trek, and while crisscrossing the country by train,
small plane, bus, and on foot in December, I had numerous opportunities
to chat with locals about life in that Andean nation, how things could
be better, and how they perceive the U.S. Looking at what Mr. Bush said
during and after his visit, I have to wonder if he really got a sense of
any of that while he was there.
Mr. Bush seems to think that two of the top items on Peru's agenda
should be the war on terrorism and the war on drugs. But as I traveled
throughout the country, I found that terrorism and drugs weren't
foremost on anyone's mind—except inasmuch as they assumed that I, as a
North American, would be familiar with both of those matters on a
first-hand basis.
What I found, without exception, was that ordinary Peruvians believe the
U.S. is a far more violent and dangerous place than Peru. Although
conversant in Spanish, I could barely convince some of them that U.S.
cities weren't all drug-infested war zones in turmoil at all times, or
that it is actually safe for me to travel within and between U. S.
cities. "I'd rather live here, where it's calm," said a local
boatman, who took me on his hand-made reed watercraft between the
floating Uros Islands on Lake Titicaca.
Their perception of life in the United States has probably been
distorted by American movies and news. But what they see in our movies
and news shocks them because, although there are terrorists and drug
traffickers in Peru as well, such matters don't play a role in the daily
lives of most Peruvians. Indeed, the common Peruvian citizen has other
problems to worry about—like getting proper legal title to his
property so he can make long-term investments, or better work
opportunities with less restrictive government red tape.
Unfortunately for the Peruvian man-on-the-street, President Bush didn't
seem much interested in those particular propositions. The president did
talk about free trade, which would benefit Peru's economy by creating
more jobs. But is Mr. Bush really dedicated to free trade? Back in May
last year, he did say that "open trade is not just an economic
opportunity, it is a moral imperative." Those words sound
encouraging. But the week before, on the same day that he preached in
Mexico on the importance of free trade in our hemisphere, Mr. Bush
raised tariffs against Canadian softwood lumber because of "unfair
trade practices." He also recently supported higher protectionist
tariff barriers for agriculture, steel, and textiles. If I were a
Peruvian, I'd consider those points before getting too optimistic about
the potential effects of the visit from the President of the United
States. This is because whatever Mr. Bush may say, his real message
seems to be: We'll give you the benefits of free trade with the U.S.,
but don't try to compete with any of our politically influential
industries or we'll take it all away from you, regardless of any
"moral imperative."
As for the war on drugs, that's one U.S. export that Peru could do
without, because with it will come collateral damage and minimal, if
any, benefits. For an example of how the U.S. fights the drug war in
Latin America, Peru needs look no further than Colombia, where the Bush
administration supported, with over a billion dollars in military aid,
the notorious "Plan Colombia," which has eradicated thousands
of acres of drug crop – along with thousands of acres of legal crops
belonging to poor peasant farmers. Who's been stopped from using drugs
as a result of this program? How have Colombia's citizens benefited? And
how is anyone actually safer or better off as a result? It's
understandable that we don't like drug traffickers, but will escalating
this sort of "war" within Peru's borders help its citizens in
any meaningful way? What rational reason is there, anyway, for Peruvians
to want to fight a war to stop some North Americans from getting high?
Even if Peru does need to combat terrorism, the U.S. might not provide
the best example of how to do so. U.S. citizens are watching their
freedoms evaporate as increased "security" measures take away
various aspects of their rights to speech and privacy. Perhaps the only
reason our government has shown any restraint at all is because of a
longstanding tradition of individual rights and the rule of law. But
what about Peru, where no such tradition exists? Should we encourage
wars on terror in countries where the government has never been at all
trustworthy? Most Peruvians don't deal much with their own government in
their daily lives, and where they have done so, with the exception of
some public works projects created during former President Alberto
Fujimori's administration, they have found it to be characterized by
corruption and favoritism. With a history like theirs, Peruvians have
good reason to look askance at any government promises.
On Christmas Day and on the night before, I was a guest at the home of a
Peruvian family in Cuzco. Over the holiday dinner, the mother, Mary,
explained to me that in Peru, children don't believe Santa Claus brings
them presents. I suspect that the Peruvian people will be skeptical of
politicians from the north playing Santa Claus, and rightly so.
© 2002 J. H. Huebert