Chavez, Colombia and the Zelaya Deal

Paul Jay of Real News interviews Greg Wilipert, founder of Venezuela Analysis. 21 June 2011.

Honduras: Zelaya signs 'historic Cartagena agreement'

Zelaya: Agreement with Porfirio Lobo "Historic"
Source: Prensa Latina, 23 May 2011.

Steps have been taken toward a new Constituent Assembly and referendum, former president Manuel Zelaya said after signing an agreement with current President Porfirio Lobo to end the political crisis in Honduras.

"It is a very important and historical advance restoring democratic rights for all Hondurans," Zelaya commented, referring to the commitment for "national reconciliation and democracy" signed on Sunday in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia.

Zelaya also said the agreement ensured recognition and respect for human rights, and provides victims of the military coup with an official body for compensation.

He also said that he now has every right to return to his homeland with full guaranties of freedom, as do his former cabinet members and all Hondurans in exile.

Recognition of the Peoples National Resistance Front (PNRF) [FNRP - ed.] as a legal political force was also accepted.

The agreement was signed with the mediation of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, and marks the end of a series of events following the military coup that overthrew Zelaya on June 28, 2009.

On his regular television program Alo President, Chavez also praised the deal between Lobo and Zelaya to restore a normal political situation in this Central American nation, and warned that he would be watching its fulfilment.

What Now for a Post-Coup Honduras?

by Alexander Main, 19 May 2011.
Source: Common Dreams.org

Will the Cartagena mediation process help resolve the crisis in Honduras?

Many Latin America watchers were thrown for a loop last month when a bilateral meeting in Cartagena, Colombia between Presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia suddenly metamorphosed into a trilateral encounter that included Porfirio Lobo, the controversial president of Honduras. It was hard enough grappling with the image of Chavez and Santos, considered to be arch-enemies only a year ago, slapping one another on the back and heralding warm relations between their countries. Now it appeared that Chavez had also warmed up to Lobo, the leader of a government that Venezuela and many other South American countries had refused to recognize since the coup of June 28, 2009 that toppled democratically-elected president Manuel Zelaya.

Various media outlets were quick to suggest that, as a result of the friendly meeting, Chavez was prepared to back the return of Honduras to the Organization of American States (OAS). Since Venezuela had been the most outspoken critic of Honduras’ post-coup governments, it seemed conceivable that in no time the country would recover the seat that it had lost by unanimous decision of the OAS’ thirty-three members following the 2009 coup.

But soon more details emerged from the meeting that suggested that there were still significant hurdles ahead for Lobo. Chávez had not in fact agreed to support Honduras’ immediate return to the OAS. Instead the three leaders had drawn up a road map for Honduras’ possible return with the direct input of exiled former president Mel Zelaya, who was reached by phone during the meeting. As had occurred in previous negotiations, a series of conditions were put forward with the understanding that their fulfillment would open the door to OAS re-entry.

Álvaro Uribe Velez in London

Photo: RATB, 21 May 2011 anti-Uribe picket, London, UK.

Source: Polo Democratico Alternativo, 20 May 2011.

Álvaro Uribe VÉLEZ: WANTED FOR MURDER, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, CORRUPTION, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.

On Saturday 21 May, former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe Velez, will be in London at the invitation of the London Business School .

The presence of the former Colombian president in cities across the United States and Europe has been strongly denounced by protestors who reject attempts to impose an academic label on a man who does not merit it and who’s name, and that of his family, are so closely linked to criminal activities in Colombia . This is not only an insult to the intelligence; it is an affront to the peoples’ dignity.

The existence of direct links between the former president, and many members of this family, with the Colombian narco-paramilitary organisations is an open secret. His cousin and political mentor Mario Uribe has been sentenced to prison by Colombian justice system for involvement with paramilitary activities. His brother Santiago Uribe is being investigated for the same crimes while hundreds of Congressional representatives from his party are in prison or under investigation for drug-trafficking and for assisting paramilitary organisations. Recently many high ranking members of his government have been sent to prison on charges of corruption. Some media have even declared that no more Uribista politicians will fit in Colombian goals, which are full of his followers.

Uribe was the broker in a perverse political strategy which, during his eight years in government, resulted in thousands of forced disappearances, thousands of torture victims, hundreds of massacres, thousands of political murders (including hundreds of trade unionists), millions forcefully displaced, thousands exiled and disgraceful impunity for all of these crimes.

Uribe was behind huge corruption scandals that have involved his officials and even his own sons. During his terms he imposed open and illegal repression, institutionalising the most abhorrent crime, including the so-called ‘false positives’ (extrajudicial killings of civilians attributed to the Colombian Army); he violated the principles of international law by ordering military incursions, bombings and kidnappings in neighbouring countries. He was the only Latin American president who gave complete support to the US/British invasion of Iraq . During his term as president, and even now that he has stood down, his criticisms of dozens of human rights defenders has led them to receive death threats signed by paramilitary groups called 'Black Eagles'.

In economic terms, Uribe left the country with 68% of the population living in poverty or destitution (indigence). More than 8 million people live in indigence and 20 million live in poverty. Acute malnutrition kills 20,000 children under the age of 5 years old every year. Today Colombia has the 11th highest social inequality in the world, and is more unequal than any other country in the Americas . It has the second highest number of displaced people in the world.

'We reject the attempts to turn Uribe into a respectable academic figure. This will not wipe clean his blood stained record. Join us to tell the London Business School not to give a platform to the perpetrators of state terror'.

Join us to make sure that Uribe knows he is not welcome in London!!

Photo: RATB, 21 May 2011 anti-Uribe picket, London, UK.

The first picket is from 4pm to 7pm on Saturday 21 May at the Latin American Business Forum at the RCOG, 27 Sussex Place, Regent's Park, London NW1, nearest tube: Baker Street.


The second picket is from 5pm to 8pm, Monday 23 May at the LSE Campus, Houghton Street, London WC2. Nearest tubes: Covent Garden, Holborn, Temple


Convened by: Polo Democratico Alternativo.
Supported by: ASLADOPEA, Todas las Voces Todas, Movimiento 22, Rock Around the Blockade (RATB), Movimiento Ecuador en el Reino Unido (MERU).

Venezuela’s Chávez responds to criticisms over Pérez Becerra deportation

by Tamara Pearson, 03 May 2011.
Source: Venezuelanalysis.com

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has responded to criticisms from the international left as well as his own supporters over the deportation of alternative journalist, Joaquin Perez Becerra, from Venezuela to Colombia, where the Colombian government is accusing Becerra of “terrorism” because his news site, Anncol, allegedly “supports” the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Venezuelan authorities arrested Becerra on 23 April at Maiquetia International Airport, outside of Caracas, after a phone call from Colombian President Juan Santos requesting Becerra’s detention and deportation.

On both Saturday, while launching the new housing mission, and on Sunday, during his speech at the large May Day march in Caracas, Chavez responded to criticism of the Becerra deportation, saying he took responsibility for his actions, and that the Becerra Case appeared to be a set up.

“It’s not my responsibility – the main blame goes to this gentleman who came here knowing that he was being looked for by Interpol, with a code red. Each person assumes their own responsibility,” Chavez said. “If we capture [Becerra] I’m bad, and if we don’t, I’m also bad. I fulfilled my responsibility and we captured him.”

Further, in response to the burning of doll versions of some government ministers, which coincided with a Venezuelan tradition around Easter time, Chavez said, “Those compatriots who burnt the doll with Nicolas’ [Maduro, minister for foreign affairs] face, with [Andres Izarra, communications ministers]’s face, made a mistake, they should have burnt a doll with my face, because I’m responsible for the decisions the government makes.

“[Becerra] got off the plane and we captured him, and just like we handed over the [accused terrorist] Chavez Abarca to the Cuban government, we handed [Becerra] over to the Colombian government,” Chavez said. “I had to comply with international agreements Venezuela had signed, that’s all.”

“The Colombian government, the International Police (INTERPOL), and the CIA even knew the seat that the Colombian journalist, Joaquin Perez Becerra, was sitting on as he traveled to Venezuela.”

“Also, someone would have to say who invited [Becerra] here, who set up the trap, why they set it up... they set it up here and they were hunting him...In my modest opinion... they set him up in order to stick the dagger in my chest, they passed me a hot potato.”

Chavez expressed hope that the Colombian government would respect Becerra’s rights, “I’m not saying that [Becerra] is a terrorist, or that he’s guilty of what Colombian government accuses him of.”

“Those who want to criticise me, do so, and those who want to burn me, do so, but I assume my responsibility, and each person should assume theirs with maturity,” he concluded.

In Venezuela, a range of pro-government groups have argued that as a person with political asylum in Sweden the Venezuelan government should have respected Becerra’s political refugee status.

Putting the deportation of Joaquín Pérez Becerra in context

written for RATB by Sam McGill, 03 May 2011.

On the demand of the Colombian government, on 22 April 2011, left-wing journalist Joaquín Pérez Becerra, allegedly an ex-leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), was arrested at a Venezuelan airport on arrival from Frankfurt in Germany. Two days later, he was deported by the Venezuelan government to Colombia. The arrest and deportation has caused a domestic and international outcry against Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela. Pérez Becerra is the director of The New Colombia News Agency (ANNCOL) and a source of re-published communiqués of the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP).

Pérez Becerra survived during the mass murder of leaders of the Patriotic Union (UP), which was the legal political party, a coalition of a range of social actors, including the FARC and the Colombian Communist Party. Some 5,000 members of the UP have been killed since 1984, including Pérez ’s first wife. Pérez was a leader of the group during the 1990s. He received political asylum in Sweden in 2000 where he was living until he boarded a plane to Venezuela. Pérez Becerra was wanted by the Colombian Legal system and according to the Colombian and Venezuelan Government; Pérez Becerra had an INTERPOL order out for him.

There have been protests in Venezuela against his arrest and deportation by representatives from Pro-Chávez organisations, including: Coordinadora Simón Bolívar (CSB), the Simón Bolívar National Communal Front (FNCSB), the “Clara Zetkin” Women’s Movement, the Front for the Detained and Disappeared of the Continent, and the Revolutionary Tupamaros Movement. Also in attendance were former Venezuelan Trade Minister Eduardo Samán, current Venezuelan lawmaker Oscar Figueras Yul Yalbur, and investigative journalist Eva Golinger.

Whilst the deportation is a blow to the sovereignty of Venezuela and the struggle for freedom in Colombia, it must be considered in the context of international relations between Venezuela, Colombia and Latin America. Below we detail the current context and analyse the difficult situation that both the Venezuelan government and Joaquin Pérez Becerra were put in.

Political battles over extraditions: Posada Carriles and Walid Makled
In an interview on Telesur the Venezuelan foreign minister, Nicolás Maduro made it clear that they felt obliged to honour the Interpol order for the Pérez Becerra’s extradition to Colombia and that if they didn't they would lose all their grounds for demanding the extradition of Posada Carriles, a Cuban-exile with Venezuelan citizenship, who escaped from a Venezuelan prison in 1985. Posada Carriles is wanted by Cuba and Venezuela for his involvement in various terrorist attacks including the 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian aeroplane that killed all 73 people on board, and the 1997 bombings of four Havana hotels that killed an Italian tourist. Carriles walks free in Miami today despite Venezuela’s demand that he be extradited to stand trial.

Colombia has recently agreed to extradite accused drug trafficker Walid Makled, a Venezuelan businessman, back to Venezuela. Makled is wanted in Colombia, Venezuela and the US for drug trafficking, money laundering and involvement in 3 separate murders. The US are also calling for Colombia to deport him to be tried in US courts. There is significant US interest in the case due to Makled’s spurious claims, exploited by the Venezuelan opposition to demonise the Bolivarian Revolution, that the Venezuelan government is involved in narco-trafficking and the funding of terrorist groups. There have been several investigations, seizures and denunciations by Venezuela’s National Anti-drug Office (ONA) into Makled’s businesses and his $1.2 billion fortune.

US military threats to Venezuelan security
In 2009 the previous Uribe administration in Colombia signed an agreement to establish seven new US military bases in Colombia, with provisions for the US to use any land, sea or airspace of Colombia as it saw necessary. Furthermore in July 2010, Colombia and Costa Rica agreed to the deployment of 6,000 US troops whilst presenting various arguments to the Organization of American States (OAS) for intervention in Venezuela on the alleged basis of the presence of FARC camps in Venezuelan territory. Chavez placed Venezuela on high alert for invasion and broke off diplomatic relations with Colombia.

These military threats emerged within a regional context that included two new US military bases in Panama, the June 2009 military coup in Honduras, where there are two US military bases, the deployment of up to 10,000 US troops and 47 US warships in Costa Rican territory, the reactivation after 60 years of the US Fourth Fleet to patrol South American and Caribbean waters and the occupation of Haiti by 10,000 US troops following the January 2010 earthquake.

In August 2010, Uribe was replaced in Colombian elections by the new administration of President Juan Manuel Santos. Santos had previously served as the Minister of National Defence under Uribe’s Administration and continues to represent the Social Party of National Unity (Partido Social de Unidad Nacional) of which Uribe was president. Although Santos in no way represents a break from the politics of Uribe, at present he is adopting different tactics, by restoring trade relationships with Venezuela and halting the establishment of the US bases. The Colombian Supreme Court ruled that the US-Colombia Defence Co-operation Agreement was unconstitutional as it had not been passed by Congress. The Santos administration has upheld this decision so far.

The decreased threat of a large-scale, US backed military intervention in Venezuela is clearly something that Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution need to maintain in order to preserve stability and security in Venezuela, not to mention to prevent loss of life. It removes the necessity of huge military spending increases which means more resources for the Revolution’s social and development programmes.

International and bilateral trade
Economist Mark Weisbrot has analysed recent trade and diplomatic relations between Colombia and Venezuela, including a cross-border security committee, the resumption of fuel shipments from Venezuela to Colombia and the payment of $800 million outstanding debt owed to Colombian exporters.

Weisbrot highlights that during 2009-2010 when Venezuela cut off relations with Colombia in the face of military threats, Colombian exports to Venezuela fell from 15.6% to just 3.6%. This represented $2.3 billion in trade for Colombia and 11.2% of their total exports. To break this down further, the loss in trade represented more than 20% of Colombia’s non fuel exports, 83% of total livestock exports and 63% of textile exports.

In the context of a global economic crisis and widespread flooding across the region, Colombia accepted further loans from the World Bank totalling US$250 million in December 2010 alone. Given these factors, it seems that Santos is pursuing the normalisation of relations with Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution through economic necessity rather than any political change of heart. However it is an economic and diplomatic relationship that benefits Venezuela also and will no doubt have influenced the Venezuelan government’s decision to deport Pérez Becerra. It is easier to maintain popular support for the revolutionary process if people do not lack basic necessities which are imported from Colombia.

The strength of revolutionaries in Venezuela
Since the 2010 national assembly elections, the opposition are more represented in the national assembly and can block decisions requiring a two-thirds agreement: the Bolivarian forces are having to choose their battles.

The murders of several peasant leaders in the Colombian border regions in April 2011, demonstrates the intensity of the struggle in which Venezuela is engaged. Despite land reforms being enshrined in law, campesinos (farmers/peasants) have been fighting to reclaim land from large land estate owners who in turn are hiring private police and paramilitary squads to murder activists.

Although Chávez has been able to intervene and positively support some prisoner swaps between FARC and the Colombian government, the Venezuelan government is not in a position to declare support for the FARC or to deny Interpol regulations requesting deportations. That is not to say there are not significant forces in Venezuela calling for this kind of position.

Reflections from Iván Maiza
The article by Iván Maiza in the opinion section of TeleSur’s website sets out a very considered explanation of the deportation and sets it in the context of the Bolivarian Revolution’s position globally and its political strengths.

Maiza points out that:

“The fact is that Joaquín was not in Maicao being chased by a pack from the AUC [United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia] and forced to cross the border, nor was he in hiding, nor even terribly upset. He was in Sweden putting together his publication, in peace. So then, he hops on a plane, comes to Venezuela and all of a sudden lands at Maiquetía. And before he arrives, there’s a call from Santos to Chávez, “Hey pal, how’s it going? Somebody I’ve been looking for is headed there, get him for me and send him over, ok? You’re not going to wreck our new friendship, are you?

“And of course to answer that we must first answer the first question: Who told Pérez Becerra to get on that plane? Who told him that everything was ok? Who gave him assurances that everything was in order? I’m sure that if someone told him that the Venezuelan government was not apprised and not prepared to defend him, and that Santos would be riled, he’d never have come. I’m sure he must have asked several times about his security and someone told him, “everything’s ok buddy, we’re waiting for you here.

“The timing was ideal. Negotiations in Cartegena between Lobo and Zelaya, a reopening of trade and relations between Venezuela and Colombia, and the expected extradition of Makled. It was just the moment to make Chávez choose between his leftist friends on the continent, or return to the days of closed borders, of the accusations that his government is an outlaw government that defends terrorists, a return to militarization at the border states of Zulia, Táchira and Apure.

“We are going to elections in a year. The Bolivarian Revolution should be confirmed once again for President Chávez’ last and most important presidential term, and for that we’re looking at two basic fronts in the struggle, both with the premise of granting a better life to the majority of the people. For the people who seek to consolidate their definitive independence, these fronts are housing and food sovereignty, which would allow for increased happiness for the people, guarantee a good life for the country’s children, allow us to prove that socialism is more productive than capitalism and consolidate a new model of development and production in the region.

"All that implies:
1. Not being at war.
2. Not being forced to increase military spending.
3. Not having a closed border (just try to win an election without sanitary napkins or diapers).
4. Stopping the murder for hire of popular leaders in agricultural zones.
5. Being able to rely on construction materials to build housing.

The main task is to guarantee that the objectives set for the election in 2012 are met, that homes, buildings, and communities can be built and that crops be planted, and in that we’ve decided to bet on the continuity of the revolutionary process, giving our best day to day, so that later in 2013 and 2019 when we face the need to consolidate the revolution beyond a particular leader, the revolution can walk on its own two feet.”

Conclusions
When drawing any conclusions from this series of events, it’s clearly a difficult and regrettable state of affairs that has lead to the arrest and deportation of Pérez Becerra. It represents a blow for the anti-imperialist struggle in Colombia and Venezuela. However, given the economic, political and military pressures facing Venezuela currently, it seems that the decision was forced when Becerra boarded the plane in Frankfurt (where the Interpol order was not implemented).

The deportation has been used inside and outside Venezuela by groups on the left and the right alike to denounce Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution. However, we must recognise that the project of building socialism in Venezuela is not a utopia or some idealist dogma that exists in a political and economic vacuum, free to be guided by absolute principles. The Bolivarian struggle develops in a hostile world dominated by imperialist interests which seek to destroy it at each turn, it is forced to make concessions, sometimes taking two steps back to take one step forward.

Is it still a process worth fighting for and defending, warts and all? The millions of Venezuelans who have started to take control of their own lives through communal councils and other organs of people power, who have benefited from free healthcare and education for the first time in history, and who have won control over nationalised natural resources will answer this with their actions. No doubt, they will continue to strengthen and deepen the revolutionary process demanding more and greater radicalisation in their own interests and in the interests of the poor and oppressed throughout the world.

Regarding Joaquín Pérez Becerra

By Iván Maiza, 28 April 2011.
Source: TeleSur (español)
Translation: by Machetera, 01 May 2011.

The capacity of the Latin American left to go straight ahead without looking to either side, without long term plans, without observing the world in which it lives, never ceases to amaze me. Without taking into account whose life is at stake in matters that are not strategic, nor even tactical, what matters is always the sacrifice, proving that one is not betraying the highest revolutionary values, “never bowing one’s head” like that person in the story by Osvaldo Soriano, “A sus plantas rendido un León” [A defeated lion at their feet].*

It’s sad that the Bolivarian government was forced to deport comrade Joaquín Pérez Becerra, a comrade from the Bolivarian movement in greater Colombia. It’s sad and regrettable, it’s painful and shameful, but I don’t blame the [Venezuelan] Bolivarian Government in the least, rather I sympathize, I feel solidarity with my comrades who had to carry out this abominable act, and above all with our comrade the Comandante, who must have suffered greatly.

The fact is that Joaquín was not in Maicao being chased by a pack from the AUC [United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia] and forced to cross the border, nor was he in hiding, nor even terribly upset. He was in Sweden putting together his publication, in peace. So then, he hops on a plane, comes to Venezuela and all of a sudden lands at Maiquetía. And before he arrives, there’s a call from Santos to Chávez, “Hey pal, how’s it going? Somebody I’ve been looking for is headed there, get him for me and send him over, ok? You’re not going to wreck our new friendship, are you?”

Joaquín, in mid-air, was already sentenced, and so was the Bolivarian Government. It’s worth mentioning, for all the obtuse comrades who can only see straight ahead, that until the moment in which Joaquín took to the skies, and Santos picked up the phone to call Chávez, the Bolivarian Government had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. After Santos’s call, there were two options remaining.

1. Arrest him.

2. Don’t arrest him.

You don’t have to be a genius to realize that both were shitty options. If he were arrested, the entire left staring straight ahead would be sure to pile on, and if he weren’t, you’d be screwing with a thuggish, bellicose neighbor with backup. If you do it you’re fucked. If you don’t do it you’re fucked. If you do it you’re a piece of shit, if you don’t do it, you’re a piece of shit, depending on who’s doing the judging, whether they’re your brothers or semi-peaceful neighbors.

It was a strategy that put Venezuela in a lose-lose situation, and the Colombian rightwing in a win-win. When Joaquín got on the plane, the Colombian rightwing won. When Joaquín got on the plane and Santos picked up the phone, the Comandante was already a prisoner, not Joaquín. It was Comandante Chávez who was made prisoner of a decision that he ought never have had put before him.

Now the question is, how did they manage to put Chávez in such a tight spot? And of course to answer that we must first answer the first question: Who told Pérez Becerra to get on that plane? Who told him that everything was ok? Who gave him assurances that everything was in order? I’m sure that if someone told him that the Venezuelan government was not apprised and not prepared to defend him, and that Santos would be riled, he’d never have come. I’m sure he must have asked several times about his security and someone told him, “everything’s ok buddy, we’re waiting for you here.”

The timing was ideal. Negotiations in Cartegena between Lobo and Zelaya, a reopening of trade and relations between Venezuela and Colombia, and the expected extradition of Makled. It was just the moment to make Chávez choose between his leftist friends on the continent, or return to the days of closed borders, of the accusations that his government is an outlaw government that defends terrorists, a return to militarization at the border states of Zulia, Táchira and Apure.

One day after the Joaquín Pérez Becerra affair, that asshole who still thinks he’s the Spanish president, Zapatero, denied a report that the most wanted member of the ETA was on his way to Venezuela. Coincidence? Part of the plan? Maybe yes, maybe no. What’s certain is that whoever put Joaquín on that plane would seem to be working for that side, along with Zapatero, and it would appear that they didn’t expect the response from Chávez and so Zapatero was left without a part to play in the movie.

I believe that Joaquín understands all of this; that he knows that you don’t put a strategic operation at risk for anything in the entire world, and that if a militant loses his bearings and makes things too easy for his opponent, putting the entire operation at risk, one will suffer the consequences. He knows perfectly well that there is a set order and line of command, a compartmentalization of information, and that the information is divulged when the conditions are right, and that unity among revolutionary forces is what guarantees victory.

He knows all that, I’m sure, and I want to believe that he was not the one who violated the basic norms of militancy. Believe me, I wouldn’t say the same if this were a case of displaced persons being forced to return to a place where AUC commandos awaited them; the Colombian people deserve a defense that has been lacking on this side, but….this man was in Sweden! That’s why I ask these questions, that’s why it seems to me like foul play, a trick put together with the consent of someone here, and that’s why I denounce it as a setup, because it was unnecessary, avoidable, and stupidly unjustifiable.

We are going to elections in a year. The Bolivarian Revolution should be confirmed once again for President Chávez’ last and most important presidential term, and for that we’re looking at two basic fronts in the struggle, both with the premise of granting a better life to the majority of the people. For the people who seek to consolidate their definitive independence, these fronts are housing and food sovereignty, which would allow for increased happiness for the people, guarantee a good life for the country’s children, allow us to prove that socialism is more productive than capitalism and consolidate a new model of development and production in the region. All that implies:

1. Not being at war.

2. Not being forced to increase military spending.

3. Not having a closed border (just try to win an election without sanitary napkins or diapers).

4. Stopping the murder for hire of popular leaders in agricultural zones.

5. Being able to rely on construction materials to build housing.

The main task is to guarantee that the objectives set for the election in 2012 are met, that homes, buildings, and communities can be built and that crops be planted, and in that we’ve decided to bet on the continuity of the revolutionary process, giving our best day to day, so that later in 2013 and 2019 when we face the need to consolidate the revolution beyond a particular leader, the revolution can walk on its own two feet, socialism will be consolidated and the bourgeois state will be transformed into the people’s power.

The times in which we live are not our best moments, the world continues moving toward imperial wars, the rightwing is recovering lost ground, those who’ve been able to avoid aggression have remained with their arms folded, and it’s also true that our Venezuelan society has not moved toward socialism as quickly as desired, the economy based on extraction of raw materials has refused to stop existing, and although we’ve achieved important things, the time to move to the next level is upon us. We ought to be more capable than ever, more careful than ever, and in order to do that, strategic pathways must be established.

Where is the part in the strategy in which we fight with Santos because a comrade cheerfully decided to come and set off a diplomatic scuffle? Where’s the part where we’ve said that this is the time for a confrontation with the Colombian oligarchy that has so damaged us? Hasn’t it been clear for several months that we are at another stage in the strategy? Once more, who put Joaquín on that plane at this particular moment? Who sold him out to put the Bolivarian Revolution at risk of losing its general strategy?

The truth, comrades, is that we’ve learned, and have had to learn to move offensively as well as regressively, to conceal ourselves in order to return again and fight propitiously. The Bolivarian Revolution has learned to be agile, to take one step forward and two back, yet still move ahead, learning to wait and deliver precise blows without a fatiguing exchange that leads to exhaustion. We’ve learned to figure out the rightwing’s tricks and all of this we’ve come to learn day to day with our strategically minded President. Could it be that the forever forward-focused left doesn’t want us to be agile against a rightwing that is always astute and cunning? Are they bothered by the rightwing or is it just that they don’t understand it? Or could it be….that there are sectors within the revolutionary left who are taking orders from the DAS [Colombian security]?

And what if it’s not even necessary for the DAS to infiltrate the popular movement?

Well then, we’d be facing a scenario in which certain “comrades” or some “revolutionary parties” have ventured plans to sabotage the strategies put forth by the Comandante – even going so far as to entrap comrades in the struggle? – comrades who cannot accept that the Comandante has made the decision to get closer to Santos and who’ll do anything to “break the trust” between Chávez and his people, between Chávez and the people of the continent. Comrades who are willing to set the agenda of the Bolivarian government even if it means sabotage. Is it possible? Like when comrades sold out el Ché or sabotaged the M-26? I’d prefer to think that it was the DAS.

The other option is that some cocky Venezuelan militant might have said “a revolutionary can invite someone else to his revolution whenever he wants,” without bothering to look sideways, without observing what’s going on in the world, without reading his surroundings, without calculating the risks, without thinking about possible scenarios, putting so many things at risk, skimming over so many others, always forward, forward, forward….right up to the precipice.

Another day will dawn, and we’ll see.

*Translator’s note: My translation for the Spanish language wikipedia entry for “A sus plantas rendido un león” follows:

“A sus plantas rendido un león” is a novel by the Argentine writer Osvaldo Soriano. As the author explains in a preface, the title is a verse from the old version of the Argentine national anthem. While that verse referred to Spain, defeated in the independence struggles, in this novel, the lion that ought to be defeated is the U.K., the victor in the Guerra de las Malvinas [referred to in Anglo media as the Falklands war], during which a socialist revolution is set off in the African country of Bongwutsi. Summary: The Guerra de Malvinas (1982) begins and, in Bongwutsi, a remote African country, a forgotten Argentine consul starts his own battle against England. At the same time, in Europe, a conspiracy is hatched to turn Bongwutsi into a socialist republic. Another Argentine is a participant and both Argentines, along with unforgettable revolutionaries, come together in the delirious and moving plot.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity.This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

Venezuela deports Joaquín Pérez Becerra

Controversy in Venezuela over Arrest of Alternative Journalist
by Tamara Pearson, 25 April 2011.
Source: Venezuelanalysis.com

At the request of the Colombian government, the Venezuelan government has arrested and says it will soon deport a supposed ex-FARC leader and alternative journalist, Joaquin Perez Becerra, despite opposition to the deportation from many groups on the Venezuelan left.

The Venezuelan government said in a statement that it detained Perez, a presumed leader of the guerrilla group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) when he tried to enter the country through the Caracas international airport on Saturday, and will deport him to Colombia today, following a request by the Colombian government.

According to Venezuelan government press, a commission of the Colombian National Police will travel to Caracas to assist with the deportation process.

Perez is wanted by the Colombian legal system, and the Venezuelan and Colombian governments say there is a red alert for him with Interpol, for supposedly financing terrorism and administering resources related to terrorist activities. He is said to be part of the international commission of the FARC and coordinator of the news agency, Anncol (in English: http://anncol.eu/english/23). The site, the New Colombia News Agency, is an alternative news site based in Sweden, and was founded in 1996 by Latin American and European journalists, with its stated aim of “being a voice for the voiceless sectors of Colombia”. It is said to politically support the FARC.

Colombian President Juan Santos thanked the governments of Venezuela and Ecuador yesterday in a press conference, saying, “This collaboration with our neighbours is very important... It’s further demonstration that this cooperation is increasing, it’s effective.”

He also explained that on Saturday he talked with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez by telephone to request the arrest of Perez, as Perez had taken a flight from Germany that was headed to Venezuela.

He included Ecuador in his thanks because the country’s government had helped to capture a supposed head of a criminal gang last week.

According to Santos, Perez was responsible, for many years “for all this bad propaganda that the FARC has put out about Colombia from Europe”.

The Venezuelan government’s press release stated the details of the arrest and that “The Bolivarian government ratifies its unshakeable commitment in the struggle against terrorism, crime, and organised crime, in strict compliance with ...international cooperation, under the principles of peace, solidarity, and respect of human rights.”

Venezuelan left objections
Many groups in the organised Venezuelan left, all of which support the Bolivarian revolution, have criticised the government’s handling of the situation, and have called for Perez’s freedom.

According to Venezuelan movement site, Aporrea, Perez has political asylum in Sweden. The Coordinadora Simon Bolivar (CSB), a pro-government organisation that is based in the well-organised Caracas barrio 23 de Enero and aims for grassroots organisation, called on the government to “comply with its international agreements, which include respecting political refugee status”. The CSB called for Perez to be freed “immediately” and to not be extradited.

The Venezuelan-based alternative website Patria Grande questioned if there was an Interpol red alert, given that Perez was not detained in Sweden, where he was living, or in Germany, where he changed flights.

Further, an editor of pro-government newspaper Ciudad Caracas, Ernesto Villegas, wrote that Perez survived during the mass murder of leaders of the Patriotic Union (UP), which was the legal political party for a range of social actors, including the FARC and the Colombian Communist Party, and for this, he was able to get political asylum in Sweden.

Some 5,000 members of the UP have been killed since 1984, including Perez’s first wife. Perez was a leader of the group during the 1990s.

Villegas questioned if Perez was a “terrorist” and expressed his concern that “tomorrow or the day after this label could be applied to anyone”. He also pointed out how the international press have automatically labelled Perez a “terrorist” but other confessed terrorists, such as Luis Posada Carriles, the mastermind behind the bombing of a Cuban plane, are labelled as “anti-Castro” rather than terrorist.

Villegas called on the Venezuelan president to “not fall into Santos’ trap”.

The Venezuelan Communist Party’s newspaper, Tribuna Popular, reported that a delegation consisting of some of its own members, United Socialist Party of Venezuela leader Amilca Figuerora, leaders of the Bolivarian Continental Movement, and a representative of the International Solidarity Committee visited the office of the Venezuelan intelligence agency, SEBIN, to try to talk to Perez. They were unable to.

Also, according to Tribuna Popular, Perez came to Venezuela to learn about the Bolivarian revolution and to combat the misinformation about it that is common in the mainstream press.

Left-wing Swedish journalist Dick Emanuelsson also criticised the capture of Perez in an article published by Kaos en la Red. Emanuelsson wrote about Perez’s “intense political activity in Europe in favour of peace and the struggle of the Colombian people”.

Kaos en la Red also said that the Swedish consul in Caracas and Swedish ambassador Lena Nordstrom in Bogota, had carried out procedures to try to prevent the extradition of Perez.

Finally, the pro-Chavez union federation UNETE wrote in a statement that it too rejected “the arbitrary detention by Venezuelan government authorities, against the revolutionary journalist of Colombian origin and Swedish nationality, Joaquin Perez Becerra”. UNETE also opposed Perez’s extradition and demanded his freedom.

“We make a fraternal but energetic call to President Chavez to correct the situation, so that our Bolivarian process can continue being, without any doubt, the hope of the peoples of the world”.

“Those who fight against the pro-Yankee and criminal oligarchy of Colombia aren’t our enemies but rather brothers of the Bolivarian, freedom, and anti-imperialist struggle,” the UNETE statement concluded.

The stakes: part of changing Venezuela-Colombia relations
Recently, Santos also promised to extradite Venezuelan wanted drug trafficker Walid Makled to Venezuela, even though Colombia’s close ally, the United States, had requested Makled be extradited there.

And last month the Venezuelan government deported two supposed guerrillas of Colombia’s National Liberation Army (ELN), Carlos Tirado and Carlos Perez, who were captured in Apure state along the border with Colombia.

Santos and Chavez met earlier this month in Colombia, and among the range of bilateral agreements discussed and made, they agreed to better coordinate confronting drug smuggling groups that operate along the borders of both countries, and to exchange intelligence information.

Following Santos’ swearing-in in August last year, Chavez met with him for the first time and the two countries agreed to restore diplomatic relations. Venezuela ended relations with Colombia under President Alvaro Uribe after Uribe accused Chavez of protecting illegal Colombian guerrillas at a meeting of the Organisation of American States (OAS) a month before.


See also: Sweden asks Venezuela to explain FARC suspect arrest, AFP, 27 April 2011.

Narco-trafficker Uribe appointed 'Distinguished Scholar' by Georgetown University

Rally Against Uribe’s Appointment at Georgetown
by Rachel Winch, 18 November 2010.
Source: NACLA (North American Congress on Latin America).


In 2004 Gerardo Cajamarca Alarcón, a union activist finally fled Colombia after paramilitary forces killed four of his friends and threatened to kill him. He believed his life was in imminent danger, and he had good reason. Colombia has been named “the murder capital of the world for trade unionists”; over the past few years, out of every ten trade unionists killed in the world, seven have been from Colombia.

Cajamarca fled a land ruled by Colombian president Álvaro Uribe, who has been accused of supporting the paramilitary forces responsible for a number of the union deaths. On November 3, Cajamarca stood in front of a rally of students, faculty, and human rights activists who were demonstrating against Uribe’s appointment as a “Distinguished Scholar in the Practice of Global Leadership” at Georgetown University in Washington D.C. to share his story and demand that Uribe be prosecuted for his crimes.

“We are here in the name of our dead,” Cajamarca told the crowd. “For truth, justice, and reparations.” Holding photos of union leaders who had been assassinated, he went on to describe the cooperative links between transnational corporations and the 2002-2010 Uribe administration, and the role this cooperation played in these killings. Uribe “represents this criminal system,” he concluded.

Uribe, who has been involved in the Colombian political system since he was elected mayor of Medellín in 1982, has also been connected with the illegal surveillance of Supreme Court judges, journalists, and human rights defenders. Hollman Morris, a Colombian journalist who is now a prestigious Nieman fellow at Harvard University (although his visa was initially denied by the U.S. State Department), described his experiences being targeted by Uribe at a talk following the rally: “I understood that any journalism I were to do just got a lot more dangerous. Any curve could have an ‘accident.’” Uribe targeted the internationally renowned journalist as a “publicist for terrorism,” a public smearing technique the Colombian president used to discredit a number of journalists and human rights defenders.

On August 11, just four days after Uribe finished his term in office, Georgetown University announced that he had been selected as a Distinguished Scholar and that beginning in September he would “conduct seminars and other programmatic activities for students in the School of Foreign Service and the broader university community . . . to help foster conversations on important issues facing the international community.”

“We are looking forward to having President Uribe join our university community,” said Georgetown University President John J. DeGioia. “Having such a distinguished world leader at Georgetown will further the important work of students and faculty engaging important global issues.”

However, on September 29, students delivered an open letter to DeGioia, signed by over 150 scholars, asking Georgetown to dismiss Uribe because of his involvement in human rights violations. The letter—which was written by Colombian Jesuit Father Javier Giraldo Moreno S.J.—explained some of Uribe’s controversial history in Colombia. It cited “Uribe’s ties to paramilitary groups,” among other serious human rights violations and scandals that defined his two terms as president. Not only did Uribe “continue to sponsor those paramilitary groups,” Giraldo wrote, “but he defended them and he perfected them into a new pattern of legalized paramilitarism . . . while at the same time lying to the international community with a phony demobilization of the paramilitaries.”

Georgetown Peace Studies professor Mark Lance explained at the rally that the decision to appoint Uribe as a Distinguished Scholar was not an isolated aberration to glorify human rights violations. Rather, it is a more deeply rooted practice of the university to invite people who are perceived as powerful to train students to be the next class of elite: “They brought him here for one very simple reason,” Lance avowed. “Because he was a president. That’s all that mattered in the making of this decision. Because if you’re powerful in this sense of power, if you run national organizations, you’re welcome here. Because that fits into a conceptualization of education that’s shared by many educators, many faculty, and, I’m afraid, many students at this university.”

Former Distinguished Scholars in the Practice of Global Leadership in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown have indeed been politically powerful, including Former President of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski, former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former Spanish prime minister José María Aznar, and former Ambassador at Large Robert L. Gallucci. The most controversial was the appointment of a George W. Bush administration Iraq war architect Douglas Feith as a professor at the School of Foreign Service in 2006 (but not as a Distinguished Scholar), which caused similar faculty and student protests.

Following the rally, Georgetown University law students delivered Uribe a subpoena summoning him to testify in a case against Drummond Company, Inc., an Alabama-based coal company that is being tried in U.S. Federal Court on accusations of paying paramilitary forces to kill union organizers and other civilians in the regions of Colombia where they are mining. After a number of thwarted attempts, the students successfully served the subpoena as Uribe was leaving a class he was teaching.

The subpoena itself encapsulates the core reasons why so many at Georgetown are angered by Uribe’s appointment: In 2009 nearly 500 family members of Colombian civilians who the paramilitary assassinated filed the case after uncovering evidence that Drummond funded the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), the paramilitary forces responsible for the assassinations. The Drummond plaintiffs summoned Uribe to testify in the case on the grounds that he has “direct knowledge of several key issues in the case,” which includes both governmental collusion with the AUC and governmental protection of the Drummond mining facility. Students hope that the subpoena will further the case of the Colombian families and also support their efforts to repeal Uribe’s appointment at Georgetown.

Uribe’s deposition in the Drummond case is scheduled for November 22 in Washington, DC. Students and faculty are continuing to organize against Uribe’s status as “Distinguished Scholar” and are committed to do so until he has been discharged. “When we win this campaign and Uribe is forced to leave Georgetown,” Charity Ryerson, a Georgetown Law student and leader of the movement against Uribe’s appointment told a Georgetown University reporter “a message will be sent that our community does not condone the model of politics Uribe represents.”

As Gerardo Cajamarca Alarcón said as he closed his address to the crowd gathered, “For our dead, not one minute of silence. An entire life of fighting.”


Rachel Winch is a NACLA Research Associate

Ex-Colombian president Álvaro Uribe named as Narco-trafficker

In this declassified US government document from 1991, which lists key narco-traffickers in Colombia, former Colombian president Álvaro Uribe (2002-2010) appears as number 82 (see page 10). President Uribe intensified the war against the FARC as he built a centralised military and police system – with US, Israeli and British support - a killing machine with 200,000 military, 30,000 police, several thousand death squad killers and over a million middle- and upper-class Colombians who support ‘wiping out the FARC’ – meaning eliminating independent popular organisations. Uribe is the closest that Colombia has seen to a fascist ruler.

Ex-Colombian president Uribe named as Narco-trafficker (p 10)

Venezuela's Opposition and media lies exposed

Venezuela: Opposition and media lies about lack of democracy exposed
Source: Links/Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (UK)
by Francisco Dominguez, September 23, 2010

Venezuelans vote on Sunday, September 26, for the South American country's 165-seat National Assembly – its national parliament. This is the 16th national election or referenda since Hugo Chávez was first elected president in 1998. Venezuela’s last election, on February 15, 2009, was a referendum to remove presidential term limits. This was endorsed by 54% of the electorate. Sunday’s election is the first to take place against the backdrop of the world recession, which has been hit Venezuela hard, as it has in many other countries.
With this key election approaching, there has been a stepping up of international media distortions about Venezuela internationally. In the run-up to previous election campaigns, the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (VSC) has noted that the increase in false claims appear to be designed in order to delegitimise the results and fairness of the elections.

National Assembly elections take place every five years and the elected representatives have the power to pass legislation and also to block the president's legislative initiatives (with the support of over one-third of assembly members). The assembly also has other specific and important powers (outlined in Article 187 of the constitution) including approving the budget, initiating impeachment proceedings against most government officials (including ministers but not the president, who can only be removed by a majority of the population through a recall referendum) and appointing the members of the government's electoral, judicial and prosecutorial branches.

However the last time National Assembly elections were held in 2005, the opposition parties boycotted them in order to seek to delegitimise the result, which was to give a majority to supporters of President Chávez. Therefore this year, the anti-Chávez right-wing opposition will inevitably increase its number of seats in parliament as it will this time contest the seats.

Some media coverage has already sought to portray the elections as representing a huge gain for anti- Chávez forces if the opposition can stop the pro-Chávez parties gaining a two-thirds majority of assembly seats. However, this would be false. While we can’t predict exactly what the opposition parties would have got in 2005 had they taken part in the democratic process, they did receive more than a third of the vote in elections in the 2006 presidential elections, gaining 36.9% with 4.3 million votes (see http://www.cne.gov.ve/web/estadisticas/index_resultados_elecciones.php). Furthermore, in the 2004 presidential recall referendum, the opposition to Chávez got 40% (3,989,008 votes) – again this was more than one-third (see http://www.cne.gov.ve/referendum_presidencial2004/.) The results – and claims made in the international media by the Venezuelan opposition and others – on September 26 must be analysed against this background and context if they are to be fully understood. 

Crocodile Tears? Covering Crime in Venezuela

Source: Venezuelanalysis.com
by Samuel Grove, 18 August 2010.

The ability of dominant elites to exploit crises and configure them in ways appropriate to their narrow interests is a capitalist staple. The economic crisis was articulated as a stock market crisis meriting a massive transfer of wealth to the financial class. Equally when the elites refer to the safety and security of a country what they really mean is safety and security for investors. Describing the humanitarian crisis in Palestine recently Barack Obama bemoaned the fact that Palestinians were unable ‘to create businesses and engage in trade’. With this in mind it is interesting to observe the current western elite media disquiet regarding crime in Venezuela.

Read more...

Leader of Death Squads Wins Colombian Election

Source: Global Research.ca
by James Petras, 27 June 2010

Juan Manuel Santos, notorious Defense Minister in the regime of outgoing President Alvaro Uribe and closely identified with high crimes against humanity “won” the recent Presidential elections in Colombia, June 2010. The major electronic and print media CNN, FOX News, Washington Post, the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the once liberal Financial Times (FT) hailed Santos election, as a great victory for democracy. According to the FT, “Colombia not Venezuela is (the) best model for Latin America” (FT 6/23/2010 p. 8). Citing Santos “overwhelming” margin – he garnered 69% of the vote, the FT claimed he won a “strong mandate” (FT 6/22/2010). In what has to be one of the most flagrant cover-ups in recent history, the media accounts exclude the most egregious facts about the elections and the profoundly authoritarian policies pursued by Santos over the past decade.

The Elections: Guns, Elites and Terror
Elections are a process (not merely an event) in which prior political conditions determine the outcome. During the previous eight years of outgoing President Uribe’s and Defense Minister Santos’ rule, over 2 million, mostly rural poor, were forcibly uprooted and driven from their homes and land and displaced across frontiers into neighboring countries, or to urban slums. The Uribe-Santos regime relied on both the military and the 30,000 member paramilitary death squads to kill and terrorize entire population centers, deemed “sympathetic” to the armed insurgency, affecting several million urban and rural poor. Over 20,000 people were killed, many, according to the major Colombian human rights group, falsely labeled “guerrillas”. Santos as Defense Minister was directly implicated by the Courts in what was called “false positives”. The military randomly rounded up scores of poor urban youth, shot them and claimed a resounding victory over the FARC guerrillas.

Solidarity Statement: Stop the Threat Against Venezuela Now!

Joint Solidarity Statement:
Stop the Threat Against Venezuela Now!

3 August 2010

We, the undersigned organizations, view with serious concern the possibility of military aggression towards the people of Venezuela by the Colombian Government, which could be supported by the United State of America using its seven military bases recently installed in Colombia.

This matter has arisen from the recent events when the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was accused on 22 July 2010 at the Extraordinary Session of the Organization of American States in Washington by the Colombian Government of promoting, supporting and maintaining a relationship with armed organizations from Colombia, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and National Liberation Army (ELN). The accusations were only based on images which have never been substantiated or subjected to verification.

These current moves by the right-wing Colombian government are clearly an attempt backed by the US to justify a pre-emptive attack on Venezuela and its people. There has been a pattern of false allegations against Hugo Chavez’s government in recent years as part of US-backed campaign to dismantle the revolutionary process taking place in Venezuela.

Since the election of President Hugo Chavez in 1998 and the beginning of Bolivarian revolutionary process, Venezuela has posed a great challenge to the US imperialist domination in Latin America as well as capitalist establishment in the region. The revolutionary process - with a popular democratic participation in Venezuela carrying the banner of “Socialism in the 21st Century” - has been an inspiration to people around the world seeking alternatives to neoliberal capitalist world order.

Considering the historical interference of the United States in internal matters of other countries and regions, such as in Iran and the Korean Peninsula, we are fearful that the US may exploit the current Venezuela-Colombia crisis as an entry point to carry out military aggression against Venezuela as it has done many times elsewhere in the past. The attack on Venezuela has the aim to crush the revolutionary process taking place in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, and to re-enact US imperial doctrine in the region. We are very aware of the potential impact that these negative actions could have on the Venezuelan people and its ongoing revolutionary process and on the international community.

As these apprehensions are very real, we would like to expresses our continuous support to the democratic and peaceful revolutionary process in Venezuela and we would like to extent our solidarity to the people of Venezuela who are striving to build a better world.

We call upon:
-          the Colombian government to stop its constant lies, malicious allegations and threats against Venezuela and engage with Venezuela to resolve the crisis with peaceful diplomatic means in order to rebuild its relations with the rest of the region;
-          the US government to shut down all its military bases and installations in Latin America as well as other parts of the world;
-          all governments with conscience to fully support the Venezuelan government’s insistence on its right to sovereignty and strongly denounce any US-backed military action against the people of Venezuela.
-          all people and organizations that support social justice and genuine democracy to support any solidarity action that may needed to defend Venezuela and the revolution in Venezuela against constant military threats.


Signed by: 

Australia:
Socialist Alliance

Indonesia:
Political Committee of the Poor People's Democratic Party (KPRM-PRD)
Women Mahardhika
Working People’s Association (PRP)

Malaysia:
Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)

New Zealand :
Socialist Worker

Pakistan:
Labour Party Pakistan (LPP)
National Trade Union Federation

Philippines:
Party of the Labouring Masses (PLM)
Philippines-Venezuela Solidarity Network
Labor Party (Partido ng Manggagawa)

Britain:
Rock Around the Blockade (RATB)
The Revolutionary Communist Group (RCG)




[This joint statement is initiated by Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM), Working People’s Association (PRP), Indonesia and Socialist Alliance, Australia. Any organization wishing to endorse this statement, please contact us at int.psm[at]gmail.com ]

US 'aid' funded mass murder in Colombia

Report Suggests "Correlation" between U.S. Aid and Army Killings
By Helda Martínez
Source: IPS News, 30 Jul 2010.

"There are alarming links between increased reports of extrajudicial executions of civilians by the Colombian army and units that receive U.S. military financing," John Lindsay-Poland, lead author of a two-year study on the question, told IPS. Lindsay-Poland is Research and Advocacy Director for the U.S.-based Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), which presented a new report, "Military Assistance and Human Rights: Colombia, U.S. Accountability, and Global Implications", in Bogotá Thursday.

The report, produced in conjunction with the U.S. Office on Colombia (USOC), studies the application in Colombia of the so-called Leahy Law, passed in 1996, which bans military assistance to a foreign security force unit if the U.S. State Department has credible evidence that the unit has committed gross human rights violations. The Leahy Law is one of the main U.S. laws designed to protect against the use of U.S. foreign aid to commit human rights abuses.

"If the Leahy Law was fully implemented, assistance would have to be suspended to nearly all fixed army brigades and many mobile brigades in Colombia," Lindsay-Poland said. The report points out that most military training in Colombia is funded by the U.S. Defence Department. Colombia, caught up in an armed conflict for nearly five decades, is one of the largest recipients of U.S. military aid in the world, along with Israel, Egypt and Pakistan.

The study reviewed data on more than 3,000 extrajudicial executions reportedly committed by the armed forces in Colombia since 2002 and lists of more than 500 military units assisted by the United States since 2000. "We found that for many military units, reports of extrajudicial executions increased during and after the highest levels of U.S. assistance," Lindsay-Poland said. The results were obtained by comparing the number of reports of such killings in the two years prior to the start of Plan Colombia -- the multibillion-dollar U.S. military aid package -- in 2000 with the number of killings after the launch of that counterinsurgency and anti-drug strategy.

It also found that reports of alleged killings of civilians by the army dropped when assistance was cut. "Whatever correlation may exist between assistance and reported killings, there are clearly other factors contributing to high levels of killings. Yet, while we could not fix the causes of increased reports of killings after increases in U.S. assistance, our findings highlight the need for a thorough investigation into the reasons for this apparent correlation," the authors say. "The U.S. government should respond to the questions raised by the report," Lindsay-Poland said. For example, "why U.S. officials neglect their duties under the Leahy Law, not only in Colombia but in countries like Pakistan, where the situation is very complex."

The U.S. military presence in Colombia dates back to the 1940s, when leftwing guerrillas became active in the country. But it escalated to a new level in 1999 when Plan Colombia was agreed by the governments of then presidents Andrés Pastrana (1998–2002) and Bill Clinton (1993–2001). Plan Colombia was complemented and extended in 2004 by Plan Patriot, signed by President Álvaro Uribe, whose term ends Aug. 7, and former president George W. Bush (2001–2009).

The two plans have undergone radical changes since 2009, according to Lindsay-Poland, when they reached beyond the initial aims of counterinsurgency and counternarcotics, with a view towards strengthening U.S. control in the region. U.S. army Southern Command documents state the importance of establishing a base "with air mobility reach on the South American continent and a capacity for counter-narcotics operations until the year 2025," he said.

Uribe offered the U.S. military the use of seven bases at strategic points in Colombia, including both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the province of Caquetá in the Amazon jungle, and the provinces of Meta, Tolima and Cundinamarca in the centre of the country. Lindsay-Poland and other members of FOR tried to visit the Palanquero base in Cundinamarca, one of the seven, on Wednesday. But "they did not let us in," he said. "They demanded authorisation from the U.S. Embassy. So what kind of autonomy are we talking about here?"

Furthermore, the agreement for U.S. military access to the bases has not been approved by the Colombian Congress, as required by law. As a result, the Constitutional Court ruled the agreement unconstitutional on Jul. 22 and gave Congress one year to approve or reject it. If the legislature ratifies the deal, the Constitutional Court will once again study it, to determine whether or not it is in line with the constitution.

The report presented by FOR and USOC coincided with the start of an investigation of reports of unmarked graves in the La Macarena cemetery, which is next to an army base, according to a Jul. 22 public hearing in that town in the central province of Meta, which was attended by opposition lawmakers and international observers, including European legislators.

At the hearing, witnesses said military helicopters flew in the remains of bodies to La Macarena, 340 km south of Bogotá. Human rights groups say the bodies were those of civilians killed by the army. "This is happening at the end of a government marked by grave human rights violations, which have largely affected the most vulnerable groups in society, and which are reflected in the thousands of 'false positives', as the extrajudicial executions have been popularly known," Alberto Yepes, director of the Observatorio de Derechos Humanos (DIH - Human Rights Observatory), told IPS.

The scandal over the so-called "false positives" -- young civilians killed by the army and passed off as guerrilla casualties in the military's counterinsurgency campaign --broke in the press in September 2008. Although there are no hard statistics on the number of people killed, the report by FOR and USOC puts the number at over 3,000 in the last decade.

A group that calls itself the Madres (mothers) of Soacha, a vast working-class suburb stretching south of Bogotá, has filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights over the loss of their 16 sons in 2007 and 2008. The young men were recruited with the promise of jobs, but their bodies were found in morgues or mass graves hundreds of kilometres away.

Yepes said the complaint filed by the Madres de Soacha "is a way to pressure the state to modify this kind of behaviour."

While activists and groups mobilise to pressure the armed forces to live up to the constitution, "the United States should assume its responsibility through better oversight, holding (authorities in Colombia) accountable and adopting corrective measures, so the money of U.S. taxpayers does not end up financing killings in Colombia," he said.

US and Colombia plan to attack Venezuela

Source: Postcards from the Revolution.
by Eva Golinger, 24 July 2010


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez denounced this Saturday US plans to attack his country and overthrow his government. During a ceremony celebrating the 227th birthday of Independence hero Simon Bolivar, Chavez read from a secret memo he had been sent from an unnamed source inside the United States.

“Old friend, I haven’t seen you in years. As I said to you in my three prior letters, the idea remains the generation of a conflict on your western border”, read Chavez from the secret missive.

“The latest events confirm all, or almost all, of what those here discussed as well as other information that I have obtained from above”, the letter continued.

“The preparation phase in the international community, with the help of Colombia, is in plain execution”, manifested the text, referring to last Thursday’s session in the Organization of American States (OAS), during which the Colombia government accused Venezuela of harboring “terrorists” and “terrorist training camps” and gave the Chavez government a “30-day ultimatum” to allow for international intervention.

The letter continued with more details, “I told you before that the events wouldn’t begin before the 26th, but for some reason they have moved forward several actions that were supposed to be executed afterward”.

“In the United States, the execution phase is accelerating, together with a contention force, as they call it, towards Costa Rica with the pretext of fighting drug trafficking”.

On July 1, the Costan Rican government authorized 46 US war ships and 7,000 marines into their maritime and land territory. The true objective of this military mobilization, said the letter, is to “support military operations” against Venezuela

Read more...

British Petroleum (BP) attacks oil workers in Casanare, Colombia

Source: Colombia Solidarity Campaign, 6 June 2010


Since BP began oil exploration and production in Casanare, Colombia in the early 1990s, six thousand people have been assassinated and three thousand people disappeared. Every time there have been complaints or protests in opposition to BP's interests, the community leaders concerned have been killed. This indicates an elimination strategy of violent social control. The agents have been the military and paramilitary groups, but BP as a corporation has itself been complicit in the human rights violations.

Despite its public statements accepting the right of trade union organisation, in practice BP has refused to enter a collective agreement with the National Oil Workers Union (USO) or recognising any of the principal elements of trade union recognition. USO organisers that have tried, have been driven out of the region or into exile.

There has been an upsurge in workers and community protests against BP in Casanare since the beginning of 2010. Workers at the Tauramena Central Processing Facility (CPF) starting 22 January went on strike supported by USO, the National Oil Workers Union of Colombia. On 15 February riot police brutally attacked the picket line, sending three workers to hospital. Demonstrations and popular assemblies in support of the stoppage took place in Tauramena and surrounding villages from February onwards. The USO union and many different community sectors came together to form the Movement for the Dignity of Casanare. The strike ended after 30 days when BP promised talks.

BP agreed to enter negotiations and there have since been five commissions dealing with labour issues, the environment, local supply of goods and services, social investment and human rights. The community has deep and long standing grievances. Environmental damage, for example, is extensive stemming from BP’s production practices such as diverting water sources underground to pressure up the oil; contamination from gas flaring and ground failures from seismic testing.

The workers and community report that BP has not taken the negotiations seriously. At first the corporation attempted to decide who the community and labour representatives would be, but this was thwarted by a letter signed by three thousand residents naming their representatives. Next BP threatened legal action because of complaints against it in a Petition of Demands presented to it by the union and the community. Then BP swamped the community with leaflets claiming what a great corporation it is. Finally, and despite other provocations, initial ‘pre-agreements’ were negotiated in the commissions concerning the environment, local supplies, social investment and human rights; but BP has continued to block substantive progress towards accepting the right of a collective agreement covering its workers, and those employed by its subsidiaries and contractors, at the CPF plant.

The workers and community wanted talks to resume on 12 May, but BP has delayed this until 23 June. Meanwhile threats against community and union leaders began to grow, which is grave indeed given the history of elimination of community leaders in the recent past. On 21 May workers involved in construction operations in the Tauramena installation entered into occupation demanding: a wage increase; the establishment a wage scale; due process in disciplinary decisions; and labour guarantees for the workers.

On 2 June army forces entered the plant and at time of writing are harassing the workers, who stay overnight chaining themselves to plant equipment so that they cannot be dislodged.

Send complaints to BP Group Chief Executive Tony Hayward at
email: tony.hayward@bp.com
Send messages of solidarity to the workers and community
via email: movimientoporcasanare@yahoo.es

See also Public Hearing On BP’s Activities In Colombia.