Lula to talk FARC, defense council with Colombia's Uribe

[Judi Lynn]

Lula to talk FARC, defense council with Colombia's Uribe

18 July 2008 | 00:08 | FOCUS News Agency

Brasilia. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is to travel to Colombia on the weekend to discuss plans to establish a South American defense council and the Bogota's conflict with FARC rebels, officials said Thursday, AFP reported.

Lula, whose last visit to Colombia was in December 2005, will meet his Colombian counterpart Alvaro Uribe on Saturday, and will attend Colombia's independence day celebrations on Sunday.

The presidents will talk about Brazil's idea to start a defense council that would act as a formal forum for dialog on regional military matters, Lula's spokesman Marcelo Baumbach said.

Uribe has expressed his intention to keep Colombia, the United States's strongest ally in South America, out of the council.

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

[Peace Patriot]

1. This belongs in Latest Breaking News! This is very, very, VERY important!

For one thing, it's important to peace in the western hemisphere. The civil war in Colombia is the only remaining active, violent conflict, of all those that the Reagan regime fostered (in the U.S. "divide and conquer" strategy). For another, it is important for preventing a rightwing military dictatorship in Colombia--led by Defense Minister Santos (rival to Uribe), which will mean more torture and death for the poor, and no end of problems for Colombia's immediate neighbors (mainly Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil) and for all of Latin America. For another, it will bolster Latin American economic/political integration, helping the South American "Common Market" become the powerhouse that it has the potential to be. This will happen whether Colombia remains a vassal of the U.S. or not, but Colombian integration would solidify South America's progress and move things along more quickly. And finally, it's important to the de-U.S-militarization of Latin America.

The corrupt, failed, murderous U.S.-Bush "war on drugs" and the U.S.-funded war on the FARC guerrillas are not only frighteningly expensive for U.S. taxpayers ($5.5 BILLION down the drain), they are the excuse for U.S. military surveillance of Latin American countries, and violation of the sovereignty of Latin American countries, and they pose an on-going threat of violent U.S. intervention in the service of corporate interests (Exxon Mobil et al). The "war on drugs" is a FAILURE. It is altogether the wrong approach to the problem of drug use and drug traffic. It creates crime. It creates corruption. It never stops the flow of dangerous drugs. And, in the wrong hands--Bushite hands--is an extremely dangerous weapon against democracy. This failed "war on drugs" and the civil war between the Colombian military and paramilitary death squads, and the FARC fighters, which has been going on for more than 40 years, are now ONE war. The Bushites made it so, a couple of years ago, by writing the Colombian civil war into the funding bill for "war on drugs." The Bushites' penchant for calling every conflict a conflict against "terrorism" now infects U.S. policy in Latin America.

Latin Americans who took up arms back in the 1980s--in Guatemala, Uruguay, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia and other places, had very good reasons for thinking that armed resistance was the only hope for a better society. Fascists in Guatemala, for instance--with the full backing and funding of Ronald Reagan--were slaughtering TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND Mayan villagers, in a bid to exterminate the leftist political opposition in Guatemala. Good government--government devoted to social justice--WAS NOT PERMITTED in Latin America. Wherever it arose, it was destroyed--by deliberate U.S. policy and action. So, what do you do in that circumstance? Sit back and let your brothers' and sisters' blood get splattered all over the landscape? They're still finding body parts in mass graves, in Guatemala! And the carnage in other countries, while not quite so horrendous, was just as bad for those who suffered it, and for those who survived them.

Most of the countries that suffered from "Plan Condor" and other U.S. outrages are on a healing path now, and are determined never to let that happen again, and are pulling together to create a united front in defense of their economic and political sovereignty, with goals of social justice and self-determination. But not Colombia--where both the government and the armed resistance are stuck in the past, like two dinosaurs locked in eternal battle. The Bushites just love it--they can't get enough of war and the profits from war, and they hope to create enough chaos to regain global corporate predator control of the oil in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and other countries. That is the problem in Colombia. The Colombians got suckered into (and led by their own war profiteers and fascists into) becoming a Bush Cartel client state.

I have been watching Chavez for some time, and marveling at his repeated attempts to befriend Alvaro Uribe. It has puzzled me, and only recently did I begin to really understand it. It's not just that Chavez is a peacemaker (Lula da Silva recently called him "the great peacemaker"); it also has to do with the threat from Colombian Defense Minister Santos, who could smash what little democracy Colombia has, and turn the country into a military dictatorship (more so than it is now). Colombia could become a festering wound that threatens all the social justice gains, good government and cooperation that is arising elsewhere. I am very, very glad to see Lula da Silva involve himself directly in the effort to integrate Colombia. He is president of the biggest country and economy in South America, and, like Chavez, very popular. Chavez has done what he could--most recently by meeting with Uribe in Caracas and re-establishing relations (after Colombia's bombing of Ecuador), and he is this week visiting Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, to try to heal that would and convince Correa to re-establish relations with Colombia. Now others must step in, and reinforce the goal of South American unity. That is what Lulu is doing.

[Bacchus39]

2. marxist rebels took up arms well before the 1980s

why can't you simply recognize the truth that you can't attribute every "evil" in latin america to the Reagan administration? That statement about Latin Americans taking up arms in the 80s is utterly false. even aside from any justification for forming a rebel movement (unfortunately all under the banner of a failed ideology) that statement is completely false. those movement precede Reagan. rebel movements in Cuba, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Peru. You mean you don't know when those were initiated??? Simon Bolivar movements they are not.

if those movements against repression, mass murder, and subjugation of indigenous people in Guatemala or Peru, for example, were initiated beyond the confines of a marxist ideology they would have achieved more credibility. there are no Simon Bolivars or George Washingtons, or San Martins in latin america now.

Chavez has made no attempts to befriend Uribe, he has made every attempt to denigrate him. what is frustrating to you and Chavez is the overwhelming support of Colombians of Alvaro Uribe. it is undeniable. he is not Garcia, Kirchner, or Morales in that regard and the support of the people cannot be denied. one cannot marginalize the will of the people as Chavez and Morales try to do.

Uribe should step down when his term expires. not because he is a bad president but because I like to think that countries can move beyond dependence on individuals rather than process and democratic systems. that of course goes to the likes of Chavez and Castro as well who are incapable of relinquishing power. of course you need strong leaders but there are an ample number of candidates who could fill that role in all these countries.

[Peace Patriot]

3. The 1980s marks a particular U.S.-Reagan decision to exerminate the leftist

opposition in Latin America. There were many attacks on the poor, the indigenous and their advocates, before that, and many efforts to establish equality and justice, but the Reagan-backed attack rivaled the original European (Spanish, Portuguese) attack on the indigenous, in its ferocity, coordination and devastation. There has been nothing so destructive of people and social justice in the modern era. And those who took up arms in resistance during that era had particular justification in doing so. I have often stated that Colombia's civil war has been going on for 40+ years (i.e., dates back to the '60s). I am talking in particular about those who took up arms during the Reagan-backed reign of terror, and subsequently. It was that genocide in Latin America that motivated them.

"Chavez has made no attempts to befriend Uribe." Do you really believe this, Bacchus39? What about the four-hour meeting he held with Uribe, after the assassination attempt against Chavez was uncovered in the Colombian military? Chavez could have remained unforgiving and hostile. He did not. What about Chavez agreeing to Uribe's request that he help with FARC hostage negotiations? Chavez didn't need to do that. It was very dangerous to him. He did it because Uribe asked him to--and got nothing but treachery in return. (If I had been Chavez, I would have been done with Uribe at that point.) What about Chavez's obvious efforts at the Rio Group to keep Uribe from being isolated? (I watched the whole tape--it was just so plain to see--how can you deny it?) And what about their recent accord in Caracas--even after Uribe's bombing of Ecuador, and his diatribes against Chavez (accusing him of being a "terrorist" supporter, and of genocide, for godssakes)? If Chavez has not made extraordinary efforts to befriend Uribe, why did the president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, call Chavez "the great peacemaker"? Why, indeed, do you think that Lulu is visiting Bogota this week, to try to include Uribe and Colombia in South American "Common Market" defense plans? Chavez paved the way, last week, with the Chavez/Uribe accord in Caracas. Chavez is also this week visiting Rafael Correa, to urge him to restore diplomatic relations with Colombia.

All politicians have their own political motives in any situation, and presidents of countries bear particular burdens to act in their countries' interests. The motives of politicians are often not simple or easy to sort out. But there is a clear pattern here, in relations between Uribe and Chavez, of Uribe's hostile or treacherous actions, followed by Chavez's efforts to forgive and befriend.

"one cannot marginalize the will of the people as Chavez and Morales try to do." Chavez was re-elected with 63% of the vote in Venezuela's 2006 election. Morales was elected with the biggest endorsement of Bolivian voters ever given to a presidential candidate in Bolivia (56%, as I recall, in a multiple field). Morales then won a landslide (80%) for his proposal of setting up constitutional assemblies and re-writing the constitution, to better reflect the interests of views of the indigenous majority of the country (who have traditionally been excluded from power, often brutally). "Marginalize the will of the people?" Not true. Chavez and Morales are expressions of the will of the people.

It is Uribe and his political cohorts, backed by rightwing paramilitary death squads, who attempt to marginalize the poor majority in Colombia, by murder and intimidation. There is no such phenomenon in Venezuela, where everyone is free to express their views, organize, run candidates for office, and hold demonstrations. Six years ago, the rightwing minority staged a violent military coup against the elected Chavez government, and if they had succeeded--if the Venezuelan people had not turned back that coup--there would be no political freedom for the leftist majority (the "will of the people") in Venezuela today. The first actions of that rightwing coup were to suspend the constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights, as well as kidnapping President Chavez and threatening his life.

In Bolivia, the rightwing minority sent thugs to the constitutional assemblies and tried to shut them down with demands for secession, and then held illegal votes to secede (something Abraham Lincoln did not permit, if you recall--it is a nation-destroying action; and the situations are very similar as to the motives of these secessionists--in the case of Bolivia's secessionists, to defeat the indigenous majority of the country; the secessionists are racists; they also want to deny the poor indigenous majority benefit of Bolivia's gas and oil reserves--the motive of greed). The Morales government has shown extraordinary patience in the face of this insurrection by the rightwing minority (which--no surprise--is supported and funded by the Bush fascists, using our tax dollars).

In Colombia, by contrast, two of the people who organized a recent demonstration against the rightwing paramilitaries have been murdered. And nearly 40 union leaders have been murdered this year alone. The rightwing death squads prevent the true will of the people from being known, by means of murder, torture, 'disappearances' and a climate of fear and intimidation. If you believe that the "will of the people" can be determined or expressed in those circumstances, then you are blind.

Uribe is popular among those with property and privilege, and, recently, I have realized, among those who don't want a military dictatorship (which Defense Minister Santos would likely inflict). Colombia is a unique situation, unlike any other South American country. It is the only country with an armed leftist insurgency. In virtually all the other countries, leftist governments have been elected, because the leftists represent the majority (the workers, the poor, the indigenous and their advocates). Democracy is working in other countries. It is not working in Colombia, where people are still being killed for their political views. We simply can't know what the "will of the people" would be, if that were not happening. How can you properly poll a country in which the poor, the workers, the indigenous and their advocates are aware that death may be the consequence of free expression of their views, and in which 20% to 30% of the country is a war zone? Yes, the people in Bogota may be wildly enthusiastic about Uribe, but so would be a population in an armed garrison, in an unjust society, with fear on every side--a society propped up by $5.5 BILLION in Bushite military aid. It is an artificial and very corrupt society (corrupt with drug money, as well as death squads) that hails Uribe as a "savior."

None of these conditions exist in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil or any of the other countries with left or center-left governments. None of them have death squads any more. None of them are propped up with $5.5 BILLION in U.S./Bush military aid. None of them have armed leftist insurgencies. None of them are a war zone. And none of them are the major source of the world's cocaine trade (which Colombia is). All of them have goals of social justice and Latin American self-determination. (The only exception is Peru, where U.S.-dominated "free trade"--under Alan Garcia's regime--is turning Peru into another U.S./Bush client state, like Colombia, to the great detriment of the workers and the indigenous; but that problem will likely be solved in the next election.)

I find it difficult to understand how you cannot see what is, to me, so obvious: That, when the president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, says, of Chavez, "You can criticize Chavez on many things, but not on democracy," he is reflecting the overwhelming view of South American leaders and their people, as well as the overwhelming view of Venezuelans. It is the REALITY in Venezuela. Chavez is a democrat with a small d. And he is clearly an expression of the "will of the people." And if you still had any doubts on that score, you need only look into the details of Venezuela's voting system, which puts our own to shame for its transparency. And the same is true in Bolivia, in Ecuador and other countries. Democracy is WORKING in these countries. And they are furthermore integrating their economies, and uniting on common goals. This is the REALITY in South America. The danger is that Colombia will be left out--by dint of Bushite interference, or its own paranoia. Colombia's government may not have the democratic strength to do what is in Colombia's interest--to fully integrate with the rest of South America. The military is too strong, and it has Uribe in its grip. And segments of it are utterly lawless.

And that, I think, is where Chavez comes in, and his many efforts to befriend Uribe, most recently last week (calling him "brother" and all). It is the purpose of Lula da Silva's visit to Uribe this week. Colombia is dangerously out of touch and out of sync with the rest of the continent. It could easily fall to a military dictatorship. Its democracy is very fragile, because it is unrepresentative, and its institutions have been unable to curb death squad activity or major cocaine trafficking. Its court system and prosecutors are bravely trying--and guess who is impeding them now? The Bushites--by extraditing important witnesses to the U.S. to be silenced! The Colombian government rivals Washington DC as a cauldron of corruption. And it is scarily unclear whether either of these countries--Colombia or the U.S.--will continue as democracies even in attenuated form. The Colombian government does not represent its poor; and neither does ours.

The chief danger to Colombia's fragile democracy is not the FARC, but the Colombian military. And that is why Alvaro Uribe went to Caracas to visit Hugo Chavez last week, to exchange brotherly statements of "burying the hatchet." Why would Uribe do that if he is so wildly popular in Colombia? He obviously needs help. And Chavez, once again, is giving him help--by meeting with him, by signing accords, and by calling for the FARC to release all hostages and lay down their arms.

[Judi Lynn]

4. You'd think people would think more about what they're reading!

Thanks so much for taking the time to write this post. I'm returning later to read it more closely. You help show us what we are truly overlooking which is deeply important when we simply rely on news fast food which can be guaranteed to mislead. That part is deliberate!

[Peace Patriot]

5. "Uribe should step down when his term expires." --Bacchus39

Uribe should have stepped down when his first term expired. That was the law. Instead, he bribed legislators to extend his term of office. One of them is in jail for it. And he is under investigation for this and other crimes (including participation in a death squad meeting).

The Chavistas, by contrast, put the matter of presidential term limits to a vote of the people. The people voted against it, in a very close vote, 50.7% to 49.3%, in a referendum that included 68 other constitutional issues, including equal rights for women and gays, in a Catholic country with a particularly rightwing clergy. That, and confusion over too many issues, may be why the proposal was voted down. Chavez's electoral support generally runs to 60% or more--and he has enjoyed 70% approval ratings. So it's unclear what the 10% who usually vote in his favor--who didn't do so this time--were voting against. In any case, he and his government took the loss gracefully. They could have justifiably contested such a close vote. They didn't. They may introduce that single issue--the president's term limit--for a vote of the people again. Why shouldn't they? It makes sense, politically, to keep trying, if you've lost by such a small margin.

Now Uribe wants another term, too. The question is, how will he get it? You say you oppose this. I would not, IF all Colombians could vote, IF the atmosphere were free of death threats and intimidation, and IF the election system contains key indicators of transparency and is certified by the Carter Center, the OAS, EU election monitoring groups, and local civic groups (as Venezuela's is). (I frankly think that elections in Colombia should be conducted by the OAS and not by the Uribe government.) If, in those circumstances, the people of Colombia vote to permit a presidential third term, and vote for Uribe, it would be fine with me. The Founders of our own Republic opposed term limits as undemocratic. The people should be able to vote for whomever they wish to hold public office. And we have the example of FDR--who ran for and won four terms in office--to indicate that a president who is truly representative of the people may need time to counter the entrenched power of the rich, in circumstances like the Great Depression. (There is terrible and chronic poverty in Colombia, that desperately needs bold policy to correct--though I doubt that Uribe is the person who will undertake it.)