Venezuela's Chavez calls Colombian defense chief obstacle to peace

[Zorro]

Source: AP

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez denounced Colombia's defense minister Sunday as an obstacle to peace with his U.S.-allied neighbor, demanding the military chief be put "in his place."

Chavez reacted sharply to the defense minister's remarks about a meeting between Chavez and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to mend relations and end an on-and-off feud.

"If he were my minister, he would be dismissed by now," Chavez said of Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos, in a televised speech. "He's a warmonger."

Santos had called Friday's presidential talks positive and suggested Colombia will be watching Chavez's stance toward leftist rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

Santos said Saturday that "what interests us is simply that these word spoken (by Chavez) against the FARC translate into actions and that they not only cooperate but also don't tolerate the presence of the FARC there."

Read more: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/13/news/Venezuela-Colombia.php

---

Hugo seems to be a bit touchy on the subject of FARC.

[Peace Patriot]

1. "The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld (12/1/07)

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

One of the things he suggests is more psyops on the internet.

But, perhaps, more worrisome (although the two things are related, of course), he urges "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America. The Bush Junta doesn't really have any friends and allies in South America, except for the fascist thugs, murderers and drug traffickers running Colombia, and fascist cabals within the countries with the oil (Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, mainly), all of which have leftist governments, into using their countries' resources for the benefit of the people who live there. In Bolivia, a Bushite scheme (funded, organized and more than likely armed with our tax dollars) for the white separatists to secede from the government of Evo Morales (the first indigenous president of Bolivia--a largely indigenous country), and take the gas and oil reserves with them, is well advanced. I've seen evidence of a similar Bushite scheme, with Colombian involvement, in Venezuela's oil rich Zulia province (adjacent to Colombia, and accessible to the U.S. 4th Fleet). There is also evidence of such a plot in the oil-rich northwest region of Ecuador, site of the U.S. air base at Manta--a base that the president of Ecuador has pledged to evict.

The thing about the FARC is, whatever you think of their methods (and even Fidel Castro has criticized them for that, especially their kidnapping of innocent parties), they present a serious obstacle to Colombia's participation in separatist coup plots against Venezuela, and also against Ecuador. I'm not sure of the situation in northern Colombia (adjacent to Zulia), but the situation in south Colombia, adjacent to Ecuador, is that much of the border region is controlled by the FARC. As Ecuador's president has said, his country is not bordered by Colombia; it is bordered by the FARC (which controls 20% to 30% of Colombia's territory).

The jungle-savvy FARC could act as spies against U.S./Colombia military moves on Venezuela and Ecuador. They could act as disrupters of military maneuvers and musterings, and even as fighters. So it isn't any surprise--nor particularly scandalous--that the presidents of Venezuela and Ecuador, two prime Bushite targets, may have an ambivalent attitude toward the FARC. Indeed, it is their duty as heads of state to keep contact with the FARC, for the safety and security of their own people. You don't have a rebel army of 40+ years standing on your border and NOT have contacts with them. In the real world--not the fantasy world of Bushite/corporate propaganda--it is a complicated situation, with hundreds of thousands of Colombian refugees fleeing across the borders into Venezuela and Ecuador (which then become the burden of those governments), mostly to escape the Colombian military and rightwing paramilitary death squads, and also the U.S.-corporate pesticide spraying (supposed drug eradication, but in truth clearing the land of riff-raff--small peasant farmers--for the big money interests--Monsanto, cocaine traffic, etc.). The Venezuelan and Ecuadoran governments--and most governments in South America these days--are in solidarity with the poor, and are well aware of the bizarrely horrible rightwing activities in Colombia (chainsawing union leaders and throwing their body parts into mass graves, for instance). They must all be hoping for a change of government in Colombia, and have worked hard and risked a lot (especially Chavez and Ecuador's Rafael Correa) for a peaceful settlement of the Colombian civil war.

Bushbots can sneer and leer all they want, as each Bushite psyops campaign unfolds, and they see their fantasies writ large in the corporate press: Chavez the "dictator"--oh, that didn't wash, so--Chavez the "terrorist," and (in case that won't stick--recently, in the Miami "suitcase full of money" caper), Chavez the "corrupt" (or is it the "incompetent"? --he couldn't get 'his' Miami mafia guy, Guido, over the border with $800,000 in cash--such a putz, Chavez!). Chavez, Correa, their compadres Evo Morales in Bolivia, the Kirchners in Argentina, Lula da Silva in Brazil, Tabare Vasquez in Uruguay, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and others, have by far the winning edge in South America. And FARC is all Uribe's got--FARC, and the cash cow, sucker taxpayers of the U.S.A. So the fascists make as much of it as they can. The civil war in Colombia is the only light in their eyes, the only thrill in their hearts, the only hope they have of disrupting, destabilizing and destroying South American democracy, and reconquering its resources. They very much want to expand it into Venezuela and Ecuador--and they have already ignited civil conflict in Bolivia, and very nearly caused a war between Colombia and Ecuador this March--but I don't think they will succeed, in the end. The South American leftists are moving fast toward a South American "Common Market," and (proposed by Brazil) a common defense, neither thing including the U.S. That is what this is really all about--a solid front in South America against any further U.S. domination and dictation and bloody military interference in their affairs.

It's interesting that Chavez identifies Colombian Defense Minister Santos as the malefactor in Colombia. I have previously attributed some particularly treacherous Colombian behavior to Uribe, when it may have been Santos. For instance, luring Chavez into negotiating with the FARC for hostage releases, then bombing the location of the first two hostages that Chavez got released, as they were in route to their freedom--which looked for all the world like a set up of Chavez, by Uribe--that is, a plot to hand Chavez a diplomatic disaster, with dead hostages. But it's possible that, a) it wasn't Uribe, it was Santos, or b) Uribe fingered Santos to Chavez as the perp (but whether he was or not, who knows? Uribe is such a liar!). Santos has a particular professional interest in continued war--all that $5.5 BILLION in U.S. military boodle. And I have noticed that Chavez has been trying for a long time to pull Uribe into the orbit of the progressive countries and leaders. Uribe has seemed, at times, intimidated by the Colombian military (never more so that during the above event--Uribe ASKED Chavez to negotiate with the FARC, then suddenly pulled the rug out from under him, just as he was about to be successful--as if Uribe's puppet strings were getting jerked. I thought it was Rumsfeld. Could have been the Colombian military/Santos--or both.)

[Zorro]

2. "There is also evidence of such a plot...

in the oil-rich northwest region of Ecuador". Now what "evidence" are you talking about?

Hugo is slandering Colombia's Defense Minister for 2 reasons.

1. Santos is pointing out that talk is cheap. If Hugo is sincere, then he'll not be promoting a FARC agenda. "Trust but verify", despite being an overworked cliche, is appropriate in this case. Hugo doesn't like being reminded of this.

2. Santos has been remarkably successful lately against FARC, including the capture of those laptops in addition to the astounding rescue of Ingrid Betancourt and the other kidnapped victims. Hugo's role as regional "peacemaker" has been undercut.

[TroubleMan]

4. LOL - "capture of those laptops" - you mean the planted laptops?

The whole laptop thing has been debunked already. Interpol already said the evidence was false and/or planted by Columbia.

[Pavulon]

5. Opposite. I would bet the laptop is worth more than the dead guy

I mean the guy who got shot with american hardware..In a pretty slick operation.
lots of interesting stuff happening since that happened...

not debunked and interpol vouched for it.. Right after we recovered data from a HD that survived atmospheric reentry.

edit..add stuff.

[Judi Lynn]

24. Even the head of the OAS, Jose Insulza doubts that baloney:

Where is the “Right” in Latin America’s Left Turn?
June 03, 2008 By Sujatha Fernandes

~snip~
A few weeks, the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) handed down the results of a forensic audit of the files found on laptops that were reportedly seized during a raid on a rebel encampment of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Ecuador by the Colombian government on March 1. Interpol said that the documents showed no evidence of tampering but they could not verify the contents of the files, limiting the scope of their investigation. The Colombian government led by President Alvaro Uribe is claiming that evidence was found on the laptops linking the leftist leaders of Venezuela and Colombia to the rebels. Several international observers, including the OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza, believe the claims to be largely fabricated. They warn that the findings of the Interpol report should not be taken at face value, as the Colombian government is asserting they should. Ecuadorian diplomats attested that Colombia had not proven that the laptops were recovered from the rebel camp, and they have not described their methods of retrieving the data. Yet, the claims by Colombian authorities, along with its provocative act of aggression on Ecuadorian soil, have alerted some to the possibility of destabilization that the region faces from right wing forces and governments.

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17819

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Peace Patriot]

3. On the psyops front, the Associated Pukes have begun using somewhat more

cautious language about the "miracle laptop"(later, laptopS), that Uribe was yelling for a while contained evidence that Chavez gave the FARC money. (This is kind of hilarious, since Swiss and other European news sources have been reporting that Uribe gave the FARC $20 mil as a ransom for Ingrid Betancourt. Chavez was accused of giving the FARC the piddling sum of $300,000.).

Anyway, at the bottom of this AP missive, I notice, in the part I underlined...

"Relations between Colombia and Venezuela sank to their lowest point in decades in March after Colombia attacked a rebel camp in Ecuador. Chavez responded by briefly dispatching troops to the Venezuela's border with Colombia and temporarily withdrawing his ambassador.

"Bogota, meanwhile, accused Chavez of offering an open-ended loan of at least $250 million to the FARC — charges bolstered by documents Colombia said were retrieved from a laptop at the bombed guerrilla camp. Chavez has denied the accusations."

The Colombian military's dubious handling of the "miracle laptopS" resulted in an Interpol report that said that the laptop evidence could not be used in a court of law. I figured that the laptopS--long in construction inside Rumsfeld's private "Office of Special Plans"--were bollux anyway. But this "Colombia said..." thing indicates that even AP is getting a bit suspicious. On the other hand, they describe Chavez's alleged contribution to the FARC as an "open-ended loan." Where did they get that? Chavez ain't stupid. You don't give rebel fighters a LOAN! Even if it was a "wink-wink" type of loan, why put up that pretense? In anticipation of the U.S./Colombian military smart-bombing your camp, and blowing you and everybody else away, and then retrieving your laptopS, and embarrassing Hugo Chavez about giving as opposed to loaning you money? I mean, huh? "Open-ended loans" occur between congress critters and their billionaire sponsors--not between presidents who are secret "terrorists" and their "terrorist" friends!

Just prior to this, the AP article says:

"The Venezuelan leader accused Santos of sniping at agreements with the Colombian president to follow the political line of the U.S. government, which Chavez opposes.

'He's the defense minister, and he wants to be president. It's a threat we have,' Chavez said. 'He's shooting up the agreements we made.'

'He's under whose orders? The United States.'

Chavez said his message for Uribe is: 'Let's turn the page, but put your defense minister in his place.'"

I tend to agree with him that the Bushites are pulling Santos' strings. $5.5 BILLION is rather more than strings. It's a bit more like an "open-ended loan" actually--but the repayment that is expected is not in cash. Offing Uribe, if he tries to go legit? Then there's that U.S. military base the Bushites want to put in Colombia (cuz the Bushites got the U.S. military kicked out of Ecuador, with those ten U.S. "smart bombs" blowing the FARC hostage negotiator away, on Ecuadoran soil). Santos would be important to stuffing that down the Colombian peoples' throats. (U.S. military bases are very unpopular in South America, even in Colombia.)

[Zorro]

6. But where's your evidence?

You stated "There is also evidence of such a plot in the oil-rich northwest region of Ecuador." I'm curious to know what that evidence is.

You also stated that "...Swiss and other European news sources have been reporting that Uribe gave the FARC $20 mil as a ransom for Ingrid Betancourt". A more accurate and factual characterization would state that there have been "uncorroborated reports" of a ransom being paid, and after 2 weeks since the rescue, there's been no substantiation of this claim. Repeating an unvalidated rumor doesn't make the rumor true. Likewise the assertion that "U.S./Colombian military smartbombing..." FARC is unsubstantiated.

If getting to the truth is your goal, then it's not well-served by spreading FUD.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Can't remember where I read it, but I will try to find it for your, Zorro.

It had partly to do with business interests in Manta that are profiting from the U.S. base. Granted, it is the least verified of these three Bushite secessionist schemes in the three oil rich countries--Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador. But, given the other two plots--one in progress, and one with substantial evidence--and given, also, that Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, has become a psyops target like Chavez, it made sense to me when I read of it. It would greatly surprise me if there WASN'T such a plot in Ecuador. Correa had to purge U.S. agents from Ecuador's military, after the massacre of Raul Reyes' camp on Ecuadoran soil. The Bushites are certainly active in Ecuador, spying from Manta, spying (and what-all else they are doing, I don't know) within the Ecuadoran military, and likely within the political arena, since the vote on the new Constitution is coming up soon.

I'll get back to you with the cite, if I can find it. Got to go to dinner now.

[Peace Patriot]

17. Just to answer your question, Zorro, the Nicholas Kozloff article that Judi Lynn

cites in this thread (she was quicker than me to find it) explores the well-developed secessionist plot in Ecuador. I had forgotten how detailed and well-researched it was, citing from many sources, and how strong a case Kozloff makes not just for secessionist plot in Ecuador, but also for coordination of the secessionist plots in all three countries. This is similar to what the Reaganites did in the 1980s, coordinating torture programs and mass murder against leftistsin a number of South American countries. The Bush USAID-NED has been pouring our tax money into rightwing groups in the Bolivarian countries in particular, and their purpose is destabilization, disorder, civil war, toppling of democratic governments and seizing control of the oil and other resources through the fascist elites that are fomenting "autonomy" (secessionist) movements among the "haves" in the oil-rich provinces.

From a Texan-Venezuelan to an Ecuadorian Giuliani: The New Secessionists
May 30th 2008, by Nikolas Kozloff - CounterPunch
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3507

[Judi Lynn]

9. Here's an immediate reference to Ecuador's secessionist plot from a very quick search:

Venezuela and its allies Ecuador and Bolivia face revolts of businessmen in their most productive provinces, developments that coincide with the U.S. decision to take the Navy's Fourth Fleet out of mothballs to resume patrols in South American waters. The separatist schemes are transparently American-instigated, yet another escalation of U.S. threats to the sovereignty of its neighbors. Somebody should tell the rough-riders in Washington that the days of Teddy Roosevelt are long gone.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=638&Itemid=1

~~~~~~~~~~
Surprising you're playing dumb about it. It's been well discussed already here.

[Zorro]

12. Citing allegations with no evidence again, I see

Pretty much par for the course for FUD-spreading motormouths, though. It's quite obvious that you know nothing about the US Navy ("Fourth Fleet out of mothballs(!!??)") or Ecuador.

"The separatist schemes are transparently American-instigated, yet another escalation of U.S. threats to the sovereignty of its neighbors." I can likewise assert that any "separatist schemes" are being induced by the start of a new solar cycle this year, and would have more credence than you -- since there's compelling evidence that my solar cycle assertion is true.

Why don't you try making your case by using facts instead of using lame propaganda? The likelihood of any secessionist movement in Ecuador is quite remote, but there is great dissatisfaction with the way Correa is running the government. They have a right to have a voice in criticizing the Correa administration, which apparently is a right you'd prefer they didn't exercise.

[Judi Lynn]

13. Discussed by Ecuador's President Correa on his radio program:

~snip~
"Don't let yourselves be fooled," Correa said for his part, on his weekly radio program. "What is happening in Bolivia is not an isolated development. It has the support of foreign countries that want to destabilize the region, and of the separatist elites from Guayaquil and Guayas (in Ecuador), and from Zulia in Venezuela."

Correa pointed out that an International Confederation for Regional Freedom and Autonomy (CONFILAR) was created in 2006 at a conference in the southwestern Ecuadorean city of Guayaquil, which was attended by pro-autonomy leaders from the province of Guayas (of which Guayaquil is the capital), the Venezuelan state of Zulia and the Bolivian province of Santa Cruz, as well as advocates of free enterprise from Guatemala and Peru.

http://ww4report.com/node/5479

[Zorro]

14. Oh yeah everything's a foreign-inspired conspiracy

Correa also said that FARC wasn't in Ecuador, despite having a FARC camp bombed.

It's very convenient for him to blame some foreign boogeyman and not face up to the fact that a substantial number of Ecuadoreans do not approve of his policies.

He has about as much credibility as Bush does. But you can't understand that, since your view of Ecuador is based on your selective biases.

[Peace Patriot]

33. Polls show Correa to be very popular in Ecuador. His credibility is orders of

magnitude beyond Bush's (Correa, 60+% approval ratings; Bush, what is it now--15%? There is no comparison.) "A substantial number of Ecuadoreans do not approve of his policies"--Zorro. Yeah, well that says nothing. What do you mean by "substantial"? (15% represents a substantial number of people, but it is a miserable approval rating for a president, bordering on complete illegitimacy.)

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - More people in Ecuador are expressing support for Rafael Correa, according to a poll by Cedatos/Gallup. 62 per cent of respondents approve of their president’s performance, up seven points since February. (April 08)
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/30387/correas_approval_spikes_in_ecuador

Here's another article on opinion trends, which says that "Correa's personal popularity is very high," but discusses the difficulties facing his constitutional proposal, which mainly seem to be caused by the legislature dicking around on issues that are not of great concern. Here's how Reuters puts it (and Reuters is very unfriendly to Correa and the South American left): "...support for the government-controlled assembly drafting the constitution has dwindled in the last six months....Ecuadoreans are annoyed that the assembly appears bogged down debating issues such as sexual rights and a new coat of arms and is not tackling root problems of unemployment and inflation, analysts say." (I love Reuters' all-purpose "analysts say"!) Reuters goes on to assert that, "Despite the poll (on the constitutional assembly), political analysts believe Correa's charisma, image as an outsider battling entrenched elites and an expected boost in public spending will attract enough votes to win approval of the new constitution." (I love me some Roto-Rooters "analyists," whoever they are!)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN2634235820080526

So even Reuters acknowledges that it is largely Correa's popularity and peoples' belief in him as a reformer that will win the day (for the constitutional vote). They make a distinction between his popularity and peoples' trust in him (very high), and their dim view of those in the constitutional assembly (approval of 41%), who are not sufficiently carrying out Correa's purpose. This does not translate as Correa losing credibility. It translates as Correa having even more credibility than ever.

[Judi Lynn]

35. Gained seven points since February, yet! Excellent.

Apparently this poll wasn't conducted within a group of Reuters "analysts" and "critics" who always are consulted when Reuters (and AP) do articles on Chavez, even to the point of using their anonymous opinions more than the actual Chavez-related material itself!

http://www.laugh.com.nyud.net:8090/gimages/comics/corey_prof_irwin_photo.jpg http://mandatemedia.typepad.com.nyud.net:8090/photos/uncategorized/snooty_1.jpg

Posters say this looks like one Reuters analyst, 2 critics.

[Judi Lynn]

25. FYI, for DU'ers interested in Bechtel's assaults on S. America:

Bechtel's Ugly Ecuador Water Adventure

~snip~
After the 2005 citizen consulta, both Interagua and Guayaquil’s government refused to acknowledge any validity to the results, deeming them unscientific and statistically insignificant. Interagua also dismissed the Observatorio’s investigation conducted in June of 2005 of a Hepatitis A epidemic in a slum neighborhood on the outskirts of they city. That outbreak resulted in 85 confirmed diagnoses in children, all living within a several block radius.

Medical professionals in the neighborhood estimated that at least 150 children were affected, but the city government and Bechtel’s company denied that contaminated water could have caused the outbreak. Instead, they chose to blame the lack of sanitation in residents’ homes and schools for the disease, implying that the sudden and widespread incidence of the disease was caused by parents’ negligence. Nevertheless, the Observatorio refused to give up the fight for clean, safe services for Guayaquil’s consumers.

Over the next six months the Observatorio continued to assemble a body of documented evidence of Interagua’s violations of its contractual obligations and of the constitutional rights of consumers. We conducted case studies in different parts of the city and found a myriad of problems, including: postponement of improvements projects, discontinuous service, contaminated water, deaths due to water outages, erosion due to lack of sewage services, and communities billed illegally for services they did not receive.

A detailed legal and technical analysis, conducted by the Observatorio, concluded that under Interagua’s master plan, even after 30 years, a significant number of families would be left without water and sewage services. The company also had no plans to construct adequate sewage treatment facilities, which meant that the local ecosystem would be expected to absorb raw or barely treated sewage discharges for decades to come. Local residents began to ask -- Is this the best that privatization can offer?

Thanks in large part to the work of the Observatorio, Guayaquil’s situation has attracted both national and international attention. Local residents are looking into legal action demanding that the company compensate the Hepatitis A patients for their medical expenses, and dozens of families have already filed significant legal actions against Bechtel’s company for negligent services, illegal billing practices, and other grievances.

An independent study funded by the United Nations concluded that 6 years after privatization less than half of Guayaquil’s residents have sewage services, a decrease from the percentage provided with services prior to the privatization in 2001. Hundreds of consumers have come forward to demand that water and sewage services that have been cutoff be reconnected. In short, the permissive silence that once surrounded water and sanitation services has been broken.

All of this outspoken and knowledgeable criticism of Interagua’s actions has begun to produce results. In the spring of 2007, municipal health authorities threatened to close Interagua’s water treatment facilities due to its violation of sanitation standards. In spring 2007 the municipal government retook overall responsibility for the provision of services. In July 2007, ECAPAG (Interagua’s official regulator) fined the Bechtel subsidiary $1.5 million for breach of contractual responsibilities. In January of this year an Ecuadorian court found two company authorities guilty of contempt of court for refusing to respond adequately to accusations that they had negligently disconnected services. After being ordered to jail, one of the men fled the country.

Bechtel’s local company seems ready to follow his lead. According to local reports, Interagua is negotiating with another company to sell its contract and escape from the legal repercussions of its poor service and the health and environmental damages left in its wake. As it does so, Bechtel’s Ecuadorian excursion is becoming a powerful echo of the disaster it left behind in Cochabamba eight years earlier. There Bechtel’s overnight increases of more than 50% led to a civic rebellion that left one teenager dead and hundreds wounded. Bechtel fled with the local company’s cash reserves and hard drives.

More:
http://www.democracyctr.org/blog/archives/2008_02_01_democracyctr_archive.html

[Judi Lynn]

10. Clueless about Ecuador? Spend some time reading!

~snip~
In Ecuador , the Mayor of Guayaquil, backed by the right wing mass media and the discredited traditional political parties have proposed ‘autonomy’ from the central government of President Rafael Correa. The process of imperial driven nation dismemberment is very uneven because of the different degrees of political power relations between the central government and the regional secessionists.

~snip~
The success of the secessionist regional ruling class in Bolivia has encouraged similar ‘autonomy movements’ in Ecuador and Venezuela , led by the mayor of Guayaquil ( Ecuador ) and Governor of Zulia ( Venezuela ). In other words, the US-engineered political debacle of the Morales-Garcia regime in Bolivia has led it to team up with oligarchs in Ecuador and Venezuela to repeat the Santa Cruz experience…in a process of “permanent counter-revolutionary separatism.”

More:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20088.htm

~~~~~~~~~~
May 30, 2008
From a Texan-Venezuelan to an Ecuadorian Giuliani

Meet South America's New Secessionists
By NIKOLAS KOZLOFF

~snip~
Venezuela is not the only country facing an internal secessionist movement. In Ecuador, the right opposition to President Rafael Correa is coalescing around Jaime Nebot, the mayor of the coastal city of Guayaquil. Affiliated to the country’s Social Christian Party, Nebot ran twice for the Presidency, in 1992 and 1996. During his second presidential bid, Nebot ran on a pro-business platform stressing privatization of public services.

~snip~
Nebot’s association with Febres-Cordero, a key ally of Ronald Reagan at the time, is not flattering. As I explain in my new book, Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan), torture and killing by the military as well as disappearances and arbitrary arrests multiplied in Ecuador during this unfortunate period of the country’s political history.

Later, Nebot rose to national prominence when he won a seat in Congress on the Social Christian Party slate. While serving in Congress, Nebot became known for his colorful and tasteless outbursts. In August, 1990 Nebot, visibly agitated, began yelling hysterically at a fellow congressman, Víctor Granda of the Socialist Party. "Come here so I can urinate on you," Nebot shouted memorably at Granda. "I can't just hit you. I have to urinate on you." Police had to physically intervene to stop Nebot from physically assaulting his adversary. The incident was caught on Ecuadoran national TV and has been preserved for posterity on YouTube.

~snip~
The New York cop’s anti-crime structure has formed part and parcel of the city’s regeneration plan, which has turned Guayaquil into a kind of dystopian urban nightmare. In the new Guayaquil, urban “undesirables” found working in gentrified areas face tough penalties: beggars and itinerant vendors may be imprisoned for up to seven days and fines can reach as high as $500.

“Just Like Miami”

A newly constructed boardwalk called the Malecón 2000 is praised by many local residents as being “just like Miami.” However, indigenous street vendors do not fit into this ideal and there have been ongoing efforts to remove them from cleaned up urban spaces. In an excellent and thorough recent scholarly article, University of Glasgow geographer Kate Swanson described the contours of Nebot’s social policy.

The boulevard, she writes, “is monitored by heavily armed police who individually assess who can enter the gated grounds and who cannot. Within the regenerated area, there are now at least 52 police-operated video cameras running 24 hours a day. This municipal gaze is not only concerned with crime control; rather, a key function of the cameras is to monitor the regenerated areas for the occupation of public space—particularly by informal workers.”

The Malecón, which lies adjacent to the Guayas River, is totally manicured and sanitized. Pedestrians may lounge in cafes and gardens, sit on benches or even eat in a local McDonald’s. “Yet,” notes Swanson, “this too is guarded and monitored by heavily armed police during all opening hours. The gates close at midnight to prevent undesirables from sneaking in and spending the night. This boardwalk was designed with tourists and Guayaquil's upper-middle classes in mind.”

According to Swanson, there’s been much criticism of the social impacts of Nebot’s revitalization projects. In fact, she notes, newspaper articles have been replete with complaints by informal workers denouncing police harassment. In 2003 alone, the media reported 10 cases of excessive police force in Guayaquil, many of which were captured on film. At night, informal workers are not allowed to pass into revitalized areas of the city, and the streets are patrolled by truckloads of young, heavily armed police officers.

Nebot to Correa: “We Refuse to Be Guinea Pigs”

Having failed in his presidential ambitions, Nebot is now seeking to capitalize on secessionist sentiment in Guayas, the nation’s most affluent province. The populous, agricultural region contributes a huge share of money to the central government and is rich in natural resources. Banana, cocoa, rice, sugar cane, cotton, tropical flowers and fruits are grown there, both for domestic consumption and export. There is a fishing industry, focused mainly on tuna and on shrimp farming, and food, cement, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries. What’s more, Guayaquil is the nation’s largest port.

If Guayas were to ever secede from Ecuador, such a move would prove economically devastating for the country. Nebot however is determined to turn up the pressure on Correa, saying that the government needs to stop its “socialist project” before the country cracks up. Nebot and his followers argue that Correa’s desire to reform the country’s constitution is aimed at making the President a “Chávez-style” dictator.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff05302008.html

[Zorro]

15. Clueless about Ecuador? Spend some time in the country

You should try it sometime, instead of promoting whatever you find on the internet that supports your ill-informed opinions.

[davidinalameda]

16. you can't speak ill against St. Hugo or any of the Castro wannabes

don't you know that by now?

[Peace Patriot]

19. Oh, here we go with the St. Hugo stuff--such a reasonable, fact-based argument!

Can't someone approve of social justice, and admire politicians who represent the interests of the poor majority, without being accused of worshiping said politicians? I and others here have lots of REASONS for our favorable opinions of Hugo Chavez, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales and other leftist leaders in South America. What are your reasons for your apparent hatred of them?

I have frequently had to make this point with anti-Chavez DU posters, and I will make it again here, that the people whom I admire the most in South America are the ordinary people who have pulled off the extraordinary feat of real democracy--of electing leaders who truly represent them. We have failed to do that in this country, for all our puffed up notions of ourselves as the "land of the free, home of the brave." It is fortuitous for the people of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and other countries that their democracies have produced strong, intelligent, far-thinking leaders, who, for instance, are using their oil profits to bootstrap the poor--with education, medical care, land reform, local development and other essential foundations of prosperity--and who further have had the extraordinary wisdom to create institutions like the Bank of the South, and to be moving so swiftly toward a South American "Common Market" (something that should have been done decades ago, but for constant U.S. "divide and conquer" interference). Democracy tends to do that--to foster leaders who act in the interest of their country as a whole. But it is the remarkable grass roots organization and dauntlessness of the poor that has made it happen--along with the "common good" projects instigated by people of all classes, such as fair and honest elections, worked on for more than a decade.

Hugo Chavez is a politician and a leader. He is just one man. He's done mostly good, in my opinion--most especially with regard to regional integration and cooperation. But he could not be president of Venezuela without the admirable grass roots organization of many people and groups, most of whom have no money (such as we see in political campaigns here). Also, the support of ordinary Venezuelans was absolutely critical in turning back the 2002 violent rightwing military coup. Chavez would have no power--indeed, he might well be dead--if the people of Venezuela had not come out of their homes, in the tens of thousands, and surrounded Miraflores Palace (the seat of government) during that coup attempt, and demanded restoration of their Constitution and return of their kidnapped president. Chavez owes his power to them. So, to dwell on Chavez alone, as a personality, is a very great distortion of what is going on in Venezuela and South America, as well as being something of an insult to the people of Venezuela.

"St. Chavez" is a straw man. It says nothing. It means nothing. It is just an insult. It contributes nothing to the discussion. "Castro wannabe" is not much better. I presume you are referring to these DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED leaders--of Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. Prove that they are "Castro wannabes." Give us some evidence of how they, a) are like, or b) wannabe like Fidel Castro. Do you mean that they want to have free, universal education, through college, for all of their people--like they have in Cuba? Or perhaps you mean that they want to have free and excellent medical care for all of their people--like they have in Cuba, and in quite a number of European/Scandinavian countries and Canada?

Those CUBAN goals would be okay, don't you think? So, how else are they, a) like, or b) wannabe like Castro? Do they have transparent elections for president (something we don't have)? Yes, they do. That is UN-like Castro. Do they have vociferous, unfettered political opposition? Yes, they do. That is also un-like Castro. Did they come to power in a bloody revolution? No, they did not. That is un-like Castro. Are they running mixed socialist/capitalist economies (in Venezuela, with a nearly 10% growth rate, with the most growth in the private sector, not including oil)? That is un-like Castro, who is (or was) running a communist economy. Have they confiscated anybody's property? No, they have not (--although Morales in Bolivia has a land reform program that aims to break up the largest land holdings and give back some farm land to the indigenous, Chavez has nationalized some industries, and they all believe in busting corporate monopolies, and national control of some critical industries and resources--socialist policies, not communism. That is somewhat like Castro, but it is also like Norway. All of them were elected with the oil already nationalized. They are, or intend to, negotiate better deals for their people in the exploitation of resources. They do not forbid foreign corporations from operating in their countries, but they must submit to regulation and fairness. That is un-like Castro and communist Cuba, where global corporate predators are not permitted to tread. It is also very un-like the U.S., where big corporations have run rampant. It is a middle-of-the-road policy, much like many European and other countries.

So, how are they "wannabe Castros"? And, for that matter, why would that be bad? I frankly don't think political repression in Cuba is worse than Bush/Cheney's political repression here. It's of a different sort, but neither thing is democracy. So what's to choose? There, you can get a free education and free medical care. Here, you don't. There, the environment has been protected from corporate pollution and over-development. Cuba has evaded this very big downside of capitalism. It is still a beautiful, unspoiled island. Seems to me that one could live there pretty happily--if you aren't greedy, and you refrain from counter-revolutionary politics--and, heck, you'd never worry about your children being conscripted to go kill Iraqis or Iranians, or be killed by them.

My point is that you use a phrase like "Castro wannabe" without explaining what you mean. What do you mean? How are the elected leaders whom you are criticizing like Castro, or how do they "wannabe" like Castro? They are friendly with Castro, that's true. But this doesn't mean that they want to be "like" Castro? Perhaps you mean that they want to be heroes to billions of poor people, like Castro is. But you can be such a hero in many different ways, and, upon the evidence, none of these leaders has chosen Castro's way. They are democrats with a small d, and actively encourage citizen participation in the political realm.

Please explain what you mean.

[davidinalameda]

30. friendly with Castro?

they are the only allies that he has outside of North Korea and the other Communist countries

Castro is a dictator. His brother is dictator. The Cuban government is a totalitarian state

I'm sure that we could all live there if we decided to give up our freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc

[Peace Patriot]

31. Castro is Chavez's only ally? What planet are you living on?

"they are the only allies that he has outside of North Korea and the other Communist countries" --Dwickham

Chavez and Venezuela have many allies. Their closest allies are Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina--the heart of the Bolivarian Revolution. Nestor Kirchner, former president of Argentina, for instance, when the Bush Junta sent down word that South American leaders must "isolate" Chavez, replied, "But he is my brother!" Kirchner's wife, Cristina Fernandez, is now president of Argentina, and has similar policies toward Venezuela, one of Argentina's closest allies and economic partners.

A second set of Venezuela's close allies include Brazil, Uruguay and Nicaragua. Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, recently said, of Chavez: "You can criticize Chavez on a lot of things--but not on democracy." He also called Chavez "the great peacemaker" (in the context of the war that the Bushites/Colombia recently tried to start with Ecuador/Venezuela). All of these countries are more democratic than the U.S., have elected governments that include the vast poor majority in their constituencies, and actively promote social justice and human and civil rights. They all have close economic and political ties with Venezuela and the Chavez government. The Venezuelan government, in addition, is involved in economic projects in Guayana, Jamaica, Haiti, Puerto Rico and other Latin American countries. Paraguay recently elected a leftist--Fernando Lugo--whose policies and goals are very similar to Chavez and the other leftists. Lugo recently met with Chavez for economic talks. And even the prior rightwing government of Paraguay was allied with Chavez and Venezuela, with regard to the Bank of the South (regional control of development funds) and Mercosur (South American trade group). All of these governments are close working partners with Venezuela on many projects--infrastructure development (pipelines, bridges, roads), finance, trade, Latin American self-determination, social justice, transparent elections, and much else, and they have similar policies that oppose U.S. dominated "free trade," the U.S. dominated World Bank/IMF, and the failed, corrupt, murderous U.S. "war on drugs." Venezuela's orbit of allies, includes, to a more limited degree, the center-left governments of Chile and Guatemala. And it will likely include El Salvador, and possibly Peru, in the next election cycles. That's almost all of the continent of South America, and a swath of Central America, allied with Venezuela.

Here's a short news article, well worth reading for the perspective it gives on Venezuela's alliances, this one with Brazil:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3609

Brazil is the largest country and economy in South America. Its president, Lula da Silva, is a Chavez friend and ally. They meet every three months on various bilateral agreements on energy, food and technology.

Here is another article that is helpful in understanding Venezuela's alliances--regarding Chavez's meeting with the new president of Paraguay:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/newsbrief/3576

Chavez's visionary leadership has been essential to laying the foundation of the South American "Common Market" (UNASUR). He has been one of the strongest proponents of South American economic integration, on principles of social justice and local control, and has worked tirelessly toward that end. He is, without question, one of the most popular leaders in South America--not just to the people he particularly serves--Venezuela's poor majority--but to most of South America's leaders and to the poor majorities of other countries.

In the bigger world, France and Norway work closely with Venezuela on oil development, through their state oil companies. France worked closely with Venezuela on freeing Ingrid Betancourt--and Chavez was highly praised by the rightwing president of France, Sarkovy, for his efforts in that regard. India and Venezuela just signed a big oil development agreement. Venezuela has also worked closely with the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (80 countries) on various projects--most recently, providing leadership on communication projects in the 'third world.'

Here is an article on Venezuela's recent agreement with India:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/newsbrief/3338

Given all of this--Venezuela's obvious widespread alliances with other democratic countries--how can you say that Castro/Cuba "are the only allies he has outside of North Korea and the other Communist countries." (And I'm not sure who you're talking about, anyway. China? The biggest capitalists on earth these days?)

And here's some perspective on Venezuelan relations with North Korea

Venezuela Condemns North Korea Nuclear Test (10.9.06)
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Venezuela_Condemns_North_Korea_Nuclear_Test_999.html

Also,

U.S. Officials Praise Venezuela Heating Oil Program, N. Korea Position (10.11.06)
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2002

It seems to me that you see the world in McCarthyite terms--that is, a black and white anti-communist perspective, that is simply not relevant today. South America, for instance, is strongly trending toward European-type socialism, within a context of democracy and regulated capitalism. They see no reason to anathematize Cuba. Most Latin American countries (and most countries of the world) now have relations with Cuba (unlike the stupid, dinosauric, Bushite U.S.). But neither are they imitating Cuba's political/government system. Cuba happens to have a particularly good medical education program, and a good literacy program, which a number of South American countries are utilizing. Cuba is a mixed bag. It's not a black and white situation. And why do anti-communist thinkers always presume that influence goes one way--that, if a democratic country dares to associate with a communist country, they will become communist? Why isn't it possible that the democratic country would influence a communist country for the better? In fact, the evidence for the latter is very strong. I was part of one of the first tourist groups to visit Soviet Russia, after Nixon had opened the door. You know what the Russians we met really wanted to know? How can ordinary workers in the U.S. afford two automobiles! They were astonished to learn that they could. They couldn't even afford one. We, on the other hand, were impressed with Russia's full employment, and with their reverence for culture and history. And that's what happens when countries and peoples mix it up. Ordinary people learn from each other what is possible. The Russians learned what capitalism could provide, that their communist system could not. However, capitalism (pre-Bush anyway) may put two cars in your driveway, but it can also be cruel to the most marginal workers and the poor, and tends to forget history and homogenize culture.

So, why wouldn't you want people to learn from each other, and then try to combine the best of all systems? Cuba's policy of providing FREE medical educations is something we badly, badly need to do here, in the U.S. The cost of becoming a doctor is one of the chief drivers of all other costs in our out-of-control cost of medical care. This is inhumane, stupid and anti-progress. And Cubans could learn the benefits of tyranny by the oil corporations, the joys of torture at Guantanamo Bay, and the fun of a $10 trillion deficit. Sorry. I can't think of a thing we have to offer, at the moment, to anyone. We have been imposing ourselves on the rest of the world for too long. It's time we go into a learning mode. Venezuela could teach us about transparent vote counting (which we have lost). And they could teach us a thing or two about how to deal with the likes of Exxon Mobil. Bolivia could teach us the indigenous point of view on land use. Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela could teach us a common sense policy on drug use and drug policing, to replace the massively expensive and failed "war on drugs." Cuba could teach us to be decent human beings on medical care.

About the stupidest thing we could do is to demonize leaders like Hugo Chavez, and fall prey to simplistic Bushite "us and them" thinking. Bush and his pals have just about destroyed our democracy, our economy, and our middle class, not to mention what they have done to our military and to our reputation in the world. They have thus created a far different world than any of us was born into--a world in which we have no choice but to accommodate ourselves to new trade groups and alliances that don't include the U.S. and don't particularly like the U.S. any more. One of these is the South American "Common Market," which very pointedly does not include the U.S. That is a tragedy, it seems to me. We could have been part of this rebirth of democracy and people power in the western hemisphere. We have been aced out of it, by our corporate overlords, who have lied to us about South America, and who have stolen billions of dollars from us for the nefarious purpose of destroying democracy there as well. Your comment illustrates how well they have succeeded in disinforming us and doing us ill. You don't know the first thing about Venezuela, Chavez or South America. Your obliviousness to what is really happening there is appalling--especially because it is not in your interest, nor in the interest of our country and our people, for any of us to be that ignorant of the truth.

[subsuelo]

41. Hi Peace Patriot

I am interested in Central American countries. You make mention of Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador but I am wondering if you could speak about Honduras at all. Can you talk about what direction they are heading, where they may fit into the larger picture, etc. Thanks, your posts here are really wonderful, I think the DU community should be really grateful to have you spend your time here - I know I am!

[Peace Patriot]

18. I don't see how anyone can read the Kozloff article and deny that there is a

rightwing 'autonomy' movement in Ecuador, and that this strategy is being coordinated among rightwing groups in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. The proponents in Ecuador have stated their purpose publicly.

"In January, 2008 Nebot led a march of tens of thousands through Guayaquil’s streets in the name of defending the city’s autonomy from Correa’s plans for further centralization. Supporters waved the city's blue and white flag and chanted 'Long live Guayaquil, dammit,' and 'Down with Correa.'"

Kozloff further quotes various leaders in these countries on coordination among the separatist groups in different countries:

"The similarities between these secessionist movements are not lost on the region’s leaders. Javier Zárata, the Bolivian Ambassador to Ecuador, recently remarked that 'what is occurring in Bolivia is not an isolated action.' 'I know there have been coordination meetings last year and the year before among representatives from Santa Cruz and representatives of Guayaquil, and other states of other countries,' the diplomat added."

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3507

---------

One can visit a foreign country and never learn a goddamn thing about what is really going on there--for instance, just traveling from Hilton to Hilton. And yes, a person with a library, and the vast virtual library of the internet, and a curious mind and analytical skills, can know more about a country, a culture or a people, than someone with the wherewithal to travel abroad who can't see, or doesn't understand what he or she sees. And, Zorro, if you travel with as much anger, bitterness and sarcasm as your posts at DU reveal, I would seriously wonder about your ability to travel in Ecuador and get along with people well enough to understand them, and to meet the kinds of people who vote for Rafael Correa (and give him an 80% approval rating!). How do you travel? Where do you stay? What kind of people do you hang out with? You'd have to give some details of your travels for me to credit you with any understanding from your travels.

[Zorro]

26. Anger and bitterness? Nope. Sarcasm? I fart in your general direction.

I'm quite aware that attempts to brand me so is a lame attempt to diminish my comments.

What I don't do is tolerate fools gladly, and frankly, there's all sorts of speculation and rumors in the Latin American threads that get spun into alternate realities by self-proclaimed "experts" who are nothing more than ill-informed loudmouths with axes to grind.

Latin American societies and cultures are different from what you're used to. I stay with friends, relatives, and at my own place when there, and meet and interact with people from all ends of the political and economic spectrum, from Commies to businesspeople to housekeepers to campesinos.

So tell me: how many Ecuadoreans do you know?

[subsuelo]

40. yeah, obviously whoever knows the most Ecuadoreans...

is therefore the most knowledgeable person on the subject :eyes:

[Zorro]

43. Trolling for some special attention?

If so, you should be careful what you ask for.

[subsuelo]

44. Not pleased with my question I take it?

Hmm, I wonder why.

How about explaining the point of asking how many Ecuadorans others know - if it isn't about thinking you have some sort of privileged knowledge that is only obtained by means of meeting and greeting the people who live there.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judi Lynn]

23. More on the Ecuadorean oligarchy's Bush-assisted attempts to seize power:

Jul 10 - 16, 2008
Elections for Ecuador's Constituent Assembly
Elements for and against Rafael Correa

By Eduardo Dimas

~snip~
President Correa hopes to win this latest election so he can promote reforms that will end more than a decade of political instability. During that time, three presidents -- Abdalá Bucaram, Jamil Majuad and Lucio Gutiérrez -- had to abdicate their neoliberal administrations because of mass protests.

However, it is not just a question of achieving the country's political stability. During his election campaign and after his triumph last November, Rafael Correa has stressed the writing of a Magna Carta that will permit Ecuador to take a new course. Ecuador is a country rich in natural resources, but most of its population live in poverty.

A revealing and little known fact is that 10 percent of the population controls 90 percent of the country's wealth. Add to this the exploitation of the transnational corporations in the mining and oil industries, the nation's two main economic resources. It is not by choice that Ecuador is among the Latin American nations with the greatest inequality in the distribution of wealth.

~snip~
Notwithstanding the fact that the campaigns against the Constituent Assembly could not prevent these elections, many analysts believe (and with reason, I think) that the oligarchy and the bourgeoisie, allied to the United States government, will try to impede the drafting of a new Constitution. Similar efforts already are being made in Bolivia.

It could almost be said that the plan is the same. As in Bolivia, we can see a resumption of the drive for autonomy in Guayaquil, the richest of all Ecuadorean regions. The price of staple goods has gone up; the media are waging campaigns against President Correa and his followers, and an effort is being made -- of course -- to link Correa to President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela.

~snip~
The Ecuadorean oligarchy and the government of the United States fear that President Correa -- who has place his post at the disposal of the Constituent Assembly -- will gain enough power to carry out the social reforms he has spoused from the start of his campaign.

Among those reforms: to eliminate the neoliberal model that has brought so much harm to the country; to achieve a more equitable distribution of the wealth; to nationalize the natural resources. One element that is not discussed very much -- and that runs counter to those objectives -- is that the Ecuadorean economy has been "dollarized" since 2001.

Under that system, the monetary mass that permits commercial exchanges and the general functioning of the economy depends on the shipments of dollars from the U.S. Federal Reserve. You may recall that one of the first measures against the Panamanian government, prior to the invasion of December 1989, was to suspend the shipments of dollars to Panama, another "dollarized" economy. That caused real chaos.

That's a sword hanging over the Correa administration, which has been unable to reinstate its national currency (the sucre) because, in Correa's own words, that would bring even greater problems to the Ecuadorean economy. However, it cannot be ruled out that one of Correa's plans is to change the method of currency, for basic reasons of independence.

http://progreso-weekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=171&Itemid=1

[struggle4progress]

8. Mancuso implicated Santos in a paramilitary intrigue last year

Paramilitary Scandal Takes Colombian Elite by Surprise

By Juan Forero
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, February 22, 2007; Page A10

... As part of a pact between the government and paramilitary leaders of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a group notorious for trafficking in cocaine and murdering peasants by the thousands, one of its top leaders, Salvatore Mancuso, has been providing riveting testimony to prosecutors about slayings he had ordered ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/21/AR2007022101820.html

Death-Squad Scandal Circles Closer to Colombia’s President
By SIMON ROMERO
Published: May 16, 2007

... Speaking at a closed court hearing in Medellín, Salvatore Mancuso, the former paramilitary warlord, said Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos had met with paramilitary leaders in the mid-1990s to discuss efforts to destabilize the president at the time, Ernesto Samper, according to judicial officials.

Mr. Mancuso also said that Vice President Francisco Santos had met with paramilitary leaders in 1997 to discuss taking their operations to the capital, Bogotá.

A spokesman for the Defense Ministry said the minister would not comment ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/world/americas/16colombia.html

ABColombia
Christian Aid, Oxfam GB, Save the Children UK, CAFOD, SCIAF, TROCAIRE
Colombia This Week
25/05/2007

... Mon 21 ...

In recent testimony to the judicial authorities, paramilitary commander Salvatore Mancuso testified that vice-president, Francisco Santos and his cousin Juan Manuel Santos enlisted paramilitary support in the 1990s, before they were in government. Mancuso accused Francisco Santos of being interested in creating a paramilitary unit in Bogota and that his cousin, Defence minister Juan Manuel Santos, met paramilitary chiefs in the 1990s to organise an alleged plot to overthrow the then president Ernesto Samper ...
http://www.abcolombia.org.uk/previews_weeks.asp?id=230

Columbian Officials Supporting Death Squads, Paramilitary Commanders Say

Salvatore Mancuso, a top military commander in Columbia testified that the government there was tied to the murder of civilians and cocaine trafficking, stating “paramilitarism was state policy” ...

Mancuso stated that his operations were financed by local operators from the US based fruit firms, Del Monte and Dole. In March, the US banana firm, Chiquita Brands International, agreed to pay $25 million after pleading guilty to paying off the paramilitary groups in exchange for protection ...

AP/Reuters
... posted on Tuesday, May 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 am ...
http://warcrimes.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2007/05/22/columbian-officials-supporting-death-squads-paramilitary-commanders-say/

[Judi Lynn]

11. Thanks for posting these links. This one, which must have KILLED Simon Romero to have to write,

is very, very interesting. From your linked article:

President Álvaro Uribe, the Bush administration’s closest ally in Latin America, faces an intensifying scandal after a jailed former commander of paramilitary death squads testified Tuesday that Mr. Uribe’s defense minister had tried to plot with the outlawed private militias to upset the rule of a former president.

The revelations threaten the government of President Álvaro Uribe, who is trying to improve trade ties with the United States.

Speaking at a closed court hearing in Medellín, Salvatore Mancuso, the former paramilitary warlord, said Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos had met with paramilitary leaders in the mid-1990s to discuss efforts to destabilize the president at the time, Ernesto Samper, according to judicial officials.

Mr. Mancuso also said that Vice President Francisco Santos had met with paramilitary leaders in 1997 to discuss taking their operations to the capital, Bogotá.

A spokesman for the Defense Ministry said the minister would not comment. The spokesman said a meeting did take place in which Mr. Santos, the defense minister, discussed an effort to reach a peace plan between two guerrilla groups and the paramilitaries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/world/americas/16colombia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(That's a hot one, isn't it? Holy moly. Simon Romero is an old Chavez-flogger from way back. He couldn't adore the Latin American _Bush puppets more if he tried. It must be pure pain for him to write anything which would reflect poorly on the few truly grubby fascists left in Latin America.)

So surprising to see Mancuso is suddenly in the U.S., on a drug trafficking charge, where the press won't be talking to him, isn't it? How did THAT happen?

[Peace Patriot]

20. Uribe asks Ministers to be “prudent” about Venezuela

Uribe asks Ministers to be “prudent” about Venezuela
July 13th, 2008

President Álvaro Uribe Sunday asked all members of his government to be “prudent” when speaking about Venezuela, after his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chávez publicly asked him to keep Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos “in place”.

The Presidency sent out a short communique “reaffirming the intention to move forward to a new era of relations” with neighbor Venezuela. Uribe “asks complete prudence of all spokespersons of the Government” to not negatively affect the improved relations, after months of tensions between the conservative Colombian government and the leftist government of Venezuela.

Chávez had earlier reacted furiously about Colombia’s Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos. The Minister had spoken sceptically about the renewed ties with Colombia’s neighbor, saying “what interests us is simply that these word spoken (by Chávez) against the FARC translate into actions and that they not only cooperate but also don’t tolerate the presence of the FARC there.”

In a response Chávez called Santos a warmonger and a danger for peace. “Santos, who has said 100 times that Venezuela is Colombia’s enemy, wants to be president,” Chávez said Sunday during a speech in Maracaibo. “He’s a threat for us. I’m asking my friend President Uribe to put his defense minister in his place,” he added.

It’s not the first time that Santos, a hardliner within the Uribe government, provokes angry reactions from his Bolivarian neighbors. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro recently called an “insulting, provocative, anti-Venezuelan bigot” and Chávez once before asked “his friend” Uribe to keep his Defense Minister under control. (END) (emphasis added)

http://colombiareports.com/2008/07/13/uribe-asks-ministers-to-be-prudent-about-venezuela/

----------------------------------

This little set-to between Colombia and Venezuela is quite interesting. The OP article above didn't include the part of Chavez's quote about Santos running for president. A comparable situation might be, say, Gen. Petraeus publicly undermining Bush, in his decision to go to China for the Olympic Games, and calling the Chinese liars for any promises they made about it, with Petraeus having said he wants to be president.

Treason, in other words. The military openly sabotaging the head of the state, and running its own foreign policy.

I've thought Uribe might be about to be cut loose by his global corporate predator/Bushite sponsors, because he has failed in the tasks they set for him. It appeared to me that he was the point man in setting Chavez up for a diplomatic disaster, re the FARC hostage releases. Uribed asked Chavez to undertake those negotiations, then, days before the first two hostages were to be released (due to Chavez's efforts-Dec 07), Uribe abruptly pulled the rug out from under him (withdrew his permission) and the Colombian military bombed the location of those hostages, as they were in route to their freedom, driving them back on a 20 mile hike into the jungle. Chavez got them out later by a different route--and got a total of six hostages released, despite every effort by Uribe/Colombia to sabotage those releases. And Chavez got appropriate kudos from the many world leaders, South American leaders, the hostages' families, human rights groups. The Bushite plot failed. It's difficult not to read it that way--as Uribe's treachery. Then, later, the Colombian/U.S. military bombed the chief FARC hostage negotiator's camp, just inside Ecuador's border, on the eve of his release of Ingrid Betancourt, killing the FARC negotiator and 24 others, and nearly starting a war between Colombia and Ecuador. It's the only way Bush/Uribe could stop more hostage releases.

On top of this, Uribe started wildly claiming that Chavez, and also the president of Ecuador, are terrorist lovers, and he had a laptop (later, laptopS) retrieved from the bombed camp that contained evidence that they were giving the FARC money, arms, etc. But the Colombian military had destroyed the viability of these laptopS as evidence, by messing with the laptopS. (I figured the whole thing was a Rumfeld private "Office of Special Plans" production.) The fraudulence and absurdity of these charges has become quite evident. There is no evidence that Venezuela or Ecuador has given any help to the FARC. Their contacts with the FARC re hostage releases were being used against them. Another set-up.

However, given these latest developments--the Chavez/Uribe accord, Chavez's blast at Gen. Santos, and Uribe's admonition of Santos--I'm thinking back over Chavez's many previous efforts to befriend Uribe (which always puzzled me), and wondering if there is something about this situation that I didn't perceive, which is that, if Exxon Mobil & co. are through with Uribe, who would they want to put in his place? Obviously, a Generalisimo, who will carry out their war plans against Venezuela and Ecuador (and other oil rich states with leftist governments, such as Bolivia). Going back over the events of the last year with this in mind--Santos plotting a junta (with Bushite colluders)--the picture is much more complex than Uribe being a failed tool of the Bushites. For all his crimes and criminal associations--and they are many and gravely serious--Uribe may be the last hope for democracy (I choke on the word) in Colombia. It's interesting that Betancourt said something like that, upon her release--something about preserving democracy in Colombia. And this may be why Chavez has taken such extraordinary pains with Uribe, despite great provocation. He knows something--and has known it all along--that Santos has been plotting against Uribe and is a far greater threat to peace in the region.

[Peace Patriot]

21. Correction: Santos is the defense minister, not a general. So figure, as an

analogy, that the U.S. Sec of Defense openly undermined the President's policy and conducted his own foreign policy, contradicting White House statements and sabotaging agreements, meanwhile openly running for president. It would be intolerable. Uribe, however, is faced with a military that is fat with Bushite (U.S. taxpayer) dollars ($5.5 BILLION), and has been using rightwing paramilitary death squads to punish enemies (and many innocent people) and control government policy. Uribe may not have the clout to remove or control Santos.

The Commander of Colombia’s armed forces is General Freddy Padilla de León. He seems to be following Uribe policy. See:

Venezuela and Colombia talk about joint border patrol
July 14th, 2008
http://colombiareports.com/2008/07/14/venezuela-and-colombia-talk-about-joint-border-patrol/

[Judi Lynn]

22. It would seem impossible for Santos NOT to be "elected" if he has decided to run for the Presidency

since the largest newspaper in Colombia is owned by his cousin, also a Santos, the Vice-President's family.

http://cache.daylife.com.nyud.net:8090/imageserve/03L96KI00Bh2x/610x.jpg

Santos, Uribe, Santos
From Wikipedia:

El Tiempo (Colombia)

Owner CEET-Planeta DeAgostini
Publisher CEET
Editor Guillermo Santos
Founded 1911
Headquarters Bogotá, Colombia

Website: eltiempo.com
El Tiempo (English: The Time) is the highest circulation daily newspaper in Colombia and a non-tabloid daily with national distribution. As of 2004, it had an average weekday circulation of 314,000, rising to 453,000 for the Sunday edition.<1>

The newspaper was founded in 1911 by Alfonso Villegas Restrepo. In 1913 it was purchased by his brother-in-law, Eduardo Santos Montejo. El Tiempo's main shareholders were members of the Santos family, as part of the media conglomerate Casa Editorial El Tiempo. In 2007, the Spanish Grupo Planeta obtained majority ownership of the daily.

El Tiempo has enjoyed monopoly status in Colombian media as the only daily that circulates nationally, as most smaller dailies have limited distribution outside their own regions. El Espectador, El Tiempo's longtime rival, was reduced to a weekly publication following an internal financial crisis in 2001, but returned to the daily format on 11 May 2008.

Several members of the Santos family who were also El Tiempo shareholders have participated in Colombian politics, including Eduardo Santos Montejo, who was President of Colombia from 1938 to 1942. Also, most recently, Vicepresident Francisco Santos Calderón and Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos have served during President Álvaro Uribe's administration.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Tiempo_(Colombia)

[Odious justice]

29. Chavez is a populist jackass

but this laptop business is nonsense.Even if it were true, it would take a leap of faith to believe this story. There is no proof other then a highly corruptible mechanism of the media reporting on an easily plantable piece of evidence. The only story that would be less verifiable and less newsworthy would bew an accounting on the pieces of corn in Hugo's feces.

[Peace Patriot]

32. If you mean Andrew Jackson type "jackass," I would agree with you. The jackass is,

after all, the symbol of our once great Democratic Party--the "big tent" party, the party of the people, the party that gave us labor laws, "one person, one vote," Social Security, Medicare, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act. To be a "populist jackass" can be quite a good thing, it seems to me. But I would be curious to know what YOU mean by the term. I suspect that you mean it as a pejorative. I don't quite understand this, if that's what you mean. Chavez has in fact responded to the popular will--that is, the will of the majority. His populist policies are substantive and have been quite effective in many areas--big reductions in poverty and illiteracy, big improvements in citizen participation, in the use of resources for the common good, and in prosperity (near 10% growth rate, with the most growth in the private sector), and widespread satisfaction as to the country "moving in the right direction." He has also been instrumental, and quite visionary, on projects such as the Bank of the South, and UNASUR (South American "Common Market").

A "jackass"--if you mean it pejoratively--would seem to be someone who "brays" loudly, but that's all it is--just loud talk. Chavez may be something of a clown and a glad-handing sort of guy (a politician), but he has transformed the political/economic landscape in South America. He is very well liked by virtually all of its leaders. He is self-educated, very well read, and, from everything I've seen, very smart on many levels, including being one helluva shrewd political operator, for purposes that seem quite beneficial (promoting of the common good). He is rather a unique character, it seems to me. And I don't really understand the animosity some people seem to feel toward him, nor the impulse to call him names. (Scumbag, tyrant, loud-mouth, jackass.) Let me put this another way: What I really admire, most of all, in Venezuela--and throughout South America--are the people in the grass roots movements who have elected leaders like Chavez. He is the most colorful of them all, and is, also, the most representative of ordinary South Americans (--part Spanish, part indigenous, part black--combines all the races), with a sort of "street smarts" quality about him (--an "everyman" quality; he could as well be the leader of a band of coastal pirates, or a street vendor, or manager of a steel plant, as president of the country). So, when I see insults thrown at him, I think of all those poor people--workers, campesinos, struggling folks--who voted for him, and got organized to put him (and other Bolivarians) into office. They like him; and he likes them as well. So why should we--or some of us--go around insulting him--and, by extension, the people who actually vote for him and give him such high approval ratings? Is it some artifact of the corporate propaganda that we are subjected to? Why do you call Chavez a "populist jackass" (assuming you mean it negatively)?

I agree with you on the laptop (later, laptopS). Ridiculous. And...

WELCOME TO DU!

[Odious justice]

36. belated reply...

I mean jackass in that I think his antics debase him-specifically some of his flamboyant behavior in international settings. That being said, my opinion of him is subjective. I can't deny that he does operate his government, so far, in the interests of the majority of the people. I think he is a dictator at heart, but he has not implemented my worst fears. Even those questionable reforms he attempted to pass failed...which would indicated that he still serves his constituents through a direct democracy. I just don't like the guy-eve since he shut down the opposition broadcast stations.

However, he is demonized for what he may become in the US media. As of right now, he's a democratically elected ruler that seems to be serving the needs of the majority of his country's people. I don't have to like him, but I can respect him.

[Judi Lynn]

38. You'd be doing yourself a favor by trying to find out more about the claims you make, or repeat.

First, Hugo Chavez did not shut down "stationS." They did not renew the license for RCTV when its contract expired. It still broadcasts on satellite and on cable.

Second, it's common for stations to be shut down for various reason. Peru's President Alan Garcia, a _Bush ally, closed down 4 stations in Peru in April of that same year, and not a peep of outrage was uttered in this country, not a single word.

Here's a reference taken from a Venezuelan opposition newspaper concerning this closing:

Six audio-visual media
In April 2007, the Fifth Criminal Court of Santa, in Chimbote town, revoked the broadcasting licenses to six audio-visual media, i.e. the 15, the 27, and the 55 television channels and the Ancash, the Miramar, and the Buen Samaritano radio stations, for broadcasting critical information against the government.

http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/05/22/en_rctv_art_media-closure-around_22A872617.shtml

The outrage would have appropriately been applied in your appraisal of the way they conducted themselves and did business in a way which would NEVER have been allowed here:

Media Advisory

Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs
Distorting the Venezuelan media story

5/25/07

~snip~
RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chávez's democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The film documents the networks’ participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup—hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.

On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."

That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much. As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl's colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal." The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), " officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez."

As FAIR's magazine Extra! argued last November, "Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela."

When Chávez returned to power the commercial stations refused to cover the news, airing instead entertainment programs—in RCTV's case, the American film Pretty Woman. By refusing to cover such a newsworthy story, the stations abandoned the public interest and violated the public trust that is seen in Venezuela (and in the U.S.) as a requirement for operating on the public airwaves. Regarding RCTV's refusal to cover the return of Chávez to power, Columbia University professor and former NPR editor John Dinges told Marketplace (5/8/07):

What RCTV did simply can't be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles…. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they're forced to, but simply because they don't agree with what's happening, you've lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles.

More:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

~~~~~~~~~~~
Chavez didn’t start this media war
By Bart Jones
May 30, 2007

~snip~
But the case of RCTV – like most things involving Chavez – has been caught up in a web of misinformation. While one side of the story is getting headlines around the world, the other is barely heard.

~snip~
The demise of RCTV is indeed a sad event in some ways for Venezuelans. Founded in 1953, it was an institution in the country, having produced the long-running political satire program “Radio Rochela” and the blisteringly realistic nighttime soap opera “Por Estas Calles.” It was RCTV that broadcast the first live-from-satellite images in Venezuela when it showed Neil Armstrong walking on the moon in 1969.

But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office. Controlled by members of the country’s fabulously wealthy oligarchy including RCTV chief Marcel Granier, it saw Chavez and his “Bolivarian Revolution” on behalf of Venezuela’s majority poor as a threat.

RCTV’s most infamous effort to topple Chavez came during the April 11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators spewed nonstop vitriolic attacks against him – while permitting no response from the government.

Then RCTV ran nonstop ads encouraging people to attend a march on April 11 aimed at toppling Chavez and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV and Globovision ran manipulated video blaming Chavez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries.

After military rebels overthrew Chavez and he disappeared from public view for two days, RCTV’s biased coverage edged fully into sedition. Thousands of Chavez supporters took to the streets to demand his return, but none of that appeared on RCTV or other television stations. RCTV News Director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he received an order from superiors at the station: “Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters

Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States? The U.S. government probably would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup attempt – and thrown its owners in jail. Chavez’s government allowed it to continue operating for five years, and then declined to renew its 20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on cable or via satellite dish.

Granier and others should not be seen as free-speech martyrs. Radio, TV and newspapers remain uncensored, unfettered and unthreatened by the government. Most Venezuelan media are still controlled by the old oligarchy and are staunchly anti-Chavez.

If Granier had not decided to try to oust the country’s president, Venezuelans might still be able to look forward to more broadcasts of “Radio Rochela.”http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/30/opinion/oe-jones30

~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wonder if this could happen in Colombia, forget it. Colombia has had one of the highest murder rate of journalists in the world, many have been assassinated, many more have fled the country altogether, and the remaining journlalists admit in interviews that they "self-censor" in order to survive. When anyone steps out of line, like Colombian comedian Jaime Garzón, they can expect a paramilitary (death squad) murder, and they won't be shocked when they are attacked.

~snip~
Jaime Garzon was one the few people who could make
Colombians laugh about the tragedies in their country.
During a long-running T-V program and later, a radio
show, Garzon did tongue-in-cheek (humorous and ironic)
imitations of everyone from presidents to guerrilla
leaders to shoe-shine boys.
His satire was cutting. But the 39-year old comedian
was so likeable, he got away with the biting political
criticism more serious commentators didn't dare make.
But early Friday morning, Garzon's career came to a
brutal end. He was on his way by car to a local radio
station. He was stopped waiting for a traffic light
to change, when two men on a motorcycle drove up, shot
him several times and drove away.
The murder has shocked the country.
// RADIO STATION ACT //
Garzon's co-workers at the news station RadioNet paid
homage to him the entire morning, often breaking into
tears as they discussed his life and work. President
Andres Pastrana cancelled a trip and immediately
offered a reward for information on the murder.
Recently, Garzon had dedicated much of his time to the
peace process between the government and guerrillas --
participating in talks with guerrillas and helping
negotiate the release of kidnapped hostages.
He was as scathing towards the guerrillas as he was
towards the government and the military. But
authorities believe the assassination was likely the
work of rightwing paramilitaries -- who perceived
Garzon's commentaries as left-wing. Paramilitaries
leader have denied the charge.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/1999/08/990813-col.htm

[Judi Lynn]

39. More on Colombia's position toward journalists, from the 2008 Report by R.S.F.

A right-wing government has to be insanely destructive before these clowns will bring themselves to mention it:

Colombia - Annual Report 2008
Reporters Without Borders

~snip~
Six journalists were murdered in 2007 but only one of the killings was thought to be job-related. Crimes against media workers have fallen under President Uribe but he is vindictive towards journalists, putting their lives in danger. The media remains the target of armed groups and six journalists were forced to flee the country during the year.

The murder of Elacio Murillo Mosquera, correspondent for the weekly Chocó 7 Días and programme chief for the radio station Canalete Estéreo, on 10 January 2007, was the only one of the six journalist deaths during the year that might have been job-related. Shot dead by a motorcyclist (later arrested), he had been investigating the activity of armed groups in the coastal province of Chocó and had reported the demobilisation of 150 paramilitaries of the “Bloque Pacífico” section of the right-wing United Self-Defence Groups of Colombia (AUC).

~snip~
Exile or death

Killings of journalists have been replaced by flight into exile. Seven fled the country or their region in 2007, one more than in 2006. Hollman Morris, producer of a programme currently off the schedule of state-owned TV station Canal Uno for financial reasons, left with his family for the United States on 21 October after new e-mailed death threats. He had also been forced to flee in 2005 after being accused of being “a FARC spokesman” in a video distributed by a paramilitary group.

Drug-smuggling remained the most dangerous subject for the media to cover. The curiosity of Rubén Valencia, managing editor of the regional daily Q’hubo, in Cali, about Olmes Durán Ibargüen (“El Doctor”), head of the Pacific coast drug cartel arrested in Bogotá on 15 June, resulted in a contract being put out to kill him. Giovanni Alvarez, of the community radio station La Nueva in the northern city of Barranquilla, fled abroad in October following serious threats to him after he reported on corruption during the regional election campaign.

Journalists also risk their lives if they look too closely at the ties between the authorities and the paramilitaries since they officially disbanded, ties some call “para-politics”. Death threats from former or present AUC members sometimes come only hours after a journalist has been criticised by a politician, a police officer or even the president.

An irritable president

President Uribe does not like being criticised and often personally takes issue with journalists, which would not matter if the media was working in safe conditions. Uribe made at least three such attacks in 2007. He accused Carlos Lozano, editor of the communist weekly Voz, of being “in the pay of FARC” when speaking on Caracol Radio in February. Daniel Coronell, news editor of the publicly-owned TV station Canal Uno and columnist for the magazine Semana, had to argue live with the president on radio station La FM on 9 October. Uribe was enraged to hear Coronell recall the disclosure by the mistress of the late Medellín cartel boss Pablo Escobar that Uribe had dealings with the druglord when he was governor of Antioquia province, and called the station at once to respond. A few hours later, Coronell got an e-mail from the Aguilas Negras paramilitaries warning that “anyone who attacks the president signs his own death warrant.”

Gonzálo Guillén, correspondent for the US daily El Nuevo Herald, fled the country after he was attacked by Uribe in print for the same reason six days earlier. His complaint against the president for “insults” is in abeyance and after he returned to Colombia in early December, he received countless threats.

TV station in danger

A row over tapping the phones of opposition figures or sympathisers, such as Hollman Morris, by the intelligence services has keep up tension between the presidency and some of the media....

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=25586

[Overseas]

42. Thank you for this excellent explanation of many reasons I admire Chavez.

I am also very glad he has extended his network of friends around the globe. I hope he continues to succeed and the US directed anti-Chavez campaigns lighten up. We need Chavez to help encourage progressive governments in South America. Those that focus on a more equitable distribution of resources and state administration of utilities, health, education and other services help the long term ecological health of the region as well. Corporations are less able to divide, conquer, privatize and usurp more vital resources around the world.

But the US government has never been too fond of liberation theology. The USA has been almost knee-jerk in its efforts to depose populist governments that have arisen in Latin America for the last 60 years or more. I look forward to a time when we will review these long-standing militaristic policies and whether they are still serving the best long term interests of the majority of our citizens.

Thanks to you and Judi Lynn for lots of great reading.

[Regret My New Name]

37. most world leaders are jackasses though...

just saying...

[Judi Lynn]

34. President of Colombia Seeks Replay of ’06 Vote

June 28, 2008
President of Colombia Seeks Replay of ’06 Vote
By SIMON ROMERO

CARACAS, Venezuela — Faced with an intensifying corruption scandal involving his re-election to a second term in 2006, President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia threw the country’s political establishment into turmoil on Thursday night by calling for the vote to be held again.

The move opened Mr. Uribe to accusations that he was seeking to extend his stay in office beyond 2010, when his term expires. His political supporters had already been trying in recent months to amend the Constitution to allow him to run for a third term.

If the 2006 election were to be held again now, there is little doubt that Mr. Uribe would win. His approval rating stands above 80 percent; voters credit him with making strides against guerrillas and bringing economic stability to Colombia, the recipient of $600 million a year in counterinsurgency and antinarcotics aid from the United States.

But Mr. Uribe’s call for a rerun of the 2006 election exposes a clash between him and Colombia’s Supreme Court. On Thursday it sentenced a former congresswoman, Yidis Medina, to almost four years of house arrest for accepting favors in exchange for supporting a constitutional amendment that enabled Mr. Uribe to seek his second term in 2006.

The court also asked constitutional authorities to determine the amendment’s validity, potentially calling into question the legitimacy of Mr. Uribe’s re-election. Some of the president’s critics, including Antanas Mockus, a former mayor of Bogotá, went so far on Friday as to call for him to resign.



Antanus Mockus
~snip~
Dozens of Mr. Uribe’s supporters in Congress are under investigation for ties to the militias. That has allowed his opponents to question how Congress can legitimately respond to the president’s request to draft a law allowing the 2006 election to be held again.

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/world/americas/28colombia.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=51dad7dd716cf7d9&ex=1214798400&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~
Colombian event which didn't get any coverage here:

Saturday, August 14, 1999 Published at 09:21 GMT 10:21 UK
World: Americas

Colombia grieves for assassinated comic



Garzon's coffin is carried into Congress


Colombia has been plunged into mourning following the assassination of its most famous political satirist, Jaime Garzon.


The BBC's Jeremy McDermott: "The capital was in a state of shock after hearing the news"
Garzon, who had been working to forward peace efforts with leftist rebels, was shot dead on Friday as he drove to the Bogota radio station where he presented a morning show.

He will be buried on Saturday after a funeral Mass at the National Cathedral.

A BBC correspondent in Bogota, Jeremy McDermott, likened the outpouring of grief to that for Princess Diana in Britain and John F Kennedy Junior in the United States.

The traffic lights where the motorcycle assassins pulled alongside the comedian's jeep and pumped five shots into his head and chest is covered in flowers and tributes.

In an honour usually reserved for top politicians, Garzon's body was allowed to lie in state in Congress.

~snip~
President Andres Pastrana, a long time friend of Garzon's, said: "This is contemptible from all points of view and once again I want to reiterate that Colombians are tired of this type of violence and we must look for reconciliation."



Students, their hands
painted green for
peace, protest against
the killing

More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/419515.stm

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

~snip~
According to CPJ, Garzón was responsible for "biting political satires" which were broadcast on Radionet and a Caracol network television news program. He had frequently been threatened by Carlos Castaño, leader of the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia or Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC), a right-wing paramilitary organization that is in conflict with leftist guerrillas. CPJ reports that many other journalists feel that Castaño ordered the killing due to Garzón's work or that it was possibly related to his contact with the guerillas. He had been involved in mediation between the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the Colombian government and had previously been active in negotiations for the release of hostages from guerilla kidnaping. According to CPJ's sources, Garzón had a meeting planned with Castaño for 14 August.

IPI states that here have been anonymous claims of responsibility from callers who said they represented right-wing paramilitary death squads. According to RSF, a man, claiming to be speaking on behalf of the AUC claimed responsibility for the assassination in a telephone call. The AUC and Castaño have threatened other journalists in the past, according to CPJ, but they issued a press release denying any responsibility in the murder of Garzón. RSF has requested that the investigation into the murder be handled by the sub-unit of the National Human Rights department of the office of the Attorney General.

http://www.campaigns.ifex.org/s/content/view/full/25034/

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

The most recent killing being investigated in association with La Terraza and its ties to military intelligence is that of Jaime Garzón, the humorist. A suspected La Terraza gunmen was arrested in Colombia in January 1999 in connection with the Garzón murder.(86)

Government investigators told Human Rights Watch that the intelligence system maintained by La Terraza is excellent and national in scope. They depend in part on fleets of taxis to collect intelligence, and have been linked to death threats against government investigators, including members of the Technical Investigations Unit (Cuerpo Técnico de Investigaciones, CTI) .(87)

One prosecutor told Human Rights Watch, "I signed one case to authorize an indictment of paramilitaries before lunch, and by the time I returned to my desk after eating, a death threat, hand delivered, was there, with intimate details about the decor of my apartment to let me know the killers had already been inside."(88)

Some formal investigations into key paramilitary leaders and their relationships to the military and La Terraza are made virtually impossible by these types of threats and the lack of protection for prosecutors, investigators, and key witnesses. In 1998 and 1999, a dozen CTI officials were murdered or forced to resign because of threats related to their work on human rights cases. Others have left the country in fear for their lives.(89)

More:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/colombia/

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Information we haven't been given here, unfortunately:

"Paramilitaries were considered responsible for 78 percent of the total number of human rights and international humanitarian law violations" while the guerrillas were linked to 20 percent and state forces 2 percent.

"However, the percentage does not reflect state forces that routinely assisted paramilitary atrocities." Cooperation "remained commonplace." "Repeatedly, paramilitaries killed those suspected of supporting guerrillas, then delivered the corpses to the army. In a process known as 'legalization,' the army then claimed the dead as guerrillas killed in combat while paramilitaries received their pay in army weapons."

More:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/050300-101.htm