Wash Post Passes Off Propaganda As News
As my first post, I will present a recent rant by radical free-marketeer Marcela Sanchez that was presented in the paper as news. The original article is in normal font, and my comments are in parentheses and italicized:
Uribe Not Just Another Chavez
By Marcela Sanchez
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, January 20, 2005; 10:30 PM
WASHINGTON -- (US supported right wing extremist) Colombian President Alvaro Uribe (who's administration is second in receipt of US government dollars behind Israel) is a man of unbending determination (to sell off Colombia's natural resources to international investors for handsome bribe money which will exit the country and appear in foreign banks in the same manner as that of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, and to murder or eliminate any reasonable resistance to his plan, called Plan Colombia in the US). Obsessed with denying Colombia's (Uribe's, not Colombia's) insurgents any refuge until they are serious about peace, (the so-called insurgents are Uribe's opposition in Colombia's 40 year old civil war and control or influence half of the country. Note the striking resemblance of Sanchez's statement to ultra-right hardliners in Israel toward Palestinians whose land is illegally being taken and occupied) he ordered the capture of Rodrigo Granda, (he relayed Washington's order to bribe Venezuelan security officials to capture Granda) an international spokesman of Colombia's largest insurgency group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), (It would seem to be natural common sense for neighbors of Colombia to be on speaking terms with both sides in Colombia's civil war to assure security and help domestic business function effectively in trade with Colombia) who had been living a comfortable life in Venezuela. (As opposed to the 70,000 FARC members who are living comfortable lives in Columbia. Also, please note the Granda was not on any kind of official Colombian wanted list nor that of Interpol until after his kidnapping.)
Granda was arrested by Colombian police in the border town of Cucuta, Colombia, after (bribed)Venezuelan authorities seized him in Caracas and handed him over. (Uribe then lied or was lied to by trusted military officials and said that Granda was captured in Colombian territory) What might have been celebrated (in Washington) at the time as a victory for international law enforcement cooperation (between Washington and Bogota) took a nasty turn when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez claimed (correctly) that Colombia had "bribed'' Venezuelan officials to kidnap Granda. Decrying this violation of Venezuela's sovereignty, Chavez withdrew his ambassador from Bogota, ordered the suspension of trade deals with Colombia and demanded an apology from Uribe. (Actually, he first demanded an apology, and when Uribe refused he pulled the ambassador and suspended trade)
Although Venezuelan officials later softened Chavez's reaction a bit, (I haven't read this anywhere else, except that Venezuelan President Chavez said that he didn't want to let the US ruin relations between Uribe and Venezuela) his comments marked the beginning of the biggest crisis between the two nations in years. For their part, Colombian officials said they did no more than pay a "reward'' for information about Granda. (Actually, US officials supplied the information as confirmed in a State Department briefing on 24 Jan: MR. ERELI: "Well, I mean, to the extent that we encourage the Government of Venezuela to act on information that there are terrorists resident on their territory and using their territory for terrorist activity, I guess you could say we're involved. But -- and, you know, to the extent that we help provide information and share information, yes. But that's what we're doing." For the entire and very revealing transcript, click here: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0501/S00253.htm As for the "reward" for this information, one can only wonder which of Colombia's natural resources it will be.) They said that they will prove they tried to secure his arrest and that of other FARC leaders in Venezuela through official and diplomatic routes. (A vague statement with no time from from un-named Colombian 'officials' such that no one can be held accountable when it fails to materialize.)
We may never (want to) know all the details of a crisis that hinges largely on competing versions of events. (And even if we do, we certainly won't publish them!) Without a doubt, Uribe's actions confirmed the beliefs of many of his (US) supporters that he will do whatever it takes to achieve a lasting peace in Colombia. (And without a doubt, the same people believe, at least officially, that they are achieving peace in Israel, Iraq and Haiti by liberating formerly sovereign natural resources and assassinating those who dare to defend their sovereignty and assets.) But he also emboldened opponents who say the United States' staunchest ally in South America has little regard for rule of law and chose expediency over due process. (Yeah, like at least put the guy on a wanted list and give the Venezuelan government the chance to react.)
They charge that Uribe is so fanatical about his agenda that he is little different from Washington's nemesis in the region -- Hugo Chavez. (I haven't seen that 'charge' anywhere else. I think most people would rather say that Uribe is so fanatical about his agenda that he is little different from, say, Donald Rumsfeld, or Karl Rove.)
In Colombia, in particular, Uribe and Chavez are depicted by some opinion-makers (the international oligopoly of mass media conglomerates that often incorrectly report facts to further their own interests) as two caudillos of old -- shortsighted leaders who share a heightened sense of nationalism, an authoritarian bent and a disregard for institutional channels that put their nations at risk. (And the reaction they're hoping for is to sway public opinion to not react so negatively as to be disruptive when the Marines are sent in to liberate assets.)
Here in Washington, nongovernmental organizations in particular believe Uribe has simply shown his stripes. They say Uribe's latest move recalls his persistent and impassioned attacks on human rights groups and others who dare question him on his peace efforts with right-wing paramilitary (terrorist) groups. (Including his proposition that the perpetrators of the worst kinds of imaginable acts of torture, destruction, and mass murder of innocents should walk as free men) If anything, they add, Washington's unconditional support has made Uribe believe he can stand above the law and adopt foreign tactics not unlike Washington's (and US supported Israel's) pre-emptive strike policy.
There is little doubt that Uribe committed some kind of an affront to Venezuelan sovereignty. Uribe (the US) distrusted the highest authorities in Venezuela to assist him in detaining Granda and acted without their consent, a fact suggested by the Colombian government's assertion that they have concrete evidence (from the US, see State Dept. press briefing above, who incidentally were consistently wrong on such basic 'facts' as the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) showing members of the FARC frequently hide in Venezuela with high-level acquiescence.
But it was Chavez who -- a month later (after investigations had taken place and reports made portraying the reality of what had transpired)-- heightened the situation into a crisis. (Demanding an apology for the bribing of public officials is a crisis?) Perhaps it was an attempt to please his political base and garner some kind of solidarity from an international community more and more sensitive about issues of sovereignty. (Perhaps Uribe's move was an attempt to please his US based political base and garner some kind of solidarity from the US and its client states) But his belated reaction did more to highlight his unpredictability (took the oligopoly by surprise, did he? Or is this statement just intended to label him unpredictable?) than to convince anyone he suddenly had become an advocate for international law. (Is this supposed to imply that somehow he is not an advocate for international law without providing any details at all? Was the US a supporter of international law when it vetoed the creation of an International Court that could hold it accountable, or does it always seem to operate outside of international law? South of Texas, the US seems to have trouble following its own laws. Anyone remember the Iran-Contra affair and Oliver North defying the US Congress even an explanation? What about the overthrow of democratically elected Presidents in the Southern hemisphere?)
In fact, Chavez has rejected any assistance from the international community (US client states who the US wants involved in what should be a bilateral discussion) to resolve the crisis (to Uribe's benefit), including offers of mediation from Peru, (who's US supported President has a 10% approval rating) Brazil (who sent troops to Haiti upon US request to help control the opposition created when democratically elected Aristide was overthrown by US supported thugs, and itching for a seat on the UN Security Council) and Mexico (ultra-right free trade advocates involved in their own suppression of leftward leaning Zapatista rebels.) Instead, Chavez, who sees the dispute in personal (bi-national) terms, would prefer a handholding session (a reconciliation of common trade interests) only after Uribe has asked him for forgiveness. (apologized for the illegal breach of sovereignty)
To his credit (as viewed by the current US administration), Uribe has offered to solve the crisis by creating a joint commission to investigate what happened and reach a proper (as dictated by him and other US client states) resolution to the crisis. He has also reached out to other (client state) neighbors, acting like a (US backed) leader convinced that he cannot go it alone (because of the serious nature of his and his bosses' miscalculation as to the negative effects of the action on public opinion.) Indeed the onus is on Uribe to convince (all, not just the US client states) his neighbors, even if he cannot convince his critics, that the Granda case was the exception (please trust me, I won't do it again) that proves the rule -- international cooperation (international persecution of political opposition) is the best way to defeat Colombia's internal terrorism (Civil war based on economics) threat. (to the health of his administration)
During his first days in office, Uribe spoke eloquently about how Colombia's conflict requires "unconventional, imaginative and transparent solutions.'' With the Granda arrest, Uribe has clearly shown he can be unconventional. (How is it unconventional or imaginative to do what the government who pays you billions of dollars without accountability says to do?) Now he could use imagination and transparency to maintain international (with the US) cooperation and reaffirm his distinction from Chavez. (For lessons on imagination, perhaps he should talk with Mr. Rumsfeld: wildly inaccurate war cost calculations, comments that deteriorating security situation in Iraq only proves that freedom now exists because these insurgents are expressing themselves, Mr. Cheney: Saddam Hussein supported the terrorists who acted on 11 September 2001, and no, I won't turn over my notes on the secret Energy Task Force meetings, or Mr. Bush: Don't 'mis-underestimate' me)
Marcela Sanchez's e-mail address is desdewash@washpost.com.
Uribe Not Just Another Chavez
By Marcela Sanchez
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, January 20, 2005; 10:30 PM
WASHINGTON -- (US supported right wing extremist) Colombian President Alvaro Uribe (who's administration is second in receipt of US government dollars behind Israel) is a man of unbending determination (to sell off Colombia's natural resources to international investors for handsome bribe money which will exit the country and appear in foreign banks in the same manner as that of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, and to murder or eliminate any reasonable resistance to his plan, called Plan Colombia in the US). Obsessed with denying Colombia's (Uribe's, not Colombia's) insurgents any refuge until they are serious about peace, (the so-called insurgents are Uribe's opposition in Colombia's 40 year old civil war and control or influence half of the country. Note the striking resemblance of Sanchez's statement to ultra-right hardliners in Israel toward Palestinians whose land is illegally being taken and occupied) he ordered the capture of Rodrigo Granda, (he relayed Washington's order to bribe Venezuelan security officials to capture Granda) an international spokesman of Colombia's largest insurgency group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), (It would seem to be natural common sense for neighbors of Colombia to be on speaking terms with both sides in Colombia's civil war to assure security and help domestic business function effectively in trade with Colombia) who had been living a comfortable life in Venezuela. (As opposed to the 70,000 FARC members who are living comfortable lives in Columbia. Also, please note the Granda was not on any kind of official Colombian wanted list nor that of Interpol until after his kidnapping.)
Granda was arrested by Colombian police in the border town of Cucuta, Colombia, after (bribed)Venezuelan authorities seized him in Caracas and handed him over. (Uribe then lied or was lied to by trusted military officials and said that Granda was captured in Colombian territory) What might have been celebrated (in Washington) at the time as a victory for international law enforcement cooperation (between Washington and Bogota) took a nasty turn when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez claimed (correctly) that Colombia had "bribed'' Venezuelan officials to kidnap Granda. Decrying this violation of Venezuela's sovereignty, Chavez withdrew his ambassador from Bogota, ordered the suspension of trade deals with Colombia and demanded an apology from Uribe. (Actually, he first demanded an apology, and when Uribe refused he pulled the ambassador and suspended trade)
Although Venezuelan officials later softened Chavez's reaction a bit, (I haven't read this anywhere else, except that Venezuelan President Chavez said that he didn't want to let the US ruin relations between Uribe and Venezuela) his comments marked the beginning of the biggest crisis between the two nations in years. For their part, Colombian officials said they did no more than pay a "reward'' for information about Granda. (Actually, US officials supplied the information as confirmed in a State Department briefing on 24 Jan: MR. ERELI: "Well, I mean, to the extent that we encourage the Government of Venezuela to act on information that there are terrorists resident on their territory and using their territory for terrorist activity, I guess you could say we're involved. But -- and, you know, to the extent that we help provide information and share information, yes. But that's what we're doing." For the entire and very revealing transcript, click here: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0501/S00253.htm As for the "reward" for this information, one can only wonder which of Colombia's natural resources it will be.) They said that they will prove they tried to secure his arrest and that of other FARC leaders in Venezuela through official and diplomatic routes. (A vague statement with no time from from un-named Colombian 'officials' such that no one can be held accountable when it fails to materialize.)
We may never (want to) know all the details of a crisis that hinges largely on competing versions of events. (And even if we do, we certainly won't publish them!) Without a doubt, Uribe's actions confirmed the beliefs of many of his (US) supporters that he will do whatever it takes to achieve a lasting peace in Colombia. (And without a doubt, the same people believe, at least officially, that they are achieving peace in Israel, Iraq and Haiti by liberating formerly sovereign natural resources and assassinating those who dare to defend their sovereignty and assets.) But he also emboldened opponents who say the United States' staunchest ally in South America has little regard for rule of law and chose expediency over due process. (Yeah, like at least put the guy on a wanted list and give the Venezuelan government the chance to react.)
They charge that Uribe is so fanatical about his agenda that he is little different from Washington's nemesis in the region -- Hugo Chavez. (I haven't seen that 'charge' anywhere else. I think most people would rather say that Uribe is so fanatical about his agenda that he is little different from, say, Donald Rumsfeld, or Karl Rove.)
In Colombia, in particular, Uribe and Chavez are depicted by some opinion-makers (the international oligopoly of mass media conglomerates that often incorrectly report facts to further their own interests) as two caudillos of old -- shortsighted leaders who share a heightened sense of nationalism, an authoritarian bent and a disregard for institutional channels that put their nations at risk. (And the reaction they're hoping for is to sway public opinion to not react so negatively as to be disruptive when the Marines are sent in to liberate assets.)
Here in Washington, nongovernmental organizations in particular believe Uribe has simply shown his stripes. They say Uribe's latest move recalls his persistent and impassioned attacks on human rights groups and others who dare question him on his peace efforts with right-wing paramilitary (terrorist) groups. (Including his proposition that the perpetrators of the worst kinds of imaginable acts of torture, destruction, and mass murder of innocents should walk as free men) If anything, they add, Washington's unconditional support has made Uribe believe he can stand above the law and adopt foreign tactics not unlike Washington's (and US supported Israel's) pre-emptive strike policy.
There is little doubt that Uribe committed some kind of an affront to Venezuelan sovereignty. Uribe (the US) distrusted the highest authorities in Venezuela to assist him in detaining Granda and acted without their consent, a fact suggested by the Colombian government's assertion that they have concrete evidence (from the US, see State Dept. press briefing above, who incidentally were consistently wrong on such basic 'facts' as the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) showing members of the FARC frequently hide in Venezuela with high-level acquiescence.
But it was Chavez who -- a month later (after investigations had taken place and reports made portraying the reality of what had transpired)-- heightened the situation into a crisis. (Demanding an apology for the bribing of public officials is a crisis?) Perhaps it was an attempt to please his political base and garner some kind of solidarity from an international community more and more sensitive about issues of sovereignty. (Perhaps Uribe's move was an attempt to please his US based political base and garner some kind of solidarity from the US and its client states) But his belated reaction did more to highlight his unpredictability (took the oligopoly by surprise, did he? Or is this statement just intended to label him unpredictable?) than to convince anyone he suddenly had become an advocate for international law. (Is this supposed to imply that somehow he is not an advocate for international law without providing any details at all? Was the US a supporter of international law when it vetoed the creation of an International Court that could hold it accountable, or does it always seem to operate outside of international law? South of Texas, the US seems to have trouble following its own laws. Anyone remember the Iran-Contra affair and Oliver North defying the US Congress even an explanation? What about the overthrow of democratically elected Presidents in the Southern hemisphere?)
In fact, Chavez has rejected any assistance from the international community (US client states who the US wants involved in what should be a bilateral discussion) to resolve the crisis (to Uribe's benefit), including offers of mediation from Peru, (who's US supported President has a 10% approval rating) Brazil (who sent troops to Haiti upon US request to help control the opposition created when democratically elected Aristide was overthrown by US supported thugs, and itching for a seat on the UN Security Council) and Mexico (ultra-right free trade advocates involved in their own suppression of leftward leaning Zapatista rebels.) Instead, Chavez, who sees the dispute in personal (bi-national) terms, would prefer a handholding session (a reconciliation of common trade interests) only after Uribe has asked him for forgiveness. (apologized for the illegal breach of sovereignty)
To his credit (as viewed by the current US administration), Uribe has offered to solve the crisis by creating a joint commission to investigate what happened and reach a proper (as dictated by him and other US client states) resolution to the crisis. He has also reached out to other (client state) neighbors, acting like a (US backed) leader convinced that he cannot go it alone (because of the serious nature of his and his bosses' miscalculation as to the negative effects of the action on public opinion.) Indeed the onus is on Uribe to convince (all, not just the US client states) his neighbors, even if he cannot convince his critics, that the Granda case was the exception (please trust me, I won't do it again) that proves the rule -- international cooperation (international persecution of political opposition) is the best way to defeat Colombia's internal terrorism (Civil war based on economics) threat. (to the health of his administration)
During his first days in office, Uribe spoke eloquently about how Colombia's conflict requires "unconventional, imaginative and transparent solutions.'' With the Granda arrest, Uribe has clearly shown he can be unconventional. (How is it unconventional or imaginative to do what the government who pays you billions of dollars without accountability says to do?) Now he could use imagination and transparency to maintain international (with the US) cooperation and reaffirm his distinction from Chavez. (For lessons on imagination, perhaps he should talk with Mr. Rumsfeld: wildly inaccurate war cost calculations, comments that deteriorating security situation in Iraq only proves that freedom now exists because these insurgents are expressing themselves, Mr. Cheney: Saddam Hussein supported the terrorists who acted on 11 September 2001, and no, I won't turn over my notes on the secret Energy Task Force meetings, or Mr. Bush: Don't 'mis-underestimate' me)
Marcela Sanchez's e-mail address is desdewash@washpost.com.
posted by Odysseus at 11:33 am
<< Home