Peru: Ex-Minister Asked US Embassy to Help Contain Opponent’s Presidential Campaign  · Global Voices
Juan Arellano

This post is part of our special coverage WikiLeaks and the World.
As reported earlier, on February 19th Spanish newspaper El Pais [es] released a cable stating that “Fernando Rospigliosi, former Minister of the Interior in the government of Alejandro Toledo, asked the assistance of the United States Embassy to carry a campaign against Ollanta Humala.” Peruvian media quickly rebounded the news that rocked the local political environment.
But the existence of this cable was rumored a few days before. On the 15th, the U.S. ambassador in Peru, Rose M. Likins, and Humala talked [es] about it; the latter denounced [es] it as an usurpation of Peruvian democracy. It should be noted that the embassy rejected the claim.
On Saturday 19th, when the cable was released, former President Toledo was quick to declare [es] that he had nothing to do with that meeting, and one of his closest colleagues, Charles Bruce, said [es] that when the Rospigliosi meeting took place, he was not a part of Toledo’s government. Ollanta Humala meanwhile harshly criticized both former Minister Rospigliosi [es] and former President Toledo [es]. Rospigliosi accepted the veracity of the cable and said [es] it was a personal choice because he thought Humala was a danger to democracy.
The cable was translated into Spanish [es] by blogger Carlos Quiroz. In Storify you can see a list [es] of some tweets in the aftermath of the publication.
Reactions in blogs also emerged, mainly focused to the appropriateness of requesting to foreign help in domestic affairs. Herbert Castro wrote [es] in his blog that these facts are nothing but treason and adds his opinion on who would stand to benefit:
No pues. Así no se juega. Rospi, Tienes que reconocer que quedaste como una zapatilla y lo único que te queda es pedirles disculpas, tanto a Ollanta como a la opinión pública, a la que te debes como periodista. […] Ahora sí Humala tendrá suficientes razones para gritar en calles y plazas lo sucio que le jugaron. Y tú como periodista lo sabes, la víctima siempre saca dividendos.
Habría que recordar que la versión de Rospigliosi que “no veía a Toledo desde el 2004” contrasta con su inicial aparición pública como parte del actual equipo de campaña de Toledo-aunque renunciara después, a lo mejor por lo que todos sospechamos-; también que Rubén Vargas, el acompañante de Rospigliosi en la embajada, sea ahora miembro de la Comisión de Plan de Gobierno de Toledo. En fin, las sospechas Rospigliosi-Toledo continuarán por buen tiempo. Aunque hay otra versión, la que dice que Rospigliosi-Vargas iban a informar y aconsejar a la embajada por el vil dinero de una consultoría.
Journalist Raul Wiener also discusses [es] in his blog the reasons for the now notorious conversation:
Toledo se propuso crear una crisis internacional en relación a las elecciones peruanas, en las que interviniera Estados Unidos y por supuesto soltara dinero, como lo hizo en la crisis del 2000, de lo que Toledo nunca dio cuentas. Rospigliosi no fue a una de sus tantísimas reuniones de asesoría a los gringos en las cosas en las que dice ser especialista, sino a tratar sobre cooperación de gobiernos en una campaña electoral dentro del Perú.
In the blog Ideeleradio there is a transcript [es] of an interview with Alberto Adrianzen, congressional candidate for Humala, in which, among other things, he speaks about how the media is covering the issue:
Acá hay un proceso mediático, por ejemplo, El Comercio [hoy] pone ‘Asesor de Humala intercedió por él ante embajador de EE.UU.’ y se refiere a Salomón Lerner Ghitis. Lo pone en letras de molde grande y [ayer] puso lo de [Fernando] Rospigliosi, una tira y abajo, [pone] esto que es 200 mil veces menor de lo que hizo Rospigliosi. Lo que diga Lerner al embajador americano, de que Humala es honesto, razonable, es distinto a una contracampaña contra Ollanta Humala. Me parece francamente poco ético de El Comercio”
At the other end, Raul Mendoza Canepa says that [es] Rospigliosi has been consistent with what he always preaches and branded those who accuse him as “Pharisees.”
As expected, it is on TV where space is given to Rospigliosi to explain and give his version of what happened, as seen in this interview [es] on “Prensa Libre.” But on the other hand, in an interview at Canal N [es] he did not fare so well. La Republica newspaper conducted a survey on the subject, “55% believes that Rospigliosi was right to ask the U.S. Embassy to help stop Humala, while 45% believe the contrary.” Interestingly, in an article [es] in the same newspaper, where Rospigliosi wrote to justify his actions, and where Humala is accused of distorting and manipulating the cable to use it for his own convenience, the vast majority of comments from readers reject the former minister’s action. In any case it seems that this will continue as a topic of conversation for a few more days, until another revelation comes to the fore.
This post is part of our special coverage WikiLeaks and the World.