Showing posts with label Political Corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Corruption. Show all posts

24 July 2012

Harry Targ : Fairness in Hypocrisy Valley

Image from Occasional Links and Commentary.

Fairness in Hypocrisy Valley
Since elections, the public expression of political power, are significantly determined by millionaires, trustees at Hypocrisy Valley usually are the wealthy and powerful.
By Harry Targ / The Rag Blog / July 24, 2012

I have spent much of my adult life in Hypocrisy Valley, a small community which is the regional center of commerce, agriculture, and modest industrialization. It also is the home of a major university, Hypocrisy Valley State University, which has a reputation, we are told, in agriculture, engineering, and science. As a state supported institution it is obliged to serve the research and educational needs of the citizens of the state.

The faculty size of the university and the student population has grown by 25 percent in 40 years. The university is the largest employer in the county, and many workers say that while they receive low wages, are not treated with particular respect (except for the annual spring fling distribution of free hot dogs), they work at the university because of the health and retirement benefits, which exceed benefits from other employers in the area. Of course, state law prohibits Hypocrisy Valley employees from organizing staff or faculty unions.

Hypocrisy Valley historically has had mediocre sports teams but from time to time they defeat the other major state universities. Masses of alumni do descend on the university during the football season to drink, eat, and watch Hypocrisy Valley players suffer defeat. Unrelated to performance levels, football and basketball coaches make huge salaries, as is common in collegiate sports, and the Director of Athletic Programs makes hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary and perks and participates in several academic decisions at the university.

Over the last 25 years, the number and cost of higher administrative personnel have grown enormously. In addition, selected “star” faculty have enjoyed huge raises. Gaps between the salaries of high-tech, big business, drug company researchers and professors of liberal arts, education, and the pure sciences have grown as well. But all celebrate the fact that Hypocrisy Valley has developed a world reputation, even ranked highly by U.S. News and World Report, the arbiter of quality in higher education.

Presidents at Hypocrisy Valley have served one or more five-year terms before retiring and being replaced. Ordinarily, these presidents are celebrated for their historic contributions to the evolution of the university, only to be all but erased from the University’s history upon retirement. Often the Board of Trustees, the big business elites appointed by Governors to rule the university, name buildings or roads after retired university presidents.

This gets to the heart of academic rule at Hypocrisy Valley. The Board of Trustees makes major decisions about the character and future of the university, including faculty and staff employment. Generally, high-paid administrators accept decisions as they are announced. And since the Board is appointed by sitting Governors, higher education policy is directly related to the distribution of political power in the state.

In addition, since elections, the public expression of political power, are significantly determined by millionaires, trustees at Hypocrisy Valley usually are the wealthy and powerful. Often Trustees come from multinational corporations, banks, and real estate interests in the state and the country. And this influence “trickles down” from the selection of higher levels of administration at Hypocrisy Valley, to curricula, to admissions policy, staff and faculty salaries, and student tuitions.

Recently, decisions at Hypocrisy Valley generated more commentary than usual. The outgoing president, who served one five-year term was encouraged to retire. She was granted a $500,000 severance payment, a continuation of her tenured position in an academic department related to her expertise, and a full-paid sabbatical leave, while she serves on boards of distinguished national scholarly institutions.

Information about the severance payment was reported, in the usually pliant local newspaper, the Hypocrisy Journal. The Journal reported also that the Board is reconfiguring faculty and staff health care costs, including increasing recipient co-payments. The severance package of $500,000 will be paid out of university discretionary funds. Increased health care costs for Hypocrisy Valley employees will be paid for by them.

In addition, with the impending retirement of the University president, a nationwide search for a successor was carried out. A search firm, a faculty staff committee, and the Board of Trustees, after extensive work decided that the best candidate to be the next president of Hypocrisy Valley was the outgoing governor of the state, who in fact appointed the Board of Trustees which now decided that he, the governor with no academic experience, was the best candidate to be the next president.

In addition to the appearance of political skullduggery, the governor had already cut higher education budgets, helped establish an online university as an alternative to traditional higher education, supported the privatization of public education from K to grade 12, opposed women’s access to reproductive health, and signed anti-labor legislation. Some of his strongest defenders argue that having a new president with no higher education administrative experience might make him best equipped to run this world-class institution.

Meanwhile, the Hypocrisy Journal, while publishing a few opinion pieces criticizing the appointment of the outgoing governor as the new president, shifted most of its editorializing to strong support for the appointment, despite a few well-researched stories about the less transparent aspects of the appointment.

I am sure that Hypocrisy University will survive the moral and political corruption of the presidential appointment. Major changes in university policy will not occur. Big corporations and banks will continue to be served by the bulk of ongoing research and teaching. The Board of Trustees will continue to rule in relative secrecy.

Faculty, in the main, will complain in the corridors but will not think of organizing. Students will endure higher tuition to pay for administrative salaries. Growing numbers of young people from around the state, often minorities and working class kids, will search for alternatives to the prohibitively expensive education costs at Hypocrisy Valley.

As Hoosier novelist, Kurt Vonnegut once wrote: “So it goes.”

[Harry Targ is a professor of political science at Purdue University who lives in West Lafayette, Indiana. He blogs at Diary of a Heartland Radical -- and that's also the name of his new book which can be found at Lulu.com. Read more of Harry Targ's articles on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

14 January 2010

Haiti and American Colonialism : The Story Behind the Story

A member of François "Papa Doc" Duvalier's Tonton Macoutes death squad, center, with Haitian soldier to his right. Note the look of terror on the woman vendor's face. Image from Latin American Studies.

How did Haiti become so poor?
Haitian earthquake: Made in the USA


By Ted Rall / January 14, 2010
Also see 'What you're not hearing about Haiti,' By Carl Lindskoog, Below.
As grim accounts of the earthquake in Haiti came in, the accounts in U.S.-controlled state media all carried the same descriptive sentence: "Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere..."

Gee, I wonder how that happened?

You'd think Haiti would be loaded. After all, it made a lot of people rich.

How did Haiti get so poor? Despite a century of American colonialism, occupation, and propping up corrupt dictators? Even though the CIA staged coups d'état against every democratically elected president they ever had?

It's an important question. An earthquake isn't just an earthquake. The same 7.0 tremor hitting San Francisco wouldn't kill nearly as many people as in Port-au-Prince.

"Looking at the pictures, essentially it looks as if (the buildings are of) breeze block or cinder block construction, and what you need in an earthquake zone is metal bars that connect the blocks so that they stay together when they get shaken," notes Sandy Steacey, director of the Environmental Science Research Institute at the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland. "In a wealthy country with good seismic building codes that are enforced, you would have some damage, but not very much."

When a pile of cinder blocks falls on you, your odds of survival are long. Even if you miraculously survive, a poor country like Haiti doesn't have the equipment, communications infrastructure or emergency service personnel to pull you out of the rubble in time. And if your neighbors get you out, there's no ambulance to take you to the hospital -- or doctor to treat you once you get there.

Earthquakes are random events. How many people they kill is predetermined. In Haiti this week, don't blame tectonic plates. Ninety-nine percent of the death toll is attributable to poverty.

So the question is relevant. How'd Haiti become so poor?

The story begins in 1910, when a U.S. State Department-National City Bank of New York (now called Citibank) consortium bought the Banque National d'Haïti -- Haiti's only commercial bank and its national treasury -- in effect transferring Haiti's debts to the Americans. Five years later, President Woodrow Wilson ordered troops to occupy the country in order to keep tabs on "our" investment.

From 1915 to 1934, the U.S. Marines imposed harsh military occupation, murdered Haitians patriots and diverted 40 percent of Haiti's gross domestic product to U.S. bankers. Haitians were banned from government jobs. Ambitious Haitians were shunted into the puppet military, setting the stage for a half-century of U.S.-backed military dictatorship.

The U.S. kept control of Haiti's finances until 1947.

Still -- why should Haitians complain? Sure, we stole 40 percent of Haiti's national wealth for 32 years. But we let them keep 60 percent.

Whiners.

Despite having been bled dry by American bankers and generals, civil disorder prevailed until 1957, when the CIA installed President-for-Life François "Papa Doc" Duvalier. Duvalier's brutal Tonton Macoutes paramilitary goon squads murdered at least 30,000 Haitians and drove educated people to flee into exile. But think of the cup as half-full: fewer people in the population means fewer people competing for the same jobs!

Upon Papa Doc's death in 1971, the torch passed to his even more dissolute 19-year-old son, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. The U.S., cool to Papa Doc in his later years, quickly warmed back up to his kleptomaniacal playboy heir. As the U.S. poured in arms and trained his army as a supposed anti-communist bulwark against Castro's Cuba, Baby Doc stole an estimated $300 to $800 million from the national treasury, according to Transparency International. The money was placed in personal accounts in Switzerland and elsewhere.

Under U.S. influence, Baby Doc virtually eliminated import tariffs for U.S. goods. Soon Haiti was awash with predatory agricultural imports dumped by American firms. Domestic rice farmers went bankrupt. A nation that had been agriculturally self-sustaining collapsed. Farms were abandoned. Hundreds of thousands of farmers migrated to the teeming slums of Port-au-Prince.

The Duvalier era, 29 years in all, came to an end in 1986 when President Ronald Reagan ordered U.S. forces to whisk Baby Doc to exile in France, saving him from a popular uprising.

Once again, Haitians should thank Americans. Duvalierism was "tough love." Forcing Haitians to make do without their national treasury was our nice way or encouraging them to work harder, to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. Or, in this case, flip-flops.
Anyway.

The U.S. has been all about tough love ever since. We twice deposed the populist and popular democratically-elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The second time, in 2004, we even gave him a free flight to the Central African Republic! (He says the CIA kidnapped him, but whatever.) Hey, he needed a rest. And it was kind of us to support a new government formed by former Tonton Macoutes.

Yet, despite everything we've done for Haiti, they're still a fourth-world failed state on a fault line.

And still, we haven't given up. American companies like Disney generously pay wages to their sweatshop workers of 28 cents an hour.

What more do these ingrates want?

[Ted Rall is the author of the new book Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?, an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.]

Source / CommonDreams.org


"Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier. Photo from AFP.
What you're not hearing about Haiti
(But should be)


By Carl Lindskoog / January 14, 2010

In the hours following Haiti's devastating earthquake, CNN, The New York Times and other major news sources adopted a common interpretation for the severe destruction: the 7.0 earthquake was so devastating because it struck an urban area that was extremely over-populated and extremely poor.

Houses "built on top of each other" and constructed by the poor people themselves made for a fragile city. And the country's many years of underdevelopment and political turmoil made the Haitian government ill-prepared to respond to such a disaster.

True enough. But that's not the whole story. What's missing is any explanation of why there are so many Haitians living in and around Port-au-Prince and why so many of them are forced to survive on so little. Indeed, even when an explanation is ventured, it is often outrageously false such as a former U.S. diplomat's testimony on CNN that Port-au-Prince's overpopulation was due to the fact that Haitians, like most Third World people, know nothing of birth control.

It may startle news-hungry Americans to learn that these conditions the American media correctly attributes to magnifying the impact of this tremendous disaster were largely the product of American policies and an American-led development model.

From 1957-1971 Haitians lived under the dark shadow of "Papa Doc" Duvalier, a brutal dictator who enjoyed U.S. backing because he was seen by Americans as a reliable anti-Communist. After his death, Duvalier's son, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" became President-for-life at the age of 19 and he ruled Haiti until he was finally overthrown in 1986.

It was in the 1970s and 1980s that Baby Doc and the United States government and business community worked together to put Haiti and Haiti's capitol city on track to become what it was on January 12, 2010.

After the coronation of Baby Doc, American planners inside and outside the U.S. government initiated their plan to transform Haiti into the "Taiwan of the Caribbean." This small, poor country situated conveniently close to the United States was instructed to abandon its agricultural past and develop a robust, export-oriented manufacturing sector. This, Duvalier and his allies were told, was the way toward modernization and economic development.

From the standpoint of the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Haiti was the perfect candidate for this neoliberal facelift. The entrenched poverty of the Haitian masses could be used to force them into low-paying jobs sewing baseballs and assembling other products.

But USAID had plans for the countryside too. Not only were Haiti's cities to become exporting bases but so was the countryside, with Haitian agriculture also reshaped along the lines of export-oriented, market-based production. To accomplish this USAID, along with urban industrialists and large landholders, worked to create agro-processing facilities, even while they increased their practice of dumping surplus agricultural products from the U.S. on the Haitian people.

This "aid" from the Americans, along with the structural changes in the countryside predictably forced Haitian peasants who could no longer survive to migrate to the cities, especially Port-au-Prince where the new manufacturing jobs were supposed to be. However, when they got there they found there weren't nearly enough manufacturing jobs go around.

The city became more and more crowded. Slum areas expanded. And to meet the housing needs of the displaced peasants, quickly and cheaply constructed housing was put up, sometimes placing houses right "on top of each other."

Before too long, however, American planners and Haitian elites decided that perhaps their development model didn't work so well in Haiti and they abandoned it. The consequences of these American-led changes remain, however.

When on the afternoon and evening of January 12, 2010, Haiti experienced that horrible earthquake and round after round of aftershock, the destruction was, no doubt, greatly worsened by the very real over-crowding and poverty of Port-au-Prince and the surrounding areas.

But shocked Americans can do more than shake their heads and, with pity, make a donation. They can confront their own country's responsibility for the conditions in Port-au-Prince that magnified the earthquake's impact, and they can acknowledge America's role in keeping Haiti from achieving meaningful development.

To accept the incomplete story of Haiti offered by CNN and the New York Times is to blame Haitians for being the victims of a scheme that was not of their own making. As John Milton wrote, "they who have put out the people's eyes, reproach them of their blindness."

[Carl Lindskoog is a New York City-based activist and historian completing a doctoral degree at the City University of New York. You can contact him at cskoog79@yahoo.com.]

Source / CommonDreams.org
The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

09 January 2010

Decade of Deceit : Our Leaders and their Lies


A catalog of calumny:
The Decade of Deceit

Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.
By Sid Eschenbach / The Rag Blog / January 9, 2010

Bookended by two lies, George Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism” and Barack Obama’s “Change We Can Believe In,” the first decade of the 21st century should go down in history as the decade when we all, collectively and individually, occasionally from the left and generally from the right, repeatedly admired the emperor’s new clothes -- only to discover that, like the original meme, there was no reality behind the image.

It’s difficult to say whether this decade is remarkable for the scope and impact of the frauds perpetrated, or whether we are simply more aware of them, as the onions of information are peeled open by modern technologies that allow greater access and quicker diffusion than ever before. Whichever it is, the lies told in this first decade of the 21st century are whoppers, among which the following deserve special mention.

  • The lie of fair elections
How many deceptive or completely false ideologies, facts and policies did we fall for in the decade? Well, it started with the election of George Bush and the electoral coup perpetrated in Florida. Not only did he not win the election, but we were forced to accept an argument that it could and should be settled by the Supreme Court instead of an actual recount -- a body that has acknowledged that it had no jurisdiction in the matter -- and the decision of which is so fraught with problems that it is legally barred from being used in any other case in the future. Yet we, the American people, accepted the deceit.

Alan Dershowitz stated at the time:
“[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.”
Well after the election, in 2001, a New York Times study showed that, had a full recount been adopted and had over-votes been tallied correctly in all of Florida, Gore would have picked up an additional 8,285 votes, far more than needed to win Florida and thus the national election.

With the ascension to the presidency of George Bush we should have learned that the United States is not Reagan’s “beacon on the hill” -- an idealized country as we imagined it to be and were taught that it was in our high school civics classes.

Rather, and under certain conditions, that the fight for succession of power in the American republic is as crude and ruthless as in any other, determined not through the “free and fair” elections upon which we have constructed our virtuous self-image, but by the machinations of political and economic elites. It is an ugly truth, but those are the real colors of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

Cartoon by Mr. Fish / truthdig.

  • The lie of ‘compassionate conservatism’
Yes, one might ask, what exactly would that be? The idea that these two historically contradictory concepts could be pandered to a public desperate to believe, to see the emperor’s new clothes where there are none, is silly enough in it’s own right. However, the real deceit was greater, for “compassionate conservatism” was in reality nothing more but a great deal less than the old concept of “noblesse oblige,” the idea that society’s most privileged would, out of their sense of entitled wealth, be kind and compassionate to those less fortunate and well beneath them.

Further, it’s part and parcel of another fantasy peddled to the gullible public, that “free” market economics better helped the poor than government social intervention. The reality is that it served and serves to sanctify greed, as it’s used as a prop for the selfish, a salve for those who only think of themselves in their frantic rush for riches -- allowing them to believe that the battle for their personal success in fact helps the least among us.

In the same way, this salve allowed the political leadership to talk of helping the poor and socially handicapped, without really doing anything to help them at all other than pass the ball to the private sector to resolve more competently than, they asserted, government could.

Former President Clinton summed it up well when he said that the message of compassionate conservatism was: "I want to help you. I really do. But you know, I just can't.” All up, it comprised the basis for George Bush’s appeal to a religious, conservative and ignorant poor while simultaneously energizing the richest, strongest, best educated and most privileged members of society -- politically a very potent and entirely fraudulent marriage of conceptual and social opposites.

Like Professor Dershowitz did in the previous example, this deception was also pointed out -- but to no avail, given the public’s manifest desire to believe in the emperor’s new clothes. One commentator, Joe Conason, wrote in 2003 that "so far, being a 'compassionate conservative' appears to mean nothing very different from being a hardhearted, stingy, old-fashioned conservative.”

All this, of course, fell on the deaf ears of a faithful religious public that, in furtherance of their need to feel good about themselves, believed that there actually was such a thing as “compassionate conservatism” and that they were a part of it. The historical facts, unfortunately, have proven otherwise.

The fact that it was a transparently duplicitous political ploy used to convert the selfish rich and the religious poor to the Republican cause was demonstrated in 2001, when after the events of September the 11, it was rarely if ever mentioned.


  • The lie of Iraq
“I cannot tell you everything that we know. But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling. What you will see is an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior. The facts on Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort -- no effort -- to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.”
With these words describing the supposed “facts” about Iraq from (a later repentant) Secretary of State Colin Powell began the aggressive selling of a particularly heinous lie, the justification to invade a nation as a necessary and moral act.

It is the ultimate irony that a combination of fear and ego drove Saddam Hussein to facilitate this crime through his own perfidy, hiding the fact that he didn’t possess any weapons of mass destruction at all, that he was not nearly as powerful as he wanted others to believe -- and thus wasn’t particularly more or less dangerous than any other unstable megalomaniac in any part of the world.

This fact, however, doesn’t dismiss a simple and core truth -- recently admitted by then British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- that had WMD not been available as an argument to justify invasion, he simply would have “deployed different arguments” to justify an inevitable, pre-arranged and concerted military action.

This statement, the absolute height of arrogance and cynicism, is proof of what has been alleged from the beginning of this entire tragic endeavor; that lying and deceiving the people is a legitimate tactic because the ends justify the means: that getting rid of the Hussein regime was more important than the truth itself.

Unfortunately, Powell’s words were not the last, but among the first in a long parade of lies told to justify and explain the Iraq War:
  • “We believe that Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons,”
  • “Saddam supports and protects Al Qaida,”
  • “We will be greeted as liberators,”
  • “It will be paid for out of Iraqi oil monies,”
  • “It will only cost $50-$60 billion dollars,”
  • “Waterboarding is not torture,”
  • “The United States does not torture,”
  • “People in Iraq must understand that I view those practices as abhorrent,”
  • “Major combat operations are over.”
All these and many more lies were told -- so many over so long a time that it became standard and accepted operating procedure to lie to the people “for their own good.” Never in modern American history have so many blatant lies been told in the name of national security, lies generally accepted as truth by an easily manipulated public, lies that lead to over 100,000 civilian Iraqi deaths, 35,000 American dead and wounded, and an expense to the nation of what will probably end up exceeding $2.5 trillion dollars -- and lies that are still defended today by those guilty of telling them.

  • The lie of post-industrial prosperity
“Free trade lifts all boats,” said the Friedmanites. “Free trade (NAFTA) will cause a giant sucking sound as jobs go south,” said Ross Perot. Twenty years later, it’s clear that the second was the truth and the first was the lie, used again and again by the ersatz American capitalists as they moved manufacturing en masse to countries that provide relatively unprotected and low cost labor.

While they did this, Americans continued to believe the lie that it was just the “bad” jobs that were being outsourced, leaving the “high-paying creative jobs” to the highly paid and presumptively creative American workforce.

Of course, this is a fantasy closely related to any sightings of the emperor’s new clothes, and in the end whether the CEO’s believed it or not is irrelevant. The simple fact is that there is no known economic state of post-industrial prosperity. No nation has ever achieved it, and none ever will.

This lie is possibly more pernicious than others of the decade because, unlike the others, it’s entirely possible that the American political, financial and manufacturing leadership don’t really know that they’re telling a whopper. It’s unclear as to whether they understand the end result of a policy that exports jobs and imports goods, just as it’s unclear whether the industrialized nations will wake up before they are overwhelmed and marginalized by the newly industrialized states of China and India.

What is clear, however, is that until the U.S. and to a lesser degree the E.U. change their trade policies to protect their industrial sectors, there can and will be no real “recovery” based upon the jobs held by a large middle class.

Strangely, if this industrial “readjustment” continues and overcapacity continues to be an economic fact of life (and there is absolutely nothing emerging out of the Obama administration to suggest that it won’t), it matters little to the national economy whether the goods are imported or not, and the reason for this is efficiency.

In the face of the advantages enjoyed by goods produced in cheap labor and low regulatory environments, all surviving businesses in the high labor high regulatory environments will have one thing in common -- extraordinarily high efficiencies. What that means to employment is that where there once were 100 workers, now there are 10 or less producing the same amount or more goods.

Normally, of course, increases in productivity are accompanied by increases in wages. But not in this case. Wages will stay flat OR FALL while productivity increases -- not a particularly salubrious outcome for the industrialized nations. The reason for this, of course, is that in the absence of a policy that might level the playing fields between rich, industrialized and regulated economies and poor, developing and un-regulated economies demand it.

Unfortunately, given the wholesale adoption of the free trade lie, that is the best possible outcome for the industrialized nations -- flat to sinking wages combined with high unemployment for the foreseeable future.

The Corporate Egregore: the corporation as legal entity. Image from Nowarchy.

  • The lie of free speech
At the core of all good lies is a kernel of truth, and the “truth” at the nexus of money and “free speech” has that element in spades. In a nation that treats corporations as individuals and gives them the same rights as individual citizens, the ability of corporations and groups of corporations to dominate the context, process, and outcomes of political discourse is unfettered. That is because of the legal “truth” -- the fact that we consider their corporate rights as “individuals” to be equal to the rights of individual persons.

This dangerous conflation, of course, gives them an unrivaled advantage over real, human “individuals,” simply due to the huge financial advantages they enjoy. If we continue to ignore this problem, continue not to remedy this structural flaw that lies at the very heart of the American political and legal system, this abuse of the right to “free speech” will continue to distort, debase and corrupt the legislative system designed over 225 years ago by the founding fathers.

The recent health care debate is just the latest in a long line of corporate shaped policy outcomes paid for “fair and square” by donations from corporations to the men and women who write law in the halls of American democracy. The lie at the heart of the argument, of course, is that corporations are individuals and should enjoy the same rights of individuals -- including the right of “free speech.”

In decision after decision, most recently in 2007 (Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.), the courts have upheld corporate rights to participate in the political process based upon their first amendment rights -- a canard at best, a farce at worst -- but it is that legal obstacle that has, to date, successfully hobbled real campaign reform.

Among similar fantasies sold to a credulous public, the idea that restrictions on corporate financial intervention in the political process somehow threaten the foundations of the citizen’s right to free speech is as silly as the argument that banning automatic weapons is the first step to disarming the citizenry -- but that is indeed the argument that is made, and with, at least in public, a straight face.

The healthcare debate may not have settled the debate over healthcare, but it should have settled any serious debate over who writes legislation in the modern version of the Great American Experiment, and it is not the legislator nor the citizen, but rather the best lobbyists that corporate “free speech” money can buy.

Art by R.S. Janes/ LTSaloon.

  • The lie of family values
It’s more than coincidental that those who preach most loudly about moral virtue are not only the most “virtue” challenged, but also have built into their system of beliefs a very convenient catch-all when they are found in their tawdry affairs: confession and redemption. Hypocrisy in any form is worthy of contempt, but to be able to “fall from grace” and find “redemption and forgiveness” so easily is the absolute nadir of disgusting irony.

President Clinton never made a case that he was a paragon of virtue, and yet his transgression was fodder for four years of “investigation” and then impeachment. Of course, those who pursued his scalp most vigorously always said “It’s not about the sex,” when, of course, it always was.

A short list of these hypocrites would include Newt Gingrich, Jim Bakker, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, Glen Murphy Jr., David Vitter, Helen Chenoweth, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, some 20 odd bishops and cardinals of the Catholic Church, Jimmy Swaggart and some two dozen other major evangelical figures -- all men who lied as they preached, creating one more false narrative among many others in the decade of deceit. The recent (second) divorce of Carl Rove, long an advocate for “traditional marriage” and family values, is just more of the same duplicity, the “do as I say not as I do” talk show nonsense for which he is appropriately nicknamed "The Architect.”

One of the most valuable cultural values that emerged out of the Enlightenment is a value that was and is at the heart of Western Civilizations greatness: the belief that we all ultimately had to answer before our protestant god for our human errors. Whether one is religious or not, from a sociological point of view it’s easy to see the virtue of this belief, as -- unlike with the Catholics (through confession and forgiveness) -- it became much harder to say one thing and practice another.

Hypocrisy was controlled. One did what one said one believed and would do. Integrity became a virtue -- and it is this virtue that we are in the process of collectively losing, a fact demonstrated by the parade of hypocritical “family values” politicians spouting “family values” while they practice another kind of value altogether.

  • The lie of financial security
A popular television commercial used to promote a Wall Street business with the slogan, “We make money the old fashioned way -- we earn it!” Unfortunately, no one really knew how right they were, as it turned out that the “new fashioned way” was to create money out of thin air, through financial sleight of hand.

The recent near catastrophic collapse of the entire financial superstructure upon which the planet as a whole depends is nothing less than the logical outcome of the real world application of Milton Friedman economics. Mr. Friedman could not conceive of good government, legitimate taxation, or necessary regulations. On the other hand, he could not believe that the “market” could fail, that businesses could act against their own long-term interests, or that the efficient market hypothesis was wrong. Unfortunately, it turns out he was wrong on all counts, and September of 2008 proves the case.

Beyond the big time “legal” hustles of financial “blind’em with bullshit” wizardry, -- the “legitimate” public scams of making governments pay you off to the tune of billion --, the decade also played host to some of the greatest and many of the lesser con men in the world of “private investment.”

Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford are just at the top of a pile of multi-billion dollar scam artists who preyed upon those desperate to be counted among the rich and famous, willing to entrust obvious liars with hundreds of billions of dollars in exchange for a few percent more on their “investments.”

In their case, the credulous paid for their own credulity. Unfortunately, the damage was not limited to just those individuals who had “skin in the game,” because society as a whole sustained a solid body blow, a strike to the heart of a social system based, in its ultimate expression, on trust.

When we stop trusting, we stop lending. When we stop trusting, we stop investing. We stop working to “get ahead” because it’s all seen as a sham -- there is no ahead, but rather merely a series of chimeras created by a system built on deception -- and this is not any way to run an economy. It remains to be seen if we have learned anything from this latest discovery that the financial wizard’s new clothes are no more credible than the emperor’s new clothes, but only time will tell. One thing is sure: when the citizenry stop believing in both their economic and their political systems, it’s serious and something serious will happen as a result.

Graphic by Mike Rosulek / mikero.com.

  • The lie of change we can believe in
Due to the realization by a great many people of the truth of the forgoing, a societal thirst for change emerged that came to be embodied by a senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. He was swept into power on the strength of a promise, that real change could be affected in the political, economic and social fabric of the American society. Unfortunately, this too is a lie.

This is a most interesting lie because it’s not like all the others, lies told in full knowledge of their value to deceive. The lie of “Change We Can Believe In” was not delivered to be a lie -- it just turned out that way. In the process, it turned up a greater lie yet: that fundamental change through electoral outcomes is possible.

The healthcare battle stands as testament to the impossibility of significant change from electoral outcomes. The paralysis of government is all too easily achieved by those opposed to change. A transformative president’s demonstrable inability to change the quality and the outcomes of national dialogues in what was once the great American Experiment, the first government of the people, by the people and for the people, uncovers a startling truth: that what has become an American Empire has become so massive that the laws of political and economic inertia cannot be either quickly or easily overcome -- even by a popular president pursuing policy changes backed by the majority of the people.

That may, as many argue, be the ultimate virtue of good governance; it’s inability to be easily or quickly swayed by individuals or groups, however strong. Stability, even for all the wrong reasons, can be seen as a virtue. However, the laws of evolution within nature are immutable: biology teaches us that for species to survive they must change, adapt… or die -- and this is surely also true for social systems. If the American socio-political and economic system is unable to right itself, to review, learn and correct the errors of the last 30 years, it will quickly cease to be the dominant planetary culture. And that is not a lie; it is a fact.

The lies told by those who have dominated the public square over the past 10 years have not only brought the world to the edge of economic chaos, but continue to promote the polices that got us to that point in the first place. It remains to be seen if we have collectively learned anything over this decade that will allow us to THINK FOR OURSELVES, to say “The emperor has no clothes,” and thus begin to restructure society so that we can actually deliver on what is promised -- not just continue to console ourselves by going along with those who want to believe what they are told, to see clothes where there are none, to accept the lies.

[Sidney Eschenbach, 61, lives and works in Guatemala. His thoughts regarding developmental economics and trade are based on decades of development work in Latin America at various levels, community, corporate and national.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

29 December 2009

Corruption in Panama : Former President on the Lam

Panama's ex-President Ernesto Pérez Balladares earlier this year. Panama's 'Toro' is currently wanted by law enforcement, if not by Panama's voters. Photo from telemetro.com.

Panama's 'Toro' goes underground
Warrant issued for arrest of ex-President Ernesto Pérez Balladares for laundering money from gambling concession kickbacks...
By Eric Jackson / The Rag Blog / December 29, 2009

PANAMA CITY, Panama -- On December 28 -- ironically, the Day of the Holy Innocents, which is Panama's functional equivalent of April Fools Day in the United States -- prosecutors revealed that they had issued an order for police to arrest former President Ernesto "Toro" Pérez Balladares and bring him in for formal interrogation and possible preventive detention on charges that he laundered the proceeds of kickbacks he received from a gambling concession contract awarded by his administration. This was no joke.

The alleged crime is money laundering, arising from a 1997 no-bid gambling concession that the Pérez Balladares administration awarded to Lucky Games SA, a subsidiary of a mostly Spanish-owned investment group. It is alleged that a piece of that business went to a company controlled by Mr. Pérez Balladares, Shelf Holdings SA, and that from the concession's inception up until the middle of this year Toro received a steady stream of payments from Lucky Games through Shelf Holdings.

The transactions allegedly took place through a complicated network of companies apparently controlled by or in the names of the former president's close friends. Although a fairly damning paper trail has been published in some of the daily newspapers, Pérez Balladares denies that he has received anything from gambling concessions that his administration granted.

Rumors of the former president's imminent arrest had been circulating for several days, and a few days before the arrest order was revealed a spokesperson said that he had left the country for Nicaragua on a personal visit. Pérez Balladares's father was Nicaraguan, which could qualify him for Nicaraguan citizenship that could be an impediment to his extradition. But Migracion said that its records indicated that Toro was still in Panama.

On the afternoon of December 28 the National Police cordoned off part of the Panama Oeste residential area of Punta Barco, where the former president has his beach home. Meanwhile, Pérez Balladares' lawyers went to court to file a motion to have the arrest warrant quashed. (In Panama, unlike most countries, the courts will entertain legal proceedings by a fugitive from justice and in political corruption cases this is the usual procedure.)

Having served as president from 1994 until 1999, Pérez Balladares was eligible to run for the presidency again in 1999 but after a humiliating loss in the intra-party delegate races for control of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) he shelved his plans to run in the party's presidential primary, which in the end was narrowly won by Balbina Herrera. The PRD was routed in this past May's general elections by Ricardo Martinelli and has been embroiled in severe infighting since then.

One of Toro's great political liabilities is that he conspicuously flaunts great wealth but has never given any credible explanation as to its source. Over the years he has filed a number of criminal defamation charges and civil lawsuits against people who have suggested where he got his money.

In some diplomatic circles it is said that the fortune dates back to the times when General Omar Torrijos was dictator and Toro was not only a high-ranking economic policy maker but also reputedly the man who for the most part handled the general's personal finances. However, no diplomat will spell out any details of how the fortune was amassed or even state the theory about the time and circumstances of its origins to a journalist for attribution.

Pérez Balladares was president of Panama when Bill Clinton was president of the United States, and the Clinton administration did a number of things to enrich Toro's family, for example by incarcerating hundreds of Cuban rafters on an old US military firing range here where there was no water and giving a member of Toro's family the contract to supply bottled water.

However, during Clinton's time the U.S. government sought an extension of its tenure at some of the military bases in the old Canal Zone, under the guise of a multinational anti-drug center. Toro's diplomats negotiated such a deal, but the PRD delegation in the legislature refused to go along with it, and after that the U.S. government began to leak a series of allegations about corruption on Pérez Balladares's part.

These included participation in a scheme to provide Panamanian visas and passports to Chinese citizens seeking to illegally enter the United States and a scheme with American accomplices to obtain kickbacks in a concession to privatize the maintenance of Panama's buoys and lighthouses. In recent weeks there have been convictions of at least two of the U.S. citizens involved in the latter scheme in U.S. federal courts.

Shortly after Toro left office in 1999, the U.S. State Department canceled his visa. Stating that such information is confidential, the State Department has never openly publicized its reasons for taking the actions that it did. For years Pérez Balladares employed top Washington attorneys and lobbyists in fruitless attempts to get his U.S. visa back.

(The pattern of Washington playing along with corrupt Panamanian politicians up to the point that the latter can or will no longer deliver what the U.S. government wants, at which point the Americans turn on such officials, has a number of precedents in U.S.-Panamanian bilateral relations. The most infamous of these is the case of one Manuel Antonio Noriega.)

The prosecution of former President Pérez Balladares comes at a time when two former education ministers from the PRD administration of Martín Torrijos are in jail awaiting trial on charges of corruption in building maintenance contracts. The party is split between those who would allow prominent PRD members facing corruption charges to fend for themselves and those who would rally behind the accused, alleging a partisan-motivated political witch hunt.

A series of prosecutions that touches scandals from the Pérez Balladares and Torrijos administrations but ignores the many scandals of the Moscoso administration could give the PRD the political circumstances it would need to make its case to much of the public. Prosecution of Moscoso-era corruption, on the other hand, might drive the Panameñista Party away from its alliance with President Martinelli's Cambio Democratico.

Martinelli, however, has a fairly effective dodge -- it is the semi-autonomous Public Ministry, headed by Attorney General Ana Matilde Gómez, that decides which cases get prosecuted and which do not. The president does not give orders to prosecutors and he can thus stand aside and tell anybody who asks that he'll allow judicial processes to take their course without interference. This is what Martinelli is doing at the moment.

[Eric Jackson is editor of The Panama News.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

22 December 2009

New Years Wish List : Forrest Gump Congressional Reform

First Continental Congress.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators who serve their term(s) and then go home and back to work.
New Year's wish list:
Forrest Gump's Congressional Reform Act of 2010


By Larry Ray / The Rag Blog / December 23, 2009

A friend sent me an email containing the idea below and instead of reading and deleting it, it occurred to me that, since all our long-serving career politicians in both houses up in Washington would see this as simplistic folly, fraught with potential problems for the "good of the American people," and on and on, I would therefore post it for all to read.

It is sort of a Forrest Gump wish list for the New Year, unhampered by the reality of today's political madness. It is a back to basics call for a housecleaning in the nation's capital. Things have gotten so incestuous in national politics over the past century or so that these eight new laws would, of course, never be passed today. But use your imagination... like Forrest.

Our founding fathers certainly did not intend "representative government" to mean representation by the same folks decade after decade. Today's congressmen and senators spend a goodly portion of their time in office away from the office traveling all over fundraising from moneyed interests so they can campaign to stay in office. So "representative government" more and more means politicians representing big business and wealthy contributors, not necessarily their constituents back home.

We as Americans have also gotten used to our rich uncles or aunts up in Washington. Especially those who have gotten us to vote for them year after year and who have become pompous and powerful. They use their tenure and positions on various committees to sneak in obscure, tailor made bills like one that would only apply to building a billion dollar bridge in our hometown, onto the coat tails of a major piece of legislation. These are the shameless stealth appropriations, not voted upon based on their merits. The habit-forming "earmarks" of course, which have become a Congressional ATM.

Try, for a moment, to imagine an America operating under the eight laws below. Certainly there would have to be an accompanying set of elaborate qualifiers that would retain a continuity and strict oversight of the various departments of government.

This would probably reduce top-end white collar crime and crowding in Federal prisons too!
Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six year Senate terms
B. Six Two year House terms
C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators who serve their term(s) and then go home and back to work.

2. No Tenure / No Pension:

A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when out of office.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators who serve their term(s) and then go home and back to work.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system. Congress participates with the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators who serve their term(s) and then go home and back to work.

4. Members of Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as average Americans do.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators who serve their term(s) and then go home and back to work.

5. Members of Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will be tied to the lower end of the Consumer Price Index or 3%.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators who serve their term(s) and then go home and back to work.

6. Congress loses its current health care system and members participate in the same health care system as the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators who serve their term(s) and then go home and back to work.

7. Members of Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators who serve their term(s) and then go home and back to work.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.

The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators who serve their term(s) and then go home and back to work.
[Retired journalist Larry Ray is a Texas native and former Austin television news anchor. He also posts at The iHandbill.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

16 December 2009

Colombia : Official Corruption and Mr. Big

Colombian President Álvaro Uribe.

A history of official corruption:

Colombia and the Uribe family

By Marion Delgado / The Rag Blog / December 16, 2009
See 'A Stroll down Paramilitary Lane,' below.
...the sheer number of cases, their geographic spread, and the diversity of military units implicated, indicate that these killings were carried out in a more or less systematic fashion by significant elements within the [Colombian] military... [Whose] cold-blooded, premeditated murder of innocent civilians for profit, stand out as one of the most serious abusive practices by state agents we have documented in Latin America in recent years." -- UN Special Rapporteur.
Cocaine smugglers have infiltrated senior levels of the Colombian army… While other cases of infiltration have been discovered in the past, officials suggested that those cases often were not investigated properly." -- Juan Santos, Minister of Defense
CARTAGENA DE INDIES, Colombia -- Cocaine, corruption, mass murder, right-wing gangs operating with impunity, chainsaw massacres, not just once in a while, but wholesale violations of the Colombian people by well-armed and funded criminals have occurred by the hundreds and thousands for years and years, right up to this very moment.

On March 1, 2008, Colombian armed forces crossed into Ecuador to kill 24 leftist Colombian guerrillas, including a senior commander, Raul Reyes, aka “Sure Shot.” The attack touched off a confrontation pitting Colombia against Ecuador and Venezuela, the latter condemning the violation of Ecuador's sovereignty and noting that Reyes was a key figure in negotiations over prisoner releases and a possible reduction in political tensions.

Under George W. Bush, the U.S. defended Colombia's right to attack "terrorists" even if it required crossing a border, a position echoed by last year's presidential candidates, and this year’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. President Barack Obama.

Despite the corruption disclosures -- and Colombian President Álvaro Uribe’s failure to stem Colombian cocaine smuggling to the United States -- the Bush administration showered Uribe’s government with trade incentives and billions of dollars in military and development aid.

Obama continues this trend, with more billions of your dollars, first with a military pact to create seven new U.S. military bases, and very soon a new free trade agreement that will send more American jobs to South America, if there are any jobs left to send.

Ironically, the latest evidence against Uribe’s government emerged from a U.S.-backed peace process that offered leniency to right-wing paramilitary death squads and their financial backers in exchange for giving up their guns and disclosing past crimes.

The right-wing paramilitaries and their cocaine-trafficking benefactors testified that elements of the Colombian government collaborated in a decade-long scorched-earth campaign, killing almost 10,000 civilians under the guise of dislodging the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Ejército del Pueblo, (FARC or FARC-EP; Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – Peoples Army), a leftist guerrilla army.

How deeply is the government involved? Let’s look at who the government is and how he got there. It was all prearranged in 2001, according to paramilitary and drug lord accounts. If Uribe won the presidency, paramilitary leaders would be offered generous sentence reductions and could serve their time outside prison walls if they demobilized and confessed. Go and sin no more; chu hoi; Allie, Allie infree.

The Uribe family

Recent disclosures of official corruption have brought back to public attention the Uribe family’s long history of ties to drug lords and paramilitaries. Colombia’s Supreme Court said in July it was investigating Senator Mario Uribe, the president’s cousin and his point man in the Congress, for alleged links to the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, (AUC; United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia). Several paramilitary leaders have said Mario Uribe was their ally and an intermediary with the government. He has denied any wrongdoing.

The purported family link to drug lords dates back several decades. As a young man and an aspiring politician, Álvaro Uribe lost his position as mayor of Medellín -- after only five months on the job -- because the country’s then-president, Belisario Betancur, ousted him over his family’s suspected connections to traffickers, according to media reports at the time. Betancur’s daughter was running for President when she was kidnapped by the FARC; she was rescued in 2008 after several years in captivity.

The president's father, Alberto Uribe, a wealthy landowner, reportedly was a close associate of the Medellín cartel and its kingpins Pablo Escobar and the Ochoa brothers were his personal friends. Besides the three Ochoas and Pablito, another elite member of the Medellin cartel, Carlos Lederer, was sentenced to hundreds of years in a U.S. federal prison and admitted to dozens of murders. He was released after testilying against Manuel Noriega and now resides in England where he is the owner of... wait for it... wait... an insurance company.

In 1983 El Presidente's father, reportedly wanted by the U.S. government for drug trafficking, was killed in a kidnapping attempt by FARC. According to media accounts, his body was airlifted back to his family by one of Pablo Escobar’s helicopters.

In the early 1990s, Álvaro Uribe’s brother, Santiago, was investigated for allegedly organizing and leading a paramilitary outfit headquartered at the Uribe family hacienda. He was never charged, due to a lack of evidence. Santiago was photographed alongside Fabio Ochoa Vasco at a party even after the government declared Ochoa one of the most notorious traffickers of the Medellín cartel. This happened during Álvaro Uribe’s eight years in the Senate, where he opposed extradition of drug suspects. His critics accused him of working for the Medellín drug lords; can you imagine?

The relationship between right-wing narco-financed paramilitaries and the Colombian government has been long and complex, with alliances shifting by the self-interest of the moment.

Alienation from Washington widened in 1994, and the flood of U.S. dollars slowed temporarily, when President Ernesto Samper came to power amid disclosures that his campaign had received generous donations from cartels. The Colombian Army (COLAR) lost ground against the FARC and coca growers. In turn, the Samper government pushed what was known as the Convivir project. It armed, trained and organized local defense cooperatives to provide “special private security and vigilance services” alongside the military, another cover for right-wing paramilitary forces.

The rise of Uribe

Álvaro Uribe’s political rise was tied to the success of Convivir. In 1995, Uribe became the governor of Antioquia, a northwestern Departmento with Medellín as the capital.

He became the country’s most vocal supporter of the defense cooperatives, authorizing almost 20 run by paramilitary leaders including AUC’s then-top commander, Salvatore Mancuso.

Carlos Castaño, originator of AUC's predecessor, the United Self-Defense Forces of Córdoba and Urabá (ACCU), has been quoted as saying Uribe was the presidential candidate of AUC’s social support base. “Deep down, he’s the closest man to our philosophy,” Castaño said, adding that Uribe’s support for Convivir was based on the same principle that gave rise to paramilitarism in Colombia, the right to self-defense against “guerrillas."

Confronted with accusations of complicity between Convivir and drug-connected paramilitaries, Uribe said that at the time, nobody knew who the right-wing leaders and coke traffickers were.

After an international outcry, however, the government phased out Convivir. When it was outlawed in 1998, over 200 defense cooperatives, consisting of thousands of men, defied the order to demobilize and joined Castaño’s revived paramilitary alliance, now AUC.

While running for the presidency in 2002, Uribe cited the perceived success of the Convivir program in damaging FARC’s infrastructure in Antioquia as a key reason why Colombians should vote for him. Despite the drug suspicions -- and the links to paramilitary death squads -- Uribe benefited from public disenchantment with a sputtering peace process that had failed to end the civil war and emerged as the winner with 53% of the vote.

After his election, several drug barons claimed they had financed his campaign. Indicted drug trafficker Fabio Ochoa Vasco said he contributed $150,000 of his own money at AUC’s request.

Ochoa also said he witnessed a conversation between AUC’s leaders and supposed representatives of Uribe’s campaign before the election. “They talked about the peace process,” Fabio Ochoa stated. “They said anyone with problems with the U.S. could get involved. In another meeting, there were businessmen, landowners, and drug traffickers who [the AUC] thought could also be included, so they told them to get ready for the peace process.”

All the paramilitary leaders who negotiated peace agreements “know the truth. They know that to be there, they invested more than 10 million dollars [in the political process, including Uribe's campaign],” he added.

Government negotiations with the AUC began four months after Uribe took office. Castaño repositioned himself as an opponent of the drug corruption that, by then, clearly pervaded the organization. He resigned as AUC's military leader. In April, 2004, Castaño was ambushed by 20 elite paramilitaries on orders from AUC’s top leaders. He was shot almost two dozen times in the face, chopped into pieces, and burned.

Presidents Uribe and Bush: Partners in crime?

Uribe-Bush alliance

Among opinion makers of Washington, there has been almost no criticism of Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, although his inner circle has long been linked to both right-wing terrorism and cocaine trafficking.

Uribe lined up solidly behind George W. Bush, the only South American leader to endorse the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Uribe in turn sought more U.S. military aid, defining civil war against the leftist FARC as part of the “global war on terror.”

The backbone of U.S. policy in Colombia during the Bush years was Plan Colombia, a mostly military aid program to fight both drug production and irregular armies, most notably the FARC and AUC. Since 2001, Washington has sent over $5 billion to Bogotá.

Nonetheless, Plan Colombia put little dent in cocaine production. The coca acreage in 2006 was slightly up from 2001, after some reductions in 2003 and 2004.

But Uribe’s success in curbing political violence boosted his popularity at home. He vigorously pressed the war against the FARC, forcing the guerrillas into tactical retreat. Overall, Uribe reduced murders, kidnappings and massacres by about one-third.

The Uribe-controlled Congress also passed the Justice and Peace Law, launching a peace process with the right-wing paramilitaries that demobilized 30,000 men and women. The law was written by Sen. Mario Uribe, the cousin now being investigated for his AUC ties. Even the Bush administration criticized its terms for amnesty as overly lenient.

Popularity soaring, Uribe got congressional allies to change the Constitution to permit a second presidential term. He was swept to reelection in 2006, with 62% of the vote.

He is trying to change the Constitution again, to allow himself an unprecedented third term in 2010. Not a peep is heard from the Washington administration or the U.S Congress that went berserk with shouts of "Dictator!" when the same thing was done by President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Still, accusations of corruption and unpunished human rights violations, dog Uribe. Several investigations, especially those led by Colombia’s Supreme Court, have amassed evidence against former and current government officials and prominent members of the country’s elite. Those allegedly working for drug cartels include dozens of current and former members of Congress; high-ranking military officers, including the current chief of staff; entire army battalions; prominent businessmen; and some of Uribe’s closest allies, including the father and brother of Colombia’s former Foreign Minister, Maria Consuelo Araújo.

In December 2006, embarrassed by ongoing criminality in the AUC’s Santa Fe Ralito safe haven, the government put some paramilitary leaders in prison. There, they continued to live the high life and to keep on top of their criminal operations. The local press published last May transcripts of police wiretaps revealing AUC leaders ordering killings and directing drug trafficking from prison, while enjoying dance parties, sex orgies, and alcohol. They hosted “Mexican friends” and had unrestricted access to cell phones and the Internet.

Infuriated by the wiretap disclosures, Uribe fired the top 12 police generals, but said little about evidence of AUC criminality beyond promising yet another investigation.

AUC leaders then threatened to break off the peace process, accusing the government of changing the terms. They felt betrayed, they said, and threatened to incriminate all their elite allies, including politicians, businessmen, and multinationals. Talks finally did break off in July, 2009, leaving some of AUC's regional blocs (see sidebar below) intact and others free to reorganize.

Regional trouble

The Organization of American States, which has overseen the peace process with the AUC, has been critical of the results. The OAS warns that paramilitaries are rearming and reorganizing under different names, with stronger ties to drug traffickers, led by some of the same leaders who supposedly have surrendered.

Despite Colombia’s corruption, its shaky internal peace process, and ineffective anti-drug program, Bush unstintingly supported Uribe. Calling Uribe a true democrat and strong leader, Dubya visited Colombia twice -- once in 2008 -- and met with Uribe several times in Washington. “I’m proud to call [Uribe] a friend and strategic ally,” Bush said, during one of Uribe’s visits. In Bogotá, he said: “I appreciate the [Colombian] president’s determination to bring human rights violators to justice... I believe that, given a fair chance, President Uribe can make the case.”

While not as publicly vocal as Bush about Uribe, Obama has continued U.S. financial and military support of the Colombian President.

Bush asked the U.S. Congress to increase financial support for Plan Colombia, but Democrats cut military aid from 80% to 65% of the total allocation, while increasing economic and humanitarian aid. Moreover, the Democrats attached strict conditions on the total $530 million increase. Democrats also more recently conditioned ratification of a free-trade agreement with Colombia on Uribe improving his human rights record and prosecuting paramilitary leaders.

In South America, Uribe has slowly backed himself into a corner by siding with the U.S. While most South American countries have grown more critical of U.S. foreign policy and the "Free Trade Agreement of the Americas," Colombia staunchly supports the yanquis.

Brazil and Ecuador have closer relations with Venezuela, as do most countries in the region, in stark contrast to the situation a decade ago. Colombia has been left out of South America’s MERCOSUR regional trade union, including a meeting held just this last week. Venezuela was admitted in 2008.

Uribe also has lost some regional backing in his fight against FARC. Ecuador has resisted labeling the FARC a terrorist organization, but criticized Plan Colombia, and sought reparations for collateral damage inflicted by Colombian forces on Ecuador’s border population.

Meanwhile, the drug and corruption scandal keeps growing. Though Uribe has denied most of the accusations, drug lord Fabio Ochoa Vasco said he is willing to negotiate his surrender to the DEA along with proof to support his charges. Fabio did surrender, and it’s widely believed he gave information, because he received a mere five year jail sentence.

Fabio also said some previously defiant AUC leaders and drug traffickers are now willing to surrender to U.S. law-enforcement agencies to avoid being murdered in Colombia, as powerful forces seek desperately to silence them and end the “Para-scandal.”

Whatever is ultimately proven the outpouring of evidence linking Uribe to Colombia’s vast cocaine industry and long history of political murders is bad news for President Obama, if he counts on Uribe to be a model for South America’s future and a bulwark against Chavez and his crazy social programs for the poor.

Right now, Uribe is Colombia's "Mr. Big," the man in whom all the monied interests find their best bet. But behind Mr. Big is his northern ally, the much-heralded "change" of U.S. presidents has not changed a damn thing about who is pulling the puppet strings.

This, then, is the Colombian government, and the Colombian military that our servicemen are meeting right now, these are the people they will be working with and fighting for, and this is what the Colombia you are sending your tax dollars to by the billions looks like.

For more about why, look for the next installment of "Build-up in Colombia" in the Rag Blog!

Así es en Colombia.

United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia (AUC), detail from the Afro-Colombian mural on U Street, NW, in Washington, DC. Image from Ronnie R / Flickr.
A Stroll down Paramilitary Lane

This week, instead of a visit to one of our new U.S. military bases, let's saunter through the AUC (United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia), bloc by bloc. Amid peace talks with Álvaro Uribe's government, which began in December 2002, the AUC agreed to a process of bloc-by-bloc demobilization, to culminate in August 2006. While many of the "paracos" claim to have demobilized, along with non-AUC units, each formerly included thousands of foot soldiers and commanded huge sums from narcotraffickers and landowners seeking protection.

Not all Colombian paramilitary blocs demobilized or even participated in the peace talks. In the Meta Department, for example, groups reorganized under mid-level commanders continue to battle over drug trafficking lanes, under the influence of leaders like Vicente Castaño and Hernán Hernandez.

There is certainly no shortage of paramilitaries today. In some areas, new groups step into the void. In urban barrios, paramilitaries made up of "former gangsters," such as the "Guapo Rincon," say they are keeping out mal elementos. The AUC name is unlikely to be used again.

The Northern Bloc

Run by AUC military leader Salvatore Mancuso, the Northern Bloc incorporated Fidel and Carlos Castaño's original ACCU, controlling municipalities from the Panamanian border to the Venezuelan. Authorities believe Mancuso's deputy on the Caribbean coast, Rodrigo Továr "Jorge 40" Pupo, controlled Colombia's Caribbean drug routes. Vicente Castaño, Carlos' and Fidel's brother, is a third powerful player, widely thought to have played a role in Carlos' death. The Northern Bloc demobilized in March of 2006. Vicente Castaño is a fugitive from justice.

The "Élmer Cárdenas Bloc"

Led by José Alfredo "El Aleman" Berrío, the Elmer Cárdenas Bloc was originally part of the ACCU that, through brutality and massacres, controlled the strategic Urabá region near the Colombian-Panamanian border in the 1990s. Substantial evidence suggests that Berrío and the Élmer Cárdenas Bloc are very big in coke. This bloc barely participated in peace talks and was one of the last to claim to demobilize.

The Catatumbo Bloc

This unit, an offshoot of the Northern Bloc, operated in the conflicted, drug-producing region of Catatumbo, in Norte de Santander department, near the Venezuelan border. It was commanded by Salvatore Mancuso (at one point AUC's military commander, see article above), who dominated paramilitary activity in Departmento Córdoba and elsewhere in northwestern Colombia. It demobilized in late 2004.

The Magdalena Medio Bloc

Led by Ramón "El Viejo" Isaza on the west side of the Magdalena River, one of the most veteran paramilitaries, and Victor Triana "Botalón" Arias on the east side, the Magdalena Medio Bloc demobilized in Feb., 2006.

The Central Bolivar Bloc

Deeply involved in the drug trade the BCB rivaled (and perhaps exceeded) the Northern Bloc in size and wealth. Led by Ivan Roberto "Ernesto Baez" Duque and Carlos Mario “Macaco” Jimenez, the BCB controlled much of the greater Magdalena Medio region and significant southern Colombia's coca-growing regions. The BCB, along with the Northern Bloc, was one of the first to enter negotiations with the government. It officially demobilized in Jan., 2006.

The Mineros Bloc

Though it controlled only a small area in northeast Antioquia, the Mineros Bloc was quite wealthy, largely from narcotrafficking. Led by Ramiro "Cuco" Vanoy, wanted by the U.S. for his participation in the North Valle drug cartel, the Mineros Bloc demobilized in Jan., 2006.

The Calima Bloc

Working in and around Cali and down the Pacific coast to northern Cauca, and led by Hernán Hernandez, this bloc formed in 1999 after the Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional, (ELN; the National Liberation Army, another guerrilla force) pulled a kidnapping at a church in a wealthy Cali neighborhood. Heavily dependent on drug traffickers' support, they demobilized in Dec., 2004.

The Avengers of Arauca Bloc

Commanded, at least on paper, by Pablo "El Mellizo" Mejia, a Northern Valle cartel figure wanted by the U.S., the Avengers operated in an oil-producing region that has been a principal destination of your military assistance. It demobilized in Dec., 2005.

The Libertadores del Sur Bloc

This outfit operated in the coca-growing zones of Nariño and Putumayo, led by Guillermo Perez "Pablo Sevillano" Alzate, a noted narcotrafficker wanted by U.S. authorities. They demobilized in July, 2005.

The Centauros Bloc

In oil-rich Casanare, Meta, Cundinamarca, and in Bogotá's slums, this bloc really started disintegrating when its leader, Miguel Arroyave, died at the hands of his own men in Sept., 2004. The Centauros fought a bloody campaign against the Llanos Bloc in Casanare. They demobilized in Sept., 2005.

The Llanos Bloc

Headed by "Martin Llanos" in Casanare, this bloc has been decimated by repeated attacks from the rest of the AUC (especially the Centauros) and COLAR. However, it never participated in peace talks, and remnants still operate.

-- Marion Delgado
  • For previous reports from Colombia by Marion Delgado, go here.
.The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

07 December 2009

Colombia : Cocaine, Corruption and the U.S. Army

Image from The Latin Americanist.

The U.S. and the Colombian invasion:
A history of corruption, cocaine, and paramilitary violence


By Marion Delgado / The Rag Blog / December 7, 2009

CARTAGENA DE INDIES, Colombia -- Well, kids, answering our own question from last week, it turns out that there is corruption within the Colombian military!

It's not just the shake-downs, rip-offs, and small time bribery that are so much a part of daily life throughout the third world; in Colombia there is big time corruption, much of it encouraged and supported by U.S. government departments and agencies using your tax dollars. In some cases one part of the U.S. government pays to support one "side" and another agency pays their opponents. All’s fair in corruption as long as the goal is to get your money into the pockets of one or another “official.”

I want to focus on two types of military corruption this week. One involves cocaine production and transportation. You had to kind of know about this already, just by walking down to the corner or calling your favorite delivery service to get your share of the high quality “Cartagena marching powder” that has been in uninterrupted, steady supply since the early 80’s.

The other type is more esoteric and you might only be aware of it if you are very familiar with the civil war that's been going on here for at least four decades, with roots that can be traced back to 1948 -- or even earlier -- if one studies Colombian political history.

First: cocaine, corruption and cartels
(They are not who you think they are.)

“Cocaine smugglers have infiltrated senior levels of the Colombian army, impeding efforts at fighting drugs,” Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos has said. The country's cocaine cartels have bribed officials "at a high level" into sharing information that has helped bosses of these illegal groups avoid capture, Santos told reporters. Colombia remains the world's biggest exporter of cocaine, despite billions of dollars in mostly military aid from Washington aimed at stamping out the trade. "Unfortunately, the infiltration has impeded us from capturing some of the big fish we had been investigating," Santos added. D'oh!

Implicated in the latest scandal is Diego Montoya Sanchez, aka “Don Diego,” head of the Norte del Valle cartel, accused of exporting hundreds of tons of cocaine to the United States. U.S. nose candy consumption is estimated at between 500 and 1500 tons a year, depending on which government figures are used. (For a better estimate, add up your own yearly use and multiply by 60 million.)

Investigators say Montoya recruited army officers to provide him with protection and help plan the breakout of his brother, Eugenio Montoya, who has been in a high-security prison since early in 2009.

Last year, 10 anti-narcotics police, specially trained with your money, were gunned down by Colombian soldiers supported by your money and also in the pay of drug traffickers, near the western town of Jamundi, prosecutors charge.

On August 26, 2007, Colombian media reported that members of the Norte del Valle cartel had been bribing military and police units to deactivate radar units to allow the gang to ship marijuana and cocaine from Colombia. The newspaper El Tiempo reported that the Colombian Navy had been the most infiltrated through bribes ordered by Diego Montoya and his henchmen.

The newspapers also revealed the possible involvement of the top Admiral of the Colombian Navy, Gabriel Arango Bacci, who used his influence to support drug cartels. Documents found by Colombian authorities in the possession of a smuggler known only as “Lord of the Horseshoe," and bearing his “mark," or logo, also had the personal classification stamp of the Admiral. The Admiral's fingerprint was found on a receipt bearing the same logo and attesting to the transfer of $115,000 dollars from the "Lord" to the Admiral. Two other Admirals and several other high-ranking naval officers have recently been arrested in the scandal. The classified documents were flight routes to be used by the Norte del Valle Cartel on both the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea coasts, through Ecuador, Panama, Colombia, and Venezuela.

This past Thursday, December 3, the Colombian Supreme Court found retired Admiral Arango innocent on appeal of ties to the paramilitary and drug traffickers, due to a lack of evidence. The Court ordered the Prosecutor General to investigate the alleged false testimony supplied by witnesses in the case. Former Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos and current Navy Commander Guillermo Barrera are among witnesses that will be investigated.

In 2008, military tribunals found Bacci guilty of receiving U.S. $115,000 for selling the coordinates of Navy patrols to drug traffickers, so the traffickers could avoid authorities and get their drugs out of Colombia safely. Bacci requested a civil hearing before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reprimanded the U.S. Ambassador to Colombia William Brownfield in November for what they termed "undue interference" in the case, after Brownfield announced that there was clear evidence linking the retired Admiral to drug traffickers. The Supreme Court said Brownfield had no jurisdiction to comment on matters of civil justice.

Arango Bacci maintains his innocence and says he is the victim of a plot to discredit him.

Montoya Sanchez (Don Diego) was captured on September 10, 2007, by Colombian authorities in a rural area of the municipality of Zarzal in Valle del Cauca state. He was accompanied by his mother and some 17 other close relatives.

On May 19, 2008, Carlos Holguin, a former Colombian Interior Minister and Justice Minister, announced that "Don Diego," together with some prominent paramilitary leaders, would be extradited to the United States. The extradition would take place in "the coming few days", said the Minister.

Seven months later, on December 12, 2008, Montoya was finally taken to Miami on a D.E.A. helicopter. He appeared in court on December 15, facing 12 charges including drug trafficking, obstruction of justice, money-laundering, and murder.

The North Valley cartel is believed by some to be the most powerful and violent drug trafficking organization in Colombia. The cartel reportedly relies heavily for protection on illegal armed groups, from right-wing paramilitaries to leftist rebels.

On October 21, 2009, a federal judge sentenced Montoya to 45 years in prison. Approving the sentence, Judge Cecilia Altonaga also ordered Montoya to pay $500,000 in restitution to the family of Jhon Jairo Garcia, a long-time associate of Montoya who was kidnapped, tortured and murdered by the cartel in 2003. The prosecution had said Montoya ordered the killing of Garcia after accusing him of becoming an informer for U.S. enforcement agencies. Mr. Garcia's dismembered body was found in a river near the Colombian city of Cali.

Rather than regale you with a litany of examples of the cocaine corruption in the Colombian military. I've concentrated on the Montoya case because it shows the breadth of it all -- and that the corruption goes to the top echelons of the military.

Not only were the brass corrupted, but bribes were paid to the right-wing Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia or AUC (United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia) and the left-wing Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia -- Ejército del Pueblo, (FARC or FARC-EP; Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia -- Peoples Army.)

Erythroxylum coca, Koehler's Medicinal-Plants 1887. From Koehler Images / Wikipedia.


Too much trouble over this plant -- just legalize it already.

Corruption related to the white powder known as “girl” on the streets of Detroit isn't limited to the Colombian military. The “hidden hand” of greed has also grabbed U.S. servicemen and officers by the balls.

When a fishing boat used to smuggle cocaine was intercepted in January 2006 by the Colombian coast guard, in a region Admiral Arango oversaw, investigators found navigational charts on board that showed not only the positions of U.S. vessels, but also those of warships from Britain, the Netherlands, and Colombia.

Colombia doesn't track U.S., British, or Dutch vessels, leaving open the possibility that there may also be a leak from U.S. anti-drug intelligence sources. The U.S. Embassy in Bogotá wouldn't discuss the case or say whether it was investigating.

At U.S. Southern Command in Florida, American headquarters for U.S. military operations in Latin America, a spokesman said the military was unaware of any investigation into the allegations. The spokesman, Jose Ruiz, said security measures were tight at an interagency anti-drug task force in Key West, FL, that coordinates anti-drug monitoring in the Caribbean for the United States and its allies, including Colombia. The Joint Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-S), run by the Defense Department, "has very stringent and effective security measures," Ruiz said, "and as of today, we have no reason to believe that [they] have been compromised."

Four U.S. soldiers serving on anti-narcotics missions in Colombia are being held on charges of drug trafficking after the discovery of 35 pounds (15 kg) of cocaine on a military aircraft. The four, who haven't yet been publicly identified, were arrested at the end of March when their plane landed in Texas after taking off from southern Colombia. A fifth man was released. (Snitch?) Colombian authorities are investigating to see if other members of the U.S. or Colombian military were involved.

William Wood, the former U.S. ambassador in Bogotá, said the four would not be extradited even if it was proved they had committed crimes on Colombian soil. He said a three-decade old agreement gave immunity to U.S. soldiers serving in Colombia, but stressed, "We do not tolerate corruption." lol

The four busted soldiers are among about 1,000 U.S. military and private contractors in Colombia, providing training, supplying intelligence, and helping run aerial spraying, or "fumigation" missions, (actually airborne herbicide dispersal of glyphosate, known as Roundup® in the U.S.).

Colombian cop walks on packages of cocaine in Buenaventura in March, 2009. Colombian police had seized 3.5 tons of cocaine in a container of vegetable grease bound for Mexico. Photo by Fernando Vergara / AP.

And in the U.S. Officer Corps...

The case of Colonel James Hiett, former commander of U.S. Army anti-drug advisors in Colombia, found guilty of covering up his wife's drug smuggling, is an international embarrassment to the United States. Its outlines have been widely reported. In the mid-1990s, while Hiett was stationed in the U.S., his wife, Laurie Ann Hiett, was treated in an Army hospital for drug addiction.

Later, Hiett was named to head a 200-strong battalion of U.S. military advisors in Bogotá. (WTF?) The couple went -- though Laurie had lapsed back into “addiction,” even snorting coke in front of her husband. Soon she was buying cocaine through her Army-employed Colombian driver. By 1998 she was under investigation by the Army, not only for using drugs, but for shipping $700,000 worth of powder, wrapped in brown paper, to the States in diplomatic mail.

She handed some of the cash proceeds, collected on trips to New York, to her husband -- who proceeded to carefully spend the wad on household bills, to "dissipate," in his own words, ”the money trail.” Laurie Hiett pleaded guilty to smuggling and was sentenced to five years in federal prison. The Colonel was dropped from Army personnel rolls and will lose his pension. A federal judge sentenced him to five months in prison, five months home arrest and one year of probation.

Hiett's corruption itself isn't necessarily unusual. Former U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador and Paraguay Robert White told Salon's Jeff Stein, "There's always been a fear of this by sensible people in the Pentagon. The legend is that the United States military is incorruptible, but that has proven not to be the case. There are quite a few instances."

With the addition of thousands more U.S. troops, officers, and civilian mercenaries to the cesspool of cocaine corruption, there are sure to be more instances. Remembering the Iran/Contra coke-for-guns trades of the past, we can only hope for cheaper “Contra coke” in the future, to help the U.S. through the tough economic times of today!

Corruption of another kind, more deadly to our troops

Rebels from the FARC obtained reports about Army operations against guerrilla commanders in the far south, officials say. So far, two lieutenant colonels in the army have been arrested, as have four majors and a noncommissioned officer -- for supplying the info.

The episodes, some of which have been outlined in the Colombian press in the past month, represent the most serious cases of infiltration in recent years and are a blow to a military that depends on U.S. funds and training. The U.S. has provided $5.4 billion in mostly military aid to Colombia this decade, making the country the biggest recipient of American support outside of the Middle East.

In interviews, Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos and the commanders of the armed forces said that the breaches were discovered by military counterintelligence operatives and the evidence was turned over to the attorney general's office, which has opened several investigations. While other cases of infiltration have been discovered in the past, officials suggested that those cases were often not investigated properly.

"From the beginning, I've said we have to see how penetrated we are," said Santos, a civilian who headed the Defense Ministry for 3 years. "The situation is a penetration of some sectors of the military forces, and it's a small percentage of the forces. We cannot say it's generalized."

Selling military information to FARC or ELN is nothing new, it has been going on forever, with each new revelation always described as the “most serious” and the disclaimer that only a small minority is involved, much like stories of police corruption in the U.S. that always add, “most of the force is honest.”

Santos added that he has sacked about 150 officers during his tenure, many of whom were suspected of corruption or ties to illegal armed groups. He said investigators are continuing to search for moles in the ministry.

More disconcerting is the military web of corruption that leads directly to AUC.

A short history of AUC

Colombia has a long history of privately financed self-defense groups, usually suffused with their wealthy patrons' right-wing beliefs. These groups' numbers began to grow rapidly in the 1980s. The growth coincided with the advent of Colombia's drug trade. Newly wealthy drug traffickers laundered their profits by buying up as much as 2.5 million acres in northern Colombia. These new landholders put together private armies to deal with the guerrillas who kidnapped and extorted wealthy ranchers in the area. One of the first, and most feared, was a group calling itself "Death to Kidnappers" (Muerte a Secuestradores, or MAS), active in the Magdalena Medio region of north-central Colombia.

With funding from drug traffickers and other large landholders, and close and open collaboration with Colombia's armed forces, such paramilitaries gained strength throughout the 1980s. Their tactics -- selective assassinations and forced disappearances, massacres, forced displacement of entire populations -- quickly made them one of the country's main human rights abusers. They also played a strong role in the decimation of the Patriotic Union political party.

The abuses of groups like MAS caused paramilitaries to be declared illegal in 1989. Little was done to disband them, though. Human rights groups have documented widespread post-1989 collaboration between Colombia's armed forces and paramilitary groups.

In the early 1990s the United Self-Defense Forces of Córdoba and Urabá (ACCU), a group headed by brothers Carlos and Fidel Castaño, emerged in northwestern Colombia. Using extreme brutality toward civilian populations, the group grew to be a powerful player in the northern regions of Colombia. Fidel Castaño was probably killed by guerrillas in 1995.

By 1997, Carlos Castaño had organized the ACCU and several other paramilitary groups throughout the country into a national structure, the AUC. The group grew rapidly, from perhaps 4,000 members in 1998 to a reported 13,000 in 2002. By the time its last declared members demobilized in 2006, however, their number had reached about 32,000.

The AUC was more of a loose, fluid confederation than a unified structure. It even dissolved momentarily in 2002, when Carlos Castaño briefly resigned from the leadership because "everyone does as he wishes." Divisions within the group over links to the drug trade worsened during the early 2000s, exacerbated by the U.S. Justice Department's requests to extradite AUC leaders for narcotrafficking and the State Department's inclusion of the AUC on its list of international terrorist groups.

At the same time, a new wave of individuals with long histories as narcotraffickers began entering AUC's top leadership. Leaders like Diego Fernando Murillo ("Don Berna"), Victor Manuel Mejia ("El Mellizo"), and Francisco Javier Zuluaga ("Gordolindo") moved from Colombia's drug underworld to commanding key paramilitary blocs.

After several years of divisions, including increasing incidents of combat between groups (particularly in Magdalena and Casanare), the interests that had funded AUC became more adequately represented by blocs than by one singular banner. Several prominent paramilitary leaders died at the hands of fellow paramilitaries in 2004: Carlos Castaño in April, "Rodrigo 00" of the now-defunct Metro Bloc in June, and Miguel Arroyave of the Centauros Bloc in September.

After Carlos Castaño, the most publicly recognized leader of the AUC was Salvatore Mancuso. A former Córdoba rancher, Mancuso became the "Maximum Comandante" of the AUC and chief negotiator in Santa Fe de Ralito. Mancuso was the first top AUC leader to testify under the Justice and Peace Law.

Corruption, AUC, and the U.S. Army

In May 2005 Colombian authorities arrested Lieutenant Colonel Alan Norman Tanquary and Sergeant Jose Hernandez, of the United States Army, for illegally trafficking weapons and ammunition. The arms -- according to press reports, were more than 30,000 “projectiles” that were found in the house where the two were arrested -- were almost certainly meant for sale to paramilitary groups, the right-wing death squads that terrorize Colombia’s people.

(Tanquary was reported to be a Lieutenant Colonel by Colombia’s RCN radio shortly after the arrest. U.S. media have since identified him as an Army Warrant Officer. We don't know if he was a Lt. Colonel or a Warrant Officer because he was never tried, in Colombia or in the U.S.)

The U.S. Embassy and its bosses back home have kicked into damage control mode, and are trying to sweep this one under the rug. And so far, the U.S. media isn't doing much to stop them. U.S. soldiers in Colombia supposedly have two goals -- to combat production of cocaine, and help end the 40-year-old civil war. In 2005, five U.S. soldiers were caught smuggling coke back to the United States, and now more soldiers, one of them a Lieutenant Colonel, no less, have been found helping and profiting from the most brutal force in the hemisphere.

The U.S. often justifies its aid (nearly $800 million this year) to a military known to collaborate and work closely with paramilitary groups by saying it is helping the Uribe government clean up the army; like the U.S. presence there is a magical cure for corruption and human rights abuses. Such fantasies may not survive many more incidents like this one.

Some questions

How did the American troops manage to strike these deals? It’s not as though U.S. soldiers in Colombia are being pursued by members of the paramilitaries pestering them to run drugs and arms for them. This money-making opportunity will only knock if someone else first makes the introduction. Who, then, is helping corrupt Americans link up with their paramilitary customers? What bridges the two degrees of separation?

Could it be that Colombian military personnel, members of U.S.-aided units that have supposedly severed their ties with the paramilitaries, help facilitate contacts with “friends” among the local paramilitaries?

Had the paramilitaries involved bought bullets from U.S. soldiers in the past? At what level of the AUC, which spreads terror throughout the country, were these deals struck?

For eight years, George Bush prattled on with his Big Lie, unsupported by any evidence, that Venezuela’s arms purchases could “end up in the hands of the FARC,” while his own soldiers were caught red-handed arming Colombia’s worst perpetrators of political violence.

What about Obama, and Hillary, and Secretary of War Gates: are they ashamed to be part of Colombia's terrible record on human rights? Apparently not. Republicans are now urging Obama to sign a new “free trade” agreement with Colombia to go along with the already-signed Military Pact. Will he do it? You bet your sweet ass he will. I’m disgusted; anyone want to join me?

Next week: We tie it all together. The cocaine, corruption, the violations of human rights, the chain-saw massacres, the disappeared citizens, the death squads, and your tax dollars in their Swiss bank accounts, and lay it at the doorstep of the highest level of the Colombian government. Mr. Big will be revealed.
Rare frog from Pangan Nature Reserve in the Chocó Biogeographic Region, a giant rain forest that is home to the Malaga Naval Base.

Know your new military bases

This week, get to know your new military base in Magdalena on the beautiful Colombian Pacific coast.

The region where Bahia Malaga lies is known to conservation experts as the Chocó Biogeographic Region. It is a tropical rainforest larger than Costa Rica (second only to the Amazon in size at 71,000 sq. km), extending from the state of Darien in Panama to Esmeraldas in Ecuador along the entire Pacific coast of Colombia, flanked between the western slopes of the Andes and the Pacific Ocean. The area is virtually sealed off from the rest of the country. This isolation, combined with the institutional weakness of the Colombian government, has discouraged development along the coast.

From 20-50% of all plants and animals in the Chocó are not found anywhere else in the world. Thus there is a fantastic variety of unique flora and fauna. Numerous species have limited distribution within the area, creating great "beta" diversity, or variations from one locality to another. Most plants and animals of Chocó are yet to be discovered! Approximately 3,500 species of plants are known to exist here, and scientists predict as many as 6500 await identification, 25% of them unique to the area.

Chocó contains one of the last pristine stretches of coastline in tropical America, a rest stop for migratory humpback whales and a feeding, wintering, and stopover site for millions of migratory shorebirds. Mangrove forests protect the coast from erosion and provide a nursery for young fish in its nutrient-rich waters. The region's marine area is home to an abundance of fish species and marine mammals.

Bahia Malaga Naval Base, 50 km north of Buenaventura was the first project begun by the state in the area. An access road to the base now brings traffic, pollution, and new settlers to the area and has increased the likelihood that a second major port will be established in this once-pristine bay, In addition of course to the new U.S. naval base being built adjacent to the Bahia Malaga Naval Base.

Military units you pay for at Malaga Naval Base include:
  • Naval Forces Pacific (FNP)-Buenaventura
  • Pacific Naval Regional Intelligence Center (RINPA)
  • Pacific Surface Fleet (CFSUP)
  • Pacific Naval Air Group (CGANPA)
  • Pacific Coast Guard (CGAPO)
  • Pacific Training Center (CENPA)
  • For previous articles by Marion Delgado about the U.S. military presence in Columbia, go here.
The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.