The War in Colombia and Why It Continues

[Judi Lynn]

Weekend Edition June 12-14, 2015

Where Ecocide Turns Into Genocide

The War in Colombia and Why It Continues

by W.T. WHITNEY Jr.


In Havana, representatives of the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) have been negotiating peace for 30 months. The war they are trying to end has killed or disappeared 250,000 Colombians over 25 years. The future of the talks is uncertain.

“Today the mountains and forests of Colombia are the heart of Latin America.” At an international forum on Colombia on June 8, former Uruguayan President Jose Mujica was saying that developments in Colombia, including the peace process, are “the most important in Latin America.”

Interviewed on May 30, head FARC negotiator Iván Márquez, asserted that “confidence at the negotiating table is badly impaired and that only a bilateral ceasefire can help the process advance.” He said deaths of “human rights defenders including over 100 members of the Patriotic March coalition” and “persecution of leaders of the social movements” were poisoning the atmosphere.

Since March in Cúcuta, thugs have killed four labor leaders, including on June 2 Alex Fabián Espinosa, a member of the MOVICE human rights group. In May assassins killed community leader Juan David Quintana and professor and social activist Luis Fernando Wolff, both in Medellin. Analyst Azalea Robles says that “a total of 19 human rights defenders were murdered in Columbia during the first four months of 2015.”

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/12/the-war-in-colombia-and-why-it-continues/

Good reads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016124687

[COLGATE4]

1. All you have to know about the article:

"On April 15, FARC guerrillas killed 11 Colombian soldiers in Buenos Aires (Cauca). According to Márquez, “They were defending themselves following the disembarkation of troops [from aircraft] who were advancing on them.” In apparent retaliation, the Colombian military, bombing from the air, killed 27 guerrillas on May 21 in Guapi (Cauca). The FARC immediately ended the unilateral, indefinite ceasefire it declared in December, 2014."

So, during the ceasefire agreed to by both parties FARC ambushes and kills 11 soldiers. [Note the unsupported by facts attempted justification: "They were defending themselves following the disembarkation of troops from aircraft who were advancing on them.

Getting back to reality, once the ceasefire was broken by FARC, the Colombian military responded by bombing FARC guerrillas in Cauca.

But it was obviously the Colombian military that broke the truce!!!

[Peace Patriot]

2. If the situation is so black and white, and all the FARC's fault, then why...

...is the Colombian Inspector General investigating the Colombian military's actions in that alleged ambush?

Military commanders investigated over FARC attack that killed 11 soldiers

Colombia’s Inspector General’s office has opened an investigation against nine members of the military, alleging that their negligence and omission of information attributed to the killing of 11 soldiers in a recent FARC attack.

(SNIP)

(An NGO investigating the incident) reportedly spoke to 300 local residents, many of whose stories contrasted with a number of details from what the military initially reported.

Specifically, eyewitness testimony sharply contradicted reports that military soldiers were defenseless according to the Broad Front for Peace’s investigation. Also, the fighting reportedly lasted for some five to six hours, contradicting the original report that claimed it was over in minutes.

Local media also reported on locals contradicting the official version.

(MORE)

http://colombiareports.com/military-commanders-investigated-over-farc-attack-that-killed-11/

You're taking your information from the Corporate News, which is notorious for NOT FOLLOWING UP on news stories where deeper investigation might harm Corporate/Military boondoggles. So, they report that the FARC broke the truce, but FAIL TO REPORT that hundreds of locals including local news stations questioned the Colombian military version of events, NOR that the Colombian Inspector General ALSO suspects that the military was lying and hiding evidence.

So let me give you a very probable scenario of the incident, based on this information that is NOT to be found in the Corporate press: Many in the top ranks of the Colombian military oppose the peace talks, cuz the Colombian civil war has been their 'gravy train' for 5 to 7 DECADES, most recently with the SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS of U.S. taxpayer money poured into their coffers. They want to STOP the peace talks. Some of these fascist officers therefore IGNORE safety protocols and deliberately send their soldiers into harm's way, and then lie about every aspect of the encounter--from its length to the weapons used--in their reports.

That is the picture that is emerging. It has not been proven either way, but, with hundreds of locals, local news organizations, a human rights NGO and the Inspector General all questioning the military's story, we really need to hesitate over the unvetted headlines about the bad FARC and the helpless, hapless Colombian military getting ambushed.

You need to question Corporate News stories. You need to ask, "Who benefits?" You need to seek out alternative information, and weigh conflicting stories as to their source and internal coherence and/or bias.

And maybe you need to ask: How did we get into the Iraq War, and what role did the Corporate Press play in that horror? They LIE, you know, in favor of lucrative murderous solutions to problems.

[Judi Lynn]

5. You are so right in asking who benefits from these acts of aggressions!

We know for a fact Uribe and his cohorts have been fighting the peace conference from the first. They clearly want to keep the money flowing into Colombia from the U.S. taxpayers, since they're all making out like bandits. Where does it go? Not to the people of Colombia, clearly. Everyone knows it.

The FARC entered into this struggle for peace with Santos because they seek peace. Anyone who doubts it needs to do some research to clear out the fog. The facts are clear.

The right-wing, the military have been fighting like wildmen, trying to destroy the peace process. Uribe's candidate for the Presidency even hired a hacker to spy on the peace conference representatives, on the meetings themselves. Not a trace of doubt who wants to keep the war going as it has for so many years, as you indicated.

How can anyone not want to look beyond the pure gibberish the crapagandists hand out daily. It doesn't satisfy an active mind and knowing heart of life-long witnesses of human behavior.

[JonLP24]

3. I've read the armed conflict traces back to the assassination of a populist in the 50's

is that correct?

Either way, I value your contributions on this because all I ever hear on Columbia is silence.

[Judi Lynn]

4. The assassinated populist presidential candidate missed seeing the 1950's by 2 years, sadly.

Clearly the right-wing saw he would win, no doubt about it, as his ideas, ideals were clear, and they would enable those who were downtrodden, and desperate.

Here's a quick look at some of his information from Wikipedia:

Jorge Eliécer Gaitán Ayala (January 23, 1903 – April 9, 1948) was a politician, a leader of a populist movement in Colombia, a former Education Minister (1940) and Labor Minister (1943–1944), mayor of Bogotá (1936) and one of the most charismatic leaders of the Liberal Party.

He was assassinated during his second presidential campaign in 1948, setting off the Bogotazo and leading to a violent period of political unrest in Colombian history known as La Violencia (approx. 1948 to 1958).

~ snip ~

Political discourse[edit]

It is said that Gaitán's main political asset was his profound and vibrant oratory, often classified as populist by contemporaries and by later analysts, which attracted hundreds of thousands of union members and low-income Colombians at the time.[5] When he was a student in Rome he was influenced by Benito Mussolini's techniques for mobilising the people.[6][7] Bernstein considered that the promises that he made to the people were as important to his appeal as his impressive public speaking skills, promises that Bernstein felt made him almost a demagogue, and which led Bernstein to compare him with Juan Perón of Argentina. (Bernstein 1960:138)

In particular, he repeatedly divided the country into the oligarchy and the people, calling the former corrupt and the latter admirable, worthy, and deserving of Colombia's moral restoration. He stirred the audience's emotions by aggressively denouncing social, moral and economical evils stemming both from the Liberal and Conservative political parties, promising his supporters that a better future was possible if they all worked together against such evils.

In 1946, Gaitán referred to the difference between what he called the "political country" and the "national country". Accordingly, the "political country" was controlled by the interests of the oligarchy and its internal struggles, therefore it did not properly respond to the real demands of the "national country"; that is, the country made up of citizens in need of better socioeconomic conditions and greater sociopolitical freedom.

He was criticized by the more orthodox sectors of the Colombian Liberal Party (who considered him too unruly), most of the Colombian Conservative Party, the leadership of the Colombian Communist Party (who saw him as a competitor for the political affections of the masses)(1960:137). Gaitán was warned by U.S. Ambassador Beaulac on March 24, 1948 that Communists were planning a disruption of the impending conference and that his Liberal Party would likely be blamed.[8]

The subject of future land reform was also prominent in some of his speeches.

~ snip ~

An unclear crime of homicide

It is widely speculated that Gaitán would likely have been elected President had he not been assassinated on April 9, 1948. (Weyl 1960:4,7) (United Fruit Historical Society) This assassination occurred immediately prior to the armed insurrection or Bogotazo.(Weyl 1960:4-21)(United Fruit Historical Society) Dr. Gaitán was then the leading opponent for the use of violence and had determined to pursue the strategy of electing a left-wing government, and he had repudiated the violent Communist revolutionary approach typical of the Cold War era. (Weyl 1960:15-36) His assassination directly led to a period of great violence between conservatives and liberals and also facilitated the rise of the currently existing Communist guerrillas.[9] Over the next fifteen years as many as 200,000 people died due to the disorders that followed his assassination. (Bernsein 1965:138)

Dr. Gaitán's alleged murderer, Juan Roa Sierra, was killed by an enraged mob and his motivations were never known.(Weyl 1960:18) Many different entities and individuals have been held responsible as the alleged plotters, including his different critics, but so far no definite information has come forward and a number of theories persist. Among them, there are versions which, sometimes conflictingly, implicate the government of Mariano Ospina Pérez, sectors of the Liberal party, the USSR(Weyl 1960:24) the Colombian Communist Party, the CIA and others in the crime.[10]

One of the persons supporting the theory of some sort of CIA involvement in Gaitán's murder is Gloria Gaitán[citation needed], who was 11 years old when her father was murdered. According to one version of this theory, Juan Roa Sierra acted under the orders of CIA agents John Mepples Espirito (alias Georgio Ricco) and Tomás Elliot, as part of an anti-leftist plan supposedly called Operation Pantomime.[citation needed] It is claimed that this would also have involved the complicity of the then Chief of Police, who would allegedly have ordered two police officers to abandon Juan Roa Sierra to be killed by the mob (a claim which conflicts with mainstream accounts of Roa Sierra's death).[11] An eyewitness to the actual events, Guillermo Perez Sarmiento, Director of the United Press in Colombia, stated that upon his arrival Roa was already "between two policemen" and describes in detail the angry mob that kicked and "tore him to pieces" and does not suggest any police involvement. (Weyl 1960: 16)

More:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Eli%C3%A9cer_Gait%C3%A1n

[center]



[/center]

However, in case the Colombian people didn't get the idea that they weren't going to get their leftist President, another beloved, populist man was also assassinated 40 years after that, without mentioning the thousands of far less well known leftist politicians who attempted to risk their lives, and lost, in vowing to work for the benefit of the Colombian masses.

The next tremendously admired and respected candidate was Luis Carlos Galán. Here's a quick reference from Wikipedia:

Luis Carlos Galán

Luis Carlos Galán Sarmiento (29 September 1943 – 18 August 1989) was a Colombian journalist and liberal politician who ran for the presidency of Colombia on two occasions, the first time representing the Liberal Party in 1982 which he lost to Belisario Betancur. These adverse results encouraged him to focus his aspirations in his political movement called New Liberalism that he had founded in 1979. The movement was initially the offspring of the mainstream Colombian Liberal Party but, with the mediation of former president Julio César Turbay, Galán returned to the party in 1987 and intended to win the party nomination for official candidate.

Galán declared himself enemy of the dangerous and influential Colombian drug cartels, mainly the Medellín Cartel led by Pablo Escobar (who had been part of his New Liberalism Movement) and Gonzalo Rodríguez aka "El Mexicano", that were corrupting the Colombian society at all levels. Galán supported an extradition treaty with the United States.

After receiving several death threats, on 18 August 1989 Galán was shot to death by hitmen hired by the drug cartels during a public demonstration in the town of Soacha, Cundinamarca. At the time he was comfortably leading the polls for the forthcoming 1990 Presidential election. His murder investigation remains partially unsolved.

~ snip ~

Assassination[edit]

According to accounts the first assassination threats were calls made to Galán's home telephone number after the Liberal Party convention to nominate an official candidate. Flyers were left in the mailbox threatening to kill or kidnap his children. An attempt to kill Galán with an RPG was thwarted while visiting Medellín on 4 August 1989. The assassination attempt was frustrated by men working for Waldemar Franklin Quintero, the commander of the Colombian National Police in Antioquia. Accompanying Quintero and Galán was the Mayor of Medellín, Pedro Pablo Paláez; both Paláez and Quintero would be killed within a few weeks after the assassination attempt. After these assassinations, Galán and his family restricted their travels, especially at night.[8]

Later on Galán's staff received information from the Colombian intelligence services advising him of the presence in Bogotá of a group of hitmen with the intention to kill him. His staff advised him not to travel to the town of Soacha and that the trip to Valledupar was more suitable since he was also scheduled to attend a football match in nearby Barranquilla for the 1990 FIFA World Cup qualifications and in which the Colombian team was going to play. At the last moment Galán changed his mind and ordered his staff to prepare to go to Soacha.[8]

Galán was killed as he walked onto the stage to give a speech in front of 10,000 people in Soacha. At least ten others were wounded in the gunfire.[9]

The Colombian drug cartels were worried of the possible approval in congress of an extradition treaty with the United States and political enemies feared Galán's increasing power would isolate many of them from the votes.

According to John Jairo Velásquez aka "Popeye" and Luis Carlos Aguilar aka "El Mugre", Escobar's former hitman, the assassination was planned in a farm by Pablo Escobar, Gonzalo Rodríguez aka "El Mexicano", Liberal political leader Alberto Santofimio and others. Velásquez affirmed that Santofimio had certain influence over Escobar's decision making and he had heard him say "kill him Pablo, kill him!".[10]

Other potential perpetrators were mentioned by a demobilized member of the AUC paramilitary group, "Ernesto Baez", who testified that the murder of Galán was organized by the Colombian mafia with the participation of corrupt members of the military and the DAS.[11]

More:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Carlos_Gal%C3%A1n
[center]




[/center]

Right after the murder of Gaitán, the country fell directly into a monstrous period called La Violencia, and the beginning of the struggle in earnest. Here's the information from Wikipedia, but there is so much more available online, when you have time to do a lot of reading. There's a lot to learn, and, as you know, this huge mass of reality has always been ignored by US corporate media, continually. You have to know it's there before you can look for it, and you usually find out it's there almost as if by accident, thanks to our highly politically directed kind of "journalism" here:

La Violencia (Spanish pronunciation: [la ?joˈlensja], The Violence) was the ten-year (1948–58) period of civil war in Colombia, between the Colombian Conservative Party and the Colombian Liberal Party whose respective supporters fought most battles in the rural countryside. [1][2]

"La Violencia" is considered to have begun with the 9 April 1948 assassination of the politician Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, a Liberal Party presidential candidate (for the election in November 1949 who was very popular; his political murder provoked the Bogotazo rioting that lasted for ten hours and killed some 5,000 people.[3] An alternative historical perspective of La Violencia proposed 1946 as the start of the violence, the year when the Conservatives returned to government power (see here); when rural town police and political leaders encouraged Conservative-supporting peasants to seize the agricultural lands of Liberal-supporting peasants, which provoked peasant-to-peasant violence throughout Colombia; a civil war for control of the country’s agricultural land.[3]

~ snip ~

Humanitarian consequences[edit]

Because of incomplete or non-existing statistical records, exact measurement of La Violencia’s humanitarian consequences is impossible. Scholars, however, estimate that between 200,000 and 300,000 lives were lost, 600,000 and 800,000 injured, and almost one million displaced. La Violencia affected 20% of the population, directly or indirectly.[8]

Yet, La Violencia, did not come to be known as La Violencia simply because of the number of people it affected; it was the manner in which most of the killings, maimings, and dismemberings were done. Certain death and torture techniques became so commonplace that they were given names. For example, “picar para tamal,” which involved slowly cutting up a living person’s body, or “bocachiquiar,” where hundreds of small punctures were made until the victim slowly bled to death. Former Senior Director of International Economic Affairs for the United States National Security Council and current President of the Institute for Global Economic Growth, Norman A. Bailey describes the atrocities succinctly: “Ingenious forms of quartering and beheading were invented and given such names as the "corte de mica", "corte de corbata” (aka Colombian necktie), and so on. Crucifixions and hangings were commonplace, political "prisoners" were thrown from airplanes in flight, infants were bayoneted, schoolchildren, some as young as eight years old, were raped en masse, unborn infants were removed by crude Caesarian section and replaced by roosters, ears were cut off, scalps removed, and so on”.[8] While scholars, historians, and analysts have all debated the source of this era of unrest, they have yet to formulate a widely accepted explanation for why it escalated to the notable level it did.

"La Violencia" is estimated to have cost the lives of at least 200,000 people.[4]

More:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Violencia

Hope this can help. Thank you for your comments.

[Peace Patriot]

6. Thank you, Judi Lynn! You are so awesome!