On October 9, the US State Department published a statement declaring former Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, as well as his former vice-president Jorge Glas, as ineligible to enter the country. According to the United States, the measure was taken due to the alleged “involvement in significant corruption during their time in public office”.
In 2020, Correa and other politicians close to his party were sentenced to prison in Ecuador for allegedly committing acts of corruption. Correa was not arrested and imprisoned because he was living in Belgium, a country that has, on several occasions, ruled out apprehending and deporting him for the charges he faces in Ecuador. Correa, as well as political leaders in Ecuador and across the globe, have affirmed that the cases against him and Citizen Revolution leaders are politically motivated. Legal experts have also criticized their convictions citing the complete lack of evidence in the case. For example, in lieu of concrete evidence linking Correa to any acts of corruption, the court resorted to sentencing Correa based on having “psychic and cognitive influence” and being able to “control others’ will.”
Perhaps because of the ease with which Correa traveled through several countries without being arrested since his conviction, his ban from the United States surprised some. For others it confirmed the collusion of the US government in the persecution of the progressive leader.
More than four years after Correa and Glas were sentenced for alleged bribery, the State Department declared: “Correa and Glas abused their positions as former president of Ecuador and former vice president of Ecuador, respectively, by accepting bribes, including through political contributions, in exchange for granting favorable government contracts…Anti-corruption provisions, including in government procurement contracts, help ensure the government delivers for its citizens. This designation also reaffirms our commitment to counter global corruption, including at the highest levels of government.”
The 7031(c) designation, which applies to persons that the US government considers to have participated directly or indirectly in acts of corruption or serious human rights violations, also affects the immediate family members of Correa and Glas who are also prohibited from entering the United States.
Correa’s reaction
The former Ecuadorian president categorized the US decision as nonsense. According to Correa’s lawyer, Sonia Vera, the communiqué appears at a time when Correa had not requested to enter the United States, and Jorge Glas, who was kidnapped from the Mexican Embassy in Quito in April, is being held in a maximum-security prison, so it seems that the intention of the communiqué is for extrajudicial reasons.
On his X account, Correa hypothesized that the decision may have to do with his historical support to Julian Assange, specifically because on October 2 the former president published a photo with the Australian journalist during the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
He added that it also seems to be a smokescreen to distract public attention from the questionable administration of Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa, whose government faces a serious crisis. Ecuador is currently in a very serious energy crisis, and the population must endure up to 10 hours of power outages a day, in addition to a wave of violence that the government does not seem to be able to contain. Given this, Noboa’s popularity is at risk, which is why, says Correa, the State Department would seek to discredit the Correista party Citizen Revolution: “In a few months, presidential elections will be held in Ecuador, in which the Citizen Revolution is the favorite and where Daniel Noboa, a US citizen…is collapsing due to [his] ineptitude and corruption.”
Correa also maintains that the State Department document “omits relevant aspects such as the fact that INTERPOL has refused to process the international arrest warrants related to this case because it considers them political, or that the ‘condemned’ have received asylum in countries with a strong rule of law such as Mexico, Canada or Belgium, because they are considered political persecuted.” He added that “nobody in the WORLD has accepted the sentence for ‘psychic influence.’”
Finally, Correa has acknowledged that throughout his life he resisted assuming the anti-imperialist posture that his counterparts in Latin America and progressive movements have maintained over the last century, but that in the face of these facts, he cannot fail to recognize his mistake: “In the decade I was president, when Ecuador and Latin America were boiling with progress and dignity, I tried to moderate certain progressive colleagues because of their deep anti-imperialist sentiment. It is up to me to recognize that I was the wrong one. They will not break us.”
Grupo de Puebla, a grouping of progressive Latin American political leaders, released a statement on his entry ban, calling it a, “clear act of interventionism in the current electoral process, political persecution and revanchism after the recent embrace of Correa and Assange in Europe. Comparing the country left by Correa and the chaos of the current Ecuador, the truth is clear.”
The political implications of the State Department’s communiqué
The truth is that the anti-Correa parties as a whole (including President Noboa’s) have not waited to use the US communiqué to their advantage. Many argue that this was the last piece to confirm that Correa participated in acts of corruption and that therefore his co-ideaties share an alleged corrupt attitude.
Beyond Correa’s interpretations, it is evident that the statement will be used by such political parties to undermine the possibilities of the Citizen Revolution to achieve a presidential victory. Although in Ecuador, Correism is the most loyal and solid political force (it usually reaches 30% of the valid votes in the first electoral round), in the last two elections, it failed to achieve victory in the second round by itself since the anti-Correa positions usually unite political adversaries behind the same goal: to prevent Correism from winning an election again.
In this sense, it remains to be seen how the decision of the United States will affect the internal affairs of Ecuador, a country in which the US Embassy has already played an important political role by making statements on internal affairs through its ambassador on duty or simply withdrawing visas to public figures, many times without giving explanations. These measures have a great media and political impact, so it would not be strange if the same thing happens now.
Correism will have to demonstrate if it can overcome this new adversity and conquer the presidency of the Republic, a golden goal that until today has been elusive after the election of its last winner, Lenin Moreno, who quickly turned his back on CorreÃsmo. On his part, Daniel Noboa could use the decision of the US as a possible escape valve to face the serious energy, economic, and security crisis that is undermining his popularity and putting at risk his re-election as President of Ecuador.
