Podcasts about argentine congress

José Miguel Vivanco, adjunct senior fellow for human rights at CFR and former executive director of the Americas division at Human Rights Watch, leads the conversation on human rights in Latin America. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the Fall 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record. The video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org, if you would like to share them with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have José Miguel Vivanco with us to discuss human rights in Latin America. Mr. Vivanco is an adjunct senior fellow for human rights at CFR and partner at Dentons Global Advisors. He formerly served as the executive director of the Americas Division at Human Rights Watch, where he supervised fact-finding research for numerous reports on gross violations of human rights and advocated strengthening international legal standards and domestic compliance throughout the region. He is the founder of the Center for Justice and International Law, an international civil society organization providing legal and technical assistance with the Inter-American Human Rights System. So, José Miguel, thank you very much for being with us today. I thought you could begin by giving us an overview of what you see as the most important human rights challenges and advances in Latin America today. VIVANCO: Well, thank you very much for this invitation. It is a pleasure to be with you all and to talk for an hour about human rights problems, human rights issues in Latin America. Let me first make a couple of points. First, I think it's very important that, in retrospect, if you look at Latin America in the 1960s, 1970s, and even 1980s, it was a region that was pretty much run by military dictatorships. So if you look at historically, the region is not in such a bad shape. I know that this comment is quite controversial and many experts who follow the region closely might disagree with that statement, but objectively speaking I think we need to recognize that most of the region is run today—with the exception, obviously, of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua—by democracies, weak democracies, the kind of democracies that we have in Latin America are facing very serious challenges and with endemic problems such as corruption, abuse of power, lack of transparency, lack of proper accountability, and so on and so forth. But in general terms, this is a region that has a chance to conduct some self-correction. In other words, electoral democracy is a very, very important value in the region, and the citizens—most of the people are able to either reward or punish the incumbent government at the times of elections. That is not a minor detail. It is extremely important, especially if you take into account that during the last twenty years in Latin America, if I'm not wrong, the vast majority of the governments elected were from the opposition. The statistics, I think, show that in eighteen of the twenty last presidential elections, the winner has been the party of the opposition; which means that even though our democracies in Latin America are dysfunctional, weak, messy, slow, you know, short-term-oriented, obviously, but at least citizens take their rights seriously and they exercise their powers so that is why you see a regular zigzag or, you know, transfer of power from a left-wing government to a right-wing government or vice versa. And that is, again, something that is, obviously, a very, very important tool of self-correction. And that, obviously, includes or has an impact in terms of the human rights record of those countries. You know, I'm not—I'm not addressing yet—I will leave it for the Q&A section—conditions in those three dictatorships in Latin America. Let me just make some few more remarks about one of the biggest challenges that I see in the region. And that is, obviously, the rise of autocracy or autocratic leaders, populist leaders, leaders who are not interested or as a matter of fact are very hostile to the concept of rule of law and the concept of independence of the judiciary. And they usually are very charismatic. They have high level of popular support. And they run and govern the country in a style that is like a permanent campaign, where they normally go against minorities and against the opposition, against the free media, against judges and prosecutors who dare to investigate them or investigate the government. Anyone who challenges them are subject of this type of reaction. And that is, unfortunately, something that we have seen in Mexico recently and until today, and in Brazil, especially during the administration of President Bolsonaro. The good news about, in the case of Brazil, is that, thanks to electoral democracy, it was possible to defeat him and—democratically. And the second very important piece of information is that even though Brazil is not a model of rule of law and separation of power, we have to acknowledge that, thanks to the checks-and-balance exercise by the Supreme Court of Brazil, it was possible to do some permanent, constant damage control against the most outrageous initiatives promoted by the administration of President Bolsonaro. That, I think, is one of the biggest challenges in the region. Let me conclude my—make crystal clear that there are serious human rights problems in Latin America today regarding, for instance, abuse of power, police brutality, prison problems. Prisons are really, in most of the countries in the region, a disaster. And you know, a big number of prisoners are awaiting trial, in detention and unable to really exercise their rights. And unfortunately, populist leaders use the prison system or essentially criminal law, by expanding the practice and enlarging the numbers of crimes that could be subject of pretrial detention, and—you know, regardless of the time that it will take for that case to be prosecuted in full respect for the rule—due process, and so on and so forth. And that—the reason is very simple. There is a real demand in Latin America for policies that will address insecurity, citizen security. If you look at statistics in terms of crime rate, it is going up in most of the country. Obviously, there are big difference between countries like Mexico, for instance, or Colombia, and if you link—if you look at the power of cartels and big mafias, and gangs in other countries, or petty crime impacting the daily life of the citizens. Regardless of that point, one of the biggest demands in Latin America is for better and more public security. And that's why political leaders, usually the solution for that request and demand is to put people in prison with essentially no real due process and increase the number of prisoners without conviction. There are challenges for free speech occasionally, of those leaders who resent scrutiny of their practice. And normally there is a campaign against free media. And there are some attempts in some countries to constantly look for ways to undermine the independence of the judiciary. Keep in mind, for instance, that now in Argentina the whole Supreme Court is under impeachment, and it's essentially an impeachment promoted by the current government because they disagree with the rulings, positions of the Supreme Court. All the justices on the Supreme Court are subject of this political trial conducted by the Argentine Congress. That is a concrete example of the kinds of risks that are present for judges and the judiciary in general, when they exercise their power and they attempt to protect the integrity of the constitution. So let me stop here and we can move on to the most interesting part of this event. FASKIANOS: Well, that was quite interesting. So, thank you, José Miguel. We appreciate it. We going to go to all of you now for your questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) We already have some hands up. We will go first to Karla Soto Valdes. Q: My name is Karla Soto. I'm from Lewis University. My question is, what specific measures could be implemented to address and/or prevent trafficking within the asylum-seeking community during their journey to the U.S.? VIVANCO: Irina, are we going to take several questions, or? FASKIANOS: I think we should do one at a time. VIVANCO: Well, Karla, there are multiple tools to address that specific issue. But this applies to essentially most of the human rights problems all over the world. The menu is pretty ample, but depends on one important factor—whether the government involved cares about its own reputation. That is a very important premise here, because if you we are dealing with a democratic government, once again, it's not—when I refer to a democratic government, I don't have in mind a sort of Jeffersonian model, I'm referring to the kind of democracies that we have in Latin America. But, if the leaders in charge are—you know, they care about their own reputation, they care about domestic debate, very important, because these types of revelations usually have ramifications at the local level. If they pay close attention to those issues, I think it's possible to apply, essentially, the technique of naming and shaming. In other words, collecting information, documenting what exactly is happening, and revealing that information to the public, locally and internationally. That is going to create naturally a reaction, a process, an awareness, and local pressure is—hopefully, it's not just twenty-four hours news, so splash—big splash, but also will trigger some dynamics. If we are dealing with a country that is run by a dictatorship, it is a very, very different question, because normally you're facing a leader, a government, who couldn't care less about its own reputation. They have taken already and assume the cost of doing business in that type of context. Now, sometimes conditions are kind of mixed, where you have democratic country in general—so there is still free media, there is an opposition, there is Congress, there are elections. But the government in charge is so—is run by an autocratic leader. That makes, you know, quite—a little more challenging to just document and reveal that information. And you need to think about some particular agenda, governmental agenda. Some specific interests of the government in different areas. Let me see—let me give you an example. Let's say that the Bolsonaro administration is seriously interested in an incorporation into the OECD in Paris. That is an important piece of information. Whatever you think that is relevant information regarding the record of that government, you could provide information to an entity that is precisely evaluating the record of the government. And the government will be much more willing to address those issues because they have a genuine interest in achieving some specific goal at the international level. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. We're going to go to Nicole Ambar De Santos, who is an undergraduate student at the Washington University in St. Louis: When we consider weak democracy in a more personal sense, like Peru, the controversy of obligation to help these nations arises. How much third party or other nations, such as the United States, intervene? VIVANCO: Tricky question. Peruvian democracy is quite messy. Part of the problem is that the system, the political system, needs some real reform to avoid the proliferation of small political parties and to create the real link or relationship between leaders, especially in Congress, and their constituencies, and so they are much more accountable to their community, the ones who elected them. I don't think the U.S., or any other government, has a direct role to play in that area. My sense is that when we are looking into a dysfunctional democracy that deserve some probably even constitutional reforms, that is essentially a domestic job. That is the work that needs to be done by Peruvians. Without a local consensus about the reforms that need to be implemented in the political system, my sense is that it's going to be very difficult for the U.S. or any other large democracy, to address those kinds of points. It's very different, that type of conversation, from a conversation or an assessment of universal values, such as human rights. When we are looking into cases of police brutality, for instance, the international community has a role to play. But if I were part of the conversation or evaluation by the U.S. government or the European Union with regard to this dysfunctional democracy in Peru, I would approach very carefully by suggesting creating the right type of incentives, more than questions of punishment, or sanctions. It's incentives for them to create the right conditions to address the domestic problem that is—has become quite endemic, in the case of Peru. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Matthew. Matthew, you don't have a last name, so can you identify yourself? Q: Hello. Yes, my name is Matthew. I am a junior student from Arizona State University studying business, but working on a thesis that has to do with human rights and the ethics of supply chain management. My question is, you were talking at the very beginning kind of just about history and how understanding history is important. And what I was hoping to get was, why is understanding history and culture important when working to address human rights issues, history of dictatorship, colonialism? In cultures it's socially acceptable things, like child labor, in some countries, that's not acceptable in Western ideology. So, yeah, just how is history and culture important when working to address human rights for the future? VIVANCO: Matthew, I think you're referring to two different issues. History is central. It's really, really relevant. Because that helps you—if you—if you follow your history, especially periods of time when massive and gross violations were committed in Latin America, it's important to put things in context and value what you have today. And the job is to—not only to preserve democracy, but also to look for ways to strengthen democracy. Because part of the problem is that domestic debate is so polarized today, not just in Latin America, all over the world, that sometimes people—different, you know, segments of society—in their positions, they're so dismissive of the other side, that they don't realize that we need to frame our debate in a constructive way. Let me put it—one specific example. If the government of Argentina, who is a government very receptive and very sensitive to vast and gross violations of human rights committed during the military dictatorship, so in other words, I don't need to lecture that government on that subject. They are actually the people who vote for the current government of Argentina—not the new government, the current government of Argentina—is deeply committed to those kinds of issues. I think that one of the biggest lessons that you should learn from the past is the relevance of protecting the independence of the judiciary. If you don't have an independent judiciary, and the judiciary becomes an entity that is an appendix of the ruling party or is intimidated by politics, and they could be subject of impeachment procedures every time that they rule something, that the powerful—the establishment disagree, I think they're playing with fire, and they're not really paying attention to the lessons that you learn from recent history in Latin America. That would be my first comment regarding that type of issue. And the second one, about you mentioned specifically cultural problems, culture, tensions or conflicts. And you mentioned—your example was child labor. And, and you suggested that that—the combination of child labor is something typical of Western ideology. If I'm not wrong, that was the language that you used. I would—I would push back on that point. And because this is not just a Western or European commitment. This is a universal one. And this is reflected on international treaties, and that are supposed to eradicate that kind of practice. If you give up to the concept of local traditions, you know, cultural, you know, issues that you need to pay attention, sure, as long as they are not to be in conflict with fundamental human rights. Otherwise, in half of the planet you're not going to have women rights, and women will be subject of traditional control. And you wouldn't have rights for minorities, and especially—and not only, but especially—the LGBTQ community. And you wouldn't have rights for racial minorities, or different religious beliefs. So, we have to watch and be very careful about what type of concessions we make to cultural traditions. I am happy to understand that different communities in Latin America might have different traditions, but there is some firm, solid, and unquestionable minimum that are the these universal human rights values that are not the property or monopoly of anyone. You know, these are—and this is not an ethical conversation. This is a legal one, because these values are protected under international law. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to combine or take two questions. The first question is from Lindsay Bert, who is at the department of political science at Muhlenberg College, who asks if you could speak on the efficacy of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in addressing the human rights violations you described. And the second question is from Leonard Onyebuchi Ophoke, a graduate student at Cavendish University in Uganda: Why is it almost impossible to hold the actors that violate human rights accountable? What could be done to make the mechanism more enforceable? VIVANCO: The inter-American system of human rights protection, there is nothing similar to inter-American system of human rights protection in the Global South. You don't have something similar in Asia, or Africa, or the Middle East. In other words, you don't have a mechanism where ultimately a court, a court of law—not just a commission, a court of law—handle individual cases, specific complaints of human rights abuses, and governments participate in public hearings. The parties involved have the obligation to present evidence before the court, and the court finally ruled on the specific matters where its decisions are binding. The number of issues that have been addressed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the last thirty years in Latin America are really incredible. And the impact—this is most important point—the impact at a local level is remarkable. In the area, for instance, of torture, disappearances. I'm referring to the elaboration of concepts and the imposing the obligation of local governments to adjust their legislation and practice, and to address specific problems or issues by providing remedies to victims. That is quite unusual. And the court has remarkable rulings on free speech, on discrimination issues, on indigenous populations, on military jurisdiction. One of the typical recourse of governments in the region when security forces were involved in human rights atrocities was to invoke military jurisdiction. So they say, no worries, we are going to investigate our own crimes. And the court has been actually very, very firm, challenging that notion to the point that I don't think there is a single case in Latin America today—once again, with the exception of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, that I hope that somebody will ask me a question about those three countries—and I don't think there is a single case where today security forces try to—or attempt to shield themselves from investigation invoking military jurisdiction. And the credit is to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. I can elaborate, and give you—provide you with a long list of examples of areas where the court has been actually really, really critical in advancing human rights in the region. Let me give you actually one last example that I think is very—is very illustrative, very revealing. In Chile, something like probably twenty years ago or fifteen years ago, full democracy. Full democracy. No Chile under Pinochet. The Supreme Court of Chile ruled that a mother who was openly lesbian did not qualify for the custody of her children because she was lesbian. And she had a couple. So that was sufficient grounds to rule in favor of the father, because the mother didn't have the moral grounds to educate her own kids, children. And this was decided by the Supreme Court of Chile. Not just a small first instance tribunal. And I will point out that the vast majority of the—I mean, the public in Chile was pretty much divided, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of Chileans thought that the Supreme Court was right, you know? The case went to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. And fortunately, after a few years, the court not only challenged that decision of the Supreme Court, forced Chile to change its legislation, and to change the ruling of the Supreme Court of Chile, which is supposed to be the last judgment in the country. And the impact of that one, not only in Chile, in the rest of the region, because it shapes the common wisdom, the assumptions of many people. It helps for them to think carefully about this kind of issues. And the good news is that that mother was able to have the custody of her kids. And not only that, the impact in Chilean society and in the rest of the region was remarkable. Now, the second question that was asked was about how difficult it is to establish accountability for human rights abuses against the perpetrators of those abuses. I mean, it's a real challenge. It depends on whether or not you have locally an independent judiciary. If you do have an independent judiciary, the process is slow, it's messy, it's complicated. But there is a chance that atrocities could be addressed. And that is— especially human rights atrocities or abuses committed during the military dictatorship. There are countries in the region, like for instance, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, where there are people in prison for those type of atrocities. In Brazil, thanks to an amnesty law that was passed in 1978, real investigation and prosecution of those atrocities actually never happened. And an important lesson that you could bear in mind is that Brazilian military are very dismissive of these type of issues, of human rights issues. But not only that, my sense is that Brazilian military officers at very high level are not afraid of stepping into politics, and give their opinion, and challenge the government. In other words, they were actually very, very active, and I'm referring to top officials in the Brazilian Army, during the Bolsonaro administration. There were top leaders who actually publicly argued that if they have to organize a coup again in Brazil, they are ready. That kind of language you don't find in Argentina, in Chile, in other countries where there have been some accountability. For one simple reason, the top military officers running the show are very much aware that if they get involved in politics, that they are part tomorrow of a coup d'état or something like that, at the end of the day they will be responsible. And they might be subject of criminal prosecution for atrocities committed during that period. And so there is a price to pay. So their calculation is much more, shall we say, prudent regarding this issue. But again, once again, how difficult it is? It's very difficult to establish accountability, and much more difficult when you're dealing with dictatorship, where you need to rely on the work done by, for instance, the ICC, the International Criminal Court, which is pretty active in the case of Venezuela. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Fordham. Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Vivanco. My name is Carlos Ortiz de la Pena Gomez Urguiza, and I have a question for you. El Salvador is currently battling crime and gangs with strategies such as mano dura, which have shown a significant decrease in crime at the cost of violating human rights. Do you see a possible effective integration of such policies in high-crime-rate countries, such as Mexico, to stop the growth of narco and crime gang activity? And if so, how? VIVANCO: Well, look, yeah, Carlos, very good question. Bukele in El Salvador is a real, real challenge. It's really, really a complicated case, for several reasons. He's incredibly popular. No question about it. He has managed to—thanks to that popularity—to concentrate power in his own hands. He fully controls Congress. But, much more relevant, he fully controls the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court today is subordinated to the executive branch. And he is constantly going after the civil society, and free media, and the opposition. Now, in violation of the Salvadorean constitution, he's going to run for reelection. And he will be reelected, because he's also very popular. And his policies to go after gangs are cruel, inhuman, and without—not even a facade of respect for due process. Essentially, the policy which is not sustainable and is—I don't think is something that you could export to other countries—is a policy—unless you have full control, unless you have some sort of dictatorship or quasi dictatorship. Which is based, in essence, in the appearance, in the number of tattoos that people, especially in the marginal communities in the periferia in El Salvador, where shanty towns are located. The police has a, you know, green light to arrest anyone who fit that profile. And then good luck, because it's going to be very, very difficult for that person to avoid something like several months in prison. The whole point of having an independent judiciary and due process is that law enforcement agencies have the—obviously, not only the right, the duty to prevent crimes and to punish criminals. Not physically punish them. You know, it's to arrest them, to detain them, and to use proportional force to produce that attention. But they need to follow certain rules. They cannot just go around and arrest anyone who they have some sort of gut feelings that they are involved in crimes, because then you don't—you're not—the whole system is not able to distinguish and to make a distinction between potential criminals and innocent people. But it is complicated, the case of Bukele, because, for instance, I was referring initially to the technique of naming and shaming as a technique, as a methodology to expose governments with deplorable human rights record. But in the case of Bukele, he couldn't care less about. In other words, actually, I think he used the poor perception that exists, already that is established outside El Salvador as a result of his persecution of gangs in El Salvador—he used that kind of criticism as a way to improve his support domestically. In other words, when the New York Times published a whole report about massive abuses committed by Bukele's criminal system, in the prison system in El Salvador, what Bukele does is to take that one, that criticism, as actually ammunition to project himself as a tough guy who is actually, you know, doing the right thing for El Salvador. It's a question of time. It's a question of time. All of this is very sad for El Salvador, one of the few democracies in Central America with some future, I think, because I think they managed after the war to create institutions that are—that were much more credible than in the neighboring countries, like Guatemala, Honduras, and I'm not going to even mention Nicaragua. But under the control of this strongman, everything is possible today in El Salvador. He will be able to govern El Salvador this way as long as he's popular. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has relaxed its attention and pressure on that government, based on the question of migration. So they are hostage by the cooperation of Bukele government to try or attempt to control illegal immigration into the U.S. So that point trumps or, I mean, supersedes everything else. And that is actually very unfortunate. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next two questions, written questions. One is on the subject that you wanted, from Brittney Thomas, who is an undergraduate at Arizona State University: How come the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are socialist or communist while other Latin America countries are predominantly democracies? And then from Roger— VIVANCO: I'm sorry, I couldn't understand the question. Obviously, it's about Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, but? FASKIANOS: Why are they socialist or communist while other Latin American countries are predominantly democracies? VIVANCO: Oh, I see. OK. FASKIANOS: Yeah. And then the next question is from Roger Rose, who is an associate professor of political science at University of Minnesota, Morris: Given the recent decline in the norms of U.S. democracy in the last seven years, does the U.S. have any credibility and influence in the region in promoting democracy? And, again, if you could comment specifically on nations with the least democratic systems—Venezuela, Nicaragua—how could the U.S. play a more constructive role than it is currently? VIVANCO: The U.S. is always a very important player, very, very important. I mean, it's the largest economy in the world and the influence of the U.S. government in Latin America is huge. However, obviously, I have to acknowledge that our domestic problems here and serious challenges to the fundamentals of the rule of law, and just the notion that we respect the system according to which one who wins the election is—you know, has the legitimacy and the mandate to form a new government. If that notion is in question, and there are millions of American citizens who are willing to challenge that premise, obviously undermines the capacity of the U.S. to exercise leadership on this—in this context. And the autocrats and the autocracies in the region—I'm not referring to the dictatorships, but I'm referring to the Andrés Manuel López Obrador, once again, from Mexico, or Bolsonaro in Brazil—they take those kinds of developments in the U.S. as green lights to do whatever they want at local level. So that is a serious—obviously, it's a serious problem. And what is going on here has ramifications not only in the region, but also in the rest of the world. Now, Cuba is a historical problem. It's going to be too long to address the question in terms of why Cuba is a dictatorship and the rest of the region. Part of the problem with Cuba is that you have a government that violates the most fundamental rights and persecutes everyone who challenges the official line. And most of the Cubans today are willing to leave the country and to go into exile. But the problem is that we don't have the right tool, the right instrument in place, to exercise pressure on Cuba. And the right instrument today is the embargo. And that embargo, that policy is a total failure. The Cuban government is the same, exactly the same dictatorship. There has been no progress. And there's going to be no progress, in my view, as long as the U.S. government insist on a policy of isolation. You should be aware that every year 99 percentage of the states in the world condemned the isolation against Cuba, with the exception and the opposition of the U.S. government, Israel, and in the past was the Marshall Islands. Now, I don't think even the Marshall Islands joined the U.S. government defending that policy. So the policy is incredibly unpopular. And the debate at international level is about the U.S. government policy on Cuba and not about the deplorable human rights record of Cuba. That's why I was actually very supportive of the change of policy attempted during the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the isolation policy depends on Congress. And since the times of Clinton, this is a matter of who is the one in control of Congress. And the policy of isolation, it once again makes Cuba a victim of Washington. And Cuba, by the way, is not isolated from the rest of the world. So the U.S. is incredibly, I would say, powerless with regard to the lack of democracy and human rights in Cuba. And at the time, offers a fantastic justification for the Cuban government to present itself as a victim. I think that is the—this is one of the most serious mistakes of the U.S. foreign policy in Latin America that I hope that one day will be—will be addressed effectively. The case of Nicaragua and Venezuela is different, in the sense that we are looking into countries that—Venezuela in particular—have democracy for—a very questionable democracy, very weak, subject of tremendous corruption, and so on and so forth. But they have a system of political parties, free media, and so on, for many, many years. And they end up electing a populist leader whose marching orders and, you know, actually first majors was to establish some effective control of the judiciary. And the Supreme Court became an appendage of the government many, many, many years ago, which means that they managed during the Chavez administration to run the country with some sort of facade of democracy. Today, under Maduro it's no a longer a façade, it's a clear dictatorship responsible for atrocities. Fortunately, it is under investigation by the ICC. And the case of Nicaragua is an extreme case, similar to Venezuela. And it's—it's a dictator who has managed to put in prison everyone who is not in full alliance with the government, including religious leaders, and academics, and opposition leaders, civil society, et cetera. The case of Nicaragua is more complicated because Nicaragua is subject of sanctions by the U.S. government, and the European Union, and Canada, and some governments in the region. But still, we don't see much progress there. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to go next to Nassar Nassar, who has a raised hand. You can unmute yourself and state your affiliation. Q: Yes. Hello. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. Q: Hi. My name is Nassar Nassar. I'm from Lewis University. So my question is, which are the most significant actors in the global governance of human trafficking? And how effective are they in tackling that? VIVANCO: Well, this is a matter that is usually—the main actors—so this is organized crime. This is organized crime. This is a question regarding—this is a—it's a huge business, and extremely profitable. And if you want to address these kinds of issues, you need regional cooperation, which is very challenging. Keep in mind that at a local level, in many of the most democratic countries in the region, you have tremendous tensions among the local police and different police. For instance, the local FBI—equivalent to an FBI, is usually in tension with other branches of law enforcement. And if you expect to have cooperation from the rest of the countries in the region, it's extremely challenging. So these type of issues require effective cooperation, adjustment on legislation. Require more better intelligence. The reason why you have this type—proliferation of this type of business is because, obviously, corruption and lack of accountability. So this is—my point is that it is a reflection of how weak is our law enforcement system, and how unprofessional, and subject many times of corruption. FASKIANOS: Just to follow up on that, a written question from Patricia Drown, who's at Regent University. How are the cartels and mafia being armed, and by whom? VIVANCO: Well, in the case of, for instance, Mexico, weapons comes from the U.S. Sometimes even legally. You know, the Second Amendment plays a role here. It's so easy to have access to weapons, all kind of weapons, in the U.S. So that helps. And a lack of actually an effective control mechanism to stop that type of traffic. The amount of money that cartels moved in countries like Mexico, but Colombia as well, and this mafia scene in Central America is significant. So they do have capacity to corrupt local enforcement officials that belongs to the police, the army, even the judiciary. And as long as you don't address the root cause of the problem, which is the lack of presence of the state—in other words, there are vast—as you know, there are regions of Colombia that are not under the control of the government, the territories in Colombia. And there are regions of Mexico that, unfortunately, are increasingly under more effective control of cartels than law enforcement and legitimate officials. So that unfortunately, is the—in my view, one of the reasons why it is relatively easy to witness this type of proliferation of illegal business. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. I think we are out of time. We have so many written questions and raised hands. Maybe I'll just try to sneak in one more from Andrea Cuervo Prados. You have your hand raised. I think you also wrote a question. So if you can be brief and tell us who you are. Q: OK. Hello. I'm adjunct faculty at Dickinson State University. And, Mr. Vivanco, I have a question related to Colombia. What do you think about the state of the human rights in Colombia under the new leftist president, Gustavo Petro, compared to the previous president, Ivan Duque? VIVANCO: Andrea, I think it's pretty much the same. When we witness actually an improvement of human rights conditions in Colombia, it was during the negotiations with the FARC. I'm referring to the administration of President Juan Manuel Santos. And with the signature of the peace agreement, when they signed the peace agreement, the numbers shows a serious decline in the cases of, for instance, internally displaced people, torture cases, executions, abductions, and many other of those typical abuses that are committed in Colombia in rural areas where this organized crime and irregular armed groups are historically present. But then the policies implemented during the Duque administration were actually not very effective. There was a sort of relaxation during that period, and not effective implementation of those commitments negotiated with the FARC. That had an implication in terms of abuses. And today I don't see a major shift. My sense is that the local communities are subject of similar abuses, including human rights activists as well as social leaders, in areas where there is a very weak presence of the state. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. José Miguel Vivanco. We really appreciate your being with us today. And I apologize. Great questions. I'm sorry, we couldn't get to all of the written ones or raised hands. It's clear we will have to do this—focus in on this again and have you back. You can follow José Miguel on X at @VivancoJM. And the next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, November 29, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Shibley Telhami, who's a professor at the University of Maryland, will lead a conversation on public opinion on Israel and Palestine. And in the meantime, I encourage you to learn about CFR paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/careers. You can follow us at @CFR_Academic. And visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, José Miguel, thank you very much for today, and to all of you for joining us. VIVANCO: Thanks a lot. FASKIANOS: Take care. (END)

José Miguel Vivanco, adjunct senior fellow for human rights at CFR and former executive director of the Americas division at Human Rights Watch, leads the conversation on human rights in Latin America. FASKIANOS: Welcome to today's session of the Fall 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record. The video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org, if you would like to share them with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have José Miguel Vivanco with us to discuss human rights in Latin America. Mr. Vivanco is an adjunct senior fellow for human rights at CFR and partner at Dentons Global Advisors. He formerly served as the executive director of the Americas Division at Human Rights Watch, where he supervised fact-finding research for numerous reports on gross violations of human rights and advocated strengthening international legal standards and domestic compliance throughout the region. He is the founder of the Center for Justice and International Law, an international civil society organization providing legal and technical assistance with the Inter-American Human Rights System. So, José Miguel, thank you very much for being with us today. I thought you could begin by giving us an overview of what you see as the most important human rights challenges and advances in Latin America today. VIVANCO: Well, thank you very much for this invitation. It is a pleasure to be with you all and to talk for an hour about human rights problems, human rights issues in Latin America. Let me first make a couple of points. First, I think it's very important that, in retrospect, if you look at Latin America in the 1960s, 1970s, and even 1980s, it was a region that was pretty much run by military dictatorships. So if you look at historically, the region is not in such a bad shape. I know that this comment is quite controversial and many experts who follow the region closely might disagree with that statement, but objectively speaking I think we need to recognize that most of the region is run today—with the exception, obviously, of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua—by democracies, weak democracies, the kind of democracies that we have in Latin America are facing very serious challenges and with endemic problems such as corruption, abuse of power, lack of transparency, lack of proper accountability, and so on and so forth. But in general terms, this is a region that has a chance to conduct some self-correction. In other words, electoral democracy is a very, very important value in the region, and the citizens—most of the people are able to either reward or punish the incumbent government at the times of elections. That is not a minor detail. It is extremely important, especially if you take into account that during the last twenty years in Latin America, if I'm not wrong, the vast majority of the governments elected were from the opposition. The statistics, I think, show that in eighteen of the twenty last presidential elections, the winner has been the party of the opposition; which means that even though our democracies in Latin America are dysfunctional, weak, messy, slow, you know, short-term-oriented, obviously, but at least citizens take their rights seriously and they exercise their powers so that is why you see a regular zigzag or, you know, transfer of power from a left-wing government to a right-wing government or vice versa. And that is, again, something that is, obviously, a very, very important tool of self-correction. And that, obviously, includes or has an impact in terms of the human rights record of those countries. You know, I'm not—I'm not addressing yet—I will leave it for the Q&A section—conditions in those three dictatorships in Latin America. Let me just make some few more remarks about one of the biggest challenges that I see in the region. And that is, obviously, the rise of autocracy or autocratic leaders, populist leaders, leaders who are not interested or as a matter of fact are very hostile to the concept of rule of law and the concept of independence of the judiciary. And they usually are very charismatic. They have high level of popular support. And they run and govern the country in a style that is like a permanent campaign, where they normally go against minorities and against the opposition, against the free media, against judges and prosecutors who dare to investigate them or investigate the government. Anyone who challenges them are subject of this type of reaction. And that is, unfortunately, something that we have seen in Mexico recently and until today, and in Brazil, especially during the administration of President Bolsonaro. The good news about, in the case of Brazil, is that, thanks to electoral democracy, it was possible to defeat him and—democratically. And the second very important piece of information is that even though Brazil is not a model of rule of law and separation of power, we have to acknowledge that, thanks to the checks-and-balance exercise by the Supreme Court of Brazil, it was possible to do some permanent, constant damage control against the most outrageous initiatives promoted by the administration of President Bolsonaro. That, I think, is one of the biggest challenges in the region. Let me conclude my—make crystal clear that there are serious human rights problems in Latin America today regarding, for instance, abuse of power, police brutality, prison problems. Prisons are really, in most of the countries in the region, a disaster. And you know, a big number of prisoners are awaiting trial, in detention and unable to really exercise their rights. And unfortunately, populist leaders use the prison system or essentially criminal law, by expanding the practice and enlarging the numbers of crimes that could be subject of pretrial detention, and—you know, regardless of the time that it will take for that case to be prosecuted in full respect for the rule—due process, and so on and so forth. And that—the reason is very simple. There is a real demand in Latin America for policies that will address insecurity, citizen security. If you look at statistics in terms of crime rate, it is going up in most of the country. Obviously, there are big difference between countries like Mexico, for instance, or Colombia, and if you link—if you look at the power of cartels and big mafias, and gangs in other countries, or petty crime impacting the daily life of the citizens. Regardless of that point, one of the biggest demands in Latin America is for better and more public security. And that's why political leaders, usually the solution for that request and demand is to put people in prison with essentially no real due process and increase the number of prisoners without conviction. There are challenges for free speech occasionally, of those leaders who resent scrutiny of their practice. And normally there is a campaign against free media. And there are some attempts in some countries to constantly look for ways to undermine the independence of the judiciary. Keep in mind, for instance, that now in Argentina the whole Supreme Court is under impeachment, and it's essentially an impeachment promoted by the current government because they disagree with the rulings, positions of the Supreme Court. All the justices on the Supreme Court are subject of this political trial conducted by the Argentine Congress. That is a concrete example of the kinds of risks that are present for judges and the judiciary in general, when they exercise their power and they attempt to protect the integrity of the constitution. So let me stop here and we can move on to the most interesting part of this event. FASKIANOS: Well, that was quite interesting. So, thank you, José Miguel. We appreciate it. We going to go to all of you now for your questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) We already have some hands up. We will go first to Karla Soto Valdes. Q: My name is Karla Soto. I'm from Lewis University. My question is, what specific measures could be implemented to address and/or prevent trafficking within the asylum-seeking community during their journey to the U.S.? VIVANCO: Irina, are we going to take several questions, or? FASKIANOS: I think we should do one at a time. VIVANCO: Well, Karla, there are multiple tools to address that specific issue. But this applies to essentially most of the human rights problems all over the world. The menu is pretty ample, but depends on one important factor—whether the government involved cares about its own reputation. That is a very important premise here, because if you we are dealing with a democratic government, once again, it's not—when I refer to a democratic government, I don't have in mind a sort of Jeffersonian model, I'm referring to the kind of democracies that we have in Latin America. But, if the leaders in charge are—you know, they care about their own reputation, they care about domestic debate, very important, because these types of revelations usually have ramifications at the local level. If they pay close attention to those issues, I think it's possible to apply, essentially, the technique of naming and shaming. In other words, collecting information, documenting what exactly is happening, and revealing that information to the public, locally and internationally. That is going to create naturally a reaction, a process, an awareness, and local pressure is—hopefully, it's not just twenty-four hours news, so splash—big splash, but also will trigger some dynamics. If we are dealing with a country that is run by a dictatorship, it is a very, very different question, because normally you're facing a leader, a government, who couldn't care less about its own reputation. They have taken already and assume the cost of doing business in that type of context. Now, sometimes conditions are kind of mixed, where you have democratic country in general—so there is still free media, there is an opposition, there is Congress, there are elections. But the government in charge is so—is run by an autocratic leader. That makes, you know, quite—a little more challenging to just document and reveal that information. And you need to think about some particular agenda, governmental agenda. Some specific interests of the government in different areas. Let me see—let me give you an example. Let's say that the Bolsonaro administration is seriously interested in an incorporation into the OECD in Paris. That is an important piece of information. Whatever you think that is relevant information regarding the record of that government, you could provide information to an entity that is precisely evaluating the record of the government. And the government will be much more willing to address those issues because they have a genuine interest in achieving some specific goal at the international level. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. We're going to go to Nicole Ambar De Santos, who is an undergraduate student at the Washington University in St. Louis: When we consider weak democracy in a more personal sense, like Peru, the controversy of obligation to help these nations arises. How much third party or other nations, such as the United States, intervene? VIVANCO: Tricky question. Peruvian democracy is quite messy. Part of the problem is that the system, the political system, needs some real reform to avoid the proliferation of small political parties and to create the real link or relationship between leaders, especially in Congress, and their constituencies, and so they are much more accountable to their community, the ones who elected them. I don't think the U.S., or any other government, has a direct role to play in that area. My sense is that when we are looking into a dysfunctional democracy that deserve some probably even constitutional reforms, that is essentially a domestic job. That is the work that needs to be done by Peruvians. Without a local consensus about the reforms that need to be implemented in the political system, my sense is that it's going to be very difficult for the U.S. or any other large democracy, to address those kinds of points. It's very different, that type of conversation, from a conversation or an assessment of universal values, such as human rights. When we are looking into cases of police brutality, for instance, the international community has a role to play. But if I were part of the conversation or evaluation by the U.S. government or the European Union with regard to this dysfunctional democracy in Peru, I would approach very carefully by suggesting creating the right type of incentives, more than questions of punishment, or sanctions. It's incentives for them to create the right conditions to address the domestic problem that is—has become quite endemic, in the case of Peru. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Matthew. Matthew, you don't have a last name, so can you identify yourself? Q: Hello. Yes, my name is Matthew. I am a junior student from Arizona State University studying business, but working on a thesis that has to do with human rights and the ethics of supply chain management. My question is, you were talking at the very beginning kind of just about history and how understanding history is important. And what I was hoping to get was, why is understanding history and culture important when working to address human rights issues, history of dictatorship, colonialism? In cultures it's socially acceptable things, like child labor, in some countries, that's not acceptable in Western ideology. So, yeah, just how is history and culture important when working to address human rights for the future? VIVANCO: Matthew, I think you're referring to two different issues. History is central. It's really, really relevant. Because that helps you—if you—if you follow your history, especially periods of time when massive and gross violations were committed in Latin America, it's important to put things in context and value what you have today. And the job is to—not only to preserve democracy, but also to look for ways to strengthen democracy. Because part of the problem is that domestic debate is so polarized today, not just in Latin America, all over the world, that sometimes people—different, you know, segments of society—in their positions, they're so dismissive of the other side, that they don't realize that we need to frame our debate in a constructive way. Let me put it—one specific example. If the government of Argentina, who is a government very receptive and very sensitive to vast and gross violations of human rights committed during the military dictatorship, so in other words, I don't need to lecture that government on that subject. They are actually the people who vote for the current government of Argentina—not the new government, the current government of Argentina—is deeply committed to those kinds of issues. I think that one of the biggest lessons that you should learn from the past is the relevance of protecting the independence of the judiciary. If you don't have an independent judiciary, and the judiciary becomes an entity that is an appendix of the ruling party or is intimidated by politics, and they could be subject of impeachment procedures every time that they rule something, that the powerful—the establishment disagree, I think they're playing with fire, and they're not really paying attention to the lessons that you learn from recent history in Latin America. That would be my first comment regarding that type of issue. And the second one, about you mentioned specifically cultural problems, culture, tensions or conflicts. And you mentioned—your example was child labor. And, and you suggested that that—the combination of child labor is something typical of Western ideology. If I'm not wrong, that was the language that you used. I would—I would push back on that point. And because this is not just a Western or European commitment. This is a universal one. And this is reflected on international treaties, and that are supposed to eradicate that kind of practice. If you give up to the concept of local traditions, you know, cultural, you know, issues that you need to pay attention, sure, as long as they are not to be in conflict with fundamental human rights. Otherwise, in half of the planet you're not going to have women rights, and women will be subject of traditional control. And you wouldn't have rights for minorities, and especially—and not only, but especially—the LGBTQ community. And you wouldn't have rights for racial minorities, or different religious beliefs. So, we have to watch and be very careful about what type of concessions we make to cultural traditions. I am happy to understand that different communities in Latin America might have different traditions, but there is some firm, solid, and unquestionable minimum that are the these universal human rights values that are not the property or monopoly of anyone. You know, these are—and this is not an ethical conversation. This is a legal one, because these values are protected under international law. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to combine or take two questions. The first question is from Lindsay Bert, who is at the department of political science at Muhlenberg College, who asks if you could speak on the efficacy of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in addressing the human rights violations you described. And the second question is from Leonard Onyebuchi Ophoke, a graduate student at Cavendish University in Uganda: Why is it almost impossible to hold the actors that violate human rights accountable? What could be done to make the mechanism more enforceable? VIVANCO: The inter-American system of human rights protection, there is nothing similar to inter-American system of human rights protection in the Global South. You don't have something similar in Asia, or Africa, or the Middle East. In other words, you don't have a mechanism where ultimately a court, a court of law—not just a commission, a court of law—handle individual cases, specific complaints of human rights abuses, and governments participate in public hearings. The parties involved have the obligation to present evidence before the court, and the court finally ruled on the specific matters where its decisions are binding. The number of issues that have been addressed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the last thirty years in Latin America are really incredible. And the impact—this is most important point—the impact at a local level is remarkable. In the area, for instance, of torture, disappearances. I'm referring to the elaboration of concepts and the imposing the obligation of local governments to adjust their legislation and practice, and to address specific problems or issues by providing remedies to victims. That is quite unusual. And the court has remarkable rulings on free speech, on discrimination issues, on indigenous populations, on military jurisdiction. One of the typical recourse of governments in the region when security forces were involved in human rights atrocities was to invoke military jurisdiction. So they say, no worries, we are going to investigate our own crimes. And the court has been actually very, very firm, challenging that notion to the point that I don't think there is a single case in Latin America today—once again, with the exception of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, that I hope that somebody will ask me a question about those three countries—and I don't think there is a single case where today security forces try to—or attempt to shield themselves from investigation invoking military jurisdiction. And the credit is to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. I can elaborate, and give you—provide you with a long list of examples of areas where the court has been actually really, really critical in advancing human rights in the region. Let me give you actually one last example that I think is very—is very illustrative, very revealing. In Chile, something like probably twenty years ago or fifteen years ago, full democracy. Full democracy. No Chile under Pinochet. The Supreme Court of Chile ruled that a mother who was openly lesbian did not qualify for the custody of her children because she was lesbian. And she had a couple. So that was sufficient grounds to rule in favor of the father, because the mother didn't have the moral grounds to educate her own kids, children. And this was decided by the Supreme Court of Chile. Not just a small first instance tribunal. And I will point out that the vast majority of the—I mean, the public in Chile was pretty much divided, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of Chileans thought that the Supreme Court was right, you know? The case went to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. And fortunately, after a few years, the court not only challenged that decision of the Supreme Court, forced Chile to change its legislation, and to change the ruling of the Supreme Court of Chile, which is supposed to be the last judgment in the country. And the impact of that one, not only in Chile, in the rest of the region, because it shapes the common wisdom, the assumptions of many people. It helps for them to think carefully about this kind of issues. And the good news is that that mother was able to have the custody of her kids. And not only that, the impact in Chilean society and in the rest of the region was remarkable. Now, the second question that was asked was about how difficult it is to establish accountability for human rights abuses against the perpetrators of those abuses. I mean, it's a real challenge. It depends on whether or not you have locally an independent judiciary. If you do have an independent judiciary, the process is slow, it's messy, it's complicated. But there is a chance that atrocities could be addressed. And that is— especially human rights atrocities or abuses committed during the military dictatorship. There are countries in the region, like for instance, Chile, Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, where there are people in prison for those type of atrocities. In Brazil, thanks to an amnesty law that was passed in 1978, real investigation and prosecution of those atrocities actually never happened. And an important lesson that you could bear in mind is that Brazilian military are very dismissive of these type of issues, of human rights issues. But not only that, my sense is that Brazilian military officers at very high level are not afraid of stepping into politics, and give their opinion, and challenge the government. In other words, they were actually very, very active, and I'm referring to top officials in the Brazilian Army, during the Bolsonaro administration. There were top leaders who actually publicly argued that if they have to organize a coup again in Brazil, they are ready. That kind of language you don't find in Argentina, in Chile, in other countries where there have been some accountability. For one simple reason, the top military officers running the show are very much aware that if they get involved in politics, that they are part tomorrow of a coup d'état or something like that, at the end of the day they will be responsible. And they might be subject of criminal prosecution for atrocities committed during that period. And so there is a price to pay. So their calculation is much more, shall we say, prudent regarding this issue. But again, once again, how difficult it is? It's very difficult to establish accountability, and much more difficult when you're dealing with dictatorship, where you need to rely on the work done by, for instance, the ICC, the International Criminal Court, which is pretty active in the case of Venezuela. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Fordham. Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Vivanco. My name is Carlos Ortiz de la Pena Gomez Urguiza, and I have a question for you. El Salvador is currently battling crime and gangs with strategies such as mano dura, which have shown a significant decrease in crime at the cost of violating human rights. Do you see a possible effective integration of such policies in high-crime-rate countries, such as Mexico, to stop the growth of narco and crime gang activity? And if so, how? VIVANCO: Well, look, yeah, Carlos, very good question. Bukele in El Salvador is a real, real challenge. It's really, really a complicated case, for several reasons. He's incredibly popular. No question about it. He has managed to—thanks to that popularity—to concentrate power in his own hands. He fully controls Congress. But, much more relevant, he fully controls the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court today is subordinated to the executive branch. And he is constantly going after the civil society, and free media, and the opposition. Now, in violation of the Salvadorean constitution, he's going to run for reelection. And he will be reelected, because he's also very popular. And his policies to go after gangs are cruel, inhuman, and without—not even a facade of respect for due process. Essentially, the policy which is not sustainable and is—I don't think is something that you could export to other countries—is a policy—unless you have full control, unless you have some sort of dictatorship or quasi dictatorship. Which is based, in essence, in the appearance, in the number of tattoos that people, especially in the marginal communities in the periferia in El Salvador, where shanty towns are located. The police has a, you know, green light to arrest anyone who fit that profile. And then good luck, because it's going to be very, very difficult for that person to avoid something like several months in prison. The whole point of having an independent judiciary and due process is that law enforcement agencies have the—obviously, not only the right, the duty to prevent crimes and to punish criminals. Not physically punish them. You know, it's to arrest them, to detain them, and to use proportional force to produce that attention. But they need to follow certain rules. They cannot just go around and arrest anyone who they have some sort of gut feelings that they are involved in crimes, because then you don't—you're not—the whole system is not able to distinguish and to make a distinction between potential criminals and innocent people. But it is complicated, the case of Bukele, because, for instance, I was referring initially to the technique of naming and shaming as a technique, as a methodology to expose governments with deplorable human rights record. But in the case of Bukele, he couldn't care less about. In other words, actually, I think he used the poor perception that exists, already that is established outside El Salvador as a result of his persecution of gangs in El Salvador—he used that kind of criticism as a way to improve his support domestically. In other words, when the New York Times published a whole report about massive abuses committed by Bukele's criminal system, in the prison system in El Salvador, what Bukele does is to take that one, that criticism, as actually ammunition to project himself as a tough guy who is actually, you know, doing the right thing for El Salvador. It's a question of time. It's a question of time. All of this is very sad for El Salvador, one of the few democracies in Central America with some future, I think, because I think they managed after the war to create institutions that are—that were much more credible than in the neighboring countries, like Guatemala, Honduras, and I'm not going to even mention Nicaragua. But under the control of this strongman, everything is possible today in El Salvador. He will be able to govern El Salvador this way as long as he's popular. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has relaxed its attention and pressure on that government, based on the question of migration. So they are hostage by the cooperation of Bukele government to try or attempt to control illegal immigration into the U.S. So that point trumps or, I mean, supersedes everything else. And that is actually very unfortunate. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next two questions, written questions. One is on the subject that you wanted, from Brittney Thomas, who is an undergraduate at Arizona State University: How come the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are socialist or communist while other Latin America countries are predominantly democracies? And then from Roger— VIVANCO: I'm sorry, I couldn't understand the question. Obviously, it's about Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, but? FASKIANOS: Why are they socialist or communist while other Latin American countries are predominantly democracies? VIVANCO: Oh, I see. OK. FASKIANOS: Yeah. And then the next question is from Roger Rose, who is an associate professor of political science at University of Minnesota, Morris: Given the recent decline in the norms of U.S. democracy in the last seven years, does the U.S. have any credibility and influence in the region in promoting democracy? And, again, if you could comment specifically on nations with the least democratic systems—Venezuela, Nicaragua—how could the U.S. play a more constructive role than it is currently? VIVANCO: The U.S. is always a very important player, very, very important. I mean, it's the largest economy in the world and the influence of the U.S. government in Latin America is huge. However, obviously, I have to acknowledge that our domestic problems here and serious challenges to the fundamentals of the rule of law, and just the notion that we respect the system according to which one who wins the election is—you know, has the legitimacy and the mandate to form a new government. If that notion is in question, and there are millions of American citizens who are willing to challenge that premise, obviously undermines the capacity of the U.S. to exercise leadership on this—in this context. And the autocrats and the autocracies in the region—I'm not referring to the dictatorships, but I'm referring to the Andrés Manuel López Obrador, once again, from Mexico, or Bolsonaro in Brazil—they take those kinds of developments in the U.S. as green lights to do whatever they want at local level. So that is a serious—obviously, it's a serious problem. And what is going on here has ramifications not only in the region, but also in the rest of the world. Now, Cuba is a historical problem. It's going to be too long to address the question in terms of why Cuba is a dictatorship and the rest of the region. Part of the problem with Cuba is that you have a government that violates the most fundamental rights and persecutes everyone who challenges the official line. And most of the Cubans today are willing to leave the country and to go into exile. But the problem is that we don't have the right tool, the right instrument in place, to exercise pressure on Cuba. And the right instrument today is the embargo. And that embargo, that policy is a total failure. The Cuban government is the same, exactly the same dictatorship. There has been no progress. And there's going to be no progress, in my view, as long as the U.S. government insist on a policy of isolation. You should be aware that every year 99 percentage of the states in the world condemned the isolation against Cuba, with the exception and the opposition of the U.S. government, Israel, and in the past was the Marshall Islands. Now, I don't think even the Marshall Islands joined the U.S. government defending that policy. So the policy is incredibly unpopular. And the debate at international level is about the U.S. government policy on Cuba and not about the deplorable human rights record of Cuba. That's why I was actually very supportive of the change of policy attempted during the Obama administration. Unfortunately, the isolation policy depends on Congress. And since the times of Clinton, this is a matter of who is the one in control of Congress. And the policy of isolation, it once again makes Cuba a victim of Washington. And Cuba, by the way, is not isolated from the rest of the world. So the U.S. is incredibly, I would say, powerless with regard to the lack of democracy and human rights in Cuba. And at the time, offers a fantastic justification for the Cuban government to present itself as a victim. I think that is the—this is one of the most serious mistakes of the U.S. foreign policy in Latin America that I hope that one day will be—will be addressed effectively. The case of Nicaragua and Venezuela is different, in the sense that we are looking into countries that—Venezuela in particular—have democracy for—a very questionable democracy, very weak, subject of tremendous corruption, and so on and so forth. But they have a system of political parties, free media, and so on, for many, many years. And they end up electing a populist leader whose marching orders and, you know, actually first majors was to establish some effective control of the judiciary. And the Supreme Court became an appendage of the government many, many, many years ago, which means that they managed during the Chavez administration to run the country with some sort of facade of democracy. Today, under Maduro it's no a longer a façade, it's a clear dictatorship responsible for atrocities. Fortunately, it is under investigation by the ICC. And the case of Nicaragua is an extreme case, similar to Venezuela. And it's—it's a dictator who has managed to put in prison everyone who is not in full alliance with the government, including religious leaders, and academics, and opposition leaders, civil society, et cetera. The case of Nicaragua is more complicated because Nicaragua is subject of sanctions by the U.S. government, and the European Union, and Canada, and some governments in the region. But still, we don't see much progress there. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to go next to Nassar Nassar, who has a raised hand. You can unmute yourself and state your affiliation. Q: Yes. Hello. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. Q: Hi. My name is Nassar Nassar. I'm from Lewis University. So my question is, which are the most significant actors in the global governance of human trafficking? And how effective are they in tackling that? VIVANCO: Well, this is a matter that is usually—the main actors—so this is organized crime. This is organized crime. This is a question regarding—this is a—it's a huge business, and extremely profitable. And if you want to address these kinds of issues, you need regional cooperation, which is very challenging. Keep in mind that at a local level, in many of the most democratic countries in the region, you have tremendous tensions among the local police and different police. For instance, the local FBI—equivalent to an FBI, is usually in tension with other branches of law enforcement. And if you expect to have cooperation from the rest of the countries in the region, it's extremely challenging. So these type of issues require effective cooperation, adjustment on legislation. Require more better intelligence. The reason why you have this type—proliferation of this type of business is because, obviously, corruption and lack of accountability. So this is—my point is that it is a reflection of how weak is our law enforcement system, and how unprofessional, and subject many times of corruption. FASKIANOS: Just to follow up on that, a written question from Patricia Drown, who's at Regent University. How are the cartels and mafia being armed, and by whom? VIVANCO: Well, in the case of, for instance, Mexico, weapons comes from the U.S. Sometimes even legally. You know, the Second Amendment plays a role here. It's so easy to have access to weapons, all kind of weapons, in the U.S. So that helps. And a lack of actually an effective control mechanism to stop that type of traffic. The amount of money that cartels moved in countries like Mexico, but Colombia as well, and this mafia scene in Central America is significant. So they do have capacity to corrupt local enforcement officials that belongs to the police, the army, even the judiciary. And as long as you don't address the root cause of the problem, which is the lack of presence of the state—in other words, there are vast—as you know, there are regions of Colombia that are not under the control of the government, the territories in Colombia. And there are regions of Mexico that, unfortunately, are increasingly under more effective control of cartels than law enforcement and legitimate officials. So that unfortunately, is the—in my view, one of the reasons why it is relatively easy to witness this type of proliferation of illegal business. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. I think we are out of time. We have so many written questions and raised hands. Maybe I'll just try to sneak in one more from Andrea Cuervo Prados. You have your hand raised. I think you also wrote a question. So if you can be brief and tell us who you are. Q: OK. Hello. I'm adjunct faculty at Dickinson State University. And, Mr. Vivanco, I have a question related to Colombia. What do you think about the state of the human rights in Colombia under the new leftist president, Gustavo Petro, compared to the previous president, Ivan Duque? VIVANCO: Andrea, I think it's pretty much the same. When we witness actually an improvement of human rights conditions in Colombia, it was during the negotiations with the FARC. I'm referring to the administration of President Juan Manuel Santos. And with the signature of the peace agreement, when they signed the peace agreement, the numbers shows a serious decline in the cases of, for instance, internally displaced people, torture cases, executions, abductions, and many other of those typical abuses that are committed in Colombia in rural areas where this organized crime and irregular armed groups are historically present. But then the policies implemented during the Duque administration were actually not very effective. There was a sort of relaxation during that period, and not effective implementation of those commitments negotiated with the FARC. That had an implication in terms of abuses. And today I don't see a major shift. My sense is that the local communities are subject of similar abuses, including human rights activists as well as social leaders, in areas where there is a very weak presence of the state. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. José Miguel Vivanco. We really appreciate your being with us today. And I apologize. Great questions. I'm sorry, we couldn't get to all of the written ones or raised hands. It's clear we will have to do this—focus in on this again and have you back. You can follow José Miguel on X at @VivancoJM. And the next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, November 29, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Shibley Telhami, who's a professor at the University of Maryland, will lead a conversation on public opinion on Israel and Palestine. And in the meantime, I encourage you to learn about CFR paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/careers. You can follow us at @CFR_Academic. And visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, José Miguel, thank you very much for today, and to all of you for joining us. VIVANCO: Thanks a lot. FASKIANOS: Take care. (END)

Argentina's economy minister has won more than 36% of the vote in Sunday's presidential elections, defying expectations. The election has been shaken by the emergence of anti-establishment populist and self-styled "libertarian" Javier Milei. Mr Milei is an outspoken right-wing economist whose "shock-jock" style and aggressive social media campaigning have appealed to younger voters. No candidate received the necessary 45% of votes needed to win outright, so there will be a second round on 19 November. The election comes amid a severe economic crisis - inflation is nearing 140% - 40% are living below the poverty line. Argentina is one of Latin America's most stable democracies - but it remains the world's single biggest debtor to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), owing $46bn (£38bn). Three-quarters of young Argentinians want to leave the country to look for better opportunities. What needs to happen to improve the country's prospects? And will the economic mess damage Argentina's democracy? Shaun Ley is joined by: Natalie Alcoba, an Argentinean-Canadian journalist Ignacio Labaqui, senior analyst with Medley Global Advisors, which offers advice to clients on political risk Christopher Sabatini. he's Senior Research Fellow for Latin America, US and the Americas Programme at the Chatham House thinktank Also featuring: Marcela Pagano a newly elected member of the Argentine Congress for Javier Milei's La Libertad Avanza Gustavo Martínez Pandiani, Sergio Massa's principal foreign policy advisor and the Ambassador to Switzerland. Pau Bressi, a university student in Buenos Aires Produced by: Max Horberry and Ellen Otzen (Photo: Presidential candidate Javier Milei speaks after first round results, Buenos Aires, Argentina - 23 Oct 2023. Juan Ignacio Roncoroni/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock)

On the 70th anniversary since the passing of Eva Perón, Michael speaks with Dr Fernanda Peñaloza, Senior Lecturer in Latin American Studies & Chair Spanish and Latin American Studies Department at the University of Sydney, to shed light on the extraordinary life of Argentina's controversial former First Lady. Nicknamed Evita, Perón was the Argentine actress, politician, activist and philanthropist who served as First Lady of Argentina from June 1946 until her death in July 1952, as the wife of Argentine President Juan Domingo Perón (1895–1974). In 1952, shortly before her death from cancer at 33, Eva Perón was given the title of "Spiritual Leader of the Nation" by the Argentine Congress.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Support the show and receive bonus episodes by becoming a Patreon producer over at: www.themidnighttrainpodcast.com  Archives of terror Archivos del Terror were found on december 22, 1992 by a lawyer and human rights activist, strange how those two titles are in the same sentence, Dr. Martín Almada, and Judge José Agustín Fernández. Found in a police station in the suburbs of Paraguay known as Asunción.   Fernandez was looking for files on a former prisoner. Instead, stumbled across an archive describing the fates of thousands of Latin Americans who had been secretly kidnapped, tortured, and killed by the security services of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay with the help of our friendly neighborhood CIA. Known as Operation Condor.   “Operation Condor was a U.S. backed campaign of political repression and state terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents.”   Let's go back a ways toward the beginning. One day, a young guy, wanted to fuck up the world and created the CIA. JK… but not really.   So we go back to 1968 where General Robert W. Porter said that "in order to facilitate the coordinated employment of internal security forces within and among Latin American countries, we are ... endeavoring to foster inter-service and regional cooperation by assisting in the organization of integrated command and control centers; the establishment of common operating procedures; and the conduct of joint and combined training exercises."   According to former secret CIA documents from 1976, plans were developed among international security officials at the US Army School of the Americas and the Conference of American Armies in the 1960s and early 1970s to deal with perceived threats in South America from political dissidents, according to American historian J. Patrice McSherry. "In early 1974, security officials from Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia convened in Buenos Aires to prepare synchronized attacks against subversive targets," according to a declassified CIA memo dated June 23, 1976.   Following a series of military-led coups d'états, particularly in the 1970s, the program was established: General Alfredo Stroessner took control of Paraguay in 1954 General Francisco Morales-Bermúdez takes control of Peru after a successful coup in 1975 The Brazilian military overthrew the president João Goulart in 1964 General Hugo Banzer took power in Bolivia in 1971 through a series of coups A military dictatorship seized power in Uruguay on 27 June 1973 Chilean armed forces commanded by General Augusto Pinochet bombed the presidential palace in Chile on 11 September 1973, overthrowing democratically elected president Salvador Allende A military dictatorship headed by General Jorge Rafael Videla seized power in Argentina on 24 March 1976   According to American journalist A. J. Langguth, the CIA organized the first meetings between Argentinian and Uruguayan security officials regarding the surveillance (and subsequent disappearance or assassination) of political refugees in these countries, as well as its role as an intermediary in the meetings between Argentinian, Uruguayan, and Brazilian death squads.   According to the National Security Archive's documentary evidence from US, Paraguayan, Argentine, and Chilean files, "Founded by the Pinochet regime in November 1975, Operation Condor was the codename for a formal Southern Cone collaboration that included transnational secret intelligence activities, kidnapping, torture, disappearance, and assassination." Several persons were slain as part of this codename mission. "Notable Condor victims include two former Uruguayan legislators and a former Bolivian president, Juan José Torres, murdered in Buenos Aires, a former Chilean Minister of the Interior, Bernardo Leighton, and former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and his 26-year-old American colleague, Ronni Moffitt, assassinated by a car bomb in downtown Washington D.C.," according to the report.   Prior to the formation of Operation Condor, there had been cooperation among various security services with the goal of "eliminating Marxist subversion." On September 3, 1973, at the Conference of American Armies in Caracas, Brazilian General Breno Borges Fortes, the chief of the Brazilian army, urged that various services "expand the interchange of information" in order to "fight against subversion."   Representatives from Chile, Uruguay, and Bolivia's police forces met with Alberto Villar, deputy chief of the Argentine Federal Police and co-founder of the Triple A killing squad, in March 1974 to discuss collaboration standards. Their purpose was to eliminate the "subversive" threat posed by Argentina's tens of thousands of political exiles. Bolivian immigrants' bodies were discovered at rubbish dumps in Buenos Aires in August 1974. Based on recently revealed CIA records dated June 1976, McSherry corroborated the kidnapping and torture of Chilean and Uruguayan exiles living in Buenos Aires during this time.   On General Augusto Pinochet's 60th birthday, November 25, 1975, in Santiago de Chile, heads of the military intelligence services of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay met with Manuel Contreras, commander of the Chilean secret police, to officially establish the Plan Condor. General Rivero, an intelligence officer in the Argentine Armed Forces and a former student of the French, devised the concept of Operation Condor, according to French writer Marie-Monique Robin, author of Escadrons de la death, l'école française (2004, Death Squads, The French School).   Officially, the targets were armed groups (such as the MIR, the Montoneros or the ERP, the Tupamaros, etc.) based on the governments' perceptions of threats, but the governments expanded their attacks to include all types of political opponents, including their families and others, as reported by the Valech Commission, which is known as The National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture Report. The Argentine "Dirty War," for example, kidnapped, tortured, and assassinated many trade unionists, relatives of activists, social activists such as the founders of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, nuns, university professors, and others, according to most estimates.   The Chilean DINA and its Argentine counterpart, SIDE, were the operation's front-line troops from 1976 forward. The infamous "death flights," which were postulated in Argentina by Luis Mara Menda and deployed by French forces during the Algerian War (1954–62), were widely used. Government forces flew or helicoptered victims out to sea, where they were dumped to die in premeditated disappearances. According to reports, the OPR-33 facility in Argentina was destroyed as a result of the military bombardment. Members of Plan Condor met in Santiago, Chile, in May 1976, to discuss "long-range collaboration... [that] went well beyond intelligence exchange" and to assign code names to the participating countries. The CIA acquired information in July that Plan Condor participants planned to strike "against leaders of indigenous terrorist groups residing overseas."   Several corpses washed up on beaches south of Buenos Aires in late 1977 as a result of extraordinary storms, providing evidence of some of the government's victims. Hundreds of newborns and children were removed from women in prison who had been kidnapped and later disappeared; the children were then given to families and associates of the dictatorship in clandestine adoptions. According to the CIA, Operation Condor countries reacted positively to the concept of cooperating and built their own communications network as well as joint training programs in areas like psychological warfare.    The military governments in South America were coming together to join forces for security concerns, according to a memo prepared by Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Harry W. Shlaudeman to Kissinger on August 3, 1976. They were anxious about the growth of Marxism and the consequences it would have on their dominance. This new force worked in secret in the countries of other members. Their mission: to track out and murder "Revolutionary Coordinating Committee" terrorists in their own nations and throughout Europe.Shlaudeman voiced fear that the members of Operation Condor's "siege mindset" could lead to a wider divide between military and civilian institutions in the region. He was also concerned that this would further isolate these countries from developed Western countries. He argued that some of these anxieties were justified, but that by reacting too harshly, these countries risked inciting a violent counter-reaction comparable to the PLO's in Israel.   Chile and Argentina were both active in using communications medium for the purpose of transmitting propaganda, according to papers from the United States dated April 17, 1977. The propaganda's goal was to accomplish two things. The first goal was to defuse/counter international media criticism of the governments involved, and the second goal was to instill national pride in the local population. "Chile after Allende," a propaganda piece developed by Chile, was sent to the states functioning under Condor. The paper, however, solely mentions Uruguay and Argentina as the only two countries that have signed the deal. The government of Paraguay was solely identified as using the local press, "Patria," as its primary source of propaganda. Due to the reorganisation of both Argentina's and Paraguay's intelligence organizations, a meeting scheduled for March 1977 to discuss "psychological warfare measures against terrorists and leftist extremists" was canceled.   One "component of the campaign including Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina envisages unlawful operations beyond Latin America against expatriate terrorists, primarily in Europe," according to a 2016 declassified CIA study titled "Counterterrorism in the Southern Cone." "All military-controlled regimes in the Southern Cone consider themselves targets of international Marxism," the memo stated. Condor's fundamental characteristic was highlighted in the document, which came to fruition in early 1974 when "security officials from all of the member countries, except Brazil, agreed to establish liaison channels and to facilitate the movement of security officers on government business from one country to the other," as part of a long-tested "regional approach" to pacifying "subversion." Condor's "initial aims" included the "exchange of information on the Revolutionary Coordinating Junta (RCJ), an organization...of terrorist groups from Bolivia, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay" with "representatives" in Europe "believed to have been involved in the assassinations in Paris of the Bolivian ambassador to France last May and a Uruguayan military attache in 1974." Condor's primary purpose, according to the CIA assessment, was to eliminate "top-level terrorist leaders" as well as non-terrorist targets such as "Uruguayan opposition figure Wilson Ferreira, if he should travel to Europe, and some leaders of Amnesty International." Condor was also suspected by the CIA of being "involved in nonviolent actions, including as psychological warfare and a propaganda campaign" that used the media's power to "publicize terrorist crimes and atrocities." Condor also urged citizens in its member countries to "report anything out of the norm in their surroundings" in an appeal to "national pride and national conscience." Another meeting took place in 1980, and Montensero was apprehended. The RSO allegedly promised not to kill them if they agreed to collaborate and provide information on upcoming meetings in Rio.   So, after all of this mumbo jumbo, let's recap.    50,000 people were killed, 30,000 disappeared, and 400,000 were imprisoned, according to the "terror archives."  A letter signed by Manuel Contreras, the chief of Chile's National Intelligence Directorate (DINA) at the time, inviting Paraguayan intelligence personnel to Santiago for a clandestine "First Working Meeting on National Intelligence" on November 25, 1975, was also uncovered. The presence of intelligence chiefs from Argentina, Bolivia, and Uruguay at the meetings was also confirmed by this letter, indicating that those countries were also involved in the formulation of Operation Condor. Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela are among the countries named in the archives as having collaborated to varying degrees by giving intelligence information that had been sought by the security agencies of the Southern Cone countries. Parts of the archives, which are presently housed in Asunción's Palace of Justice, have been used to prosecute former military officers in some of these countries. Those records were used extensively in Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón's prosecution against Chilean General Augusto Pinochet. Baltasar Garzón interviewed Almada twice after he was a Condor victim.   "[The records] represent a mound of shame and lies that Stroessner [Paraguay's ruler until 1989] used to blackmail the Paraguayan people for 40 years," Almada said. He wants the "terror archives" to be listed as an international cultural site by UNESCO, as this would make it much easier to get funds to maintain and protect the records.   In May 2000, a UNESCO mission visited Asunción in response to a request from the Paraguayan government for assistance in registering these files on the Memory of the World Register, which is part of a program aimed at preserving and promoting humanity's documentary heritage by ensuring that records are preserved and accessible.   Now that we are all caught up, let's talk about a few noteworthy events. First we go to Argentina.   Argentina was ruled by military juntas from 1976 until 1983 under Operation Condor, which was a civic-military dictatorship. In countless incidents of desaparecidos, the Argentine SIDE collaborated with the Chilean DINA. In Buenos Aires, they assassinated Chilean General Carlos Prats, former Uruguayan MPs Zelmar Michelini and Héctor Gutiérrez Ruiz, and former Bolivian President Juan José Torres. With the support of Italian Gladio operator Stefano Delle Chiaie and Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, the SIDE aided Bolivian commander Luis Garca Meza Tejada's Cocaine Coup (see also Operation Charly). Since the release of secret records, it has been revealed that at ESMA, there were operational units made up of Italians who were utilized to suppress organizations of Italian Montoneros. Gaetano Saya, the Officer of the Italian stay behind next - Operation Gladio, led this outfit known as "Shadow Group." The Madres de la Square de Mayo, a group of mothers whose children had vanished, began protesting every Thursday in front of the Casa Rosada on the plaza in April 1977. They wanted to know where their children were and what happened to them. The abduction of two French nuns and other founders of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo in December 1977 drew worldwide notice. Their corpses were later recognized among the deceased washed up on beaches south of Buenos Aires in December 1977, victims of death planes.   In 1983, when Argentina's democracy was restored, the government established the National Commission for Forced Disappearances (CONADEP), which was chaired by writer Ernesto Sabato. It gathered testimony from hundreds of witnesses about regime victims and known atrocities, as well as documenting hundreds of secret jails and detention sites and identifying torture and execution squad leaders. The Juicio a las Juntas (Juntas Trial) two years later was mostly successful in proving the crimes of the top commanders of the numerous juntas that had composed the self-styled National Reorganization Process. Most of the top officers on trial, including Jorge Rafael Videla, Emilio Eduardo Massera, Roberto Eduardo Viola, Armando Lambruschini, Ral Agosti, Rubén Graffigna, Leopoldo Galtieri, Jorge Anaya, and Basilio Lami Dozo, were convicted and sentenced to life in prison.   Following these trials, Ral Alfonsn's administration implemented two amnesty laws, the 1986 Ley de Punto Final (law of closure) and the 1987 Ley de Obediencia Debida (law of due obedience), which ended prosecution of crimes committed during the Dirty War. In an attempt at healing and reconciliation, President Carlos Menem pardoned the junta's leaders who were serving prison sentences in 1989–1990.   Due to attacks on American citizens in Argentina and revelations about CIA funding of the Argentine military in the late 1990s, and despite an explicit 1990 Congressional prohibition, US President Bill Clinton ordered the declassification of thousands of State Department documents relating to US-Argentine relations dating back to 1954. These documents exposed American involvement in the Dirty War and Operation Condor.   Following years of protests by the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo and other human rights organizations, the Argentine Congress overturned the amnesty legislation in 2003, with the full support of President Nestor Kirchner and the ruling majority in both chambers. In June 2005, the Argentine Supreme Court deemed them unlawful after a separate assessment. The government was able to resume prosecution of crimes committed during the Dirty War as a result of the court's decision.    Enrique Arancibia Clavel, a DINA civil agent who was charged with crimes against humanity in Argentina in 2004, was sentenced to life in prison for his role in the death of General Prats. Stefano Delle Chiaie, a suspected Italian terrorist, is also said to have been involved in the murder. In Rome in December 1995, he and fellow extreme Vincenzo Vinciguerra testified before federal judge Mara Servini de Cubra that DINA operatives Clavel and Michael Townley were intimately involved in the assassination. Judge Servini de Cubra demanded that Mariana Callejas (Michael Townley's wife) and Cristoph Willikie, a retired Chilean army colonel, be extradited in 2003 because they were also accused of being complicit in the murder. Nibaldo Segura, a Chilean appeals court judge, declined extradition in July 2005, claiming that they had already been prosecuted in Chile.   Twenty-five former high-ranking military commanders from Argentina and Uruguay were charged on March 5, 2013, in Buenos Aires with conspiring to "kidnap, disappear, torture, and kill" 171 political opponents throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Former Argentine "presidents" Jorge Videla and Reynaldo Bignone, both from the El Proceso era, are among the defendants. Prosecutors are relying on declassified US records collected by the National Security Archive, a non-governmental entity established at George Washington University in Washington, DC, in the 1990s and later.   On May 27, 2016, fifteen former military personnel were found guilty. Reynaldo Bignone was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Fourteen of the remaining 16 defendants were sentenced to eight to twenty-five years in prison. Two of the defendants were found not guilty.  A lawyer for the victims' relatives, Luz Palmás Zalda, claims that "This decision is significant since it is the first time Operation Condor's existence has been proven in court. It's also the first time former Condor members have been imprisoned for their roles in the criminal organization."    Anyone wanna go to Brazil?   In the year 2000, President Fernando Henrique Cardoso ordered the publication of some military documents related to Operation Condor. There are documents proving that in that year, attorney general Giancarlo Capaldo, an Italian magistrate, investigated the "disappearances" of Italian citizens in Latin America, which were most likely caused by the actions of Argentine, Paraguayan, Chilean, and Brazilian military personnel who tortured and murdered Italian citizens during Latin American military dictatorships. There was a list containing the names of eleven Brazilians accused of murder, kidnapping, and torture, as well as several high-ranking military personnel from other countries involved in the operation.   "(...) I can neither affirm nor deny because Argentine, Brazilian, Paraguayan, and Chilean soldiers [military men] will be subject to criminal trial until December," the Magistrate said on October 26, 2000.   According to the Italian government's official statement, it was unclear whether the government would prosecute the accused military officers or not. As of November 2021, no one in Brazil had been convicted of human rights violations for actions committed during the 21-year military dictatorship because the Amnesty Law had protected both government officials and leftist guerrillas.   In November 1978, the Condor Operation expanded its covert persecution from Uruguay to Brazil, in an incident dubbed "o Sequestro dos Uruguaios," or "the Kidnapping of the Uruguayans." Senior officials of the Uruguayan army crossed the border into Porto Alegre, the capital of the State of Rio Grande do Sul, with the permission of the Brazilian military administration. They kidnapped Universindo Rodriguez and Lilian Celiberti, a political activist couple from Uruguay, as well as her two children, Camilo and Francesca, who are five and three years old.   The unlawful operation failed because an anonymous phone call notified two Brazilian journalists, Veja magazine reporter Luiz Cláudio Cunha and photographer Joo Baptista Scalco, that the Uruguayan couple had been "disappeared." The two journalists traveled to the specified address, a Porto Alegre apartment, to double-check the facts. The armed men who had arrested Celiberti mistook the journalists for other political opposition members when they came, and they were arrested as well. Universindo Rodriguez and the children had already been brought to Uruguay under the table.   The journalists' presence had exposed the secret operation when their identities were revealed. It was put on hold. As news of the political kidnapping of Uruguayan nationals in Brazil made headlines in the Brazilian press, it is thought that the operation's disclosure avoided the death of the couple and their two young children. It became a worldwide embarrassment. Both Brazil's and Uruguay's military governments were humiliated. Officials arranged for the Celibertis' children to be transported to their maternal grandparents in Montevideo a few days later. After being imprisoned and tortured in Brazil, Rodriguez and Celiberti were transferred to Uruguayan military cells and held there for the next five years. The couple were released after Uruguay's democracy was restored in 1984. They confirmed every element of their kidnapping that had previously been reported.   In 1980, two DOPS (Department of Political and Social Order, an official police unit in charge of political repression during the military administration) inspectors were found guilty of arresting the journalists in Lilian's apartment in Porto Alegre by Brazilian courts. Joo Augusto da Rosa and Orandir Portassi Lucas were their names. They had been identified as participants in the kidnapping by the media and Uruguayans. This occurrence confirmed the Brazilian government's active involvement in the Condor Operation. Governor Pedro Simon arranged for the state of Rio Grande do Sul to legally recognize the Uruguayans' kidnapping and compensate them financially in 1991. A year later, President Luis Alberto Lacalle's democratic government in Uruguay was encouraged to do the same.   The Uruguayan couple identified Pedro Seelig, the head of the DOPS at the time of the kidnapping, as the guy in charge of the operation in Porto Alegre. Universindo and Llian remained in prison in Uruguay and were unable to testify when Seelig was on trial in Brazil. Due to a lack of proof, the Brazilian cop was acquitted. Later testimony from Lilian and Universindo revealed that four officers from Uruguay's secret Counter-Information Division – two majors and two captains – took part in the operation with the permission of Brazilian authorities. In the DOPS headquarters in Porto Alegre, Captain Glauco Yanonne was personally responsible for torturing Universindo Rodriquez. Universindo and Lilian were able to identify the Uruguayan military men who had arrested and tortured them, but none of them were prosecuted in Montevideo. Uruguayan individuals who committed acts of political repression and human rights violations under the dictatorship were granted pardon under the Law of Immunity, which was approved in 1986. Cunha and Scalco were given the 1979 Esso Prize, considered the most significant prize in Brazilian journalism, for their investigative journalism on the case.  Hugo Cores, a former political prisoner from Uruguay, was the one who had warned Cunha. He told the Brazilian press in 1993: All the Uruguayans kidnapped abroad, around 180 people, are missing to this day. The only ones who managed to survive are Lilian, her children, and Universindo.   Joo "Jango" Goulart was the first Brazilian president to die in exile after being deposed. On December 6, 1976, he died in his sleep in Mercedes, Argentina, of a suspected heart attack. The true cause of his death was never determined because an autopsy was never performed. On April 26, 2000, Leonel Brizola, Jango's brother-in-law and former governor of Rio de Janeiro and Rio Grande do Sul, claimed that ex-presidents Joo Goulart and Juscelino Kubitschek (who died in a vehicle accident) were assassinated as part of Operation Condor. He demanded that an investigation into their deaths be launched. On January 27, 2008, the newspaper Folha de S.Paulo published a report featuring a declaration from Mario Neira Barreiro, a former member of Uruguay's dictatorship's intelligence service. Barreiro confirmed Brizola's claims that Goulart had been poisoned. Sérgio Paranhos Fleury, the head of the Departamento de Ordem Poltica e Social (Department of Political and Social Order), gave the order to assassinate Goulart, according to Barreiro, and president Ernesto Geisel gave the permission to execute him. A special panel of the Rio Grande do Sul Legislative Assembly concluded in July 2008 that "the evidence that Jango was wilfully slain, with knowledge of the Geisel regime, is strong."   The magazine CartaCapital published previously unreleased National Information Service records generated by an undercover agent who was present at Jango's Uruguayan homes in March 2009. This new information backs up the idea that the former president was poisoned. The Goulart family has yet to figure out who the "B Agent," as he's referred to in the documents, might be. The agent was a close friend of Jango's, and he detailed a disagreement between the former president and his son during the former president's 56th birthday party, which was sparked by a brawl between two employees. As a result of the story, the Chamber of Deputies' Human Rights Commission agreed to look into Jango's death.   Later, Maria Teresa Fontela Goulart, Jango's widow, was interviewed by CartaCapital, who revealed records from the Uruguayan government confirming her accusations that her family had been tracked. Jango's travel, business, and political activities were all being watched by the Uruguayan government. These data date from 1965, a year after Brazil's coup, and they indicate that he may have been targeted. The President Joo Goulart Institute and the Movement for Justice and Human Rights have requested a document from the Uruguayan Interior Ministry stating that "serious and credible Brazilian sources'' discussed an "alleged plan against the former Brazilian president."   If you thought it wasn't enough, let's talk about Chile. No not the warm stew lie concoction you make to scorn your buddy's stomach, but the country.   Additional information about Condor was released when Augusto Pinochet was detained in London in 1998 in response to Spanish magistrate Baltasar Garzón's request for his extradition to Spain. According to one of the lawyers requesting his extradition, Carlos Altamirano, the leader of the Chilean Socialist Party, was the target of an assassination attempt. He said that after Franco's funeral in Madrid in 1975, Pinochet contacted Italian neofascist terrorist Stefano Delle Chiaie and arranged for Altamirano's murder. The strategy didn't work out. Since the bodies of victims kidnapped and presumably murdered could not be found, Chilean judge Juan Guzmán Tapia established a precedent concerning the crime of "permanent kidnapping": he determined that the kidnapping was thought to be ongoing, rather than having occurred so long ago that the perpetrators were protected by an amnesty decreed in 1978 or the Chilean statute of limitations. The Chilean government admitted in November 2015 that Pablo Neruda may have been murdered by members of Pinochet's administration.   Assassinations   On September 30, 1974, a car bomb killed General Carlos Prats and his wife, Sofa Cuthbert, in Buenos Aires, where they were living in exile. The Chilean DINA has been charged with the crime. In January 2005, Chilean Judge Alejandro Sols ended Pinochet's case when the Chilean Supreme Court denied his request to strip Pinochet's immunity from prosecution (as chief of state). In Chile, the assassination of DINA commanders Manuel Contreras, ex-chief of operations and retired general Ral Itturiaga Neuman, his brother Roger Itturiaga, and ex-brigadiers Pedro Espinoza Bravo and José Zara was accused. In Argentina, DINA agent Enrique Arancibia Clavel was found guilty of the murder.   After moving in exile in Italy, Bernardo Leighton and his wife were severely injured in a botched assassination attempt on October 6, 1975. Bernardo Leighton was critically injured in the gun attack, and his wife, Anita Fresno, was permanently crippled. Stefano Delle Chiaie met with Michael Townley and Virgilio Paz Romero in Madrid in 1975 to plan the murder of Bernardo Leighton with the help of Franco's secret police, according to declassified documents in the National Security Archive and Italian attorney general Giovanni Salvi, who led the prosecution of former DINA head Manuel Contreras. Glyn T. Davies, the secretary of the National Security Council (NSC), said in 1999 that declassified records indicated Pinochet's government's responsibility for the failed assassination attempt on Bernardo Leighton, Orlando Letelier, and General Carlos Prats on October 6, 1975.   In a December 2004 OpEd piece in the Los Angeles Times, Francisco Letelier, Orlando Letelier's son, claimed that his father's killing was part of Operation Condor, which he described as "an intelligence-sharing network employed by six South American tyrants of the time to eliminate dissidents."   Letelier's death, according to Michael Townley, was caused by Pinochet. Townley admitted to hiring five anti-Castro Cuban exiles to set up a booby-trap in Letelier's automobile. Following consultations with the terrorist organization CORU's leadership, including Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, Cuban-Americans José Dionisio Suárez, Virgilio Paz Romero, Alvin Ross Daz, and brothers Guillermo and Ignacio Novo Sampoll were chosen to carry out the murder, according to Jean-Guy Allard. The Miami Herald reports that Luis Posada Carriles was there at the conference that decided on Letelier's death as well as the bombing of Cubana Flight 455.   During a public protest against Pinochet in July 1986, photographer Rodrigo Rojas DeNegri was burned alive and Carmen Gloria Quintana received significant burns. The case of the two became known as Caso Quemados ("The Burned Case"), and it drew attention in the United States because Rojas had fled to the United States following the 1973 coup. [96] According to a document from the US State Department, the Chilean army set fire to both Rojas and Quintana on purpose. Rojas and Quintana, on the other hand, were accused by Pinochet of being terrorists who lit themselves on fire with their own Molotov cocktails. Pinochet's reaction to the attack and killing of Rojas, according to National Security Archive analyst Peter Kornbluh, was "contributed to Reagan's decision to withdraw support for the regime and press for a return to civilian rule."   Operación Silencio   Operación Silencio (Operation Silence) was a Chilean operation that removed witnesses from the country in order to obstruct investigations by Chilean judges. It began about a year before the "terror archives" in Paraguay were discovered. Arturo Sanhueza Ross, the man accused of assassinating MIR leader Jecar Neghme in 1989, departed the country in April 1991.    According to the Rettig Report, Chilean intelligence officers were responsible for Jecar Neghme's killing. Carlos Herrera Jiménez, the man who assassinated trade unionist Tucapel Jiménez, flew out in September 1991. Eugenio Berros, a chemist who had cooperated with DINA agent Michael Townley, was led by Operation Condor agents from Chile to Uruguay in October 1991 in order to avoid testifying in the Letelier case. He used passports from Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Brazil, prompting suspicions that Operation Condor was still active. In 1995, Berros was discovered dead in El Pinar, Uruguay, near Montevideo. His corpse had been mangled to the point where it was hard to identify him by sight.   Michael Townley, who is now under witness protection in the United States, recognized linkages between Chile, DINA, and the incarceration and torture camp Colonia Dignidad in January 2005. The facility was founded in 1961 by Paul Schäfer, who was arrested and convicted of child rape in Buenos Aires in March 2005. Interpol was notified about Colonia Dignidad and the Army's Bacteriological Warfare Laboratory by Townley. This lab would have taken the place of the previous DINA lab on Via Naranja de lo Curro, where Townley collaborated with chemical assassin Eugenio Berros. According to the court reviewing the case, the toxin that allegedly murdered Christian-Democrat Eduardo Frei Montalva could have been created at this new lab in Colonia Dignidad. Dossiê Jango, a Brazilian-Uruguayan-Argentine collaboration film released in 2013, accused the same lab in the alleged poisoning of Brazil's deposed president, Joo Goulart.   Congressman Koch   The Condor Years: How Pinochet and His Allies Brought Terrorism to Three Continents was released in February 2004 by reporter John Dinges. He reported that in mid-1976, Uruguayan military officers threatened to assassinate United States Congressman Edward Koch (later Mayor of New York City). The CIA station commander in Montevideo had received information about it in late July 1976. He advised the Agency to take no action after finding that the men were inebriated at the time. Colonel José Fons, who was present at the November 1975 covert meeting in Santiago, Chile, and Major José Nino Gavazzo, who led a team of intelligence agents working in Argentina in 1976 and was responsible for the deaths of over 100 Uruguayans, were among the Uruguayan officers.   Koch told Dinges in the early twenty-first century that CIA Director George H. W. Bush informed him in October 1976 that "his sponsorship of legislation to cut off US military assistance to Uruguay on human rights concerns had prompted secret police officers to 'put a contract out for you'." Koch wrote to the Justice Department in mid-October 1976, requesting FBI protection, but he received none. It had been more than two months after the meeting and the assassination of Orlando Letelier in Washington. Colonel Fons and Major Gavazzo were sent to important diplomatic postings in Washington, D.C. in late 1976. The State Department ordered the Uruguayan government to rescind their appointments, citing the possibility of "unpleasant publicity" for "Fons and Gavazzo."  Only in 2001 did Koch learn of the links between the threats and the position appointments.   Paraguay The US supported Alfredo Stroessner's anti-communist military dictatorship and played a "vital supporting role" in Stroessner's Paraguay's domestic affairs. As part of Operation Condor, for example, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Thierry of the United States Army was deployed to assist local workers in the construction of "La Technica," a detention and interrogation center. La Technica was also renowned as a torture facility. Pastor Coronel, Stroessner's secret police, washed their victims in human vomit and excrement tubs and shocked them in the rectum with electric cattle prods. They decapitated Miguel Angel Soler [es], the Communist party secretary, with a chainsaw while Stroessner listened on the phone. Stroessner asked that tapes of inmates wailing in agony be presented to their relatives.   Harry Shlaudeman defined Paraguay's militarized state as a "nineteenth-century military administration that looks nice on the cartoon page" in a report to Kissinger. Shlaudeman's assessments were paternalistic, but he was correct in observing that Paraguay's "backwardness" was causing it to follow in the footsteps of its neighbors. Many decolonized countries regarded national security concerns in terms of neighboring countries and long-standing ethnic or regional feuds, but the United States viewed conflict from a global and ideological viewpoint. During the Chaco War, Shlaudeman mentions Paraguay's amazing fortitude in the face of greater military force from its neighbors. The government of Paraguay believes that the country's victory over its neighbors over several decades justifies the country's lack of progress. The paper goes on to say that Paraguay's political traditions were far from democratic. Because of this reality, as well as a fear of leftist protest in neighboring countries, the government has prioritized the containment of political opposition over the growth of its economic and political institutions. They were driven to defend their sovereignty due to an ideological fear of their neighbors. As a result, many officials were inspired to act in the interest of security by the fight against radical, communist movements both within and beyond the country. The book Opération Condor, written by French writer Pablo Daniel Magee and prefaced by Costa Gavras, was published in 2020. The story chronicles the life of Martin Almada, a Paraguayan who was a victim of the Condor Operation.   The Peruvian Case   After being kidnapped in 1978, Peruvian legislator Javier Diez Canseco announced that he and twelve other compatriots (Justiniano Apaza Ordóñez, Hugo Blanco, Genaro Ledesma Izquieta, Valentín Pacho, Ricardo Letts, César Lévano, Ricardo Napurí, José Luis Alvarado Bravo, Alfonso Baella Tuesta, Guillermo Faura Gaig, José Arce Larco and Humberto Damonte). All opponents of Francisco Morales Bermudez's dictatorship were exiled and handed over to the Argentine armed forces in Jujuy in 1978 after being kidnapped in Peru. He also claimed that declassified CIA documents and WikiLeaks cable information account for the Morales Bermudez government's ties to Operation Condor.   Uruguay   Juan Mara Bordaberry declared himself dictator and banned the rest of the political parties, as was customary in the Southern Cone dictatorships of the 1970s. In the alleged defense against subversion, a large number of people were murdered, tortured, unjustly detained and imprisoned, kidnapped, and forced into disappearance during the de facto administration, which lasted from 1973 until 1985. Prior to the coup d'état in 1973, the CIA served as a consultant to the country's law enforcement institutions. Dan Mitrione, perhaps the most well-known example of such cooperation, had taught civilian police in counterinsurgency at the School of the Americas in Panama, afterwards renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.   Maybe now we can talk about the U.S involvement? The U.S never gets involved in anything so this might be new to some of you.   According to US paperwork, the US supplied critical organizational, financial, and technological help to the operation far into the 1980s. The long-term hazards of a right-wing bloc, as well as its early policy recommendations, were discussed in a US Department of State briefing for Henry Kissinger, then Secretary of State, dated 3 August 1976, prepared by Harry Shlaudeman and titled "Third World War and South America." The briefing was an overview of security forces in the Southern Cone. The operation was described as a joint effort by six Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay) to win the "Third World War" by eliminating "subversion" through transnational secret intelligence operations, kidnapping, torture, disappearance, and assassination. The research begins by examining the sense of unity shared by the six countries of the Southern Cone. Kissinger is warned by Shlaudeman that the "Third World War" will trap those six countries in an ambiguous position in the long run, because they are trapped on one side by "international Marxism and its terrorist exponents," and on the other by "the hostility of uncomprehending industrial democracies misled by Marxist propaganda." According to the report, US policy toward Operation Condor should “emphasize the differences between the five countries at all times, depoliticize human rights, oppose rhetorical exaggerations of the ‘Third-World-War' type, and bring potential bloc members back into our cognitive universe through systematic exchanges.” According to CIA papers from 1976, strategies to deal with political dissidents in South America were planned among international security officials at the US Army School of the Americas and the Conference of American Armies from 1960 to the early 1970s. "In early 1974, security officials from Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia convened in Buenos Aires to arrange synchronized attacks against subversive targets," according to a declassified CIA memo dated June 23, 1976. Officials in the United States were aware of the situation.   Furthermore, the Defense Intelligence Agency revealed in September 1976 that US intelligence services were well aware of Operation Condor's architecture and intentions. They discovered that "Operation Condor" was the covert name for gathering intelligence on "leftists," Communists, Peronists, or Marxists in the Southern Cone Area. The intelligence services were aware that the operation was being coordinated by the intelligence agencies of numerous South American nations (including Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia), with Chile serving as the hub. Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile, according to the DIA, were already aggressively pursuing operations against communist targets, primarily in Argentina.   The report's third point reveals the US comprehension of Operation Condor's most malevolent actions. "The development of special teams from member countries to execute out operations, including killings against terrorists or sympathizers of terrorist groups," according to the paper. Although these special teams were intelligence agency operatives rather than military troops, they did work in structures similar to those used by US special forces teams, according to the study. Operation Condor's preparations to undertake probable operations in France and Portugal were revealed in Kissinger's State Department briefing - an issue that would later prove to be immensely contentious in Condor's history.   Condor's core was formed by the US government's sponsorship and collaboration with DINA (Directorate of National Intelligence) and other intelligence agencies. According to CIA papers, the agency maintained intimate ties with officers of Chile's secret police, DINA, and its leader Manuel Contreras.  Even after his role in the Letelier-Moffit killing was discovered, Contreras was kept as a paid CIA contact until 1977. Official requests to trace suspects to and from the US Embassy, the CIA, and the FBI may be found in the Paraguayan Archives. The military states received suspect lists and other intelligence material from the CIA. In 1975, the FBI conducted a nationwide hunt in the United States for persons sought by DINA.   In a February 1976 telegram from the Buenos Aires embassy to the State Department, intelligence said that the US was aware of the impending Argentinian coup. According to the ambassador, the Chief of the Foreign Ministry's North American desk revealed that the "Military Planning Group" had asked him to prepare a report and recommendations on how the "future military government can avoid or minimize the sort of problems the Chilean and Uruguayan governments are having with the US over human rights issues." The Chief also indicated that "they" (whether he is talking to the CIA or Argentina's future military dictatorship, or both) will confront opposition if they start assassinating and killing people. Assuming this is so, the envoy notes that the military coup will "intend to carry forward an all-out war on the terrorists and that some executions would therefore probably be necessary." Despite already being engaged in the region's politics, this indicates that the US was aware of the planning of human rights breaches before they occurred and did not intervene to prevent them. "It is encouraging to note that the Argentine military are aware of the problem and are already focusing on ways to avoid letting human rights issues become an irritant in US-Argentine Relations." This is confirmation.   Professor Ruth Blakeley says that Kissinger "explicitly expressed his support for the repression of political opponents" in regards to the Argentine junta's continuous human rights violations.  When Henry Kissinger met with Argentina's Foreign Minister on October 5, 1976, he said, ” Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed the better ... The human rights problem is a growing one. Your Ambassador can apprise you. We want a stable situation. We won't cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help.”   The démarche was never provided in the end. According to Kornbluh and Dinges, the decision not to deliver Kissinger's directive was based on Assistant Secretary Harry Shlaudeman's letter to his deputy in Washington, D.C., which stated: "you can simply instruct the Ambassadors to take no further action, noting that there have been no reports in some weeks indicating an intention to activate the Condor scheme."   President Bill Clinton ordered the State Department to release hundreds of declassified papers in June 1999, indicating for the first time that the CIA, State, and Defense Departments were all aware of Condor. According to a 1 October 1976 DOD intelligence assessment, Latin American military commanders gloat about it to their American colleagues. Condor's "joint counterinsurgency operations" sought to "eliminate Marxist terrorist activities," according to the same study; Argentina developed a special Condor force "structured much like a US Special Forces Team," it said. According to a summary of documents disclosed in 2004, The declassified record shows that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was briefed on Condor and its "murder operations" on August 5, 1976, in a 14-page report from [Harry] Shlaudeman [Assistant Secretary of State]. "Internationally, the Latin generals look like our guys," Shlaudeman cautioned. "We are especially identified with Chile. It cannot do us any good." Shlaudeman and his two deputies, William Luers and Hewson Ryan, recommended action. Over the course of three weeks, they drafted a cautiously worded demarche, approved by Kissinger, in which he instructed the U.S. ambassadors in the Southern Cone countries to meet with the respective heads of state about Condor. He instructed them to express "our deep concern" about "rumors" of "plans for the assassination of subversives, politicians and prominent figures both within the national borders of certain Southern Cone countries and abroad."   Kornbluh and Dinges come to the conclusion that "The paper trail is clear: the State Department and the CIA had enough intelligence to take concrete steps to thwart the Condor assassination planning. Those steps were initiated but never implemented." Hewson Ryan, Shlaudeman's deputy, subsequently admitted in an oral history interview that the State Department's treatment of the issue was "remiss." "We knew fairly early on that the governments of the Southern Cone countries were planning, or at least talking about, some assassinations abroad in the summer of 1976. ... Whether if we had gone in, we might have prevented this, I don't know", In relation to the Letelier-Moffitt bombing, he remarked, "But we didn't."   Condor was defined as a "counter-terrorism organization" in a CIA document, which also mentioned that the Condor countries had a specific telecommunications system known as "CONDORTEL."  The New York Times released a communication from US Ambassador to Paraguay Robert White to Secretary of State Cyrus Vance on March 6, 2001. The paper was declassified and disseminated by the Clinton administration in November 2000 as part of the Chile Declassification Project. General Alejandro Fretes Davalos, the chief of staff of Paraguay's armed forces, told White that the South American intelligence chiefs engaged in Condor "kept in touch with one another through a United States communications installation in the Panama Canal Zone that covered all of Latin America."   According to reports, Davalos stated that the station was "employed to coordinate intelligence information among the southern cone countries". The US was concerned that the Condor link would be made public at a time when the killing of Chilean former minister Orlando Letelier and his American aide Ronni Moffitt in the United States was being probed."it would seem advisable to review this arrangement to insure that its continuation is in US interest." White wrote to Vance. "Another piece of increasingly weighty evidence suggesting that U.S. military and intelligence officials supported and collaborated with Condor as a secret partner or sponsor." McSherry rebutted the cables. Furthermore, an Argentine military source told a U.S. Embassy contact that the CIA was aware of Condor and had played a vital role in establishing computerized linkages among the six Condor governments' intelligence and operations sections.   After all this it doesn't stop here. We even see France having a connection. The original document confirming that a 1959 agreement between Paris and Buenos Aires set up a "permanent French military mission" of officers to Argentina who had participated in the Algerian War was discovered in the archives of the Quai d'Orsay, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was kept at the offices of the Argentine Army's chief of staff. It lasted until 1981, when François Mitterrand was elected President of France. She revealed how the administration of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing secretly coordinated with Videla's junta in Argentina and Augusto Pinochet's tyranny in Chile.   Even Britain and West Germany looked into using the tactics in their own countries. Going so far as to send their open personnel to Buenos Aires to discuss how to establish a similar network.  MOVIES   https://www.imdb.com/search/keyword/?keywords=military-coup&sort=num_votes,desc&mode=detail&page=1&title_type=movie&ref_=kw_ref_typ https://islandora.wrlc.org/islandora/object/terror%3Aroot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_of_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20774985 https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB239d/index.htm

It’s a rainy night in mid-May, and around 50 young adults are squeezed into a small classroom in the Casa Fusa health clinic in Buenos Aires, Argentina. In breakout groups, they polish their presentations — about safe sex.Some have Power Point presentations lined up while others offer up demonstrations, games and skits. They show how to use a condom, for both men and women, and talk about things like consent and preventing HPV and HIV.That may not sound too unusual, but in Argentina, sexual education is a controversial topic. Many schools here don't even broach the subject even though comprehensive sex education has been mandated by law since 2006. The curriculum, known as ESI (Educación Sexual Integral or Comprehensive Sex Ed), is designed to teach children across the country about contraception, consent and how to be more inclusive of LGBTQ rights and sexuality. But critics say many schools and provinces don’t offer it in a consistent way.Related: Argentina is divided over abortion — even the feministsToday, the issue is getting plenty of attention because of the push to decriminalize abortion. Abortion rights activists inserted a clause into the abortion bill, which they reintroduced to Argentine Congress in May that says ESI must be taught in schools, reinforcing the existing law. Amid the abortion debate, both sides have agreed that the best way to prevent abortion is by providing sex education. Mariela Belski is the executive director of Amnesty International in Argentina. Amnesty is one of the groups being consulted by the government on enforcing the sexual education curriculum in schools nationwide. Belski said that during the abortion debate, people on both sides agreed that teaching sex education is the best way to prevent abortions.  Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World Mariela Belski, executive director of Amnesty International in Argentina, remembers how interesting it was to see both sides come together and agree on fully implementing the sexual education curriculum in schools nationwide. But after an earlier version of the abortion bill was defeated last year, and abortion remained criminalized, with the exception of a few cases, this alliance fell apart.“They changed on this,” Belski said, referring to anti-abortion activists. “And they said, ‘We don't need to have this law in the schools.’ [They claimed that it] provokes children to have more sex, and [that] this brings in gender ideology.”Related: ‘Maternity jail’: Women in Argentina and the US find ways around restrictive abortion lawsAmnesty International is a consultant for the government in helping to enforce the law. They want to make sure it’s carried out all over the country — not just Buenos Aires. Places like Tucumán and San Salvador de Jujuy. Both cities were in the news earlier this year for separate, but similar cases: two girls, ages 11 and 12, respectively, each got pregnant after they were raped by a family member.  Students at Casa Fusa, a health clinic in Buenos Aires, Argentina, put in their own time to be here after the regular school day. They're trying to be proactive about their own sexual education.  Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World Belski says that in addition to finding ways to enforce the law around sexual education, they are focused on collecting data, too — like, about how many girls get pregnant along with their ages and socio-economic status. That will help Amnesty International and others monitor the problem and make their case for comprehensive sexual education.“The main goal of the program is to try to avoid adolescent pregnancies,” Belski said.The students at Casa Fusa are motivated to learn on their own time. In fact, many come here after the school day is over and still have homework to do when they get home. Most arrive from neighborhoods close to the clinic and usually find out about it through word-of-mouth. The free, two-hour class happens on Monday evenings for five weeks. It goes for two hours each time. Daniela Giacomazzo is one of the coordinators at Casa Fusa. She leads a class on sex education for young people ages 15-24. She says there is a lot of fear about the sex education curriculum in Argentina. Religious groups, she says, are falsely claiming that the curriculum promotes homosexuality.  Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World “Knowledge is power,” Casa Fusa instructor Daniela Giacomazzo said to the roomful of students. Yes, she says, the class is about teaching people about their bodies, but it’s also about feeling empowered to ask questions of adults.“The fact that many young people are searching for a class like this shows how desperate the situation is regarding sex education in Argentina.” Daniela Giacomazzo, Casa Fusa instructorIt’s meeting a crucial need, Giacomazzo told The World: “The fact that many young people are searching for a class like this shows how desperate the situation is regarding sex education in Argentina.” And here at Casa Fusa, this isn't your typical sex ed class. During the five-week course, students also learn about gender violence, abortion and sexual diversity and inclusion. Afterward, many of them will go on to do peer-to-peer teaching about sex education.Like Laura Moses, 19, who arrived at Casa Fusa because, she says, sex education at school was sorely lacking. She works at a political organization and wants to lead similar classes in her community, but she realized she just had a basic knowledge. She came across the Casa Fusa class on the internet. Laura Moses wanted to take the class at Casa Fusa because she belongs to a political organization that wants to be able to teach about sexual education in the community. She said what she learned in school was totally inadequate and “crappy.”  Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World Back in school, “We had a class of one hour, and they taught us about feminine hygiene and how to use a condom,” she complained. “They also separated the boys from the girls.”The more she’s learned at Casa Fusa, the more she feels shortchanged by the school system.“I thought the class at my school, that was it. And, it had a totally heterosexual focus. When I grew up, I thought, ‘Oh what a crappy class.’”Laura Moses, Casa Fusa student“I thought the class at my school, that was it. And, it had a totally heterosexual focus. When I grew up, I thought, ‘Oh what a crappy class,’” Moses said.For her, the small class size at Casa Fusa, plus the fact it's co-ed, means she can have more exchange and conversation about experiences.Moses feels fortunate that she can take this class, but knows that many young women and girls like her who live outside of Buenos Aires don’t have the opportunity. Those areas are poorer, she says, and very conservative. She explains that there is a lot of sexual abuse in Argentina — especially among young girls. She says this class is important for them to have the tools to advocate for themselves.At Casa Fusa, students talk openly and ask questions about how you contract HPV, which can lead to cervical cancer, and HIV and AIDS, as well as knowing your rights at the doctor’s office. “I think it’s important because it’s not only about how to have safe sex, but it’s also about how to have a more inclusive lifestyle. It’s how to teach, how to respect and not violate the rights of other people and how to have a healthier community for all.”Laura Moses, Casa Fusa, student“I think it’s important because it’s not only about how to have safe sex, but it’s also about how to have a more inclusive lifestyle. It’s how to teach, how to respect and not violate the rights of other people and how to have a healthier community for all.”Arianna Ruggero agrees. She went to a private, religious school where she was taught that sex was bad. And, of course, she says, there was nothing about homosexuality or respecting people who identify as LGBTQ or gender nonbinary.“They only taught us about contraception and nothing about pleasure. I’m gay, and there was nothing about your own pleasure and I felt very alone,” said Ruggero, who is studying communications at a local university. Arianna Ruggero is studying communications at a university in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She’s taking a five-week course on sex education at Casa Fusa because she wants to have more open dialogue about sexuality and LGBTQ rights.  Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World That ESI includes LGBTQ sexuality is a big issue for religious and conservative groups, and they have been outspoken against it.  Late last year, the hashtag #conmishijosnotemetas, which translates to “don’t mess with my kids,” started circulating among parents and conservative activists in Argentina.A recent Facebook post from the group with the same name, Con Mis Hijos No Te Metas, featured a video advertising a planned demonstration in front of the Ministry of Education. Parents looked into the camera saying things like: “The schools will teach our children about so-called sexual and reproductive rights, encouraging them to have sex at a young age without taking into account our opinion, their parents and grandparents.”Some have complained that the law teaches kids to have sex and masturbate. Giacomazzo from Casa Fusa complains that those attacks are basically “fake news.”“There is also a regional attack on comprehensive sex education, with campaigns like Con Mis Hijos No Te Metas, which is related to an advancing conservatism in the region,” Giacomazzo said. “It creates a lot of fear in families ... because they [the attacks] disseminate a lot of fake news, also fake news about the content of the comprehensive sex education curriculum, and also by educational institutions, which are afraid to teach it even though it's the law.”The organization Defensores de Mamás or Defenders of Moms, says yes, sex education is needed. They acknowledge that women they talk with need information to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But, they don’t necessarily think this law is doing it.Guadalupe Batallán, who works with Defensores de Mamás, criticizes the law, which she says is about teaching kids about masturbation and making it OK for kids to have sex.“We believe that this curriculum makes kids more vulnerable to sexual abuse. We think it promotes masturbation and it's harmful.” Guadalupe Batallán, Defensores de Mamás“We believe that this curriculum makes kids more vulnerable to sexual abuse. We think it promotes masturbation and it's harmful,” Batallán said.Casa Fusa's Giacomazzo says that not teaching sex education can be harmful. It's also important that it's geared for all ages, Giacomazzo adds. The data, she says, backs that up: A 2016 Ministry of Health report says that “many pregnancies that occur in teenagers under 15, and in particular under 13, are a product of sexual violence.”“As you know, we have a lot of sexual abuse among minors. So, this curriculum makes them aware of what is a good touch and what is a bad touch from an adult,” she said. Enrique Stola has been a psychologist for 40 years. He believes that sexual abuse of minors could be deterred if sex education were widely embraced by Argentina’s school system.  Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World Psychologist Enrique Stola agrees. He’s been practicing for almost 40 years as a family and adolescent psychologist and has seen dozens of abuse cases during his practice. He says the one way to combat this problem is through education.“The way is the ESI. Of course, there is a lot of resistance and reluctance from the Catholic Church and the pope. They say it destroys the paradigm of the family.”He cited the recent cases of the two young girls in San Salvador de Jujuy and Tucumán as prime examples of why the ESI is needed.“Whenever kids have those words, they know who to ask for help. … But if no one tells them what their body is, what their rights are, how adults should behave with their bodies, then they are totally defenseless against any sexual abuser.”Funding for this reporting was provided by the International Women's Media Foundation.

It's a rainy night in mid-May, and around 50 young adults are squeezed into a small classroom in the Casa Fusa health clinic in Buenos Aires, Argentina. In breakout groups, they polish their presentations — about safe sex.Some have Power Point presentations lined up while others offer up demonstrations, games and skits. They show how to use a condom, for both men and women, and talk about things like consent and preventing HPV and HIV.That may not sound too unusual, but in Argentina, sexual education is a controversial topic. Many schools here don't even broach the subject even though comprehensive sex education has been mandated by law since 2006. The curriculum, known as ESI (Educación Sexual Integral or Comprehensive Sex Ed), is designed to teach children across the country about contraception, consent and how to be more inclusive of LGBTQ rights and sexuality. But critics say many schools and provinces don't offer it in a consistent way.Related: Argentina is divided over abortion — even the feministsToday, the issue is getting plenty of attention because of the push to decriminalize abortion. Abortion rights activists inserted a clause into the abortion bill, which they reintroduced to Argentine Congress in May that says ESI must be taught in schools, reinforcing the existing law. Amid the abortion debate, both sides have agreed that the best way to prevent abortion is by providing sex education. Mariela Belski is the executive director of Amnesty International in Argentina. Amnesty is one of the groups being consulted by the government on enforcing the sexual education curriculum in schools nationwide. Belski said that during the abortion debate, people on both sides agreed that teaching sex education is the best way to prevent abortions.  Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World Mariela Belski, executive director of Amnesty International in Argentina, remembers how interesting it was to see both sides come together and agree on fully implementing the sexual education curriculum in schools nationwide. But after an earlier version of the abortion bill was defeated last year, and abortion remained criminalized, with the exception of a few cases, this alliance fell apart.“They changed on this,” Belski said, referring to anti-abortion activists. “And they said, ‘We don't need to have this law in the schools.' [They claimed that it] provokes children to have more sex, and [that] this brings in gender ideology.”Related: ‘Maternity jail': Women in Argentina and the US find ways around restrictive abortion lawsAmnesty International is a consultant for the government in helping to enforce the law. They want to make sure it's carried out all over the country — not just Buenos Aires. Places like Tucumán and San Salvador de Jujuy. Both cities were in the news earlier this year for separate, but similar cases: two girls, ages 11 and 12, respectively, each got pregnant after they were raped by a family member.  Students at Casa Fusa, a health clinic in Buenos Aires, Argentina, put in their own time to be here after the regular school day. They're trying to be proactive about their own sexual education.  Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World Belski says that in addition to finding ways to enforce the law around sexual education, they are focused on collecting data, too — like, about how many girls get pregnant along with their ages and socio-economic status. That will help Amnesty International and others monitor the problem and make their case for comprehensive sexual education.“The main goal of the program is to try to avoid adolescent pregnancies,” Belski said.The students at Casa Fusa are motivated to learn on their own time. In fact, many come here after the school day is over and still have homework to do when they get home. Most arrive from neighborhoods close to the clinic and usually find out about it through word-of-mouth. The free, two-hour class happens on Monday evenings for five weeks. It goes for two hours each time. Daniela Giacomazzo is one of the coordinators at Casa Fusa. She leads a class on sex education for young people ages 15-24. She says there is a lot of fear about the sex education curriculum in Argentina. Religious groups, she says, are falsely claiming that the curriculum promotes homosexuality.  Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World “Knowledge is power,” Casa Fusa instructor Daniela Giacomazzo said to the roomful of students. Yes, she says, the class is about teaching people about their bodies, but it's also about feeling empowered to ask questions of adults.“The fact that many young people are searching for a class like this shows how desperate the situation is regarding sex education in Argentina.” Daniela Giacomazzo, Casa Fusa instructorIt's meeting a crucial need, Giacomazzo told The World: “The fact that many young people are searching for a class like this shows how desperate the situation is regarding sex education in Argentina.” And here at Casa Fusa, this isn't your typical sex ed class. During the five-week course, students also learn about gender violence, abortion and sexual diversity and inclusion. Afterward, many of them will go on to do peer-to-peer teaching about sex education.Like Laura Moses, 19, who arrived at Casa Fusa because, she says, sex education at school was sorely lacking. She works at a political organization and wants to lead similar classes in her community, but she realized she just had a basic knowledge. She came across the Casa Fusa class on the internet. Laura Moses wanted to take the class at Casa Fusa because she belongs to a political organization that wants to be able to teach about sexual education in the community. She said what she learned in school was totally inadequate and “crappy.”  Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World Back in school, “We had a class of one hour, and they taught us about feminine hygiene and how to use a condom,” she complained. “They also separated the boys from the girls.”The more she's learned at Casa Fusa, the more she feels shortchanged by the school system.“I thought the class at my school, that was it. And, it had a totally heterosexual focus. When I grew up, I thought, ‘Oh what a crappy class.'”Laura Moses, Casa Fusa student“I thought the class at my school, that was it. And, it had a totally heterosexual focus. When I grew up, I thought, ‘Oh what a crappy class,'” Moses said.For her, the small class size at Casa Fusa, plus the fact it's co-ed, means she can have more exchange and conversation about experiences.Moses feels fortunate that she can take this class, but knows that many young women and girls like her who live outside of Buenos Aires don't have the opportunity. Those areas are poorer, she says, and very conservative. She explains that there is a lot of sexual abuse in Argentina — especially among young girls. She says this class is important for them to have the tools to advocate for themselves.At Casa Fusa, students talk openly and ask questions about how you contract HPV, which can lead to cervical cancer, and HIV and AIDS, as well as knowing your rights at the doctor's office. “I think it's important because it's not only about how to have safe sex, but it's also about how to have a more inclusive lifestyle. It's how to teach, how to respect and not violate the rights of other people and how to have a healthier community for all.”Laura Moses, Casa Fusa, student“I think it's important because it's not only about how to have safe sex, but it's also about how to have a more inclusive lifestyle. It's how to teach, how to respect and not violate the rights of other people and how to have a healthier community for all.”Arianna Ruggero agrees. She went to a private, religious school where she was taught that sex was bad. And, of course, she says, there was nothing about homosexuality or respecting people who identify as LGBTQ or gender nonbinary.“They only taught us about contraception and nothing about pleasure. I'm gay, and there was nothing about your own pleasure and I felt very alone,” said Ruggero, who is studying communications at a local university. Arianna Ruggero is studying communications at a university in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She's taking a five-week course on sex education at Casa Fusa because she wants to have more open dialogue about sexuality and LGBTQ rights.  Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World That ESI includes LGBTQ sexuality is a big issue for religious and conservative groups, and they have been outspoken against it.  Late last year, the hashtag #conmishijosnotemetas, which translates to “don't mess with my kids,” started circulating among parents and conservative activists in Argentina.A recent Facebook post from the group with the same name, Con Mis Hijos No Te Metas, featured a video advertising a planned demonstration in front of the Ministry of Education. Parents looked into the camera saying things like: “The schools will teach our children about so-called sexual and reproductive rights, encouraging them to have sex at a young age without taking into account our opinion, their parents and grandparents.”Some have complained that the law teaches kids to have sex and masturbate. Giacomazzo from Casa Fusa complains that those attacks are basically “fake news.”“There is also a regional attack on comprehensive sex education, with campaigns like Con Mis Hijos No Te Metas, which is related to an advancing conservatism in the region,” Giacomazzo said. “It creates a lot of fear in families ... because they [the attacks] disseminate a lot of fake news, also fake news about the content of the comprehensive sex education curriculum, and also by educational institutions, which are afraid to teach it even though it's the law.”The organization Defensores de Mamás or Defenders of Moms, says yes, sex education is needed. They acknowledge that women they talk with need information to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But, they don't necessarily think this law is doing it.Guadalupe Batallán, who works with Defensores de Mamás, criticizes the law, which she says is about teaching kids about masturbation and making it OK for kids to have sex.“We believe that this curriculum makes kids more vulnerable to sexual abuse. We think it promotes masturbation and it's harmful.” Guadalupe Batallán, Defensores de Mamás“We believe that this curriculum makes kids more vulnerable to sexual abuse. We think it promotes masturbation and it's harmful,” Batallán said.Casa Fusa's Giacomazzo says that not teaching sex education can be harmful. It's also important that it's geared for all ages, Giacomazzo adds. The data, she says, backs that up: A 2016 Ministry of Health report says that “many pregnancies that occur in teenagers under 15, and in particular under 13, are a product of sexual violence.”“As you know, we have a lot of sexual abuse among minors. So, this curriculum makes them aware of what is a good touch and what is a bad touch from an adult,” she said. Enrique Stola has been a psychologist for 40 years. He believes that sexual abuse of minors could be deterred if sex education were widely embraced by Argentina's school system.  Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World Psychologist Enrique Stola agrees. He's been practicing for almost 40 years as a family and adolescent psychologist and has seen dozens of abuse cases during his practice. He says the one way to combat this problem is through education.“The way is the ESI. Of course, there is a lot of resistance and reluctance from the Catholic Church and the pope. They say it destroys the paradigm of the family.”He cited the recent cases of the two young girls in San Salvador de Jujuy and Tucumán as prime examples of why the ESI is needed.“Whenever kids have those words, they know who to ask for help. … But if no one tells them what their body is, what their rights are, how adults should behave with their bodies, then they are totally defenseless against any sexual abuser.”Funding for this reporting was provided by the International Women's Media Foundation.

Luciana Angueira, a social worker in Villa Fiorito, a poor neighborhood outside of central Buenos Aires, Argentina, says many of the women she sees are looking to end their pregnancies, but don't want their husbands to know. “That would mean they are being unfaithful — the men are very possessive,” she said. “We have some patients who don’t believe in abortion, but they still come here looking for pills because they don’t want more children.”In Villa Fiorito, families struggle to meet basic needs — many don’t have proper drinking water — and they've run out of room in their houses, says Angueira, who has worked in the clinic here for more than a decade. The Center of Primary Social Health is located in the heart of Villa Fiorito. Many people survive as cartoneros, sorting through trash and selling whatever they’re able to recycle.On a cold, windy, May morning, Angueira explains how there is a big effort to clean up the neighborhood. She points to a park and small field where kids play soccer — the famous player, Diego Maradona, came from here.“This neighborhood is not middle class, and things are very different here. Usually, by the age of 11, girls have boyfriends. By the age of 35, you have several kids and you are expected to be a poor housewife.”Luciana Angueira, social worker, Villa Fiorito“This neighborhood is not middle class, and things are very different here. Usually, by the age of 11, girls have boyfriends. By the age of 35, you have several kids and you are expected to be a poor housewife.” It’s women like her patients, Angueira says, who are often left out of the abortion debate that’s playing out across Argentina. It’s a fight that’s far from over.Abortion has been illegal here since the 1880s. It’s only permitted in cases of rape and incest and when a woman’s life is in danger. That has led many women to seek out abortions under the table: The health minister estimates that there are more than 350,000 clandestine abortions a year in the predominantly Catholic country. And the number may be much higher.But a growing movement in the country to combat violence against women has helped bring abortion to the fore. Angueira thinks that the whole health system in Argentina is misogynistic. Women, she explains in Spanish, are the only ones expected to get birth control and then take care of the kids’ health needs. Every month, she tends to women who need the birth control implant, Mesigynia, which is injected. They get it so their partners won’t know they’re using birth control.There are no “feminist” or “deconstructed men” here, Angueira says.“You cannot talk about feminism in a place like this. You cannot talk about abortion in a place like this. Women here still feel like they belong to a man.”Luciana Angueira, social worker, Villa Fiorito“You cannot talk about feminism in a place like this. You cannot talk about abortion in a place like this. Women here still feel like they belong to a man.”Related: Legal abortions remain elusive in Argentina, especially for the most vulnerableVictoria Tesoriero is the head of a national campaign to make abortion legal in Argentina.She just got back to Buenos Aires from the Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France, where she went to a screening of the documentary, “Que Sea Ley (Let it be Law),” about the fight to legalize abortion in Argentina. She was joined by a dozen other activists who turned out to support the filmmaker, Juan Solanas. Afterward, they walked the red carpet waving their movement's signature green scarves and chanting “solidarity for women.”She says the international attention they received in Cannes makes a difference at home. Tesoriero is part of an organization called Católicos por el Derecho a Decidir, or Catholics for the Right to Decide. In her view, Catholicism and abortion aren’t at odds.Tesoriero says the canonical code allows for Catholics to be in favor of abortion.“I think that has nothing to do [with] the faith that you might have with something that is a right, and it has to do with health care. First of all, there are many documents in the church that allowed our position of supporting [to] be Catholic and support legal abortion,” Tesoriero said.It’s politicians who use the Catholic Church to support their anti-abortion cause, she says.But Catholicism’s influence on everyday Argentines isn’t as strong as it once was, she adds.She says events like the Cannes screening put pressure on politicians and sends the message that women all over the world are paying attention to the issue in Argentina and beyond.Related: Italian cities 'turn back the clock' on women’s reproductive rights“To position the issue of abortion internationally, it [puts] more pressure [on] the Argentinian government,” she said. Victoria Tesoriero is the head of the national campaign to legalize abortion in Argentina. She also belongs to a group called Católicos por el Derecho a Decidir, or Catholics for the Right to Decide. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World After the legislation to decriminalize abortion failed last year, Tesoriero and others kept organizing. On International Day of Action for Women’s Health on May 28, advocates like Tesoriero helped reintroduce another abortion bill in Congress.“The bill says that every woman has the right; every woman or a person with a capacity of gestation has the right to decide to interrupt pregnancy up to 14 weeks of pregnancy. And the state has to ensure that decision. The public health system has to respect that.”Victoria TesoreiroShe says the bill is simple: “The bill says that every woman has the right; every woman or a person with a capacity of gestation has the right to decide to interrupt pregnancy up to 14 weeks of pregnancy. And the state has to ensure that decision. The public health system has to respect that.”The legislation passed in the lower House, but fell short in the Senate.Even though a similar bill failed in the Argentine Senate last summer, it energized a movement to decriminalize abortion. It also mobilized the other side to keep the restrictions firmly in place.Argentinians go to the polls this fall to elect representatives to Congress. Carla Pitiot has been in office since 2015 and uses her voice in Congress to champion causes that affect women. Carla Pitiot has been in office in Argentina since 2015. She helped set up a hotline for victims of domestic violence and rallied around "femininist causes," but she's against abortion. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World On the walls of her office are portraits of Frida Kahlo, a portrait of her hero, Eva Perón, and posters advertising a hotline for victims of domestic violence. She worked to set up the hotline, or consejería, and she’s pushing Congress to give men stiffer penalties when they assault women. But, despite taking up these “feminist causes,” she says, she’s against abortion.“We’ve already decriminalized abortion in the most serious cases. Like when a woman is raped. Some countries don’t even have that.” Carla Pitiot ​​​​​, Argentine Congress“We’ve already decriminalized abortion in the most serious cases. Like when a woman is raped. Some countries don’t even have that,” said Pitiot.During an abortion debate last year, Pitiot tweeted, “Legalizing abortion is a break in our rule of law. We have a constitutional duty to save two lives.”La legalización del aborto es un quiebre en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Tenemos el deber constitucional de salvar las dos vidas, hace instantes en el plenario de comisiones. pic.twitter.com/pH45GkdqJb— Carla Pitiot (@CarlabPitiot) June 5, 2018She thinks a healthy debate is good.“I am in favor of the debate. I thought it was very mature, and I’m convinced that if we were to take a vote today, it would be the same.”Earlier this spring, on International Day of the Unborn Child, anti-abortion activists held a rally of their own.Thousands of people marched against abortion and waving their blue scarves with the slogan of the anti-abortion campaign printed on it: “Las dos vidas,” or “Both lives,” referring to the mother and her unborn child. A blue scarf that is the symbol of the Save Both Lives campaign sits on the back of a chair in Carla Pitiot's office. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World Guadalupe Batallán was one of those marchers. She started volunteering with the anti-abortion campaign right after the debates in Congress in 2018.“We’re really amazed to see our message here in Argentina spreading to other countries, including the US, where I’ve even seen photos of blue scarves like ours at a march. That means there are people there who think like us, regardless of what the laws say there,” she said. Batallán says she thinks abortion should be outlawed in all instances, including rape. And she cites a case that made headlines earlier this year of an 11-year-old rape victim who was initially blocked from getting an abortion.“I personally am not in favor of abortion in the case of rape. Because even if someone has been the victim of a crime, that doesn’t give her the right to commit another crime, by taking another life. Plus, in terms of mental health, the trauma of undergoing an abortion simply makes the original trauma of the assault worse.”Guadalupe Batallán, anti-abortion campaigner“I personally am not in favor of abortion in the case of rape. Because even if someone has been the victim of a crime, that doesn’t give her the right to commit another crime, by taking another life. Plus, in terms of mental health, the trauma of undergoing an abortion simply makes the original trauma of the assault worse.”Batallán has some personal experience recovering from the trauma of rape. Her mother was a rape victim. And although the attack didn’t result in a pregnancy, it was still traumatic.Batallán says her group has set up centers for pregnant women in poor areas outside of the capital where they offer free food and classes. She says they want to provide alternatives for women who think they don’t have any options. Mariela, a gynecologist at the health clinic in Villa Fiorito attends to Támara, a young pregnant patient. At the time of this photo, Támara was due any day. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World But Tesoriero says the rights she’s pushing for would protect all women. Her campaign is also working on the ground to spread the message that abortion is a health care issue and should be available to anyone.She says it seems especially important at a time when a country like the United States might be rolling back legal protections for abortion.“Maybe women in the US thought they would always have access to abortion, so they’ve taken it for granted. But here in Argentina, we are always on the lookout for things that can set us backward,” Tesoriero said. Women in Argentina have to pull together, she says. They can’t afford to look back.Funding for this reporting was provided by the International Women's Media Foundation.

Luciana Angueira, a social worker in Villa Fiorito, a poor neighborhood outside of central Buenos Aires, Argentina, says many of the women she sees are looking to end their pregnancies, but don't want their husbands to know. “That would mean they are being unfaithful — the men are very possessive,” she said. “We have some patients who don't believe in abortion, but they still come here looking for pills because they don't want more children.”In Villa Fiorito, families struggle to meet basic needs — many don't have proper drinking water — and they've run out of room in their houses, says Angueira, who has worked in the clinic here for more than a decade. The Center of Primary Social Health is located in the heart of Villa Fiorito. Many people survive as cartoneros, sorting through trash and selling whatever they're able to recycle.On a cold, windy, May morning, Angueira explains how there is a big effort to clean up the neighborhood. She points to a park and small field where kids play soccer — the famous player, Diego Maradona, came from here.“This neighborhood is not middle class, and things are very different here. Usually, by the age of 11, girls have boyfriends. By the age of 35, you have several kids and you are expected to be a poor housewife.”Luciana Angueira, social worker, Villa Fiorito“This neighborhood is not middle class, and things are very different here. Usually, by the age of 11, girls have boyfriends. By the age of 35, you have several kids and you are expected to be a poor housewife.” It's women like her patients, Angueira says, who are often left out of the abortion debate that's playing out across Argentina. It's a fight that's far from over.Abortion has been illegal here since the 1880s. It's only permitted in cases of rape and incest and when a woman's life is in danger. That has led many women to seek out abortions under the table: The health minister estimates that there are more than 350,000 clandestine abortions a year in the predominantly Catholic country. And the number may be much higher.But a growing movement in the country to combat violence against women has helped bring abortion to the fore. Angueira thinks that the whole health system in Argentina is misogynistic. Women, she explains in Spanish, are the only ones expected to get birth control and then take care of the kids' health needs. Every month, she tends to women who need the birth control implant, Mesigynia, which is injected. They get it so their partners won't know they're using birth control.There are no “feminist” or “deconstructed men” here, Angueira says.“You cannot talk about feminism in a place like this. You cannot talk about abortion in a place like this. Women here still feel like they belong to a man.”Luciana Angueira, social worker, Villa Fiorito“You cannot talk about feminism in a place like this. You cannot talk about abortion in a place like this. Women here still feel like they belong to a man.”Related: Legal abortions remain elusive in Argentina, especially for the most vulnerableVictoria Tesoriero is the head of a national campaign to make abortion legal in Argentina.She just got back to Buenos Aires from the Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France, where she went to a screening of the documentary, “Que Sea Ley (Let it be Law),” about the fight to legalize abortion in Argentina. She was joined by a dozen other activists who turned out to support the filmmaker, Juan Solanas. Afterward, they walked the red carpet waving their movement's signature green scarves and chanting “solidarity for women.”She says the international attention they received in Cannes makes a difference at home. Tesoriero is part of an organization called Católicos por el Derecho a Decidir, or Catholics for the Right to Decide. In her view, Catholicism and abortion aren't at odds.Tesoriero says the canonical code allows for Catholics to be in favor of abortion.“I think that has nothing to do [with] the faith that you might have with something that is a right, and it has to do with health care. First of all, there are many documents in the church that allowed our position of supporting [to] be Catholic and support legal abortion,” Tesoriero said.It's politicians who use the Catholic Church to support their anti-abortion cause, she says.But Catholicism's influence on everyday Argentines isn't as strong as it once was, she adds.She says events like the Cannes screening put pressure on politicians and sends the message that women all over the world are paying attention to the issue in Argentina and beyond.Related: Italian cities 'turn back the clock' on women's reproductive rights“To position the issue of abortion internationally, it [puts] more pressure [on] the Argentinian government,” she said. Victoria Tesoriero is the head of the national campaign to legalize abortion in Argentina. She also belongs to a group called Católicos por el Derecho a Decidir, or Catholics for the Right to Decide. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World After the legislation to decriminalize abortion failed last year, Tesoriero and others kept organizing. On International Day of Action for Women's Health on May 28, advocates like Tesoriero helped reintroduce another abortion bill in Congress.“The bill says that every woman has the right; every woman or a person with a capacity of gestation has the right to decide to interrupt pregnancy up to 14 weeks of pregnancy. And the state has to ensure that decision. The public health system has to respect that.”Victoria TesoreiroShe says the bill is simple: “The bill says that every woman has the right; every woman or a person with a capacity of gestation has the right to decide to interrupt pregnancy up to 14 weeks of pregnancy. And the state has to ensure that decision. The public health system has to respect that.”The legislation passed in the lower House, but fell short in the Senate.Even though a similar bill failed in the Argentine Senate last summer, it energized a movement to decriminalize abortion. It also mobilized the other side to keep the restrictions firmly in place.Argentinians go to the polls this fall to elect representatives to Congress. Carla Pitiot has been in office since 2015 and uses her voice in Congress to champion causes that affect women. Carla Pitiot has been in office in Argentina since 2015. She helped set up a hotline for victims of domestic violence and rallied around "femininist causes," but she's against abortion. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World On the walls of her office are portraits of Frida Kahlo, a portrait of her hero, Eva Perón, and posters advertising a hotline for victims of domestic violence. She worked to set up the hotline, or consejería, and she's pushing Congress to give men stiffer penalties when they assault women. But, despite taking up these “feminist causes,” she says, she's against abortion.“We've already decriminalized abortion in the most serious cases. Like when a woman is raped. Some countries don't even have that.” Carla Pitiot ​​​​​, Argentine Congress“We've already decriminalized abortion in the most serious cases. Like when a woman is raped. Some countries don't even have that,” said Pitiot.During an abortion debate last year, Pitiot tweeted, “Legalizing abortion is a break in our rule of law. We have a constitutional duty to save two lives.”La legalización del aborto es un quiebre en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. Tenemos el deber constitucional de salvar las dos vidas, hace instantes en el plenario de comisiones. pic.twitter.com/pH45GkdqJb— Carla Pitiot (@CarlabPitiot) June 5, 2018She thinks a healthy debate is good.“I am in favor of the debate. I thought it was very mature, and I'm convinced that if we were to take a vote today, it would be the same.”Earlier this spring, on International Day of the Unborn Child, anti-abortion activists held a rally of their own.Thousands of people marched against abortion and waving their blue scarves with the slogan of the anti-abortion campaign printed on it: “Las dos vidas,” or “Both lives,” referring to the mother and her unborn child. A blue scarf that is the symbol of the Save Both Lives campaign sits on the back of a chair in Carla Pitiot's office. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World Guadalupe Batallán was one of those marchers. She started volunteering with the anti-abortion campaign right after the debates in Congress in 2018.“We're really amazed to see our message here in Argentina spreading to other countries, including the US, where I've even seen photos of blue scarves like ours at a march. That means there are people there who think like us, regardless of what the laws say there,” she said. Batallán says she thinks abortion should be outlawed in all instances, including rape. And she cites a case that made headlines earlier this year of an 11-year-old rape victim who was initially blocked from getting an abortion.“I personally am not in favor of abortion in the case of rape. Because even if someone has been the victim of a crime, that doesn't give her the right to commit another crime, by taking another life. Plus, in terms of mental health, the trauma of undergoing an abortion simply makes the original trauma of the assault worse.”Guadalupe Batallán, anti-abortion campaigner“I personally am not in favor of abortion in the case of rape. Because even if someone has been the victim of a crime, that doesn't give her the right to commit another crime, by taking another life. Plus, in terms of mental health, the trauma of undergoing an abortion simply makes the original trauma of the assault worse.”Batallán has some personal experience recovering from the trauma of rape. Her mother was a rape victim. And although the attack didn't result in a pregnancy, it was still traumatic.Batallán says her group has set up centers for pregnant women in poor areas outside of the capital where they offer free food and classes. She says they want to provide alternatives for women who think they don't have any options. Mariela, a gynecologist at the health clinic in Villa Fiorito attends to Támara, a young pregnant patient. At the time of this photo, Támara was due any day. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World But Tesoriero says the rights she's pushing for would protect all women. Her campaign is also working on the ground to spread the message that abortion is a health care issue and should be available to anyone.She says it seems especially important at a time when a country like the United States might be rolling back legal protections for abortion.“Maybe women in the US thought they would always have access to abortion, so they've taken it for granted. But here in Argentina, we are always on the lookout for things that can set us backward,” Tesoriero said. Women in Argentina have to pull together, she says. They can't afford to look back.Funding for this reporting was provided by the International Women's Media Foundation.

Joanna, 27, a mom and a university student in Buenos Aires, Argentina, couldn’t imagine having to raise a third child. She’s spread thin as it is.So, when she found out she was pregnant again this past spring, she thought long and hard about what to do. It wasn’t easy, but she decided to get an abortion.That’s what brings her to Casa Fusa, a small clinic tucked away on a busy street near downtown on a sunny May afternoon.“I’m nervous, but I’m quite sure about what I’m doing. So, that helps me to stay calm,” Joanna said from the brightly lit waiting room.We’re not using Joanna’s full name for security reasons. Argentina has strict laws against abortion, which is banned with only a few exceptions. It has led many women to seek out clandestine abortions. But a movement to decriminalize abortion has gained traction in the predominantly Catholic country in recent years. Related: Legal abortions remain elusive in Argentina, especially for the most vulnerableAbortion has recently resurfaced as a hot button issue around the world: Last May, Ireland voted to repeal abortion restrictions. In April of this year, the Rwandan president pardoned 367 women imprisoned for abortion. But in Italy, where abortion is legal, most doctors refuse to perform them. And this telemedical service based in the Netherlands helps women around the world who cannot access abortion services.By contrast, abortion has been legal in the US for decades. However, several states have recently banned abortion or made the procedure harder to access.In fact, there has been such a groundswell, the dress worn by characters in “The Handmaid's Tale” has become a symbol for reproductive rights, with women donning the iconic scarlet cloak and white bonnet outfit at rallies worldwide. The novel, and recent TV series based on it, explores what happens when far-right, Christian extremism takes hold in the newly formed, totalitarian society of Gilead, formerly the United States, and forces women into child-bearing servitude. Overwhelming newsWhen Joanna found out she was pregnant in April, she called a consejería, a local crisis hotline for women.“My main goal was to go somewhere where they wouldn’t judge me, and where they wouldn’t waste my time. Because I knew I had to act fast,” she said. They gave her information about where to get pills — misoprostol — to end her pregnancy and what would happen after taking them.Joanna followed the instructions. She says she got nauseous, weak and feverish, but the pregnancy didn’t end. She was scared and came to this clinic for help. They charge about $250 for a surgical abortion. Joanna says she’s not ready to take care of another child.“I already have two children, and I don’t want more. I’m good with the way things are. Plus, I’m very focused on my studies and getting a degree. So, this wasn’t planned. The first thing I thought was that I can’t believe this is happening. I can’t face this situation right now.”Joanna, Buenos Aires, Argentina“I already have two children, and I don’t want more. I’m good with the way things are. Plus, I’m very focused on my studies and getting a degree. So, this wasn’t planned. The first thing I thought was that I can’t believe this is happening. I can’t face this situation right now.”In Argentina, abortion is illegal — except in cases of rape, incest and when a woman’s life is in danger. Still, there are ways to get around the law. Virginia Braga (left) is a psychologist at the Casa Fusa clinic in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She screens people to see if they can get an abortion under the ILE Protocol. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World  Virginia Braga is a psychologist at the Casa Fusa clinic. “We think that if a woman doesn't want to keep the pregnancy, she's in danger if you don't help her.”Braga says the fact that Joanna says she’s unable to care for another child means having the baby would put her at risk. So, under the law, Joanna can get what’s known as an ILE Protocol, a legal interruption of a pregnancy.“Yes. So, Article 86 of the penal code in Argentina says the abortion can be legal.”Braga explains that the law allows providers to consider the whole picture of a woman’s health.“So, it's mental health, social health and it's physical health, too,” Braga said.But she says not all providers interpret the law this way.In fact, just across town at Sanatorio Municipal Dr. Julio Méndez, a large public hospital, the chief physician, Dr. Eda Ebad Monetti, says she wouldn’t perform an abortion.Dr. Monetti’s office is a light-filled space decorated with saints and a crucifixion cross on the wall. She wears a necklace with a string of medals devoted to various saints. She’s Catholic, devout, and very much against abortion.“If you kill a teenager, what you’re killing is a future adult who might be a great father or mother or a scientist that develops a cure for cancer. The same is true for that cell egg; what you’re killing is a human being that is going to be someone someday.”Dr. Eda Ebad Monetti, Buenos Aires, Argentina“If you kill a teenager, what you’re killing is a future adult who might be a great father or mother or a scientist that develops a cure for cancer. The same is true for that cell egg; what you’re killing is a human being that is going to be someone someday.” Dr. Eda Ebad Monetti is the head physician at Sanatorio Municipal Dr. Julio Méndez. She's against abortion and doctors at her hospital have refused to perform them, even in cases of rape or when a woman's life is in danger. In extreme situations like that, they refer the woman to another hospital or doctor. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World At Julio Méndez, the doctors have conscientiously objected to doing abortions — even in the case of rape or when a woman will die as a result of pregnancy. In extreme situations like those, Dr. Monetti says to comply with the law, they refer women to other hospitals or other doctors who will perform abortions.The push for abortion rights in ArgentinaIn Argentina, abortion has been criminalized for more than 100 years. In 1921, the law was amended, allowing for exceptions to be made when a mother’s life is at risk or when a woman has been the victim of rape or incest.Estela Soaje, a doctor who works at a government-run clinic in Lomas de Zamora, a small suburb outside of Buenos Aires, wants to see abortion legalized.“Women in Argentina are in a ‘maternity jail.’ They might not want to have such a large family, and they don’t even think abortion might be an option for them. That’s why we are fighting for a legal abortion.” Estela Soaje, doctor, Lomas de Zamora clinic“Women in Argentina are in a ‘maternity jail.’ They might not want to have such a large family, and they don’t even think abortion might be an option for them. That’s why we are fighting for a legal abortion,” Soaje said. Estela Soaje (right) and Marcela Lacomo work at a government-run clinic in Lomas de Zamora, a suburb outside of Buenos Aires, Argentina. They see hundreds of women every week for health checkups, exams and abortions. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World The color green has become associated with the abortion rights movement in Argentina. Thousands of abortion rights activists with green scarves tied to their backpacks and around their wrists could be seen marching and chanting on the streets of Buenos Aires last year as Congress debated a bill decriminalizing abortion. It didn’t pass. Virginia Braga is a psychologist at the Casa Fusa clinic. The green scarf on her backpack shows that she's an advocate for abortion rights. Credit: Florencia Tricheri/The World  Related: Italian cities 'turn back the clock' on women’s reproductive rightsMen and women on the other side of the debate celebrated the decision. They were out in the street waving blue scarves with the slogan, “Save both lives.”Guadalupe Batallán is a young activist with the group Defensores de Mamás or Defenders of Mothers, known to carry blue handkerchiefs. Batallán doesn’t believe that Argentine Congress even had the right to debate the issue.“This debate was not in the constitution,” Batallán said in Spanish from the Defensores de Mamás office. “We are not allowed to debate what is already a law. For that, we would have to change the law.”  Inés Pfister and Guadalupe Batallán are with Defensores de Mamás, a group that supports the Save Two Lives campaign. Both are young campaigners for the cause and think that abortion should remain criminalized. They think abortions should be illegal, no matter what. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World Speaking up for choiceMore broadly, abortion has been a polarizing issue across the globe, including the United States, particularly in the South. Some US states, like Arkansas, have long chipped away at Roe v. Wade, the landmark case protecting a woman’s right to abortion.  Arkansas state Rep. Dan Douglas, who is anti-abortion, was recently the only Republican in the state to vote against a trigger ban that would outlaw abortion — even in the case of rape or when a woman's life is in danger — if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Despite Douglas’ objections, it passed.Douglas had testified from personal experience: “I am pro-life, but I'm also pro-humanity. And I recounted a situation in which my niece went through a very difficult situation. At around 20 weeks, they found out there was a lethal, fatal anomaly in taking care of the baby to term or and whenever it was born,” he said. “[The baby] might live two to three, maybe four days, but [it would] be a very miserable, excruciating painful three or four days [for the baby]. And on the doctor's advice, they chose to terminate the pregnancy; under this trigger ban, that would not be allowed.” Dan Douglas is a representative for House District 91 in Arkansas. Despite being anti-abortion, he voted against a trigger ban because he thinks if there is a lethal fetal anamoly, women should be able to terminate their pregnancy. Credit: Allison Herrera/The World  Arkansas passed other abortion-related bills during the 2019 session, as well. They increased the waiting period for when a woman can get an abortion from 48 hours to 72 hours. Under a new law, only an OB-GYN can perform abortions (as opposed to a wider pool of doctors and practitioners) — even when dispensing pills for a medical abortion, and Arkansas has also banned abortions after 18 weeks.Holly Dickson, the executive director of the Arkansas ACLU, says these new laws, if they take effect, are just as dangerous as Georgia’s or Alabama’s outright bans on abortion. “I've been watching the Arkansas Legislature and its bills very closely for the 12 years that I've been here on staff, and there's always a slew of bills related to abortion,” she said from the organization’s Little Rock office. “It astounds me that they can come up with more and more legislation [against abortion] to run because they have regulated it up one side and down the other.” Holly Dickson is the legal director for the ACLU in Little Rock, Arkansas. She's been working there for 12 years and during that time, she says the state Legislature has chipped away at abortion access, little by little. Credit: Allison Herrera/The World Dickson explained that the state had a 12-week ban on abortions put in place in 2013 — the strictest law in the nation at the time — but it was struck down by a federal appeals court in 2015.Dickson says she worries about state laws taking away access to abortion, little by little.“You know, I mean, my entire life I've heard about Roe v. Wade and whether we ought to overturn Roe v. Wade. And I don't think we as a nation, together, [have] done the deep thinking behind what that really means.”Holly Dickson, executive director of the Arkansas ACLU“You know, I mean, my entire life I've heard about Roe v. Wade and whether we ought to overturn Roe v. Wade. And I don't think we as a nation, together, [have] done the deep thinking behind what that really means.”Dickson rejects the notion that abortion isn’t a human right and that the law can be easily overturned because it’s not protected in the Constitution.“So, we really don't have an appreciation for what it means to live in a country that doesn't have these protections. And I do understand people say, ‘Well, where's the right to abortion in the Constitution? Where's the right to privacy? I don't see that.’ You know what else is not in the Constitution? The right to vote,” she said. “We have more amendments to the Constitution that protect the right to vote in various ways. But if you go back and read it, there's nothing expressly in the US Constitution that says Americans have the right to vote. So that argument is a very simple one, but it also has no heft to it whatsoever.”Back at Casa Fusa in Buenos Aires, Joanna sits in the waiting room with her mother, ready to go home.She says at first, she had second thoughts about getting an abortion, but she’s relieved she went ahead with it.“I feel like I have to make a huge effort to overcome the nagging question, 'Is it OK that I’m doing this?' Even though I am certain this is the right thing for me.”“I am confident about my decision to go through with this procedure. It’s too bad that we can’t talk openly about this in the society we live in.”Joanna, Buenos Aires, Argentina“I am confident about my decision to go through with this procedure. It’s too bad that we can’t talk openly about this in the society we live in.”To get the time off work, Joanna told her boss she was going to the dentist. She says her co-workers wouldn’t have approved. But she’s grateful that she had a support network that helped her get here — and get around the law.Funding for this reporting was provided by the International Women's Media Foundation.

Joanna, 27, a mom and a university student in Buenos Aires, Argentina, couldn't imagine having to raise a third child. She's spread thin as it is.So, when she found out she was pregnant again this past spring, she thought long and hard about what to do. It wasn't easy, but she decided to get an abortion.That's what brings her to Casa Fusa, a small clinic tucked away on a busy street near downtown on a sunny May afternoon.“I'm nervous, but I'm quite sure about what I'm doing. So, that helps me to stay calm,” Joanna said from the brightly lit waiting room.We're not using Joanna's full name for security reasons. Argentina has strict laws against abortion, which is banned with only a few exceptions. It has led many women to seek out clandestine abortions. But a movement to decriminalize abortion has gained traction in the predominantly Catholic country in recent years. Related: Legal abortions remain elusive in Argentina, especially for the most vulnerableAbortion has recently resurfaced as a hot button issue around the world: Last May, Ireland voted to repeal abortion restrictions. In April of this year, the Rwandan president pardoned 367 women imprisoned for abortion. But in Italy, where abortion is legal, most doctors refuse to perform them. And this telemedical service based in the Netherlands helps women around the world who cannot access abortion services.By contrast, abortion has been legal in the US for decades. However, several states have recently banned abortion or made the procedure harder to access.In fact, there has been such a groundswell, the dress worn by characters in “The Handmaid's Tale” has become a symbol for reproductive rights, with women donning the iconic scarlet cloak and white bonnet outfit at rallies worldwide. The novel, and recent TV series based on it, explores what happens when far-right, Christian extremism takes hold in the newly formed, totalitarian society of Gilead, formerly the United States, and forces women into child-bearing servitude. Overwhelming newsWhen Joanna found out she was pregnant in April, she called a consejería, a local crisis hotline for women.“My main goal was to go somewhere where they wouldn't judge me, and where they wouldn't waste my time. Because I knew I had to act fast,” she said. They gave her information about where to get pills — misoprostol — to end her pregnancy and what would happen after taking them.Joanna followed the instructions. She says she got nauseous, weak and feverish, but the pregnancy didn't end. She was scared and came to this clinic for help. They charge about $250 for a surgical abortion. Joanna says she's not ready to take care of another child.“I already have two children, and I don't want more. I'm good with the way things are. Plus, I'm very focused on my studies and getting a degree. So, this wasn't planned. The first thing I thought was that I can't believe this is happening. I can't face this situation right now.”Joanna, Buenos Aires, Argentina“I already have two children, and I don't want more. I'm good with the way things are. Plus, I'm very focused on my studies and getting a degree. So, this wasn't planned. The first thing I thought was that I can't believe this is happening. I can't face this situation right now.”In Argentina, abortion is illegal — except in cases of rape, incest and when a woman's life is in danger. Still, there are ways to get around the law. Virginia Braga (left) is a psychologist at the Casa Fusa clinic in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She screens people to see if they can get an abortion under the ILE Protocol. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World  Virginia Braga is a psychologist at the Casa Fusa clinic. “We think that if a woman doesn't want to keep the pregnancy, she's in danger if you don't help her.”Braga says the fact that Joanna says she's unable to care for another child means having the baby would put her at risk. So, under the law, Joanna can get what's known as an ILE Protocol, a legal interruption of a pregnancy.“Yes. So, Article 86 of the penal code in Argentina says the abortion can be legal.”Braga explains that the law allows providers to consider the whole picture of a woman's health.“So, it's mental health, social health and it's physical health, too,” Braga said.But she says not all providers interpret the law this way.In fact, just across town at Sanatorio Municipal Dr. Julio Méndez, a large public hospital, the chief physician, Dr. Eda Ebad Monetti, says she wouldn't perform an abortion.Dr. Monetti's office is a light-filled space decorated with saints and a crucifixion cross on the wall. She wears a necklace with a string of medals devoted to various saints. She's Catholic, devout, and very much against abortion.“If you kill a teenager, what you're killing is a future adult who might be a great father or mother or a scientist that develops a cure for cancer. The same is true for that cell egg; what you're killing is a human being that is going to be someone someday.”Dr. Eda Ebad Monetti, Buenos Aires, Argentina“If you kill a teenager, what you're killing is a future adult who might be a great father or mother or a scientist that develops a cure for cancer. The same is true for that cell egg; what you're killing is a human being that is going to be someone someday.” Dr. Eda Ebad Monetti is the head physician at Sanatorio Municipal Dr. Julio Méndez. She's against abortion and doctors at her hospital have refused to perform them, even in cases of rape or when a woman's life is in danger. In extreme situations like that, they refer the woman to another hospital or doctor. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World At Julio Méndez, the doctors have conscientiously objected to doing abortions — even in the case of rape or when a woman will die as a result of pregnancy. In extreme situations like those, Dr. Monetti says to comply with the law, they refer women to other hospitals or other doctors who will perform abortions.The push for abortion rights in ArgentinaIn Argentina, abortion has been criminalized for more than 100 years. In 1921, the law was amended, allowing for exceptions to be made when a mother's life is at risk or when a woman has been the victim of rape or incest.Estela Soaje, a doctor who works at a government-run clinic in Lomas de Zamora, a small suburb outside of Buenos Aires, wants to see abortion legalized.“Women in Argentina are in a ‘maternity jail.' They might not want to have such a large family, and they don't even think abortion might be an option for them. That's why we are fighting for a legal abortion.” Estela Soaje, doctor, Lomas de Zamora clinic“Women in Argentina are in a ‘maternity jail.' They might not want to have such a large family, and they don't even think abortion might be an option for them. That's why we are fighting for a legal abortion,” Soaje said. Estela Soaje (right) and Marcela Lacomo work at a government-run clinic in Lomas de Zamora, a suburb outside of Buenos Aires, Argentina. They see hundreds of women every week for health checkups, exams and abortions. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World The color green has become associated with the abortion rights movement in Argentina. Thousands of abortion rights activists with green scarves tied to their backpacks and around their wrists could be seen marching and chanting on the streets of Buenos Aires last year as Congress debated a bill decriminalizing abortion. It didn't pass. Virginia Braga is a psychologist at the Casa Fusa clinic. The green scarf on her backpack shows that she's an advocate for abortion rights. Credit: Florencia Tricheri/The World  Related: Italian cities 'turn back the clock' on women's reproductive rightsMen and women on the other side of the debate celebrated the decision. They were out in the street waving blue scarves with the slogan, “Save both lives.”Guadalupe Batallán is a young activist with the group Defensores de Mamás or Defenders of Mothers, known to carry blue handkerchiefs. Batallán doesn't believe that Argentine Congress even had the right to debate the issue.“This debate was not in the constitution,” Batallán said in Spanish from the Defensores de Mamás office. “We are not allowed to debate what is already a law. For that, we would have to change the law.”  Inés Pfister and Guadalupe Batallán are with Defensores de Mamás, a group that supports the Save Two Lives campaign. Both are young campaigners for the cause and think that abortion should remain criminalized. They think abortions should be illegal, no matter what. Credit: Florencia Trincheri/The World Speaking up for choiceMore broadly, abortion has been a polarizing issue across the globe, including the United States, particularly in the South. Some US states, like Arkansas, have long chipped away at Roe v. Wade, the landmark case protecting a woman's right to abortion.  Arkansas state Rep. Dan Douglas, who is anti-abortion, was recently the only Republican in the state to vote against a trigger ban that would outlaw abortion — even in the case of rape or when a woman's life is in danger — if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. Despite Douglas' objections, it passed.Douglas had testified from personal experience: “I am pro-life, but I'm also pro-humanity. And I recounted a situation in which my niece went through a very difficult situation. At around 20 weeks, they found out there was a lethal, fatal anomaly in taking care of the baby to term or and whenever it was born,” he said. “[The baby] might live two to three, maybe four days, but [it would] be a very miserable, excruciating painful three or four days [for the baby]. And on the doctor's advice, they chose to terminate the pregnancy; under this trigger ban, that would not be allowed.” Dan Douglas is a representative for House District 91 in Arkansas. Despite being anti-abortion, he voted against a trigger ban because he thinks if there is a lethal fetal anamoly, women should be able to terminate their pregnancy. Credit: Allison Herrera/The World  Arkansas passed other abortion-related bills during the 2019 session, as well. They increased the waiting period for when a woman can get an abortion from 48 hours to 72 hours. Under a new law, only an OB-GYN can perform abortions (as opposed to a wider pool of doctors and practitioners) — even when dispensing pills for a medical abortion, and Arkansas has also banned abortions after 18 weeks.Holly Dickson, the executive director of the Arkansas ACLU, says these new laws, if they take effect, are just as dangerous as Georgia's or Alabama's outright bans on abortion. “I've been watching the Arkansas Legislature and its bills very closely for the 12 years that I've been here on staff, and there's always a slew of bills related to abortion,” she said from the organization's Little Rock office. “It astounds me that they can come up with more and more legislation [against abortion] to run because they have regulated it up one side and down the other.” Holly Dickson is the legal director for the ACLU in Little Rock, Arkansas. She's been working there for 12 years and during that time, she says the state Legislature has chipped away at abortion access, little by little. Credit: Allison Herrera/The World Dickson explained that the state had a 12-week ban on abortions put in place in 2013 — the strictest law in the nation at the time — but it was struck down by a federal appeals court in 2015.Dickson says she worries about state laws taking away access to abortion, little by little.“You know, I mean, my entire life I've heard about Roe v. Wade and whether we ought to overturn Roe v. Wade. And I don't think we as a nation, together, [have] done the deep thinking behind what that really means.”Holly Dickson, executive director of the Arkansas ACLU“You know, I mean, my entire life I've heard about Roe v. Wade and whether we ought to overturn Roe v. Wade. And I don't think we as a nation, together, [have] done the deep thinking behind what that really means.”Dickson rejects the notion that abortion isn't a human right and that the law can be easily overturned because it's not protected in the Constitution.“So, we really don't have an appreciation for what it means to live in a country that doesn't have these protections. And I do understand people say, ‘Well, where's the right to abortion in the Constitution? Where's the right to privacy? I don't see that.' You know what else is not in the Constitution? The right to vote,” she said. “We have more amendments to the Constitution that protect the right to vote in various ways. But if you go back and read it, there's nothing expressly in the US Constitution that says Americans have the right to vote. So that argument is a very simple one, but it also has no heft to it whatsoever.”Back at Casa Fusa in Buenos Aires, Joanna sits in the waiting room with her mother, ready to go home.She says at first, she had second thoughts about getting an abortion, but she's relieved she went ahead with it.“I feel like I have to make a huge effort to overcome the nagging question, 'Is it OK that I'm doing this?' Even though I am certain this is the right thing for me.”“I am confident about my decision to go through with this procedure. It's too bad that we can't talk openly about this in the society we live in.”Joanna, Buenos Aires, Argentina“I am confident about my decision to go through with this procedure. It's too bad that we can't talk openly about this in the society we live in.”To get the time off work, Joanna told her boss she was going to the dentist. She says her co-workers wouldn't have approved. But she's grateful that she had a support network that helped her get here — and get around the law.Funding for this reporting was provided by the International Women's Media Foundation.

On January 19, 2015, Prosecutor Alberto Nisman was about to reveal to the Argentine Congress details of a secret deal between the Kirchner government and Iran to whitewash the complicity of the Iranian ayatollahs in terror attacks in Buenos Aires. The two blasts in the 1990s killed 114 people. One day before his presentation, 51-year-old Nisman was murdered at his home. His tragedy has deep repercussions for democracy in Latin America and for the Jews in Argentina. The Jerusalem Center, where Nisman was a guest speaker, paid homage to his memory with a lecture by his friend Dr. Gustavo Perednik on January 18, 2016. Gustavo Perednik lectured in 50 countries and authored 15 books, several of which were translated, became best-sellers, and were awarded international prizes. He was a personal friend of Prosecutor Nisman, whom he brought for the first time to Israel in 2007. Perednik penned "To Kill without a Trace" the only book on Nisman's accomplishments in the legal struggle against Iranian terrorism.