Powerful Commentary by Argentine Journalist Horacio Verbitsky on the Pope

Here's a powerful commentary by award-winning investigative journalist and human rights advocate Horacio Verbitsky in today's Página 12 about the real meaning of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis. It's in PSanish, so if anyone can translate this into English, it'd be a great public service.

Un ersatz

Por Horacio Verbitsky

Entre los centenares de llamados y mails recibidos, elijo uno. “No lo puedo creer. Estoy tan angustiada y con tanta bronca que no sé qué hacer. Logró lo que quería. Estoy viendo a Orlando en el comedor de casa, ya hace unos años, diciendo ‘él quiere ser Papa’. Es la persona indicada para tapar la podredumbre. Es el experto en tapar. Mi teléfono no para de sonar, Fito me habló llorando.” Lo firma Graciela Yorio, la hermana del sacerdote Orlando Yorio, quien denunció a Bergoglio como el responsable de su secuestro y de las torturas que padeció durante cinco meses de 1976. El Fito que la llamó desconsolado es Adolfo Yorio, su hermano. Ambos dedicaron muchos años de su vida a continuar las denuncias de Orlando, un teólogo y sacerdote tercermundista que murió en 2000 soñando la pesadilla que ayer se hizo realidad. Tres años antes, su íncubo había sido designado arzobispo coadjutor de Buenos Aires, lo cual preanunciaba el resto.

Orlando Yorio no llegó a conocer la declaración de Bergoglio ante el Tribunal Oral Federal 5. Allí dijo que recién supo de la existencia de chicos apropiados después de terminada la dictadura. Pero el Tribunal Oral Federal 6, que juzgó el plan sistemático de apropiación de hijos de detenidos-desaparecidos, recibió documentos que indican que ya en 1979 Bergoglio estaba bien al tanto e intervino al menos en un caso a solicitud del superior general, Pedro Arrupe. Luego de escuchar el relato de los familiares de Elena de la Cuadra, secuestrada en 1977, cuando atravesaba el quinto mes de embarazo, Bergoglio les entregó una carta para el obispo auxiliar de La Plata, Mario Picchi, pidiéndole que intercediera ante el gobierno militar. Picchi averiguó que Elena había dado a luz una nena, que fue regalada a otra familia. “La tiene un matrimonio bien y no hay vuelta atrás”, informó a la familia. Al declarar por escrito en la causa de la ESMA, por el secuestro de Yorio y del también jesuita Francisco Jalics, Bergoglio dijo que en el archivo episcopal no había documentos sobre los detenidos-desaparecidos. Pero quien lo sucedió, su actual presidente, José Arancedo, envió a la jueza Martina Forns copia del documento que publiqué aquí, sobre la reunión del dictador Videla con los obispos Raúl Primatesta, Juan Aramburu y Vicente Zazpe, en la que hablaron con extraordinaria franqueza sobre decir o no decir que los detenidos-desaparecidos habían sido asesinados, porque Videla quería proteger a quienes los mataron. En su clásico libro Iglesia y dictadura, Emilio Mignone lo mencionó como paradigma de “pastores que entregaron sus ovejas al enemigo sin defenderlas ni rescatarlas”. Bergoglio me contó que en una de sus primeras misas como arzobispo divisó a Mignone e intentó acercársele para darle explicaciones, pero que el presidente fundador del CELS alzó la mano indicándole que no avanzara.

No estoy seguro de que Bergoglio haya sido elegido para tapar la podredumbre que redujo a la impotencia a Joseph Ratzinger. Las luchas internas de la curia romana siguen una lógica tan inescrutable que los hechos más oscuros pueden atribuirse al espíritu santo, ya sean los manejos financieros por los que el Banco del Vaticano fue excluido del clearing internacional porque no cumple con las reglas para controlar el lavado de dinero, o las prácticas pedófilas en casi todos los países del mundo, que Ratzinger encubrió desde el Santo Oficio y por las que pidió perdón como pontífice. Ni siquiera me extrañaría que, brocha en mano y con sus zapatos gastados, Bergoglio emprendiera una cruzada moralizadora para blanquear los sepulcros apostólicos.
Pero lo que tengo por seguro es que el nuevo obispo de Roma será un ersatz, esa palabra alemana a la que ninguna traducción hace honor, un sucedáneo de menor calidad, como el agua con harina que las madres indigentes usan para engañar el hambre de sus hijos. El teólogo brasileño de la liberación Leonardo Boff, excluido por Ratzinger de la enseñanza y del sacerdocio, tenía la ilusión de que fuera elegido el franciscano de ancestros irlandeses Sean O’Malley, que carga con la diócesis de Boston, quebrada por tantas indemnizaciones que pagó a niños vejados por sacerdotes. “Se trata de una persona muy vinculada a los pobres porque trabajó mucho tiempo en América Latina y el Caribe, siempre en medio de los pobres. Es una señal de que puede ser un papa diferente, un papa de una nueva tradición”, escribió el ex sacerdote. En la Silla Apostólica no se sentará un verdadero franciscano sino un jesuita que se hará llamar Francisco, como el pobrecito de Asís. Una amiga argentina, me escribe azorada desde Berlín que para los alemanes, que desconocen su historia, el nuevo papa es tercermundista. Menuda confusión.

Su biografía es la de un populista conservador, como lo fueron Pío XII y Juan Pablo II: inflexibles en cuestiones doctrinarias pero con una apertura hacia el mundo, y sobre todo, hacia las masas desposeídas. Cuando rece su primera misa en una calle del trastevere o en la stazione termini de Roma y hable de las personas explotadas y prostituidas por los poderosos insensibles que cierran su corazón a Cristo; cuando los periodistas amigos cuenten que viajó en subte o colectivo; cuando los fieles escuchen sus homilías recitadas con los ademanes de un actor y en las que las parábolas bíblicas coexisten con el habla llana del pueblo, habrá quienes deliren por la anhelada renovación eclesiástica. En los tres lustros que lleva al frente de la Arquidiócesis porteña hizo eso y mucho más. Pero al mismo tiempo intentó unificar la oposición contra el primer gobierno que en muchos años adoptó una política favorable a esos sectores, y lo acusó de crispado y confrontativo porque para hacerlo debió lidiar con aquellos poderosos fustigados en el discurso.

Ahora podrá hacerlo en otra escala, lo cual no quiere decir que se olvide de la Argentina. Si Pacelli recibió el financiamiento de la Inteligencia estadounidense para apuntalar a la democracia cristiana e impedir la victoria comunista en las primeras elecciones de la posguerra y si Wojtyla fue el ariete que abrió el primer hueco en el muro europeo, el papa argentino podrá cumplir el mismo rol en escala latinoamericana. Su pasada militancia en Guardia de Hierro, el discurso populista que no ha olvidado, y con el que podría incluso adoptar causas históricas como la de las Malvinas, lo habilitan para disputar la orientación de ese proceso, para apostrofar a los explotadores y predicar mansedumbre a los explotados.

Here's an interesting story coming out of Consortium News that I think is worth reading, by journalist Robert Parry, raising specific issues with regard to Pope Francis' role in the Argentine Dirty War. There are other articles forthcoing, and I'm sure many of you have been following this already. Share if you can.

‘Dirty War’ Questions for Pope Francis

March 13, 2013

Exclusive: The U.S. “news” networks bubbled with excitement over the selection of Argentine Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to be Pope Francis I. But there was silence on the obvious question that should be asked about any senior cleric from Argentina: What was Bergoglio doing during the “dirty war,” writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry (Updated March 14, 2013)
If one wonders if the U.S. press corps has learned anything in the decade since the Iraq War – i.e. the need to ask tough question and show honest skepticism – it would appear from the early coverage of the election of Pope Francis I that U.S. journalists haven’t changed at all, even at “liberal” outlets like MSNBC.
The first question that a real reporter should ask about an Argentine cleric who lived through the years of grotesque repression, known as the “dirty war,” is what did this person do, did he stand up to the murderers and torturers or did he go with the flow. If the likes of Chris Matthews and other commentators on MSNBC had done a simple Google search, they would have found out enough about Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to slow their bubbling enthusiasm.

Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now Pope Francis I, in 2008. (Photo credit: Aibdescalzo)

Bergoglio, now the new Pope Francis I, has been identified publicly as an ally of Argentine’s repressive leaders during the “dirty war” when some 30,000 people were “disappeared” or killed, many stripped naked, chained together, flown out over the River Plate or the Atlantic Ocean and pushed sausage-like out of planes to drown.

The “disappeared” included women who were pregnant at the time of their arrest. In some bizarre nod to Catholic theology, they were kept alive only long enough to give birth before they were murdered and their babies were farmed out to military families, including to people directly involved in the murder of the babies’ mothers.

Instead of happy talk about how Bergoglio seems so humble and how he seems so sympathetic to the poor, there might have been a question or two about what he did to stop the brutal repression of poor people and activists who represented the interests of the poor, including “liberation theology” priests and nuns, during the “dirty war.”

Here, for instance, is an easily retrievable story from Guardian columnist Hugh O’Shauhnessy from 2011, which states:
“To the judicious and fair-minded outsider it has been clear for years that the upper reaches of the Argentine church contained many ‘lost sheep in the wilderness’, men who had communed and supported the unspeakably brutal Western-supported military dictatorship which seized power in that country in 1976 and battened on it for years.
“Not only did the generals slaughter thousands unjustly, often dropping them out of aeroplanes over the River Plate and selling off their orphan children to the highest bidder, they also murdered at least two bishops and many priests. Yet even the execution of other men of the cloth did nothing to shake the support of senior clerics, including representatives of the Holy See, for the criminality of their leader General Jorge Rafael Videla and his minions.

“As it happens, in the week before Christmas [2010] in the city of Córdoba Videla and some of his military and police cohorts were convicted by their country’s courts of the murder of 31 people between April and October 1976, a small fraction of the killings they were responsible for. The convictions brought life sentences for some of the military.
“These were not to be served, as has often been the case in Argentina and neighbouring Chile, in comfy armed forces retirement homes but in common prisons. Unsurprisingly there was dancing in the city’s streets when the judge announced the sentences.
“What one did not hear from any senior member of the Argentine hierarchy was any expression of regret for the church’s collaboration and in these crimes. The extent of the church’s complicity in the dark deeds was excellently set out by Horacio Verbitsky, one of Argentina’s most notable journalists, in his book El Silencio (Silence).

“He recounts how the Argentine navy with the connivance of Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, now the Jesuit archbishop of Buenos Aires, hid from a visiting delegation of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission the dictatorship’s political prisoners. Bergoglio was hiding them in nothing less than his holiday home in an island called El Silencio in the River Plate.

“The most shaming thing for the church is that in such circumstances Bergoglio’s name was allowed to go forward in the ballot to chose the successor of John Paul II. What scandal would not have ensued if the first pope ever to be elected from the continent of America had been revealed as an accessory to murder and false imprisonment.

“One would have thought that the Argentine bishops would have seized the opportunity to call for pardon for themselves and put on sackcloth and ashes as the sentences were announced in Córdoba but that has not so far happened.

“But happily Their Eminences have just been given another chance to express contrition. Next month the convicted murderer Videla will be arraigned for his part in the killing of Enrique Angelelli, bishop of the Andean diocese of La Rioja and a supporter of the cause of poorer Argentines. He was run off the highway by a hit squad of the Videla régime and killed on 4th August 1976 shortly after Videla’s putsch. …
“Cardinal Bergoglio has plenty of time to be measured for a suit of sackcloth – perhaps tailored in a suitable clerical grey – to be worn when the church authorities are called into the witness box by the investigating judge in the Angelelli case. Ashes will be readily available if the records of the Argentine bishops’ many disingenuous and outrightly mendacious statements about Videla and Angelelli are burned.”

Now, instead of just putting forward Bergoglio’s name as a candidate for Pope, the College of Cardinals has actually elected him. Perhaps the happy-talking correspondents from the U.S. news media will see no choice but to join in the cover-up of what Pope Francis did during the “dirty war.” Otherwise, they might offend some people in power and put their careers in jeopardy.
In contrast to the super-upbeat tone of American TV coverage, the New York Times did publish a front-page analysis on the Pope’s conservatism, citing his “vigorous” opposition to abortion, gay marriage and the ordination of women. The Times article by Emily Schmall and Larry Rohter then added:
“He was less energetic, however, when it came to standing up to Argentina’s military dictatorship during the 1970s as the country was consumed by a conflict between right and left that became known as the Dirty War. He has been accused of knowing about abuses and failing to do enough to stop them while as many as 30,000 people were disappeared, tortured or killed by the dictatorship.”

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

La Venas Abiertas de Hugo Chavez

(Published in El Diario La Prensa of New York on Friday, March 8, 2013). Por Mario A. Murillo En el año 2009, durante uno de los primeros viajes en el exterior de Barack Obama después de su elección, en la Cumbre de las Américas en Trinidad-Tobago, el presidente venezolano Hugo Chavez llamó la atención del público cuando entregó un regalo al nuevo presidente Estadounidense: el texto seminal del legendario escritor Uruguayo Eduardo Galeano, Las Venas Abiertas de Látinoamerica: Cinco siglos de saqueo del continente. Para comentaristas en los medios norteamericanos, era otro ejemplo del comportamiento erratico de Chavez, casi todos sumamente críticos de su acto supuestamente arbitrario. Pero ninguno de estos reportajes trato de poner el libro en su contexto, ni mencionó su importancia para mucha gente en la region, y porque era un regalo relevante para Obama considerando el escenario de la cumbre. Para mi, este evento representa el legado de Chavez después de su muerte el martes. En terminos del establecimiento económico y político de Venezuela y el hemisferio entero, Chavez era un malandro autoritario y anti-democrático quien se rodeaba de aliados para seguir una agenda fracasada de redistribución socialista. Esta perspectiva era compartida por los poderosos vecinos del norte, preocupados mas por el acceso permanente al petroleo venezolano que con los principios democráticos. Por supuesto, el libro de Galeano no fue escrito para estos sectores, sino para confrontar la historica hegemonía que han mantenido sobre el desarollo de la región. Para los trabajadores, los pobres, los desplazados, los campesinos, indígenas y afro-descendientes através del continente, Chavez representaba la resistencia, la dignidad, y la fuerza, o sea, la esperanza que otro mundo si era possible. La venas abiertas de las que escribio Galeano son las venas de los ancestros de estas comunidades, hoy en día los mas marginalizados en el mundo. Al regalar este libro a Obama, Chavez deseó que lo leyera para de pronto guiar lo que Obama llamó “la “nueva politica” estadounidense hacia América Latina. Dos años luego, en una entrevista con CNN, Chavez dijo que el estaba profundamente decepcionado de Obama, y que la política norteamericana hacia Venzuela y a la region en general no habia cambiado. Por otra parte, los críticos de Chavez, independientemente de la oposición tradicional de Venezuela, también pueden encontrar bastantes ejemplos de como las promesas de la revolución bolivariana de transformar a Venezulea no han sido cumplidos tampoco, y todavia hay mucho que hacer. De todas maneras, no hay duda que el ambiente político ha cambiado bastante en estos años, no solo en Venezuela sino en todo el hemisferio. A pesar de los graves problemas y las contradicciones que existen dentro del gobierno venezolano, el camino independiente tomado por Chavez es uno que varios otros gobiernos han seguido también, en el espiritu de integración regional, autonomía frente a los EEUU, y abriendo espacios para los mas pobres. Si Obama leyo el libro de Galeano, el regalito de Chavez durante la cumbre en el 2009, entenderá completamente porque. Mario A. Murillo es professor y director de la facultád de Radio, Televisión y Cine de Hofstra University. ENGLISH VERSION: The Open Veins of Hugo Chavez By Mario A. Murillo In 2009, during one of Barack Obama’s first trips abroad after getting elected, at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez upstaged everyone present by handing the new U.S. President a gift: the seminal text by legendary Latin American novelist and social critic Eduardo Galeano, The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent. For media pundits in the US, it was another example of the erratic behavior of the Venezuelan leader, most of them critical of Chavez’ seemingly random gesture. Yet none of these reports contextualized the book, its deep significance to so many people in the region, and why it was a relevant gift to Obama given the setting. In many ways, this one event speaks volumes as to what will be the legacy of Hugo Chavez in the wake of his death on Tuesday after battling cancer for two years, and transforming Venezuelan politics for over 20, when he first gained national prominence during a failed coup attempt in 1992. To the economic and political establishment of Venezuela and the rest of the hemisphere, Chavez was seen as an authoritarian, undemocratic thug who surrounded himself by yes-men in order to pursue a failed agenda of socialist redistribution. This perspective was shared and propagated by the powerful neighbors to the north, concerned more about maintaining unbridled access to the country’s oil wealth than truly democratic principles. Clearly, Galeano’s book was not written for this sector, but in direct challenge to their long grip on the historical development of the region. For the working poor, the homeless, peasants, indigenous and Afro-descendants throughout Central and South America, Chavez symbolized resistance, dignity, and strength, the hope that another world was indeed possible. The Open Veins Galeano writes about are the veins of the ancestors of these communities. It was Chavez’ hope that Obama might take time to read the book, perhaps to help guide his self-described “new approach” to Washington’s relationship with Latin America. A couple of years later, Chavez told CNN that he was “profoundly disappointed” with Obama, and that he noticed very little difference in U.S. policy towards Latin America generally, and Venezuela in particular. On the other hand, independent critics of Chavez could point to a number of ways in which his promise of a Bolivarian revolution transforming Venezuela has not come to fruition either. That said, there is no doubt that the tables have turned, not only in Venezuela, but throughout the hemisphere. For better or for worse, the independent course set by Hugo Chavez for Venezuela is one that many countries have pursued as well, in the spirit of giving a voice to the voiceless, building regional integration, and establishing autonomy from the United States. If Obama, or anybody else in his Administration actually read Galleano’s tome, they would clearly understand why. Mario A. Murillo is professor and chair of the Department of Radio, Television, Film at Hofstra University.

U.S. Groups Welcome the United States’ Decision to Grant Visa to Hollman Morris

The Center for International Policy, Washington Office on Latin America, Latin America Working Group and U.S. Office on Colombia welcome the U.S. State Department’s decision to reverse their initial denial of a visa to Colombian independent journalist Hollman Morris. Our groups, which have worked with Mr. Morris for years, were greatly disturbed when Morris was denied a visa in July under the terrorist activities section of the Patriot Act. When Mr. Morris’ visa was denied, we joined others in urging U.S. policymakers to change this decision.

Mr. Morris’s work is instrumental in raising awareness regarding the victims of Colombia’s internal armed conflict and their rights to justice. Mr. Morris reports from Colombia’s most conflict-ridden areas and on some of the country’s most controversial and politically sensitive topics. He served a key role in raising global awareness of many human rights abuses, including the 2005 massacre in the San José de Apartadó peace community. Always with a view to reporting from the perspective of those affected by Colombia’s legal and illegal armed groups, corruption and adverse effects of anti-narcotics policies, Mr. Morris’s work sheds light on Colombia’s reality to Colombians and the world.

His courageous independent reporting made him the recipient of prestigious human rights awards. It has also made him the target of political persecution and the recipient of multiple death threats. Mr. Morris was one of the many human rights defenders and government critics who were victimized by Colombia’s Administrative Security Agency (DAS). As per our report Far Worse than Watergate, on the DAS intelligence scandal, Mr. Morris was subjected to illegal surveillance, wiretapping and a defamation campaign.

We thank U.S. policymakers for reversing this decision in favor of Mr. Morris and freedom of expression in Colombia. We also look forward to Morris’s time in the United States as a Neiman Foundation Fellow. It is our hope that Mr. Morris’s time in the United States will enable him to educate and inspire others in the field of investigative and independent journalism. We also hope that in the future he will be able to make his important contributions as a journalist without the fear of physical harm and political persecution.

For more information contact:

Gimena Sanchez, Senior Associate
Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)
(202) 797-2171; gsanchez@wola.org

Lisa Haugaard, Executive Director
Latin America Working Group (LAWG)
(202) 546-7010; lisah@lawg.org

Kelly Nicholls, Executive Director
US Office on Colombia (USOC)
(202) 232-8090; kelly@usofficeoncolombia.org

Abigail Poe, Director of Latin America Security program
Center for International Policy (CIP)
(202) 232-3317; abigail@ciponline.org

Colombia Reports: Morris' visa case shows little change in Obama policy

Morris' visa case shows little change in Obama policy

Friday, 16 July 2010 00:07 Pablo Rojas Mejia

The rejection of Hollman Morris’s visa application shows that, in U.S. policy toward Colombia, the line between terrorism and political dissent is appallingly blurry.

Some of us hoped, but there was no change. Even under Obama, it seems, the U.S. government struggles to distinguish between the Colombian terrorists, drug traffickers and political dissidents. Last week, the victim was Colombian journalist Hollman Morris. Morris, one of twelve journalists participating in Harvard University’s prestigious Nieman Fellowship program, had his application for a U.S. visa denied, apparently due to suspicions of terrorist activities.

In some ways, this is hardly surprising. Morris has a long history of problems with the authorities, mainly because he is one of few prominent journalists willing to investigate the Colombian government’s ties to paramilitary groups. President Uribe has publicly insulted Morris on more than one occasion and even called him “an accomplice to terrorism”. (Of course, despite repeated efforts, the government has never proven any links between Morris and terrorist groups.) Moreover, after the September 11^th attacks, there is nothing at all shocking about a foreigner - especially a Colombian - having his or her visa request unjustly denied.

But what makes Morris’s case perplexing is that he is a famous journalist whom many high-ranking American officials hold in high esteem. Not too long ago, for example, Morris visited the U.S. and met with Dan Restrepo, the U.S. National Security Council’s top official for Western Hemisphere affairs, to discuss human rights abuses in Colombia. Several high-ranking State Department officials are fans of Morris and have called his work ‘courageous’.

So what explains the U.S. government’s rejection of Morris’s visa request? One possible explanation is that it was merely a mistake somewhere along the bureaucratic assembly line that manages American visa applications. His professional history is certainly prone to such misinterpretation by foreign officials. For example, Morris is known to have maintained contact with FARC guerrillas while reporting on Colombia’s armed conflict. On the other hand, the fact that Morris has been granted U.S. visas many times before raises the question of why this time was different.

Perhaps the answer has something to do with Colombian government’s rapidly intensifying campaign to discredit Morris. Having been called an accomplice to terrorism by the most U.S.-friendly President in the Americas is probably not a good thing when applying for an American visa. In fact, given that Colombia is among the most dangerous countries on Earth for journalists, a visa denial is probably among the mildest things that could have resulted from Uribe’s baseless accusations.

Although Uribe’s public spat with Morris probably some indirect influence on his visa application process, a more likely direct culprit is the Administrative Security Department (DAS in its Spanish acronym). Colombia’s infamously corrupt intelligence agency has a long, well-documented history of harassing and illegally monitoring critics of the government. Moreover, the DAS has the ability to spread information around the international intelligence community. American NGO Human Rights Watch has already accused the DAS of playing a direct role in the denial of Morris’s visa and some recently revealed documents do indeed reveal an active DAS campaign to tarnish Morris’s reputation.

That Uribe and the DAS are treating innocent domestic critics as terrorists is nothing new. What is most perplexing worrying about Morris’s case is the fact that the U.S. government remains so susceptible to such nonsense. As mentioned above, many high-ranking U.S. officials see Morris as a courageous journalist, not a terrorist sympathizer. Nevertheless, the denial of his visa request reveals a huge gap in attitudes and perceptions between the upper echelons State Department and the White House on the one hand and American security agencies on the other.

The most prominent recent example of this fragmentation was the public relations debacle surrounding an agreement to allow the American military to use several Colombian military bases. Soon after the deal was revealed, Colombia´s neighbors expressed concerns about the apparent secrecy of the deal. When top American diplomats struggled to explain their country’s plans for the bases, it became clear that the U.S.’s military leadership and its diplomatic corps were not on the same page about what the agreement consisted of and what its purpose was.

The root problem behind this fragmentation is the Obama administration´s failure to define its stance on Colombia policy. On the one hand, the President and his top appointees seem to be more cautious and skeptical of the Uribe government than was the Bush administration. As a candidate, for example, Obama expressed reservations about a free trade agreement with Colombia due to the country’s high murder rate for union members. The administration’s top officials dealing with U.S.-Latin America relations, including Mr. Restrepo, also seem more willing to sit down and listen to some of Uribe’s harshest critics, like Morris.

On the other hand, the current administration is also sending clear messages of continuity from the Bush years. During and following Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to Colombia, top American officials have showered Uribe and his soon-to-be replacement Juan Manuel Santos with praise and confirmed the strength of U.S.-Colombia relations. The rejection of Morris’s visa application is illustrative of the fact that the opinions of the Colombian government, even if they have no proven basis in fact, can still influence the behavior of the American government.

As a result, on a number of key issues – from the free trade agreement to human rights to whether Hollman Morris is a terrorist or a courageous journalist - the highly fragmented U.S. government is sending incoherent, contradictory messages. The new administration’s vision for relations with Colombia remains unclear and time will tell how Juan Manuel Santos’s election will fit into this confusing picture. In the meantime, we can only hope that growing pressure from journalists´ groups, human rights activists and Harvard University will lead the U.S. government to rescind its rejection of Morris´s visa application.

AAUP on Hollman Morris Visa Denial

Free Speech Groups Ask Secretary Clinton To Review Exclusion Of Colombian Journalist

New York– The American Civil Liberties Union, American Association of University Professors and PEN American Center today sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing alarm over reports that prominent Colombian journalist Hollman Morris was denied a visa to travel to the United States. Morris was one of 12 international journalists selected to participate in the Nieman fellowship program at Harvard University during the 2010-11 academic year. However, when he applied for a visa in order to attend the program, he was informed by the U.S. embassy in Bogota that he had been found permanently ineligible for a visa under the Patriot Act.

According to today’s letter, the exclusion of Morris limits the ability of his “colleagues and hosts to exercise fully their First Amendment rights,” and is out of step with “this administration’s stated commitment to fostering a free exchange of information and ideas between the U.S. and the world.”

Earlier this year, Clinton signed orders effectively lifting the exclusion from the United States of prominent scholars Adam Habib and Tariq Ramadan.

The full text of the letter is online (.pdf) and below.

July 13, 2010

Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Secretary Clinton:

We are writing on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Association of University Professors, and PEN American Center to express our alarm over reports that prominent Colombian journalist Hollman Morris has been denied a visa to travel to the United States.

Mr. Morris has traveled to the United States numerous times in the past at the invitation of leading human rights and journalists’ organizations interested in his experiences as a journalist covering the armed conflict in Colombia and his perspective on the political situation in his country. In 2007 he was honored by Human Rights Watch with its prestigious Human Rights Defender award, and he was one of 12 international journalists selected to participate in the Nieman fellowship program at Harvard University for the 2010-2011 academic year. The Nieman fellowship program is the oldest and most distinguished program for mid-career journalists in the world. It was in applying for a visa to attend this program that Mr. Morris was reportedly informed by a consular official at the U.S. embassy in Bogota that he has been found permanently ineligible for a visa under the security provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Earlier this year, our organizations wrote to thank you for signing orders effectively ending the exclusion of Adam Habib and Tariq Ramadan, two internationally-recognized scholars who had been barred from traveling to the United States by the previous administration. Professor Habib and Professor Ramadan were among dozens of prominent foreign intellectuals and writers who had visas canceled or denied between 2001 and 2008 to prevent them from assuming teaching posts at U.S. universities, fulfilling speaking engagements with U.S. audiences, and attending U.S. academic conferences. Deeply troubled by this resurgence in the discredited practice of ideological exclusion, we were gratified by your efforts to lift the ban on these two colleagues and hopeful that this signaled a willingness on the part of the Obama administration to end the practice of barring those whose views the government disfavors from the United States. No legitimate interest is served by the exclusion of foreign nationals on ideological grounds. Ideological exclusion impoverishes intellectual inquiry and debate in the United States, suggests to the world that our country is more interested in silencing than engaging its critics, and undermines our ability to support dissent in politically repressive nations.

The recent news that Mr. Morris has been denied a visa runs counter to this administration’s decisions in the Habib and Ramadan cases. Not only does his exclusion limit the ability of his Harvard colleagues and hosts to fully exercise their First Amendment rights, it also, by virtue of the reach and stature of the Nieman program, projects a particularly visible and troubling message—a message that clearly does not accord with this administration’s stated commitment to fostering a free exchange of information and ideas between the U.S. and the world. We therefore ask you to review the exclusion of Hollman Morris as a matter of urgency, with an eye toward allowing him to join his colleagues at Harvard University in early September.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions, please contact ACLU Legislative Counsel Joanne Lin.

Sincerely,
Anthony Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

Gary Rhoades
General Secretary
AAUP

Kwame Anthony Appiah
President
PEN American Center

cc: Harold Koh
Legal Advisor to the Secretary of State

LA Times STory on Hollman Morris Visa Denial by US

Denied a Nieman, by the U.S.

For the first time, the U.S. has denied a journalist entry to participate in Harvard University's Nieman Fellowship program.

By Robert H. Giles

4:41 PM PDT, July 13, 2010

It is not uncommon for international journalists who come to Harvard University as Nieman fellows to be out of favor with their governments. They often work in countries where free expression and the rule of law exist in name only. They report in an atmosphere of danger where threats, and sometimes violence, are common tools to encourage self-censorship and silence truth-telling.

Colombian journalist Hollman Morris has long worked in challenging conditions, producing probing television reports that document his country's long and complex civil war. He has built contacts with the left-wing guerilla group known as the FARC and told stories of the conflict's victims. He has revealed abuses by the country's intelligence service and enraged government officials, including the president, Alvaro Uribe, who once called him "an accomplice to terrorism."

Morris was awarded a Nieman Fellowship in journalism this spring and planned to travel to the United States to begin his studies at Harvard in the fall. But then, last week, he was told by a U.S. consular official in Bogota that he was being denied a visa under the "terrorist activities" section of the Patriot Act.

In the 60 years that foreign journalists have participated in the Nieman program, they have sometimes had trouble getting their own countries to allow them to come. The foundation's first brush with the harsh reality of journalism under repressive regimes came in 1960, when Lewis Nkosi, a black South African and writer for Drum, a magazine for black South Africans, was awarded a fellowship. His application for a passport was denied by the country's apartheid government. Angry and bitter, he applied for an exit visa. It enabled him to leave, but he was forbidden to ever return.

Morris, though, is the first person in Nieman history to be denied the right to participate not by his own country but by ours. The denial is alarming. It would represent a major recasting of press freedom doctrine if journalists, by establishing contacts with so-called terrorist organizations in the process of gathering news, open themselves to accusations of terrorist activities and the possibility of being barred from travel to the United States.

For the full story, go to: LA TIMES.