Debt deal: anger and deceit has led the US into a billionaires' coup

The debt deal will hurt the poorest Americans, convinced by
Fox and the Tea Party to act against their own welfare

• • George Monbiot
  • guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 August 2011 21.29 BST
  • Article history

Illustration by Daniel Pudles

There are two ways of cutting a deficit: raising taxes or reducing spending. Raising taxes means taking money from the rich. Cutting spending means taking money from the poor. Not in all cases of course: some taxation is regressive; some state spending takes money from ordinary citizens and gives it to banks, arms companies, oil barons and farmers. But in most cases the state transfers wealth from rich to poor, while tax cuts shift it from poor to rich.

So the rich, in a nominal democracy, have a struggle on their hands. Somehow they must persuade the other 99% to vote against their own interests: to shrink the state, supporting spending cuts rather than tax rises. In the US they appear to be succeeding.

Partly as a result of the Bush tax cuts of 2001, 2003 and 2005 (shamefully extended by Barack Obama), taxation of the wealthy, in Obama's words, "is at its lowest level in half a century". The consequence of such regressive policies is a level of inequality unknown in other developed nations. As the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz points out, in the past 10 years the income of the top 1% has risen by 18%, while that of blue-collar male workers has fallen by 12%.

The deal being thrashed out in Congress as this article goes to press seeks only to cut state spending. As the former Republican senator Alan Simpson says: "The little guy is going to be cremated." That means more economic decline, which means a bigger deficit. It's insane. But how did it happen?

The immediate reason is that Republican members of Congress supported by the Tea Party movement won't budge. But this explains nothing. The Tea Party movement mostly consists of people who have been harmed by tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts for the poor and middle. Why would they mobilise against their own welfare? You can understand what is happening in Washington only if you remember what everyone seems to have forgotten: how this movement began.

On Sunday the Observer claimed that "the Tea Party rose out of anger over the scale of federal spending, and in particular in bailing out the banks". This is what its members claim. It's nonsense.

The movement started with Rick Santelli's call on CNBC for a tea party of city traders to dump securities in Lake Michigan, in protest at Obama's plan to "subsidise the losers". In other words, it was a demand for a financiers' mobilisation against the bailout of their victims: people losing their homes. On the same day, a group called Americans for Prosperity(AFP) set up a Tea Party Facebook page and started organising Tea Party events. The movement, whose programme is still lavishly supported by AFP, took off from there.

So who or what is Americans for Prosperity? It was founded and is funded by Charles and David Koch. They run what they call "the biggest company you've never heard of", and between them they are worth $43bn. Koch Industries is a massive oil, gas, minerals, timber and chemicals company. In the past 15 years the brothers have poured at least $85m into lobby groups arguing for lower taxes for the rich and weaker regulations for industry. The groups and politicians the Kochs fund also lobby to destroy collective bargaining, to stop laws reducing carbon emissions, to stymie healthcare reform and to hobble attempts to control the banks. During the 2010 election cycle, AFP spent $45m supporting its favoured candidates.

But the Kochs' greatest political triumph is the creation of the Tea Party movement. Taki Oldham's film (Astro)Turf Wars shows Tea Party organisers reporting back to David Koch at their 2009 Defending the Dream summit, explaining the events and protests they've started with AFP help. "Five years ago," he tells them, "my brother Charles and I provided the funds to start Americans for Prosperity. It's beyond my wildest dreams how AFP has grown into this enormous organisation."

AFP mobilised the anger of people who found their conditions of life declining, and channelled it into a campaign to make them worse. Tea Party campaigners take to the streets to demand less tax for billionaires and worse health, education and social insurance for themselves.

Are they stupid? No. They have been misled by another instrument of corporate power: the media. The movement has been relentlessly promoted by Fox News, which belongs to a more familiar billionaire. Like the Kochs, Rupert Murdoch aims to misrepresent the democratic choices we face, in order to persuade us to vote against our own interests and in favour of his.

What's taking place in Congress right now is a kind of political coup. A handful of billionaires have shoved a spanner into the legislative process. Through the candidates they have bought and the movement that supports them, they are now breaking and reshaping the system to serve their interests. We knew this once, but now we've forgotten. What hope do we have of resisting a force we won't even see?

• A fully referenced version of this article can be found on George Monbiot's website. On Twitter: @GeorgeMonbiot

Joe - El Grande ~ 1955 ~ 2011

Que tristeza la muerte de Joe Arroyo - crecí con su música y la llevo en mi corazón – uno de los mas grandes talentos latinoamericanos se nos fue. Gracias por la maravillosa música y las bellas memorias Joe. 

El Inolvidable Facundo Cabral - #FacundoVive

Asesinato de líder de tierras en San Onofre, Sucre

DENUNCIA PÚBLICA

Sábado 2 de julio de 2011

El Movimiento Nacional de Víctimas de Crímenes de Estado, rechaza y denuncia ante la opinión pública, nacional e internacional los recientes hechos acaecidos en el departamento de Sucre, y exige al gobierno nacional que brinde garantías serias y reales e inmediatas a la integridad física de las y los defensores de derechos humanos que valientemente promueven, defienden la tierra y exigen derechos de las víctimas de Crímenes de Estado.

Hechos
El día 30 de junio fue asesinado por desconocidos, el compañero ANTONIO MENDOZA MORALES, dirigente de Asociación de Desplazados de San Onofre y Los Montes de María, además de ser el único concejal del Polo Democrático en el departamento.

ANTONIO lideraba procesos de retorno de desplazados en tierras que habían sido despojadas por grupos armados y venían apoyando un proceso de exigibilidad de restitución de tierras ante las autoridades departamentales y municipales.

Este hecho se suma a un grave contexto de violencia y persecución, donde tan solo en el mes de junio ya son 5 (cinco) las agresiones contra dirigentes del MOVICE Capítulo Sucre.
Resaltamos la situación que padece en todo el país los y las líderes y comunidades que exigen restitución legítima de sus tierras, el gobierno y los organismos de control no han tenido una verdadera voluntad política para frenar los asesinatos, desplazamientos y amenazas que siguen padeciendo estas comunidades.

Exigimos que:
Se garantice la vida y la integridad física de las y los líderes y comunidades que defienden su derecho a la tierra en Sucre y a lo largo y ancho del país.

Se investiguen a fondo estos crímenes para garantizar la verdad, la justicia y la reparación y garantías para la no repetición.

Al gobierno nacional reactivar la interlocución con el Movimiento, según acuerdos establecidos con la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, quien ha dilatado este proceso de concertación y demostrado poca voluntad para el dialogo y la disposición de salvaguardar los derechos de las víctimas.
Garantías políticas inmediatas para quienes se encuentran en riesgo y amenaza por su condición de defensor(a) de derechos humanos, líderes y comunidades organizadas en pro de la defensa de sus derechos.

Ver documento
http://justiciaypazcolombia.com/IMG/pdf/asesinato_Antonio_Mendoza_30_junio___2011.pdf

Noam Chomsky denounces old friend Hugo Chávez for 'assault' on democracy

Noam Chomsky denounces old friend Hugo Chávez for 'assault' on democracy

Renowned American intellectual accuses the Venezuelan leader of concentrating too much power in his own hands

Rory Carroll in Caracas

The Observer Sunday 3 July 2011

Article history

Hugo Chávez rides a horse during his weekly broadcast to his country. (photo in original article - link above)  He has gone on television to call for judge María Lourdes Afiuni to be jailed. Photograph: Ho New/Reuters

Hugo Chávez has long considered Noam Chomsky one of his best friends in the west. He has basked in the renowned scholar's praise forVenezuela's socialist revolution and echoed his denunciations of US imperialism.

Venezuela's president, who hasrevealed that he has had surgery in Cuba to remove a cancerous tumour, turned one of Chomsky's books into an overnight bestseller after brandishing it during a UN speech. He hosted Chomsky in Caracas with smiles and pomp. Earlier this year Chávez even suggested Washington make Chomsky the US ambassador to Venezuela.

The president may be about to have second thoughts about that, because his favourite intellectual has now turned his guns on Chávez.

Speaking to the Observer last week, Chomsky has accused the socialist leader of amassing too much power and of making an "assault" on Venezuela's democracy.

"Concentration of executive power, unless it's very temporary and for specific circumstances, such as fighting world war two, is an assault on democracy. You can debate whether [Venezuela's] circumstances require it: internal circumstances and the external threat of attack, that's a legitimate debate. But my own judgment in that debate is that it does not."

Chomsky, a linguistics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke on the eve of publishing an open letter (see below) that accuses Venezuela's authorities of "cruelty" in the case of a jailed judge.

The self-described libertarian socialist says the plight of María Lourdes Afiuni is a "glaring exception" in a time of worldwide cries for freedom. He urges Chávez to release her in "a gesture of clemency" for the sake of justice and human rights.

Chomsky reveals he has lobbied Venezuela's government behind the scenes since late last year after being approached by the Carr centre for human rights policy at Harvard University. Afiuni earned Chávez's ire in December 2009 by freeing Eligio Cedeño, a prominent banker facing corruption charges. Cedeño promptly fled the country.

In a televised broadcast the president, who had taken a close interest in the case, called the judge a criminal and demanded she be jailed for 30 years. "That judge has to pay for what she has done."

Afiuni, 47, a single mother with cancer, spent just over a year in jail, where she was assaulted by other prisoners. In January, authorities softened her confinement to house arrest pending trial for corruption, which she denies.

"Judge Afiuni has suffered enough," states Chomsky's letter. "She has been subject to acts of violence and humiliations to undermine her human dignity. I am convinced that she must be set free."

Amnesty International and the European parliament, among others, have condemned the judge's treatment but the intervention of a scholar considered a friend of the Bolivarian revolution, which is named after the hero of Venezuelan independence, Simón Bolívar, is likely to sting even more.

Speaking from his home in Boston, Chomsky said Chávez, who has been in power for 12 years, appeared to have intimidated the judicial system. "I'm sceptical that [Afiuni] could receive a fair trial. It's striking that, as far as I understand, other judges have not come out in support of her … that suggests an atmosphere of intimidation."

He also faulted Chávez for adopting enabling powers to circumvent the national assembly. "Anywhere in Latin America there is a potential threat of the pathology of caudillismo [authoritarianism] and it has to be guarded against. Whether it's over too far in that direction in Venezuela I'm not sure, but I think perhaps it is. A trend has developed towards the centralisation of power in the executive which I don't think is a healthy development."

Chomsky expressed concern over Chávez's cancer and wished the president a full and prompt recovery.

Chomsky's book Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance became a publishing sensation after Chávez waved a copy during a UN address in 2006 famous for his denunciation of President George W Bush as a devil.

Its author remains fiercely critical of the US, which he said had tortured Bradley Manning, alleged source of the diplomatic cables exposed by WikiLeaks, and continued to wage a "vicious, unremitting" campaign against Venezuela.

The Chávez government deserved credit for sharply reducing poverty and for its policies of promoting self-governing communities and Latin American unity, Chomsky said. "It's hard to judge how successful they are, but if they are successful they would be seeds of a better world."

Leonardo Vivas, co-ordinator of Latin American initiatives at the Carr Centre, said that Afiuni's case was the most prominent example of the erosion of justice in several Latin American countries. The centre hoped that Caracas would now heed Chomsky.

"He is one of the most important public intellectuals in the US and is respected by the Venezuelan government."

The decision to lobby publicly was taken because quiet diplomacy had limits, said Vivas.

Chávez, who is convalescing in Cuba, has a reputation for lashing back at criticism, raising the risk that the Afiuni initative could backfire.

"That could happen," said Vivas. "But that would mean recognition of the problem."

Chomsky's letter
Judge María Lourdes Afiuni has suffered enough

With this public letter I want to express my open support of the liberty of judge María Lourdes Afiuni, detained in Venezuela since December 2009. In November of last year I was informed of her situation by the Latin American initiative of the Carr Centre for human rights policy at Harvard University. Ever since, I have been directly involved in mediation efforts with the Venezuelan government, with the purpose of releasing her from prison through a gesture of clemency by President Chávez.

Judge Afiuni had my sympathy and solidarity from the very beginning. The way she was detained, the inadequate conditions of her imprisonment, the degrading treatment she suffered in the Instituto Nacional de Orientación Femenina, the dramatic erosion of her health and the cruelty displayed against her, all duly documented, left me greatly worried about her physical and psychological wellbeing, as well as about her personal safety.

Those reasons motivated me in December 2010 to address, jointly with the Carr Centre, a petition for an official pardon from the president in the context of the yearly presidential amnesties.

In January I received with relief the news that Venezuela's attorney general had suggested house arrest for judge Afiuni given her fragile health condition, which ended up with emergency surgery. Being in her house with her family and with adequate medical attention has been without doubt a significant improvement of her situation.

However, judge Afiuni has suffered enough. She has been subject to acts of violence and humiliations to undermine her human dignity. I am convinced that she must be set free, not only due to her physical and psychological health conditions, but in conformance with the human dignity the Bolivarian revolution presents as a goal. In times of worldwide cries for freedom, the detention of María Lourdes Afiuni stands out as a glaring exception that should be remedied quickly, for the sake of justice and human rights generally and for affirming an honourable role for Venezuela in these struggles.

For the above reasons I want Venezuelans to be aware of my total solidarity with judge Afiuni, while I affirm my unwavering commitment with the efforts advanced by the Carr Centre in Harvard University to release her from imprisonment. At the same time, I shall keep high hopes that President Chávez will consider a humanitarian act that will end the judge's detention.


Chomsky habla sobre su carta abierta a Chávez

Margarita Rodríguez

BBC Mundo

BBC Mundo Articulo Relacionado – Español

Martes, 5 de julio de 2011

uede ser vista como una simple carta, pero en realidad es mucho más: el famoso lingüista y activista político Noam Chomsky publicó una misiva abierta al presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, en la que pide la liberación de la juez María Lourdes Afiuni, detenida en Caracas desde 2009.

Y es mucho más que una carta no sólo por el peso de los involucrados, sino porque Chomsky es considerado uno de los defensores de más renombre de los cambios impulsados por el mandatario venezolano. Aunque, como apunta el propio Chomsky, es algo que hace constantemente en defensa de los derechos humanos. Y no sólo ha ocurrido con Venezuela, sino con Irán y hasta con el propio Estados Unidos, su país de origen.

Luego de esto, el diario publicó en internet el texto íntegro de la Pero también va más allá, porque la carta ha generado su propia controversia mediática. Chomsky acusó esta semana al diario inglés The Guardian de haber publicado un artículo "deshonesto" y "engañoso" sobre el tema. El artículo en cuestión se titulaba "clicNoam Chomsky denuncia a su viejo amigo Hugo Chávez por 'asalto' contra la democracia".

clicentrevista en la que se basó el artículo.

...

Guardian Transcript of Original Article

Noam Chomsky on Venezuela – the transcript

The Guardian publishes a transcript of its interview with Noam Chomsky about Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, and the Afiuni affair

Priests, plots … and Hugo Chávez

WikiLeaks cables have revealed that Catholic bishops played a key role in 2002's abortive military coup in Venezuela




Hugh O'Shaughnessy
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 June 2011 15.32 BST

Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. It has been revealed that the country's bishops worked with rightwingers to topple the president in 2002. Photograph: Reuters

In 1997 Eamon Duffy, president of Magdalene College, Cambridge, brought out the best one-volume history of popes that has ever been written. He called it Saints & Sinners.


In the light of the latest news from Venezuela I would respectfully urge him to set about writing a companion volume about the leaders of the church in Latin America. I suggest that he calls it Saints, Traitors & Sinners.


The church in that region has of course produced some remarkable saints – some of them unrecognised in the upper reaches of the Vatican. Archbishop Oscar Romero of San Salvador; the six Jesuits, their housekeeper and her daughter slain by the western-supported Salvadorean army on the campus of the Central American University; the prelates and clergy killed by the repulsive military regime in Argentina and Cardinal Raúl Silva, archbishop of Santiago de Chile at the time of Pinochet's putsch, were and are among the brightest stars in the church's firmament.


Yet the clergy had – and still has – its villains.


Among the latest revelations to emerge from WikiLeaks is that, in 2002, as plotters in Venezuela's capital Caracas were liaising with the US authorities about the conspiracy to topple President Hugo Chávez, the leaders of the Catholic church in that country were defying the instruction of Pope John Paul II to desist from having anything to do with the coup d'état. Instead they threw their lot in with Pedro Carmona, the extremist rightwing businessman, who took office for less than 48 hours during a brief military coup in April 2002.


The cables reveal that Cardinal Antonio Ignacio Velasco, the Salesian archbishop of Caracas, was on hand to sign papers purporting to legitimise the ridiculous Carmona as he dismissed the congress and the judges, and briefly sent Venezuelan politics back into the dark ages. Happily, the genuine popularity of the legitimate head of state was such that the Carmona gang and their military accomplices were routed and Chávez was restored to power.


In doing what he did, Velasco, who died in 2003, and the majority of his fellow bishops, betrayed not just the papacy but their compatriots at the instance of a foreign power – in this case, the United States. This added to the prelates' marginalisation in Venezuelan life by the majority who, unsurprisingly, see them as firm upholders of the establishment in a major oil-producing country, where half of the population live below the poverty line.


Velasco and his successors are remembered now as part of the camarilla that opposed the reform programme of the Chávez government, which, in the 12 years it has been in power, raised a quarter of the country's population out of poverty.


The US government's – not to mention the western media's – condemnation of Chávez has, for years, done much to blank out the successes of a government which is still not just legitimate but popular. Few in the west realise that extreme poverty has been cut drastically and unemployment has been halved so that no more than 7% of the population is out of work.


On 19 November 2002, several months after Velasco's catastrophic mistake, the US envoy to the Vatican, James Nicholson, reported to his masters in Washington that the Holy See was alarmed at the outlook for further civil violence in the coming months. "The pope himself has insistently asked the Venezuelan bishops to cool their political activism and instead encourage dialogue," he said.


But by that time it was too late. Despite the fact that a mass was reported to have been offered in Caracas on Wednesday for Chávez as he recovers from his emergency operation in Havana, leaders of Venezuela's Catholics are seen to be on the wrong side, the side of the rich. But wasn't there something in the gospels about rich people, camels and the eyes of needles?

'Shocking' state of seas threatens mass extinction, say marine experts

Overfishing and pollution putting fish, sharks and whales in extreme danger – with extinction 'inevitable', study finds.

Fiona Harvey environment correspondent

guardian.co.uk Monday 20 June 2011 19.21 BST

Record high temperatures during 1998 wiped out 16% of all tropical coral reefs. Photograph: Darryl Leniuk/Radius Images/Corbis

Fish, sharks, whales and other marine species are in imminent danger of an "unprecedented" and catastrophic extinction event at the hands of humankind, and are disappearing at a far faster rate than anyone had predicted, a study of the world's oceans has found.

Mass extinction of species will be "inevitable" if current trends continue, researchers said.

Overfishing, pollution, run-off of fertilisers from farming and the acidification of the seas caused by increasing carbon dioxide emissions are combining to put marine creatures in extreme danger, according to the report from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (Ipso), prepared at the first international workshop to consider all of the cumulative stresses affecting the oceans at Oxford University.

The international panel of marine experts said there was a "high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history". They said the challenges facing the oceans created "the conditions associated with every previous major extinction of species in Earth's history".

"The findings are shocking," said Alex Rogers, scientific director of Ipso. "As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the ocean, the implications became far worse than we had individually realised. This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."

The flow of soil nutrients into the oceans is creating huge "dead zones", where anoxia - the absence of oxygen - and hypoxia - low oxygen levels - mean fish and other marine life are unable to survive there. Hypoxia and anoxia, warming and acidification are factors present in every mass extinction event in the oceans over the Earth's history, according to scientific research. About 55m years ago, as much as half of some species of deep-sea creatures were wiped out when atmospheric changes created similar conditions.

In recent years, human effects on the oceans have increased significantly. Overfishing has cut some fish populations by more than 90%. Pollutants, including flame-retardant chemicals and detergents are absorbed into particles of plastic waste in the sea, which are then ingested by marine creatures. Millions of fish, birds and other forms of life are choked or suffer internal ruptures from ingesting plastic waste.

During 1998, record high temperatures wiped out about 16% of the world's tropical coral reefs.

The scientists called on the United Nations and governments to bring in measures to conserve marine ecosystems. Dan Laffoley, of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, said: "The world's leading experts on oceans are surprised by the rate and magnitude of changes we are seeing. The challenges for the future of the oceans are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen. The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent".

Parliament Square peace campaigner Brian Haw dies

 

Brian Haw in Parliament Square Gardens in 2002

Peace campaigner Brian Haw has died after "a long hard fight" against lung cancer, his family has announced.

Mr Haw, 62, set up a camp in London's Parliament Square in 2001 in protest against UK and US foreign policy.
In March 2011, a High Court ruling obtained by London's mayor forced him to move his camp on to the pavement.
In a statement posted on Mr Haw's website, his family said he had died on 18 June in Germany, where he had been receiving medical treatment.

They said Mr Haw, from Redditch, Worcestershire, passed away in his sleep in no pain.
'Courage and determination'

An additional statement on his website from his campaign representatives said: "Brian showed great determination and courage during the many long hard years he led his Peace Campaign in Parliament Square, during which it is well documented that he was relentlessly persecuted by the authorities which eventually took its toll on his health.

"He made peace a daily demand for MPs and all those who worked in Parliament, passed or visited London”  Jeremy Corbyn MP

"Brian showed the same courage and determination in his battle with cancer. He was keenly aware of and deeply concerned that so many civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine did not have access to the same treatments that were made available to him.
"Parliament, the police, and courts etc, should forever be ashamed of their disgraceful behaviour towards Brian."

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn praised Mr Haw for reminding MPs "of the consequences of their decisions".
Fellow Labour MP Paul Flynn paid tribute to the peace campaigner on Twitter, saying: "Brian Haw's 10 years of 24/7 protest in all weathers against the futile wars in Iraq/Helmand deserves the nation's thanks and admiration."

Labour's John McDonnell, who served as a character witness for Mr Haw when he was arrested, tweeted that he respected Mr Haw's commitment to his campaign for peace.

Camp battle
Mr Haw set up camp in Parliament Square Gardens on 2 June 2001, in response to sanctions against Iraq. His protest grew broader after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Supporters at the camp have left his camping chair in place and his collection of bleak war photos at the site remains untouched.

Over the past decade, Mr Haw fought a lengthy battle with the authorities to keep his camp in place.

“I'm determined to be there until they kill me. How much longer will that be?” Brian Haw, 2010

In April 2002 Westminster City Council began legal action under the Highways Act to remove his camp on the grounds that he was a "nuisance", but the case never came to court. It later succeeded in limiting the hours he could use a megaphone but failed in an attempt to remove his placards for "obstruction" and "unlawful advertising".

Legislation passed in 2005 banned unauthorised protests within a square mile of Parliament but Mr Haw's protest was initially ruled to be outside the Act because it had been established before it came into effect.
In May 2006, however, the Court of Appeal said Mr Haw would need police permission to continue the protest. This was granted, but police limited his protest site to an area 3m wide by 1m deep by 3m high. They later tried to seize almost all his placards on the grounds he had breached those limits and left the site open to terrorists but a judge in 2007 ruled he had no case to answer.

Brian Haw was a fierce opponent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In May 2010, Mr Haw was charged with obstructing police during searches of tents on the green. Speaking after a court appearance, he set out his intention to remain in the square for the rest of his life.

"We're there because our country is committing infanticide, genocide, the looting of nations. I'm determined to be there until they kill me. How much longer will that be?"

In March this year, Mayor of London Boris Johnson won a possession order to evict Mr Haw and other campaigners from Parliament Square Gardens, which is owned by the Greater London Authority (GLA).
Mr Haw and many of the protesters subsequently moved on to the pavement - owned by Westminster Council. Westminster Council has been seeking a removal order, on the grounds the camp is obstructing the public highway.

If the council wins its court bid, the camp could be permanently removed.

Behind the protest

Mr Haw was born in 1949, initially living in Barking, Essex. He was a member of the merchant navy, ran a removals business and worked as a carpenter.

An evangelical Christian, his faith saw him visit Northern Ireland during the Troubles, and the killing fields of Cambodia.

He also worked with troubled youngsters in Redditch, Worcestershire, where he lived with his wife Kay and his seven children before starting his Parliament Square protest. He said the children of Iraq and other countries were "every bit as valuable and worthy of love as my precious wife and children".

"I want to go back to my own kids and look them in the face again, knowing that I've done all I can to try and save the children of Iraq and other countries who are dying because of my government's unjust, amoral, fear - and money-driven policies," he said.

Líder de desplazadas lleva varios días encerrada en casa por amenazas

Por: REDACCIÓN JUSTICIA | 7:44 a.m. | 16 de Junio del 2011

 

Gloria Patricia Jiménez asegura que la tildan de guerrillera sólo porque le falta una pierna.

En un laberinto interminable de empinadas escaleras, en el barrio San Agustín del sur de Bogotá, Gloria Patricia Jiménez convive día a día con lo que ella llama una "triple discriminación": el ser mujer, discapacitada y desplazada por la violencia.

"Era el 2 de febrero de 1983. Ese día fue por primera vez cuando vi el derramamiento de sangre. Desde ahí jamás pensé que la situación de la violencia me fuera a seguir, hasta el día de hoy".
Es la reflexión de Gloria, que en más de 15 años de presenciar el conflicto interno, ha quedado con profundas huellas en el cuerpo y en el alma.

Salió amenazada de la tierra que la vio nacer y crecer en junio de 1995. Vivía con su compañero sentimental en la vereda El 7 de Agosto, en el corregimiento de Turbo (Antioquia), cuando los paramilitares desocuparon su hogar luego de ser torturada, amarrada, y obligada a aguantar hambre, todo para que denunciara y diera la ubicación de integrantes de la Unión Patriótica.

"Ahora, el 19 de este mes, se cumplen 16 años de la muerte de tres de mis familiares. A mí me tocó ver y presenciar sus asesinatos", contó Gloria.
No obstante, estos no fueron los únicos crímenes que tuvo que presenciar. No sólo recordó el asesinato y entierro en fosas comunes de compañeros y amigos de la infancia, sino que también mencionó su encuentro con alias 'Monoleche', ex jefe 'para' del bloque Bananero de las Auc.

Sabiendo la amenaza de muerte que el bloque sostenía contra su tío, le propuso al ex militante canjear su vida por la de su familiar, quien finalmente fue quemado.

"En el 95 no existía la ley de la población desplazada, entonces nosotros no sabíamos para donde ir", explicó.

Por esto, "como nosotros veníamos amenazados supuestamente por la guerrilla, lo que hicimos fue callar y buscar refugio lo más lejos que pudiéramos", agregó.

De esta forma, llegó en calidad de desplazada a la capital del Valle. "Llegando a Cali perdí una de mis piernas. No supe si fue un atentado o qué paso. Lo único que yo recuerdo fue que el muchacho de la moto en la que iba dijo 'nos mataron'. No recuerdo más", narró Gloria Patricia, con el dolor latente por su suerte.
Recuerda que al despertar en el Hospital San Juan de Dios, "lo único que pensé era que me iba a morir. Ya, que dejaba este mundo, me sentí feliz", agrega.

Pero la vida continuó y fue acogida en un internado de monjas por cuatro años en los que intentó recuperarse y ocultarse. Quiso regresar a su tierra en el 2000, pero se encontró con la desaparición forzada de su padre, por lo que vivió en Apartadó (Urabá antioqueño) hasta que una segunda amenaza la hizo migrar de nuevo, esta vez a Bogotá.

"Me tocó salir embarazada de mi niña mayor el 12 de noviembre del 2003", narró Gloria, que, según sus palabras, lo pudo hacer gracias a la Policía, la Cruz Roja Internacional, y la Casa del Migrante.
En menos de 36 horas se instaló en Bogotá, donde asegura fue tratada "con mucho amor", a pesar de los tres días que tuvo que dormir debajo de las sillas en el terminal de la capital, alimentándose con residuos fríos.

"Fue tanto el desespero que me dio preeclampsia, neumonía, paro respiratorio. A mi niña me la tuvieron que sacar a los seis meses y medio porque fue mucha presión. Llegar a una ciudad tan grande...", recuerda Gloria Patricia.

Son precisamente todas esas experiencias las que la han llevado a "batallar para sobrevivir", y la han inspirado para luchar por los derechos humanos de otras mujeres que, como ella, han sido desplazadas y torturadas. Desde Fundescol en Cali hasta su actual rol de liderazgo en Sisma Mujer y la Corporación Anne Frank, se ha convertido en ejemplo y una mano amiga para aquellas que han padecido su mismo viacrucis.
Aunque en un momento la muerte pareció ser el "final feliz" a una vida de tanto sufrimiento, actualmente su situación es muy diferente. Tiene dos hijas, de 5 y 7 años, que le dan sentido al día a día.

Por esto, las amenazas de las que ha sido víctima desde noviembre del año pasado la asustan. No solamente ha recibido panfletos y llamadas a su casa y a su celular, sino que ha sido tildada por las personas del barrio como integrante de la guerrilla.

"A mí me buscan y me acusan de guerrillera porque me falta mi pierna, porque dicen que lo mío fue en un combate en la guerrilla", afirmó negando lo que se dice de ella.

"Ayer venía bajando y una persona me dijo 'Oiga, ¿verdad que usted es guerrillera?'. Entonces mi vida en este momento corre peligro. No sólo la mía, sino la de mis hijas y la de las personas que me rodean". Además, le da mucho temor la soledad de las calles del barrio en la mañana.

"Casi no salgo de la casa. Las calles son cerradas. En un momento en que me vayan a asesinar yo no tengo una manera de escape", describió, con una mirada temerosa y enfocada hacia el barrio que queda arriba del suyo y de donde cree que están viniendo las amenazas, "porque allá hay mucho paramilitar", asegura.
Esto se suma al hecho de que hay 200 mil personas antes que ella en la lista para recibir el subsidio para desplazados del Gobierno. Lo recibió hasta el 12 de junio del año pasado.

"Quisiera contar muchas historias de mi vida pero uno no se atreve porque no hay garantías", concluyó Gloria Patricia. Ahora espera tener las garantías para poder acercarse a la Fiscalía a denunciar pronto lo que le está sucediendo. Pero, sobre todo, que no sea la próxima Ana Fabricia Córdoba.

REDACCIÓN JUSTICIA

Ana Fabricia Córdoba: a death foretold

A Colombian activist predicted her own murder – respect her memory by launching an inquiry into abuse by security services

 

Euclides Montes

guardian.co.uk, Monday 13 June 2011 14.57 BST

Colombian activist Ana Fabricia Córdoba is mourned by her daughter. Photograph: Raul Arboleda/AFP/Getty Images

 

"They're going to kill me and no one's done anything." When Colombian activist Ana Fabricia Córdoba spoke those words last April during one of the last public meetings she attended, a sense of defiant outrage was evident in her demeanour – an unsurprising reaction for a woman who experienced first-hand years of armed conflict, and yet remained an outspoken advocate for the human rights of internally displaced people in the country.

She was shot dead on a bus by a lone gunman last week. Córdoba moved to Medellín, Colombia's second city, after her husband and oldest son were killed by paramilitary groups. Once in Medellín, she became an outspoken opposition voice, losing yet another son last year. She always maintained that her son was killed by the police, an accusation made publicly on national television. Foolhardy? Perhaps, but symptomatic of her belief in using her voice in favour of those victims of the conflict who, unlike her, don't have a public platform to speak from.

She must have welcomed the decision by President Juan Manuel Santos to recognise the existence of an "armed conflict" and the development of a "victim's law". Both steps have been rightly lauded as an important first stage towards a better rehabilitation of Colombian society. But it's also important that the years of abuse to which millions of Colombians have been subject are not swept under the carpet.

Accusations against left-leaning guerrillas and rightwing paramilitary groups have been part of the national discourse for decades. However, a third actor in the conflict has recently come to the forefront. Mention of the role that the security forces have played in the systematic abuse of the population has always been viewed as taboo in a society that has lived in fear for so long.

Rumours of sexual abuse and unlawful killings by Colombian security forces have always been present during the conflict. But it's not until now that the state has shown a willingness to put the country's "protectors" under closer scrutiny, perhaps the most welcome development in President Santos's victim's law. A case involving officers who have been suspended and tried for the rape and murder of young girls in Arauca serves to substantiate the state's position that it is genuine in its claim to take a stand and clean out the house from within. However, cases such as this one are few and far between, and it's important for Colombian society to continue to apply pressure on the government.

Last week, during a debate in the Colombian Congress, Angela María Robledo andIván Cepeda denounced the large-scale abuse perpetuated by the security forces in Colombia, in particular towards women. They claimed that every hour six Colombian women are physically abused as part of the conflict – an alarming statistic in itself, which is compounded by the further claim that among those reported, the security forces are responsible for a staggering 83% of the crimes.

It would be absurd to dismiss the steps being taken by this government; they mark a significant break with previous administrations' policies. But it's also important we use this opportunity as a springboard for further investigation. Robledo and Cepeda are calling for an inquiry into the role of the armed forces in the conflict, and based on the statistics above, it's perhaps the least the security forces must do. As opposed to the war-myopic policies of his predecessor, President Santos's government seems to have a real desire to look toward a Colombian society beyond the end of the conflict. This can only be achieved if the armed forces are able to regain their high standing in society by conscientiously investigating those who abused their position of power during the conflict, punishing them accordingly.



These developments have come far too late for Ana Fabricia Córdoba.Her voice was silenced one last time, and it is the duty of all Colombians to show their respect and gratitude. It is the efforts of women such as Cordoba that have brought us to this pivotal point in Colombian history. We must ensure that her death wasn't in vain.

Asesinada Ana Fabricia Córdoba Cabrera

Denuncia

Miércoles 8 de junio de 2011

Las Organizaciones abajo firmantes, denunciamos ante la comunidad nacional e internacional el asesinato del que fue víctima la líder comunitaria Ana Fabricia Córdoba Cabrera.

Fabricia pertenecía a la Asociación Líderes Hacia Adelante Por Un Tejido Humano de Paz (LATEPAZ), a la Mesa Interbarrial de Desconectados y a la Ruta Pacífica de las Mujeres en la ciudad de Medellín, Antioquia.

ANTECEDENTES

ANA FABRICIA llegó a Medellín hace cerca de una década huyendo de las matanzas cometidas por grupos paramilitares de las que fueron víctimas varios de sus familiares en la región del Urabá, desde entonces se asentó como desplazada en el barrio La Cruz de la comuna tres (Manrique).
Desde esa época, ANA FABRICIA denunció con claridad los hechos y exigió se investigara a los responsables. Por su calidad de líder comunitaria, inmediatamente se vinculó a diferentes procesos organizativos de desplazados y de mujeres en el barrio La Cruz y en la ciudad de Medellín.
En el año 2002 se inició el proceso de paramilitarización en los barrios de Medellín, entre ellos La Cruz y La Honda, denunciando ANA FABRICIA CÓRDOBA estos hechos y la connivencia de la fuerza pública con los grupos paramilitares.

Particularmente la señora CÓRDOBA fue clara en señalar a miembros de la Policía pertenecientes a la Estación de San Blas (Manrique) de apoyar la estructura paramilitar en la zona, además de cometer actos de tortura y tratos crueles, inhumanos y degradantes contra jóvenes del barrio, entre ellos a uno de sus hijos.
Estas denuncias le acarrearon persecuciones, señalamientos y amenazas que fueron denunciados ante los Organismos de Control de la ciudad, la Alcaldía de Medellín y la Oficina de la Alta Comisionada de Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos, Suboficina Medellín. A raíz de las persecuciones de las que fue objeto, fue víctima de un montaje judicial en el año 2004, como supuesta colaboradora de la guerrilla de las FARC y como consecuencia de ello, estuvo dos meses privada de la libertad en la cárcel del Buen Pastor, siendo finalmente absuelta de los cargos.

Posteriormente, su hijo CARLOS MARIO OSPINA fue asesinado, hecho del que ANA FABRICIA también culpaba a la Policía del barrio La Cruz por las constantes persecuciones y maltratos de los que CARLOS MARIO había sido objeto con sus otros dos hijos, también por parte de agentes policiales.
La señora ANA FABRICIA CÓRDOBA denunció constantemente a la Policía de la ciudad por actos de intimidación en su contra. Denunció en varias ocasiones el allanamiento a su vivienda sin orden judicial a altas horas de la noche acusándola de proteger a grupos armados. En otras ocasiones, civiles también entraron a su casa a intimidarla. Por lo anterior se veía obligada a dormir en diferentes casas por fuera del barrio como medida para proteger su vida.

A finales del año 2009 fue acreedora de un subsidio de vivienda por ser madre cabeza de familia desplazada y adquirió una vivienda en el barrio Popular de la comuna uno de la ciudad, situación que no mejoró del todo su seguridad pues denunciaba que la vivienda estaba ubicada en un sector muy conflictivo de la comuna, y las amenazas en su contra no cesaron.

El 7 de julio de 2010 fue asesinado su hijo JONATAN ARLEY OSPINA CORDOBA de 19 años de edad. Desde ese mismo instante ANA FABRICIA denunció a la policía del barrio La Cruz como la responsable del hecho, a raíz de ello cursa actualmente una investigación en La Fiscalía.

HECHOS

Desde la muerte de JHONATAN ARLEY y sus consecuentes denuncias, la señora ANA FABRICIA fue objeto de reiteradas Amenazas por parte de desconocidos.
La Policía Metropolitana del Valle del Aburrá le propuso a ANA FABRICIA la práctica de un Análisis de Riesgo, que únicamente implica una evaluación para eventuales medidas de chequeo de seguridad, por parte del órgano policial.

ANA FABRICIA se negó a dicho análisis, por la desconfianza que le generaba los antecedentes que señalan a la Policía como el organismo que siempre la persiguió a ella y a su familia. En la sesión del Comité Metropolitano de Derechos Humanos, realizada en el mes de abril de 2011, ANA FABRICIA hizo de público conocimiento las amenazas de las que era víctima.
El día 7 de junio de 2010, ANA FABRICIA CÓRDOBA fue asesinada cuando se movilizaba en un bus de la ruta Santa Cruz, por un hombre que le disparó en la cabeza con un arma con silenciador, quien después emprendió la huida.

El asesinato de ANA FABRICIA CÓRDOBA, evidencia la constante persecución y agresión contra los y las líderes comunitarias que trabajan en las diferentes regiones del país. Pese a todas las denuncias es clara la negligencia de parte de las autoridades que no le garantizaron la vida.
Desde julio de 2010 hasta abril de 2011 se han registrado 206 agresiones individuales contra defensores y defensoras, de los cuales 34 han sido asesinatos. En el mismo periodo, 127 organizaciones sociales o de derechos humanos fueron víctimas de algún tipo de agresión que puso en riesgo la vida e integridad de sus miembros y obstaculizó la labor legítima y legal de defensa de los derechos humanos. [1]

EXIGIMOS

• Se adelanten las investigaciones pertinentes, que logren esclarecer los hechos, móviles y autores materiales e intelectuales de este asesinato.

• Que el Estado Colombiano brinde garantías reales a los líderes comunitarios, defensores de derechos humanos y víctimas del conflicto armado en Colombia.

• Que se garantice la vida y la integridad de los familiares sobrevivientes de la señora ANA FABRICIA CÓRDOBA

8 de junio de 2011

Suscriben

Corporación Jurídica Libertad Fundación Comité de Solidaridad con los Presos Políticos –Seccional Antioquia-
Movimiento de Víctimas de Crímenes de Estado –
Capítulo Antioquia- Colectivo de Derechos Humanos Semillas de Libertad CODEHSEL Movimiento Nacional de Víctimas de Crímenes de Estado

Notas

[1] Campaña Por el derecho defender los derechos humanos en Colombia. Informe 2010 y primeros 90 días de gobierno de Santos.

Colombia's unethical development

By Jonathan Glennie Monday 6 June 2011 guardian.co.uk

Development can be carried out with justice, respect and dignity for the poor. Or with violence, displacement and the suppression of human rights. Colombia's former president chose the latter

Colombia's former president Alvaro Uribe followed an orthodox neoliberal approach to economics. Photograph: Jose Miguel Gomez/Reuters

 

 

Alvaro Uribe Vélez, Colombia's president between 2002 and 2010, is as divisive a figure as his neighbour and long-time phoney-war sparring partner, Hugo Chávez. Lauded by the right for saving the country from the brink of despair (Farc guerrillas had famously arrived at the outskirts of the capital Bogotá) and loathed on the left for his dismal record on human rights, his world lecture tour has followed a predictable pattern – he speaks at business school receptions while protesters scream at him from the pavements.

For most of the decade, Uribe led the only country in South America, with the possible exception of Peru, that followed an orthodox neoliberal approach to economics and wanted no part of the anti-imperialist sentiment that swept most of the new left to power, maintaining exceptionally tight political links with the US.
So how did Colombia fare under Uribe in terms of poverty reduction and development? The answer gives us a clue to the main battlegrounds in international development in the 21st century.

Development is essentially amoral. This may come as a shock to some people who think the concept implies a moral cause. I have spoken to rural community representatives in Colombia who say "development" is a threat to their families and way of life.

Why? Because although development can mean jobs, poverty reduction, greater respect for human rights, better access to basic services, and greater land sovereignty, it doesn't necessarily. Believe it or not, it is possible to reduce income poverty (MDG1), and to meet a range of other MDGs regarding provision of basic health and education while simultaneously committing grave human rights abuses, disempowering the poorest, and encouraging the consolidation of power and wealth in the hands of the rich.

Imagine a situation in which millions of people are displaced from their land by violence or the threat of violence. The land is taken over by businesses that develop mega plantations to produce bananas, palm oil, or, yes, coca. Jungle is cleared for cattle rearing. Mines are dug to extract copper, gold, emeralds or oil. The manufacturing sector, which creates jobs and strengthens the middle class, fails to advance while resource extraction and export, which employs very few and fills the pockets of the wealthy, is the key plank of development strategy.

Private investment flows in, which some analysts think is vital for development. Exports lead to economic growth, which many commentators seem to think is synonymous with development. Meanwhile, as human rights are ignored in order to quell social conflict, claims are made that the state finally controls its territory. An ex-president begins a world tour to explain how he did it.

So what happens to the displaced rural communities? Some are wiped out, especially the indigenous groups, who slowly become extinct. Others go to towns and cities, where they have no cultural or political identity, and may live in misery or are dependent on others. Ironically, they often have better access to basic healthcare and education, which are more prevalent in urban areas. And their incomes may increase, as they join the labour market rather than depend on the land. Of course, as the cost of living is higher, they are in truth poorer - but the statistics that make up MDG1 look rosy.

Crucially, the children of internally displaced people, like the children of refugees, may do much better than their parents. In a sense, then, development is taking place, because the next generation is better off according to basic development indicators.

The model of development I'm sketching here is, in my view, the one Uribe chose, and which his successor, Juan Manuel Santos, is continuing. It is a caricature, of course, and the reality is far more complicated. For example, the urban security achieved by Uribe has indeed led to increased investment and tourism, which is important. A balanced assessment of his time in office needs to acknowledge some steps forward.

But Colombia is fundamentally an example of how development can be unethical. Millions have been displaced, thousands killed, tribes wiped out, all in the name of development. Development can be carried out with justice, respect and dignity for the poor. Or it can be carried out with violence, displacement and the suppression of human rights. Development indicators can be met with a focus on jobs and equality or, bypassing these, with patriarchal handouts and the delivery of basic services without affecting fundamental power relations.

Colombia may be one of the best examples of the complexities and contradictions of development in the modern world, but it is far from alone. Speak to the Arabs rising up against their governments. Look at Rwanda and Ethiopia, Sri Lanka and Burma. The land grabs common in the new scramble for Africa are often no different from the kinds of practice I have described above. Some talk of a trade-off between human rights and development. But, in reality, the development strategy pursued by a particular government is a matter of moral and political choice.

While the world has devised development targets to chart progress, it has not yet built a database to measure the costs. The idea of the costs of development sounds like an oxymoron, but is the fundamental concept we need to place at the heart of development theory and practice in the 21st century. We need ethical, not just sustainable, development. As for Colombia, if this is the route to development, I'm handing back my ticket.

• This article was amended on 6 June 2011: the word 'amoral' was in the original article and headline, this has now been changed.