James Petras on the FARC and Colombia

[magbana]

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-Peoples Army (FARC-EP)

The Cost of Unilateral Humanitarian Initiatives


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19544.htm
By James Petras

16/03/08 "ICH" -- - 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).

[Bacchus39]

1. wow, brilliant

"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"

ummm...no kidding.



and calling the hostages "prisoners" equating them to the FARC rebel prisoners is astonishing.

[Bacchus39]

2. oh and of course the "humanitarian" efforts by the FARC are the best part

did it ever occur to him that the FARC are the ones who took these people hostage in the first place???

[Judi Lynn]

3. Thanks for the post. Will save it to read later tonight. Looking forward. n/t

[EFerrari]

4. Petra's criticism of Correa and Chavez is important.

FARC may be the only thing keeping Colombia out of Venezuela -- to the extent that it IS out of Venezuela. I wonder what Chavez was thinking. It looks like he, the French Minister and FARC underestimated the degree to which Bush's puppet was willing to flout international law and opinion. That got people dead.

I hadn't realized how bad things were in Colombia or just how insane Uribe is.

[Bacchus39]

5. what reason do you have to believe Colombia is interested in invading Venezuela?

oh yeah, because Chavez said so. nevermind.

[AlphaCentauri]

19. The South American Union

just imaging a strong South America Union ala EU, the RW'ers wanted divided, easy to manipulate.

[Judi Lynn]

6. I've got to add something I found today to your post, and then return to read

your real post. (Have been really screwed for time and I'm doing things haphazardly, sorry)

This concerns an earlier attempt to put down arms and mainstream the FARC attempted in the 1980's, and how it worked out for them.

I added this to a thread in LBN which caught my eye when I scanned it earlier. It was needed on this thread, and it can be useful here to inform people who are unaware that FARC has TRIED to live in peace before and has been slaughtered in ways they don't want to repeat:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's an interesting item from the N.Y. Times in 1990, when few Americans had any grasp of what has been happening in Colombia, financed in large by their own American taxpayers' money. To explain the assassinated politician, he represented the political party the FARC organized in 1985, after complying with a peace agreement in 1984 created with the government's National Peace Commission at La Uribe, Colombia:

Leftist Candidate Assassinated at Bogota Airport
REUTERS
Published: March 23, 1990

LEAD: A leading left-wing politician was assassinated at the Bogota airport today, and troops used tear gas and gunfire to disperse hundreds of demonstrators accusing the Government of complicity in the killing.

A leading left-wing politician was assassinated at the Bogota airport today, and troops used tear gas and gunfire to disperse hundreds of demonstrators accusing the Government of complicity in the killing.

Bernardo Jaramillo, presidential candidate for the Patriotic Union Party, the country's largest leftist political party died while undergoing surgery after being shot four times by an assailant firing a submachine gun, the police said.

The gunman was captured at Bogota's El Dorado airport and was questioned by police investigators.

Late today the Government blamed drug traffickers for the killing. A Government statement said that the leader of the Medellin cocaine cartel, Pablo Escobar, ordered the assassination and that the gunman had been paid $650 to kill Mr. Jaramillo.

The Patriotic Union Party has blamed past attacks on death squads backed by the military.

Shortly after the killing this morning, hundreds of party sympathizers took to the streets shouting, ''Of course, the Government killed him.''

Armed military police, carrying shields and backed by armored trucks, surrounded the demonstrators.

More:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE5DD1330F930A15750C0A966958260

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've seen enough references to these attempts to cease fire and go through channels get destroyed again and again. They don't want peace with leftists, they want NO OPPOSITION WHATSOEVER. PERIOD. Not even an occassional article in the newspapers which challenges any of the narcotrafficker politicians, like Uribe.

By now, all that's left journalistically in Colombia is a handful of journalists who freely admit that, as the ones who managed to avoid copious amounts of death threats, and assassinations by keeping a low profile, while others were gunned down or fled altogether, they can be expected to "SELF-CENSOR" their own writing to keep themselves from being killed.

The information is available to anyone who wants to look for it, who suspects that he/she needs to find out more, and NOT take the corporate media's word for things.


Wiki on Leal, the assassinated progressive politician:

Jaime Pardo Leal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Jaime Pardo Leal (died October 11, 1987) was the Presidential candidate of the Patriotic Union, Colombia for the 1986 elections.

Members of the Patriotic Union became the target of multiple death threats and assassination attempts. Pardo Leal himself, after running for president in 1986, was assassinated by a 14-year old in October 11, 1987, who was later killed as well. Druglord José Gonzalo Rodríguez Gacha, also known as "the Mexican", was apparently involved in the murder as a sponsor. The Colombian Communist Party newspaper Voz published a report in which it allegedly linked members of the Colombian military to Rodríguez Gacha.

By 1988, the UP announced that more than 500 of its members, including Pardo Leal and 4 congressmen, had been assassinated to date. Unidentified gunmen later attacked more than 100 of the UP's local candidates in the six months preceding the March 1988 elections. An April 1988 report by Amnesty International charged that members of the Colombian military and government would be involved in what was called a "deliberate policy of political murder" of UP militants and others. The terms of that accusation were rejected and deemed to be an inaccurate exaggeration by the Colombian administration of Virgilio Barco Vargas.

By 2003-2004, the official legal representatives of a partial number of UP victims presented a concrete death toll of about 1,163 to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), of which 450 (38%) were attributed directly to paramilitary groups. The breakdown of the remainder was not publicly specified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Pardo_Leal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~snip~
During the 1980's more than 2,000 members of the leftist Patriotic Union (UP) were murdered by right-wing death squads. Members of other leftist parties were also killed, as was a reform-minded, Liberal Party presidential candidate. As the first elections of the new millennium approach, little has changed in Colombian electoral politics. So far during this election season, 20 mayoral candidates have been assassinated and more than a hundred kidnapped.

This is the "democracy" that President Clinton so desperately wants to help preserve with $1.3 billion in U.S. aid. However, the aid is being used to fight the rebel Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), not the right-wing death squads primarily responsible for destabilizing Colombian democracy. Paramilitary organizations and drug traffickers have killed thousands of leftist and reform-minded candidates who dared to challenge the political hegemony of the ruling Conservative and Liberal parties.

In the 1980's the FARC entered into a cease-fire and negotiations with the government of President Belisario Betancur. The FARC then formed a political party, the Patriotic Union (UP), in order to participate in elections. But the promise of greater democracy and an end to the civil conflict posed a threat to the elite's political and economic power (see, Fifty Years of Violence).

The elite--primarily wealthy businessmen and large landowners--and narco-traffickers who were trying to change the extradition laws, soon set about eliminating all political opposition. As a result, the UP was virtually annihilated by the end of the decade. The leader of the UP, Jaime Pardo Leal, was assassinated in 1987. The UP's presidential candidate, Bernardo Jaramillo, was killed in the weeks leading up to the 1990 election, as was another presidential candidate, Carlos Pizarro of the M-19 guerrillas who had recently laid down their arms in order to form a political party.

The death squads not only targeted leftist candidates and former guerrillas, they also assassinated reform-minded members of the two major parties, such as Liberal candidate Luis Carlos Galán, who was expected to win the 1990 presidential election.

In this climate of electoral violence the cease-fire agreement disintegrated. The civil conflict escalated throughout the 1990's as both the FARC and the paramilitaries gained strength due to increased profits from the drug trade. However, there was little change when it came to electoral politics. Although there were few leftist candidates brave enough to run for national office, on the local level the assassinations continued.

According to Human Rights Watch, in the months leading up to 1997's municipal elections the country's largest paramilitary group, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), declared "they would prevent pro-guerrilla 'proselytizing' in areas of conflict, which candidates considered a threat to those who failed to embrace their views." By August 1997, ten mayors and 36 town council members had been assassinated.

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia34.htm

[gbscar]

7. How about how things worked out for the people FARC killed, kidnapped and extorted....

...during the very same period of time you merrily claim they "put down their arms"?

But I guess those victims must be imaginary and non-existent. And FARC or other guerrilla groups have made zero threats or otherwise attacked journalists or people who peacefully oppose or criticize them. That's completely beyond them, they are pure hearted revolutionaries who are tolerant and understanding of others. Always have, always will...but they are forced to be violent, poor things.

Anything else is just a mere Right-Wing conspiracy to make the "peace-loving" FARC look bad.

You see, the UP's extermination excuses everything FARC did and makes it impossible for anyone to criticize FARC from then onwards...or not, for those who care to study the rest of the story.

That is not an excuse for the violence against the Patriotic Union and people like Jaramillo, but trying to paint FARC like angels when they didn't stop any of their crimes while that was all going on...places the situation outside of reality, except for that side of the story FARC itself wants to present while hiding its own dirty laundry and hands which are just as bloody as those of the killers of the UP.

But saying this isn't "progressive" but "fascist", so I guess it must be false.

[EFerrari]

16. Are you lost?

[AlphaCentauri]

20. There is no need to excuse the FARC for their crimes but the Right wing criminals beat them 3 to 1

The right wing criminals are the drug lords, the army of the police (paramilitaries) and the Uribistas. Drug lords are not related to communist ideologist but to free market ideologist, they respond to a mere demand problem of the drug consumers and from time to time they do some dirty work for political favors ( Iran-Contras ).

The paramilitaries propaganda say they were created to demise the FARC but the true is that they work to protect drug lords and protect any one who pay them for protection.

The Uribistas the political wing of the conservatives in Colombia who make use of the other criminal elements to move their agenda.

[Judi Lynn]

8. Just read your opening article. Excellent! There's a part which is very focused in recent events,

which bears re-emphasizing:

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.’

Glad to read and to file this away for future reference. Thanks, a lot.

[gbscar]

9. Great on rhetorics, poor on facts...but I suppose some people like it all the same

"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."

So if the "Uribe regime" itself would have "launched" such "bloody murders" threats against "all" those organizations it would be extremely ease to prove, in or outside or court, wouldn't it?

No, it's merely assumed by Petras and others who happily turn the Colombian government, Uribe and the paramilitaries into a faceless mass of pure "fascism", reducing their individuality, different interests and actual behavior to nothing while ignoring whatever details don't suit simplistic theories. That's just great.

"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."

The "leader of the march", so to speak, is quite alive as far as anyone can actually tell. But don't let such details get in the way of Petras and his speech. And naturally, everything is Uribe's fault, no way around it. He's the fascist dictator who orders all killings and makes all threats.

If only he weren't there, nothing would happen...

" 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."

Actually, those numbers and other similar estimates correspond to the unionists killed and the people displaced over 20 years, but I guess that doesn't matter. It's all Uribe's fault, forever and ever, naturally.

Let's also forget that there are other reasons for and other parties who are also responsible for displacement and land concentration.

"Several of Uribe’s most intimate cabinet collaborators were exposed as having family ties with the death squads and two were forced to resign."

If by "cabinet collaborators" and by "family ties with the death squads" who mean one Foreign Minister whose family members were two politicians who are accused of being involved with death squads, not of being part of the death squads themselves as this implies, then yes. But that's not what Petras is saying, is it?

"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."

So let me get this straight...the entire Colombian military and police was built up under Uribe, it's all a murderous killing machine, the death squads were also built up by him, and "over a million" people who marched against FARC are all rich Uribe fanatics who all want to wipe out not just FARC but all opposition.

Ah yes...fascism is so easy to describe when you toss out boring details that make up reality.

"But he has utterly failed to defeat, destroy or disarticulate the FARC – his most consequential opposition."

FARC is not merely opposed to Uribe, last time anyone checked...and I suppose their being the most "consequential" opposition means the rest of it are inconsequential. Wonderful.

And it's not like defeating FARC wouldn't take a lot of time and effort, or that they haven't been weakened. Oh no, they're just fine and "struggling on" with no problems. Uh huh.

"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’."

I wonder if anyone can actually show us those yearly pledges of "finally putting an end to the terrorists" with massive sweeps.

Oh wait, that's not really what Uribe has said, even at his most militaristic. But carry on.

"Each of Uribe’s military offensives has failed.""

Except that even if utter annihilation is unlikely, FARC has been clearly weakened, even if we only made a list of how many commanders they've lost recently.

"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."

But let's ignore that Uribe has been willing to negotiate with FARC, both peace and merely a prisoner exchange. Just not under their terms, of course, which didn't exactly lead to peace in the recent past, to say the least.

"Uribe’s failures and the enduring presence of the FARC have become a psychotic obsession"

I think that Petras is the one with a more than apparent obsession, by most indications...decidedly so in fact.

"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."

Oh, so now *all* critics have been called FARC supporters, with no exceptions or circumstances worth considering or discussing. Just like that. Honestly...

[magbana]

10. Context

We can debate news accounts, but I don’t think we can continue to discuss this issue without the proper context. The context is that Colombia is a client state of the US and for the past 40 years the US has been arming Colombia to the teeth to do exactly what it is doing – make provocative moves at the request of the US. No matter what happens, FARC must remain a major threat so that the US Congress will continue to fund Plan Colombia. Any attempt by FARC to attempt a denouement in hostilities is rebuffed and sabotaged by the Colombians. Just as the Israelis play the same game with the Palestinians to ensure a steady funding supply, it is really a very irresponsible and dangerous game to be a head of state and NOT work on a peaceful resolution.

I don’t care if the camp had FARC, Al Qaida, Sendero Luminoso, or Patty Hearst’s old gang, the Symbionese Liberation Army init, the attack by Colombia violated the OAS charter (see below) and UN resolutions about aggressive measures against sovereign states. This was an incredibly hostile act and was potentially dangerous for the citizens of Colombia. But, when you are the puppet of the US, you are often commanded to do things directly against the safety and well-being of your population. If you watched the video of the Rio meeting, Uribe was flitting around like a fly to shake hands with Chavez, Correa, and Ortega. He knows he came close to having his head handed to him on a platter.


As for the attack in Ecuador, it was less about FARC and Colombia and far more about the US and Chavez and Correa. Going after Reyes was important, but much more important if it “allowed” the “laptop issue.” Chavez was wise to put troops on the border immediately. He knows that most of the US’ provocations against him have been executed through Colombia. Some people have wondered why he re-established diplomatic relations with Colombia. During the hostilities, the Venezuelans were in a virtual “intelligence blackout” and needed to get their diplomats back to Bogota so they could start collecting intelligence again.

Just as the US is the imperial PAC-MAN gobbling up everything in its path, Chavez and Correa are pushing in the opposite direction against the encroachment of the neo-liberal system. The US is the master of “soft coups,” espionage, subterfuge, slaughter etc. So the next story you hear about Colombian provocation against these states (and others), don’t bother wondering about Uribe’s motivations. He has none (except money). All Uribe does is give the command to unleash his mercenaries in whatever direction the US asks. So when Colombia pulls some crap like they did on March 1, it is critical to analyze how the US is involved and what their motivations are

http://www.oas.org/juridico/English/charter.html#ch4
Chapter IV

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES

Article 10

States are juridically equal, enjoy equal rights and equal capacity to exercise these rights, and have equal duties. The rights of each State depend not upon its power to ensure the exercise thereof, but upon the mere fact of its existence as a person under international law.

Article 11

Every American State has the duty to respect the rights enjoyed by every other State in accordance with international law.

Article 12

The fundamental rights of States may not be impaired in any manner whatsoever.

Article 13

The political existence of the State is independent of recognition by other States. Even before being recognized, the State has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its preservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate concerning its interests, to administer its services, and to determine the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights is limited only by the exercise of the rights of other States in accordance with international law.

Article 14

Recognition implies that the State granting it accepts the personality of the new State, with all the rights and duties that international law prescribes for the two States.

Article 15

The right of each State to protect itself and to live its own life does not authorize it to commit unjust acts against another State.

Article 16

The jurisdiction of States within the limits of their national territory is exercised equally over all the inhabitants, whether nationals or aliens.

Article 17

Each State has the right to develop its cultural, political, and economic life freely and naturally. In this free development, the State shall respect the rights of the individual and the principles of universal morality.

Article 18

Respect for and the faithful observance of treaties constitute standards for the development of peaceful relations among States. International treaties and agreements should be public.

Article 19

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.

Article 20

No State may use or encourage the use of coercive measures of an economic or political character in order to force the sovereign will of another State and obtain from it advantages of any kind.

Article 21

The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever. No territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by force or by other means of coercion shall be recognized.

Article 22

The American States bind themselves in their international relations not to have recourse to the use of force, except in the case of self­defense in accordance with existing treaties or in fulfillment thereof.

Article 23

Measures adopted for the maintenance of peace and security in accordance with existing treaties do not constitute a violation of the principles set forth in Articles 19 and 21.

[gbscar]

13. Context, or rather conclusions you assume to be true...

"The context is that Colombia is a client state of the US and for the past 40 years the US has been arming Colombia to the teeth to do exactly what it is doing – make provocative moves at the request of the US."

Do you have any concrete proof that completely supports this exact description of the situation, without resorting to conspiracy theories or extremely selective interpretations of the circumstances?

Has Colombia been a "client state" for 40 years? How many provocative moves has it engaged in during those same 40 years? Has the U.S. really been "arming Colombia to the teeth" over those decades?

Not really, but I guess it's nice rhetoric and anti-imperialist so it must be true.

"No matter what happens, FARC must remain a major threat so that the US Congress will continue to fund Plan Colombia."

Let me guess. You reached that conclusion so it must be true. I wonder if that ability can be transmitted to others.

"Any attempt by FARC to attempt a denouement in hostilities is rebuffed and sabotaged by the Colombians."

Oh, so they are the only ones who want a reduction of the hostilities but the government won't let them...which is why there was never any cease-fire or any significance and in fact they increased kidnappings in order to extort a prisoner exchange out of the government just a few years ago, when they were supposed to be talking about "peace".

"I don’t care if the camp had FARC, Al Qaida, Sendero Luminoso, or Patty Hearst’s old gang, the Symbionese Liberation Army init, the attack by Colombia violated the OAS charter (see below) and UN resolutions about aggressive measures against sovereign states."

It did violate the OAS charter and I suppose other international treaties or laws...but if you're going to bring UN resolutions into this, we would also have to consider those resolutions which talk about terrorism, for example, and other subjects. There is more than one legal case to be made here.

"his was an incredibly hostile act and was potentially dangerous for the citizens of Colombia. But, when you are the puppet of the US, you are often commanded to do things directly against the safety and well-being of your population."

Let me guess. You reached that conclusion so it must be true. No proof needed, you already know all about those "commands" or how and when they actually apply.

"If you watched the video of the Rio meeting, Uribe was flitting around like a fly to shake hands with Chavez, Correa, and Ortega. He knows he came close to having his head handed to him on a platter."

Ignoring that this was all at the direct request of the host, I suppose.

"As for the attack in Ecuador, it was less about FARC and Colombia and far more about the US and Chavez and Correa."

Let me guess. You reached that conclusion so it must be true. You are supposed to know the "real" motivations behind the attack and can see into the heads of those behind it.

"Going after Reyes was important, but much more important if it “allowed” the “laptop issue.” Chavez was wise to put troops on the border immediately."

Apparently many in Venezuela believed otherwise, and even in Ecuador's El Comercio many people responded to a poll saying they didn't exactly share his reaction. But I guess you're wiser.

"He knows that most of the US’ provocations against him have been executed through Colombia."

Let me guess. You reached that conclusion so it must be true. Are you keeping a tally of said "provocations" or are you even in a position to say that they are in fact mandated by the U.S.? Not really.

"Some people have wondered why he re-established diplomatic relations with Colombia. During the hostilities, the Venezuelans were in a virtual “intelligence blackout” and needed to get their diplomats back to Bogota so they could start collecting intelligence again."

Let me guess...you're supposed to know why those people were removed and why they would be sent back there.

"So the next story you hear about Colombian provocation against these states (and others), don’t bother wondering about Uribe’s motivations. He has none (except money)."

Let me guess...you know all about Uribe's motivations. What crystal balls you must have.

"All Uribe does is give the command to unleash his mercenaries in whatever direction the US asks. So when Colombia pulls some crap like they did on March 1, it is critical to analyze how the US is involved and what their motivations are"

Let me guess....see above.

I think that rather than analyzing, you are speculating and trying to assume way too much about the motivations of personalities and collectives.

[magbana]

18. Jeez . . .

You are using sarcasm as a substitute for intellectual challenge – it ain’t working. How do I know what I know? I’m a long-time student of US and Latin Amercan history and I have some terrific connections.

[Judi Lynn]

11. Here's a video from El Tiempo which was available at a site it shared

with a video of the invasion of Ecuador provided by Alpha Centauri on another thread.

This will be more useful to anyone who speaks Spanish, I'm afraid, as someone who's Spanish hasn't been used for so long it's almost useless unless people speak r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y. I believe there are quite a few people who will know what this guy is saying:

Oganizador de la marcha del 6 de Marzo habla para eltiempotv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQXFUhRfXGU&feature=user

[Judi Lynn]

12. Here's a helpful bit of information. Excuse if I've already posted. It's too useful to pitch.

Colombia's 'Narco-Presidente'
By Jerry Meldon
June 1, 2006

~snip~
History of Violence

Colombia’s long history of violence – the origins of which Scott lays at the doorstep of a feudalistic oligarchy that dispossessed peasants and subjugated laborers with impunity – predates the first U.S. intervention in the early 1960s. (The 15-year-long “La Violencia” period began with the 1948 assassination of a popular presidential candidate.)

Furthermore, the crystallization of what had previously been a fragmented left-wing underground into an armed revolutionary guerilla movement, occurred in response, not prior, to U.S. intervention.

Washington intervened in Colombia after the Indochinese and Cuban revolutions of the 1950s. Throughout the Cold War, but particularly then and in the Reagan era, the U.S. government viewed political developments through red-tinted glasses, seeing evidence of Soviet expansionism in every revolutionary movement.

Determined to block another revolution in Latin America, Washington applied new CIA counterinsurgency techniques in Colombia.

“In February 1962,” Scott writes, “a U.S. Special Warfare team, headed by General William Yarborough, visited for two weeks.” Following that visit, “the Special Warfare experts at Fort Bragg rushed to instruct the Colombian army in …counterinsurgency techniques…

“ recommended development of a ‘civil and military structure… to perform counter-agent and counter-propaganda functions and as necessary execution, sabotage, and/or terrorist activities against known communist proponents. … In the wake of Yarborough’s visit, a series of training teams arrived, contributing to the Colombian Army’s Plan Lazo, a comprehensive counterinsurgency plan implemented between 1962 and 1965.”

As result, according to counterinsurgency historian Michael McClintock, “The banditry of the early 1960s…was transformed into organized revolutionary guerilla warfare after 1965, which has continued to date.”

Worse yet, Plan Lazo also spawned the paramilitary death squads that today control much of the narcotics traffic and about 30 percent of the Colombian legislature.
(snip)

More Fires

In the 1970s, Washington continued to pour fuel onto Colombia’s fires.

The CIA, Scott writes, “offered further training to Colombian and other Latin American police officers at its so-called bomb school in Los Fresnos, Texas. There AID , under the CIA’s so-called Public Safety Program, taught a curriculum including ‘Terrorist Concepts; Terrorist Devices; Fabrication and Functioning of Devices’ Improvised Triggering Devices; Incendiaries,’ and ‘Assassination Weapons: A discussion of various weapons which may be used by the assassin.’ During congressional hearings, AID officials admitted that the so-called bomb school offered lessons not in bomb disposal but in bomb making.

“Trained terrorist counterrevolutionaries thus became assets of the Colombian security apparatus. They were also employed by U.S. corporations anxious to protect their workforces from unionization as well as in anti-union campaigns by Colombian suppliers to large U.S. corporations. Oil companies in particular have been part of the state-coordinated campaign against left-wing guerillas.”

According to more mainstream versions of how the “death squads” were born, rich landowners living in fear of kidnapping by leftist guerillas paid protection money to right-wing militias. By 1981, the right-wing militias had morphed into civilian-murdering squads operating alongside the Colombian army.

Scott notes that the leftist guerillas also kidnapped drug kingpins, who joined with the army and established a training school for a nationwide counterterrorist network, Muerte a Sequestradores (MAS, Death to Kidnappers).

The traffickers put up the money and the generals contracted for Israeli and British mercenaries to come to Colombia to run the school. A leading graduate was Carlos Castano, who later became head of the AUC, which carried out the murders of hundreds of civilian opposition leaders and peace activists.

The Colombian legislature outlawed the autodefensas in 1989. But, according to a 1996 report by Human Rights Watch, the CIA and Colombian authorities cloned new ones.

More:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/053106a.html

[gbscar]

14. If transparent caricatures, inaccuracy and selectiveness are supposed to be useful, I guess (n/t)

[Judi Lynn]

15. Cool! I've got some more articles you can critique!

U.S. INTELLIGENCE LISTED COLOMBIAN PRESIDENT URIBE AMONG
"IMPORTANT COLOMBIAN NARCO-TRAFFICKERS" IN 1991

Then-Senator "Dedicated to Collaboration with the Medellín Cartel at High Government Levels"

Confidential DIA Report Had Uribe Alongside Pablo Escobar, Narco-Assassins

Uribe "Worked for the Medellín Cartel" and was a "Close Personal Friend of Pablo Escobar"


Washington, D.C., 1 August 2004 - Then-Senator and now President Álvaro Uribe Vélez of Colombia was a "close personal friend of Pablo Escobar" who was "dedicated to collaboration with the Medellín cartel at high government levels," according to a 1991 intelligence report from U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) officials in Colombia. The document was posted today on the website of the National Security Archive, a non-governmental research group based at George Washington University.

Uribe's inclusion on the list raises new questions about allegations that surfaced during Colombia's 2002 presidential campaign. Candidate Uribe bristled and abruptly terminated an interview in March 2002 when asked by Newsweek reporter Joseph Contreras about his alleged ties to Escobar and his associations with others involved in the drug trade. Uribe accused Contreras of trying to smear his reputation, saying that, "as a politician, I have been honorable and accountable."

The newly-declassified report, dated 23 September 1991, is a numbered list of "the more important Colombian narco-traffickers contracted by the Colombian narcotic cartels for security, transportation, distribution, collection and enforcement of narcotics operations." The document was released by DIA in May 2004 in response to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the Archive in August 2000.

The source of the report was removed by DIA censors, but the detailed, investigative nature of the report -- the list corresponds with a numbered set of photographs that were apparently provided with the original -- suggests it was probably obtained from Colombian or U.S. counternarcotics personnel. The document notes that some of the information in the report was verified "via interfaces with other agencies."

President Uribe -- now a key U.S. partner in the drug war -- "was linked to a business involved in narcotics activities in the United States" and "has worked for the Medellín cartel," the narcotics trafficking organization led by Escobar until he was killed by Colombian government forces in 1993. The report adds that Uribe participated in Escobar's parliamentary campaign and that as senator he had "attacked all forms of the extradition treaty" with the U.S.

More:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB131/index.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BLACKLIST TO THE A LIST
ONCE DEEMED A BAD GUY, URIBE IS NOW A TOP ALLY
By BY JOSEPH CONTRERAS AND STEVEN AMBRUS | NEWSWEEK
Aug 9, 2004 Issue

The declassified defense Department intelligence report, dated September 1991, reads like a Who's Who of Colombia's cocaine trade. The list includes the Medellin cartel's kingpin, Pablo Escobar, and more than 100 other thugs, assassins, traffickers and shady lawyers in his alleged employ. Then there's entry 82: "Alvaro Uribe Velez--a Colombian politician and senator dedicated to collaboration with the Medellin cartel at high government levels. Uribe was linked to a business involved in narcotics activities in the U.S.... Uribe has worked for the Medellin cartel and is a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar Gaviria." Escobar died in a 1993 police raid. Two years ago this week, Uribe became president of Colombia.

Washington loves him. In a two-page written statement, the Colombian president's office denied that Uribe had links of any kind to a U.S. business, as described in the 1991 report. (The list was obtained by the National Security Archive, an independent U.S. research group.) But the statement did not address the allegations that Uribe had worked for the Medellin cartel and was Escobar's close friend. It may be that Uribe thinks his recent actions speak louder than denials: in the last two years, Colombia has extradited 140 accused traffickers to the United States--a figure unmatched by any previous president. "This is probably one of the most pro-American presidents in Latin America's entire history," says Adam Isacson, at the Center for International Policy in Washington.

Still, questions persist. Uribe has been talking peace with outlawed right-wing paramilitaries. These groups began in self-defense against an out-of-control Marxist guerrilla movement, yet they supported themselves via the drug trade. After winning office on a pledge to stop leftist guerrillas, Uribe is now offering leniency to paramilitaries who renounce trafficking and disarm. "Some of these people don't even have anti-guerrilla credentials," says Isacson. "They're just drug traffickers who've bought their way into the paramilitary movement as a way to claim political status, legitimize their fortunes and walk free." Most Colombians seem unconcerned. With the president's approval ratings hovering above 70 percent, he's likely to get a constitutional amendment later this year to let him run again in 2006--and win.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/54793

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Narco-Candidate in Colombia
Uribe Velez, Favourite for President, and his narco-links

by Al Giordano
Narco News
March 20, 2002

A Narco News Investigative Report

In 1997 and 1998, alert U.S. Customs agents in California seized three suspicious Colombia-bound ships that, the agents discovered, were laden with 50,000 kilos of potassium permanganate, a key "precursor chemical" necessary for the manufacture of cocaine.

According to a document signed by then-DEA chief Donnie R. Marshall on August 3, 2001, the ships were each destined for Medellin, Colombia, to a company called GMP Productos Quimicos, S. A. (GMP Chemical Products).

The 50,000 kilos of the precursor chemical destined for GMP were enough to make half-a-million kilos of cocaine hydrochloride, with a street value of $15 billion U.S. dollars.

The owner of GMP Chemical Products, according to the 2001 DEA chief's report, is Pedro Juan Moreno Villa, the campaign manager, former chief of staff, and longtime right-hand-man for front-running Colombian presidential candidate Alvaro Uribe Velez.

Mr. Moreno was Uribe's political alter-ego before, during and after those nervous 1997 and 1998 months when he awaited those contraband shipments.

When Uribe was governor of the state of Antioquia from 1995 to 1997 - from its capitol of Medellin - Moreno was chief of staff in Governor Uribe's office. During those years, according to then-DEA chief Marshall, ""Between 1994 and 1998, GMP was the largest importer of potassium permanganate into Colombia."

More:
http://www.zmag.org/content/Colombia/giordano_uribe.cfm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘That Blessed Lad’: Why Drug Lord Pablo Escobar Idolised the Colombian President
by Francesc Relea
October 17, 2007

The figure of the drug trafficker, Pablo Escobar, struck down 14 years ago, still buffets the Colombian political class. Virginia Vallejo of 57 years, lover and fiancée for five years of the head of the Medellín Cartel, the most powerful criminal organisation that has existed in Colombia, has broken a long silence to speak of the past and the present of her country. In the book, ‘Loving Pablo, Hating Escobar’ (Amando a Pablo, Odiando a Escobar), Vallejo attacks prominent political leaders, attributing to them intimate links with the drug lord. A refugee in the United States expecting to obtain political asylum, Virginia Vallejo gave El Pais a long interview, the first since leaving Colombia more than a year ago. Having disappeared from the scene for more than a decade, in which gossip and rumour of the worst kind proliferated, the television presenter, reporter, model and actress, returns to the arena as an inconvenient witness for the Colombian politicians. The President, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, has swiftly rejected the accusations in Vallejo’s book.

“The narco-State dreamt of by Pablo Escobar is today more relevant than ever in Colombia,” says the diva of the Eighties. “The narco-traffickers prospered in Colombia not because they were geniuses but because the presidents were very cheap,” says Vallejo, and mentions three names as narco-Presidents: Alfonso López Michelsen, Ernesto Samper and Álvaro Uribe. Of the current Colombian President, Álvaro Uribe, Vallejo says that the chief of the Medellin Cartel idolised him. She states that the (Colombian) leader, as director of civil aeronautics (1980-1982), “granted dozens of licences for landing strips and hundreds for aircraft and helicopters on which the drug trafficking infrastructure was built”. “Pablo used to say: ‘if it were not for that blessed lad, we’d have to be swimming till Miami to reach the drugs to the gringos. Now, with our own strips, nobody can stop us. Own strips, own aircraft, own helicopters…’ They reached the merchandise till Cayo Norman, in the Bahamas, operational headquarters of Carlos Lehder (co-founder of the Medellín Cartel), and from there to Miami without problems”. Vallejo is ready to defend publicly and through a lie detector everything written and stated.

“When I met Pablo I did not know he has so much money. I found out through Forbes and Fortune magazines that they put him as the seventh richest person in the world,” says Vallejo. Another episode that illustrates the supposed links between Uribe and Escobar is the death of Alberto Uribe Sierra, the President’s father, in 1983 at the hands of a FARC guerrilla squad. “Pablo loved dear Alvaro very much,” explains Escobar’s former fiancée. “When FARC killed Uribe’s father in a kidnap attempt, Pablo send them a helicopter to collect the remains. His brother Santiago was bleeding. He was in a farm far from Medellín, where there wasn’t any helicopter or aviation infrastructure of any sort. Pablo gave the order to send the helicopter. He told me this a few days later. He felt that death very much. He felt very sad. He told me: ‘Anyone who thinks that this is an easy business is very wrong. This is a trail of deaths. Every day we have to bury friends, partners and relatives.’ He told me that he too would be one of the dead and asked me if I was prepared to write his story”.

According to the National Security Archive, a group of non-governmental researchers based at the George Washington University, Álvaro Uribe was a close friend of Pablo Escobar who collaborated with the Medellín Cartel. The same group of researchers put out a list of the most important Colombian drug traffickers in 1991 produced by the U.S. intelligence services in which Escobar occupied the 79th place and Uribe 82nd.

More:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=14063

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~snip~
One of Escobar's surviving relatives is his cousin José Obdulio Gaviria. Former member of the political movement Firmes, which supported the 1982 presidential aspiration of leftwing politician Gerardo Molina, José Obdulio Gaviria became politically close to Álvaro Uribe, within the Colombian Liberal Party in Antioquia. Two of Gaviria's brothers were detained in the U.S. during 1983 on drug-related charges.<8><9> After Uribe's election in 2002, Gaviria became one of his presidential advisors and has been said to be his "ideologue", often defending Uribe's government before the media. According to La Otra Verdad journalist Julio César García Vásquez, Escobar's and Uribe's families are genealogically related, sharing a distant ancestor.<10>

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Escobar

Maybe you'll do us the honor of critiqueing this painting:



The Death of Pablo Escobar
by Francisco Botero, Colombia

[EFerrari]

17. LOL

:rofl: