Order Code RL30918
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Peru: Recovery from Crisis
Updated June 22, 2001
Maureen Taft-Morales
Analyst in Latin American Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Peru: Recovery from Crisis
Summary
Peru was thrust into a major political crisis with the sudden resignation of
President Alberto Fujimori in November 2000 following allegations of electoral fraud
and a series of scandals involving his top aide. An interim government was formed,
with the immediate task of organizing new elections. First and second round elections
on April 8 and June 3 were widely praised as being free and fair. Alejandro Toledo
was elected President.
President Fujimori headed Peru from 1990 to 2000. During that time he did
much to bring under control destabilizing factors such as terrorism, drug trafficking,
hyperinflation, and border disputes. But Fujimori also led the country into
constitutional crises, and his efforts to remain in power eroded democratic
institutions. An eruption of scandals led to his sudden resignation, after which
constitutional succession passed the presidency to the President of the Congress,
Valentin Paniagua, in November 2000.
The immediate challenge facing the interim government was to organize new
presidential and parliamentary elections. The Toledo administration will face the
more long-term challenge of stabilizing Peru while trying to strengthen democratic
institutions weakened by ten years of a democratically elected, but autocratically run,
government. Toledo will assume office on July 28.
Peru is located along the Andean mountains of South America. Although
economic conditions have improved over the last five years, there is still extensive
poverty in Peru. Peru has a free market economy.
The United States and Peru have enjoyed generally friendly relations over the
past decade, although the recurring political crises of the Fujimori government
strained those relations. The primary U.S. interest in Peru has been the reduction of
illicit narcotics production and trafficking. Other stated goals of U.S. assistance are:
broader citizen participation and more responsive government; increased incomes for
Peru’s poor; improved health of high risk populations; and improved environmental
conditions. The United States pressed the Fujimori government to improve respect
for human rights; for much of his term Fujimori’s regime had the worst human rights
record in the hemisphere. The United States has been concerned about security in
Peru and in the Andean region as a whole.
The U.S. Congress has expressed concern about the development of democratic
institutions in Peru, and has conditioned aid on the respect for those institutions, and
for human rights, and the holding of free and fair elections. Congress has also
expressed concern about the case of Lori Berenson, an American prisoner in Peru;
the relationship between U.S. agencies and Peru’s spy chief, Vladimiro Montesinos;
and whether to resume a joint aerial drug-interdiction program that was suspended
after the accidental shooting of an American missionary plane.
Contents
Socio-Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Political Conditions: State of Democracy in Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Erosion of Democratic Institutions under Fujimori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Elections of 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Fujimori’s Fall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Interim Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Organizing the 2001 Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Rooting Out Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Stabilizing the Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The 2001 Extraordinary Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
U. S. Relations with Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Congressional Concerns Regarding Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Peru: Recovery from Crisis
Peru was thrust into a major political crisis with the sudden resignation of
President Alberto Fujimori in November 2000 following allegations of electoral fraud
and a series of scandals involving his top aide. An interim government was formed,
with the immediate task of organizing new elections. Legislative elections and the
first round of presidential elections were held on April 8, 2001. Alejandro Toledo
was elected President in the second-round presidential election held on June 3, 2001.
Socio-Economic Conditions
Peru lies on the northwest coast of South America. Its western coastal plains
and eastern tropical lowlands are separated down its middle by the rugged Andes
Mountains. Three times the size of California, it has a population of 25 million, 72%
of which live in urban areas. Over 7 million people live in and around the capital of
Lima. Official languages are Spanish and Quechua; a number of other Indian
languages are spoken as well. The population is 45% Indian, 37% mestizo (or mixed
Indian- and European-descent), 15% white, and 3% black, Japanese, Chinese, and
other groups.
Peru is a country of medium human development, according to the United
Nations’ Development Programme (UNDP), based on three socioeconomic
indicators: longevity, educational attainment, and standard of living. Life expectancy
in Peru is 68.6 years (compared to 76.8 years in the United States). The adult literacy
rate is 89.2%. GDP per capita in 1999 was $2,611. Although economic conditions
have improved over the last five years, there is still extensive poverty in Peru. A
sizeable portion of the population – 49% – live below the national poverty line.
Thirty-three percent of the population lacks access to safe water. Twenty-eight
percent lack access to sanitation. There is a broad gap in income distribution in Peru.
The richest 20% of the population account for over half (51.2%) of the nation’s
income or consumption. The poorest 20% account for only 4.4% of income or
consumption.1
Peru has a free market economy. Among the reforms implemented by the
Fujimori government (1990-2000) were a wide-ranging privatization program;
simplification and strengthening of the tax system; lowering of tariffs; and the opening
of Peru to foreign investment. The United States is Peru’s largest trading partner; in
1999, the United States exported about $1.6 billion to Peru. Peru is a member of the
Andean Community and the Latin American Integration Association, with whose
1United Nations Development Programme. “Human Development Report 2000.” Oxford
University Press, NY 2000. pp. 158, 169, 179.
CRS-2
members it shares duty-free access on many products. In 1998, the Andean
Community agreed to establish a free trade area with MERCOSUR, the Southern
Cone Common Market, after the year 2000. Peru signed a Free Trade Agreement
with Chile in 1998, to be implemented over several years, and is negotiating one with
Mexico as well.
Political Conditions: State of Democracy in Peru
Basic elements of a democracy include effective and independent legislative and
judicial branches of government, freedom of expression, respect for human rights, and
free elections. A broad array of organizations, both domestic and international,
criticized Fujimori throughout his decade in power for impeding the development of
these democratic elements.
Fujimori effectively controlled both the legislature and judiciary, inhibiting the
development of either as independent democratic institutions. In 1999 and 2000,
Freedom House classified Peru as the only country in the hemisphere, besides Cuba,
where the press was “not free.” A State Department Human Rights report, released
in February 2000, said that although human rights abuses had decreased in several
areas, the Fujimori “Government’s human rights record was poor in several areas,”
including the protection of civil and political rights. The latest elections held in Peru,
in April and May, 2000, were deemed by international and Peruvian observers to have
been neither free nor fair. That controversy, combined with the revelation of high-
level corruption in his administration led Fujimori first to agree to new presidential
elections in which he would not run, and then to flee to Japan and resign in November
2000.
Under the constitution’s rules of succession, the president of the Congress,
Valentin Paniagua, became Peru’s new president.
The immediate challenge facing the
interim government was to organize the extraordinary elections, held on April 8,
2001, with a presidential run-off held on June 3. The Toledo administration will face
the more long-term challenge of stabilizing Peru while trying to strengthen democratic
institutions weakened by ten years of a democratically elected, but autocratically run,
government.
Erosion of Democratic Institutions under Fujimori. Most analysts
acknowledge that in some major areas Fujimori brought greater stability to Peru. He
did much to bring under control destabilizing factors such as terrorism, drug
trafficking, hyperinflation, and border disputes. But Fujimori also led the country into
several constitutional crises. He was elected in 1990 under a constitution which
limited presidents to serving one five-year term. In 1992, in what became known as
a “self-coup,” Fujimori dissolved Congress and took control of the judiciary. Under
intense domestic and international pressure, Fujimori then oversaw the drafting of a
new constitution that went into effect in 1993, and scheduled elections. The new
constitution allowed a president to serve two consecutive terms and established a
unicameral legislation.
CRS-3
Fujimori ran again in 1995, and won a second five-year term. He quickly began
paving the way for yet another term, further eroding the independence of Peru’s
already weak democratic institutions as he did so. In 1996, the unicameral legislature,
dominated by a pro-Fujimori majority, passed a “Law of Authentic Interpretation”
which stated that Fujimori’s election under the previous constitution did not count
against the two-term limit of the current constitution. In 1997, the Constitutional
Tribunal, a high court charged with deciding the constitutionality of laws, issued an
opinion that the Law of Authentic Interpretation was not applicable. The Peruvian
Congress dismissed the three members of the court who signed the opinion (the other
four members abstained), rendering the court unable to act. The Congress also
thwarted an effort by civic organizations to put the matter of a third term to a national
referendum, voting against allowing it, even though petitioners gathered 1.4 million
signatures – more than the 10% of registered voters required to do so.
The ability of Peruvian citizens to challenge such actions was further limited by
the inability of the Constitutional Tribunal to act, and by Fujimori’s withdrawal of
Peru from the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court for Human Rights. Fujimori
withdrew from the court after the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
recommended in 1998 that Peru reinstate the three dismissed justices and restore the
Tribunal’s power to rule on constitutional issues. Fujimori’s government announced
it would not comply with the recommendation.
Elections of 2000.2 Having cleared away obstacles to his candidacy, Fujimori
ran for an unprecedented third term. All 120 seats of the unicameral legislature were
contested along with the presidency. Many observers believed that electoral
conditions did not represent a “level playing field” but an environment that heavily,
and often unfairly, favored the incumbent. Numerous Peruvian and international
election monitoring organizations and press reports indicated several areas of concern:
the executive branch’s manipulation of the judicial system to achieve its desired
outcome; questions regarding the independence and impartiality of the electoral
bodies responsible for organizing Peru’s elections, and use of public resources for
campaign purposes. Concerns regarding freedom of the press and access to
information involved unequal media access, media bias, and harassment of candidates
and domestic election observers. Two weeks before the April 9, 2000 elections, an
international delegation to Peru organized by the National Democratic Institute for
International Affairs (NDI) and the Carter Center stated that, “The conditions for a
fair election campaign have not been established. Irreparable damage to the integrity
of the election process has already been done...”.3
The first round of elections was followed by three tense days of delayed results,
widespread suspicion of fraud, and public protests. After international observers said
they would not validate a first-round victory by President Fujimori, Peru announced
there would be a second round of elections on May 28, though election officials
2For further information, see CRS Report RS20536, Peruvian Elections in 2000:
Congressional Concerns and Policy Approaches, by Maureen Taft-Morales.
3National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. “Statement of the National
Democratic Institute (NDI)/Carter Center Pre-Election Delegation to Peru.” Lima, March 24,
2000.
CRS-4
denied there was any connection between the two acts. Election officials said
Fujimori won 49.8% of the vote, and Alejandro Toledo 40.31%. More than 50% of
the vote is needed to win in the first round.
As the second round election approached, both Peruvian and international
observers reported that conditions for a free and fair election still did not exist. The
Peruvian monitoring organization, Transparencia, and the Organization of American
States (OAS) observer mission withdrew from monitoring the week before the runoff.
Toledo withdrew as a candidate from the race. Fujimori denied requests from both
organizations and Toledo to delay the vote in order to resolve irregularities. Official
results showed Fujimori winning the election, with 51.2% of the votes cast. Toledo
had called on voters to either boycott the vote or spoil their ballots; almost 30% of
ballots were spoiled, and Toledo still received 17.7% of the vote even though he had
withdrawn from the race.
Fujimori’s Fall. The United States pressed for regional sanctions, but the
OAS sent a high-level mission to press Peru for democratic reforms instead. An OAS
permanent office was set up in Peru to oversee reforms and mediate a dialogue
between the Fujimori government and elements of civic society, including opposition
parties. Decreased support for Fujimori, and corruption and human rights scandals
involving Fujimori’s top aide, Vladimiro Montesinos, led Fujimori to agree to new
elections in April 2001, in which he would not run.
On November 16, 2000, a group of opposition parties took over the presidency
of the 120-member legislature for the first time since Fujimori suspended Congress
in 1992. With Fujimori’s loss of control over an institution which had become a
rubber stamp for his initiatives, investigations into the expanding evidence of
corruption in his administration – and his possible role in it – became a strong
possibility. One of the opposition’s first actions was to reinstate the three judges of
the Constitutional Tribunal who had been fired after issuing an opinion unfavorable
to Fujimori’s efforts to seek a third term in office.
On November 20, President Fujimori faxed his resignation to the Congress from
Japan, where he had gone following a visit to an economic forum in Brunei. Congress
rejected his resignation, removing him by declaring him “morally unfit” for office
instead, a move apparently made to make him ineligible to run for office again in
Peru. With Fujimori’s dismissal, and the resignation of his two vice-presidents,
constitutional succession passed the presidency to the new President of the Congress,
Valentin Paniagua.
Fujimori remains in Japan, where he has claimed Japanese citizenship based on
the registration of his birth there by his parents, who were born in Japan. The two
countries do not have an extradition agreement.
CRS-5
Interim Government
Valentin Paniagua was officially inaugurated President of Peru on November 22,
2000. His cabinet includes former United Nations Secretary General Javier Perez de
Cuellar as cabinet chief and foreign minister. The mandate of the interim government
has widely been seen to be threefold: (1) to guarantee and carry out free and fair
elections scheduled for April 8, 2001; (2) to begin to restore the independence of
democratic institutions by rooting out widespread political corruption; and (3) to
prevent the economy from sliding into recession. The Paniagua administration is to
serve until the newly elected Toledo administration takes office on July 28, 2001.
Following the June 3 elections, the head of the OAS Electoral Observation
Mission, Eduardo Stein, praised the performance of Paniagua’s interim government,
saying it showed “very strong political will and determination to address crucial
problems of corruption, and tackle conflicts and conundrums resulting from the fall
of the Fujimori regime,” and “therefore draft an agenda for the future government.”
Organizing the 2001 Elections. The Paniagua government committed itself
to holding presidential and parliamentary elections as scheduled, on April 8, 2001.
A respected academic, Fernando Tuesta, was appointed head of the National Office
of Electoral Processes (ONPE), which oversees elections. He promised to carry out
a “profound internal reorganization” of the electoral body, and began by replacing the
ONPE leadership. The United States is providing technical assistance and funding
observation missions.
According to a report by the pre-election delegation of NDI and the Carter
Center, “The conditions for organizing genuine democratic elections have been
established in Peru, and the prospects for realizing them are strong.” Describing the
conditions surrounding the 2001 extraordinary elections as “fundamentally different”
from those of last year’s elections, the report said, “All of those with whom the
delegation met expressed a high degree of confidence in the integrity of the new
leaders of government and of the electoral authorities.”4
Rooting Out Corruption. An independent prosecutor and special
Congressional commission are investigating the widespread corruption that apparently
operated under the Fujimori regime. The network of corruption is coming to light
through videotapes compiled by the former head of Peru’s intelligence service,
Vladimiro Montesinos. The videos show members of Congress and others accepting
bribes from Montesinos. Montesinos fled the country soon after the first of these
videotapes was broadcast last September. The Peruvian government issued a warrant
for his arrest for crimes including blackmail, extortion, money laundering, and drug
trafficking. His whereabouts are unknown.
The Paniagua administration is also purging the military of Montesinos
associates, and attacking the impunity with which they operated. Over 40 high-
4National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. “Statement of the National
Democratic Institute (NDI)/Carter Center Pre-Election Delegation to Peru.” Lima, Jan. 26,
2001. p. 2.
CRS-6
ranking military officials have been forced to retire. Retired army general Walter
Ledesma, appointed by Paniagua to oversee the “depoliticization” of the military, has
promised the “absolute impartiality” of the armed forces during the pending elections.
In late February and March, several actions were taken against former President
Fujimori. The Peruvian Congress voted to bar Fujimori from holding any public office
for 10 years. Congress also stripped him of his five-year presidential immunity,
allowing for criminal proceedings against him. Peru’s attorney general filed criminal
charges against him for abandonment of office and dereliction of duty. Congress and
government prosecutors are investigating Fujimori for numerous accusations of
impropriety, including embezzlement, mostly based on his link to Montesinos. The
two were known in Peru as the “Siamese Twins” for their apparently tight-knit
relationship, yet Fujimori denies any involvement with Montesinos’ alleged illicit
activities over his 10 years in power.
Stabilizing the Economy. Peru’s fragile economic recovery was stalled by
the uncertainty surrounding the demise of the Fujimori government in late 2000. By
tackling corruption and demonstrating fiscal discipline, however, the interim
government has increased public confidence and kept the political crisis from leading
to economic chaos. Economic Minister Javier Silva outlined Peru’s most serious
economic problems as the national debt, the fiscal deficit, and the need to create a
climate for investment. The government is reportedly determined to meet the fiscal
goals for 2001 agreed upon with the International Monetary Fund. Some economists
say that approach, adhering to strict fiscal constraints, may prolong economic
stagnation. But others say Peru might experience slight economic growth by the end
of the year.
The 2001 Extraordinary Elections
The 2001 elections determined the new President and all 120 members of the
unicameral legislature. Traditional political parties were discredited in the 1980s, and
current parties are mainly vehicles for an individual’s candidacy. There were 8
candidates running for president. Because no presidential candidate received more
than 50% of the vote on April 8, a run-off between the top two candidates was held
on June 3, 2001. Members of the legislature were elected on April 8, only needing
a simple majority to win a seat. The first round of elections were generally deemed
free and fair by domestic and international observers.
According to Peru’s electoral commission, Toledo, of the Peru Posible party,
won 36.51% of the first round vote, and Garcia, of Partido Aprista Peruano, won
25.78%. Just behind Garcia was Lourdes Flores, a former member of Congress and
long-time Fujimori critic, with 24.30% of the vote. Flores, an attorney, served in the
legislature, or the Constitutional Assembly after the legislature was dissolved in 1992,
from 1990 to 2000. If elected, she would have been the first woman elected president
in Latin America on her own achievements, not as the wife of a deceased president.
Flores represented the Unidad Nacional party.
CRS-7
The campaign period leading up to the presidential run-off election was marked
more by exchanges of character attacks by the candidates than by debates on the
issues. Polls showed much of the public to be disillusioned with both candidates,
with as many as 25% saying they would cast null ballots. Voting is mandatory in
Peru. In the final count, 13.8% cast blank or null votes.
There was at least one major episode of election-related violence. A bomb
exploded near the national elections board headquarters on May 16, injuring seven
people. Although pamphlets supporting the Shining Path guerrillas were found near
the explosion, Peru’s Interior Minister said the material was atypical of the group’s
fliers and that it was premature to attribute the bombing to the guerrilla group. Since
the arrest of its leader, Abimael Guzman, in 1992, the Shining Path’s members and
activities have been reduced to a minimum.
The two presidential candidates facing a run-off were Alejandro Toledo, who
withdrew from runoff elections with Fujimori last year because he believed they were
not fair, and Alan Garcia, who was president of Peru from 1985 to 1990. Toledo won
the election, with 53.0% of the vote; Garcia garnered 46.9%. Toledo, who earned
his doctorate in economics from Stanford University and was an adviser to the World
Bank, emphasizes his humble origins. He is one of 16 children from a poor
indigenous family and shined shoes as a boy.
Garcia spent years in self-imposed exile abroad following allegations of
corruption in his administration, and has only recently returned to Peru. Many critics
blame Garcia’s policies for creating a 7,000% annual inflation rate and a debt crisis
which led Peru into economic chaos. Nonetheless, these elections mark a remarkable
political comeback for Garcia, who can now be expected to be a powerful opposition
voice during Toledo’s term. In conceding the race, Garcia pledged to work for unity
in pursuing a national agenda.
The head of the OAS Electoral Observation Mission to Peru said that Peru did
an “incredible job” organizing “free and fair” elections on June 3 that were an example
for the rest of Latin America.
Post-election polls indicate that, despite having voted for him, many Peruvians
have serious questions about Toledo’s character. Many feel he has not adequately
answered allegations–including that he used cocaine, fathered a child out of wedlock,
and beat his wife–that arose during the campaign. Garcia’s strong showing in
electoral polls, say political analysts, denies Toledo a solid mandate for his programs.
U. S. Relations with Peru
The United States and Peru have enjoyed generally friendly relations over the
past decade, although the recurring political crises of the Fujimori government
strained those relations. The primary U.S. interest in Peru has been the reduction of
illicit narcotics production and trafficking. Other stated goals of U.S. assistance are:
broader citizen participation and more responsive government; increased incomes for
Peru’s poor; improved health of high risk populations; and improved environmental
CRS-8
conditions. U.S. assistance to Peru is estimated to be about $121 million for FY2000,
and about $97 million for FY2001. Assistance for 2001 includes $38.1 million in
development aid, $10 million in Food Aid, Title I Loans, $48 million in Narcotics Aid,
and $475,000 in International Military Education and Training (IMET) funds.5
The United States also pressed the Fujimori government for improvement in
respect for human rights; for much of Fujimori’s term his regime had the worst human
rights record in the hemisphere, according to State Department and other human
rights reports. Violations of human rights by Peru’s security forces included
extrajudicial killings and torture. Lack of accountability within the security forces
remains a problem. The Paniagua administration has already begun to address some
of these problems, according to the State Department’s most recent Human Rights
report on Peru, released in February 2001. The report states that “the Paniagua
administration took steps to implement important democratic reforms, including some
which improved the exercise of civil and political rights, and to address allegations of
corruption surrounding the former intelligence services and other government
officials.”6
Regarding counter narcotics efforts, Peru has been considered fully cooperative
in working towards the goals of the U.S.-Peruvian counter narcotics framework
agreement. During the last four years of Fujimori’s term, Peru reported reduced
illegal production of coca leaf by 66%.7 Nonetheless, Peru remains one of the world’s
largest suppliers of coca leaf for cocaine.
The United States has been concerned about security in Peru and in the Andean
region as a whole. At the time Fujimori took office, in 1990, two guerrilla insurgency
groups had terrorized Peru for a decade. Fujimori effectively dismantled both the
Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) and the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement
(MRTA). His enhancement of national security came at the cost of high levels of
human rights violations, however, and his administration had the worst human rights
record in the hemisphere. A long-standing border conflict between Peru and Ecuador
flared briefly into armed conflict in 1995. The two countries signed an agreement in
1998 to resolve the dispute peacefully.
President-elect Toledo is traveling to Washington the last week of June. He is
expected to seek more balanced U.S. support for a broad range of social and
economic programs, as opposed to support that has primarily focused on counter
narcotics issues over the past decade.
5U.S. Agency for International Development, “Budget Justification Fiscal Year 2001, Annex
IV, Latin America and the Caribbean”, p. 399. Also updated aid figures, “Latin America–FY
2001 Estimate”. Apr. 2, 2001.
6U.S. Department of State “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, 2000: Peru.” Feb.
2001, p. 1.
7U.S. Department of State “Background Notes: Peru.” Mar. 2000, p. 10.
CRS-9
Congressional Concerns Regarding Peru
Congress has expressed concern about the development of democratic
institutions in Peru, and has conditioned aid on the respect for those institutions, and
for human rights, and the holding of free and fair elections. Congress has also
expressed concern about the case of Lori Berenson, an American prisoner in Peru;
the relationship between U.S. agencies and Peru’s fugitive spymaster, Vladimiro
Montesinos; and whether to resume an air drug-interdiction program suspended after
the accidental shootdown of an American missionary plane.
On April 11, 2000, following the first round presidential election in which
Fujimori ran for a third term, the 106th Congress passed a joint resolution expressing
the sense of Congress that the President of the United States should encourage free
and fair elections and respect for democracy in Peru. The resolution (S.J.Res. 43,
P.L. 106-186) called for reviewing and modifying U.S. political, economic, and
military relations with Peru, and working with other democracies toward a restoration
of democracy in Peru, should elections be deemed not free or fair.
In the FY2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (P.L.106-429, Sec.530),
Congress directed the Secretary of State to report every 90 days to Congress on
whether Peru has made substantial progress in creating the conditions for free and fair
elections, and in respecting human rights, the rule of law, the independence and
constitutional role of the judiciary and national congress, and freedom of expression
and of the independent media. It prohibits assistance to Peru unless it has made
substantial progress with respect to those goals. It also earmarks a minimum of $2
million for the work of nongovernmental organizations and the OAS in promoting
free and fair elections, democratic institutions, and human rights in Peru.
Lori Berenson is an American who has been serving a life sentence in Peru on
charges of treason. Berenson was convicted in January 1996 by a secret Peruvian
military tribunal of helping the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement plan a
thwarted takeover of Peru’s legislature. Berenson has maintained her innocence.
Since her imprisonment, Members of the U.S. Congress have appealed for her
release or for a new, fair trial. In July 2000 bipartisan groups of 221 Representatives
and 40 Senators urged the Clinton Administration to seek Berenson’s release. Both
letters cited Peru’s failure to provide a fair public trial, as outlined in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Peru is a signatory. In August 2000
Peru’s highest military court overturned her conviction, sending her to civilian court
for a new trial on lesser charges of “terrorist collaboration.” Her new trial began on
March 20, 2001. On June 20, she was convicted and given a 20-year sentence, the
minimum for collaboration.
The Member representing Berenson’s family’s district (Maloney, N.Y.) has
reportedly said she will ask congressional colleagues to ask President-elect Toledo to
pardon Berenson once he is in office, and rallies are planned to coincide with Toledo’s
visit next week to Washington, D.C. and New York. But analysts predict Toledo
CRS-10
will not want to issue a pardon and risk being viewed at home as either soft on
terrorism or interfering with the courts.8
In legislation and committee reports, the 106th Congress expressed concern about
the Clinton Administration’s provision of counter narcotics assistance to Peru’s
intelligence service, which was widely reported to be responsible for a wide array of
human rights violations. Since the fall of the Fujimori government, many observers
have also expressed concern regarding the former head of that intelligence service,
Vladimiro Montesinos, and his relationship to U.S. intelligence agencies. As
Fujimori’s top adviser, Montesinos was also involved in Peru’s collaboration with the
United States in counter narcotics efforts. Montesinos is wanted in Peru on charges
of corruption, illicit drugs and arms deals, and ordering death squads. He is currently
a fugitive from justice, having fled Peru in the fall of 2000 after a video of him bribing
a Member of Congress was released publicly. According to a news report (Reuters,
2/23/01), Peru’s Justice Minister has requested “extraordinary collaboration” with the
United States regarding Montesinos, “given the special responsibility everyone
attributes to certain U.S. government agencies over Montesinos’ political survival for
so long.”
Congressional support for a U.S.-Peruvian aerial drug interdiction program has
waned following an accident in which an American missionary plane was shot down
in Peru on April 20, 2001. A Central Intelligence Agency surveillance plane identified
the plane to Peru’s military as a possible drug flight. The Peruvians subsequently shot
down the plane, killing a missionary woman and her infant daughter. The aerial drug
interdiction programs in both Peru and Colombia have been suspended and are under
review. Some Members have said they would not support a resumption of the
program unless firing at a suspected plane was no longer allowed. A joint U.S.-
Peruvian team of officials is expected to complete its report soon.
8Craig Mauro, “Berenson Backers Place Hope in Toledo,” Associated Press, June 21, 2001.