Monday, June 09, 2008

Chavez and the FARC

Hugo Chávez has called for the FARC to release all its hostages and lay down its arms.

"You in the FARC should know something," Chávez said in the broadcast of his Sunday television program, during which he also called on the rebels to release dozens of hostages, including three American military contractors. "You have become an excuse for the empire to threaten all of us," he said, using his term for the United States.

I should first point out that Chávez’s reasoning is wrong, because the U.S. is not terribly concerned with the FARC except insofar as it is involved in the drug trade. Even if the FARC gives up its war, the U.S. will still be heavily involved in Colombia, possibly even with a base. However, if this provides some measure of political cover, then great.

So what are the possible reasons for his statement? Here are some ideas, and of course they are not mutually exclusive:

--he thought in the past that the FARC was at least strong enough to continue forcing a stalemate, and now believes it will eventually lose

--he wants to put himself in the eventual position of helping to negotiate a peace deal between the FARC and the Colombian government

--his stated position about the FARC (i.e. ideological brotherhood) was costing him too much in approval terms, especially domestically

--the information on the FARC laptops is damaging and so he wants to preempt further revelations

--the links between Venezuelans and the FARC (e.g. see Boz’s discussion and links on the latest news about an alleged National Guard member) are making his government look weak and corrupt

--he wants to send a positive signal to the next president of the U.S., especially if it is Obama

Posted by Greg Weeks at 8:17 AM
Labels: , ,

17 comments:

Anonymous,  10:06 AM  

All of the above.

Anonymous,  11:47 AM  

Or perhaps its roughly consistent with past rhetoric and efforts? Chavez in January of 2008 stated:

"I don't agree with kidnapping and I don't agree with armed struggle," Chavez said on his weekly television broadcast. He said he wanted to speak with the leader of one guerrilla group to tell him what he thought (Reuters 1/13/2008)


In April 2008 he stated:

''If I were a guerrilla, I wouldn't have the need to hold a woman, a man who aren't soldiers,'' Chávez said in a televised speech Saturday night. ``Free the civilians who don't have anything to do with the war. I don't agree with that.'' (Venezuela Analysis)

OR in January of 2008:

"Chavez also assured that he is going to ask the FARC to give up their use of kidnapping, which he described as a "mistaken policy.""
(Venezuela Analysis)

In the past Chavez has been critical of specific methods utilized by the FARC, has called for a negotiated solution and has asked expressed disagreement with the FARC's armed struggle.

Where is the evidence that he has been actually hoping for a FARC victory? Regarding his popularity Venezuela Analysis had this to say in May of this year:

"A national poll conducted between April 24th and May 2nd by the Venezuelan Data Analysis Institute (IVAD) showed that 68.8% of Venezuelans believe the presidency of Hugo Chávez has been excellent, very good, or good, while 28.2% consider it to have been bad, very bad, or terrible. "

Corrupt National Guardsmen aren't sufficient indication of a government policy to fund/arm the FARC to victory or a stalemate. Perhaps Chavez's statements simply reflect him taking ANOTHER opportunity to press the FARC especially now with the ostensibly more political wing of the movement in a leadership position. This also may reflect improved relations with Colombia which took place in the recent UNASUR summit.

Sincerely,

Will

Greg Weeks,  12:47 PM  

No, this is different. In the past, he participated in negotiating hostage release, and now he says the FARC should receive nothing in return. None of the quotes you provide tell the FARC to disarm, which he has not done before. I think he knows he is taking a different tack.

Additionally, the question is not whether he wanted the FARC to win, but whether he thought they could be defeated, which is different. I think it is plausible that his perception of whether they could be defeated has changed.

Anonymous,  6:21 PM  

You write:

"In the past, he participated in negotiating hostage release, and now he says the FARC should receive nothing in return."

Actually the hostages that were released late last year and early this year (thanks to Chavez's intervention) were released unilaterally, with nothing in return for the FARC (the FARC did this ealier in Uribe's term when they released approximately 300 soldiers and policemen with nothing in return). Also, during international women's day Chavez called on the FARC to release Betancourt unilaterally.

Chavez's rhetoric has consistently been directed at a negotiated solution to the Colombian conflict (One that would involve the FARC’s eventual disarmament), one that has led to well over a million Colombians migrating to Venezuela as well as involving FARC/Paramilitary activity on his border which predated Chavez.

Also, if you actually review the context of his comments (see here: http://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/n115236.html, sorry about the long web address I am not very sharp on the whole linking stuff) he is speaking about this disarmament in the context of a peace process, one which I assume Chavez would expect that the FARC would receive something in return. In regards to the other possible explanations you mentioned:

-Chavez has been trying to place himself in a position to help negotiate a peace deal since the Pastrana administration so this statement could reflect his continued effort. His potential influence is a pretty logical one given the ideological affinities that he shares with the FARC. He is an international actor that the FARC actually would address. Granted the disarmament point is an important difference, but again this seems generally consistent (I did not refer to it as being the same) with his behavior since he came into office.

-Why would Chavez desire an armed stalemate in Colombia if he has been calling for political negotiated solution for almost a decade? I think its definitely plausible that the FARC is perceived as militarily weaker and that this opens up things for a possible negotiated solution, but I don’t think this would happen without international involvement (some type of CONTADORA for Colombia) and I have some serious doubts that it would happen during the Uribe administration (no matter what Chavez has to say to the FARC).

-I think his approval ratings are being hurt more by crime rates, selective food shortages and corruption charges than the Labtops (and my previous post indicates that these ratings are bouncing back).

-Positive signal to Obama? Maybe. Check out this piece (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Rest_of_World/Chavez_eyes_cooperation_with_next_US_president/articleshow/3110563.cms) where Chavez states his willingness to cooperate with the next U.S. president.

Sincerely,

Will

Anonymous,  7:05 PM  

Will is Delacour

Anonymous,  7:59 PM  

Anon,

I am not. I am Will, Delacour is Delacour, though your pretty funny.

Best,

Will

Greg Weeks,  6:22 AM  

You argue that this is consistent with past statements, but not the same. I won't quibble with that--perhaps we disagree mostly on the degree of sameness, so to speak.

Also, I do not think Chavez wants a stalemate. My point is that his (or anybody else's) attitude can potentially change according to whether they *think* the FARC is strong enough to force a stalemate.

Finally, regarding the approval numbers, I think it is reasonable to argue that he cares a lot about how the info will make him look.

Boli-Nica,  1:30 PM  

In the past Chavez has been critical of specific methods utilized by the FARC,

LOL...that is Chavez mildly scolding the FARC "dont kidnap", "negotiate". During same time period(1/08 to 3/08) he is publicly lambasting Uribe - the elected leader of Colombia under assault by the illegal FARC -as "warmonger" "terrorist", "assassin" "coward.etc. Outbursts triggered by Uribe removing him as negotiator.
Negotiations we know now were used by Chavez to cut deals to provide FARC w/weapons & money.

Justin Delacour,  2:50 PM  

I should first point out that Chávez’s reasoning is wrong, because the U.S. is not terribly concerned with the FARC except insofar as it is involved in the drug trade.

Uh, you're just plain ignorant, Greg. U.S. involvement in Colombia has always been about fighting an insurgency. Colombia has been dealing us drugs for decades, Greg. However, Plan Colombia didn't come into being until the FARC began threatening the Colombian state. If you think this is only about drugs, you're just stupid.

Anonymous,  7:08 PM  

Bolinica,

Nothing in your comments contradicts my point, so what is your point? Thanks.

Will

Justin Delacour,  1:24 AM  

In the past, he participated in negotiating hostage release, and now he says the FARC should receive nothing in return.

Interesting how Greg completely distorts what Chavez says. Chavez says nothing here about what the FARC should get in return. What Chavez says is that, as long as the FARC is not in a position to negotiate the terms of a peaceful settlement, it ought to be willing to lay down its arms for the simple cause of removing a pretext for imperialist interference in the region's politics. Once again, it's not a matter of what the FARC should get in return. It's a matter (1) what the FARC can get under the existing correlation of forces and (2) what a continued civil conflict portends for Colombia's neighbors.

Greg is just flat wrong when he suggests that Chavez's logic is off with regard to the threat that Colombia's civil conflict poses to Venezuela. The civil conflict is a threat to Venezuela because the United States has constantly FARC-baited Chavez ever since he came to power. The civil conflict is a threat to Venezuela because it has provided the United States a pretext to intervene more intensively in Colombia and to thereby threaten Colombia's neighbors. It's not only the Venezuelans and Ecuadorians who are threatened by the prospect of a South American Israel. The Brazilians do not look kindly upon such a prospect either.

Will is absolutely right that Chavez has always been concerned about U.S. intervention in Colombia, and Chavez has every reason to be concerned about it. The U.S. establishment's world view is so utterly retarded that it chooses to pretend that only its "national security" can be threatened by others, never that others' national security might be threatened by it.

Paul,  5:32 PM  

"Will is absolutely right that Chavez has always been concerned about U.S. intervention in Colombia, and Chavez has every reason to be concerned about it."

Of course. The US is the main foil to his retarded revolution. However, the US "intervention" is by invitation of the Colombian govt so your master really has zero business telling Colombia how to conduct their affairs. In other words, "intervening" in Colombia's business. Uribe will run Colombia his way, and Chavez will run Venezuela into the ground his own way.



"The U.S. establishment's world view is so utterly retarded that it chooses to pretend that only its "national security" can be threatened by others, never that others' national security might be threatened by it."

The US does threaten the national security of thug regimes, the kind 2004 Khadaffy award winner Chavez allies himself with, all the time.

As for Will, he of course omits all the sweet love Chavez has been giving the FARC all this time, and all the evidence on the laptops.

Justin Delacour,  6:38 PM  

However, the US "intervention" is by invitation of the Colombian govt so your master really has zero business telling Colombia how to conduct their affairs.

Uh, that's not how international relations works, Paul. If Mexico had invited the intervention of the Soviets, nobody would have argued that the United States "has zero business telling Mexico how to conduct their affairs." No, the United States would have treated a Soviet presence in Mexico as a national security threat.

If your neighbor invites the hostile presence of a power that threatens your national security, you counter-balance against the threat by building up militarily, forming counter-balancing alliances, attempting to isolate your neighbor diplomatically, etc. etc. Welcome to the world or geo-politics, big boy.

As for Will, he of course omits all the sweet love Chavez has been giving the FARC all this time, and all the evidence on the laptops.

Oh yeah, so much "evidence" on the laptops that Colombia now refuses to turn it over to OAS. Face it, Paul. The Uribe government is fraudulent.

Anonymous,  10:23 PM  

Justin's point on the lack of action at the OAS or the UN is a good one. Until we see them take some of this "ironclad" evidence in that direction I think we should all be wary about how much "truth" exists behind the claims (for example even if its established that these are actual FARC computers there is no evidence that any of the alleged money/weapons have actually been delivered).

Paul you write:

"The US does threaten the national security of thug regimes, the kind 2004 Khadaffy award winner Chavez allies himself with, all the time."

Cmon Paul you would have to concede that the U.S. history of intervention in Latin America has gone beyond anything that the "totalitarian dictatorship" of Chavez could ever approach....well over a century of invasions, supported coups, economic blockades, mining of harbors, etc...all against "thug regimes"? While we are on the subject of "thug" aren't approximately 60 members of Uribe's congressional and gubernatorial supporters under investigation or in jail for their ties with actual, verifiable paramilitary thugs? Wasn't it Uribe while governor of Antioquia who saw the rapid expansion of paramilitary and CONVIVIR organizations throughout his department (i.e. the expansion of armed thugs)? These are things that have happened or are actually happening...not allegations, implications or suggestions from a hard drive.

Best,

Will

Boli-Nica,  11:32 PM  

<><>

I don't get what your points are Will:

i. that recent Chavez statements are merely continuing his previous policy.
ii. You claim previous public posture is favoring negotiations and calling for end of armed struggle - eventual disarmament of FARC
iii. As evidence you cite mild critical statements made during 1/08 to 3/08.
iv. That there is no evidence of government policy to "fund/arm the FARC to victory or a stalemate."


My larger point is that this public position is a 180 degree turn, from his recent very public posture from the same time period. Which was to use his bully pulpit & his role as "hostage negotiator" to "legitimize" the FARC as combatants, fighting for valid goals. At the same time publically trashing the Colombian government and Uribe to undermine its international standing. And through these hostage negotiations - now w/out official Colombian sanction but with European presence, try to accomplish FARC immediate goals of i. a "despeje zone" and ii.. recognition as "legitimate combatants".

And now we know of course, that underneath this overt posture was a full-blown covert operation to provide 100's of millions of dollars and larger amounts of weapons to the FARC. And this policy was a ramping up of smaller scale covert "official" assistance, largely done through Chavez' intelligence head Carvajal the past couple of years = and reported in major European papers b4 the laptop revelations. Which also revealed the much longer "covert" "unsanctioned" aid from crooked Venezuelan officials. And how it is hard to keep both strands separate.

It is obvious that Chavez prior overt and covert actions, aims to re-establish the FARC as a power in Colombia, strengthening their hands in negotiation, and weakening Uribe's posture.

Anonymous,  10:04 AM  

Boli,

I have placed your words in quotes and my response after them.

“Which was to use his bully pulpit & his role as "hostage negotiator" to "legitimize" the FARC as combatants, fighting for valid goals.”


His role was granted to him by Uribe and his public legitimization of the FARC was also part of an argument that this would lead to a negotiated settlement. You may disagree with this argument, but that was what Chávez also said.

“At the same time publically trashing the Colombian government and Uribe to undermine its international standing.”

He trashed Uribe, but he has also embraced Uribe as a “brother”, he has called him a fascist and a poodle but his government has also asked Colombia not to allow the U.S. to divide them from each other….I don’t think we can count on consistency when it comes to Chavez’s rhetoric, he clearly responds to specific events, moments in a sometimes impulsive manner and is not interested in diplomatic niceties.

“try to accomplish FARC immediate goals of i. a "despeje zone" and ii.. recognition as "legitimate combatants".

Wow, the same goals as the previous Colombian government, Chavez is truly threatening.

“It is obvious that Chavez prior overt and covert actions, aims to re-establish the FARC as a power in Colombia, strengthening their hands in negotiation, and weakening Uribe's posture.”

It really isn’t to me. Is there any evidence in any of those newspaper articles of this being Venezuelan governmental policy? If it is so obvious to you what has prevented the Colombian government from using their “evidence” (which I assume is stronger than the newspaper articles you have access to) to condemn and punish Venezuela in international tribunals and/or seek out Security Council actions against a government that is allegedly supporting terrorists and trying to overthrow them? I am genuinely interested in your response to this last question, because if this has been going on for years what is Colombia waiting for?

Thanks.

Will

Boli-Nica,  3:25 PM  

Just a look at the Chavez comments:

"The guerrilla war is history."

"At this moment in Latin America, an armed guerrilla movement is out of place,"

Castro said just about the same thing 10 or so years ago. The FARC was furious & they had never been big on Castro's list anyways - slaughtering guerillas considered "Castroists" might have something to do with it.

The FARC viewed hostage release negotiations, international recognition as legitimate combatants & a "free zone" as "political" parts of their struggle. Doesn't mean they are going to lay down their arms or even declare a truce during negotiations. That is a long term strategy outlined by Jacobo Arenas years ago Both times they negotiated w/the government before, they used the time period to go about their business and rearm. Here they expected the Chavez money to help them rearm, and finance their political work inside and outside Colombia.

Chavez seems to be telling them to "free the hostages" and
"give up the armed struggle". Which is different from giving them the recognition of a standing army, to negotiate as legitimate armed combatants.

Might also mean he is not giving them $250 million bucks.

Lastly, it is hard to dispute the memo outlining Chavez decision to give them $250 million. Anyone w/half a clue about Marxist Leninist movements knows that Secretariat/Central Committee/Directorate members tasked w/negotiating crucial deals w/outside powers, don't have much discretion in what they can say. And they have to report back EXACTLY what is offered to them. Here Chavez said "yes' we will give you the money you have been bugging us for. Marquez reports back to Tirofijo, Mono, Cano, and the other 3, on what was said. Try lying to those guys and you end up in a ditch.

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP