|
March 3, 2008
Uribe’s Colombia is Destabilizing a New Latin America: A Response to the Murder of FARC Commander Raúl
Reyes in Ecuador
by James J. Brittain and R. James Sacouman
A few weeks after the Ecuadorian and Venezuelan state called on
the Colombian government to respect the need for peace and negotiation
with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army
(FARC-EP), the administration of President Álvaro Uribe Vélez
supported an extensive armed air and land assault against the insurgency
movement—not within Colombia’s borders, but rather on
the sovereign territory of Ecuadorian soil. On March 1, 2008, the
Colombian state, under the leadership of Uribe, Vice-President Francisco
Santos Calderón, and his cousin Defence Minister Juan Manuel
Santos, illegally deployed a military campaign within Ecuador, which
resulted in the deaths of Raúl Reyes, Julian Conrado, and
fifteen other combatants associated with the FARC-EP. Such actions
are a clear display of the US-backed-Colombian state’s open
negation of international codes of conduct, law and social justice.
The
actions of March 1 took place days before a major international
demonstration scheduled for March 6. Promoted by The National Movement
of Victims of State-Sponsored Crimes (MOVICE), the International
Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), and countless social justice-based
organizations, March 6 has been set as an international day of protest
against those tortured, murdered and disappeared by the Colombian
state, their allies within the paramilitary United Self-Defence
Forces of Colombia (AUC) and the newly-reformed Black Eagles. Recently,
President Uribe’s top political adviser, José Obdulio
Gaviria, proclaimed that the protest and protesters should be criminalized.
In addition, paramilitaries in the southwestern department of Nariño—not
far from where the illegal incursions were carried out in Ecuador—have
threatened to attack any organization or person associated with
the protest activities.
It is believed that the Uribe and Santos administration is utilizing
the slaughter of Commander Raúl Reyes and others as a method
to deter activists and socially conscious peoples within and outside
Colombia from participating in the March 6 events. Numerous state-controlled
or connected media outlets, such as El Tiempo—which
has long-standing ties to the Santos family—have been parading
photographs of the bullet-ridden and mutilated corpse of Raúl
Reyes throughout the country’s communications mediums. Such
propaganda is clearly a tool to psychologically intimidate those
preparing to demonstrate against the atrocities perpetrated by the
state over the past seven years.
Over the past two months, numerous researchers, scholars and lawyers
have supported the call to declare the FARC-EP a legitimate force
fighting against the corrupt Colombian state. In January 2008, Ecuador’s
Foreign Minister Maria Isabel Salvador argued that the FARC-EP should
no longer be depicted as a terrorist organization. Venezuelan President
Hugo Chávez also announced that the FARC-EP are far from
a terrorist force, but are rather a real army, which occupies Colombian
territory and shares in a Bolivarian vision for a new Latin America.
Mexican deputy Ricardo Cantu Garza also has promoted the recognition
of the FARC-EP as a belligerent force legitimately fighting against
a corrupt and unequal socio-political system. As prominent US attorney
Paul Wolf argued:
| The FARC-EP are a belligerent army of national liberation,
as evidenced by their sustained military campaign and sovereignty
over a large part of Colombian territory, and their conduct
of hostilities by organized troops kept under military discipline
and complying with the laws and customs of war, at least to
the same extent as other parties to the conflict. Members of
the FARC-EP are therefore entitled to the rights of belligerents
under international law … there is no rule of international
law prohibiting revolution, and, if a revolution succeeds, there
is nothing in international law prohibiting the acceptance of
the outcome, even though it was achieved by force. |
From Copenhagen to Caracas, numerous state officials have denounced
the description of the FARC-EP as a terrorist organization. Progressive
officials and administrations in Mexico, Ecuador and Venezuela have
rather opted for the status of belligerent or irregular forces to
more accurately depict the FARC-EP’s domestic and geo-political
stance. Disturbingly, in the face of this evidence and the FARC-EP’s
consistent promotion of a humanitarian prisoner exchange and peace
negotiations with the state in a demilitarized zone in southwestern
Colombia, the Uribe and Santos administration has moved ever farther
away from supporting an end to the civil war within Colombia by
opting for systemic violence.
Over the past several years, different aspects of the FARC-EP’s
real social, political and cultural activities for progressive social
change have been censored or marginalized by the private press or
governments in support of the Colombian state. Nevertheless, after
researching the FARC-EP and the country of Colombia for years, independent
journalist Garry Leech argued that, “while there is little
doubt regarding the global reach of terrorist organizations such
as al-Qaeda, there is no evidence that the FARC is anything but
one of the armed actors in Colombia’s long and tragic domestic
conflict.”
In actuality, the FARC-EP is an actor within the strategic confines
of Colombian society that aims its directives at domestic social
change. In light of such realities, how can this insurgency be a
terrorist threat to external nation-states? Coletta A. Youngers,
of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), responds to this
question by describing how:
| The U.S. government now views the Latin American region almost
exclusively through the counterterrorist lens, though the region
poses no serious national security threat to the United States
… little evidence has been put forward to substantiate
such claims, and whatever activity is taking place there appears
to be minimal. |
While Youngers does not trivialize its revolutionary
tactics, she clearly argues that the FARC-EP cannot be correctly
framed within the concept and rhetoric of global terrorism. Youngers
argues that the insurgency is not a direct political threat to administrations
within the United States, Canada, the European Union and any other
foreign nation-state in the fact that the FARC-EP’s activities
“are targeted inward, not outward,” hence, “applying
the terrorism concept to these groups negates their political projects.”
Characterizing the FARC-EP as a foreign terrorist organization
dramatically alters the dynamics of the peace process in favour
of a killer state. Stipulating that the FARC-EP is terrorist results
in the inability for legal peace negotiations to take place between
the FARC-EP and any government that subscribes to the categorization.
According to James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, promoting the FARC-EP—and
its supporters—as terrorists “puts them on the list
of targets to be assaulted by the US military machine” and
“thus subject to total war.”
The terminology of terrorism is perfect for imperialist ideology
and expansionism. It is a very open-ended reference that “allows
maximum intervention in all regions against any opposition”
and “that any group engaged in opposing militarism, imperialism
(so-called ‘globalization’) or local authoritarian regimes
could be labelled ‘terrorist’ and targeted,” thus
legitimizing external invasion or attack, say Petras and Veltmeyer.
Internal and external condemnation of the Colombian state has fallen
upon the deaf ears of the Uribe and Santos administration. After
years of increased violations of civilian human rights, the ongoing
suppression of trade-unionism, assassinations of left-of-centre
activists and politicians, and a political reality that has witnessed
75 governors, mayors and Congressional politicians alleged or found
guilty of having direct links to the paramilitaries—including
Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón and his cousin Defense
Minister Juan Manuel Santos and President Uribe’s brother
Santiago and their cousin Senator Mario Uribe—now the Colombian
state has deemed it necessary to illegally encroach upon those nations
that deviate from their ideological model of political and economic
centralization.
Not only has the Uribe administration criticized its neighbours,
but after the actions realized on March 1 it is clear that the Colombian
state, with the full backing of the United States, will impose its
own ideological goals and values through force, regardless of the
democratic rights and privileges of conventional electoral law and
procedure. While the neighbouring states of Ecuador and Venezuela
struggle for peace and try to assist the people of Colombia in the
quest for an end to the civil war, the Uribe and Santos administration
has bypassed judicial realities and governance to impose its own
objectives.
Careful analysts of the Colombian situation continue to debate
whether the Colombian state is pre-fascist or actually fascist.
It is certainly neither humane nor actually democratic. The current
Colombian state must be transformed, sooner rather than later. Those
fighting for peace must condemn the action of this regime. In solidarity,
we must protest the policies of the Colombian state and raise our
voices in support for a New Colombia that stands for peace with
social justice.
James J. Brittain is an assistant professor of sociology and
James Sacouman a professor of sociology at Acadia University in
Nova Scotia, Canada.
Back to Top .
Comments
The
views expressed in this article are that of the author
and may not reflect the views of Colombia Journal.
Copyright © 2000-2008 Colombia Journal. All rights
reserved.
|
|