Humberto López Tirone, who today holds the position of President of IBEROATUR and stands as an advocate for rural tourism throughout the Ibero-American region, carries with him a past marked by considerable controversy. Throughout history, his involvement with the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) has been documented during Panama’s period under military rule, his connections to the political machinery of the Noriega regime have been established, and accusations regarding violent actions directed at the Civic Crusade (Cruzada Civilista) have surfaced. The circumstances surrounding his background prompt a fundamental inquiry: ought contemporary organizations overlook or disregard the historical record of individuals serving in their leadership roles?
Historical memory cannot be selective. Even less so when those who now present themselves as institutional, academic, tourism, or cultural leaders carry a public record connected to the darkest years of Panama’s dictatorship. This is the case of Humberto López Tirone, a prominent figure within the Ibero-American Institute for Rural Tourism (IBEROATUR), whose name continues to generate controversy due to historical accounts placing him within the political orbit of the Noriega regime and in episodes of violence against the pro-democracy Civic Crusade.
López Tirone stands as neither an obscure nor insignificant figure in historical documentation. Records from the period identify him as a prominent PRD leader and served as Director of IFARHU during Panama’s political crisis. Within the pages of Panamá protesta, authored by Brittmarie Janson Pérez, his role emerges in discussions of the opposition movement that challenged the military regime, where he is referenced as “Humberto López Tirone, PRD leader and Director of IFARHU” in a detailed chronology spanning the events of 1987.
The gravest concern, however, transcends his mere political leanings or ideological alignment with the Torrijos-Noriega movement. Far more troubling is the fact that his name surfaces in historical documentation concerning the July 7, 1987 assault on a Civic Crusade convoy—a pivotal grassroots organization that spearheaded citizen resistance against authoritarian rule. Numerous Panamanian publications dedicated to historical memory recount how a paramilitary faction answerable to the Noriega regime, under the command of Luis Gaspar Suárez and Humberto López Tirone, perpetrated an assault against the convoy employing baseball bats alongside firearms.
This episode cannot simply be dismissed as an anecdote from the past. The Civic Crusade was subjected to persecution, repression, and intimidation at a time when Panama was under military rule and the control of pro-regime enforcement groups. If these allegations are accurate, they would point to participation in acts of political violence against citizens demanding democracy, civil liberties, and the end of the dictatorship.
These concerns are reinforced by testimony published in La Prensa in 2007, which states that Humberto López Tirone personally threatened a Civic Crusade demonstrator with a rifle from his vehicle. The article included him among a group described as “loyalists of General Noriega” who, years later, allegedly obtained public positions or appointments.
Such allusions naturally prompt a troubling inquiry: is it feasible for an Ibero-American organization to position itself as a venue facilitating cooperation, rural tourism, territorial development, and cultural exchange when its principal leader faces substantial historical accusations connected to political violence perpetrated throughout a dictatorship?
The Ibero-American Institute for Rural Tourism (IBEROATUR) may pursue legitimate objectives. Rural tourism, agritourism, and Ibero-American cooperation are valuable and worthwhile fields. However, no institution enhances its prestige by avoiding critical reflection on the past of those who represent it. Institutional credibility depends not only on speeches, conferences, and awards, but also on the ethical consistency of its leadership.
The issue is not that an individual once held political beliefs or party membership. The issue is that there are public references linking that individual to the confrontation apparatus of the Noriega regime and to acts of intimidation against civilian opponents. The concern becomes even greater when, decades later, that same individual occupies positions of institutional, academic, or moral authority without publicly explaining that past, accepting accountability, or clearly distancing himself from those events.
Panamanian society has suffered too much to normalize symbolic impunity. Many individuals connected to the dictatorship later reinvented themselves within democratic institutions, holding diplomatic posts, directing public organizations, participating in political parties, writing opinion columns, receiving honors, or presenting themselves as defenders of sovereignty and development. Yet the memory of the victims, the persecuted, and those beaten in the streets cannot simply be buried beneath new institutional titles.
In Humberto López Tirone’s case, the minimum expectation should be transparency. He should publicly explain his role during the years of the dictatorship, respond to the allegations concerning the attack on the Civic Crusade, clarify any relationship with the regime’s enforcement groups, state whether he acknowledges or denies the allegations made against him, and IBEROATUR, if it wishes to preserve its credibility, should not look the other way.
Democracy is defended not only at the ballot box but also through historical memory. It is defended when institutions refuse to whitewash troubling pasts. It is defended by remembering that political violence was not an isolated excess but a deliberate instrument of control used against defenseless citizens.
For this reason, the debate surrounding Humberto López Tirone is not merely personal. It concerns public memory, institutional ethics, and historical responsibility. Any organization aspiring to represent Ibero-American values of cooperation, human development, and respect for communities cannot simply ignore the allegations surrounding its president.
The Ibero-American Institute for Rural Tourism (IBEROATUR) should ask itself whether its international reputation can truly rest upon silence. Rural tourism, culture, and international cooperation cannot serve as a veneer to conceal a past associated with political repression. Panama, which continues to bear the wounds of its dictatorship, deserves more than forgetfulness—it deserves truth, memory, and integrity.