This presentation took place during a December 2, 2021 webinar called, “Why Does Independent Media Matter?” , where TF Editor Julie Varughese reported back on her time covering Nicaragua’s critical presidential election.
New contributors Danny Shaw and Jacqueline Luqman also spoke about their work for Toward Freedom as it relates to the value of independent media. Danny touched on the rising Pink Tide in Latin America while Jacqueline discussed the U.S. state’s influence on U.S. entertainment.
Editor’s Note: The following report and the above video were originally published by MintPress News.
In November 2018, I became aware of the case of Kirill Vyshinsky, a Ukrainian-Russian journalist and editor imprisoned in Ukraine without trial since May 2018, accused of high treason.
Soon after, I interviewed Vyshinsky via email. He described his arrest and the accusations against him as politically-motivated, “an attempt by the Ukrainian authorities to bolster the declining popularity of [then] President [Petro] Poroshenko in this election year.”
Vyshinsky noted that his arrest was advancing the incessant anti-Russian hysteria now prevalent among Ukrainian authorities, as he holds dual Ukrainian and Russian citizenship. He noted that the charges against him, which pertain to a number of articles he published in 2014 (none of them authored by Vyshinsky), became of interest to Ukrainian authorities and intelligence services four years after they were published. To Vyshinsky, this supports the notion that neither the articles nor their editor were a security threat to Ukraine, instead, he says, they were a political card to be played.
In early 2019, I traveled to Kiev to interview Vyshinsky’s defense lawyer Andriy Domansky about the logistic obstacles of his client’s case. Domansky viewed the Vyshinsky case as politically motivated and expressed concern that he could himself become a target of Ukraine’s secret service for his role in defending his client, an innocent man.
Domansky told me at the time:
The Vyshinsky case is key in demonstrating the presence of political persecution of journalists in Ukraine. As a legal expert, I believe justice is still possible in Ukraine and I will do everything possible to prove Kirill Vyshinsky’s innocence.”
To the surprise of those following the case against Vyshinsky, in late August 2019 he was released with little fanfare after serving more than 400 days in a Ukrainian prison but still faces all of the charges brought against him by the Ukrainian government and is “obliged to appear in court or give testimony to investigators if they deemed it necessary.”
By early September, Kirill Vyshinsky was on a plane to Moscow. Despite never being tried or officially convicted, he found himself the subject of a prisoner exchange between the Russian and Ukrainian governments.
I interviewed Vyshinsky in Moscow in late September. He told me about his harrowing ordeal, the Ukrainian detention system, other persecuted journalists, and what lies ahead for him.
He also touched on the inhumane conditions he experienced in Ukrainian prisons. He noted that a pretrial detention center as we know it in Western nations is a very different entity in Ukraine and that Ukrainian prisons were so over-crowded that it was common for inmates to sleep in three shifts in order to allow enough standing room for inmates crammed into a cell.
Ukrainian Prisons Like a ‘Concentration Camp’
Aleksey Zhuravko, a Ukrainian deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of V and VI convocations recently published photos taken inside of an Odessa pretrial detention center showing utterly unsanitary and appalling conditions. Zhuravko noted, “I am shocked at what was seen. It is a concentration camp. It is a hotbed of diseases.”
Another Ukrainian journalist, Pavel Volkov, was subjected to the same types of accusations lobbed against Vyshinsky. Volkov spent over a year in the same pretrial detention center as Vyshinsky. He was arrested on September 27, 2017, after Ukrainian authorities carried out searches of his wife and mother’s apartments without the presence of his lawyer and with what he says, was a false witness.
Volkov spent more than a year in a pretrial detention center on charges of “infringing on territorial integrity with a group of people” and “miscellaneous accessory to terrorism.” On March 27, 2019, he was fully acquitted by a Ukrainian court.
Volkov shared his thoughts on the persecution of journalists in Ukraine, saying:
The leaders of the 2014 Euromaidan movement, who subsequently occupied the largest positions in the country’s leadership, repeatedly stated that collaborators from World War II who participated in the mass extermination of Jews, Russians, and Poles are true heroes in Ukraine, and that the Russian and Russian-speaking population of Ukraine are inferior people who need to be either forcibly re-educated or destroyed.
They also believe that anyone who wants peace with the Russian Federation, and who believes that the Russian language (the native language for over sixty percent of Ukraine’s population) should be the second state language, is the enemy of Ukraine.
These notions formed the basis of the new criminal law, designed to persecute politicians, public figures, journalists, and ordinary citizens who disagree with the above.
Since 2014, security services have arrested hundreds of people on charges of state treason; infringing on the territorial integrity of Ukraine; and assisting terrorism for criticizing the current government in the streets or on the Internet.
People have been in prison for years without a conviction. And these are not only the journalists included in the ‘Vyshinsky list’.
Activists from Odessa, Sergey Dolzhenkov and Evgeny Mefedov, have spent more than five years in jail just for laying flowers at a memorial to the liberators of Nikolaev [Ukrainian city] from Nazi invaders.
Sergeyev and Gorban, taxi drivers, have spent two and a half years in a pretrial detention center because they transported pensioners from Donetsk to Ukraine-controlled territory so that they could receive their legal pension.
The entrepreneur Andrey Tatarintsev has spent two years in prison for providing humanitarian assistance to a children’s hospital in the territory of the Lugansk region not controlled by Ukraine.
Farmer Nikolay Butrimenko received eight years of imprisonment for paying tax to the Donetsk People’s Republic for his land located in that territory.
The 85-year-old scientist and engineer Mekhti Logunov was given twelve years because he agreed to build a waste recycling plant with Russian investors. The list is endless.
People often incriminate themselves while being tortured or under the threat of their relatives being punished, and such confessions are accepted by the courts, despite the fact that lawyers initiate criminal proceedings against the security services involved in the torture. These cases are not being investigated.
The only mitigation that has happened in this direction after the change of government was the abolition of the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code stating that no other measure of restraint other than detention can be applied to persons suspected of committing crimes against the state.
This allowed some defendants to leave prison on bail, but not a single politically-motivated case has yet been closed. Moreover, arrests are ongoing.
The only acquittal to date from the so-called journalistic cases on freedom of speech is mine. However, it is still being contested by the prosecutor’s office in the Supreme Court.
Ninety-nine percent of the media continue to call all these people ‘terrorists’, ‘separatists’, and ‘enemies of the people’, even though almost none of them have yet received a verdict in court.”
Volkov’s words lay bare the true nature of the allegations made against Kirill Vyshinsky as well as the countless other journalists and citizens of Ukraine that have fallen victim to the heavy hand of Ukrainian authorities.
Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in West Asia, especially in Syria and occupied Palestine, where she lived for nearly four years. She is a recipient of the 2017 International Journalism Award for International Reporting, granted by the Mexican Journalists’ Press Club (founded in 1951), was the first recipient of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism, and was short-listed in 2017 for the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. See her extended bio on her blog, In Gaza.
Rising out of the shadows of the Andean highlands, schoolteacher and trade unionist Pedro Castillo appears on the verge of winning the presidency and catapulting Perú toward a future free of neoliberal austerity and U.S. meddling after rallying the oppressed masses of the South American country to support his candidacy.
Castillo leaped into the spotlight of Peruvian national politics when the candidate topped all other competitors in the first round of elections held April 11. Castillo’s party, Free Perú (Perú Libre), also won 18.92 percent of congressional seats, more than other competing parties. Then Peruvians in the country and in the diaspora throughout the world cast their ballots June 6 to determine who would be the country’s leader for the next five years. The election became one of the most contentious in Peruvian history, featuring two candidates who personify polar opposite interests and visions for Perú’s future. Castillo is leading this week with a margin of less than 1 percent after 99.8 percent of votes have been counted.
A trade unionist and native of the Cajamarca region, Pedro Castillo held a lead over Keiko Fujimori, the right-wing daughter of a former despot and currently incarcerated ex-president, Alberto Fujimori. If Keiko Fujimori loses this race, it would be her third time missing the mark in a presidential election.
Fujimori, head of the right-wing Popular Force party, had seen success in Peru’s northern coastal provinces and from foreign votes. But Castillo received a majority of his votes from provinces in the Andean countryside, the Amazon and the southern coast, regions historically neglected and suffering from acute economic exploitation.
When official results first began rolling out to the public, Fujimori held a slight lead over Castillo. But near the end of counting, Castillo surpassed with enough votes to win him the presidency. Fujimori and her attorneys are now asking for a recount on 100,000 Castillo votes, claiming fraud and refusing to recognize Castillo’s victory.
Who is Pedro Castillo?
Nestled in the Andean mountains on the shores of Lake Titicaca lies the town of Puno, where Pedro Castillo was born in 1969. His parents were illiterate peasants, both of whom spent much of their lives working on plantations.
In his youth, Castillo joined the ronda campesinos, or ronderos, a local peasant-based police force launched in place of official Peruvian police, who often were absent and—when they were around—harmed peasant communities. While the ronderos generally exhibited left-wing tendencies, in the Chota district, ronderos found themselves combatting Shining Path insurgents, who were trying to seize control of towns. The Shining Path was a Maoist guerilla insurgency formed out of a split from the Peruvian Communist Party. The organization took up arms against the Peruvian state and against other communist and progressive groups. While the Shining Path committed atrocities, such as the massacre at Lucanamarca, the Peruvian military committed unprecedented human-rights violations in the name of counterinsurgency, leaving peasants in precarious conditions.
Castillo later went on to study at Cesar Vallejo University, named after the Peruvian communist poet. He received a bachelor’s degree in education and a master’s degree in psychology, eventually becoming an elementary school teacher. In 2017, he garnered esteem in Peruvian politics by leading a teacher’s strike against the underfunding of public education as well as teacher’s salaries.
Despite actively defending the Chota district from the Shining Path’s incursions, major Peruvian media conglomerates El Comercio and La República led a media campaign against Castillo, red-baiting the candidate as a “Shining Path terrorist” because of his links with the Movement for Amnesty and Fundamental Rights (Movadef).
Castillo’s party, Free Perú (Perú Libre), identifies as Marxist-Leninist-Mariáteguist, upholding socialism and the power of the working class. While Castillo himself does not openly label himself a communist, he has said he plans to create a new constitution with stronger market regulations, break up monopolies, initiate a second agrarian reform, and revise contracts with multinational companies for stronger labor rights and a greater share of profits for the Peruvian state.
Who is Keiko Fujimori?
At just 19 years old, Keiko Fujimori became the First Lady of Perú—the youngest in Peruvian history—as her father and ex-President Alberto Fujimori stripped his wife Susana Higuchi of her title and threw her into prison when she accused her husband of crimes against humanity.
Fujimori is currently facing another trial under charges of forced sterilizations that occurred through his Family Planning Program. This program reportedly sought to target Indigenous women in Perú’s countryside. Despite all this, his daughter, Keiko, has promised that, if elected, she will pardon her father.
Yet, Keiko Fujimori’s legacy isn’t stained only by the crimes of her father. In 2011, Fujimori admitted to having received donations from known narco traffickers. Fujimori also was implicated in the Panama Papers, which exposed illegal donations to her 2011 and 2016 presidential campaigns. Later, in 2018, she was arrested on charges of embezzlement that occurred during her unsuccessful 2011 bid for the presidency.
She left prison in April 2020 on a conditional release due to COVID-19. If Fujimori fails to win the presidency, she faces a 31-year sentence for money laundering.
All the while, notable Peruvian political elites, and even members of the Peruvian national soccer team, threw their support behind Fujimori under the cry to “save Perú from communism.” The Peruvian elite and upper classes have been taking to the streets and to social media, alleging electoral fraud. TV personality and model Alejandra Baigorria went so far as to call for military interference against a Free Perú victory.
Fujimoristas en reunión de blancos…
El comunismo no va a caer, blankito.
El comunismo TE VA a caer.
— El Plebeyo (@unplebeyomas) June 8, 2021
PERÚ LIBRE: ¡Hasta más allá de la Victoria! pic.twitter.com/opFioCe9gO
— Perú Libre (@PERU_LIBRE1) June 9, 2021
📌 [Comunicado]
Frente a la difusión en redes sociales con llamados a la intervención de las Fuerzas Armadas en asuntos netamente electorales o políticos. pic.twitter.com/xEvGmDc139
— Mindef Perú (@MindefPeru) June 9, 2021
The Peruvian Ministry of Defense released a statement Wednesday afternoon stating it will not intervene, citing the constitution and claiming it must maintain a neutral role so it can respect the sovereignty of the Peruvian people.
Since the start of the pandemic, Peru has seen mass unemployment, the highest COVID-19 death rates per capita in the world and a significant increase in national poverty. In the first week of November alone, the country had three presidents, and erupted in national strikes and protests that led to the police-sanctioned murders of Inti Sotelo and Bryan Pintado. Not only that, but in the past 30 years, the country has experienced political instability and brutal repression at the hands of the state.
The Future of U.S.-Perú Relations
Castillo’s victory also would upend U.S. interests in South America. For example, it could help kickstart the process of re-building a coalition of Latin American left-ruled states. Castillo has promised to withdraw Perú from the Lima Group, an organization of countries dedicated to subverting the democratically elected Bolivarian government of Venezuela.
Besides that, the Perú Libre party calls for booting U.S. military bases and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), notorious for using humanitarian aid to undermine democratic processes in other countries, including during the Fujimori dictatorship. While Castillo has publicly opposed the Organization of American States (OAS), he has said he wants to fortify two regional groups: The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).
Over the next few years, Brazil, Chile and Colombia will hold presidential elections. With the turn of events in favor of the left in countries like Bolivia and Perú, the future looks hopeful for people’s movements in South America.
The victory of Castillo and Perú Libre, as well as the adoption of a new constitution, could open a path for the country reminiscent of the progressive military government of General Juan Velasco Alvarado. But these elections also have highlighted the deep divide permeating through Perú, one that remains to be resolved whether a Fujimori administration or a Castillo administration comes to fruition.
Kayla Popuchet, a Peruvian national of Perúvian-Haitian descent, studies and writes about Latin America and eastern Europe. She was a 2019 Pulitzer Center Reporting Fellow.
Editor’s Note: The following opinion was first published in Black Agenda Report.
If U.S. imperialism could only be said to be one thing, it is audacious. Recently U.S. rulers have been making a fuss over Russian troops on their own border with Ukraine, while 1,000 U.S. National Guard soldiers were deployed to the Horn of Africa, in countries where the U.S. shares no borders and is actually more than 7,396 miles away.
Ever since its government was destroyed in 2011 in the first operation of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), Libya has been the quintessential victim of U.S. audacity in Africa. Now, led by the United States, Western officials have been talking up a UN-led peace process in Libya that insists on “inclusive” and “credible” elections starting on December 24, despite serious disputes over how they should be held.
Of course the Libyan people should have the right to decide their leaders, forms of government, and politics. In fact, however, it is extremely difficult to see through the murk created by the inhumanity of the U.S.-EU-NATO axis of domination.
But what sort of process for nominating candidates are the Libyan people able to exercise? How credible and inclusive can an election be that is cast in the midst of a civil war and with the United States presiding over the country’s affairs like a Godfather?
The imperialist structure responsible for leading the overthrow of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya , AFRICOM, just backed the election efforts of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Richard Norland. This was after Norland took to Twitter to scold those discrediting the elections saying, “We call on all parties to de-escalate tensions and to respect the Libyan-led, legal, and administrative electoral processes underway.”
For these emissaries of empire, such statements are mere words of formality, empty rhetoric meant to minimize the glare of the contradiction: they created a failed state.
Reports have surfaced about the likely re-emergence of violence which has been on pause during a very fragile ceasefire. There have been stolen voter cards , an allegedly politically motivated disqualification of 25 of the 98 presidential hopefuls by the election commission, a chaotic appeals process, and, of course, a delay in the final list of candidates.
Then there were also the road blocks by gunmen backing eastern military chief and former CIA operative Khalifa Haftar to prevent travel to a court in the southern city of Sebha set to examine the appeal by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi to run for president. It is no surprise that Haftar himself is also a presidential candidate.
Initially Saif al-Islam, son of the murdered Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, was being excluded from a bid for presidency by the High Elections Commission. Before a Libyan court ruled on December 2 that Gaddafi can run for president, the case had endured an armed attack on the Sebha Court of Appeals followed by a protest in front of the Sebha Court at the end of November, organized by the people of the city of Ghat against the closure of the court by force.
The protesters, in support of Saif Gaddafi, demanding free and fair elections, and an impartial judiciary said, “…there are those who want to occupy the country and restore colonialism again, and who threaten to divide the country according to the interests of the international powers.”
Black and Brown people of the Global South know full well about what the protesters from Ghat are protesting. The capitalist, white surpremacist order has to disparage people-centered projects and legitimize anything in the interest of racist neoliberalism.
Some of the most transparent and participatory elections in the world, in Nicaragua and Venezuela, are denounced and demonized by the same international powers, its institutional extensions like the OAS, and its corporate media mouthpieces. Beneath that newswire is the irony of a Libya literally destroyed by the same forces. Now, ten years later, it is being forced into a largely illegitimate process.
The title “dictator” is bandied around for all leaders not compliant to Western interests, as was commonly done to the late Muammar Gaddafi. A common sense question one might ask is: Why go through such lengths to prevent the candidacy of the son of a dictator supposedly intent on reestablishing his father’s dynasty?
Once the non-white working class inside the belly of the beast realize that the United States is an undemocratic oligarchy that cannot pretend to offer, to the rest of the world, a nonexistent “democracy,” then it will begin to see that the internationalist fight to support the people of Libya is the same as the domestic fight to liberate those struggling for justice.
Netfa Freeman is an organizer in Pan-African Community Action (PACA) and on the Coordinating Committee of the Black Alliance for Peace. Netfa also is co-host/producer of the WPFW radio show and podcast “Voices With Vision.”
Copyright Toward Freedom 2019