Colombia’s Double Realities

[Texano78704]

August 18, 2008

Colombia’s Double Realities: Threats Against Indigenous Communities Ignored as Calls for a Second Re-election of President Uribe Get Louder

by Mario A. Murillo

The second re-election of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe is one step closer to becoming a reality now that the National Registry has received the petitions containing over five million signatures in support of a constitutional amendment that would allow for yet another term for the hard-line president. The re-election measure must be approved by the legislature, and its future is still uncertain. Meanwhile, President Uribe is remaining silent on the issue, resisting the temptation to campaign openly for what would amount to 12 years of uninterrupted rule in the Palacio Nariño. The truth is, he doesn’t have to speak out on the issue. There are plenty of other high profile figures in the Colombian political establishment that are doing the work for him, both within Colombia and abroad. Meanwhile, these backers of President Uribe, while touting the Colombian leaders successes, ignore the human rights reality on the ground, particularly with regard to indigenous communities.

Among Uribe’s loyal campaigners is José Obdulio Gaviria, a close advisor and supporter of the president, whose controversial comments about Colombian human rights defenders, the internal conflict and displaced communities have generally gone unnoticed by a media system permanently fixated on the successes of Uribe’s Democratic Security Strategy. On July 29, in a room within the National Press Building in Washington during a recent visit to the United States, Gaviria discussed the current state of affairs in Colombia in front of a group of 30-40 businessmen, academics and journalists, describing the current political juncture as a “post-conflict period,” where the problems of the guerillas and paramilitaries “have been overcome completely.” As he has done on other occasions, his provocative speech laid out a utopian vision of Colombian national affairs, while denouncing everybody who may have a different take on his version of reality.

More here:

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia292.htm

[Bacchus39]

1. a fascinating road map to peace from colombiajournal

some gems from the "road map":

) All parties agree that members of the FARC, ELN and AUC will move into zones of concentration (the number and precise locations of which are to be determined) established throughout the country in regions currently occupied by each group. A sufficient number of zones will be established to eliminate the concerns of any particular group that situating large numbers of its fighters in a centralized location would make them vulnerable.


The UN Security Council agrees to deploy a peacekeeping force to maintain security in the zones of concentration.

e) The Secretary-General of the United Nations agrees to appoint administrators to govern the zones of concentration for the duration of the peace process.

b) The Colombian government agrees to call new national and local elections within six months of all parties reaching an agreement on this peace plan.


The UN envoy will oversee the dissolution of the existing Colombian Army, Navy, Air Force and National Police forces.


the UN envoy will appoint officers to the newly-formed National Police, Navy and Air Force from amongst high-ranking members of the former Colombian Armed Forces, FARC, ELN and AUC not indicted for committing human rights violations by the UN legal panel.

(oh the UN envoy will, will s/he??)


http://www.colombiajournal.org/peaceplan.htm

brought to you by colombiajournal, news and articles, fiction, and unreality concerning Colombia.

[AlphaCentauri]

2. At least some one is proposing a plan

Uribe's plan is to kill as many people as he can then when nobody is left there will be peace.

[Bacchus39]

3. is that what it is? is he emulating Rios Montt? could you provide evidence?

of course not. and I believe the Colombian government proposed AND implemented a plan where the combatants demobilized, and one side, at least, agreed. the leaders were also to serve jail terms.

much more effective and realistic than the "plan" proposed by CJ. do you think Colombia's military would accept dissolution? would Uribe call new elections? (what for? by the way, he had just been elected in 02. why is that in the "plan"?)

how do you think that would fair even compared to the current demobilization plan?

not only are you wrong about "at least somebody is proposing a plan" your claim about rule by murder is completely untrue.

[AlphaCentauri]

4. I can't count with my fingers the peaceful opposition leader that have been killed in Uribe's watch

The Uribe plan won't change the structure of power in colombia all it would do is to maintain the same elite of drug lords.

[Texano78704]

5. As opposed to maintain the status quo?

The Uribe government's plan seems to be to continue to oppose any sort of participation by leftists political parties.

Prior to US intervention, via Plan Colombia, the suggested peace plan follows very much along the same line as Uribe's predecessors. Both Samper and Pastrana entered into negotiations with guerrilla groups.

[Bacchus39]

6. and failed miserably

Samper and Pastrana's "efforts" did nothing to reduce violence or move towards peace

[Texano78704]

8. So

How would you characterize the Uribe administration with regards to its efforts to reduce violence and move toward peace?

Arguably there have been some improvements. People now feel free to take to the roads and travel from city to city via public and private motor transportation. I would not characterize that as a "reduction in violence," rather it is the by product of billions in military aid from the US as the Colombian government retakes its responsibility to provide security to its people.

[Bacchus39]

9. I would say fairly well although the Colombian people's perceptions may be more

indicative than mine. they have made their voices heard and I'm sure they will continue to do so.

[Texano78704]

10. Would you care to qualify that?

I'm just curious as to which observations you base your opinion. That he was reelected?

[Bacchus39]

11. the general reduction of violence, the economic growth, the FARC essentially decaptiated and

in disarray. and lets not forget the hostage rescue. I also do not believe that Colombians are interested in having a leader who is subservient to Hugo Chavez. these are some of the issues I believe that is driving the popularity of the Uribe administration.

all of these have led to Uribe's popularity, his re-election, and a possible re-re-election.

[Judi Lynn]

7. I started looking into their history, and it's damned ugly. Their government has been

maintained by a right-wing and slightly less right wing for ages after they started assassinating leftist candidates in the 1940's, and kicked off a grotesque blood bath lasting for decades known as "La Violencia."

When they slaughtered a leftist Presidential candidate, they kept killing them every time the left got up the courage to take another run at it. It is a pattern which can't be concealed, regardless of all efforts at obfuscation. Authors seem to agree that what passes as two major parties now is simply an agreement to share the power, trading back and forth from time to time.
Their liberal party is not exactly liberal, but a variation of their rigid racist right-wingers.

Any search directed to assassination of leftist candidates will open up a whole world of information we NEVER hear, and never is broached in corporate writing. It's hideous. You can easily lose huge blocks of time following that information on the internetS and inevitably it will lead you to hurl yourself at buying books on it as well.

As you have noticed, occassionally people do pop up from outta nowhere who will fight against the discussion of truth among progressives as if they are fighting for their lives. It has become an obsession to keep U.S. control over Latin America at ALL costs to everyone for these people, no matter how immoral and filthy that control has been, and how evil.

[Bacchus39]

12. you just discovered "La Violencia", congratulations

here is another hot news item for you, Colombia produces excellent coffee.


you can't get all your "information" from VenezuelaAnalysis and Prensa Latina you know.

[Peace Patriot]

13. If you raise your head in a leftist cause in Colombia, you risk getting it blown off,

or worse, slow death by torturous dismemberment and other horrors. Over forty union leaders have been murdered so far this year, for instance, mostly by the Colombian military and closely associated rightwing paramilitary death squads, according to Amnesty International, and last year, 29 political candidates were murdered. Although 60 Uribe political cohorts are under investigation for ties to the death squads (among other crimes)--and Uribe himself is under investigation for this--and 30 have been indicted or are in jail (including the legislator he bribed to get a second term), impunity for these awful crimes is the general rule, and the Bush Junta is helping with that, of course, by extraditing death squad whistleblowers to the U.S. on mere drug charges, removing them from Colombian prosecutors and judges who need their information about extrajudicial murders.

No poll, no vote, and no other indicators of what most Colombians want can be trusted in these circumstances. A pollster approaches a poor campesino in Bogota and asks his opinion of Uribe--and you think he's going to be honest? He doesn't know who this pollster is reporting to, or who is listening. And where, in Colombia, is opinion polling done? What regions, and what areas of cities, are never covered? Similarly, how can you gage the level of fear that voters feel, when they know that death may be the result of expressing an honest opinion, or organizing a community around a candidate, or holding a peaceful protest? This year, several of the organizers of a protest against the rightwing death squads were murdered. How free would anyone feel, to vote his or her real choices, to run a campaign, to carry a protest sign, or a campaign sign, or even to speak to others about their political views?

Uribe recently moved to neuter the Supreme Court, and the courageous prosecutors who have been investigating death squad horrors. He is on the "dictator" path--a charge that the rightwing often makes against Chavez, but that, in Chavez's case, evaporates upon even superficial research into conditions within Venezuela and the facts about their election system. When the rightwing accuses others of something, it is a good rule of thumb to assume that they are committing that very offense or crime. It is almost always true. The U.S./Bush and those aligned with the U.S./Bush (few and far between in South America), are the "dictators," not the democratically elected leaders in countries where everyone is free to speak and run for office, without fear.

I think the danger in Colombia is that Defense Minister Santos is pressuring Uribe from the far fascist right to take a belligerent, warmongering attitude toward the rest of South America--which has gone overwhelmingly leftist--and to simply give away Colombia's sovereignty to the Bushites, and permit Colombia to be a launching pad for a global corporate predator war to gain control of Venezuela's and Ecuador's oil and Bolivia's gas and oil. I think the danger is an ouster of Uribe--with courts, legislature and other forms of democracy and civil government being suspended (as the fascists did, for a brief time, in their coup attempt in Venezuela in 2002)--and installation of a military dictatorship headed by Santos. For one thing, this would solve the problem of prosecutors getting close to Uribe and to top military commanders, in the death squad investigations. I also think there is a lot of friction between Uribe and Santos in particular as to taking a more cooperative or belligerent stance toward Venezuela. There is not a whole lot to choose between Uribe and Santos, as to their being fascist pigs, but Uribe seems more interested in economic cooperation and in not being excluded from the newly forming, leftist-dominated, South American "Common Market." Santos doesn't seem to give a fuck about that, and why should he? He is the administer of $6 BILLION in U.S. military booty. He wants to play war games.

Unfortunately, Colombia's political establishment is as rotten as our own. They mirror each other. Both are based on violence and corruption. I think the UN proposal for Colombia, in Colombia Journal, is a good one. The place needs to be aired out--just as Washington DC needs to be. The stench in both places is overwhelming. But it will take a change of regimes in Washington for this to occur--and even then I don't know if Obama, for instance, can buck the war/police state profiteers who are benefiting from the fascist horrors in Colombia, and the oil corpos who are running things and who want South America's oil.

South America may eventually solve the Colombia problem themselves, by some sort of cooperative intervention. Colombia is rather like an alcoholic or drug addict--addicted to bloodshed, the cocaine trade and U.S. weaponry. The other South American leaders have taken to viewing themselves like a family. They are into cooperation, integration, social justice and South American self-determination, and they can't have this addict amongst them, likely to cause more trouble at any time (like the U.S./Colombia bombing/raid on Ecuador earlier this year, or the plots hatched in the Colombian military to assassinate Chavez and other leaders, or the rampant cocaine and weapons trade coming out of Colombia.) Something must be done, if they want a general peace in South America.

[Bacchus39]

14. lets take a look at this

1. or worse, slow death by torturous dismemberment and other horrors. Over forty union leaders have been murdered so far this year, for instance, mostly by the Colombian military and closely associated rightwing paramilitary death squads, according to Amnesty International, and last year, 29 political candidates were murdered. Although 60 Uribe political cohorts are under investigation for ties to the death squads (among other crimes)--and Uribe himself is under investigation for this--and 30 have been indicted or are in jail (including the legislator he bribed to get a second term), impunity for these awful crimes is the general rule, and the Bush Junta is helping with that, of course, by extraditing death squad whistleblowers to the U.S. on mere drug charges, removing them from Colombian prosecutors and judges who need their information about extrajudicial murders.

I doubt its the military killing the unionists. more likely the paras. there is more violence in Colombia than against unionists. there lives aren't any more valuable than people killed in crimes or by the FARC. yep, politicians are in jail or are being prosecuted. that is a good thing for the development of their society. the paras extradited were already in jail. I don't see that as constituting impunity.

2. No poll, no vote, and no other indicators of what most Colombians want can be trusted in these circumstances. A pollster approaches a poor campesino in Bogota and asks his opinion of Uribe--and you think he's going to be honest? He doesn't know who this pollster is reporting to, or who is listening. And where, in Colombia, is opinion polling done? What regions, and what areas of cities, are never covered? Similarly, how can you gage the level of fear that voters feel, when they know that death may be the result of expressing an honest opinion, or organizing a community around a candidate, or holding a peaceful protest? This year, several of the organizers of a protest against the rightwing death squads were murdered. How free would anyone feel, to vote his or her real choices, to run a campaign, to carry a protest sign, or a campaign sign, or even to speak to others about their political views?

Campesinos are typically farmers who live in the "campo", the country. probably not too many in Bogota but there are many poor people. Why wouldn't a poor person be honest? Colombians are open and expressive. It is not a police state like say China or Cuba. your rhetorical question, at best, is a poor and cynical characterization of Colombian society. Colombians are very willing to speak to others about their political views. Again, its not Cuba. I bet if the leftist Ingrid Betancourt ran she could very well win and there would be little fear of voting for her. your skeptisism is dismissed.

3. in regards to the dictatorship claim. Uribe is not ruling by decree like Chavez. He is not, personally, publicly advocating perpetual rule like Chavez. and where were those democratic principles when Chavez issued 26 decrees including the same items that Venezuelans voted on in December? ruling by decree is what dictators do. and dismissing the Venezuelan voters like they were toilet paper doesn't represent adherence to democratic principles.

4. regarding your reference to Colombian design on war or being used as a proxy for corporations or the US. No, you're wrong and simply speculating. Colombia is not going to invade and attempt to occupy another South American country. again, complete fantasy. why do you want to believe that??? and are you saying that countries should be excluded from a common market when the people don't elect leaders of a particular philosophy?? a political test for participation?

Colombia doesn't need to play "war games" considering they have a real war to give them the practice they need.

5. regarding the UN plan. You do know that the Colombian government and people would have to accept occupation by foreign troops. the plan also calls for the government to hold new elections (ummmm, what for??), and the army would be dissolved. Do you think the Colombian people, the government, and the army would accept that? Its a terrible and STUPID plan, but there is no chance it would ever happen so its not even worth debating. I think you sending me $10,000 is a good plan too, but at least I have the sense to know it ain't gonna happen.

I don't see much change in Obama's policies. the correct path is to retain Colombia as an ally. that is a good thing. I would be fine with modifying aid to include more development and less military. Also, the drug war is preposterous but I don't see any change in that either.

6. the last paragraph. If you believe South America is about self determination it seems quite ironic that you would not only support a UN "solution" in Colombia but are also looking for a South American intervention. do you not think Colombia is capable of choosing their own destiny? It would seems the current path Colombia is taking has more support than in Venezuela, Peru, or Bolivia.

[Judi Lynn]

15. There are many articles available on paramilitaries intimidating voters into voting for Uribe.

Hard to miss them if you look for them at all:

COLOMBIA: "Mark Him on the Ballot - The One Wearing Glasses"
By Constanza Vieira

Credit:Procuraduría General

BOGOTA, May 8 (IPS) - "With Uribe, we thought: this is the guy who is going to change the country," the 41-year-old fisherwoman told IPS.

That is why her fishing and farming village of 800 people in the central Colombian region of Magdalena Medio decided overwhelmingly to vote for current President Álvaro Uribe in the 2002 presidential elections, when he first ran.

The woman agreed to talk to IPS on the condition that she be asked neither her name (we will call her "L.") nor the name of her village.

The main city in the fertile region of Magdalena Medio is Barrancabermeja, an oil port on the Magdalena River, which runs across Colombia from south to north before emptying into the Caribbean Sea.

What convinced the villagers to vote for Uribe? "Because the region where we live is poor, very poor, it’s so difficult to find work, and when I heard him say ‘I am going to work for the poor, I am going to help them,’ I thought ‘this is a good president’."

When the rightwing president’s first four-year term came to an end in 2006, most of the villagers decided again to vote for him, reasoning that he just needed more time to reduce poverty.

The odd thing was that in both the 2002 and 2006 elections, despite the fact that the villagers had already decided to vote for Uribe, the far-right paramilitaries, who had committed a number of murders since 1998, when they appeared in the region that was previously dominated by the leftwing guerrillas, pressured the local residents to vote for Uribe anyway.

The paramilitaries did not kill people to pressure the rest to vote for Uribe, as they did in other communities, but merely used "threats," said L.

More:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42290

Absolutely there is pressure to NOT VOTE FOR LEFTISTS. No doubt about that.

In fact leftist candidates get assassinated in Colombia.

Here's more on intimidation of voters:

Ally of Colombia's Uribe arrested in "para" scandal 25 Jul 2008 19:25:10 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Hugh Bronstein

BOGOTA, July 25 (Reuters) - The architect of the effort to allow Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to run for a third term in 2010 was arrested on Friday on charges of using paramilitary death squads to intimidate voters.

More:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N25424059.htm

~~~~~~~~~

~snip~
Ochoa claimed that he took thousands of dollars in cash - paramilitaries’ narcotics profits - in suitcases to the capital, Bogotá, to finance rightist candidates in the 2002 elections. He claimed that the paramilitaries and Mancuso contributed $2 million to the president’s campaign, and that he also organised campaigns to intimidate voters in Medellín to ensure Álvaro Uribe was elected.

Mancuso said ‘that the paramilitaries should finance the (presidential) campaign because one of the promises is that there will be a law that should anyone be accused or suspected of being in the paramilitaries, they will be saved,’ Ochoa related, ‘so we made sure that all the votes had to be for Uribe.’ In Medellín’s barrios, people confirmed that the paramilitaries patrolled the streets that election day, demanding to see residents’ cedulas, (identification cards), and warning opposition supporters ‘not to show at the polls if you’re not going to vote for Uribe,’ as one barrio activist recalled.

More:
http://mostlywater.org/colombias_democratic_president_evidence_ties_uribe_to_the_paramilitaries


~~~~~~~~
Your delerious claim the Colombian military doesn't kill union members rings hollow, after all:

Bogotá Says Army Killed Union Chiefs
By JUAN FORERO

Published: September 8, 2004

BOGOTÁ, Colombia, Sept. 7 - The attorney general's office said late Monday that Colombian soldiers assassinated three union leaders last month, an account that contrasts sharply with the army's earlier contention that the three men were Marxist rebels killed in a firefight.

The attorney general's human rights unit on Monday ordered the arrest of an army officer, two soldiers and a civilian who took part in the killings of Jorge Eduardo Prieto, Leonel Goyeneche and Héctor Alirio Martínez on Aug. 5 in Saravena, a town long besieged by leftist rebels. Since 2002, American military trainers have been instructing Colombian soldiers there in counterguerrilla techniques, though it is unclear if the Americans trained the unit accused of killing the union leaders.

"The evidence shows that a homicide was committed," Luis Alberto Santana, the deputy attorney general, said at a news conference on Monday. "We have ruled out that there was combat."

The attorney general's announcement vindicated union leaders in Colombia and Europe who said the army had killed three defenseless union activists and then tried to cover the matter up.

"It's clear that we were never wrong, saying that they were assassinated by members of the Colombian Army," said Domingo Tovar, who coordinates human rights activities for the Central Workers Union, largest Colombian labor confederation.

The attorney general's announcement came days after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell warned the Colombian government that it must curtail rights abuses or risk losing aid. On Tuesday, Vice President Francisco Santos acknowledged that the government had erred in its initial characterization of the killings, saying, "Yes, we were wrong."

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/international/americas/08colombia.html

~~~~~~~~

Colombian soldiers get 40 years for union killings
Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:13pm EDT

By Hugh Bronstein

BOGOTA, Aug 28 (Reuters) - Four Colombian soldiers were sentenced to 40 years each for murdering union officials in 2004, a decision the government said reflects its commitment to labor rights as it tries to clinch a U.S. free trade deal.

In a ruling announced on Tuesday, a judge said the soldiers shot three defenseless trade unionists in the eastern province of Arauco, put guns in their hands and arranged their bodies to make it look like they were rebels killed in combat.

"This proves what human rights groups and the United Nations had long reported, that some sectors of the army had the practice of killing civilians and passing them off as guerrillas," said political commentator Daniel Coronell.

The government said the ruling "confirms our policy of respecting the work of labor unions."

More:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN28249058

~~~~~~~~~~

The Labor Movement's Principled Position on Colombia FTA
Posted April 30, 2008 | 09:10 PM (EST)

Commentators who use "only" and "merely" to describe 39 murders, we believe, do not value the sanctity of human life.

In addition, they ignore the important fact that, even while union killings declined in 2007, the Colombian military's share of such killings actually rose. Thus, while only two unionists were killed by the military in 2006, the Colombian military was responsible for at least five union killings in 2007.

This is consistent with the overall increase in the military's share of extra-judicial killings, with the military responsible for 955 such killings in the first five years of President Alvaro Uribe's term -- a whopping 65% increase over the prior five year period.

Moreover, murder is not the only form of violence used by those who wish to intimidate and silence the labor movement. In 2007, unionists were exposed in ever increasing numbers to other forms of violence.

For example, in 2007, 101 unionists were removed by force from their homes and towns -- an astronomical increase from the seven violently removed in 2006. Indeed, when one looks at the overall violent acts against unionists (including killings, forced displacement, torture, threats, detentions and kidnappings), there was an increase in such violations from 382 in 2006 to 418 in 2007.

Again, these other forms of violence, which are equally damaging to the Colombian labor movement, are simply ignored by commentators promoting the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.

In addition, by focusing on murders that occurred in 2007, it is these commentators who are using "outdated" statistics. That is because none of these op-eds condemning the union movement as a bunch of "liars" mention the fact that at least 23 unionists have been killed in Colombia so far in the first four months of this year.

I say "at least," because unionists are being killed so quickly this year that it is hard to keep track of the numbers. If this rate of killings continues -- and I certainly pray it does not -- the level of union murders will be in keeping with that in prior years (around 70) which apparently has been sufficient to shock the consciences of even those commentators who now condemn us.

In addition, the killings of unionists, as of late, are of an increasingly more grizzly quality, with the victims showing signs of torture. As the president of the CUT (the Central Union of Workers) explains, the unionists this year "have been attacked with a knife, showed signs of torture," further "generating terror" among union workers who now must fear the process of death even more than the death itself.

A recent victim, Jesus Caballero Ariza, was an instructor of human rights for his teacher's union. He disappeared on April 16, 2008 and was found two days later in a mass grave, with signs of torture, machete wounds, and a shot in the head. Of all the unionists killed so far this year, half of them, like Caballero, were teachers.

The other thing Caballero had in common with a number of unionists killed so far this year was that he was an organizer of the March 6, 2008 demonstration against state and paramilitary violence in Colombia -- a demonstration organized and sponsored by peaceful human rights and labor groups, including my union, the United Steelworkers (USW).

Yet, the organizers and participants of this demonstration were recklessly put in harm's way by the administration of President Alvaro Uribe whose own spokesman publicly announced before the demonstration that neither he nor Uribe would participate in the demonstration because, as he untruthfully and dangerously claimed, the march was being "convened by the FARC" guerillas -- a clear signal to the paramilitaries that those associated with demonstration were fair targets of violence.

As a result of this slanderous claim, at least five unionists, and two other human rights advocates, have been killed by the paramilitaries who also threatened 28 individuals with death for participating in this event.

This type of stigmatization of union leaders, which the Uribe administration habitually used against members of the labor movement, shows a reckless disregard for union members' lives in Colombia.

In the end, as a result of the continued anti-union violence in Colombia at rates unprecedented in the world, and as a result of a relentless legal assault by the Uribe administration against trade union rights, Colombia now the smallest percentage of workers with collective bargaining rights in the Western Hemisphere -- less than 1%. And, this figure is 1/4 of what it was just 10 years ago.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/the-labor-movements-princ_b_99521.html

[Peace Patriot]

16. 329 death squad killings, this year alone, by COLOMBIAN MILITARY & POLICE--

--a 48% increase over 2006--and as of June 2007, Colombian military courts had won only **4** convictions in more than **900** cases of alleged murder involving uniformed soldiers and police! (Los Angeles Times)

**900** cases of alleged murder by the Colombian military and police!

"...the Colombian military has been plagued by accusations of atrocities, including extrajudicial killings called 'false positives' in which armed forces allegedly kill civilians, usually peasants or unemployed youths, and brand them as leftist guerrillas." --Los Angeles Times

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3447413

I'm sorry, but you cannot convince me that civil conditions are even close to normal in a country where over 300 people have been murdered by the military and its death squads this year alone! That is a country ruled by fear, brutality and intimidation. We cannot trust polls or votes in such a country. Hitler was very popular at the height of his power. Nordic type crowds in the millions cheered his every word. You can produce mass euphoria by feeding people a diet of fear, propaganda and relief that they are the chosen ones, the privileged, and not the excluded ones, the victims. I am saying that Uribe's popularity in relatively well-off urban areas is based on this mass psychology of fascism, and that the true sentiments of most people cannot be known in these conditions: You raise your head in a leftist cause, and you risk getting it blown off, or worse, death by torturous dismemberment (the fate of some of the murdered union leaders in Colombia). Amnesty International has attributed NINETY-TWO PERCENT of the murders of union leaders to the Colombian military (about half) and their closely tied paramilitary death squads (the other half).

The violence of the FARC does not come anywhere near to the violence of the Colombian military and closely associated paramilitary death squads. They may kidnap and murder as well, but, according to every human rights group that I have consulted, the vast preponderance of the murders of innocent people is committed by government forces!

And we are paying for these murders. We buy the weapons, the bullets, the uniforms, the jeeps, the helicopters, the surveillance equipment! We are paying for the Colombian government to rule by fear. That is all Bushites know how to do--rule by weapons, bombing, torture and murder--they are doing it all over the world--for the benefit of the rich. The Colombian elite is a reflection of its masters in the White House.

And I think it is very unfortunate that the only choice for Colombia seems to be between a mock democracy, led by Uribe, or outright military dictatorship, led by his rival Santos. Because, my friend, those are the only choices that the death squads will allow. You think a leftist could get elected in Colombia in these conditions? Dream on. That is totally unrealistic.

The problem is that the few working parts of this democracy--in the judiciary--are closing in on the top commanders in the military, as well as Uribe and his allies, for death squad activity. So the question that I think is currently at issue is whether the military--empowered with $6 BILLION of our tax dollars--is going to permit this to continue. The Bush Junta helped out, by taking the sudden, midnight extradition of the death squad whistleblowers and incarcerating them here, on drug charges, far away from the Colombian prosecutors. But that may not be enough. Santos is pressuring Uribe to shut the courts down, and if Uribe doesn't, he may ousted, and the military will end civilian government.

I don't think you understand this danger, and what items like the recent extraditions mean. You are so obsessed with Chavez--who hasn't harmed anyone--that you can't see the real situation and the dangers in Colombia.

As for my example of a campesino in Bogota (fearing to answer a pollster's questions), there are millions and millions of displaced campesinos in Bogota and other South American cities, due to U.S.-dominated "free trade" and the corrupt, failed, murderous "war on drugs." They don't stop being campesinos because some fucking U.S. corpo or local fascist has stolen their land, or because the U.S. has sprayed their farm, their children and their animals with toxic herbicides, causing them to flee their lands. Further, hundreds of thousands of campesinos have fled from Colombia into Venezuela--where workers have rights and no one is murdered for union organizing, leftist views or political activity.

You dare to snipe at Chavez, who has been running a scrupulously lawful, beneficial government for ten years? So typical that you bring up "rule by decree," and ignore the "rule by decree" that Lula da Silva used in Brazil to protect indigenous tribes in the Amazon, or the "rule by decree" suspending all civil rights in areas of indigenous protest just enacted by Bush-friendly "free tradist" Alan Garcia in Peru. "Rule by decree" is a common practice in South America--powers granted by legislatures to presidents to solve some particular problem. Previous presidents in Venezuela have been given similar "rule by decree" powers by the National Assembly. Like the corporate press, you don't mention this context. You just say it, out of context, because you know it sounds bad, out of context. But there are good "rules by decree" and bad "rules by decree" in South America. Protecting the indigenous tribes in Brazil was good. Suspending civil rights in Peru because the indigenous are protesting theft of their lands is bad. I don't know of a single "decree" by Chavez that harms anyone or is even bad policy. He is running a good government, in which the poor, the workers, the indigenous, and the peasant farmers at long last have a voice, along with everybody else.

There is no comparison of Venezuela and Colombia. Venezuela is a thorough-going democracy. Colombia is a police state.

And having said all this, I want to thank you for your response. It is the most detailed and illuminating expression of pro-Colombia, anti-Chavez views that I have seen on this board at any time. I often criticize those of your viewpoint for short posts ("hit and run" posts) that contribute nothing to the discussion. I appreciate this effort, although I disagree with you on every point.

[Bacchus39]

17. there have been even more murders in Caracas or Rio

but again, it seems some lives are worth more than others to some.

I guess we need to define "democracy", if you mean rule by decree and ignoring the will of the people then Venezuela wins out.

if Lula is ruling by decree, I disagree with that too.

I absolutely think a leftist can win in Colombia. Ingrid Betancourt, no doubt about it.

I think Colombia is quite normal in comparison to other latin american countries even given the civil war. I think abnormal conditions would be in places like Iraq, Afganistan, and Cuba.

sorry, I can't elaborate on every post. I see you didn't respond to the impossibility of a UN occupation, a South American occupation, or how those would constitute self determination for Colombia. then again I did say the idea wasn't worth debating.

[Peace Patriot]

18. A UN or South American peacekeeping force would be feasible if the U.S.-Bush's

SIX BILLION DOLLARS in military aid were withdrawn, which could happen if we had transparent vote counting here, and/or if the U.S. goes belly up, a distinct possibility. We were long ago out of cash, and are up to our ears in debt to Saudi Arabia and China.

The U.S.-Bush is propping up a violent, global corporate predator-friendly regime in Colombia, that is a reflection of Bush junta values--make the rich richer, kill the poor.

I'm sure that eight leftist governments (8 of the 10 major nations) in South America was a mere dream at one time. Local civic groups, social movements and institutions like the Carter Center, and OAS and EU election monitoring groups, worked hard over several decades on transparent elections; the U.S. meanwhile brutally repressed peoples' movements and democracy in this region, such that they will never, never forget. And eventually they became able to start electing governments that are not only investigating and prosecuting U.S.-backed death squad crimes, but that are pledged to pursue social justice, and regional integration (cooperative political/economic strength) and self-determination.

We, too, can dream of a time when our government has a just policy toward Latin America, and withdraws military funding from governments that kill hundreds of their own people merely for being leftists or union organizers. We really aren't in a position to give aid any more. The U.S. has been thoroughly looted and bankrupted by the Bush junta, among other things for massive military spending for outrageously unjust, illegal wars, and propping up global corporate predators and criminal syndicates all over the world. Every dollar spent in Colombia is one more strand in the Saudi Arabian or Chinese financial noose around our necks. If we are ever in a position to give aid again, I would hope that it would be to democratic governments like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay, and all these others who have struggled so hard to create democratic institutions, and to foster peaceful settlements of conflicts like the one in Colombia, and not to stoke civil war and prop up the worst elements in the society--the fascist rich and their death squads.

"...if Lula is ruling by decree, I disagree with that too." You didn't hear what I said. Rule by decree is a COMMON PRACTICE in South America, which provides flexibility in the executive branch, to solve problems, especially when the legislature doesn't have the time or inclination to hammer out the details of a particular policy, or is too torn with in-fighting to get anything done. It is very similar to powers given to FDR during the Great Depression. Lulu ruled by decree to save the very last of the extremely endangered, uncontacted native tribes in the Amazon, who are threatened by ILLEGAL LOGGING AND MINING. These are extremely vulnerable people, subject to disease wipe-outs, through contact, and to starvation by destruction of their habitat, and to murder by logging and mining corporations and by wildcat logging and mining. "Rule by decree" sounds tyrannical but it is NOT, when it is used to create or to enforce good social/economic policy in difficult situations. So you will have to go through Chavez's "rules by decree" (which were limited to certain problems, and are now OVER--the powers were TIME-LIMITED by the National Assembly) one by one, and tell me why they are bad. The PROCESS is NOT bad. It is LAWFUL, CONSTITUTIONAL and WITH PRECEDENT, in Venezuela and elsewhere.

And you've never responded to my mention of the historical context of "rule by decree" in Venezuela. Previous legislatures have granted nearly these exact same powers to previous presidents in Venezuela. The National Assembly, which grants these TEMPORARY powers, is ALSO elected by the people, which now has one of the most transparent election systems on the face of the earth. Chavez is no more of a tyrant than FDR was, or than Lula da Silva is, but I could certainly argue that Alan Garcia is MISUSING "rule by decree" for the tyrannical purpose of violently supressing indigenous protests in one of the logging/mining regions of Peru, where their water is being polluted, and their lands taken from them, by multinationals. He is using laws WRITTEN IN WASHINGTON DC, and shoved through the Peruvian legislature for the U.S. "free trade" deal, to BEAT UP ON INDIANS AND SMALL FARMERS. He has suspended all civil rights in that region.

THAT is tyrannical. Chavez's actions, and da Silva's, were not. Among other things, Chavez re-nationalized the Bank of Venezuela, which had been previously owned and run by the government, prior to Chavez. What's wrong with that? He has moved to nationalize the steel industry, because of an impasse between the owners and the workers. What's wrong with that? They can't have a paralyzed steel industry. If their high growth rate--nearly 10% over the last five years, with the most growth in the private sector (not including oil)--were to plumment because of paralysis in a major industry, then you would blame him for that.

Chavez is acting responsibly like our own populist presidents used to act, to protect the country's interests and serve all of the people. He has harmed no one, suppressed no one, tortured no one, killed no one, invaded no one, jailed no one unfairly and is running a good, beneficial, lawful government. It is the rightwing in Venezuela--like their allies in Colombia--who loot, plunder, torture and kill, and who, in Colombia, actively undermine lawful government, by committing crime after crime, with impunity--just like the Bushites. In 2002, the Venezuelan rightwing suspended the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights, in their short-lived coup. In Colombia, the president Alvaro Uribe stands accused of bribing legislators to extend his term of office (--accused by one of the legislators whom he tried to bribe), and is under investigation, as are 60 of his cohorts, for death squad activity, which is rampant in Colombia.

There is no comparison. Venezuela is a thorough-going democracy, whose president is held in high esteem by most of the leaders of the region. Colombia is a police state--and a blot on South America's record of democratic progress, propped up by $6 BILLION in our taxpayer money in military aid alone.

As for the murders in Caracas or Rio, there is a huge difference between targeted political murder, and random criminal murder. Of course all life is precious, and every murder should be investigated and prosecuted, if the perpetrators can be identified. But political murder has ramifications for society that go far beyond the tragedy of the victims of street crime. It strikes at the very heart of lawful government, by its power to silence and intimidate OTHER citizens in their democratic, political activity. The high murder rates in Caracas and Rio should certainly be a grave concern of government, and it is a failure of both of these leftist governments that it is so high--although Venezuela's is dropping, as the result of vigorous government effort. (I don't know about Brazil's.) Both societies are addicted to guns, as ours is. We, too, have a high murder rate. Might be the prevalence of guns, eh? (Societies that ban guns don't have high murder rates!) This is something I don't agree with, as to Venezuelan policy. Everybody's got a gun. But wingers should love it. That's the kind of society they seem to want--where every personal dispute threatens to turn into a gun battle.

But the systematic murder of political leftists, small peasant farmers, union organizers, human rights workers and journalists, by the Colombian military and closely tied rightwing paramilitary death squads, is a far graver problem than a gun-happy's society's high murder rate. It means that advocates of gun control, for instance, can expect a bullet in the head, as can advocates of workers, advocates of the poor, people who want fair land distribution, people who protest the rightwing death squads, environmentalists opposed to pesticide spraying or rape of the forests, and any and all political activists and voters who oppose government/corporate policy and advocate for better policy. It means there is no remedy for unfairness, unjustice and bad policy. Oppose the government, and you or yours may be next on the death squad hit list.

Again, I thank you for your discussion. I appreciate being able to exchange views. We are very far apart in our view of this matter, and I have to wonder at your picking on Chavez so much, when our own democracy is in such grave trouble--with utter lawlessness by the executive, shredding of the Constitution, massive secrecy, massive spying, torturing prisoners, suspension of habeas corpus, massive looting by military war profiteers and others, billions of dollars disappeared, serious and repeated lying, and unjust war. Venezuela is a model of democracy by comparison. Why don't you pick on Bush?