Living in Peru : your everyday companion

Peru: indigenous leader Alberto Pizango was granted asylum in Nicaragua

LivinginPeru.com
Isabel Guerra

Alberto Pizango, the indigenous leader, has taken refuge in the Nicaraguan embassy in Lima, according to an announcement made by Peru's Prime Minister Yehude Simon.

Peru's Chancellor Jose Antonio Garcia Belaunde confirmed the information.

Pizango, who was in the capital Lima when the violence in the city of Bagua broke out, gave a press conference on Friday, when he held President Alan Garcia responsible for the deaths and saying that it had been a “genocide”.

An arrest warrant for Pizango was issued the next day, on charges of sedition, conspiracy and rebellion, which could lead to a 45 years jail sentence.

Pizango has been granted asylum, and he might depart to Nicaragua anytime in the next hours.

Have other topics you'd like to see in our news section? If you or someone you know would like to contribute a news article to Living in Peru, whether it's translated or based on a personal investigation, send it to editor@livinginperu.com.

 | | | |

• Sports : Peru's Jefferson Farfan scored again for Schalke
• Peru : Peru: More than 70 injured reported after clashes in Abancay
• Sports : Peru's Daysi Cori looking for a victory in the Chess Young World Championship
• TV/Entertainment : Peru's "Emergency Blanket" succeeds in the UK
• Peru : The "Pishtaco" legend strikes back in Peru

# Mike says :
8 June, 2009 [ 22:42 ]

Criminal Coward!

# Sol says :
9 June, 2009 [ 02:38 ]

I cannot understand how and why did the Nicaraguan Government granted diplomatic (yes, believe it or not) asylum to this individual who is required by the Peruvian law? Shame on the Nicaraguan Government for supporting this criminal.

# Micah Cantley says :
9 June, 2009 [ 06:31 ]

I don't know the ins and outs of this case but according to the article above Pizango accused Garcia of genocide and the next day there was a warrant issued for his arrest for charges of sedition, rebellion, and conspiracy. 

Sounds odd to me all around.

Mike- why so quick to judge?  What do you know that the news isn't telling us?

Truly curious. . . .

# Paul says :
9 June, 2009 [ 07:42 ]

Whats good for the goose and all that....

Peru can hardly complain at another country giving asylum to one of its own when it is happy to take in folks on an interpol arrest warrant.

http://www.livinginperu.com/news/8872

# Gary Bromley says :
9 June, 2009 [ 10:50 ]

I believe that now would be the perfect time for Mr. Garcia to grant Mr. Pizango amnesty to return to Peru (Lima) to discuss the issues at hand.  To arrest and convict Pizango will only serve to fuel further conflict and violence.  It is similar to treating a medical ailment.  All too often we treat the symptoms with high powered pain killers instead of addressing the root cause.  Politically I think this would be a positive move for Mr. Garcia as it would indicate a genuine concern about the issues, if there is a genuine concern.  Injustices were created by both sides but now is the time to address the issues and concerns and develop an amicable resolution.  Sometimes we have to give to get!

# Peruvian in Miami says :
9 June, 2009 [ 14:18 ]

I agree Bromley, well said.

# Fellini115 says :
9 June, 2009 [ 18:41 ]

Why are people angry at Nicaragua's decision? Stop being hypocrites. Peru has recently granted asylum to wanted, fascist fugitives from Venezuela and Bolivia.

# jcwong says :
10 June, 2009 [ 09:11 ]

bad idea bromley, it'll justify the savage killing of 24 policemen and set a precedent for more killings under any pretense.
Being removed from the country maybe as good as being in jail, in any case he may not make it to the airport. Peru can ask interpol to issue a warrant for his arrest to prevent him from travelling so he maybe stuck in nicaragua for a long time
we'll see.
JCW

# Splaktar says :
10 June, 2009 [ 10:25 ]

He certainly may have had some valid claims, but his speach was very short on facts and very heavy on propaganda.  I imagine that much of what he said was legal, but there were portions of it that do seem to violate Peruvian law. 

I don't think that the unconfirmed deaths of 10-30 natives constitutes a real legal claim of genocide against the government.  Generally genocide involves a much larger number of deaths.  So some of these exteme allegations without much proof to back them could certainly be seen as warranting jail time by Peruvian law.  We saw how making accusations without proof, about a Peruvian soccer player, could land a TV person in jail.

# Bryan Corts says :
15 June, 2009 [ 21:58 ]

Let us not repeat history over again. The natives of north and south are victims of the real holocaust of our history of the Americas. Uncivilized , give me a break. End of days prophecy is near look how real, chalam balam's prophecy is alligning. OPen your eyes people!

# Expat in Peru says :
15 June, 2009 [ 22:19 ]

Splaktar: One cannot talk about genocide unless its proven that Garcia sent his troops to willingly erradicate the native community (or parts of it).  IMHO there is no proof that such thing happened.

# Bryan Corts says :
15 June, 2009 [ 23:05 ]

Expat: Genocide can be percieved in many ways. Iraq can even be considered genocide. The war for oil in the middle east is in a way related to this. Why didn't The U.S go to Africa to stop the genocide that still exists today in Africa and known for so long. I tell you why because there isn't anything for them to gain. I am an Peruvian American telling you this and we read between the lines. Resources become scarce and the global economy sinking can put nations in situations to improve any sort of trade. We should thank the natives for being so primitive and staying that way. They show us to be nsync with the land, not destroy it.

# Mike says :
16 June, 2009 [ 07:58 ]

Sorry, Bryan, you are completely wrong.  Genocide is specifically the purposeful and planned killing/eradication of a certain people.  It does not cover this incident, nor does it cover Iraq.

It does, however, cover the Darfur issue.

And keep in mind that when you start throwing around terms like this incorrectly, they lose their true meaning, significance and impact.

# Expat in Peru says :
16 June, 2009 [ 08:06 ]

Brian,

What makes genocide is the intention to kill a certain ethnic, nationalist or religious group. If the army enters a village with the clear intention to kill everybody who are natives, then it's clear genocide, regardless the death toll (may it be 100 or 100.000 or more). In the case of Bagua, Garcia did not sent troops to intentionally kill natives. Garcia may be an idiot, but he's not a Pol Pot or Hitler. Bagua was simply, and sadly, a situated getting out of hand.

# Bryan Corts says :
16 June, 2009 [ 08:28 ]

Like i said We read Between the Lines....

# Mike says :
16 June, 2009 [ 08:32 ]

And all of that squinting is ruining your sight of the situation.

# Bryan Corts says :
16 June, 2009 [ 10:40 ]

sorry that my squinting offends you because history repeats itself far too often and the excuses get old. Try to change you outlook on life and see for yourself instead of being spoon food all your life.

# Bryan Corts says :
16 June, 2009 [ 10:43 ]

your* fed*

# Mike says :
16 June, 2009 [ 10:56 ]

Well, Bryan, there are certain things that you (and others who like to through around "genocide") tend to ignore:

1) Facts.

2) That you are lacking respect for victims and incidences of true genocide.

So there.

I don't get spoon-fed anything, but apparently you do.  It goes both ways in the political spectrum.  What you need to do is think for yourself.

# Peruvian in Miami says :
16 June, 2009 [ 14:26 ]

I think a case for genocide is not that distant. It's clear that the Garcia administration saw the strikes in Bagua as a threat to their plans, and it may be uncovered soon, or later, that it was the intention of the administration to remove that obstacle.

As long as the actions of removal did not exclude violence, and as long as the amazon tribes were seen as sole targets, then one can conclude that genocide is an appropriate definition once mass casualities results.

In this case, the intent is on the government to remove a certain group by force if necessary. Once those plans are in place, then the argument can be made.

So let's not immediately count out genocide. More evidence is surely to be uncovered soon or in the future.

# Michael says :
16 June, 2009 [ 15:11 ]

The only "Genocide" that occurred was against the police, who were there to ensure the safety of people and enforcement of the law.

I have news for people; no Peruvian government in recent history has been able to keep together a "conspiracy" of any sort.

For Genocide, you would need to prove that someone was targeting a group, and intending on eliminating that specific group.  That wasn't, and I doubt will ever be, a Peruvian government's aims.  The government's aims were to exploit the natural resources of a given area for the benefit of all of Peru.

As has already been stated - the natives in the area do not own the property, it is the property of all people of Peru.

# Expat in Peru says :
16 June, 2009 [ 17:45 ]

Peruvian in Miami:

"as the amazon tribes were seen as sole targets, then one can conclude that genocide is an appropriate definition once mass casualities results."

It still isn't. You see, as you indicated, if it was a threat to the plans of the Government, then they'd killed anyone blocking that road, regardless whether they're white, black, native, etc. It's only genocide if the government killed those people because they were natives, just like Hitler and the Jews, Stalin and the Polish officers, Turks and Armenians, etc. Hitler did not kill the Jews because they were obstructing his plans, no, he killed them because they were Jews.

# David N says :
16 June, 2009 [ 20:56 ]

"Expat: Genocide can be percieved in many ways. Iraq can even be considered genocide. The war for oil in the middle east is in a way related to this. Why didn't The U.S go to Africa to stop the genocide that still exists today in Africa and known for so long. I tell you why because there isn't anything for them to gain."

>>LMAO... Bryan, are you for real? Because you don't know what you're talking about.  Genocide is not 'perceived,' it is a word with a definiiton.  And the conflict in Iraq is not defined as genocide by anyone with an ounce of intellect.  Oh, and war for oil?  Who cares.  If we need it, go on out and get it.  So far, though, the actual facts show the 'war for oil' nonsense is just stupid drivel spewed out there to get a rise out of the sheeple like you.  There's been no free oil showing up, and Iraq is still part of OPEC.   

The U.S. hasn't gone to Africa because there is nothing for them to gain??  Well, I say GOOD.  The U.S. military should only be used when it is of benefit to Americans like ME. That's what it's there for.  If there is nothing to gain, just let it go I say.  You sure don't see these countries like Peru and anyone else worrying about genocides, so why should we waste OUR money and time??   There will always be conflict in these banana republics, I say stay out of it and let them kill themselves.   Including Peru. 

# David N says :
16 June, 2009 [ 21:14 ]

Peruvian in Miami, here's a tip -- throwing spears and coming after armed police officers with knives and other weapons is a good way to end up dead.  

Please get out of my fine state and move back to Peru so you can be down here with the rest of the idiots.  You savages from the hinterlands of Peru are as hard headed and one-dimensional as they come.

# Paul says :
16 June, 2009 [ 21:17 ]

At risk of sounding childish...

Takes one to know one David.

# Peruvian in Miami says :
16 June, 2009 [ 21:19 ]

No one is talking about conspiracy here. Any government can easily target any group openly and state that they will use force upon them to achieve a particular end. The Garcia administration can easily label some in Bagua as "terrorist" and decide to use maximum force if necessary. There's no conspiracy there.

As for intent, we agree that it is a crucial part of the UN convention against Genocide, but the basis for the intent is important. You, Expat, argue that the Garcia government did not commit genocide because it did not target the protesters for their ethnic make-up. I agree.

But, historically, some ethnic communities have suffered genocide without their ethnicity being the source of the intent. Here in the US, for example, the Native American population suffered near exinction, and it was never the plan of the US to commit genocide. The mass destruction of the Native American population was tied to US expansion plans, and the native population suffered as a direct consequence.

In Bagua, the ethnicity of the Amazon tribes happens to be closely associated with their protest, and is therefore, unintentionally, being targetted. Maybe it is not genocide, but if violence continues, and the death toll increases, does it matter if they call it genocide or if we call it crimes against humanity?

The differences become thin, and we should not rule out genocide as a concept to be dismissed as an appropriate description of events.

# Mike says :
16 June, 2009 [ 21:36 ]

Peruvian in Miami;

I know you may not know as much about American History as you would like, but, yes, unfortunately, genocide is pretty close to what the American government was looking for when it dealt with the American Indians.

If you read any history of the west - of the governors and military people in charge, the majority of them decided that indians were more-or-less in the way.

I guess you could call in genocide as a consequence of conquering the American west.  The indians died and not too many people cried over it.

# Expat in Peru says :
16 June, 2009 [ 22:13 ]

My previous email seem to have got lost. Anyway. This whole dreadful situation has been the result of the government sending unprepared troops into the area and the protesters who resisted with violence. People like Pizando and the Kirchers should not utter terminology they do not know about. I don't blame the young actress, she is just an unfortunate soul being used for propagandist purposes. Her mother should never have used her own daughter to bring forth accusations about topics they doesn’t even know about. It was sad to see her hit out to the press for asking her daughter too difficult questions. I mean, if you feel mature enough to strongly accuse people and use terms as genocide, then you must be mature and strong enough to defend such stance. Let all those Humalistas, Pizangos and other so-called spokesmen of the natives do their homework and, above all, not forget the poor policemen who met their doom in the most horrible way whilst being in captivity, thus not capable of defending themselves. Why is it that I hear I don’t hear the Kirchers about that? A bit of auto-criticism is not a bad thing in order to resolve this difficult situation.

# Bryan Corts says :
19 June, 2009 [ 01:22 ]

David

Obama!

Expat                            

Obama!                <---- San Martin de Porres

# Raul says :
19 June, 2009 [ 02:59 ]

Two very interesting video links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDqhV52ww9A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHj735t_knk

# Ryan T says :
19 June, 2009 [ 03:11 ]

Paul, Gary and Micah, good points on the original article.

Expat, I like your comments on this thread.  Genocide is not a word to be tossed about.  What we need is a word that means callous indiference to a people, with a tinge of racial superiority, caring only about the natural resources of the land they occupy. 

# Ryan T says :
19 June, 2009 [ 11:44 ]

Paul, Gary and Micah, good points on the original article.

Expat, I like your comments on this thread.  Genocide is not a word to be tossed about.  What we need is a word that means callous indiference to a people, with a tinge of racial superiority, caring only about the natural resources of the land they occupy. 

# Get Real says :
19 June, 2009 [ 14:12 ]

We do not need a new word. We need perspective.

This kind of stuff has happened for the entire course of human history. These are resource wars. They will get worse and there will be winners and losers, just like all previous history.
Technology will win over tradition the way it always has.
I do not wish to see these people exterminated - and they will not be. But it is not possible for all cultures to exist at the same time. We have already lost so many and we will lose more.
The world is getting smaller and people need resources.
Nothing will stop this except the death of billions of innocents by Nukes or a virus.

We are at the end of a very important stage in the evolution of humankind.

# V says :
3 November, 2009 [ 16:28 ]

Bryan Corts, I love you!

Name

Email

Notify me via e-mail of new comments to this entry

Code :

Comment

• These comments are the property of their respective authors.
• Currently we only allow english comments.
• Por ahora solo se permiten comentarios en ingles.