This post is written by WOLA Intern Ursela Groat

The SALITRE II Chilean air force-led joint military exercises began their fifth year this week at the Cerro Moreno Air Base in Chile. Members of the Argentinean, Brazilian, French and United States air forces will also participate in the exercises. From October 17 - November 2, the coalition forces will plan and execute operations that simulate a situation where "an international coalition, under the mandate of the United Nations, carries out combined air operations to force a country that has violated international law to respect world order," according to the Salitre II website.

Over a two week period, the participating air forces will simulate multiple scenarios, as described by the 12th Air Force (Air Forces Southern) in a press release:

During one scenario, rescue personnel will secure an airfield and tend to patients as part of a unified team. This type of response is vital to ensure countries are able to respond to situations with their own military and law enforcement resources. Simulated peacekeeping operations will prepare participants to support UN-type coalition operations, such as global peacekeeping and stability missions, enforcing no-fly zones or patrolling for pirates. Non-combatant evacuation operations simulated during SALITRE II will prepare nations to support civilian authorities after earthquakes, floods or hurricanes.

The Salitre exercises, which began in 2004, are one of the few joint military exercises in Latin America in which the United States participates that are not coordinated by the United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). Each year, SOUTHCOM sponsors joint training exercises with other Latin American countries to "increase the capabilities of both the U.S. military and our partner nation's security forces" in areas such as counterterrorism, disaster relief, peacekeeping and security preparedness. Two of the biggest exercises sponsored each year by SOUTHCOM are TRADEWINDS, a multinational maritime exercise in the Caribbean, and PANAMAX, a simulation focusing on the defense of the Panama Canal.

As explained by Bloggings by Boz, border tensions between Chile and Peru and a painful history between the two countries led Peru to call for Salitre II to be canceled. Tensions between the two countries go back to the late 19th century when Chile defeated Peru and Bolivia in the War of the Pacific, but escalated recently when Peru asked the International Court of Justice to arbitrate the disputed maritime border between the states.

Shortly after Chile announced this year’s exercise, the Peruvian government denounced it, with Peruvian Vice President Luis Giampietri saying that the exercises were the Chileans way of "showing their teeth." Peru has also called for the formation of a non-aggression pact as a response to counter what it calls the arms race in Latin America. Chilean President Michele Bachtlet, for her part, responded to Garcia's call for a non-aggression pact negatively, saying it was an idea of "another time."

The SALITRE II exercises will continue through the end of the month.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimel recently released its annual reports on Coca Cultivation in the Andean Region - namely in Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia. This year's surveys, which provide data for 2008 levels of coca cultivation, eradication and seizures, show that the number of hectares in cultivation of coca in Colombia decreased by 18% from 2007-2008, while cultivation in Peru increased by 4.5% and cultivation in Bolivia increased by 6%. Colombia's large decrease in coca cultivation in 2008 follows a substantial increase (27%) in production from 2006-2007, while Peru and Bolivia have both been experiencing a slow but steady climb in coca cultivation over the past few years.

UNODC contends that, since many of Colombia’s remaining coca fields are recently planted, its estimate of tons of cocaine produced in Colombia fell even more sharply, from 600 to 430 tons. As a result, Colombia's percentage share of cocaine in the world market decreased from 60% in 2007 to 51% in 2008. Peru's and Bolivia's shares have both increased as a result of Colombia's decline, resulting in Peru contributing to 36% of world production (up from 29% in 2007) and Bolivia contributing to 13% of world production.

Seizures of cocaine in the three countries have also increased significantly since 2007, with Colombia reporting a 57% increase, Peru a 100% increase and Bolivia a 148% increase.

The increases in the number of hectares under cultivation with coca in Peru and Bolivia could be attributed to failed domestic policies (drug-war hardliners have argued that Bolivia's policies on coca cultivation, which allow 12,000 hectares of cultivation – and, in fact, tolerate a bit more – solely for medicinal and local use, are to blame for Bolivia's increase). However, another contributing factor could be the "balloon effect," a theory that argues that as long as demand is strong, coca cultivation will merely be pushed into new areas as it is squeezed out of existing coca cultivating areas. Therefore, as Colombia more aggressively eradicates coca plants and seizes cocaine and coca paste, the production of coca and cocaine will merely be pushed elsewhere in the Andes.

In support of the "balloon effect" theory, the table above indicates that since 1998, the total coca cultivation in the Andean region has not changed significantly - with 191,000 hectares in cultivation in 1998 compared to 167,600 hectares in 2008, even though cultivation in Colombia has decreased almost 50% since the beginning of Plan Colombia in 1999. Also, the graph below, which shows coca cultivation in the Andean Region since 1988, exemplifies this balloon effect phenomenon. From 1988-1997 Peru was the number one coca cultivator in the region, after which the cultivation of coca moved more prominently into Colombia, leaving this country in the number one spot until today. However, as shown by the graph, Peru is once again starting to catch up with Colombia.

For two months, indigenous groups in Peru have staged protests against a series of legislative decrees that threaten their ancestral lands by allowing increased exploration and exploitation of gas and oil throughout the Amazon and encourage private property, which could break up indigenous communal landholdings. A Duke University study shows, according to Reuters, that these new laws could open up approximately 70% of the Peruvian Amazon to natural resource exploitation, up from 15% in 2004, and at least 58 of the 64 mapped out concessions are on lands titled to indigenous peoples.

The protests have focused on interrupting petroleum production and blocking important transportation routes. However, they erupted in violence last Friday, as police were dispatched to disrupt a large roadblock in Bagua province that had been holding ground since April 2. There are conflicting reports about how the violence began: indigenous groups claim they were fired upon from a helicopter passing above, while police and the government of Peru claim the indigenous protesters made the first violent move. Regardless, the confrontation ended in the death of over 35 police officers and indigenous protesters. The actual numbers of deaths are still unknown - official government reports cite 9 indigenous and 24 police deaths, while indigenous organizations argue that over 40 protesters were killed on Friday and hundreds of community members are still unaccounted for, according to multiple news sources.

As a result of this large death toll, the conflict between indigenous groups and the Peruvian government has received international media attention - and rightfully so. It is an unfortunate and complicated story that warrants more investigation and oversight. Increased media attention will only pressure the Peruvian government to look into what actually happened last Friday.

A bit of background: Last summer, Peruvian President Alan García used a special power granted to him by Congress to enact a series of new laws needed to implement the U.S. - Peru Free Trade Agreement. However, many indigenous groups argue they were not consulted about the new laws prior to their enactment, which is in violation of both International Labor Organization Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights on Indigenous Peoples, to which the Peruvian government is a signatory of both. Article 32 of the UN Declaration specifically reads "States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources." Indigenous groups in Peru and elsewhere in the region have frequently made a genuine consultative process one of their central demands.

In August 2008, the indigenous movement was victorious when Congress repealed Legislative Decree 1015, which would have made it easier for investors to seek approval of private development projects by only requiring a simple majority of those in attendance at a community assembly instead of consent by a two-thirds majority vote by all members of the community. While this was an important victory in terms of maintaining indigenous land rights and autonomy over how communities' land is used, they still view many remaining decrees as threatening their rights, resulting in the continuation of protests to this day.

The tactics and calls for indigenous rights are in line with those of indigenous movements opposed to natural resource exploitation in other Andean countries like Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia. Yet the government of Peru characterizes such protests as a result of "ignorance"; conducted by people who do no know what is good for the development of the country or easily manipulated by outside interests. Unfortunately, this is a common tactic taken by governments and companies worldwide who are facing protests by indigenous movements - brushing off indigenous demands for their rights as "ignorance" due to their different way of living, instead of actually taking into consideration that these groups often just want to maintain their autonomy. The indigenous communities in Peru argue that they are merely struggling to maintain their traditional way of life and community - something that would be largely disrupted by large-scale extraction carried out on or even near their land.

President García also quickly claimed that the violence on Friday had been instigated and financed by outside forces - citing a letter Bolivian President Evo Morales wrote to a meeting of indigenous leaders in Puno, Peru in May, which called for a "revolution," and possible funding links between the protests, Ollanta Humala, the leftist presidential candidate who lost to Garcia in 2006, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García Linera responded that internal problems were the cause of the violence, not Morales' letter: "What provoked the conflicts, the violence, the deaths, and the uprisings was not letters or documents, it was the internal problems of every society, the injustices, abuses, and discrimination that lead people to consider their fights, resistances, and uprisings."

While the factors leading to the indigenous protests in the Peruvian Amazon are relatively straightforward, it is far less clear why this protest ended in such bloodshed. And only an in-depth investigation by the Peruvian judicial system (its credibility increased by the recent verdict against former president Alberto Fujimori) or an international body, such as the United Nations or the OAS, will be able to bring some degree of justice and truth. While the Peruvian state has the right to use its natural resources in order to strengthen and grow its economy, since Peru maintains subsoil rights on indigenous land, the indigenous peoples of Peru also have the right to stand up against natural resource extraction on their lands that will not only threaten their traditional way of life, but also can have a harmful impact on their health and the surrounding environment.

Environmental degradation, detrimental health impacts, and violence are all factors that have historically occurred alongside natural resource extraction (see both the case of ChevronTexaco in Ecuador and the recent decision by Shell to pay $15.5 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the company of arming the Nigerian military to protect the company from protests by local community members, leading to the deaths of many activists in 1995). And for a true solution to be found in Peru, all affected parties - indigenous people, campesinos, oil companies, environmental activists, and governments alike - must have the opportunity to sit down and come to some sort of balanced and sustainable compromise as to how the further development of the Peruvian Amazon will continue.

Yesterday, the Peruvian Congress voted to indefinitely suspend the application of both Legislative Decrees 1090 and 1064 - two of the laws that sparked the indigenous protests in the Amazon - in order to allow adequate time for debate. However, protests will still continue today, as many believe that the suspension of the two laws was only approved in order to bring an immediate end to the protests, without the intention of actually negotiating with the indigenous population.

To follow the news on the events in Peru, consult the Just the Facts news database here.

On the first full day of President Barack Obama's administration, newspapers throughout Latin America reported on the fanfare of the inauguration, the historical significance of the swearing in of the United States' first African-American president and the challenges that he must immediately confront. A few articles used the occasion to look at the future of U.S. policy toward the region and/or specific countries.

Entire Region:

Obama y América latina: La mejor agenda posible (Obama and Latin America: The best agenda possible), Clarín (Argentina), by Jesús Rodríguez

"With an historic change in the United States, and upon the end of the region's cycle of transition to democracy, it is time to define common objectives and parallel strategies."

Cómo podría Obama hacer una mejor política hacia América Latina (How could Obama make better policies toward Latin America), Semana by Maria Teresa Ronderos

"The United States has discounted Latin America as an ally for too long. It is now time to start appreciating it."

Colombia:

Colombia- U.S. relations: Days of anguish, Semana

"The Uribe government fearfully awaits Barack Obama, who thinks quite differently from the Bush administration."

Venezuela & Colombia:

Venezuela y Colombia: Cambio de relaciones? (Venezuela and Colombia: Change in relations?), El Comercio (Peru)

"The expectation of how Barack Obama will manage U.S. policy toward Latin America is focused on the two countries that in the last few years became opposites in terms of their relations with the United States, especially in the affection of their leaders toward the outgoing President George W. Bush: the enemy Venezuela and the ally Colombia."

Peru:

EE.UU. y el Perú: Una nueva etapa de consolidación (The United States and Peru: A new stage of consolidation), El Comercio (Peru)

"A new stage in bilateral relations has opened and it will depend on our leaders to make it even more solid and fluid, in order to benefit national interest and the majority of Peruvians."

Venezuela:
Maduro confía en que Obama rectifique declaraciones sobre Chávez, El Universal (Venezuela)

"The Venezuelan government hopes that the new president of the United States, Barack obama, will rectify the declarations made about Venezuela and President Hugo Chávez, said the Minister of Foreign Relations, Nicolás Maduro, on Tuesday."

Nicaragua:

EU insiste en que el país debe resolver falta de transparencia, El Nuevo Diario (The U.S. insists that the country must resolve lack of transparency) (Nicaragua), by Ary Pantoja

"...Commenting on U.S. President Barack Obama's speech, and linking it to Nicaragua, [U.S. Ambassador to Nicaragua] Callahan said that if President Daniel Ortega's government does not respect fundamental principles and values such as democracy and human rights, 'he will find himself in serious problems' with the new North American administration."