Globe, Uncategorized, United Kingdom, World

The architects, accomplices and victims of Lawfare

The international analyst Amauri Chamorro talks about how this judicial war began, the countries and groups involved, how it affects society, and what the public can do to fight this strategy that aims at bringing down progressive governments.


Virginia Moreno Molina


Discrediting left-wing governments in Latin America is the not the only objective of ‘Lawfare’.

In addition, this process of legal prosecution played an important role in the war in Iraq, another example of the supremacy of the capitalism that the West wishes to impose.

The political analyst Amauri Chamorro talks about this situation, and also analyses the harassment that the party of the FARC (now called the Fuerzas Revolucionarios del Común, previously the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and currently demobilized since 2017) has received since they signed the Peace Accord.

These are some examples that are part of this wave of attacks carried out using the methods of Lawfare, which he talked about in the previous two articles: Lawfare or how to bring down progressive governments, and Lawfare: immoral, illegal, corrupt, but it serves to destroy the Left.

For this third and last part of his interview with The Prisma, Amauri Chamorro analyses the most serious legal cases, the case of the FARC in Colombia, the participation of the West in the invasion of Iraq, and the role of the people in response to ‘Lawfare’.

Amauri Chamorro

How is Lawfare orchestrated?

It originates from the US Department of Justice, which began to be used against progressive governments in Latin America, during Barack Obama’s presidency.

And then it has a base of operations in the state of Paraná (in the south of Brazil), in the state capital, Curitiba to be specific.

The Federal Court of first instance is there, as well as the base in Paraná, of the Brazilian Federal Prosecutor, where the judge Sergio Moro works.

In other words, the operational base of the Federal courts and prosecutors that are working against the Left in Latin America operates from Brazil, in conjunction with the US.

They don’t care what means they have to use, such as for example, employing Odebrecht as a tool for making accusations and bringing people down.

Odebrecht has an agreement with the US, since it is a big contributor to Republican funding in the south of the country, mainly in Miami.

What kind of agreement?

They offer two important factors: on the one hand, paying a fine of $3 billion after an agreement with the public prosecutor of New York in 2016 allowed them to operate freely in the country.

At the moment, Odebrecht is carrying out dozens of big projects in the USA, and is delivering documentation about its operations in Latin America.

And on the other hand, that information allowed the Department of Justice to hold a press conference at which they claimed that 12 governments had received bribes totalling $780 million.

How do the USA and Brazil act in coordination?

It’s common knowledge that two or three times a year, judges and prosecutors from all over Latin America travel to Brazil to meet the Brazilian public prosecutors.

And based on this, they work together so that the application of the methodology of judicial persecution works in the same way in all the countries.

For example, Vice-President Jorge Glas, illegally arrested, has been sentenced using the same modus operandi in the Ecuadorian justice system as that used against Lula in Brazil.

As a precedent, the Ecuadorian prosecutor who charged Glas, travelled to Brazil a few weeks before, supposedly to coordinate agreements.

But in reality, what he did there, involving the Brazilian prosecutors, was to deliver some false evidence to the prosecutors of other countries as a means of implementing Lawfare.

In the case of the US, can we talk about a ‘lawfare’ in Iraq?

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, went to the UN Security Council to tell them that Iraq had big factories producing weapons of mass destruction, so it was necessary to invade the country.

They played a whole judicial game inside the UN to back up the invasion of Iraq.

And with the communication media supporting them, the US, Europe, with Spain, France, Britain, Germany – delinquent states – they invaded the country, caused the deaths of over a million innocent civilians, and never found one kilo of chemical weapons, nor even the means of making them.

Which country has suffered the worst effects of Lawfare?

First of all, Venezuela, because it has also affected their society to the extent of causing a huge wave of emigration, due to the shortage of food and medicines.

Second, Nicaragua, followed by Ecuador and Brazil. Because not only is it a juridical attack on an individual, but also against the functioning of the state itself, affecting the lives of millions of people.

Which have been the most powerful judicial cases?

Cristina de Kirchner, the ex-President of Argentina, was accused of having millions of dollars hidden in a vault inside her house. The police spent three days searching her house, but they found nothing. But this still damaged her image and her relationship with the people of Argentina.

Marco Enriquez-Ominami, who was a presidential candidate in Chile, leading in the polls, was brutally attacked, and in the end, he lost. All this was due to the weaponizing of the communication media, and the opposition of the public prosecutors.

[Then there is] the case of Rafael Correa in Ecuador; and Jorge Glas (the Ecuadorian Vice-President), who was found guilty according to an obsolete penal code. Plus the case involving drug-trafficking accusations against the government of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.

Is Evo Morales on the Lawfare list?

He has been attacked a lot on the subject of a non-existent son, and the claim that he used to pay $1,000 for a haircut, which was spread on social media…

But this was at a lower level in comparison with Cristina de Kirchner, who was brutally attacked by the Argentine justice system and the communication media.

What do you think about the party of the FARC in Colombia?

It is a [case of] ‘Lawfare’. The members of the FARC are members of parliament, but they are being pursued and accused in an illegal manner. They should not be making these kinds of accusations because they are covered by the terms of the Peace Process, and any kind of prosecution ought to be according to the process of Transitional Justice.

The agreement required that Transitional Justice be responsible for prosecutions against the FARC and the Colombian State.

But the Colombian State is the great murderer of Colombia. Its army and police are those who have tortured and killed the most in the history of the country.

These same generals, lieutenants, and soldiers should also be tried by the common justice system, but it isn’t happening.

How can people tell the difference between truth and lies?

It’s very difficult. In the case of Venezuela, there are 7,000 communication media [companies], and 99.9% of them are on the side of the opposition. In Ecuador, there are 2,000, and 100% of them were against President Rafael Correa. And this is only counting the national media, to which the big networks should be added, like the BBC, NBC, CNN, El Mundo … attacking progressive movements.

Obviously, part of the population is going to be tricked and they will take a political position based on this disinformation. The only way to fight it is to go into the streets more often and confront this framework of disinformation.

Chamorro was invited to london by the group ‘United for the Citizen Revolution UK’

What role can ordinary citizens play in response to this problem?

Civil society needs to get organized, to be able to present their own demands, and not those of parties and leaders, against the way justice has been trampled over by the judicial system, appealing to courts in Europe of the US.

To create pressure on the justice system in these countries where human rights and the rule of law are being trampled over.

It is also important that the people campaign against ‘lawfare’, going from door to door, and having conversations with as many people as possible, explaining to them what is happening. In this way they can win in the area of communication against the network of disinformation created by the big media companies.

(Translated by Graham Douglas – Email: – Photos: Pixabay

Share it / Compartir:

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *