Registered user login:

Show of strength

Martin Markovits and Sebastian Kennedy

Published 07 February 2008

Hugo Chávez says he wants to bring peace to the warring factions in Colombia's cocaine wars but his increasing militarism could destabilise the region.

Squinting into the glare of the late-afternoon Caribbean sun, hundreds of pleated khaki-dressed soldiers and military dignitaries form orderly rows facing their chief of staff and head of state, Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez.

Positioned on stage and flanked by a few lines of tanks and helicopters in a military training ground in the provincial city of Valencia, western Venezuela, President Chávez waits for the roaring fighter jets to pass overhead before addressing the assembly.

"From Colombia, Venezuela is threatened," Chávez says, dismissing as "inventions" widespread allegations that his government has colluded with drug trafficking and arms sales to Colombian guerrillas.

The speech is being delivered to mark the 16th anniversary of the attempted coup led by the then-young Lieutenant Colonel Chávez on 4 February 1992. Although it ended in failure and Chávez and his cohorts were imprisoned, many believe the event - now commonly referred to as 4F - paved the way for his eventual democratic election to the presidency in 1998.

But while the Venezuelan president was commemorating his failed putsch, over a million protesters took to the streets in neighbouring Colombia and in cities across the world to voice their opposition to Chávez's hostage-taking rebel allies, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc).

In an almost implausible coincidence, anti-Farc campaigners chose 4 February to mobilise a global protest against the Marxist insurgents. They maintain that the event was entirely apolitical and directed only at the rebel fighters, but in a statement on their website they denounce Chávez's "interventions in the internal matters of Colombia and, particularly, his declarations which seek to justify the Farc as a representation of the Colombian people".

Chávez's inflammatory comments about the threat from Colombia came two days after he declared that the Venezuelan armed forces were "on alert" against possible aggressions from the neighbouring country. In a televised broadcast, the president had warned: "We don't know how far it could go. We don't want to hurt anybody, but no one should make a mistake with us."

He added: "One day things will change in Colombia," referring to the cocaine-fuelled civil war that has raged across the border for almost 60 years. "Theirs is a war in which we cannot participate except as peacemakers."

His words have further aggravated the deepening diplomatic crisis with Bogotá. After successfully negotiating the release of two hostages held by the Farc, he requested that these narco-rebels be removed from lists of international terrorist organisations and expressed an ideological affinity with their insurgent cause.

"The Farc and [National Liberation Army] ELN are not terrorist bodies. They are real armies that occupy space in Colombia. That must be recognised. They are insurgent forces with a Bolivarian political project, which here we respect," Chávez said in his yearly address to the National Assembly on 11 January.

As the anti-Farc movement gathered global momentum through social networking sites such as Facebook, it was quickly seized upon by the Colombian government. On the day of protest, Colombian president Álvaro Uribe even delivered a message of thanks to marchers in the city of Valledupar. "Our gratitude goes to all Colombians who today expressed with dignity and strength their rejection of kidnapping and kidnappers," Reuters reported him as saying.

Back at the Valencia barracks, Venezuelan officials reacted truculently. Jesús González, the strat egic commander of the armed forces, rejected it as a "political ploy to try to identify 4 February with opposition to the Farc".

President Chávez reminded his army and onlookers of the history behind the day's cele brations. "The events of 4 February [1992] swept Venezuela into the 21st century. It was when the Bolivarian revolution truly began," he declared.

In recent years, the flamboyant Venezuelan president has used 4F to demonstrate his increasing regional influence and to launch stinging verbal attacks on his enemies.

While critics maintain that it is hypocritical for a democratic country to celebrate a coup, albeit a failed one, Chávez's supporters see it as the day that planted the seeds for Venezuela's ongoing socialist transformation. Chavistas call it the "Dawn of Hope" and regard it as a stepping-stone to true democracy for the poverty-stricken masses.

"It was the lightning bolt that illuminated the darkness," Chávez said in an interview with the Chilean author Marta Harnecker in 2005.

Continuing his speech to the military, the president maintains that 4F is not finished. "It reminds us we need to be even more revolutionary. My government is a child of 4F," he says.

After two years in prison, Chávez and his allies were released by presidential pardon in 1994 and began a new effort to take over the government, this time through democratic means.

"We realised that another military insurrection would have been crazy," Chávez said in 2005. "A large part of the population did not want violence, but rather they expected that we would organise a political movement structured to take the country on the right path." He came to believe, he has said, that the Bolivarian revolution had to be a peaceful one.

However, some scholars consider the Venez uelan government's decision to actively celebrate 4F a rewriting of history intended to indoctrinate the population.

Néstor Luis Luengo, a professor of sociology and head of research at the Andrés Bello Catholic University in south-west Caracas, believes commemorating the failed coup is a key element in Chávez's broader socialist agenda. "There is an ideological battle taking place in this country. If [the government is] going to push for more reforms, they have to change the ideology of the country and the historical events celebrated." It is in their interests, he says, to make 4 February a patriotic day.

Opposition leaders also criticise Chávez for using the commemoration of the failed coup as an attempt to politicise the military. "For us, the important thing is to have an armed force that is apolitical, modern and at the service of the Venezuelan people, and one that does not become a political party," said Julio Borges, leader of the opposition party Primero Justicia.

Other Chávez opponents are concerned at the militarism: "This government prefers to celebrate a day of violence. They should instead be celebrating the day he was democratically elected president," said Armando Briquet, secretary general of Primero Justicia.

A violent act

Chávez's supporters obviously disagree. Cruz Elena Peligrón, a civilian participant in the 1992 coup and friend and neighbour of Chávez in the 1990s, says: "We have always celebrated our independence day and that was a violent act. The US military commemorates wars like Vietnam and the Second World War. They say you have to fight for peace and unfortunately that's true."

Since Chávez took office in 1999, he has survived an attempted coup, oil strikes and referendums on his presidency. Last December, a package of proposed reforms to the constitution, which would have allowed him to stand for indefinite re-election, was defeated at the polls - his first political loss in nine years.

With Chávez's opponents invigorated by their poll success, this year's 4F festivities were notably restrained, taking place in a small pro vincial barracks instead of the grand military base at Fuerte Tiuna.

Venezuela's ambassador to the UN and former coup plotter, Francisco Javier Arias Cárdenas, said political priorities have changed: "We are no longer going to support unconditionally any segment of the Colombian military that has the objective of destroying either the Farc or the peace process in Colombia. Venezuela is just a third party in the civil war."

He concluded: "Of course we don't support guerrilla warfare, kidnapping or drug trafficking. But to end the war you don't necessarily need to end the Farc - just end the poverty, misery and violence that occur in Colombia every day. Both sides should go to the table and talk peace."

President Uribe maintains an unwavering zero-tolerance stance against the Marxist rebels and has shown much support for paramilitary forces that have been responsible for a catalogue of human rights abuses throughout Colombia's intractable civil war.

Meanwhile, Chávez's flamboyant militarism and allegiances with the Farc make dialogue between Colombia's warring factions seem less and less likely.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

52 comments from readers

issak
07 February 2008 at 12:05

Realistic article without any biasitc projection.But it also fails to appreciate the endless efforts carried by Mr Chavez to mediate in a 60 yr old civil war that does not seem to end any time soon , which proved fruitful in that the succesful release of the two hostages.The political defeat he concured last december proved to change a lot of priorites that Chavez's camp had in mind.

antileft
07 February 2008 at 13:00

^^ The idiot above doesnt have any understanding of the region at all. If he did, he would know of the constant backing and support by Chavez of the very nasty guerrilla/terrorist groups that make the lives of Colombians a misery. His "good work" is no more than attempt to make himself look good, and lefties here who seem to be impressed by his "kindness" should know better.

jakestevens
07 February 2008 at 13:19

In my opinion Iranian wantabee Chaveezzey should start being held accountable for furnishing his Farc with material that's killing so many innocent people

cjbarbosa
07 February 2008 at 17:08

Chavez and the FARC are one and the same. Make no mistake about it. That is the only reason why he was able to "broker" the release of the hostages. They were his hostages in the first place anyway! The international community cannot ignore the voice of 40 Million Colombians who demonstrated against the FARC. They are terrorists whose only aim is their personal economic gain through the trade of cocaine.

Tim-Jake Gluckman
07 February 2008 at 17:40

I cannot agree at all with this very one-sided take on the subject.

Realistically the only way of solving this problem is to legalise cocaine. That would (a) stop one otherwise unstoppable growth factor for organised crime (OC) (b) stop the drift towards narco-states in the Andes and now in West Africa (Guinea-Bissau etc.).

The medical problems that might be caused by legal cocaine (much less sexy legal than now) would be much easier to deal with in comparison.

After the Rolleston report in 1926, in the UK cocaine and heroin were basically available on demand from GPs esp. in London. Yet by 1950 there were only 1,000 registered users...and no significant black /grey market. Compare that to the astronomical growth of addiction in the USA

Otherwise drug wars will never win especially as they are used by the USA for their own purposes, either with the dealers or against them. (See the work of Prof. Alfred McCloy or Peter Dale Scott for instance)

The blame should be laid more at the door of the USA--Pres. Uribe--AUC-- American Multinationals (backers of the AUC) axis who are simply using the cocaine issue as a pretext for massive military intervention in the Andes. (Cf WMD!)

I find it strange that the article does not mention the massive natural resources (including oil and gas!) in Colombia that are an obvious magnet for the USA.

Are you aware of the work of Narconews (published in the Net ...where else?) ? It doesn't seem like it.

Frankly I find it incredible that you blame Chavez for the situation in Colombia.

Get this fact...The "Foreign Minister" of FARC went to Caracas a few years ago to discuss releasing Ingrid Betancourt. Some Colombian gangsters (excuse me agents) then kidnapped him, took him back to Colombia and of course tortured him.

Uribe uses the guerrila war in order to get massive financial backing from the USA: he is the USA's 3rd largest beneficiary of foreign "aid" in the world.

cjbarbosa
07 February 2008 at 17:58

I am Colombian and franky I am totally appaled by your comments. Visit our country and learn a bit before saying such stupid comments.

antileft
08 February 2008 at 03:19

Yes, Tim-Jake Gluckman, it's all very amusing to joke about legalising cocaine, but quite offensive for all the people who are suffering because of this war. You seem to think that the "foreign minister" of the FARC isnt a gangster? You should know better. I love the way you say "get this fact", as though youre talking to people who are as completely ignorant of the facts as you are. You have no idea. Get back to reading your leftie magazines from the comfort of your living room, idiot.

rosinas
08 February 2008 at 05:10

cjbarbosa wrote: "The international community cannot ignore the voice of 40 Million Colombians who demonstrated against the FARC."

This is a pure lie - what a joke to claim that 40 million Colombian's mobilised agains the FARC - the demonstrations were big, but sorry, they weren't that big (more like 1-2 million). If you want to have any credibility at all you should refrain from making such comments. What stands out the most though is the hypocrisy of the whole thing, sure you can criticise the FARC, but what about the paramilitary death squads (who actually hold more hostages than the FARC), and what about the human rights abusing, trade union killing Colombian government, and of course whole swathes of the Colombian legislature (40 at last count, including president Uribe's own brother and cousin) under investigation for links to paramilitary deathsquads and cocaine trafficking. Everyone knows the Uribe government is up to its eyeballs in the cocaine trafficking.

antileft
08 February 2008 at 07:52

^^ Another idiot who doesnt know the first thing about Colombia. The only reason corruption is being noticed in Colombia is because the government has made the courts work, stopped the intimidation of the judiciary, and strengthened law and order. As for this:

"What stands out the most though is the hypocrisy of the whole thing, sure you can criticise the FARC, but what about the paramilitary death squads,"

The paramilitary death squads are tolerated more than the farc because they exist to destroy the farc (as well as of course to produce cocaine). The farc on the other hand exist to destroy the democratically elected government (and produce cocaine). Which do you think should be destroyed first? Think about it now. Where should the vaste amount of resources go? Into destroying the contras that fight the guerillas or the guerillas that fight the government?

"and what about the human rights abusing, trade union killing Colombian government"

This is where you get really muddled up. The government doesnt attack trade unions- theyre attacked by paramilitaries, sometimes with the encouragement of corrupt local officials. Columbia needs LAW AND ORDER- the way to achieve that is

1. Destroy the guerilla

2. Destroy the paramilitaries

and in the meantime create jobs so that these people have something else to do. But the first two go in that order. Farc are the number 1 problem and they need to be dealt with first. The paramilitaries will become straight forward drug dealers once the farc go, but if you remove the paramilitaries first, the farc will keep trying to destroy the state.

Oh and by the way- 1 or 2 million is one hell of a protest. And if you knew the first thing about the country, youd know that the majority is against the guerilla, for very obvious reasons.

laluchasigue
08 February 2008 at 15:43

This is interesting - the USA has a drug problem. Columbia produces an supplies the drugs but Venezuela gets the blame . I think it's called "projection"

Fiction sells more than fact
08 February 2008 at 15:56

Contradicting the increasingly inaccurate New Statesman, Oil Wars blogspot did the sums last year on Venezuelan military spending – busting another anti-Chavez myth.

Figures are base on the world renowned Stockholm Peace Institute. See the link http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2007/06/venezuelan-military-spen...

The key points are:

The year with the most military spending occurred not under Chavez but under a previous administration in 1993. In fact other pre-Chavez years, such as 1991 and 1997 also had very high levels of military spending. Just looking at the graph it appears that military spending has been less under Chavez than other previous governments.

Average military expenditures from 1991 to 1998 against the average from 1999 to 2006 when Chavez was in office. As can be clearly be seen military expenditures were HIGHER before Chavez came to office by almost $200 million per year. So much for the “militaristic”

Chavez spending more on arms then his predecessors, he is spending LESS as is clearly shown by the numbers.

Looking at Venezuela’s military spending relative to the size of its economy we can clearly see that prior governments spent a significantly greater portion of the countries resources on the military than has Chavez. Prior governments often spent around 1.6% to 1.8% of GDP on the military whereas Chavez has averaged around 1.3% to 1.4% - an unmistakable decline.

Of the major Latin American countries only Argentina spends less than Venezuela. Colombia spends more than twice as much as Venezuela does as does, interestingly, Chile. Given what others are spending Venezuela’s military expenditures do not seem to be out of line.

Under President Chavez military spending has been reduced both in real terms and relative to the size of the economy.

Venezuelan military spending is significantly less than that of many other Latin American countries.

There may be countries where military spending has soared and is out of proportion to any conceivable legitimate need (a certain North American country comes to mind) but Venezuela is not among them.

Yet one more anti-Chavez myth that doesn't withstand scrutiny of the actual numbers.

Ciclista
08 February 2008 at 17:37

@Fiction:

That's interesting you should bring that up, as the article doesnt even mention military spending. It talks about "increasing militarism" - that is, the use of military displays to send out messages or exert regional influence. SPending might have gone down, but the amount of "bragging" or "muscle flexing" clearly has not.

Clearly the numbers do not matter, because Chavez could spend 10% less on the military every year but still go on TV to tell the world that Colombia is threatening Venezuela. The effect would be the same: destabilisation.

Ciclista
08 February 2008 at 17:42

@laluchasigue:

This is interesting - Chavez starts making thinly veiled threats towards his neighbours and the the New Statesman publishes a piece saying so. The publisher is then accused of blaming Chavez for the US-Colombia cocaine problem, when no such accusation has been made.

This is a common condition known as "blind adulation for Chavez"

laluchasigue
08 February 2008 at 18:54

Ciclista,

I was (un)fortunate enough to live in Nicaragua for a year (1985) when exactly the same kind of stories were circulating about the Sandinistas. However history then proved that it was in fact the US that was running the drugs and arms. Remember Iran /Contragate ? There was a time that journalism used to rely on evidence based material. However this article in the New Statesman is one of many that have appeared recently all based on innuendo and not one "fact" anywhere. There's not one scintilla of evidence to link Chavez with FARC. Maybe he should have left the hostages to rot and not got involved. FARC have been around for decades before Chavez came to power and they certainly don't need Venezuelan help. Don't forget that the Left in Columbia tried the democratic route but the paramlilitaries (alligned to the government) made sure that not many survived.

Ciclista
08 February 2008 at 19:42

@laluchasigue:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2251440,00.htm...

It is common knowledge in Venezuela that the Venezuelan National Guard at best turns a blind eye to Farc activity on the border. Anecdotal evidence suggests active collaboration, as the above article shows.

I think the real story here is not about Chavez so much as the poverty and endemic corruption that afflicts Venezuela. Any president would have difficulty eradicating this, and I would imagine (correct me if I'm wrong, someone) that FARC/Ven National Guard collaboration has been going on for decades.

Rather than being something Chavez should be blamed for, it is just another problem he has inherited, such as gun crime and spiralling inflation. But he should be criticised for his inability to effectively remedy these problems, after nine years in office.

Ciclista
08 February 2008 at 19:46

Also:

"There's not one scintilla of evidence to link Chavez with FARC." - the article says he expressed an "ideological affinity" with Farc, which he has done. Do you not think that his very public defence of Farc - as quoted in the article - shows this clearly?

"history then proved that it was in fact the US that was running the drugs and arms." - are you suggesting that it is the US that is doing this in Colombia too? That's the first time I've heard that one!

Ciclista
08 February 2008 at 20:00

One more point:

The article was not aiming to "link" Chavez with Farc. Rather, it was making the point that Chavez's "increasing militarism could destabilise the region."

Maybe the journalism is not to blame, but rather the reader's desire to read things that confirm his/her pre-conceived ideas and prejudices. Isn't the role of journalism to challenge its readers - as well as educating, informing and entertaining them, of course?

Tim-Jake Gluckman
08 February 2008 at 20:18

CJBARBOSA writes:

“frankly I am totally appaled by your comments. Visit our country and learn a bit before saying such stupid comments.”

His stimulating criticism has led me to dig deeper so that I can substantiate what I wrote. Thanks to C J Barbosa for that!

Here is a list of the points I made. Unless you say what appalled you and why it is difficult to enter a dialogue.

What are you appalled by?

(a) I find the NS article one-sided;

b) the statement that illegal narcotics leads to huge profits for organised crime (e.g. Camorra, Cosa nostra, new African mafias degtc.);+funding of guerrillas etc.

c) tendency to narco states e.g. Guinea-Bissau (and Afghanistan via heroin)

Appalled?

d) cocaine was de facto legal in the Andean countries for most of the 20th Century. I gather it is easily obtainable currently in Venezuala. Yet until the use of Basuco there were few reported social problems in the Andes connected to C; the substance was integrated into the fabric of social life quite differently than in Europe.

If I am wrong about this, do tell me the reality as you see it please.

One of the problems caused illegality is that relevant safe use info can hardly be distributed e.g. that sharing the sniffing implement (“tooter”) can and has spread Hepatitis C and other illnesses transmitted through the nasal mucous membrane.

f)The USA more than any other nation have been responsible for importing heroin and cocaine into their own country. This is widely documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

has some useful links

for the classic text by Prof. McCoy

The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade (Paperback)

Peter Dale scott’s book

Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America, Updated edition (Paperback)

NARCO NEWS

For USA multi-nationals allegedly backing the radical right-wing para-militaries AUC

Are you appalled by the facts described? I find it shocking too especially the mass media choose to ignore the courageous people who do the research.

or by the fact that I was foolish enough to mention it here. Don’t shoot the messenger!

Re NATURAL RESOURCES IN COLOMBIA

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Colombia

RE CHAVEZ’S INTERVENTION

The article in the NS is correct to point out possible dangers of what Pres. Chavez is doing but the Venezuelans also have a v.serious arguments which IMO is not covered adequately in the article.

KIDNAPPING OF GRANDA SEEMINGLY TO END TALKS RE I. BETANCOURT

Concerning the kidnapping (1- 2005) of Rodrigo Granda in Caracas:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/878

according to Ingrid Betancourt’s daughter, Melanie Delloye, Granda was in Caracas partly to negotiate about the release of her mother. MD stated this in an interview on the BBC World Service program ‘Óutlook’. I cannot see what motive she would have to assert this if it were not true.

(see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Dngrid_Betancourt).

Is it appalling to state this or the fact itself?

I am especially interested because I am writing a play in which this incident forms a significant feature of the background.

CUI BONO (WHO BENEFITS) FROM PLAN COLOMBIA?

It is a matter of opinion as to what the motives for Plan Colombia.

One result of spraying coca plants with glycophosphate is that sometimes the ground is only useful afterwards for growing timber. So such sprayed areas are brought up cheaply by wealthy land-owners who plant trees for timber.

http://www.mamacoca.org/julio_2007/indexx_en.htm

The second comment by “äntilefty” is frankly not much above the level of a poison-pen writer. It is a confused mass of projection and aggression.

I worked in the Urgent Action section of amnesty international in Cologne starting in 1986. Over the years I sent countless appeals – at first by Telex and then faxes – on behalf those on the sharp end of official / unofficial repression. Colombia for many years was amongst the top five countries for the murder “disappearance” of trade unionists, human rights activists, journalists, ex-Guerrillas, slightly-left politicians etc.

This is the social environment out of which FARC grew: impunity for the murder of many with civil courage; up to 17,000 murders a year. + the massive income created by the West’s prohibitionist policies.

A civil route to social change hardly exists/ed in many areas.

Links:

For a satisfying deconstruction of “cocaine” look at some of Prof. Peter Cohen’s texts at http://www.cedro-uva.org/cohen/

One of the best informed think-tanks in Europe re Colombia is the Transnational Institute:

link

issak
08 February 2008 at 20:20

antileft boy..my god..What can i say..I think ur being paid by the C.I.A...i mean that's how it works right..Lefties..idiots...BUSH-ASS LICKERS right..The same old chase! Regardless of what i think , it's idiot capitalists like this fellow how seems to think he's always right should read more.But if your an american , i bet on everything i believe in he does'nt.Never did idiolise Chavez.. Just a simple conclusion to what you see.He secured the release of hostages whether he was trying to get some political gains did'nt he? which is obviously something President Uribe could'nt manage.

antileft
09 February 2008 at 03:49

"..I think ur being paid by the C.I.A...i mean that's how it works right..Lefties..idiots...BUSH-ASS LICKERS right.."

Oh what a typical new statesman reader! I get this all the time- I dont like socialism, so logically of course, I must be a gun toting, pro-bush, anti-gay, CIA backed, pro-contra, pro-life, big business-backed jew. Sure, Issak. BLACK AND WHITE thinking and simplification. Again, you know absolutely nothing about the region- you just like to back the anti-Americans regardless of the facts. And for your information, Im not american, Im not pro-American, I think Bush is a scumbag and its precisely that kind of black and white thinking which ruins the region. Often in latin american the choice seems to be to follow America or Cuba. You should know better.

knave
09 February 2008 at 08:49

It is amazing that New Statesman are now in league with right wing paramilitaries and CIA death squads.

Pilger you write for these people. Hypocrite

antileft
09 February 2008 at 09:43

Hey knave- read what I said above about black and white thinking. Sound familiar?

Ciclista
09 February 2008 at 10:52

Hey, at least everyone is sticking vaguely to the area of Lat Am/US politics. Normally politics goes out the window and degenerates into a playground slagging match by now - check out the slew of verbal offal that followed this article:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200801080001

The NS forums are no longer a place for intelligent debate - at least not when Chavez is on the agenda.

knave
09 February 2008 at 18:20

antileft (crazy name, crazy guy)

According to the New Scientist we all vote due to genes. So what politics we have might be genetically ordained . So we all comment, vote and believe in a black andf white way. You sound like an authoritarian personality so therefore enjoy the company of right wing paras like tyhe two journos who wrote this article.

knave
09 February 2008 at 18:23

Isn't the role of journalism to challenge its readers - as well as educating, informing and entertaining them, of course?

So is to tell the truth. Which no NS journo is able to perform.

Ciclista
09 February 2008 at 19:18

@Knave

"Which no NS Journo is able to perform"

- If you really believe this then why do you visit the site and read the articles?

Go on then Knave, tell us: what's the truth?

Let me guess: Chavez really is a deity, and American scientists are being silenced in Guantanamo Bay after discovering that it is actually physically impossible for him to do any wrong?

I abhor Bush and Uribe but really don't think that Chavez is free from legitimate criticisms either. He is his worse own enemy: he actually did say all those things reported by the "lying" journos you refer to (which part of the article is untrue, by the way?) so how can his position be defended? He supports the Farc and has openly said so. What else is there to say?

Ciclista
09 February 2008 at 19:27

"So what politics we have might be genetically ordained" - I dont actually believe this but lets run with it for a second. How does it follow that these "genetically derived political opinions" should automatically be black and white? I know loads of people who have well thought-out erudite political opinions (you're not one of them, sorry) who presumably acquired these opinions this way. So why aren't they B&W like yours?

Sorry Knave, you can't blame the genes for your crazy ideas. Try blaming your parents instead.

antileft
10 February 2008 at 13:01

"According to the New Scientist we all vote due to genes. So what politics we have might be genetically ordained . So we all comment, vote and believe in a black andf white way. You sound like an authoritarian personality so therefore enjoy the company of right wing paras like tyhe two journos who wrote this article."

You know what? That said it all! I dont feel the need to reply to this- you already sound stupid enough! And as intelligence probably is genetic- its not really worth me trying to convince you one way or the other. Youre dumb as hell (probably genetically), you know NOTHING about Latin America, you cant see beyond the old fascist vs communist categories, and your posts are so badly written its sometimes hard to even see what youre trying to say. "Which no NS journo is able to perform." Time to go back to reading the daily mail, dont you think?

knave
10 February 2008 at 14:42

Time to go back to reading the daily mail, dont you think?

Nuffink rung with the mail "antileft".

I sense a lot of anger.

Use of a name "antileft" might show that you look at the world in simplistic terms as well my journo friend.

I forget thaere are only commies in south America no fascists. They are certainly minus one at the moment.

Raffique
10 February 2008 at 15:23

Did FARC not exist before Chavez came to power? Has FARC's activities intensified following Chavez's being voted overwhelmingly to lead Venezuela? The answer to both these questions must be a resounding:No! So why blame Chavez for something he did not create? Indeed, he should be praised for his efforts to bring peace to troubled Colombia, which neither its government/s nor the Americans seem capable of doing. Those who seek only to demonise this leader-among-leaders would have us believe that FARC, poverty, inequality, etc., started in Venezuela only after Chavez came to power. Total hogwash. If only they'd be honest to themselves, and to New Statesman readers.

Raffique

antileft
11 February 2008 at 03:18

"So why blame Chavez for something he did not create? Indeed, he should be praised for his efforts to bring peace to troubled Colombia, which neither its government/s nor the Americans seem capable of doing. Those who seek only to demonise this leader-among-leaders would have us believe that FARC, poverty, inequality, etc., started in Venezuela only after Chavez came to power."

Oh what a simplification! What youre doing is mixing up Colombian's views with your lack of historical understanding. You think that Colombians arent aware of the fact that their country has suffered through a very long civil war for decades before Chavez came to power? I think they do. Unlike you, they also know that that Chavez has tried to make the situation a lot worse (at the same time as Uribe has made it a lot better). Sure, he's made it easier to save THREE lives (with foreign friends). But only to someone who sees the situation from the perspective of am ignorant first-world magazine reader like Knave here (or perhaps a one-sided communist) could this be seen as a real victory. All it does is make him look good to foreigners and the ignorant. Colombians know that Chavez is a good friend of this terrorist/kidnapping/narcotics organisation and they know that he is making the Farc a lot harder to destroy. And "leader among leaders"?! How can a decent leader believe in an idea (communism) which DOESNT WORK and which the rest of the world grew tired of a long time ago?

raysirotkin
11 February 2008 at 13:27

It seems to me that the Venezuelan government is the one government not allowed to have a military presence on its border. The border with Colombia has 1400km not patrolled by Colombia. Chavez cannot win - if Venezuela attempts to stop the cocaine trail, he is condemned for being militaristic. If there is no military presence, he is supporting FARC.

Perhaps readers, should ask instead why Uribe pulled out of the peace talks that Chavez considered necessary to release hostages, rather than the heavy handed military approach approved by Uribe.

Also, if you would like a balanced view, visit the Justice for Colombia's camapign website and consider the real character of the Uribe regime in the persistent murder of trade unionists and other oppositionists.

Ciclista
11 February 2008 at 15:12

"Chavez has tried to make the situation a lot worse (at the same time as Uribe has made it a lot better)"

I'm not pro-Chavez by any means but that is a scandalously inaccurate remark. Uribe's support of paramilitaries has caused huge amounts of death, destruction and displacement of entire rural communities. Rural migrants fleeing from violence have nowhere to go so end up occupying land in shanty towns on the margins of Colombian cities like Cali and Medellin, where they have zero economic prospects and invariably end up getting involved in criminal activity.

Uribe's government has seen the security of inner urban centres in cities like Bogota grow whilst leaving the rural areas to rot at the mercy of murderous paras and hostage-taking rebels.

Uribe is more guilty than Chavez for the degree of human suffering in Colombia. It's a shame that Chavez has taken sides and used the situation for his own political ends rather than staying neutral like he has promised to.

antileft
11 February 2008 at 15:41

"I'm not pro-Chavez by any means but that is a scandalously inaccurate remark. Uribe's support of paramilitaries has caused huge amounts of death, destruction and displacement of entire rural communities."

Ok then, lets look at how "scanalously innaccurate" my remark was. Look at the graph half way down the page here:

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8892695

You see how the murder rate suddenly falls as Uribe gets into power? It goes from 28,000 to 17,000 in 5 years. Can you see how the GDP growth goes from around 1 or 2 percent to around 6 percent in 5 years? And the fact that gross fixed investment goes from around 15 percent to around 23 percent in 5 years? Is this a just coincidence? Or does it just not count?

antileft
11 February 2008 at 16:03

Just to add to what I wrote above: Some more statistics from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6226649.stm

Highlights:

"Colombian police say the murder rate in the South American nation has fallen to its lowest level in two decades."

"Kidnappings also fell from 329 in 2005 to 200 in 2006"

What do you think, Ciclista?

raysirotkin
11 February 2008 at 20:47

That's a good one - 'Colombian police say murder rate is at the lowest rate for two decades'. That's like saying a government spokesperson in Pakistan said Musharaff is has universal support.

If you saw the recent Panorama programme we were told there how wonderful things were under Uribe and strangely at the end many of the participants were dead before the programme was shown.

The murder rate for trade unionists has not gone down, it has only been due to protests here that any murder squads have been held back, not because of Uribe.

antileft
12 February 2008 at 03:23

One second raysirotkin- did you look at both sets of statistics? And did you read the articles? You know, it's the bbcs job to give both sides to the story. The fact that they didnt contradict the government in this suggests it wasnt just propaganda.

This is rediculous! Im illustrating something that anyone with an ounce of real knowledge about the country already knows! Every Colombian knows that the murder rate has plummeted and that security has improved enormously! They know full well that kidnappings are down!!! Its not a debate at all!!!

Youre all just a bunch of armchair lefties who have clearly never been and only read an article once a year or so on the country in the new statesman- and yet you think you have all the answers!

I worked there for a long time- Ive lived in Bogota, Pueto La Cruz and Caracas. All this stuff is blatantly obvious to anyone that's been for anything other than a short tourist trip, or indeed read real articles. You just get your opinions from communists like pilger from the comfort of your living room, dont you? You dont have any idea what's going on! Honestly, Im writing a "colombia for dummies" collumn here and you still dont get it! Get back to reading pilger you bunch of armchair lefties- you have no idea.

raysirotkin
12 February 2008 at 07:04

You know, 'anti-left' your complete arrogance, your assumptions about other people who you don't know says it all. The naivety that the BBC gives 'both sides of the story' suggests a BBC that none of us know or recognise. There is no evidence that the level of repression by the regime in Bogota is down. Kidnappings are not a measure of that.

What would happen to a BBC crew who tried to investigate the link between Uribe, drugs and the death squads? Why are trade unionists routinely murdered or kidnapped? (Or is this a 'communist' plot?)

You know Uribe pulled out of the peace talks - BBC or otherwise. You should look at the way media portrays people - how Chavez is referred to as a 'dictator' even though he has been elected continuously (Whereas Musharaff who has never been elected is hardly ever.)

You haven't been to Zimbabwe, but you might have an assessment of the regime there - only people who have lived there etc. You assume people who go to Caracas only have your view.

There are many people who I do not agree with and am capable of having an honest discussion. You seem to be only capable of trading insults. Try dialogue.

raysirotkin
12 February 2008 at 07:23

I've just noticed that 'antileft' in one of his earlier contributions justifies the paramilitary death squads as they sort out FARC. That they murder honest trade union leaders is probably justified in the same way.

But as our friend is so fond of statistics, perhaps he can muse over a few (corroborated by that well known communist body, the UN). Chavez has eradicated illiteracy, has brought free health care to all; has reduced poverty from about 70% to about 30%. Has brought into the labour market (something our friend seemed to think important) millions through new enterprises (private and co-operative he'd be pleased to know)

Whether on the left or right, one indicator of progress is always democracy, though of course not the only factor.The 2007 Latinobarómetro poll - conducted first in 1995 shows Latin America’s average satisfaction with democracy has remained 37%,about where Venezuela was in 1998, but now it has increased to 59% in Venezuela. The satisfaction in Colombia in the same poll was around 34%. This poll was conducted interviewing over 20,000 people, not all of them lefties!

antileft
12 February 2008 at 07:33

"Try dialogue"

Whats the point in dialogue when the person Im speaking to takes one look at the statistics and says "bah! Doesnt count." As for the Zimbabwe example- if someone showed me specific data that the inflation rate was at 8000 percent, I would say "ok, youre right, they have messed up the economy". That's what you have failed to do in this case.

Peace talks have been held, many times in fact. But when they are, the Farc keeps fighting. Why? Because their mission is to destroy the state- and peace talks have a benefit- but the benefit is not "because it might lead to peace". You know what happened the last time they tried peace talks? The government agreed to give them a huge chunk of land the size of switzerland just so that they could talk. As the peace talks progressed, that land became the world's biggest cocaine factory, but it did not lead to peace, because the rebels dont want peace- they want money and power. Democracy is not something that can be tolerated. Peace will only happen when the farc has been made so weak that they accept peace with less conditions, or when they become so small that the cease to matter. That's happening now.

On to this subject of trade unionists being murdered. This is one of many terrible things that have happened for many, many years. This country is not switzerland- it is messy, and it's involved in a war with many different groups with different motives. You seem to forget this when criticising Uribe. What youre doing is looking at the deaths of trade unions and saying "well, that prooves that uribes policies arent working". But who cares which civilians are dying- the point is that many less are dying than before. Isnt it?

Security has improved considerably. You can now travel between small towns without fear of being kidnapped. Before, you couldnt even travel between Medellin and Bogota. The economy is booming. Companies are investing. Before, all the big companies were leaving because of the violence and economic problems. More people are now able to vote than at any time in recent history. Isnt this what counts? Why do you keep talking about trade unions all the time- it's a tiny fragment of what's going on? Oh yes, I know- its because you saw a program about it.

Go to Colombia- it's the most beautiful country in the Americas.

antileft
12 February 2008 at 07:47

I just read your new post- lets look at that. What statistics? Please send me the link. Id love to know where you got these statistics from, as most of them are nonsense. Here are my favourites:

"Chavez has eradicated illiteracy"

No he hasnt! He says he has, but everyone know's it isnt true.

"has reduced poverty from about 70% to about 30%"

Actually, he hasnt. Look at the graph here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6186990.stm

See how poverty has gone up while the political rich has increased? Its less equal than before. Read the article while youre at it- you might learn something. Actually, there are more beggars than ever before, and also many many more cars. Its almost impossible to get around any more- you walk and you get harrassed all the time- go by car and it takes all day. *Sigh* its so obvious that you havent been.

"Has brought into the labour market (something our friend seemed to think important) millions through new enterprises (private and co-operative he'd be pleased to know)"

No, Im not pleased to know. Co-operatives are always less efficient. Venezuela barely even produces meat any more- it has to import virtually everything from Brazil. Even Polar is moving to Colombia!! Imagine that... Even Polar can't work there. Hey, go to Venezuela, go to the supermarket, and try and buy beef. Go ahead- see what you can find. Try and buy eggs. Or bread. It isnt always easy. Often you cant even buy those basics anymore. Inflation is out of control. The economy is a mess- at 100 dollars a barrel of oil! Again, show me where you got your statistics from. And do read that article, please.

antileft
12 February 2008 at 07:52

By the way...

"I've just noticed that 'antileft' in one of his earlier contributions justifies the paramilitary death squads as they sort out FARC. That they murder honest trade union leaders is probably justified in the same way."

No, obviously not. Dont make silly assumptions. The paramilitaries ("self defense forces") were created to defend the land owners from the guerilla because the government wasnt doing its job. Again, destroy the farc first, then the paramilitaries. Not the other way round.

raysirotkin
12 February 2008 at 09:42

Well, I congratulate 'antileft' for engaging in debate rather than insults.

Perhaps now he can explain why with the reduction in the role of the paramiltaries, Simon Rogelio Prado, a journalist, is receiving death threats for investigating corrupt government politicians linked to paramilitaries and drug-trafficking?

As for literacy and Chavez's achievements that 'everyone knows isn't true', may I refer our learned friend to that well known communist source, the CIA!

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

On poverty, statisticians are keen to use 2004 statistics which show a dip after the crisis brought about by the failed right-wing coup and its aftermath.

As 'anti-left is keen on the truth, he would be keen to consider the centre for economic and policy research that deals with this distortion by not considering the factors that Venezuela had to suffer.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/2004...

Thank you for the invite to Bogata, however please remember that this is after all a London based magazine and strangely the comments and interest will be from people who are London based.

antileft
12 February 2008 at 10:02

So, according to that CIA report you sent- Venezuela:

Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write

total population: 93%

male: 93.3%

female: 92.7% (2001 census)

So, back in 2001 (just 2 years after Chavez came into power), the literacy rate was already 93 percent. I suppose that by 2008 with this oil boom literacy should be 100 percent. It's just a shame it isnt. I even know a Venezuelan who is illiterate. He's a peasant who looks after my father's house now that he's deserted Venezuela.

And according to the second link:

"health care is now provided to an estimated 54 percent of the population"

I dont really know which part of those links you were wanting me to see, but its interesting reading, and I dont see anything here which contradicts what I was saying.

"Perhaps now he can explain why with the reduction in the role of the paramiltaries, Simon Rogelio Prado, a journalist, is receiving death threats for investigating corrupt government politicians linked to paramilitaries and drug-trafficking?"

Because Colombia is still a warzone with lots of violent and dangerous factions on the right and the left, and lots of corrupt politicians, and drug trafficers.

Honestly, not a great question, is it? Do you have any idea how many journalists, politicians and businessmen are receiving death threats? Its a very rough country. People are killed left right and center. But overall, the murder rate is falling very quickly and security is improving. Again, Colombia isnt like Switzerland.

knave
12 February 2008 at 10:48

antileft

Many paramiltaries were set up to enforce strong arm tactics against trades unionists for landowners.

Fascists like yourself forget that fact. Also the statistics about columbia are nonsense. They are put together by the police. Who hide the many crimes they are carrying out and paramilitary colleagues.

What did Disreali say about stats ?

antileft
12 February 2008 at 11:04

Oh shut up knave-your petty name calling doesnt make you sound smart. Your knowledge on this obviously includes little more than what you read above. Go back to reading pilger- youre clearly not bright enough to contribute here.

raysirotkin
12 February 2008 at 12:11

Well, there we have it. If you know one peasant who cannot read, then clearly Chavez has failed.

That here is a high level of literacy that wasn't at that level in 1998, that there is the growth of free univeral health care under Chavez is denied, even though Chavez had to fight to get doctors into the barrios. The realty is that in a free and fair election - this is denied by no one - in 2006 Chavez got 63% of the vote. No one gets that support if they have done nothing for the people concerned.

That people are getting killed of all political pursuasions suggests that violence is not nder control. I won't use epithets as others ahve towards 'antileft' , just because he supports Uribe. I wouldn't call George W Bush a fascist just because he supports Uribe with phenomenal aid. However I would echo the point about the police compiling their own statistics and then being the only source used by the BBC.

It is ironic that we get preached at for being in Europe, but the source to be relied on for statistics is our own BBC. We, in Britain do know about BBC 'evidence'. They are journalists and will use any source that suits to make a story. That they are less blatant than others, doen't make them objective and we don't expect them to vary on their approachto Latin America from anything that suits the White House. This includes reporting positively in April 2002 about the ill fated coup, but that's another story.

antileft
12 February 2008 at 12:43

I never said that Chavez hasnt increased healthcare (at 100 dollars a barrel he can afford to throw money at the country's problems, even if it does mean that the country will collapse because of dutch desease at a later date). And by mentioning a peasant that cant read Im saying that literacy is not 100 percent. He has, though, taught a lot of old ladies how to read and right. Dont get me started on how bloody rediculous that is...

Violence is not under control in colombia- and wont be for a long time. The war is a messy and complicated one. But Uribe's policies are the correct ones- and any colombian will tell you that security is a lot higher now. And Chavez' relationship with democracy isnt so simple either-although he's not a dictator yet.

With that, Ill leave you as Im getting tired of the conversation.

raysirotkin, thanks for the debate. We disagree but hey, I appreciate the discussion...

Knave, youre an idiot and you arent bright enough to really understand the issues- feel free to take that personally.

knave
13 February 2008 at 07:21

Antileft (

Sticks and stones. I am sorry I haven't your insight and intelligence but in even us individuals with low IQs are allowed to debate not just you Ubermensch. That is democracy. Something you seem to dislike.

Uribe still uses terror squads like the hilltop battalion who have killed and torturedinnocent trades unionists, not just FARC. If you don't believe me go on the Amnesty website. Also he recieves more aid than Isreal in fact the 3rd largest amount from the US. Although i doubt the crime figures even are inept government like ours could bring the crime figures down with those funds.

It is strange that NS is suporting death squads like the hilltop battallion. As Greaves would say " Funny old world "

nawawimohamad
13 February 2008 at 08:58

It is incomprehensible that the Columbian government is not able to stop the insurgencies in its country for until now which is about 50 years!

The main causes of all insurgencies are corrupt or bad government in many aspects, neglecting the welfare of the poor majority, repressions by authorities and involvement of outsiders. Columbia has all the ingredients and for the past 50 years has done nothing to resolve the issues but more keen to maintain the status quo.

I agree with the Venezuelan's Ambassador to the UN. Resolve the issues and FARC will be wiped out!

harold53
13 February 2008 at 20:10

nawawimohamad seems to have got it in one. Armed insurgents only emerge if there is discontent, poverty and repression. Remember how the ANC were called terrorists? The IRA? Peace can be resolved by integration into the political system - repression does not work.

Knave is right about the role of the death squads who have murdered in areas where FARC do not exist.

However, just because 'antileft' is clearly a supporter of Uribe, it is wrong to call him a fascist - reserve that title for the death squads that he seems to wish would go (wrongly only after FARC). If you've done any work supporting Venezuela in Britain, you'd come across anti-Chavez people normally from a privileged background. It is better to discuss the issues than insult them.

He seems to be a patriotic pro-capitalist Colombian who believes Uribe's policies would work.

Venezuela has shown that it is possible to have far reaching democratic debate, that does get a bit heated, but nevertheless shows that the democracy in the country is quite robust.

The media though have some questions to answer.

All the evidence suggests that Chavez has stepped up the war on cocaine, there have been factories shut down, an increase in arrests, an increase in convictions through the courts.

NS suggests that Chavez is supporting FARC without any tangible evidence, either. That they tried to broker peace is no more support than the Irish government trying to broker peace when the IRA was active in Britain.

It seems parent though Uribe doesn't want peace, doesn't want a settlement and will rely on death squads to kill and torture. Or kidnap. It is worth remembering that in Chile with Pinochet the murdered was thought to be about 5,000. In Argentina, the 'disappeared' that is not on official records was upwards of 40,000. I'd say it is impossible to tell from official statistics if Uribe's claim that he is improving the situation has any merit.

Ciclista
13 February 2008 at 21:19

harold53: "NS suggests that Chavez is supporting FARC without any tangible evidence"

Article: "The Farc and [National Liberation Army] ELN are not terrorist bodies. They are real armies that occupy space in Colombia. That must be recognised. They are insurgent forces with a Bolivarian political project, which here we respect," Chávez said in his yearly address to the National Assembly on 11 January.

I would have thought that a direct quote from Chavez to the effect that he is supporting FARC (at least ideologically) is evidence enough that Chavez is supporting FARC, isnt it? Or are you calling Chavez a liar??

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Also by Martin Markovits and Sebastian Kennedy

Read More

Vote!

Should the international community intervene in Gaza?