2002 was a dark year for Argentina. The country was picking up the pieces from the economic and political crisis that had exploded in the last days of 2001. Poverty and unemployment were at an all-time high, and the sight of people rummaging through rubbish looking for something to eat was a common one. So were protests, all day, every day: desperate pleas for work, food, change, dignity.

One of these protests would be tragically different.

The murders of Darío Santillán and Maximiliano Kosteki at a roadblock on the 26th June 2002 would change the course of Argentine history.

‘Piquete y Cacerola’

The piqueteros became a feature of the political landscape in the late 1990s. As traditional party politics were seen as little more than a façade for businesses and corruption, and unemployment and poverty became a reality for millions of people, alternative ways of political expression came to the surface.

It all started in the oil towns of Cutral-Co (Neuquén) and Tartagal (Salta) between 1996 and 1997, both greatly affected by the mass layoffs resulting from the privatisation of oil company YPF. Thousands of people gathered and set up pickets on major roads, lighting up tires, and spontaneously forming assemblies to debate the next steps to take. The piquetero movement was born.

A new social subject was protagonist in these protests: the unemployed worker. In a society organised around labour relations – typical of the post-war industrial model – and where political activity was largely linked to unionism, the unemployed were effectively marginalised, living at the fringes of society. Economically, socially and politically they were isolated. They had no expression channels, so they created their own.

The piquetero practices of roadblocks and assemblies spread throughout the country and into Greater Buenos Aires, where they had to coexist with, and try to displace, deeply rooted political practices of the so-called “traditional politics”.

The riots of December 2001 brought the still marginal piqueteros and the pot-banging middle classes together. During the months following the collapse, a large part of the political activity concentrated around the citizens’ assemblies and the piquetero movements. The chant ‘Piquete y cacerola, la lucha es una sola‘ (‘Pickets and pots, the struggle is the same’) summarised the visibility and recognition the piquetero movement had gained -and which they had never enjoyed before.

Darío Santillán and Maximiliano Kosteki were part of the piquetero experience and were immersed in the rebellious atmosphere sparked by the December riots. Whilst, at the age of 21, Darío was already a seasoned activist, Maxi joined his local MTD (Unemployed Workers’ Movement) at 22, and spent the last few months of his life actively dedicated to its cause.

Darío and Maxi never met. They only came together once, as Darío came to Maxi’s aid when he was lying on the floor of the Avellaneda train station, bleeding to death. That last gesture of solidarity cost him his life

Shooting to Kill

As the piquetero groups made their way to Avellaneda on the cold morning of the 26th June 2002, they were aware that this protest would be different. The plan was to block Puente Pueyrredón, one of the bridges that connects the capital with the province of Buenos Aires, as part of a larger mobilisation that included roadblocks in other parts of Buenos Aires and the country. They were asking for an increase in subsidies, a food plan for the unemployed, supplies for schools and hospitals, the release of jailed piqueteros, and an end to repression

But the government, headed by Eduardo Duhalde since January of that year, had already warned that “any attempts at isolating the city would be considered an act of war”. The piqueteros had already had run-ins with the police during their protests, and one of them had been killed during a roadblock a few months earlier. The repressive attitude of the government was hardening, but the piqueteros hoped that it would not be able to get away with open displays of violence in the capital, as it did in the provinces. Even so, many groups asked for the children and older ladies (who were the heart of the MTDs) not to join them.

As the piqueteros approached in two large groups, armed with sticks and slingshots, the Buenos Aires police and naval prefecture blocked the bridge. Face to face with the police, one protestor ran from her group and tried to hit a policeman, superintendent Alfredo Fanchiotti, whom she claims was about to open fire on one of the groups. This gave the police the excuse they were waiting for to start the repression.

Just before 12pm, the police opened fire. The protesters were chased down the streets of Avellaneda, and even though they tried to execute an orderly retreat, panic took over. It soon became clear that, as well as rubber bullets, some policemen were using live rounds. Describing the incident, a court later ruled that they were shooting “with the intention to kill the protesters in front of them, who were running away with their backs to [the police]“.

One of those protesters was Maximiliano Kosteki, who, as he turned around to see if the police were still after him, was shot twice in the thigh and once in the chest. He was carried by one of his comrades to the Avellaneda train station and left there, fighting for his life.

At about 12.40pm, Darío’s group was retreating when he suddenly decided to go back towards the train station, where he knew some protesters were being ambushed by the police. When he saw Maxi lying on the floor in the station hall, he leaned over him to try and help him, yelling at everyone else, including his girlfriend and his brother, to leave as the police were entering the station.

When superintendent Fanchiotti and his underling, corporal Alejandro Acosta, entered the train station, Darío’s girlfriend and brother managed to run to the platform and jump onto an incoming train. Darío tried to do the same, but as he ran away, he was shot repeatedly in the back, from a distance of 1-2 metres. After, his body was dragged outside by the policemen, who kicked him and demanded that he get up. Maxi’s body was also dragged outside and they were both put onto the back of a pick-up truck and taken away.

‘The Crisis Caused Two New Deaths’

That was the infamous title on the front cover of Clarín newspaper, on the 27th June 2002. Not Fanchiotti, not Acosta, not the police or president Duhalde, but “the crisis”.

Immediately after the events, the government tried to blame the deaths on the piqueteros, claiming that it had all been the result of a fight amongst different factions of the movement. The mainstream media played its role by spreading this information, even against their own photographic evidence, which clearly showed the police attack.

The claim did not last and soon enough it was dropped. The evidence against the police was overwhelming, as it became clear during the trial, which started in May 2005. The photographs and film recordings taken by the press on the day played a key role and in January 2006, Fanchiotti and Acosta were both sentenced to life in prison for the murders. Seven other policemen were convicted for attempted murder and five for obstruction of justice.

“We are now going after Duhalde and all those who were politically responsable [for the murders]!” Alberto Santillán, Darío’s father, yelled as he heard the verdict. Ten years later, no one else has faced trial for the Avellaneda massacre, as it came to be known.

There were, however, political consequences. One week after the deaths of Maxi and Darío, president Duhalde called for early elections, to be held in May 2003 -instead of October. The tragedy put an end to his hopes for reelection, and Duhalde’s political career has been in decline ever since.

The new government, led by Néstor Kirchner, took a different approach to dealing with piqueteros. Shortly after taking office, Kirchner met with delegates from the piquetero movement, who found the president’s attitude positive, as he had considered them “legitimate interlocutors of the social problem”. It is also believed that the Avellaneda massacre, and its political fallout, influenced the Kirchnerist governments’ stand on police repression; since 2004, federal police (managed by the national government) have not been allowed to use firearms to contain social protests.

This practice, however, has not spread to other, provincial police forces around the country, as evidenced by continuing reports of violent repression and murder. Away from the capital, unfortunately, the lessons from the atrocious murders of Maxi and Darío seem to have gone unnoticed.

General Labour Confederation (CGT) general secretary Hugo Moyano, has always been a controversial character in the Argentine political scene. However, Moyano’s notoriety reached unprecedented levels in early March when the Swiss justice asked the national courts for assistance in an investigation against the union leader. He has been accused of illicit enrichment and money laundering through waste collection company Covelia.

Moyano, to protest against the Swiss justice’s request, called for a massive lorry strike on the 21st March. A demonstration that, had it taken place, would have paralysed the entire country. And, in spite of his initial reaction, Moyano has been consistently supported by the Casa Rosada.

Amidst businessmen’s escalating concerns about syndicalism growing stronger, Moyano’s influence and power is questioned as ever before. Recently, he has been linked to the blockades at national dailies Clarín and La Nación and has been accused of going against freedom of speech.

Just a few days after the newspapers’ incident, The Argentina Independent went on the streets to find out what people think about Hugo Moyano, the blockings and the judicial investigations.

Cristian Galán, 40, engineer and businessman, Recoleta

“What concerns me the most as a citizen and as a businessman is the way our country is portrayed to the international business community. These conflicts do not depict Argentina as a reliable country. Moyano is a “K-product” and currently we are responsible for having allowed this to happen. I believe he is a citizen just like every other Argentine, so he must submit to justice without any complaints. I disagree with his attempt to call for massive support in detriment of the entire society in every level (commercial, social, business, labour). If Moyano hasn’t got anything to hide, then he shouldn’t have any problems with him being investigated.”

Leonardo Pintos, 40, employee, Moreno

“To be honest, I’m not very acquainted with the news. However, I would have to say I feel sympathetic to Moyano because he is strong enough to object to economical monopolies. However, there is always the possibility Moyano could morph into those characters history is full of. He could turn into a powerful citizen who exercises tacit violence to impose his will. I hope this doesn’t happen.”

 

 

Paula Vitobello, 20, student, Belgrano

“Regarding the blockings to the newspapers, I believe it was a decision that caused more problems than it solved. However, employers can’t ignore long-running unions’ claims. Clarín doesn’t allow staff to be part of a union, and many have been dismissed on the grounds of being members of a guild. Clarín is company and as such has to abide by certain regulations. Every time they are reminded of that, they claim freedom of speech is being attacked when in fact it is not. Clarín asked for the government and for the police to interfere. But if someone had asked during the campo-crisis in 2008 for the police to prevent demonstrations, it would have been scandalous in the media. So, it is important to consider both parties’ interests. Both Moyano and union demonstrations are condemned.”

Cristian Arana, 25, student, West Quilmes

“It is important to separate things. There is an attempted investigation regarding Moyano’s illicit enrichment. And there are the blockings to Clarín and La Nación. Justice will determine if Moyano is to blame, in which case he would have to meet the same penalty as every citizen. We can also discuss the reasons why he is currently being investigated and why he has never been under judicial scrutiny before. But what can’t be ignored is what the mainstream media does with this situation. They have taken an actual rumour to attribute money laundering to Moyano. The information had been published but not confirmed. In fact, Switzerland has declared Moyano was not being investigated in the country and that he certainly didn’t have any bank accounts there. Moyano’s reaction was justified in his feeling attacked. However, everybody would feel the same if a lie was published about them. As unions are an important part of our country today, and as the media is monopolist, there are many oppositions and competing interests. (…) In Argentina, freedom of speech is paired up with political expression”.

Inés Donnerstag, 20, student and employee, Villa Crespo

“I don’t think it’s wrong to investigate Moyano. His enrichment is strange and he has been involved in equally strange situations. His reaction to this investigation was absurd: he wanted to paralyse the country. I also disagree with the monopoly exercised by Clarín, but, most importantly, we have to be fair. Both parties should be investigated, particularly if we bear in mind that Moyano’s union is as bureaucratic and, to some extent, monopolist. I understand the blockings to the newspapers happened because of a union conflict. Strikes and blockings are some of the ways people can express themselves and these are allowed by the National Constitution. They may affect some factions’ freedom of speech, but workers need to make their claims heard.”

Photographs by Beatrice Murch

Sunday 27th March was the first time in 65 years that the national daily newspaper, Clarín, did not distribute its Sunday issue. Olé, a sports publication that belongs to Clarín, was also unable to print.

Around midnight the night before, former graphic arts employees and teamsters blocked access to the papers’ headquarters for 12 hours—preventing the release of the print edition. The demonstrators were demanding their jobs back, camping out in front of papers’ offices with their families. La Nacíon, another major daily, was blocked for four hours, but was still able to release its Sunday edition.

This is the fifth protest at the main Clarín offices since November 2010. The source of the conflict is an ongoing dispute between Clarín management and Clarín Graphic Arts Rioplatenses (AGR), a sub company which prints brochures and private inserts for the newspaper. Over 100 AGR employees have been dismissed from the Clarín group since 2000.

Argentina’s official news agency, Telam, distributed a union press release that said the measures are in response to ‘unions’ persecution by the Clarín group’, and promised industrial actions will continue.

The Argentine courts have issued two rulings against the obstruction of paper distribution. However, they have also issued five orders for the paper to reinstate the laid-off personnel – the media company has yet to comply.

Since the conflict was caused by Clarín layoffs, it is unclear exactly why the demonstration was extended to La Nacíon, and why that protest was so much shorter.

The newspapers have claimed that this protest is less about labour disputes than it is an attempt to silence negative press about Hugo Moyano, the leader of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT). Clarín’s Sunday issue was expected to publish an article on Moyano and his son’s alleged money laundering.

Moyano has been the Secretary General of the CGT since 2004; previously he headed the Trucker’s Union (MTA), now controlled by his son, Pablo Moyano.

Early last month, Argentine newspapers reported that the Swiss Justice Ministry had requested information on Moyano and his son, as part of an investigation into money laundering. The Swiss government later clarified that its examination on money laundering from Argentina does not include Moyano, his son or his union.

Moyano rejected having any involvement with the protest. He called accusations against him for blocking the paper “absurd”. In a conversation with radio Brisas he said, “There are only staff with their families and children – they are the employees laid-off by Clarín. Those blocking are the unemployed with their children and relatives, with their mothers, because these are desperate people.”

Union Support

The truck driver’s union threatened a massive national strike on Monday 21st March in support of Moyano’s innocence. The CGT leader ultimately called off the demonstration, saying the labour union was better than the media and opposition sectors, who he accused of using the Swiss investigation to hurt the labourers.

“The workers want to come to power and that upsets many people,” he said. Had the protest happened, it would have paralyzed most transportation services in the country. At the time, the opposition Radical Party (UCR) blamed Moyano for the attempted demonstration and accused him of “using the right to strike for personal issues”.

Union representative, Eduardo Altamirano, threatened in a press conference they would also block media that published news against the CGT or its leader. He said, “This measure is applied to repudiate the attacks and lies that newspapers publish, directly or indirectly, about Hugo Moyano and the workers he represents.”

However, AGR representative Luis Siri, denied in an assembly that the union action was designed to censor the press.

“The goal was not to stop Clarín from distributing, nor to impede it from expressing its ideas, regardless of whether we disagree with them. The objective was to send a message to the directors so that Clarín stops squeezing its employees,” he said.

This week, the Clarín-owned news channel Telenoche (TN) aired a video of what appears to be Siri threatening to shut down print distribution if the media company did not pay him a total of nine million pesos. In the video he comments on having friends in high places and says that this was a political issue, not a labour one.

Siri told Perfíl that the conversation was edited out of context and the money was compensation for what Clarín owes AGR. He said, “When I get called to testify, I’ll ask for the whole video and it’ll be shown there.”

Freedom of Speech

The newspapers involved have called the blockade an attack on the constitutional right to press freedom—to protest being silenced, Clarín printed a blank front-page on the Monday after the strike.

Reporters without Borders is a non-profit organisation that has been fighting for press freedom since it began in 1985. Benoît Hervieu is responsible for the Americas Desk for Reporters without Borders in Paris.

“The block cannot be directly blamed on [President] Cristina Fernández de Kirchner for impeding the publication,” Hervieu said, “but if the authorities don’t comply with an order that implements the constitutional right – which is free press, information and expression – that is serious.”

Federal Police stood by during the AGR strike that blocked the newspapers, but did not interfere—despite laws against obstructing distribution of the press. Critics speculate foul play by the Fernández government, which has close ties to Moyano and his union, and a rocky relationship with the major dailies.

Problems between the Clarín group and the current administration have been brewing since the ‘campo crisis’ in 2008. There is a legal battle concerning the adopted children of Clarín owner, Ernestina Herrera de Noble. The government wants them to provide blood samples to see if they were stolen from desaparecidos during the dictatorship in the 1970s and 1980s – a known practice among those who were close to the junta.

There is also the dispute over the Law on Audiovisual Communication Services (SCA) that limits media monopolies, and will affect Clarín the most.

Reporters without Borders has a slightly difficult relationship with the Clarín group right now because, although they condemn the protest, they support the SCA on behalf of the decentralization of the media, and on behalf of more diversity in the media. “It is true that in Argentina, Clarín has almost everything,” Hervieu said.

Every year, Reporters without Borders publishes a Press Freedom Index. Hervieu compared Argentina’s situation to France and Italy’s. He said, “The actors in this story – politicians, unions, also media representatives – should not fall into the ideology trap and extreme points-of-view over this situation. Saying that freedom of press is in grave danger in Argentina – that is just not the case.”

To find out what the public think about Moyano and the press blocks, click here.