Piedad Córdoba and her battle for peace

Reflections of Fidel

(Taken from CubaDebate)

THREE days ago the news was made public that the Attorney General of Colombia, Alejandro Ordóñez Maldonado, had removed the eminent Colombian Senator Piedad Córdoba from her post and barred her from political office for 18 years, because of her alleged promotion of and collaboration with the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). Faced with such an unusual and drastic measure against the holder of an elected post in the highest institution of the state, she has no alternative other than to have recourse to the very attorney general who engendered the measure.

It was logical that such an arbitrary act would provoke strong condemnation, expressed by the most diverse political figures, among them, ex-prisoners of the FARC and relatives of those liberated on account of the senator’s efforts, former presidential candidates, people who held that high office, and others who were, or are, senators or members of the legislative power.

Piedad Córdoba is an intelligent and courageous person, a brilliant speaker, whose thinking is well articulated. A few weeks ago she visited us in the company of other outstanding figures, among them a Jesuit priest of notable honesty. They came inspired by a profound desire to seek peace for their country and asked for the cooperation of Cuba, recalling that, for years, and at the request of the Colombian government itself, we offered our territory and our cooperation for meetings between representatives of the Colombian government and the ELN that took place in the capital of our country.

However, the decision taken by the attorney general, which obeys the official policy of that country virtually occupied by yanki troops, does not surprise me.

I do not like to beat around the bush, and I will say what I think. Just one week ago, the general debates of the 65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly were about to begin. For three days, the painful objectives of the Millennium Development Goals had been discussed, and on Thursday, September 23, the General Assembly session opened, with the participation of heads of state or high-ranking representatives from each member country. The first to speak, as customary, would be the UN Secretary General and, immediately after, the president of the United States, the host country of the organization and apparent master of the world. The session began at 9:00 a.m. Logically, I was interested in what the illustrious Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner, would have to say, as soon as Ban Ki-moon had concluded. I ingenuously imagined that CNN en español or in English would broadcast Obama’s generally brief speech. It was in that way that I heard the debates among aspirants to that office two years ago in Las Vegas.

The hour arrived, the minutes passed and CNN was presenting apparently spectacular news of the death of a Colombian guerrilla chief. This was important, but not of special significance. I remained interested to find out what Obama was saying about the extremely grave problems that the world is confronting.

Is the situation of the planet one that both of them are taking us for fools and making the Assembly wait? I asked for CNN in English to be put on the other television and, not a word about the Assembly. So, what was CNN talking about? A news roundup was on and I waited until what it was broadcasting about Colombia was over. But 10, 20, 30 minutes went by and it continued with the same thing. It reported incidents of a colossal battle being waged, or that had been waged, in Colombia, the future of the continent was going to depend on it, according to what one could deduce from the words and style of the newscaster’s story. Full-color footage of the death of Víctor Julio Suárez Rojas, alias Jorge Briceño Suárez o "Mono Jojoy." It is the fiercest blow received by the FARC, the speaker confirmed, exceeding the death of Manuel Marulanda and of Raúl Reyes put together. A devastating action, he affirmed. What could be deduced was that a spectacular battle had taken place involving 30 fighter planes, 27 helicopters, and complete battalions of select troops engaged in fierce fighting.

Really, something more than the battles of Carabobo, Pichincha and Ayacucho rolled together. With my old experience in these kinds of combat, I could not imagine such a battle in a forested and remote region of Colombia. The out-of-the-ordinary action was spiced up with images of all kinds, old and new, of the rebel comandante. For the CNN newscaster, Alfonso Cano, who replaced Marulanda, was a university intellectual who did not enjoy the support of the combatants; the real chief had died. The FARC would have to surrender.

Let’s speak clearly. The news referring to the famous battle that resulted in the death of the comandante of the FARC – a Colombian revolutionary movement that emerged more than 50 years ago after the death of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, assassinated by the oligarchy – and the removal from office of Piedad Córdoba, are very far from bringing peace to Colombia; on the contrary, they could accelerate revolutionary changes in that country.

I imagine that more than a few Colombian soldiers are embarrassed about the grotesque versions of the alleged battle in which Comandante Jorge Briceño Suárez died. In the first place, there was no fighting whatsoever. It was a crude and disgraceful assassination. Admiral Edgar Cely, perhaps embarrassed at the war report with which the official authority announced the news and other obscure versions, stated: "Jorge Briceño, alias ‘Mono Jojoy’, died from being crushed when… the building in which he was hidden in the selva fell in on him." "’What we know is that he died from being crushed, his bunker fell in on him,’ […] ‘it is not true that he was shot in the head.’" That is what he informed the Caracol Radio station, according to the U.S. AP news agency.

The operation was given the biblical name "Sodom," one of the two cities castigated because of its sinners, a deluge of fire and sulfur rained down on it.

The most serious part is what has not been told, and which everyone already knows, because the yankis themselves have made it public.

The government of the United States supplied its ally with more than 30 smart bombs. A GPS was installed in the boots that they gave the guerrilla chief. Guided by that instrument, the programmed bombs exploded in the camp where Jorge Briceño was located.

Why not explain the truth to the world? Why did they suggest a battle that never took place?

I have observed other shameful events via television. The president of the United States gave Uribe an effusive welcome in Washington, and supported him by offering classes on "democracy" in a U.S. university.

Uribe was one of the principal creators of the paramilitary structure, whose members are responsible for the increase in drug trafficking and the death of tens of thousands of people. It was with Barack Obama that Uribe signed the handover of seven military bases and, virtually, in any part of Colombian territory, for the installation of the men and equipment of the yanki armed forces. The country is full of clandestine cemeteries. Through Ban Ki-Moon, Obama granted Uribe immunity by appointing him no less than vice president of the commission investigating the attack on the flotilla transporting aid to the blockaded Palestinians in Gaza.

In the final days of his presidency, the operation utilizing the GPS in the new boots that the Colombian guerrilla needed was already prepared.

When the new president of Colombia traveled to the United States to speak in the General Assembly, he knew that the operation was underway, and when Obama heard of the news of the guerrilla’s assassination, he effusively embraced Santos.

I ask myself if, on that occasion, something was said about the implementation of the decision by the Colombian Senate to declare illegal Uribe’s authorization for establishing yanki military bases there. The gross assassination was supported by them.

I have criticized the FARC. In a Reflection I publicly stated my disagreement with the holding of prisoners of war and the sacrifice for them implied by the harsh conditions of life in the selva. I explained the reasons and the experience acquired in our struggle.

I was critical of the strategic concepts of the Colombian guerrilla movement. But I never refuted the revolutionary nature of the FARC.

I considered and consider that Marulanda was one of the most outstanding Colombian and Latin American guerrillas. When the names of many mediocre politicians have been forgotten, the name of Marulanda will be acknowledged as one of the most dignified and worthy fighters for the wellbeing of the campesinos, the workers and the poor of Latin America.

The prestige and moral authority of Piedad Córdoba has multiplied.



Fidel Castro Ruz

September 30, 2010

11:36 a.m.

granma.cu

Bahamas Blog International

Serving CARICOM's interest; not some other country's

By Sir Ronald Sanders:


A row has broken out in St Vincent and the Grenadines over the possible candidature of that small Caribbean country for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for the period 2011-2012 in opposition to Colombia.

The St Vincent Opposition Leader, Arnhim Eustace, is claiming that, in seeking to be elected to the Security Council as a representative of the 33-member Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) group, the Ralph Gonsalves government is carrying out the wishes of Venezuela’s populist President, Hugo Chavez, simply to deprive Colombia of the seat.

Chavez and the Colombian government have been openly hostile to each other in an increasingly worsening situation (about which more later).

This row in St Vincent could be replicated throughout the LAC group, and may spread to the general assembly of all UN member countries if the group does not decide on a single candidate for the one seat allocated to it.

Historically, the LAC group has been able to reach consensus on one candidate. There have only been five contested elections over the years, and since 1966 when CARICOM countries began the process of becoming independent states, three Caribbean countries have been selected by the LAC group for the Security Council five times. Guyana was selected for the periods 1975-76 and 1982-83; Jamaica for the periods 1979-80 and 2000-2001; and Trinidad and Tobago for the period 1985-86.

Eustace claims that the St Vincent government is contesting selection in the LAC group because the country’s Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves is tied to Chavez though membership of ALBA, a grouping of eight countries formed at Chavez’s initiative and in which, it is said, Chavez exercises influence over the others by virtue of the Venezuelan government’s financial contribution to their political survival.

It is widely felt that Chavez does not want Colombia on the Security Council because he regards that country’s government as a proxy for the United States administration. Chavez has criticised a US-Colombia military pact under which the US has access to military bases in Colombia. According to Chavez, the military bases would be used for espionage purposes and would allow US troops there to launch a military offensive against Venezuela.

For its part, the Colombia government has accused Chavez of collaboration with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a rebel military group that is seeking to topple the government.

The last time a bitter contest in the LAC group for a Security Council seat occurred was 2006 when Guatemala clashed with Venezuela and neither country could muster sufficient support to be endorsed as the undisputed candidate.

The battle then proceeded to the UN general assembly but not before Chávez had invested millions of dollars in a year-long campaign to get Venezuela elected to one of 10 non-permanent seats. After 48 ballots and two weeks of voting, neither country secured the two-thirds majority to clinch the contest and, eventually, the LAC group became actively involved in finding a compromise candidate in Panama but the process left much bad feeling all round.

In response to the Arnhim Eustace’s claims, Prime Minister Gonsalves released a document used to brief Caribbean Community (CARICOM) leaders during a meeting in Brazil in April regarding his government’s position on the non-permanent Security Council seat.

A Caribbean Media Corporation report says that the document “acknowledged that the island’s proposed candidacy ‘would likely necessitate a campaign against Columbia (sic)’, which is currently a declared candidate for the sole vacancy allocated to the Group of Latin American and Caribbean (GRULAC) in the October 2010 elections”.

However, the document is also reported as saying that St Vincent’s “proposed candidacy is less a challenge to Columbia (sic) than it is an advancement of a principled position on the representation of CARICOM, SIDS (Small Island Developing States) and small states at the upper echelons of multilateral diplomacy”.

No one can question the right of the St Vincent government to offer itself within the LAC group as a candidate for the Security Council seat. But the timing of the decision is curious because in 2009 the group had settled that Colombia would be the candidate for the 2011-2012 term. This tacit decision was made when Colombia wanted to be selected for the 2010-2011 term but conceded to Brazil.

It would have served both St Vincent and the LAC group better if the government had declared its decision to run for the 2011-12 term before Colombia had secured the nod of the group especially Brazil, and before relations deteriorated to its present sore point between Colombia and Venezuela.

The St Vincent document suggested that CARICOM countries should endorse the country’s candidature but that, if it did not prevail, another CARICOM country should step in as a “compromise candidate”. This suggests that the government is not confident of its capacity to knock Colombia out of the contest and that the issue would have to go to the full UN body where a two-thirds majority would be required for success.

If CARICOM member states vote as a bloc in the LAC group they would command 14 of the 33 votes, but the dispute would continue once Colombia held out. Nonetheless, CARICOM countries, acting together, could certainly block Colombia’s selection if it were their intention to ensure that one of their members should be the candidate.

There is a case for a CARICOM country to be the candidate for the 2011-2012 term. Since the Caribbean joined the LAC group, Colombia has served four terms and the larger countries – Argentina, Brazil and Mexico in particular – have dominated. But, being on the Security Council is not a cheap affair particularly if election is preceded by a contest with a richer country.

A small Caribbean country would have to invest heavily in the election campaign travelling around the world to drum up support. Then, it would have to strengthen its mission with qualified people, meeting the significantly increased costs for two-years. If it does not beef up its mission, it will do nothing more than warm the Council seat some of the time. That would do no good for the work of the Security Council and would convince the international community that small states have no place there. All of CARICOM would have to pitch in financially and with qualified people.

The situation would be worse if a non-CARICOM country paid the bill. The international community would see this as “he who pays the piper, calling the tune”, and CARICOM’s standing would be diminished to its detriment. This is not far-fetched; it happens now in the International Whaling Commission where Japan finances the participation of some small states and directs their votes.

If CARICOM countries decide to support St Vincent or another one of their small members against Colombia for as important an organ as the UN Security Council where all eyes will be focussed on them, they must be prepared to meet the costs, and they should ensure that the candidature is in their own interests and not to promote the policies of any other country.

May 7, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International