Published on Thursday, April 23, 2009 by Foreign Policy In Focus
by Stephen Zunes
In boycotting the United Nations conference on racism, the Obama administration demonstrated that just because an African American can be elected president doesn't mean the United States will be any more committed than the Bush administration in fighting global racism. Rejecting calls by liberal Democratic members of Congress, leading human rights groups, Pope Benedict XVI, and most of the international community to participate, the Obama administration instead gave into pressure by Congressional hawks and other anti-UN forces by joining a handful of other nations refusing to participate in the historic gathering.
The five-day conference, which is taking place this week in Geneva, assessed international progress in fighting racism and xenophobia since the UN's first conference in Durban, South Africa eight years ago. The Bush administration withdrew from that gathering, but there had been hope the Obama administration wouldn't continue its predecessor's ideology-driven opposition to the UN and its human rights agenda.
With pressure from the United States and some other countries, the draft declaration prepared for this year's conference dropped a call to ban "defamation of religion," which raised concerns regarding restricting free speech, as well as any references to Israel and Palestine. State Department spokesperson Robert Wood acknowledged that the draft was "significantly improved," and that the United States was "deeply grateful" that requested changes had been made. Yet he announced the United States would boycott the conference anyway because the document reaffirmed the final declaration of the 2001 meeting in Durban right-wing critics had labeled "anti-Israel."
For the full story, click here!.
MAMA Radio: News and Views - in Spanish and English - about the U.S., Latin America, and other developments taking place around the world, with links and information related to citizens' and community media projects, as well as news articles, press releases and commentaries from independent sources. This is a re-boot in progress! Stay tuned...
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Comunicación, clave para la resistencia indígena - Communication is Essential for Indigenous Resistance
04/21/2009
Autor: Vilma Almendra del Tejido de Comunicación ACIN
Autor: Vilma Almendra del Tejido de Comunicación ACIN
Desde el proceso político organizativo de la zona norte del Cauca históricamente se han venido construyendo estrategias de resistencia, que han partido de un análisis colectivo del contexto de agresión y de reconocer a los agresores que atacan el Plan de Vida del Pueblo Nasa.
Por esto, la comunicación también ha ido cambiando, se ha ido ajustando al contexto y se ha hecho más indispensable que en tiempos anteriores, convirtiéndose en una estrategia clave para la resistencia.
Esto ha llevado a que la comunidad Nasa, además de fortalecer toda la comunicación con la naturaleza y con todo su contexto interno, a partir del 2004 se abra a espacios más políticos y más externos para visibilizar, proteger y fortalecer los planes de vida.
En este sentido, han apropiado medios de comunicación como la radio, la internet, el impreso y el video al servicio de la comunidad, articulándolos con las formas propias de comunicación, participación y toma de decisiones como la asamblea, los congresos, las mingas y las movilizaciones.
Desde el Tejido de Comunicación y Relaciones Externas se están usando herramientas tecnológicas y de comunicación que sirven para acompañar los espacios de encuentro en la comunidad, donde el sentido de la comunicación es fortalecer la consciencia para seguir resistiendo pacíficamente desde el territorio.
Esto se hace partiendo de informar a la comunidad y dar las bases mínimas para que haya una reflexión de la realidad con el contexto integral, que lleve a una toma de decisión clara y consciente para actuar de manera coherente y consecuente con el proceso político organizativo y el contexto local, nacional e internacional.
Es así como la estrategia de comunicación para la resistencia se enfoca en aportar sustanciosamente a informar, reflexionar, decidir y actuar con y desde la comunidad, utilizando los instrumentos de comunicación como herramientas político estratégicas, para fortalecer la consciencia caminando la palabra.
Tejido de Comunicación ACIN
El surgimiento del Tejido de Comunicación coincide con el inicio de la Etapa de la Alternativa -tejer con otros - del movimiento indígena que llevó al Congreso Indígena y Popular realizado en el 2004 cuando cerca de 60 mil personas principalmente indígenas del Cauca caminaron hacia Cali, llamando a la unidad de los pueblos para rechazar la agresión sistemática a través del TLC con EE.UU., la reforma constitucional y para reclamar el respeto a la vida.
Desde ese momento, específicamente con el Congreso de Caldono en el 2005 se organizó oficialmente el Tejido de Comunicación y Relaciones Externas para la Verdad y la Vida, donde ya se empezaba a articular medios de comunicación (radio, internet, impresos y video) con formas propias (asambleas, mingas, congresos...) de comunicación. Así nació el Tejido de Comunicación, proyectando el sentido de comunicar retomando la historia, pero también teniendo en cuenta el contexto de agresión integral en el territorio.
El Tejido empezó a juntar esfuerzos que venían caminando desde hace varios años en el norte del Cauca, experiencias radiales con Voces de Nuestra Tierra, Radio Nasa y Radio Pa´yumat, trabajos en video como Somos Alzados en Bastones de Mando, Pa´ Poder que nos den Tierra y ahora País de los Pueblos sin Dueños, prácticas en impresos con la Revista El Carpintero, y usos de internet a través de la página web de ACIN, el boletín electrónico y las relaciones externas.
Todas esas dinámicas se empezaron a coordinar para responder a los objetivos de los tejidos de vida de la ACIN: fortalecer, visibilizar y proteger la vida y el territorio. Entonces se empezó a pensar y a actuar de manera más coordinada y estratégica desde la comunicación para la resistencia. Porque para los Nasa es muy claro que los medios son sólo instrumentos que pueden acompañar o dañar un proceso, dependiendo del uso que se le de.
Fue así como el trabajo se hizo más arduo para los jóvenes colaboradores en el Tejido, puesto que ya no era sólo poner música en la emisora sino hacer programas de opinión, generar debates, hacer análisis y reflexiones con la comunidad sobre temas coyunturales y temas de fondo para entender la realidad que viven. Ya no era sólo grabar asambleas, reuniones, movilizaciones y demás eventos para guardar los casetes en un archivo, sino organizar, gestionar y sacar tiempo para editar y así producir documentales dando cuenta de la resistencia.
Ya no era sólo publicar los informes de los Tejidos de Vida, los mandatos y las resoluciones, sino escribir, investigar y diseñar, que era tan complicado para ellos, viniendo de una pueblo de tradición oral. Seguramente este fue el proceso que más les constó.
Ahora no sólo escriben para la revista El Carpintero, sino también para la página web, hacen reportes de lo que pasa en el norte del Cauca y denuncian oportunamente la agresión. Porque ya no era sólo reenviar información a cientos de direcciones, sino editorializar lo que se envía, provocar debate y hacer análisis desde el movimiento indígena para llegar a miles de personas en Colombia y fuera del país.
Internet, ventana al mundo exterior
La ACIN fue una de las primeras organizaciones indígenas en Colombia que hizo uso de las TIC (Tecnologías de Información y Comunicación) a mediados de 2001, a través del Telecentro -un espacio con dos computadores con acceso a internet, un scanner, una impresora, una web cam y una fotocopiadora- que se implementó en el marco del Proyecto Inforcauca con el apoyo del Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical y la Universidad Autónoma de Occidente.
Después de varios años de experimentar y de establecer algunas prácticas comunicativas para el apoyo a los programas de la ACIN y los cabildos, esta organización inició una búsqueda de nuevas alternativas para fortalecer el proceso y en especial la comunicación externa. La primera experiencia con el uso de internet se realizó durante el Congreso Indígena y Popular, cuando desde la ACIN se hizo minga con personas comprometidas no sólo del Cauca, para visibilizar esta movilización.
Durante este evento, se combinaron todas las formas de comunicación hacia adentro y hacia fuera de modo que en más de 600 países del mundo se hizo seguimiento constante de este congreso, sus propósitos y resultados. Ahí funcionó una Minga de Comunicación, donde se transmitió en directo a través de la Radiocicleta (bicicleta con transmisor) y la señal de ésta se subió a internet, permitiendo que durante el Congreso todo el acontecer se emitiera para todo el mundo.
Desde ese entonces se vienen implementado las TIC como una herramienta útil para visibilizar la agresión y la situación actual que viven las comunidades, las apuestas políticas del movimiento indígena y para establecer solidaridad recíproca entre los pueblos y procesos sociales y populares.
Así, la comunidad Nasa percibe las TIC como un medio y no como un fin. Es una herramienta usada estratégicamente para acompañar sus procesos organizativos, sociales y populares. Ellos saben que si el medio se usa para alcanzar objetivos, que incluyen la visibilidad y la solidaridad internacional en beneficio de la comunidad, es valedero, pero si se usa para entretener y hacer lo mismo que los medios masivos, no sirve.
La responsabilidad está en la claridad política y la consciencia comunitaria que tienen quienes hacen uso de éstas y de la forma como la orienten en las comunidades. Esto lo saben y por eso en un principio fueron renuentes a utilizar la internet, porque entienden que la comunicación en la globalización se encuentra bajo el orden comunicacional imperante, donde lo importante es vender y entretener. Por esto, primero había que hacer consciencia y saber para qué se iba a utilizar, antes de usar la herramienta.
En esta medida, la internet como ventana al mundo exterior cumple un rol fundamental como herramienta que facilita la visibilización nacional e internacional a través de la web de la ACIN (www.nasaacin.org), donde se da a conocer la agresión constante al pueblo Nasa, a los pueblos indígenas en Colombia y de América Latina, y a los movimientos sociales y populares de resistencia pacífica. También informa y reflexiona sobre el proceso político organizativo que estos movimientos adelantan en defensa de la vida y el territorio para la construcción de alternativas. Asimismo, aprovechan la información que circula en internet para informar al interior de la comunidad a través de Radio Pa`yumat (La voz del pueblo Nasa) y en espacios de encuentro apoyan en las reflexiones y en la lectura de contexto.
En este sentido, el uso de las tecnologías de información, como la internet y la radio, permiten la movilización política de la comunidad indígena, en la medida en que van más allá de la información fortaleciendo los espacios para reflexionar, tomar decisiones conscientes y actuar de manera colectiva.
Con el uso de internet los indígenas Nasa, son más visibles y su palabra es escuchada en muchas partes de Colombia y del mundo, porque ellos comparten su palabra en la perspectiva de apoyarse mutuamente para resistir y para promover la construcción recíproca de alternativas en minga con otros pueblos y procesos. Además de resistir y sobrevivir en el territorio y con la Madre Tierra gracias a darse a conocer, convocar y denunciar, vienen aprendiendo en este intercambio que les permite analizar y comprender el contexto nacional e internacional para ubicar el Plan de Vida en este entorno del planeta tierra, de los pueblos en resistencia por la defensa de la vida y de sus dinámicas.
Caminar la palabra
La apropiación de información como la capacidad que tienen las personas para tomar algo externo y ponerlo en función de sus necesidades, desde sus costumbres, de su entorno y de sus dinámicas para fortalecerse, nos evidencia que la ACIN ha sido eficaz en apropiarse de herramientas como la internet, puesto que la ha convertido en un medio importante para la visibilización del proceso y de los momentos cruciales como las agresiones en ámbitos internacionales.
Con ese sentir, se camina la palabra, no sólo en el discurso y en la propuesta política, sino en la acción y la consciencia para la movilización. Desde el Tejido de Comunicación se acompaña, se camina, se escucha y se recoge desde la comunidad para ir buscando la palabra adecuada la palabra perfecta que incita a la acción coherente y consciente con el Plan de Vida de los pueblos indígenas. Es aquí donde se hace práctica el pensamiento Nasa "La palabra sin la acción es vacía, la acción sin palabra es ciega, la acción y la palabra fuera del espíritu de la comunidad, es la muerte". Esto no solamente recoge el sentir de una comunidad, sino también lo que se refleja en la comunicación para la verdad y la vida.
Al mismo tiempo, está la relación con otros, tejer la jigra de unidad popular y hacer alianzas estratégicas con criterios éticos, desde el respeto, la diversidad, la confianza y la colectividad. En este aspecto, el intercambio de experiencias, sentir el dolor del otro y compartir estrategias de resistencias entre movimientos sociales en Colombia y América Latina, teniendo en cuenta que el problema de fondo es el modelo económico que los somete, es uno de sus principales objetivos, para seguir aprendiendo y fortaleciéndose entre pueblos desde diversos espacios, pero específicamente desde la comunicación en movimiento para la resistencia.
La verdad, la participación y la democracia desde los pueblos es lo que buscan los movimientos sociales fortalecer ante la sociedad, pero también ante los medios masivos de comunicación que son más de propaganda que de comunicación, porque la intención es dominar para tener audiencias pasivas y evitar que la comunicación para la consciencia siga creciendo desde los movimientos sociales. ¿Será por esto que señalan, persiguen, amenazan y atentan contra los tejedores de comunicación?
Este grupo de comunicadores indígenas siente que fuerzas externas buscan silenciar este proceso de comunicación para acabar con un Tejido que informa desde la realidad, desde la consciencia, desde la crítica al modelo económico que somete a los pueblos y camina la palabra de la alternativa que propone un pueblo que se rige bajo la colectividad, la solidaridad y la construcción de otro mundo posible y necesario que va en contravía de la acumulación y la explotación desmedida de la Madre Tierra, es decir, se opone a los intereses transnacionales.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Mixed Feelings About the Summit of the Americas
Some Thoughts About Obama's First Meeting with Hemispheric Leaders
Of all the memorable statements coming out of the Fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad this weekend, the one that stood out the most for me was President Barack Obama’s public expression of how he intended to approach his first major meeting with his hemispheric counterparts.
"I have a lot to learn and I'm very much looking forward to listening," the president said in his opening address.
With those few words, Obama demonstrated, at least rhetorically, an openness that has never existed in Washington’s many dealings with the countries of the southern part of the hemisphere. Perhaps they were just words, a clever way for the smooth-talking Obama to warm up to his audience of skeptics, not only those Presidents and Prime Ministers present in Port of Spain, but their hundreds of millions of constituents back home – from the shanty towns of Rio, to the jungles of Chiapas, the highlands of Bolivia, to the dusty streets of Haiti – most of whom continue to cast a wary eye on the many decades of U.S. interventions and misdeeds, always in the name of “democracy,” “human rights,” and economic justice.
Although it is still too early to tell if his words were genuine, or if this is a true sign that U.S. policy vis a vis Latin America will undergo some necessary transformations, it is not a stretch to say that this weekend’s event was a step forward, not the usual several steps back.
In his 17-minute speech to the 34-nation gathering on Friday, President Obama promised a new agenda for the Americas, and emphasized what he described as a different way to approach the many problems facing the region.
"We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms," Obama told an enthusiastic audience. "But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations."
His careful, almost apologetic words, and his general demeanor – did you catch that friendly, over-the-top handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez? – reflected the comfort of someone who has traveled the world with an open mind for many years, not looking for simple, textbook answers, but searching for nuance, complexity, and perspective.
Understanding that his choice of words would most likely be converted into more political fodder for right-wing talk radio hosts in the U.S. to attack the Administration’s latest “un-American” foreign policy endeavors, Obama embraced the Summit in its diversity, and seemed to welcome it as a unique opportunity for expanding his knowledge and understanding.
Cuba Making Waves
Much was said about Washington’s overtures towards Cuba prior to the start of the Summit, namely the loosening of travel restrictions to the island for Cuban Americans and a willingness to engage the Cuban government on a wide range of issues. These developments occupied a great deal of the news coverage of the first 24 hours of the gathering, and followed an unprecedented amount of diplomatic maneuvers between Havana and Washington that was unfolding at breakneck speed.
What was less reported was Obama’s recognition on Sunday of Cuba’s historic role in medical assistance throughout the world, and Havana’s health care solidarity for the poorest countries of the hemisphere, something the President apparently heard a lot about from the many leaders he met with over the weekend as they tried to convince him to end the decades-long U.S. embargo against the island nation.
“It’s a reminder for us in the United States,” President Obama was quoted in the New York Times, “that if our only interaction with many of these countries is drug interdiction, if our only interaction is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence.”
It may not lead to the radical shifts that many people have been looking for, but that Cuba has something to show the United States is groundbreaking stuff, if one considers the intransigence and hostility that has characterized Washington’s stubborn position towards Havana for the last fifty years.
Throughout the few days of meetings and public engagements, Obama projected a worldview not shaped by that lethal combination of arrogance and ignorance that has so often poisoned past encounters between U.S. Presidents and the countries that occupy, what some closed-minded pundits still consider to be, “our own backyard.” In responding to Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega’s scathing 50-minute critique of U.S. imperial power in the region, which included a reminder about the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, Obama openly distanced himself from the dangerous arrogance that comes with unchecked economic and military power. At the same time, unlike his immediate predecessor, he did not demonstrate a childish ignorance, one that all too often permeates Washington policy-making circles, allowing it to dictate failed remedies repeatedly, all the while not fully understanding the history of the many societies with which it is engaging.
"I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old," Obama said, to laughter and applause from the other leaders present. It should be pointed out that, in its website, the conservative Fox News called this a misstatement on the part of the President, reminding us that the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion took place in April 1961, and Obama was born in August of that same year. So indeed, Obama misspoke! Shame on him! He was not even born when Kennedy engaged in this foreign policy fiasco!
Changing the Tone with Evo and Hugo?
Although it did not get much attention in the U.S. news media covering the event, the Fifth Summit of the Americas was taking place in the wake of an assassination attempt against one of the event’s participants, President Evo Morales of Bolivia. Bolivian security forces said they thwarted an assassination plot against Morales, the first indigenous leader elected president of that country. The agents killed three people, including two Hungarians and a Bolivian, in a half-hour shootout in the opposition stronghold of Santa Cruz on Thursday.
According to several reports, President Morales confronted Obama during a private session, saying that the U.S. is meddling in his country and had plotted to assassinate him. Obama responded saying, “I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments.”
One important message Obama appears to be sending by his performance at the Summit of the Americas is that shortsighted domestic politics, shaped by reactionary yet powerful constituents back home, will not have the final say in how the White House will develop its policy towards the region. The incremental steps taken with respect to Cuba, however limited they may be, are a clear indication of this.
More striking was that now famous first encounter with President Chavez, who, in recent years, through the narrow prism of the U.S. corporate media, has emerged as even more of a problem for Washington than the Castro brothers. All reports from the Summit show that Obama was the first to approach Chavez, who responded positively to the President’s gesture by saying “I want to be your friend.”
Obama rejected criticism of taking such an approach. "The whole notion was that if we showed courtesy or opened up dialogue with governments that had previously been hostile to us, that that somehow would be a sign of weakness,” Obama said on Sunday at the end of the Summit. “It doesn't make sense."
Not surprisingly, however, it did not take long for the negative reaction to start making its way through the toxic filters of the corporate media. Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada told CNN that it was “irresponsible for the president” to be seen laughing and joking with “one of the most anti-American leaders in the entire world.”
I can’t wait to hear Hannity and Rush this week. I’m sure they’ll have a lot of colorful things to say about this close encounter of the un-American kind!
Clearly Obama must have known that the images of him smiling with the notorious Venezuelan leader - including a very visible hand shake among “comrades” more commonly seen among participants at the World Social Forum than at the Summit of the Americas - would make their way back to the cable TV talk show circus that pollutes the airwaves with misinformation every night. But it did not seem to matter to him in the larger scheme of things.
Obama understands that Venezuela is not a “hostile” nation, whatever that means. Judging from some of his comments in his opening address, he also recognizes the historical contradiction in Washington’s decades-long embrace of undemocratic and corrupt regimes in Caracas, who were acceptable to U.S. policy makers for decades only because those governments fell obediently in line behind Washington’s unbending appetite for Venezuelan crude.
“We have to stand up against any force that separates any of our people from that story of liberty -- whether it's crushing poverty or corrosive corruption; social exclusion or persistent racism or discrimination. Here in this room, and on this dais, we see the diversity of the Americas. Every one of our nations has a right to follow its own path,” he said.
Furthermore, as a student of (recent) history, Obama is not unaware of the role the Bush Administration played in supporting the ill-fated coup in 2002 that temporarily pushed the democratically-elected Chavez out of office. Undoubtedly he has been briefed on the U.S. government’s ongoing financial and political support of the Venezuelan opposition, something that does not sit well with Chavez, and would be unacceptable for people in Washington if the roles were reversed. So his public greeting to Chavez was a welcome step forward, however superficial or symbolic.
Yes, the White House was forced to downplay this temporary easing of tensions later, with Obama saying the Venezuelan leader’s inflammatory rhetoric has been “a source of concern.” And evidently, Obama looked a little uncomfortable on Saturday when Chavez walked over to him and handed him a copy of the book “The Open Veins of Latin America,” by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano, a classic text celebrated by several generations throughout the continent as the clearest denunciation of U.S. imperialism. One could only hope that Obama actually reads the book, and in the process of learning, takes into consideration some of Galeano’s incisive critique.
Lest critics of Obama’s small gesture gain any traction, it must be stated that already some progress was made in Trinidad when it comes to U.S.-Venezuela relations. Venezuela and the United States expelled each other's ambassadors in September 2008. At the summit, Chavez approached Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and said he was restoring his nation's ambassador in Washington, expressing optimism for a new era in positive relations.
"We ratify our willingness to begin what has started: cementing new relations," Chavez said on Venezuelan television. "We have the very strong willingness to work together."
Why would anybody frown upon opening the lines of communication once again, especially if you recall that in January, Chavez said Obama had the same "stench" as former President Bush after Obama criticized Chavez for backing FARC guerillas in neighboring Colombia. Earlier this month, during a trip to Iran, Chavez said, "I hope President Obama is the last president of the Yankee Empire, and the first president of a truly democratic republic, the United States." While the tone has changed a lot in the last few days, only time will tell if Chavez’ hope will be fulfilled.
Reasons to Be Concerned
I am not overly optimistic, and would like to think that I have not been blindsided by Obama’s rhetorical skills and diplomatic capacity at the expense of substance. Indeed, I should point out there is still considerable reason to be concerned about U.S. Latin America policy on many fronts.
In his brief visit to Mexico on Thursday, Obama acknowledged the problems of U.S. drug consumption and the facility with which weapons are acquired in the U.S. by the violent drug cartels south of the border, a welcome change in counter-drug rhetoric that at least partially accepts responsibility for the problems that emanate from the drug trade. However, as the Washington Office on Latin America has clearly documented in recent reports about U.S. counter-drug policies, there is an over-emphasis on military and security strategies to address the problems, and not enough focus on judicial reform, the strengthening of democratic institutions, and economic development that would limit the influence and the attraction of the drug trade in the Mexican countryside. This is a recipe for disaster.
As for Colombia, despite talking tough against the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement during the campaign on human rights grounds, the Obama Administration is taking active steps, albeit quietly, to resume talks on jumpstarting the controversial bilateral trade deal. Some of this may be the result of the ongoing talk of the Colombian “success story” under President Alvaro Uribe, an assessment that has taken on a life of its own in the U.S. media, leading journalists like Scott Wilson in the Washington Post to even suggest that Obama should apply the "Colombia model" in its war in Afghanistan. Colombia’s El Tiempo reported on Saturday that Uribe and Obama will most likely meet in the coming months, first in Washington, and later in the year in Colombia, despite a somewhat cool start to their relationship after Obama’s election in November. These improved relations between Washington and Bogotá may not be greeted favorably by Colombian human rights advocates who have been highly critical of Uribe’s human rights record since taking office in 2002.
Furthermore, there is still a long way to go on Cuba. Indeed, the final declaration of the Summit was not ratified because several countries did not want to endorse a gathering that for years has excluded Cuba from the deliberations. Many of the leaders present pressed Obama on ending the embargo against Cuba, and are urging the re-instatement of Cuba into the Organization of American States. The careful language used by Administration officials basically saying the ball was in Castro’s court is an indication that it may be some time before we see any further movement in Cuba policy, despite the ringing endorsement for such change by everybody present.
Finally, I think we cannot overlook one other aspect of the situation in Latin America that ultimately will be quite significant in the future relationship between Washington and the governments of the region, and something Obama must not ignore if he wants to avoid repeating the tragic mistakes of the past. This is especially important to consider given the growing economic crisis in the U.S., which has yet to be fully felt by the countries of the south. I refer to the 40-50% of the population that continues to be struggling precariously in extreme poverty, and whose interests are scarcely represented in these high profile gatherings like the one we just witnessed over the weekend.
Indeed, one sector that has been completely absent in most of the coverage of the Summit has been the Latin American social movements, the tens of millions of people – indigenous, peasant, of African descent, workers, students - who have throughout the region stepped up and made their voices heard, in the sugar cane fields, in the factories, on the streets and in the ballot boxes. These are the people who are actively confronting the neo-liberal economic model of free trade, deregulation, and cuts in social spending, a model that today is witnessing an international crisis of traumatic proportions, forever stripping it of its legitimacy. These movements have always rejected U.S. militarism and the implementation of security policies that serve only a small percentage of the population of the hemisphere, at the expense of the vast majority of the people. They have been calling for a recognition and adoption by their own governments of the many international charters and treaties that call for the respect of humanitarian law, environmental protection, the rights of indigenous peoples, and the defense of labor. And they are building democratic, grassroots structures that have expanded their reach of solidarity and action throughout the hemisphere and the rest of the world, in a global movement for change from the bottom up, against business as usual.
Many of them no doubt feel betrayed by their representatives attending this weekend’s Summit in Trinidad. For some, as they watched their governments cozy up to Washington over the past few days, there is probably a feeling creeping up once again of being left out of the discussion, of deliberate exclusion.
Obama must be open to hear these voices as well, if he is truly looking to open up a new era in Pan American relations. He must listen, and hopefully learn some important lessons in the process.
I’ve heard some people make the argument recently that Obama is the U.S. manifestation of the broader wave of progressive governments that have been democratically elected throughout the hemisphere in recent years? From Argentina to El Salvador, Bolivia to Paraguay, Brazil to Ecuador, a wide range of political tendencies and movements have emerged to challenge the hegemony of the United States in the region.
So too was Obama elected by a U.S. public that was seeking fundamental changes in the direction of the country, indeed the world.
This weekend, Obama showed some promise.
But it’s up to us to make sure he does a lot more when it comes to our America.
Of all the memorable statements coming out of the Fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad this weekend, the one that stood out the most for me was President Barack Obama’s public expression of how he intended to approach his first major meeting with his hemispheric counterparts.
"I have a lot to learn and I'm very much looking forward to listening," the president said in his opening address.
With those few words, Obama demonstrated, at least rhetorically, an openness that has never existed in Washington’s many dealings with the countries of the southern part of the hemisphere. Perhaps they were just words, a clever way for the smooth-talking Obama to warm up to his audience of skeptics, not only those Presidents and Prime Ministers present in Port of Spain, but their hundreds of millions of constituents back home – from the shanty towns of Rio, to the jungles of Chiapas, the highlands of Bolivia, to the dusty streets of Haiti – most of whom continue to cast a wary eye on the many decades of U.S. interventions and misdeeds, always in the name of “democracy,” “human rights,” and economic justice.
Although it is still too early to tell if his words were genuine, or if this is a true sign that U.S. policy vis a vis Latin America will undergo some necessary transformations, it is not a stretch to say that this weekend’s event was a step forward, not the usual several steps back.
In his 17-minute speech to the 34-nation gathering on Friday, President Obama promised a new agenda for the Americas, and emphasized what he described as a different way to approach the many problems facing the region.
"We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms," Obama told an enthusiastic audience. "But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations."
His careful, almost apologetic words, and his general demeanor – did you catch that friendly, over-the-top handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez? – reflected the comfort of someone who has traveled the world with an open mind for many years, not looking for simple, textbook answers, but searching for nuance, complexity, and perspective.Understanding that his choice of words would most likely be converted into more political fodder for right-wing talk radio hosts in the U.S. to attack the Administration’s latest “un-American” foreign policy endeavors, Obama embraced the Summit in its diversity, and seemed to welcome it as a unique opportunity for expanding his knowledge and understanding.
Cuba Making Waves
Much was said about Washington’s overtures towards Cuba prior to the start of the Summit, namely the loosening of travel restrictions to the island for Cuban Americans and a willingness to engage the Cuban government on a wide range of issues. These developments occupied a great deal of the news coverage of the first 24 hours of the gathering, and followed an unprecedented amount of diplomatic maneuvers between Havana and Washington that was unfolding at breakneck speed.
What was less reported was Obama’s recognition on Sunday of Cuba’s historic role in medical assistance throughout the world, and Havana’s health care solidarity for the poorest countries of the hemisphere, something the President apparently heard a lot about from the many leaders he met with over the weekend as they tried to convince him to end the decades-long U.S. embargo against the island nation.
“It’s a reminder for us in the United States,” President Obama was quoted in the New York Times, “that if our only interaction with many of these countries is drug interdiction, if our only interaction is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence.”
It may not lead to the radical shifts that many people have been looking for, but that Cuba has something to show the United States is groundbreaking stuff, if one considers the intransigence and hostility that has characterized Washington’s stubborn position towards Havana for the last fifty years.
Throughout the few days of meetings and public engagements, Obama projected a worldview not shaped by that lethal combination of arrogance and ignorance that has so often poisoned past encounters between U.S. Presidents and the countries that occupy, what some closed-minded pundits still consider to be, “our own backyard.” In responding to Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega’s scathing 50-minute critique of U.S. imperial power in the region, which included a reminder about the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, Obama openly distanced himself from the dangerous arrogance that comes with unchecked economic and military power. At the same time, unlike his immediate predecessor, he did not demonstrate a childish ignorance, one that all too often permeates Washington policy-making circles, allowing it to dictate failed remedies repeatedly, all the while not fully understanding the history of the many societies with which it is engaging.
"I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old," Obama said, to laughter and applause from the other leaders present. It should be pointed out that, in its website, the conservative Fox News called this a misstatement on the part of the President, reminding us that the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion took place in April 1961, and Obama was born in August of that same year. So indeed, Obama misspoke! Shame on him! He was not even born when Kennedy engaged in this foreign policy fiasco!
Changing the Tone with Evo and Hugo?
Although it did not get much attention in the U.S. news media covering the event, the Fifth Summit of the Americas was taking place in the wake of an assassination attempt against one of the event’s participants, President Evo Morales of Bolivia. Bolivian security forces said they thwarted an assassination plot against Morales, the first indigenous leader elected president of that country. The agents killed three people, including two Hungarians and a Bolivian, in a half-hour shootout in the opposition stronghold of Santa Cruz on Thursday.
According to several reports, President Morales confronted Obama during a private session, saying that the U.S. is meddling in his country and had plotted to assassinate him. Obama responded saying, “I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments.”
One important message Obama appears to be sending by his performance at the Summit of the Americas is that shortsighted domestic politics, shaped by reactionary yet powerful constituents back home, will not have the final say in how the White House will develop its policy towards the region. The incremental steps taken with respect to Cuba, however limited they may be, are a clear indication of this.
More striking was that now famous first encounter with President Chavez, who, in recent years, through the narrow prism of the U.S. corporate media, has emerged as even more of a problem for Washington than the Castro brothers. All reports from the Summit show that Obama was the first to approach Chavez, who responded positively to the President’s gesture by saying “I want to be your friend.”
Obama rejected criticism of taking such an approach. "The whole notion was that if we showed courtesy or opened up dialogue with governments that had previously been hostile to us, that that somehow would be a sign of weakness,” Obama said on Sunday at the end of the Summit. “It doesn't make sense."
Not surprisingly, however, it did not take long for the negative reaction to start making its way through the toxic filters of the corporate media. Republican Senator John Ensign of Nevada told CNN that it was “irresponsible for the president” to be seen laughing and joking with “one of the most anti-American leaders in the entire world.”
I can’t wait to hear Hannity and Rush this week. I’m sure they’ll have a lot of colorful things to say about this close encounter of the un-American kind!
Clearly Obama must have known that the images of him smiling with the notorious Venezuelan leader - including a very visible hand shake among “comrades” more commonly seen among participants at the World Social Forum than at the Summit of the Americas - would make their way back to the cable TV talk show circus that pollutes the airwaves with misinformation every night. But it did not seem to matter to him in the larger scheme of things.
Obama understands that Venezuela is not a “hostile” nation, whatever that means. Judging from some of his comments in his opening address, he also recognizes the historical contradiction in Washington’s decades-long embrace of undemocratic and corrupt regimes in Caracas, who were acceptable to U.S. policy makers for decades only because those governments fell obediently in line behind Washington’s unbending appetite for Venezuelan crude.
“We have to stand up against any force that separates any of our people from that story of liberty -- whether it's crushing poverty or corrosive corruption; social exclusion or persistent racism or discrimination. Here in this room, and on this dais, we see the diversity of the Americas. Every one of our nations has a right to follow its own path,” he said.
Furthermore, as a student of (recent) history, Obama is not unaware of the role the Bush Administration played in supporting the ill-fated coup in 2002 that temporarily pushed the democratically-elected Chavez out of office. Undoubtedly he has been briefed on the U.S. government’s ongoing financial and political support of the Venezuelan opposition, something that does not sit well with Chavez, and would be unacceptable for people in Washington if the roles were reversed. So his public greeting to Chavez was a welcome step forward, however superficial or symbolic.
Yes, the White House was forced to downplay this temporary easing of tensions later, with Obama saying the Venezuelan leader’s inflammatory rhetoric has been “a source of concern.” And evidently, Obama looked a little uncomfortable on Saturday when Chavez walked over to him and handed him a copy of the book “The Open Veins of Latin America,” by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano, a classic text celebrated by several generations throughout the continent as the clearest denunciation of U.S. imperialism. One could only hope that Obama actually reads the book, and in the process of learning, takes into consideration some of Galeano’s incisive critique.
Lest critics of Obama’s small gesture gain any traction, it must be stated that already some progress was made in Trinidad when it comes to U.S.-Venezuela relations. Venezuela and the United States expelled each other's ambassadors in September 2008. At the summit, Chavez approached Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and said he was restoring his nation's ambassador in Washington, expressing optimism for a new era in positive relations.
"We ratify our willingness to begin what has started: cementing new relations," Chavez said on Venezuelan television. "We have the very strong willingness to work together."
Why would anybody frown upon opening the lines of communication once again, especially if you recall that in January, Chavez said Obama had the same "stench" as former President Bush after Obama criticized Chavez for backing FARC guerillas in neighboring Colombia. Earlier this month, during a trip to Iran, Chavez said, "I hope President Obama is the last president of the Yankee Empire, and the first president of a truly democratic republic, the United States." While the tone has changed a lot in the last few days, only time will tell if Chavez’ hope will be fulfilled.
Reasons to Be Concerned
I am not overly optimistic, and would like to think that I have not been blindsided by Obama’s rhetorical skills and diplomatic capacity at the expense of substance. Indeed, I should point out there is still considerable reason to be concerned about U.S. Latin America policy on many fronts.
In his brief visit to Mexico on Thursday, Obama acknowledged the problems of U.S. drug consumption and the facility with which weapons are acquired in the U.S. by the violent drug cartels south of the border, a welcome change in counter-drug rhetoric that at least partially accepts responsibility for the problems that emanate from the drug trade. However, as the Washington Office on Latin America has clearly documented in recent reports about U.S. counter-drug policies, there is an over-emphasis on military and security strategies to address the problems, and not enough focus on judicial reform, the strengthening of democratic institutions, and economic development that would limit the influence and the attraction of the drug trade in the Mexican countryside. This is a recipe for disaster.
As for Colombia, despite talking tough against the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement during the campaign on human rights grounds, the Obama Administration is taking active steps, albeit quietly, to resume talks on jumpstarting the controversial bilateral trade deal. Some of this may be the result of the ongoing talk of the Colombian “success story” under President Alvaro Uribe, an assessment that has taken on a life of its own in the U.S. media, leading journalists like Scott Wilson in the Washington Post to even suggest that Obama should apply the "Colombia model" in its war in Afghanistan. Colombia’s El Tiempo reported on Saturday that Uribe and Obama will most likely meet in the coming months, first in Washington, and later in the year in Colombia, despite a somewhat cool start to their relationship after Obama’s election in November. These improved relations between Washington and Bogotá may not be greeted favorably by Colombian human rights advocates who have been highly critical of Uribe’s human rights record since taking office in 2002.
Furthermore, there is still a long way to go on Cuba. Indeed, the final declaration of the Summit was not ratified because several countries did not want to endorse a gathering that for years has excluded Cuba from the deliberations. Many of the leaders present pressed Obama on ending the embargo against Cuba, and are urging the re-instatement of Cuba into the Organization of American States. The careful language used by Administration officials basically saying the ball was in Castro’s court is an indication that it may be some time before we see any further movement in Cuba policy, despite the ringing endorsement for such change by everybody present.
Finally, I think we cannot overlook one other aspect of the situation in Latin America that ultimately will be quite significant in the future relationship between Washington and the governments of the region, and something Obama must not ignore if he wants to avoid repeating the tragic mistakes of the past. This is especially important to consider given the growing economic crisis in the U.S., which has yet to be fully felt by the countries of the south. I refer to the 40-50% of the population that continues to be struggling precariously in extreme poverty, and whose interests are scarcely represented in these high profile gatherings like the one we just witnessed over the weekend.
Indeed, one sector that has been completely absent in most of the coverage of the Summit has been the Latin American social movements, the tens of millions of people – indigenous, peasant, of African descent, workers, students - who have throughout the region stepped up and made their voices heard, in the sugar cane fields, in the factories, on the streets and in the ballot boxes. These are the people who are actively confronting the neo-liberal economic model of free trade, deregulation, and cuts in social spending, a model that today is witnessing an international crisis of traumatic proportions, forever stripping it of its legitimacy. These movements have always rejected U.S. militarism and the implementation of security policies that serve only a small percentage of the population of the hemisphere, at the expense of the vast majority of the people. They have been calling for a recognition and adoption by their own governments of the many international charters and treaties that call for the respect of humanitarian law, environmental protection, the rights of indigenous peoples, and the defense of labor. And they are building democratic, grassroots structures that have expanded their reach of solidarity and action throughout the hemisphere and the rest of the world, in a global movement for change from the bottom up, against business as usual.
Many of them no doubt feel betrayed by their representatives attending this weekend’s Summit in Trinidad. For some, as they watched their governments cozy up to Washington over the past few days, there is probably a feeling creeping up once again of being left out of the discussion, of deliberate exclusion.
Obama must be open to hear these voices as well, if he is truly looking to open up a new era in Pan American relations. He must listen, and hopefully learn some important lessons in the process.
I’ve heard some people make the argument recently that Obama is the U.S. manifestation of the broader wave of progressive governments that have been democratically elected throughout the hemisphere in recent years? From Argentina to El Salvador, Bolivia to Paraguay, Brazil to Ecuador, a wide range of political tendencies and movements have emerged to challenge the hegemony of the United States in the region.
So too was Obama elected by a U.S. public that was seeking fundamental changes in the direction of the country, indeed the world.
This weekend, Obama showed some promise.
But it’s up to us to make sure he does a lot more when it comes to our America.
Why Do We Mobilize? It's a Matter of Life and Death
Hello folks,
As the Summit of the Americas wraps up in Port of Spain, Trinidad, much of the attention has been directed at the tremendous splash that President Barack Obama has made with the other 33 leaders of the hemisphere gathered at the meeting. I'm sure you all saw Hugo Chavez hand Obama Galeano's classic, The Open Veins of Latin America.
I'll have more about that a bit later, but I feel one noticeable sector that is completely absent in much of the coverage of the Summit is the region's popular movements, from the trade union sector to the indigenous movement. I've been scouring the news media on this story and have yet to see any mention of the alternative meetings and actions taking place around the summit.
Is it because these social organizations representing tens of millions of marginalized people throughout the continent of our America now content with the new direction everybody seems to be heading? I think not.
Below I share with you a very important message put out by the Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca, ACIN, posted on their website as the Summit began on Friday. It explains clearly what the position of the popular Minga has been, and continues to be, as the eyes and the ears of the world are focused somewhere else. While it is in Spanish, I will attempt to get you a translation shortly, if time permits. Please share it with others.
MAMA
As the Summit of the Americas wraps up in Port of Spain, Trinidad, much of the attention has been directed at the tremendous splash that President Barack Obama has made with the other 33 leaders of the hemisphere gathered at the meeting. I'm sure you all saw Hugo Chavez hand Obama Galeano's classic, The Open Veins of Latin America.
I'll have more about that a bit later, but I feel one noticeable sector that is completely absent in much of the coverage of the Summit is the region's popular movements, from the trade union sector to the indigenous movement. I've been scouring the news media on this story and have yet to see any mention of the alternative meetings and actions taking place around the summit.Is it because these social organizations representing tens of millions of marginalized people throughout the continent of our America now content with the new direction everybody seems to be heading? I think not.
Below I share with you a very important message put out by the Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca, ACIN, posted on their website as the Summit began on Friday. It explains clearly what the position of the popular Minga has been, and continues to be, as the eyes and the ears of the world are focused somewhere else. While it is in Spanish, I will attempt to get you a translation shortly, if time permits. Please share it with others.
MAMA
*****************************************************
¿Qué moviliza a los indígenas?: un asunto de Vida o Muerte
¿Qué moviliza a los indígenas?: un asunto de Vida o Muerte
04/18/2009
Fuente: Semanario Virtual Caja de Herramientas
Autor: Tejido de Comunicación y Relaciones Externas para la Verdad y la Vida
Fuente: Semanario Virtual Caja de Herramientas
Autor: Tejido de Comunicación y Relaciones Externas para la Verdad y la Vida
En primer lugar es necesario señalar, que la movilización de los pueblos indígenas, en particular los del Cauca, coincide con procesos similares a lo largo y ancho de las Américas y, en especial, de América Latina. El alzamiento Zapatista de 1994, los levantamientos indígenas y populares del Ecuador, las movilizaciones y elecciones en Haití, las “guerras populares” en Bolivia frente a la privatización del agua, contra la agresión imperial que se basó en el pretexto de la coca y finalmente frente al modelo neoliberal con el derrocamiento de Sánchez de Losada, tanto la elección de Hugo Chávez, como la enorme movilización que lo restituyó al poder, el ejemplar MST de Brasil, las luchas de El Salvador y Paraguay y muchos otros procesos en todo el Continente, que siguen apareciendo y floreciendo. Hay una motivación común profunda entre todos estos procesos que no se ha tenido que tejer a través del contacto directo. Esa motivación explica, a nuestro juicio, el liderazgo de los pueblos indígenas en esta etapa de construcción de poder popular. Se trata de un reconocimiento, desde una visión cultural ancestral específica, de la inviabilidad del modelo económico del Capital transnacional, la crisis profunda de un sistema frente al que no queda más alternativa que la resistencia colectiva. Se trata de una contradicción entre paradigmas opuestos que obliga a la movilización y a la convocatoria para la construcción de otro mundo posible y necesario.
Una característica común, aunque no exclusiva de los pueblos indígenas, es nuestra relación con la Madre Tierra. Tenemos para Ser. La vida, es sagrada. Es el fin último y esencial de toda sociedad y de todos los procesos culturales. Nuestra Ley de Origen nos exige garantizar la armonía y el equilibrio con la Madre Tierra como resultado de nuestros esfuerzos para reproducirnos y pervivir. Esto implica que la generación de riquezas, es decir, la economía, tiene que supeditarse a la vida. Sin vida, destruyendo la Madre Tierra, no hay economía. La Naturaleza es la principal y mayor economía. Es la más grande fuerza productiva y reproductiva que existe y reconocerla como tal para basar todas las demás economías en su conocimiento, promoción y protección, es indispensable. La economía de subsistencia, cuyo propósito es garantizar la vida y la soberanía de pueblos y culturas de manera inseparable, es una segunda economía. Esta, recoge el acumulado de saberes de pueblos campesinos e indígenas, sin el cual, es imposible el pasado, el presente y el futuro. Denigrada por intereses del agronegocio, se presenta como una economía primitiva y atrasada para reemplazarla por monocultivos tóxicos para el monopolio y la explotación transnacional. Es evidente ahora, que, contrario a lo que se nos impone, sin economías campesinas e indígenas, no solamente de subsistencia sino de escala, no habrá futuro. Finalmente, la economía de mercado, no solamente del mercado para la acumulación de monopolios, sino del mercado regulado para el intercambio y el bienestar colectivo, es imposible consolidar la reproducción social y la vida. Por eso, para los pueblos indígenas, la vida es un fin y la economía es inseparable de la ecología y deben armonizarse para garantizar la pervivencia. Ello impone resistir un modelo que amenaza la vida misma.
De diversas maneras y en diversos lugares, entendemos que el proyecto del Capital que impera y se basa, por el contrario, en Ser para Tener. Su propósito y motivación es la acumulación insaciable, la codicia al servicio y bajo el control de un número cada vez más reducido de monopolios corporativos transnacionales. La vida toda, incluyendo todos los recursos de la Madre Tierra y el trabajo de los pueblos, se transforman en medios para explotar y acumular. Todo se transforma en mercancía para que unos pocos se enriquezcan. Esta manera de pensar y actuar, que ha concentrado el poder económico, políticos, de propaganda y de coerción más grande que se haya desarrollado en la historia en pocas manos, nos lleva, de manera inexorable a la destrucción de la nuestros pueblos y culturas y de la vida toda en el planeta. Hasta los códigos genéticos se han convertido en mercancías de propiedad privada. Todas las plantas y animales se patentan mientras se destruyen para beneficio del negocio. En la medida en que se hace escasa el agua, la sed de los pueblos y de la vida, se transforma, desde esta mirada equivocada de la codicia, en oportunidad para hacer ganancias con el recurso vital escaso. Es por esto que consideramos esa codicia convertida desde hace más de cinco siglos en sistema económico hoy globalizado, un Proyecto de Muerte. Nuestra lectura no es un ataque a nadie en particular, sino una observación angustiosa de lo que viene pasando. A nuestro juicio, además de una crisis económica de este modelo que fracasa porque la codicia desrregulada a través del “Libre Comercio” termina siendo autodestructiva para si misma, avanza una crisis Ecológica que elimina la vida y las dos conducen a una Crisis de Reproducción tanto de los Pueblos como de las especies y de la vida toda.
Nos empujan al abismo. Por eso resistimos. Frente a ese proyecto que lleva a la muerte, debemos resistir y entre todas y todos los pueblos y consciencias, tejer nuestros planes de vida. Acumular no puede ser sagrado. Lo único sagrado es la vida y para defenderla se hace necesario crear economías diversas a partir del ejemplo de la propia Madre Tierra, liberada, colectiva y tejida a pueblos y culturas en ciudades y campos. En el fondo, luchamos porque es necesario que la Historia, se armonice con la Naturaleza en sociedades justas, recíprocas y diversas entre nosotras, en donde le bienestar colectivo y la consciencia común “manden obedeciendo” de modo que la codicia, una más de las muchas motivaciones de los seres humanos, se someta al control colectivo y a motivaciones superiores y vitales. No pretendemos tener las respuestas. La magnitud de lo que enfrentamos nos obliga a escuchar, a unirnos a otras y otros sin dejar de ser lo que somos como pueblos. El Proyecto de Muerte nos hace conscientes de nuestra vulnerabilidad y nos moviliza para convocar solidaridad recíproca. Nos movilizamos para sumarnos, no para mandar. Esto tenemos en común los que nos hemos movilizado desde el Norte del Cauca, hasta el MST en Brasil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Ecuador y todos los pueblos que nunca hemos dejado de saber que no se puede solamente vivir de la Madre Tierra, porque tenemos que vivir CON ella.
La confrontación de los paradigmas explica nuestra Minga. Por eso nuestra agenda, desde el 2004 es un rechazo al Modelo Económico y a los TLC, a la legislación de despojo que le sirve a la codicia, al terror como instrumento de conquista y acumulación (venga de donde venga). Por eso exigimos que se cumplan acuerdos y convenios que han resultado de la lucha de los pueblos por nuestras libertades y derechos y por eso reconocemos que no tenemos las respuestas ni las recetas. Que solos no podemos. Que nos necesitamos mutuamente para pervivir. Por eso, entendemos que esta es una lucha desde las consciencias y que se impone la necesidad de que nos movilicemos todos y todas. Eso es Caminar la Palabra. Informarnos, reflexionar colectivamente, decidir y actuar para la vida. Territorios liberados, relaciones sociales renovados por una ética de convivencia, organización política para mandar obedeciendo y recreación económica para generar riqueza sin destruir la vida. El camino largo hacia la generación de estos procesos en la medida en que resistimos, es lo que tenemos en común con los demás pueblos y procesos en movimiento en el continente y en el mundo. Por eso hay Minga. Por eso hemos sido nosotras y nosotros.
En el Cauca es evidente que todas las acciones colectivas que han liderado los pueblos, en especial el movimiento indígena, han sido a través de un largo proceso de concienciación, en el que partimos de resistir al agresor a través de diferentes formas, de recuperar la historia y el territorio, de crear las bases mínimas de gobernabilidad a través de nuestras autoridades y organizaciones, y de aprender a leer el contexto interno y externo que nos hace ser con otros.
Lo anterior se evidencia cuando se hace memoria de las etapas de lucha que ha liderado el movimiento indígena en el Cauca, en las que sabiamente las comunidades hemos aprendido a identificar al agresor, a entender la realidad que nos rodea y con base a esto hemos diseñado estrategias de resistencia que responden a cada amenaza, no sólo mirando el presente, sino siguiendo la huella que han dejado los mayores desde sus experiencias.
Entonces para entender el sentido práctico de hacer consciencia es necesario repasar un poco estas etapas que han marcado y seguirán marcando la palabra que se camina desde el Cauca. Porque cada etapa es el símbolo de una lucha que no ha terminado, de una estrategia que siempre está delante del proceso para evitar que se cometan los mismos errores, pero también para recordar esos triunfos que obedecieron a resistencias colectivas, que no se pueden perder y que hoy el proceso debe seguir fortaleciendo.
La etapa de la resistencia, liderada por la Cacica Gaitana en el Siglo XVI con la lucha armada (Conquista Española), por Juan Tama y Manuel de Quilos- Ciclos en el Siglo XVII a través de la negociación (Colonia Española) y por Manuel Quintín Lame en los Siglos XIX y XX con el despertar de la consciencia y las acciones de hecho (Periodo Republicano).
La etapa de recuperación reconocida por las tomas de tierras lideradas entre indígenas y campesinos con el lema “Tierra para la gente” y el nacimiento del Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca-CRIC el 24 de febrero de 1971, precisamente en la zona norte hace 38 años. Son las acciones que motivaron esas luchas durante más de una década, logrando así, una de las reformas agrarias más reconocidas en América Latina y la más grande en la historia de Colombia.
La etapa de la autonomía, motivada por el Padre Álvaro Ulcué Chocué desde Toribío Cauca en la década de los 80, con la creación de los proyectos comunitarios en la zona norte del Cauca, sigue siendo una de las experiencias prácticas, desde donde se teje a diario la consciencia de la mano de los cabildos, los tejidos de vida, y todos los espacios políticos organizativos y técnicos operativos que emergen dentro de la Asociación de Cabildos Indígenas del Norte del Cauca en articulación con las demás zonas que hacen parte del CRIC.
La etapa de la alternativa, sembrada desde el Congreso Indígena y Popular realizado en el 2004 cuando cerca de 60 mil personas principalmente indígenas del Cauca caminamos hacia Cali, llamando a la unidad de los pueblos para rechazar la agresión sistemática a través del TLC con EEUU, la reforma constitucional y para reclamar el respeto a la vida. Desde ese momento, se han realizado varias movilizaciones y acciones como La Consulta Frente al TLC, la Liberación de la Madre Tierra, La Cumbre Itinerante de los Pueblos, La Visita por el País que Queremos y finalmente la Minga Social y Comunitaria que dejó planteada una propuesta de agenda para continuar enriqueciendo y caminando con los pueblos y procesos populares del país.
A partir del 2004 el Movimiento Indígena del Cauca se hizo más visible que antes, no sólo dando a conocer la agresión constante de la que somos víctimas desde el régimen del Estado y desde de la insurgencia armada. Sino también visibilizando el Plan de Vida de las comunidades, las apuestas políticas y la construcción de alternativas al modelo económico transnacional que despoja a los pueblos.
Desde ese momento, el movimiento indígena viene sumando fuerzas de manera más constante que en tiempos atrás. Porque aunque desde la plataforma política del CRIC está considerado el trabajo en alianza con otros pueblos, tan sólo hasta el 2004 se empezó a hacer un acercamiento más permanente a otros sectores sociales y populares, partiendo de la premisa emanada en el Mandato Indígena y Popular: “solos no podemos, nos necesitamos mutuamente para resistir”.
Es claro entonces, que el agresor es uno sólo, que tiene estrategias y se rige bajo un proyecto de muerte para acumular y despojar y por esto es necesario unir las resistencias, fortalecer los planes de vida y tener estrategias y propuestas, porque quién no tiene propuesta propia, termina negociando la del otro. En este sentido, era necesario empezar a sumar acciones, abrir espacios para encontrarse con campesinos, afros, sindicatos, estudiantes, mujeres, entre otros y dar las mínimas puntadas para iniciar a construir la jigra de unidad.
Es así como sumando todas las experiencias de las movilizaciones desde el 2004 específicamente y haciendo memoria de la historia, llegamos a la Minga Social y Comunitaria, en la que el Movimiento Indígena caminó la palabra de resistencia con los sectores sociales y populares que representamos al pueblo colombiano que exige un país de los pueblos sin dueños.
Entonces la Minga Social y Comunitaria es ese espacio que sigue vivo en todas y todos los colombianos comprometidos con cambios significativos para que los pueblos tengamos la vocería que nos corresponde y podamos vivir dignamente en nuestros territorios (urbanos o rurales). Esa fue la palabra de la Minga, que sigue caminando y ganando más espacio con el apoyo de quienes luchamos desde la colectividad.
La Minga ha tenido y tendrá más triunfos si se logra consolidar un trabajo con los pueblos, porque así como se logró la derogatoria del Estatuto Rural, es posible que toda la legislación de despojo, inconsulta con el pueblo colombiano, se derrumbe para que surja el país con pueblos y sin dueños. Esa es una de las tareas que quedan y debe unificar más a los sectores, para así seguir luchando por esos 5 puntos de agenda de los pueblos que viene marcando el camino.
En este proceso de movilización donde más visibilidad ha tenido el movimiento indígena, a pesar de que los demás movimientos sociales han participado y nos han enseñado mucho, se debe a que el pueblo indígena tiene una lucha milenaria, una contradicción de fondo con un modelo que se agota. Por esto salimos del Cauca a caminar esa palabra y a convocar a todas y todos los colombianos para que nos demos cuenta de lo que nos amenaza. La Minga es un mensaje en marcha para contribuir a quitarnos las vendas que nos han puesto la propaganda, el terror y las políticas de sometimiento.
Pero la Minga es mucho más. Al dar los primeros pasos en al año 2000. A partir del Congreso de Cota, convocado por la ONIC, hicimos consciencia de que nuestra agenda de levantamiento popular colectivo, de tener el impacto esperado iría a agudizar tres contradicciones. Una primera, de fondo, la esencial, frente al Modelo del Capital y al régimen que lo sirve desde Colombia. Una segunda frente a la insurgencia armada por diferencias éticas y estratégicas que nos han llevado a distanciarnos de la lucha armada y a convertirnos en víctimas de sus acciones. Una tercera interna, que habría de poner en evidencia nuestras propias contradicciones como proceso, de manera que las incoherencias con nuestra propia agenda y consciencia pasaran del discurso a la realidad. Nuestra lucha es por la vida, la justicia, la libertad, la alegría y la autonomía. Esperamos tener la sabiduría y la humildad suficientes para seguir adelante teniendo claro que nuestra prioridad esencial es resistir colectivamente y con otros pueblos y procesos, el modelo que amenaza la vida sin caer en sus trampas. Por eso sentimos que comunicar la verdad, debatir las contradicciones sin ocultarlas y ser coherentes, son fortalezas de nuestro proceso. Para seguir adelante, necesitamos, convocamos y ofrecemos el apoyo franco y respetuoso que se requiere para no sacrificar en el camino el Plan de Vida en el silencio, las incoherencias o la imposición autoritaria.
Entonces, los pueblos indígenas que hemos tenido la valentía que parece aún faltarles a muchos, respondemos no a una superioridad genética o esencial, sino al reconocimiento, basado en nuestras raíces culturales, de la amenaza que nos despoja de alternativas. No reconocer esta amenaza nos oprime y nos hace cómplices de la opresión. Lo poco que hemos conseguido en el territorio de nuestro imaginario de consciencia colectiva a través de los tiempos y lo mucho que hemos aprendido de otros pueblos y luchas indígenas y no indígenas en Colombia y el mundo, ya no nos lo quita nadie. Quienes somos cosecha de este largo viaje del tejido de nuestra historia en comunidad, no tenemos alternativa por fuera de la lucha por otro mundo posible y necesario. Por eso será que han asesinado a miles de nuestros líderes, por eso es que nos amenazan pretenden silenciarnos a los que no nos vendemos y resistimos para lograr beneficios colectivos. Nos movilizamos porque no tenemos otra alternativa y lo hacemos como un llamado humilde y vehemente a que no nos miren y nos aplaudan o critiquen desde lejos, porque este no es un asunto de indígenas sino de vida o muerte.
Santander de Quilichao Abril 17 de abril de 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Q&A: Indigenous People in Colombia "Have Become a Strong Force"
This interview comes from Inter-Press Service:
Mario Osava interviews indigenous leader AÍDA QUILCUÉ
Aída Quilcué interviewed by IPS during a break in the Minga.
Credit:Mario Osava/IPS
BOGOTA, Apr 16 (IPS) - There is a heavy turnover of social movement leaders in Colombia, given the frequency with which they are killed, displaced or forced into exile. And because of the dangers, those who step up to the plate can be considered veritable heroes – one of whom is indigenous leader Aída Quilcué. "Resistance" is a term frequently used by the 36-year-old Nasa Indian, who is chief counselor of the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC), and whose activism made her the target of an attack that cost the life of her husband, Edwin Legarda, in December. Thanks to the visibility she gained in her leadership role in the "Minga" (a Quechua term for collective work for the common good) of Indigenous and Popular Resistance, which mobilised more than 30,000 demonstrators in marches along roads in Colombia in October and November, she stands a chance of being elected senator in the 2010 elections. Two seats are reserved for indigenous representatives in the Senate, and two in the lower house of Congress.
In this interview with IPS, Quilcué talks about her life and the difficulties and suffering faced by indigenous people in this country that has been in the grip of civil war since 1964.
IPS: Tell me about your husband’s murder. Is it true that you were the target of the attack?
AÍDA QUILCUÉ: I was a leader of the Minga. With that mobilisation, we gained visibility and put the question of indigenous peoples’ rights on the agenda, and the accusations by the government (of rightwing President Álvaro Uribe), that we were terrorists and criminals, and belonged to the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) were proven to be untrue, at the national and international level. One of the consequences was the attack planned after I took part in Switzerland in the Universal Periodic Review (the United Nations Human Rights Council mechanism to assess member states’ fulfillment of human rights obligations). I arrived back in Bogotá on Dec. 15 and on Dec. 16 they killed my husband. I had a council meeting with the local authorities of Tierradentro (an indigenous reservation in the municipality of Páez, in the western department of Cauca). The military knew that at 4:00 AM I would be riding in the pickup truck that I always take to work. But it was only my husband in the truck, carrying a nurse in the passenger seat, when the army opened fire on them. (The nurse was injured but survived). Fortunately the indigenous guard and the local council members reacted quickly, and seized the shooters, who were 37 members of the army. An army squadron took responsibility for the killing, which was initially reported as a mistake. They said the truck failed to follow orders to stop at a military checkpoint. But later they admitted that they received the order to open fire on the truck, which was supposedly carrying a FARC leader with a load of weapons. The investigation carried out by the authorities and the attorney-general’s office has only found those who did the actual shooting. Now we’re looking for who gave the order. When one of the soldiers who said he received the order to shoot was about to testify, he was almost killed, and now he has protection from the attorney-general’s office. But to me it’s obvious that it was the government that gave the order, trying to show the international community that we belonged to the FARC, with this business of "false positives" (murders of civilians passed off by the military as guerrillas killed in combat).
IPS: And the 37 soldiers facing prosecution – are they in prison?
AQ: No, they are at a military base, guarded by the army itself. The attorney-general’s office was going to issue arrest warrants, but we said it shouldn’t do that yet, because first we want to know who ordered the killing. The case is in the evidence gathering stage, and a public hearing, which has been seriously delayed, is to be held.
IPS: How did you become chief counselor of the CRIC at such a young age?
AQ: I am the daughter of one of the chiefs of my reservation. My father was governor and today he is "capitán", a position of lifelong authority in the reservation. My leadership role began during the tragedy that occurred in Tierradentro in 1994 (when an earthquake caused landslides and extensive flooding of the Paéz River, claiming more than 1,000 lives). We were displaced from our homes, and I was transferred to a different reservation. I started helping and organising the displaced at that time, and then I became a member of the local indigenous council ("cabildo"), a community educator, a health worker and eventually governor of the reservation. From 2000 to 2005, I was president of the Regional Indigenous Council in the (western) department of Huila. I returned to Tierradentro in 2006, where I became health coordinator, and in 2007 the authorities elected me chief counselor of the CRIC.
IPS: Did you study at the university?
AQ: I’m more a product of grassroots training. I went to school until the ninth grade. My training has been more practical and hands-on, in the communities.
IPS: After the murders of (at least eight) Awá Indians in February, a guerrilla arms cache was discovered in Nasa territory in mid-March. What happened?
AQ: In the Jambaló reservation there were guerrilla (drug) labs, bombs and other weapons, because drug trafficking is strong there. Around 2,000 people in the reservation decided to hold a minga to get rid of the weapons; they assumed the risk and dismantled the arms cache. Luckily no one was hurt. But they are still in imminent danger as an objective of both the guerrillas and the government.
IPS: Has the guerrilla presence in the reservations intensified?
AQ: It has always been intense. What we are demanding is that they respect our autonomy. Our historical analysis shows that the (far-right) paramilitaries have committed massacres, and that the guerrillas have not committed many, although they systematically kill indigenous leaders.
IPS: They’re more selective?
AQ: Yes, but in the case of the Awá, this massacre was committed, and the guerrillas have stood in the way of the humanitarian mission (the search for the victims’ bodies).
IPS: Was the suspicion that the Awá were collaborating with the army proven?
AQ: It’s a complex question, because the army has a presence there, as do the paramilitaries and the guerrillas. So there are continual clashes. The Awá said the army has also killed indigenous people there, but that until now they had not reported it, out of fear. I think the different sides are all responsible to some degree.
IPS: Do you think there is an agreement between the army and the guerrillas to attack the reservations?
AQ: As an indigenous social movement, we have a very clear policy of unarmed civil resistance in search of a peaceful alternative. The Minga had huge repercussions in terms of national and international public opinion and support. I would say there is an alliance, because both sides are attacking us. We are hemmed in.
IPS: It seems clear that the rebels want areas of refuge, but what are the army and paramilitaries looking for in the indigenous territories?
AQ: There are economic interests. The government is seeking to exploit natural resources like minerals and other sources of wealth in the reservations. When we’re talking about collectively owned territories, it means no development project can be carried out there without previously consulting the local indigenous residents. In our view, the government’s ‘democratic security’ policies are not aimed at security, but are a strategy to militarise the territory and open our territories up to the multinational corporations. Hence, the massacres, forced displacement and murders.
IPS: Is there any other way, besides the Minga, to stop the murders and armed pressure?
AQ: I believe the biggest actions are the ongoing assemblies, where people come together to mount resistance, to fight against being driven out of their territories. Another route is legal action in the courts. Strong support from the international community is also extremely important, because the government gets nervous when there is pressure from abroad for it to protect and provide guarantees for indigenous peoples.
IPS: Do you have a strategy to seek support from political parties, social movements and leftwing forces in the country?
AQ: I think that force is being built up in Colombia. There are alternative parties and parliamentarians. We are still a minority, but we are in a process of participation, and could grow into a majority someday, and even think that there could be an alternative president. We now have the Indigenous Social Alliance. But although we have just one legislator, we have gained a clear political space, which holds out hope for the future, to continue building alternatives for Colombia.
IPS: In electoral terms, you are a small minority, but as indigenous people you have a special strength. Are you staking your bets on a peace process?
AQ: Of course. The policy of the social and indigenous movement is to build a true peace process, in which the government would not merely respond to specific circumstantial developments but would instead design real policies to structurally improve the living conditions of Colombians. That is what the indigenous movement is pressing for, through the Minga.
IPS: Is the Minga also seeking alliances with peasant farmers and workers?
AQ: Alliances are important to us, and that is exactly what we are seeking through the Minga, and I hope that in the future we will have a much larger event than the one we held (in October and November). But it is a process.
IPS: Why has the state reached such a degree of violence against indigenous people?
AQ: We have become a strong force. Today the social movement is very strong, especially in the Cauca region. That is not positive for the government, whose strategy, presented as the strengthening of ‘democratic security’, is not aimed at fighting the insurgency or drug trafficking, but at fighting civilians. That is why indigenous protesters are seen as criminals. (END/2009)
Mario Osava interviews indigenous leader AÍDA QUILCUÉ
Aída Quilcué interviewed by IPS during a break in the Minga.
Credit:Mario Osava/IPS
BOGOTA, Apr 16 (IPS) - There is a heavy turnover of social movement leaders in Colombia, given the frequency with which they are killed, displaced or forced into exile. And because of the dangers, those who step up to the plate can be considered veritable heroes – one of whom is indigenous leader Aída Quilcué. "Resistance" is a term frequently used by the 36-year-old Nasa Indian, who is chief counselor of the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC), and whose activism made her the target of an attack that cost the life of her husband, Edwin Legarda, in December. Thanks to the visibility she gained in her leadership role in the "Minga" (a Quechua term for collective work for the common good) of Indigenous and Popular Resistance, which mobilised more than 30,000 demonstrators in marches along roads in Colombia in October and November, she stands a chance of being elected senator in the 2010 elections. Two seats are reserved for indigenous representatives in the Senate, and two in the lower house of Congress.
In this interview with IPS, Quilcué talks about her life and the difficulties and suffering faced by indigenous people in this country that has been in the grip of civil war since 1964. IPS: Tell me about your husband’s murder. Is it true that you were the target of the attack?
AÍDA QUILCUÉ: I was a leader of the Minga. With that mobilisation, we gained visibility and put the question of indigenous peoples’ rights on the agenda, and the accusations by the government (of rightwing President Álvaro Uribe), that we were terrorists and criminals, and belonged to the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) were proven to be untrue, at the national and international level. One of the consequences was the attack planned after I took part in Switzerland in the Universal Periodic Review (the United Nations Human Rights Council mechanism to assess member states’ fulfillment of human rights obligations). I arrived back in Bogotá on Dec. 15 and on Dec. 16 they killed my husband. I had a council meeting with the local authorities of Tierradentro (an indigenous reservation in the municipality of Páez, in the western department of Cauca). The military knew that at 4:00 AM I would be riding in the pickup truck that I always take to work. But it was only my husband in the truck, carrying a nurse in the passenger seat, when the army opened fire on them. (The nurse was injured but survived). Fortunately the indigenous guard and the local council members reacted quickly, and seized the shooters, who were 37 members of the army. An army squadron took responsibility for the killing, which was initially reported as a mistake. They said the truck failed to follow orders to stop at a military checkpoint. But later they admitted that they received the order to open fire on the truck, which was supposedly carrying a FARC leader with a load of weapons. The investigation carried out by the authorities and the attorney-general’s office has only found those who did the actual shooting. Now we’re looking for who gave the order. When one of the soldiers who said he received the order to shoot was about to testify, he was almost killed, and now he has protection from the attorney-general’s office. But to me it’s obvious that it was the government that gave the order, trying to show the international community that we belonged to the FARC, with this business of "false positives" (murders of civilians passed off by the military as guerrillas killed in combat).
IPS: And the 37 soldiers facing prosecution – are they in prison?
AQ: No, they are at a military base, guarded by the army itself. The attorney-general’s office was going to issue arrest warrants, but we said it shouldn’t do that yet, because first we want to know who ordered the killing. The case is in the evidence gathering stage, and a public hearing, which has been seriously delayed, is to be held.
IPS: How did you become chief counselor of the CRIC at such a young age?
AQ: I am the daughter of one of the chiefs of my reservation. My father was governor and today he is "capitán", a position of lifelong authority in the reservation. My leadership role began during the tragedy that occurred in Tierradentro in 1994 (when an earthquake caused landslides and extensive flooding of the Paéz River, claiming more than 1,000 lives). We were displaced from our homes, and I was transferred to a different reservation. I started helping and organising the displaced at that time, and then I became a member of the local indigenous council ("cabildo"), a community educator, a health worker and eventually governor of the reservation. From 2000 to 2005, I was president of the Regional Indigenous Council in the (western) department of Huila. I returned to Tierradentro in 2006, where I became health coordinator, and in 2007 the authorities elected me chief counselor of the CRIC.
IPS: Did you study at the university?
AQ: I’m more a product of grassroots training. I went to school until the ninth grade. My training has been more practical and hands-on, in the communities.
IPS: After the murders of (at least eight) Awá Indians in February, a guerrilla arms cache was discovered in Nasa territory in mid-March. What happened?
AQ: In the Jambaló reservation there were guerrilla (drug) labs, bombs and other weapons, because drug trafficking is strong there. Around 2,000 people in the reservation decided to hold a minga to get rid of the weapons; they assumed the risk and dismantled the arms cache. Luckily no one was hurt. But they are still in imminent danger as an objective of both the guerrillas and the government.
IPS: Has the guerrilla presence in the reservations intensified?
AQ: It has always been intense. What we are demanding is that they respect our autonomy. Our historical analysis shows that the (far-right) paramilitaries have committed massacres, and that the guerrillas have not committed many, although they systematically kill indigenous leaders.
IPS: They’re more selective?
AQ: Yes, but in the case of the Awá, this massacre was committed, and the guerrillas have stood in the way of the humanitarian mission (the search for the victims’ bodies).
IPS: Was the suspicion that the Awá were collaborating with the army proven?
AQ: It’s a complex question, because the army has a presence there, as do the paramilitaries and the guerrillas. So there are continual clashes. The Awá said the army has also killed indigenous people there, but that until now they had not reported it, out of fear. I think the different sides are all responsible to some degree.
IPS: Do you think there is an agreement between the army and the guerrillas to attack the reservations?
AQ: As an indigenous social movement, we have a very clear policy of unarmed civil resistance in search of a peaceful alternative. The Minga had huge repercussions in terms of national and international public opinion and support. I would say there is an alliance, because both sides are attacking us. We are hemmed in.
IPS: It seems clear that the rebels want areas of refuge, but what are the army and paramilitaries looking for in the indigenous territories?
AQ: There are economic interests. The government is seeking to exploit natural resources like minerals and other sources of wealth in the reservations. When we’re talking about collectively owned territories, it means no development project can be carried out there without previously consulting the local indigenous residents. In our view, the government’s ‘democratic security’ policies are not aimed at security, but are a strategy to militarise the territory and open our territories up to the multinational corporations. Hence, the massacres, forced displacement and murders.
IPS: Is there any other way, besides the Minga, to stop the murders and armed pressure?
AQ: I believe the biggest actions are the ongoing assemblies, where people come together to mount resistance, to fight against being driven out of their territories. Another route is legal action in the courts. Strong support from the international community is also extremely important, because the government gets nervous when there is pressure from abroad for it to protect and provide guarantees for indigenous peoples.
IPS: Do you have a strategy to seek support from political parties, social movements and leftwing forces in the country?
AQ: I think that force is being built up in Colombia. There are alternative parties and parliamentarians. We are still a minority, but we are in a process of participation, and could grow into a majority someday, and even think that there could be an alternative president. We now have the Indigenous Social Alliance. But although we have just one legislator, we have gained a clear political space, which holds out hope for the future, to continue building alternatives for Colombia.
IPS: In electoral terms, you are a small minority, but as indigenous people you have a special strength. Are you staking your bets on a peace process?
AQ: Of course. The policy of the social and indigenous movement is to build a true peace process, in which the government would not merely respond to specific circumstantial developments but would instead design real policies to structurally improve the living conditions of Colombians. That is what the indigenous movement is pressing for, through the Minga.
IPS: Is the Minga also seeking alliances with peasant farmers and workers?
AQ: Alliances are important to us, and that is exactly what we are seeking through the Minga, and I hope that in the future we will have a much larger event than the one we held (in October and November). But it is a process.
IPS: Why has the state reached such a degree of violence against indigenous people?
AQ: We have become a strong force. Today the social movement is very strong, especially in the Cauca region. That is not positive for the government, whose strategy, presented as the strengthening of ‘democratic security’, is not aimed at fighting the insurgency or drug trafficking, but at fighting civilians. That is why indigenous protesters are seen as criminals. (END/2009)
All Smiles at the Summit
Lots of stuff happening at the Summit of the Americas. But I really got a kick out of this photograph.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Summit of the Americas - Change in Substance or Only in Style?
Well, the world is watching the Latin American leaders gathering in Trinidad for the latest Summit of the Americas, where President Barack Obama arrived earlier today to promote a "new phase" of U.S.-Latin America relations. The first day of the gathering seems to be focusing a lot of attention on the situation in Cuba, especially after this week's announcement that Washington was lifting restrictions on travel to Cuba by Cuban Americans, among other minor shifts.
The Summit is taking place just one day after President Obama visited Mexico, his first visit to the region since taking office. In his meetings with President Felipe Calderon, Obama said he would push for immigration reform this year to legalize the estimated 12 million undocumented workers living in the United States, an issue that has always been on the agenda for Mexico, but has been deliberately sidetracked by political pressures in the US. They also discussed the growing drug crisis in Mexico, which the U.S. seems to be trying to resolve through military means, a reminder of the precarious nature of Washington's anti-drug policies in the hemisphere.
Obama also said that for now, because of the economic crisis at home, he did not think it was a good time to review the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – one of his campaign pledges. That said, it is clear that issues of trade and the regional economy will clearly be on the agenda of the summit leaders.
This meeting also takes place a day after Bolivian security foiled an assassination attempt against President Evo Morales, a development that has gotten very little attention in the U.S. media as they've focused on Obama's trip.
This morning, on WBAI's Wake UP Call, we addressed all of these issues in the second hour of the program, from 7:00-8:00am.
We first discussed the latest developments from Bolivia with an update from Kathryn Ledebur, Executive Director Andean Information Network in Cochabamba, and freelance reporter Jean Friedman-Rudovsky from La Paz, the Bolivian capital.
Then we had a panel discussion about the Summit of the Americas with Christy Thornton, Publisher of NACLA's Report on the Americas, Andrew Hudson, a Senior Associate of Human Rights First, who put out an open memo about human rights to the world leaders on the eve of the summit, and NYU Historian and author Greg Grandin.
To listen to the entire hour, click here!
The Summit is taking place just one day after President Obama visited Mexico, his first visit to the region since taking office. In his meetings with President Felipe Calderon, Obama said he would push for immigration reform this year to legalize the estimated 12 million undocumented workers living in the United States, an issue that has always been on the agenda for Mexico, but has been deliberately sidetracked by political pressures in the US. They also discussed the growing drug crisis in Mexico, which the U.S. seems to be trying to resolve through military means, a reminder of the precarious nature of Washington's anti-drug policies in the hemisphere.
Obama also said that for now, because of the economic crisis at home, he did not think it was a good time to review the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – one of his campaign pledges. That said, it is clear that issues of trade and the regional economy will clearly be on the agenda of the summit leaders.
This meeting also takes place a day after Bolivian security foiled an assassination attempt against President Evo Morales, a development that has gotten very little attention in the U.S. media as they've focused on Obama's trip.
This morning, on WBAI's Wake UP Call, we addressed all of these issues in the second hour of the program, from 7:00-8:00am.
We first discussed the latest developments from Bolivia with an update from Kathryn Ledebur, Executive Director Andean Information Network in Cochabamba, and freelance reporter Jean Friedman-Rudovsky from La Paz, the Bolivian capital.
Then we had a panel discussion about the Summit of the Americas with Christy Thornton, Publisher of NACLA's Report on the Americas, Andrew Hudson, a Senior Associate of Human Rights First, who put out an open memo about human rights to the world leaders on the eve of the summit, and NYU Historian and author Greg Grandin.
To listen to the entire hour, click here!
UNDERSTANDING PLAN COLOMBIA
Folks,
Here's a very good critique of Plan Colombia within the context of the US-Colombia FTA, which is still on the agenda of the Colombian government, and which most likely will be discussed in this weekend's Summit of the Americas. It is written by scholar and Senator Jorge Robledo of Colombia, one of the most insightful critics of Plan Colombia.
MAMA
UNDERSTANDING PLAN COLOMBIA
Jorge Enrique Robledo, Bogotá -- April 3, 2009
Every State has the duty and the right to militarily confront those who
illegally take up arms against it. Although increased spending on arms
and training does tend to improve a military's combat capability, as can
be seen by looking at what's happened in Colombia in recent years, at
the same time this doesn't mean that the ends justify the means.
Governments are entrusted with solemn obligations and under no
circumstances should they violate the law. It's unacceptable to
sacrifice national sovereignty to improve military performance, because
a country that loses the capacity for self-determination will never be
able to solve its own problems.
Andrés Pastrana, who was president of Colombia when Plan Colombia was
hammered out, has confirmed that "the free trade agreement is a
fundamental part of Plan Colombia" (Caracol Radio, 3/17/2008). The Plan
also defines policy in every key aspect of the nation's economy. It
affects fiscal and financial policy, the tax system, industry, salary
rates, the environment, agriculture, health, education and foreign
investment, in ways which are most beneficial to the North American
elite. As if this weren't enough, in 2001 the Colombian finance
minister, Juan Manuel Santos, signed a letter of intent titled "The IMF
approves Plan Colombia". This alone, in a country less confused by
government disinformation, would disqualify him as a presidential
candidate (Santos plans to run for president in 2010).
If we consider just the economic losses caused by the importation of
eight million tons of agricultural products --imports imposed by Plan
Colombia of products that we can produce ourselves--, we realize how
relatively small the sum of 7.814 billion dollars in U.S. military "aid"
from 1999 to 2008 is. And while "aid" from Washington is small and
short-term, "free trade" works on a large scale and is intended to be
permanent. As history has shown, those who lose their national
sovereignty also lose control of their economy. The systematic
beautifying of Plan Colombia has sold the false notion that the
Colombian military budget was largely covered by the plan's resources.
But the money sent down from Washington represents only 13.7% of the
total costs of the armed forces and the police, while we, Colombians,
pay 86.3%. Also, it's false and misleading to say that Plan Colombia
covers "social expenditures", when in reality not one U.S. cent is spent
for that purpose.
The third declared objective of Plan Colombia is "to bring about
negotiated peace agreements with the guerrillas". The weekly news
magazine Semana (12/6/2007), quoting Caracol Radio and Channel RCN,
reported that in the Foreign Relations Commission former president
Andrés Pastrana said that the demilitarization of El Caguán, which Uribe
sharply criticized at first, "was a demand made by the U.S. government",
via Bill Clinton, who let him know that Plan Colombia would not be
approved unless they sought a negotiated settlement to the armed
conflict. The magazine also reports that Uribe, in response to Pastrana,
could only come up with: "why didn't you say that from the beginning?"
Neither the current president (Alvaro Uribe) nor any of the three
preceding presidents (César Gaviria, Ernesto Samper, Andrés Pastrana)
who were also present at the meeting denied what was reported in Semana.
Even the withdrawal from El Caguán was ordered by Washington! Is it not
imperialist for an anti-drug strategy to, on the one hand, force us to
import the food that our agricultural workers and indigenous people can
produce and, on the other hand, to have them sprayed like cockroaches,
when these fellow Colombians are driven by poverty to plant coca? And
it's obvious that the justification for Plan Colombia cannot be based on
its results; even the U.S. State Department acknowledges that --after
spraying more than a million hectares-- coca cultivation has increased
from 122,000 to 160,000 hectares and the production of cocaine from 530
to 535 tons.
Furthermore, Plan Colombia also shows that the interests of Colombia and
the United States can be --and in this case are-- quite different. The
Plan's goal is not to eliminate drug trafficking but only to reduce it
by 50%, as is stated in the text. Why? According to the architects of
the Plan, when the supply of cocaine drops the price on the street will
rise and the American youth consumer will have to "snort" fewer "lines".
It's a market solution, as a neoliberal would say. But what's not
mentioned is that if the consumer has to pay higher prices on the
street, it's because the price drug traffickers can charge has also gone
up; that's the way they maintain or increase their profits. It's clear
that this doesn't benefit Colombia in the war on drugs.
** Translation Mingas-FTA / Traducción Mingas-TLC
---
Across the Americas
P.O. Box 268733 <-- new
Chicago, IL 60626-8733
773-938-1036 (phone and fax)
http://www.acrosstheamericas.org
info@acrosstheamericas.org
##
Here's a very good critique of Plan Colombia within the context of the US-Colombia FTA, which is still on the agenda of the Colombian government, and which most likely will be discussed in this weekend's Summit of the Americas. It is written by scholar and Senator Jorge Robledo of Colombia, one of the most insightful critics of Plan Colombia.
MAMA
UNDERSTANDING PLAN COLOMBIA
Jorge Enrique Robledo, Bogotá -- April 3, 2009
Every State has the duty and the right to militarily confront those who
illegally take up arms against it. Although increased spending on arms
and training does tend to improve a military's combat capability, as can
be seen by looking at what's happened in Colombia in recent years, at
the same time this doesn't mean that the ends justify the means.
Governments are entrusted with solemn obligations and under no
circumstances should they violate the law. It's unacceptable to
sacrifice national sovereignty to improve military performance, because
a country that loses the capacity for self-determination will never be
able to solve its own problems.
Andrés Pastrana, who was president of Colombia when Plan Colombia was
hammered out, has confirmed that "the free trade agreement is a
fundamental part of Plan Colombia" (Caracol Radio, 3/17/2008). The Plan
also defines policy in every key aspect of the nation's economy. It
affects fiscal and financial policy, the tax system, industry, salary
rates, the environment, agriculture, health, education and foreign
investment, in ways which are most beneficial to the North American
elite. As if this weren't enough, in 2001 the Colombian finance
minister, Juan Manuel Santos, signed a letter of intent titled "The IMF
approves Plan Colombia". This alone, in a country less confused by
government disinformation, would disqualify him as a presidential
candidate (Santos plans to run for president in 2010).
If we consider just the economic losses caused by the importation of
eight million tons of agricultural products --imports imposed by Plan
Colombia of products that we can produce ourselves--, we realize how
relatively small the sum of 7.814 billion dollars in U.S. military "aid"
from 1999 to 2008 is. And while "aid" from Washington is small and
short-term, "free trade" works on a large scale and is intended to be
permanent. As history has shown, those who lose their national
sovereignty also lose control of their economy. The systematic
beautifying of Plan Colombia has sold the false notion that the
Colombian military budget was largely covered by the plan's resources.
But the money sent down from Washington represents only 13.7% of the
total costs of the armed forces and the police, while we, Colombians,
pay 86.3%. Also, it's false and misleading to say that Plan Colombia
covers "social expenditures", when in reality not one U.S. cent is spent
for that purpose.
The third declared objective of Plan Colombia is "to bring about
negotiated peace agreements with the guerrillas". The weekly news
magazine Semana (12/6/2007), quoting Caracol Radio and Channel RCN,
reported that in the Foreign Relations Commission former president
Andrés Pastrana said that the demilitarization of El Caguán, which Uribe
sharply criticized at first, "was a demand made by the U.S. government",
via Bill Clinton, who let him know that Plan Colombia would not be
approved unless they sought a negotiated settlement to the armed
conflict. The magazine also reports that Uribe, in response to Pastrana,
could only come up with: "why didn't you say that from the beginning?"
Neither the current president (Alvaro Uribe) nor any of the three
preceding presidents (César Gaviria, Ernesto Samper, Andrés Pastrana)
who were also present at the meeting denied what was reported in Semana.
Even the withdrawal from El Caguán was ordered by Washington! Is it not
imperialist for an anti-drug strategy to, on the one hand, force us to
import the food that our agricultural workers and indigenous people can
produce and, on the other hand, to have them sprayed like cockroaches,
when these fellow Colombians are driven by poverty to plant coca? And
it's obvious that the justification for Plan Colombia cannot be based on
its results; even the U.S. State Department acknowledges that --after
spraying more than a million hectares-- coca cultivation has increased
from 122,000 to 160,000 hectares and the production of cocaine from 530
to 535 tons.
Furthermore, Plan Colombia also shows that the interests of Colombia and
the United States can be --and in this case are-- quite different. The
Plan's goal is not to eliminate drug trafficking but only to reduce it
by 50%, as is stated in the text. Why? According to the architects of
the Plan, when the supply of cocaine drops the price on the street will
rise and the American youth consumer will have to "snort" fewer "lines".
It's a market solution, as a neoliberal would say. But what's not
mentioned is that if the consumer has to pay higher prices on the
street, it's because the price drug traffickers can charge has also gone
up; that's the way they maintain or increase their profits. It's clear
that this doesn't benefit Colombia in the war on drugs.
** Translation Mingas-FTA / Traducción Mingas-TLC
---
Across the Americas
P.O. Box 268733 <-- new
Chicago, IL 60626-8733
773-938-1036 (phone and fax)
http://www.acrosstheamericas.org
info@acrosstheamericas.org
##
Bolivia says it thwarts Morales assassination plot
Here's a report from Reuters about an attempt to kill Evo Morales. We talked about the latest from Bolivia this morning on Wake Up Call over WBAI Radio.
Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:12pm EDT
* Three killed, two arrested in shootout
* Gunfight in Santa Cruz, an opposition stronghold
* Morales critic skeptical of account (Adds comment from Morales critic, details)
By Eduardo Garcia
LA PAZ, April 16 (Reuters) - Bolivian security forces said they thwarted an assassination plot against President Evo Morales on Thursday, killing three people in a half-hour shootout in the opposition stronghold of Santa Cruz.
Police chief Hugo Escobar said two Hungarians and a Bolivian, who were believed to be part of a conspiracy to kill Morales, were killed in the gunfight at a hotel in the eastern Bolivian city.
Morales, a socialist, is Bolivia's first indigenous president and has faced strong opposition in relatively wealthy regions of the country, including Santa Cruz. The governor of Santa Cruz, a prominent critic of Morales, voiced skepticism about the government's account.
Speaking later on Thursday during a visit to Venezuela, Morales, who was not in Santa Cruz at the time of the incident shortly after midnight, said an Irish person may have been among what he called foreign mercenaries involved in the suspected plot.
Government officials said authorities had recently been following the suspects.
"Yesterday I gave instructions to the vice president to move to arrest these mercenaries and this morning I was informed of a half-hour shootout at a hotel in the city of Santa Cruz," Morales said, adding two people were under arrest.
There was confusion regarding the nationalities of the foreigners killed. While the chief of police said two of those killed were from Hungary, several local media organizations reported they were from Romania and Ireland.
In La Paz, Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia told reporters the men were carrying guns and grenades and attacked police as they approached them.
He said that after the shootout, police found documents "about preparations for an assassination, an attempt on the lives of the president and the vice president" and confiscated sniper rifles, high-caliber guns and other explosives from a nearby building.
Heavily armed police cordoned off the hotel where the gunfight occurred.
TENSIONS WITH CRITICS
Morales has announced several plots against him in the past but the results of investigations have never been released, causing some Bolivians to doubt their veracity.
Santa Cruz Governor Ruben Costas, who has clashed with Morales in the past, said he doubted the government's version of events.
"This has been cheaply staged, this is a show," he told reporters.
Last year, right-wing opposition groups launched violent protests against a referendum promoted by Morales that gives more power to the indigenous majority.
Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador to Bolivia in September, accusing him of encouraging the protests in a bid to oust him.
The president ended a five-day hunger strike on Tuesday after lawmakers passed an electoral law that creates more seats in indigenous areas where his support is strongest. Morales had stopped eating to pressure legislators to pass the law.
Critics say the law tilts the electoral odds in his favor before a December presidential election the former coca farmer is expected to win. (Additional reporting by Frank Jack Daniel in Caracas, Editing by Kieran Murray and Peter Cooney)
Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:12pm EDT
* Three killed, two arrested in shootout
* Gunfight in Santa Cruz, an opposition stronghold
* Morales critic skeptical of account (Adds comment from Morales critic, details)
By Eduardo Garcia
LA PAZ, April 16 (Reuters) - Bolivian security forces said they thwarted an assassination plot against President Evo Morales on Thursday, killing three people in a half-hour shootout in the opposition stronghold of Santa Cruz.
Police chief Hugo Escobar said two Hungarians and a Bolivian, who were believed to be part of a conspiracy to kill Morales, were killed in the gunfight at a hotel in the eastern Bolivian city.
Morales, a socialist, is Bolivia's first indigenous president and has faced strong opposition in relatively wealthy regions of the country, including Santa Cruz. The governor of Santa Cruz, a prominent critic of Morales, voiced skepticism about the government's account.
Speaking later on Thursday during a visit to Venezuela, Morales, who was not in Santa Cruz at the time of the incident shortly after midnight, said an Irish person may have been among what he called foreign mercenaries involved in the suspected plot.
Government officials said authorities had recently been following the suspects.
"Yesterday I gave instructions to the vice president to move to arrest these mercenaries and this morning I was informed of a half-hour shootout at a hotel in the city of Santa Cruz," Morales said, adding two people were under arrest.
There was confusion regarding the nationalities of the foreigners killed. While the chief of police said two of those killed were from Hungary, several local media organizations reported they were from Romania and Ireland.
In La Paz, Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia told reporters the men were carrying guns and grenades and attacked police as they approached them.
He said that after the shootout, police found documents "about preparations for an assassination, an attempt on the lives of the president and the vice president" and confiscated sniper rifles, high-caliber guns and other explosives from a nearby building.
Heavily armed police cordoned off the hotel where the gunfight occurred.
TENSIONS WITH CRITICS
Morales has announced several plots against him in the past but the results of investigations have never been released, causing some Bolivians to doubt their veracity.
Santa Cruz Governor Ruben Costas, who has clashed with Morales in the past, said he doubted the government's version of events.
"This has been cheaply staged, this is a show," he told reporters.
Last year, right-wing opposition groups launched violent protests against a referendum promoted by Morales that gives more power to the indigenous majority.
Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador to Bolivia in September, accusing him of encouraging the protests in a bid to oust him.
The president ended a five-day hunger strike on Tuesday after lawmakers passed an electoral law that creates more seats in indigenous areas where his support is strongest. Morales had stopped eating to pressure legislators to pass the law.
Critics say the law tilts the electoral odds in his favor before a December presidential election the former coca farmer is expected to win. (Additional reporting by Frank Jack Daniel in Caracas, Editing by Kieran Murray and Peter Cooney)
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
RIGHTS-COLOMBIA: Fact-Finding Mission "Shocked"
Check out this story in IPS about Colombia's human rights crisis.
By Constanza Vieira
THE HAGUE, Apr 10 (IPS) - A delegation of seven British Labour members of parliament and 10 trade union leaders from the U.S., Canada and Britain said they were in a "state of shock" over what they heard during a week-long fact-finding mission to Colombia.
In a strongly worded statement read out in Spanish at a press conference Wednesday in the Colombian Congress, the parliamentary and labour mission accused the government of right-wing President Álvaro Uribe of being an "accomplice of crimes against humanity."
Crimes against humanity are defined by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), based in this city in the Netherlands, as "any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: murder; extermination; enslavement; deportation….; imprisonment…; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilisation…; persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender (grounds)...; (or) enforced disappearance of persons".
FOR MORE, GO TO IPS!
By Constanza Vieira
THE HAGUE, Apr 10 (IPS) - A delegation of seven British Labour members of parliament and 10 trade union leaders from the U.S., Canada and Britain said they were in a "state of shock" over what they heard during a week-long fact-finding mission to Colombia.
In a strongly worded statement read out in Spanish at a press conference Wednesday in the Colombian Congress, the parliamentary and labour mission accused the government of right-wing President Álvaro Uribe of being an "accomplice of crimes against humanity."
Crimes against humanity are defined by Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), based in this city in the Netherlands, as "any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: murder; extermination; enslavement; deportation….; imprisonment…; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilisation…; persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender (grounds)...; (or) enforced disappearance of persons".
FOR MORE, GO TO IPS!
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Ward Churchill: The Truth About the Case Against him, heard on WBAI's Friday Edition of Wake Up Call
As you've probably heard by now, last Thursday, a jury in Denver ruled that the high-profile termination of Native American scholar and activist, professor Ward Churchill by the University of Colorado several years ago had been wrongful, this despite the fact that a committee of his so-called faculty peers had found him guilty of a number of academic "wrong-doings."
The jury agreed to all the main points of the prosecution: first, that University of Colorado
officials used Churchill's political opinions and "inflammatory" words to fire him from his tenured position at the University; that the termination actually harmed Professor Churchill, and that had it not been for the controversial essay he had written in the wake of September 11, 2001 that described the event as "the chickens coming home to roost," that Churchill would still be teaching at the University of Colorado. In other words, it had nothing to do with the spurious allegations of his own academic misconduct, tucked away within his over dozen self-authored books, countless journal articles and edited collections.
Indeed, the Committee that was set up to investigate and evaluate Churchill's academic track record has been discredited on many different levels, and the jury who heard arguments in the case heard from a broad range of experts upholding the rigor and validity of his writings and research. This open acknowledgment of the inherent bias, mis-representations and lies of the peer review committee at the University of Colorado is found nowhere in the coverage of the case, leaving it open for the public to accept the charges that Churchill is a plagiarist, a shoddy researcher who has twisted historical facts. The New York Times published an article in today's edition that describes the "split feelings" on campus about Churchill's possible return to the University. Nowhere in the piece does it point out that the Peer Committee itself was guilty of faulty research and mis-representations guided by politics, not by a fair review of the record. So while Ward Churchill may be cleared in the eyes of the court, he is forced to justify himself consistently in the court of public opinion.
Nevertheless, this ruling is a clear victory for academic freedom, and should send a signal to the Sean Hannity's and Bill O'Reilly's of the world that political witch hunts have no room in our public institutions of higher learning. Political pressures applied on university administrators do
trickle down the totem pole of the academy, directly impacting the lives and the work of people like Ward Churchill, and many anonymous others who perhaps do NOT have the national and international recognition of a person like him, but are left dangling alone like political footballs as they go through the tenure and the promotion process in their respective institutions.
On Friday, April 10th, I was joined by Ward Churchill on the program Wake Up Call over WBAI Radio (99.5FM in NY; online at www.wbai.org).
On the program, we spoke about the nature of the case that was directed at him, and the many contradictions and lies that were put forward by University Officials and the committee supposedly set up to investigate his academic record. We also discussed the impact this entire episode has had on his personal and professional life, and some of the difficulties he still faces in returning to the University of Colorado. If you want to listen to the entire interview, go to the WBAI Radio Archive . This link will take you to the entire final hour of the show, so in order to hear Ward Chruchill, you need to push ahead on the timeline to about a qauter way through (roughly 8:15am).
Meanwhile, check out the links below for more detailed analysis of the Ward Churchill case:
Open Anthropology blog had a wonderful assessment of the Ward Churchill verdict of last Thursday.
Stanley Fish, the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, had a very good analysis about the case in the NY Times, pointing out that this is a circus that "should have never come to town."
For a solid review of the media coverage of the Ward Churchill case, check out Colorado Indy Media, where they posted a strong tracking of the stories that followed last week's verdict.
THANKS FOR LISTENING, AND STAY STRONG!
The jury agreed to all the main points of the prosecution: first, that University of Colorado
officials used Churchill's political opinions and "inflammatory" words to fire him from his tenured position at the University; that the termination actually harmed Professor Churchill, and that had it not been for the controversial essay he had written in the wake of September 11, 2001 that described the event as "the chickens coming home to roost," that Churchill would still be teaching at the University of Colorado. In other words, it had nothing to do with the spurious allegations of his own academic misconduct, tucked away within his over dozen self-authored books, countless journal articles and edited collections.Indeed, the Committee that was set up to investigate and evaluate Churchill's academic track record has been discredited on many different levels, and the jury who heard arguments in the case heard from a broad range of experts upholding the rigor and validity of his writings and research. This open acknowledgment of the inherent bias, mis-representations and lies of the peer review committee at the University of Colorado is found nowhere in the coverage of the case, leaving it open for the public to accept the charges that Churchill is a plagiarist, a shoddy researcher who has twisted historical facts. The New York Times published an article in today's edition that describes the "split feelings" on campus about Churchill's possible return to the University. Nowhere in the piece does it point out that the Peer Committee itself was guilty of faulty research and mis-representations guided by politics, not by a fair review of the record. So while Ward Churchill may be cleared in the eyes of the court, he is forced to justify himself consistently in the court of public opinion.
Nevertheless, this ruling is a clear victory for academic freedom, and should send a signal to the Sean Hannity's and Bill O'Reilly's of the world that political witch hunts have no room in our public institutions of higher learning. Political pressures applied on university administrators do
trickle down the totem pole of the academy, directly impacting the lives and the work of people like Ward Churchill, and many anonymous others who perhaps do NOT have the national and international recognition of a person like him, but are left dangling alone like political footballs as they go through the tenure and the promotion process in their respective institutions.On Friday, April 10th, I was joined by Ward Churchill on the program Wake Up Call over WBAI Radio (99.5FM in NY; online at www.wbai.org).
On the program, we spoke about the nature of the case that was directed at him, and the many contradictions and lies that were put forward by University Officials and the committee supposedly set up to investigate his academic record. We also discussed the impact this entire episode has had on his personal and professional life, and some of the difficulties he still faces in returning to the University of Colorado. If you want to listen to the entire interview, go to the WBAI Radio Archive . This link will take you to the entire final hour of the show, so in order to hear Ward Chruchill, you need to push ahead on the timeline to about a qauter way through (roughly 8:15am).Meanwhile, check out the links below for more detailed analysis of the Ward Churchill case:
Open Anthropology blog had a wonderful assessment of the Ward Churchill verdict of last Thursday.
Stanley Fish, the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, had a very good analysis about the case in the NY Times, pointing out that this is a circus that "should have never come to town."
For a solid review of the media coverage of the Ward Churchill case, check out Colorado Indy Media, where they posted a strong tracking of the stories that followed last week's verdict.
THANKS FOR LISTENING, AND STAY STRONG!
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Documentary About Indigenous MINGA Makes Debut in Spain
Documental de indígenas Nasa sobre la Minga sensibiliza en España
04/07/2009
Autor: Por Actualidad Étnica y Tejido de Comunicación ACIN
04/07/2009
Autor: Por Actualidad Étnica y Tejido de Comunicación ACIN
"Fue muy importante porque permitió visibilizar paso a paso los acontecimientos vividos y sufridos durante la movilización de la Minga Social y Comunitaria, porque tuvo gran impacto en el ámbito nacional e internacional, porque dio a conocer por qué el pueblo colombiano está inconforme con las políticas del gobierno que durante muchas décadas viene atropellando nuestros derechos", manifestó, Harold Secue, miembro del área audiovisual del Tejido de Comunicación de ACIN, tras su participación en el festival.
Con el objetivo de dar a conocer la realidad que muchas veces es invisibilizada por los medios de comunicación masivos, jóvenes indígenas apoyados por algunos mestizos realizaron este documental que mezcla la belleza de los escenarios donde se desarrollan las historias del documental, con el espinoso camino de la lucha de las comunidades.
Gracias a la Coordinadora Latinoamericana de Cine y Comunicación de los Pueblos Indígenas (CLACPI) se mostró a los españoles el documental "País de los pueblos sin dueños", en la ciudad de Córdoba, precisamente en la Filmoteca de Andalucía y en la Universidad de Córdoba en la Facultad de ciencias de la Educación.
Sinopsis del documental
Seguramente Colombia no será la misma después de esos 61 días de Minga Social y Comunitaria que iniciaron el 11 de octubre de 2008 y culminaron en la Plaza de Bolívar en Bogotá. Los testigos y protagonistas de esta historia están demasiado ocupados haciéndola, para poder comprender o anticipar el impacto de sus actos.
Desde el Cauca, los pueblos se levantaron de pensamiento, palabra y dignidad para rechazar con la "Otra Colombia" unida, las políticas de Estado que someten al hambre y a la miseria.
Ante la movilización pacífica, el gobierno de Uribe respondió como si se tratara de una revuelta violenta, empleando la fuerza pública intentó mitigar el levantamiento indígena dejando como saldo 2 muertos y 120 heridos.
Los pueblos resistieron embates de los medios de comunicación, engaños y mentiras del gobierno y falsos señalamientos en contra de su dignidad.
¿Qué hace que los más pobres y excluidos enfrenten sin armas al régimen más poderoso del continente latinoamericano respaldado y orientado por el poder económico, político, mediático y militar de EE.UU. y de las corporaciones transnacionales?
La respuesta aparece en la sabiduría de la agenda que motiva esta Minga y que "País de los Pueblos sin Dueños" presenta, mostrando las acciones conmovedoras y ejemplares que se han hecho semillas de libertad para en los pueblos marginados de Colombia.
Acogida en España
Durante la exhibición en la universidad de Córdoba los estudiantes y maestros que vieron la realidad tal cual quedó registrada en las imágenes que se grabaron durante la Minga y que sirvieron de insumo para el documental, se manifestaron asombrados al ver la crueldad del gobierno colombiano y sus fuerzas militares con las comunidades que salieron a protestar en contra de las políticas estatales y las transnacionales.
"Felicitamos a la minga por el valioso aporte que le está dando a la sociedad en busca de un bienestar para todos, trabajando desde lo colectivo", fueron las voces de algunos participantes, que el enviaron un mensaje de felicitación y admiración a las organizaciones y personas que protagonizaron la gran Minga Social y Comunitaria, debido a que la información alternativa a través de internet tuvo trascendencia internacional, pese a que en muchas ocasiones la información por los medios españoles mostraban otra cosa. "Más bien nos daban a entender que la minga era promovida y financiada por las Farc y que muchos indígenas estaban obligados por temor a que la insurgencia les hiciera daño", afirmó uno de los estudiantes.
Los europeos que asistieron a las proyecciones recibieron el documental con mucho aprecio. Aseguraron que casi nunca han tenido la posibilidad de ver en cine, una mirada real de los pueblos marginados de los países que luchan por reivindicar sus derechos en busca del bienestar social de sus comunidades y en defensa del medio ambiente como patrimonio de vida del pueblo colombiano y del planeta en general.
"Hoy que podemos ver el documental y escuchar a un comunicador indígena de Colombia estamos aclarando muchas dudas que nos tenían confundidos ante la situación coyuntural de los pueblos indígenas en Colombia. Conociendo esta triste realidad que viven los pueblos en Colombia nosotros como españoles y como universidad de Córdova de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, nos sumamos a esos 5 puntos de la Minga porque entendemos que siempre las luchas son gustas, injustos son los del poder económico mundial que vienen quitando derechos y riquezas a quienes hasta el momento la conservan", ratificó uno de los profesores participantes.
Otro de los personajes que quedó impresionado con el documental fue el comunicador indígena Nicolás Ipamo de Bolivia, quien hizo referencia a que las luchas de los pueblos siempre han existido, pero que han sido avasalladas por la fuerza pública que le trabaja al modelo económico de cada país. "Por esta razón es muy importante que las organizaciones sociales de los diferentes países nos unamos como uno solo para hacer frente a estos atropellos de los ricos que desde 1.492 nos han venido manipulando nuestros derechos", agregó el comunicador indígena.
También invitó a la comunidad en resistencia de Colombia para que no desfallezca en la lucha, "que sigamos trabajando para dejarle un buen camino a nuestros hijos, porque si hoy reclamamos nuestros derechos es pensando en futuras generaciones que en un mañana agradecerán la lucha de sus viejos".
De igual manera, algunos españoles al ver el documental se sensibilizaron con la realidad de los pueblos, entonces se comprometieron a apoyar la causa de los pueblos a través de la denuncia pública y la difusión del video que les facilitó el Tejido de Comunicación ACIN a algunos líderes y docentes de la universidad de Córdova.
Sensibilizando consciencias
La forma de visibilizar las constantes luchas y vivencias de los pueblos indígenas y demás pueblos ha sido a través de videoforos en las comunidades del norte del Cauca, del Cauca y en espacios nacionales, donde se envían los documentales para que se conozca no sólo la agresión contra los pueblos, sino también la construcción permanente del plan de vida.
Al mismo tiempo, con la ayuda de amigos del proceso en otros países se abren espacios para que la realidad se de a conocer a través de los documentales. Personas en Canadá, EEUU y Europa presentan los documentales a la comunidad que desconoce los procesos de resistencia en el país.
Además de esto, hay un espacio muy importante que son los festivales de video indígena que realiza CLACPI, en los diferentes países de América Latina con el ánimo de mostrar y denunciar las difíciles situaciones que viven las comunidades. Porque estos materiales casi nunca son mostrados por los medios masivos de comunicación, ya que estos medios como la TV, Radio e Internet, sólo muestran los intereses del poder económico y cuando muestran los acontecimientos de los sectores sociales e indígenas lo hacen desde una óptica amarillista para mostrar la resistencia como terrorismo.
Estos festivales han sido fundamentales para compartir con otros pueblos y conocer de las luchas que se vienen adelantando en el Continente. Puesto que en muchas ocasiones se hacen festivales o muestras internacionales, pero rara vez tienen en cuenta la temática indígena y popular, porque el video documental no cumple las expectativas comerciales para vender y entretener. Además que los productores indígenas cuentan con una muy buena experiencia de realización pero no tienen los suficientes equipos técnicos para la producción y edición, sin embargo, en este Festival se logró mostrar el trabajo que viene realizando el Tejido de Comunicación de ACIN a pesar de las dificultades económicas, la persecución permanente al proceso y específicamente a los integrantes del Tejido de Comunicación ACIN.
FOR MORE DETAILS, VISIT ACIN's WEBSITE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)