Guatemalan elites lobby for US ambassador's removal
Less than two years ago, Guatemalan prosecutors and citizens took to the courts and the streets in order to secure the removal of one of the most corrupt administrations in recent history. US Ambassador to Guatemala Todd Robinson came under attack from the Guatemalan and international left for standing behind President Otto Perez Molina for too long. They accused Robinson and the United States of being nearly the sole reason why Perez remained in office for as long as he did following the revelations of corruption.
Ambassador Robinson was also under attack from the Guatemalan right, and mostly likely the international right but I don't remember their outspokenness being too strong, because of the strong-armed way in which the US had forced out members of the Perez administration and then Perez himself. Robinson was front and center in too many Guatemalan politics photos in 2015.
I was more supportive of Robinson as I thought that he and the US were trying to support the protesters and CICIG and the MP's investigations, while at the same time trying to ensure that Guatemala did not turn into a failed state. For me, it worked.
While Guatemala is not a wonderland, it is doing so much better than how the last Central American political crisis was resolved - Honduras anyone?
However, many Guatemalan business elites and political powers are still unhappy with what they perceive to be the strong-armed tactics of Robinson, Ivan Velasquez and the rest of the international community (as well as Thelma Aldana). While many of these people strategically joined the bandwagon to call for Perez Molina's resignation, that does not mean that they are on board with the international community's pursuit of corruption charges for the last few years against many Guatemalans accused of defrauding the state.
While perhaps not every individual member of the group feels this way, several of Guatemala's political and economic elite traveled to Washington earlier this month to lobby for Ambassador Robinson's removal. Fortunately, Senator Leahy and other US government officials said that there would be no change in US policy towards Guatemala, including at the ambassadorial level. The US Senate and House remain supportive of anti-corruption initiatives in Guatemala.
What will happen after January 20th is anyone's guess. The US Congress will most likely continue to take a strong stance against corruption in Guatemala, and elsewhere in Central America, as every other political, military, and economic assistance program will fail if we do not make greater strides against corruption in the region. The best of policies might not work anyway, but there is clearly no hope if corruption regains the momentum in Guatemala.
A positive development for those of us concerned about the momentum created by Guatemalan citizens, the MP's office, and the international community, is that Rudy Giuliani will not be US Secretary of State. Giuliani is perceived to have been more sympathetic to voices on the right in Guatemala. He was invited to Guatemala not that long ago to consult on public security issues. While he will not be Secretary of State, that doesn't mean that he will not be able to share his voice with the President-elect. I am worried that we will see a shift in US policies towards the region away from our existing semi-comprehensive approach. But, as they say, elections have consequences.
(See Posición de EE. UU. no tendrá cambios and ¿Conspira el núcleo del G-8 contra el embajador Robinson?)
Ambassador Robinson was also under attack from the Guatemalan right, and mostly likely the international right but I don't remember their outspokenness being too strong, because of the strong-armed way in which the US had forced out members of the Perez administration and then Perez himself. Robinson was front and center in too many Guatemalan politics photos in 2015.
I was more supportive of Robinson as I thought that he and the US were trying to support the protesters and CICIG and the MP's investigations, while at the same time trying to ensure that Guatemala did not turn into a failed state. For me, it worked.
While Guatemala is not a wonderland, it is doing so much better than how the last Central American political crisis was resolved - Honduras anyone?
However, many Guatemalan business elites and political powers are still unhappy with what they perceive to be the strong-armed tactics of Robinson, Ivan Velasquez and the rest of the international community (as well as Thelma Aldana). While many of these people strategically joined the bandwagon to call for Perez Molina's resignation, that does not mean that they are on board with the international community's pursuit of corruption charges for the last few years against many Guatemalans accused of defrauding the state.
While perhaps not every individual member of the group feels this way, several of Guatemala's political and economic elite traveled to Washington earlier this month to lobby for Ambassador Robinson's removal. Fortunately, Senator Leahy and other US government officials said that there would be no change in US policy towards Guatemala, including at the ambassadorial level. The US Senate and House remain supportive of anti-corruption initiatives in Guatemala.
What will happen after January 20th is anyone's guess. The US Congress will most likely continue to take a strong stance against corruption in Guatemala, and elsewhere in Central America, as every other political, military, and economic assistance program will fail if we do not make greater strides against corruption in the region. The best of policies might not work anyway, but there is clearly no hope if corruption regains the momentum in Guatemala.
A positive development for those of us concerned about the momentum created by Guatemalan citizens, the MP's office, and the international community, is that Rudy Giuliani will not be US Secretary of State. Giuliani is perceived to have been more sympathetic to voices on the right in Guatemala. He was invited to Guatemala not that long ago to consult on public security issues. While he will not be Secretary of State, that doesn't mean that he will not be able to share his voice with the President-elect. I am worried that we will see a shift in US policies towards the region away from our existing semi-comprehensive approach. But, as they say, elections have consequences.
(See Posición de EE. UU. no tendrá cambios and ¿Conspira el núcleo del G-8 contra el embajador Robinson?)
Post a Comment