INTERPOL Clarifies it Never Determined Authenticity of Laptops that Implicate Venezuela
June 12th 2008, by James Suggett - Venezuelanalysis.com
Mérida, June 12, 2008 (venezuelanalysis.com)-- Representatives of the International Police Organization (Interpol) told Ecuadorian Presidential Adviser Fernando Bustamante in a meeting last week that its investigation of laptop computers which Colombia claims belonged to the FARC "does not determine if the computers provided were found in the guerrilla camp of the FARC during the incursion on March 1st, if they effectively belonged to Raúl Reyes, and even less so their contents," according to a recent missive released by the Ecuadorian Foreign Relations Ministry.
Bustamante, the chief advisor to Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, met with INTERPOL representatives last Tuesday during a United Nations conference in New York. At the meeting, INTERPOL "confirmed that their forensic informational analysis does not imply the validity or the exactitude of the user files that [the computers] contain," the Ecuadorian government disclosed.
Today, Venezuela's Vice-President, Ramón Carrizalez, echoed Bustamante's evaluation when he said about the computer files, "This is an information that no serious person can validate. Anyone who knows how to read and write and who has some common sense will notice that these are proofs that cannot be used anywhere in the world."
The Colombian government claims the files prove that Venezuela financed the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, and that Ecuador provided refuge for the insurgents. Colombia also claims to have found the computers in the wreckage of a FARC camp inside Ecuador that the Colombian armed forces bombarded last March 1st, killing FARC second-in-command Raúl Reyes, to whom Colombia says the computers belonged.
INTERPOL clarified to Bustamante that the report was an act of "independent technical assistance" and that it only confirmed that after March 3rd, Colombia complied with international standards for the treatment of evidence. Proper handling of the evidence could not be determined for the period between the attack and March 3rd.
"Between March 1st and 3rd... there are no indications that user files have been created, modified, or eliminated, but neither is there evidence that demonstrates that this has not been done," INTERPOL told Bustamante.
Based on this clarification, the Ecuadorian government reiterated Tuesday its "position of not granting any legal validity to the information found in the computers supposedly belonging to Raúl Reyes." Ecuadorian Foreign Relations Minister María Isabel Salvador previously set this policy in mid-May when the INTERPOL report was first released.
The Ecuadorian government also reiterated its concern over Colombia's manipulation of the results of INTERPOL's report to make it look like the report proved the accusations against Venezuela and Ecuador, a falsity that has been perpetuated by the mainstream international media.
Bustamante suggested that Ecuador should have been allowed to participate in the investigation, to which the INTERPOL delegates replied that Ronald Noble, the General Secretary of INTERPOL, would be willing to visit Ecuador to discuss the details of the report.
Meanwhile, President Correa echoed Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's recent call for the liberation of all FARC hostages yesterday after meeting with the father of a Colombian soldier who has been held prisoner by the FARC for 10 years.
Correa also asserted that Ecuador "is not going to ask anybody's permission [to continue with] the humanitarian action that is incomplete," referring to the process of humanitarian hostage releases underway before Colombia's March 1st attack, which ended the humanitarian exchange.
FARC: Uribe is Planning to Assassinate Chavez
FARC leader Iván Márquez, who had met with Chávez to discuss hostage release last year, alleged in a communiqué last weekend that President Uribe "attempted and continues trying to kill" Chávez and Correa with the help of the United States.
The Colombian Department of Security Administration (DAS) has already infiltrated Caracas with 100 paramilitary forces to assassinate Chávez, and a similar plan exists for Correa, Márquez alleged.
In the statement, Márquez also railed that the laptops examined by INTERPOL are fake and used by Uribe to threaten neighbors and to cover up the political scandal in Colombia in which Uribe allies have recently been convicted of contracting paramilitaries to perform politically motivated assassinations.
Ecuador and Colombia expressed their willingness to renew diplomatic relations last Friday with arbitration by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's Carter Center, which commented that both presidents were open to "the possibility of immediately re-establishing diplomatic relations between both governments without preconditions."
Source URL: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/
Printed: June 12th 2008
License: Published under a Creative Commons license (by-nc-nd). See creativecommons.org for more information.
Showing posts with label FARC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FARC. Show all posts
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Mientras los centroamericanos firmaban pactos para conseguir fueros en el Parlamento, Marulanda seguía la lucha
x James Petras - La Haine
Efraín Chury Iribarne entrevista a James Petras :: La reunión de la UNASUR no la puedo tomar en serio. Un presidente como Evo, que no puede pulverizar a un puñado de fascistas humillando a campesinos indígenas ¿está preparando la unidad de América Latina? Eso es una broma de mal gusto
Comentarios para Radio Centenario del sociólogo norteamericano, Prof. James Petras. Lunes 26 de mayo de 2008.
Efraín Chury Iribarne: ¿Cómo estas Petras? Te doy los buenos días.
Petras: Muy bien. Preparándome para marchas contra la guerra hoy con una organización que se llama Veteranos Contra la Guerra y que son un grupo de personas, todas han servido en el ejército, en Corea y en Indochina y ahora marchan contra la guerra. Ahora vamos a integrarnos en la marcha tradicional de los grupos militares del pasado pero con otras banderas, con otros eslóganes.
El otro asunto, tengo mucha tristeza por la muerte del gran revolucionario Manuel Marulanda.
Chury: Justamente hoy queríamos dedicarle parte de este espacio a que nos hicieras una semblanza y una reflexión con respecto a esta muerte.
Petras: En primera instancia tengo que decir con todo el conocimiento que tengo de los 40 años estudiando y conversando con diferentes expertos, con representantes de las FARC, con otros académicos, que Marulanda debe ser el más grande dirigente revolucionario - campesino en toda la historia de América Latina.
Para justificar eso tenemos que considerar lo que ha hecho Marulanda. Primero es autodidacta. De familia campesina, es una persona que empieza con 14 campesinos desplazados por el ejército y construye un ejército guerrillero de 20.000 efectivos con cientos de miles de milicianos, apoyantes y simpatizantes. Y sosteniendo una lucha de 44 años, más que todas las guerrillas del pasado, y sin perder las perspectivas de una transformación social.
Ningún revolucionario en América Latina tenía una relación tan íntima, tan estrecha, con los campesinos como Marulanda. Ni Fidel Castro, ni los Ortega, ni los guerrilleros de los '70, '80, han tenido este vínculo íntimo. Eso tiene que ver con el hecho que Marulanda tenía un estilo de vida, un lenguaje, un programa, una intransigencia en defensa del campo, que nunca hemos visto en la historia de América Latina.
Mientras los tupamaros fracasaban y eran derrotados, mientras los centroamericanos firmaban pactos para conseguir fueros en el Parlamento, Marulanda seguía la lucha. Rechazó las ofertas de fueros parlamentarios para sacrificarse por los campesinos.
Para él la cosa pasaba por otro lado. Primero, un acuerdo sobre cambios estructurales, reforma agraria, un purga de los militares masacradores, un programa nacional, de nacionalización, etc.; y recién después la construcción de un proceso político electoral. Pero dentro de la democratización del Estado, dentro de una transformación social.
Eso, ni Schafik Handal, ni los otros políticos en Salvador o Guatemala eran capaces de mantener. Hay que recordar que en esos 44 años, los Estados Unidos financiaron programas de terrorismo de 6.000 millones de dólares, lanzaron siete veces grandes ofensivas y 20 veces declararon que mataron a Marulanda. Y en todas las ofensivas dirigidas por el imperialismo fracasaron. Nunca hubo ni un caso de derrota, ni tomaran territorio en una forma permanente contra los guerrilleros. Es cierto que en algunos momentos hubo repliegues, hubo derrotas, pero no fueron derrotas estratégicas, sino tácticas.
Eso se debió en parte a la gran astucia, brillante, de Marulanda de saber cuándo avanzar y cuándo replegar. Cuándo lanzar acciones de gran tamaño y cuándo quedar en una lucha de pequeños núcleos descentralizados.
Fue el más grande estratega en toda la historia de América Latina en relación con un ejército bien disciplinado de 250.000 soldados, que no es un ejército decadente y corrupto como el de Batista, como el de Somoza. Ese es un ejército con más de 2.000 asesores norteamericanos, con las últimas tecnologías, y no pudieron capturar ni mucho menos derrotar al ejército de Marulanda.
Por eso digo que es el dirigente revolucionario más grande, más exitoso, de toda la historia de América Latina, eso incluye a Sandino, a Farabundo Martí y a los demás, que en un momento surgieron y actuaron como figuras históricas.
Quiero decir algo más: Para Marulanda lo importante era conversar, organizar, educar y aprender de los campesinos. Rechazó muchísimas entrevistas con grandes prestigiosos periodistas, prefirió el uno a uno en las aldeas del campo; por eso era exitoso en el interior de Colombia y casi desconocido en el exterior.
Tampoco era un "poster-boy", esos que se ponen en afiches, en las paredes, etc Era un hombre del campo, no era fotogénico o tal vez era fotogénico en una forma diferente, Humphry Bogart y no un Clark Gable, era un hombre que reflejaba su base social tanto física como social y políticamente.
Otra cosa que debemos decir es que mientras los grupos guerrilleros de América Latina buscaban conectarse con el campo casi todos fracasaron, pues venían de la ciudad, con grandes llamadas a los campesinos que en muchos casos los ignoraba.
En el caso de Marulanda es totalmente diferente, pues crece en el campo, vive en el campo, cultiva en el campo, dormía en hamaca y compartía pan y frijoles con los campesinos en su propio terreno. Nunca bajó a las ciudades dando conferencias de prensa, sacándose fotos con gritos ni manifiestos en el exterior, ni era una causa célebre en Londres, Nueva York o París, con esos intelectuales de salón, que siempre están presentes cuando creen que pueden sacar alguna publicidad.
No, Marulanda era una hombre de la Colombia profunda. Una Colombia que reconocía a Marulanda como uno de ellos. Al hablar de Colombia profunda, hablo de las grandes masas campesinas.
Es obvio que han sufrido algunos golpes últimamente pero es comprensible en las circunstancias del repliegue. Han bajado de 20.000 militantes a 12 mil o 15 mil ahora.
Para entender algunas de las circunstancias complicadas en este momento, debemos ver que Álvaro Uribe y los Estados Unidos, han desplazado 3 millones de campesinos que en su gran mayoría eran simpatizantes y vivían en territorios donde las FARC eran hegemónicas.
Entonces, primero hay 3 millones fuera, después tenemos la masacre de miles de aldeas, de pueblos y de comunidades. Segundo, tenemos también la falta de una fuente de logística de apoyo a las FARC. Tercero, tenemos el hecho de que los EEUU han instalado las últimas tecnologías de detección y han entregado docenas de helicópteros armados.
También tenemos el hecho de que no hay países fronterizos simpatizantes, como Vietnam tenía a China, a Rusia para alimentarlo con las últimas armas, cohetes, etc. Las FARC no tenían ningún apoyo externo y eso lo conozco a partir de conversaciones de alto nivel que he mantenido con los asesores de gobiernos en Venezuela, Ecuador, Brasil y Perú.
Las armas que tenían las FARC eran armas que ellos mismos fabricaron o compraron con dinero efectivo. A diferencia del Frente de Liberación Nacional en Vietnam que tenía un enorme apoyo logístico y armamentista para seguir su lucha. En cambio, las FARC continuaban su lucha a pesar de la ausencia total del apoyo de Cuba y de los otros países.
Yo sé que en Cuba no apoyaban a las FARC porque un altísimo funcionario –puedo decir Ministro- me hablaba de fuertes críticas -falsas- contra las FARC. La diplomacia en Cuba tiene mucho más interés, incluso Fidel Castro, en establecer relaciones con los países de centro izquierda de América Latina e incluso relaciones diplomáticas, económicas con el gobierno de Uribe.
Esos son hechos concretos y públicos.
Entonces tenemos que ver lo que es sostener y construir un ejército de 20.000 hombres, con cientos de miles de simpatizantes políticos y sociales, milicianos y organización del Partido Comunista clandestino, el Movimiento Boliviariano, frentes civiles; es un gran éxito que en ningún otro país, ningún movimiento en América Latina ha hecho. Y en circunstancias mucho más difícil porque ningún burgués nacional financió o apoyó a las FARC, como era el caso en Cuba o en Nicaragua. Allá tenían una base de lucha democrática progresista, pero en Colombia siempre tenía las banderas socialistas y era el grupo revolucionario mejor preparado en adaptar el marxismo-leninismo a las condiciones colombianas muy originales.
El pensamiento de Marulanda y sus prácticas fueron más creativas, como Ho Chi Minh en Vietnam y Mao Tse Tung en China, adaptando las ideas generales del marxismo a las condiciones particulares de un país dominado por el agro y los narcotraficantes.
Eso es muy importante tomar en cuenta, porque muchos dicen que era un gran revolucionario, un hombre sencillo, etc. Pero el hecho es que Marulanda es uno de los grandes creadores de estrategias revolucionarias en condiciones latinoamericanas. No hay un estratega en la historia de América Latina que pudiera enfrentar todo el peso del imperialismo norteamericano, como lo hizo él.
A pesar de todo el poder tecnológico, financiero y del ejército mercenario de 250.000 soldados colombianos, más 5.000 mercenarios; Marulanda pudo evitar la derrota y seguir construyendo ese gran ejército. Además, entrenado cuadros, integrando guerrillas, donde el 33% de los Comandantes son mujeres, indígenas, afro-colombianos, etc. Era el grupo guerrillero más pluralista, más consecuente en defensa del programa . No ves a las FARC viajando a hoteles de primera, de 5 estrellas como por ejemplo Tomás Borge, un decadente que viajaba solo si le ofrecen hoteles de 5 estrellas; en contraste con los Ortega, las FARC son muy honestas, con gran integridad, grande en el sentido de que lo que decían lo vivían.
No tenían ningún privilegio, sufrían los mosquitos, los bichos, las culebras, la malaria, como cualquier campesino. Y eso también es una de las razones por las que son tan queridos en su país.
Chury: Petras, muere Marulanda hay un antes y un después ¿Cuál es el después de las FARC?
Petras: Hay que ver. No hay duda que no hay un líder con la historia y trayectoria y el vínculo tan profundo que ha tenido Marulanda. Eso por un lado y hay que reconocerlo: ninguno de los Comandantes tiene la misma trayectoria.
Alfonso Cano era estudiante, aprendió mucho de Marulanda, venía de la Universidad, no era campesino de orígenes, no maneja tan profundamente las relaciones con el campo como Marulanda, pero casi nadie podría hacerlo.
Pero está en el movimiento hace 25 años, él ha construido organizaciones clandestinas civiles, era uno de los líderes formulando la ideología y espero que dentro de las tradiciones y en relación con los otros Comandantes, sea capaz de continuar la lucha y extender las grandes lecciones de Marulanda.
Hay que entender que Marulanda nunca apoyó el culto de personalidad, fue un hombre simple, siempre funcionaba con una dirección colectiva, los frentes que funcionaban eran bastante autónomos, con gran flexibilidad local. Tenía una gran tradición de enseñar, de formar, de educar a los cuadros, no eran simplemente fuerzas militares, sino que tenían clases políticas, clases contra el analfabetismo, etc.
Entonces es muy probable que la lucha va a continuar a pesar de toda la propaganda y guerra sicológica tratando de mostrar una organización derrotada, desmoralizada, dividida, todas esas mentiras que se repiten hace más de 40 años.
Recuerdo en los años '70 cuando repetían lo mismo. Cuando los militares lanzaron el Plan Lazo, los diarios decían que no sólo habían destruido a las FARC sino que habían matado a Marulanda. Pero los campesinos, después de tantos anuncios del asesinato de Marulanda, descubrían que estaba vivo compartiendo comidas en las aldeas.
Entonces inventaban, imaginaban la leyenda de que Marulanda tenía la capacidad de convertirse en una lechuza, en un conejo, cuando estaba en un cerco y escapar el ejército.
Yo creo que esta leyenda, esta mitología del campo, no existe tanto con los líderes actuales. Pero tengo que decir que el peso de la leyenda de las prácticas de Marulanda deben quedar fuertes en la organización. Creo que en eso no hay ninguna chance de que vanyan a derrotarlos.
Es posible que pierdan terreno pero eso es parte de la estrategia de Marulanda, es sacrificar territorio para conservar los cuadros. Si no hay una gran ofensiva es porque la correlación de fuerzas en una coyuntura es desfavorable, pero siempre hay un reagrupamiento en condiciones tácticas que es lo que estamos viendo y no la guerra final de las FARC.
Yo lo sé porque hace pocos años entrevisté a varios militares norteamericanos que me decían que nunca se puede ganar esta guerra porque nadie puede controlar, destruir, o desarticular a las FARC. Lo mejor que podríamos hacer, decía el Coronel, es tratar de aislarlos de los grandes centros urbanos y desplazarlos hacia regiones menos importantes económicamente.
Chury: ¿Has seguido de cerca la reunión de la UNASUR?
Petras: Sí. Hemos mirado eso pero no lo puedo tomar en serio, porque están hablando de organizar los Estados Unidos de América del Sur mientras en Argentina el país esta totalmente polarizado entre el campo y la ciudad, entre la burguesía industrial del capital y los grandes agro exportadores y las fuerzas del interior.
¿Cómo se va unificar América Latina cuando Argentina esta tan polarizada y dividida?
Mientras el Sr. Morales está tomando un brindis con los Presidentes, sus propios seguidores, son golpeados y humillados en Sucre por la ultra derecha, que domina las calles y asalta con impunidad las bases de Morales y no le permiten inaugurar una feria.
Morales, frente al terrorismo de la derecha canceló una reunión, fíjate qué cobarde. Hizo lo que ningún Presidente en toda la historia de América Latina, cuando el fascismo está asaltando y poniendo literalmente a sus seguidores de rodillas en la vía pública, Evo Morales retira las tropas.
Es decir, un Presidente que no puede pulverizar a un puñado de fascistas humillando a campesinos indígenas ¿está preparando la unidad de América Latina? Eso es una broma de mal gusto.
Yo creo que lo mismo está pasando en Brasil, hay dos Brasil: El Brasil de los agro exportadores y el Brasil de los Sin Tierra, totalmente marginados de las enormes ganancias. Ahí, Colombia no quiere integrarse porque está entregada totalmente al imperio norteamericano. Estos casos que citamos son cosas muy graves.
Entonces, antes de hablar de unificar a América Latina deben surgir algunos gobiernos capaces de unificar los países, de integrar las grandes masas y la política de América Latina, borrar del mapa a los fascistas -como los de Bolivia, o la derecha que va a avanzando con 300.000 personas en la calle en Rosario, ayer- y crear la base para la unificación sólida, sobre una base de programa popular.
Chury: Llama la atención lo de Evo y pregunto: ¿por qué Evo tiene tanto apoyo de Chávez?
Petras: Porque es como Cuba y otros países, está tratando de evitar el aislamiento. Yo creo que más que un programa político es una causa diplomática.
Chávez necesita aliados en América Latina, para evitar la ofensiva y la agresión norteamericana, donde Estados Unidos tiene ya como aliados a la mayoría de los países de Centroamérica, tiene a Colombia en la frontera, tiene a Calderón en México y tiene a Alan García en Perú. Entonces, en esta pugna por evitar el cerco norteamericano, Chávez ha tomado posiciones más favorables de lo que merecen los gobiernos de Lula, de Evo Morales, etc.
Chury: Estamos en el final, te agradecemos muchísimo el esclarecimiento.
Petras: Bueno, antes de despedirme dime cómo ha repercutido en Uruguay la muerte de Marulanda. Sobre todo teniendo en cuenta que el hecho de que Marulanda murió en los brazos de su compañera y camarada, es otro hecho positivo al final de su vida, en el que niega otra vez la victoria de la derecha. Yo creo que eso es impresionante también. Después de 70 años de tratar de matarlo terminan derrotados otra vez, porque muere con su gente.
¿Qué piensa en Uruguay? entre la gente de izquierda, progresista, lo que sea en Uruguay?
Sandra Barón: Justamente cuando escuché que le preguntabas a Chury sobre las repercusiones aquí en Uruguay te quería comentar que aquí se reunió este fin de semana el Foro de San Pablo y el sábado cuando la muerte de Marulanda era simplemente un rumor, en el Foro de San Pablo -donde supuestamente se reúnen las organizaciones "de izquierda"- se criticaba la lucha armada. Es más, cualquiera pensaría que en otro momento hubiera explotado allí un homenaje, un recuerdo, o haber hablado de la historia de este líder indiscutible, de este guerrillero latinoamericano, el más antiguo del mundo; y sin embargo, eso no sucedió.
Sucedieron cosas como que Daniel Ortega que vino y entregó condecoraciones a Mujica [ex-lider tupamaro, ministro de agricultura], al hijo de Raúl Sendic [que traicionó los ideales de su padre], a todos los que tu conoces y están en el gobierno en este momento.
Y fue un poco esto, incluso César Gaviria, el colombiano, líder del Polo Democrático, criticó también la guerrilla, la lucha armada en Colombia. Así estuvieron las cosas aquí en Uruguay, esto explica un poco -no sé si tu alguna vez participaste de alguno de estos Foros en sus inicios- pero es en lo que se ha transformado hoy el Foro de San Pablo.
Petras: Por eso el Foro de San Pablo ha dejado de recibir atención de los pueblos. Frente al ejemplo consecuente de Marulanda ¿qué podemos decir de los oportunistas? Con sus lujosos departamentos, sentados en parlamentos imponentes, que cuando Bush habla contra los guerrilleros ellos se están haciendo caca en los pantalones por miedo a contradecirlo. Por eso huelen mal los parlamentarios de centro izquierda.
Extractado por La Haine
Efraín Chury Iribarne entrevista a James Petras :: La reunión de la UNASUR no la puedo tomar en serio. Un presidente como Evo, que no puede pulverizar a un puñado de fascistas humillando a campesinos indígenas ¿está preparando la unidad de América Latina? Eso es una broma de mal gusto
Comentarios para Radio Centenario del sociólogo norteamericano, Prof. James Petras. Lunes 26 de mayo de 2008.
Efraín Chury Iribarne: ¿Cómo estas Petras? Te doy los buenos días.
Petras: Muy bien. Preparándome para marchas contra la guerra hoy con una organización que se llama Veteranos Contra la Guerra y que son un grupo de personas, todas han servido en el ejército, en Corea y en Indochina y ahora marchan contra la guerra. Ahora vamos a integrarnos en la marcha tradicional de los grupos militares del pasado pero con otras banderas, con otros eslóganes.
El otro asunto, tengo mucha tristeza por la muerte del gran revolucionario Manuel Marulanda.
Chury: Justamente hoy queríamos dedicarle parte de este espacio a que nos hicieras una semblanza y una reflexión con respecto a esta muerte.
Petras: En primera instancia tengo que decir con todo el conocimiento que tengo de los 40 años estudiando y conversando con diferentes expertos, con representantes de las FARC, con otros académicos, que Marulanda debe ser el más grande dirigente revolucionario - campesino en toda la historia de América Latina.
Para justificar eso tenemos que considerar lo que ha hecho Marulanda. Primero es autodidacta. De familia campesina, es una persona que empieza con 14 campesinos desplazados por el ejército y construye un ejército guerrillero de 20.000 efectivos con cientos de miles de milicianos, apoyantes y simpatizantes. Y sosteniendo una lucha de 44 años, más que todas las guerrillas del pasado, y sin perder las perspectivas de una transformación social.
Ningún revolucionario en América Latina tenía una relación tan íntima, tan estrecha, con los campesinos como Marulanda. Ni Fidel Castro, ni los Ortega, ni los guerrilleros de los '70, '80, han tenido este vínculo íntimo. Eso tiene que ver con el hecho que Marulanda tenía un estilo de vida, un lenguaje, un programa, una intransigencia en defensa del campo, que nunca hemos visto en la historia de América Latina.
Mientras los tupamaros fracasaban y eran derrotados, mientras los centroamericanos firmaban pactos para conseguir fueros en el Parlamento, Marulanda seguía la lucha. Rechazó las ofertas de fueros parlamentarios para sacrificarse por los campesinos.
Para él la cosa pasaba por otro lado. Primero, un acuerdo sobre cambios estructurales, reforma agraria, un purga de los militares masacradores, un programa nacional, de nacionalización, etc.; y recién después la construcción de un proceso político electoral. Pero dentro de la democratización del Estado, dentro de una transformación social.
Eso, ni Schafik Handal, ni los otros políticos en Salvador o Guatemala eran capaces de mantener. Hay que recordar que en esos 44 años, los Estados Unidos financiaron programas de terrorismo de 6.000 millones de dólares, lanzaron siete veces grandes ofensivas y 20 veces declararon que mataron a Marulanda. Y en todas las ofensivas dirigidas por el imperialismo fracasaron. Nunca hubo ni un caso de derrota, ni tomaran territorio en una forma permanente contra los guerrilleros. Es cierto que en algunos momentos hubo repliegues, hubo derrotas, pero no fueron derrotas estratégicas, sino tácticas.
Eso se debió en parte a la gran astucia, brillante, de Marulanda de saber cuándo avanzar y cuándo replegar. Cuándo lanzar acciones de gran tamaño y cuándo quedar en una lucha de pequeños núcleos descentralizados.
Fue el más grande estratega en toda la historia de América Latina en relación con un ejército bien disciplinado de 250.000 soldados, que no es un ejército decadente y corrupto como el de Batista, como el de Somoza. Ese es un ejército con más de 2.000 asesores norteamericanos, con las últimas tecnologías, y no pudieron capturar ni mucho menos derrotar al ejército de Marulanda.
Por eso digo que es el dirigente revolucionario más grande, más exitoso, de toda la historia de América Latina, eso incluye a Sandino, a Farabundo Martí y a los demás, que en un momento surgieron y actuaron como figuras históricas.
Quiero decir algo más: Para Marulanda lo importante era conversar, organizar, educar y aprender de los campesinos. Rechazó muchísimas entrevistas con grandes prestigiosos periodistas, prefirió el uno a uno en las aldeas del campo; por eso era exitoso en el interior de Colombia y casi desconocido en el exterior.
Tampoco era un "poster-boy", esos que se ponen en afiches, en las paredes, etc Era un hombre del campo, no era fotogénico o tal vez era fotogénico en una forma diferente, Humphry Bogart y no un Clark Gable, era un hombre que reflejaba su base social tanto física como social y políticamente.
Otra cosa que debemos decir es que mientras los grupos guerrilleros de América Latina buscaban conectarse con el campo casi todos fracasaron, pues venían de la ciudad, con grandes llamadas a los campesinos que en muchos casos los ignoraba.
En el caso de Marulanda es totalmente diferente, pues crece en el campo, vive en el campo, cultiva en el campo, dormía en hamaca y compartía pan y frijoles con los campesinos en su propio terreno. Nunca bajó a las ciudades dando conferencias de prensa, sacándose fotos con gritos ni manifiestos en el exterior, ni era una causa célebre en Londres, Nueva York o París, con esos intelectuales de salón, que siempre están presentes cuando creen que pueden sacar alguna publicidad.
No, Marulanda era una hombre de la Colombia profunda. Una Colombia que reconocía a Marulanda como uno de ellos. Al hablar de Colombia profunda, hablo de las grandes masas campesinas.
Es obvio que han sufrido algunos golpes últimamente pero es comprensible en las circunstancias del repliegue. Han bajado de 20.000 militantes a 12 mil o 15 mil ahora.
Para entender algunas de las circunstancias complicadas en este momento, debemos ver que Álvaro Uribe y los Estados Unidos, han desplazado 3 millones de campesinos que en su gran mayoría eran simpatizantes y vivían en territorios donde las FARC eran hegemónicas.
Entonces, primero hay 3 millones fuera, después tenemos la masacre de miles de aldeas, de pueblos y de comunidades. Segundo, tenemos también la falta de una fuente de logística de apoyo a las FARC. Tercero, tenemos el hecho de que los EEUU han instalado las últimas tecnologías de detección y han entregado docenas de helicópteros armados.
También tenemos el hecho de que no hay países fronterizos simpatizantes, como Vietnam tenía a China, a Rusia para alimentarlo con las últimas armas, cohetes, etc. Las FARC no tenían ningún apoyo externo y eso lo conozco a partir de conversaciones de alto nivel que he mantenido con los asesores de gobiernos en Venezuela, Ecuador, Brasil y Perú.
Las armas que tenían las FARC eran armas que ellos mismos fabricaron o compraron con dinero efectivo. A diferencia del Frente de Liberación Nacional en Vietnam que tenía un enorme apoyo logístico y armamentista para seguir su lucha. En cambio, las FARC continuaban su lucha a pesar de la ausencia total del apoyo de Cuba y de los otros países.
Yo sé que en Cuba no apoyaban a las FARC porque un altísimo funcionario –puedo decir Ministro- me hablaba de fuertes críticas -falsas- contra las FARC. La diplomacia en Cuba tiene mucho más interés, incluso Fidel Castro, en establecer relaciones con los países de centro izquierda de América Latina e incluso relaciones diplomáticas, económicas con el gobierno de Uribe.
Esos son hechos concretos y públicos.
Entonces tenemos que ver lo que es sostener y construir un ejército de 20.000 hombres, con cientos de miles de simpatizantes políticos y sociales, milicianos y organización del Partido Comunista clandestino, el Movimiento Boliviariano, frentes civiles; es un gran éxito que en ningún otro país, ningún movimiento en América Latina ha hecho. Y en circunstancias mucho más difícil porque ningún burgués nacional financió o apoyó a las FARC, como era el caso en Cuba o en Nicaragua. Allá tenían una base de lucha democrática progresista, pero en Colombia siempre tenía las banderas socialistas y era el grupo revolucionario mejor preparado en adaptar el marxismo-leninismo a las condiciones colombianas muy originales.
El pensamiento de Marulanda y sus prácticas fueron más creativas, como Ho Chi Minh en Vietnam y Mao Tse Tung en China, adaptando las ideas generales del marxismo a las condiciones particulares de un país dominado por el agro y los narcotraficantes.
Eso es muy importante tomar en cuenta, porque muchos dicen que era un gran revolucionario, un hombre sencillo, etc. Pero el hecho es que Marulanda es uno de los grandes creadores de estrategias revolucionarias en condiciones latinoamericanas. No hay un estratega en la historia de América Latina que pudiera enfrentar todo el peso del imperialismo norteamericano, como lo hizo él.
A pesar de todo el poder tecnológico, financiero y del ejército mercenario de 250.000 soldados colombianos, más 5.000 mercenarios; Marulanda pudo evitar la derrota y seguir construyendo ese gran ejército. Además, entrenado cuadros, integrando guerrillas, donde el 33% de los Comandantes son mujeres, indígenas, afro-colombianos, etc. Era el grupo guerrillero más pluralista, más consecuente en defensa del programa . No ves a las FARC viajando a hoteles de primera, de 5 estrellas como por ejemplo Tomás Borge, un decadente que viajaba solo si le ofrecen hoteles de 5 estrellas; en contraste con los Ortega, las FARC son muy honestas, con gran integridad, grande en el sentido de que lo que decían lo vivían.
No tenían ningún privilegio, sufrían los mosquitos, los bichos, las culebras, la malaria, como cualquier campesino. Y eso también es una de las razones por las que son tan queridos en su país.
Chury: Petras, muere Marulanda hay un antes y un después ¿Cuál es el después de las FARC?
Petras: Hay que ver. No hay duda que no hay un líder con la historia y trayectoria y el vínculo tan profundo que ha tenido Marulanda. Eso por un lado y hay que reconocerlo: ninguno de los Comandantes tiene la misma trayectoria.
Alfonso Cano era estudiante, aprendió mucho de Marulanda, venía de la Universidad, no era campesino de orígenes, no maneja tan profundamente las relaciones con el campo como Marulanda, pero casi nadie podría hacerlo.
Pero está en el movimiento hace 25 años, él ha construido organizaciones clandestinas civiles, era uno de los líderes formulando la ideología y espero que dentro de las tradiciones y en relación con los otros Comandantes, sea capaz de continuar la lucha y extender las grandes lecciones de Marulanda.
Hay que entender que Marulanda nunca apoyó el culto de personalidad, fue un hombre simple, siempre funcionaba con una dirección colectiva, los frentes que funcionaban eran bastante autónomos, con gran flexibilidad local. Tenía una gran tradición de enseñar, de formar, de educar a los cuadros, no eran simplemente fuerzas militares, sino que tenían clases políticas, clases contra el analfabetismo, etc.
Entonces es muy probable que la lucha va a continuar a pesar de toda la propaganda y guerra sicológica tratando de mostrar una organización derrotada, desmoralizada, dividida, todas esas mentiras que se repiten hace más de 40 años.
Recuerdo en los años '70 cuando repetían lo mismo. Cuando los militares lanzaron el Plan Lazo, los diarios decían que no sólo habían destruido a las FARC sino que habían matado a Marulanda. Pero los campesinos, después de tantos anuncios del asesinato de Marulanda, descubrían que estaba vivo compartiendo comidas en las aldeas.
Entonces inventaban, imaginaban la leyenda de que Marulanda tenía la capacidad de convertirse en una lechuza, en un conejo, cuando estaba en un cerco y escapar el ejército.
Yo creo que esta leyenda, esta mitología del campo, no existe tanto con los líderes actuales. Pero tengo que decir que el peso de la leyenda de las prácticas de Marulanda deben quedar fuertes en la organización. Creo que en eso no hay ninguna chance de que vanyan a derrotarlos.
Es posible que pierdan terreno pero eso es parte de la estrategia de Marulanda, es sacrificar territorio para conservar los cuadros. Si no hay una gran ofensiva es porque la correlación de fuerzas en una coyuntura es desfavorable, pero siempre hay un reagrupamiento en condiciones tácticas que es lo que estamos viendo y no la guerra final de las FARC.
Yo lo sé porque hace pocos años entrevisté a varios militares norteamericanos que me decían que nunca se puede ganar esta guerra porque nadie puede controlar, destruir, o desarticular a las FARC. Lo mejor que podríamos hacer, decía el Coronel, es tratar de aislarlos de los grandes centros urbanos y desplazarlos hacia regiones menos importantes económicamente.
Chury: ¿Has seguido de cerca la reunión de la UNASUR?
Petras: Sí. Hemos mirado eso pero no lo puedo tomar en serio, porque están hablando de organizar los Estados Unidos de América del Sur mientras en Argentina el país esta totalmente polarizado entre el campo y la ciudad, entre la burguesía industrial del capital y los grandes agro exportadores y las fuerzas del interior.
¿Cómo se va unificar América Latina cuando Argentina esta tan polarizada y dividida?
Mientras el Sr. Morales está tomando un brindis con los Presidentes, sus propios seguidores, son golpeados y humillados en Sucre por la ultra derecha, que domina las calles y asalta con impunidad las bases de Morales y no le permiten inaugurar una feria.
Morales, frente al terrorismo de la derecha canceló una reunión, fíjate qué cobarde. Hizo lo que ningún Presidente en toda la historia de América Latina, cuando el fascismo está asaltando y poniendo literalmente a sus seguidores de rodillas en la vía pública, Evo Morales retira las tropas.
Es decir, un Presidente que no puede pulverizar a un puñado de fascistas humillando a campesinos indígenas ¿está preparando la unidad de América Latina? Eso es una broma de mal gusto.
Yo creo que lo mismo está pasando en Brasil, hay dos Brasil: El Brasil de los agro exportadores y el Brasil de los Sin Tierra, totalmente marginados de las enormes ganancias. Ahí, Colombia no quiere integrarse porque está entregada totalmente al imperio norteamericano. Estos casos que citamos son cosas muy graves.
Entonces, antes de hablar de unificar a América Latina deben surgir algunos gobiernos capaces de unificar los países, de integrar las grandes masas y la política de América Latina, borrar del mapa a los fascistas -como los de Bolivia, o la derecha que va a avanzando con 300.000 personas en la calle en Rosario, ayer- y crear la base para la unificación sólida, sobre una base de programa popular.
Chury: Llama la atención lo de Evo y pregunto: ¿por qué Evo tiene tanto apoyo de Chávez?
Petras: Porque es como Cuba y otros países, está tratando de evitar el aislamiento. Yo creo que más que un programa político es una causa diplomática.
Chávez necesita aliados en América Latina, para evitar la ofensiva y la agresión norteamericana, donde Estados Unidos tiene ya como aliados a la mayoría de los países de Centroamérica, tiene a Colombia en la frontera, tiene a Calderón en México y tiene a Alan García en Perú. Entonces, en esta pugna por evitar el cerco norteamericano, Chávez ha tomado posiciones más favorables de lo que merecen los gobiernos de Lula, de Evo Morales, etc.
Chury: Estamos en el final, te agradecemos muchísimo el esclarecimiento.
Petras: Bueno, antes de despedirme dime cómo ha repercutido en Uruguay la muerte de Marulanda. Sobre todo teniendo en cuenta que el hecho de que Marulanda murió en los brazos de su compañera y camarada, es otro hecho positivo al final de su vida, en el que niega otra vez la victoria de la derecha. Yo creo que eso es impresionante también. Después de 70 años de tratar de matarlo terminan derrotados otra vez, porque muere con su gente.
¿Qué piensa en Uruguay? entre la gente de izquierda, progresista, lo que sea en Uruguay?
Sandra Barón: Justamente cuando escuché que le preguntabas a Chury sobre las repercusiones aquí en Uruguay te quería comentar que aquí se reunió este fin de semana el Foro de San Pablo y el sábado cuando la muerte de Marulanda era simplemente un rumor, en el Foro de San Pablo -donde supuestamente se reúnen las organizaciones "de izquierda"- se criticaba la lucha armada. Es más, cualquiera pensaría que en otro momento hubiera explotado allí un homenaje, un recuerdo, o haber hablado de la historia de este líder indiscutible, de este guerrillero latinoamericano, el más antiguo del mundo; y sin embargo, eso no sucedió.
Sucedieron cosas como que Daniel Ortega que vino y entregó condecoraciones a Mujica [ex-lider tupamaro, ministro de agricultura], al hijo de Raúl Sendic [que traicionó los ideales de su padre], a todos los que tu conoces y están en el gobierno en este momento.
Y fue un poco esto, incluso César Gaviria, el colombiano, líder del Polo Democrático, criticó también la guerrilla, la lucha armada en Colombia. Así estuvieron las cosas aquí en Uruguay, esto explica un poco -no sé si tu alguna vez participaste de alguno de estos Foros en sus inicios- pero es en lo que se ha transformado hoy el Foro de San Pablo.
Petras: Por eso el Foro de San Pablo ha dejado de recibir atención de los pueblos. Frente al ejemplo consecuente de Marulanda ¿qué podemos decir de los oportunistas? Con sus lujosos departamentos, sentados en parlamentos imponentes, que cuando Bush habla contra los guerrilleros ellos se están haciendo caca en los pantalones por miedo a contradecirlo. Por eso huelen mal los parlamentarios de centro izquierda.
Extractado por La Haine
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Homage to Manuel Marulanda by James Petras
Pedro Antonio Marin, better know as Manuel Marulanda and 'Tiro Fijo (Sure Shot)', was the leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples Army (FARC-EP). He was without a doubt the greatest revolutionary peasant leader in the history of the Americas.
. 05.26.2008
Over a period of 60 years he organized peasant movements, rural communities and, when all legal democratic channels were effectively (and brutally) closed, he built the most powerful sustained guerrilla army and supporting underground militias in Latin America. The FARC at its peak between 1999-2005 numbered nearly 20,000 fighters, several hundred thousand peasant-activists, hundreds of village and urban militia units. Even today despite the regime's forced displacement of 3 million peasants resulting from scorched earth policies and scores of massacres, the FARC has between 10,000-15,000 guerrillas in its numerous 'fronts distributed throughout the country.
What make Marulanda's achievements so significant are his organizational abilities, strategic acuity and his intransigent and principled programmatic positions consisting of support of popular demands. Marulanda, more than any other guerrilla leader, had unmatched rapport with the rural poor, the landless, the subsistence cultivators and the rural refugees over three generations.
Beginning in 1964 with two-dozen peasants fleeing villages devastated by a US directed military offensive Marulanda methodically built a revolutionary guerrilla army without either foreign financial or material contributions. Marulanda, more than any other guerrilla leader, was a great rural political teacher. Marulanda's superb organizing skills were honed on the basis of his intimate ties with peasants – he grew up in a poor peasant family, lived among them cultivating and organizing, and spoke their language addressing their most basic daily needs and future hopes. Conceptually and through daily trial and error, Marulanda worked out a series of strategic political –military operations based on his brilliant understanding of the geographic and human terrain. Between 1964 to his recent death, Marulanda defeated or evaded at least seven major military offensives financed by over $7 billion dollars in US military aid, involving thousands of US 'Green Berets', Special Forces, mercenaries, over 250,000 Colombians Armed Forces and 35,000 member paramilitary death squads.
Unlike Cuba or Nicarangua, Marulanda built an organized mass base and trained a largely rural leadership; he openly declared his socialist program and never received political or material support from so-called 'progressive capitalists'. Colombia's armed forces were a formidable, highly trained and disciplined repressive apparatus, bolstered by murderous death squads, unlike Batista's and Somoza's corrupt and rapacious gangsters, who plundered and retreated under pressure. Marulanda, unlike many better-known 'poster-boy' guerrillas, was a virtual unknown among the elegant leftist editors in London, the nostalgic Parisian sixty-eighters and the New York Socialist scholars. Marulanda spent his time exclusively in 'Colombia profunda', the deep Colombia, preferring to converse and teach peasants and learn their grievances, rather than giving interviews to adventure-seeking Western journalists. Instead of writing grandiloquent 'manifestos' and striking photogenic poses, he preferred the steady, unromantic but eminently effective grass roots pedagogy of the disinherited. Marulanda traveled from virtually inaccessible valleys to mountain ranges, from jungles to plains, organizing, fighting…recruiting and training new leaders. He eschewed tripping off to 'World Forums' or following the route of international leftist tourists. He never visited a foreign capital and, it is said, never set foot in the nation's capital, Bogota. But he had a vast and profound knowledge of the demands of the Afro-Colombians of the Coast, the Indio-Colombians of the mountains and jungles, the land claims of millions of displaced peasants, the names and addresses of abusive landlords who brutalized and raped peasants and their kin.
Throughout the 1960's, 70's and 80's numerous guerrilla movements raised arms, fought with greater or lesser capacity and disappeared – killed, surrended (some even turned collaborator) or became immersed in electoral wheeling and dealing. Few in number, they fought in the name of non-existent 'peoples armies'; most were intellectuals who were more familiar with European narratives than the micro-history and popular culture and legends of the people they tried to organize. They were isolated, encircled and obliterated, perhaps leaving a well-publicized legacy of exemplary sacrifice, but changing nothing on the ground.
In contrast, Marulanda took the best punches thrown by the counter-insurgency Presidents in Bogota and Washington and returned them in spades. For every village that was razed, Marulanda recruited dozens of angry and destitute peasant fighters and patiently trained them to be cadres and commanders. More than any guerrilla army, the FARC became an army of the whole people: one-third of the commanders were women, over seventy percent were peasants although intellectuals and professionals joined and were trained by movement-led cadres. Marulanda was revered for his singularly simple life style: he shared the drenching rain under plastic canopies. He was deeply respected by millions of peasants, but he never in any way cultivated a personality cult-figure: He was too irreverent and modest, preferring to delegate important tasks to a collective leadership, with a good deal of regional autonomy and tactical flexibility. He accepted a diversity of views on tactics, even when he profoundly disagreed. In the early 1980's, many cadre and leaders decided to try the electoral route, signed a 'peace agreement' with the Colombian President, formed an electoral party – the Patriotic Union – and successfully elected numerous mayors and representatives. They even gained a substantial vote in Presidential elections. Marulanda did not publicly oppose the accord but he did not lay down his arms and 'go down from the mountains to the city'. Much better than the professionals and trade unionists who ran for office, Marulanda understood the profoundly authoritarian and brutal character of the oligarchy and its politicians. He clearly knew that Colombia's rulers would never accept any land reform just because a 'few illiterate peasants voted them out of office.' By 1987 over 5,000 members of the Patriotic Union had been slaughtered by the oligarchy's death squads, including three presidential candidates, a dozen elected congressmen and women and scores of mayors and city councilors. Those who survived fled to the jungles and rejoined the armed struggle or fled into exile.
Marulanda was a master in evading many encirclement and annihilation campaigns, especially those designed by the best and the brightest from the US Fort Bragg Special Forces counter-insurgency center and the School of the Americas. By the end of the 1990's the FARC had extended its control to over half the country and was blocking highways and attacking military bases only 40 miles from the capital. Severely weakened, the then President Pastrana finally agreed to serious peace negotiations in which the FARC demanded a de-militarized zone and an agenda that included basic structural changes in the state, economy and society.
Unlike the Central American guerrillas who traded arms for elected office, Marulanda insisted on land redistribution, dismantling of the death squads and dismissal of Colombian generals involved in massacres, a mixed economy largely based on public ownership of strategic economic sectors and large-scale funding for peasants to develop alternative crops to coca, prior to laying down arms.
In Washington President Clinton was hysterical and at first opposed the peace negotiations – especially the reform agenda as well as the open public debates and forums widely attended by Colombian civil society and organized by the FARC in the de-militarized zone. Marulanda's embrace of democratic debate, demilitarization and structural changes puts the lie to the charge by Western and Latin American social democrats and center-left academics that he was a 'militarist'. Washington probed to see if they could repeat the Central American peace process – co-opt the FARC leaders with the promise of electoral office and privilege in exchange for selling out the peasants and poor Colombians. At the same time Clinton, with bi-partisan support, pushed through a massive $2 billion dollar appropriation bill to fund the biggest and bloodiest counter-insurgency program since the war in Indochina, dubbed 'Plan Colombia'. Abruptly ending the peace process, President Pastrana rushed troops into the demilitarized zone to capture the FARC secretariat, but Marulanda and his comrades were long gone.
Between 2002 to the present the FARC alternated from offensive attacks and defensive retreats – mostly the latter since 2006. With an unprecedented degree of US financing and advanced technological support, the newly elected narco-partner and death squad organizer, President Alvaro Uribe took charge of a scorched earth policy to savage the Colombian countryside. Between his election in 2002 and re-election in 2006, over 15,000 peasants, trade unionists, human rights workers, journalists and other critics were murdered. Entire regions of the countryside were emptied – like the US Operation Phoenix in Viet Nam, farmland was poisoned by toxic herbicides. Over 250,000 armed forces and their partners in the paramilitary death squads decimated vast stretches of the Colombian countryside where the FARC exercised hegemony. Scores of US-supplied helicopter gun-ships blasted the jungles in vast search and destroy missions – (which had nothing to do with coca production or the shipment of cocaine to the United States). By destroying all popular opposition and organizations throughout the countryside and displacing millions Uribe was able to push the FARC back toward more defensible remote regions. Marulanda, as in the past, adopted a strategy of defensive tactical retreat, giving up territory in order to safeguard the guerrillas' capacity to fight another day.
Unlike other guerrilla movements, the FARC did not receive any material support form the outside: Fidel Castro publicly repudiated armed struggle and looked to diplomatic and trade ties with center-left administrations and even better relations with the brutal Uribe. After 2001, the Bush White House labeled the FARC a 'terrorist organization' putting pressure on Ecuador and Venezuela to tighten cross-border movements of the FARC in search of supply chains. The 'center-left' in Colombia was totally divided between those who gave 'critical support' to Uribe's total war against the FARC and those who ineffectively protested the repression.
It is hard to imagine any guerrilla movement surviving under conditions of massive US financed counter-insurgency, quarter million US-armed soldiers, millions displaced from its mass base and a psychopathic President allied directly to a 35,000 member chain-saw death squads. However Marulanda, cool and determined, directed the tactical retreat; the idea of negotiating a capitulation never entered his mind nor that of the FARC secretariat.
The FARC does not have contiguous frontiers with a supporting country like Vietnam had with China; nor the arms supply from a USSR, nor the international mass support of Western solidarity groups like the Sandinistas. We live in times where supporting peasant-led national liberation movements is not 'fashionable', where recognizing the genius of peasant revolutionary leaders who build and sustain authentic mass peoples armies is taboo in the pretentious, loquacious and impotent World Social Formus – which 'world' routinely excludes peasant militants and for whom 'social' means the perpetual exchange of e-mails between foundations funded by NGO.
It is in this hardly auspicious environment facing US and Colombian Presidents intent on pyrrhic victories, that we can appreciate the political genius and personal integrity of Latin America's greatest peasant revolutionary, Manuel Marulanda. His death will not generate posters or tee shirts for middle class college students, but he will live forever in the hearts and minds of millions of peasants in Colombia. He will be remembered forever as 'Tiro Fijo': the legend who was killed a dozen times and yet returned to the villages to share their simple lives. The only leader who was truly 'one of them', the one who confronted the Yankee military and mercenary machine for a half-century and was never captured or defeated.
He defied them all - those in their mansions, presidential palaces, military bases, torture chambers, and bourgeois editorial offices: He died at after 60 years of struggle of natural causes in the arms of his beloved peasant comrades.
Tiro Fijo presente!
Homenaje a Manuel Marulanda por James Petras
Rebelión
Traducido para Cubadebate, Rebelión y Tlaxcala por Manuel Talens.
Dibujo de José Mercader.
Pedro Antonio Marín Marín, más conocido como Manuel Marulanda Vélez y "Tirofijo", era el líder máximo de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC). Fue, sin duda alguna, el campesino revolucionario más grande de la historia del continente americano. Durante sesenta años organizó movimientos campesinos y comunidades rurales y, cuando todas las vías democráticas legales se le cerraron de forma brutal, creó el ejército guerrillero más poderoso de América Latina y las milicias clandestinas que lo sustentaban. En su época de mayor apogeo, entre 1999 y 2005, las FARC contaban con casi 20.000 combatientes, varios cientos de miles de campesinos activistas y cientos de unidades de milicias comunales y urbanas. Incluso hoy, a pesar del desplazamiento forzoso de tres millones de campesinos como resultado de las políticas de tierra quemada y las masacres del gobierno, las FARC tienen entre 10.000 y 15.000 guerrilleros en sus numerosos frentes distribuidos por todo el país.
Lo que hace tan importantes los logros de Marulanda son sus habilidades organizativas, su agudeza estratégica y sus intransigentes posiciones programáticas, basadas en el apoyo a las exigencias populares. Más que cualquier otro líder guerrillero, Marulanda, tenía una compenetración sin par con los pobres de las zonas campesinas, los sin tierra, los cultivadores indigentes y los refugiados rurales durante tres generaciones.
Tras empezar en 1964 con dos docenas de campesinos que habían huido de pueblos devastados por una ofensiva militar dirigida por USA, Marulanda construyó metódicamente un ejército guerrillero revolucionario sin contribuciones económicas o materiales extranjeras. Más que cualquier otro líder guerrillero, Marulanda fue un gran maestro político rural. Las extraordinarias dotes organizativas de Marulanda se fueron refinando a través de su íntima vinculación con el campesinado. Como había crecido en una familia de campesinos pobres, vivió entre ellos cultivando y organizándolos: hablaba su mismo lenguaje, se ocupaba de sus necesidades diarias más básicas y de sus esperanzas de futuro. De manera conceptual, pero también a través de la experiencia cotidiana, Marulanda realizó una serie de operaciones políticas y militares estratégicas basadas en su brillante conocimiento del terreno geográfico y humano. Desde 1964 hasta su muerte, Marulanda derrotó o eludió al menos siete importantes ofensivas militares financiadas con más de siete mil millones de dólares de ayuda militar usamericana, que incluía miles de "boinas verdes", cuerpos especiales, mercenarios, más de 250.000 militares colombianos y 35.000 paramilitares integrados en escuadrones de la muerte.
A diferencia de Cuba o Nicarangua, Marulanda construyó una base masiva organizada y entrenó una dirigencia en gran parte rural; declaró abiertamente su programa socialista y nunca recibió apoyo político o material de los denominados "capitalistas progresistas". A diferencia de los corruptos y codiciosos gánsteres de Batista y Somoza, que saqueaban y se retiraban bajo presión, el ejército de Colombia era un formidable aparato represor, altamente entrenado y disciplinado, reforzado además por homicidas escuadrones de la muerte. A diferencia de otros muchos famosos guerrilleros "de afiche", Marulanda fue un auténtico desconocido entre los elegantes editores izquierdistas de Londres, los nostálgicos sesentaiochistas parisinos y los socialistas eruditos de Nueva York. Marulanda pasó su tiempo exclusivamente en la "Colombia profunda"; prefería conversar y enseñar a los campesinos y enterarse de sus quejas a conceder entrevistas a periodistas occidentales ávidos de aventura. En lugar de escribir manifiestos grandilocuentes y adoptar poses fotogénicas prefería la pedagogía popular de los desheredados, estable y poco romántica pero sumamente eficaz. Marulanda viajó desde valles prácticamente inaccesibles a cordilleras, desde selvas a llanuras, siempre organizando, luchando... reclutando y entrenando a nuevos líderes. Evitó presentarse en los "foros de debate del mundo" o seguir la ruta de los turistas izquierdistas internacionales. Nunca visitó una capital extranjera y cuentan que jamás puso los pies en Bogotá, la capital de la nación. Pero tenía un amplio y profundo conocimiento de las exigencias de los afrocolombianos costeños; de los indiocolombianos de las montañas y la selva; de las ansias de tierra de millones de campesinos desplazados; de los nombres y direcciones de los terratenientes maltratadores que brutalizaban y violaban a los campesinos y a sus familiares.
Durante las décadas de los sesenta, los setenta y los ochenta, numerosos movimientos guerrilleros se levantaron en armas, lucharon con mayor o menor capacidad y, luego, desaparecieron asesinados, derrotados (algunos incluso se convirtieron en colaboradores) o se integraron en los partos y repartos electorales. Poco numerosos, luchaban en nombre de inexistentes "ejércitos populares"; la mayoría eran intelectuales, más familiarizados con los discursos europeos que con la microhistoria, la cultura popular y las leyendas de los pueblos a los que trataban de organizar. Fueron aislados, rodeados y arrasados; dejaron quizá una herencia bien publicitada de sacrificio ejemplar, pero no cambiaron nada sobre el terreno.
Por el contrario, Marulanda encajó los mejores golpes de los presidentes contrainsurgentes de Washington y Bogotá y se los devolvió al cien por cien. Por cada pueblo arrasado, Marulanda reclutó a docenas de campesinos luchadores, enfurecidos y desamparados, y los entrenó con suma paciencia para que fuesen cuadros y comandantes. Más que cualquier ejército guerrillero, las FARC llegaron a ser un ejército de todo el pueblo: un tercio de los comandantes eran mujeres, más del setenta por ciento eran campesinos, si bien se les asociaron intelectuales y profesionales, que fueron entrenados por cuadros del movimiento. Marulanda fue un hombre venerado por su estilo de vida excepcionalmente sencillo: compartió la lluvia torrencial bajo cubiertas de plástico. Millones de campesinos lo respetaban profundamente, pero nunca practicó el culto a la personalidad: era demasiado irreverente y modesto, prefería delegar las tareas importantes a una dirigencia colectiva, con mucha autonomía regional y flexibilidad táctica. Aceptó un amplio abanico de opiniones sobre tácticas, incluso si discrepaba profundamente de ellas. A principios de los ochenta, muchos cuadros y líderes decidieron probar la vía electoral, firmaron un "acuerdo de paz" con el presidente colombiano, crearon un partido –la Unión Patriótica– e hicieron elegir a numerosos alcaldes y diputados. Incluso obtuvieron cuantiosos votos en las elecciones presidenciales. Marulanda no se opuso públicamente al acuerdo, pero no abandonó las armas ni "bajó desde las montañas a la ciudad". Mucho más lúcido que los profesionales y los sindicalistas que se postulaban en las elecciones, Marulanda comprendía al carácter extremadamente autoritario y brutal de la oligarquía y sus políticos. Sabía que los gobernantes de Colombia no aceptarían nunca una reforma agraria justa sólo porque unos "pocos campesinos analfabetos los derrotasen en las urnas". En 1987, más de 5.000 miembros de la Unión Patriótica habían sido asesinados por los escuadrones de la muerte de la oligarquía, entre ellos tres candidatos a la presidencia, una docena de congresistas y mujeres y alcaldes y concejales. Los supervivientes huyeron a la selva y se reincorporaron a la lucha armada o se marcharon al exilio.
Marulanda era un maestro a la hora de romper los cercos y evitar las campañas de aniquilación, sobre todo las que diseñaron los mejores y más brillantes estrategas del centro de contrainsurgencia de los Cuerpos Especiales del US Fort Bragg y de la Escuela de las Américas. A finales de los noventa, las FARC habían ampliado su control a más de la mitad del país y bloqueaban autopistas y atacaban bases militares situadas a sólo 65 kilómetros de la capital. Muy debilitado, el entonces presidente Pastrana terminó por aceptar negociaciones serias de paz, en las que las FARC exigieron una zona desmilitarizada y un programa que incluía cambios estructurales básicos en el Estado, la economía y la sociedad.
A diferencia de las guerrillas centroamericanas, que cambiaron las armas por cargos electorales, antes de deponer las suyas Marulanda insistió en la redistribución de la tierra, en el desmantelamiento de los escuadrones de la muerte y en la destitución de los generales colombianos implicados en las masacres, en una economía mixta basada en buena medida en la nacionalización de los sectores económicos estratégicos y en la financiación a gran escala de los campesinos para el desarrollo de cosechas alternativas a la coca.
En Washington, el presidente Clinton asistía histérico a aquel espectáculo y se opuso a las negociaciones de paz, en especial al programa de reformas, así como a los debates públicos abiertos y a los foros de debate organizados por las FARC en la zona desmilitarizada, a los que asistía numerosa la sociedad civil colombiana. La aceptación por parte de Marulanda del debate democrático, la desmilitarización y los cambios estructurales desenmascara la mentira de los socialdemócratas occidentales y latinoamericanos y de los universitarios de centroizquierda, que lo acusaron de "militarista". Washington trató de repetir el proceso de paz centroamericano engatusando a los jefes de FARC con la promesa de cargos electorales y privilegios a cambio de que vendiesen a los campesinos y a los colombianos pobres. Al mismo tiempo Clinton, con el apoyo de los dos partidos del Congreso, hizo aprobar un proyecto de ley de apropiación de dos mil millones de dólares para financiar el mayor y más sangriento programa de contrainsurgencia desde la guerra de Indochina, denominado "Plan Colombia". El presidente Pastrana dio por terminado de forma abrupta el proceso de paz y envió soldados a la zona desmilitarizada para que capturasen a la cúpula de las FARC, pero cuando éstos llegaron, Marulanda y sus compañeros ya se habían ido de allí.
Desde el 2002 hasta ahora, las FARC han alternado los ataques ofensivos y las retiradas defensivas, en especial desde finales de 2006. Con una financiación sin precedentes y un apoyo tecnológico ultramoderno de USA, el nuevo presidente Álvaro Uribe –socio de narcotraficantes y organizador de escuadrones de la muerte– adoptó una política de tierra quemada para ensañarse con el campo colombiano. Entre su elección en 2002 y su reelección en 2006, más de 15.000 campesinos, sindicalistas, trabajadores de derechos humanos, periodistas y otros críticos fueron asesinados. Regiones enteras del campo fueron vaciadas: de la misma manera que en la Operación Phoenix usamericana en Vietnam, se contaminó la tierra de cultivo con herbicidas tóxicos. Más de 250.000 soldados y sus compinches paramilitares de los escuadrones de la muerte diezmaron amplias zonas del campo colombiano controladas por las FARC. Helicópteros proporcionados por Washington bombardearon la selva en misiones de búsqueda y destrucción (que no tenían nada que ver con la producción de coca o con el envío de cocaína a USA). Al destruir toda la oposición popular y las organizaciones campesinas y al desplazar a millones de colombianos, Uribe logró empujar a las FARC hacia regiones más remotas. Al igual que había hecho en el pasado, Marulanda asumió una estrategia de retirada táctica defensiva, abandonando territorio para proteger la capacidad de lucha de los guerrilleros en el futuro.
A diferencia de otros movimientos guerrilleros, las FARC no recibieron ningún apoyo material del exterior: Fidel Castro repudió públicamente la lucha armada y buscó lazos diplomáticos y comerciales con gobiernos de centroizquierda e incluso mejores relaciones con el brutal Uribe. Después de 2001, la Casa Blanca de Bush etiquetó a las FARC de "organización terrorista", presionando a Ecuador y Venezuela para que restringiesen los movimientos fronterizos de las FARC en busca de abastecimientos. El "centroderecha" de Colombia se dividió entre los que prestaban un "apoyo crítico" a la guerra total de Uribe contra las FARC y los que protestaban infructuosamente contra la represión.
Es difícil imaginar que un movimiento guerrillero pueda sobrevivir frente a una financiación tan masiva de la contrainsurgencia, un cuarto de millón de soldados armados por el imperio, millones de desplazados de sus tierras y un presidente psicópata vinculado directamente con una cadena de 35.000 miembros de escuadrones de la muerte. Sin embargo, sereno y resuelto, Marulanda dirigió la retirada táctica; la idea de negociar una capitulación nunca se le pasó por la mente, ni a él ni a la cúpula de las FARC.
Las FARC no tienen frontera contigua con un país que lo apoye, como Vietnam la tenía con China; tampoco goza, como Vietnam, del suministro de armas de la URSS ni del apoyo masivo internacional de los grupos occidentales de solidaridad, como los sadinistas. Vivimos en una época en la que apoyar a los movimientos campesinos de liberación nacional no está "de moda"; en la que reconocer que el genio de líderes campesinos revolucionarios que construyen y mantienen la auténtica masa de los ejércitos populares es tabú en los pretenciosos, locuaces e impotentes Foros Sociales Mundiales, cuyo "mundo" excluye regularmente a los campesinos militantes y para los que "social" significa el constante intercambio de mensajes electrónicos entre fundaciones financiadas por ONG.
Es en este ambiente tan poco prometedor frente a las pírricas victorias de los presidentes de USA y Colombia donde podemos apreciar el genio político y la integridad personal de Manuel Marulanda, el más grande campesino revolucionario de América Latina. Su muerte no generará afiches o camisetas para estudiantes universitarios de clase media, pero vivirá eternamente en los corazones y las mentes de millones de campesinos de Colombia. Se le recordará siempre como "Tirofijo", un ser de leyenda al que mataron una docena de veces y, a pesar de ello, regresó a los pueblos para compartir con los campesinos sus vidas sencillas. Tirofijo fue el único líder que era realmente "uno de ellos", que durante medio siglo se enfrentó al aparato militar y mercenario yanqui y nunca fue capturado o derrotado.
Los desafió a todos en sus mansiones, sus palacios presidenciales, sus bases militares, sus cámaras de tortura y sus burguesas salas de redacción. Murió de muerte natural, después de sesenta años de lucha, en los brazos de sus queridos compañeros campesinos.
¡Tirofijo, presente!
El sociólogo James Petras nació en Boston el 17 de enero de 1937, de padres griegos, originarios de la isla de Lesbos. Ha publicado más de sesenta libros de economía política y, en el terreno de la ficción, cuatro colecciones de cuentos.
El escritor y traductor español Manuel Talens es miembro de Cubadebate , Rebelión y Tlaxcala , la red de traductores por la diversidad lingüística. En mayo de 2008 ha aparecido su libro de ensayos Cuba en el corazón.
Esta traducción se puede reproducir libremente a condición de respetar su integridad y mencionar al autor, al traductor y la fuente.
Traducido para Cubadebate, Rebelión y Tlaxcala por Manuel Talens.
Dibujo de José Mercader.
Pedro Antonio Marín Marín, más conocido como Manuel Marulanda Vélez y "Tirofijo", era el líder máximo de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC). Fue, sin duda alguna, el campesino revolucionario más grande de la historia del continente americano. Durante sesenta años organizó movimientos campesinos y comunidades rurales y, cuando todas las vías democráticas legales se le cerraron de forma brutal, creó el ejército guerrillero más poderoso de América Latina y las milicias clandestinas que lo sustentaban. En su época de mayor apogeo, entre 1999 y 2005, las FARC contaban con casi 20.000 combatientes, varios cientos de miles de campesinos activistas y cientos de unidades de milicias comunales y urbanas. Incluso hoy, a pesar del desplazamiento forzoso de tres millones de campesinos como resultado de las políticas de tierra quemada y las masacres del gobierno, las FARC tienen entre 10.000 y 15.000 guerrilleros en sus numerosos frentes distribuidos por todo el país.
Lo que hace tan importantes los logros de Marulanda son sus habilidades organizativas, su agudeza estratégica y sus intransigentes posiciones programáticas, basadas en el apoyo a las exigencias populares. Más que cualquier otro líder guerrillero, Marulanda, tenía una compenetración sin par con los pobres de las zonas campesinas, los sin tierra, los cultivadores indigentes y los refugiados rurales durante tres generaciones.
Tras empezar en 1964 con dos docenas de campesinos que habían huido de pueblos devastados por una ofensiva militar dirigida por USA, Marulanda construyó metódicamente un ejército guerrillero revolucionario sin contribuciones económicas o materiales extranjeras. Más que cualquier otro líder guerrillero, Marulanda fue un gran maestro político rural. Las extraordinarias dotes organizativas de Marulanda se fueron refinando a través de su íntima vinculación con el campesinado. Como había crecido en una familia de campesinos pobres, vivió entre ellos cultivando y organizándolos: hablaba su mismo lenguaje, se ocupaba de sus necesidades diarias más básicas y de sus esperanzas de futuro. De manera conceptual, pero también a través de la experiencia cotidiana, Marulanda realizó una serie de operaciones políticas y militares estratégicas basadas en su brillante conocimiento del terreno geográfico y humano. Desde 1964 hasta su muerte, Marulanda derrotó o eludió al menos siete importantes ofensivas militares financiadas con más de siete mil millones de dólares de ayuda militar usamericana, que incluía miles de "boinas verdes", cuerpos especiales, mercenarios, más de 250.000 militares colombianos y 35.000 paramilitares integrados en escuadrones de la muerte.
A diferencia de Cuba o Nicarangua, Marulanda construyó una base masiva organizada y entrenó una dirigencia en gran parte rural; declaró abiertamente su programa socialista y nunca recibió apoyo político o material de los denominados "capitalistas progresistas". A diferencia de los corruptos y codiciosos gánsteres de Batista y Somoza, que saqueaban y se retiraban bajo presión, el ejército de Colombia era un formidable aparato represor, altamente entrenado y disciplinado, reforzado además por homicidas escuadrones de la muerte. A diferencia de otros muchos famosos guerrilleros "de afiche", Marulanda fue un auténtico desconocido entre los elegantes editores izquierdistas de Londres, los nostálgicos sesentaiochistas parisinos y los socialistas eruditos de Nueva York. Marulanda pasó su tiempo exclusivamente en la "Colombia profunda"; prefería conversar y enseñar a los campesinos y enterarse de sus quejas a conceder entrevistas a periodistas occidentales ávidos de aventura. En lugar de escribir manifiestos grandilocuentes y adoptar poses fotogénicas prefería la pedagogía popular de los desheredados, estable y poco romántica pero sumamente eficaz. Marulanda viajó desde valles prácticamente inaccesibles a cordilleras, desde selvas a llanuras, siempre organizando, luchando... reclutando y entrenando a nuevos líderes. Evitó presentarse en los "foros de debate del mundo" o seguir la ruta de los turistas izquierdistas internacionales. Nunca visitó una capital extranjera y cuentan que jamás puso los pies en Bogotá, la capital de la nación. Pero tenía un amplio y profundo conocimiento de las exigencias de los afrocolombianos costeños; de los indiocolombianos de las montañas y la selva; de las ansias de tierra de millones de campesinos desplazados; de los nombres y direcciones de los terratenientes maltratadores que brutalizaban y violaban a los campesinos y a sus familiares.
Durante las décadas de los sesenta, los setenta y los ochenta, numerosos movimientos guerrilleros se levantaron en armas, lucharon con mayor o menor capacidad y, luego, desaparecieron asesinados, derrotados (algunos incluso se convirtieron en colaboradores) o se integraron en los partos y repartos electorales. Poco numerosos, luchaban en nombre de inexistentes "ejércitos populares"; la mayoría eran intelectuales, más familiarizados con los discursos europeos que con la microhistoria, la cultura popular y las leyendas de los pueblos a los que trataban de organizar. Fueron aislados, rodeados y arrasados; dejaron quizá una herencia bien publicitada de sacrificio ejemplar, pero no cambiaron nada sobre el terreno.
Por el contrario, Marulanda encajó los mejores golpes de los presidentes contrainsurgentes de Washington y Bogotá y se los devolvió al cien por cien. Por cada pueblo arrasado, Marulanda reclutó a docenas de campesinos luchadores, enfurecidos y desamparados, y los entrenó con suma paciencia para que fuesen cuadros y comandantes. Más que cualquier ejército guerrillero, las FARC llegaron a ser un ejército de todo el pueblo: un tercio de los comandantes eran mujeres, más del setenta por ciento eran campesinos, si bien se les asociaron intelectuales y profesionales, que fueron entrenados por cuadros del movimiento. Marulanda fue un hombre venerado por su estilo de vida excepcionalmente sencillo: compartió la lluvia torrencial bajo cubiertas de plástico. Millones de campesinos lo respetaban profundamente, pero nunca practicó el culto a la personalidad: era demasiado irreverente y modesto, prefería delegar las tareas importantes a una dirigencia colectiva, con mucha autonomía regional y flexibilidad táctica. Aceptó un amplio abanico de opiniones sobre tácticas, incluso si discrepaba profundamente de ellas. A principios de los ochenta, muchos cuadros y líderes decidieron probar la vía electoral, firmaron un "acuerdo de paz" con el presidente colombiano, crearon un partido –la Unión Patriótica– e hicieron elegir a numerosos alcaldes y diputados. Incluso obtuvieron cuantiosos votos en las elecciones presidenciales. Marulanda no se opuso públicamente al acuerdo, pero no abandonó las armas ni "bajó desde las montañas a la ciudad". Mucho más lúcido que los profesionales y los sindicalistas que se postulaban en las elecciones, Marulanda comprendía al carácter extremadamente autoritario y brutal de la oligarquía y sus políticos. Sabía que los gobernantes de Colombia no aceptarían nunca una reforma agraria justa sólo porque unos "pocos campesinos analfabetos los derrotasen en las urnas". En 1987, más de 5.000 miembros de la Unión Patriótica habían sido asesinados por los escuadrones de la muerte de la oligarquía, entre ellos tres candidatos a la presidencia, una docena de congresistas y mujeres y alcaldes y concejales. Los supervivientes huyeron a la selva y se reincorporaron a la lucha armada o se marcharon al exilio.
Marulanda era un maestro a la hora de romper los cercos y evitar las campañas de aniquilación, sobre todo las que diseñaron los mejores y más brillantes estrategas del centro de contrainsurgencia de los Cuerpos Especiales del US Fort Bragg y de la Escuela de las Américas. A finales de los noventa, las FARC habían ampliado su control a más de la mitad del país y bloqueaban autopistas y atacaban bases militares situadas a sólo 65 kilómetros de la capital. Muy debilitado, el entonces presidente Pastrana terminó por aceptar negociaciones serias de paz, en las que las FARC exigieron una zona desmilitarizada y un programa que incluía cambios estructurales básicos en el Estado, la economía y la sociedad.
A diferencia de las guerrillas centroamericanas, que cambiaron las armas por cargos electorales, antes de deponer las suyas Marulanda insistió en la redistribución de la tierra, en el desmantelamiento de los escuadrones de la muerte y en la destitución de los generales colombianos implicados en las masacres, en una economía mixta basada en buena medida en la nacionalización de los sectores económicos estratégicos y en la financiación a gran escala de los campesinos para el desarrollo de cosechas alternativas a la coca.
En Washington, el presidente Clinton asistía histérico a aquel espectáculo y se opuso a las negociaciones de paz, en especial al programa de reformas, así como a los debates públicos abiertos y a los foros de debate organizados por las FARC en la zona desmilitarizada, a los que asistía numerosa la sociedad civil colombiana. La aceptación por parte de Marulanda del debate democrático, la desmilitarización y los cambios estructurales desenmascara la mentira de los socialdemócratas occidentales y latinoamericanos y de los universitarios de centroizquierda, que lo acusaron de "militarista". Washington trató de repetir el proceso de paz centroamericano engatusando a los jefes de FARC con la promesa de cargos electorales y privilegios a cambio de que vendiesen a los campesinos y a los colombianos pobres. Al mismo tiempo Clinton, con el apoyo de los dos partidos del Congreso, hizo aprobar un proyecto de ley de apropiación de dos mil millones de dólares para financiar el mayor y más sangriento programa de contrainsurgencia desde la guerra de Indochina, denominado "Plan Colombia". El presidente Pastrana dio por terminado de forma abrupta el proceso de paz y envió soldados a la zona desmilitarizada para que capturasen a la cúpula de las FARC, pero cuando éstos llegaron, Marulanda y sus compañeros ya se habían ido de allí.
Desde el 2002 hasta ahora, las FARC han alternado los ataques ofensivos y las retiradas defensivas, en especial desde finales de 2006. Con una financiación sin precedentes y un apoyo tecnológico ultramoderno de USA, el nuevo presidente Álvaro Uribe –socio de narcotraficantes y organizador de escuadrones de la muerte– adoptó una política de tierra quemada para ensañarse con el campo colombiano. Entre su elección en 2002 y su reelección en 2006, más de 15.000 campesinos, sindicalistas, trabajadores de derechos humanos, periodistas y otros críticos fueron asesinados. Regiones enteras del campo fueron vaciadas: de la misma manera que en la Operación Phoenix usamericana en Vietnam, se contaminó la tierra de cultivo con herbicidas tóxicos. Más de 250.000 soldados y sus compinches paramilitares de los escuadrones de la muerte diezmaron amplias zonas del campo colombiano controladas por las FARC. Helicópteros proporcionados por Washington bombardearon la selva en misiones de búsqueda y destrucción (que no tenían nada que ver con la producción de coca o con el envío de cocaína a USA). Al destruir toda la oposición popular y las organizaciones campesinas y al desplazar a millones de colombianos, Uribe logró empujar a las FARC hacia regiones más remotas. Al igual que había hecho en el pasado, Marulanda asumió una estrategia de retirada táctica defensiva, abandonando territorio para proteger la capacidad de lucha de los guerrilleros en el futuro.
A diferencia de otros movimientos guerrilleros, las FARC no recibieron ningún apoyo material del exterior: Fidel Castro repudió públicamente la lucha armada y buscó lazos diplomáticos y comerciales con gobiernos de centroizquierda e incluso mejores relaciones con el brutal Uribe. Después de 2001, la Casa Blanca de Bush etiquetó a las FARC de "organización terrorista", presionando a Ecuador y Venezuela para que restringiesen los movimientos fronterizos de las FARC en busca de abastecimientos. El "centroderecha" de Colombia se dividió entre los que prestaban un "apoyo crítico" a la guerra total de Uribe contra las FARC y los que protestaban infructuosamente contra la represión.
Es difícil imaginar que un movimiento guerrillero pueda sobrevivir frente a una financiación tan masiva de la contrainsurgencia, un cuarto de millón de soldados armados por el imperio, millones de desplazados de sus tierras y un presidente psicópata vinculado directamente con una cadena de 35.000 miembros de escuadrones de la muerte. Sin embargo, sereno y resuelto, Marulanda dirigió la retirada táctica; la idea de negociar una capitulación nunca se le pasó por la mente, ni a él ni a la cúpula de las FARC.
Las FARC no tienen frontera contigua con un país que lo apoye, como Vietnam la tenía con China; tampoco goza, como Vietnam, del suministro de armas de la URSS ni del apoyo masivo internacional de los grupos occidentales de solidaridad, como los sadinistas. Vivimos en una época en la que apoyar a los movimientos campesinos de liberación nacional no está "de moda"; en la que reconocer que el genio de líderes campesinos revolucionarios que construyen y mantienen la auténtica masa de los ejércitos populares es tabú en los pretenciosos, locuaces e impotentes Foros Sociales Mundiales, cuyo "mundo" excluye regularmente a los campesinos militantes y para los que "social" significa el constante intercambio de mensajes electrónicos entre fundaciones financiadas por ONG.
Es en este ambiente tan poco prometedor frente a las pírricas victorias de los presidentes de USA y Colombia donde podemos apreciar el genio político y la integridad personal de Manuel Marulanda, el más grande campesino revolucionario de América Latina. Su muerte no generará afiches o camisetas para estudiantes universitarios de clase media, pero vivirá eternamente en los corazones y las mentes de millones de campesinos de Colombia. Se le recordará siempre como "Tirofijo", un ser de leyenda al que mataron una docena de veces y, a pesar de ello, regresó a los pueblos para compartir con los campesinos sus vidas sencillas. Tirofijo fue el único líder que era realmente "uno de ellos", que durante medio siglo se enfrentó al aparato militar y mercenario yanqui y nunca fue capturado o derrotado.
Los desafió a todos en sus mansiones, sus palacios presidenciales, sus bases militares, sus cámaras de tortura y sus burguesas salas de redacción. Murió de muerte natural, después de sesenta años de lucha, en los brazos de sus queridos compañeros campesinos.
¡Tirofijo, presente!
El sociólogo James Petras nació en Boston el 17 de enero de 1937, de padres griegos, originarios de la isla de Lesbos. Ha publicado más de sesenta libros de economía política y, en el terreno de la ficción, cuatro colecciones de cuentos.
El escritor y traductor español Manuel Talens es miembro de Cubadebate , Rebelión y Tlaxcala , la red de traductores por la diversidad lingüística. En mayo de 2008 ha aparecido su libro de ensayos Cuba en el corazón.
Esta traducción se puede reproducir libremente a condición de respetar su integridad y mencionar al autor, al traductor y la fuente.
Colombia's army is passing off murdered civilians as guerrillas in its war on FARC, says Mike Power
Army murders mar victories over FARC
Colombia's army is passing off murdered civilians as guerrillas in its war on FARC, says Mike Power
Colombia's army is passing off murdered civilians as guerrillas in its war on FARC, says Mike Power
Mariel Munoz was out selling food near her home in Vista Hermosa, Colombia, when a local boy ran up to her and said: "The army took Jailler and I think they killed him."
By the time Munoz (right) found her son, the soldiers had dressed his corpse in guerrilla army fatigues and planted a radio, a gun and grenade on him. Under pressure from President Alvaro Uribe to show gains in the endless fight to destroy FARC - the leftist rebel army which has been at war with the Colombian state since the 1960s - the soldiers were trying to pass off 15-year-old Jailler as a guerrilla.
There is no evidence that the boy was ever a member of FARC. "He worked by his father's side," his mother told me. "When he wasn't here, he'd tell me where he was. He was a decent boy, he didn't like drinking, he
liked watching TV and playing football."
Jailler worked stripping the leaves from coca plants - an illegal but common enough job in Colombia, the world's biggest cocaine producer - or as a wood carrier. "Everyone loved Jailler," his mother said. "They killed him for supposedly being a guerrilla, but he never liked the guerrillas, or the army. They killed him because they felt like it."
Mariel Munoz's story might be treated as the outpourings of a grieving mother unable to bear the truth - if her story wasn't a common one. Last month, Amnesty International USA published a report on extra-judicial killings in Colombia, and detailed cases where peasants have been seized by the army in civilian clothes, killed and later dressed in guerrilla fatigues in a phenomenon known as 'false positives'.
Jailler died in 2006. Last year, Munoz decided to launch a legal case to question the killing. In February she had to leave her home when army officers threatened her after learning about the lawsuit.
The army came to my home. One of them said, 'What a shame that I let you escape'
them said, 'What a shame that I let you escape,' And then he made a gesture like he was slitting someone's throat. I left everything dumped there, and fled with the clothes I was wearing. They didn't give me time to get anything else."
She now lives in Bogota, supported by friends. "What else am I going to do? I'll keep on fighting," she says.
Jailler's death came in a wave of executions carried out with almost complete impunity by the Colombian army, according to Ramiro Orjuela, a Bogota-based lawyer working for victims of state violence. In the Meta province alone - a cattle-ranching region south-east of the capital - 300 people have been killed since 2006. The army's 12th Mobile Brigade operates there, and is believed to be responsible for most of the killings.
I met Mariel Munoz just as the news was emerging of the capture of FARC leader Nelly Avila Moreno (right), known as Karina, wanted for a string of murders, abductions and extortion. Karina - women make up more than a third of the ranks of FARC - was
Behind the government celebrations of Karina's capture, the army's casual slaughter of civilians goes on
reported to be "nearly dying of hunger" when she handed herself in after President Uribe guaranteed her safety if she surrendered.
However, behind the government celebrations of Karina's capture, and of the recent high-profile raid into neighbouring Ecuador to execute FARC's number two, Raul Reyes, the army's casual slaughter of innocent people continues.
As John Lindsay-Poland, of New York's Fellowship for Reconciliation, puts it, the killings are easy: the army are rarely if ever prosecuted for killing civilians, and they measure success by body count. "The predominant proclamation of success is how many guerrillas were killed in combat. There is seldom any punishment for killing a civilian." Out of 955 reported cases of military killings of civilians over five years - including 'false positives' - only two have resulted in convictions.
Mariel Munoz recalls the moment she confronted the officers who confirmed they had killed her son. "They laughed, right there and then."
FIRST POSTED MAY 21, 2008
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/36199,features,army-murders-mar-victories-over-farc
--
Spinning the News - The FARC-EP Files, Venezuela and Interpol - by Stephen Lendman
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2008/05/spinning-news-farc-ep-files-venezuela.html
Spinning the News - The FARC-EP Files, Venezuela and Interpol - by Stephen Lendman
First some background. On March 1, the Colombian military (with US Special Forces help) illegally attacked a FARC-EP rebel camp inside Ecuador. US satellite telephone tracking located the site. Washington signed off on the mission. Over 20 people were killed, including 16 or more FARC-EP members while they slept. Key among them was Paul Reyes, the FARC-EP's second-in-command, key peace negotiator and public voice, and lead figure in the Chavez-led hostage negotiations with Colombia.
The action was a clear act of aggression and premeditated murder. It's not how the dominant media played it. Hostile verbal exchanges took place between Hugo Chavez and Ecuador's Raphael Correa on the one hand and Colombia's Alvaro Uribe and George Bush on the other. US presidential candidates, as expected, supported the White House and Bogota.
Tensions heightened further when Colombia's vice-president, Francisco Santos Calderon, revealed his nation's army recovered three laptops and other material at the FARC-EP camp with provocative evidence on their hard drives. He claimed it showed Chavez and Correa have links to the FARC-EP, and Venezuela provided weapons, munitions, and $300 million or so to the rebel group. In addition, the FARC-EP was accused of acquiring 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of uranium, that it wishes to sell it for a radioactive dirty bomb, it also sold 700 kilograms of cocaine for about $1.5 million, and more.
The story is preposterous, but the media grabbed hold of it. No evidence exists, so they invent it. In March, Colombian authorities asked Interpol to examine the computer files for authenticity. The organization released its report on May 15. On its web site, it states that Secretary General Ronald Noble "advised senior Colombian law enforcement officials that INTERPOL's team of forensic experts discovered 'no evidence of modification, alteration, addition or deletion' in the user files of any of the three laptop computers, three USB thumb drives and two external hard disks seized during a Colombian anti-narcotics and anti-terrorist operation on a FARC camp on 1 March 2008."
But Interpol admitted that lacking evidence doesn't prove "there was no tampering." In fact, some files had future date stamps and other indications of data alteration. It questions their authenticity, and Interpol (deep in its report) acknowledged that Columbia likely manipulated the contents - with an explanation needing close reading to understand. It delegitimizes Colombian claims and would get an international court to dismiss them out of hand. Reporters doing their job should as well. Data accuracy can't be verified or worse - they may be entirely fraudulent, and made-in-Washington mischief may be behind it.
Interpol's report continued saying "between 1 and 3 March, direct access to the seized computer exhibits....did not follow internationally recognized principles in the handling of electronic evidence under ordinary circumstance." Its experts "verified that this....had no effect" on file contents, but other report evidence contradicts that statement. Interpol, in fact, stated that "Direct access may complicate validating this evidence for purposes of its introduction in a judicial proceeding because law enforcement is then required to demonstrate or prove that the direct access did not have a material impact on the purpose for which the evidence is intended."
In short, hard drive data prove nothing and may, in fact, be fake. With US involvement clear, it wouldn't be the first time, and Washington is rich in talent to do it.
Independent computer experts are also troubled. They believe that failure to follow standard evidence handling procedures seriously jeopardizes its reliability. With care, forensic specialists or computer professionals can add, delete or alter hard drive material without leaving a footprint.
Dominant media reports ignored this and more. They passed over or played down key findings, including Interpol's statement: that its experts didn't "evaluate the accuracy or the source of the exhibits' content." How could they? The volume was enormous amounting to the equivalent of "39.5 million pages in Microsoft Word...." At the rate of 100 pages a day, "it would take more than 1000 years to read" it.
That alone begs the question. In a few days or even weeks, how were Colombian authorities able to analyze the data to discover provocative information therein. That notion also got no attention in the dominant media. Neither did most other parts of the truth.
Spinning the News - How Big Media Does It
Here's how Murdoch's Wall Street Journal's played it on May 16. Its editorial page said Interpol's May 15 report "won't make Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez's day." It reported Interpol's claim about no evidence of file tampering, but ignored the issues of authenticity, accuracy, manipulation, or impossible "speed-reading" skills of Colombian verifiers. It concluded that "Interpol's certification proves that Mr. Chavez is trying to destabilize a US ally (and that he's a) proven supporter of terrorism in our own hemisphere."
The New York Times' Simon Romero was little better. His May 16 article was headlined: "Files Tying Venezuela to Rebels Not Altered, Report Says." He called Interpol's report "a setback for Venezuela, which had claimed that the computer files....were fabrications...." It "may advance efforts under way in the Congress to add Venezuela to the United States' list of state sponsors of terrorism...."
Well down in his report, Romero admitted that "Interpol could not vouch for the accuracy of the files" and that "a Colombian antiterrorism unit (seized them improperly and) in violation of internationally recognized rules on handling electronic evidence...." No further comment was added.
In contrast, Romero played up State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, saying these "are serious allegations about Venezuela supplying arms and support to a terrorist organization....that has deep implications for the people of the region." He had to acknowledge, however, what credible experts agree on. Given the importance of US and Venezuelan relations, chances of declaring the country a state sponsor of terrorism is highly remote - "particularly without more evidence (read any evidence) of the country's support of the FARC..."
Latin American history professor Greg Grandin goes further. He believes "Almost all of Latin America and most of the world would take Venezuela's side in this dispute. Any move (against the Chavez government) would further isolate the United States in a region where it has been hemorrhaging influence."
That doesn't phase Romero. Piling on is his specialty. Truth isn't. He returned on May 18 with a provocative feature story headlined: "Chavez Seizes Greater Economic Power." Some key points in it are:
-- "Chavez is intensifying state control of the Venezuelan economy through a wave of takeovers of private companies and creation of government-controlled ventures with allies like Cuba and Iran; fears are intensifying (over) more nationalizations;"
-- it's happening "just months after voters rejected a referendum to give the president sweeping constitutional power (leading critics to accuse him of being) more interested in consolidating power than in fixing Venezuela's problems;"
-- "while he has argued that (he aims) to correct social injustices and fight soaring inflation, his critics say his moves are instead compounding these troubles;" no supporter voices in sight;
-- to avoid "outright confiscation (he's) offering 'some' compensation;" unmentioned is it's fair market value and nothing was, is or will be "confiscated;"
-- Romero stresses Venezuela's ties to Iran and China with joint ventures and infrastructure projects; also that Chavez will "export more oil to China in exchange for more Chinese investment in Venezuela;" implied, of course, are his relations with US rivals, and, in the case of Iran, a country George Bush calls "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism;"
-- he ignores Venezuela's successes; along with Argentina, it's the fastest growing regional economy and one of the fastest in the world at a time of economic weakness; its impressive employment growth with most of it coming in the private sector; that Chavez is friendly to business and boosts the private economy; the country's huge social gains; and Chavez's immense popularity and growing world stature; instead he lists problems - high inflation, less foreign investment, food shortages, capital flight, and more that are only mitigated by "high oil prices;"
-- near the article's end, he's forced to admit what economist Mark Weisbrot explains - that Chavez "is so far mainly just reversing some of the privatizations that took place in the 1990s;"
-- Romero reverts to form with some provocative ending quotes about Chavez "stimulating a pre-insurrectional climate;" that his nationalizations aim "to annihilate the productive apparatus so that we depend more on petroleum, which is to depend more on the state, or in other words, to depend more on Chavez."
For the dominant US media, Chavez-bashing is full-time. Washington Post writers excel at it on any pretext, and Juan Forero's May 16 Interpol report article was typical. It's headlined: "FARC Computer Files Are Authentic, Interpol Probe Finds." He echoed the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and said files seized "contain e-mails (Interpol never mentioned any) and other documents that show how Venezuela's populist leader had formed such a tight bond with guerrilla commanders that his key lieutenants had offered help in obtaining sophisticated weaponry such as surface-to-air missiles while delivering light arms. The files also document links between FARC and Ecuador's president, Raphael Correa, a close ally of Chavez."
Similar reports appeared throughout the US and western media. They never miss a chance to play down facts and attack populist leaders. In response, Hugo Chavez dismissed the allegations as "ridiculous." He urged Colombia's president to have "a moment of reflection (and added) The government of Columbia is capable of provoking a war....to justify a US intervention in Venezuela." He also called Colombia's assertion "a new act of aggression." It means relations with his neighbor will come "under deep review," and Reuters reported May 15 that "Venezuela is deeply revising diplomatic, economic and political relations with Colombia" following Interpol's report and the Uribe government's allegations.
Ecuador's Correa was abroad in France, but took time to say the computer file documents "prove absolutely nothing. We have information that the Colombian government had the computers for some time and prepared all this." Quite possibly because the entire story is unraveling. But don't expect Big Media to report it.
Revving Up Gunboat Diplomacy
While it continues, the Pentagon announced in April that it's resurrecting its Fourth Fleet in Latin America and the Caribbean after a 60 year hiatus. It was created during WW II and disbanded in 1950. Reasons given were vaguely stated - to "conduct varying missions including a range of contingency operations, counter narco-terrorism, and theater security cooperation activities."
US Naval Forces Southern Command chief Admiral James Stevenson said the move would send a message to the entire region, not just Venezuela. Commandant of the National War College, General Robert Steel added that: "The United States' obsession with Venezuela, Cuba and other things indicates they are going to use more military force, going to use that instrument more often." Bolivian President Evo Morales called the move "Fourth Fleet....intervention."
The Fleet begins operating in July and will be headquartered out of Florida's Mayport Naval Station. It'll be part of the Pentagon's Southern Command, extending from the Caribbean to the continent's southern tip. Its strength will be formidable - aircraft carriers, submarines, various attack ships, and several nuclear-armed ones.
With no Latin American threat, why then this move, and why now with an administration nearing its end and bogged down in two unwinnable wars? Like the Middle East and Central Asia, the region's importance is crucial. Venezuela alone is why. Its proved oil reserves were just raised to 130 billion barrels, but include what's uncounted and they're far higher. On its web site, the US Department of Energy (DOE) estimates the country's extra-heavy oil at 1.36 trillion barrels, or 90% of the world's total. That's more than all "proved" world reserves combined and in addition to Venezuela's "proved" light sweet resources of around 80 billion barrels that alone ranks it seventh in the world behind the five largest Middle East producers and Canada.
With stakes that high, it's significant that Admiral Joseph Kernan will become Fleet commander when it's activated. He currently heads the Naval Special Warfare Command that includes Navy Seals and other counterinsurgency units. His choice is troublesome, and regional leaders are mindful. Hugo Chavez especially. It may be why he's buying nine Russian submarines, but against America it hardly registers. In total, Venezuela spends $1 - 2 billion on its military annually or less than half of 1% of the Pentagon's budget. Nonetheless, it's another reason Washington targets him with a hawkish commander now charged to do it.
Rumor also is that the Pentagon plans building a Colombian military base near Venezuela's border. Washington's Colombian ambassador, William Brownfield, said it's possible if its Manta, Ecuador one is closed. Its lease expires in 2009, and Raphael Correa said renewal depends on the US granting Ecuador equivalent basing rights in South Florida - his way of confirming renewal won't happen.
Chavez is justifiably alarmed at the prospect of US troops on his border. He warned Colombia not to do it and said this action will force Venezuela to revive a decades-old territorial conflict over its possible La Guajira location. He further added: "We will not allow the Colombian government to give La Guajira to the empire." Stationing US troops there will be "a threat of war at us." So far, neither Washington or Colombia confirm what's planned. But Colombia's defense minister, Juan Manuel Santos, denies the base rumor, at least in La Guajira. In a May 14 televised address, Chavez called it "good news." Nonetheless, the situation bears watching.
Chavez is justifiably wary. As long as he's president, he'll be vilified and targeted. Latin America is vital to Washington. Venezuela is a key part of it. But America's dominance is weakening, neoliberal pillage caused it, the Bush administration accelerated it, Bolivarianism challenges it, so muscular militarism may replace diplomacy to restore it.
Colombia's belligerency, the FARC-EP files, Fourth Fleet reactivation, continued funding of Venezuela's opposition, CIA's covert mischief, disruptive street violence, and other planned schemes are troublesome. They're to reassert regional control and rid Washington of its leading hemispheric antagonist. No guessing who, and no telling when the next attempt will come or in what form. Everything tried so far failed. Even worse, it's been counterproductive. Chavez has enormous stature and immense popular support.
That makes him an even greater threat and hints at something bigger coming. So far, it's just speculation, however, with the administration's tenure winding down. But it may or may not deter those running it who are always wrong, never in doubt, and apparently willing to risk making a bad situation worse. Stay tuned, expect surprises, and be assured the months ahead won't be boring.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on Republic Broadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.
Spinning the News - The FARC-EP Files, Venezuela and Interpol - by Stephen Lendman
First some background. On March 1, the Colombian military (with US Special Forces help) illegally attacked a FARC-EP rebel camp inside Ecuador. US satellite telephone tracking located the site. Washington signed off on the mission. Over 20 people were killed, including 16 or more FARC-EP members while they slept. Key among them was Paul Reyes, the FARC-EP's second-in-command, key peace negotiator and public voice, and lead figure in the Chavez-led hostage negotiations with Colombia.
The action was a clear act of aggression and premeditated murder. It's not how the dominant media played it. Hostile verbal exchanges took place between Hugo Chavez and Ecuador's Raphael Correa on the one hand and Colombia's Alvaro Uribe and George Bush on the other. US presidential candidates, as expected, supported the White House and Bogota.
Tensions heightened further when Colombia's vice-president, Francisco Santos Calderon, revealed his nation's army recovered three laptops and other material at the FARC-EP camp with provocative evidence on their hard drives. He claimed it showed Chavez and Correa have links to the FARC-EP, and Venezuela provided weapons, munitions, and $300 million or so to the rebel group. In addition, the FARC-EP was accused of acquiring 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of uranium, that it wishes to sell it for a radioactive dirty bomb, it also sold 700 kilograms of cocaine for about $1.5 million, and more.
The story is preposterous, but the media grabbed hold of it. No evidence exists, so they invent it. In March, Colombian authorities asked Interpol to examine the computer files for authenticity. The organization released its report on May 15. On its web site, it states that Secretary General Ronald Noble "advised senior Colombian law enforcement officials that INTERPOL's team of forensic experts discovered 'no evidence of modification, alteration, addition or deletion' in the user files of any of the three laptop computers, three USB thumb drives and two external hard disks seized during a Colombian anti-narcotics and anti-terrorist operation on a FARC camp on 1 March 2008."
But Interpol admitted that lacking evidence doesn't prove "there was no tampering." In fact, some files had future date stamps and other indications of data alteration. It questions their authenticity, and Interpol (deep in its report) acknowledged that Columbia likely manipulated the contents - with an explanation needing close reading to understand. It delegitimizes Colombian claims and would get an international court to dismiss them out of hand. Reporters doing their job should as well. Data accuracy can't be verified or worse - they may be entirely fraudulent, and made-in-Washington mischief may be behind it.
Interpol's report continued saying "between 1 and 3 March, direct access to the seized computer exhibits....did not follow internationally recognized principles in the handling of electronic evidence under ordinary circumstance." Its experts "verified that this....had no effect" on file contents, but other report evidence contradicts that statement. Interpol, in fact, stated that "Direct access may complicate validating this evidence for purposes of its introduction in a judicial proceeding because law enforcement is then required to demonstrate or prove that the direct access did not have a material impact on the purpose for which the evidence is intended."
In short, hard drive data prove nothing and may, in fact, be fake. With US involvement clear, it wouldn't be the first time, and Washington is rich in talent to do it.
Independent computer experts are also troubled. They believe that failure to follow standard evidence handling procedures seriously jeopardizes its reliability. With care, forensic specialists or computer professionals can add, delete or alter hard drive material without leaving a footprint.
Dominant media reports ignored this and more. They passed over or played down key findings, including Interpol's statement: that its experts didn't "evaluate the accuracy or the source of the exhibits' content." How could they? The volume was enormous amounting to the equivalent of "39.5 million pages in Microsoft Word...." At the rate of 100 pages a day, "it would take more than 1000 years to read" it.
That alone begs the question. In a few days or even weeks, how were Colombian authorities able to analyze the data to discover provocative information therein. That notion also got no attention in the dominant media. Neither did most other parts of the truth.
Spinning the News - How Big Media Does It
Here's how Murdoch's Wall Street Journal's played it on May 16. Its editorial page said Interpol's May 15 report "won't make Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez's day." It reported Interpol's claim about no evidence of file tampering, but ignored the issues of authenticity, accuracy, manipulation, or impossible "speed-reading" skills of Colombian verifiers. It concluded that "Interpol's certification proves that Mr. Chavez is trying to destabilize a US ally (and that he's a) proven supporter of terrorism in our own hemisphere."
The New York Times' Simon Romero was little better. His May 16 article was headlined: "Files Tying Venezuela to Rebels Not Altered, Report Says." He called Interpol's report "a setback for Venezuela, which had claimed that the computer files....were fabrications...." It "may advance efforts under way in the Congress to add Venezuela to the United States' list of state sponsors of terrorism...."
Well down in his report, Romero admitted that "Interpol could not vouch for the accuracy of the files" and that "a Colombian antiterrorism unit (seized them improperly and) in violation of internationally recognized rules on handling electronic evidence...." No further comment was added.
In contrast, Romero played up State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, saying these "are serious allegations about Venezuela supplying arms and support to a terrorist organization....that has deep implications for the people of the region." He had to acknowledge, however, what credible experts agree on. Given the importance of US and Venezuelan relations, chances of declaring the country a state sponsor of terrorism is highly remote - "particularly without more evidence (read any evidence) of the country's support of the FARC..."
Latin American history professor Greg Grandin goes further. He believes "Almost all of Latin America and most of the world would take Venezuela's side in this dispute. Any move (against the Chavez government) would further isolate the United States in a region where it has been hemorrhaging influence."
That doesn't phase Romero. Piling on is his specialty. Truth isn't. He returned on May 18 with a provocative feature story headlined: "Chavez Seizes Greater Economic Power." Some key points in it are:
-- "Chavez is intensifying state control of the Venezuelan economy through a wave of takeovers of private companies and creation of government-controlled ventures with allies like Cuba and Iran; fears are intensifying (over) more nationalizations;"
-- it's happening "just months after voters rejected a referendum to give the president sweeping constitutional power (leading critics to accuse him of being) more interested in consolidating power than in fixing Venezuela's problems;"
-- "while he has argued that (he aims) to correct social injustices and fight soaring inflation, his critics say his moves are instead compounding these troubles;" no supporter voices in sight;
-- to avoid "outright confiscation (he's) offering 'some' compensation;" unmentioned is it's fair market value and nothing was, is or will be "confiscated;"
-- Romero stresses Venezuela's ties to Iran and China with joint ventures and infrastructure projects; also that Chavez will "export more oil to China in exchange for more Chinese investment in Venezuela;" implied, of course, are his relations with US rivals, and, in the case of Iran, a country George Bush calls "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism;"
-- he ignores Venezuela's successes; along with Argentina, it's the fastest growing regional economy and one of the fastest in the world at a time of economic weakness; its impressive employment growth with most of it coming in the private sector; that Chavez is friendly to business and boosts the private economy; the country's huge social gains; and Chavez's immense popularity and growing world stature; instead he lists problems - high inflation, less foreign investment, food shortages, capital flight, and more that are only mitigated by "high oil prices;"
-- near the article's end, he's forced to admit what economist Mark Weisbrot explains - that Chavez "is so far mainly just reversing some of the privatizations that took place in the 1990s;"
-- Romero reverts to form with some provocative ending quotes about Chavez "stimulating a pre-insurrectional climate;" that his nationalizations aim "to annihilate the productive apparatus so that we depend more on petroleum, which is to depend more on the state, or in other words, to depend more on Chavez."
For the dominant US media, Chavez-bashing is full-time. Washington Post writers excel at it on any pretext, and Juan Forero's May 16 Interpol report article was typical. It's headlined: "FARC Computer Files Are Authentic, Interpol Probe Finds." He echoed the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and said files seized "contain e-mails (Interpol never mentioned any) and other documents that show how Venezuela's populist leader had formed such a tight bond with guerrilla commanders that his key lieutenants had offered help in obtaining sophisticated weaponry such as surface-to-air missiles while delivering light arms. The files also document links between FARC and Ecuador's president, Raphael Correa, a close ally of Chavez."
Similar reports appeared throughout the US and western media. They never miss a chance to play down facts and attack populist leaders. In response, Hugo Chavez dismissed the allegations as "ridiculous." He urged Colombia's president to have "a moment of reflection (and added) The government of Columbia is capable of provoking a war....to justify a US intervention in Venezuela." He also called Colombia's assertion "a new act of aggression." It means relations with his neighbor will come "under deep review," and Reuters reported May 15 that "Venezuela is deeply revising diplomatic, economic and political relations with Colombia" following Interpol's report and the Uribe government's allegations.
Ecuador's Correa was abroad in France, but took time to say the computer file documents "prove absolutely nothing. We have information that the Colombian government had the computers for some time and prepared all this." Quite possibly because the entire story is unraveling. But don't expect Big Media to report it.
Revving Up Gunboat Diplomacy
While it continues, the Pentagon announced in April that it's resurrecting its Fourth Fleet in Latin America and the Caribbean after a 60 year hiatus. It was created during WW II and disbanded in 1950. Reasons given were vaguely stated - to "conduct varying missions including a range of contingency operations, counter narco-terrorism, and theater security cooperation activities."
US Naval Forces Southern Command chief Admiral James Stevenson said the move would send a message to the entire region, not just Venezuela. Commandant of the National War College, General Robert Steel added that: "The United States' obsession with Venezuela, Cuba and other things indicates they are going to use more military force, going to use that instrument more often." Bolivian President Evo Morales called the move "Fourth Fleet....intervention."
The Fleet begins operating in July and will be headquartered out of Florida's Mayport Naval Station. It'll be part of the Pentagon's Southern Command, extending from the Caribbean to the continent's southern tip. Its strength will be formidable - aircraft carriers, submarines, various attack ships, and several nuclear-armed ones.
With no Latin American threat, why then this move, and why now with an administration nearing its end and bogged down in two unwinnable wars? Like the Middle East and Central Asia, the region's importance is crucial. Venezuela alone is why. Its proved oil reserves were just raised to 130 billion barrels, but include what's uncounted and they're far higher. On its web site, the US Department of Energy (DOE) estimates the country's extra-heavy oil at 1.36 trillion barrels, or 90% of the world's total. That's more than all "proved" world reserves combined and in addition to Venezuela's "proved" light sweet resources of around 80 billion barrels that alone ranks it seventh in the world behind the five largest Middle East producers and Canada.
With stakes that high, it's significant that Admiral Joseph Kernan will become Fleet commander when it's activated. He currently heads the Naval Special Warfare Command that includes Navy Seals and other counterinsurgency units. His choice is troublesome, and regional leaders are mindful. Hugo Chavez especially. It may be why he's buying nine Russian submarines, but against America it hardly registers. In total, Venezuela spends $1 - 2 billion on its military annually or less than half of 1% of the Pentagon's budget. Nonetheless, it's another reason Washington targets him with a hawkish commander now charged to do it.
Rumor also is that the Pentagon plans building a Colombian military base near Venezuela's border. Washington's Colombian ambassador, William Brownfield, said it's possible if its Manta, Ecuador one is closed. Its lease expires in 2009, and Raphael Correa said renewal depends on the US granting Ecuador equivalent basing rights in South Florida - his way of confirming renewal won't happen.
Chavez is justifiably alarmed at the prospect of US troops on his border. He warned Colombia not to do it and said this action will force Venezuela to revive a decades-old territorial conflict over its possible La Guajira location. He further added: "We will not allow the Colombian government to give La Guajira to the empire." Stationing US troops there will be "a threat of war at us." So far, neither Washington or Colombia confirm what's planned. But Colombia's defense minister, Juan Manuel Santos, denies the base rumor, at least in La Guajira. In a May 14 televised address, Chavez called it "good news." Nonetheless, the situation bears watching.
Chavez is justifiably wary. As long as he's president, he'll be vilified and targeted. Latin America is vital to Washington. Venezuela is a key part of it. But America's dominance is weakening, neoliberal pillage caused it, the Bush administration accelerated it, Bolivarianism challenges it, so muscular militarism may replace diplomacy to restore it.
Colombia's belligerency, the FARC-EP files, Fourth Fleet reactivation, continued funding of Venezuela's opposition, CIA's covert mischief, disruptive street violence, and other planned schemes are troublesome. They're to reassert regional control and rid Washington of its leading hemispheric antagonist. No guessing who, and no telling when the next attempt will come or in what form. Everything tried so far failed. Even worse, it's been counterproductive. Chavez has enormous stature and immense popular support.
That makes him an even greater threat and hints at something bigger coming. So far, it's just speculation, however, with the administration's tenure winding down. But it may or may not deter those running it who are always wrong, never in doubt, and apparently willing to risk making a bad situation worse. Stay tuned, expect surprises, and be assured the months ahead won't be boring.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on Republic Broadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples Army (FARC-EP)
The Cost of Unilateral Humanitarian Initiatives
By James Petras
President Uribe’s troop and missile assault, violating Ecuadorian sovereignty came very close to precipitating a regional war with Ecuador and Venezuela. During an interview I had with President Chavez, at the time of this bellicose act, he confirmed to me the gravity of Uribe’s doctrine of ‘preventive war’ and ‘extra-territorial intervention’, calling the Colombian regime the ‘Israel of Latin America’. Earlier, during his Sunday radio program ‘Alo Presidente’, in which I was an invited guest, he followed up with an announcement that he was sending ground, air and sea forces to the Venezuelan frontier with Colombia.
Uribe’s cross-border attack was meant to probe the political ‘will’ of Ecuador and Venezuela to respond to military aggression, as well as to test the performance of US-coordinated remote, satellite directed missile attack. There is no doubt also that Uribe aimed to scuttle the imminent humanitarian release of FARC prisoner, Ingrid Betancourt, being negotiated by the French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, Ecuador’s Interior Minister Larrea, the Colombian Red Cross and especially Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Kouchner, Larrea and Chavez were in direct contact with FARC’s leader, Raul Reyes who, along with 22 others, including non-combatants of various nationalities, were assassinated in Ecuador by Uribe’s American-coordinated missile and ground attack. Uribe’s military intervention was in part directed at denying the important diplomatic role, which Chavez was playing in the release FARC-held prisoners, in contrast to the failure of Uribe’s military efforts to ‘free the prisoners’.
Raul Reyes was recognized as the legitimate interlocutor in these negotiations by both European and Latin American governments, as well as the Red Cross; if the negotiations succeeded in the prisoner release it was likely that the same governments and humanitarian bodies would pressure Uribe to open comprehensive prisoner exchange and peace negotiations with the FARC, which was contrary to Bush and Uribes’ policy of unrelenting warfare, political assassinations and scorched earth policies.
What was at stake in Uribe’s violating Ecuadorian sovereignty and murdering 22 FARC guerrillas and Mexican visitors was nothing less than the entire military counter-insurgency strategy, which has been pursued by Uribe since coming to office in 2002.
Uribe was clearly willing to risk what eventually happened – the censure and sanction of the Organization of American States and the (temporary) break in relations with Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua. He did so because he could count on Washington’s backing, which covertly (and illegally) participated in and immediately applauded the attack. That was more important than jeopardizing cooperation with Latin American nations and France. Colombia remains Washington’s military forward shield in Latin America and, in particular, it is the most important politico-military instrument to destabilize and overthrow the anti-imperialist Chavez government. Clinton and Bush have invested over $6 billion dollars in military aid to Colombia over the past 7 years, including sending 1500 military advisers and Special Forces, dozens of Israeli commandos and ‘trainers’, funding over 2000 mercenary fighters and over 10,000 paramilitary forces working closely with the 200,000-man strong Colombian Armed Forces.
Notwithstanding these and other international considerations, influencing Uribe’s extra-territorial ‘act of war’, I would argue that the main consideration in this attack on the FARC campsite in Ecuador was to decapitate, weaken and isolate the most powerful guerrilla movement in Latin America and the most uncompromising opponent to Washington and Bogotá’s repressive neo-liberal policies. International politicians, including progressive leaders like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Rafael Correa, who have called for the end of armed struggle, seem to overlook the recent experiences of FARC efforts to de-militarize the struggle, including three peace initiatives (1984-1990), (1999-2001) and (2007-2008) and the heavy costs to the FARC in terms of the killing of key leaders, activists and sympathizers. During the mid-1980’s many leaders of the FARC joined the electoral process, formed a political party – the Patriotic Union. The scores of successfully elected local and national officeholders and…5,000 of their members, leaders, congress-people and three presidential candidates were slaughtered. The FARC returned to the countryside and guerrilla struggle. Ten years later, the FARC agreed to negotiate with then President Pastrana in a demilitarized zone. The FARC held public forums, discussed policy alternatives for social and political reforms to democratize the state and debated private versus public ownership of strategic economic sectors with diverse sectors in ‘civil society’. President Pastrana, under pressure from US President Clinton and later Bush, abruptly broke off negotiations and sent the armed forces in to capture the FARC’s high level negotiating teams. The US-funded and advised Colombian military failed to capture the FARC leaders but set the stage for the scorched earth policies pursued by paramilitary President Uribe.
In 2007-2008, the FARC offered to negotiate the mutual release of political prisoners in a secure demilitarized zone in Colombia. Uribe refused. President Chavez entered into negotiations as a mediator. The French government and others challenged Chavez to ask for ‘evidence’ that the FARC prisoners were alive. The FARC complied with Chavez request. It sent three emissaries who were intercepted and are being detained by the Colombian military under brutal conditions. Still the FARC continued with Chavez request and attempted to relocate the first set of prisoners to be turned over to the Red Cross and Venezuelan officials – but they came under aerial attack by Uribe’s armed forces thus aborting the release. Still later, under increased risk, they were able to release the first batch of captives. The French Foreign Minister Kouchner and Chavez made new requests for the release of Ingrid Betancourt, a dual French-Colombian national and former presidential candidate. This was sabotaged when Uribe, with high-level US technical assistance, launched a major military offensive throughout the country, including a comprehensive monitoring program, tracing communications between Reyes, Chavez, Kouchner, Larrea and the Red Cross. It was this high-risk role played by Reyes as the highest level FARC official involved in the negotiations and coordination for captive release that led to his assassination. Outside pressures for a unilateral release of prisoners caused the FARC to lower their security. The result was the loss of leaders, negotiators, sympathizers and militants – without securing the release of any of their 500 comrades held in Colombian prisons. The entire emphasis of Sarkozy, Chavez, Correa and others demanded unilateral concessions from the FARC - as if their own tortured and dying comrades in Uribe’s jails were not part of any humanitarian consideration.
The subsequent summit in the Dominican Republic during the weekend of March 8-9 led to a condemnation of Colombia’s violation of Ecuador’s territorial sovereignty, but the Uribe government, responsible for the invasion, was not actually named or officially sanctioned. Moreover, no mention was made (let alone respect shown) for the treacherously assassinated leader, Raul Reyes, whose life was lost in pursuit of a humanitarian exchange. If the meeting itself was a disappointing response to a tragedy, the aftermath was a farce: a smiling Uribe, walked across the meeting hall and offered a hand shake and perfunctory apology to Correa and Chavez, while Nicaraguan President Ortega embraced the murderous leader of Colombia. By that vile and cynical gesture, Uribe turned the entire military mobilization and weeklong denunciations by Chavez and Correa into a comic opera. The post-meeting ‘reconciliation’ gave the appearance that their opposition to a cross-border attack and the cold-blooded murder of Reyes was merely political theater – a bad omen for the future if, as is likely, Uribe repeats his cross border attacks on an even larger scale. Will the people of Venezuela or Ecuador and the armed forces take serious another call for mobilization and readiness?
Less than a week after the Santa Domingo ‘reconciliation’ meeting, Chavez and Uribe renewed an earlier military agreement to cooperate against ‘violent groups whatever their origins’. Clearly Chavez hopes that by dissociating Venezuela from any suspicion of providing moral support to the FARC, Uribe will stop the large-scale flow of paramilitary infiltrators from entering Venezuela and destabilizing the country. In other words, ‘reasons of state’ take precedence over solidarity with the FARC. What should be clear to Chavez however is the fact that Uribe will not abide by his side of the agreement because of his ties to Washington, and the latter’s insistence that the Chavez government be destabilized by any or all means, including the continued infiltration by Colombian paramilitary forces into Venezuela.
Uribe could apologize to Correa and Chavez because the real purpose of his military attack was to destroy the FARC leadership, any way, any place, any time and under any circumstance – even in the midst of international negotiations. Washington placed a $5 million dollar bounty on each and every member of the FARC secretariat, long before Chavez or Correa came to power, Washington’s top priority – as witnessed by its military aid programs ($6 billion dollars in 7 years), size and scope of its military advisory mission (1500 US specialists) and the length of its involvement in counter-insurgency activities within Colombia (45 years) – was to destroy the FARC.
Washington and its Colombian surrogates were willing to incur the predictable displeasure of Correa, Chavez and the slap on the wrist by the OAS if they could succeed in killing the Number Two commander of the FARC. The reason is clear: it is the FARC and not the neighboring leaders, who influence a third of Colombia’s countryside; it is the FARC’s military-political power which ties down a third of Colombia’s armed forces and prevents Colombia from engaging in any major military intervention against Chavez at the behest of Washington. Uribe and Washington have pressured Correa into cutting most of the FARC’s logistical supply lines and many security camps on the Ecuadorian-Colombian border. Correa claims to have destroyed 11 FARC campsites and arrested 11 guerrillas. The Venezuelan National Guard has turned a blind eye to Colombian cross border military pursuit of FARC activists and sympathizers among the Colombian refugee-peasantry camped along the Venezuelan-Colombian border. Uribe and Washington’s pressure has forced Chavez to publicly disclaim any support for the FARC, its methods and strategy. The FARC is internationally isolated – the Cuban Foreign Ministry proclaimed the phony ‘reconciliation’ at Santo Domingo to be a ‘great victory’ for peace. The FARC is diplomatically isolated, even as it retains substantial domestic support in the provinces and countryside of Colombia.
With the ‘neutralization’ of outside support, or sympathy for the FARC, the Uribe regime – before, during and immediately after the Santo Domingo meeting – launched a series of bloody murders and threats against all progressive and leftist organizations. In the run-up to a March 6, 2008 200,000-strong ‘march against state terror’, hundreds of organizers and activists were threatened, abused, followed, interrogated and accused by Uribe of ‘supporting the FARC’, a government label, which was followed up by the death squad killings of the leader of the march and four other human rights spokespeople. Immediately following the mass demonstration, the principle Colombian trade union, the CUT (the Confederation of Colombian Workers) reported several assassinations and assaults including the head of the banking employees union, a leader of the teachers union, the head of the education section of the CUT and a researcher at a pedagogical institute. All told, over 5,000 trade unionists have been killed, 2 million peasants and farmers have been forcibly removed and their land seized by pro-Uribe paramilitary forces and landlords. Former self-confessed death squad leaders publicly have admitted to funding and controlling over one-third of the elected members of Congress backing Uribe. Currently 30 congress-people are on trial for ‘association’ with the paramilitary death squads. Several of Uribe’s most intimate cabinet collaborators were exposed as having family ties with the death squads and two were forced to resign.
Despite international disrepute, especially in Latin America, with powerful support from Washington, Uribe has built up a murderous killing machine of 200,000 military, 30,000 police, several thousand death squad killers and over a million fanatical middle and upper class Colombians in favor of ‘wiping out the FARC’ – meaning eliminating independent popular organizations of civil society. More than any other past Colombian oligarchic rulers, Uribe is the closest to a fascist dictator combining state terror with mass mobilization.
The opposition political and social movements in Colombia are massive, committed and vulnerable. They are subject to daily intimidation and gangland-style murder. Through terror and mass propaganda, Uribe has so far been able to impose his rule over the working class opposition and attract mass middle class support. But he has utterly failed to defeat, destroy or disarticulate the FARC – his most consequential opposition. Each year since he has come to power, Uribe has pledged massive, all-out military sweeps of entire regions of the country, which would finally put an end to the ‘terrorists’. Tens of thousands of peasants in FARC-influenced regions have been tortured, raped, murdered and driven from their homes. Each of Uribe’s military offensives has failed. Yet he absolutely and totally fails to recognize what some generals and even US officials observe: the FARC cannot be militarily annihilated and at some point the government must negotiate.
Uribe’s failures and the enduring presence of the FARC have become a psychotic obsession: All territorial, legal, international constraints are thrown overboard. Alternating between euphoria and hysteria, faced with internal opposition to his mono-maniac strategy of terror, he screams ‘FARC supporters’ at any and all overseas and Colombian critics. To Ecuador and Venezuela, he promises ‘not to invade their territory again’ unless ‘circumstances warrant it.’ So much for ‘reconciliation.’
The period of humanitarian exchange is dead; the FARC cannot and will not accommodate the requests of well-intentioned friends, especially when it puts in risk the entire FARC organization and leadership. Let us concede that Chavez intentions were well meant. His pleas for a mutual release of prisoners might have made sense if he had been dealing with a rational bourgeois politician responsive to international leaders and organizations and eager to create a favorable image before world public opinion. But it was naïve for Chavez to believe that a psychotic politician with a history of annihilating his opposition would suddenly discover the virtues of negotiations and humanitarian exchanges. Without question, the FARC understands better than its Andean and Caribbean friends through hard experience and bitter lessons, that armed struggle may not be the desired method but it is the only realistic way to confront a brutal fascist regime.
Uribe’s killing of Raul Reyes was not about Chavez initiatives or Ecuador’s sovereignty or Ingrid Betancourt’s captivity, it was about Raul Reyes, a consequential and life-long revolutionary and leader of the FARC. The war-scare is over, differences have been papered over, the leaders have returned to their palaces, but Raul Reyes has not been forgotten – at least not in the countryside of Colombia or in the hearts of its peasants.
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 Books). His latest book is "The Power of Israel in the United States" (Clarity Press, 2006).
By James Petras
President Uribe’s troop and missile assault, violating Ecuadorian sovereignty came very close to precipitating a regional war with Ecuador and Venezuela. During an interview I had with President Chavez, at the time of this bellicose act, he confirmed to me the gravity of Uribe’s doctrine of ‘preventive war’ and ‘extra-territorial intervention’, calling the Colombian regime the ‘Israel of Latin America’. Earlier, during his Sunday radio program ‘Alo Presidente’, in which I was an invited guest, he followed up with an announcement that he was sending ground, air and sea forces to the Venezuelan frontier with Colombia.
Uribe’s cross-border attack was meant to probe the political ‘will’ of Ecuador and Venezuela to respond to military aggression, as well as to test the performance of US-coordinated remote, satellite directed missile attack. There is no doubt also that Uribe aimed to scuttle the imminent humanitarian release of FARC prisoner, Ingrid Betancourt, being negotiated by the French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, Ecuador’s Interior Minister Larrea, the Colombian Red Cross and especially Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Kouchner, Larrea and Chavez were in direct contact with FARC’s leader, Raul Reyes who, along with 22 others, including non-combatants of various nationalities, were assassinated in Ecuador by Uribe’s American-coordinated missile and ground attack. Uribe’s military intervention was in part directed at denying the important diplomatic role, which Chavez was playing in the release FARC-held prisoners, in contrast to the failure of Uribe’s military efforts to ‘free the prisoners’.
Raul Reyes was recognized as the legitimate interlocutor in these negotiations by both European and Latin American governments, as well as the Red Cross; if the negotiations succeeded in the prisoner release it was likely that the same governments and humanitarian bodies would pressure Uribe to open comprehensive prisoner exchange and peace negotiations with the FARC, which was contrary to Bush and Uribes’ policy of unrelenting warfare, political assassinations and scorched earth policies.
What was at stake in Uribe’s violating Ecuadorian sovereignty and murdering 22 FARC guerrillas and Mexican visitors was nothing less than the entire military counter-insurgency strategy, which has been pursued by Uribe since coming to office in 2002.
Uribe was clearly willing to risk what eventually happened – the censure and sanction of the Organization of American States and the (temporary) break in relations with Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua. He did so because he could count on Washington’s backing, which covertly (and illegally) participated in and immediately applauded the attack. That was more important than jeopardizing cooperation with Latin American nations and France. Colombia remains Washington’s military forward shield in Latin America and, in particular, it is the most important politico-military instrument to destabilize and overthrow the anti-imperialist Chavez government. Clinton and Bush have invested over $6 billion dollars in military aid to Colombia over the past 7 years, including sending 1500 military advisers and Special Forces, dozens of Israeli commandos and ‘trainers’, funding over 2000 mercenary fighters and over 10,000 paramilitary forces working closely with the 200,000-man strong Colombian Armed Forces.
Notwithstanding these and other international considerations, influencing Uribe’s extra-territorial ‘act of war’, I would argue that the main consideration in this attack on the FARC campsite in Ecuador was to decapitate, weaken and isolate the most powerful guerrilla movement in Latin America and the most uncompromising opponent to Washington and Bogotá’s repressive neo-liberal policies. International politicians, including progressive leaders like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Rafael Correa, who have called for the end of armed struggle, seem to overlook the recent experiences of FARC efforts to de-militarize the struggle, including three peace initiatives (1984-1990), (1999-2001) and (2007-2008) and the heavy costs to the FARC in terms of the killing of key leaders, activists and sympathizers. During the mid-1980’s many leaders of the FARC joined the electoral process, formed a political party – the Patriotic Union. The scores of successfully elected local and national officeholders and…5,000 of their members, leaders, congress-people and three presidential candidates were slaughtered. The FARC returned to the countryside and guerrilla struggle. Ten years later, the FARC agreed to negotiate with then President Pastrana in a demilitarized zone. The FARC held public forums, discussed policy alternatives for social and political reforms to democratize the state and debated private versus public ownership of strategic economic sectors with diverse sectors in ‘civil society’. President Pastrana, under pressure from US President Clinton and later Bush, abruptly broke off negotiations and sent the armed forces in to capture the FARC’s high level negotiating teams. The US-funded and advised Colombian military failed to capture the FARC leaders but set the stage for the scorched earth policies pursued by paramilitary President Uribe.
In 2007-2008, the FARC offered to negotiate the mutual release of political prisoners in a secure demilitarized zone in Colombia. Uribe refused. President Chavez entered into negotiations as a mediator. The French government and others challenged Chavez to ask for ‘evidence’ that the FARC prisoners were alive. The FARC complied with Chavez request. It sent three emissaries who were intercepted and are being detained by the Colombian military under brutal conditions. Still the FARC continued with Chavez request and attempted to relocate the first set of prisoners to be turned over to the Red Cross and Venezuelan officials – but they came under aerial attack by Uribe’s armed forces thus aborting the release. Still later, under increased risk, they were able to release the first batch of captives. The French Foreign Minister Kouchner and Chavez made new requests for the release of Ingrid Betancourt, a dual French-Colombian national and former presidential candidate. This was sabotaged when Uribe, with high-level US technical assistance, launched a major military offensive throughout the country, including a comprehensive monitoring program, tracing communications between Reyes, Chavez, Kouchner, Larrea and the Red Cross. It was this high-risk role played by Reyes as the highest level FARC official involved in the negotiations and coordination for captive release that led to his assassination. Outside pressures for a unilateral release of prisoners caused the FARC to lower their security. The result was the loss of leaders, negotiators, sympathizers and militants – without securing the release of any of their 500 comrades held in Colombian prisons. The entire emphasis of Sarkozy, Chavez, Correa and others demanded unilateral concessions from the FARC - as if their own tortured and dying comrades in Uribe’s jails were not part of any humanitarian consideration.
The subsequent summit in the Dominican Republic during the weekend of March 8-9 led to a condemnation of Colombia’s violation of Ecuador’s territorial sovereignty, but the Uribe government, responsible for the invasion, was not actually named or officially sanctioned. Moreover, no mention was made (let alone respect shown) for the treacherously assassinated leader, Raul Reyes, whose life was lost in pursuit of a humanitarian exchange. If the meeting itself was a disappointing response to a tragedy, the aftermath was a farce: a smiling Uribe, walked across the meeting hall and offered a hand shake and perfunctory apology to Correa and Chavez, while Nicaraguan President Ortega embraced the murderous leader of Colombia. By that vile and cynical gesture, Uribe turned the entire military mobilization and weeklong denunciations by Chavez and Correa into a comic opera. The post-meeting ‘reconciliation’ gave the appearance that their opposition to a cross-border attack and the cold-blooded murder of Reyes was merely political theater – a bad omen for the future if, as is likely, Uribe repeats his cross border attacks on an even larger scale. Will the people of Venezuela or Ecuador and the armed forces take serious another call for mobilization and readiness?
Less than a week after the Santa Domingo ‘reconciliation’ meeting, Chavez and Uribe renewed an earlier military agreement to cooperate against ‘violent groups whatever their origins’. Clearly Chavez hopes that by dissociating Venezuela from any suspicion of providing moral support to the FARC, Uribe will stop the large-scale flow of paramilitary infiltrators from entering Venezuela and destabilizing the country. In other words, ‘reasons of state’ take precedence over solidarity with the FARC. What should be clear to Chavez however is the fact that Uribe will not abide by his side of the agreement because of his ties to Washington, and the latter’s insistence that the Chavez government be destabilized by any or all means, including the continued infiltration by Colombian paramilitary forces into Venezuela.
Uribe could apologize to Correa and Chavez because the real purpose of his military attack was to destroy the FARC leadership, any way, any place, any time and under any circumstance – even in the midst of international negotiations. Washington placed a $5 million dollar bounty on each and every member of the FARC secretariat, long before Chavez or Correa came to power, Washington’s top priority – as witnessed by its military aid programs ($6 billion dollars in 7 years), size and scope of its military advisory mission (1500 US specialists) and the length of its involvement in counter-insurgency activities within Colombia (45 years) – was to destroy the FARC.
Washington and its Colombian surrogates were willing to incur the predictable displeasure of Correa, Chavez and the slap on the wrist by the OAS if they could succeed in killing the Number Two commander of the FARC. The reason is clear: it is the FARC and not the neighboring leaders, who influence a third of Colombia’s countryside; it is the FARC’s military-political power which ties down a third of Colombia’s armed forces and prevents Colombia from engaging in any major military intervention against Chavez at the behest of Washington. Uribe and Washington have pressured Correa into cutting most of the FARC’s logistical supply lines and many security camps on the Ecuadorian-Colombian border. Correa claims to have destroyed 11 FARC campsites and arrested 11 guerrillas. The Venezuelan National Guard has turned a blind eye to Colombian cross border military pursuit of FARC activists and sympathizers among the Colombian refugee-peasantry camped along the Venezuelan-Colombian border. Uribe and Washington’s pressure has forced Chavez to publicly disclaim any support for the FARC, its methods and strategy. The FARC is internationally isolated – the Cuban Foreign Ministry proclaimed the phony ‘reconciliation’ at Santo Domingo to be a ‘great victory’ for peace. The FARC is diplomatically isolated, even as it retains substantial domestic support in the provinces and countryside of Colombia.
With the ‘neutralization’ of outside support, or sympathy for the FARC, the Uribe regime – before, during and immediately after the Santo Domingo meeting – launched a series of bloody murders and threats against all progressive and leftist organizations. In the run-up to a March 6, 2008 200,000-strong ‘march against state terror’, hundreds of organizers and activists were threatened, abused, followed, interrogated and accused by Uribe of ‘supporting the FARC’, a government label, which was followed up by the death squad killings of the leader of the march and four other human rights spokespeople. Immediately following the mass demonstration, the principle Colombian trade union, the CUT (the Confederation of Colombian Workers) reported several assassinations and assaults including the head of the banking employees union, a leader of the teachers union, the head of the education section of the CUT and a researcher at a pedagogical institute. All told, over 5,000 trade unionists have been killed, 2 million peasants and farmers have been forcibly removed and their land seized by pro-Uribe paramilitary forces and landlords. Former self-confessed death squad leaders publicly have admitted to funding and controlling over one-third of the elected members of Congress backing Uribe. Currently 30 congress-people are on trial for ‘association’ with the paramilitary death squads. Several of Uribe’s most intimate cabinet collaborators were exposed as having family ties with the death squads and two were forced to resign.
Despite international disrepute, especially in Latin America, with powerful support from Washington, Uribe has built up a murderous killing machine of 200,000 military, 30,000 police, several thousand death squad killers and over a million fanatical middle and upper class Colombians in favor of ‘wiping out the FARC’ – meaning eliminating independent popular organizations of civil society. More than any other past Colombian oligarchic rulers, Uribe is the closest to a fascist dictator combining state terror with mass mobilization.
The opposition political and social movements in Colombia are massive, committed and vulnerable. They are subject to daily intimidation and gangland-style murder. Through terror and mass propaganda, Uribe has so far been able to impose his rule over the working class opposition and attract mass middle class support. But he has utterly failed to defeat, destroy or disarticulate the FARC – his most consequential opposition. Each year since he has come to power, Uribe has pledged massive, all-out military sweeps of entire regions of the country, which would finally put an end to the ‘terrorists’. Tens of thousands of peasants in FARC-influenced regions have been tortured, raped, murdered and driven from their homes. Each of Uribe’s military offensives has failed. Yet he absolutely and totally fails to recognize what some generals and even US officials observe: the FARC cannot be militarily annihilated and at some point the government must negotiate.
Uribe’s failures and the enduring presence of the FARC have become a psychotic obsession: All territorial, legal, international constraints are thrown overboard. Alternating between euphoria and hysteria, faced with internal opposition to his mono-maniac strategy of terror, he screams ‘FARC supporters’ at any and all overseas and Colombian critics. To Ecuador and Venezuela, he promises ‘not to invade their territory again’ unless ‘circumstances warrant it.’ So much for ‘reconciliation.’
The period of humanitarian exchange is dead; the FARC cannot and will not accommodate the requests of well-intentioned friends, especially when it puts in risk the entire FARC organization and leadership. Let us concede that Chavez intentions were well meant. His pleas for a mutual release of prisoners might have made sense if he had been dealing with a rational bourgeois politician responsive to international leaders and organizations and eager to create a favorable image before world public opinion. But it was naïve for Chavez to believe that a psychotic politician with a history of annihilating his opposition would suddenly discover the virtues of negotiations and humanitarian exchanges. Without question, the FARC understands better than its Andean and Caribbean friends through hard experience and bitter lessons, that armed struggle may not be the desired method but it is the only realistic way to confront a brutal fascist regime.
Uribe’s killing of Raul Reyes was not about Chavez initiatives or Ecuador’s sovereignty or Ingrid Betancourt’s captivity, it was about Raul Reyes, a consequential and life-long revolutionary and leader of the FARC. The war-scare is over, differences have been papered over, the leaders have returned to their palaces, but Raul Reyes has not been forgotten – at least not in the countryside of Colombia or in the hearts of its peasants.
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 Books). His latest book is "The Power of Israel in the United States" (Clarity Press, 2006).
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
THE $300 MILLION FROM CHAVEZ TO FARC IS A FAKE
Exclusive interview with the
President of Ecuador
THE $300 MILLION FROM CHAVEZ TO FARC IS A FAKE
By Greg Palast
Do you believe this?
This past weekend, Colombia invaded Ecuador, killed a guerrilla chief in the jungle, opened his laptop – and what did the Colombians find? A message to Hugo Chavez that he sent the FARC guerrillas $300 million – which they’re using to obtain uranium to make a dirty bomb!
That’s what George Bush tells us. And he got that from his buddy, the strange right-wing President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe.
So: After the fact, Colombia justifies its attempt to provoke a border war as a way to stop the threat of WMDs! Uh, where have we heard that before?
The US press snorted up this line about Chavez’ $300 million to “terrorists” quicker than the young Bush inhaling Colombia’s powdered export.
What the US press did not do is look at the evidence, the email in the magic laptop. (Presumably, the FARC leader’s last words were, “Listen, my password is ….”)
I read them. (You can read them here) - http://www.gregpalast.com/farc-documents/ While you can read it all in español, here is, in translation, the one and only mention of the alleged $300 million from Chavez:
“… With relation to the 300, which from now on we will call “dossier,” efforts are now going forward at the instructions of the boss to the cojo [slang term for ‘cripple’], which I will explain in a separate note. Let’s call the boss Ángel, and the cripple Ernesto.”
Got that? Where is Hugo? Where’s 300 million? And 300 what? Indeed, in context, the note is all about the hostage exchange with the FARC that Chavez was working on at the time (December 23, 2007) at the request of the Colombian government.
Indeed, the entire remainder of the email is all about the mechanism of the hostage exchange. Here’s the next line:
“To receive the three freed ones, Chavez proposes three options: Plan A. Do it to via of a ‘humanitarian caravan’; one that will involve Venezuela, France, the Vatican[?], Switzerland, European Union, democrats [civil society], Argentina, Red Cross, etc.”
As to the 300, I must note that the FARC’s previous prisoner exchange involved 300 prisoners. Is that what the ‘300’ refers to? ¿Quien sabe? Unlike Uribe, Bush and the US press, I won’t guess or make up a phastasmogoric story about Chavez mailing checks to the jungle.
To bolster their case, the Colombians claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that the mysterious “Angel” is the code name for Chavez. But in the memo, Chavez goes by the code name … Chavez.
Well, so what? This is what . . . .
Colombia’s invasion into Ecuador is a rank violation of international law, condemned by every single Latin member of the Organization of American States. But George Bush just loved it. He called Uribe to back Colombia, against, “the continuing assault by narco-terrorists as well as the provocative maneuvers by the regime in Venezuela.”
Well, our President may have gotten the facts ass-backward, but Bush knows what he’s doing: shoring up his last, faltering ally in South America, Uribe, a desperate man in deep political trouble.
Uribe claims he is going to bring charges against Chavez before the International Criminal Court. If Uribe goes there in person, I suggest he take a toothbrush: it was just discovered that right-wing death squads held murder-planning sessions at Uribe’s ranch. Uribe’s associates have been called before the nation’s Supreme Court and may face prison.
In other words, it’s a good time for a desperate Uribe to use that old politico’s wheeze, the threat of war, to drown out accusations of his own criminality. Furthermore, Uribe’s attack literally killed negotiations with FARC by killing FARC’s negotiator, Raul Reyes. Reyes was in talks with both Ecuador and Chavez about another prisoner exchange. Uribe authorized the negotiations. However, Uribe knew, should those talks have succeeded in obtaining the release of those kidnapped by the FARC, credit would have been heaped on Ecuador and Chavez, and discredit heaped on Uribe.
Luckily for a hemisphere on the verge of flames, the President of Ecuador, Raphael Correa, is one of the most level-headed, thoughtful men I’ve ever encountered.
Correa is now flying from Quito to Brazilia to Caracas to keep the region from blowing sky high. While moving troops to his border – no chief of state can permit foreign tanks on their sovereign soil – Correa also refuses sanctuary to the FARC . Indeed, Ecuador has routed out 47 FARC bases, a better track record than Colombia’s own, corrupt military.
For his cool, peaceable handling of the crisis, I will forgive Correa for apologizing for his calling Bush, “a dimwitted President who has done great damage to his country and the world.” (Watch an excerpt of my interview with Correa here.)
Amateur Hour in Blue
We can trust Correa to keep the peace South of the Border. But can we trust our Presidents-to-be?
The current man in the Oval Office, George Bush, simply can’t help himself: an outlaw invasion by a right-wing death-squad promoter is just fine with him.
But guess who couldn’t wait to parrot the Bush line? Hillary Clinton, still explaining that her vote to invade Iraq was not a vote to invade Iraq, issued a statement nearly identical to Bush’s, blessing the invasion of Ecuador as Colombia’s “right to defend itself.” And she added, “Hugo Chávez must stop these provoking actions.” Huh?
I assumed that Obama wouldn’t jump on this landmine – especially after he was blasted as a foreign policy amateur for suggesting he would invade across Pakistan’s border to hunt terrorists.
It’s embarrassing that Barack repeated Hillary’s line nearly verbatim, announcing, “the Colombian government has every right to defend itself.”
(I’m sure Hillary’s position wasn’t influenced by the loan of a campaign jet to her by Frank Giustra. Giustra has given over a hundred million dollars to Bill Clinton projects. Last year, Bill introduced Giustra to Colombia’s Uribe. On the spot, Giustra cut a lucrative deal with Uribe for Colombian oil.)
Then there’s Mr. War Hero. John McCain weighed in with his own idiocies, announcing that, “Hugo Chavez is establish[ing] a dictatorship,” presumably because, unlike George Bush, Chavez counts all the votes in Venezuelan elections.
But now our story gets tricky and icky.
The wise media critic Jeff Cohen told me to watch for the press naming McCain as a foreign policy expert and labeling the Democrats as amateurs. Sure enough, the New York Times, on the news pages Wednesday, called McCain, “a national security pro.”
McCain is the “pro” who said the war in Iraq would cost nearly nothing in lives or treasury dollars.
But, on the Colombian invasion of Ecuador, McCain said, “I hope that tensions will be relaxed, President Chavez will remove those troops from the borders - as well as the Ecuadorians - and relations continue to improve between the two.”
It’s not quite English, but it’s definitely not Bush. And weirdly, it’s definitely not Obama and Clinton cheerleading Colombia’s war on Ecuador.
Democrats, are you listening? The only thing worse than the media attacking Obama and Clinton as amateurs is the Democratic candidates’ frightening desire to prove them right.
******************
President of Ecuador
THE $300 MILLION FROM CHAVEZ TO FARC IS A FAKE
By Greg Palast
Do you believe this?
This past weekend, Colombia invaded Ecuador, killed a guerrilla chief in the jungle, opened his laptop – and what did the Colombians find? A message to Hugo Chavez that he sent the FARC guerrillas $300 million – which they’re using to obtain uranium to make a dirty bomb!
That’s what George Bush tells us. And he got that from his buddy, the strange right-wing President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe.
So: After the fact, Colombia justifies its attempt to provoke a border war as a way to stop the threat of WMDs! Uh, where have we heard that before?
The US press snorted up this line about Chavez’ $300 million to “terrorists” quicker than the young Bush inhaling Colombia’s powdered export.
What the US press did not do is look at the evidence, the email in the magic laptop. (Presumably, the FARC leader’s last words were, “Listen, my password is ….”)
I read them. (You can read them here) - http://www.gregpalast.com/farc-documents/ While you can read it all in español, here is, in translation, the one and only mention of the alleged $300 million from Chavez:
“… With relation to the 300, which from now on we will call “dossier,” efforts are now going forward at the instructions of the boss to the cojo [slang term for ‘cripple’], which I will explain in a separate note. Let’s call the boss Ángel, and the cripple Ernesto.”
Got that? Where is Hugo? Where’s 300 million? And 300 what? Indeed, in context, the note is all about the hostage exchange with the FARC that Chavez was working on at the time (December 23, 2007) at the request of the Colombian government.
Indeed, the entire remainder of the email is all about the mechanism of the hostage exchange. Here’s the next line:
“To receive the three freed ones, Chavez proposes three options: Plan A. Do it to via of a ‘humanitarian caravan’; one that will involve Venezuela, France, the Vatican[?], Switzerland, European Union, democrats [civil society], Argentina, Red Cross, etc.”
As to the 300, I must note that the FARC’s previous prisoner exchange involved 300 prisoners. Is that what the ‘300’ refers to? ¿Quien sabe? Unlike Uribe, Bush and the US press, I won’t guess or make up a phastasmogoric story about Chavez mailing checks to the jungle.
To bolster their case, the Colombians claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that the mysterious “Angel” is the code name for Chavez. But in the memo, Chavez goes by the code name … Chavez.
Well, so what? This is what . . . .
Colombia’s invasion into Ecuador is a rank violation of international law, condemned by every single Latin member of the Organization of American States. But George Bush just loved it. He called Uribe to back Colombia, against, “the continuing assault by narco-terrorists as well as the provocative maneuvers by the regime in Venezuela.”
Well, our President may have gotten the facts ass-backward, but Bush knows what he’s doing: shoring up his last, faltering ally in South America, Uribe, a desperate man in deep political trouble.
Uribe claims he is going to bring charges against Chavez before the International Criminal Court. If Uribe goes there in person, I suggest he take a toothbrush: it was just discovered that right-wing death squads held murder-planning sessions at Uribe’s ranch. Uribe’s associates have been called before the nation’s Supreme Court and may face prison.
In other words, it’s a good time for a desperate Uribe to use that old politico’s wheeze, the threat of war, to drown out accusations of his own criminality. Furthermore, Uribe’s attack literally killed negotiations with FARC by killing FARC’s negotiator, Raul Reyes. Reyes was in talks with both Ecuador and Chavez about another prisoner exchange. Uribe authorized the negotiations. However, Uribe knew, should those talks have succeeded in obtaining the release of those kidnapped by the FARC, credit would have been heaped on Ecuador and Chavez, and discredit heaped on Uribe.
Luckily for a hemisphere on the verge of flames, the President of Ecuador, Raphael Correa, is one of the most level-headed, thoughtful men I’ve ever encountered.
Correa is now flying from Quito to Brazilia to Caracas to keep the region from blowing sky high. While moving troops to his border – no chief of state can permit foreign tanks on their sovereign soil – Correa also refuses sanctuary to the FARC . Indeed, Ecuador has routed out 47 FARC bases, a better track record than Colombia’s own, corrupt military.
For his cool, peaceable handling of the crisis, I will forgive Correa for apologizing for his calling Bush, “a dimwitted President who has done great damage to his country and the world.” (Watch an excerpt of my interview with Correa here.)
Amateur Hour in Blue
We can trust Correa to keep the peace South of the Border. But can we trust our Presidents-to-be?
The current man in the Oval Office, George Bush, simply can’t help himself: an outlaw invasion by a right-wing death-squad promoter is just fine with him.
But guess who couldn’t wait to parrot the Bush line? Hillary Clinton, still explaining that her vote to invade Iraq was not a vote to invade Iraq, issued a statement nearly identical to Bush’s, blessing the invasion of Ecuador as Colombia’s “right to defend itself.” And she added, “Hugo Chávez must stop these provoking actions.” Huh?
I assumed that Obama wouldn’t jump on this landmine – especially after he was blasted as a foreign policy amateur for suggesting he would invade across Pakistan’s border to hunt terrorists.
It’s embarrassing that Barack repeated Hillary’s line nearly verbatim, announcing, “the Colombian government has every right to defend itself.”
(I’m sure Hillary’s position wasn’t influenced by the loan of a campaign jet to her by Frank Giustra. Giustra has given over a hundred million dollars to Bill Clinton projects. Last year, Bill introduced Giustra to Colombia’s Uribe. On the spot, Giustra cut a lucrative deal with Uribe for Colombian oil.)
Then there’s Mr. War Hero. John McCain weighed in with his own idiocies, announcing that, “Hugo Chavez is establish[ing] a dictatorship,” presumably because, unlike George Bush, Chavez counts all the votes in Venezuelan elections.
But now our story gets tricky and icky.
The wise media critic Jeff Cohen told me to watch for the press naming McCain as a foreign policy expert and labeling the Democrats as amateurs. Sure enough, the New York Times, on the news pages Wednesday, called McCain, “a national security pro.”
McCain is the “pro” who said the war in Iraq would cost nearly nothing in lives or treasury dollars.
But, on the Colombian invasion of Ecuador, McCain said, “I hope that tensions will be relaxed, President Chavez will remove those troops from the borders - as well as the Ecuadorians - and relations continue to improve between the two.”
It’s not quite English, but it’s definitely not Bush. And weirdly, it’s definitely not Obama and Clinton cheerleading Colombia’s war on Ecuador.
Democrats, are you listening? The only thing worse than the media attacking Obama and Clinton as amateurs is the Democratic candidates’ frightening desire to prove them right.
******************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)