Correa Says Colombia's Uribe Won't Attend Summit in Protest

Correa Says Colombia's Uribe Won't Attend Summit in Protest

By Stephan Kueffner

Oct. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa said President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia won't attend a summit of four Andean countries this month to protest comments Correa made in an interview.

The decision shows Colombia doesn't want to re-establish diplomatic ties that were severed in March, Correa said in his regular Saturday address.

``President Uribe, if you don't want to come, don't, we won't miss you,'' he said. ``Fix your guerrilla and drug trafficking problems alone because you're the one who has these problems.'' Correa currently holds the presidency of the Andean Community, which includes Bolivia and Peru along with Colombia and Ecuador.

Correa cut top-level diplomatic ties with Colombia after a March 1 raid in which Colombian planes and troops leveled a rebel base just inside Ecuador without permission. In a Sept. 29 meeting with foreign journalists, Correa said that the relationship was gradually improving after Colombia toned down comments in recent weeks.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=afC_rGayFwG0&refer=latin_america



Ah, martyrdom of the Prince. They hate him for his freedoms!

:rofl:

you need some means of illuminating a cosmic structure that doesn't let any light escape from it. Answer: alternative news media on the internet, such as this--a wide range of accounts and opinions of an incident involving Colombia and Ecuador that is referred to in the OP article...

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/18120
http://www.workers.org/2008/world/colombias_0320/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/03/02/chavez.colombia/
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/75697/
http://www.alternet.org/audits/80499/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x2971
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/743/38427
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581212/Phone-led-US-experts-to-Farc-leader-Raul-Reyes.html
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/21692,opinion,ingrid-betancourt-the-farc-raids-real-victim-
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/charlie-hardy/2008/03/what-if-ingrid-betancourt-had-been-ecuador-saturday
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/charlie-hardy/2008/03/house-cleaning-colombia
http://interuwcmag.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/the-conflict-farc-venezuela-and-ecuador-vs-colombia-and%E2%80%A6/

That's just a sampling of news sites that I reviewed trying to understand what happened between Colombia and Ecuador last March. There were dozens more that I reviewed. One of the most important ones above is probably the workers.org article, since it directly quotes Rafael Correa about what was happening when Colombia bombed/raided Ecuador. Here is the OP reference to the event:

"Correa cut top-level diplomatic ties with Colombia after a March 1 raid in which Colombian planes and troops leveled a rebel base just inside Ecuador without permission."

What is missing here--the black hole--is that Rafael Correa was trying to get Ingrid Betancourt released from FARC custody (French-Colombian who had been held hostage for years). French, Swiss and Spanish envoys were in Ecuador to receive her from the FARC's chief hostage negotiator, Raul Reyes, under Correa's auspices. They had notified Colombia of their intention, and were headed toward Reyes' camp. The U.S. and Colombia--not just Colombia--chose this moment to drop 10 U.S. "smart bombs" on Reyes' temporary camp, just inside Ecuador's border, killing Reyes and 24 other sleeping people, and then sending soldiers over the border to shoot any survivors in the back. The U.S./Colombia was determined to prevent hostages being released to the leftist governments of Venezuela and Ecuador. Indeed, in an earlier incident in Dec 07, after Colombia's president asked Chavez to negotiate hostage releases, the Colombian military then sent rocket fire at the location of the first hostages to be released, as they were in route to their freedom. (Chavez got them out safely, later, along with four others.) They were also determined to defeat Raul Reyes' bid for peace in the 40+ year civil war between the FARC and the Colombian military and government.

That's the story that emerges from the bits and pieces in different articles--from quotes of Correa, quotes of the envoys and of Betancourt's husband, info from the Ecuadoran military, accounts of the hostages released to Chavez, Uribe's statements, etc.

Thank God for the internet!

Bloomberg describes this as follows (the OP article): "...Colombian planes and troops leveled a rebel base just inside Ecuador..." It is not at all clear that "Colombian planes" did the bombing. The Ecuadoran military says that Colombia's air force was not capable of this, and does not have bombs of the destructive power they saw at the camp. It was more than likely U.S. planes out of the U.S. base at Manta, Ecuador, run by Dyncorp. But more than this, the article gives no context whatsoever. It says that this raid occurred "without permission" (from Ecuador). In fact, Uribe LIED to Correa (one of the reasons Correa was so angry) that the raid had been "hot pursuit" when the camp had been asleep (according to the Ecuadoran military). The key contextual point is entirely missing--that this was raid to kill Raul Reyes before he could release Ingrid Betancourt and others to Correa. And it submerges the key point about "permission." It was not just a rogue raid. It was a SET UP--with lies and deceptions all figured out, by the time Uribe called Correa.

Further, Uribe then started using the "miracle laptops" (at first just one, later several)--supposedly Reyes' laptops from the decimated camp--to accuse Rafael Correa of colluding with the FARC (also Chavez)--of giving money to them, taking money from them, helping them build a "suitcase" nuke, and on and on--an incoherent set of charges aimed at headlines and securing more booty from the Bush regime (on top of the $6 BILLION Colombia already gets larded with, in military aid from the U.S./Bush).

Now go back and read the Bloomberg article. Correa's sharp words about Uribe failing to attend the Andean conference are now much more understandable. He has REASON to be angry. He has been personally attacked. The treacherous Uribe lied to him. A diplomatic success by Ecuador (release of Betancourt and other hostages) was defeated with a massacre. Ecuador's sovereignty was violated. And Colombia's long, bloody civil war, and its constant stream of cocaine and associated crime, and the U.S. militarization of the area, keeps spilling over his border (including millions of refugees that Ecuador and Venezuela are obliged to take care of, because they have decent governments).

Bloomberg and other Corpo/fascist 'news' organizations are always doing this--leaving out vital context for events in South America, these big black holes that shed no light. It is a form of disinformation. I've become very alert to it, in following South American news stories, and find it appalling.

Believing FARC was on the verge of handing over Betancourt and the other hostages due to Correa's "intervention" borders on the delusional.

and President Correa all said so publicly. The envoys reported that they had told the Colombian government of their presence in Ecuador, and their purpose--to receive Betancourt. They also reported that someone in the Colombian military warned them off from Reyes' camp (said "they are all going to be killed"). The envoys were heading to the camp that very day. The presidents of France, Ecuador, Venezuela, Argentina, Spain and Switzerland were all involved in it.

Who should I believe? You or the people who were directly involved and made public statements about it?

"Delusional" means someone who can't absorb facts from the real world, and creates an alternative reality. That describes you not me.

One rightwing discussion of these events that I read even twisted these facts around, saying that the Colombian military had tricked Reyes into believing that they would tolerate hostage releases, in order to lure him into a more open position. But the facts are still the same--that Reyes intended to release Betancourt to the European envoys, in Ecuador, and the president of Ecuador, the envoys and others expected it to happen.

You're saying that the president of Ecuador was lying? And the French, Swiss and Spanish envoys were lying? And Betancourt's husband was lying? As I said, you are the one who can't absorb facts from the real world, and are creating an alternative reality in which all of these people were lying and it didn't happen that way. It's easy enough to say that someone else is "smoking" hallucinogens, and is "delusional." It's much harder to do research, review many news reports, get the facts of a situation, compare quotes and accounts and analyze and understand it. The Corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies chronically fail to do this. Your labeling of someone who does do it as "delusional" serves their purpose and the goals of the moneyed interests of the people they serve.

and so many others were viewing Reyes as their hostage negotiator, then the shock learning Uribe had been able to assassinate him, and the realization that this act was taking the hostage retrieval clearly out of the hands of all the people who were involved trying to accomplish it.

It clearly duplicated the act of bombing the area the first couple of hostages were trying to travel through with their captors on the way to be released when Hugo Chavez was overseeing, as per Uribe's actual request, and they had to flee for their lives all the long, long, LONG way back to camp to escape being slaughtered, which they detailed upon their release at a later date, when Hugo Chavez tried it again after being asked by other concerned parties.

It was discussed fully here at the time. No way to miss it unless a member was too busy spamming the conversation with unrelated drivel and miscellaneous character assassination attacks on Chavez.

Ecuador: Colombian raid prevented release of captives

(CNN) -- Ecuador's president said Monday that a deal to release political prisoners -- including former Colombian Sen. Ingrid Betancourt -- was nearly complete before a Colombian raid into his country Saturday.

"I can tell you we were involved in very close conversations with the guerrillas, and we were very close to gaining the release of 12 captives, one of them Ingrid Betancourt," Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa told reporters. (MORE)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/03/03/ecuador.colombia/index.html

--------

Ecuador was close to securing hostage deal: Correa

Posted Tue Mar 4, 2008 4:22pm AEDT
Updated Tue Mar 4, 2008 4:21pm AEDT

(ABC) Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa says his government had been close to securing a deal with Colombian FARC rebels to free 12 hostages, including French-Colombian Ingrid Betancourt, before a military incursion by Colombia. (MORE)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/04/2179680.htm

-------

Ecuador's president denies backing Colombian rebels
Published: May 12, 2008
International Herald Tribune - Associated Press

(snip) In a newspaper interview published in French daily Le Monde on the eve of his visit to Paris on Tuesday, the president was quoted as saying the Colombian raid thwarted the possible release of hostage Ingrid Betancourt.

Correa said a leader of the FARC guerrillas, Raul Reyes, had pledged to release Betancourt before he was killed in the raid March 1, according to the interview.

"I do not know if he would have kept his word, but he announced the release of two hostages for March, including Madame Betancourt. France knew it," Correa was quoted as saying. "Unfortunately, contacts with the FARC have been lost since the death of Raul Reyes." He did not elaborate.

Correa will meet for talks Tuesday with French President Nicolas Sarkozy about Betancourt and to meet with her family. (MORE)

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/12/europe/EU-GEN-Spain-Ecuador.php

-------

Latin American Crisis "Made In The USA"
by Bill Van Auken
Global Research, March 8, 2008

(snip) To carry out this political murder, air strikes were called in against the camp inside Ecuador as Reyes and some 20 of his comrades slept. Commandos were then sent into the camp to finish off most of the survivors and haul Reyes's bloody corpse back to Colombia as a political trophy for the right-wing US-backed government of President Alvaro Uribe.

This ruthless attack was staged not to ward off some pending terrorist attack. On the contrary, it was designed as a "preemptive strike" against a negotiated release of hostages held by the FARC, among them a former presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt, who holds joint Colombian-French citizenship and has been held prisoner by the FARC for six years.

Just two days before the border massacre, French President Nicolas Sarkozy publicly called for the release of the ailing Betancourt and announced that he was prepared to fly to the Colombian border to personally receiver her.

The FARC itself issued a statement that Reyes had been working through Venezuelan President Chavez to concretize plans for a meeting with Sarkozy to arrange for the hand-over of Betancourt.

The French government has not denied this account. Indeed, on Monday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told the media, "It's bad news that the man we were talking to, with whom we had contacts has been killed. Do you see how ugly the world is?" (MORE) (emphasis added)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8272

--------

Colombia raid scuttled release of Betancourt-husband
Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:09pm EDT - Reuters

SANTIAGO, March 17 (Reuters) - Colombian leftist rebels holding French citizen Ingrid Betancourt hostage would have released her if Colombia's government had not carried out a cross-border raid targeting a rebel camp in Ecuador, her husband said on Monday. (MORE)

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN17633829

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

The French president and foreign minister were lying, Zorro? Betancourt's husband was lying? Ecuador's president was lying?

What are YOU smoking?

Apparently some overlooked the news they revealed the first time.

I'm glad for the chance to save this group of helpful links for personal use.

"We'll print anything!", and written by the propagandist Ocando. I'd love you and Judi to help me deconstruct it:

Cuban advisors and Colombian rebels are helping train paramilitary fighters, critics and former participants say.
BY CASTO OCANDO
El Nuevo Herald

SAN CRISTOBAL, Venezuela -- The Venezuelan government, with help from Cuban military advisors and leftist Colombian guerrillas, is operating a secret paramilitary training camp in a closed-off tourist campground near here, former participants and government critics say.

The camp offers six-week courses for a rolling contingent of 400 to 1,000 participants, including a first-phase political indoctrination with texts printed in Cuba and a second phase of guerrilla training for the most loyal students that includes the use of light and heavy weaponry and use of explosives, they added.

One complaint filed in April with a prosecutor's office in the surrounding state of Tachira requested an investigation of the secret operations conducted by the Cubans, including ideological instructions based on the philosophy of Ché Guevara and Fidel Castro as well as speeches by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.

If the allegations are confirmed, it would heighten tensions between Chávez's leftist government, the conservative government of President Alvaro Uribe in neighboring Colombia and the Bush administration in Washington.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/5min/story/713632.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted#Comments_Container

you'll see Ocando, of course.

Found this article which also ran in "Spinwatch:"

SUNDAY 5 OCTOBER 2008
Venezuela and Chavez Target of Bush Propaganda Campaign
US Aggression towards Venezuela: The Rise of Black Propaganda and Dirty War Tactics

~snip~
Over the past two weeks, the Spanish-language version of the Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, has run a three-part series on the growing threat of organizations and individuals that support the Venezuelan Government from within the United States.<3> The articles, written by right-wing Cuban-American journalist Casto Ocando, who has written dozens of fervently anti-Ch a1vez articles for that same paper, pretend to expose a network of Ch a1vez supporters in universities and progressive groups that, at the appeal of the journalist, should be considered "foreign agents" or almost "terrorist" by the US Government and public. One of the articles even includes a map of where such pro-Ch a1vez groups are located in the US, with a large image of President Ch a1vez in military fatigues imposed on top, as though the author were exposing some clandestine terrorist network secretly operating within the United States.

The groups and institutions mentioned by the Herald that form part of the "sinister" pro-Ch a1vez network in the US include Harvard University, New York University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Global Exchange, Global Women's Strike, San Romero de las Americas Church in New York and its Pastor, Luis Barrios, the catholic missionary Maryknoll group, the author of this article (yes, me), and several Bolivarian Circles, small community-based organizations that support Ch a1vez modeled from the Venezuelan grassroots organizations that carry the same name. Sounds like a scary group!

I am sure that thoughts of Maryknoll missioners, prestigious university professors, Harlem-based Pastors and the environmentally-friendly Global Exchange all lauding a foreign government that is investing its oil wealth in improving health care, education, housing and raising salaries, has driven fear into the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans.<4>

Media-CIA Relationship Exposed

But maybe the author's intent and not the content of the article should cause alarm. During the publishing of the three-part series on the growing threat of pro-Ch a1vez supporters in the US, journalist Casto Ocando appeared on a local Miami television show on Channel 22, discussing such "threats" in detail alongside fellow Cuban-American F lix Rodr guez, ex-CIA Officer responsible for the assassination of Ernesto "Che" Guevara and who was also an Iran-Contra operative.<5> Just days earlier, this expert in CIA assassination techniques used against foreign leaders, F lix Rodr guez, was interviewed on that same program, "Maria Elvira Confronta" (Maria Elvira Confronts), providing details about an assassination plot in motion against President Hugo Ch a1vez.<6> Ocando and Rodr guez's association merely points to a collaborative effort between CIA and news media, a relationship established decades ago by the United States Government.

More:
http://www.truthout.org/article/venezuela-and-chavez-target-bush-propaganda-campaign

Additional information from the linked article:

The Office of Public Diplomacy Revived

In 1983, the United States Government, by direct order of President Ronald Reagan’s White House, established the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean (LPD) under the authority of the Department of State. The LPD was staffed by personnel from the United States military, the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), the government’s primary propaganda office, and the Agency for International Development (USAID). Its primary advisor was the National Security Council, the most elite intelligence advisory committee in the U.S., reporting directly to the President. The notorious Otto Reich was chosen to direct the Office of Public Diplomacy, in order to spearhead the campaign to oust the Sandinista Government of Nicaragua.

Declassified documents from the U.S. Government, obtained by the National Security Archives, evidence the covert and illegal use of news media to promote U.S. foreign policy.<9> Reich employed the personnel from U.S. military “Psyops” (Psychological Operations Group) to produce different kinds of propaganda and information for the LPD Office. “Psyop” job duties included preparing “daily summaries of exploitable information”, “analyzing media trends and highlighting areas of concern” and “suggesting themes and media for use” by the Office of Public Diplomacy.<10> The media used by the Office of Public Diplomacy to promulgate U.S. foreign policy on Nicaragua included The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, CBS News, NBC News and Newsweek Magazine, amongst others.

The types of messages disseminated through Reich’s office, as developed by the National Security Council and the Psyops, were intended to encourage the perception that U.S. aid to the contras, labeled “freedom fighters” by the U.S., was a vital national interest of the United States. To achieve that goal, Reich’s office was to convince the U.S. public that the contras were fighters for freedom in the American tradition of democracy and the Sandinistas were “evil”. The themes invoked in the psychological propaganda attempted to convince the public that the Sandinistas were engaging in a “military build-up”, had a “communist connection” and were “human rights violators” repressing “freedom of the press”, “right of assembly”, “freedom of speech”, responsible for the “destruction of the economy” and were “linked to worldwide terrorism.”

In 1987, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean had engaged in illegal and unethical practices and had violated government regulations.<11> GAO and the Congress subsequently shut down the Office permanently. But Otto Reich, instead of receiving punishment for his illegal actions throughout the years he headed the LPD was promoted to the position of U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela and stationed in Caracas. During that period, he helped liberate Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch, responsible for blowing up a Cubana de Aviación airplane flying from Barbados, killing all of the more than 65 people aboard the flight. Reich later helped facilitate the entry of Bosch into the United States, where he roams free today.<12>

Otto Reich’s Misinformation Campaign

Otto Reich was the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, the position Roger Noriega holds today, during the April 2002 coup d’�tat against President Chávez. This author has disclosed numerous documents from the Department of State and the CIA that evidence U.S. involvement in that coup.<13> Amongst these documents is a heavily censured cable marked “confidential”, drafted by Otto Reich, laying out the State Department’s position on the coup. Despite the fact that the U.S. Government was well aware of the detailed coup plans, as revealed in a CIA Senior Executive Intelligence Brief dated April 6, 2002<14>, Reich, the master of mis-information, told all diplomatic representatives of the U.S. that they were to promote this false version of events:

“On April 11, hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans gathered to seek redress of their grievances. Chávez supporters fired on anti-government protestors resulting in more than 100 wounded or killed….The government prevented five independent television stations from reporting on events. After meeting with senior military officers, Chávez allegedly resigned the presidency. A provisional civilian government, led by Pedro Carmona, assumed power and promised early elections.”<15>

The intent of the U.S. Government was to misinform the world of the events giving rise to the illegal coup d’�tat that briefly overthrew President Chávez, therefore justifying its own participation in such actions and reinforcing its strategy to “legitimately” remove Chávez from power. The fact that the U.S. Government had clear knowledge of the coup plans and actors in the weeks before the coup provides undisputed evidence of this fact. The CIA intelligence brief of April 6, 2002 unmistakably informed top level U.S. Government officials that, “Dissident military factions…are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President Chávez…the level of detail in the reported plans…targets Chávez and 10 other senior officials for arrest…To provoke military action, the plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations…”

More:
http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/us_aggression_propaganda_golinger.htm

They must be a hundred by now.

He, as a maverick, marches lockstep with the right-wing aggressive view toward Latin America.

Fits pretty well!

And just look at all the good they have done this country during Nixon, Ford, Reagan, _Bush and _Bush. I doubt we can take much more.

It's good to see he's getting LOTS of it. :toast:

Casto Ocando born in Venezuela. He started professionally in 1987 at the Central Office of Information (OCI). He has worked in the daily El Universal de Caracas (1993-1996), the agency IPS (1994-1995) and the Weekly Fifth Day (1996-2000), of which he was Managing Editor. He has collaborated with various publications as the weekly Tiempos del Mundo, in Washington, DC and the magazine Poder, in Mexico. He lives in Miami since 1999 and writes for El Nuevo Herald since 2002.http://ocando.blogspot.com/


He includes this photo
which he apparently believes
is a favorable photo .

Worked for the opposition media in Venezuela before moving to Washington, D.C.? Oh, PLEASE!

:woohoo:

:rofl:

Judi Lynn, you're a genius!

Oh, the material we can get from that poor blog!

lol

Of course Correa would try to spin the report to make him appear favorable. And I doubt if Betancourt's now ex-husband was that close to "negotiations". And just how close were the French to enabling the hostage recovery? Not much, from the links you provide.

And if Correa thought that he had a "pledge" from Reyes to release the hostages, then he's quite gullible, too.

French Negotiators Were to Meet Reyes the Day He Was Killed

QUITO, Mar 7 (IPS) - Three personal envoys of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who were in Ecuador since October 2007, were phoned Saturday Mar. 1 by Colombian Peace Commissioner Luis Carlos Restrepo, who warned them not to go to a meeting with guerrilla leader Raúl Reyes because they would be in danger.

Sarkozy’s envoys in Ecuador, who were there with the consent of Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, were negotiating with Reyes the release of former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, who has been held hostage by the guerrillas for six years, said a French diplomatic source who wished not to be named. (MORE)

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41513

---------

Interesting discussion prompted by this article back in July:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x5744

Must be true, then.

Reyes was gamed, and deservedly so. Since you rely solely on information you find on the internet, here's some snippets that explain the situation for you:

..."The location of Raul Reyes, deputy commander of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc), was pinpointed just inside Ecuador after Colombian hostage negotiators deliberately intensified talks over the release of captives to force him either to authorise, or to stop, the next stage...

...Local paid informants had already told Colombian authorities that Reyes was operating along a stretch of the Ecuadorian-Colombian frontier.

So although he only used the phone sparingly for security reasons, he gave away his precise hiding place when he switched on the machine to deal with the latest development in the negotiations..."

Read more at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1581212/Phone-led-US-experts-to-Farc-leader-Raul-Reyes.html

And here's some background gleaned from wikipedia about Reyes:

"Reyes was accused by the US Department of State and the Colombian government of expanding FARC's cocaine trafficking activities and setting related policies, including the production, manufacture, and distribution of hundreds of tons of cocaine to the United States and other countries. He was accused of promoting the "taxation" of the illegal drug trade in Colombia to raise funds for the FARC, as well as participating in the murder of hundreds of people who violated or interfered with the FARC's cocaine-related policies.

Reyes was also accused of kidnapping hundreds of civilians for extortion or political purposes, including nine foreign tourists, involvement in several town massacres and some Colombian city bombings. He had been formally sentenced in absence for the deaths of 13 policemen and 18 soldiers, 18 kidnappings and the deaths of a judge, a physician, three judicial auxiliaries, the ex-minister of Culture Consuelo Araújo, the congressman Diego Turbay and his mother, catholic monsignor Isaías Duarte, Governor of Antioquia Guillermo Gaviria, the Colombian ex-minister Gilberto Echeverri, 11 members of the Valle del Cauca Assembly and at least other four persons. Most of these persons were kidnapped before their deaths. Gaviria, Echeverri and Araújo were killed by shots in the head when Colombian military forces stormed the camps where they were held by guerrilla insurgents.

He was also found responsible for bombing Club El Nogal in Bogotá where 36 people were killed. The Government of Paraguay had asked for his extradition for his participation in the kidnapping and death of Cecilia Cubas, daughter of the ex-president of Paraguay, who was kidnapped in September, 21, 2004 and whose body was found in an abandoned house in February 2005..."

But you apparently think that Reyes was preparing to hand over FARC's most important hostages -- for what? I've never heard anything about what FARC's demands were.

You need to recognize and acknowledge that FARC is a criminal terrorist enterprise. That's reality.

A dose of reality somehow seems an anathema to those that rely solely on the internet for their information.

You should be very proud -- or, dizzy.

innocent men, women and children, with no justification whatsoever, is a war crime and it is WRONG and EVIL and cries out to be prosecuted.

I've never been to Guantanamo Bay but I can tell you that torturing prisoners of war, and imprisoning them without charges or trial, incommunicado, with no access to lawyers or family, for half a decade, is a war crime and it is WRONG and EVIL and cries out to be prosecuted.

I've never been to Colombia, but I can say, based on numerous reports, that the Colombian military and closely tied paramilitary death squads, with the collusion of, and for the benefit of, Uribe and his political cohorts, are terrorizing the political opposition with dozens of "extra-judicial" murders of entirely innocent people, including some people who are not even political--youngsters who are shanghied and dressed up as FARC guerrillas and killed, to up the body count to impress Bush & brethren with the usefulness of the $6 BILLION Colombia is getting in military aid. Children's throats have been slit, on suspicion of their parents being leftists. Union leaders have been chainsawed, while alive, and their body parts thrown into mass graves. These are not the reports of political advocates, but the reports of numerous human rights groups. I don't have to travel to Colombia to know that they are true, and to say, without reservation, that these are war crimes and they are WRONG and EVIL and cry out to prosecuted, not rewarded with billions of dollars in military aid and "free trade" for the rich.

I don't know everything there is to know about Colombia, by any means, and I have never traveled there, but I do know that the above war crimes are why there is armed resistance in Colombia. Thousands of people don't live in fear for their lives every minute of the day, in jungle camps, and organize themselves into an army, and persist in their resistance for 40+ years, for no reason.

I have not been to Chile but I know what Pinochet did, with the backing of my own government. I have not been to Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, nor to any Latin American country outside of Mexico, but I consider it my duty, as a U.S. citizen, to find out what has happened in those places, and what part my government played in it, in order to understand what is happening there now, and to help inform other U.S. citizens, and improve U.S. policy, in whatever little way I can. My tax dollars are going to those places--and, as it turns out, for very, very, VERY bad purposes. Besides that, I am a human being and citizen of this hemisphere. I want to know what is happening to others, and what Latin Americans are doing about their own situation. I can't travel to these places. But I can use the fabulous resources of the internet to learn all I can. It's a cheap shot for a DU poster to imply that I can't understand the political situation in Ecuador, and the relevance it has to the U.S., without visiting Ecuador, and that someone who has visited Ecuador, or claims to have visited Ecuador, has superior knowledge or understanding, just by dint of travel. By that measure, no U.S. citizen without the wherewithal to travel, can understand another country and U.S. policy towards it. We should all just let Bush decide? He's the "great decider." Let Daddy do it!

I have yet to see any post by Zorro, or by the other anti-South American left posters at DU, that illuminated my understanding of South America. Zorro, if you're so knowledgeable, why don't you post something useful, instead of claptrap phrases like "criminal terrorist organization"? For instance, why don't you explain the viewpoint of the 30% or so Ecuadoran voters who voted against the new Constitution? I presume you agree with them. Who are they? What have they said to you? What is their perspective? And, do any of the people you met live near the border with Colombia? What do they say is going on? If you have first-hand knowledge, share it.

I'm not in sympathy with those 30+%. I admit that freely. I'm in sympathy with the majority and with the Correa government. And I can give you plenty of solid reasons why I am. But that doesn't mean that I don't want to understand the other side, especially ordinary people--workers, business people, professionals. Firsthand contact is not essential to understanding Ecuador's political/social context, but it can help. Correa is enormously popular. What is the perspective and experience of those who oppose him (or any you may have encountered who support him)?

Things are changing rapidly in South America. Travel there five years ago, or ten years ago, might not be relevant to today's developments--or maybe it is. A time-frame would be useful. When did you travel to Ecuador, or to other South American countries? How does what you saw and heard, in that time period, help illuminate what is going on there now?

The rightwing is losing, big time, in Ecuador and in most of South America. Why do you think this is so--from your experience of traveling there?

Ecuador has pro-Bush, pro-'free trade' governments on both borders (Colombia, Peru). What do the people you met in Ecuador think of Bush, "free trade," World Bank debt, the U.S. military base at Manta, their Colombian and Peruvian neighbors, and other issues such as education and health care? The new Constitution (endorsed by nearly 70% of the voters) legalizes gay marriage. What do they think of that? Are they rightwing Catholics? How was it possible to pass that provision in a largely Catholic country? (The Venezuelan leftists failed.) Do the anti-Correa voters think gays getting married is Armageddon, like the 30-percenter Bushites here--or does it not matter much to them?

Frankly, I think you just using having traveled to Ecuador to try to shut down other people's opinions and information. I am asking you to help me believe otherwise--with conversations, perspectives and details that can help us leftists understand things better, from the perspective of Ecuadorans (or others) whom you have met and tell us about, or conditions and situations that you have observed.

and vow never to allow myself to be bullied on this forum again. Bullies, beware.

My family paid its dues across four generations. That's enough. I think that's enough. We put enough young men into the ground, you bastards.

No more young people slaughtered, no more agreement with homicidal policy, no more respect for those that are too willing to sacrifice the people, no more acceding to the racist US exploitation of Latin America.

That's enough.

I've owned property in Ecuador for the past two decades, and get down there for a month or two when I have the time, spending time both in the lowlands (Guayaquil and Manta) and highlands (from Quito to Riobamba to Cuenca). I also maintain contacts that keep me informed on what's going on down there. I tend to not go closer to the border of Colombia than Otavalo; violent crimes and kidnappings are becoming more prevalent, and it's not wise for North Americans to go traipsing around.

Ecuadoreans I interact with run the gamut on their opinion of Bush, but by-and-large they think he's an idiot. The professional people think he's damaged the US tremendously, the military think he's muy macho, and the campesinos couldn't care less.

Opposition to the new constitution predominantly came from the residents of Guayas province -- and in particular the city of Guayaquil, which is both the largest city in Ecuador and its center of commerce. There were a variety of reasons why the majority in Guayas province voted against the new constitution. The reasons range from the religious (the inclusion of abortion rights raised the ire of the Catholic church) to the practical (the enshrinement of "mother earth" rights,as noble as it sounds, might negatively affect commerce -- and frankly, it will be interesting to see what impact this has, given that itinerant Ecuadoreans clear-cut timber to grow subsistence crops).

There's also the typical political differences that crop up whenever something as significant as a new constitution is proposed. Jaime Nebot (the mayor of Guayaquil) lost the last election to Correa, so he was not supportive of the new constitution. Correa's implicit demonization of the opposition rankled the citizens of Guayaquil, who felt there are legitimate concerns with the concentration of power with the president.

The ill-informed characterization of the Nebot here on DU as a fascist rankles me, too; he's made extraordinary improvements to Guayaquil's infrastructure over the past 8 years or so, and has created real community pride.

So yes, I do think I have a reality-based perspective on events in Ecuador, and in general I think Correa has been an improvement over the past few presidents. What is of concern is his apparent move into Chavez' orbit, and his lack of interest in reconciliation with Colombia. Ecuadoreans tend to support him due to his appeal to national pride, but they're also concerned with the increase in violent crime and the government's ineffectiveness in dealing with it.

On a side note, one of the side effects of dollarization has been the influx of narcodollars and the associated criminal element. Ecuador also has a serious problem with counterfeit dollars, which are rumored to be originating from North Korea and Iran. Some may think this is an imaginary problem, but if you're an Ecuadorean and you get a $100 bill from the bank (and that's a lot of money there) that is counterfeit, you will not be happy.

Hopefully you now understand why I find it annoying when someone tells me I don't know what's going on in Ecuador.

Correa has said that Guayaquil was where there was a meeting of rightwing separatists, in cahoots with the U.S.-Bush, planning insurrections in Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia, like the one in Bolivia last month (--trying to split off certain regions and their resources from the leftist national governments). Do you know if Nebot attended that meeting, or if he is involved or tending toward secession? If he did, or is, that would be rather understandable cause for Correa to "demonize" him, as you say.

I've heard conflicting reports about whether or not the new Constitution permits abortion. I read something to the effect that the Catholic Church and the rightwing opposition misinterpreted some provision to mean this, and campaigned against the Constitution on a false basis. Perhaps the Constitution simply gave equal rights to women and gays (as the Chavez proposal did--the one that lost in Venezuela), but abortion rights would have to be extrapolated from that, in a court ruling. That is, the Constitution doesn't explicitly grant abortion rights, but that could be the result, in legal rulings down the line. I haven't read the Constitution itself, just accounts of it.

I thought giving Mother Nature legal standing had more to do with the Chevron-Texaco oil spill, which has been called the "rainforest Chernoboyl"--worse than Exxon Valdez, oil and toxic pools soaking into the rainforest for miles, destroying fisheries and polluting streams all the way to Peru, with quadrupled cancer rates in affected areas--for which an Ecuadoran court is about to hit Chevron-Texaco with $10 to $20 billion in damages, rather than with itinerant timber cutters. The latter can do damage, but could possibly be controlled by local enforcement of environmental regulation, but, above all, by alleviation of poverty, land reform and economic diversity.

In the case of Chevron-Texaco--an outside global corporate predator with enormous power--the ability of the perp to evade responsibility is very great. Their problem is not poverty, but rapacious greed and arrogance. Extremely poor local tribes sued them, and they have only one lawyer, a local young man who had just gotten his law degree, had two jobs, was supporting 6 or so siblings, and for whom this was his first case (compared to Chevron-Texaco, which has squadrons of high-priced lawyers). The tribes and the lawyer received death threats. The lawyer's best friend, who was helping him with the case, was killed under suspicious circumstances. Many of these factors could have resulted in the tribes being unable to pursue the lawsuit. And, in that case, with this new Constitutional provision--giving Nature itself legal standing--the government or any other party could have come in and sued on behalf of Nature.

Standing is always an issue in environmental lawsuits (who is damaged?), and they often turn on largely irrelevant issues of bureaucratic procedure (did they dot their i's and cross their t's in their environmental impact report?), rather than the core issue, damaging Nature (polluting streams, extinguishing entire species) so that it cannot recover.

This is a first in the world, to grant such rights to Nature--the right to exist and to function properly, independent of impacts on humans. I strongly suspect that it was aimed at giant corporations, and was triggered by the Chevron-Texaco spill (which was more than a spill, and not an accident, but rather deliberate dumping of oil and toxics all over the rainforest, over several decades.)

I don't know the relative damage done by itinerant timber cutters vs. Chevron-Texaco's oil spills, as things currently stand. This sort logging by the poor, to clear land for food crops, is also a problem in Brazil, and can be very damaging. Clear-cutting simply wipes out an ecosystem, whether done by a lot of small loggers over time, or one big corporation over vast areas all at once. The problem in the first case, though, is poverty and the need for food crops. It's a different problem than big corporate logging (or big corporate oil spills). I guess I mean it's more solvable, if government is intent on solving it. In Brazil's Amazon, the big corps come in and build roads into virgin forest areas, pay high wages to a relatively few privileged workers, and influence the local economy to be dependent on timber, rather than diversifying. Then the wildcats follow. I don't know if this is the case in Ecuador.

Another problem is land ownership. If someone like Nebot--the banana magnate, and biggest landowner in Ecuador, as I understand it--gains ownership of vast tracts of the best arable land, and devotes it to an exported item like bananas, the impoverished indigenous people are pushed into virgin forest areas by necessity (or into urban squalor). Land ownership, land reform and food self-sufficiency are enormously important issues throughout the Andes--also ag practices (the small farmers tend to be organic, and supply local markets; big ag tends to use pesticides, grow one high profit crop and export it).

I'm seeing a parallel to Santa Cruz, in Bolivia--heart of the secessionist movement. The big landowners have untoward power over a region, by dint of wealth, and the poor and the indigenous can either work for them, on their terms, or move elsewhere, if they can. These rich (and often whiter) enclaves don't want to take responsibility for the nation as a whole--for the vast poor, landless majority. They have theirs. To hell with everybody else, even if it is unfair (and bad government policy) that the indigenous have no land to farm (and also poor access to education, health care and other bootstrapping measures). They don't consider the indigenous, the campesinos, the poor to be equals; they consider them to be lesser citizens, even lesser humans.

Does Guayaquil have this bitter division, along racial lines (and parallel rich/poor lines), that we see in Santa Cruz? Could Guayaquil explode with a fascist insurrection, like Santa Cruz? What are the differences between Guayaquil and Santa Cruz that might militate against it?

On counterfeit money: The banks can't tell that it's counterfeit, and are issuing counterfeit notes from the banks? Sounds like Ecuador needs a strong president (and trained economist) to clean this up! Interesting that the rumor identifies two of Bush's "axis of evil" countries--Iran and North Korea--as the source of counterfeit money in Ecuador. That seems a bit loony rightwingish to me.

This reminds of the tax scofflaws in Venezuela--before Chavez. Many businesses evaded the sales tax and nobody did anything about it. It took strong, efficient, centralized government to clean it up. And naturally those who are profiting from not paying their fair share of taxes would complain about government "tyranny," which, in truth, it's just government efficiency and fairness. So if Correa gets busy and tracks the real counterfeiters--who are more than likely local--yup, they're going to be pissed off at losing their ill gotten gains. Iran and North Korea?! Really?! What a rumor mill!

any Democrat supporting Latin American unity if we haven't visited the countries they claim they have visited.

That would mean anyone who ever goes to, or through another country becomes an instant authority on that country, including the spring break students who go to Cancún, or slip across the border into Mexico to get drunk, and that Alabama student, Natalee Holloway, who went to Aruba, before she disappeared, was more an expert on Venezuela than we are, since Aruba is close to Venezuela.

That means we are all experts on the countries we have visited, or lived in. Really makes one feel important, doesn't it?

What's more, claiming they've been to certain countries is a bit of information they hope carries a lot of weight which cannot be verified, unless they post photos of themselves standing at identifiable landmarks, and that really doesn't make them experts, does it?

Kinda gives one a headache just thinking about it.

:rofl:

the surrounding countries, as well, since they are so close to Austria.

Well, it all makes sense to someone who believes Palin is an expert in foreign policy since, if she ever went there (which she hasn't) she could see Russia from one place in Alaska!

Uh, oh. That must mean she's an expert on Russia, and we're not!

It would mean, however, you are more an expert on Mexico than she is, and I'm more an expert on New England than you are!

and if you spent some time outside the country it might temper your extreme opinions.

You and the gang of true believers insultingly dismiss reports from people directly exposed to the foreign cultures and countries you yammer on about incessantly, labeling them as supporting fascists if they don't show proper obeisance to your anointed political leaders.

And yes, I think that people that have spent extended time in foreign countries will probably have a very credible opinion on the events that occur there. It's only natural that they would attempt to stay more informed on what's going on there than most others.

Want to question my credentials on Ecuador? Go right ahead. It's a fool's errand, and you know it.

And the opinions of "Democrats" (that you apparently question) on the subjects of Cuba, Venezuela, and FARC -- apparently those opinions are shared by Obama.

with Colombia due to excessive MURDER by the government-connected paras (of course they're still active) and the Colombian military.

As for the rest of Obama's Latin America policy, still largely unformed, and described by Miami's former mayor Ferre as not based on "deep knowledge," of Latin America, much of it has been unfortunately influenced by a man tied far too closely to South Florida right-wing lunatic fringe, Dan Restropo.

Ferre seems to believe they, in Obama's camp, just haven't focused too much on Latin America, yet.

It's not surprising that you try to dismiss Obama's expressed opinions, since as I mentioned that's your common modus operandi.

You know, perhaps he has a great knowledge of Latin America, and is expressing an informed opinion about Cuba, Venezuela, and FARC.

I don't think he's nearly as ignorant as you imply.

Obama opened his appeal to Latinos by addressing a group that sponsors terrorism, CANF. He has a lot to learn.

And, he will. But, no. He doesn't have "great knowledge" of Latin America.

What is your experience in Ecuador, exactly? Did your daddy get chased out or what?

You have nothing, nada, nadita, to back up your claim that my or anyone's opinion here is extremist. On the contrary, it is your rightwing tripe that is extremist. You have consistently posted against or disrupted on threads supportive of democracy in Latin America. You are the extemist, pal. Time and time again, you have been busted for forwarding rightwing crap. Congratulations.

And, did you not see the poll I put up today? You have a habit of seeing nothing, nada, nadita, that messes with your rightwing blinkers. 85% of McCain voters hold your opinions. Now, we know where you stand.

Thanks for the clarification! :hi:

Guess he's a rightwing "extemist", too.

Don't like my posts because they're "disruptive"? Yeah, tell me again how you're an advocate of democracy.

Apparently "democracy" to you means no dissenting opinions. That sounds more like a rightwing Republican mindset to me.

You know what is hilarious, zorrito?

Life has gotten so much better for the people in all the Latin American countries that you spew about here.


I love that. And I love that you don't have a fig leaf to cover your shame.

lol

Are you so bereft of common sense or even the ability to read English to know that the rightwing crap you try to spread here will be rejected?

Take it to people who are ignorant and in need as your kind always does.

ETA: the word is vultures. Sopilotes.

I'm sure you are familiar with the term.

So who's being ignorant?

While you're at it, how about enunciating the official "democratic" positions that anyone posting in Latin American threads must comply with?

than in propaganda work for it.

Maybe you should look up "work" in any language that you can actually process.

Embracing Fidel, Hugo, and FARC isn't the same thing as promoting democratic processes.

in Latin America.

But I wouldn't call increasing crime rates in Ecuador and Venezuela as a sign of a better life, as apparently you do.

IPS, the International Herald Tribute--all of which I cited as sources--and many more such sources (all news organizations that have web sites), as well as to both right-, left- and other analysis.

"Since you rely solely on information you find on the internet...". --Zorro

Yeah, well, so what? That's like saying, in another era, "you solely rely on reading all newspapers."

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

Naturally, you favor the rightwing Telegraph analysis (which I cited). The funny thing about that analysis is that it confirms that FARC negotiations to release Betancourt and others were on-going. That's how the U.S./Colombia pinpointed Reyes' location--by the satellite phone he was using to arrange Betancourt's and others' releases.

I've read a lot of analyses of these events. I don't believe the Telegraph's analysis. It is very poorly supported with quotes and attributions, and facts.

-----------

"You need to recognize and acknowledge that FARC is a criminal terrorist enterprise. That's reality. --Zorro

Who Raul Reyes was, and what FARC is, was not the point of my comment (or my extensive documentation). The point was that the president of Ecuador, Betancourt's husband, the president of France, and envoys from several countries were involved in negotiations, in Ecuador, with Reyes, at the time that the U.S./Colombia decided to kill him and everyone near him--by breaking international law and bombing Ecuadoran territory and sending troops across to border to kill sleeping people.

The bombing/raid stopped that negotiation, and numerous parties who were involved in it said so.

You are relying on one overheated, poorly documented UK Telegraph opinion piece disguised as 'news' to counter the quotations of all of these other people. I've no doubt the Bushwhacks and their client state, Colombia, had a game plan. But it is, indeed, delusional to take the Telegraph's unattributed version of that game plan as what really happened.

"I've never heard anything about what FARC's demands were. --Zorro

Then you haven't been paying any attention to these events. Reyes was clearly trying to bring about a peace settlement in Colombia's 40+ civil war. And, at first he wanted, a) a demilitarized zone in which to release the hostages (which he wanted to expand into a future, larger demilitarized area), and b) release of FARC members from Colombia's torture dungeons, in exchange for hostage releases. Chavez talked him out of these demands, and got him to release a total of six hostages with no conditions. When he did so, the Colombian military attacked the location of the first two hostages that were to be released to Chavez, driving them back into the jungle on a 20 mile hike. Reyes had been right. He needed a no-fire zone to safely release the hostages. The U.S./Colombia would not cooperate. So, to further his efforts to bring about a peace settlement--to release Betancourt and other hostages with no conditions--he had to establish a camp outside of the jurisdiction of the Colombian military. Thus, he stepped over the border into Ecuador.

Whether you or I believe Reyes' intentions--to end the Colombian civil war--is not the point here. You ask what their "demands" were. This is what they said. But you have obviously not reviewed, or have forgotten, or are deliberately playing dumb about, what FARC itself and Raul Reyes SAID.

-----

"You need to recognize and acknowledge that FARC is a criminal terrorist enterprise...". --Zorro

Ah, me! My own government is a "criminal terrorist enterprise." The government of Colombia is a "criminal terrorist enterprise." How do we judge the relative criminality and terrorism of these entities vis a vis the FARC? Amnesty International did a study that established that 92% of the murders of union leaders in Colombia were committed by Colombian security forces (about half) and closely tied rightwing paramilitary death squads (the other half), and only 2% by the FARC. Over 40 union leaders have been slaughtered in Colombia, by the Colomian military/paramilitaries so far this year. My own government slaughtered 100,000 innocent people in the initial bombing of Iraq, to gain control of their oil, and have tortured thousands, and imprisoned thousands without charges or trial. The Bushwhacks have furthermore massively looted our government coffers and our pocketbooks unto the 7th generation.

Who are the terrorists? Who are the criminals? You can only look at relative damage. And when you review AI and other reports on Colombia, and the facts about our own Corpo/fascist government, FARC seems less of a "criminal terrorist organization" than their chief adversaries, the Uribe regime and the Bush regime.

You say I "need to recognize and acknowledge" your opinion of the FARC. Well, no, I don't need to do that. I will form my own opinion, based on the facts. Have they killed people? Yes. Have they kidnapped innocent parties and held them hostage? Yes. Both things are criminal in most circumstances, but I don't know that I would call them criminal, exactly, in a civil war. The same with the word "terrorism." By some definitions, our own revolutionary Founders were "terrorists" and would have been hung as terrorists, by the British, if they had lost the war and been caught. Were the Vietcong "terrorists"? By their lights, they were defending their country. So is the FARC, in their opinion. And you could say the same for the members of the Colombian government. Most of them likely believe that they are defending their country. It is a civil war, with both sides believing that they are fighting for the good of Colombians. However, the acts of FARC's Colombian adversaries have been far worse than FARC's actions, and their intimate involvement with the heinous Bush regime, and dependence on it for money ($6 BILLION of our non-existent tax dollars), and for technical assistance, planning, training, spying, weapons and all manner of military support, as well as political support and advocacy--a regime that I consider to be horrendous war criminals and thieves, who have hijacked our country--gives me an even dimmer view of those who want to exterminate FARC.

It's easy enough to throw accusations around--like "criminal terrorist organization." When you consider actual facts and consult many sources about the FARC, phrases like that mean little or nothing. It's the sort of thing Bush does--throwing out sizzling terms--"terrorist," "dictator," "axis of evil," "criminal terrorist organization." But what are the facts? Gathering facts, and relying on facts, is not easy. And for a pea brain like Bush's, facts are irrelevant. He has the resources of the entire secret government of the United States, and all of its Bush-purged agencies--and, indeed, his Sec of Defense created an agency, the Office of Special Plans--to invent whatever "facts" they needed, to support their murderous and thieving intent. It is therefore especially important for we, the people of the U.S., to question this kind of terminology ("criminal terrorist organization") when Bush & brethren apply it to leaders, groups or countries.

I don't accept buzz phrases. And until you "recognize and acknowledge" all of the relevant facts about the Colombian civil war--for instance, the Colombian military/paramilitary slaughter of dozens of union organizers and other political leftists this year (not to mention previous years), and the indictments of some 60 of Uribe's closest associates for ties to the death squads and narco-trafficking--I don't accept your characterization of the FARC. Is the FARC a "criminal terrorist organization" just because they aren't the official government? Can't the official government also be a "criminal terrorist organization"? And, in that case, how should the U.S. be helping--if the U.S. wasn't itself suffering a "criminal terrorist organization" in the White House--to stop the killing in Colombia, on both sides of this civil war, and to bring about a peace?

By arming one side with $6 BILLION in military aid? By assisting the Colombian military in massacring the one FARC leader who was making overtures of peace?

This is where buzz phrases like "criminal terrorist organization" come in--to turn off our thinking brains, to make us passive and incurious, and to inure us to slaughter in foreign lands at the word of our Great Leader that they are scum--so who cares?

FARC is OK with you.

Got it.

I am talking about relative crimes and damage--the crimes and damage of their adversaries--and the uselessness of phrases like "criminal terrorist enterprise."

What that means is: KILL THEM. IT'S OKAY. AND KILL ANYBODY 'SUSPECTED' OF SYMPATHIZING WITH THEM. AND KILL ANY INNOCENTS WHO GET IN THE WAY. AND KILL ALL LEFTISTS, AND ANYBODY WHO DARES TO RAISE HIS OR HER VOICE IN DEFENSE OF THE POOR.

That's what the phrase means to me. It's demagoguery. It is not illuminating. And it does nothing to solve a civil war that has been going on for 40+ years.

You could drop a nuclear bomb on half of Colombia, I suppose. Is that what you want? These are Colombians we are talking about. They are not invaders. They live there. They were born there, and whatever experience they had there caused them to flee to the jungle and take up arms. They are not living in luxury, and thus are no mere criminal gang. They are fighting for their ideas of how Colombia should be governed.

They are what they are--people who have taken up arms (which I don't agree with), have killed and have taken hostages (which I don't agree with), in a lo-o-o-ong war against a disreputable, criminal, murderous government. It is their country, too. I don't approve of some of their actions, any more than I approve of the white separatists in Bolivia machine-gunning some 30 unarmed peasant farmers last week because they don't like the new Constitution (and because the Bushwhacks supported and funded them)--although I have never heard of the FARC committing such an atrocity. In any case, the white separatists are Bolivians. They have to learn to live with the new government, elected by the great majority. Peace is in everyone's interest, and war is not, because war is hell. And the same with FARC. They are Colombians. They have a right to be there. But their guerrilla fighting has caused an escalation of the war on the poor. They are dinosaurs, as is the government they are fighting. A peace needs to be brokered, and each side needs to learn to live with the other.

The solution is not demagogic phrases. The solution is PEACE. How do you get there? Well, it appears that one effort to get there--that started with Uribe's request to Chavez to negotiate hostage releases, and ended with the U.S./Colombia massacre of Reyes' camp--got deliberately scuttled by those who profit from war.

How would you bring about a peace in Colombia?

and interest in actual discussion and debate.

There is blood on the hands of all parties in Colombia; they're all guilty of atrocities, and quibbling about one being more or less atrocious than the other is an argument that will never be resolved.

There are several steps that should be taken to move toward peace.

1. Recognition that FARC is a regional problem, and not strictly internal to Colombia. Correa wants to ignore FARC's presence in Ecuador, and Chavez has likewise expressed his FARC sympathies. There has to be acknowledgment that FARC is a menace to peace in the region, and a concerted and coordinated effort to eliminate FARC's presence and source of funding.

2. Change in FARC leadership's organizational objectives, which include kidnapping and drug smuggling. It's a very lucrative business, though, and it will be hard for them to give up such sources of income. Perhaps a future change in US drug laws might induce FARC to move in the direction of integration back into Colombian society.

3. Strengthen Colombian government institutions. There's a lot of corruption that exists within the Colombian government and military, and there needs to be a real purge of the most notorious elements from these institutions. This won't happen overnight, but it's a problem that likewise exists in Venezuela and Ecuador.

All the steps are connected, and gives an idea of how difficult it will be to achieve peace in the near term. No one trusts the other; sort of like how US banking institutions are behaving these days.

1. Correa does not want to "ignore" FARC's presence in Ecuador. In fact, he said that the Ecuadoran military had shut down dozens of FARC camps on the border. What occurred in March was that he was trying to help broker a peace. That doesn't mean that he "sympathizes" with the FARC. And he is good and fed up with Uribe, who fails to acknowledge Ecuador's past close cooperation on FARC camp closures, and has tried to blame Correa for his problem--in dirty, treacherous ways (as with the "miracle laptopS"). As to FARC being "a menace to peace" in the region, it was the Colombian military (and the U.S. military) that bombed Ecuador, and is constantly harrying Ecuador's borders with toxic pesticide spraying of small peasant farmers--killing food crops, farm animals and damaging human DNA, and driving small farmers off the land--and sending thousands of refugees into Ecuador and Venezuela. These are mainly--from human rights groups' reports--refugees from the Colombian military and its death squads. FARC may escape over the border from time to time, but they have not caused nearly the death and mayhem that the Colombian military has caused. As long as this imbalance of blame as to mayhem is asserted, there can be no peace in Colombia, and cooperation between Ecuador and Colombia cannot be re-started.

And how do you "eliminate" FARC from the region? More guns, more troops, more killing? That is not peace. War is not peace. This has gone on for 40+ years!


2. The problem is that both sides are drug smuggling--and that is possibly the heart of the problem, or close to it. Land! Land that our Corpos want. Land that the biggest drug lords want--without any political or military interference by the FARC. Clean out the Colombia government of all those tied to the drug trade (and their Bush Cartel/CIA colluders), legalize coca leaves (as they are doing in Bolivia and other sensible countries), and create a social justice government, and maybe there can be peace in Colombia.


3. I'm afraid that the Colombian government is more than corrupt. They have maintained power through terror--literally, with death squads murdering union leaders and other leftists. The demobilization of the death squads did not work. These murderous groups are still operating, and their object is political. They are not only killing FARC fighters. They are killing others who are proceeding peacefully to organize the poor--politically, in labor unions, and for human rights and humanitarian purposes. I don't know what the answer to that is--except perhaps a plebiscite organized by some outside group, or consortium of groups and countries. Maybe UNASUR. Maybe the UN. The Colombian government is built on such a pillar of blood and oppression that it lacks legitimacy in 20% to 30% of the country, and cannot conduct fair elections.

I fear that its fragile democratic institutions will be overthrown by a military coup--and that will make things even worse, for Colombians, internally, and as to Colombia's status among South American democracies. I really feel that this is why Chavez had that "bury the hatchet" meeting with Uribe (with their plans for a railroad and all)--because Defense Minister Santos and the Colombian military could whack Uribe, and destroy even the semblance of democracy in Colombia. And I think the Bushites may have been leading Santos to believe that that would be okay--just as they led the Bolivian fascists to believe that rioting, and machine-gunning peasants, and burning government buildings, was fine with them, and as they led the Venezuelan coupsters to believe that a rightwing military coup, and suspension of the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights, was fine with them. They applauded it.

I would like to see a truce, and a plebiscite conducted by some outside party or parties. I think Colombians have a right to vote without the "Black Hand" killing community organizers, without the FARC and the Colombian military engaged in a civil war, and without FARC candidates under a constant death threat. Politicians should face the voters--all of the voters--on social justice and economic issues, as well as on maintaining the biggest military in South America. I don't know if UNASUR is strong enough, yet, to do this. And Colombia is a member, so would probably block any such peace effort. I can only hope that, over time, with the influence of social justice governments virtually everywhere else in South America, that Colombia can be gradually reformed--as many of these other governments were reformed, step by step--and will some day enjoy peace.