by Jacques Beaudoin on the [email protected]
Socialist Action, Montreal, December 30, 1996
In an interview conducted by Darrio Azzellini and published today by "junge Welt", Isaac Velazco, who act as the European Representative of the MRTA, explained the main objectives of the takeover of the Japanese embassy:
"Darrio Azzellini: According to mainstream media reports, the MRTA commando, which is still occupying the Japanese ambassador's residence in Lima, has proposed a dialogue concerning a lasting and comprehensive peace. It seems the MRTA is no longer demanding the release of all political prisoners, rather just that prison conditions be improved. Have the goals of the action been changed?
Isaac Velazco: Not at all. The goal remains to discuss and to negotiate. The MRTA will enter into these negotiations with the same demands it made at the beginning of the standoff. In the confrontation with the government concerning these demands, including the release of political prisoners, we will see which points we can agree on. That's how a process of negotiation works." (The complete interview can be consulted at http://burn.ucsd.edu/~ats/mrta.htm
It seems to be more and more clear that the MRTA is searching for a kind of "peace accord" in Peru like the ones that appeared in Guatemala, or less recently in a country like Salvador.
In a post he made on December 22 ("Peru-MRTA seeks only dialogue"), "Luis Quispe", who claim to speak in the name of an organization "generated by the PCP" (his so-called "MPP-USA") strangely wrote that:
"While some of the MRTA's actions, such as today's at the Japanese Embassy, have an anti-imperialist character, they are not part of the struggle for socialism or for the true liberation of the people from imperialism as is the People's War led by the PCP."
But how is it possible that an organization (the MRTA) that "share the job of imperialism and the Peruvian reaction", according to the PCP (see below), can in the same time carry some actions that have an "anti-imperialist character"? "Quispe" is clearly not defending the line of the PCP on this question. He proves again that he is nothing but an impostor.