Hosted by Justin Podur
This came over ACIN’s list and was translated into English I think by La Chiva. I reposted it to En Camino and you can read it here. Colombia’s regime is able to go on the offensive regionally and domestically at the same time.
Further on Colombia, a friend of mine from Toronto, Todd Gordon, wrote a fine article on Canada and Colombia – republished on ZNet, definitely worth reading, for more background analysis and the Canadian angle.
Not much is known yet about who is responsible or even who the victims were. But in Choco, one of the regions of Colombia with the largest Afro-Colombian presence and the hardest-hit by paramilitaries, it seems that at least one person was murdered and three others disappeared. The association of indigenous councils of Northern Cauca prepared the following communique and it was translated by the activists of “La Chiva”.
IPS’s excellent Constanza Viera did a very good report (like all her reports on Colombia) on the Interpol analysis of the FARC laptops captured by the Colombian government after they invaded Ecuador and assassinated Raul Reyes in March. It notes that the laptops were interfered with in the first 48 hours after the capture, but not in the week after that. The investigation itself seems credible, with Australians and Singaporean analysts who speak no spanish running the forensic analysis on the computers. They were looking for digital timestamps, apparently, and several thousand files had been modified since the assassination by Colombian authorities.
From what I gather, and I don’t monitor the North American media particularly closely on Colombia and Venezuela issues (I prefer to read the Colombian papers and first hand reports in Spanish), this is the opposite of how it is being presented here, where the emphasis is on how the laptops have been verified to have belonged to FARC. That itself I admit is a surprise to me, though I suppose it was a missile attack and not a nuclear or fuel-air bomb that could have left equipment intact. Viera has an interesting quote from President Rafael Correa of Ecuador. Having had his country invaded and attacked, he of course now has to answer to the media for his connections to the people who were killed. He says: “Ecuador does not have a border with Colombia, but with FARC” – the idea is that the border regions are under the de facto control of FARC, and Ecuador has to have relations and agreements with its neighbours. It is interesting to hear a declaration like that from a president – it is the first I’ve heard of such a thing.
I’m reproducing the full statement, including a long criticism of Uribe’s politics, but only translating the short communique on the crisis that the PDA put forward on March 2.
——
The PDA’s National Directorate, meeting in Bogota on February 29-March 2 and facing the crisis of relations of the Colombian State with the neighbouring republics of Ecuador and Venezuela:
Continue reading “Polo Democratico’s Statement on the Raul Reyes assassination”
Colombia accepted at the OAS that it did in fact violate Ecuador’s sovereignty. Venezuela and Ecuador are to discuss the situation further. Latin American countries all rejected this – it is a good sign to the US, and there have been numerous of these in recent years, many of which had to do with Colombia or Venezuela, that the Latin American countries won’t tolerate these sorts of violations of sovereignty (except for Haiti). The text of the OAS resolution, below, in Spanish.
Colombia’s regime is using a well-known tactic. When caught committing a crime, accuse the other party. The more mud slung, the better. El Tiempo’s headline, quoting Colombia’s representative to the OAS, “One hopes that Ecuador and Venezuela will have the courage to expel the terrorists from their territory.” Colombia’s claiming they found “evidence” on Raul Reyes’s computer (captured during the massacre and violation of sovereignty that they committed when they assassinated Reyes) of support for FARC by Ecuador and Venezuela. These computer files are a big deal in the Colombian media – you can actually download the PDFs of supposed memos from FARC to Chavez talking about bringing down capitalism, etc (I got my copy, I assume it’s not going to be there forever). Colombia also plans to denounce Chavez before the International Criminal Court for ‘supporting genocide’.
(The same newspaper reported today a paramilitary – these are the death squads supported by the Colombian government – confessing to using poisonous snakes to commit murders. The same newspaper. On the same day. No relevant connections made.)
Bush has announced total support for Uribe in the conflict.
Other Latin American countries have not – Argentina and Chile expressed concerns for the violation of Ecuador’s sovereignty.
Another important point – the humanitarian accord between FARC and Venezuela and Colombia also involved France pretty heavily, and France is not pleased with this assassination.
The Polo Democratico, Colombia’s left party, made a statement that was very timely and very good. They began by reiterating their opposition to Uribe’s regime and its politics and reminding readers that that regime had handed over the nation’s wealth to transnationals. The conflict in Colombia has political causes and would have a political solution, they reject military methods and military options. If it doesn’t come out in English in the next day or two I’ll probably translate it here.
This isn’t going to resolve easily. So stay tuned.
March 6 is an important date – there will be a mobilization against state crimes and paramilitarism in Colombia. It won’t have the state behind it like the Feb 4 mobilization, and will probably be made invisible. But it will be important for the country and important that people outside be watching.
The second-in-command of FARC (Colombia’s guerrilla group), and perhaps its most visible spokesperson, Luis Édgar Devia Silva, or “Raul Reyes” (the nom de guerre), was killed by the Colombian military in bombings yesterday. The Colombian military killed some 15 guerrillas in the operation, according to their own reports, including Raul Reyes. The reports suggest that it was basically an assassination, of the type the Israelis have committed in recent decades and are most recently accused of committing against Hizbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh (indeed, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez noted the similarity, asking if Colombia was going to be converted into the Israel of the Americas). From El Tiempo (Colombia’s national newspaper): “Reyes was killed in an intelligence operation that included the Army and Air Force, which intercepted a satellite phone call from the guerrilla chief, in recent hours that made it possible to find his exact location.”
Raul Reyes was assassinated on Ecuadorian territory. The Ecuadorian army took some of the bodies, but the Colombian army took Raul Reyes’s and those of other FARC officers.
Ecuador has retired its ambassador from Colombia.
Venezuela has also closed its embassy.
Ecuador and Venezuela are both moving troops to their borders with Colombia.
The Ecuadorian President, Rafael Correa, called Uribe a “criminal, mafioso, paramilitary” leading a “narco-government”.
“We do not want war, but we will not permit the Empire or its puppy, President Uribe, to weaken us.” Those were Chavez’s words on the Venezuelan radio program, Alo Presidente on March 2. Chavez called Raul Reyes a “good revolutionary” and his killing a “cowardly assassination”. Further, he said “It is very serious that a country arrogates to itself the right to bomb the territory of a neighbour and commit an incursion to take bodies, violating many international laws. Think of the consequences, not just for Colombia, but for your neighbours.”
The Venezuelan government’s official communication noted that the assassination was “a very hard blow against the humanitarian accord and the possibility of negotiations, revealing the irresponsibility of those who privilege the military option and escalate the armed conflict, making more difficult political and negotiated solutions, without regard for the consequences.”
The assassination was, literally, the answer to FARC’s second unilateral release of four kidnap victims, former Congresspeople, an operation coordinated with help from Venezuela. There are, therefore, numerous parallels with Israel. First, the tactic of high-tech, long-distance assassination of high-profile leaders. Second, the killing of dozens of others around as ‘collateral damage’. Third, the use of such assassinations to undermine the possibilities for dialogue and negotiated solutions.
In this case, as with so much else in the region, the target is Venezuela and the objective is to escalate to a regional conflict – or, rather, an intensification and internationalization of the military conflict that is happening in Colombia. Such a conflict would be incredibly destructive for everyone involved, for Colombia and Colombians, for Uribe and his regime, and of course for Venezuela’s revolution. The US, however, would benefit. When US allies use the same tactics in the same sorts of political situations against US enemies, there is reason to suspect a US role.
The US/Israeli approach in the Middle East, from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and the ongoing massacres in Gaza, has been to commit atrocities and acts of violence and, using their superior militaries, exploit the political and military opportunities that arise (this is a military counterpart of what Naomi Klein calls “the shock doctrine”). Even when they have backfired politically or strained military resources, these violent approaches have cost their victims much more than their authors, who continue to have reason to believe that more violence can work.
One of the political opportunities that Israel counts on after it commits an assassination is some random act of violence by the Palestinian armed groups, which it can then exploit, calling the Palestinians terrorists. The FARC have been told that if they unilaterally release kidnap victims, the response will be the assassination of their commanders. What should those who believe the only solution to the conflict is a political solution say to them?
It would be a major improvement in world affairs, especially in the Middle East but increasingly, perhaps, in the Americas as well, if assassination was not viewed as an acceptable instrument of policy. As it is, the best short-term hope for the region is if there is an outpouring of official and popular disgust at Uribe’s regime (and those who call the shots for that regime) for what it has done, throughout the Americas.
Justin Podur is a Toronto-based writer.
The second-in-command of FARC (Colombia’s guerrilla group), and perhaps its most visible spokesperson, Luis Édgar Devia Silva, or “Raul Reyes” (the nom de guerre), was killed by the Colombian military in bombings yesterday. The Colombian military killed some 15 guerrillas in the operation, according to their own reports, including Raul Reyes. The reports suggest that it was basically an assassination, of the type the Israelis have committed in recent decades and are most recently accused of committing against Hizbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh (indeed, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez noted the similarity, asking if Colombia was going to be converted into the Israel of the Americas). From El Tiempo (Colombia’s national newspaper): “Reyes was killed in an intelligence operation that included the Army and Air Force, which intercepted a satellite phone call from the guerrilla chief, in recent hours that made it possible to find his exact location.”
Raul Reyes was assassinated on Ecuadorian territory. The Ecuadorian army took some of the bodies, but the Colombian army took Raul Reyes’s and those of other FARC officers.
Ecuador has retired its ambassador from Colombia.
Venezuela has also closed its embassy.
Ecuador and Venezuela are both moving troops to their borders with Colombia.
The Ecuadorian President, Rafael Correa, called Uribe a “criminal, mafioso, paramilitary” leading a “narco-government”.
“We do not want war, but we will not permit the Empire or its puppy, President Uribe, to weaken us.” Those were Chavez’s words on the Venezuelan radio program, Alo Presidente on March 2. Chavez called Raul Reyes a “good revolutionary” and his killing a “cowardly assassination”. Further, he said “It is very serious that a country arrogates to itself the right to bomb the territory of a neighbour and commit an incursion to take bodies, violating many international laws. Think of the consequences, not just for Colombia, but for your neighbours.”
The Venezuelan government’s official communication noted that the assassination was “a very hard blow against the humanitarian accord and the possibility of negotiations, revealing the irresponsibility of those who privilege the military option and escalate the armed conflict, making more difficult political and negotiated solutions, without regard for the consequences.”
The assassination was, literally, the answer to FARC’s second unilateral release of four kidnap victims, former Congresspeople, an operation coordinated with help from Venezuela. There are, therefore, numerous parallels with Israel. First, the tactic of high-tech, long-distance assassination of high-profile leaders. Second, the killing of dozens of others around as ‘collateral damage’. Third, the use of such assassinations to undermine the possibilities for dialogue and negotiated solutions.
In this case, as with so much else in the region, the target is Venezuela and the objective is to escalate to a regional conflict – or, rather, an intensification and internationalization of the military conflict that is happening in Colombia. Such a conflict would be incredibly destructive for everyone involved, for Colombia and Colombians, for Uribe and his regime, and of course for Venezuela’s revolution. The US, however, would benefit. When US allies use the same tactics in the same sorts of political situations against US enemies, there is reason to suspect a US role.
The US/Israeli approach in the Middle East, from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and the ongoing massacres in Gaza, has been to commit atrocities and acts of violence and, using their superior militaries, exploit the political and military opportunities that arise (this is a military counterpart of what Naomi Klein calls “the shock doctrine”). Even when they have backfired politically or strained military resources, these violent approaches have cost their victims much more than their authors, who continue to have reason to believe that more violence can work.
One of the political opportunities that Israel counts on after it commits an assassination is some random act of violence by the Palestinian armed groups, which it can then exploit, calling the Palestinians terrorists. The FARC have been told that if they unilaterally release kidnap victims, the response will be the assassination of their commanders. What should those who believe the only solution to the conflict is a political solution say to them?
It would be a major improvement in world affairs if assassination was not viewed as an acceptable instrument of policy. As it is, the best short-term hope for the region is if there is an outpouring of official and popular disgust at Uribe’s regime (and those who call the shots for that regime) for what it has done, throughout the Americas.
Saw a story yesterday about how the Canadian military sent a memo around telling soldiers not to reveal their military connections on facebook, because al-Qaeda’s on facebook and it could endanger soldiers and their families. Taken to its logical conclusion, this idea makes the entire Canadian military a covert operation. If a nation’s military isn’t able to operate out in the open, it seems there are a lot of implications.
Also, four more people were released by FARC in Colombia as a result of the Venezuelan mediation.
IMEMC reports that Israel killed about 28 people in Gaza over the past week.
Apologies for the time away from blogging. I had the pleasure of being on a two-person panel with John Clarke of OCAP over the weekend, organized by the London Project for a Participatory Society (LPPS). We were talking about “taking back the city” and, as much as I enjoy being on a panel with John, he always puts me to shame. The talk was video recorded and might be available at some point on youtube.
Continue reading “March 6 demonstration in Colombia (and a little on Cuba and Pakistan and Canada)”