Caracas, March 28 ABN.- The work carried out together by the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) and the French organization Reporters Without Frontier (RSF) to attack the progressive government of the American continent, is a new evidence of their ties with the US' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The Canadian journalist and cooperator of newspaper Grama from Cuba, Jean Guy-Allard, said during his participation in the conferences of Media Terrorism in Latin American as part of the Latin American Meeting against Media Terrorism, held in Caracas.
In his address, Guy-Allard said that this kind of meetings are fundamental to dismantle the ties among both organizations that proclaim to be in favor of the journalists but that obey to the imperial disinformation interests against the Latin American countries.
In this regard, Guy-Allard said: 'we have to remember those elements that prove that the CIA has control over its institutions, among them the SIP and Reporters without Frontiers. This last organization has never nothing to do with the defense of journalism. It is ruled by the kings of the press and not for journalists.'
The Canadian journalist said that the SIP and RSF have signed several accords with the CIA, among them the following: in 2004, the RSF's general secretary, Roger Menar, and one of his faithful partner were identified as cooperators of the CIA to carry out dirty campaigns against Latin America, alliance between RSF and the State Department; both organizations denied to reveal the documents that put in evidence the accords among them and the RSF's budget, about 5 million Euro, which they try to justify with the sale of pictures and albums.
Guy-Allard also stressed the RSF's offices in New York and Virginia (United States).
Allard also talked about the ties between the journalist Patricia Poleo with the Inter American Press Association (IAPA), organism that serves to the Empire, and the CIA.
'The Empire and its communication organizations interfere in favor of Patricia Poleo when her name was among the suspects of Danilo Anderson's murder, a Venezuelan public prosecutor, When is also known her ties with Cuban terrorists and all the Venezuelan pro-coup people,' Guy-Allard said.
'All the CIA's initiatives, adding to those who said to be in favor of the journalists of the world and the freedom of speech, are part of the media terrorism and the disinformation campaign that they pretend to keep,' he added.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Venezuela, Brazil strengthen ties
Venezuela, Brazil strengthen ties in agricultural and infrastructure fields
ABN 18/03/2008
Caracas, March 18 ABN.- The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, held a meeting on Tuesday with the presidential advisor on international affairs of the presidency of Brazil, Marco Aurelio García, in order to discuss about important issue between both countries.
A communiqué issued by Presidency informed that García made a visit to Venezuela in order to reinforce the bilateral and cooperation ties carried out by both nations in agriculture, infrastructure and other fields.
At the end of 2007, the trade exchange between Venezuela and Brazil totalled up to $4 billion.
Meanwhile, the bilateral imports reached a total of $ 3,800 billion in 2007.
The Republic of Brazil is a very important trade partner of the Venezuelan government and Lula's government has been one of the main promoters for the full entry of Venezuela in the Souther Common Market (Mercosur).
It was known that President Hugo Chávez plans to visit soon his Brazilian counterpart, as part of a commitments assumed by both presidents of holding four meeting per year at least in order to reinforce the bilateral ties.
ABN 18/03/2008
Caracas, March 18 ABN.- The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, held a meeting on Tuesday with the presidential advisor on international affairs of the presidency of Brazil, Marco Aurelio García, in order to discuss about important issue between both countries.
A communiqué issued by Presidency informed that García made a visit to Venezuela in order to reinforce the bilateral and cooperation ties carried out by both nations in agriculture, infrastructure and other fields.
At the end of 2007, the trade exchange between Venezuela and Brazil totalled up to $4 billion.
Meanwhile, the bilateral imports reached a total of $ 3,800 billion in 2007.
The Republic of Brazil is a very important trade partner of the Venezuelan government and Lula's government has been one of the main promoters for the full entry of Venezuela in the Souther Common Market (Mercosur).
It was known that President Hugo Chávez plans to visit soon his Brazilian counterpart, as part of a commitments assumed by both presidents of holding four meeting per year at least in order to reinforce the bilateral ties.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Latin America rejects Bush doctrine
Latin America rejects Bush doctrine
by Federico Fuentes
Reeling from the blow that it received in the aftermath of the Colombian military's illegal incursion on March 1 into Ecuador — which resulted in the brutal massacre of a number of civilians and members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), including its chief negotiator Raul Reyes — US imperialism has once again raised the ante in its struggle to undermine the growing process of Latin American integration.
Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution, led by President Hugo Chavez whose government is spearheading the push to unite Latin American nations to counter US domination, is being specifically targeted.
"The region is facing an increasingly stark choice: to quietly accept the vision of the terrorists and the demagogues, or to actively support democratic leaders", US President George Bush stated on March 12. Bush said his government was studying whether or not Venezuela should be added to its list of countries that "sponsor terrorism".
In Washington's Orwellian world view — where war is peace and elected leaders are dictators — his comments were aimed at Venezuela's democratically-elected government that is offering its services to assist with a negotiated peaceful solution to Colombia's more than four decade-long civil war.
Venezuela's representative in the Organization of American States (OAS), Jorge Valero, hit back that same day, calling the US government "the terrorist government par excellence".
Valero argued it was "an absolutely stupid thing to say from the government of Mr Bush … that practices state terrorism, that has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan without respect for international law, that commits genocidal practices in various parts of the world, that has invaded Latin American and Caribbean countries …"
Having viewed Latin America as its own backyard for decades, Washington is becoming increasingly concerned about developments south of its border. Its biggest headache is Venezuela, whose government has been making important headway in bring together governments of Latin America, as well as undermining capitalism inside Venezuela.
Washington has waged a constant public campaign (similar to its campaign against Iraq before the invasion) attempting to link Venezuela with narcotrafficking, terrorism, promoting an arms race, money laundering and threats to regional security.
US-Venezuelan lawyer Eva Golinger argued on the Venezuelan TV show La Hojilla that this campaign is aimed at containing Chavez's influence and undermining Latin American integration — a process aided by the election of a number of governments that, to varying degrees, have proven willing to exercise independence from Washington and pursue closer regional collaboration.
For Dario Azzellini, author of several books about US military intervention into the region, Colombia's illegal cross-border attack (publicly supported by the US government, which funds and arms the Colombian military) was the first step in carrying out more serious military infractions across its border in order to provoke a response from Venezuela and lay the blame for the subsequent conflict at their feet.
"Their aim is to create massive destabilisation in a region where Colombia would play a similar role to that of Israel in the Middle East", Azzellini told Green Left Weekly.
"The Colombian government said that they had the coordinates of Reyes whereabouts for month, during which we can suppose that he moved between Colombian, Venezuelan and Ecuadorian territory as part of the current negotiations by the FARC in releasing prisoners. So the question is why did they choose to carry it out in Ecuador?
"It was a test, they wanted to do it in Ecuadorian territory and not in Venezuela to see what the international reaction would be."
Luis Bilbao, director of Latin American magazine America XXI, told GLW US imperialism had two aims in mind with Colombia's attack (which was clearly coordinated with the US) — put a halt to the hopes for humanitarian accord with the FARC, who only days before had released four prisoners unilaterally, and sabotage the growing South American convergence.
Finding a political solution to Colombia's current conflict is a danger to Washington, which has used it as justification to build up their military presence in Colombia. This is why the issue of peace in Colombia is so closely intertwined with the process of Latin American integration.
Colombia's attack came just days before global protests in favour of a peaceful solution to Colombia's civil war and against state and paramilitary violence, which targets political activists, with more trade unionists killed in Colombia every year than any other country. On March 6, hundreds of thousands marched across Colombia, defying threats of reprisals from paramilitaries.
Associated Press reported on March 14 that six organisers of the march had been murdered, and two dozen more received death threats from the Black Eagles death squad.
Moreover, Bilbao pointed out that in the immediate aftermath of this event, it seemed unthinkable that the meeting of the South American Community of Nations (Unasur, formed in April 2002 with the aim of creating a European Union-style body across South America) that had been scheduled to take place in Colombia at the end of the month could have gone ahead.
Such a turn of events would suit Washington, as the development of Unasur threatens the ability of the US to exert its control over the region on behalf of US corporate interests.
Bilbao argued that the action was nonetheless a big mistake on the part of Colombia. Bilbao argued that "they didn't attack Venezuela", as Venezuelan foreign minister Nicolas Maduro had stated Venezuela expected, "because of the firm stance that Venezuela has taken and instead attacked Ecuador expecting a timid response … setting a precedent for further repeat actions in Ecuador and to extend this to Venezuela".
However the firm stance by both Ecuador and Venezuela — both of whose governments broke diplomatic ties and moved troops to their Colombian borders — put Colombia on the back foot.
In fact, rather than reverse the trend towards integration, the response to Colombia's attack could mark an important regional realignment — assisting the process of regional integration.
The most significant event was the summit of the Group of Rio held on March 6 and 7. Televised live across the whole continent, representatives of all Latin American governments debated the issue without the presence of the US government.
After a fiery debate, the meeting came to a unanimous decision to reject the actions of the Colombian government and any further violation of the sovereignty of another country. Crucially, the vote was a rejection of the doctrine of "preventive war" that the US has pushed since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Ecuador and Colombia are pushing for the March 17 meeting of the OAS (of which the US is a member) to ratify the Group of Rio's motion. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has stated bluntly that if the OAS meeting did not condemn the aggression, that it should be thrown "in the dustbin of history".
Arguing that it would be "difficult for the US government to oppose such a resolution", Valero asserted that "I don't believe the United States has sufficient strength to crush the will of the Rio Group countries".
Federico Fuentes is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
by Federico Fuentes
Reeling from the blow that it received in the aftermath of the Colombian military's illegal incursion on March 1 into Ecuador — which resulted in the brutal massacre of a number of civilians and members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), including its chief negotiator Raul Reyes — US imperialism has once again raised the ante in its struggle to undermine the growing process of Latin American integration.
Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution, led by President Hugo Chavez whose government is spearheading the push to unite Latin American nations to counter US domination, is being specifically targeted.
"The region is facing an increasingly stark choice: to quietly accept the vision of the terrorists and the demagogues, or to actively support democratic leaders", US President George Bush stated on March 12. Bush said his government was studying whether or not Venezuela should be added to its list of countries that "sponsor terrorism".
In Washington's Orwellian world view — where war is peace and elected leaders are dictators — his comments were aimed at Venezuela's democratically-elected government that is offering its services to assist with a negotiated peaceful solution to Colombia's more than four decade-long civil war.
Venezuela's representative in the Organization of American States (OAS), Jorge Valero, hit back that same day, calling the US government "the terrorist government par excellence".
Valero argued it was "an absolutely stupid thing to say from the government of Mr Bush … that practices state terrorism, that has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan without respect for international law, that commits genocidal practices in various parts of the world, that has invaded Latin American and Caribbean countries …"
Having viewed Latin America as its own backyard for decades, Washington is becoming increasingly concerned about developments south of its border. Its biggest headache is Venezuela, whose government has been making important headway in bring together governments of Latin America, as well as undermining capitalism inside Venezuela.
Washington has waged a constant public campaign (similar to its campaign against Iraq before the invasion) attempting to link Venezuela with narcotrafficking, terrorism, promoting an arms race, money laundering and threats to regional security.
US-Venezuelan lawyer Eva Golinger argued on the Venezuelan TV show La Hojilla that this campaign is aimed at containing Chavez's influence and undermining Latin American integration — a process aided by the election of a number of governments that, to varying degrees, have proven willing to exercise independence from Washington and pursue closer regional collaboration.
For Dario Azzellini, author of several books about US military intervention into the region, Colombia's illegal cross-border attack (publicly supported by the US government, which funds and arms the Colombian military) was the first step in carrying out more serious military infractions across its border in order to provoke a response from Venezuela and lay the blame for the subsequent conflict at their feet.
"Their aim is to create massive destabilisation in a region where Colombia would play a similar role to that of Israel in the Middle East", Azzellini told Green Left Weekly.
"The Colombian government said that they had the coordinates of Reyes whereabouts for month, during which we can suppose that he moved between Colombian, Venezuelan and Ecuadorian territory as part of the current negotiations by the FARC in releasing prisoners. So the question is why did they choose to carry it out in Ecuador?
"It was a test, they wanted to do it in Ecuadorian territory and not in Venezuela to see what the international reaction would be."
Luis Bilbao, director of Latin American magazine America XXI, told GLW US imperialism had two aims in mind with Colombia's attack (which was clearly coordinated with the US) — put a halt to the hopes for humanitarian accord with the FARC, who only days before had released four prisoners unilaterally, and sabotage the growing South American convergence.
Finding a political solution to Colombia's current conflict is a danger to Washington, which has used it as justification to build up their military presence in Colombia. This is why the issue of peace in Colombia is so closely intertwined with the process of Latin American integration.
Colombia's attack came just days before global protests in favour of a peaceful solution to Colombia's civil war and against state and paramilitary violence, which targets political activists, with more trade unionists killed in Colombia every year than any other country. On March 6, hundreds of thousands marched across Colombia, defying threats of reprisals from paramilitaries.
Associated Press reported on March 14 that six organisers of the march had been murdered, and two dozen more received death threats from the Black Eagles death squad.
Moreover, Bilbao pointed out that in the immediate aftermath of this event, it seemed unthinkable that the meeting of the South American Community of Nations (Unasur, formed in April 2002 with the aim of creating a European Union-style body across South America) that had been scheduled to take place in Colombia at the end of the month could have gone ahead.
Such a turn of events would suit Washington, as the development of Unasur threatens the ability of the US to exert its control over the region on behalf of US corporate interests.
Bilbao argued that the action was nonetheless a big mistake on the part of Colombia. Bilbao argued that "they didn't attack Venezuela", as Venezuelan foreign minister Nicolas Maduro had stated Venezuela expected, "because of the firm stance that Venezuela has taken and instead attacked Ecuador expecting a timid response … setting a precedent for further repeat actions in Ecuador and to extend this to Venezuela".
However the firm stance by both Ecuador and Venezuela — both of whose governments broke diplomatic ties and moved troops to their Colombian borders — put Colombia on the back foot.
In fact, rather than reverse the trend towards integration, the response to Colombia's attack could mark an important regional realignment — assisting the process of regional integration.
The most significant event was the summit of the Group of Rio held on March 6 and 7. Televised live across the whole continent, representatives of all Latin American governments debated the issue without the presence of the US government.
After a fiery debate, the meeting came to a unanimous decision to reject the actions of the Colombian government and any further violation of the sovereignty of another country. Crucially, the vote was a rejection of the doctrine of "preventive war" that the US has pushed since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Ecuador and Colombia are pushing for the March 17 meeting of the OAS (of which the US is a member) to ratify the Group of Rio's motion. Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa has stated bluntly that if the OAS meeting did not condemn the aggression, that it should be thrown "in the dustbin of history".
Arguing that it would be "difficult for the US government to oppose such a resolution", Valero asserted that "I don't believe the United States has sufficient strength to crush the will of the Rio Group countries".
Federico Fuentes is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Imperial Branding of Simon Bolivar and the Cuban Revolution
The Imperial Branding of Simon Bolivar and the Cuban Revolution
By NELSON P. VALDÉS
"Many people in the world not only lack freedom of thought but also the capacity to think, because it has been destroyed. Billions of human beings, including a large percentage of those living in developed societies, are told what brand of soda they should drink, what cigarettes they should smoke, what clothes and shoes they should wear, what they should eat and what brand of food they should buy. Their political ideas are supplied in the same way."
Fidel Castro, June 1, 2000
"... it is perhaps the greatest triumph of the market to have polluted our most cherished speech about ourselves with the vocabulary of marketing."
Leon Wieseltier, March 12, 2008
In 2007, before leaving for Latin America, George W Bush spoke to a Spanish speaking audience of business people in New York City where he claimed he was a "Bolivariano" and a son of Simon Bolivar. [1] There are some people who just don't understand the United States government and its foreign policy, so they were puzzled and asked "how can George call himself an 'hijo de Bolivar'?
The answer is simple: branding. Branding has gone global, and it is the fundamental weapon of American marketing. In the old days tangible consumer goods were branded. Today branding knows no boundaries. Branding is now applied to people, institutions, political entities, right up to national governments. Nations are brands now, in the logic of 21st-century capitalism. You can buy or sell the nation as a brand. Simon Bolivar, Jose Marti, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro are only incidentally historical figures involved in anti-colonial struggles. They now exist as brands, trademarks, logos -- in other words, as ways to remember products. If these historical figures are emulated or despised is a function of marketing. Brands, we are told, sell identity, manufactured self knowledge. It is also a hollow shell that might use historical references devoid of historical content.
As early as 1883 Andres de la Morena, from Venezuela, patented a drink to enhance one's appetite, it was called Bolivar. Ten years later a French entrepreneur copyrighted a perfume with the name "Agua del Libertador" ['water of the Liberator'] But the brand name remained a minor phenomena among some cigar producers in South America. That has changed.
According to this marketing logic, if Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro sell their revolutionary products by successful invoking the name of historical figures in their political marketing, then American capitalism can appropriate the brand name and make a profit to boot. After all, it has been done already with Radio Marti, TV Marti. Marti is also the real "mojito licour" rum super premium which, with "natural lime & mint" becomes "libertador de Cuba" duly owned by GFY Beverages Company of New York. [2]
The Venezuelan liberator was a perfume, the Cuban one turned out to be a rum. In either case, both histories and symbols appropriated to make a profit.
At Foggy Bottom, Capitol Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, foreign policy is merely a function of proper marketing and branding. And, if it is hip, much better.
On March 11, 2008 the Wall Street Journal published from Michael Casey, Dow Jones Newswires bureau chief in Buenos Aires, an article entitled "Brand Cuba." In it the author wrote, "As Fidel Castro brings his reign in Cuba to a long overdue end, we are left to ponder how a leader with such a dismal economic record could retain power for a half-century." [3]
The answer? The economic journalist turned postmodernist deconstructionist asserted, "if we view Castro's political machine through the apolitical prism of the market, we can attribute its durability to a concept that's alien to his socialist rhetoric, and deeply rooted in the American capitalist system he claims to despise: branding. Castro's political "success" is a case study in managing the global information economy."
But how is that possible? The answer: "This is, of course, a constructed "Cuba," with little relation to the real Cuba, with its dysfunctional, increasingly inequitable social and economic structure. But savvy brand managers are rarely hindered by a divergence from reality." You see, the entire globe is inhabited by dupes and idiots while the only people who comprehend the reality of the world are those who manipulate images. According to WSJ piece the revolutionary regime has survived because, "Castro has long been blessed with a great ability to manipulate information and images in the interest of self-promotion."
There are numerous capitalist enterprises in the world today involved in the "branding of nation states." In fact there is a journal dedicated to the "science" called Place Branding and Public Diplomacy." The journal describes itself as follows: "Place Branding and Public Diplomacy is a new journal, and the first to concentrate on the practice of applying brand strategy and other marketing techniques and disciplines to the economic, social, political and cultural development of cities, regions and countries." [4] A country's foreign policy can be marketed as if it were a box of tortillas or corn flakes. All that is required is brand name recognition.[5] As of now, 35 countries have been ranked and the US under George W. is not at the top.
The ideological guru of branding nations, Simon Anholt, tells us that, "I have always held that the market-based view of the world, on which the theory of place branding is largely predicated, is an inherently peaceful and humanistic model for the relationships between nations. It is based on competition, consumer choice and consumer power; and these concepts are intimately linked to the freedom and power of the individual. For this reason, it seems far more likely to result in lasting world peace than a statecraft based on territory, economic power, ideologies, politics or religion." [6]
The actual foreign policy of a country or its consequences do not matter to the branders, what counts is what people perceive and that is just a function of marketing. If Bolivar sells south of the border, then appropriate the memory/image, claim to be a Bolivariano and keep on collecting the profits. If United Fruit could just take over an entire Central American country, why not do the same to a country's history? To paraphrase Earl Shorris in the Age of Information, the latter is "not the precursor to knowledge; it [is] the tool of salesmen." [7]
That is what the colonialists and imperialists assume, believe and hope, to be true. But Latin Americans act on the basis of their own history and needs.
Caveat venditor [Seller beware].
Nelson P. Valdés is a Professor of Sociology at the University of New Mexico.
Notes.
[1] 03/06/078 - Washington Post - Bush Prepares for Trip to Latin America As Counter to Chavez, A11.
[2] http://www.findownersearch.com/brand/4207579/
[3] 03/11/08 - Wall Street Journal - Brand Cuba, A21.
[4] http://www.placebranding.com/
[5] http://www.nationsbrandindex.com
[6] "Is Place Branding A Capitalist Tool?," Place Branding (2006) 2, 1-4]. By the same author: Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. There are many others: Eugene D. Jaffe, National Image & Competitive Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Place Branding, Copenhagen Business School Press, 2006; Keith Dinnie, Nation Branding: Concepts, Issues, Practices, Butterworth Heinemann, 2007
[7] The quote is cited by Thomas Frank in "The New Gilded Age," in Thomas Frank and Matt Weiland, The Business of Culture in the New Gilded Age: Commodify Your Dissent, New York, W. W. Norton, 1997, p. 23.
*I would like to express my appreciation to my friend Ned
By NELSON P. VALDÉS
"Many people in the world not only lack freedom of thought but also the capacity to think, because it has been destroyed. Billions of human beings, including a large percentage of those living in developed societies, are told what brand of soda they should drink, what cigarettes they should smoke, what clothes and shoes they should wear, what they should eat and what brand of food they should buy. Their political ideas are supplied in the same way."
Fidel Castro, June 1, 2000
"... it is perhaps the greatest triumph of the market to have polluted our most cherished speech about ourselves with the vocabulary of marketing."
Leon Wieseltier, March 12, 2008
In 2007, before leaving for Latin America, George W Bush spoke to a Spanish speaking audience of business people in New York City where he claimed he was a "Bolivariano" and a son of Simon Bolivar. [1] There are some people who just don't understand the United States government and its foreign policy, so they were puzzled and asked "how can George call himself an 'hijo de Bolivar'?
The answer is simple: branding. Branding has gone global, and it is the fundamental weapon of American marketing. In the old days tangible consumer goods were branded. Today branding knows no boundaries. Branding is now applied to people, institutions, political entities, right up to national governments. Nations are brands now, in the logic of 21st-century capitalism. You can buy or sell the nation as a brand. Simon Bolivar, Jose Marti, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro are only incidentally historical figures involved in anti-colonial struggles. They now exist as brands, trademarks, logos -- in other words, as ways to remember products. If these historical figures are emulated or despised is a function of marketing. Brands, we are told, sell identity, manufactured self knowledge. It is also a hollow shell that might use historical references devoid of historical content.
As early as 1883 Andres de la Morena, from Venezuela, patented a drink to enhance one's appetite, it was called Bolivar. Ten years later a French entrepreneur copyrighted a perfume with the name "Agua del Libertador" ['water of the Liberator'] But the brand name remained a minor phenomena among some cigar producers in South America. That has changed.
According to this marketing logic, if Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro sell their revolutionary products by successful invoking the name of historical figures in their political marketing, then American capitalism can appropriate the brand name and make a profit to boot. After all, it has been done already with Radio Marti, TV Marti. Marti is also the real "mojito licour" rum super premium which, with "natural lime & mint" becomes "libertador de Cuba" duly owned by GFY Beverages Company of New York. [2]
The Venezuelan liberator was a perfume, the Cuban one turned out to be a rum. In either case, both histories and symbols appropriated to make a profit.
At Foggy Bottom, Capitol Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, foreign policy is merely a function of proper marketing and branding. And, if it is hip, much better.
On March 11, 2008 the Wall Street Journal published from Michael Casey, Dow Jones Newswires bureau chief in Buenos Aires, an article entitled "Brand Cuba." In it the author wrote, "As Fidel Castro brings his reign in Cuba to a long overdue end, we are left to ponder how a leader with such a dismal economic record could retain power for a half-century." [3]
The answer? The economic journalist turned postmodernist deconstructionist asserted, "if we view Castro's political machine through the apolitical prism of the market, we can attribute its durability to a concept that's alien to his socialist rhetoric, and deeply rooted in the American capitalist system he claims to despise: branding. Castro's political "success" is a case study in managing the global information economy."
But how is that possible? The answer: "This is, of course, a constructed "Cuba," with little relation to the real Cuba, with its dysfunctional, increasingly inequitable social and economic structure. But savvy brand managers are rarely hindered by a divergence from reality." You see, the entire globe is inhabited by dupes and idiots while the only people who comprehend the reality of the world are those who manipulate images. According to WSJ piece the revolutionary regime has survived because, "Castro has long been blessed with a great ability to manipulate information and images in the interest of self-promotion."
There are numerous capitalist enterprises in the world today involved in the "branding of nation states." In fact there is a journal dedicated to the "science" called Place Branding and Public Diplomacy." The journal describes itself as follows: "Place Branding and Public Diplomacy is a new journal, and the first to concentrate on the practice of applying brand strategy and other marketing techniques and disciplines to the economic, social, political and cultural development of cities, regions and countries." [4] A country's foreign policy can be marketed as if it were a box of tortillas or corn flakes. All that is required is brand name recognition.[5] As of now, 35 countries have been ranked and the US under George W. is not at the top.
The ideological guru of branding nations, Simon Anholt, tells us that, "I have always held that the market-based view of the world, on which the theory of place branding is largely predicated, is an inherently peaceful and humanistic model for the relationships between nations. It is based on competition, consumer choice and consumer power; and these concepts are intimately linked to the freedom and power of the individual. For this reason, it seems far more likely to result in lasting world peace than a statecraft based on territory, economic power, ideologies, politics or religion." [6]
The actual foreign policy of a country or its consequences do not matter to the branders, what counts is what people perceive and that is just a function of marketing. If Bolivar sells south of the border, then appropriate the memory/image, claim to be a Bolivariano and keep on collecting the profits. If United Fruit could just take over an entire Central American country, why not do the same to a country's history? To paraphrase Earl Shorris in the Age of Information, the latter is "not the precursor to knowledge; it [is] the tool of salesmen." [7]
That is what the colonialists and imperialists assume, believe and hope, to be true. But Latin Americans act on the basis of their own history and needs.
Caveat venditor [Seller beware].
Nelson P. Valdés is a Professor of Sociology at the University of New Mexico.
Notes.
[1] 03/06/078 - Washington Post - Bush Prepares for Trip to Latin America As Counter to Chavez, A11.
[2] http://www.findownersearch.com/brand/4207579/
[3] 03/11/08 - Wall Street Journal - Brand Cuba, A21.
[4] http://www.placebranding.com/
[5] http://www.nationsbrandindex.com
[6] "Is Place Branding A Capitalist Tool?," Place Branding (2006) 2, 1-4]. By the same author: Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. There are many others: Eugene D. Jaffe, National Image & Competitive Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Place Branding, Copenhagen Business School Press, 2006; Keith Dinnie, Nation Branding: Concepts, Issues, Practices, Butterworth Heinemann, 2007
[7] The quote is cited by Thomas Frank in "The New Gilded Age," in Thomas Frank and Matt Weiland, The Business of Culture in the New Gilded Age: Commodify Your Dissent, New York, W. W. Norton, 1997, p. 23.
*I would like to express my appreciation to my friend Ned
Friday, March 7, 2008
Rafael Correa:who has lost the world's credibility?
Rafael Correa
“We cannot be related to a subject who has lost the world's credibility'
ABN 06/03/2008
Caracas, March 6 ABN.- Before the fake charges presented by the Colombian Government regarding the relation of presidents of Venezuela and Ecuador with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, (FARC), Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa expressed that “we cannot be related to a subject who has lost the world's credibility.”
Correa issued this information this Wednesday 5^th at the end of the private meeting he held with his counterpart from Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, at the Miraflores' Presidential Palace.
“Ecuador has been bombed by a bellicose agressor Administration. Their lies are falling down: They first wanted to deny the attempt against our sovereignty, then they recognized it. Faced to that, from prosecutor they became defendant,” said Correa regarding the fake proofs consigned in a computer, allegedly belonging to the deceased FARC second-in-command Raúl Reyes, which charge him and Chávez of having close links with this organization.
“So much cheek, so much indecency, so much nerve on behalf of Alvaro Uribe's Administration, that he made us break relations with a government which does not know the meaning of loyalty, decency, of being bolivarian, that is the treason,” affirmed the Ecuadorian president.
He stressed that President Uribe and his Minister of Defense, Juan Manuel Santos, want to lie to Ecuador and to the world, and so “we cannot be related to that kind of Administration,” though he also expressed that the relations between the people of Ecuador and Colombia will everlasting.
Correa expressed that if the international community does not condemn the agressor (Colombian government) “without doubts”, “Ecuador, a small, peaceful, worthy and sovereign country, will know how to make respect its sovereignty.”
Besides, he expressed that “today has been taken an important step forward, we are happy.”
Finally, he added that as much as they (Colombian government) “talk, the more they make mistakes and contradict themselves.”
“We cannot be related to a subject who has lost the world's credibility'
ABN 06/03/2008
Caracas, March 6 ABN.- Before the fake charges presented by the Colombian Government regarding the relation of presidents of Venezuela and Ecuador with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, (FARC), Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa expressed that “we cannot be related to a subject who has lost the world's credibility.”
Correa issued this information this Wednesday 5^th at the end of the private meeting he held with his counterpart from Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, at the Miraflores' Presidential Palace.
“Ecuador has been bombed by a bellicose agressor Administration. Their lies are falling down: They first wanted to deny the attempt against our sovereignty, then they recognized it. Faced to that, from prosecutor they became defendant,” said Correa regarding the fake proofs consigned in a computer, allegedly belonging to the deceased FARC second-in-command Raúl Reyes, which charge him and Chávez of having close links with this organization.
“So much cheek, so much indecency, so much nerve on behalf of Alvaro Uribe's Administration, that he made us break relations with a government which does not know the meaning of loyalty, decency, of being bolivarian, that is the treason,” affirmed the Ecuadorian president.
He stressed that President Uribe and his Minister of Defense, Juan Manuel Santos, want to lie to Ecuador and to the world, and so “we cannot be related to that kind of Administration,” though he also expressed that the relations between the people of Ecuador and Colombia will everlasting.
Correa expressed that if the international community does not condemn the agressor (Colombian government) “without doubts”, “Ecuador, a small, peaceful, worthy and sovereign country, will know how to make respect its sovereignty.”
Besides, he expressed that “today has been taken an important step forward, we are happy.”
Finally, he added that as much as they (Colombian government) “talk, the more they make mistakes and contradict themselves.”
2005 Patras warned:The US / Colombia Plot Against Venezuela
The Granda Kidnapping Explodes
The US / Colombia Plot Against Venezuela
By JAMES PETRAS
A major diplomatic and political conflict has exploded between Colombia and Venezuela after the revelation of a Colombian government covert operation in Venezuela, involving the recruitment of Venezuelan military and security officers in the kidnapping of a Colombian leftist leader. Following an investigation by the Venezuelan Ministry of Interior and reports and testimony from journalists and other knowledgeable political observers it was determined that the highest echelons of the Colombian government, including President Uribe, planned and executed this onslaught on Venezuelan sovereignty.
Once direct Colombian involvement was established, the Venezuelan government demanded a public apology from the Colombian government while seeking a diplomatic solution by blaming Colombian Presidential advisers. The Colombian regime took the offensive, launching an aggressive defense of its involvement in the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and, beyond that, seeking to establish in advance, under the rationale of "national security" the legitimacy of future acts of aggression. As a result President Chavez has recalled the Venezuelan Ambassador from Bogota, suspended all state-to-state commercial and political agreements pending an official state apology. In response the US Government gave unconditional support to Colombian violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and urged the Uribe regime to push the conflict further. What began as a diplomatic conflict over a specific incident has turned into a major, defining crises in US and Latin American political relations with potentially explosive military, economic and political consequences for the entire region.
In justifying the kidnapping of Rodrigo Granda, the Colombian leftist leader, the Uribe regime has promulgated a new foreign policy doctrine which echoes that of the Bush Administration: the right of unilateral intervention in any country in which the Colombian government perceives or claims is harboring or providing refuge to political adversaries (which the regime labels as "terrorists") which might threaten the security of the state. The Uribe doctrine of unilateral intervention echoes the preventive war speech, enunciated in late 2001 by President Bush. Clearly Uribe's action and pronouncement is profoundly influenced by the dominance that Washington exercises over the Uribe regime's policies through its extended $3 billion dollar military aid program and deep penetration of the entire political-defense apparatus.
Uribe's offensive military doctrine involves several major policy propositions:
1.) The right to violate any country's sovereignty, including the use of force and violence, directly or in cooperation with local mercenaries.
2.) The right to recruit and subvert military and security officials to serve the interests of the Colombian state.
3.) The right to allocate funds to bounty hunters or "third parties" to engage in illegal violent acts within a target country.
4.) The assertion of the supremacy of Colombian laws, decrees and policies over and against the sovereign laws of the intervened country.
The Uribe doctrine clearly echoes Washington's global pronouncements. While the immediate point of aggression involves Colombia's relations to Venezuela, the Uribe doctrine lays the basis for unilateral military intervention anywhere in the hemisphere. Uribe's doctrine is a threat to sovereignty of any country in the hemisphere: its intervention in Venezuela and the justification provides a precedent for future aggression.
Colombia's adoption and implementation of the extraterritorial policy as part of its strategy of unilateral intervention is not coincidental, as the Colombian security forces have been trained and advised by US and Israeli secret agencies. More directly, through its $3 billion dollar military aid program Washington is in a command-and-control position within all sectors of the Colombian state and thus able to determine the security doctrine of the Uribe regime. More important Uribe has been a long-time, large-scale practitioner of death squad politics prior to his ascendancy to the Presidency and prior to receiving large scale US aid. By borrowing the Bush Doctrine from his patron-state, Uribe has internationalized the terror practices which he has pursued for the past 20 years within Colombia.
Prior to the recent spate of high profile trans-border kidnapping (Trinidad in Ecuador, Granda in Venezuela), the Uribe regime has engaged in frequent interventions, kidnapping and assassinating popular leaders and soldiers from bordering countries, and providing material and political support to would-be 'golpistas', especially in Venezuela. Dozens of Colombian refugees fleeing marauding death squads have been pursued into Venezuela and killed or kidnapped over the past three years by Colombian paramilitary and security forces. Six Venezuelan soldiers were killed by Colombian security forces in an "unexplained" incident. More recently, in 2004, over 130 Colombian paramilitary forces and other irregulars were infiltrated into Venezuela to engage in terrorist violence to trigger action by Venezuelan-US coup-makers. Shortly thereafter Colombian security forces and the US CIA intervened in Ecuador to kidnap a former peace negotiator of the FARC, Colombia's major guerrilla group.
What is new and more ominous is that the Uribe regime's de facto policy of extra-territoriality has been converted into a de jure strategic doctrine of unilateral military intervention. Colombia no longer pretends to be engaged in a "covert" selective policy of violating other countries sovereignty but has publicly declared the supremacy of its laws and the right to apply them anywhere in the world where it unilaterally declares its case for national security. Colombia's gross violations of Venezuelan and Ecuadorian sovereignty is a policy clearly endorsed and dictated at the highest levels of the Colombian state exclusively the prerogative of President Uribe and endorsed at the highest level of the US government by its principal diplomatic spokesperson in Colombia, Ambassador Woods ("We endorse Uribe's action 100%"). The 'Granda incident' is not simply an isolated diplomatic incident which can be resolved through good faith bilateral negotiations. The kidnapping is part of a larger strategy involving preparations ideological, political and military for a large-scale, political-military confrontation with Venezuela.
The enunciation and practice of the Uribe Doctrine has several purposes. One is in line with US and Colombian elite policy: To overthrow the Chavez regime. Chavez opposes the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its plans to invade Iran. In Latin America, Chavez opposes the US-dominated Free Trade of the Americas Pact. Secondly the Uribe doctrine seeks to destroy Cuban-Venezuelan trade ties, in order to undermine the Cuban revolutionary government. Thirdly the Uribe doctrine is aimed at maintaining Venezuela as an exclusive oil exporter to the US at a time when the Chavez government has signed trade agreements to diversify its oil markets to China and elsewhere. Fourthly, and most probably most important from the strict perspective of the Uribe regime's survival, the Colombian government is profoundly disturbed by the positive social impact which the Chavez welfare policies have on the majority of Colombians living in poverty, especially his newly announced agrarian reform, and his defense of national public enterprises (especially the state petroleum company) within the framework of free and democratic institutions. Uribe's austerity policies, his military and paramilitary forces displacement of three million peasants, his promotion of greater and greater concentration of wealth and the slashing of social services, and worse, the systematic long-term large-scale violations of human and democratic rights stand in polar opposition to Venezuela under President Chavez which provides a viable, accessible and visible alternative easily understood by vast numbers of Colombians who migrate to Venezuela. By intervening in Venezuela, by supporting US and its local coup-makers, Uribe hopes to undercut the political appeal of revolutionary politics, whether it takes the form of electoral, guerrilla and /or social movements.
The most immediate purpose of the Uribe doctrine is to defeat the 20,000 person guerrilla armies which control or influence half of Colombia's territory. The purpose of the recent interventions is to pressure neighboring governments to ally themselves with the Colombian death-squads in a regional campaign to resolve the Colombian elites internal problems i.e. the decimation of the opposition to US regional domination. The bombastic "anti-terror" international propaganda campaign of the Uribe regime is an admission of the failure of its internal counter-insurgency campaign. Uribe's accusations that the Venezuelan State is "protecting" or "providing sanctuary to terrorists" is patently false. Uribe provides no systematic evidence. The real purpose is to blackmail the Venezuelan state or its most malleable sectors into abdicating their role as a neutral peace mediators and submitting to the dictates of the Colombian-US security apparatus.
The Uribe regime has been widely recognized as one of the worst practitioners of state terrorism in the world.
Tens of thousands of peasants, social and human rights activists, trade unionists and journalists have been murdered by the security forces the military directly, or via the state financed paramilitary groups. Every day of every year, scores of peasants and critics of the regime are slaughtered. State terror is the defining characteristic of the Uribe regime and its US military advisory and military mission.
Uribe who sends 130 paramilitary forces to terrorize Venezuela, supports a failed violent coup and then provides asylum and material support to the exiled senior members of the coup and who blatantly bribes Venezuelan soldiers to betray their country to perpetuate a kidnapping, accuses Chavez of harboring terrorists and calls for an "international conference" on "terrorism". Uribe's purpose in calling for a regional conference is not to discuss the state terrorism which is endemic to and embedded in his regime (with US backing), but to justify the Uribe doctrine of unilateral intervention and to mobilize other regional US clients in support of its internal war and to pressure the Chavez regime to subordinate itself to Colombia's security doctrine.
Chavez has recognized the growing security threat posed by the kidnapping and has terminated state-to-state economic and military projects and recalled his ambassador from Bogotá. He has proposed to Uribe a bi-lateral meeting of heads of state to resolve differences with regard to the kidnapping and related incidents. But no amount of diplomatic maneuvering on the part of Venezuela's foreign ministry nor aggressive propaganda campaign by the Colombian security state can obviate the fact that the Colombian state is bent on a course of direct military confrontation with Venezuela.
Implication of Uribe Doctrine
The political and military implications of the Uribe Doctrine are an extreme departure from the recognized norms of international law and closely approximate the belligerent practices of imperial satraps. If all countries were the apply the Uribe Doctrine we would face a world of constant wars, conquests and prolonged liberation struggles throughout Latin America.
Explicit in the Uribe Doctrine's claim to militarily intervene across national borders is a state of permanent belligerency. This policy means that every Latin American country must limit its sovereignty according to the Colombian definitions of "national security". This is clearly unacceptable to any independent country, like Venezuela, though the Gutierrez regime in Ecuador has accepted the role of a "second level client" , of the Uribe regime which in turn is a client of the US.
Equally serious, the Uribe Doctrine rejects recognized frontiers, meaning that it arrogates to itself the right to cross national boundaries at will without consulting the countries whose borders it violates. It is a short step from not recognizing borders and national boundaries to annexing adjacent regions for "security" or economic reasons. Colombia has in the recent past (1992) nearly provoked a major war by sending its warships into Venezuelan waters. Uribe's notion of an international ideological war without frontiers is an exact replica of the Bush imperial project, translated into the Andean region. Clearly Uribe aspires to play a sub-imperial role in the Northern region of South America under US tutelage.
The Uribe Doctrine stands as a stark rejection of all United Nation's principles and in violation of international law-which, however, has already been weakened by the acquiescence of most of the major Latin American countries in the US-led invasion of Haiti, the kidnapping of its elected leader (President Bertrand Aristide) and the presence of Latin American colonial occupation forces on the island.
The Colombian threat to Venezuela's sovereignty has been taken by Venezuela's rightwing opposition as a welcome intervention. This was manifest in the Congressional debates following the kidnapping of Granda when opposition members of congress condemned the Venezuelan government's defense of national sovereignty and justified Uribe's intervention in Venezuela.
Washington has provided more military aid to Colombia than all the rest of Latin America combined, and only second to Israel in the world. The US strategy revolves around defeating the guerrilla movement as a first step toward consolidating power in the Andean region and the upper Amazon basin. Once secured this region would become a springboard toward invading and taking over Venezuela and its oil fields. The US, through Uribe, has tripled the size of the Colombian armed forces over the past few years to over 267,000 troops. It has vastly increased its aerial firepower (combat helicopters and fighter planes) and provided the most advanced technological weaponry to detect and track guerrilla movements. Yet the strategy, while massacring thousands of peasant sympathizers and displacing millions of others, has failed to gain any strategic military advantage over the guerrillas. As long as the Colombian regime is tied down by the guerrilla resistance, it can only play a limited role in any military invasion of Venezuela. For Uribe to engage in a US-sponsored invasion of Venezuela is a very risky proposition, opening a large swathe of territory for a guerrilla offensive
The kidnapping of Granda is only the "dress rehearsal" of a larger project of escalating provocations to test the loyalty, discipline and effectiveness of the Venezuelan security system. Washington is probing to see how far it can push Venezuela in surrendering its sovereignty and control over its borders.
Uribe and Washington's effort to drive a wedge between the popular resistance in Colombia and the Chavez government by using the "terrorist issue" as a political club has, in part, backfired , arousing a potent undercurrent of nationalist sentiment in Venezuela, while seriously jeopardizing important sectors of the Colombian economy, including elite classes which normally back Uribe.
Washington and Uribe's proposal for an international conference to discuss the issue of terror is based on their knowledge that most of the Latin American regimes today are eager to serve US interests. During the previous period of sustained economic and political warfare against the elected Chavez government by the authoritarian right, Brazil's Celso Amorin organized a group of countries calling themselves "The Friends of Venezuela" made up of hostile neo-liberal Ibero-Americans leaders, including ex-Presidents Aznar of Spain and Bush of the US (who both supported the failed military coup), Fox of Mexico and Lagos of Chile (notorious free marketers) and, of course, Brazil which gave equal political standing to the Venezuelan rightwing opposition as to the elected government. Chavez rightly rejected the mediation of such "friends".
Today Lula offers his services once again to "mediate" between an international aggressor and a sovereign country. Except for Cuba, not a single Latin American client regime has condemned Uribe's aggression or, worse, spoken out clearly in opposition to his doctrine of extra-territoriality. President Chavez is clearly aware of the pitfalls of meeting in an "international summit" dominated by hostile neo-liberal, pro-empire regimes that have already accepted and submitted to the Bush-Uribe anti-terrorist doctrine.
Chavez is absolutely correct to counterpoise the notion of a bilateral forum in which the focus is on Colombia's intervention, where the issues of Uribe's policy of state terrorism could become part of the public debate on "terrorism". Of course, Washington will "advise" Uribe to refuse. Chavez could then advise his foreign minister to take the matter to the UN General Assembly as a matter of urgent importance of peace, security and national sovereignty. Chavez has already retaliated to continued US overt aggression by signing oil export and investment agreements with China, Russia, Latin America and Europe. Shutting off imports of Colombian agricultural imports could stimulate a more intensified effort to promote local agricultural production, push for a more expeditious agrarian reform and greater public investment in local food production.
The kidnapping of Granda and the subverting of a few Venezuelan officials can serve as a wake-up call for the Venezuelan leadership to the real threats to national sovereignty which emanate from the US-backed Uribe doctrine. The threat is real, it is systemic and it is immediate. President Uribe has the backing of an imperial power but Chavez has the backing of the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans and the fact that they will be willing to fight to defend their land, their government and their right to live as a sovereign people. The question of Venezuelan sovereignty is now not simply a question of diplomatic maneuvers but of organizing the mass of the Venezuelans into becoming a military deterrent to any armed aggression.
James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in brazil and argentina and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed). He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu
The US / Colombia Plot Against Venezuela
By JAMES PETRAS
A major diplomatic and political conflict has exploded between Colombia and Venezuela after the revelation of a Colombian government covert operation in Venezuela, involving the recruitment of Venezuelan military and security officers in the kidnapping of a Colombian leftist leader. Following an investigation by the Venezuelan Ministry of Interior and reports and testimony from journalists and other knowledgeable political observers it was determined that the highest echelons of the Colombian government, including President Uribe, planned and executed this onslaught on Venezuelan sovereignty.
Once direct Colombian involvement was established, the Venezuelan government demanded a public apology from the Colombian government while seeking a diplomatic solution by blaming Colombian Presidential advisers. The Colombian regime took the offensive, launching an aggressive defense of its involvement in the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and, beyond that, seeking to establish in advance, under the rationale of "national security" the legitimacy of future acts of aggression. As a result President Chavez has recalled the Venezuelan Ambassador from Bogota, suspended all state-to-state commercial and political agreements pending an official state apology. In response the US Government gave unconditional support to Colombian violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and urged the Uribe regime to push the conflict further. What began as a diplomatic conflict over a specific incident has turned into a major, defining crises in US and Latin American political relations with potentially explosive military, economic and political consequences for the entire region.
In justifying the kidnapping of Rodrigo Granda, the Colombian leftist leader, the Uribe regime has promulgated a new foreign policy doctrine which echoes that of the Bush Administration: the right of unilateral intervention in any country in which the Colombian government perceives or claims is harboring or providing refuge to political adversaries (which the regime labels as "terrorists") which might threaten the security of the state. The Uribe doctrine of unilateral intervention echoes the preventive war speech, enunciated in late 2001 by President Bush. Clearly Uribe's action and pronouncement is profoundly influenced by the dominance that Washington exercises over the Uribe regime's policies through its extended $3 billion dollar military aid program and deep penetration of the entire political-defense apparatus.
Uribe's offensive military doctrine involves several major policy propositions:
1.) The right to violate any country's sovereignty, including the use of force and violence, directly or in cooperation with local mercenaries.
2.) The right to recruit and subvert military and security officials to serve the interests of the Colombian state.
3.) The right to allocate funds to bounty hunters or "third parties" to engage in illegal violent acts within a target country.
4.) The assertion of the supremacy of Colombian laws, decrees and policies over and against the sovereign laws of the intervened country.
The Uribe doctrine clearly echoes Washington's global pronouncements. While the immediate point of aggression involves Colombia's relations to Venezuela, the Uribe doctrine lays the basis for unilateral military intervention anywhere in the hemisphere. Uribe's doctrine is a threat to sovereignty of any country in the hemisphere: its intervention in Venezuela and the justification provides a precedent for future aggression.
Colombia's adoption and implementation of the extraterritorial policy as part of its strategy of unilateral intervention is not coincidental, as the Colombian security forces have been trained and advised by US and Israeli secret agencies. More directly, through its $3 billion dollar military aid program Washington is in a command-and-control position within all sectors of the Colombian state and thus able to determine the security doctrine of the Uribe regime. More important Uribe has been a long-time, large-scale practitioner of death squad politics prior to his ascendancy to the Presidency and prior to receiving large scale US aid. By borrowing the Bush Doctrine from his patron-state, Uribe has internationalized the terror practices which he has pursued for the past 20 years within Colombia.
Prior to the recent spate of high profile trans-border kidnapping (Trinidad in Ecuador, Granda in Venezuela), the Uribe regime has engaged in frequent interventions, kidnapping and assassinating popular leaders and soldiers from bordering countries, and providing material and political support to would-be 'golpistas', especially in Venezuela. Dozens of Colombian refugees fleeing marauding death squads have been pursued into Venezuela and killed or kidnapped over the past three years by Colombian paramilitary and security forces. Six Venezuelan soldiers were killed by Colombian security forces in an "unexplained" incident. More recently, in 2004, over 130 Colombian paramilitary forces and other irregulars were infiltrated into Venezuela to engage in terrorist violence to trigger action by Venezuelan-US coup-makers. Shortly thereafter Colombian security forces and the US CIA intervened in Ecuador to kidnap a former peace negotiator of the FARC, Colombia's major guerrilla group.
What is new and more ominous is that the Uribe regime's de facto policy of extra-territoriality has been converted into a de jure strategic doctrine of unilateral military intervention. Colombia no longer pretends to be engaged in a "covert" selective policy of violating other countries sovereignty but has publicly declared the supremacy of its laws and the right to apply them anywhere in the world where it unilaterally declares its case for national security. Colombia's gross violations of Venezuelan and Ecuadorian sovereignty is a policy clearly endorsed and dictated at the highest levels of the Colombian state exclusively the prerogative of President Uribe and endorsed at the highest level of the US government by its principal diplomatic spokesperson in Colombia, Ambassador Woods ("We endorse Uribe's action 100%"). The 'Granda incident' is not simply an isolated diplomatic incident which can be resolved through good faith bilateral negotiations. The kidnapping is part of a larger strategy involving preparations ideological, political and military for a large-scale, political-military confrontation with Venezuela.
The enunciation and practice of the Uribe Doctrine has several purposes. One is in line with US and Colombian elite policy: To overthrow the Chavez regime. Chavez opposes the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its plans to invade Iran. In Latin America, Chavez opposes the US-dominated Free Trade of the Americas Pact. Secondly the Uribe doctrine seeks to destroy Cuban-Venezuelan trade ties, in order to undermine the Cuban revolutionary government. Thirdly the Uribe doctrine is aimed at maintaining Venezuela as an exclusive oil exporter to the US at a time when the Chavez government has signed trade agreements to diversify its oil markets to China and elsewhere. Fourthly, and most probably most important from the strict perspective of the Uribe regime's survival, the Colombian government is profoundly disturbed by the positive social impact which the Chavez welfare policies have on the majority of Colombians living in poverty, especially his newly announced agrarian reform, and his defense of national public enterprises (especially the state petroleum company) within the framework of free and democratic institutions. Uribe's austerity policies, his military and paramilitary forces displacement of three million peasants, his promotion of greater and greater concentration of wealth and the slashing of social services, and worse, the systematic long-term large-scale violations of human and democratic rights stand in polar opposition to Venezuela under President Chavez which provides a viable, accessible and visible alternative easily understood by vast numbers of Colombians who migrate to Venezuela. By intervening in Venezuela, by supporting US and its local coup-makers, Uribe hopes to undercut the political appeal of revolutionary politics, whether it takes the form of electoral, guerrilla and /or social movements.
The most immediate purpose of the Uribe doctrine is to defeat the 20,000 person guerrilla armies which control or influence half of Colombia's territory. The purpose of the recent interventions is to pressure neighboring governments to ally themselves with the Colombian death-squads in a regional campaign to resolve the Colombian elites internal problems i.e. the decimation of the opposition to US regional domination. The bombastic "anti-terror" international propaganda campaign of the Uribe regime is an admission of the failure of its internal counter-insurgency campaign. Uribe's accusations that the Venezuelan State is "protecting" or "providing sanctuary to terrorists" is patently false. Uribe provides no systematic evidence. The real purpose is to blackmail the Venezuelan state or its most malleable sectors into abdicating their role as a neutral peace mediators and submitting to the dictates of the Colombian-US security apparatus.
The Uribe regime has been widely recognized as one of the worst practitioners of state terrorism in the world.
Tens of thousands of peasants, social and human rights activists, trade unionists and journalists have been murdered by the security forces the military directly, or via the state financed paramilitary groups. Every day of every year, scores of peasants and critics of the regime are slaughtered. State terror is the defining characteristic of the Uribe regime and its US military advisory and military mission.
Uribe who sends 130 paramilitary forces to terrorize Venezuela, supports a failed violent coup and then provides asylum and material support to the exiled senior members of the coup and who blatantly bribes Venezuelan soldiers to betray their country to perpetuate a kidnapping, accuses Chavez of harboring terrorists and calls for an "international conference" on "terrorism". Uribe's purpose in calling for a regional conference is not to discuss the state terrorism which is endemic to and embedded in his regime (with US backing), but to justify the Uribe doctrine of unilateral intervention and to mobilize other regional US clients in support of its internal war and to pressure the Chavez regime to subordinate itself to Colombia's security doctrine.
Chavez has recognized the growing security threat posed by the kidnapping and has terminated state-to-state economic and military projects and recalled his ambassador from Bogotá. He has proposed to Uribe a bi-lateral meeting of heads of state to resolve differences with regard to the kidnapping and related incidents. But no amount of diplomatic maneuvering on the part of Venezuela's foreign ministry nor aggressive propaganda campaign by the Colombian security state can obviate the fact that the Colombian state is bent on a course of direct military confrontation with Venezuela.
Implication of Uribe Doctrine
The political and military implications of the Uribe Doctrine are an extreme departure from the recognized norms of international law and closely approximate the belligerent practices of imperial satraps. If all countries were the apply the Uribe Doctrine we would face a world of constant wars, conquests and prolonged liberation struggles throughout Latin America.
Explicit in the Uribe Doctrine's claim to militarily intervene across national borders is a state of permanent belligerency. This policy means that every Latin American country must limit its sovereignty according to the Colombian definitions of "national security". This is clearly unacceptable to any independent country, like Venezuela, though the Gutierrez regime in Ecuador has accepted the role of a "second level client" , of the Uribe regime which in turn is a client of the US.
Equally serious, the Uribe Doctrine rejects recognized frontiers, meaning that it arrogates to itself the right to cross national boundaries at will without consulting the countries whose borders it violates. It is a short step from not recognizing borders and national boundaries to annexing adjacent regions for "security" or economic reasons. Colombia has in the recent past (1992) nearly provoked a major war by sending its warships into Venezuelan waters. Uribe's notion of an international ideological war without frontiers is an exact replica of the Bush imperial project, translated into the Andean region. Clearly Uribe aspires to play a sub-imperial role in the Northern region of South America under US tutelage.
The Uribe Doctrine stands as a stark rejection of all United Nation's principles and in violation of international law-which, however, has already been weakened by the acquiescence of most of the major Latin American countries in the US-led invasion of Haiti, the kidnapping of its elected leader (President Bertrand Aristide) and the presence of Latin American colonial occupation forces on the island.
The Colombian threat to Venezuela's sovereignty has been taken by Venezuela's rightwing opposition as a welcome intervention. This was manifest in the Congressional debates following the kidnapping of Granda when opposition members of congress condemned the Venezuelan government's defense of national sovereignty and justified Uribe's intervention in Venezuela.
Washington has provided more military aid to Colombia than all the rest of Latin America combined, and only second to Israel in the world. The US strategy revolves around defeating the guerrilla movement as a first step toward consolidating power in the Andean region and the upper Amazon basin. Once secured this region would become a springboard toward invading and taking over Venezuela and its oil fields. The US, through Uribe, has tripled the size of the Colombian armed forces over the past few years to over 267,000 troops. It has vastly increased its aerial firepower (combat helicopters and fighter planes) and provided the most advanced technological weaponry to detect and track guerrilla movements. Yet the strategy, while massacring thousands of peasant sympathizers and displacing millions of others, has failed to gain any strategic military advantage over the guerrillas. As long as the Colombian regime is tied down by the guerrilla resistance, it can only play a limited role in any military invasion of Venezuela. For Uribe to engage in a US-sponsored invasion of Venezuela is a very risky proposition, opening a large swathe of territory for a guerrilla offensive
The kidnapping of Granda is only the "dress rehearsal" of a larger project of escalating provocations to test the loyalty, discipline and effectiveness of the Venezuelan security system. Washington is probing to see how far it can push Venezuela in surrendering its sovereignty and control over its borders.
Uribe and Washington's effort to drive a wedge between the popular resistance in Colombia and the Chavez government by using the "terrorist issue" as a political club has, in part, backfired , arousing a potent undercurrent of nationalist sentiment in Venezuela, while seriously jeopardizing important sectors of the Colombian economy, including elite classes which normally back Uribe.
Washington and Uribe's proposal for an international conference to discuss the issue of terror is based on their knowledge that most of the Latin American regimes today are eager to serve US interests. During the previous period of sustained economic and political warfare against the elected Chavez government by the authoritarian right, Brazil's Celso Amorin organized a group of countries calling themselves "The Friends of Venezuela" made up of hostile neo-liberal Ibero-Americans leaders, including ex-Presidents Aznar of Spain and Bush of the US (who both supported the failed military coup), Fox of Mexico and Lagos of Chile (notorious free marketers) and, of course, Brazil which gave equal political standing to the Venezuelan rightwing opposition as to the elected government. Chavez rightly rejected the mediation of such "friends".
Today Lula offers his services once again to "mediate" between an international aggressor and a sovereign country. Except for Cuba, not a single Latin American client regime has condemned Uribe's aggression or, worse, spoken out clearly in opposition to his doctrine of extra-territoriality. President Chavez is clearly aware of the pitfalls of meeting in an "international summit" dominated by hostile neo-liberal, pro-empire regimes that have already accepted and submitted to the Bush-Uribe anti-terrorist doctrine.
Chavez is absolutely correct to counterpoise the notion of a bilateral forum in which the focus is on Colombia's intervention, where the issues of Uribe's policy of state terrorism could become part of the public debate on "terrorism". Of course, Washington will "advise" Uribe to refuse. Chavez could then advise his foreign minister to take the matter to the UN General Assembly as a matter of urgent importance of peace, security and national sovereignty. Chavez has already retaliated to continued US overt aggression by signing oil export and investment agreements with China, Russia, Latin America and Europe. Shutting off imports of Colombian agricultural imports could stimulate a more intensified effort to promote local agricultural production, push for a more expeditious agrarian reform and greater public investment in local food production.
The kidnapping of Granda and the subverting of a few Venezuelan officials can serve as a wake-up call for the Venezuelan leadership to the real threats to national sovereignty which emanate from the US-backed Uribe doctrine. The threat is real, it is systemic and it is immediate. President Uribe has the backing of an imperial power but Chavez has the backing of the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans and the fact that they will be willing to fight to defend their land, their government and their right to live as a sovereign people. The question of Venezuelan sovereignty is now not simply a question of diplomatic maneuvers but of organizing the mass of the Venezuelans into becoming a military deterrent to any armed aggression.
James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in brazil and argentina and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed). He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu
Colombia, Internalization of the conflict... Or peace fades away?
Caracas, March 5 ABN (Aurelio Gil Beroes).- The murder in Ecuadorian territory of the guerrilla leader from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP), Raúl Reyes, and other 16 members of that insurgent group, filled the complete region of tension.
Reactions from the Ecuadorian and Venezuelan Governments did not take long. President Correa retired his ambassador from Bogotá, expelled Colombia's and called Uribe a lier; while President Chávez ordered to close Venezuelan Embassy to Bogotá and to expel the Colombian diplomatic corps from our country. Hours before that, the Venezuelan president had
prepared the mobilization of troops towards the shared frontier area.
A few days after the unilateral release of captives Gloria Polanco, Luis Eladio Perez, Orlando Beltrán and Jorge Géchem on behalf of the FARC-EP, a fact which might be considered as a warrant for the humanitarian agreement and the subsequent peace agreement for Colombia, the Government of Alvaro Uribe progressed a military operation on Ecuadorian territory, in the midst of an action that shows disdain and contempt to
the peace in his own country and, now, in South America.
It is as well an act of rejection to the efforts that previous presidents had done in order to get close to the end of one of the most extended armed conflicts of contemporary history.
Peace efforts
Despite President Uribe has until now denied to give political belligerence status (acknowledgement as political actors) to the main insurgent groups, the FARC-EP and the National Liberation Army (ELN), five presidents in the period of 20 years comprised between 1982 and 2002, accepted the political status of the Colombian armed conflict and
recognized, in fact, their condition of political agents. Likewise, they endeavored to achieve peace agreements as much as possible.
The origin of this war seems to be diffuse, but it can be generally located on April 9 1948, in Bogotá, when a murderer hand killed Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, people's leader from the Liberal Party and who represented the aspirations of justice of the immense majority of poor in Colombia.
This situation set off the furiousness of the people, firing Bogotá during three days, seeking to whom charge for their anger and frustration, and which led to 'La violencia', name given to the conflict which took place from 1948 to 1953, which trascended its term and still has not ceased.
Armed insurgency
After the 'Bogotazo', as it was named that historical event, the Government of conservative President Mariano Ospina Pérez suppressed violence. Liberals, defeated, retired to the countryside and organize the resistance joined to the communists.
During the consecutive years, armed groups of different nature appeared and the violence of both parties generalized in the country, until June 1953 when General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla, in a bloody coup which counted with liberal and conservative's consent, took power with the slogan of
pacification. Three months later, with an offer of amnesty for those raised in arms, Rojas Pinilla managed the liberal guerrillas to endorse an armistice.
Marquetalia
The communist guerrillas remained active and strengthened mainly in Marquetalia, a rural area located in the midst of the Andean Range, at the south of the Department of Tolina.
However, ten years later, President Guillermo León Valencia, authorized by the Congress, ordered a military operation destined to assassinate those armed groups, charging them of creating an “independent Republic”. The attack did not achieved its aim and in response to that, on May 27,
born out the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP).
Two months later, on July 4, at the Simacota municipality in the Department of Santander, starts the National Liberation Army (ELN), the second Colombian guerrilla force speaking in numbers.
Belisario Betancur's initiative
Two decades had to pass so the Colombian State issued its first reaction in order to search a solution to the situation of the armed conflict, and it was during the Belisario Betancur's administration when it was endorsed the first bilateral cease to fire between the FARC-EP and the Government, on May 28 1984, in La Uribe, Department of Meta.
The agreement was endorsed by Manuel Marulanda, on behalf of the insurgents, and by president Betancur himself. It envisaged the constitution of a National Committee for the Verification of the agreements, periods of proof and the cease of confrontations, warrants and encouragement for the incorporation to the political and social life, as well as political and social reforms.
The accord, ratified in March 1986, was preceded by the Law 35 in August 1982, proclaimed by Betancur himself, which stated amnesty for the armed groups and norms to reestablish and preserve the peace in Colombia.
Thanks to this agreement started the Union Patriótica (Patriotic Union), a political group formed by the communist party and other left-wing organizations, which rank and files in a short time were decimated by the State's security forces and the rising paramilitary groups. Approximately five thousand leaders and political commissions were killed.
Virgilio Barco accords with the M-19 and the EPL (1986-1990)
President Barco, who took post on August 7 1986, not only maintained the peace commissions and verification of the agreements achieved by his predecessor with the armed organizations, but four years later, on March 8 1990, he undersigned a peace agreement with the Movimiento 19 de Abril
(Movement April 19, M-19) a group which did not returned to the arms despite the killing of his leader, Carlos Pizarro León-Gómez, on April 26. Barco also achieved peace with the People's Army of Liberation (Ejercito Popular de Liberación, EPL), on May 16 of that year.
FARC dialogues with Gaviria despite Operation Centauro (1990-1994)
This process of searching the peace was interrupted on December 9 1990, when the recently inaugurated President Cesar Gaviria, trying to surprise the FARC-EP high command, orders 'Operation Centauro', against the Secretariat headquarter of the organization in La Uribe, Department of Meta. The action did not succeed
Despite all of that, the FARC-EP and Gaviria's government retake the talks, and in May 15 1991 they meet in Cravo Norte (Department of Arauca); then in Caracas, on September and October of that year; and then in Tlaxcala, Mexico, where they hold two new encounters: on March 10 1992 and on October 10. However, on October 31, in Bogota, Gaviria declares the end of the negotiations and decrees “integral war” against
the guerrilla.
Ernesto Samper searching for conditions (1994-1998)
By the half of his term, on August 12 1996, President Samper announced through radio and television the creation of a “exploratory mission” responsible for “defining the terms and conditions” in which “a first negotiation of peace might be held” with the armed groups, but the initiative did not progressed.
In different opportunities, Samper expressed to be interested on the peace process which took place in Guatemala and which finished successfully at the end of 1996.
Pastrana meets three times with Marulanda (1998-2002)
Out of Uribe's predecessors, maybe it was Pastrana who went further in the search of agreements with the armed groups.
This president met in three opportunities, at the Colombian jungle, with the FARC-EP chief, Manuel Marulanda, and he undersigned the 'Shared Agenda for the Change towards a new Colombia', a document formed by 12 items which defined the perspective for a debate upon the basis of the building of a new country.
The negotiation process between Pastrana's administration and the FARC-EP lasted three years and ended up without making specific decisions, but with the record of a relevant experience.
Uribe, point of inflection (2002-2006 / 2006-2010)
Nowadays, Alvaro Uribe govern his second term and though his emissaries held six unsuccessful round of negotiations with the ELN in La Habana in 2007, since his first term in office he marked a point of inflection in the negotiation line of the Colombian governments with the armed groups.
An article published on May 28 2002, in La Jornada journal, from Mexico, regarding Uribe's first press conference, elected for the period 2002-2006, clearly defined his point of view:
“Santa Fe de Bogotá, May 27.- The elected president of Colombia, right-wing Alvaro Uribe, requested an international mediation leaded by the UN aiming for a dialog with the ilegal armed groups, after he had focused his electoral campaign in military proposals to confront them, and asking military help to the United States in order to combat terrorism.”
Uribe has reiterated that the democratic progress in his country does not justify the insurgence, just as he did -in accordance with a press release- on August 31 2007, during the setting off of the fourth meeting of South American intelligence chiefs:
“Bogotá, August 31 (Xinhua) – The president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, affirmed today, again, that the guerrilla groups who operate in his country should not be labeled as insurgent because their actions answer more to terrorism.”
Finally, on January 11 2008, in a communique to answer President Chávez's request of recognizing political belligerence to the FARC and the ELN, Uribe described those groups as “terrorist organizations which changed their old ideas of Marxist revolution for mercenariness, financed through ilegal drugs and, besides, caused paramilitary terrorism.”
Hope persists
Hopefully, the FARC-EP have expressed that the murder of Reyes and their 16 comrades will not change the organization's disposition to concrete a humanitarian swap.
However, in the midst of the tension prevailing in the region, new contacts with this purpose appear to be improbable. Still less to think about peace agreements, at least for the time being.
Reactions from the Ecuadorian and Venezuelan Governments did not take long. President Correa retired his ambassador from Bogotá, expelled Colombia's and called Uribe a lier; while President Chávez ordered to close Venezuelan Embassy to Bogotá and to expel the Colombian diplomatic corps from our country. Hours before that, the Venezuelan president had
prepared the mobilization of troops towards the shared frontier area.
A few days after the unilateral release of captives Gloria Polanco, Luis Eladio Perez, Orlando Beltrán and Jorge Géchem on behalf of the FARC-EP, a fact which might be considered as a warrant for the humanitarian agreement and the subsequent peace agreement for Colombia, the Government of Alvaro Uribe progressed a military operation on Ecuadorian territory, in the midst of an action that shows disdain and contempt to
the peace in his own country and, now, in South America.
It is as well an act of rejection to the efforts that previous presidents had done in order to get close to the end of one of the most extended armed conflicts of contemporary history.
Peace efforts
Despite President Uribe has until now denied to give political belligerence status (acknowledgement as political actors) to the main insurgent groups, the FARC-EP and the National Liberation Army (ELN), five presidents in the period of 20 years comprised between 1982 and 2002, accepted the political status of the Colombian armed conflict and
recognized, in fact, their condition of political agents. Likewise, they endeavored to achieve peace agreements as much as possible.
The origin of this war seems to be diffuse, but it can be generally located on April 9 1948, in Bogotá, when a murderer hand killed Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, people's leader from the Liberal Party and who represented the aspirations of justice of the immense majority of poor in Colombia.
This situation set off the furiousness of the people, firing Bogotá during three days, seeking to whom charge for their anger and frustration, and which led to 'La violencia', name given to the conflict which took place from 1948 to 1953, which trascended its term and still has not ceased.
Armed insurgency
After the 'Bogotazo', as it was named that historical event, the Government of conservative President Mariano Ospina Pérez suppressed violence. Liberals, defeated, retired to the countryside and organize the resistance joined to the communists.
During the consecutive years, armed groups of different nature appeared and the violence of both parties generalized in the country, until June 1953 when General Gustavo Rojas Pinilla, in a bloody coup which counted with liberal and conservative's consent, took power with the slogan of
pacification. Three months later, with an offer of amnesty for those raised in arms, Rojas Pinilla managed the liberal guerrillas to endorse an armistice.
Marquetalia
The communist guerrillas remained active and strengthened mainly in Marquetalia, a rural area located in the midst of the Andean Range, at the south of the Department of Tolina.
However, ten years later, President Guillermo León Valencia, authorized by the Congress, ordered a military operation destined to assassinate those armed groups, charging them of creating an “independent Republic”. The attack did not achieved its aim and in response to that, on May 27,
born out the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP).
Two months later, on July 4, at the Simacota municipality in the Department of Santander, starts the National Liberation Army (ELN), the second Colombian guerrilla force speaking in numbers.
Belisario Betancur's initiative
Two decades had to pass so the Colombian State issued its first reaction in order to search a solution to the situation of the armed conflict, and it was during the Belisario Betancur's administration when it was endorsed the first bilateral cease to fire between the FARC-EP and the Government, on May 28 1984, in La Uribe, Department of Meta.
The agreement was endorsed by Manuel Marulanda, on behalf of the insurgents, and by president Betancur himself. It envisaged the constitution of a National Committee for the Verification of the agreements, periods of proof and the cease of confrontations, warrants and encouragement for the incorporation to the political and social life, as well as political and social reforms.
The accord, ratified in March 1986, was preceded by the Law 35 in August 1982, proclaimed by Betancur himself, which stated amnesty for the armed groups and norms to reestablish and preserve the peace in Colombia.
Thanks to this agreement started the Union Patriótica (Patriotic Union), a political group formed by the communist party and other left-wing organizations, which rank and files in a short time were decimated by the State's security forces and the rising paramilitary groups. Approximately five thousand leaders and political commissions were killed.
Virgilio Barco accords with the M-19 and the EPL (1986-1990)
President Barco, who took post on August 7 1986, not only maintained the peace commissions and verification of the agreements achieved by his predecessor with the armed organizations, but four years later, on March 8 1990, he undersigned a peace agreement with the Movimiento 19 de Abril
(Movement April 19, M-19) a group which did not returned to the arms despite the killing of his leader, Carlos Pizarro León-Gómez, on April 26. Barco also achieved peace with the People's Army of Liberation (Ejercito Popular de Liberación, EPL), on May 16 of that year.
FARC dialogues with Gaviria despite Operation Centauro (1990-1994)
This process of searching the peace was interrupted on December 9 1990, when the recently inaugurated President Cesar Gaviria, trying to surprise the FARC-EP high command, orders 'Operation Centauro', against the Secretariat headquarter of the organization in La Uribe, Department of Meta. The action did not succeed
Despite all of that, the FARC-EP and Gaviria's government retake the talks, and in May 15 1991 they meet in Cravo Norte (Department of Arauca); then in Caracas, on September and October of that year; and then in Tlaxcala, Mexico, where they hold two new encounters: on March 10 1992 and on October 10. However, on October 31, in Bogota, Gaviria declares the end of the negotiations and decrees “integral war” against
the guerrilla.
Ernesto Samper searching for conditions (1994-1998)
By the half of his term, on August 12 1996, President Samper announced through radio and television the creation of a “exploratory mission” responsible for “defining the terms and conditions” in which “a first negotiation of peace might be held” with the armed groups, but the initiative did not progressed.
In different opportunities, Samper expressed to be interested on the peace process which took place in Guatemala and which finished successfully at the end of 1996.
Pastrana meets three times with Marulanda (1998-2002)
Out of Uribe's predecessors, maybe it was Pastrana who went further in the search of agreements with the armed groups.
This president met in three opportunities, at the Colombian jungle, with the FARC-EP chief, Manuel Marulanda, and he undersigned the 'Shared Agenda for the Change towards a new Colombia', a document formed by 12 items which defined the perspective for a debate upon the basis of the building of a new country.
The negotiation process between Pastrana's administration and the FARC-EP lasted three years and ended up without making specific decisions, but with the record of a relevant experience.
Uribe, point of inflection (2002-2006 / 2006-2010)
Nowadays, Alvaro Uribe govern his second term and though his emissaries held six unsuccessful round of negotiations with the ELN in La Habana in 2007, since his first term in office he marked a point of inflection in the negotiation line of the Colombian governments with the armed groups.
An article published on May 28 2002, in La Jornada journal, from Mexico, regarding Uribe's first press conference, elected for the period 2002-2006, clearly defined his point of view:
“Santa Fe de Bogotá, May 27.- The elected president of Colombia, right-wing Alvaro Uribe, requested an international mediation leaded by the UN aiming for a dialog with the ilegal armed groups, after he had focused his electoral campaign in military proposals to confront them, and asking military help to the United States in order to combat terrorism.”
Uribe has reiterated that the democratic progress in his country does not justify the insurgence, just as he did -in accordance with a press release- on August 31 2007, during the setting off of the fourth meeting of South American intelligence chiefs:
“Bogotá, August 31 (Xinhua) – The president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, affirmed today, again, that the guerrilla groups who operate in his country should not be labeled as insurgent because their actions answer more to terrorism.”
Finally, on January 11 2008, in a communique to answer President Chávez's request of recognizing political belligerence to the FARC and the ELN, Uribe described those groups as “terrorist organizations which changed their old ideas of Marxist revolution for mercenariness, financed through ilegal drugs and, besides, caused paramilitary terrorism.”
Hope persists
Hopefully, the FARC-EP have expressed that the murder of Reyes and their 16 comrades will not change the organization's disposition to concrete a humanitarian swap.
However, in the midst of the tension prevailing in the region, new contacts with this purpose appear to be improbable. Still less to think about peace agreements, at least for the time being.
A Response to the Muder of Raúl Reyes in Ecuador
A Response to the Muder of Raúl Reyes in Ecuador
Uribe's Colombia is Destabilizing a New Latin America
By JAMES J. BRITTAIN
and R. JAMES SACOUMAN
A few weeks after the Ecuadorian and Venezuelan state called on the Colombian government to respect the need for peace and negotiation with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP), the administration of Álvaro Uribe Vélez (2002-2010) supported an extensive armed air and land assault against the insurgency movement--not within Colombia's borders but rather on the sovereign territory of Ecuadorian soil.
On 1 March, 2008 the Colombian state, under the leadership of Uribe and Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón (and his cousin Defence Minister Juan Manuel Santos), illegally deployed a military campaign within Ecuador, which resulted in the deaths of Raúl Reyes, Julian Conrado, and fifteen other combatants associated with the FARC-EP. Such actions are a clear display of the (US-backed) Colombian state's open negation of international codes of conduct, law, and social justice.
The actions of Saturday 1 March took place days before a major international demonstration scheduled for 6 March, 2008. Promoted by The National Movement of Victims of State-Sponsored Crimes (MOVICE), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), and countless social justice-based organizations, March 6th has been set as an international day of protest against those tortured, murdered, and disappeared by the Colombian state, their allies within the paramilitary United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC) and the newly reformed Black Eagles. Recently, President Uribe's top political adviser, José Obdulio Gaviria, proclaimed that the protest and protesters should be criminalized. In addition, paramilitaries in the southwestern department of Nariño (not far from where the illegal incursions were carried out in Ecuador), have threatened to attack any organization or person associated with the activities scheduled for Thursday.
It is believed that the Uribe and Santos administration is utilizing the slaughter of Comandante Raúl Reyes and others as a method to deter activists and socially conscious peoples within and outside Colombia from participating in the March 6th events. Numerous state-controlled or connected media outlets, such as El Tiempo (which has long-standing ties to the Santos family), have been parading photographs of the bullet ridden and mutilated corpse of Raúl Reyes throughout the country's communications mediums. Such propaganda is clearly a tool to psychologically intimidate those preparing to demonstrate against the atrocities perpetrated by the state over the past seven years.
Over the past two months, numerous researchers, scholars, and lawyers have supported the call to declare the FARC-EP a legitimate force fighting against the corrupt Colombian state. In January 2008, Ecuador's Foreign Minister Maria Isabel Salvador argued that the FARC-EP should no longer be depicted as a terrorist organization. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez too announced that the FARC-EP are far from a terrorist force but are rather a real army, which occupies Colombian territory and shares in a Bolivarian vision for a new Latin America. Mexican deputy Ricardo Cantu Garza also has promoted the recognition of the FARC-EP as a belligerent force legitimately fighting against a corrupt and unequal sociopolitical system. As prominent US attorney Paul Wolf argued,
the FARC-EP are a belligerent army of national liberation, as evidenced by their sustained military campaign and sovereignty over a large part of Colombian territory, and their conduct of hostilities by organized troops kept under military discipline and complying with the laws and customs of war, at least to the same extent as other parties to the conflict. Members of the FARC-EP are therefore entitled to the rights of belligerents under international law there is no rule of international law prohibiting revolution, and, if a revolution succeeds, there is nothing in international law prohibiting the acceptance of the outcome, even though it was achieved by force.
From Copenhagen to Caracas, numerous state officials have denounced the description of the FARC-EP as a terrorist organization. Progressive officials and administrations in Mexico, Ecuador, and Venezuela have rather opted for the status of belligerent or irregular forces to more accurately depict the FARC-EP domestic and geo-political stance. Disturbingly, in the face of this evidence and the FARC-EP's consistent promotion for a humanitarian prisoner exchange and peace negotiations with the state in a demilitarized zone in southwestern Colombia, the Uribe and Santos administration has moved ever farther away from supporting an end to the civil war within Colombia by opting for systemic violence.
Over the past several years, different aspects of the FARC-EP's real social, political, and cultural activities for progressive social change have been censored or marginalized by the private press or governments in support of the Colombian state. Nevertheless, after researching the FARC-EP and the country of Colombia for years, Garry Leech argued that "while there is little doubt regarding the global reach of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, there is no evidence that the FARC is anything but one of the armed actors in Colombia's long and tragic domestic conflict".
In actuality, the FARC-EP are actors within the strategic confines of Colombian society that aim their directives at domestic social change. In light of such realities, how can this insurgency be a terrorist threat to external nation-states? Coletta A. Youngers responds to this question by describing how
the U.S. government now views the Latin American region almost exclusively through the counterterrorist lens, though the region poses no serious national security threat to the United States little evidence has been put forward to substantiate such claims, and whatever activity is taking place there appears to be minimal.
While Youngers does not trivialize its revolutionary tactics, she clearly argues that the FARC-EP cannot be correctly framed within the concept and rhetoric of global terrorism. Youngers argues that the insurgency is not a direct political threat to administrations within the United States, Canada, the European Union and any other foreign nation-state in the fact that the FARC-EP activities "are targeted inward, not outward," hence, "applying the terrorism concept to these groups negates their political projects".
Characterizing the FARC-EP as a foreign terrorist organization dramatically alters the dynamics of the peace process in favour of a killer state. Stipulating that the FARC-EP is terrorist results in the inability for legal peace negotiations to take place between the FARC-EP and any government that subscribes to the categorization. Promoting the FARC-EP (and their supporters) as terrorists "puts them on the list of targets to be assaulted by the US military machine" and "thus subject to total war," according to James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer. The terminology of terrorism is perfect for imperialist ideology and expansionism. It is a very open-ended reference that "allows maximum intervention in all regions against any opposition" and "that any group engaged in opposing militarism, imperialism (so-called "globalization") or local authoritarian regimes could be labelled "terrorist" and targeted", thus legitimizing external invasion or attack.
Internal and external condemnation of the Colombian state has fallen upon the deaf ears of the Uribe and Santos administration. After years of increased violations of civilian human rights, the ongoing suppression of trade-unionism, assassinations of left-of-centre activists and politicians, and a political reality that has witnessed 75 governors, mayors, and Congressional politicians alleged or found guilty of having direct links to the paramilitary--including Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón and his cousin Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos and President Uribe's brother Santiago and their cousin Senator Mario Uribe--now the Colombian state has deemed it necessary to illegally encroach upon those nations that deviate from their ideological model of political and economic centralization. Not only has the Uribe administration criticized their neighbours but after the actions realized on 1 March, 2008 it is clear that the Colombian state, with the full backing of the United States, will impose its own ideological goals and values, through force, regardless of the democratic rights and privileges of conventional electoral law and procedure.
While the neighbouring states of Ecuador and Venezuela struggle for peace and try to assist the people of Colombia in the quest for an end to the civil war, the Uribe and Santos administration has bypassed judicial realities and governance to impose its own objectives. Careful analysts of the Colombian situation continue to debate whether the Colombian state is pre-fascist or actually fascist. It is certainly neither humane nor actually democratic. The current Colombian state must be transformed, sooner rather than later. Those fighting for peace must condemn the action of this regime. In solidarity, we must protest the policies of the Colombian state and raise our voices in support for a New Colombia which stands for Peace with Social Justice.
James J. Brittain (Assistant Professor) and Jim Sacouman (Professor) are Canadian sociologists at Acadia University in Nova Scotia who have been researching the Colombian civil war and political economy over the past decade. They can be reached at: james.brittain@acadiau.ca
Uribe's Colombia is Destabilizing a New Latin America
By JAMES J. BRITTAIN
and R. JAMES SACOUMAN
A few weeks after the Ecuadorian and Venezuelan state called on the Colombian government to respect the need for peace and negotiation with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP), the administration of Álvaro Uribe Vélez (2002-2010) supported an extensive armed air and land assault against the insurgency movement--not within Colombia's borders but rather on the sovereign territory of Ecuadorian soil.
On 1 March, 2008 the Colombian state, under the leadership of Uribe and Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón (and his cousin Defence Minister Juan Manuel Santos), illegally deployed a military campaign within Ecuador, which resulted in the deaths of Raúl Reyes, Julian Conrado, and fifteen other combatants associated with the FARC-EP. Such actions are a clear display of the (US-backed) Colombian state's open negation of international codes of conduct, law, and social justice.
The actions of Saturday 1 March took place days before a major international demonstration scheduled for 6 March, 2008. Promoted by The National Movement of Victims of State-Sponsored Crimes (MOVICE), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), and countless social justice-based organizations, March 6th has been set as an international day of protest against those tortured, murdered, and disappeared by the Colombian state, their allies within the paramilitary United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC) and the newly reformed Black Eagles. Recently, President Uribe's top political adviser, José Obdulio Gaviria, proclaimed that the protest and protesters should be criminalized. In addition, paramilitaries in the southwestern department of Nariño (not far from where the illegal incursions were carried out in Ecuador), have threatened to attack any organization or person associated with the activities scheduled for Thursday.
It is believed that the Uribe and Santos administration is utilizing the slaughter of Comandante Raúl Reyes and others as a method to deter activists and socially conscious peoples within and outside Colombia from participating in the March 6th events. Numerous state-controlled or connected media outlets, such as El Tiempo (which has long-standing ties to the Santos family), have been parading photographs of the bullet ridden and mutilated corpse of Raúl Reyes throughout the country's communications mediums. Such propaganda is clearly a tool to psychologically intimidate those preparing to demonstrate against the atrocities perpetrated by the state over the past seven years.
Over the past two months, numerous researchers, scholars, and lawyers have supported the call to declare the FARC-EP a legitimate force fighting against the corrupt Colombian state. In January 2008, Ecuador's Foreign Minister Maria Isabel Salvador argued that the FARC-EP should no longer be depicted as a terrorist organization. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez too announced that the FARC-EP are far from a terrorist force but are rather a real army, which occupies Colombian territory and shares in a Bolivarian vision for a new Latin America. Mexican deputy Ricardo Cantu Garza also has promoted the recognition of the FARC-EP as a belligerent force legitimately fighting against a corrupt and unequal sociopolitical system. As prominent US attorney Paul Wolf argued,
the FARC-EP are a belligerent army of national liberation, as evidenced by their sustained military campaign and sovereignty over a large part of Colombian territory, and their conduct of hostilities by organized troops kept under military discipline and complying with the laws and customs of war, at least to the same extent as other parties to the conflict. Members of the FARC-EP are therefore entitled to the rights of belligerents under international law there is no rule of international law prohibiting revolution, and, if a revolution succeeds, there is nothing in international law prohibiting the acceptance of the outcome, even though it was achieved by force.
From Copenhagen to Caracas, numerous state officials have denounced the description of the FARC-EP as a terrorist organization. Progressive officials and administrations in Mexico, Ecuador, and Venezuela have rather opted for the status of belligerent or irregular forces to more accurately depict the FARC-EP domestic and geo-political stance. Disturbingly, in the face of this evidence and the FARC-EP's consistent promotion for a humanitarian prisoner exchange and peace negotiations with the state in a demilitarized zone in southwestern Colombia, the Uribe and Santos administration has moved ever farther away from supporting an end to the civil war within Colombia by opting for systemic violence.
Over the past several years, different aspects of the FARC-EP's real social, political, and cultural activities for progressive social change have been censored or marginalized by the private press or governments in support of the Colombian state. Nevertheless, after researching the FARC-EP and the country of Colombia for years, Garry Leech argued that "while there is little doubt regarding the global reach of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, there is no evidence that the FARC is anything but one of the armed actors in Colombia's long and tragic domestic conflict".
In actuality, the FARC-EP are actors within the strategic confines of Colombian society that aim their directives at domestic social change. In light of such realities, how can this insurgency be a terrorist threat to external nation-states? Coletta A. Youngers responds to this question by describing how
the U.S. government now views the Latin American region almost exclusively through the counterterrorist lens, though the region poses no serious national security threat to the United States little evidence has been put forward to substantiate such claims, and whatever activity is taking place there appears to be minimal.
While Youngers does not trivialize its revolutionary tactics, she clearly argues that the FARC-EP cannot be correctly framed within the concept and rhetoric of global terrorism. Youngers argues that the insurgency is not a direct political threat to administrations within the United States, Canada, the European Union and any other foreign nation-state in the fact that the FARC-EP activities "are targeted inward, not outward," hence, "applying the terrorism concept to these groups negates their political projects".
Characterizing the FARC-EP as a foreign terrorist organization dramatically alters the dynamics of the peace process in favour of a killer state. Stipulating that the FARC-EP is terrorist results in the inability for legal peace negotiations to take place between the FARC-EP and any government that subscribes to the categorization. Promoting the FARC-EP (and their supporters) as terrorists "puts them on the list of targets to be assaulted by the US military machine" and "thus subject to total war," according to James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer. The terminology of terrorism is perfect for imperialist ideology and expansionism. It is a very open-ended reference that "allows maximum intervention in all regions against any opposition" and "that any group engaged in opposing militarism, imperialism (so-called "globalization") or local authoritarian regimes could be labelled "terrorist" and targeted", thus legitimizing external invasion or attack.
Internal and external condemnation of the Colombian state has fallen upon the deaf ears of the Uribe and Santos administration. After years of increased violations of civilian human rights, the ongoing suppression of trade-unionism, assassinations of left-of-centre activists and politicians, and a political reality that has witnessed 75 governors, mayors, and Congressional politicians alleged or found guilty of having direct links to the paramilitary--including Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón and his cousin Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos and President Uribe's brother Santiago and their cousin Senator Mario Uribe--now the Colombian state has deemed it necessary to illegally encroach upon those nations that deviate from their ideological model of political and economic centralization. Not only has the Uribe administration criticized their neighbours but after the actions realized on 1 March, 2008 it is clear that the Colombian state, with the full backing of the United States, will impose its own ideological goals and values, through force, regardless of the democratic rights and privileges of conventional electoral law and procedure.
While the neighbouring states of Ecuador and Venezuela struggle for peace and try to assist the people of Colombia in the quest for an end to the civil war, the Uribe and Santos administration has bypassed judicial realities and governance to impose its own objectives. Careful analysts of the Colombian situation continue to debate whether the Colombian state is pre-fascist or actually fascist. It is certainly neither humane nor actually democratic. The current Colombian state must be transformed, sooner rather than later. Those fighting for peace must condemn the action of this regime. In solidarity, we must protest the policies of the Colombian state and raise our voices in support for a New Colombia which stands for Peace with Social Justice.
James J. Brittain (Assistant Professor) and Jim Sacouman (Professor) are Canadian sociologists at Acadia University in Nova Scotia who have been researching the Colombian civil war and political economy over the past decade. They can be reached at: james.brittain@acadiau.ca
The Raid on Ecuador
Underestimating Rafael Correa
By FIDEL CASTRO
I remember when Rafael Correa visited us, months before the electoral campaign when he was thinking of running as a candidate for the Presidency of Ecuador. He had been the Minister of the Economy in the government of Alfredo Palacio, a surgeon with professional prestige who had also visited us as Vice President, before becoming the President in an unexpected situation that took place in Ecuador. He had been receptive to a program of ophthalmologic operations that we offered him as a form of cooperation. There were good relations between our two governments.
A while earlier Correa had resigned from the Ministry of the Economy. He was unhappy with what he called administrative corruption instigated by Oxy, a foreign company that explored and invested important sums of money, but was holding on to four out of every five barrels of oil that it extracted. He didn't talk about nationalization, but about taxing them heavily; these taxes would be assigned in advance to specific social investments. He had already approved the measures and a judge had declared them to be valid.
Since the word "nationalize" had not been mentioned, I thought he felt apprehensive about the concept. It didn't surprise me because he had graduated as an economist with much acclaim from a well-known U.S. university. I didn't bother getting into much depth; I bombarded him with questions from the arsenal accumulated in the struggle against the Latin American foreign debt in 1985 and of Cuba's own experience.
There are high-risk investments that use sophisticated technology and that no small nation like Cuba or Ecuador could take on.
Since this was already in 2006 and we were determined to promote the energy revolution, --ours was the first country on the planet to proclaim this as a vital issue for humankind-- I had dealt with the subject particularly emphatically. But I halted, as I understood one of his reasons.
I related to him the conversation I had had a while ago with the president of REPSOL, a Spanish company. This company, associated with other international companies, would undertake an expensive operation to drill the ocean floor, more than 2000 meters down, using sophisticated technology, in Cuba's jurisdictional waters. I asked the head of the Spanish company: How much is an exploratory well worth? I ask you this because we would like to participate, even if it is for one percent of the total cost and we would like to know what you want to do with our oil.
Correa, for his part, had told me that for every one hundred dollars taken out by the companies, only twenty remained in the country; it didn't even get into the budget, he said; it was left in a separate fund for just about anything other than improving the living conditions of the people.
I abolished the fund, he told me, and directed 40 percent towards education and health, technological and highway development, and the rest towards buying back the debt if the price was favorable, and if not, investing it in something more useful. Before, every year we had to buy a portion of that debt which was becoming more expensive.
In the case of Ecuador he added oil policies verged on treason against the country. Why do they do it? I asked him. Is it because they are afraid of the Yankees or due to unbearable pressure? He answered: If they have a Minister of the Economy who tells them privatization would improve efficiency, you can just imagine. I didn't do that.
I encourage him to go on and he calmly explains. The foreign company Oxy is one that has broken its contract and according to Ecuadorian law it requires an expiration date. It means that the oil field operated by this company must go over to the State, but because of Yankee pressure the government does not dare to occupy it; a situation is created which is not contemplated by the legislation. The law just states that an expiration date must be set, and nothing more. The judge at the court of first instance at that moment was the president of PETROECUADOR and he made it happen. I was a member of PETROECUADOR and they called an emergency meeting to expel him from his position. I didn't attend and they couldn't fire him. The judge declared the expiration date.
What did the Yankees want? I asked him. They wanted a fine, he quickly replied. Listening to him I realized that I had underestimated him.
I was in a hurry because of a great number of commitments. I invited him to sit in on a meeting with a large group of highly qualified Cuban professionals who were leaving for Bolivia to be part of the Medical Brigade; it had staff for more than 30 hospitals including 19 surgical positions that could do more than 130 thousand ophthalmologic operations per year; all in the manner of free cooperation. Ecuador possesses three similar centers with six ophthalmologic positions.
Dinner with the Ecuadorian economist took place into the morning hours of February 9, 2006. There were scarcely any view points that I didn't cover. I even spoke to him about the very harmful mercury that modern industry scatters throughout the planet's oceans. Consumerism was of course a subject that I emphasized; the high cost of the kilowatt/hour in the thermoelectric plants; the differences between socialist and communist forms of distribution, the role of money, the trillions spent on advertising which people had no choice but to pay for in the prices of goods, and the studies made by university social brigades who discovered, among the 500 thousand families in the capital, the number of elderly folk lived alone. I explained the stage of university courses for all that we were involved in.
We became friends even though he perhaps received the impression that I was self-sufficient. If that happened, it was truly not my intention.
Since that time I have observed his every step: the electoral process, focusing on the concrete problems of Ecuadorians and the people's victory over the oligarchy.
In the history of our peoples there are many things that bring us together. Sucre was always a highly admired figure, along with The Liberator Bolivar; as Marti said, what he hasn't done in America remains to be done, and as Neruda exclaimed, Bolivar awakens every hundred years.
Imperialism has just committed a monstrous crime in Ecuador. Deadly bombs were dropped in the early morning hours on a group of men and women who, almost without exception, were asleep. That has been deduced by all the official reports right from the beginning. Any concrete accusations against that group of human beings do not justify that action. They were Yankee bombs, guided by Yankee satellites.
Absolutely no one has the right to kill in cold blood. If we accept that imperial method of warfare and barbarism, Yankee bombs directed by satellites could fall on any group of Latin American men and women, in the territory of any country, war or no war. The fact that this happened on undisputed Ecuadorian territory is an aggravating circumstance.
We are not an enemy of Colombia. Previous reflections and exchanges demonstrate how much of an effort we have made, both the current President of the Council of State of Cuba and I, to abide by a declared policy of principles and peace, proclaimed years ago in our relations with the rest of the Latin American states.
Today, with everything at risk, we have not been transformed into belligerent people. We are determined supporters of that unity among peoples which Marti named Our America.
If we keep quiet we shall become accomplices. Today they would like to have our friend, the economist and President of Ecuador Rafael Correa, seated in the dock; this is something we couldn't even conceive that morning of February 9, 2006. At that time it seemed that my imagination was capable of embracing all kinds of dreams and risks, but never anything like what has occurred in the early morning of Saturday March 1, 2008.
Correa has in his hands the few survivors and the rest of the bodies. The two which are missing prove that Ecuadorian territory was occupied by troops that crossed the border. Now he can cry out like Emile Zola: J'accuse!
By FIDEL CASTRO
I remember when Rafael Correa visited us, months before the electoral campaign when he was thinking of running as a candidate for the Presidency of Ecuador. He had been the Minister of the Economy in the government of Alfredo Palacio, a surgeon with professional prestige who had also visited us as Vice President, before becoming the President in an unexpected situation that took place in Ecuador. He had been receptive to a program of ophthalmologic operations that we offered him as a form of cooperation. There were good relations between our two governments.
A while earlier Correa had resigned from the Ministry of the Economy. He was unhappy with what he called administrative corruption instigated by Oxy, a foreign company that explored and invested important sums of money, but was holding on to four out of every five barrels of oil that it extracted. He didn't talk about nationalization, but about taxing them heavily; these taxes would be assigned in advance to specific social investments. He had already approved the measures and a judge had declared them to be valid.
Since the word "nationalize" had not been mentioned, I thought he felt apprehensive about the concept. It didn't surprise me because he had graduated as an economist with much acclaim from a well-known U.S. university. I didn't bother getting into much depth; I bombarded him with questions from the arsenal accumulated in the struggle against the Latin American foreign debt in 1985 and of Cuba's own experience.
There are high-risk investments that use sophisticated technology and that no small nation like Cuba or Ecuador could take on.
Since this was already in 2006 and we were determined to promote the energy revolution, --ours was the first country on the planet to proclaim this as a vital issue for humankind-- I had dealt with the subject particularly emphatically. But I halted, as I understood one of his reasons.
I related to him the conversation I had had a while ago with the president of REPSOL, a Spanish company. This company, associated with other international companies, would undertake an expensive operation to drill the ocean floor, more than 2000 meters down, using sophisticated technology, in Cuba's jurisdictional waters. I asked the head of the Spanish company: How much is an exploratory well worth? I ask you this because we would like to participate, even if it is for one percent of the total cost and we would like to know what you want to do with our oil.
Correa, for his part, had told me that for every one hundred dollars taken out by the companies, only twenty remained in the country; it didn't even get into the budget, he said; it was left in a separate fund for just about anything other than improving the living conditions of the people.
I abolished the fund, he told me, and directed 40 percent towards education and health, technological and highway development, and the rest towards buying back the debt if the price was favorable, and if not, investing it in something more useful. Before, every year we had to buy a portion of that debt which was becoming more expensive.
In the case of Ecuador he added oil policies verged on treason against the country. Why do they do it? I asked him. Is it because they are afraid of the Yankees or due to unbearable pressure? He answered: If they have a Minister of the Economy who tells them privatization would improve efficiency, you can just imagine. I didn't do that.
I encourage him to go on and he calmly explains. The foreign company Oxy is one that has broken its contract and according to Ecuadorian law it requires an expiration date. It means that the oil field operated by this company must go over to the State, but because of Yankee pressure the government does not dare to occupy it; a situation is created which is not contemplated by the legislation. The law just states that an expiration date must be set, and nothing more. The judge at the court of first instance at that moment was the president of PETROECUADOR and he made it happen. I was a member of PETROECUADOR and they called an emergency meeting to expel him from his position. I didn't attend and they couldn't fire him. The judge declared the expiration date.
What did the Yankees want? I asked him. They wanted a fine, he quickly replied. Listening to him I realized that I had underestimated him.
I was in a hurry because of a great number of commitments. I invited him to sit in on a meeting with a large group of highly qualified Cuban professionals who were leaving for Bolivia to be part of the Medical Brigade; it had staff for more than 30 hospitals including 19 surgical positions that could do more than 130 thousand ophthalmologic operations per year; all in the manner of free cooperation. Ecuador possesses three similar centers with six ophthalmologic positions.
Dinner with the Ecuadorian economist took place into the morning hours of February 9, 2006. There were scarcely any view points that I didn't cover. I even spoke to him about the very harmful mercury that modern industry scatters throughout the planet's oceans. Consumerism was of course a subject that I emphasized; the high cost of the kilowatt/hour in the thermoelectric plants; the differences between socialist and communist forms of distribution, the role of money, the trillions spent on advertising which people had no choice but to pay for in the prices of goods, and the studies made by university social brigades who discovered, among the 500 thousand families in the capital, the number of elderly folk lived alone. I explained the stage of university courses for all that we were involved in.
We became friends even though he perhaps received the impression that I was self-sufficient. If that happened, it was truly not my intention.
Since that time I have observed his every step: the electoral process, focusing on the concrete problems of Ecuadorians and the people's victory over the oligarchy.
In the history of our peoples there are many things that bring us together. Sucre was always a highly admired figure, along with The Liberator Bolivar; as Marti said, what he hasn't done in America remains to be done, and as Neruda exclaimed, Bolivar awakens every hundred years.
Imperialism has just committed a monstrous crime in Ecuador. Deadly bombs were dropped in the early morning hours on a group of men and women who, almost without exception, were asleep. That has been deduced by all the official reports right from the beginning. Any concrete accusations against that group of human beings do not justify that action. They were Yankee bombs, guided by Yankee satellites.
Absolutely no one has the right to kill in cold blood. If we accept that imperial method of warfare and barbarism, Yankee bombs directed by satellites could fall on any group of Latin American men and women, in the territory of any country, war or no war. The fact that this happened on undisputed Ecuadorian territory is an aggravating circumstance.
We are not an enemy of Colombia. Previous reflections and exchanges demonstrate how much of an effort we have made, both the current President of the Council of State of Cuba and I, to abide by a declared policy of principles and peace, proclaimed years ago in our relations with the rest of the Latin American states.
Today, with everything at risk, we have not been transformed into belligerent people. We are determined supporters of that unity among peoples which Marti named Our America.
If we keep quiet we shall become accomplices. Today they would like to have our friend, the economist and President of Ecuador Rafael Correa, seated in the dock; this is something we couldn't even conceive that morning of February 9, 2006. At that time it seemed that my imagination was capable of embracing all kinds of dreams and risks, but never anything like what has occurred in the early morning of Saturday March 1, 2008.
Correa has in his hands the few survivors and the rest of the bodies. The two which are missing prove that Ecuadorian territory was occupied by troops that crossed the border. Now he can cry out like Emile Zola: J'accuse!
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
OPEC Supports Venezuela in Case Exxon Mobil
The conference of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has unanimously, issued a resolution of support to Venezuela in the ongoing legal dispute undertaken by Exxon Mobil which pretends to act against the sovereign decisions of the Venezuelan State.
The information was issued on Wednesday by the president of Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) and Minister of Energy and Oil, Rafael Ramnírez, from Vienna; Austria, after the end of 148th Meeting of the OPEC Conference.
Bolivarian News Agency / March 5, 2008
The information was issued on Wednesday by the president of Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) and Minister of Energy and Oil, Rafael Ramnírez, from Vienna; Austria, after the end of 148th Meeting of the OPEC Conference.
Bolivarian News Agency / March 5, 2008
Plan Colombia: The Real Destabilizing Force in South America
March 4th 2008, by Carlos Martinez - Global Exchange Venezuela Program
In surveying US press coverage of the recent tensions between Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela one might come to the conclusion that Colombia has become the victim of the wrath of its' evil next door neighbor, Hugo Chavez. Once again, the media spin machine has been turned against Venezuela, bypassing a contextual analysis of the situation for a simplistic story line. With headlines such as, "Chavez Picks a New Fight" (Business Week March 4, 2008) the story perpetuates the US government's claims that Venezuela is a destabilizing force in the region while ignoring the alarming actions perpetrated by the Colombian government.
While Chavez has certainly made it easy for international attention to be focused on his actions, the lack of coverage on the response of other South American presidents is disconcerting. The most egregious example of this blind spot is with Ecuador itself, the country whose territory was trespassed in Colombia's attacks. The protests raised by Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa have been sorely under reported in comparison to Chavez's response, potentially leaving one with the impression that Ecuador does not consider Colombia's actions to be of major concern.
Nor is it being acknowledged that this is not the first time Ecuador has suffered the negative consequences of Colombia's war on "narco-terrorism" as articulated through Plan Colombia. For years the northern region of Ecuador has been subject to tremendous contamination of legal crops, animals, and whole communities as a result of aerial herbicide spraying of coca crops in Colombia.
A statement published by White House spokesperson Gordon Johndroe maintains that Venezuela is simply over reacting to a legitimate operation. "This is an odd reaction by Venezuela to Colombia's efforts against the FARC, a terrorist organization that continues to hold Colombians, Americans and others hostage."
A quick review of responses from other countries would in fact show that the US government's assessment is deeply flawed and out of step with international opinion. President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, proclaimed, "A situation of this nature undoubtedly warrants an explanation from Colombia to the people of Ecuador, the President of Ecuador and the rest of the region". The governments of Paraguay, Peru, and Argentina have all released similar statements of disapproval with Colombia's actions.
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner expressed despair at the killing of his government's primary contact in negotiating the release of former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, who also holds French nationality. Referring to the killing of FARC second-in-command Raul Reyes, he asserted, "It is bad news that the man we were talking to, with whom we had contacts, has been killed."
While some press in the United States question whether Chavez is using this situation as an opportunity to distract Venezuelans from their social problems, this excessive focus on him is in fact distracting people in the US from having a much needed dialogue on their own governments' role in fomenting this so-called "Andean Crisis". As a result, the tough realities and repercussions from the US government's support for a military solution in Colombia are being overlooked.
Emboldened and armed with the multibillion dollar support of Plan Colombia, the Uribe government has decided to violate international law rather than attempting mediated discussions with the FARC. This is simply the latest controversy to discredit Colombia, already renowned for having the greatest number of human rights violations and politically motivated murders per year in the Western Hemisphere.
This is an important time to consider the consequences of the United States' blanket support for the Colombian government's militarism and the destabilizing effect this is clearly creating, not simply to talk about Chavez.
[Carlos Martinez is the Caracas based coordinator of the Global Exchange Venezuela Program.]
In surveying US press coverage of the recent tensions between Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela one might come to the conclusion that Colombia has become the victim of the wrath of its' evil next door neighbor, Hugo Chavez. Once again, the media spin machine has been turned against Venezuela, bypassing a contextual analysis of the situation for a simplistic story line. With headlines such as, "Chavez Picks a New Fight" (Business Week March 4, 2008) the story perpetuates the US government's claims that Venezuela is a destabilizing force in the region while ignoring the alarming actions perpetrated by the Colombian government.
While Chavez has certainly made it easy for international attention to be focused on his actions, the lack of coverage on the response of other South American presidents is disconcerting. The most egregious example of this blind spot is with Ecuador itself, the country whose territory was trespassed in Colombia's attacks. The protests raised by Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa have been sorely under reported in comparison to Chavez's response, potentially leaving one with the impression that Ecuador does not consider Colombia's actions to be of major concern.
Nor is it being acknowledged that this is not the first time Ecuador has suffered the negative consequences of Colombia's war on "narco-terrorism" as articulated through Plan Colombia. For years the northern region of Ecuador has been subject to tremendous contamination of legal crops, animals, and whole communities as a result of aerial herbicide spraying of coca crops in Colombia.
A statement published by White House spokesperson Gordon Johndroe maintains that Venezuela is simply over reacting to a legitimate operation. "This is an odd reaction by Venezuela to Colombia's efforts against the FARC, a terrorist organization that continues to hold Colombians, Americans and others hostage."
A quick review of responses from other countries would in fact show that the US government's assessment is deeply flawed and out of step with international opinion. President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, proclaimed, "A situation of this nature undoubtedly warrants an explanation from Colombia to the people of Ecuador, the President of Ecuador and the rest of the region". The governments of Paraguay, Peru, and Argentina have all released similar statements of disapproval with Colombia's actions.
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner expressed despair at the killing of his government's primary contact in negotiating the release of former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, who also holds French nationality. Referring to the killing of FARC second-in-command Raul Reyes, he asserted, "It is bad news that the man we were talking to, with whom we had contacts, has been killed."
While some press in the United States question whether Chavez is using this situation as an opportunity to distract Venezuelans from their social problems, this excessive focus on him is in fact distracting people in the US from having a much needed dialogue on their own governments' role in fomenting this so-called "Andean Crisis". As a result, the tough realities and repercussions from the US government's support for a military solution in Colombia are being overlooked.
Emboldened and armed with the multibillion dollar support of Plan Colombia, the Uribe government has decided to violate international law rather than attempting mediated discussions with the FARC. This is simply the latest controversy to discredit Colombia, already renowned for having the greatest number of human rights violations and politically motivated murders per year in the Western Hemisphere.
This is an important time to consider the consequences of the United States' blanket support for the Colombian government's militarism and the destabilizing effect this is clearly creating, not simply to talk about Chavez.
[Carlos Martinez is the Caracas based coordinator of the Global Exchange Venezuela Program.]
Latin American governments condemn Colombian attacks, defend territorial sovereignty
Latin American governments condemn Colombian attacks, defend territorial sovereignty
Caracas, March 3, 2008 (venezuelanalyisis.com) - Latin American governments and regional organizations declared support for Ecuadorian national sovereignty and regional unity, and widely condemned the assault by Colombian armed forces on the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Ecuadorian territory early Saturday morning, which resulted in the deaths of 16 insurgents, among them Raúl Reyes, a top level FARC leader and diplomat.
Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa made a televised appeal Sunday for international solidarity with Ecuador in the wake of Colombia`s "planned aerial attack" and subsequent "unacceptable aggression" perpetrated by 60 Colombian ground troops "with full conscience that they were violating our sovereignty."
Correa informed the press that he had already spoken with the leaders of over a dozen Latin American nations, the Organization of American States, and Spain to "impede the internationalization of the conflict in Colombia" and to reiterate the gravity of what he said was the worst act of aggression that the Uribe administration has inflicted on Ecuador.
Investigations conducted by Ecuadorian military and government officials "confirmed irrefutably" that the attack was a premeditated "massacre" that penetrated up to 10 kilometers of Ecuadorian territory, Correa announced.
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and Colombian Foreign Secretary Fernando Araújo, gave a different account and claimed that Colombian helicopters flying in southern Colombia were fired upon from inside Ecuadorian territory, justifying the attack, which they claimed was an act of "legitimate defense" conducted from within Colombian territory.
However, Correa said there is no justification for foreign military aggression in Ecuadorian territory, and Colombia`s "mockery of the truth and of the Ecuadorian people" has violated bilateral treaties and international law, "but most of all, the respect and trust that should exist between brotherly countries."
Colombian Foreign Secretary Araújo appealed to the government of Ecuador to consider the attack as a defense of both countries against the "terrorists" who were illegally taking refuge in foreign territory and causing harm to local populations.
In response, Correa declared that "Colombia is a sovereign nation, and so are we, and international law demands that they inform us, and that it be the public forces of Ecuador which carry out the capture, as has occurred on multiple occasions in the past, always with absolute respect for human rights," and reiterated that Ecuador does not support the FARC and disapproves of the insurgent`s "actions and methods".
Ecuadorian Ambassador to Venezuela René Vargas Pazzo declared on the Venezuelan government television channel (VTV) that Colombia`s attack on the sleeping guerrilla encampment had "no military justification," and that it was rather "a provocation by people or governments who do not want peace, who do not want integration, who want war and that is the path that all South American must oppose, all Latin Americans who want peace, union, and integration."
The Andean Parliament, a diplomatic organization of the community of Andean nations, echoed Pazzo`s analysis, asserting that Colombia`s military apparatus is being manipulated in the interests of the Pentagon, and that the violations of trust by Colombian officials impede "the creation of unity among southern peoples."
The attacks were "at odds with the most elemental principles of International Humanitarian Law," according to the Latin American Association for Human Rights (ALDHU), a 28 year-old international NGO based in Ecuador that works with over 20 nations and is a principle component of the Andean Parliament. Juan de Dios Parra, the general secretary of ALDHU, called the events an "invasion" and a "massacre" which "violated all the international norms regulating the respect for borders".
In addition, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, told the Chilean press that "we cannot be in agreement with the non-respect of borders and we lament that Ecuador has been assaulted." She personally spoke with President Correa and asserted that "borders between countries are based on international agreements," which is why their transgression for "whatever objective, legitimate or illegitimate" is "extremely delicate".
Statements were also released by the Brazilian administration, which announced its initiation of a multi-national diplomatic effort to "maximally reduce tension and renew initiatives to achieve a humanitarian accord." Brazilian president Lula da Silva has reportedly consulted with the presidents of Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela. Brazilian Foreign Relations Secretary cancelled diplomatic activities scheduled in Sao Paolo this week to attend to the conflict, which presidential envoy Marco Aurelio García says "has influence on regional destabilization," therefore "our principle of non-interference cannot mean indifference."
Statements released from the Argentine foreign relations department expressed that "Argentina is dismayed and very worried about what is evidently a violation of the territorial sovereignty of a country in the region," and that the country will remain "active and in constant contact...in order to coordinate a common position."
Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte declared, "Paraguay vindicates the sovereignty of nations, the self-determination of peoples, and condemns all external aggression, all usurpation, all forsaking of the territorial sovereignty of nations."
Similarly, Peruvian President Alan García expressed "enormous preoccupation" and condemned Colombia`s incursion into Ecuadorian territory as "unacceptable," calling for urgent action by the Organization of American States (OAS).
Immense concern was also expressed in a statement released by the Bolivian Foreign Relations Ministry which called any act of violation of national sovereignty "unjustifiable," and called for a "peaceful, long lasting, humanitarian" solution based on "a climate of understanding and mutual respect." In addition, Bolivia offered to mediate the conflict in line with "peaceful tradition expressed in Bolivian Constitutional Precepts."
In similar fashion, Mexican President Felipe Calderón urged dialogue and communicated directly with Uribe and Correa to offer his mediation if both countries agree.
Cuba`s former president Fidel Castro unabashedly diagnosed the situation as a "consequence of the genocidal plans of the Yankee empire," and declared that once again, after a long history of such attacks from the U.S. and its allies, "the trumpets of war are heard mightily in the South of our continent... this is nothing new! It was foreseen!"
José Miguel Insulza, the general secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS), announced Monday that in addition to the ordinary meeting of the OAS Tuesday, there will be a special meeting to treat the conflict related to Colombia`s attacks, petitioned by the Ecuadorian president.
Insulza expressed that this "is a problem among member states that also affects the fundamental values of our constitutive charter," and withheld further commentary "until the states can converse this Tuesday."
Caracas, March 3, 2008 (venezuelanalyisis.com) - Latin American governments and regional organizations declared support for Ecuadorian national sovereignty and regional unity, and widely condemned the assault by Colombian armed forces on the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Ecuadorian territory early Saturday morning, which resulted in the deaths of 16 insurgents, among them Raúl Reyes, a top level FARC leader and diplomat.
Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa made a televised appeal Sunday for international solidarity with Ecuador in the wake of Colombia`s "planned aerial attack" and subsequent "unacceptable aggression" perpetrated by 60 Colombian ground troops "with full conscience that they were violating our sovereignty."
Correa informed the press that he had already spoken with the leaders of over a dozen Latin American nations, the Organization of American States, and Spain to "impede the internationalization of the conflict in Colombia" and to reiterate the gravity of what he said was the worst act of aggression that the Uribe administration has inflicted on Ecuador.
Investigations conducted by Ecuadorian military and government officials "confirmed irrefutably" that the attack was a premeditated "massacre" that penetrated up to 10 kilometers of Ecuadorian territory, Correa announced.
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and Colombian Foreign Secretary Fernando Araújo, gave a different account and claimed that Colombian helicopters flying in southern Colombia were fired upon from inside Ecuadorian territory, justifying the attack, which they claimed was an act of "legitimate defense" conducted from within Colombian territory.
However, Correa said there is no justification for foreign military aggression in Ecuadorian territory, and Colombia`s "mockery of the truth and of the Ecuadorian people" has violated bilateral treaties and international law, "but most of all, the respect and trust that should exist between brotherly countries."
Colombian Foreign Secretary Araújo appealed to the government of Ecuador to consider the attack as a defense of both countries against the "terrorists" who were illegally taking refuge in foreign territory and causing harm to local populations.
In response, Correa declared that "Colombia is a sovereign nation, and so are we, and international law demands that they inform us, and that it be the public forces of Ecuador which carry out the capture, as has occurred on multiple occasions in the past, always with absolute respect for human rights," and reiterated that Ecuador does not support the FARC and disapproves of the insurgent`s "actions and methods".
Ecuadorian Ambassador to Venezuela René Vargas Pazzo declared on the Venezuelan government television channel (VTV) that Colombia`s attack on the sleeping guerrilla encampment had "no military justification," and that it was rather "a provocation by people or governments who do not want peace, who do not want integration, who want war and that is the path that all South American must oppose, all Latin Americans who want peace, union, and integration."
The Andean Parliament, a diplomatic organization of the community of Andean nations, echoed Pazzo`s analysis, asserting that Colombia`s military apparatus is being manipulated in the interests of the Pentagon, and that the violations of trust by Colombian officials impede "the creation of unity among southern peoples."
The attacks were "at odds with the most elemental principles of International Humanitarian Law," according to the Latin American Association for Human Rights (ALDHU), a 28 year-old international NGO based in Ecuador that works with over 20 nations and is a principle component of the Andean Parliament. Juan de Dios Parra, the general secretary of ALDHU, called the events an "invasion" and a "massacre" which "violated all the international norms regulating the respect for borders".
In addition, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, told the Chilean press that "we cannot be in agreement with the non-respect of borders and we lament that Ecuador has been assaulted." She personally spoke with President Correa and asserted that "borders between countries are based on international agreements," which is why their transgression for "whatever objective, legitimate or illegitimate" is "extremely delicate".
Statements were also released by the Brazilian administration, which announced its initiation of a multi-national diplomatic effort to "maximally reduce tension and renew initiatives to achieve a humanitarian accord." Brazilian president Lula da Silva has reportedly consulted with the presidents of Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela. Brazilian Foreign Relations Secretary cancelled diplomatic activities scheduled in Sao Paolo this week to attend to the conflict, which presidential envoy Marco Aurelio García says "has influence on regional destabilization," therefore "our principle of non-interference cannot mean indifference."
Statements released from the Argentine foreign relations department expressed that "Argentina is dismayed and very worried about what is evidently a violation of the territorial sovereignty of a country in the region," and that the country will remain "active and in constant contact...in order to coordinate a common position."
Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte declared, "Paraguay vindicates the sovereignty of nations, the self-determination of peoples, and condemns all external aggression, all usurpation, all forsaking of the territorial sovereignty of nations."
Similarly, Peruvian President Alan García expressed "enormous preoccupation" and condemned Colombia`s incursion into Ecuadorian territory as "unacceptable," calling for urgent action by the Organization of American States (OAS).
Immense concern was also expressed in a statement released by the Bolivian Foreign Relations Ministry which called any act of violation of national sovereignty "unjustifiable," and called for a "peaceful, long lasting, humanitarian" solution based on "a climate of understanding and mutual respect." In addition, Bolivia offered to mediate the conflict in line with "peaceful tradition expressed in Bolivian Constitutional Precepts."
In similar fashion, Mexican President Felipe Calderón urged dialogue and communicated directly with Uribe and Correa to offer his mediation if both countries agree.
Cuba`s former president Fidel Castro unabashedly diagnosed the situation as a "consequence of the genocidal plans of the Yankee empire," and declared that once again, after a long history of such attacks from the U.S. and its allies, "the trumpets of war are heard mightily in the South of our continent... this is nothing new! It was foreseen!"
José Miguel Insulza, the general secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS), announced Monday that in addition to the ordinary meeting of the OAS Tuesday, there will be a special meeting to treat the conflict related to Colombia`s attacks, petitioned by the Ecuadorian president.
Insulza expressed that this "is a problem among member states that also affects the fundamental values of our constitutive charter," and withheld further commentary "until the states can converse this Tuesday."
Exporting health care: oil and health in Venezuela
March 5th 2008, by Patrick Irelan - CounterPunch
Simon Romero of the New York Times never fails to report the slightest flutter of bad news from Venezuela. On February 9 of this year, under the headline "In Venezuela, Faith in Chávez Starts to Wane" he tells us that--despite the blessings of large oil reserves--food shortages and "outbreaks of dengue fever" have the populace in a foul mood.
I previously dealt with the problem of food shortages on February 13 and again on February 21 at this site, but I wrote nothing about dengue or its deadly variation known as dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF).
Perhaps Romero was in a hurry, but if he had checked a story released by the Bolivarian News Agency (ABN) on February 8, the day before his own story appeared in the Times, he might have seen this headline: "Venezuela is First Country to Show Progress in the Fight against Dengue."
Under this headline, Romero and the entire staff of the NYT could have read the article's opening sentence: "Members of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), who are visiting Venezuela, said that Venezuela is the first nation of the region to make great progress in the fight against dengue." The PAHO is the regional office of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Maybe Romero and the Times assumed that President Chávez made up this story and ordered the ABN to foist it on an unsuspecting continent. But it seems to me that Mr. Chávez might be too busy dealing with FARC rebels and the Colombian invasion of Ecuador to fiddle around in a newsroom in Caracas, and nobody at the World Health Organization has denied the truth of the ABN story anyway.
Incidentally, as of the 12th of February, 118 cases of dengue had been reported in Puerto Rico, where one has to assume that faith in George W. Bush is starting to wane.
Dengue and DHF exist throughout South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Some countries do a better job than others of fighting these diseases. Why has Venezuela been so successful? One could ask the same question about health care in general in Venezuela, a country where every success excites the hatred of the American Empire.
The explanation for this pathological hatred may lie in the fact that, given the socialist leanings of its current government, Venezuela dares to use its resources to provide health care at no charge to all its citizens who need it, especially the poor. Previous Venezuelan governments have promised free health care in the past, but they never had enough clinics and sympathetic doctors to turn the promise into reality. The Chávez government has both doctors and clinics.
By contrast, the rulers of the American Empire tell us that we cannot afford to provide free health care for our people. We're obligated instead to spend trillions of dollars to create and detonate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's for their own good, of course. We're trying to bomb them into free and democratic societies.
But how unusual this Chávez fellow is. He has no interest in WMD. He says that Venezuela will soon become an "a superpower in food production." Instead of continued reliance on the United States, Venezuela now manufactures its own tractors. If you want to improve public health, it seems, you must first prevent malnutrition and starvation.
For the best health care possible, you also need doctors, clinics, and all the benefits of medical science. In Venezuela, the most representative expression of the Bolivarian Revolution's attitude toward health care has been the growth of the Misión Barrio Adentro (Inside the Neighborhood) movement. "It entailed placing doctors in urban shantytowns and rural villages where few Venezuelan doctors would dare to tread. To many poor Venezuelans, that was a revolution in itself." (Bart Jones, ¡Hugo!, 2007, p. 288)
Where did Venezuela find these doctors? What country could produce doctors filled with revolutionary ardor, doctors who would gladly go where the poor people lived?
In October of 1999, Fidel Castro traveled to Venezuela for a fraternal reunion. He and Chávez visited the tomb of Simón Bolívar. They traveled to Sabaneta, Chávez's boyhood village, where he and his grandmother had lived in a hut made of mud and straw. Chávez and Castro played baseball. Actually, Fidel, at age 75, only managed his team, although he did pinch hit in the last inning. He was called out on strikes, but disputed the call.
By the time Fidel left for home, he and Chávez had agreed about matters important to both countries. Venezuela would sell oil to Cuba at affordable prices. Cuba would pay for this oil in cash and medical assistance. Four hundred fifty Cuban doctors already in Venezuela would remain there and staff the new clinics Venezuela would build.
By 2004, the number of Cuban doctors in Venezuela had increased to 13,000. Cuba had also been training medical students from Venezuela. Today, ten years after Chávez was elected, Venezuela has a new generation of doctors who are eager to help the poor. Young ophthalmologists, for example, now work in free eye clinics throughout the country.
John Otis of the Houston Chronicle went to visit one of these new clinics, where he met 73-year-old Celestino Granados, one of 110 cataract victims from El Salvador. The nine doctors at the clinic removed the cataracts for all 110 at no charge. Venezuela even paid their air fare.
"I see perfectly," Granados told Otis a few days following his surgery. "I can even see the color of your eyes." Then he and the others flew back to El Salvador. Not one of those people could have afforded to pay for cataract surgery, which now costs about $1500 in traditional clinics in Latin America. (Houston Chronicle, June 18, 2007)
How does Venezuela pay for this health care? Most of the money comes from oil revenue. Some critics find this immoral. "They couldn't do those things without all that oil," they say.
That's right. They couldn't. But they do have the oil, and they spend it to help the poor. There used to be a great deal oil in Texas. But Texas never brought in hundreds of people to have their cataracts removed at no charge. In Houston, they sent people to the moon and built the Astrodome. If you had cataracts, would you like to visit an Astrodome you couldn't see, or would you prefer to regain your sight and look at the moon from your back yard?
Critics say the doctors and clinics in Venezuela are bad because their success promotes socialism. What should they promote? Faith healing?
Given all the publicity about eye clinics, the Times was sure to send Simon Romero back to Venezuela to report the latest news. In an article published on February 26, he recounted his visit to the Hospital Luis Ortega in the city of Porlamar, where Romero's news was as grim as always. "Paint peels from walls neglected for years." If this isn't bad enough, take note of the "unconscious patients." Their cots are "strewn near the reception desk."
The place sounds almost as bad as one of those American hospitals where doctors amputate the wrong limb. Or maybe they amputate the right limb, but from the wrong patient.
In spite of all the cots strewn in his path, Romero found his way to "a recovery room tucked away at the end of a dim corridor."
Regardless of the peeling paint and the dimness of the corridor, a team of ophthalmologists has successfully restored the sight of 96 men and women from Nicaragua. And, yes, they all got free airfare.
Just to keep his story fair and balanced, Romero hurried back to Caracas, where he spoke with Mirtha Noguera, president of the Venezuelan Ophthalmology Society. She thinks all this sight-restoration business is okay, but that it causes the health care system to neglect "other pressing health needs in Venezuela." This may or may not be a good point, but it probably doesn't matter anyway, because, as Ms. Noguera says, "Doctors are emigrating because they cannot earn decent salaries."
To be honest, I don't think the plight of underpaid doctors is really going to engage the sympathy of most newspaper readers here in the Middle West. We're more likely to empathize with Marden Espinoza, 69, a retired math teacher, one of the Nicaraguans who has by now returned home with his sight fully restored.
The sad fact for Ms. Noguera is that Venezuela is rapidly gaining a great many doctors who don't require millions of dollars before they'll help a retiree from a poor country regain his sight. I don't know what she plans to do after all the doctors in the Venezuelan Ophthalmology Society have emigrated because "they cannot earn decent salaries."
But here's my suggestion for Ms. Noguera's job search. At the inauguration of the new Dr. Osío de Cúa Hospital in Miranda, President Chávez pointed out that between 1997 and 2007, "[T]he number of primary health care clinics in Venezuela increased from 4804 to 11,373" (Kiraz Janicke, Venezuelanalysis.com, February 20, 2008)
Eventually, the paint in all those clinics will start to peel. Paint supplied at no charge, but bring your own brush.
[Patrick Irelan is a retired high-school teacher. He is the author of A Firefly in the Night (Ice Cube Press) and Central Standard: A Time, a Place, a Family (University of Iowa Press). You can contact him at pwirelan43@yahoo.com.]
Simon Romero of the New York Times never fails to report the slightest flutter of bad news from Venezuela. On February 9 of this year, under the headline "In Venezuela, Faith in Chávez Starts to Wane" he tells us that--despite the blessings of large oil reserves--food shortages and "outbreaks of dengue fever" have the populace in a foul mood.
I previously dealt with the problem of food shortages on February 13 and again on February 21 at this site, but I wrote nothing about dengue or its deadly variation known as dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF).
Perhaps Romero was in a hurry, but if he had checked a story released by the Bolivarian News Agency (ABN) on February 8, the day before his own story appeared in the Times, he might have seen this headline: "Venezuela is First Country to Show Progress in the Fight against Dengue."
Under this headline, Romero and the entire staff of the NYT could have read the article's opening sentence: "Members of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), who are visiting Venezuela, said that Venezuela is the first nation of the region to make great progress in the fight against dengue." The PAHO is the regional office of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Maybe Romero and the Times assumed that President Chávez made up this story and ordered the ABN to foist it on an unsuspecting continent. But it seems to me that Mr. Chávez might be too busy dealing with FARC rebels and the Colombian invasion of Ecuador to fiddle around in a newsroom in Caracas, and nobody at the World Health Organization has denied the truth of the ABN story anyway.
Incidentally, as of the 12th of February, 118 cases of dengue had been reported in Puerto Rico, where one has to assume that faith in George W. Bush is starting to wane.
Dengue and DHF exist throughout South America, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean. Some countries do a better job than others of fighting these diseases. Why has Venezuela been so successful? One could ask the same question about health care in general in Venezuela, a country where every success excites the hatred of the American Empire.
The explanation for this pathological hatred may lie in the fact that, given the socialist leanings of its current government, Venezuela dares to use its resources to provide health care at no charge to all its citizens who need it, especially the poor. Previous Venezuelan governments have promised free health care in the past, but they never had enough clinics and sympathetic doctors to turn the promise into reality. The Chávez government has both doctors and clinics.
By contrast, the rulers of the American Empire tell us that we cannot afford to provide free health care for our people. We're obligated instead to spend trillions of dollars to create and detonate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's for their own good, of course. We're trying to bomb them into free and democratic societies.
But how unusual this Chávez fellow is. He has no interest in WMD. He says that Venezuela will soon become an "a superpower in food production." Instead of continued reliance on the United States, Venezuela now manufactures its own tractors. If you want to improve public health, it seems, you must first prevent malnutrition and starvation.
For the best health care possible, you also need doctors, clinics, and all the benefits of medical science. In Venezuela, the most representative expression of the Bolivarian Revolution's attitude toward health care has been the growth of the Misión Barrio Adentro (Inside the Neighborhood) movement. "It entailed placing doctors in urban shantytowns and rural villages where few Venezuelan doctors would dare to tread. To many poor Venezuelans, that was a revolution in itself." (Bart Jones, ¡Hugo!, 2007, p. 288)
Where did Venezuela find these doctors? What country could produce doctors filled with revolutionary ardor, doctors who would gladly go where the poor people lived?
In October of 1999, Fidel Castro traveled to Venezuela for a fraternal reunion. He and Chávez visited the tomb of Simón Bolívar. They traveled to Sabaneta, Chávez's boyhood village, where he and his grandmother had lived in a hut made of mud and straw. Chávez and Castro played baseball. Actually, Fidel, at age 75, only managed his team, although he did pinch hit in the last inning. He was called out on strikes, but disputed the call.
By the time Fidel left for home, he and Chávez had agreed about matters important to both countries. Venezuela would sell oil to Cuba at affordable prices. Cuba would pay for this oil in cash and medical assistance. Four hundred fifty Cuban doctors already in Venezuela would remain there and staff the new clinics Venezuela would build.
By 2004, the number of Cuban doctors in Venezuela had increased to 13,000. Cuba had also been training medical students from Venezuela. Today, ten years after Chávez was elected, Venezuela has a new generation of doctors who are eager to help the poor. Young ophthalmologists, for example, now work in free eye clinics throughout the country.
John Otis of the Houston Chronicle went to visit one of these new clinics, where he met 73-year-old Celestino Granados, one of 110 cataract victims from El Salvador. The nine doctors at the clinic removed the cataracts for all 110 at no charge. Venezuela even paid their air fare.
"I see perfectly," Granados told Otis a few days following his surgery. "I can even see the color of your eyes." Then he and the others flew back to El Salvador. Not one of those people could have afforded to pay for cataract surgery, which now costs about $1500 in traditional clinics in Latin America. (Houston Chronicle, June 18, 2007)
How does Venezuela pay for this health care? Most of the money comes from oil revenue. Some critics find this immoral. "They couldn't do those things without all that oil," they say.
That's right. They couldn't. But they do have the oil, and they spend it to help the poor. There used to be a great deal oil in Texas. But Texas never brought in hundreds of people to have their cataracts removed at no charge. In Houston, they sent people to the moon and built the Astrodome. If you had cataracts, would you like to visit an Astrodome you couldn't see, or would you prefer to regain your sight and look at the moon from your back yard?
Critics say the doctors and clinics in Venezuela are bad because their success promotes socialism. What should they promote? Faith healing?
Given all the publicity about eye clinics, the Times was sure to send Simon Romero back to Venezuela to report the latest news. In an article published on February 26, he recounted his visit to the Hospital Luis Ortega in the city of Porlamar, where Romero's news was as grim as always. "Paint peels from walls neglected for years." If this isn't bad enough, take note of the "unconscious patients." Their cots are "strewn near the reception desk."
The place sounds almost as bad as one of those American hospitals where doctors amputate the wrong limb. Or maybe they amputate the right limb, but from the wrong patient.
In spite of all the cots strewn in his path, Romero found his way to "a recovery room tucked away at the end of a dim corridor."
Regardless of the peeling paint and the dimness of the corridor, a team of ophthalmologists has successfully restored the sight of 96 men and women from Nicaragua. And, yes, they all got free airfare.
Just to keep his story fair and balanced, Romero hurried back to Caracas, where he spoke with Mirtha Noguera, president of the Venezuelan Ophthalmology Society. She thinks all this sight-restoration business is okay, but that it causes the health care system to neglect "other pressing health needs in Venezuela." This may or may not be a good point, but it probably doesn't matter anyway, because, as Ms. Noguera says, "Doctors are emigrating because they cannot earn decent salaries."
To be honest, I don't think the plight of underpaid doctors is really going to engage the sympathy of most newspaper readers here in the Middle West. We're more likely to empathize with Marden Espinoza, 69, a retired math teacher, one of the Nicaraguans who has by now returned home with his sight fully restored.
The sad fact for Ms. Noguera is that Venezuela is rapidly gaining a great many doctors who don't require millions of dollars before they'll help a retiree from a poor country regain his sight. I don't know what she plans to do after all the doctors in the Venezuelan Ophthalmology Society have emigrated because "they cannot earn decent salaries."
But here's my suggestion for Ms. Noguera's job search. At the inauguration of the new Dr. Osío de Cúa Hospital in Miranda, President Chávez pointed out that between 1997 and 2007, "[T]he number of primary health care clinics in Venezuela increased from 4804 to 11,373" (Kiraz Janicke, Venezuelanalysis.com, February 20, 2008)
Eventually, the paint in all those clinics will start to peel. Paint supplied at no charge, but bring your own brush.
[Patrick Irelan is a retired high-school teacher. He is the author of A Firefly in the Night (Ice Cube Press) and Central Standard: A Time, a Place, a Family (University of Iowa Press). You can contact him at pwirelan43@yahoo.com.]
Uribe’s Colombia is destabilizing a New Latin America
A few weeks after the Ecuadorian and Venezuelan state called on the Colombian government to respect the need for peace and negotiation with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP), the administration of President Álvaro Uribe Vélez supported an extensive armed air and land assault against the insurgency movement-not within Colombia's borders, but rather on the sovereign territory of Ecuadorian soil. On March 1, 2008, the Colombian state, under the leadership of Uribe, Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón, and his cousin Defence Minister Juan Manuel Santos, illegally deployed a military campaign within Ecuador, which resulted in the deaths of Raúl Reyes, Julian Conrado, and fifteen other combatants associated with the FARC-EP. Such actions are a clear display of the US-backed-Colombian state's open negation of international codes of conduct, law and social justice.
The actions of March 1 took place days before a major international demonstration scheduled for March 6. Promoted by The National Movement of Victims of State-Sponsored Crimes (MOVICE), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), and countless social justice-based organizations, March 6 has been set as an international day of protest against those tortured, murdered and disappeared by the Colombian state, their allies within the paramilitary United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC) and the newly-reformed Black Eagles. Recently, President Uribe's top political adviser, José Obdulio Gaviria, proclaimed that the protest and protesters should be criminalized. In addition, paramilitaries in the southwestern department of Nariño-not far from where the illegal incursions were carried out in Ecuador-have threatened to attack any organization or person associated with the protest activities.
It is believed that the Uribe and Santos administration is utilizing the slaughter of Commander Raúl Reyes and others as a method to deter activists and socially conscious peoples within and outside Colombia from participating in the March 6 events. Numerous state-controlled or connected media outlets, such as El Tiempo-which has long-standing ties to the Santos family-have been parading photographs of the bullet-ridden and mutilated corpse of Raúl Reyes throughout the country's communications mediums. Such propaganda is clearly a tool to psychologically intimidate those preparing to demonstrate against the atrocities perpetrated by the state over the past seven years.
Over the past two months, numerous researchers, scholars and lawyers have supported the call to declare the FARC-EP a legitimate force fighting against the corrupt Colombian state. In January 2008, Ecuador's Foreign Minister Maria Isabel Salvador argued that the FARC-EP should no longer be depicted as a terrorist organization. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez also announced that the FARC-EP are far from a terrorist force, but are rather a real army, which occupies Colombian territory and shares in a Bolivarian vision for a new Latin America. Mexican deputy Ricardo Cantu Garza also has promoted the recognition of the FARC-EP as a belligerent force legitimately fighting against a corrupt and unequal socio-political system. As prominent US attorney Paul Wolf argued:
The FARC-EP are a belligerent army of national liberation, as evidenced by their sustained military campaign and sovereignty over a large part of Colombian territory, and their conduct of hostilities by organized troops kept under military discipline and complying with the laws and customs of war, at least to the same extent as other parties to the conflict. Members of the FARC-EP are therefore entitled to the rights of belligerents under international law ... there is no rule of international law prohibiting revolution, and, if a revolution succeeds, there is nothing in international law prohibiting the acceptance of the outcome, even though it was achieved by force.
From Copenhagen to Caracas, numerous state officials have denounced the description of the FARC-EP as a terrorist organization. Progressive officials and administrations in Mexico, Ecuador and Venezuela have rather opted for the status of belligerent or irregular forces to more accurately depict the FARC-EP's domestic and geo-political stance. Disturbingly, in the face of this evidence and the FARC-EP's consistent promotion of a humanitarian prisoner exchange and peace negotiations with the state in a demilitarized zone in southwestern Colombia, the Uribe and Santos administration has moved ever farther away from supporting an end to the civil war within Colombia by opting for systemic violence.
Over the past several years, different aspects of the FARC-EP's real social, political and cultural activities for progressive social change have been censored or marginalized by the private press or governments in support of the Colombian state. Nevertheless, after researching the FARC-EP and the country of Colombia for years, independent journalist Garry Leech argued that, "while there is little doubt regarding the global reach of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, there is no evidence that the FARC is anything but one of the armed actors in Colombia's long and tragic domestic conflict."
In actuality, the FARC-EP is an actor within the strategic confines of Colombian society that aims its directives at domestic social change. In light of such realities, how can this insurgency be a terrorist threat to external nation-states? Coletta A. Youngers, of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), responds to this question by describing how:
The U.S. government now views the Latin American region almost exclusively through the counterterrorist lens, though the region poses no serious national security threat to the United States ... little evidence has been put forward to substantiate such claims, and whatever activity is taking place there appears to be minimal.
While Youngers does not trivialize its revolutionary tactics, she clearly argues that the FARC-EP cannot be correctly framed within the concept and rhetoric of global terrorism. Youngers argues that the insurgency is not a direct political threat to administrations within the United States, Canada, the European Union and any other foreign nation-state in the fact that the FARC-EP's activities "are targeted inward, not outward," hence, "applying the terrorism concept to these groups negates their political projects."
Characterizing the FARC-EP as a foreign terrorist organization dramatically alters the dynamics of the peace process in favour of a killer state. Stipulating that the FARC-EP is terrorist results in the inability for legal peace negotiations to take place between the FARC-EP and any government that subscribes to the categorization. According to James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, promoting the FARC-EP-and its supporters-as terrorists "puts them on the list of targets to be assaulted by the US military machine" and "thus subject to total war."
The terminology of terrorism is perfect for imperialist ideology and expansionism. It is a very open-ended reference that "allows maximum intervention in all regions against any opposition" and "that any group engaged in opposing militarism, imperialism (so-called ‘globalization') or local authoritarian regimes could be labelled ‘terrorist' and targeted," thus legitimizing external invasion or attack, say Petras and Veltmeyer.
Internal and external condemnation of the Colombian state has fallen upon the deaf ears of the Uribe and Santos administration. After years of increased violations of civilian human rights, the ongoing suppression of trade-unionism, assassinations of left-of-centre activists and politicians, and a political reality that has witnessed 75 governors, mayors and Congressional politicians alleged or found guilty of having direct links to the paramilitaries-including Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón and his cousin Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos and President Uribe's brother Santiago and their cousin Senator Mario Uribe-now the Colombian state has deemed it necessary to illegally encroach upon those nations that deviate from their ideological model of political and economic centralization.
Not only has the Uribe administration criticized its neighbours, but after the actions realized on March 1 it is clear that the Colombian state, with the full backing of the United States, will impose its own ideological goals and values through force, regardless of the democratic rights and privileges of conventional electoral law and procedure. While the neighbouring states of Ecuador and Venezuela struggle for peace and try to assist the people of Colombia in the quest for an end to the civil war, the Uribe and Santos administration has bypassed judicial realities and governance to impose its own objectives.
Careful analysts of the Colombian situation continue to debate whether the Colombian state is pre-fascist or actually fascist. It is certainly neither humane nor actually democratic. The current Colombian state must be transformed, sooner rather than later. Those fighting for peace must condemn the action of this regime. In solidarity, we must protest the policies of the Colombian state and raise our voices in support for a New Colombia that stands for peace with social justice.
[James J. Brittain (Assistant Professor) and Jim Sacouman (Professor) are Canadian sociologists at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada who have been researching the Colombian civil war and political economy over the past decade.]
The actions of March 1 took place days before a major international demonstration scheduled for March 6. Promoted by The National Movement of Victims of State-Sponsored Crimes (MOVICE), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), and countless social justice-based organizations, March 6 has been set as an international day of protest against those tortured, murdered and disappeared by the Colombian state, their allies within the paramilitary United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC) and the newly-reformed Black Eagles. Recently, President Uribe's top political adviser, José Obdulio Gaviria, proclaimed that the protest and protesters should be criminalized. In addition, paramilitaries in the southwestern department of Nariño-not far from where the illegal incursions were carried out in Ecuador-have threatened to attack any organization or person associated with the protest activities.
It is believed that the Uribe and Santos administration is utilizing the slaughter of Commander Raúl Reyes and others as a method to deter activists and socially conscious peoples within and outside Colombia from participating in the March 6 events. Numerous state-controlled or connected media outlets, such as El Tiempo-which has long-standing ties to the Santos family-have been parading photographs of the bullet-ridden and mutilated corpse of Raúl Reyes throughout the country's communications mediums. Such propaganda is clearly a tool to psychologically intimidate those preparing to demonstrate against the atrocities perpetrated by the state over the past seven years.
Over the past two months, numerous researchers, scholars and lawyers have supported the call to declare the FARC-EP a legitimate force fighting against the corrupt Colombian state. In January 2008, Ecuador's Foreign Minister Maria Isabel Salvador argued that the FARC-EP should no longer be depicted as a terrorist organization. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez also announced that the FARC-EP are far from a terrorist force, but are rather a real army, which occupies Colombian territory and shares in a Bolivarian vision for a new Latin America. Mexican deputy Ricardo Cantu Garza also has promoted the recognition of the FARC-EP as a belligerent force legitimately fighting against a corrupt and unequal socio-political system. As prominent US attorney Paul Wolf argued:
The FARC-EP are a belligerent army of national liberation, as evidenced by their sustained military campaign and sovereignty over a large part of Colombian territory, and their conduct of hostilities by organized troops kept under military discipline and complying with the laws and customs of war, at least to the same extent as other parties to the conflict. Members of the FARC-EP are therefore entitled to the rights of belligerents under international law ... there is no rule of international law prohibiting revolution, and, if a revolution succeeds, there is nothing in international law prohibiting the acceptance of the outcome, even though it was achieved by force.
From Copenhagen to Caracas, numerous state officials have denounced the description of the FARC-EP as a terrorist organization. Progressive officials and administrations in Mexico, Ecuador and Venezuela have rather opted for the status of belligerent or irregular forces to more accurately depict the FARC-EP's domestic and geo-political stance. Disturbingly, in the face of this evidence and the FARC-EP's consistent promotion of a humanitarian prisoner exchange and peace negotiations with the state in a demilitarized zone in southwestern Colombia, the Uribe and Santos administration has moved ever farther away from supporting an end to the civil war within Colombia by opting for systemic violence.
Over the past several years, different aspects of the FARC-EP's real social, political and cultural activities for progressive social change have been censored or marginalized by the private press or governments in support of the Colombian state. Nevertheless, after researching the FARC-EP and the country of Colombia for years, independent journalist Garry Leech argued that, "while there is little doubt regarding the global reach of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda, there is no evidence that the FARC is anything but one of the armed actors in Colombia's long and tragic domestic conflict."
In actuality, the FARC-EP is an actor within the strategic confines of Colombian society that aims its directives at domestic social change. In light of such realities, how can this insurgency be a terrorist threat to external nation-states? Coletta A. Youngers, of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), responds to this question by describing how:
The U.S. government now views the Latin American region almost exclusively through the counterterrorist lens, though the region poses no serious national security threat to the United States ... little evidence has been put forward to substantiate such claims, and whatever activity is taking place there appears to be minimal.
While Youngers does not trivialize its revolutionary tactics, she clearly argues that the FARC-EP cannot be correctly framed within the concept and rhetoric of global terrorism. Youngers argues that the insurgency is not a direct political threat to administrations within the United States, Canada, the European Union and any other foreign nation-state in the fact that the FARC-EP's activities "are targeted inward, not outward," hence, "applying the terrorism concept to these groups negates their political projects."
Characterizing the FARC-EP as a foreign terrorist organization dramatically alters the dynamics of the peace process in favour of a killer state. Stipulating that the FARC-EP is terrorist results in the inability for legal peace negotiations to take place between the FARC-EP and any government that subscribes to the categorization. According to James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, promoting the FARC-EP-and its supporters-as terrorists "puts them on the list of targets to be assaulted by the US military machine" and "thus subject to total war."
The terminology of terrorism is perfect for imperialist ideology and expansionism. It is a very open-ended reference that "allows maximum intervention in all regions against any opposition" and "that any group engaged in opposing militarism, imperialism (so-called ‘globalization') or local authoritarian regimes could be labelled ‘terrorist' and targeted," thus legitimizing external invasion or attack, say Petras and Veltmeyer.
Internal and external condemnation of the Colombian state has fallen upon the deaf ears of the Uribe and Santos administration. After years of increased violations of civilian human rights, the ongoing suppression of trade-unionism, assassinations of left-of-centre activists and politicians, and a political reality that has witnessed 75 governors, mayors and Congressional politicians alleged or found guilty of having direct links to the paramilitaries-including Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón and his cousin Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos and President Uribe's brother Santiago and their cousin Senator Mario Uribe-now the Colombian state has deemed it necessary to illegally encroach upon those nations that deviate from their ideological model of political and economic centralization.
Not only has the Uribe administration criticized its neighbours, but after the actions realized on March 1 it is clear that the Colombian state, with the full backing of the United States, will impose its own ideological goals and values through force, regardless of the democratic rights and privileges of conventional electoral law and procedure. While the neighbouring states of Ecuador and Venezuela struggle for peace and try to assist the people of Colombia in the quest for an end to the civil war, the Uribe and Santos administration has bypassed judicial realities and governance to impose its own objectives.
Careful analysts of the Colombian situation continue to debate whether the Colombian state is pre-fascist or actually fascist. It is certainly neither humane nor actually democratic. The current Colombian state must be transformed, sooner rather than later. Those fighting for peace must condemn the action of this regime. In solidarity, we must protest the policies of the Colombian state and raise our voices in support for a New Colombia that stands for peace with social justice.
[James J. Brittain (Assistant Professor) and Jim Sacouman (Professor) are Canadian sociologists at Acadia University in Nova Scotia, Canada who have been researching the Colombian civil war and political economy over the past decade.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)