A Second Fujimori Contends for Peru’s Presidency

KEIKO FUJIMORI’S father, Alberto K. Fujimori, Peru’s former president, sits in prison here serving a 25-year sentence for human rights abuses. Her mother, Susana Higuchi, has shown scars on her neck that Ms. Higuchi said resulted from torture by Mr. Fujimori’s intelligence agents after Ms. Higuchi accused her husband of tolerating corruption in his midst.

If that were not enough, Mr. Fujimori’s former spymaster, Vladimiro Montesinos, has testified that he illegally used state funds to pay for Ms. Fujimori’s Boston University tuition in the 1990s. Between semesters there and after graduating, she served as Peru’s first lady, assuming a visible role in her father’s corruption-addled government after her parents divorced.

In some countries, such a complicated family history might be an obstacle for someone seeking election as president. But not in Peru, where Ms. Fujimori, who turned 36 this month, holds a narrow lead in a tight race over Ollanta Humala, a former military officer who led a rebellion against her father in 2000. The election is June 5.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/world/americas/28peru.html?_r=1&ref=world

No doubt the corporate media there has done a bang-up job whitewashing the truth, just as it happens here.

There's enough in that article to turn ANYONE around, backing away from voting from Keiko. She herself took illegal funds for herself as the daughter of the President. SHE should be expected first to acknowledge it, then repay it, at the least.

Thank you for the information.

Rec.

due to their utter sliminess on the Latin American left, but I wonder what their corporate/war profiteer agenda is here. Do they think that Humala--"a former military officer"--will be more amenable to U.S. "war on (promotion of) drugs/terror)" military aid? Are they rewarding/bribing him for his "moving to the center," by dissing Keiko? Are they just reveling in the "divide and conquer" nature of this presidential race?

Peru's nouveau-riche urban elite has benefited from U.S. "free trade for the rich" in Peru (Bushwhack deal with the current very corrupt government) and NOBODY ELSE has benefitted. (--just like Venezuela, pre-Chavez). And we have to wonder about the opinion polling in remote rural areas and urban barrios. How reliable are these polls? I recall that Humala surged ahead, in the actual voting, and almost won the last presidential election--got way more votes than predicted (esp. after Evo Morales endorsed him). Obviously, the poor and the Indigenous are not well-polled--are not sufficiently contacted or keep their opinions to themselves--and then "come out of the woodwork" to vote, when there is somebody good to vote for.

I don't know if that will happen in this election, since Humala, according to reports, has "distanced" himself from the regional Left--which could be a big mistake as to motivating poor and Indigenous voters,. The regional Left offers many advantages to Peru--mutual aid and trade, collective economic/political clout, the "raise all boats" philosophy of the Brazil-Venezuela alliance, common goals of peace and social justice, working as a member of the majority in regional groups (CELAC, UNASUR, the OAS), and more.

Basing your economy on transglobal corporate mining and other extraction, and on "Wall Street" dictates, has proven ruinous to many Latin American countries. With U.S. "free trade for the rich," after a temporary "boom," that benefits only a few, comes the bust--and the country is left much worse off: natural resources ravaged; the poor utterly shafted; social programs gutted; services "privatized" (with escalating consumer costs); catastrophic unemployment; busted small farmers and businesses; time for "austerity" which brings ruination.

The countries that are doing well have rejected this model, and are pulling together in a new spirit of cooperation, to create a prosperous and independent region, with many trade choices, not dominated by the U.S. A top goal of this leftist democracy movement is social justice--the best example being Venezuela, which has cut poverty in half and cut extreme poverty by more than 70%. But all the countries with leftist governments have improved and will continue to improve. There is NO successful model for U.S. "neo-liberalism." It ALWAYS creates and exacerbates poverty, as well as aggravating social conflict and harming the environment. Why Humala would NOT want to identify with the regional Left and would instead go "centrist" on the ruinous U.s. economic model, I don't quite fathom. But maybe he is influenced by the intense corpo-fascist propaganda, here and there, telling him that he must do so, the implication being "or else." Possibly the U.S. has more bullying power in Peru than it does elsewhere. And, since the U.S. "war on drugs" is in the country, it may have more covert power (spying, dirty tricks, purchase of journalists, election fraud, etc.)