When Fernando Lugo won the April 2008 elections, becoming the first non Colorado Party President of Paraguay in 61 years, he promised that the country was going to enter a period of renewal and change. At that time, nobody could foresee that after four years, Lugo would be ousted as president on June 22nd, 2012, via a constitutionally legal, but highly controversial, impeachment process.

Vice President Federico Franco and President Fernando Lugo back in 2008. (Photo: Fernando Lugo)

Lugo’s elected vice-president, Federico Franco, was sworn in the same day and has passed 100 days in charge in the midst of an ongoing bitter debate between those who continue to support Lugo and those who were glad to see him leave. Franco’s cabinet, purged of Lugo’s allies, has also changed the approach to key policies in energy and agriculture, deepening the divide in the country. Though this political experience, an unprecedented one in Paraguay, remains fresh, there are already some lessons to be taken from June’s events.

Reflections on Lugo’s Demise

Lugo won the election supported by the APC (Alianza Patriótica Para el Cambio) which was an alliance of several political parties coming from the left and right of the political spectrum. The Partido Liberal Radical Auténtico (PLRA), led by Franco, was the most prominent among them. This alliance, based on heterogeneous and contradictory interests, began to crack as early as July 2009 with the withdrawal of the PLRA. The party accused Lugo and his left wing allies of reaching a deal with the opposition Colorado Party about the presidency of the National Parliament, disrespecting Franco, and marginalising the PLRA in government. The experience of the APC shows once again that an alliance established by heterogeneous sectors to win elections cannot guarantee successful governance when it reaches power.

The withdrawal of the PLRA from the APC did not mean its departure from government. Franco remained as vice president and tensions between him and Lugo continued to escalate. In this sense, far from changing things Lugo also continued a tradition of poor relations between president and vice in Paraguay’s immature democracy. Previously, this had happened during the presidencies of Juan Carlos Wasmosy (1993 – 1998), Raúl Cubas (1998 – 1999) and Nicanor Duarte Frutos (2003 – 2008).

Once again, far from changing things, Lugo failed to break the bi-partisan dominance of Paraguayan politics. Even though the APC grouped together several political parties, the PLRA and the Colorado Party have remained the country’s leading political forces. Lugo’s victory in the 2008 elections was possible due to about 500,000 voters belonging to the PLRA, and also due to hundreds of thousands of Colorados who voted him as they were frustrated with the traditional way of policymaking and their party’s increasing internal fights.

Lugo’s inability to implement the changes he promised meant he fell victim to the expectations he himself had raised. During the political campaign he promised to bring change to Paraguayan politics and to work for transparency and for the solution of the country’s very serious social problems. Once in power, Lugo was not able to meet the mobilised population’s demands for political renewal. On the contrary, owing to some actions, for many people Luguismo soon became a synonym for nepotism, corruption and more of the same bad practices. To make things worse, three additional events contributed to undermine the president’s initial popularity: the increasing violence in the rural areas, more radical activity by the EPP terrorist organisation, and question marks over his personal character after his admission that he fathered two children while he was a bishop.

Far from solving the country’s social contradictions, Lugo’s critics say he exacerbated them by supporting landless peasants that occupied private land, harassing landowners of Brazilian origins and their descendants (the so-called ‘Brasiguayos‘), and being permissive with the EPP’s actions. Some political sources claim that Lugo ousted Interior Minister Rafael Filizzola as he was seriously interested in dismantling the terrorist group. He replaced Mr. Filizzola with another Filizzola, Carlos (Rafael’s cousin), who proved to be ineffective in stopping the spiral of violence in rural Paraguay and bringing the EPP under control.

A family of famers in rural Paraguay (Photo: sub coop)

Lugo also gave birth to a crucial paradox: however hard he tried to deepen the gap between the Colorados and Liberales, he ended, involuntarily, bringing them together in a united front against him. It happened soon after the Campos de Morumbí massacre on 15th June, when 17 people were killed. Lugo was forced to remove Carlos Filizzola from the Interior Ministry and replace him with Rubén Candia Amarilla, a former Colorado prosecutor. The appointment of Candia Amarilla stoked political tensions, with the Liberales thinking it was a maneouvre of Lugo to establish an alliance with the Colorados for the 2013 elections.

Meanwhile, some Colorados thought it was an attempt to divide their party. Candia Amarilla belonged to the sector led by party leader Lilian Samaniego, who was being challenged at the time by Horacio Cartes, the leader of the most important movement within the Colorado Party and one of the pre candidates to Paraguayan presidency for the next year’s elections. Shortly after the appointment of the new interior minister, both parties reach a consensus to hurry through the impeachment of the President.

The political events of Paraguay have also brought to surface an increasing debate about the real democratic vocation of MERCOSUR. Almost at the same time as the regional block suspended Paraguay, accusing the new government of a ‘parliamentary coup’. The remaining MERCOSUR members – Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay – proceeded to approve the admission of Venezuela, something had been impossible due to the strong opposition of the Colorado dominated Paraguayan parliament. Some sectors in Paraguay continue to say that the motives behind the country’s temporary suspension had more to do with this opportunity to admit oil-rich Venezuela into MERCOSUR than the impeachment of Lugo.

Franco’s Rule

On the other hand, the new government in Paraguay, far from helping to calm the waters, is becoming increasingly controversial, specially with some issues that are subject to deep public debate. These include more radical violence by the EPP; more accusations of nepotism; and the kind of personal crusade the President is performing in order to allow Rio Tinto Alcan (RTA) to settle a big plant in Paraguay. This company has had a wide range of accusations, from being highly environmentally hazardous to having supported dictatorships and genocide actions in some places where it has established in previous decades. In this context, rumors that RTA financed the impeachment are common in Paraguay nowadays.

Rumours of vested interests behind (and in favour of) Lugo’s impeachment have also arisen from Franco’s very controversial decision to approve the use of GM seeds. Lugo had been resisting pressure from major agricultural companies such as Monsanto to introduce the new seeds. The new seeds are specifically for cotton and corn, two crops that are key to Paraguayan agriculture: the former has traditionally been produced in small plots, while the latter is one of the most important sources of nutrition for the popular classes. While the Government claims that the measure will contribute to the modernisation of Paraguayan agriculture, many peasant organisations reject it stating that, apart from being beneficial only to some major agricultural companies, it is very harmful for the environment and the population´s health condition.

Many Questions, Few Answers

Though some lessons have been learned from Lugo’s impeachment, the uncertain future in Paraguay politics invites many more questions.

It is very likely that Lugo will be elected senator in next year’s elections. What role is he going to play in Paraguayan politics? Will Paraguayan society overcome the current division among those who favored the impeachment and those who still support Lugo? How will the PLRA and the Colorado Party contribute to political stability after next year’s elections? (The answer to this question is key, especially taking into account that while the PLRA reached the Presidency through the impeachment after 76 years out of power, the Colorado Party will try to recover the presidency in the next year’s elections after the 2008 defeat).

And finally: do the main political actors have a real vocation for change? Or, as has been so common in the recent Paraguayan political history, are things going to change so that nothing really changes?

Hundreds of indigenous families have occupied the area directly in front of the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute in the capital Asunción, accusing the government of Federico Franco of failing to attend to “those who have fallen into extreme poverty”.

The protesters had initially marched to the National Emergency Ministry to demand the urgent delivery of food, given the dire conditions many of them are living in, before occupying the Paraguayan Indigenous Institute and its surrounding streets. They have since set up tents and a cooking area, stocked with food donated by local residents.

The families have come from the Canindeyú department, more than 240km from the capital, and have stated that they will only vacate the area once their demands are met. They claim that officials of the Institute have failed on numerous occasions to deliver promised food, mattresses, and agricultural equipment.

Tomás Domínguez, leader of the protest movement, stated “we are living in total misery, amongst garbage and flies, because of this liberal government”.

This protest is the latest in a series of demonstrations that the Franco administration has faced since coming to power in June, in what many consider a parliamentary coup. On 26th September landless farmers announced that they would begin occupying thousands of hectares of private land, and the National Peasant Federation has protested against the government’s controversial decision to use genetically modified seeds for corn and cotton crops.

Groups of landless farmers, known locally as ‘carperos‘, yesterday declared that they would begin to occupy territory in protest at government delays in allocating land. The protesters said they would begin to occupy land in eight days if they did not receive an official answer by then.

“If the government does not meet its commitment to intervene [in the land dispute], we will once again move on to the land and resist any attempt to remove us,” declared the group, according to TeleSurTV.

In the central department of San Pedro, the farmers threatened to take over 4,500 hectares of privately-owned land. Thousands of carperos in Ñacunday, in the South East of the country, also pledged to begin occupying land.

The dispute between rural landowners and peasant groups has been a major source of political tension in Paraguay this year. In June, clashes between police and carperos left 17 dead and were the trigger for the rushed impeachment of then president, Fernando Lugo.

Yesterday’s declarations came the same day as around 1,000 protesters from the National Peasant Federation (FNC) blocked a main road in protest at the arrival of genetically modified (GM) cotton seeds. Rural groups have heavily criticised the government of Federico Franco for approving the use of GM seeds in the country.

Paraguayan president Federico Franco explained Paraguay’s recent leadership shift and aired foreign affairs concerns to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon Sunday afternoon. Franco is currently attending the 67^th United Nations General Assembly in New York City.

“The Secretary General was well aware of events in Paraguay. He asked about the killings at Curuguaty which triggered the impeachment, and we gave him an extensive report on the Senate debate and the political consequences,” recounted Franco.

“I was impressed by how well-informed Ban Ki-Moon was about the situation in Paraguay. The information he used was correct,” reflected Minister of External Relations José Félix Fernández in a conversation with 780 AM.

Franco also voiced dissatisfaction with Paraguay’s suspension from Mercosur last June and the acceptance of Venezuela last August, made possible by Paraguay’s absence. “Paraguay is not going to accept the interference of Venezuela, and this is also of concern for the other neighbouring countries,” said Franco.

Paraguay’s suspension came as a reaction to the ousting of former president Fernando Lugo and current President Franco’s ascension last June. The suspension has meant sanctions from member nations until Paraguay’s next scheduled election in April of 2013.

For his part, Secretary Ban asked President Franco to continue to contribute Paraguayan troops to UN peace missions in countries such as Haiti, Syria, and Cyprus and praised the Franco government for their promotion of women’s rights.

Secretary Ban has not made an official statement regarding the meeting.

Franco arrived in the United States with his wife yesterday. The trip is his first representing Paraguay to the United Nations, as well as his first abroad as head of state.

Franco will attend a dinner hosted by US president Barack Obama this evening and is also scheduled to meet with president of the Inter American Development Bank, Luis Alberto Moreno, economist Jeffrey Sachs, and Duncan Neiderauer of the New York Stock Exchange.

Storms with 100 km/hr winds hit Paraguay, Argentina, Bolivia and Uruguay early Wednesday morning, leaving nine people dead.

Asunción, the capital of Paraguay, was hit the hardest with over 5,000 houses destroyed, according to the Secretary of National Emergency (SEN). Storms in Asunción had winds above 140 km/hr causing electricity outages and damage to roads. Interior Minister Carmelo Caballero confirmed that five people died and 81 people were injured.

In the district of Roque Alonso, close to Asunción, four security force cadets died when their roof collapsed. “Roque Alonso will have to be reconstructed,” said Mayor of Roque Alonso, Heriberto Mármol.

In Bolivia, a mother and her son died as they were swept away by the flooding caused by torrential rain in the Santa Cruz region. In Uruguay, a man and his son were swept away and killed by the water while traveling in their car .

The northeast region of Argentina, Misiones, was also hit by the storm. There are fallen trees, electricity outages, and destroyed buildings according to the Municipal Office of Natural Disaster Prevention (OPAD).

In Buenos Aires, 26 people were evacuated due to strong winds and rain. The capital and some of its surrounding areas were put on alert yesterday after water levels in the Rio de la Plata rose dramatically.

The National Weather Service has lowered the alert to a level of orange. Thus far, 462 people have been evacuated and 140,000 homes are without electricity.

Perhaps, 15th June will be best remembered in Paraguayan contemporary history as the date of the beginning of the end of Fernando Lugo’s presidency earlier this year. On that date, the massacre of Campos de Morombí, in Canindeyú, left 11 landless peasants and six police officers dead, and started a series of angry debates and accusations that finally led to the impeachment of the president.

However, given the massacre and its major repercussions, few recalled that 15th June 2012 was already a very important date in the Paraguayan history. It marked the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Chaco War, which pitted South America’s only two landlocked countries, Paraguay and Bolivia, against each other in the vast lowland Chaco plains that today reaches into three countries. It became the bloodiest war of the 20th century in the Americas.

Paraguayan troops at Fort Alihuata in 1932.

Even though this conflict is mentioned with different denominations such as ‘The Chaco War’, ‘The Gran Chaco War’ or ‘The War of Thirst’ (due to the vast numbers of soldiers that died because of a lack of drinkable water in the region). In reality, the conflict might be more appropriately called ‘The War of the Poorest’ as the enemies were among the poorest countries of the Western Hemisphere.

In spite of the deep poverty suffered by both countries, there were significant differences between them, with Paraguay facing the more desperate situation. Paraguay’s population at that time was around one third of Bolivia, and though an arms race had begun in both countries in the 1920s, the Bolivian army was far larger and better equipped than its opposition. Moreover, Bolivia had more economic resources than Paraguay due to its oil and mineral wealth. Paraguay, on the other hand, was still suffering the aftermath of the Triple Alliance War (1864-70) that had slaughtered much of its male population, caused the loss of a huge part of its territory, and left the economy bankrupt.

One War, Multiple Causes

On 15th June 1932, Bolivian soldiers attacked the Paraguayan Carlos Antonio López fort which was located near the Pitiantutá Lake. Nevertheless, this attack was just only one of the many events which sparked the war.

Map of Bolivia and Paraguay before the Chaco War. Afterward, Bolivia was forced to recognise most of the region as part of Paraguay. Also, it was deprived of a potential sovereign access to the Atlantic Ocean

The Chaco War emerged as a typical Latin American conflict of boundaries inherited from colonial times, owing to the fact that the Spanish Crown never cared to set clear frontiers among the different members of its American colonies. The vast Chaco region was a long-standing issue, but it only came to prominence in the last decades of the 19th century, after Bolivia had lost is Pacific Ocean coast to Chile in the Second War of the Pacific, also called La Guerra del Guano (1879-84) and became a landlocked country.

After that war, Bolivia witnessed a rise of nationalist sectors that sought an opportunity to rebuild a national pride that had been devastated by the military and territorial loss. Subsequently, the successive governments started to look southwards and eastwards to the Chaco, a land that they considered to be Bolivian and that could provide an exit to the Atlantic Ocean via the Paraguay River.

According to some sources, Bolivia had evidence supporting its de jure claim to the region saying that the Chaco had belonged to the Spanish colonial Chiquitanías. Meanwhile, if for Bolivia, it was vital to find access to the ocean, for Paraguay it was vital not to lose more territory to the hands of another country as it continued to recover and rebuild from the Triple Alliance War.

Paraguay claimed to have strong evidence supporting the de facto ownership of the land as it had been exercising sovereignty and permanent presence over the region since, in 1878, the arbitration of then US President Rutherford Hayes recognised Paraguayan sovereignty over the Chaco Boreal (the northern area of the Gran Chaco). After the Hayes ruling, which ended an territorial dispute with Argentina, the country sold hundreds of thousands of public land in the Chaco to private Argentine investors in order to develop the area. In the 1920s, the Paraguayan government also allowed the settlement of Mennonite colonies in the wild land. Both groups would play a vital supporting role for the Paraguayan army during the conflict.

The Oil Factor

After decades of fruitless negotiations and some military and isolated skirmishes, in 1928 a new factor appeared on stage, which deepened both countries’ anxiety and urgency to exercise their sovereign rights on the Chaco. It was the discovery of oil in the foothills of the Andes, in the Bolivian region of Villa Montes, not far from the disputed land, that generated expectations of significant oil reserves in the Chaco wilderness.

The military skirmishes became more frequent and tensions more serious, with the position of both countries increasingly inflexible. This eventually led to the Pitiantutá incident of 15th June 1932 and from there, to open war.

The coincidence of the oil discovery with the deepening of the diplomatic and military crisis and the arms race in the 1920s lead some to hypothesise that the real cause of the war were the vested interests of the US and Britain in securing control of this valuable resource. The historians who support this version of history argue that American Standard Oil, which was operating in the Bolivian oilfields by that time, protected the US interests, while the Royal Dutch Shell was supporting the Paraguayan side on behalf of the British interests.

Lessons From the War

The war finished on 12th June 1935, almost exactly three years after it had started, leaving both Paraguay and Bolivia even more impoverished and in political turmoil. By this time, Paraguay had been able to take control of the complete Chaco area and even reached the surrounding regions of Villa Montes and the Parapití River (today Bolivian territory) before the US, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile brokered a truce.

E. Martínez Thedy (Uruguay), Luis A. Riart (Paraguay), Tomás M. Elío (Bolivia) and Carlos Saavedra Lamas (Argentina) negotiated the peace treaty in Buenos Aires.

The Paraguayan victory was credited to multiple factors. Among the most important were the superior tactics used by the Paraguay’s military leaders; a greater familiarity with the wilderness and hot weather of the Chaco than the Bolivian soldiers sent from the high, cold Altiplano; the use of Guaraní language for communication, which was totally incomprehensible to the enemy; and the guerrilla style fight implemented by the Paraguayan strategy.

For Paraguay, the war meant an important military victory, necessary to recover the sense of the nation after the tragedy and genocide of the Triple Alliance War. However, in the 1938 Peace Protocol signed in Buenos Aires, the country was assigned two thirds of the territory under dispute, effectively handing back one third.

For a very important part of the Paraguayan society and the army, what was a military victory became a diplomatic defeat. It caused a wave of popular anger which brought internal instability and an ever increasing role and involvement of the military in politics. This ended up bringing General Alfredo Stroessner (a Chaco war veteran) to power, whose controversial regime lasted 35 years. Paraguay only returned to democracy in 1989. Adding to the lingering sense of injustice, the existence of gas and oil fields was confirmed in the part of the disputed territory assigned to Bolivia in 1938. So far, the existence of gas and oil fields for commercial exploitation in the Paraguayan Chaco remains uncertain.

For Bolivia, the loss of the war meant more frustration and discontent in the population, and the endemic instability of the country intensified. Up until the final recovery of democracy in 1982, Bolivia lived long periods of social and political unrest marked by a succession of civil and military governments.

For both countries, due to their demographic characteristics and the size of their economies, the impact of the war on them was similar to the impact of World Wars I and II on some Europeans countries. Paraguay lost about 40,000 people and Bolivia about 55,000 in the war. The economic structure of the two countries were exhausted due to the war effort, and the instability of the postwar years prevented the development of any single long-term project aiming at national recovery.

The poorest countries that once went to war remained the poorest ones for the next decades to come.

Teachers unions are set to start an indefinite strike next week after the government failed to respond demands to wage demands. The date of the strike will be set on 12th September, with a national protest scheduled for the following day.

The principal demand concerns the salaries of 16,000 teachers, which unions say are currently below the country’s minimum wage floor. The unions also claim that teachers are not receiving the benefits they are entitled to for job experience and academic merit.

“Unfortunately, we have no alternative but to take to the streets to demand that these basic requirements are met,” said Eladio Benítez, secretary general of the National Teachers’ Union. Benítez also accused the government of dismissing personnel for political reasons.

Earlier this week, social organisations spoke out against government plans to spend around US$600million on new military equipment, with some of the money potentially being diverted from the education budget.

Employees at the Finance Ministry are also threatening to go on strike next week over salary demands, which the government of Federico Franco says cannot be paid due to a lack of funds. The workers had planned a strike for the 28th August, but later agreed to postpone it for ten days after the government threatened to fire those that took part in the industrial action.

Meanwhile, opposition among rural and indigenous groups continues over the government’s recent decision to permit the use of genetically modified seeds for corn and cotton crops.

Frente Guasú, a coalition of political parties and social organisations, announced on Friday they would be restructuring the movement, and former president Fernando Lugo would become the new leader of the bloc.

In the restructuring, they reiterated that the aim of the movement would be to continue to fight against the government of current president Federico Franco, who took power after Lugo was deposed in a parliamentary coup d’êtat in June.

The impeachment process lasted less than 48 hours after Lugo was accused of not performing his duties in the aftermath of violent clashes between police and farmers that left 17 dead on 15th June. One day later, 39 (out of 45) senators supported the motion, and Lugo was removed from office.

His desposition was heavily criticised by other Latin American leaders and UNASUR, and led to the temporary suspension of Paraguay from Mercosur.

Frente Guasú is a coalition of left and centre-left parties in Paraguay that was founded in 2010. It is composed of the Patriotic Alliance for Change (APC) and the Espacio Unitario – Congreso Popular (EU-CP).

The National League of Landless Farmers (known as ‘carperos‘) has warned the Paraguayan government that it will begin mass occupations of land that has been illegally obtained by the state. The warning comes after the group’s march on Asunción to address land rights on Tuesday.

The league, considered one of the largest groups of landless Paraguayans who live with their families in tents, has declared that it is preparing to recover 8,000 hectares of land that spans over 16 districts, in order to resolve a land crisis that has affected thousands in the eastern area of the country.

The league also remarked about the 28,000 public hectares that are controlled by Brazilian companies and demanded for decent housing.

Recently, the leader of the association, Jose Rodriguez, met with the newly appointed president, Federico Franco, who this year replaced Fernando Lugo as he was ousted before the end of his term. The meeting was requested by Franco who asked the farmers to submit a written request of the land that they claim will resolve the existing disputes.

The conflict over land has extended for over 50 years, and has been made worse as increasing evictions of farmers have occurred through court orders and police actions. Between the years 1950 and 2000, 12 million hectares were given over to private ownership, claimed former president of the National Rural and Land Development Institute, Alberto Alderete Prieto.

Since then, organisations for land reform, like the League of Landless Farmers and the Struggle for Land Organisation, have been created. The director of the latter group, Ramon Medina, said that the struggles are for land reform and to stop the advance of agri-business which are the main threats to farmers. “We continue with a government that defends the interests of the large landholders, of the big soy producers,” said Medina.

A 2008 farming census showed that only 2% of landowners hold 85.5% of Paraguay’s land and that, at the time, there were 300,000 landless farming families. Of arable land, 80% belongs to 1% of landowners and 6% to small-scale farmers, approximating 20 hectares per farmer.

Paraguay’s National Peasant Federation (FNC) announced yesterday that it would start to mobilise against the government’s recent decision to use genetically modified (GM) seeds for corn and cotton crops.

The measure was approved by presidential decree, after new president, Federico Franco, met with businessmen from the rural sector. Franco recently assumed power after democratically elected president Fernando Lugo was removed from power by parliament, in what many have called a ‘legislative coup’.

Their decision has been supported by other rural organisations, who have stated that the use of GM seeds will bring negative consequences for rural workers and their families, as well as the environment. As part of the mobilisation, the organisations are demanding that the multinationals and local businesses present their studies on food safety and the environmental impact of the grains.

President Franco has said that the import of the seeds would increase peasant families’ production of cotton.

The latest decision comes after the July decision to register a type of GM cotton produced by multinational Monsanto. The plant needs glyphosate to develop, a herbicide that has been banned in various places around the world for its high levels of toxins.