The following was published recently by Julian Assange and Wikileaks.  It gives the reader an idea of the imperialist meddling in Ecuador in the 1970’s that would subsequently lead to the democratic election of Jaime Roldós Aguilera and his subsequent assassination by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1981.

It is important to note, as Stephen Lendman did on March 18th, 2013 at (

“that on May 23, Henry Kissinger will be the latest recipient for the Medal of Honor given by the President of the United States. Ceremonies will take place at New York’s Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum. It calls itself “one of America’s leading historic, cultural and educational institutions” (ibid).

Lendman went on eloquently to list the crimes for which Kissinger will be awarded and they include:

Kissinger’s one of America’s worst. On May 27, he’ll be 90 years old. He was an early architect of new world order harshness.

He’s a notorious war criminal. His legacy includes three to four million Southeast Asian war deaths.

He was instrumental in overthrowing Chile’s democratic government. Augusto Pinochet replaced Salvador Allende. A reign of terror followed. It included arrests, killings and torture.

So did privatization of state enterprises, mass layoffs, sweeping deregulation, deep social spending cuts, wage freezes or cuts, unrestricted free market access for western corporations, corporate-friendly tax cuts, trade unionist crackdowns, and harsh repression against opposing a system incompatible with social democracy, civil and human rights.

Kissinger backed Suharto’s brutal dictatorship. His Kopassus special forces terrorized Indonesians. Their record includes kidnappings, rape, torture, targeted killings, sweeping violence, mass murder, and other atrocities against anyone challenging his authority.

He supported his West Papua takeover. He OK’d his East Timor invasion. Over two hundred thousand East Timorese died. Around half a million more were displaced. In his memoirs, former American UN ambassador Daniel Partick Moynihan wrote:

“The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success (ibid)

In two months, 10% of the population was annihilated. It was prelude for what followed.

  • Kissinger supported the Khmer Rouge’s rise to power and reign of terror. He encouraged a Kurdish revolt against Saddam Hussein. He then abandoned them. He advised Bush and Cheney on Iraq policy.
  • He backed a 1974 Cypriot fascist coup. He defended Turkey’s brutal invasion. He wanted a Washington, DC-based journalist kidnapped and killed.
  • He was complicit in Operation Condor. Pinochet and other Latin American despots reigned terror against alleged communists and political opponents. Tens of thousands perished.
  • He backed Pakistan’s “delicacy and tact” in overthrowing Bangladesh’s democratically elected government. Half a million deaths followed.
  • In 1974, his secret National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) called for drastic global depopulation. Developing nations are resource rich, he said. They’re vital to US growth.
  • He wanted useless eaters eliminated. He said “Depopulation should be the highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World.”
  • He supported involuntary mass sterilizations. He wanted birth control made a prerequisite for US aid. He wanted hundreds of millions eliminated by 2000
  • Kissinger’s worst of all. He symbolizes imperial lawlessness. He waged war on humanity in and out of government. He’s still doing it. On May 27, he’ll again be honored. He deserves prison instead
  • His legacy includes involvement in decades of crimes of war, against humanity and genocide. As National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, he served Nixon and Ford from January 1969 – January 1977 (ibid).

Kissinger is a sociopath, psycopath and serial murder and the best book on his crimes can be read in the book by now-deceased, Christopher Hitchens, who documents the serial genocidal killer with great clarity (

Of course, few know that during his reign in the decade of the seventies, Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger oversaw the entire Latin American Landscape with an eye for imperial power, domination and control.  He was of course aided and abetted by criminal Richard Nixon, then president of the US.

Kissinger’s extraordinary of mass murders and genocide in Latin America is now to be rewarded by “Change You Can Believe in Obama’ with the lavish Medal of Honor to a serial murder.  Can’t get better than this, can it?

Readers must learn the history of the Kissinger/Imperial domination and genocide in Latin America so that when the time comes, he can be planted into the ground with the honors he so badly needs and the public needs to understand about this decrepit ruler elite.

Published by El Telegrafo, April 29, 2013 by ‘Julian Assange in Exile’: The Revelations of Wikileaks

As of this writing, Assange has been in exile for 343 days in the Ecuadorian Embassy in EnglandHe now writes for El Telegrafo.


In 1973 riots were frequent in Guayaquil, Ecuador where there was concentrated opposition to the Ecuadorian military regime. The photo below shows a protest around the interior of Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Research unit

The U.S. Embassy always closely monitored political activity in Ecuador. The aim was to establish whether there would be any changes that could affect their financial interests.

According to diplomatic cables from the State Department, recently leaked by WikiLeaks, which date from the 70’s, Americans have always felt comfortable with the military dictatorships, both during the period of Guillermo Rodriguez Lara (the former dictator of Ecuador) and the post- triumvirate (See more at:

A cable written on July 19, 1976, classified as secret, written by an unidentified person at the time, summarizes the situation:

“The purpose of this message is to make an analysis for the State Department and to other agencies of the political dynamics in Ecuador. Having recently arrived from Washington, I realize that maybe the answer in various sectors would be ‘Who cares?’ However, this small country has shown a unique ability in this region at least, to cause us problems, whether bilateral (fishing seizures, GSP, Texaco-Gulf ADA) and multilateral (OAS reform, UNCLOS)”.
The cable adds:

“Unlike other Latin American countries, small and economically dependent, Ecuador has not let its weakness (compared to its neighbors) to stop it at the time it felt it necessary to  face us (the US) when its national interests so require”.

Later, the anonymous analyst notes:

“We believe that the ultimate authorities in Ecuador (dictatorship) will remain friends with the U.S., but that they would not have the power to force the rest of the Government of Ecuador to make changes in its foreign policy.”

It was the time when the country was ruled by the triumvirate formed by Alfredo Poveda, Guillermo Duran and Luis Leoro (

In the same cable, the embassy reported who the key players in the Ecuadorian political game were:

“The biggest contenders to power in the political system are: the Armed Forces, the elite commercial / industrial / landowner, known as the oligarchy; unions, leftist intellectuals and student populism, represented today by Assad Bucaram and his Concentration of Popular Forces (CFP). The Church is now a latent power and enters the battle only to protect their institutional interests.  Of these, only the military and the oligarchy can exercise decisive power. Between these two, there is at least a passive acceptance of one another. The other contenders are able to interrupt, influence and perhaps bring down a government, but are unable to form or sustain a government that is opposed to the military or the oligarchy.”

The military harshly suppressed any protest, whether they be students, professors, doctors or bus drivers.


 In an archival photo file, the Ecuadorian newspaper, The Telegrafo, shows the arrest of and detention of demonstrator at the time.

The cable then goes on to describe what appears to be laprofunda crisis affecting the Ecuadorian State:

“The fragmentation of the political system and the cult of personality is so dominant that it is reflected in how the government operates no matter which contender is in charge. Typically the president is reluctant to make decisions when the topic is controversial, because he cannot afford to alienate his allies if he wants to stay in power. Instead there is a uniform and consistent power, numerous satrapías that handle different areas, independently of one another. There are dozens of ministries that derive their funding from tax revenues, leaving the central government without much discretionary income. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has the freedom to act as he pleases. The Ministry of Natural Resources looks like it can handle oil policy without much interference from the Board of Governors.”

A similar reading is made in a cable years earlier, dated July 13, 1973. Then the analysis was on the government of Guillermo Rodriguez Lara.  For America, this administration was corrupt but efficient.  The cable at the time, written by a person not identified states:

“The level of corruption appears to be increasing and at quite a fast pace and is more visible in the oil issue and purchase of weapons. The appearance of corruption is a relatively new history in this regime. Its effects (of corruption) are undermining public confidence. This corruption must accelerate the degeneration of the regime.”
Despite this situation, the United States regarded the dictatorship of Rodríguez Lara as an ‘efficient government’. American ambassador at the time, Robert Brewster, wrote:

“He and his colleagues seem to be prepared to hold on to power indefinitely. A notable achievement has been the stability of government and increasing the efficiency of public administration, after more than a decade of political emergency. This Government (Lara) has provided more effective administration that most Ecuadorians remember. The traditional political activity has remained at a standstill. The few active civilian politicians have no popularity and the government has been able to harass them in the silence of immunity. And in this Government’s record has been anything but good.”

The US diplomat, Brewster, then gives a profile of Rodriguez Lara:

“There is no doubt that Rodriguez’s personality is the key to military rule. Although physically not impressive, his intellectual ability (rare in this Ecuadorian Army), and his eloquence and command instinct seems to be what earned him a prominent position. There are still frequent reports of ambitious commanders, but all in all Rodríguez’s problematic rivals seem to have been neutralized, at least for the moment.”

Brewster explained that at that time there was no person able to replace Rodriguez, except from the Navy:

“Only the Navy, which is traditionally one of the most educated officer corps, offers some interesting possibilities. One of them is Admiral Alfredo Poveda — strong, competent and serene. Another, much darker, is Renan Olmedo, governor of the province of Guayas. In dealing with unruly Guayaquil, Olmedo has shown unusual forcefulness and political understanding. Poveda seems to be well accepted, at least by his colleagues in the Navy, and occupies the highest office of the Cabinet.  Olmedo, on the other hand, is a loner whose dirty life resume has created reservation among his peers. But prospects are, in any case, that Rodriguez will continue as president until he decides to quit” (see more on Poveda at:

Brewster is correct in his prognosis, because Poveda is the one who would replace Rodriguez Lara in 1976 (ibid).

But U.S. analysis was not only about the government, but also about the civilian opposition — opposition Washington considered disperse and without popular support.

On August 3, 1973 a cable studying the “Restoration Front “— a political initiative which joined the main political groups of the era: i.e. liberal, velasquistas (the name for those who supported dictator (Velasco Ibarra) and the PIC stated:
“The contrast between the political apathy that existed until recently and this sudden increase in activity shows that it seems more dramatic and meaningful than it probably really is.  Remember that the ‘Front’ is composed of a heterogeneous group of traditional politicians, for the most part, dissident groups. It has no common agenda other than an end to military rule. It lacks popular support. Today is not seen as a serious alternative to the current government.”
For the Embassy, ​​the only serious alternative was Assad Bucaram, the leader of the Concentration of Popular Forces (CFP).  The cable goes on:

“While this is only speculation, it may be that long-term poverty of the military government and the Front, as revealed by political activity, may have the effect of making Bucaram and the PIC the only alternative for change in Ecuador.”

In fact it was the PIC who won the presidential election in 1979 when the country returned to democracy (see more about the assassination of democratic leader Jaime Roldós Aguilera by the CIA @ (

For America, this was because former President Velasco Ibarra, who had been overthrown by Lara Rodriguez, was by this time a political corpse. On August 20, 1974, Ambassador Brewster analyzes a clandestine meeting of the Velasco Ibarra party, in which Alfonso Arroyo was elected as the top leader:

“The policy statement has had no popular resonance. Velasquismo without Velasco, is, of course, an empty shell.  At the age of 80 years old and after five presidencies, the ‘prophet’ may have been consigned to the dustbin of history in popular belief.”

You can read more about the history of US involvement in Ecuador from ‘Assange in Exile’ at: