Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo has been ousted in what he has described as a parliamentary coup. On Friday, the Paraguayan Senate voted 39-to-4 to impeach Lugo, saying he had failed in his duty to maintain social order following a recent land dispute which resulted in the deaths of six police officers and 11 peasant farmers. A former priest, Lugo was once called the “Bishop of the Poor” and was known for defending peasant rights. Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile and Uruguay have all condemned Lugo’s ouster.
Greg Grandin talking:
Lugo called it a parliamentary coup. And other Latin American leaders have called it a travesty. I think Rafael Correa in Ecuador called it legalistic nonsense. It really was a kind of duck soup coup, you know, in which there was a complete farce in terms of due process. He was given 24 hours to compile his case and two hours to present it. And he had the dignity of not participating in it. He didn’t show up. But they ousted him using very legalistic means, in some ways very similar to what happened in Honduras three years ago, in 2009, in which the right gathered together and used very technical legalistic procedures in order to oust a president that they felt was a threat.
To understand Paraguay, you have to understand land. Paraguay is a country of peasants without land, who have no land. It’s one of the poorest countries in the world. It’s the poorest in South America. But it’s the fourth largest soy exporter. It’s the eighth largest beef exporter. Huge tracts of land, much of it ill-gotten, expropriated illegally from peasant communities over the last 20, 30, 40 years, have made wealth inequality in the form of land extreme in Paraguay. Forty percent of the population lives in poverty. Lugo came to power—he was the first president not—first government—presiding over a government not linked to the old Stroessner dictatorship that ruled Paraguay from much of the Cold War and the years after.
Alfredo Stroessner ruled Paraguay between—from 1954 to 1989, and after he was—left office, basically the Colorado Party implemented a form of Stroessnerismo without Stroessner, you know, basically presiding over a corrupt state, an oligarchic state, in which they controlled the media, in which they controlled property, in which they controlled the administrative and repressive apparatus of the government.
And Lugo was the first president, in 2008, elected to break with that. And one of his campaign promises was land reform. But he came to power at the head of a very fragile coalition, and he was boxed in nearly immediately. His vice president, Federico Franco, broke with him early. And he wasn’t able to deliver on the promise of land reform. In the last couple of years, you’ve seen a peasant movement grow that Lugo couldn’t quite meet its demands, but then also encouraged, in some ways—there was a kind of contradiction. And you saw that with this land conflict that happened in the northeast.
Plantation, a hacienda in the northeast, near Brazil. It’s a lawless region. It really is the Wild West in soy, cattle, but also drugs and gun running. It’s really kind of outside of government control. Hacienda — hacendados, finca plantation owners control vast tracts of land, and they preside over their own armies. Much of that land was illegally gotten through the dictatorship of Stroessner, and there’s been a movement to reclaim it. There’s a strong peasant movement. And in one of these fincas, on of these plantations, 2,000 untitled acres, a bunch—about 60 campesinos, 60 peasants occupied it. And there was a clash last week in which 11 peasants were left dead, six or so police officers, security forces. Sixty peasants were left—were wounded. More have been arrested since then. And I think that the right, the landed class, used it as a pretext to go after Lugo.
The first interview, I take, was before the Honduran coup in 2009, when Lugo said that a coup would be unthinkable. And so, Honduras—it shows you how Honduras kind of changes the rules of the game, emboldened the right, presented new tactic, new ways of limiting. when Zelaya was forced out, the United States immediately recognized the new coup government.
In the case of Paraguay, the administration’s response has been—to call it tepid would be an overstatement. It really has been silent, for the most part. Latin American countries, South American countries, including conservative countries like Chile and Colombia, have come out very strongly against it. So, again, you see this great divergence between the U.S. and between South America and Latin America.
It’ll be interesting to see. I mean, the two things to look out for is, one is if military aid to the Paraguayan military will—army will continue—the U.S. is a supplier of much material and financial support to security forces in Paraguay—and, two, if it will take advantage of the crisis to go forward with a long-sought military base in the region, which the Pentagon, SOUTHCOM, has wanted for a while. I think those are the two things to look out for.
Greg Grandin, professor of Latin American history at New York University. He is the author of Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism. His most recent book, Fordlandia, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in History.
– source democracynow.org
Greg Grandin, professor of Latin American history at New York University. He is the author of Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism. His most recent book, Fordlandia, was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in History.