EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Plan Colombia: The Real Destabilizing Force in South America
In surveying US press coverage of the recent tensions between Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela, one might come to the conclusion that Colombia has become the victim of the wrath of its evil next door neighbor, Hugo Chavez. Once again, the media spin machine has been turned against Venezuela, bypassing a contextual analysis of the situation for a simplistic story line. With headlines such as, "Chavez Picks a New Fight" (Business Week March 4, 2008) the story perpetuates the US government's claims that Venezuela is a destabilizing force in the region while ignoring the alarming actions perpetrated by the Colombian government.
While Chavez has certainly made it easy for international attention to be focused on his actions, the lack of coverage on the response of other South American presidents is disconcerting. The most egregious example of this blind spot is with Ecuador itself, the country whose territory was trespassed in Colombia's attacks. The protests raised by Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa have been sorely underreported in comparison to Chavez's response, potentially leaving one with the impression that Ecuador does not consider Colombia's actions to be of major concern.
Nor is it being acknowledged that this is not the first time Ecuador has suffered the negative consequences of Colombia's war on "narco-terrorism" as articulated through Plan Colombia. For years the northern region of Ecuador has been subject to tremendous contamination of legal crops, animals, and whole communities as a result of aerial herbicide spraying of coca crops in Colombia.
A statement published by White House spokesperson Gordon Johndroe maintains that Venezuela is simply overreacting to a legitimate operation. "This is an odd reaction by Venezuela to Colombia's efforts against the FARC, a terrorist organization that continues to hold Colombians, Americans and others hostage."
A quick review of responses from other countries would in fact show that the US government's assessment is deeply flawed and out of step with international opinion. President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, proclaimed, "A situation of this nature undoubtedly warrants an explanation from Colombia to the people of Ecuador, the President of Ecuador and the rest of the region." The governments of Paraguay, Peru, and Argentina have all released similar statements of disapproval with Colombia's actions.
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner expressed despair at the killing of his government's primary contact in negotiating the release of former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, who also holds French nationality. Referring to the killing of FARC second-in-command Raul Reyes, he asserted, "It is bad news that the man we were talking to, with whom we had contacts, has been killed."
While some press in the United States question whether Chavez is using this situation as an opportunity to distract Venezuelans from their social problems, this excessive focus on him is in fact distracting people in the US from having a much needed dialogue on their own government's role in fomenting this so-called "Andean Crisis." As a result, the tough realities and repercussions from the US government's support for a military solution in Colombia are being overlooked.
Emboldened and armed with the multibillion dollar support of Plan Colombia, the Uribe government has decided to violate international law rather than attempting mediated discussions with the FARC. This is simply the latest controversy to discredit Colombia, already renowned for having the greatest number of human rights violations and politically motivated murders per year in the Western Hemisphere.
This is an important time to consider the consequences of the United States' blanket support for the Colombian government's militarism and the destabilizing effect this is clearly creating, not simply to talk about Chavez.
Carlos Martinez is the Operations Director for the Global Exchange Venezuela Program. He coordinates political and educational delegations to Venezuela and currently resides in Caracas.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
13 Comments so far
Show AllWhat do you think will happen when - not if - live ammo is used on a demonstration in the US?
Do you really think Kent State was an aberration?
jasoncocobolo
Do you know the circumstances that caused the emergence of FARC or Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution?
FARC: After many peasants were slaughtered in the crossfire of La Violenia, a battle to the death between the two oligarchical political parties, they migrated to the Southern Columbia and organized "peace" villages. They wanted to stay out of the typical vicious mass killings perpetuated by the warring oligarchs.
How did the Army respond? They invaded peace villages and, in the process, the Army thousands of defenseless peasants. As a RESPONSE to these unprovoked mass-killings, the FARC was organized and developed.
Their project was set up an area of Columbia whereby the oligarchs couldn't reach them.
Chavez: In the late 1980s, President Perez of Venezuela put into place the IMF shock therapy that is its wont to do. Perez promised he would not do so, but he did it anyway.
Gas, basic food prices, etc. shot up explosively. In RESPONSE to this sudden and catastropic plunge in the average Venezuelan's living standards, many rioted. These riots are known as the Caracazos.
The Army was sent in to restore order: in this instance, the oligarch's killed 1,000 to 2,000 civilians within a day or two. In addition, many of the wounded had to lay in the streets unattended. You would arrested and/or shot if you attempted to give them aid.
Because of the slaughter, many lower-class soldiers were extremely upset about being ordered to shoot down people like themselves.
This is the background of Chavez's first coup attempt. And this is the background for his massive lower-class electoral and street support.
What was the US's political and media response to these two massacres of Columbia's and Venezuela's lower-orders? Silence and the continued expansion of military aid and training.
Sometimes, war is all you got.
However, the US is finally getting a feel for how a vicious, short-sighted and arrogant oligarchy actually rules. Of course, Americans have only started the learning process.
... aside from the oil and the drug monies the U.S. benefits from, Columbia buys a lot of arms and war toys from the big U.S. defense corporations ...
What's been going on there for years has been labeled the secret Vietnam-style $war that never ends ... Just as long as those profits keep rolling in to U.S. coffers ...
peace ...
Texas-
Point well taken....and you are right, it does go both ways. US drug policy is terrible- lets just fumigate the hell out of a few plantations that are the only thing that actually grows back, killing crops, spreading cancer, killing water, etc. But dont bother to try to stop the use in the states. We end drug abuse or even make it legal, then a lot of this probably goes away. But I still dont want to let Chavez off the hook...he instigates as well as does playing the martyr
This is just what Ecuador feared as Plan Colombia was being launched. The so-called war on narcotics would metastasize into into a regional conflict aimed, more than at FARC, at any assertion of sovereignty over Ecuador's frontier with Colombia. Oil lubricates every conflict, and this frontier is important in both oil exploration and transport. See http://phillipbannowsky.com/Motherearth.htm for a prescient account of these politics
The yoke is on you, thinking that any thrall of USA Inc. would ever be permitted the exercise of free expression of ideas or dispensation of liberties and freedom upon its people.
Let me break that down for you less educated (or less Northern) ones, our sphere of influence is the entire globe (duh), which just happens to include parts of the southern Hemisphere that you have the misfortune to think that your presence there has any provided you any rights of ownership. We'll decide who deserves to subjugate and control you, as obviously you are hardly volunteering to take your proper place in history.
¿ Perhaps your children's children will better comprehend that the boss is always on the top (North end) of the world ?
¿ Don't you understand how important cheap bananas are to the well being of the USA Inc ?
Namaste
ladybug, how can you say such a thing after the US has invested so much in Uribe's makeover as 'our guy' a la Saddam in his heyday.
We have been grooming Uribe and his fascist friends for just this type of action.
Why do you think the administrative branch has fought Congress so hard to keep US advisers and money flowing to Colombia in spite of all the documented civil rights abuses?
BTW doesn't the finding of computers with terror info sound more than a little like the PCs that turned up with Iran nuke plans?
Give us a break.
I knew it wouldn't take long before the US tried to meddle again in South America, now that it has lost so much influence.
Colombia will end up being the pariah of the region.
jasoncocobolo... in your response you pour your rath out on the $$$ support Chavez gives to countries in the region yet fail to recognize the $$$ support Bush provides Colombia.
Ultimately, it is those $$$ that are creating the conflict. The war on drugs is a US mechanism to meddle in South American affairs. It is time we got out.
This is not good for the region on either side. Chavez is a nut, FARC isnt necessarily going door to door selling girl scout cookies, and Uribe doesnt necessarily read folks their miranda rights before pulling the trigger. They should not have crossed the border to do this, but why is Chavez et al supporting FARC? Also, how badly would South America leaders support Chavez in this if he was not bankrolling their corrupt governments. I laughed out loud when I saw that Nicanor Durate Frutos (Paraguay President)condemed the attacks, as recently he took a million dollar relief check from Chavez for fire victims to forest fires last Sept and that money, funny, has not quite made it out to the victims. He routinely takes pot shots at a "leftist" presidential candidate Lugo saying that he is in bed with Chavez and loves the FARC, to the point of posting slanderous posters across Asuncion of Lugo in FARC camoflauge gear. So his condemation of this event is extremely hypocritical. War is bad, period. Doesnt matter if you are Bush, Uribe, Chavez or Farc. The fact that they are in this position now is just sickening and all are losers.
NRA Freedom -
They'd probably help the people doing the firing. The NRA supported the type of officials who would order firing on the crowd.
If live ammo is used on a demonstration, 4 million NRA members and 100 million other American gun owners might do a thing or two about it.
_____________________________
Yup! They'll lock and load, 'cause there's never a wrong occasion to git some.
" jasoncocobolo March 5th, 2008 12:25 pm
This is not good for the region on either side."
SURE IT IS. After all, it emphasises the need to abide by intl law, other countries' sovereignties, etc. Though "we" refuse to wake up to such need, it's not wrong to repeatedly emphasise this need; even if it's not gaining any corrective grounds, achievements. Aiming for what's right and achieving it are not the same thing; the achievement, or not, being the ultimate goal, but not the replacing the [need] to try. We can reasonably launch a project and not achieve fulfilment, without this meaning that the effort was groundless.
I can say plenty more based on the remainder of jasoncocobolo's post, but this is a tardy comment on my part, so it'll be terminated at this point. After all, this is NOT a discussion forum; people, here, only posting comments based on specific, individual articles.