|
He was instrumental in heading off a war between Colombia and Ecuador, in March, when Colombia/U.S.-Bush bombed Ecuador's territory, with ten U.S. "smart bombs" using U.S. high tech surveillance (and probably using U.S. aircraft and personnel), in a completely unnecessary and brutal slaughter of the FARC's chief hostage negotiator and 24 other people (including an Ecuadoran citizen, and several visiting Mexican students), without benefit of trial. According to French, Swiss and Spanish envoys, Ingrid Betancourt's husband, the president of Ecuador, and others, Raul Reyes was about to free Betancourt, under Correa's auspices. The French and other envoys had apprised Colombia that that was their purpose in Ecuador, and Colombia also had U.S. high tech surveillance of Reyes' phone calls, to know what was going on (why he had camped across the border in Ecuador). The camp was asleep when it was attacked (according to the Ecuadoran military, which found bodies in the their pajamas shot in the back). (Colombia/U.S. blew the camp away, then crossed the border to shoot any survivors.) Rafael Correa was livid with outrage. He broke off relations with Colombia, and sent military battalions to reinforce his border with Colombia. Chavez did likewise--probably to assure Correa that he was not alone--and then talked Correa out of retaliating in kind (--is my read on it).
All Latin American leaders condemned Colombia's attack on Ecuador's territory. It was, indeed, an outrage. The protocol is that the country's leader be contacted, and give permission, for foreign military or police activity, and only in the rare case of "hot pursuit" is post-event notification tolerated (and, even then, it's a very dicey thing to do). Uribe called Correa, after the fact, and lied to him that it had been "hot pursuit." It had not been. The camp was asleep! And its purpose was to release Betancourt and other hostages--which Colombia (and the U.S.) knew very well. The FARC (leftist guerrilla fighters in Colombia's 40+ year civil war) obviously could not safely release Betancourt or other hostages, while they were being shot at. The first two hostages that got released (unconditionally), as the result of Hugo Chavez's efforts in Dec 07, reported that they came under heavy fire from the Colombian military, as they were in route to their freedom, driving them back on a 20 mile hike into the jungle. Chavez got them out by a different route, later--and got a total of six hostages released (all unconditionally). That effort was at the request of the Colombian government (personal request of Uribe to Chavez). Uribe then pulled the rug out from under Chavez, at the last minute (withdrew his permission), and Colombia bombed the first two hostages' location. World leaders, human rights groups and the hostages families then put terrific pressure on Colombia, to stop sabotaging the hostage releases, and to permit Chavez to continue--and he got the four others released.
So it's pretty clear why Reyes camped over the border in Ecuador, thinking it was safe to bring Betancourt there. It was at that point that Colombia/U.S. bombed Raul Reyes' camp, ending all hostages releases--and also talk of peace in the civil war--of that period (Dec 07 thru Feb 07). And one can only wonder at the risk they took, that Betancourt and other hostages might have been brought to the camp before it was bombed.
After that nefarious act, Uribe started leaking selected paragraphs from what he claimed was Raul Reyes' laptop (later, laptopS) that he alleged had been retrieved from the bombed campsite, that implicated Chavez and Correa as "terrorist lovers" (providing aid to the FARC). More provocation--and truly absurd. He had lured them into negotiating with the FARC, then blamed them for their contacts with the FARC. There is no evidence, outside the "miracle laptopS," that either one aided the FARC, and the bits that Uribe fed to the press proved nothing (were highly subject to interpretation). And it also should be noted that the FARC is one of Venezuela's and Ecaudor's biggest headaches. They have no love for the FARC. It draws Colombian death squads, and U.S. "war on drugs" pesticide-spraying over their borders. Even Fidel Castro has criticized FARC's methods (kidnapping innocent civilians, for instance). Both countries spend huge chunks of their budgets trying to secure their borders from the Colombian civil war. They are both dealing with floods of Colombian refugees (mostly fleeing the Colombian military and paramilitaries). With most of South America now having elected leftist governments, it is also an outmoded method of struggle--or at least it seems that way to many political leftists. (It obviously doesn't seem that way to the FARC, and they have mass murder, torture and brutal repression by the Colombian government and its death squads to justify their armed resistance.) In any case, what Chavez and Correa clearly wanted--and want--is a PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT of that civil war. No one benefits from it except the Colombian military and the fascist Uribe government ($5.5 BILLION in U.S. taxpayer military aid, through Bushite fingers). The presence of the FARC, and the on-going civil war, also makes Venezuela's and Ecuador's more sane, common sense drug use/drug policing programs more difficult to implement. Chavez and Correa have no reason to want this to continue.
Uribe's accusations made no sense, and they rubbed salt into Correa's wounds. Correa has complained that the burden of Colombia's civil war is falling on Ecuador--especially the cost of patrolling the border. They've busted some 40 FARC camps in their territory. And then Colombia blows away the one FARC camp that might have done some good--Reyes' temporary camp for releasing Betancourt and other hostages--which might have jump-started a peace process.
Apparently, Chavez got Correa to settle for a Rio Group airing of his grievances against Uribe/Colombia, and a resolution that cited Colombia as having wrongfully violated Ecuador's territory (also a similar OAS resolution, with only the U.S./Bush dissenting). Colombia admitted fault and apologized, and promised never to do it again. Ecuador has not restored diplomatic relations with Colombia. Venezuela has. And this week, there were two quite interesting developments: Chavez hosted a meeting with Uribe, at which they both pledged to bury the hatchet; but Uribe's Defense Minister, Santos, then came out with barbed comments about Chavez; Chavez reacted angrily (and one of the things he said was that Santos has many times stated that he wants to become president of Colombia); and Uribe basically told Santos to shut up (all happening in the press). One wonders how shaky Uribe's position is in the Colombia. He's under fire from many directions (including a very serious criminal investigation, regarding Uribe election fraud and also participation in a death squad meeting). (And, unknowable in all this, is the issue of cocaine routes. Uribe is former Medellin Cartel, and he, his government and the Colombian military are believed to be very dirty on drug trafficking; and I think the Bush Cartel may also be involved in it--I mean, why else have a "war on drugs," except to protect your own criminal interests?)
So, now Chavez has to convince Correa of his strategy of bolstering Uribe against Santos and the military, and pulling Colombia into the orbit of South American integration (the "Common Market"), and South American sovereignty and self-determination. Uribe has appeared to be a mere tool of the Bush Junta. Doesn't he have any Latin pride? And now it looks like his global corporate predator sponsors may want to dump him in favor of a military junta. He hasn't been very successful at the tasks they've given him. The Chavez/hostages thing got really out of control (six hostages released; Chavez getting kudos). They had to try to end it with an act of war--and contrive this recent release of Betancourt (probably by means of a $20 million ransom), to shift the corporate 'news' narrative back toward fascist government and military credit. And they have war plans (to regain corporate predator control of the oil in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia). A Chavez-Uribe-Correa accord would frustrate the Bushites, possibly bolster democracy in Colombia (or at least fend off a military coup), possibly could lead to a peaceful settlement of the civil war, and could greatly benefit Colombians. We can be sure that what the Bushites have in mind for their "free trade" deal with Colombia will benefit no one but themselves and their corporate gang. Colombians would benefit far more as free agents within a South American "Common Market."
Will Correa agree? I think he will. He needs to attend to the constitutional assemblies, and the coming vote on the new constitution. Peace with Colombia--and especially a peaceful end to Colombia's civil war--would greatly benefit Correa and Ecuador. Even a temporary accord would be beneficial. Correa is a young man and seems to be hot-tempered (in a Sir Lancelot sort of way). He seemed to take personal affront at Uribe's various treacheries. Chavez is older, more experienced, savvier in the ways of the world, and has been living a lot longer with a Bushite bull's eye target on his back. He sees the long view, I think--that Colombia is a fascist/Bushite clusterfuck for South America, and needs to be turned in a more positive direction. That is not an easy thing to do, but it has to start somewhere. Furthermore, war, disruption, destabilization, chaos and "divide and conquer" are exactly what the Bushites want. They thrive on chaos and bloodshed. They want the South American democracies to fail. Hostility among South America's countries is in their interest. And they have been funding and fomenting civil war within at least four countries--a hot civil war in Colombia, an in-progress fascist secessionist scheme in Bolivia, and simmering fascist secessionist schemes in both Venezuela and Ecuador. These schemes are best defeated by peace, civil order, cooperation, trade, and progress on social justice--and by South Americans pulling together. They need to get Uribe to start pulling at least partly in a positive direction, for all their sakes.
This has, in fact, been the story of the triumph of South American democracy. It has been a progress in increments--a slow, steady building of democratic institutions, over several decades, since the Reagan era of brutal dictatorships and repressive governments everywhere. Colombia is a remnant of that past. It has some forms of democracy, but is so corrupt--especially with the Bushites' bad influence--that democracy cannot function properly. It has been interfered with, in favor of corrupt elements. While other countries--Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and, recently, Paraguay--have been able to elect strong anti-corruption leaders, Colombia has lagged way behind, and is basically a failed state, propped up by U.S. dollars. Without those dollars, it would probably fall apart. But there is an alternative now--which is an entire continent of leftist governments engaged in integrating their own economies, and willing to help. That is likely what Chavez will be talking about to Correa--how to wean Colombia away from U.S. domination, and into the fold of freely chosen South American integration, trade and common goals.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
