Colombia Defense Minister Santos says Colombia to join So. American Defense Council!

I've been waiting for this news all week. I just learned it today. I heard part of Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos' appearance in Washington DC on C-Span radio this afternoon. He had given a speech, which I didn't hear. I can't seem to play it now (but the links are below). I tuned in just as the Q&A began.

Some background (important to his answers): The President of Brazil, Lula da Silva, recently proposed a South American Defense Council, in conjunction with the newly forming South American "Common Market" (UNASUR)--neither the "Common Market" nor the common defense to include the U.S. Colombia attended the "Common Market" meeting, but had refused to join the Defense Council due to differences with Ecuador (it was said at the time--although the Bush Junta probably nixed it).

Last week, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and Colombian president Alvaro Uribe met in Caracas, to "bury the hatchet" (--after the U.S./Colombia bombing attack on Ecuador this March, which almost started a war between Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela, and after a stream of wild accusations against Chavez by Uribe, over the past months, including genocide (WTF! Chavez has harmed no one--no one!), sympathizing with FARC "terrorists" (Uribe had asked Chavez to negotiate with the FARC for hostage releases), etc.--lots of bad blood). Brazil's president, Lula da Silva credits Chavez with preventing that war (called him "the great peacemaker"). The meeting between Chavez and Uribe was all brotherly accord, and they announced some joint projects (including a new railroad between their countries). Defense Minister Santos chose that moment to blast Chavez in the media (a very bad thing to do to the guy who appoints you as Defense Minister); Chavez blasted Santos back, said he was a threat to peace, asked Uribe to curb him; Uribe did--sort of half heartedly.

Note: Our tax dollars fund Colombia's military to the tune of $5.5 BILLION--one of the biggest military aid packages on earth, for a country--Colombia--with one of the worst human rights records on earth. The Colombian military and rightwing death squads closely tied to the Colombian military and to the Uribe government have killed hundreds of union leaders (39 this year alone), political leftists, small peasant farmers, human rights workers and journalists. One of Santos purposes in DC--evident in the Q&A--was to protect those billions and keep them coming.

Here's what I heard:

A Colombia student asked Santos about their false-flag use of the Red Cross symbol during the recent 'rescue' of FARC hostage Ingrid Betancourt. (False-flag use of the Red Cross symbol is a big no-no in international law.) I've never heard such a crock of shit story since Jessica Lynch--as Santos spun about this. He said it was entirely the last minute idea of a nervous military captain, who saw the forest full of guerrillas and panicked. He'd been afraid from the beginning and had taken a RC symbol with him, just in case--cuz they had all been briefed at the outset that this was a very dangerous mission and they might not return (might be killed). And Santos and Uribe knew nothing about the use of the RC symbol until later, said Santos. He also said this patsy (the scared military captain who is taking the rap) was an Arab--or was playing an Arab. (Not sure what he meant.)

I laughed out loud.

Uribe had at first denied they had used the RC symbol; then had to admit it, cuz there was video. This was one of a number of weirdnesses about that 'rescue'--including a big flap with the Swiss (one of whom leaked that Colombia had paid a $20 ransom to the FARC--Santos denied it during this Q&A).

------------------
Colombia Defense Minister Santos won't use "the C word" (Chavez)!
-----------------

Someone asked him about the Uribe-Chavez accord and what was accomplished, especially regarding joint monitoring of the border (as to the FARC and the huge Colombian cocaine market). Santos said, and I quote: "I promised on this trip never to use the C word."

This guy needs to go to Diplomat School. His president is trying to "bury the hatchet" and build a railroad, and he is STILL throwing spitballs at Chavez! (Chavez last week said of Santos that Santos has said he wants to be president of Colombia hundreds of times, and he is "a threat"--by which I surmise that Chavez meant threat of a military dictatorship in Colombia and/or threat of more aggression against Colombia's neighbors, if Santos were to be in charge).

Then someone asked Santos about the South American Defense Council that Brazil had proposed, and--rather a surprise--Santos said that Colombia was going to join it.

Chavez's part of the project--to get Colombia on board--was to make peace with Uribe. Then Chavez went to visit Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, to urge him to restore diplomatic relations with Colombia. Next we heard, Lula da Silva was going to visit Uribe to convince him to join the Defense Council. Colombia had refused to that point--and Santos told a story about it, in the Q&A..

His story gives me some serious concerns about South America's ability to defend itself against U.S. attack, with Colombia on their Defense Council. There is a fascist plan--which I think Donald Rumsfeld is orchestrating (--Santos reminds me of Rumsfeld--that cold, smart-alecky, murderous sarcasm), to foment civil war in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia (lots of oil being wasted on schools, medical care, etc.), and have the oil-rich provinces declare their "independence" and split off from their national (leftist) governments (--the ones wasting oil profits on the poor). This nefarious Bushite scheme is in-progress in Bolivia, and there is evidence of similar plots in Venezuela and Ecuador.

The U.S. wouldn't likely do a frontal assault on democratic countries (--although the Bushite psyops has been very intense to paint these leftist democracies as un-democratic--total lies, of course). This backdoor strategy (fascist secessionist states/civil war) would be a sneaky way of accomplish the U.S. purpose--restoring global corporate predator control of the oil. The U.S. 4th Fleet (recently reconstituted, to roam Venezuela's coast--right off the very oil-rich province, Zulia, where a secessionist plot is in the works) would likely just act in support, and the P.R. cover would be "Independence! These people just want their independence!" The Colombian military would be important to this secessionist plan--especially as to Zulia, Venezuela, which is adjacent to Colombia, on the Caribbean.

In the Q&A, Santos said the first time they were asked to join the S/A Defense Council, it sounded vague and without purpose, and they said no. The second time the description they heard was vague again and they said no. Finally, Lulu and Michele Batchelet (president of Chile) got involved. Batchelet was present. Lulu urged Colombia to join the Defense Council. Santos said (this is Santos quoting himself), "What is this? Some kind of Chavez plot? An anti-American scheme?" Lulu said something like "no, no, no--just talks, coordination of military industries and exchanges from military academies."

Santos then (according to him) laid down conditions for Colombia joining the Defense Council: 1) Consensus decision-making only (i.e., so Colombia can obstruct any decision--is my read); 2) no prohibition against outside military alliances, such as the "U.S./Colombia" (Santos' example) (--i.e.--my opinion--they can keep getting their billions in US taxpayer booty and continue scheming with the U.S. against the leftist governments).

There was a third condition, but I can't remember what it was. Note: The Mercosur trade group forbade its members to make "free trade" deals with the U.S. But apparently UNASUR doesn't have that condition. But the Mercosur precedent may have been what Santos was thinking of. (Colombia wants to remain a client state of the U.S.--both as to massive military funding and "free trade" (free fire zone against union leaders)).

The kicker of this story is that Batchelet backed up Uribe on all conditions, and said they were Chile's conditions, too. Santos' undertones implied that Lulu agreed to these conditions because Batchelet sided with Santos.

It made me uneasy about Batchelet--too close to the U.S., playing footsy for "free trade," etc. (There is a U.S. base in Chile). Batchelet is a supposed leftist, but not nearly as into social justice as Chavez, Correa, Morales, Lugo and others. She was good on negotiating Bolivian access to the sea (a long time bitter dispute Chile and Bolivia). But she has been known to play both sides on some Chavez vs. the Bushites issues.

One other thing I heard Santos say was, "Don't cut our military funding!" He said they are 90% "across the river" on "democratic security" (odd way to put it), and if they are denied one penny, they will backslide.

I guess he was in Wash DC trying to protect their military booty--which I didn't know was in jeopardy (like their "free trade" deal is). The failed, corrupt, murderous U.S. "war on drugs" (expanded to war on the FARC) is one of the biggest military/police-state boondoggles outside of Iraq. I figured it was a sacred cow to this disgusting Congress. Anyway, the way Santos was talking, it sounds like it is in question in some way (--maybe because the U.S. is bankrupt?).

My impression: Santos thought his little joke about "not mentioning the C word" was cute (the way Rumsfeld likes to be cute--the mass murdering asshole).

I know how important peace is to leftist goals in South America--self-determination, cooperation, integration, social justice. War and militarism are hardest on the poor. And malefactors like the Bushites, Rumsfeld, Exxon Mobil, et al, are using war and despicable "divide and conquer" tactics to grab resources. I imagine that leaders like Chavez and Lulu see it as critically important that Colombia be put on a more peaceful path, and weaned from the U.S. And it appears that they are trying to bolster Uribe (who is bad) against Santos (who is worse). It just makes me worried that Colombia could paralyze their common defense at a time when it is needed to protect Venezuelan, Ecuadoran and Bolivian democracy and the countries' resources.


-----------

Here are the urls that I found to Santos speech and Q&A (but I couldn't get it to run--so I don't know where he spoke, but it was in DC, today):

http://www.c-span.org/search.aspx?For=santos+defense+colombia
http://search.c-span.org/search?q=cache:lmsccSmtJNIJ:www.c-span.org%2fVideoArchives.asp%3fz1%3d%26PopupMenu_Name%3dInternational%26CatCodePairs%3dIssue%2cI%3b&client=cspan&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=cspan
http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?z1=&PopupMenu_Name=International&CatCodePairs=Issue,I;

anywhere, or find a transcript. I haven't tried your links, yet.

I so appreciate the pains you went to to note the points he stressed. It sounds as if you were listening extremely closely to this scum. It's our benefit you did.

You know, the decision they made to join the defense organization may have been "suggested" to them by the _Bush administration, for the reasons you discussed: serving as an impediment to any hope of substantial cooperation and unity, and dragging down all efforts.

Looks as if he took every possible opportunity, to the point of absurdity, to get his licks in, and ((((((( spin ))))))) like a top, to completely lie his ass off. He may imagine Lula is too much a gentlemen to make a point of correcting the way Santos summarized his participation in the new group. Lula is the one who has been PUSHING the damned thing, for christssakes.

You are quick to consider their concern about US solvency regarding their "It's raining money" situation they've been enjoying for far too long. It sounds so likely he'd be here to look after their interests in light of what is probably a precarious future from their standpoint, with A NEW CONGRESS just down the road.

That brings up another idea: no doubt he wanted to to some mighty fast negotiation with the remaining Republicans here before their numbers get thinned out BUT GOOD come November, and a new, more serious, more responsible group takes over, which already contains many people who are NOT impressed with the way fascist Colombia has been operating.

http://colombiareports.com.nyud.net:8090/pics/2008/05/juan_manuel_santos2.jpg http://www.virginmedia.com.nyud.net:8090/images/thejoker-431x300.jpg

Which one is Juan Manuel Santos? You decide.

although I see little real practical effect from this union, since any problems in SA will more than likely be between member countries and not external threats. its not like other nations are going to send troops to COlombia to fight the FARC.

what were you thinking the purpose of the organization was? to gang up on Colombia? Colombia won't be invading Ecuador or Venezuela (some would call that a "fascist" position to take here on DU).

and regarding other agreements outside the scope of the defense partnership, well no kidding. other SA nations can't restrict member countries from entering into other defense partnerships with third parties (look at Ven and Russia) let alone restrict free trade agreements.

it doesn't look like this defense council is what you would like it to be.

m

We all know Colombia invaded Ecuador already this year.

Colombian paramilitaries (described by media accounts as a group composed of some "retired" Colombian military) hid, practised, were headquartered at the Daktari Ranch, owned by Cuban Venezuelan opposition leader, and proponent of "guarimba" protest, Roberto Alonso, as they planned to break into the National Guard Armory, steal weapons to outfit 1,500 men, and overwhelm the Presidential Palace, killing Hugo Chavez.

They already admitted it in confessions. Many of them were pardoned and allowed to return to Colombia by Hugo Chavez. Álvaro Uribe most certainly held a 6 hour conference with Hugo Chavez while he attempted to apologize for Colombia's part in this assassination plot.

In a separate situation, his own intelligence chief, Jorge Noguera was determined to have been involved in an assassination plot against Hugo Chavez, and once he was outed, he left the country, attempting to hide, was returned to Colombia where he'll stand trial, supposedly.

Not invade. Good god.

makes no sense of course.


the FARC are in Ecuador and Venezuela as well are they not??

so is that YOUR vision of the South American defense council? everyone against Colombia. CHavez had no problems sending thousands of troops to the Colombian border already.

Doesn't matter if your Aunt Fannie's in there, you are not allowed to invade that country.

You ESPECIALLY are not allowed to send in forces, "para"military or not, to KILL another President.

Germany invaded Poland. Japan invaded Manchuria. Italy invaded Ethiopia.

Can't you tell the difference?

Using shrill and hysterical language doesn't help your argument.

hearing yesterday. Dan Lungren, former Puke AG of Calif, current Congressman, said--re Bush/Cheney and their lies about Iraq--there is a difference between a 'good faith' misstatment and a lie. Someone replied to him, well, they knew damn well there was serious doubt about the WMDS, and they kept that info from Congress and the American people. It was a lie. Iraq was no threat. Lungren continued to insist that, if you can't prove a lie (a la O J Simpson), then it's not perjury.

Pukes seem not only to misunderstand the impeachment provisions of the Constitution, as the Framers intended them, and as they have always been--a broad remedy for MISCONDUCT by the executive branch, because there is no other remedy--they always split hairs when it comes to Puke crimes.

Splitting hairs is a characteristic of Pukes--when it comes to their crimes (mass murder, torture, massive theft, staggering corruption, blackmail, bribery, spying, financial ponzi schemes, warmongering, saber rattling, catastrophic malfeasance, treason, political prosecutions, election fraud, and shredding of the Constitution, etc.)--but they have no problem with holding innocent people in Guantanamo Bay for years without charge, torturing them and denying them a fair trial. Those poor saps (most of them) never get a chance to split hairs in their own defense.

Bacchus39 and Zorro are SPLITTING HAIRS over whether the U.S./Colombia dropping ten U.S. "smart bombs" on a camp inside Ecuador's border, and then CROSSING THE BORDER to shoot any survivors in that camp, in the back, without the permission or even notification of the Ecuadoran government, is an invasion of Ecuador.

It surely is an invasion of Ecuador, which is why Ecuador rushed military battalions to its border, and lodged furious protests with the OAS, and convened the Rio Group, and why both institutions stated in resolutions that Colombia had violated Ecuador's territory and why Colombia was required to apologize (unanimous resolution by the Rio Group; unanimous except for the U.S. at the OAS--even Colombia acknowledged that they had done wrong.)

You can't have one country dropping bombs on another country, and crossing the border to kill 25 people (or any people), and maintain the rule of law between countries.

And then there is what those people were doing at the time they were bombed and shot in the back (sleeping) and why they were there (to release Ingrid Betancourt and other FARC hostages to Swiss, French and Spanish envoys, who had notified the Colombian government of their purpose in Ecuador, and were on their way to that camp, for that purpose, when the camp was blown away). In short, the U.S./Colombia killed the chief FARC hostage negotiator, Raul Reyes--completely unnecessarily and in violation of Ecuador's sovereingty--so that Reyes could not release Ingrid Betancourt in a leftist country. The U.S./Colombia were losing their war games to the forces of peace, and deliberately ended all talk of peace, by slaughtering 25 people without benefit of trial.

Tear gas could have broken up that camp--if their purpose had been "law and order" or defense. Dropping ten U.S. "smart bombs" on them in the middle of the night, and then crossing the border to shoot any survivors in the back (as they were running around in their pajamas, trying to escape death)--was a lawless act--and an act of war--against Ecuador. It was not even "hot pursuit" (which is tolerated among countries in rare circumstances of an observed crime and/or shootout). And that is another reason why Ecuador was so alarmed, and so angry at Colombia--Uribe lied to Ecuador's president that it had been "hot pursuit," then Ecuador's military found out otherwise.

There are lawful processes among countries--extradition, for instance--that must be followed, unless we are all going to fall into gangsterism. The U.S., for instance, took to just plucking people off the street--in Italy and other countries--and taking them on black flights to Guantanamo Bay or other venues for torture and indefinite detention. Civilized countries don't do that to each other. Colombia is not a civilized country. It's a country where 39 union leaders have been slaughtered by rightwing death squads--death squads with close ties to the Colombian military and government--this year alone. Without benefit of trial. Without benefit of appeal. Without benefit of ever seeing their loved ones again. Union leaders! Their only crime, labor organizing!

And because Colombia can get away with that, inside their borders, they extended their lawlessness outside their borders. They think that they can just kill anybody, anywhere, that they damn please. There were several Mexican students visiting that camp (apparently to participate in, or witness, the humanitarian mission of Betancourt's release). There was an Ecuadoran citizen present (purpose unknown). Their civil and human rights were violated. As for the rest of the 25 dead, who knows who they were, or what they did, to deserve peremptory execution? In Colombia, they don't give a fuck about human and civil rights. In Ecuador, they do.

Ecuador acted in defense of their sovereignty and of the rights of individuals, within their territory, to a fair trial, if they are accused of anything. Colombia--with U.S. help--executed 25 people on Ecuador's soil, without any rights, without any due process, without any consideration of the rule of law. There was nothing any decent government could do, but rush military battalions to the their border. For one thing, they had no idea what the U.S./Colombia would do next. Was this the opening shot for taking Ecuadoran territory?

This U.S./Colombian INVASION OF ECUADOR very nearly started a war with Ecuador. Venezuela, equally under threat from the Bush Junta, rushed troops to its border as well. Was this the long-expected U.S. aggression against these countries? Who knew? There was a state of alarm in the region. Colombia had bombed Ecuador! What next?

Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, credits Hugo Chavez with calming things down and preventing a war. (He called him "the great peacemaker" in this context.) The Rio Group was convened, and the OAS, and the whole thing was aired, to Colombia's discredit. They had broken the law. They had violated Ecuador's territory. Uribe was obliged to apologize and promise never to do this again.

Bombs and shooters from one country onto the soil of another country is an invasion.

Next, the Pukes will be telling us--as Condi Rice did, as a matter of fact, just this week--that the U.S. "didn't invade" Iraq. We were "invited in"!

When Pukes commit crimes, they split hairs. Invasion isn't invasion. War isn't war. Bombs aren't bombs. Torture isn't torture. Theft isn't theft. Lies aren't lies.

And in that erosion of the meaning of language--as George Orwell so brilliantly pointed out--freedom is lost.

If an invasion is not an invasion, if torture is not torture, if lies are not lies, then the crimes of Stalinists, fascists and Bushites do not exist, and can therefore be massively perpetrated without the hindrance of law and human rights.

You really CAN'T tell the difference.

Oh, and going off your meds and calling me a Puke is something I really wouldn't recommend you do.

in MY favor, huh?

Calling me names (nuts, I guess--"off my meds"), and threatening me with I don't know what (you "really wouldn't recommend" that I call you a Puke because...?), doesn't really address my point: That dropping ten U.S. "smart bombs" on another country's territory, and sending your soldiers across the border to shoot survivors, is an invasion. That's why Ecuador, Venezuela, the Rio Group and the OAS reacted the way they did--with alarm at Colombia's violation of Ecuador's territory.

It wasn't a full-scale invasion, true, and they did retreat to their side of the border--after blowing Reyes' camp all to hell--but how did Ecuador know what they intended? They didn't ask their permission. They didn't notify them. Once on the phone, they lied about 'hot pursuit.' What was Ecuador to think? That's why civilized countries don't do this. A small-scale invasion could mean an impending large invasion. A small-scale violation of human rights--killing 25 people without trial--could mean impending massive violation of human rights. As to Colombia, it was a reiteration of their massive violations of human rights within their borders.

It is splitting hairs to say it wasn't an invasion. And, I repeat, I heard a lot of this yesterday in the House impeachment hearing, from Pukes--and on numerous other occasions. I have no way of knowing if you are a Puke or not (registered Republican, Bush supporter). I said your argument sounds like arguments they frequently use to dismiss criminal acts--such as unjust war, torture and treason (outing CIA agents). That's all I said. And I've said the same thing about Barack Obama. At times, he sounds just like the Pukes.

conversation, in every instance.

I'm glad to see your deeper reference to the fact Uribe attempted to use the "hot pursuit" explanation until it was totally illuminated as a stinking lie when the word got out they had been bombed sleeping, and shot in their pajamas.

Contemptible.

Here's a portion of the Rio Group Summit meeting in the Dominican Republic in which he told the gathering that the lies of Uribe collapse by themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXWqhbcQ75Y

There are, of course, lots of other videos of the same meeting available at the same URL. Very interesting. I'd like to locate the one we saw several months ago, showing just how disgusted ALL of the people attending were by Uribe, with Chavez acting as the only one willing to give him a hearing. Interesting. I'll post it if I find it again.

Any thoughtful examination of any of these videos would reveal Uribe is not well regarded by those who attended that summit. It's easy to understand.

as some undefined "threat" reveals one's true mental state.

But don't let that stop the delusional, self-righteous rants.

I really don't mind.

My only complaint is there is nothing left for others to add. You cover it all. You state it all precisely. There is nothing left to say.

Have you written any books? :)

It only makes them look mentally impaired, but they're not bright enough to realize it, yet.

"I imagine that leaders like Chavez and Lulu see it as critically important that Colombia be put on a more peaceful path, and weaned from the U.S."

Is that why Chavez has been supporting FARC, then? To "put Colombia on a more peaceful path"?

Plan Colombia, $5.5 billion in mostly military aid, has done so over the last eight years. Military solutions have pretty much been a failure for fifty years now.

By comparison, I think that Chávez and Lula have done a much better job at promoting talks between the Colombian government and dissident groups.

it wasn't Chavez or Lula who came up with the partial amnesty plan that led to the demobilization of the AUC and ELN, as incomplete or tenuous as that may be. the FARC did not participate so that makes it that much more difficult. the Colombian military has achieved substantial sucess recently, not just by capturing or killing rebels or liberating hostages but retaking areas that were actually under FARC control. not to mention the desertion of FARC members in droves. remember, rebels are eligible to participate under the amnesty plan even if their leadership doesn't "authorize" or agree to it.

talks, what talks? the FARC will not talk to the Uribe government.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/87821/?ses=309d41940b2743eaca8bf9d713988da2



http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n146447

As for the FARC talking directly to the Colombian government... would you directly negotiate with someone who repeatedly subverted your attempts (by trying to kill you or your representatives) to become part of the political process?

they want to take over the country.

has the trip by Lula even occurred yet? I don't see how you could say that has been more fruitful than what the Colombian military has achieved.

likewise with Chavez, events have supplanted him such as the killing of Reyes, the number 2 FARC commander and the recovery of his laptops. prior to that, Chavez called the FARC the people's army. he apparently has flipped for some reason.

and the previous release of hostages to Chavez were not the results of "talks" between the Colombian government and the FARC. again, the FARC would not talk with the administration and chose to use Chavez to attempt to embarrass Uribe.

The Colombian government has not given them a choice.

In what sense are you suggesting that the Colombian military has had "fruitful" achievements? Have human right violations decreased significantly? Are labor union leaders now safe in their efforts to organize and bargain? Has Colombia seen an end to the thousands of desplazados that inhabit the fringe areas of the major cities? Can we really believe Uribe when he says violence has decreased?

FARC has lots of guns, but very few votes. Allowing them a say in the government of the country on that basis would be like letting the Mafia help run Italy.

It may well be necessary to appease FARC, but if it were possible then the ideal solution would be to imprison all the senior officers as the criminals they are.

democracy is fully dependent upon how much support you can muster from the electorate?

never be peace.

Representatives of leftist organizations have attempted to run for office, like the man who was assassinated at the airport in Bogota, only to be slaughtered by the right-wing. People only have to read Colombia's history of "democracy" to finally get a view of a facist culture suppressing representation of the masses any and every way possible:

Bernardo Jaramillo

March 23, 1990
Leftist Candidate Assassinated at Bogota Airport
REUTERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They fired shots into the air, along with several volleys of tear gas. Buildings were evacuated throughout the capital city of six million.

The Colombian Teachers' Union called a 48-hour strike to protest the killing and banana workers in northern Colombia suspended all work.

''Colombians feel intense anger because of the fact that these crimes so often are committed with impunity in Colombia,'' said Eladio Moreno, secretary-general of the New Liberal Party.

Mr. Jaramillo was on his way to a vacation in the Caribbean with his wife and two children when he was shot in the airport concourse. A radio report, citing a police source, said a metal detector at the airport that might have stopped the assassin was not working.

Mr. Jaramillo, a 35-year-old lawyer who was elected senator in this month's congressional elections, was not considered a front-runner in the May 27 vote to replace incumbent President Virgilio Barco Vargas. The Patriotic Union has three seats in the 199-seat Chamber of Representatives and two in the 114-seat Senate.

The party said that since it was formed in 1985 as a coalition of Communists and former guerrillas, more than 1,000 of its members have been killed, including at least 80 this year.

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

Some faces of leftists slaughtered by the state, one way or another.

Jaime Garzón
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jaime Garzón while producing his politically charged satires TV show "Quac, El Noticiero" (Quac, the news). Poster by RTI (1995)Jaime Garzón Forero (born October 24, 1960 in Bogotá, Colombia — Died August 13, 1999 in Bogotá) was a Colombian journalist, a comedian and political satirist.

TV work
He worked on various television parodies, becoming famous with the TV Show "Zoociedad" (Zoociety) in the 1980s which contained humor about materialistic society and politics. Garzón then started working on a TV Show called "¡Quac! El Noticero" in which he participated with the Colombian Actor Diego León Hoyos until 1997.

Garzón created many different and instantly recognizable fictional characters, the last of which was his debut as "Heriberto de la Calle", a shoe polisher who interviewed different personalities, including politicians.

Murder
On August 13, 1999, Garzón was murdered, allegedly by the AUC, a right-wing paramilitary organization, some time after they declared him a military objective. Carlos Castaño Gil, leader of the AUC, was later convicted in absentia for Garzón's murder, and sentenced to 38 years in prison.

According to Judge Julio Roberto Ballén Silva, the AUC reacted against his involvement in negotiations for the release of guerrilla-held hostages on behalf of their family members. There are several versions of what happened in the days preceding his murder, in one of them Jaime Garzón was informed of an order to assassinate him, he then contacted Castaño, who scheduled a meeting with him to take place just the day after his murder, and sent a counter order to abort the assassination. The order apparently either never reached the actual killers, or came after it was too late. This led some to speculate that the meeting was a trap <1>.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Garz%C3%B3n

The second photo, Luis Carlos Galán Sarmiento:

Luis Carlos Galán Sarmiento (born on September 29, 1943 in Bucaramanga, Santander – died on August 18, 1989 in Soacha, Cundinamarca) was a Colombian journalist and liberal politician who ran for the presidency of Colombia in two occasions, the first time representing the Liberal Party in 1982 which he lost to Belisario Betancur. These adverse results encouraged him to focus his aspirations in his political movement called "Nuevo Liberalismo" (New Liberalism) that he had founded in 1979. The movement was initially the offspring of the mainstream Colombian Liberal Party but, with the mediation of former president Julio César Turbay, Galán returned to the party in 1987 and intended to win the party nomination for official candidate.

Galán declared himself enemy of the dangerous and influential Colombian drug cartels , mainly the Medellín Cartel led by Pablo Escobar (who had been part of his New Liberalism Movement) and Gonzalo Rodríguez aka "El Mexicano", that were corrupting the Colombian society at all levels. Galán supported an extradition treaty with the United States.

After receiving several death threats, on August 18, 1989 Galán was shot to death by hitmen hired by the drug cartels during a public demonstration in the town of Soacha, Cundinamarca. At the time he was comfortably leading the polls for the forthcoming 1990 Presidential election. His murder investigation remains partially unsolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Carlos_Gal%C3%A1n

The third,Rodrigo Lara Bonilla:

Rodrigo Lara Bonilla (born in Neiva, Huila) was a Colombian politician. He was appointed Colombian Minister for Justice in August 1983.

He relentlessly pursued cocaine traffickers mainly belonging to the Medellin Cartel led by Pablo Escobar until he was assassinated on April 30, 1984, by orders of Pablo Escobar and carried out by the hitmen group known as Los Quesitos for the rumored price of COP$500,000.

Lara's death led to Escobar's indictment for murder and a long running controversy over extradition in Colombia that would ultimatel cost thousands of lives.

http://www.mundoandino.com/Colombia/Rodrigo-Lara-Bonilla

The fourth, Guillermo Cano:

Guillermo Cano Isaza
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Guillermo Cano Isaza (Medellín, 12 August 1925 – Bogotá, 17 December 1986) was a Colombian journalist.

The editor of the daily El Espectador, he was murdered in front of the paper's offices by two hitmen linked to Colombia's drug cartels. It was assumed that the attack was in reprisal for a campaign he had launched in the paper to denounce the influence of drug traffickers in the country's politics. The same building was destroyed in a bomb attack three years later.

In an October 1995 ruling, four individuals (María Ofelia Saldarriaga, Pablo Enrique Zamora, Carlos Martínez Hernández and Luis Carlos Molina Yepes) were found guilty of conspiring to commit his murder and sentenced to prison terms of 16 years, 8 months. However, on appeal, the convictions of all but Molina were overturned.

Guillermo Cano was the heir of Fidel Cano, the founder of El Espectador. As a journalist he had worked on the paper's bullfighting, sports, cultural and political sections. He had served as the editor of El Espectador since 1952.

In 1997 UNESCO created an annual prize that bears his name – the UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize – which serves to honour a person or institution that has done outstanding work in defending the freedom of the press.

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

The fourth,Hector Abad Gomez
blockquote]HECTOR ABAD GOMEZ
News Organization: EL MUNDO

Died 1987

Location: COLOMBIA

Bio:

Killed Aug. 25 after his name turned up on a "hit list" circulated by right-wing Colombian death squads. He was a human rights activist.http://www.newseum.org/scripts/Journalist/Detail.asp?PhotoID=337

The fifth, Jaime Pardo Leal:blockquote]Jaime Pardo Leal (Born March 28died October 11, 1987) was the Presidential candidate of the Patriotic Union, Colombia for the 1986 elections.

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

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

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

The sixth, José Antequera:

Riots Break Out in Colombia After Leftist Leader Is Slain
REUTERS
Published: March 5, 1989

LEAD: Riots broke out in some suburbs of the Colombian capital after gunmen shot dead a leader of the leftist Patriotic Union party, the police and witnesses said today.

Riots broke out in some suburbs of the Colombian capital after gunmen shot dead a leader of the leftist Patriotic Union party, the police and witnesses said today.

Protesters burned tires, built barricades of rocks and threw stones at the police on Friday to protest the killing of Jose Antequera, a 37-year-old Communist lawyer, by a group of gunmen at the Bogota international airport, witnesses said.

The police said the gunmen also shot and injured Ernesto Samper, a Liberal Senator and possible presidential candidate.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4D61F3BF936A35750C0A96F948260

The seventh,Carlos Pizarro Leongómez:

Carlos Pizarro Leongómez was the fourth commander of the Colombian based guerrilla group 19th of April Movement (Movimiento 19 de Abril) (M-19). Pizarro later ran for president of Colombia after the demobilization of M-19 that transformed the group into the political party, M-19 Democratic Alliance (Alianza Democrática M-19) (AD/M-19). Leongómez was assassinated 1990-04-26<1><2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Pizarro_Leong%C3%B3mez

Probably a moment of high fascist wit in choosing the date to slaughter number 7, Enrique Low Murtra:

A Colombian Who Led Fight Against Drugs Rings Is Slain

REUTERS
Published: May 1, 1991
Gunmen riding a motorcycle tonight killed a former Colombian Justice Minister who led the campaign to extradite drug traffickers to the United States, the Bogota radio said.

The radio station said the former minister, Enrique Low Murtra, had been killed in central Bogota as he stepped out of the university where he had just finished class.

The murder of Mr. Low Murtra, who served during the presidency of Virgilio Barco Vargas, took place on the seventh anniversary of the murder of Justice Minister Rodrigo Lara Bonilla, an event that marked the beginning of the Government's war against traffickers.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1DB173DF932A35756C0A967958260

Eighth,Manuel Cepeda Vargas (and death threats ongoing, to his son):http://bp0.blogger.com.nyud.net:8090/_mhO-vXUQxVE/SAkQNlnHLqI/AAAAAAAAAog/Ytvxhlaxpx4/s400/Manuel+Cepeda+Vargas.jpg

Document - Colombia: Fear for safety

PUBLIC AI Index:AMR 23/80/99

UA 297/99 Fear for safety 11 November 1999

COLOMBIA Iván Cepeda and Claudia Giron Ortiz ,human rights defenders

A death threat received by Iván Cepeda Castro and Claudia Giron Ortiz of the Fundación Manuel Cepeda, Manuel Cepeda Foundation raises serious concern for their safety.

On 5 November 1999, Iván and Claudia returned to their flat in the capital Bogotá, to find a message recorded on their telephone answer machine in which a man's voice said that they would both be killed.

Amnesty International believes that the death threat is connected to legal proceedings against two members of the Colombian armed forces involved in the killing of Iván Cepeda's father, Manuel Cepeda Vargas, after whom the Fundación is named.

Manuel Cepeda Vargas was the only Senator in the Colombian Congress representing the Unión Patriótica (UP), Patriotic Union Party, and the Partido Comunista Colombiana (PCC), Colombian Communist Party. He was killed on 9 August 1994 in Bogotá. A paramilitary group calling itself Muerte a Comunistas y Guerrilleros, Death to Communists and Guerrillas claimed responsibility for the killing.

Following his father's killing, Iván Cepeda founded the Fundación in order to seek justice for killings of UP and PCC representatives. The government investigations into Manuel Cepeda Vargas's killing concluded that army Sergeants Justo Gilberto Zúñiga Labrador and Hernando Medina Camacho had carried out the attack on the orders of Brigadier General Rodolfo Herrera Luna, commander of the ninth Brigade of the Colombian army, who has since died. In June this year, the National Procurator ruled that the two sergeants be punished with a 'severe reprimand' for the crime. Criminal proceedings against the two army officers continue.

Outraged that, although nominally under arrest, the two officers remain in active service, the Fundación Manuel Cepeda recently urged that they be immediately dismissed from the armed forces. On August 12, Colombia's President, Andrés Pastrana, publically vowed to dismiss any state agents who commit human rights violations. Nevertheless, the two officers remain in active service.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Since its creation in 1985 some 4,000 members of the UP have been killed. The majority of these deaths have been attributed to the Colombian security forces and their paramilitary allies. Few of the perpetrators have been brought to justice.

Human rights organizations, particularly those seeking to break through the impunity surrounding such cases, are frequently the victims of death threats and extrajudicial executions. In the last two years, more than 25 human rights defenders have been targeted and killed in Colombia. Many others have been forced to leave the country in fear for their lives.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:ZrGdhJODpAgJ:www.amnesty.org/fr/library/asset/AMR23/080/1999/en/dom-AMR230801999en.html+Manuel+Cepeda+Vargas+Amnesty+International&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Ninth, and tenth,Mario Calderon and Elsa Alvarado:

Silencing the social critics: an untold story in Colombia - US-supported death squad murders unreported in the US press - Column
National Catholic Reporter, July 4, 1997 by Leslie Wirpsa
E-mail Print Link "Mama, Papa, pum, pum."

Pum, pum in Colombian Spanish means bang bang. And it is what 18-months-old Ivan Calderon uttered on May 19 as he sat surrounded by the bullet-pocked bodies of his mother, Elsa Alvarado, his father, Mario Calderon, his grandfather, Carlos Calderon and his grandmother, Elvira Chacon.

At about 5 a.m., gunmen dressed in black burst into the apartment where this family lived in a quiet residential zone in Bogota. The gunmen killed everyone but little Ivan, whose mother hid him in a closet, and the grandmother who, as of this writing, struggles in critical condition in a hospital.

Mario and Elsa worked in the human rights section of the Jesuit-sponsored think tank CINEP, Center of Investigation and Popular Education. In that office, people like Mario and Elsa record statistics and write analyses of the human rights emergency that is tearing Colombia apart.

A month after the killings, it occurs to me that colleagues have probably already entered their names in CINEP's data base, to be printed in dot matrix below thousands of others in the category "massacres of three or more victims."

The assumption of all the news reports in Colombia was that the murder of Mario and Elsa was a paramilitary slaughter. The story of such slaughters has become the untold story of Colombia. It is a brutal tale of U.S.-supported bloodshed more than a decade in the making that has received scant attention in the U.S. press.

In Central America in the 1980s, even into the 1990s, this, genre of violence became a news priority. But Colombia's U.S.-supported death squad killings -- although they rival several times in number and brutality those carried out in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras -- have received substantial emphasis in the press only when they dovetail with tales of the drug trade. The lives and deaths of Mario and Elsa provide a prism for telling this story, one few are anxious to hear.

More:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n33_v33/ai_19580002

Eleventh,Jesús María Valle:
Human Rights Defenders
It was ten years ago Wednesday that paramilitary hitmen murdered Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, one of Colombia’s most prominent human-rights defenders, in broad daylight in his Medellín office.

Here are translated excerpts from two essays about Valle posted to the website of the Popular Training Institute (IPC), a Medellín-based human rights organization.

Where he most worked to pursue his humanist ideas and carry out his defense of the weakest was in the Antioquia section of the Committee in Defense of Human Rights, which he joined in 1978, the year it was founded, and which he presided since 1987, when he replaced Héctor Abad Gómez, who was murdered on August 25th of that year.

From the Committee, Jesús María Valle was one of the first to warn of the terrible effects of paramilitarism in the department, above all in the rural zones, where the consequences of their armed actions were devastating: mass murders, tearing of the social fabric among the campesino communities, forced displacements, destruction of the local economy and deepening of poverty.

In all his letters to the Antioquia governor’s office, at that moment headed by Álvaro Uribe Vélez, now president of the republic, and to the military and police authorities, he expressed his concern about the constant killings of campesinos, who were accused of being guerrillas, members of their support networks, or sympathizers.

At the moment of his death, Valle Jaramillo served as president of what was then called the Medellín Human Rights Committee. It was from that post that he denounced how a group of men from the now-defunct Peasant Self-Defense Forces of Córdoba and Urabá (ACCU), commanded by Salvatore Mancuso and supported by troops from the Army’s Medellín-based 4th Brigade, carried out incursions in the towns of El Aro and La Granja in Ituango municipality in 1996 and 1997, causing the death of at least 19 farmworkers and the total destruction of both town centers.

Twelfth, Dr. Eduardo Umaña Mendoza:

THE US-BACKED COLOMBIAN REGIME IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE KILLING OF DR. EDUARDO UMAÑA MENDOZA

April 23, 1998
With a deep sense of loss and immense grief and anger, the International Emergency Committee to Defend The Life of Dr. Abimael Guzmán has learnt of the outrageous and brutal killing of Dr. Eduardo Umaña Mendoza, the most prominent lawyer for political prisoners in Colombia, on April 18 in Bogota, by a right-wing paramilitary commando.

The IEC denounces and utterly condemns this despicable crime against a true democrat and progressive lawyer who dedicated his entire life to defend political prisoners, incarcerated union leaders and activists, students, peasants and other sections of the oppressed people of Colombia.

The murder of Dr. Umaña-Mendoza is a blow against the Colombian workers, peasants, students and intellectuals, the democrats and all the progressive and revolutionaries to whom, for nearly thirty years, his life was dedicated, as a young student activist first, and later as a Lawyer. Dr. Umaña Mendoza always defied the power of the US-backed Colombian repressive apparatus with no fear or personal ambition, and was never deterred to take every case to denounce the brutality of the imperialist-backed regime.

In his determined and resolute fight to free political prisoners, to denounce the US-backed Colombian regime, and as a lawyer for the rights of the people, Dr. Umaña served the people taking up all sorts of risk involved in the defense of popular and democratic struggles, persisting in and sharing the people's struggle, living and working according to his convictions for a better world. He never gave up despite all the threats on his life.

More:
http://www.csrp.org/iec/mendoza.htm

Exceptional item, this guy on their list is STILL ALIVE!

Ivan Cepeda

More on Colombia >> Protect Colombian Lawyer from Assassination

Date Issued: November 29, 2007

UPDATE: Less than two weeks after this alert was issued, Jose Humberto Torres Diaz was granted protective measures by the Colombian government.

Jose Humberto Torres is a leading Colombian human rights lawyer working in one of Colombia’s most dangerous regions. Recently, an infamous paramilitary leader admitted that he had ordered his subordinates to kill Torres. The order to kill Torres has not been withdrawn and one of the people tasked with killing him remains at large.

Torres has twice been forced to live in exile out of fear for his life and is now considering fleeing the country again with his family. The recent publicity surrounding the paramilitary order to assassinate Torres puts his life in grave danger.

Take action now to demand that the Colombian Interior Ministry urgently provide Torres with adequate protection, namely an armored car and bodyguards, to allow him to continue his important work.

Background

Jose Humberto Torres is a lawyer in Barranquilla, a city in northern Colombia, who has defended the rights of others for nearly 30 years. Working with the Political Prisoners Solidarity Committee (Fundacion Comité de Solidaridad con los Presos Políticos (FCSPP)), he represents many human rights defenders who are subject to specious criminal investigations such as Principe Gabriel Gonzalez Arango.

In 2004 a Regional Military Intelligence unit (RIME) requested that the local prosecutor charge Torres with rebellion and other offences. After investigating the allegations, the prosecutor closed the case, citing a lack of facts to support the charges. Human Rights First recently visited Colombia and met with government officials to discuss the problem of prosecutors bringing false charges against human rights defenders. Read our latest document about this issue.

On November 15 2007, the ex-paramilitary commander Edgar Ignacio Fierro Florez (alias “Don Antonio”) admitted to the 3rd Justice and Peace Prosecutor in Barranquilla that in 2004 he ordered the assassination of Torres. In the order, he identified Torres as a “legitimate military target” for supposedly being involved with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Torres has no links to the FARC ‑ his human rights advocacy has been recognized by the Colombian Interior and Justice Ministry and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. Don Antonio stated that they had been unable to kill Torres because Torres traveled considerably.

Don Antonio admitted that the order to assassinate Torres remains in force. Disturbingly, one of the paramilitary members tasked with carrying it out, “El Zarco” (alias), has not demobilized. On the contrary, El Zarco reputedly remains one of the leaders of the paramilitary successor group the “Black Eagles,” which continue to threaten human rights defenders.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/defenders/hrd_colombia/alert112907_torres.htm

(Someone slipped up and didn't get this guy killed. Heads are going to continue to roll.)

If leftist politician after leftist politician gets assassinated--and the photos above are just the tip of the iceberg; tens of thousands of lesser known political and community organizers, union leaders, small peasant farmers, human rights workers and journalists have been killed by the Colombian military and its rightwing death squads, including 39 union leaders just this year alone, and 29 political candidates last year--you might just find yourself despairing and taking up arms in rebellion.

It's a path I hope I wouldn't take. But if I'd seen my children throats slits by these rightwing thugs, or had seen my compadres chainsawed and their body parts thrown into mass graves, or had seen a whole village of peasants slaughtered on suspicion of their being leftists, I don't know what I would do. I just finished viewing the HBO documentary "John Adams," and I'm reminded that the Founders of our Republic took up arms for less provocation than this. In any case, the history of five decades of fascist brutality, murder, torture and theft in Colombia--atrocities that may be slightly abated because there are fewer uppity Colombians to kill, and the slaughter and intimidation have worked in silencing some (--still, 39 union leaders! my God!)--helps to bring some understanding to this situation. The FARC are not "terrorists." They are rebels in a civil war. Or, if the FARC are "terrorists," then the Colombian military and closely tied rightwing death squads are worse terrorists. Amnesty International, for instance, attributes 92% of the murders of union leaders to the Colombia military and their death squads, and only 2% to the FARC. (The rest are common criminal murders.) And if the FARC are "terrorists," then George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld & co. are far worse "terrorists," who have tortured thousands and slaughtered one million people to get their oil. There is really no comparison. The FARC have acted in reaction to oppression. This doesn't justified their killing or kidnapping, but it does put it into perspective.

And this on-going brutality--and outrageous oppression of the poor in every way--is why FARC persists; why they keep fighting, and have done so for 40+ years; it is why this is not a "black and white" situation of outlaws against a lawful government (Colombia is a narco-state on top of everything else); and why many leaders outside of Colombia have tried to broker a peace; and why leftist leaders might be a little ambivalent about siding with the Colombian fascists. The Bushites and their $6 BILLION in military aid to Colombia (and Clinton before them) have stoked this civil war, on behalf of Chiquita, Monsanto, Occidental Petroleum, Exxon Mobil, et al, and DynCorp, Blackwater and other war profiteers. They have given the Colombian fascists reason to believe that they can exterminate the FARC and all opposition in the countryside with impunity. This civil war could have been settled, long ago, if the U.S. had a policy of peacemaking and social justice. But it does not. And I see little prospect of that under Obama either.

Chavez has never been an advocate of the FARC. He has always opposed their kidnapping, and turned against violent revolution himself long ago (when he was in prison for an uprising against an oppressive rightwing government). His border with Colombia is also beset with hundreds of thousands of poor Colombian refugees (most fleeting the Colombian military and death squads), which Venezuela now has to take care of. But he has tried to get them off Bushite "terrorist" lists--because they are not terrorists--has tried to broker a peace, and worked very hard, at considerable danger to himself, to get FARC hostages released (--and got six of them released in the Dec 07-Feb 08, despite constant sabotage by Uribe, after being asked by Uribe to do it!). He has seemed to turn against the FARC, recently, and I suspect that it's because the old guard FARC leaders--the true blue leftists, like Raul Reyes--are now dead, and the new guard accepted a $2 million ransom/bribe for Betancourt's release in the recent U.S. Embassy-orchestrated stunt. It may be because FARC members betrayed FARC members, and took the money, and played into Bush/Uribe's script. The REASON that the U.S.-Bush/Uribe-Colombian military blew Raul Reyes away in the bombing/raid on Ecuador March 1 may have been because Reyes would not be bribed by them, and insisted on releasing Betancourt to a LEFTIST leader (Rafael Correa, who had French, Swiss and Spanish envoys in Ecuador for that purpose, the night the U.S./Colombia threw down 10 U.S. "smart bombs" on Reyes' camp, killing 25 sleeping people.)

With Reyes gone (and the other older FARC leader, who apparently died of natural causes), Chavez may feel that there is no one honorable left to negotiate with. I don't know. But that's how it feels to me. It's a guess. I've never known Chavez to be mercurial, or a "flip-flopper," as we say here--blowing with the wind in an opportunistic way. He has been a principled and courageous leftist, in some very difficult situations. But something happened, to account for this "brotherly love" meeting with Uribe (in addition perhaps to the threat that Defense Minister Santos could make Colombia even worse, as a U.S.-puppet aggressing against Colombia's neighbors, and Chavez thinks Uribe is the lesser of two evils). So I'm thinking that Chavez does not think highly of the new FARC leadership, as people he should go out on a limb for, as to peace talks.

Whether FARC will re-group or not, I don't know. They've been re-grouping--after devastating blows--for 40+ years, so I wouldn't underestimate them. And with Bushite war plans afoot against the leftists democracies (mainly Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia), they might just have a new recruiting tool. What a lot of people don't understand is that the indigenous and the poor are in serious, well thought out, long term rebellion in South America (and spreading to Central America) against hundreds of years of oppression often directly supported and instigated by the U.S. on behalf of corporate interests. This revolution has taken a peaceful, democratic path in most countries. But if the Bushites turn uglier--or Obama does--so, too, might the majority in South America. They are not going to see this democracy and social justice revolution reversed. Period. And if it comes to jungle fighting, the FARC knows how.

The power of this PEACEFUL revolution is why the Bushites have not just walked into Venezuela or Ecuador, and taken over--as they basically have in Colombia, and have, in an outright invasion, in Iraq. They can't. That is their M.O. And they can't do it in most of South America because of the success of democracy--irony of ironies! They tried it in Venezuela in 2002, and tens of thousands of Venezuelans came out of their hovels to stop the coup. Democracy is the strongest weapon against bullies. In Iraq, the Bushites were easily able to "divide and conquer." It's not working in South America, which has common cause now, with leftist countries working together for mutual economic, political--and recently proposed by Brazil--military strength. Interesting, huh? South America is not an armed fortress. It is not well-defended. It may be vulnerable to secessionist plots--the Bushites' only entre--but it is not vulnerable overall. It is stronger than it ever has been, in its history, as a unified continent--with only a couple of eyesores (fascist Colombia, and the corrupt "free tradists" in Peru--the two Bushite client states).

In any case, we can understand why this conflict has persisted in Colombia, from the photos above, and more recent atrocities. We can understand, too, why the FARC is admired and supported by many poor people within Colombia, and by poor people elsewhere--not universally admired and supported, but by some--the most desperate, and the most wounded, those most directly touched by the fascist horrors. Most people want peace, good government, useful work, a decent home, a chance for their children. Those hopes are now realistic in most South American countries--most governments are at least trying, and democratic organization and social movements are flourishing--but not in Colombia.

Probably a lot less than that now.

See page 80.

http://ciponline.org/colombia/0801encuesta.pdf

For someone who professes to not be a FARCie, you certainly speak of them in glowing terms.

They are a violent gang of criminal narcoterrorists, not the ardent revolutionaries you and the resident motormouth seem to think they are.

Colombia: Trip Report on Armed Conflict and Society
May 28, 2003


U.S. Congressman James P. McGovern (D-Mass.) and a delegation organized by the Washington Office on Latin America visited Colombia in February 2003 to evaluate the effects of the armed conflict on Colombian civil society and the impact of U.S. policy on the conflict.

On April 22, 2003 the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Washington Office on Latin America co-sponsored a report by Rep. McGovern and members of his delegation to explore the findings from the trip and discuss ways the international community might support peace efforts and democratic institutions in Colombia. Moderated by Institute Latin America specialist and trip delegation member Virginia Bouvier, the session featured presentations by Charles Currie of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities; Kimberly Stanton with the Washington Office on Latin America; and Eric Olson with Amnesty International USA.

Examining U.S. Policy in Colombia
Describing impressions from his recent trip to Colombia, McGovern stressed that the conflict there deserves more attention and concern within the United States. This was his second trip to Colombia and McGovern noted that the situation was now much worse than when he had visited in 2001. Over the past two years formal negotiations between the government and rebel groups have collapsed; human rights abuses and terrorist attacks on civilians have increased; and the conflict has spread, affecting everyday life throughout Colombia. This, he pointed out, has left many in Colombia intimidated and afraid to speak out against the violence, on either side of the conflict, or against the Colombian government's policies. Can anything be done by the international community to help those caught in the crossfire between guerrilla and paramilitary violence in Colombia, he asked?

~snip~
Making Space for Dissent
Reflecting on some of the findings from the trip, Kimberly Stanton, deputy director of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), emphasized that WOLA was concerned about the impact current U.S. policy was having on Colombia. Describing their interactions with human rights activists in Colombia during the delegation's recent trip, Stanton warned that current U.S. counter-narcotics policy may not only be counterproductive, but also harmful to democratization initiatives and efforts to protect human rights in Colombia. Of particular concern, she noted, was the number of people interviewed during the trip who reported that they were concerned that their work had endangered their physical safety. Stanton also pointed out that many of the Colombians they interviewed expressed concern that the political space for dissent and criticism had dramatically decreased within the past several months. This has left many in Colombia afraid to criticize government policies in an environment where dissent is labeled either as "un-Colombian" or as "pro-terrorist" propaganda.

Looking forward, Stanton stressed that U.S. policymakers and the international community must actively support the right to democratic dissent and freedom of expression in Colombia. Stanton also encouraged U.S. policymakers to balance U.S. assistance to Colombia with support for democratization and development activities. This approach, Stanton argued, would provide NGOs and others working in Colombia with the tools needed to address the underlying causes of the conflict, as well as the resources for building a stable and healthy civil society.

In the Bullseye: Labor and Violence in Colombia
According to Eric Olson, director of advocacy for Amnesty International USA, like many other groups in Colombia, "Trade unionists continue to be victims of grave human rights violations." In fact, in 2002 alone, Olson stated, NGOs in Colombia estimate that over 200 trade activists were killed. Caught in the crossfire, labor rights activists, across all sectors from oil to education, have been attacked and discredited by government officials as serving as fronts for terrorist activities. This, Olson noted, in combination with a political environment where any type of political dissent is decried by government officials as unpatriotic, has had a chilling effect on organized labor activities throughout Colombia. In fact, a number of labor activists interviewed during the trip pointed out that labor union leaders across the country have been threatened with legal action by the state for their activities.

In closing, echoing Stanton's previous comments, Olson stressed the importance of supporting freedom of expression in Colombia as a way to help counter the current violence being directed at labor unionists in Colombia. "Labor leaders themselves," Olson noted, " targets of violence and the legitimate activities of their unions are being undermined as a result." The international community should not let these politically motivated attacks go unnoticed, he stated, but must instead provide resources to support freedom of expression in Colombia.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/usipeace_briefings/2003/0528_escolombia.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Only a fool would claim Colombians are just crazy about Uribe, wouldn't you say? That's what I think. Either a fool, or an illiterate.

It's got you dredging up reports from 2003 to counter a 2008 poll. Pathetic.

And that's quite a patronizing attitude you have towards Colombians, since recent polls show Uribe is riding a wave of popularity lately.

Only a propagandist with an agenda or a clueless loudmouth would think Uribe's support is only based on intimidating the citizens of Colombia.

Jesús María Valle
http://www.cipcol.org/?p=548

I also didn't include a photo for Jaime Pardo Leal:


I had to race off as soon as I posted the article, didn't have time to go through it to correct the errors.

Sorry about that!

Money for Colombia

Published: July 29, 2008
To the Editor:

Re “Colombia’s Gains Are America’s, Too” (Op-Ed, July 23):

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia point out that Colombia’s security situation has improved and that guerrillas are weaker, but that drug production is still a problem, and the government has yet to establish itself in areas that guerrillas formerly controlled.

These are all arguments for reducing American military and police aid to Colombia — which totaled more than $430 million this year, the highest amount outside the Middle East — and devoting the savings to civilian government, infrastructure, justice and food security in the country’s vast ungoverned spaces. Yet the writers draw a different conclusion, that “it is so important that American security assistance not be reduced.”

This is an uncreative proposal for changed circumstances. Does it make sense to use scarce United States foreign aid resources to make a minor contribution to Colombia’s $12 billion defense budget? Or is it time, instead, to support Colombia’s underfinanced civilian institutions?

Adam Isacson
Director of Programs
Center for International Policy
Washington, July 24, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/opinion/lweb29colombia.html?ref=opinion

scum plot his way toward the pResidency.

We know he'll have the complete support of Colombia's largest newspaper, which his FAMILY OWNS.