VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHPE #2017/01 1431325
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 231325Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY LIMA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0593
INFO RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 3412
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 6754
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 9468
RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ MAY QUITO 0353
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 0536
RUMIAAA/CDR USCINCSO MIAMI FL
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHINGTON DC

C O N F I D E N T I A L LIMA 002017 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/19/2016 
TAGS: PGOV PINR PHUM PE
SUBJECT: PDAS SHAPIRO/AMBASSADOR MEET WITH HUMALA 
 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Curt Struble for Reasons 1.4 (b,d) 
 
¶1.  (U) Visit..
id: 65100
date: 5/23/2006 13:25
refid: 06LIMA2017
origin: Embassy Lima
classification: CONFIDENTIAL
destination: 
header:
VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHPE #2017/01 1431325
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 231325Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY LIMA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0593
INFO RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 3412
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 6754
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 9468
RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ MAY QUITO 0353
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 0536
RUMIAAA/CDR USCINCSO MIAMI FL
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHINGTON DC

----------------- header ends ----------------

C O N F I D E N T I A L LIMA 002017 

SIPDIS 

SIPDIS 

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/19/2016 
TAGS: PGOV PINR PHUM PE
SUBJECT: PDAS SHAPIRO/AMBASSADOR MEET WITH HUMALA 


Classified By: Ambassador Curt Struble for Reasons 1.4 (b,d) 

¶1.  (U) Visiting PDAS Charles Shapiro and Ambassador Struble 
met for one hour on May 17 with nationalist Presidential 
candidate Ollanta Humala.  The latter was accompanied for 
part of the meeting by his candidate for First Vice 
President, Gonzalo Garcia. 

¶2.  (C) Humala, who assumed a low key and friendly manner 
throughout, opened by saying that he wanted to have good 
relations with the United States, which he considered an 
important partner on issues like coca and biodiversity. 
Saying he would speak frankly, Humala voiced concern about 
the revelation last week that his U.S. visa had been revoked 
-- both because it was news to him and because the timing 
appeared aimed at influencing the election.  Ambassador 
Struble reminded the candidate that one of his spokesmen had 
publicized the revocation -- something that the Embassy would 
not have done.  The Ambassador gave Humala a copy of the 
revocation certificate and explained that we had only 
recently become aware Humala did not previously receive the 
notice, but reminded the candidate that the Embassy had 
repeatedly tried to speak with him about his visa since 
learning this January that he might travel to the U.S.   The 
Ambassador explained that the revocation was prudenial based 
upon statements from the time indicating that Ollanta was 
involved with his brother,s uprising in Andahuayas during 
which several policemen were killed.  Simply declaring that 
the old visa was valid again, as Humala had insisted, was not 
possible; U.S. immigration systems show the old visa as void 
and a new one would have to be applied for.  Humala observed 
that he had never been charged in connection with the 
Andahuayas uprising and said that he had only called upon 
Peruvians to employ their constitutional right to rebel. 
While showing no rancor, he said that he did not plan to 
apply for another visa. 

¶3.  (C) Ambassador Shapiro said that the United States 
intended to work constructively with whoever was elected 
President in Peru.  The key issue for us was not whether 
governments were of the left or the right but rather poverty. 
 Peru appeared close to making an economic and development 
breakthrough; the U.S. sought to promote inclusion of the 
poor in economic opportunity.  Humala responded that he 
likewise did not believe in left/right axis, agreeing the 
problem was the poor; he was not part of any bloc, was not 
anti-Chilean and was not anti-American.  Shifting to new 
ground, he said he did believe in the need to revise Peru,s 
anti-narcotics approach.  Peru should cut off diversion of 
precursor chemicals, give priority to interdiction, and 
resume its aerial interdiction program. 

¶4.  (C) Ambassador Struble said that the principal concern of 
the United States was that Peru's anti-narcotics policy be 
viable, meaning that it result in reduced illegal drug 
production rather than increases, despite great effort and 
expenditure.  The Ambassador noted that the situation Peru 
faced with coca was not static.  Colombia recognized that 
coca fed violence in the country and was committed on 
national security grounds to eradicate all it could.  That 
was driving up prices in Peru and Bolivia, and cultivation 
was increasing.  Ambassador Shapiro observed that experience 
showed voluntary eradication did not work without the 
incentive of a credible forced eradication program.  Humala 
said that he would permit forced eradication if alternative 
development were offered but refused.  He added the 
significant condition that the alternative products had to 
offer farmers a level of income similar to coca.  Humala 
repeated the "zero cocaine, not zero coca" slogan his 
campaign has borrowed from Bolivia,s Morales.  Coca should 
be part of the agricultural agenda, he said, saying he would 
move the issue from the Ministry of Interior/police to the 
Ministry of Agriculture.  (Comment:  Humala's understanding 
of narcotics trafficking in Peru is very shallow.  He was 
clearly unaware that only a small portion of cocaine now 
moves out of Peru by air and that no licit product grown in 
the coca zone commands prices as high as what 
narcotraffickers will pay for coca.  He did not give the 
impression, however, of someone whose policy towards the 
coca/cocaine problem would be altered by exposure to the 
facts.) 

¶5.  (C) Humala next reiterated his concern that the United 
States was intervening in Peru,s election.  Apart from the 
visa issue, he cited the Ambassador's April meetings with 
Lourdes Flores and her campaign team.  Ambassador Struble 
replied that he had simultaneously requested meetings with 
Flores and Humala after the first round of elections; Flores 
accepted while Humala had not.  Such meetings were customary 
diplomatic practice, Struble said, noting that Humala had 
himself met with a number of foreign Ambassadors.  The 
alleged meeting with Flores' campaign team would likewise 
have been quite normal, the Ambassador observed, but in fact 
that was not what happened * it was a lunch with an old 
Peruvian friend and his colleagues, one of whom was a 
prominent advisor to Flores.  Humala said he wanted all 
foreign countries -- Venezuela, Argentina and the U.S. -- to 
avoid actions that could be deemed interference in Peru,s 
electoral process.  Ambassador Struble replied, "We have our 
first agreement * we want the same thing," holding out his 
hand to shake on it -- a hand Humala accepted. 

¶6.  (C) Asked for his views on Colombia, Humala said that he 
recognized the legitimacy of President Uribe and did not want 
the Colombian conflict to enter Peru.  He was ready to 
cooperate with the United States on the matter though he 
would always be respectful of Colombian sovereignty.  Humala 
said that he would reinforce the border; he did not want Peru 
to be an R&R zone or logistics base for the FARC. 

¶7.  (C) Humala asked whether the US Embassy had a financial 
relationship with Human Social Capital (CHS), a consulting 
firm headed up by former Minister of Interior Rospigliosi. 
The Ambassador said that the Embassy valued the analyses 
produced by CHS and was among its clients.  Anticipating the 
reason for Humala,s question (Rospigliosi is also a 
columnist and has been very critical of Humala), the 
Ambassador noted that questions sometimes arise as to whether 
groups that receive funds from the US Embassy are expressing 
our viewpoint.  In fact, our assistance partners receive 
funds from various sources and usually have broader agendas 
than the issue on which we work together.  NGOs that receive 
US funding have at times publicly criticized U.S. policies. 
Humala asked whether he could have a list of NGOs the Embassy 
worked with.  The Ambassador said that the information was 
available on the web.  When Humala reiterated that he would 
like a list, the Ambassador said he would send something 
over. 

¶8.  (C) Gonzalo Garcia, in the only intervention he made 
during the meeting, said he would like to organize a meeting 
between Humala,s economic team and Embassy counterparts. 
The Ambassador agreed and promised to follow up. 

¶9.  (C) Concluding the meeting, Humala said that his speech 
struck many as radical, but that was just because he reveals 
how many Peruvians see their situation.  He spoke of the 
concern many Peruvians have that they do not benefit from 
their natural resources, citing the Camisea project, and that 
they have been disadvantaged by corrupt deals, citing 
Yanacocha.  He recalled that the U.S. Congress had recently 
blocked an Arab-owned firm from controlling U.S. ports and 
said that his concerns about Chilean control of Peruvian 
ports was similar -- not directed against Chile, but by a 
concern that a Chilean operator of Peruvian ports would not 
work hard to compete against facilities in Chile. 

-------- 
COMMENT: 
-------- 

¶10.  (C) This meeting was positive in that it opened a line 
of communication and defanged the visa issue, which has now 
passed entirely from view.  It served to confirm, however, 
what we have heard from some of the people within Humala,s 
organization who are friendlier towards us -- the candidate 
looks at us through a very paranoid lens.  END COMMENT. 
STRUBLE 

=======================CABLE ENDS============================
.