Colombia, Venezuela and the guerrillas

By Weekly Archive On Jan 23, 2008

With
no wish to offend anyone

The
news was sent to me by a friend, by e-mail: A call had been made to
stage demonstrations against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC) on Feb. 4, in all public squares in the world named
after Liberator Simón Bolívar.

I
don’t know how many public squares of that type exist on earth, but
it must be an appreciable number. My friend received the information,
which has already appeared in all the media in Latin America and
Europe, from an acquaintance of his in Venezuela, a member of the
opposition to the Bolivarian Revolution.

Knowing
the source, one thinks about other things, all related but different.
Will the demonstrations be against the FARC or against Hugo Chávez
and the Bolivarian Revolution? Or will they be against Chávez’s
attempts to achieve the release of the persons who are in the hands
of the guerrilla organizations? Those attempts do not please the
Empire.

Watch
out, because the origin of the summons is very strange. Apparently,
it comes from an impartial element. But we all know that impartiality
in politics is not abundant and sometimes we play the role of "useful
fools" without realizing it.

Is
it correct or fair to demonstrate against the FARC? Wouldn’t it be
better to stage a major demonstration in all Bolivarian public
squares on earth, calling for peace and reconciliation in Colombia?
That, in the end, is what’s best for Colombia. And it is also the
principal objective of Chávez’s effort, when he asks for an
exchange of prisoners and recognition of the guerrilla movements as
belligerents.

The
FARC and the National Liberation Army (ELN) have existed for more
than 40 years. They control extensive areas of the country.
Altogether, it is estimated that they have more than 30,000 armed
fighters, which means they enjoy a broad base of popular support.

It
is the only way for these groups to have survived for so long the
Colombian Army’s big military campaigns, funded and advised by the
United States for years. Both organizations have political and
economic programs to solve the pressing problems that affect the
people of Colombia, whose index of poverty is high.

The
accusations of terrorism leveled at the guerrillas could, in my
opinion, be also applied to some military and repressive procedures
conducted by the various governments in Colombia. Except that, in
that case, we’d have to call them state-sponsored terrorism, rightly
enough. Not to mention those governments’ known links to drug
trafficking, supported by the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia
(AUC), whose horrendous crimes are well known by international public
opinion.

According
to Clara Rojas and Consuelo González, during the process that
led to their release, the Colombian Army increased the bombing and
operations in the zone where they were located, endangering their
lives. For that reason, it became necessary to postpone their
handover to the international commission, from Dec. 31 to Jan. 10.

Was
the objective of the Colombian government to facilitate the release
of the kidnapped women or to hinder it? Later, it was learned that
the government had for months been in custody of the boy Emmanuel,
son of Clara Rojas, because it had found the family that was caring
for him. However, the government did not announce that information
until the last minute. Why?

With
all respect, I don’t think that such a position can be justified by
the government’s rights and sovereignty. The same applies to the
FARC. They said they were going to release a 4-year-old boy born in
captivity — which motivated Chávez to name the rescue
operation "Emmanuel" — but it later turned out the boy was
not in the FARC’s hands. Why?

Aside
from the mutual mistrust, which has historical roots, the
participation of several Latin American and European governments in
the operation deserved greater compliance by both parties, especially
the Colombian government.

Even
before the two women were released, President Álvaro Uribe
decided to call an end to the efforts of all the governments
involved. Why? Later, (he had no alternative) he agreed that the
women should be released by the FARC in Colombian territory, in the
presence of a commission formed by representatives of the
International Red Cross, and the Venezuelan and Cuban governments.

In
the entire process, there are many "obscure" points, a
discussion of which would be simply speculative, but that’s not the
objective of this article. An element that some question and others
praise is Chávez’s insistence in asking the Colombian
government to grant the guerrilla movements the status of
"belligerent organizations" and stop describing them as
"terrorists."

It
wasn’t Uribe’s government that called the FARC and the ELN
"terrorists." It was the administration of Andrés
Pastrana, in late 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks, and after
President W. Bush announced his "total war" on the
terrorism that has committed so many crimes and inflicted so much
damage to the prestige of the United States.

If
you have a good memory, you will recall that a few years ago peace
talks were held between the FARC and the government in the city of
San Miguel del Caguán. The reason wielded by Pastrana to call
off the talks was that the FARC had performed some unilateral actions
that led to the death of a considerable number of civilians.

However,
some reports indicate that the guerrillas were forced to defend
themselves from the attacks of the AUC, a tool of the Colombian
oligarchy, as well as attacks from high military officers and the
U.S. government itself, all of which were intent on wiping out the
guerrilla movement. Some sources say that the attacks were a way to
halt the talks and justify the appellation of the guerrillas as
"terrorists".

It
is difficult to think, therefore, that Chávez’s call will fall
into receptive ears among the principal executives in the Colombian
government and the top leaders of the Colombian Army. Even less
receptive is the U.S. government, which refused to acknowledge
Chávez’s role in the release of the two women.

Several
Colombian media, linked mostly to the oligarchy, have accused Chávez
of "meddling in Colombia’s domestic affairs" and say he has
violated "the principle of non-interference." Others, with
better intentions, have described Chávez’s proposal as "undue
intromission" into Colombia’s domestic affairs. As far as I
know, the only thing Chávez has done is expressing a proposal
with his habitual vehemence.

Chávez
even asked the Venezuelan National Assembly to support that request
and urged the rest of the world’s governments to echo it.
Immediately, the Colombian government responded that "under no
circumstance" will it grant the guerrilla groups "the
status of belligerents."

The
fact is that, according to Colombian law, to establish negotiations
with the guerrilla movements it is not necessary to grant them that
status. For several years now, the government and the ELN have held
peace talks in Cuba — with few results so far, as might be expected.

It
is difficult to presume that, under the current circumstances,
Chávez’s efforts could be successful. Perhaps not even the
release of the 700-plus people kidnapped by the FARC and the
1,000-plus prisoners in the hands of the government can be carried
out — much less any peace talks.

But
there is something even more worrisome. Relations between Venezuela
and Colombia have substantially deteriorated. They are neighboring
countries with borders that extend hundreds of kilometers. Venezuela
is the proponent of a process of integration in Latin America and a
harsh critic of White House politics.

Colombia
is an ally of the United States and depends on Washington to keep up
its war against the guerrilla movement. In addition, the Colombian
oligarchy, represented in all the structures of government, has shown
signs of totally rejecting the Bolivarian Revolution, as seen in the
campaigns carried out by the media outlets it owns.

For
years, there have been reports of the actions of Colombian
paramilitary groups on the Venezuelan side of the border, with the
objective of creating problems in diplomatic relations and
destabilizing the Bolivarian Revolution. Let us remember that some
time ago nearly 100 Colombian paramilitary fighters were captured in
Venezuela while on a mission to participate in one of the many
attempts by the opposition to overthrow or kill Chávez.

Will
those actions intensify or will the Colombian government do
everything in its power to stop them? As I ask this question, I bear
in mind that several of the putschist oppositionists were given
asylum in Colombia and that others are in the United States. I also
consider the close relations between the oppositionists and the Bush
administration, and the anti-Chávez, anti-Venezuela campaigns
being carried out by some media owned by the U.S. oligarchy.

I
think that a complicated situation has been created that must be
resolved, for the good of the two peoples and governments. A conflict
between the two nations would be the worst that could happen to the
process of Latin American integration. Is that what the White House
and the Colombian oligarchs want?