[News] Behind the Assassination of Raul Reyes

[Anti-Imperialist News]

http://www.counterpunch.org/petras03222008.html

March 22 / 23, 2008


Behind the Assassination of Raul Reyes


The Cost of Unilateral Humanitarian Initiatives

By JAMES PETRAS

President Uribe's troop and missile assault, 
violating Ecuadorian sovereignty came very close 
to precipitating a regional war with Ecuador and 
Venezuela. During an interview I had with 
President Chavez, at the time of this bellicose 
act, he confirmed to me the gravity of Uribe's 
doctrine of 'preventive war' and 
'extra-territorial intervention', calling the 
Colombian regime the 'Israel of Latin America'. 
Earlier, during his Sunday radio program 'Alo 
Presidente', in which I was an invited guest, he 
followed up with an announcement that he was 
sending ground, air and sea forces to the Venezuelan frontier with Colombia.

Uribe's cross-border attack was meant to probe 
the political 'will' of Ecuador and Venezuela to 
respond to military aggression, as well as to 
test the performance of US-coordinated remote, 
satellite directed missile attack. There is no 
doubt also that Uribe aimed to scuttle the 
imminent humanitarian release of FARC prisoner, 
Ingrid Betancourt, being negotiated by the French 
Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, Ecuador's 
Interior Minister Larrea, the Colombian Red Cross 
and especially Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. 
Kouchner, Larrea and Chavez were in direct 
contact with FARC's leader, Raul Reyes who, along 
with 22 others, including non-combatants of 
various nationalities, were assassinated in 
Ecuador by Uribe's American-coordinated missile 
and ground attack. Uribe's military intervention 
was in part directed at denying the important 
diplomatic role, which Chavez was playing in the 
release FARC-held prisoners, in contrast to the 
failure of Uribe's military efforts to 'free the prisoners'.

Raul Reyes was recognized as the legitimate 
interlocutor in these negotiations by both 
European and Latin American governments, as well 
as the Red Cross; if the negotiations succeeded 
in the prisoner release it was likely that the 
same governments and humanitarian bodies would 
pressure Uribe to open comprehensive prisoner 
exchange and peace negotiations with the FARC, 
which was contrary to Bush and Uribes' policy of 
unrelenting warfare, political assassinations and scorched earth policies.

What was at stake in Uribe's violating Ecuadorian 
sovereignty and murdering 22 FARC guerrillas and 
Mexican visitors was nothing less than the entire 
military counter-insurgency strategy, which has 
been pursued by Uribe since coming to office in 2002.

Uribe was clearly willing to risk what eventually 
happened--the censure and sanction of the 
Organization of American States and the 
(temporary) break in relations with Venezuela, 
Ecuador and Nicaragua. He did so because he could 
count on Washington's backing, which covertly 
(and illegally) participated in and immediately 
applauded the attack. That was more important 
than jeopardizing cooperation with Latin American 
nations and France. Colombia remains Washington's 
military forward shield in Latin America and, in 
particular, it is the most important 
politico-military instrument to destabilize and 
overthrow the anti-imperialist Chavez government. 
Clinton and Bush have invested over $6 billion 
dollars in military aid to Colombia over the past 
7 years, including sending 1500 military advisers 
and Special Forces, dozens of Israeli commandos 
and 'trainers', funding over 2000 mercenary 
fighters and over 10,000 paramilitary forces 
working closely with the 200,000-man strong Colombian Armed Forces.

Notwithstanding these and other international 
considerations, influencing Uribe's 
extra-territorial 'act of war', I would argue 
that the main consideration in this attack on the 
FARC campsite in Ecuador was to decapitate, 
weaken and isolate the most powerful guerrilla 
movement in Latin America and the most 
uncompromising opponent to Washington and 
Bogotá's repressive neo-liberal policies. 
International politicians, including progressive 
leaders like Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Rafael 
Correa, who have called for the end of armed 
struggle, seem to overlook the recent experiences 
of FARC efforts to de-militarize the struggle, 
including three peace initiatives (1984-1990), 
(1999-2001) and (2007-2008) and the heavy costs 
to the FARC in terms of the killing of key 
leaders, activists and sympathizers.

During the mid-1980's many leaders of the FARC 
joined the electoral process, formed a political 
party--the Patriotic Union. The scores of 
successfully elected local and national 
officeholders and5,000 of their members, leaders, 
congress-people and three presidential candidates 
were slaughtered. The FARC returned to the 
countryside and guerrilla struggle. Ten years 
later, the FARC agreed to negotiate with then 
President Pastrana in a demilitarized zone. The 
FARC held public forums, discussed policy 
alternatives for social and political reforms to 
democratize the state and debated private versus 
public ownership of strategic economic sectors 
with diverse sectors in 'civil society'. 
President Pastrana, under pressure from US 
President Clinton and later Bush, abruptly broke 
off negotiations and sent the armed forces in to 
capture the FARC's high level negotiating teams. 
The US-funded and advised Colombian military 
failed to capture the FARC leaders but set the 
stage for the scorched earth policies pursued by paramilitary President Uribe.

In 2007-2008, the FARC offered to negotiate the 
mutual release of political prisoners in a secure 
demilitarized zone in Colombia. Uribe refused. 
President Chavez entered into negotiations as a 
mediator. The French government and others 
challenged Chavez to ask for 'evidence' that the 
FARC prisoners were alive. The FARC complied with 
Chavez request. It sent three emissaries who were 
intercepted and are being detained by the 
Colombian military under brutal conditions. Still 
the FARC continued with Chavez request and 
attempted to relocate the first set of prisoners 
to be turned over to the Red Cross and Venezuelan 
officials--but they came under aerial attack by 
Uribe's armed forces thus aborting the release. 
Still later, under increased risk, they were able 
to release the first batch of captives. The 
French Foreign Minister Kouchner and Chavez made 
new requests for the release of Ingrid 
Betancourt, a dual French-Colombian national and 
former presidential candidate. This was sabotaged 
when Uribe, with high-level US technical 
assistance, launched a major military offensive 
throughout the country, including a comprehensive 
monitoring program, tracing communications 
between Reyes, Chavez, Kouchner, Larrea and the Red Cross.

It was this high-risk role played by Reyes as the 
highest level FARC official involved in the 
negotiations and coordination for captive release 
that led to his assassination. Outside pressures 
for a unilateral release of prisoners caused the 
FARC to lower their security. The result was the 
loss of leaders, negotiators, sympathizers and 
militants--without securing the release of any of 
their 500 comrades held in Colombian prisons. The 
entire emphasis of Sarkozy, Chavez, Correa and 
others demanded unilateral concessions from the 
FARC - as if their own tortured and dying 
comrades in Uribe's jails were not part of any humanitarian consideration.

The subsequent summit in the Dominican Republic 
during the weekend of March 8-9 led to a 
condemnation of Colombia's violation of Ecuador's 
territorial sovereignty, but the Uribe 
government, responsible for the invasion, was not 
actually named or officially sanctioned. 
Moreover, no mention was made (let alone respect 
shown) for the treacherously assassinated leader, 
Raul Reyes, whose life was lost in pursuit of a 
humanitarian exchange. If the meeting itself was 
a disappointing response to a tragedy, the 
aftermath was a farce: a smiling Uribe, walked 
across the meeting hall and offered a hand shake 
and perfunctory apology to Correa and Chavez, 
while Nicaraguan President Ortega embraced the 
murderous leader of Colombia. By that vile and 
cynical gesture, Uribe turned the entire military 
mobilization and weeklong denunciations by Chavez 
and Correa into a comic opera. The post-meeting 
'reconciliation' gave the appearance that their 
opposition to a cross-border attack and the 
cold-blooded murder of Reyes was merely political 
theater--a bad omen for the future if, as is 
likely, Uribe repeats his cross border attacks on 
an even larger scale. Will the people of 
Venezuela or Ecuador and the armed forces take 
serious another call for mobilization and readiness?

Less than a week after the Santa Domingo 
'reconciliation' meeting, Chavez and Uribe 
renewed an earlier military agreement to 
cooperate against 'violent groups whatever their 
origins'. Clearly Chavez hopes that by 
dissociating Venezuela from any suspicion of 
providing moral support to the FARC, Uribe will 
stop the large-scale flow of paramilitary 
infiltrators from entering Venezuela and 
destabilizing the country. In other words, 
'reasons of state' take precedence over 
solidarity with the FARC. What should be clear to 
Chavez however is the fact that Uribe will not 
abide by his side of the agreement because of his 
ties to Washington, and the latter's insistence 
that the Chavez government be destabilized by any 
or all means, including the continued 
infiltration by Colombian paramilitary forces into Venezuela.

Uribe could apologize to Correa and Chavez 
because the real purpose of his military attack 
was to destroy the FARC leadership, any way, any 
place, any time and under any circumstance--even 
in the midst of international negotiations. 
Washington placed a $5 million dollar bounty on 
each and every member of the FARC secretariat, 
long before Chavez or Correa came to power, 
Washington's top priority--as witnessed by its 
military aid programs ($6 billion dollars in 7 
years), size and scope of its military advisory 
mission (1500 US specialists) and the length of 
its involvement in counter-insurgency activities 
within Colombia (45 years)--was to destroy the FARC.

Washington and its Colombian surrogates were 
willing to incur the predictable displeasure of 
Correa, Chavez and the slap on the wrist by the 
OAS if they could succeed in killing the Number 
Two commander of the FARC. The reason is clear: 
it is the FARC and not the neighboring leaders, 
who influence a third of Colombia's countryside; 
it is the FARC's military-political power which 
ties down a third of Colombia's armed forces and 
prevents Colombia from engaging in any major 
military intervention against Chavez at the 
behest of Washington. Uribe and Washington have 
pressured Correa into cutting most of the FARC's 
logistical supply lines and many security camps 
on the Ecuadorian-Colombian border. Correa claims 
to have destroyed 11 FARC campsites and arrested 
11 guerrillas. The Venezuelan National Guard has 
turned a blind eye to Colombian cross border 
military pursuit of FARC activists and 
sympathizers among the Colombian 
refugee-peasantry camped along the 
Venezuelan-Colombian border. Uribe and 
Washington's pressure has forced Chavez to 
publicly disclaim any support for the FARC, its 
methods and strategy. The FARC is internationally 
isolated--the Cuban Foreign Ministry proclaimed 
the phony 'reconciliation' at Santo Domingo to be 
a 'great victory' for peace. The FARC is 
diplomatically isolated, even as it retains 
substantial domestic support in the provinces and countryside of Colombia.

With the 'neutralization' of outside support, or 
sympathy for the FARC, the Uribe regime--before, 
during and immediately after the Santo Domingo 
meeting--launched a series of bloody murders and 
threats against all progressive and leftist 
organizations. In the run-up to a March 6, 2008 
200,000-strong 'march against state terror', 
hundreds of organizers and activists were 
threatened, abused, followed, interrogated and 
accused by Uribe of 'supporting the FARC', a 
government label, which was followed up by the 
death squad killings of the leader of the march 
and four other human rights spokespeople. 
Immediately following the mass demonstration, the 
principle Colombian trade union, the CUT (the 
Confederation of Colombian Workers) reported 
several assassinations and assaults including the 
head of the banking employees union, a leader of 
the teachers union, the head of the education 
section of the CUT and a researcher at a pedagogical institute.

All told, over 5,000 trade unionists have been 
killed, 2 million peasants and farmers have been 
forcibly removed and their land seized by 
pro-Uribe paramilitary forces and landlords. 
Former self-confessed death squad leaders 
publicly have admitted to funding and controlling 
over one-third of the elected members of Congress 
backing Uribe. Currently 30 congress-people are 
on trial for 'association' with the paramilitary 
death squads. Several of Uribe's most intimate 
cabinet collaborators were exposed as having 
family ties with the death squads and two were forced to resign.

Despite international disrepute, especially in 
Latin America, with powerful support from 
Washington, Uribe has built up a murderous 
killing machine of 200,000 military, 30,000 
police, several thousand death squad killers and 
over a million fanatical middle and upper class 
Colombians in favor of 'wiping out the 
FARC'--meaning eliminating independent popular 
organizations of civil society. More than any 
other past Colombian oligarchic rulers, Uribe is 
the closest to a fascist dictator combining state 
terror with mass mobilization.

The opposition political and social movements in 
Colombia are massive, committed and vulnerable. 
They are subject to daily intimidation and 
gangland-style murder. Through terror and mass 
propaganda, Uribe has so far been able to impose 
his rule over the working class opposition and 
attract mass middle class support. But he has 
utterly failed to defeat, destroy or 
disarticulate the FARC--his most consequential 
opposition. Each year since he has come to power, 
Uribe has pledged massive, all-out military 
sweeps of entire regions of the country, which 
would finally put an end to the 'terrorists'. 
Tens of thousands of peasants in FARC-influenced 
regions have been tortured, raped, murdered and 
driven from their homes. Each of Uribe's military 
offensives has failed. Yet he absolutely and 
totally fails to recognize what some generals and 
even US officials observe: the FARC cannot be 
militarily annihilated and at some point the government must negotiate.

Uribe's failures and the enduring presence of the 
FARC have become a psychotic obsession: All 
territorial, legal, international constraints are 
thrown overboard. Alternating between euphoria 
and hysteria, faced with internal opposition to 
his mono-maniac strategy of terror, he screams 
'FARC supporters' at any and all overseas and 
Colombian critics. To Ecuador and Venezuela, he 
promises 'not to invade their territory again' 
unless 'circumstances warrant it.' So much for 'reconciliation.'

The period of humanitarian exchange is dead; the 
FARC cannot and will not accommodate the requests 
of well-intentioned friends, especially when it 
puts in risk the entire FARC organization and 
leadership. Let us concede that Chavez intentions 
were well meant. His pleas for a mutual release 
of prisoners might have made sense if he had been 
dealing with a rational bourgeois politician 
responsive to international leaders and 
organizations and eager to create a favorable 
image before world public opinion. But it was 
naïve for Chavez to believe that a psychotic 
politician with a history of annihilating his 
opposition would suddenly discover the virtues of 
negotiations and humanitarian exchanges. Without 
question, the FARC understands better than its 
Andean and Caribbean friends through hard 
experience and bitter lessons, that armed 
struggle may not be the desired method but it is 
the only realistic way to confront a brutal fascist regime.

Uribe's killing of Raul Reyes was not about 
Chavez initiatives or Ecuador's sovereignty or 
Ingrid Betancourt's captivity, it was about Raul 
Reyes, a consequential and life-long 
revolutionary and leader of the FARC. The 
war-scare is over, differences have been papered 
over, the leaders have returned to their palaces, 
but Raul Reyes has not been forgotten--at least 
not in the countryside of Colombia or in the hearts of its peasants.

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at 
Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year 
membership in the class struggle, is an adviser 
to the landless and jobless in brazil and 
argentina and is co-author of 
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1856499383/counterpunch>Globalization 
Unmasked (Zed). His new book with Henry 
Veltmeyer, 
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0745324231/counterpunchmaga>Social 
Movements and the State: Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia 
and Argentina, will be published in October 2005. 
He can be reached at: <mailto:jpetras at binghamton.edu>jpetras at binghamton.edu




Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20080322/d5685777/attachment.htm>