Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Before and After posted by Richard Seymour
One of the most amusing moments from the last presidential debate before the election was when Obama and McCain discussed Colombia. It was interesting at least to see that Obama would criticise the Colombian regime for not prosecuting the murderers of labour leaders. McCain's eyebrows went fucking wild with outrage and insane bewilderment. He couldn't believe that Obama would disrespect the Family. So maybe after watching that, you were thinking, "this Obama guy might not be too bad for Latin America". Maybe. But look at his latest presumptive appointment, Eric Holder for Attorney General. Now, the Chicago Tribune article tells you many things. It tells you that Holder would be the first African American to head the Justice Department, that he worked under Clinton, that he is really a jolly top rate lawyer with lots of experience doing complex cases. What are they missing out, I wonder? Well, his support for terrorism. Namely, his work on behalf of Chicquita executives who paid "protection money" to Colombian death squads, who duly "protected" the interests of said executives. To think, there's a District Attorney out their who's ready to indict Cheney and Gonzales - and Obama appoints the number one advocate for death squad capitalism in the US.Labels: barack obama, colombia, death squads, democrats
Friday, March 07, 2008
The Israel of Latin America. posted by Richard Seymour

Chavez describes Colombia as "the Israel of Latin America" for good reason. It was recently revealed revealed that Israelis have been fighting against FARC guerillas in Colombia, supplying counterinsurgency expertise from their many decades of hunting Palestinians in order to help accomplish this sort of thing. This is part of a long-standing relationship that Israel has had with the terror regimes of Latin America. No wonder there's such an Israel-Colombia love-in.
Colombia's recent aggression in Ecuador produced a wave of revulsion among Latin American states. Lula has condemned Colombia, and so has the OAS. Nicaragua has broken diplomatic relations with Colombia over its actions. Even Bernard Kouchner, who thought he was about to land a heroic role for himself in Ingrid Betancourt's release, is pissed off. Venezuela, Argentina and Ecuador have found a new unity as a result of this. It's not only a blatant violation of Ecuadoran sovereignty, but a deliberate strike at the peaceful negotiations that were under way - the killing of Raul Reyes finished off his own role in working out the freeing of hostages. The Colombian state demonstrated that it would rather invade another country than come to a peaceful settlement with its domestic foes. The attack, involving the use of cluster bombs against a sleeping decampment, was apparently backed by the US - actually, it would be amazing if that wasn't the case. The destabilising role of the US is hardly a secret.
Plan Colombia, the programme devised between US and Colombian elites and implemented for approximately a decade now, was supposedly a 'war on drugs'. The result has been to dramatically increase outward shipments of cocaine [pdf], while destroying the livelihoods of peasant farmers and intensifying the war. Latin American leaders have worried that it could produce, in Lula's words, a "Vietnamisation of the region". Ecuador has already suffered from the Colombian government's war on 'narco-terrorism'. Uribe's regime, whose extensive ties to the AUC death squads have been exposed to daylight (roughly at about the same time that it was revealed that Chicquita bananas had been funding the AUC's war to the tune of $1.7m), is of course led by a man of the landowning class with a background in drug trafficking. And the AUC has been one of the biggest international suppliers of cocaine. So, you can take or leave their claim to be opposed to 'narco-terrorism'. But they certainly are doing their best to generate a casus belli against both Ecuador and Venezuela, by accusing them of funding the FARC. The US has indicated that it doesn't think a war 'likely', which means that they have called off their attack dog for now. But the combination of regional aggression, vicious counterinsurgency and subordination to US goals is indeed very familiar.
Labels: 'war on drugs', colombia, death squads, ecuador, Israel, latin america, terrorism, venezuela
Friday, November 23, 2007
Colombians devastated at Chávez’s "dismissal" posted by Richard Seymour
Guest post by elpresidente:
On Wednesday, Chávez was in his office in Caracas’s Miraflores Presidential Palace with Colombian Senator Piedad Córdoba, who had been personally chosen by Uribe to conduct negotiations together with Chávez, in the hope of reaching an agreement to exchange guerrilla prisoners in jail for politicians and soldiers held by the Farc.
Córdoba was making a round of telephone calls to inform Colombian politicians and the families of kidnap victims of the latest progress in the negotiations. When she called General Montoya, Córdoba passed the phone to Chávez, who then asked the question he must have asked everyone since being invited by Uribe to help with the humanitarian agreement.
That Uribe has now used this 30 second telephone call to claim Chávez is interfering in Colombia’s internal politics, and that it warrants an abrupt end, not just to the Venezuelan President’s efforts, but also Senator Córdoba’s work towards an agreement to free those kidnapped, has been met with confusion, disbelief and dismay by Colombians hopeful that an agreement, and even, eventually, an end to the war, had become a real possibility.
Chávez’s question is a relevant and pertinent one - particularly as no-one seems to know exactly how many hostages are held by the Farc. Humanitarian organisations that assist the families of kidnap victims in Colombia, such as País Libre, estimate the guerrillas are holding 2,000, including police, soldiers, local politicians and also high profile hostages such as 2002 presidential candidate Íngrid Betancourt, but a definitive figure is not known.

The reaction from the hostages’ families to Uribe’s unilateral decision to end the negotiations has been heartbreaking. ‘Mr President, please reconsider,’ implored Marleny Orjuela, a mother of one kidnap victim, ‘put yourself in our shoes for one minute - just a single minute - to understand how we feel.’
‘Please don’t take away our hope,’ read a hurriedly written placard at an impromptu demonstration in Bogotá’s central plaza, but a statement issued by the presidential palace declared Uribe’s decision to be ‘irreversible.’
While the French government stated that ‘President Chávez’s involvement is the best option to liberate the hostages’, Chávez himself went on Venezuelan television to say that although he ‘respected President Uribe’s decision, I feel sorry for all those prisoners in the hands of the Farc, the guerrillas in jail, their families and loved ones, and also for Colombia.’

Chávez continued, saying that he believed peace would ‘return to Colombia’, and that he would talk with Uribe to try to convince him to reconsider his decision. Declaring his ‘love for our sister country’, Chávez said he was ready to do everything he could to ‘alleviate the suffering of the Colombian people.’
For Carlos Lozano, Voz newspaper editor in Bogotá, Uribe’s ‘dismissal’ of Chávez as a negotiator shows that the Colombian government is ‘not interested in peace.’ Citing Uribe’s recent declaration that he had ordered the military to kill any Farc commanders who emerged from the jungle to participate in negotiations, Lozano said, ‘he wants the war to continue - this is clear.’
Labels: chavez, colombia, death squads, venezuela










