[lbo-talk] Weisbrot on Chavez on FARC

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Wed Jun 18 05:17:07 PDT 2008


http://www.alternet.org/story/87821/

June 11, 2008

Alternet

Chavez's Call for FARC Disarmament Takes Washington By Surprise

By Mark Weisbrot

Washington's foreign policy establishment -- and much of the U.S. media

-- was taken by surprise this week when President Hugo Chavez of

Venezuela, said the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)

should lay down their arms and unconditionally release all of their

hostages. The FARC is a guerilla group that has been fighting to

overthrow the Colombian government for more than four decades.

Chavez's announcement should not have come as a surprise, because he

had already said the same things several months ago.

On January 13, for example, Chavez said: "I do not agree with the armed

struggle, and that is one of the things that I want to talk to

Marulanda (the head of the FARC who died last March) about." Chavez

also stated his opposition to kidnapping, and has made numerous public

appeals for the FARC to release their hostages.

Chavez had also explained previously that the armed struggle was not

necessary because left movements could now come to power through

elections, something that was often difficult or impossible in the past

because of political repression.

The surprise in U.S. policy and media circles is a result of a

misconception of Chavez's recent role in Colombia's conflict. A

comparison: former President Jimmy Carter has recently called upon the

United States to negotiate with Hamas -- dismissed as a terrorist

organization by the U.S. and its allies in Israel and Europe. Carter is

not an advocate of Hamas nor of armed struggle. He has met with Hamas

and called for negotiations because he is trying to promote a peace

settlement.

The same has been true for Hugo Chavez in the Colombian conflict. This

is how Chavez's role has been seen by the families of the FARC's

hostages (including U.S. military contractors), Colombian anti-violence

activists, the governments of Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia and

almost every other state in the region, and also in Europe. None of

these people (including FARC kidnapping victims) or governments are

admirers of the FARC. They have strongly supported Chavez's efforts,

including but not limited to his success this year in gaining freedom

for six hostages that were held by the FARC.

But for Washington and its right-wing allies in Colombia, Chavez and

the FARC have become comrades in arms. The media has honed in on about

two or three positive statements uttered by Chavez about the FARC (out

of thousands of hours of his speeches) to describe Chavez as a "staunch

FARC supporter" (Time Magazine June 9). On June 10, the Associated

Press reported, falsely, that Chavez had five months ago been "urging

world leaders to back their [the FARC's] armed struggle."

The U.S. State Department has even said it would consider placing

Venezuela on its short list of "state sponsors of terrorism." This is

unlikely in an election year, since Venezuela is our fifth largest oil

supplier and the Republicans are already getting enough political

headaches from gasoline at $4.00 a gallon.

For at least six years the Bush Administration has tried to make it

look like Chavez and his government have been arming, funding, and

otherwise supporting the FARC.

Until March of this year, Washington had supplied no evidence,

documentary or otherwise, of such support. News articles containing

such allegations were for years based on anonymous sources. But on

March 1 the Colombian military bombed and invaded a FARC camp in

Ecuador, killing more than two dozen people. These included FARC

commander Raul Reyes, who was also the chief negotiator for the release

of high-profile hostages held by the FARC, and some non-combatants. The

incursion was condemned by governments throughout the hemisphere,

except for the United States and Colombia.

The Colombian military claims to have captured eight computer exhibits,

including laptops and flash drives, during the attack. Since March, the

Colombian government has been releasing various files that allegedly

come from this equipment, claiming that these files and communications

indicate that Venezuela's government has been supporting the FARC. The

government also alleged, on the basis of these files, that the FARC had

helped finance the 2006 electoral campaign of Ecuadorian president

Rafael Correa. Both Venezuela and Ecuador have contemptuously dismissed

the charges, with President Correa arguing that the computers and

equipment did not even originate in the FARC camp.

<end excerpt>

The rest, about discrediting the recent files, is the lamer part of his argument. (I have no problem believing the laptops were planted wholesale; we've done it before -- it's almost becoming a modus operandi; Weisbrot just does a very lame job of casting doubt.) But I found this first part interesting.

Michael



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list