Colombia: Latinamerica continues divided between neo-liberalism and the dream for independent identity
The landslide victory of ex-president Alvaro Uribe’s defense minister, Juan Manuel Santos on Sunday came as no surprise, yet it clearly demonstrates the division of Latin-American between conservative pro-U.S. governments and left of center tendencies which are attempting a more independent stance.
Conservative governments in Chile Peru and Panama, not to mention the United States, received the news with relief; in Buenos Aires, Montevideo, Brasilia and Quito there was no celebrating.
The victory of the U.S. educated Santos over Antanas Mockus’ Green Party (69 to 27%) amounts to a cryptic message: the country’s ruling elite is not disposed to allow any social changes except those considered necessary to maintain the status quo. Although Mockus campaigned on the basis of clean government, he ended up basically backing the government’s hard line tactics against the FARC guerrillas.
The message of Washington and the conservative governments appears to be that no change will come without their approval, and that free market economics is the answer to those who believe Latin-American should free itself of excessive U.S. influence, organize itself into an economic block to improve its bargaining position, defend human rights and incorporate the marginalized sectors of the population into the system.
Colombia has been in a cloak and dagger civil war since 1948, when a reform minded leader of the Liberal party, Jorge Eliecer Gaitán, was assassinated. That set off a popular rebellion and a violent struggle between the Liberals and Conservatives, first through the bloody repression of the “Bogotazo” and later through the organization of a de facto “pact” between the two against liberal rebels who, with the support of Communists, had formed an independent zone at Marquetalia.
The inability of the government to defeat the rebels was the antecedent for the establishment of the FARC guerrillas in the mid 1960’s, and for the development of other guerrilla organizations. In spite of receiving more U.S. military aid than any other country in Latin-American, and in spite of the appearance of numerous para-military death squads hooked up with the illegal drug business, the guerrilla movement has continued entrenched especially in the country’s lush jungle areas.
Nevertheless, under Uribe there were devastingly successful attacks against the FARC, including the death of important leaders, that no doubt have significantly reduced (but not destroyed) the movement.
Colombian and U.S. authorities accuse the FARC of being terrorists due to actions such as the kidnapping of military officers and politicians and attacks that have taken civilian lives. They also argue that the guerrilla movement finances its activities through drug dealing--an activity carried out likewise by the para-military groups, often with the protection of high level political and military echelons.
In any event, Washington has had its eye on the country for a long time, in view of its strategic location and its potentially rich resources. In 1999 the “Plan Colombia” was launched, a sort of mini Marshall plan aimed especially at drug eradication. The program has poured several billion dollars into the country, but as yet has failed to produce any significant progress in drug eradication.
Along with the Plan Colombia it is assumed that the U.S. has also provided important aid in training military and police and in the provision of technology and intelligence concerning the activities of the FARC. In 2009 an additional agreement was signed with the Colombian government, allowing U.S. military presence on seven key Colombian military bases.
This has come under strong fire from the progressive governments in the area, in view of the fear that increased U.S. presence in the country could turn into a sort of monitoring system of neighboring countries. That is, a sort of big brother policy to keep the tab on those governments considered not friendly to U.S. interests.
The signing of the agreement for stepped up U.S. presence was prompted in part by the refusal of neighboring Ecuador to renew an agreement for U.S. presence there.
The continued violence in the country has led to an enormous amount of displaced persons--some 286,000 in 2009 according to the ONG Consultoría para los Derechos Humanos y el Desplazamiento (CODHES). Judicial authorities indicate that over the past 15 years there have been some 40,000 disappeared persons. Many of them are thought to be peasants, whose land is then taken over, also union leaders, politicians and others.
Furthermore, authorities are investigating numerous cases of “false positives,” that is, persons kidnapped or killed and presented as “guerrillas,” and those involved are alleged to be linked to persons high up in the military apparatus led by Santos when he was minister of defense. An official U.N. statement has denounced the practice as “cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians for profit.”
Although U.S. President Obama has promised a new era of cooperation and respect in Washington’s relations with Latin America, everything would point to renewed reliance on tactics in Colombia that appear to be a throwback to the hard conservative line of the 1970’s. In spite of heading the list of Latin-American countries receiving most U.S. aid, Colombia has the worst human rights record in the hemisphere. News reports indicate that more trade unionists are killed there than anywhere else in the world.
Numerous questions remain.
Will rightwing pressure grow in those progressive governments in Latin-America which are attempting independent economic and social programs?
Will Mockus and his 27% vote be able to exert a moderating influence on the aggressive policies of the establishment?
Will the courts take a more active role in defense of human rights and abuses committed by the military or para-military groups in the struggle against the FARC?
Will the guerrilla movement be defeated or whither away in the light of stepped up military actions?
What will the fate be of peasants and workers and the vast number of marginalized citizens, who up to date have suffered the worst effects of the continued violence?
Will the much announced campaign against illegal drug dealing manage to reduce the enormously profitable business?
1 comentario
ELVIRA ALEJANDRA -
aleja