Washington and the Colombian Elections

[Judi Lynn]

Aldo Civico
Director of the Center for International Conflict Resolution at Columbia Univeristy
Posted: May 30, 2010 01:33 PM

Washington and the Colombian Elections

There is an anecdote circulating in Washington. It is about a meeting between the Colombian foreign minister Bermudez and the president of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, senator John Kerry. It was the dawn of the Obama administration. It was a rough meeting. Senator Kerry made clear to Bermudez that there was a new game in town and that scandals such as the euphemistically called false positives - the kidnapping and killing of almost 2000 innocent young men by members of the Army - would not be tolerated. Colombian officials present at the meeting paled, and Bermudez kept his gaze fixed at the floor. In Bogota, the perception is that with the Obama administration the mood in Washington changed dramatically. Gone were the days of great cultural and political tuning between Uribe and Bush. Gone the days in which glorious reports reached the desks of the State Department and the Pentagon. For Washington's changed attitude, in Colombia many blame the democrats and Obama himself.

There is no doubt, that the message in Washington changed since Obama is at the White House, but not just for Colombia. And yes, this administration--though slow in defining a coherent policy towards Latin America--is putting greater emphasis on human rights and the role of the judiciary. But this is not the main, or at least, the only reason why the relationship between Bogota and Washington got colder over the last year. A lot has to do with the scandals of the false positives and the illegal wiretappings and death threats and the killings of human rights activists engineered by the Colombian secrete service, the DAS, which depends directly from the president's office. Recent statements by former members of the paramilitary about extra judicial killings by members of the military in the Meta region, where the U.S. has heavily invested, increased the anxiety of U.S. government officials and the frustration of influential members of Congress. Revealing the dark side of a security policy enthusiastically supported by the U.S. Government because of its many positive results in the fight against the FARC, the scandals are deeply worrying and embarrassing Washington. For much less president Nixon had to resign and for much less the U.S. took away the visa from president Ernesto Samper, whose campaign was partly financed with narco trafficking money.

The next president of Colombia will have to make sure not only that false positives and illegal wiretapping and alliances of politicians with illegal armed groups will not be tolerated, but that the cases will not be left with impunity. In these days in Washington different views and opinions are debated on the opportunity to grant to Colombia next August the certification on human rights. At stake is the continued financial support for the so-called consolidation strategy, the updated version of Plan Colombia, which has always met the convinced and almost uncritical support of both the republican as well as the democratic administrations.

It is not a secret that nobody in Washington supported and wanted a second reelection of president Uribe. A matter of principle, rather then a statement against Uribe, whose government has found in general wide and bipartisan support. And Washington has looked with sympathy at the present electoral process, at its healthy dynamic and plurality. And certainly the unexpected enthusiasm for Antanas Mockus, the eccentric former mayor of Bogota, has surprised also Washington that thought the victory of Uribe's political heir, Juna Manuel Santos, was a done deal. But Washington has not bend towards either Santos or Mockus.

More:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aldo-civico/washington-and-the-colomb_b_594836.html

[Peace Patriot]

1. Is this guy angling for a big USAID grant or what?

This article is unbelievably blind to the realities of the U.S./Colombia relationship, which is based on $7 BILLION in U.S. taxpayer support for killing thousands of union leaders, human rights workers, community organizers, political leftists, journalists, peasant farmers and others, and displacing 3 to 4 MILLION peasant farmers, on behalf of Monsanto, Chiquita, Occidental Petroleum, Dyncorp, et al, and U.S. military occupation of Colombia for those purposes, including use of at least seven Colombian military bases, unfettered use by the U.S. military of all civilian infrastructure and "total diplomatic immunity" for all U.S. soldiers and U.S. 'contractors' no matter what they do in Colombia.

"The attention of the United States will certainly increase in the upcoming weeks (1), as the second round approaches. Sure, in Washington Santos is not only well known, but in general also appreciated. The Obama administration and several members in Congress don't blame him for the false positive. They are aware of his attempts to reform from within the Colombian military and to promote among the ranks a culture and a practice of human rights (2). They have been always supportive of the military strategy against the FARC and are deeply convinced about the consolidation strategy that was designed under Santos' leadership (2). If Santos wins, Washington sees it as an opportunity to continue and to strengthen with him and his men a good collaboration. Santos is well known and will not represent any surprise." --Three Blind Mice

(1) CIA Director Leon Panetta is already paying quite close attention with a personal visit to Bogota a few weeks ago, probably to jettison Uribe in favor of the equally filthy Manuel Santos (the 'Donald Rumsfeld' of Latin America), to evaluate how well U.S. anti-democratic policies have worked to fix elections in Colombia in favor of the interests of multinational corporations and war profiteers and to vet Mockus (warn Mockus? make a deal with Mockus?) to insure that nobody who supports Colombia's sovereignty and/or who represents and advocates for the poor majority will be (s)elected.

(2) Here's an example of Manuel Santos' "consolidation strategy"...

The La Macarena massacre (includes a description of, and links to docs about, U.S. ops in La Macarena)
http://www.cipcol.org/?p=1303

The UK military connection
http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2010/02/04/silence-on-british-army-link-to-colombian-mass-grave/

U.S. and Colombia Cover Up Atrocities Through Mass Graves, by Dan Kovalik 4/1/10
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/us-colombia-cover-up-atro_b_521402.html

Colombia: Mass Grave Discovered In La Macarena
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1005/S00001.htm

----------------------------

Santos' "consolidation strategy" was designed in Washington DC and involved MASS MURDER OF CIVILIANS. Either this utterly blind writer doesn't know diddle about what "Washington" wants in Colombia or he is deliberately lying to curry favor--or, another possibility I suppose, as a personal security measure for himself and his family. Those who advocate for Colombian sovereignty (vis a vis the U.S. military occupation of Colombia and rape and plunder of Colombia by U.S.-based multinationals), or who merely advocate for simple social justice and human rights, have a short life span in Colombia. Best to pretend that horrors like the 2,000 stinking corpses in La Macarena, nearby to a U.S. military base, in a "pacification" plan written by the USAID, do not exist and, gee, Washington will be thrilled to have whoever the Colombian people 'choose' to be their president. I am not particularly impressed with Mockus. I think it is more than likely that he is part two of the one-two punch of death and horror "pacification" followed by "free trade for the rich." Anybody who is acceptable to Washington is PART of Washington and its corporate war machine, believe me. Santos will be "no surprise" (according to this writer). Neither will Mockus. "Washington" does not allow "surprises" in its client states.

There may be a two-track policy in "Washington"--and even some tension between the tracks. The Obama administration (Clinton, Panetta) may prefer more democratic cosmetics whereas the past and current Bushwhacks go all out for blood and gore. This DOES NOT MEAN that democracy, peace and social justice will be permitted in a country of such enormous importance to our corporate rulers and war profiteers and to the war planners in the Pentagon.