15 March 2011
6 March 2011
El DAS espió a la ONU
Fotos, correos electrónicos y órdenes de trabajo hacen parte de las evidencias en la Fiscalía
Agencia Prensa Rural / Sábado 5 de marzo de 2011
La Fiscalía adelanta investigaciones sobre los seguimientos ilegales que se habrían hecho desde el DAS a Naciones Unidas.
Fuentes cercanas a la investigación señalaron que en el proceso reposan hasta fotografías del
Igualmente señalaron que hacen parte del proceso varios correos electrónicos de funcionarios del
Como parte de las operaciones de seguimiento del DAS a organismos defensores de derechos humanos hay evidencias del ’caso Naciones Unidas’, que habría incluido seguimientos a funcionarios en eventos del organismo.
Naciones Unidas ya había manifestado su preocupación por los seguimientos ilegales a políticos de la oposición, magistrados y periodistas, entre otros.
Incluso, había exhortado al Gobierno colombiano a hacer reformas urgentes en su agencia de inteligencia (DAS) porque, dijo, "existe un peligro" derivado del "vacío de control democrático", por lo que el Estado colombiano debe "establecer mecanismos de control sobre el servicio de inteligencia".
La declaración se produjo a finales de febrero pasado, durante la presentación del informe anual sobre Colombia.En ella, el representante del Alto Comisionado de Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos, Christian Salazar, aseguró en Bogotá que se continuaron "recibiendo informaciones sobre interceptaciones de correos electrónicos, seguimientos, hostigamientos y amenazas, robos de información, alteración de páginas de Internet e ingresos ilegales a oficinas y domicilios de distintas organizaciones de la sociedad civil".
En el informe , la ONU concluye que la información que ha recibido le permite "confirmar la existencia de un patrón de escuchas, seguimientos y hostigamientos sistemáticos realizados por funcionarios del DAS (Departamento Administrativo de Seguridad), bajo órdenes de sus superiores, a quienes informaban de los resultados".
Asimismo, advierte que el avance de las investigaciones parece indicar que los grupos de la central implicados, entre ellos el de Observación Nacional e Internacional (Goni), "fueron estructuras formalmente constituidas al interior de la institución".
"Estos hechos, como los denunciados en 2009, siguen en la impunidad", aclaró la ONU.
Salazar apuntó a que el Gobierno y demás instituciones colombianas, como
Además exhortó al Gobierno a que "las investigaciones avancen para condenar a los responsables del DAS por sus crímenes".
Feminism's global challenge: With one voice
This Tuesday, International Women's Day will focus our attention on the struggle that millions still face against injustice and discrimination. In an impassioned essay, Mariella Frostrup argues that the fight for women's rights is far from over.
In the western world the greatest triumph of spin in the last century is reflected in attitudes to feminism. Our struggle for emancipation and equality has been surreptitiously rewritten as a harpy bra-burning contest while elsewhere, in less affluent parts of the world, the response is altogether different. From Mozambique to Chad, South Africa and Liberia, Sierra Leone to Burkina Faso, feminism is the buzzword for a generation of women determined to change the course of the future for themselves and their families. At female gatherings all over sub-Saharan Africa you'll find enthusiasm and eager signatories to the cause.
Not, they're quick to point out, that they're fans of the strident man bashing we enthusiastically took part in during feminism's second wave. Theirs is a quiet, dignified and entirely implacable determination to make equality not just an aspiration but a reality, in the areas of life where it most counts, from government to enterprise. And they're achieving it, too. Under the banner of Gender is My Agenda, with the encouragement of the African Union, which has named this the Decade of African Women, small women's groups across the African continent are coming together to lobby, draw strength, learn leadership and conflict-negotiating skills and support each other in creating and sustaining small businesses.
Conversely, in the UK there are more blokes called Dave and Nick in government than there are women MPs. Women continue to hover at a steady 19% in the chamber, put off perhaps by a testosterone-fuelled climate where the last two prime ministers' wives have given up high- flying careers to support their husbands or simply to satisfy the perceived demands of middle England. Meanwhile, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, instead of receiving praise, was drowned in a chorus of derision for attempting a degree of shared parenting with his working wife Miriam.
In the face of such continuing inequities, do a straw poll in a room full of modern Brits and you'll find that those willing to commit to the F word are few and far between. But, Top Gear presenters aside, I wonder if members of either sex actually disagree with what feminism set out to achieve, which is the social, economic and political equality of the sexes (see any definition for confirmation of those goals). Better yet, it's a battle we've all but won. Time for a pat on the back to all concerned, and special thanks to Emmeline Pankhurst, Germaine Greer and the rest.
The myth of equality, or near enough, was one I fell for like so many others until I was asked to participate in a debate at the Royal Geographical Society a few years ago. "We're All Feminists Now" asserted the motion – and faced with the literary might of the likes of Howard Jacobson and Tim Lott I was initially struck dumb, fearing it was going to be a tough challenge to argue the opposite. A quick Google put me straight. Two-thirds of children denied school are girls, 64% of the world's illiterate adults are women, 41m girls are still denied a primary education, 75% of civilians killed in war are women and children, causing Major-General Patrick Cammaert, the former UN peacekeeping commander in the Democratic Republic of Congo, to declare in 2008: "It is now more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in modern conflict."
These are staggering statistics, and yet not powerful enough to make arguing for women's rights a respectable pursuit, rather than the aggressive histrionics of popular perception. International Women's Day, the one day a year when we're encouraged to celebrate what we've achieved and highlight what still needs to be done, conjures less bile than the F word, but also more apathy. When women are allowed to vote, work, choose when to have babies and dress in whatever fashion pleases them, what on earth do they need their own day for as well?
The fact that 700,000 people will experience domestic violence in the UK, and 90% of them are white British females, that there are sex slaves imported daily to this country who live lives of abject terror, that equal pay is still not a reality nearly four decades after the act enshrining it was passed, that the conviction rate in rape cases still hovers around 6.5%, that only 12% of the UK's boardroom seats (as compared to Norway's 32%) are occupied by women, are just a small smattering of reasons why women's rights should remain a priority even here in the UK.
Saving women's lives in childbirth and protecting them from HIV infection must remain a priority, but if those women have no rights or opportunities, you are also sentencing them to a life of unadulterated hardship. Yet try to tell the stories of the inspirational groups of feisty femmes currently creating havoc with the status quo in the developing world, or make a programme highlighting the quantifiable difference to a country's GDP that comes with educating girls, or celebrate the small business women across Africa who keep that continent alive, and interest evaporates.
Gender-based violence causes more deaths and disabilities among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war. Basically it's safer to spend Friday nights chain smoking on the M1 with a bag of Congolese mosquitoes, in fog, than to be a woman in large swathes of the world. It's not possible to have a daughter (as I do) and ignore the fact that every year, 60 million girls are sexually assaulted at or en route to school. One in five women will become a victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime.
One in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in her lifetime – many of these on a number of occasions. Women who experience violence are up to three times more likely to acquire HIV. Indeed, it is now among women and children, not the men spreading it, that Aids is most prevalent. Among national governments, 29% lack laws or policies to prevent violence against women. Women hold only 19% of the world's parliamentary seats, perfectly echoed in our own chamber. Have you had enough yet? I certainly had.
Rage is a powerful motivating force, I discovered, and I decided to see for myself what was happening out there. I visited Internally Displaced Peoples camps in Chad where women refugees from Darfur were being raped daily when they ventured out to gather firewood so they could cook for their children. In Mozambique I cried frustrated tears as the 12 women farmers gathered around me raised their hands in shame and in unison to indicate that every one of them was a victim of domestic violence, a crime they were campaigning to have outlawed. And yes, this was only last year.
So forgive me if I struggle to find sexist jokes funny in a country where sex slavery is on the rise and 16- and 17-year-old girls from countries around the world have been abducted, raped and forced into prostitution. Though I might chuckle a bit if those jokes were being told by a Bangladeshi businesswoman celebrating her daughter's Cambridge degree… Is it triumphalist to applaud when a woman over 50 takes on the discriminatory ageism of a giant corporation and wins, as in the case of TV presenter Miriam O'Reilly? And we are the lucky ones, living in a society where the possibility of justice, if not always the reality of it, exists.
That's why a group of us set up Great – the Gender Rights and Equality Action Trust. That's why individuals like Annie Lennox and President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf became active patrons. But it's not just "sisters that are doing it". Bono and Damon Albarn have joined our ranks – this is not a women's issue any longer; this is a human issue. There's a new wave of support sweeping from the developed to the developing world through women joining forces and rolling up their sleeves to lend a hand. Weareequals.org is a coalition of NGOs large and small, which have joined forces to pursue gender equality as a tool for economic empowerment. Countries where girls are educated and women play their part in government are places where peace reigns and economies begin to flourish, and women are more interested in ending wars than starting them – there are endless statistics that prove this to be the reality.
The emancipation of women is the only possible future for the developing world, as it was and continues to be for us. There are too many people on this planet for us to be able to afford to leave nearly 50% of them in penury, uneducated and without a voice. Making women equal partners makes sense for both sexes. My profound hope is that we can, men and women alike, work together to create the circumstances in which International Women's Day can become the cause for celebration it should be. Once that's been achieved we'll work on creating that International Men's Day, too – promise.For more information about Great, go to thegreatinitiative.com
2 March 2011
The business press must prove its economic literacy
The media reported the financial crisis and stimulus poorly. Now the story is deficit and cuts, is it equal to the task? Anya Schiffrin
The drama of Wisconsin and the fights down in DC about the state of government finances are a chance for US journalists to write about an economic story that affects everyone. It would be good to see more articles on the big picture questions of what sort of policies make sense, rather than just ones about the political processes of what sort of legislation will get passed.
Five months after the stimulus passed, the unemployment rate was still climbing. (It was 8.2% in February, 9.4% in July and 9.7% in August 2009, and today stands around 9.0%, depending on how it's counted.) That led to a spate of articles about whether or not the stimulus would work or had worked. These articles mostly said it wouldn't and mostly didn't mention the fact that the majority of the money had still not been spent. Instead, a number of the articles argued that since the stimulus had failed, the US government should not consider a second one.
A recent report in the Christian Science Monitor was a good example of the kind of drill-down coverage we need more of. By contrast, it's been disappointing to see the news pages (though not the opinion columns) of the New York Times report on the deficit as though there is no room for debate about whether cutting spending is even a good idea right now.
Business and economics journalism is not that different from other forms of journalism. Reporters and editors mostly cover events that have already happened, not write about what could happen. They also have a tendency to rely on official and business sources, rather than on person-on-the-street interviews. This is partly because most of the people who read business news are from the worlds of money and business. Historically (the first business news sheets date to the 16th century), they relied on the business press for information that will help their investments. Sadly, this means that press reports about business and economics are often not much help to the ordinary reader trying to understand these subjects.
In recent weeks, there have been a lot of stories about how normal people would be affected by the budget cuts, and the media have certainly voiced the argument that reducing government spending is a bad idea while unemployment is above 9%. But there is room for more reporting about the larger macroeconomic picture, so I hope the media will learn from their lacklustre coverage of the 2009 stimulus package.Business and economics journalism is not that different from other forms of journalism. Reporters and editors mostly cover events that have already happened, not write about what could happen. They also have a tendency to rely on official and business sources, rather than on person-on-the-street interviews. This is partly because most of the people who read business news are from the worlds of money and business. Historically (the first business news sheets date to the 16th century), they relied on the business press for information that will help their investments. Sadly, this means that press reports about business and economics are often not much help to the ordinary reader trying to understand these subjects.
A study I did at Columbia University last year with Ryan Fagan ("Are We All Keynesians Now? Press Coverage of the US Stimulus Package", forthcoming) looked at press coverage of the $787m American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. We analysed 718 articles about the stimulus in the months before and after it was passed. We looked at all the key mainstream US publications including the New York Times, Barron's, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press, Time magazine and others. The coverage was not bad, but it was in no way innovative or forward-looking. Instead of discussing the likely effectiveness of the stimulus, for example, most of the articles before passage simply focused on whether or not it would pass.
"The concept of a Keynesian stimulus is not immediately intuitive. It would have been nice if there had been more in-depth explanations. As it was, there was more of 'what happened yesterday' than 'what are the long term implications?' but that's not unusual," said one national economic reporter, describing the press coverage.Five months after the stimulus passed, the unemployment rate was still climbing. (It was 8.2% in February, 9.4% in July and 9.7% in August 2009, and today stands around 9.0%, depending on how it's counted.) That led to a spate of articles about whether or not the stimulus would work or had worked. These articles mostly said it wouldn't and mostly didn't mention the fact that the majority of the money had still not been spent. Instead, a number of the articles argued that since the stimulus had failed, the US government should not consider a second one.
Later, after the stimulus money was spent, there was some coverage about what it was used for and what difference it had made (especially Michael Grunwald's pieces in Time magazine), but there was certainly room for more detail about what the money was used for and why this kind of spending makes a difference.
This time around, journalists have the chance to write more economic stories about what is actually an economic story. Let's hope they do.Pakistan has abdicated its responsibilities
Salmaan Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti's murders are a grim warning to those who dare to speak out against injustices
Pakistan has lost another brave heart. Two months after the Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer, my father, was assassinated for speaking out against Pakistan's cruel blasphemy laws, Shahbaz Bhatti was shot dead by unknown assailants. Bhatti was one of Pakistan's progressives.
Bhatti introduced a prayer room for non-Muslims in the prison system, and started a 24-hour crisis hotline to report acts of violence against minorities. He began a campaign to protect religious artefacts and sites that belong to minorities. This is the man we have lost.
The majority of Pakistani dignitaries fell silent after my father's murder, but Bhatti spoke out and condemned it. Many times. I will never forget that. He continued to support the revisions to the blasphemy law knowing he was up against a clerical tsunami. I salute his bravery. But the frontiers of free expression have shrunk drastically. In a country that calls itself a democracy, one wonders if there is space any more for dissent and debate.
Taseer and Bhatti's murders are a grim warning to those who dare to speak out against injustices.
Bhatti's killers left behind their pamphlets signed by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Punjab , their warning "from the warriors of Islam to all the world's infidels, crusaders, Jews and their operatives within the Muslim brotherhood".
The document from the Punjabi Taliban continues: "In your fight against Allah, you have become so bold that you act in favour of and support those who insult the Prophet. And you put a cursed Christian infidel Shahbaz Bhatti in charge of [the blasphemy laws review] committee. This is the fate of that cursed man. And now, with the grace of Allah, the warriors of Islam will pick you out one by one and send you to hell, God willing."
The blasphemy laws were foisted on to Pakistan by the draconian General Zia ul-Haq in 1986. Since then, more than 500 Muslims, 340 Ahmadis, 119 Christians, 14 Hindus and 10 others have been charged under the laws.
Thirty-two of those accused – and two Muslim judges – have been mowed down by Islamist vigilantes. Since 4 January, the day my father was assassinated, there have been 16 known cases in which 23 people have been affected. Once a law is made in the name of religion, no one can touch it.
The state has abdicated its responsibilities. The majority of our dignitaries and government officials are spineless. There is no will to implement existing laws. Why were four armed men allowed to drive around the capital city? Why did they carry Kalashnikovs? Why are guns given out so easily? And why did these men feel justified taking the law into their own hands?
The state has failed to provide a viable alternative in terms of economic and educational opportunities to those who resort to extremism. The madrassa system – spewing venom and hatred left, right and centre – is not monitored and the extremists are freely raising another generation like them. Or worse.
Moreover, the state mollycoddles and divides them into "good Taliban" and "bad Taliban". The "good" ones are armed, funded, and taken care of. But now the knives are turning inwards.
If there is one thing made abundantly clear by Taseer and Bhatti's murders it is this: the chickens have come home to roost.
28 February 2011
Páramo de Santurbán: Perjuicios de la inversión extranjera y la explotación transnacional minera en Colombia
Páramo de Santurbán: Perjuicios de la inversión extranjera y la explotación transnacional minera en Colombia
Domingo 27 de febrero de 2011
Los páramos son ecosistemas terrestres que se ubican por encima de los 2900 msnm con características propias de altiplanicies húmedas, de abundante vegetación y sitio de nacimiento de un significante número de vertientes hídricas.1 El PÁRAMO DE SANTURBÁN ubicado en los departamentos de Santander y Norte de Santander, es el punto de obtención de agua para suministro, uso y consumo de los habitantes en el área metropolitana de Bucaramanga y demás municipios de la región. Actualmente, la empresa multinacional canadiense Greystar Resource Ltda está solicitando al ministerio del ambiente (gobierno nacional) una licencia ambiental, para realizar procesos de exploración y explotación que conduzcan a la extracción de nuestros recursos minerales como oro y plata en este primordial páramo, llevando a cabo el ambicioso proyecto de explotación minera a cielo abierto.
A las empresas multinacionales que invierten en el país -la llamada inversión extranjera-, se les concede un sin número de exenciones y gabelas tributarias (esto es, maniobras para que paguen bajos impuestos, contario a la inmensa cantidad de impuestos que se le imponen al pueblo), creando un grave déficit fiscal en el país. Estos tributos que se le cobran a las transnacionales, llamadas regalías, son ingresos de la nación que van a la hacienda pública; si no fueran irrisorios servirían para invertir en educación, salud, servicios públicos, desarrollo social y solucionar varios problemas sociales. Además, estos no son los únicos problemas que crean la inversión extranjera y la explotación minera de los monopolios, se incluyen los devastadores e irreversibles daños de naturaleza ambiental, social, económica y cultural.
La comunidad de Tlalpujahua, un pueblo de estilo colonial a 160 kilómetros de la capital de México, bien puede ser símbolo de la grandeza ilusoria y los daños reales de la minería en este país. Entre 1905 y 1913 fue una de las mayores productoras de oro del mundo, y en 1959 fue liquidada por el gobierno por su escasa rentabilidad2; la explotación minera a cielo abierto produjo en este territorio grandísimos daños ambientales y sociales, un pueblo desolado y un territorio totalmente desértico.
Las empresas transnacionales no son propiedad pública ni del pueblo, no hay duda que hay un grupo de personas o persona propietario de estas empresas, con intereses personales y propios, que se caracterizan por la ambición y por acumular el mayor numero de utilidades; ellos no miden consecuencia a la hora de desarrollar un proyecto. A las transnacionales capitalistas les importa poco o nada, lo que le pueda pasar a las personas o comunidades que habitan en las inmediaciones del lugar de desarrollo del proyecto minero, lo que suceda en el territorio donde lleva a cabo sus operaciones, y tampoco que puedan contaminar un recurso vital como el agua; ellos vienen del norte, por lo tanto no les perjudicará a corto plazo el daño que produzcan en otro territorio.
Los recursos naturales son necesariamente esenciales para la vida y desarrollo de los seres humanos y la sociedad, si el gobierno concede la licencia minera, no llevaría a reflexionar sobre el verdadero carácter de este.
27 February 2011
Asesoría sin honorarios para Uribe
Por León Valencia
OPINIÓN Sería bueno que le contara a la Corte lo que le han dicho a la justicia colombiana y a los medios algunos testigos claves de las andanzas de la Drummond.
Sábado 26 Febrero 2011
Hasta el 11 de marzo tiene plazo el Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos para decidir si obliga al expresidente Álvaro Uribe a comparecer ante la Corte Federal de Columbia para presentar su testimonio en el proceso que se adelanta contra la Drummond Company por colaborar con paramilitares en Colombia o acepta la petición de inmunidad que hizo el gobierno colombiano al final del año pasado.
No es fácil la decisión. Decidir que Uribe asista a la Corte es perder la autoridad para reclamar que los mandatarios norteamericanos sean cobijados por la inmunidad en juicios de otros países. Pero acordar que Uribe no se presente es subordinar los derechos humanos y la justicia a las conveniencias políticas.
No es fácil la decisión. Decidir que Uribe asista a la Corte es perder la autoridad para reclamar que los mandatarios norteamericanos sean cobijados por la inmunidad en juicios de otros países. Pero acordar que Uribe no se presente es subordinar los derechos humanos y la justicia a las conveniencias políticas.
En Colombia se da por hecho que la justicia de Estados Unidos protegerá al expresidente Uribe, pero en caso de que esto no ocurra, en caso de que el Departamento de Justicia decida privilegiar los derechos humanos, sería muy bueno que nuestro exmandatario le contara a la Corte que lo cita lo que le han dicho a la justicia colombiana y a los medios de comunicación algunos paramilitares o testigos claves de las andanzas de la Drummond.
Rafael García, exjefe de informática del DAS; Edwin Guzmán, exmilitar y desmovilizado de las AUC; Alberto Visbal, paramilitar; Isnardo Ropero, vigilante de casas en Valledupar, y George Pirce, extrabajador de la Drummond, han señalado que la Drummond sostuvo relaciones con Rodrigo Tovar Pupo, alias ‘Jorge 40’, y contribuyó por largo tiempo a la financiación del Bloque Norte de las Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia; también que pagó por los asesinatos de los dirigentes sindicales Valmore Locarno y Víctor Orcasita, en hechos ocurridos el 14 de marzo de 2001.
Entre las versiones está la aseveración de que Rafael Araújo, gerente de Relaciones Comunitarias de la Drummond, amigo desde la infancia de alias ‘Jorge 40’, fue quien sirvió de enlace entre la multinacional y los paramilitares.
En 1999, después de varias reuniones, acordaron que la Drummond financiaría la creación del frente Juan Andrés Álvarez, un grupo que rápidamente reunió a 200 hombres bien armados y fue responsable de varias masacres y de una campaña de terror alrededor de la vía férrea por donde se transportaba el carbón de la compañía.
En el caso de la muerte de los sindicalistas, el testimonio más concreto es el de Alberto Visbal, quien manifestó que uno de sus hombres aseguró haber visto cuando Augusto Jiménez, gerente en Colombia de la Drummond, le entregó 200.000 dólares a Jorge 40 para neutralizar a los sindicalistas Locarno y Orcasita.
La justicia de Estados Unidos ya emitió un fallo desestimando la responsabilidad de la Drummond en los asesinatos de sindicalistas y ahora se apresta a culminar un proceso en el que las víctimas insisten en la vinculación de la compañía con los grupos paramilitares.
Bastaría que el expresidente Uribe enunciara estas informaciones, que se pueden corroborar fácilmente en los expedientes o en los artículos de prensa, para que el juicio tomara un nuevo impulso. La voz de Uribe no pasaría inadvertida ante las Cortes norteamericanas.
Sería un gesto hacia las víctimas. Con un testimonio de estos, Uribe compensaría en algo las decisiones que tomó el Estado colombiano para favorecer a la compañía. No hay que olvidar que el Ejército decidió instalar una base militar para prestar seguridad especial a la operación en la mina y al transporte del carbón hasta Santa Marta.
Así mismo, no hace mucho, concedió 17.000 hectáreas más para que la compañía ampliara sus dominios a la mina El Descanso, Rincón Hondo y el Hatillo, con lo cual la empresa se ha convertido en la más grande explotadora de carbón a cielo abierto del mundo.
Sé que estas son sugerencias atrevidas para un exmandatario que se pone furioso cada vez que le mencionan alguna diligencia judicial en relación con los paramilitares, pero con su versión ayudaría mucho a hacer justicia en un caso dramático de abuso de una compañía extranjera sobre ciudadanos colombianos.
Rafael García, exjefe de informática del DAS; Edwin Guzmán, exmilitar y desmovilizado de las AUC; Alberto Visbal, paramilitar; Isnardo Ropero, vigilante de casas en Valledupar, y George Pirce, extrabajador de la Drummond, han señalado que la Drummond sostuvo relaciones con Rodrigo Tovar Pupo, alias ‘Jorge 40’, y contribuyó por largo tiempo a la financiación del Bloque Norte de las Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia; también que pagó por los asesinatos de los dirigentes sindicales Valmore Locarno y Víctor Orcasita, en hechos ocurridos el 14 de marzo de 2001.
Entre las versiones está la aseveración de que Rafael Araújo, gerente de Relaciones Comunitarias de la Drummond, amigo desde la infancia de alias ‘Jorge 40’, fue quien sirvió de enlace entre la multinacional y los paramilitares.
En 1999, después de varias reuniones, acordaron que la Drummond financiaría la creación del frente Juan Andrés Álvarez, un grupo que rápidamente reunió a 200 hombres bien armados y fue responsable de varias masacres y de una campaña de terror alrededor de la vía férrea por donde se transportaba el carbón de la compañía.
En el caso de la muerte de los sindicalistas, el testimonio más concreto es el de Alberto Visbal, quien manifestó que uno de sus hombres aseguró haber visto cuando Augusto Jiménez, gerente en Colombia de la Drummond, le entregó 200.000 dólares a Jorge 40 para neutralizar a los sindicalistas Locarno y Orcasita.
La justicia de Estados Unidos ya emitió un fallo desestimando la responsabilidad de la Drummond en los asesinatos de sindicalistas y ahora se apresta a culminar un proceso en el que las víctimas insisten en la vinculación de la compañía con los grupos paramilitares.
Bastaría que el expresidente Uribe enunciara estas informaciones, que se pueden corroborar fácilmente en los expedientes o en los artículos de prensa, para que el juicio tomara un nuevo impulso. La voz de Uribe no pasaría inadvertida ante las Cortes norteamericanas.
Sería un gesto hacia las víctimas. Con un testimonio de estos, Uribe compensaría en algo las decisiones que tomó el Estado colombiano para favorecer a la compañía. No hay que olvidar que el Ejército decidió instalar una base militar para prestar seguridad especial a la operación en la mina y al transporte del carbón hasta Santa Marta.
Así mismo, no hace mucho, concedió 17.000 hectáreas más para que la compañía ampliara sus dominios a la mina El Descanso, Rincón Hondo y el Hatillo, con lo cual la empresa se ha convertido en la más grande explotadora de carbón a cielo abierto del mundo.
Sé que estas son sugerencias atrevidas para un exmandatario que se pone furioso cada vez que le mencionan alguna diligencia judicial en relación con los paramilitares, pero con su versión ayudaría mucho a hacer justicia en un caso dramático de abuso de una compañía extranjera sobre ciudadanos colombianos.
The coalition has sneaked a coup on a sleeping public
Its project to drastically remodel British society is speeding ahead without any regard for what it told voters last year
Sunday 27 February 2011
As people elsewhere are killed for their belief in democracy and the rule of law, the supposed controversies of British politics inevitably rather fade. By comparison, we live in an Eden of stability, and argue over mere increments: to be getting in a lather about Cameron and Clegg can easily feel not just indulgent, but indecent.
Still, in the broadest terms, there is a tale to be told that includes Westminster as well as Tripoli and Cairo, and underlines what watershed times these are. Much of the world's current tumult is traceable to the long and tangled fall-out from the crash of 2008 (note the role of rising food prices in Middle Eastern unrest). And though most commentators seem either too polite or deluded to recognise it, the British side of this story is rapidly being revealed: not just cuts, but the most far-reaching attempt to remodel British society in 60 years, undertaken at speed, and with a breathtaking disregard for what was offered to the country only months ago. Last week, Labour MP John McDonnell wrote to the Guardian arguing that the increasing gap between claims of fiscal necessity and a transparently ideological project merited another election. It won't happen, but he has a point.
The other day, I picked up a copy of Naomi Klein's underrated book The Shock Doctrine, and was reminded of a celebrated quotation from Milton Friedman: "Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable."
Around the time of last year's comprehensive spending review, some highlighted a "democratic deficit" between what was being proposed and what the Tories and Lib Dems had put before the public. The Fabian Society's Sunder Katwala accused David Cameron of "amnesia about what he did and did not ask for a mandate for". As Katwala pointed out, the central deceit was embodied in a reading of the election in Cameron's 2010 conference speech: "The result may not have been clear-cut when it came to the political parties. But it was clear enough when it came to political ideas." It takes Etonian chutzpah to spin a line as disingenuous as that.
From there, via Cameron's famous insistence that "frontline reductions" weren't an option and a jaw-dropping commitment in the coalition agreement to "end top-down reorganisation of the NHS", the about-turns and unexpected proposals have extended into the distance. Certainly, on VAT, child benefit, the educational maintenance allowance, increasing NHS spending "in real terms every year", incapacity benefit and more, the merchants of anti-politics have conclusive proof that some politicians will say anything to get elected. By way of a contrast, you may think back to Labour's travails over the introduction of top-up fees in 2003, which was ruled out in their pitch to the electorate two years earlier. "It is not a lot for the electorate to expect the government to keep their manifesto commitment," the Lib Dems' then education spokesman told the House of Commons. Now, an entire legislative programme contravenes scores of pledges and offers transformative plans of which there was no warning. No one even flinches.
What are we faced with? A polite kind of coup, in the service of an all-encompassing project that Klein and her followers surely recognise, and of which Friedman would be proud. The Labour party seems punch-drunk, and racked with confusion about how much the coalition has taken from peak-period Blairism (a simple solution: disown those aspects of your disgraced past, and start truly opposing). Every lurch to the free-market right shreds the idea that the Lib Dems are there to pull the Tories back to the centre. With Lib Dem backbench MPs and such grandees as Shirley Williams, I keep having the same conversation. They say they oppose some policies, but are heartened by others, and all is just about OK. In response, the old hippie phrase comes to mind: you are either on the bus, or off the bus.
It speeds on, anyway. And it really is the most amazing thing: not just that this most illegitimate of revolutions is happening, and fast, but that we are sleepwalking into it.
The price of food is at the heart of this wave of revolutions
The price of food is at the heart of this wave of revolutions
No one saw the uprisings coming, but their deeper cause isn't hard to fathom
Revolution is breaking out all over. As Gaddafi marshals his thugs and mercenaries for a last-ditch fight in Tripoli , several died as protests grew more serious in Iraq Saudi Arabia Bahrain Iran , President Ahmadinejad crowed about chaos in the Arab world, but said nothing about the seething anger in his own backyard; in Yemen
And it's not just the Middle East . This is an African crisis: Tunisia , where it started, is an African country, and last week in Senegal , a desperate army veteran died after setting fire to himself in front of the presidential palace, emulating Mohamed Bouazizi, the market trader whose self-immolation sparked the revolution in Tunisia Mauritania , Gabon , Cameroon and Zimbabwe
Nowhere is immune: dozens of activists in China North Korea , the army was called out and five died in the northern city of Sinuiju Burma under a trashy façade of constitutional government were keeping a close eye on the Middle East , ready to lock up Aung San Suu Kyi again at the first sign of copycat disturbances.
Nowhere is immune to this wave of rebellion because globalisation is a fact; all the world's markets are intricately interlinked, and woe in one place quickly translates into fury in another. Twenty years ago, things were more manageable. When grain production collapsed in the Soviet Union during the 1980s and what had been one of the world's greatest grain exporters became a net importer, the resulting surges of anger brought down the whole Communist system within a couple of years – but stopped there. Today there are no such firebreaks, and thanks to digital communications, events happen much faster.
Why are all these revolutions happening now? Plenty of answers have been offered: the emergence of huge urban populations with college degrees but no prospect of work; the accumulation of decades of resentment at rulers who are "authoritarian familial kleptocracies delivering little to their people", as Peter Bergen of the New America Foundation put it; the subversive role of Facebook and Twitter, fatally undermining the state's systems of thought control.
Absent from this list – to the combined bewilderment and relief of the US and Europe – are the factors that were universally supposed to be driving populist politics in the Middle East : Islamic fundamentalism coupled with anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism. As one Egyptian pointed out after the fall of Mubarak, at no point during weeks of passionate revolt did either the Israeli or the US Tahrir Square . "Not so much as a Coke can was thrown over the wall," he said.
Of course, that does not mean that allies of al-Qa'ida will not seek to exploit the growing chaos in Libya
The first warnings of what was to come appeared in the form of a briefing paper on the website of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation in December. "Recent bouts of extreme price volatility in global agricultural markets," it said, "portend rising and more frequent threats to world food security. There is emerging consensus that the global food system is becoming more vulnerable and susceptible to episodes of extreme price volatility. As markets are increasingly integrated in the world economy, shocks in the international arena can now transpire and propagate to domestic markets much quicker than before."
The "shocks" all occurred a long way from Cairo and Tunis Russia last autumn which wiped out hundreds of thousands of acres of grain; heavy rains in Canada , destroying the wheat crop there; hot, dry weather in Argentina Middle East accounts for one-third of worldwide wheat imports. The combined effect of these far-flung agricultural problems was to bump up the food price index by 32 per cent in the second half of 2010.
The FAO likens "extreme price volatility" to great natural disasters – major earthquakes, tsunamis, catastrophic cyclones. "Historically, bouts of such extreme volatility... have been rare," they say. "To draw the analogy with natural disasters, they typically have a low possibility of occurrence but bring with them extremely high risks and potential costs to society."
A similar chain of unconnected farming catastrophes in early 2008 led to a similar outbreak of "extreme price volatility" around the world which provoked food riots in more than 40 countries, from Haiti to Bangladesh, including Mexico, Uzbekistan and Eritrea but also involving several countries caught up in the present round of uprisings, including Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal and Zimbabwe. All were among the 80 countries around the world that combine low incomes with food deficits – the need to import food, bringing exposure to wildly fluctuating world market prices. In these poor countries, food purchases can consume 70 per cent of income. The result, when prices of flour and grains shoot up by 30 per cent, is extreme distress – the sort of distress that sends people out into the streets in fury.
Abdolreza Abbassian, FAO's chief economist saw – in his dry, cautious, academic manner – the present turmoil coming. "It's getting a little bit uncomfortable," he said back in December. "A lot of countries, especially the poorer ones, have to rely so much on world markets. They have to import food at much higher prices. Whether or not this will lead to domestic problems, turmoil, demonstrations, riots, the kind of things we saw in 2008, it is not possible to predict."
For the poor of the Middle East , the price shocks at the start of this year were like experiencing a second killer earthquake in three years – but unlike with an earthquake, there was someone you could blame. So angry were the food price protesters in Tunisia
Wisconsin is making the battle lines clear in America's hidden class war
Wisconsin is making the battle lines clear in America's hidden class war
The brazen choices of the Republican governor shows the real ideology behind attacks on unions – in the US and beyond
You can tell a great deal about a nation's anxieties and aspirations by the discrepancy between reality and popular perception. Polls last year showed that in the US 61% think the country spends too much on foreign aid. This makes sense once you understand that the average American is under the illusion that 25% of the federal budget goes on foreign aid (the real figure is 1%).
Similarly, a Mori poll in Britain in 2002 revealed that more than a third of the country thought there were too many immigrants. Little wonder. The mean estimate was that immigrants comprise 23% of the country; the actual number was about 4%.
When it comes to class, Americans have long seen themselves as potentially rich and perpetually middling. A Pew survey in 2008 revealed that 91% believe they are either middle class, upper-middle class or lower-middle class. Relatively few claim to be working class or upper class, intimating more of a cultural aspiration than an economic relationship. Meanwhile, a Gallup poll in 2005 showed that while only 2% of Americans described themselves as "rich", 31% thought it very likely or somewhat likely they would "ever be rich".
But trends and ongoing events are forcing a reappraisal of that self-image. Social mobility has stalled; wages have been stagnant for a generation. It is in this light that the growing resistance to events in Wisconsin must be understood. The hardline Republican governor, Scott Walker, has pledged to remove collective bargaining rights from public sector unions and cut local government workers' health benefits and pension entitlements.
As the prospect of becoming rich diminishes, many are simply trying not to become poor. Inequality of income and wealth has been more readily accepted in the US because equality of opportunity has long been assumed. The absence of the latter raises serious questions about the existence of the former. This tension brought thousands to the streets in all 50 states to support the Wisconsin unions last weekend.
For Walker's measures to pass, a certain number of local senators must be present in the chamber for the vote. To prevent that happening, the entire Democratic delegation fled the state and is refusing to return until Walker agrees to negotiate. Meanwhile, thousands of pro-union demonstrators have descended on the state capital to protest, sparking solidarity rallies nationwide.Polls suggest the public is siding with the unions locally and nationally. A survey last week showed 53% against cutting benefits and pay for government workers and 61% opposed to removing collective bargaining. Even conservative polls suggest a majority in Wisconsin is opposed to Walker's attempt to eliminate collective bargaining.
Walker's case is as predictable as it is weak. Government workers, he claims, have higher pay and better benefits than others in a bloated state that must slim down if it is to keep running. This is hardly true. Accounting for age and education, US local government employees earn 4% less than their private sector counterparts. Yes, the shortfall in pensions is real. But if the political will existed, calamity could be avoided with a fairly modest increase in the budget allocation. Union members do generally enjoy better benefits. That's the whole point of being in a union: to improve your living standards through collective action. And that is precisely why Republicans like Walker want to crush them.
None of these contradictions are particular to Wisconsin. Similar stories could be told as far away as Ireland and as nearby as Indiana, where Democrats also fled the state to defeat a union-bashing bill. Nor are they coming exclusively from the hard right. Democrats in the US and social democrats around Europe are attacking unions too, albeit with less relish. What Wisconsin does offer is a transparent illustration of the ideological sophistry and political mendacity driving these attacks.
But having started this fight in such a brazen manner, Walker has little option but to pursue it to its bitter end. That is why it has taken on national significance. Faced with an existential threat, the labour movement has broadened its horizons and galvanised a pluralistic, national opposition. That is a precondition for success but by no means a guarantee.
Last weekend's demonstrations do not necessarily reflect a new sense of class consciousness, but they do suggest the potential for it. The idea of a class system where only a handful can ever be truly wealthy intrudes awkwardly on a culture rooted in notions of self-advancement, personal reinvention and rugged individualism, even if it is closer to reality. Old habits die hard. The weekend protests were organised under the banner "Save the American Dream".
Democratic politicians, funded by both unions and corporations, pretend not to take sides, casting the national conversation not in terms of bosses and workers or wages and profits but of rich and poor.
The problem with this, explains Michael Zweig, the director of the centre for the study of working-class life at the State University of New York, is that "most people want to be rich and most of them don't know what rich is. If you put class in terms of power, you start to get to the source of the problem."
Leaders like Walker are making it clear which side of the class divide they stand on. A growing number of Americans, it seems, have begun to understand that this is precisely the problem and are discovering the source of their own power.
26 February 2011
April will indeed be cruel, but we don't have to take it
April will indeed be cruel, but we don't have to take it.
With only a month to go until the great axe falls, the shock will be grave. So what can you do? Begin by turning the tide.
Forget snow – every part of the Office for National Statistics report on the economy was bad news: household spending, business investment, services, finance, construction, even previously hopeful manufacturing figures – all revised downwards – plus declining house prices and anything else you can measure.
The one shard of hope is that the lunatic tendency on the Bank of England's monetary policy committee (Andrew Sentance) may be silenced on raising interest rates. Rising inflation is almost entirely beyond British control – oil and commodity prices. While real pay falls for all but bankers and FTSE boardrooms (up 55%), there is no home-grown wage inflation. Imagine the mayhem in raising the cost of mortgages and business borrowing just as hundreds of thousands more lose their jobs.
If things are this bad before the serious austerity has begun, what lies ahead? April will indeed be cruel – and frightening as the great £81bn axe falls. This is a real-life economic experiment, one last chance to prove that Herbert Hoover was right after all and Franklin Roosevelt and Keynes wrong. Or that Churchill was right about the gold standard – except these days its equivalent is the deficit.
Only a month to go. The shock in April will be profound. Ben Page of Ipsos Mori says: "People have no idea how their pay packets will change. Three-quarters expect to be affected, but they don't know how." Cameron-supporting papers sound no alarm, and television doesn't begin to convey the coming severity. People are still foxed by a government whose every word belies its actions – Cameron still pretends the NHS, education and Sure Start are protected, and only public sector fat is cut; private companies will pick up the unemployed, banks are being seriously taxed and a "big society" will burst forth. Add "not" to everything he says and then you see how the cuts fall everywhere while charitable giving drops: 30,000 give-as-you-earn payroll donors just dropped out. A survey this week shows most large companies and 70% of small ones won't employ public sector staff, no doubt prejudiced by the daily Eric Pickles and Francis Maude anti-public servants hate campaign.
It hasn't begun yet. Library and Sure Start doors begin closing in April. Rising NHS waiting times are hidden by not letting GPs refer. From 31 March, 300,000 public-sector staff and more from the voluntary sector start to be fired. And most families earning over £18,000 will find pay packet cuts in tax credits and national insurance, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Child benefit is frozen for three years – a cut of 10% or more at current inflation. Public employees' pay is frozen for two years. In April the lowered threshold for the 40% tax band brings another 750,000 earners into the higher rate; anyone on £50,000 loses £500 a year, just as wages fall further behind an inflation they see emblazoned outside every petrol station inflation. By 2015 25% of earners will be on the 40% rate, the IFS reckons, up from 11% (though no doubt pre-election tax giveaways will ease that).
How explosive will all this be? Ed Balls recalls the disastrous abolition of the 10p tax rate: it passed parliament with hardly a murmur – but when implemented a year later it went nuclear. Mori's Ben Page says this is unknown territory: the cuts are so deep that public rage may become burned into the national psyche, even if the economy picks up and even with pre-election tax bribes. "They are now 10 points behind. Thatcher, hated for her cuts, was only saved by war and a disastrous opposition." However, Cameron is still popular and the Tory vote has not dropped: so far Labour scores only at Lib Dem expense. But Page points out that, for the first time, support for cutting the deficit has dipped below 50%: he expects it to fall fast after April.
What would you do? Not sit by while Bob Diamond takes a £9m bonus and corporations avoid billions in tax. Make sure everyone really is in it together: sharing pain fairly matters even more than sharing good times well. Be open about who earns what: these cuts fall hardest on many of the poorest.
What can you do? Last Saturday, I was at UK Uncut's sit-in at Barclays: many more should join this Saturday's RBS events – see www.ukuncut.org.uk. Enjoy their witty symbolism: taxpayers rescued the banks with a trillion pounds, so until banks are fairly taxed turn them into the libraries, classrooms and swimming pools they caused to be shut down. The Robin Hood campaign shows how taxing 0.05% on every transaction yields £20bn, enough to stop all NHS cuts. A ComRes poll finds 75% of Tory voters want bank bonuses clawed back. The government should expect a turn in the tide after April brings the worst of what the banks have done to everyone.
Del mundo árabe a América Latina ¿Qué pasa con Libia?
Del mundo árabe a América Latina
¿Qué pasa con Libia?
por Santiago Alba Rico*, Alma Allende
¿Qué pasa con Libia?
por Santiago Alba Rico*, Alma Allende
Gadafi, el líder libio que lleva 42 años en el poder sin ocupar cargo oficial dentro de la estructura estatal en su país, y actualmente, en grandes dificultades por un levantamiento popular masivo, dejó hace tiempo de ser un líder progresista para convertirse poco a poco en un compinche más en negocios de los grandes capitalistas occidentales quiénes lo bendijeron y apadrinaron en su transformación. Desde entonces el nepotismo del clan Gadafi ha ido en auge pero también la desilusión de la población libia con su líder.
Tenemos la impresión de que un gran proceso emancipatorio mundial puede verse abortado por la implacable ferocidad de Gadafi, la intervención estadounidense y la poca clarividencia de América Latina.
Describiríamos así la situación: en una zona del mundo ligada de nuevo por fuertes solidaridades internas y de la que sólo se esperaba letargo o fanatismo ha surgido una oleada de levantamientos populares que amenaza con hacer caer, uno detrás de otro, a todos los aliados de las potencias occidentales en la región.
Describiríamos así la situación: en una zona del mundo ligada de nuevo por fuertes solidaridades internas y de la que sólo se esperaba letargo o fanatismo ha surgido una oleada de levantamientos populares que amenaza con hacer caer, uno detrás de otro, a todos los aliados de las potencias occidentales en la región.
Con independencia de las muchas diferencias locales, estos levantamientos tienen algo en común que, por cierto, los distingue radicalmente de las «revoluciones» rosadas y naranjas promovidas por el capitalismo en la órbita ex soviética: demandan democracia, sí, pero lejos de estar fascinadas por Europa y los EEUU son depositarias de una larga, arraigada, radical tradición antiimperialista forjada en torno a Palestina e Iraq.
No hay en los levantamientos populares árabes ni asomo de socialismo, pero tampoco de islamismo ni -lo más importante- de seducción eurocéntrica: se trata al mismo tiempo de una revuelta económica y de una revolución democrática, nacionalista y anticolonial, lo que abre de pronto, cuarenta años después de su derrota, una inesperada oportunidad para las izquierdas socialistas y panarabistas de la región.
La América Latina progresista, cuyos pioneros procesos emancipatorios constituyen la esperanza del antiimperialismo mundial, debería apoyar en estos momentos al mundo árabe sin reservas, adelantándose a la estrategia de las potencias occidentales, desbordadas por los acontecimientos y a las que Gadafi está dando la oportunidad de un regreso -militar quizás, pero sobre todo propagandístico- como paladín de los derechos humanos y la democracia.
Ese discurso es poco creíble en esta zona del mundo, donde Fidel y Chávez gozan de un enorme crédito popular, pero si América Latina se alinea, por activa o por pasiva, con el tirano, no sólo los contagiosos avances populares, que lamen ya Europa y se han trasladado a Wisconsin, se verán irremediablemente detenidos, sino que se producirá una nueva fractura en el campo antiimperialista que los EEUU, siempre vigilantes, relojeros del mundo, aprovecharán para recuperar el terreno perdido.
Algo de eso puede estar ya ocurriendo como resultado de una combinación de desconocimiento y de antiimperialismo esquemático y sumario. Los pueblos árabes, que vuelven a la escena de la historia, necesitan el apoyo de sus hermanos latinoamericanos, pero es sobre todo la relación de fuerzas mundial la que no puede permitirse una vacilación por parte de Cuba y Venezuela sin que Cuba y Venezuela sufran también las consecuencias y las sufran con ellos América Latina y las esperanzas de transformación a nivel planetario.
Podemos alegar que sabemos poco de lo que ocurre en Libia y sospechar de las condenas occidentales, mediáticas e institucionales, de los últimos días. Podemos quedarnos en eso. Los imperialistas son más inteligentes. Ellos, que tienen muchos intereses concretos en la zona, han defendido hasta el final a sus dictadores, pero cuando han comprendido que eran insostenibles los han dejado caer y han elegido otra estrategia: apoyar procesos democráticos controlados, seleccionar minorías postmodernas como motor de cambios limitados y desplegar sin pudor, a sabiendas de que la memoria es corta y los reflejos de la izquierda muy inmediatos, un nuevo arco iris de retórica democrática.
Habrá que oponerse a cualquier injerencia occidental, pero no creo, sinceramente, que la OTAN vaya a invadir Libia; lo que sí nos parece es que esta amenaza, apenas apuntada, tiene el efecto de enredar y emborronar el campo antiimperialista, y esto hasta el punto de hacernos olvidar algo que sí deberíamos saber: quién es Gadafi. Olvidarlo puede producir al menos tres efectos terribles: romper los lazos con los movimientos populares árabes, dar legitimidad a las acusaciones contra Venezuela y Cuba y «represtigiar» el muy dañado discurso democrático imperialista. Todo un triunfo, sin duda, para los intereses imperialistas en la región.
Gadafi ha sido durante los últimos diez años un gran amigo de la UE y de EEUU y de sus dictadores aliados en la zona. Baste recordar las incendiarias declaraciones de apoyo del Calígula libio al depuesto Ben Alí, a cuyas milicias muy probablemente proporcionó armas y dinero en los días posteriores al 14 de enero. Baste recordar también la dócil colaboración de Gadafi con los EEUU en el marco de la llamada «guerra antiterrorista».
La colaboración política ha ido acompañada de estrechos vínculos económicos con la UE, incluida España: la venta de petróleo a Alemania, Italia, Francia y EEUU ha sido paralela a la entrada en Libia de las grandes compañías occidentales (la española Repsol, la británica British Petroleum, la francesa Total, la italiana ENI o la austriaca OM), por no hablar de los suculentos contratos de las constructoras europeas y españolas en Trípoli. Por lo demás, Francia y EEUU no han dejado de proporcionarle armas para que ahora mate desde el aire a su propio pueblo, siguiendo el ejemplo de la Italia imperial desde 1911. En 2008 la ex secretaria de Estado Condoleeza Rice lo dejó muy claro: «Libia y Estados Unidos comparten intereses permanentes: la cooperación en la lucha contra el terrorismo, el comercio, la proliferación nuclear, África, los derechos humanos y la democracia».
Cuando Gadafi visitó Francia en diciembre de 2007, Ayman El-Kayman resumió la situación en un párrafo que reproduzco aquí:
«Hace casi diez años, Gadafi dejó de ser para el Occidente democrático un individuo poco recomendable: para que le sacaran de la lista estadounidense de Estados terroristas reconoció la responsabilidad en el atentado de Lockerbie; para normalizar sus relaciones con el Reino Unido, dio los nombres de todos los republicanos irlandeses que se habían entrenado en Libia; para normalizarlas con Estados Unidos, dio toda la información que tenía sobre los libios sospechosos de participar en la yihad junto a Bin Laden y renunció a sus “armas de destrucción masiva”, además de pedir a Siria que hiciese lo mismo; para normalizar las relaciones con la Unión Europea, se transformó en guardián de los campos de concentración, donde están internos miles de africanos que se dirigían a Europa; para normalizar sus relaciones con su siniestro vecino Ben Alí, le entregó a opositores refugiados en Libia».
«Hace casi diez años, Gadafi dejó de ser para el Occidente democrático un individuo poco recomendable: para que le sacaran de la lista estadounidense de Estados terroristas reconoció la responsabilidad en el atentado de Lockerbie; para normalizar sus relaciones con el Reino Unido, dio los nombres de todos los republicanos irlandeses que se habían entrenado en Libia; para normalizarlas con Estados Unidos, dio toda la información que tenía sobre los libios sospechosos de participar en la yihad junto a Bin Laden y renunció a sus “armas de destrucción masiva”, además de pedir a Siria que hiciese lo mismo; para normalizar las relaciones con la Unión Europea, se transformó en guardián de los campos de concentración, donde están internos miles de africanos que se dirigían a Europa; para normalizar sus relaciones con su siniestro vecino Ben Alí, le entregó a opositores refugiados en Libia».
Como se ve, Gadafi no es ni un revolucionario ni un aliado, ni siquiera táctico, de los revolucionarios del mundo. En 2008 Fidel y Chávez (junto a Mercosur) denunciaron justamente la llamada «directiva de la vergüenza» europea que reforzaba la ya muy severa persecución en Europa de la humanidad desnuda de las pateras y los muros. De todos los crímenes de Gadafi quizás el más grave y el menos conocido es su complicidad en la política migratoria de la UE, particularmente italiana, como verdugo de emigrantes africanos. Quien quiera una amplia información sobre el tema puede leer Il Mare di mezzo, del valiente periodista Gabriele del Grande, o acudir a su página web, Fortresseurope, donde se recogen algunos documentos espeluznantes.
Ya en 2006 Human Rights Watch y Afvic denunciaban los arrestos arbitrarios y torturas en centros de detención libios financiados por Italia. El acuerdo Berlusconi-Gadafi de 2003 puede leerse completo en la página de Gabriele del Grande y sus consecuencias se resumen sucinta y dolorosamente en el grito de Farah Anam, fugitiva somalí de los campos de la muerte libios: «Prefiero morir en el mar que regresar a Libia».
A pesar de las denuncias que hablan de verdaderas prácticas de exterminio -o precisamente por ellas, que demuestran la eficacia de Gadafi como guardián de Europa- la Comisión Europea firmó en octubre una «agenda de cooperación» para la "gestión de los flujos migratorios” y el «control de las fronteras», válido hasta 2013 y acompañado de la entrega a Libia de 50 millones de euros.
A pesar de las denuncias que hablan de verdaderas prácticas de exterminio -o precisamente por ellas, que demuestran la eficacia de Gadafi como guardián de Europa- la Comisión Europea firmó en octubre una «agenda de cooperación» para la "gestión de los flujos migratorios” y el «control de las fronteras», válido hasta 2013 y acompañado de la entrega a Libia de 50 millones de euros.
La relación de Europa con Gadafi ha rozado la sumisión. Berlusconi, Sarkosy, Zapatero y Blair lo recibieron con abrazos en 2007 y el propio Zapatero lo visitó en Trípoli en 2010. Incluso el rey Juan Carlos se desplazó a Trípoli en enero de 2009 para promocionar a las empresas españolas. Por otro lado, la UE no dudó en humillarse y disculparse públicamente el 27 de marzo de 2010 a través del entonces ministro español de Asuntos Exteriores, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, por haber prohibido a 188 ciudadanos libios la entrada en Europa a raíz del conflicto entre Suiza y Libia por la detención de un hijo de Gadafi en Ginebra acusado de maltratar a su personal doméstico. Aún más: la UE no emitió la menor protesta cuando Gadafi adoptó represalias económicas, comerciales y humanas contra Suiza ni cuando efectuó un llamamiento a la guerra santa contra este país ni cuando declaró públicamente su deseo de que fuera barrido del mapa.
Y si ahora estos amigos imperialistas de Gadafi -que ven cómo el mundo árabe se voltea sin su intervención- condenan la dictadura libia y hablan de democracia, entonces nosotros vacilamos. Aplicamos las plantillas universales de la lucha antiimperialista, con sus teorías de la conspiración y su paradójica desconfianza hacia los pueblos, y pedimos tiempo para que se disuelva la nube de polvo que levantan las bombas lanzadas desde el aire -a fin de estar seguros de que debajo no hay un cadáver de la CIA. Eso cuando no apoyamos directamente, como el gobierno de Nicaragua, a un criminal cuyo contacto más liviano sólo puede manchar para siempre a cualquiera que se reclame de izquierdas o progresista.
No es la OTAN quien está bombardeando a los libios sino Gadafi. «Fusil contra fusil» es la canción de la revolución; «misil contra civil» es algo que no podemos aceptar y que, aún antes de hacernos preguntas, debemos condenar con toda energía e indignación. Pero hagámonos también las preguntas. Porque si nos hacemos preguntas, las respuestas que tenemos -por pocas que sean- demuestran además de qué lado deben estar en estos momentos los revolucionarios del mundo.
Ojalá caiga Gadafi -hoy mejor que mañana- y América Latina comprenda que lo que ocurre en estos momentos en el mundo árabe tiene que ver, no con los planes maquiavélicos de la UE y EEUU (que sin duda maniobran en la sombra), sino con los procesos abiertos en Nuestra América, la de todos, la del ALBA y la dignidad, desde principios de los años 90, siguiendo la estela de la Cuba de 1958. La oportunidad es grande y puede ser la última para revertir definitivamente la actual relación de fuerzas y aislar a las potencias imperialistas en un nuevo marco global. No caigamos en una trampa tan fácil.
No despreciemos a los árabes. No son socialistas, no, pero en los dos últimos meses, de manera inesperada, han dejado al desnudo la hipocresía de la UE y los EEUU, han expresado su deseo de una democracia auténtica, lejos de todo tutelaje colonial, y han abierto un espacio para poner en dificultades desde la izquierda los intentos de reconversión, también territorial, del capitalismo. Es la América Latina del ALBA, la del Che y Playa Girón, cuyo prestigio en esta zona estaba intacto hasta ayer, la que tiene que apoyar el proceso antes de que el relojero del mundo vuelva a hacer girar las manillas hacia atrás y a su favor.
Los países capitalistas tienen «intereses»; los socialistas sólo «límites». Muchos de esos «intereses» estaban con Gadafi, pero ninguno de esos «límites» tiene nada que ver con él. Es un criminal y además un estorbo.
Por favor, compañeros revolucionarios de América Latina, los compañeros revolucionarios del mundo árabe están pidiéndo que no lo sostengáis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)