A lot of people are fretting about the safety of the Rio Olympic Games. Zika fears, the notoriously unsafe water in Guanabara Bay, an Olympic venue so filthy that some rowers and sailors are planning to wear protective gear and of course violent crime.
But what about the risk of a major terror attack? After the attack in Nice last month that killed more than 80 people, many fear that Rio could be next.
Groups like ISIS have threatened to target the international competition which opened on Friday and runs for several weeks.
However in spite of widespread criticism, Brazil is comparatively well prepared to anticipate and fend off a well-organized terrorist strike. Along with tens of thousands of private security personnel, it has more than 85,000 military and police personnel deployed for the Games — twice the number present for the London Olympics in 2012.
Brazilian authorities set up an integrated command and control center for the event, building off their experience hosting the 2014 World Cup. An international counterterrorism office was also created, a first for an Olympic event. Drones and four giant surveillance balloons hover over the entire city to monitor events on the ground.
The government has also bolstered its cyber security defenses to address digital threats, including from groups like the ISIS Cyber Caliphate. Representatives from at least 33 international intelligence agencies are working with their Brazilian counterparts. Even the International Olympic Committee set up a cyber-crime center to monitor, among other things, malware and phishing attempts.
Intelligence cooperation between the US and Brazil has quietly increased in recent months after an apparent increase in online chatters among ISIS sympathizers. In some cases, threats were issued through social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Following terror attacks on Paris in November last year, a self-declared ISIS recruit tweeted “Brazil, you are next target.”
In late May this year, a new Portuguese-only channel on Telegram, an encrypted messenger service, also started issuing instructions to would-be ISIS supporters to attack visitors to the Olympics. Chief among the declared targets were US, French and Israeli citizens. And in mid-July, a group calling itself Ansar al-Khilafah Brazil pledged its allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and began posting ISIS propaganda.
The threat of terrorism is new to Brazil. There has never been an attack on Brazilian soil. But Brazilian and US authorities are taking these digital threats seriously. Indeed, while suspected recruits to ISIS in Brazil have been described by federal police and the country’s foreign minister as amateurish, it would be a mistake to underestimate potential threats.
Brazil has taken steps to show the world it has the will and means to respond to organized terrorist activity. Over the past month, 12 Brazilians were detained under the country’s new anti-terrorism law, which says suspects can be held for up to 60 days.
Of course, the country needs to be cautious about how the law is applied. Human rights experts are concerned that terrorism is defined too broadly in the legislation and may give too much discretion to law enforcement at the risk of undermining the civil liberties of legitimate public protesters.
All the preparation in the world, however, cannot replace direct experience. Despite receiving counterterrorism training from the US, as well as from French and UK forces, Brazilian authorities have virtually no experience in dealing with an actual terrorist incident, much less an attack from a remotely radicalized lone wolf.
Mercopress
]]>
Cesare Battisti, a member of Italy’s Armed Proletarians for Communism (PAC), lives comfortably in Brazil, thanks to former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The iconic former head of state signed a decree on his last day as president in December 2010, which stated that Battisti could not be extradited to Italy, where he would face life imprisonment.
Battisti was convicted of committing four murders throughout Italy’s anni di piombo (years of the lead), a period of almost unexampled criminal violence in the country that lasted from the late 1960s to early 1980s.
The Battisti affair has since become an episodic thorn in Rome’s side with respect to its relations with Brasília; yet this debacle has far from ended the Italian government and business community from increasing their ties with the Western Hemisphere, especially the Portuguese-speaking giant.
Whether Dilma Rousseff’s presidency or the next Brazilian head of state will (or should) extradite Battisti to Italy remains to be seen, though it is doubtful. This means that Battisti, a convicted murderer, may live out the rest of his days in a cushy exile in Brazil, instead of serving hard time for the crimes he committed.
A Brief Background
Plenty has been written about Battisti’s life, his outrageous delinquencies, his literary career (he is the author of over a dozen books), and his trials. After his murder convictions, Battisti escaped from an Italian prison and ended up in Mexico, where he founded the magazine, Via Libre.
Eventually Battisti made his way to France but then fled to Brazil in 2004 after French institutions conceded the prospect of extradition to Rome. In 2007, he was arrested by Brazilian authorities, and he was later tried and convicted of entering the country illegally.
On December 31, 2010, the final day of the Lula presidency, the outgoing president signed a decree that prohibited Battisti from being extradited.
Battisti has not denied being a member of the PAC, but he maintains his innocence regarding the four assassinations. He has argued that “in my case, there was a sort of artificial operation that created, from one day to another, the monster Cesare Battisti.” [1]
The 2009 and 2011 Flare Ups
Lula’s decision not to extradite Battisti to Italy provoked two minor international incidents between Rome and Brasília in 2009 and again in 2011. Tensions escalated in 2009 when former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi recalled the Italian ambassador to Brazil after negotiations failed to have Battisti extradited.
At the time, then-Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini criticized Brazil’s decision to provide a safe haven for Battisti, stating that, “Battisti is a terrorist who does not deserve at all the status of political refugee.” [2]
On the other hand, then-Brazilian President Lula da Silva declared that his ruling to allow Battisti to stay in his country “was a sovereign choice that states can make. Italian authorities may like it or not, but they will have to respect it.” [3]
The situation further became a judicial and diplomatic imbroglio when, in 2009, Battisti was granted the status of political refugee by Brazilian Minister of Justice, Tarso Genro.
This development occurred after his initial request for asylum was denied by the National Committee for Refugees on the grounds that Battisti had been convicted in his absence. Genro declared Battisti a political refugee based on the use of unreliable evidence in his trial. [4]
In June 2011, the diplomatic row between the two countries escalated when Battisti was freed from his Brazilian cell where he had spent four years. The Brazilian Supreme Court (voting six in favor and three against) decided that Italy did not have any legitimacy in its claims to have him extradited to Rome and that these demands could not overrule Lula’s previous decree. [5]
At the time, then-Italian President Giorgio Napolitano declared that, “I do not understand Lula,” while other high-ranking Italian government officials also argued that this move would hurt bilateral relations. [6]
It is worth noting that when the non-extradition decision was made, posters appeared throughout Italy urging the government to boycott the 2014 FIFA World Cup, which will be held in Brazil. [7]
But it is impossible to think that, given the importance of soccer in Italy, the government and national team will decide to boycott a trip to soccer’s most important tournament because of Battisti. [8] Currently, Italy is ranked first in Group B of the European qualifiers, and it is likely that they will participate in the World Cup.
As for Battisti, he is enjoying the “good life”. He apparently lives in an exclusive residential area in São Paulo and in early 2012 he published a new book, Ao Pé do Muro (At the Foot of the Wall)(issued by the Brazilian publishing house Martins Fontes). [9] In early January 2013, there were rumors that Battisti was hired as an advisor for Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT), a Brazilian labor union, but CUT officials have been quick to deny these allegations. [10]
Why Didn’t Brazil Extradite Battisti?
It is unclear why Lula became obsessed with Battisti and refused to send him to Italy – after all, not only was Battisti found guilty of his crimes, but the diplomatic incident also temporarily affected relations between Rome and Brasília.
A December 31, 2010 article by the British daily The Guardian, argued that, “while Lula was not particularly sympathetic to Battisti, he had been irritated by Italian demands […] The move had spared his successor, Dilma Rousseff, any political fallout early in her government.” [11]
Another reason for Lula’s support for Battisti may have to do with the former president’s political party, the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers Party – PT). Scholars have mused that the PT may have some members sympathetic to the Italian and ultimately convinced Lula that he should come to his aid.
This argument is supported by a Brazilian scholar very knowledgeable on the Battisti affair, who explained to the author of this analysis that “I do not believe that Dilma or another PT president will deport Battisti. The party has many leaders who were members of armed left-wing groups which fought against the military dictatorship, and they see similar movements in Latin America and Europe as allies, even when the historical context was very different.” [12]
Moreover, Rousseff, also belongs to the PT, so Lula may have decided to deal with Battisti so his successor would not have to address a potentially embarrassing situation at the dawn of her presidency.
Finally, Gabriel Elizondo, Al Jazeera staff correspondent based in São Paulo, also wrote on the Battisti affair for his publication’s blog post in June 2011. The reporter explained that another reason why high Brazilian policymakers chose not to extradite Battisti was because they “saw no legal premise to extradite him and the government felt no international laws or norms were broken or jeopardized. So in this sense, it was very much a Brazilian decision. Sovereignty is a word used a lot to describe it here.” [13]
Finally, Elizondo argues that “there is nothing Italy can do to substantially punish Brazil either economically or diplomatically. Already Italy has said they won’t break off economic ties with Brazil.” [14]
Indeed, as we will see in a later section of this research paper, the Italian government and private companies are actually trying to increase ties with Brazil, rather than attempting to use “soft power,” (i.e. a commercial embargo) to get Battisti back to Italy.
Italy and the Western Hemisphere
Battisti’s status in Brazil has not affected Italy’s foreign policy towards the Western Hemisphere. Although not as extensive as Latin America’s relationships with other extra-hemispheric nations (such as Russia, China or the United Kingdom), Italy’s relations with the region are noteworthy.
For example, Argentine President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner traveled to Rome in mid-2011 and met with then-Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Italy and Argentina have a long history, particularly due to the overwhelming migration of Italian nationals to Argentina during the first half of the 20th century.
However, relations between the two governments reached a low point after the 2001 Argentine debt crisis. Hence, Kirchner’s trip was important as it was a symbolic way to strengthen relations once again — the last time an Argentine president went to Italy was President Eduardo Duhalde in 2002. [15]
Just prior to Kirchner’s trip to Rome, then-Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini visited Buenos Aires and met with his Argentine counterpart, Hector Timerman. In a joint press conference, the high-level officials praised bilateral relations, including 12 agreements signed during Frattini’s trip, which addressed issues concerning cooperation on energy and technology, among other issues. [16]
Thanks to soccer diplomacy, Buenos Aires-Rome relations may receive a boost in morale and image, as the national soccer teams of both states are planning to play a friendly match in the near future in Italy. [17] The match is meant to celebrate the election of the Argentine Jorge Bergoglio as the new Pope.
Meanwhile, Mexico is also attempting to strengthen its ties with Italy. For example, in May 2012, then-Mexican Foreign Affairs Minister Patricia Espinosa traveled to Rome and met with her Italian counterpart, Giulio Terzi. The two officials signed agreements to strengthen political, economic, cultural, and security relations, while declaring their joint support for a reform of the U.N. Security Council. [18]
During the visit, Terzi declared that trade between the two countries had reached $500 million USD in 2011. For its part, the Mexican Agency PROMexico, which aims to attract foreign direct investment to Mexico as well as the internationalization of Mexican companies, explains on its official website that Italy ranks as Mexico’s 12th largest trading partner worldwide. [19]
Military cooperation, including arms sales, is a particular area where cooperation has increased between Italy and Latin American governments. For example, in 2004, Italy sold four Lupo-type frigates to Peru. [20] Then in mid-2011, the Mexican government bought four C27J transport planes from Alenia Aeronautica (a branch of Finmeccanica). [21]
Also in 2011, Panama received two Agusta Westland AW139 helicopters, also constructed by Finmeccanica. [22] More recently, in February 2013, the Italian weapons manufacturing company Beretta donated an ARX-160 rifle and a GLX-160 grenade launcher to the Argentine army.
The goal is that the Argentine Special Forces will test and evaluate these weapons and see if they fulfill their operational requirements, which could lead to an eventual weapons order. [23] The Argentine military also recently agreed to acquire 20 helicopters, type AB 206, from Italy. [24]
Moreover, the Peruvian government signed a memorandum of understanding to promote military cooperation between Peru and Italy in 2011. [25] A new rapprochement occurred last September 2012, when the Italian ambassador to Peru, Guglielmo Ardizzone, and the Peruvian Defense Minister, Pedro Cateriano, met in the headquarters of the Peruvian army. [26]
For some time, the Peruvian government has declared its intention to obtain new military hardware, which may include purchasing Italian frigates (Maestrale-type). [27] While no decision has been made thus far, high-profile meetings are ongoing and hint at the possibility of closer military ties, particularly via arms sales, between Lima and Rome.
Finally, it is important to highlight that there have been some political crises between Rome and Latin America. Namely, in April 2012, Valter Lavitola, entrepreneur and former editor of the online daily Avanti, was arrested on charges of offering bribes to the president of Panama for construction contracts. The development proved to be an embarrassment for the Italian government as Lavitola was a close associate of former Prime Minister Berlusconi.
Italy and Brazil
Italian companies have been trying to enter the Brazilian market in recent years, due to the South American country’s economic growth. For example, Franco Bernabè, the president of Telecom Italia, declared in 2011 that he wanted his telecommunications company to expand relations with Brazil and Argentina. [28]
He explained that both countries “are the most important in Latin America,” and that both have a plethora of resources that “if they are properly managed” can be very useful to economic development. In addition, an Italian trade mission travelled to Brazil in May 2012. The delegation included members of the regional government of Regione Liguria—a region in the northwest of Italy.
During the trip, the association Ligurian Ports signed an agreement with the Brazilian Santos Port Authority to improve cooperation between these trans-Atlantic port regions. [29]
It is worth adding that Italian-Brazilian military cooperation has not fundamentally suffered because of the Battisti affair. For instance, in July 2012, then-Italian Defense Minister Giampaolo Di Paola traveled to Brasília and met with his Brazilian counterpart, Celso Amorim. During the goodwill visit, Di Paola expressed his country’s interest in embarking on joint ventures with the Brazilian navy to construct warships and other vessels in Brazil (as compared to Rome selling Italian warships to Brazil). [30]
Brazil and Italy have already established a generally successful record of military partnerships. A prime example was the AMX project, a joint Italian-Brazilian program to create a lead-in fighter trainer and light attack category aircraft. The project was carried out by Brazil’s lead military industry, Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica SA (Embraer) and Italy’s Aermacchi in the late 1980s. [31]
Whether Brazil’s ongoing weapons purchases are part of a South American arms race, or if they are even appropriate given Brazil’s security situation will not be discussed here. Nevertheless, it is worthy to highlight that the country enjoys close relations with its neighbors and its security concerns are arguably more internal-security related than the possibility of inter-state warfare breaking with another country. [32]
In any case, the arms sales industry is potentially worth millions of dollars and the Brazilian government and military will certainly want to acquire more high-tech weapons to cement the country’s status as a military power (i.e the country is building four diesel-electric submarines in cooperation with France) as well as to evolve into a major weapons supplier. [33]
Hence, it is no great surprise that the Battisti affair is intentionally being brushed over by both Brasília and Rome in order not to affect military relations and the potential of huge profits for Italian companies in future weapons sales to the South American powerhouse.
Battisti’s (Comfortable) Future
It is highly debatable if Battisti will ever be extradited back to Italy to pay for the crimes for which he has been found guilty. Rouseff has not addressed his guest’s fate and will probably stay away from discussing it. Meanwhile, the Battisti affair has become more of an episodic rallying cry for successive Italian governments, but this has not affected daily relations between Italy and Brazil, much less with the rest of the Western Hemisphere. The Battisti crisis may certainly flare up again in the following years but it is hardly a contemporary pressing issue for either Brasília or Rome.
Nevertheless the Battisti affair could become a diplomatic obstacle in further joint projects and agreements between Brazil and the European Union, of which Italy is a member.
Moreover, the Battisti affair could come back to haunt Brazil if the government is perceived by the international community of not cooperating to combat international criminal organizations, particularly that originate from Italy and operate in Latin America (i.e. Italian Mafia members have been recently arrested in Colombia). [34]
In any case, if Italy does qualify for the 2014 FIFA World Cup, Battisti would be well advised to avoid going to any of Italy’s matches.
References
[1] Lissardy, Gerardo, “Cesare Battisti, el escritor que escapo de la cadena perpetua,” BBC Mundo, March 12, 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/noticias/2012/03/120312_entrevista_battisti_italia_brasil_aw.shtml
[2] “Brasil e Italia, cerca de la ruptura de relaciones diplomáticas por la extradicion de un terrorista,” Perfil.com. Internacional, Polemica Judicial, January 28, 2009, http://www.perfil.com/contenidos/2009/01/28/noticia_0006.htmlth
[3] “Brasil e Italia, cerca de la ruptura de relacionesdiplomaticaspor la extradicion de un terrorista,” Perfil.com. Internacional, Polemica Judicial, January 28, 2009, http://www.perfil.com/contenidos/2009/01/28/noticia_0006.htmlth
[4] Goes, Paula, “Brazil: Extradition refusal threatens relations with Italy,” Global Voices – English, January 29, 2009, http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/01/27/brazil-extradition-refusal-threatens-relations-with-italy/
[5] Geffroy, Lucie, “Battisti Libere, l’Italie degoutee,” Courrier International, Italie, June 9, 2011, http://www.courrierinternational.com/revue-de-presse/2011/06/09/battisti-libere-l-italie-degoutee
[6] Geffroy, Lucie, “Battisti Libere, l’Italie degoutee,” Courrier International, Italie, June 9, 2011, http://www.courrierinternational.com/revue-de-presse/2011/06/09/battisti-libere-l-italie-degoutee
[7] “Italianospedemqueselecaoboicote Copa de 2014,” Veja (Brazil), Esportes, Copa 2014, July 29, 2011, http://veja.abril.com.br/noticia/esporte/italianos-pedem-que-selecao-boicote-copa-de-2014
[8] “Qualifiers – Europe,” FIFA.com, 2014 Fifa World Cup Brazil, http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/europe/standings/index.html
[9] “Ao Pé do Muro,” Livraria da Folha, http://livraria.folha.com.br/catalogo/1177996/ao-pe-do-muro , Also see “Cesare Battisti lanca no Rio livro baseado em sua experiencia na prisao,” Folha de Sao Paulo, April 12, 2012, http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/1075378-cesare-battisti-lanca-no-rio-livro-baseado-em-sua-experiencia-na-prisao.shtml
[10] “CUT nega contratacao de Cesare Battisti,” Brasil247, January 11, 2013, http://www.brasil247.com/pt/247/brasil/90319/
[11] Hooper, John and Tom Philipps, “Lula sparks diplomatic spat with Italy over refusal to extradite killer,” The Guardian (UK), December 31, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/31/brazil-lula-berlusconi-battisti-italy
[12] Brazilian scholar. E-mail interview with the author.” May 18, 2013.
[13] Elizondo, Gabriel, “Brazil and Battisti,” Al Jazeera, Blogs, June 10, 2011, http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/americas/brazil-and-battisti
[14] Elizondo, Gabriel, “Brazil and Battisti,” Al Jazeera, Blogs, June 10, 2011, http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/americas/brazil-and-battisti
[15] “Argentina e Italia relanzanrelacionesbilaterales,” El Pais (Uruguay), Ultimo Momento, June 1, 2011, http://historico.elpais.com.uy/110601/ultmo-570224/ultimomomento/Argentina-e-Italia-relanzan-relaciones-bilaterales/
[16] “Conferencia de prensa de los cancilleres de Argentina e Italia,” Casa Rosada/ Presidencia de la Nacion Argentina, Official Transcript, http://www.presidencia.gov.ar/informacion/conferencias/23184
[17] “Italia invito a Argentina a jugar un amistoso en honor al Papa,” El Clarin (Argentina), Deportes, April 2, 2013, http://www.clarin.com/deportes/Italia-Argentina-amistoso-homenaje-Papa_0_893910769.html
[18] Araujo, Estefany, “Italia y Mexico fortalecenrelacionesbilaterales,” Sexenio.Mx (Mexico), May 24, 2012, http://www.sexenio.com.mx/articulo.php?id=15509
[19] “Sintesis de la RelacionComercial Mexico – Italia,” PROMexico, Unidad de Inteligencia y Negocios, March 8, 2010, http://www.promexico.gob.mx/work/models/promexico/Resource/102/1/images/Italia.pdf
[20] “Compra de fragatasLupo mantendrá equilibriodisuasivo regional,” Peru 21, October 3, 2004, http://peru21.pe/noticia/40343/compra-fragatas-lupo-mantendra-equilibrio-disuasivo-regional
[21] “Mexico adquiere a la italianaAleniaAeronauticacuatroaviones de transportetactico C-27J,” Infodefensa.com, July 7, 2011, http://www.infodefensa.com/?noticia=mexico-adquiere-a-la-italiana-alenia-aeronautica-cuatro-aviones-de-transporte-tactico-c-27j
[22] “El ServicioNacionalAeronaval de Panama recibe dos nuevos helicópteros AgustaWestland AW139,” Infodefensa.com, April 25, 2013, http://www.infodefensa.com/?noticia=el-servicio-nacional-aeronaval-de-panama-recibe-dos-nuevos-helicopteros-agustawestland-aw139
[23] “El EjercitoArgentinoevaluafusiles GLX 160 y lanzagranadas ARX 160 de Beretta,” Infodefensa.com, February 4, 2013, http://www.infodefensa.com/?noticia=el-ejercito-argentino-evalua-fusiles-glx-160-y-lanzagranadas-arx-160-de-beretta
[24] “Italia cede 20 helicopteros AB206 al Ejercito de Argentina,” Infodefensa.com, May 20, 2013, http://www.infodefensa.com/?noticia=italia-cede-20-helicopteros-ab206-al-ejercito-de-argentina&categoria=&pais=Argentina
[25] “El poderEjecutivoperuanoenvia al Congreso un acuerdo de Cooperacion en Defensa con Italia ,” Infodefensa.com, October 11, 2011, http://www.infodefensa.com/?noticia=el-poder-ejecutivo-peruano-envia-al-congreso-un-acuerdo-de-cooperacion-en-defensa-con-italia
[26] Italia y Perufortalecenrelacionesbilaterales en materia de Seguridad y Defensa,” Infodefensa.com, September 13, 2012, http://www.infodefensa.com/?noticia=italia-y-peru-fortalecen-relaciones-bilaterales-en-materia-de-seguridad-y-defensa
[27] “Peru invertira 800 millones de dólares adicionales en la compra de equipos militares,” Infodefensa.com, July 10, 2012, http://www.infodefensa.com/?noticia=peru-invertira-800-millones-de-dolares-adicionales-en-la-compra-de-equipos-militares
[28] “Telecom Italia busca ‘relaciones mas intensas’ con Argentina y Brasil,” ElEconomista.ES (Spain), May 10, 2011, http://ecodiario.eleconomista.es/interstitial/volver/canguroa13/flash/noticias/3056368/05/11/Telecom-Italia-busca-relaciones-mas-intensas-con-Argentina-y-Brasil-.html
[29] “Trade Mission to Brazil – Government, Regions and Chambers’ System,” Liguria International, http://www.liguriainternational.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=224%3Amissione-di-sistema-in-brasile&catid=1%3Ain-evidenza&lang=en
[30] “Italia ofrece a Brasilacuerdos de cooperacion en el Area de construccion naval military,” Infodefensa.com, July 3, 2012, http://www.infodefensa.com/?noticia=italia-ofrece-a-brasil-acuerdos-de-cooperacion-en-el-area-de-construccion-naval-militar
[31] “A-1M: Enhancing Brazil’s AMX Light Attack Fighters,” Defense Industry Daily, January 13, 2013, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/elbit-enhancing-amx-aircraft-avionics-for-brazil-05151/
[32] For more information on Brazil’s inter-state relations, security issues and foreign policy goals, see: Sanchez, W. Alejandro, “”Brazil’s Grand Design for Combining Global South Solidarity and National Interests: A Discussion of Peacekeeping Operations in Haiti and Timor,” Globalizations, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2012 Special Issue, Pages 161-178 http://bit.ly/wj1bTI and Sanchez, W. Alejandro, “Whatever happened to South America’s splendid little wars?” Small Wars & Insurgencies, Volume 22, Issue 2. 2011, Pages 322 – 351, http://bit.ly/jVA8GK
[33] “Brazil & France in Deal for SSKs, SSN,” Defense Industry Daily, April 11, 2013, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-france-in-deal-for-ssks-ssn-05217/
[34] Bargent, James, “Why has the Italian Mafia Returned to Colombia?” InsightCrime, May 16, 2013, http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/why-has-the-italian-mafia-returned-to-colombia
W. Alejandro Sánchez is a Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. The author would like to thank Filippo Ponz de Leon, COHA Research Associate, for his assistance fact-checking earlier drafts of this report.
]]>
By 5 votes to 4 the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) ruled that former Italian guerrilla Cesare Battisti, condemned in Italy for killing four people, should be extradited to Italy. The president of the Supreme Federal Tribunal, Gilmar Mendes, gave the decisive vote.
Everybody in the Lula administration was betting that Battisti would be allowed to stay in Brazil. Mendes sided with four other judges in favor of extradition: Cezar Peluso, Ricardo Lewandowski, Carlos Ayres Britto and Ellen Gracie. On the other side were Cármen Lúcia, Eros Grau, Joaquim Barbosa and Marco Aurélio Mello.
Although the Supreme's decision seemed to put and end to the long and heated process moreover because Lula had vowed to follow the Court's decision nobody knows what's going to happen to the ex-terrorist. After deciding to extradite the Italian the Supreme court went on to rule, again 5 to 4, that Lula should have the last word in the matter.
The consensus seems to be that Lula will keep Battisti in Brazil invoking humanitarian reasons. Everybody in government, some of them former guerrillas themselves, seem to sympathize with someone Rome sees as a criminal but many Brazilians view as a freedom fighter. .
One example of this government fondness for Battisti is the political asylum given the man by Justice minister, Tarso Genro, in 2007, interrupting the extradition process initiated by the Italian government.
In doing so Genro, a former activist from the Left, went against the recommendation by the Refugees National Committee (Conare), which opposed the move. The minister was accused of protecting someone he admired since Battisti used to belong to the far-left group Armed Proletarians for Communism (Proletari Armati per il Comunismo) or PAC.
Gilmar Mendes had opposed Genro's decision. In his vote, this Wednesday, Mendes argued that the murders for which Battisti was charged were not political crime and therefore not deserving of political asylum.
Earlier in the process, the government of Italy protested and even summoned the Brazilian ambassador in Rome to hear his explanation and show its outrage.
PAC lasted from 1976 to 1979 and was charged with a series of armed attacks. Battisti was sentenced to life in prison for four murders that occurred between 1977 and 1979.
He denies he killed anyone and says that when the crimes occurred he had already left the group. Battisti has expressed often his fear that he will be killed if sent back to Italy.
Brazilian analysts believe that Lula will keep Battisti in Brazil. But instead of having him as a political refugee the government might find a solution that would be palatable to Rome. "Nobody in the government thinks that Battisti should go back to Italy," a government interlocutor told Rio's daily O Globo.
Without anticipating what Lula will do the minister of Institutional Relations, Alexandre Padilha hinted at a solution that would please Battisti: "The Supreme acknowledged that the decision over Battisti is up to the president. This was already what minister Tarso Genro believed from the start. But as of now there is no position on what will be the president's decision."
Lula is not talking. But since his short visit to Italy last weekend he seems to have decided that the best is to keep Battisti in Brazil.
As expected the opposition in Congress applauded the Supreme Court's decision. Ronaldo Caiado, the DEM's leader, thinks that the STF should not only approve the extradition but also order Lula to comply with the ruling.
The pro-government side on the other hand lamented that the Supreme decided to interfere in the matter. The STF shouldn't even discuss the subject, said Cândido Vacarezza the Workers Party's leader.
"It doesn't seem right for the Supreme to express an opinion over an issue that it is not going to decide, which is the President's prerogative. The Supreme became smaller," said Vacarezza.
"I applaud the STF's decision, but I do not understand why we should leave this decision in the president's hands. He (Battisti)Â is a common criminal," reacted Caiado.
]]>The meeting, which began today and will go on to Sunday, December 11, is bringing together representatives of 30 executive and judicial bodies in Vitória, capital city of the state of Espírito Santo. The relationship between illicit funds and terrorism is one of the 20 topics being discussed.
According to the national Justice secretary, Cláudia Chagas, the fight against money-laundering is also an important way to combat organized crime.
According to Chagas, the Integrated Management Cabinet for the Prevention and Fight Against Money-Laundering (GGI-LD) has been active on various fronts to combat this crime.
To exemplify, she mentions the sharing and circulation of information among government bodies, including the participation of the judiciary and the Public Defense Ministry, besides the training of public servants to fight the practice of money-laundering.
The battle against terrorism will also be debated during the meeting. According to Chagas, Brazil already participates in international accords to fight terrorism.
The National Secretariat of Justice has already identified around US$ 300 million in funds suspected of having been transferred illegally from Brazil and blocked abroad.
According to the Secretariat, 652 people are being tried for money-laundering and 90 of them have already been sentenced.
Agência Brasil
]]>
Nearly 200 people packed a lecture theater at the London School of Economics (LSE) for the official launch of the Jean Charles de Menezes Family Campaign on October 10. De Menezes, a young Brazilian worker, was shot dead by police at London’s Stockwell underground station on July 22, the victim of a shoot-to-kill policy instigated in secret by the police and sanctioned by the British government.
The Family Campaign is calling for an investigation into the circumstances of Jean Charles’s death, both to ensure justice and to prevent similar deaths in future. The meeting heard the harrowing words of Maria Ambrosia da Silva, de Menezes’ mother, speaking publicly for the first time since the killing of her son, when she said that justice “must and will be done.” “I do not want,” she said, “any other mother to suffer as I have done.”
In the immediate aftermath of the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, there was a systematic campaign of disinformation aimed at justifying the policy of summary execution. Although the police denied feeding false information to compliant sections of the media, many of the stories that circulated could only have come from official sources.
It was claimed that de Menezes had been identified leaving the house of a suspected terrorist, wearing an unseasonably heavy overcoat. On his arrival at Stockwell Underground rail station, he supposedly vaulted the ticket barrier and attempted to flee police. Police identified themselves and shot him because of fears that he was carrying a bomb. Some witnesses claimed to have seen wires sticking out of his clothes.
All of these stories were proved to be lies.
In fact, de Menezes had left his communal block of flats wearing a denim jacket. He took a 20-minute bus ride to the station, where he picked up a free paper and entered by using his season ticket. He went slowly down the escalator.
At no point did he run from police, because the officers were in plain clothes and never identified themselves. He was not even aware that he was being followed.
When he reached the platform he entered the train and sat down. At this point he was shot seven times in the head, and once in the shoulder, at point-blank range with no prior warning. Three other shots missed.
On the basis of false stories, press reports stated definitively that de Menezes was a suicide bomber implicated in the bomb attempts of July 21. The police only informed the family of his death some 30 hours later. His cousins, who lived with Jean Charles, were corralled in a hotel room by police and interrogated. The telephone was not working, so they were unable to ring their family in Brazil.
As it became clear that de Menezes was an innocent man, the police worked overtime to limit the political fallout from their murderous actions.
Sir Ian Blair, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, stalled an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) for five days. Instead, he promised an internal investigation by the Metropolitan Police. The IPCC has a statutory duty to investigate. The Metropolitan Police also announced that CCTV footage from Stockwell station was missing.
A deputation, led by Deputy Assistance Commissioner John Yates, went to Brazil to visit de Menezes’ family and offer them a £15,000 “ex gratia” payment. The police insisted that the meeting had to take place without the family lawyer being present. When the family said they would be happy to discuss with the police, but were waiting for the arrival of their lawyer, the deputation left.
The Family Campaign is demanding to know the full facts of what happened on July 22. Its central demands are for a swift conclusion to the IPCC investigation, with the publication of its findings, and for appropriate criminal charges being brought against those responsible.
The family is also calling for a full judicial public inquiry to investigate the police operation that culminated in the murder of de Menezes, police actions following his death, and the shoot-to-kill policy itself.
Gareth Peirce, the family’s lawyer, told the meeting that de Menezes’ family had been asking from the outset all the relevant questions that the police still needed to answer. How could Jean Charles have been identified as a suspect? If he was a suspect, how could he have been allowed to take a bus and enter the station? How could his execution have been lawful?
She pointed to the new waves of anti-terrorist legislation being promulgated by the government, and said that the country already has more than it needs. She asked whether the police use the existing legislation properly, and whether new legislation was being proposed for propaganda purposes? At the same time, she said, there is an extra-parliamentary culture of police policy, as witnessed in the shoot-to-kill policy.
Peirce noted that Sir John Stevens, former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, had boasted in his newspaper column of introducing the policy when he had previously been employed investigating shoot-to-kill operations in Northern Ireland.
She also drew attention to the forthcoming debate in the House of Lords on the use of evidence extracted by torture, and the deliberate policy of returning people to countries that employ torture.
The most far-reaching historical overview came from Amnesty International’s Livio Zilli, who noted that Britain has a long history of allegations of unlawful killings that have never been resolved.
Amnesty is demanding a mechanism for independent investigations: it expressed particular concern over police attempts to block the IPCC’s investigation. The fact that the IPCC had not opposed the actions of the police towards the IPCC raised concerns that it was susceptible to pressure from the Metropolitan Police, and possibly the Home Office.
Matthew Taylor MP, former chair of the Liberal Democrats, was most concerned that repressive legislation had been introduced without Parliament providing it with a fig leaf of legitimacy. He justified shoot-to-kill operations, stating, “Of course, we all understand” that under certain circumstances “it may be … reasonable to use lethal force.”
He regretted, however, the lack of parliamentary debate on the shoot-to-kill policy. Had it been debated in Parliament, he said, he would have opposed it. If it had then gone through Parliament, though, it would have had “some kind of legitimacy,” however unpalatable.
Several speakers drew attention to other victims of police killings and repression. Susan Alexander, the mother of Azelle Rodney, compared her son’s case to that of Jean Charles de Menezes. Rodney, an innocent man, was also smeared in the press after he was shot in the head by police in April this year.
The postmortem was rushed and the family was not notified. Ms. Alexander expressed her lack of confidence in the IPCC, noting that the officer involved in the death of her son had still not been interviewed.
The human rights campaigner Bianca Jagger drew attention to Prime Minister Tony Blair’s demands for more Draconian legislation on the grounds that the rules of engagement with terrorists have changed. Jagger noted that this marked a reintroduction of the death penalty by the back door, as the British government had rejected political debate.
In the debate that followed, a speaker from the floor argued that all the police commissioners involved should be prosecuted for conspiracy to murder, along with Home Secretary Charles Clarke. A friend of the de Menezes family said that it was “impossible” for them to have any dealings with the police because of the lies and obstruction. One speaker, who had been in Tavistock Square on July 7 when a bomb exploded on a bus, said that not all victims of terrorism supported the shoot-to-kill policy or were uncritical of it.
A question was asked about the intervention of two Brazilian government representatives.
It was pointed out that the representatives had made no effort to contact the de Menezes family. They were, said one speaker, pursuing their own political agenda. There has been much discussion of the British government having adopted a shoot-to-kill policy already practiced in Brazil. It was noted by a local politician from São Paulo that some 500 to 800 people are shot dead each year in that city alone.
Originally published by the World Socialist Web site – www.wsws.org.
]]>
The parents of Brazilian worker Jean Charles de Menezes have reiterated their demand that the police officers responsible for killing their son stand trial for murder. They have also called for Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair to stand trial. De Menezes’ parents, Matosinhos Otoni da Silva e Maria Otoni da Silva, along with five other relatives are making a two-week visit to the UK from Brazil to see where their son was killed.
The young worker was gunned down by police officers on July 22 while he was seated on a London Underground train. A total of eleven shots were fired without warning, seven at point blank range to his head. Afterwards, police admitted that a shoot-to-kill policy had been secretly adopted two years earlier.
The police killing took place one day after several bombs planted in London apparently misfired, and fifteen days after a series of subway bombings killed more than 50 people in Britain’s capital city.
In an interview with the Daily Mirror, 60-year-old Maria de Menezes told of her agony and outrage at her son’s brutal murder and the fact that no one has been held accountable.
“My son was assassinated,” she said. “The policemen who did this are nothing more than common killers. It is up to the British government to punish them.”
Maria said it was “unbelievable” that the two firearms officers who killed her son were still at liberty, and had even been sent on holiday.
“They should be arrested immediately and they should be in prison waiting for the judgement. We want to see them punished as killers. They must be tried in court for murder. They fired 11 shots at Jean. They wanted to kill him. It was certainly no accident.”
Maria demanded that Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair also stand trial. “Ian Blair should be put on trial for corporate manslaughter,” she said. “He should be punished too. He is the head of police and he is responsible. He didn’t tell the truth. He hid their mistakes and pretended my son was a terrorist.”
Ian Blair appeared at a press conference shortly after de Menezes was gunned down and defended the killing, claiming that it was “directly linked” to an anti-terrorist operation in the wake of the July 7 bombings and the July 21 incidents.
At the same time, reports were circulated that de Menezes was a potential terrorist suspect, that he was dressed in a heavy coat on a warm day (so as to conceal a bomb), and that he had attempted to evade capture.
All these claims were proven to be lies. De Menezes’ only crime was to live in a block of flats that had been placed under police surveillance following the bombings. There was nothing to connect him with terrorist offences, and the police had no reasons to believe otherwise.
Leaked videotape footage proved that de Menezes walked in a leisurely manner into the Underground station wearing a light denim jacket. He would have had no knowledge that he was being followed until he was set upon by plainclothes police.
Following these disclosures, the Metropolitan police issued a cursory statement apologising for de Menezes’ death, whilst defending their actions.
Visiting the scene of her son’s murder was “very, very hard,” Maria de Menezes said, but added, “I don’t want Jean to be forgotten. The police shouldn’t be allowed to do this. I have come to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
Jean’s brother Giovani has also travelled with the family from Brazil. “There is no way we will ever forget Jean,” he told the Mirror. “I had only one brother but he was worth a thousand.”
Calling for an end to the shoot-to-kill policy, Giovani said, “You can’t kill somebody without investigating or even knowing who they are. It must change. We are here to change the law before somebody else gets killed as they go about their business.”
The family’s trip has been paid for by Scotland Yard and they are expected to visit the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which is investigating de Menezes’ killing, and to meet MPs in Parliament. But they will find little support for their demands for justice in such circles.
Over the past two months, every effort has been made to quell anger at de Menezes’ murder and defend the policies that made it possible.
Amidst demands from politicians and the media that Jean Charles’ killing not be “politicised,” people have been told to await the outcome of the IPCC investigation. This is not expected to report until December at the earliest, and there is little possibility that it will recommend criminal proceedings against the police officers involved, much less those in the upper echelons of the state and government who authorised the shoot-to-kill policy. IPCC Chairman Nick Hardwick has said he hoped the investigation would strengthen police support for the body.
In the meantime, the IPCC investigation has been used to silence discussion on de Menezes’ murder, whilst enabling the government to press ahead with further assaults on democratic rights.
The day before the family’s visit, leaked reports revealed that senior Scotland Yard commanders had raised the possibility that police had shot an innocent man within hours of de Menezes being killed. According to the Mirror, “Scotland Yard sources reportedly claimed officers became concerned as soon as they checked the identification in his wallet and told commanders of their doubts.”
Up to four leading officers had expressed their concerns when it became clear that de Menezes was not carrying a bomb or weapon, and that he had identity papers on him. This was before Sir Ian Blair’s public statement that de Menezes had been challenged and was shot after refusing to obey police orders. The same version of events was allowed to circulate for 24 hours, with Scotland Yard publicly linking de Menezes to terror groups.
When these facts came out, the IPCC chairman condemned the reports as “unhelpful.”
Whilst public criticism of police and government actions has been declared off-limits, shoot-to-kill remains in force. Appearing before the Commons all-party Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into the July 7 London bombings earlier this month, Sir Ian Blair spelt out that Prime Minister Tony Blair and Home Secretary Charles Clarke, amongst others, had been privy to the decision to adopt a shoot-to-kill policy.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister stated that he could not remember being told about this procedural change.
Sir Ian Blair insisted that the policy not be altered, despite the death of an innocent man. The police had carried out a “fairly quick” review of policy following de Menezes’ shooting and had made “a small number of administrative changes, but the essential thrust of the tactics remains the same,” he said.
Rejecting that the police should be held accountable for their actions, Blair insisted they must be free to take “hard decisions.”
Originally published by the World Socialist Web site – www.wsws.org
]]>Brazil and the United States will be able to expedite actions to prevent, investigate, and combat border crimes and international terrorism.
Decree 5410, which was published in the Brazilian Diário Oficial (Federal Register) this week and is already in effect, promulgates an agreement signed between the two countries in June, 2002, with these objectives in mind.
By the terms of the agreement, the two countries will cooperate to combat black-marketing and the trafficking of medicines, among other crimes. They will also act jointly to apply measures to control the flow of illegal merchandise, such as arms, and human beings.
According to information released by the Federal Revenue agency, agreements of this type subscribe to a model recommended by the World Customs Organization, to which Brazil belongs.
Since 1981 Brazil has been signing customs agreements to demonstrate its desire to encourage regular, legitimate trade and protect society from possibly illegal transactions.
The Federal Revenue agency also informed that, in Brasília, the joint actions will not be limited solely to administrative support.
They will also encourage the exchange of information and administrative and judicial cooperation, such as appearances by experts or witnesses from one country in the other.
“Moreover, there are provisions for a continous exchange of information between the Brazilian Federal Revenue Secretariat and the American Customs Administration concerning the embarkation and transport of cargos and documentation in specific operations in which underbilling or overbilling is suspected, among other items,” the Federal Revenue agency informed.
Agência Brasil
]]>Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Relations issued a note informing that the Lula administrations “was adamantly opposed to the terrorist attack that resulted in the death of Rafik Hariri, member of the Lebanese Congress and ex-Prime Minister, together with another ex-minister, Bassel Fleihan, as well as wounding dozens of other Lebanese citizens in Beirut.”
The note adds that the Brazilian government “expresses its concern over the eventual consequences of this terrorist action and confides in Lebanese officials to identify and punish the criminals and their instigators.”
According to the Ministry, Hariri visited Brazil in 1995 and 2003, “contributing to the improvement of bilateral relations and the strengthening of friendly ties between the peoples of Brazil and Lebanon.”
The note also informs that “the Brazilian government recognizes the important contribution made by ex-prime minister Hariri to domestic peace, political stablilization, and the reconstruction of Lebanon, after many years of war.”
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva sent a condolence message to the Lebanese government and Rafik Hariri’s family.
Abr
]]>Continuing a tradition that began with the birth of the United Nations in 1946, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva made the first speech at the opening of the General Assembly.
With reference to terrorism, Lula declared that terrorism cannot be fought exclusively by military means. “We have to develop strategies combining solidarity and firmness that are rigidly within the rule of law,” said the President of Brazil.
He added that Brazil is opposed to “interfering in the affairs of other nations, but at the same time could not remain indifferent to problems that affect other nations.”
As an example of what he was talking about, Lula cited Haiti where Brazil has joined other nations as part of the UN transition and reconstruction mission.
Lula called for changes in multilateral financial organization operations in order to promote what he called just and sustainable growth. He specifically urged new rules for International Monetary Fund financing.
In his speech Lula referred to the Action Against Hunger conference which took place just before the General Assembly, on September 20, which garnered support from no less than 100 countries.
That event, sponsored by Brazil and held at the urging of President Lula, put an international spotlight on Brazil.
He also mentioned the solidarity fund created by Brazil, South Africa and India in 2003, to combat hunger and dire poverty in the world.
He cited a project in Guine-Bissau as the first concrete action plan to be undertaken as part of that tripartite effort.
Lula also talked about the progress made by developing nations in World Trade Organization negotiations, citing the ruling against rich nation farm produce subsidies.
Lula called the G-20 an example of the fight for “trade freedom with social justice” within the framework of the Doha Round of negotiations.
Agência Brasil
Globalization, president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva declared that the strength of
globalization is not being used to solve the problems of hunger and poverty in
the world.
The commission is meeting at the UN in New York. It is working on data provided by the International Labor Organization (ILO)which reported, in March, on the negative aspects of globalization and recommended stronger social dialogue, action policies aimed at providing more vulnerable social groups with jobs and political activities to reduce poverty in order to counterbalance those aspects.
Lula pointed out that the ILO report showed that as a result of globalization the distance between the rich and the poor has increased.
“The fact is that the rationale of globalization runs counter to the interests of the majority. The challenges and dilemma of our world calls for integrated solutions and will power,” said the president.
Lula went on to say that there was a need to globalize the ideals of democracy, social justice and development because they were the tools of change. They could resolve the problem of collective security, the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, he declared.
Lula said that although market forces could stimulate production, they do not reduce social inequalities. He called for changes to the international financial system. “Its rules should permit developing nations sufficient room to maneuver so they can build infrastructure, industrial policy and their own technologies,” he said.
According to Lula, a just globalization should begin with jobs. “Decent work has to be available to everybody. But this is something that cannot be used as a pretext for protectionistic clauses in trade treaties which wind up being detrimental to those the treaties are supposed to help,” he declared.
Lula cited the efforts of presidents Jacques Chirac (France), Ricardo Lagos (Chile) and José Luiz Rodriguez Zapatero (Spain), along with the secretary general of the UN, Kofi Annan, to put social inclusion at the top of the international agenda.
In conclusion, Lula called for strengthening the UN and said world leaders had an obligation to engage in the fight against poverty in the world.
“How many times do we have to tell you that the most dangerous weapon of mass destruction in the world is misery?” asked Lula.
Agência Brasil
Reporter: Carolina Pimentel
Translator: Allen Bennett