"1810! 1910! 2010!"
By JOHN ROSS
CounterPunch
Fact: Every 100 years on the tenth year of the century, Mexico explodes in extravagant social upheaval. In 1810, this distant neighbor nation declared its independence from the Spanish Crown, signaling monumental bloodletting - hundreds of thousands died, mostly people the color of the earth, fully 10 per cent of the census.
In 1910, the Mexican revolution, the first massive uprising of the landless in the Americas, detonated in a geyser of blood and before it was done, a million were dead and a million more had been driven into permanent exile north of the border.
The 100-year timeline has triggered intense speculation about what's ahead for Mexico in 2010.
Whether the 100-year cycle is a measure of Mexico's political metabolism or merely an accident of numbers has scholars scurrying back to their history books. Certainly objective conditions for insurrection are rife. Mexico is wracked by the deepest economic contraction since the Great Depression; millions are out of work (one estimate calculates real unemployment as 40%), 72,000,000 out of 107,000,000 Mexicans live in and around the poverty line (three daily minimum wages), and income disparity is comparable to Africa. The parties of the left, right, and center are universally mistrusted and elections are tainted with fraud, canceling out a political solution to the ongoing crisis.
President Felipe Calderon who won high office in the fraud-tarred 2006 election is as unpopular as dictator Porfirio Diaz was a hundred years ago (Diaz himself repeatedly stole elections) and, like Diaz, he is spending billions to stage next year's Bicentennial celebration of the War of Liberation and the 100th birthday of the Mexican Revolution. The Dictator's allocation of the nation's social budget to mark the first hundred years of Independence in 1910 trip-wired his downfall.
Yet memories of the enormous human tragedies that accompanied 1810 and 1910 passed on from one generation to the next tend to make Mexicans cautious about the "R" word and revolution in 2010 is dismissed by many radicals as mere wishful thinking.
The notion that 2010 would usher in a new revolutionary chapter in Mexico's complicated history was first advanced by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation's (EZLN) charismatic mouthpiece Subcomandante Marcos in the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle issued in June 2005. The "Sexta" called for the writing of a new revolutionary Mexican constitution in 2010, a process to be accompanied by prolonged social struggle.
To keep the pot boiling, the Zapatistas insisted upon the unity of all revolutionary forces and the creation of a mechanism - the Other Campaign or "La Otra" - that would develop and implement a plan of action. Although "La Otra" was marginated by its own sectarianism and brusque polemics with the electoral left, the Zapatistas' Other Campaign continues to look towards 2010 as a revolutionary watershed.
At a meeting of "Otras" from eight states and the federal district this past March in Tampico, Tamaulipas, activists considered the prospects for renewed revolution in the coming year. There was general consensus that 2010 constituted an historical opportunity that could not be passed up but some participants stepped back from proclaiming a new revolution. Carlos Montemayor, the nation's top scholar of guerrilla movements, even declared the 2010 timeline to be a "trap" that the "mal gobierno" ("bad government") will capitalize on to infiltrate provocateurs into social movements and militarize the country. Montemayor reminded the Otras and Otros that the War of Liberation and the Mexican Revolution only broke out in 1810 and 1910 and it was another decade before the killing had run its course with very mixed results for the "pueblo" ("people.")
By design or divine coincidence, Tampico is thought to be the birthplace of Zapatista spokesperson Subcomandante Marcos, born Rafael Sebastian Guillen Vicente, the son of a president of a local furniture store association. Marcos himself did not put in an appearance at the Other Campaign conference and in fact has been missing in action throughout all of 2009 after showing his ski-masked face briefly last New Year's at the rebels' Festival of "Digna Rabia" ("Rage with Dignity") in Chiapas. His elongated absence has led to suggestions that the pipe-chomping Zapatista Comandante is up to significant mischief.
In no other region of the country has the phantom of 2010 provoked more speculation than in Chiapas where the Zapatistas rose 16 years ago on January 1, 1994 in the very first hour of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Governor Juan Sabines and his Secretary of Government Noe Castanon never weary of warning of "a social explosion" in the coming year. Many like La Jornada's veteran Chiapas correspondent Hermann Bellinghausen see their dire pronouncements as paving the path for the increased criminalization of social protest that has marked the Calderon years and a pretext for further militarizing an already militarized state.
Following a wave of scare stories in the Chiapas press, this past November 20 - the 99th anniversary of the declaration of the Mexican revolution and a national holiday- 5000 Chiapas state police backed up by Mexican army troops patrolled roads throughout the Zapatista zone of influence in anticipation of renewed uprising. None occurred.
Several recent hyper-publicized incidents provide a glimpse of the psychosis that grips Chiapas on the eve of 2010:
This September 30th, in the highland Tzotzil Indian hamlet of Yebchalum hard by Acteal where in December 1997 49 members of Las Abejas ("The Bees"), a group aligned with the EZLN, were massacred by paramilitaries trained and financed by the Mexican Army, federal agents arrested local gun seller Mariano Jimenez and recovered a small arsenal that included three AK-47s ("Cuernos de Chivo"), 17 handguns, and 47 fragmentation grenades.
The recent release of 20 paramilitaries convicted of the 1997 killings has ratcheted up tensions in the highlands - Mexico's Supreme Court is preparing to release 30 more of the convicted killers, including four who confessed to perpetrating the massacre, due to judicial irregularities in their trials. Jimenez purportedly confessed to investigators that he was stockpiling weapons for the Abejas to defend themselves from the just-released killers.
The highly publicized "confession" was immediately denounced by the Bees, devout liberationist Catholics commited to non-violence who were created and fomented by San Cristobal de las Casas Bishop emeritus Don Samuel Ruiz. Indeed, Jimenez's "confession" invoked a touch of déjà vu - back in 1994, Bishop Ruiz was the government's favorite villain, condemned as "Comandante Sammy", the real face behind the Zapatistas' ski-masks.
A second incident reflecting a reinvigorated media assault on the San Cristobal diocese which is now under new management (Don Samuel's successor Felipe Arizmendi is much more of a moderate) unfolded October 13th when federal troops raided a ranch near Frontera Comalapa on the Guatemalan border and confiscated 40 long guns, 300 grenades, and what the Federal Prosecutor's Office (PGR) described as a "tank." Three men taken into custody were pictured as "guerrilleros" and claimed that they had been trained by one "Comandante Uerto" of the "Kaibiles", a dread unit of the Guatemalan Army that functions as a death squad - "Comandante Uerto", the suspected "guerilleros" revealed, had been recommended to them by "a catechist in the San Cristobal diocese" (sic.)
Reports in the Chiapas press, one of the most venal and for-sale in the country, suggested that the three were members of either the OCEZ (Emiliano Zapata Campesinos Organization) or the OPEZ (Emiliano Zapata Proletarian Organization) depending on which mendacious journalistic vision the reader swallows.
Chiapas daily newspapers like Cuarto Poder and other scandal sheets finger Diocesan priest Juan Hurtado Lopez in Altamirano in the Zapatista zone of influence, for calling for armed revolt in 2010 from his pulpit, an unfounded allegation that has been taken up by Governor Sabines. Other priests and catechists have allegedly encouraged takeovers of public buildings and attacks on banks. Cuarto Poder accuses the priest of Nueva Galicia of preaching revolution and reports that local merchants "are scared" that their stores will be sacked. Ricardo Lagunes, a lawyer for the Diocesan Fray Bartolome de las Casas Human Rights Center founded by Bishop Ruiz was beaten by thugs in Jotola down in the hot lands, September 18th.
Adding fuel to this combustible ambiance was the September 29th arrest of veteran social activist Juan Manuel Hernandez, universally known as "Chema", a founder of the OCEZ and the House of the People ("Casa del Pueblo") in the central valleys around Venustiano Carranza. Chema, a longtime lightning rod for that community's recovery of 14,000 hectares from local ranchers, is a fiery indigenous leader whose political leanings are said to tilt more to the Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR) than to the EZLN. Cuarto Poder insinuates that Hernandez was plotting revolution in 2010 but subsequent Chiapas state police arrests of OCEZ militants on guns and drugs charges failed to turn up any guns or drugs.
Nonetheless, officials accuse Chema and his associates of running a criminal enterprise behind the smoke screen of the OCEZ. Repeatedly imprisoned during land struggles in Chiapas, Hernandez was flown out of state to a maximum security federal prison in the north of Mexico "for his own protection" (sic.) After months behind bars, the charges were dismissed and Chema was finally released November 20th.
Despite the hullabaloo in the local "prensa vendida", the EZLN has remained notoriously closemouthed about what it has up its sleeve in 2010. No communiqués have been forthcoming from the missing Marcos and the Zapatista leadership group, the Clandestine Indigenous Revolutionary Committee (CCRI) has been silent. So are the Juntas de Buen Gobierno or Good Government Commissions that have become civil Zapatismo's voice in recent seasons. Even when the beleaguered Mexican Electricity Workers Union (SME) that once installed turbines and brought light to EZLN villages in the Lacandon jungle appealed for solidarity in its life and death struggle with the Calderon government, the Zapatistas remained mum.
Enmeshed in bitter conflicts with other campesino groups over corn land the rebels recovered from ranchers after their January 1st 1994 uprising, the EZLN is under pressure on several fronts. Governor Sabines's plans to build a super highway that will divide up Zapatista autonomous villages has also increased their vulnerability and the rebels may well consider that a second edition of 1994 in 2010 would be political suicide. Still, Subcomandante Marcos has often characterized the Indians' impossible rebellion 16 years ago as "an act of suicide."
Given the odds, it is highly improbable that Chiapas will be the stage set for insurrection in 2010. A more likely theater for revolution would be Oaxaca and Guerrero, two contiguous, desperately poor and highly indigenous states with rich histories of guerrilla uprisings. The War of Liberation, whose bicentennial will be commemorated in 2010, blossomed in this hothouse geography and as recently as this spring, confrontations between the military and unidentified guerrilleros were reported in the Guerrero sierra where 40 years ago Lucio Cabanas and his Party of the Poor rose against the mal gobierno.
The most prominent guerrilla formations in the region are the Popular Revolutionary Army which made its debut in 1996 with a series of murderous attacks on the military along Guerrero's Costa Grande and whose cadre are thought to be drawn from Cabanas's descendents (the EPR is now based in Oaxaca) and the ERPI or the Revolutionary Army of the Insurgent People, active in the Sierra and Costa Chica regions of Guerrero. Long incarcerated (ten years) ERPI founders Jacobo Silva and Gloria Arenas were recently released from prison and pledged allegiance to non-violent social struggle, aligning themselves with the Zapatistas' Other Campaign.
The most active public face of the ERPI, "Comandante Ramiro" (Omar Guerrero Solis), was reportedly slain November 4 in the sierra of Guerrero during a dispute between ERPI factions and buried in a clandestine grave.
Other actors in the mix include the Armed Forces of Popular Revolution (FARP), the Villista Army of the Revolutionary People (EVRP), the December 2nd Revolutionary Organization (OR-2nd), The Viva Villa Collective (CVV), the Justice Commando-June 28th (CJ-28), the Democratic Revolutionary Tendency (TDR), and the Triple Guerrilla National Indigenous Alliance (TAGIN.)
All of these groups have claimed at least one armed attack and their range extends to Veracruz, Puebla, Morelos, Mexico state, and the Federal District. While most of these "focos" express a Marxist-Leninist orientation, a handful of anarchist cells take credit for at least ten bombings at Mexico City banks and auto showrooms in September - one of the cells celebrated the name of Praxides G. Guerrero, the first anarchist to fall in the Mexican Revolution.
Another region where uprising could be on the agenda in 2010 is the north of Mexico. The 1910 revolution, in fact, germinated in this mineral rich region of deserts and rugged mountains. The "barbarians of the north" - Pancho Villa, Pascual Orozco, Venustiano Carranza, and Alvaro Obregon among others - advanced on the center of the country squaring off against each other as much as they waged war against Diaz and his successor Huerta, and taking turns seizing power.
In the 1960s and '70s, urban guerrilla bands thrived in northern cities like Monterrey and Torreon, heisting banks and kidnapping industrialists. Indeed, the roots of the EZLN are firmly planted in those two northern cities. The Zapatista Army of National Liberation grew out of the Monterrey-based Forces of National Liberation (FLN) whose original strategy contemplated the formation of the Zapatista Army in the south and the Villista Army of National Liberation in Chihuahua but the northern branch was not yet consolidated in 1994 when Chiapas grew ripe for rebellion.
The seven northern border states are the bloodiest battlefields in Felipe Calderon's ill-conceived war on Mexican-Colombian drug cartels and narco-commando attacks often resemble guerrilla actions. The coalescence of radical forces and the drug gangs could create a climate propitious for revolutionary violence in 2010.
Mexico's 1910 revolution was not confined to any one region. Simultaneous rebellions sprouted up all over the landscape, the most celebrated of which was Emiliano Zapata's Liberating Army of the Southern Revolution based in tiny Morelos state just outside of Mexico City. Similarly, one scenario for 2010 proposes coordinated risings in the cities and countryside throughout Mexico. Does the Mexican left have the numbers and organization to pull off simultaneous insurrection?
Although Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the most popular left politician in the land, is wedded to the electoral option, his millions of followers all over the country are less so inclined and massive civil disobedience and even armed struggle against the "mal gobierno" could be on the horizon given economic conditions and the level of social frustration.
One subplot for 2010 projects indigenous rebels seizing sacred sites like Palenque and Teotihuacan this January 1st, the 16th anniversary of the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas.
Revolutionaries in 2010 will have weapons their forbearers in 1810 and 1910 who fought hand to hand on central Mexican battlefields like Celaya and Las Cruces never dreamed of. The Internet is a great facilitator of logistics that revolutionizes revolution in the new millennium. Obeying this logic, the Zapatistas have become computer savvy both as a tool for internal communication and for broadcasting their word to the outside world.
Mastery of the cybernetic arts could unlock a Pandora's box of sabotage, allowing hackers to access strategic infrastructure, shutting down electro-magnetic communications, paralyzing airports, and threatening the petroleum flow, Mexico's economic lifeblood.
So is a new revolution on Mexico's plate in 2010? The Calderon government seems to be considering the possibility, beefing up its intelligence and armed response capabilities while distributing billions of pesos in "assistencial" aid like the Opportunities program to 26,000,000 Mexicans living in extreme poverty in a ploy to tamp down outbursts of revolutionary violence from "los de abajo" ("those at the bottom.")
The September-October issue of El Insurgente, the EPR's theoretical journal, reminds readers that revolutions are a "coyuntura" (coming-together) of objective conditions such as economic collapse, repression, natural disaster, and the hunger of the people, and subjective forces - i.e. the revolutionaries themselves. Revolutions only happen when revolutionary forces are ready to carry them out. The EPR's conclusion: although objective conditions in 2010 are overripe for revolutionary upheaval, the objective forces lack cohesion and consolidation. In other words, don’t count on a new Mexican Revolution in 2010.
John Ross's El Monstruo - Dread & Redemption in Mexico City is now available at your local independent bookseller. Ross is plotting a monster book tour in 2010 - readers should direct possible venues to johnross@igc.org
Ross will present "El Monstruo" this Monday November 30th at the University of California's Center for Latino Studies Research at 2547 Channing Way in Berkeley at 12 Noon.
Share This
Tecpatl
Our Word is Our Weapon, if you have anything you would like us to publish please send us an email @ maiz_centeotl_chicomecoatl@riseup.net
Subscribe To Maiz Today!!!!
Posts
All Comments
11/30/09
"Cada Día en Libertad es una Victoria"
Entrevista a Marcelo Catrillanca, dirigente mapuche clandestino
Pedro Cayuqueo
Punto Final
Es uno de los líderes mapuches más buscado del país. Y el más escurridizo. Marcelo Osvaldo Catrillanca Queipul (39 años), padre de Camilo (14 años), Paulina (12 años) y Newen (6 años), acaba de cumplir siete años prófugo de la justicia. El año 2002, este dirigente de la Comunidad Temucuicui fue condenado en Collipulli a 5 años de cárcel, acusado de incendiar, en diciembre de 1999, un bosque del fundo Alaska, entonces propiedad de la Forestal Mininco. El fundo era demandado por los comuneros desde la década de los 70. Agotadas las “vías institucionales” y aburridos de la inoperancia de Conadi, el año 1999 decidieron pasar de los dichos a los hechos. Tres años de ardua lucha costó recuperar las tierras, entregadas a la comunidad por el Estado finalmente en 2002.
Pero la lucha tuvo sus costos. A los cientos de heridos en los desalojos policiales, se sumó una persecución judicial y política contra quienes encabezaron las movilizaciones. Marcelo, uno de ellos. Acusado de incendio, fue condenado junto a otro dirigente: “presunciones fundadas” del juez determinaron el encarcelamiento de ambos. Ello fue suficiente para que tras acceder a beneficios previos a su sentencia, Catrillanca optara finalmente por la clandestinidad. O la rebeldía, como prefiere llamarla.
Marcelo no es cualquier dirigente. Hijo del ñizol lonko Juan Catrillanca Antín, emblemático líder de Temucuicui y de la Alianza Territorial Mapuche, Marcelo asume con dignidad y orgullo su linaje. Ser de Temucuicui implica respeto por la historia, nos dice. Allí batallaron defendiendo el territorio mapuche grandes lonkos del siglo XIX. Todos ellos heredaron a las nuevas generaciones un legado de lucha. Pero también una vara muy alta que superar, advierte el dirigente.
Cauteloso como pocos, esta es la segunda entrevista que ofrece a un medio de comunicación en siete años de vida clandestina. La anterior fue en febrero de 2005, también para Punto Final. Tras sortear férreas medidas de seguridad, dimos con el paradero del dirigente mapuche. Estas son sus palabras
¿Cómo han sido estos años como clandestino?
“La situación ha sido compleja, pero uno, como mapuche, no puede humillarse ante el sistema. Es difícil, pero la consecuencia, el compromiso que uno tiene con su pueblo lo hace ser más fuerte. Frente a más represión, uno se capacita más para hacerle frente. Estos años me han permitido fortalecer mi compromiso como dirigente mapuche. A veces los que más sufren son la familia, mis hijos principalmente, que lamentan que no podamos andar juntos como familia. Es terrible que ellos tengan que madurar de esta forma. Uno guarda resentimiento contra el sistema judicial por eso, pero soy optimista y sé que pronto estaremos juntos. Esta es la vida que nos tocó y poco podemos hacer”.
¿En qué punto está su caso judicial?
“De acuerdo a las leyes, para que prescriba una causa judicial dicen que son diez años. Estoy dispuesto a esperar el tiempo que sea necesario y después, seguir asumiendo públicamente las responsabilidades que uno tiene como mapuche. Yo asumí como secretario dentro de mi comunidad, ese cargo tenía cuando luchamos por recuperar el fundo Alaska de Mininco, y luego cuando caí preso. Tengo claro que debo regresar a cumplir con mi rol de dirigente. Para mí ha sido complicado, triste, no estar en la lucha con los hermanos, no ser partícipe de la lucha que han reactivado en Temucuicui y en otros territorios. Como mapuche de lucha, como mapuche que quiere ser un aporte para su gente, es triste no poder estar junto a ellos. Pero saben que siempre estoy con ellos y que comparto sus luchas. Hoy están los peñi hablando de territorio y me parece muy bien que se hable de territorio, porque vamos apuntando al fondo del problema: que aquí hubo una invasión por parte del Estado a un pueblo originario”.
Hoy las reivindicaciones no están restringidas a los títulos de merced. ¿Es un avance?
“Absolutamente. Para el pueblo mapuche es un avance que se hable de territorio ancestral, porque el problema no es de una comunidad tal o cual, es un problema del pueblo mapuche con un Estado que nos despojó. En 2001 reclamábamos tierras, un fundo a lo más, así lo veíamos. Mirábamos un título de merced y decíamos, ‘este winka nos tiene quitadas 210 ó 220 hectáreas’. Mirábamos los planos y llegábamos a esa conclusión. Eso hoy no basta, no digo que no haya que hacerlo, pero no es suficiente.
Por ello se habla de recuperar espacios territoriales. Esta bien recordarle al Estado que el conflicto parte por el incumplimiento de compromisos históricos entre los mapuches y los winkas, cuando la frontera era el río Bío Bío. Alguien violó tratados y por eso estamos como estamos. De ahí parte la injusticia. Hoy podemos ver una comunidad grande pero muy pobre. Vemos a un particular con 600 hectáreas, a una forestal con mil hectáreas y a una familia mapuche con miserables metros cuadrados. Eso no puede ser. Por ello hay que decir y reafirmar que nuestra lucha no se trata de mendigar tierras, de mendigar apoyos. Se trata de recuperar lo perdido, de reconstruir nuestro territorio y un país que tuvimos en el pasado”.
Gran parte de los dirigentes clandestinos tarde o temprano han sido detenidos; el último caso fue el de Mireya Figueroa. ¿Cómo ha sido sobrellevar la persecución policial?
“La persecución ha estado siempre presente, el hostigamiento a mi familia, a mi comunidad, a mis familiares. Pero yo creo que las detenciones muchas veces son por datos, es decir, encuentran a alguien que finalmente es convencido de delatar a un hermano. En mi caso esto no ha sucedido. Eso me ha ayudado, la lealtad y la protección de mucha gente que valora lo que uno es como mapuche”.
Gobierno se ha equivocado
¿Qué le parecen las medidas del go-bierno para afrontar lo que llaman el “con-flicto mapuche”?
“Este gobierno se ha equivocado, como antes también lo hicieron otros. Se prometen cosas, muchas cosas: nuevas instituciones, subsidios, tierras, pero al final todo se resume en más represión a las comunidades que luchan. Más policías no ayudan en nada, sólo alteran el orden allí donde se podría avanzar en acuerdos. En Temucuicui existen decenas de acuerdos, compromisos del gobierno que no se han cumplido desde que se entregó el fundo Alaska, hace ya más de 5 años. Se han firmado acuerdos con Conadi, con la Gobernación, con la intendenta. Lo que puede resolver el conflicto es que las autoridades cumplan lo que firmaron, ¡es tan simple como eso! Pero no hay cambio entre un presidente y otro, entre un gobierno y otro. A lo más se dejan de usar ciertas leyes más represivas para aparentar que hay cambios, pero al final es lo mismo”.
¿Qué proyección le ve al actual proceso de movilizaciones que impulsa la Alianza Territorial Mapuche, que en-ca-beza su padre y donde participa su comunidad?
“Me parece bien, se ve que no es el movimiento de una comunidad aislada sino de un pueblo, de diversos territorios de nuestro pueblo. Hoy las comunidades no están diciendo ‘somos una comunidad’, están hablando de ser ‘territorios’, de ser diversos lof que se han levantado. Así lo están planteando los lonkos y yo comparto esa visión. El gobierno debe entender que esto no tiene marcha atrás, las comunidades van a seguir movilizadas y por lo que se ve, se irán sumando otras.
Las autoridades han equivocado el camino. Cuando el subsecretario Rosende visitó la zona enviado por el gobierno hace unos meses, vino en helicóptero y desde el aire dio una vuelta y se fue. Viera-Gallo ha sido más de lo mismo, no se ha reunido con las comunidades movilizadas. Así nunca se logrará avanzar en soluciones. Recuerdo que el año 2000, cuando estaba fuerte la lucha por el fundo Alaska, José Miguel Insulza envió directamente a Robinson Pérez, quien vino a entablar una mesa de trabajo y de negociación con nosotros, que estábamos movilizados. Y pudimos avanzar y resolver el conflicto. Pero ahora las autoridades vienen a puro pasear en helicóptero”.
Elecciones de diciembre
En diciembre viene una elección presidencial y parlamentaria. ¿Qué rol debieran jugar los mapuches en esa coyuntura?
“Creo que debiéramos abstenernos. No hay diferencias, para mí, entre derecha y Concertación. Creo que como mapuches no podemos seguir cayendo en ese juego. Distinto sería si tuviéramos nuestra propia gente peleando una candidatura al Congreso. Nosotros debiéramos trabajar para tener nuestra propia gente preparada para competir en las elecciones, gente que obedezca a una línea de pensamiento político mapuche. Que sea un representante nuestro y no de los empresarios o de los partidos políticos wincas, que ni siquiera conocen nuestra realidad ni les interesa conocerla”.
¿La clandestinidad es una trinchera de resistencia?
“Es una trinchera de lucha, claramente. No se trata de estar escondido sin hacer nada. Hay peñi (hermanos) y lamngen (hermanas) que lamentablemente están presos, pero es una situación que yo no quise aceptar para mí. Es un camino válido. Estar prófugo es una lucha constante, día a día, un camino que han seguido personas emblemáticas: Pablo Neruda, quien luchó por la dignidad de los trabajadores, Gladys Marín, que luchó por el bien de toda la sociedad, son personas que dieron ejemplo en esto. Yo, tarde o temprano, voy a ser libre y seguiré luchando públicamente por la causa de mi pueblo, como dirigente”.
¿Qué mensaje enviaría a dos mapuches que han optado por el refugio político en Argentina? Me refiero a Pascual Pichún Collonao y Pedro Vivanco.
“Todo mi apoyo, toda mi fuerza para ellos. Donde sea que estén mantengan la fuerza, porque no es fácil estar lejos de tu comunidad, de la familia; sufren los niños, sufren las esposas y sufre uno. Les diría que aprovechen el tiempo, que se capaciten, que se eduquen más y así puedan ser útiles a esta lucha que seguirá a futuro y que no termina con uno. Estar clandestino o prófugo no es estar muerto, es simplemente una posibilidad de seguir luchando, de seguir preparándose. No se trata de cobardía. La justicia y el Estado nos condenaron, pero cada día en libertad es una victoria nuestra”.
Pedro Cayuqueo
Punto Final
Es uno de los líderes mapuches más buscado del país. Y el más escurridizo. Marcelo Osvaldo Catrillanca Queipul (39 años), padre de Camilo (14 años), Paulina (12 años) y Newen (6 años), acaba de cumplir siete años prófugo de la justicia. El año 2002, este dirigente de la Comunidad Temucuicui fue condenado en Collipulli a 5 años de cárcel, acusado de incendiar, en diciembre de 1999, un bosque del fundo Alaska, entonces propiedad de la Forestal Mininco. El fundo era demandado por los comuneros desde la década de los 70. Agotadas las “vías institucionales” y aburridos de la inoperancia de Conadi, el año 1999 decidieron pasar de los dichos a los hechos. Tres años de ardua lucha costó recuperar las tierras, entregadas a la comunidad por el Estado finalmente en 2002.
Pero la lucha tuvo sus costos. A los cientos de heridos en los desalojos policiales, se sumó una persecución judicial y política contra quienes encabezaron las movilizaciones. Marcelo, uno de ellos. Acusado de incendio, fue condenado junto a otro dirigente: “presunciones fundadas” del juez determinaron el encarcelamiento de ambos. Ello fue suficiente para que tras acceder a beneficios previos a su sentencia, Catrillanca optara finalmente por la clandestinidad. O la rebeldía, como prefiere llamarla.
Marcelo no es cualquier dirigente. Hijo del ñizol lonko Juan Catrillanca Antín, emblemático líder de Temucuicui y de la Alianza Territorial Mapuche, Marcelo asume con dignidad y orgullo su linaje. Ser de Temucuicui implica respeto por la historia, nos dice. Allí batallaron defendiendo el territorio mapuche grandes lonkos del siglo XIX. Todos ellos heredaron a las nuevas generaciones un legado de lucha. Pero también una vara muy alta que superar, advierte el dirigente.
Cauteloso como pocos, esta es la segunda entrevista que ofrece a un medio de comunicación en siete años de vida clandestina. La anterior fue en febrero de 2005, también para Punto Final. Tras sortear férreas medidas de seguridad, dimos con el paradero del dirigente mapuche. Estas son sus palabras
¿Cómo han sido estos años como clandestino?
“La situación ha sido compleja, pero uno, como mapuche, no puede humillarse ante el sistema. Es difícil, pero la consecuencia, el compromiso que uno tiene con su pueblo lo hace ser más fuerte. Frente a más represión, uno se capacita más para hacerle frente. Estos años me han permitido fortalecer mi compromiso como dirigente mapuche. A veces los que más sufren son la familia, mis hijos principalmente, que lamentan que no podamos andar juntos como familia. Es terrible que ellos tengan que madurar de esta forma. Uno guarda resentimiento contra el sistema judicial por eso, pero soy optimista y sé que pronto estaremos juntos. Esta es la vida que nos tocó y poco podemos hacer”.
¿En qué punto está su caso judicial?
“De acuerdo a las leyes, para que prescriba una causa judicial dicen que son diez años. Estoy dispuesto a esperar el tiempo que sea necesario y después, seguir asumiendo públicamente las responsabilidades que uno tiene como mapuche. Yo asumí como secretario dentro de mi comunidad, ese cargo tenía cuando luchamos por recuperar el fundo Alaska de Mininco, y luego cuando caí preso. Tengo claro que debo regresar a cumplir con mi rol de dirigente. Para mí ha sido complicado, triste, no estar en la lucha con los hermanos, no ser partícipe de la lucha que han reactivado en Temucuicui y en otros territorios. Como mapuche de lucha, como mapuche que quiere ser un aporte para su gente, es triste no poder estar junto a ellos. Pero saben que siempre estoy con ellos y que comparto sus luchas. Hoy están los peñi hablando de territorio y me parece muy bien que se hable de territorio, porque vamos apuntando al fondo del problema: que aquí hubo una invasión por parte del Estado a un pueblo originario”.
Hoy las reivindicaciones no están restringidas a los títulos de merced. ¿Es un avance?
“Absolutamente. Para el pueblo mapuche es un avance que se hable de territorio ancestral, porque el problema no es de una comunidad tal o cual, es un problema del pueblo mapuche con un Estado que nos despojó. En 2001 reclamábamos tierras, un fundo a lo más, así lo veíamos. Mirábamos un título de merced y decíamos, ‘este winka nos tiene quitadas 210 ó 220 hectáreas’. Mirábamos los planos y llegábamos a esa conclusión. Eso hoy no basta, no digo que no haya que hacerlo, pero no es suficiente.
Por ello se habla de recuperar espacios territoriales. Esta bien recordarle al Estado que el conflicto parte por el incumplimiento de compromisos históricos entre los mapuches y los winkas, cuando la frontera era el río Bío Bío. Alguien violó tratados y por eso estamos como estamos. De ahí parte la injusticia. Hoy podemos ver una comunidad grande pero muy pobre. Vemos a un particular con 600 hectáreas, a una forestal con mil hectáreas y a una familia mapuche con miserables metros cuadrados. Eso no puede ser. Por ello hay que decir y reafirmar que nuestra lucha no se trata de mendigar tierras, de mendigar apoyos. Se trata de recuperar lo perdido, de reconstruir nuestro territorio y un país que tuvimos en el pasado”.
Gran parte de los dirigentes clandestinos tarde o temprano han sido detenidos; el último caso fue el de Mireya Figueroa. ¿Cómo ha sido sobrellevar la persecución policial?
“La persecución ha estado siempre presente, el hostigamiento a mi familia, a mi comunidad, a mis familiares. Pero yo creo que las detenciones muchas veces son por datos, es decir, encuentran a alguien que finalmente es convencido de delatar a un hermano. En mi caso esto no ha sucedido. Eso me ha ayudado, la lealtad y la protección de mucha gente que valora lo que uno es como mapuche”.
Gobierno se ha equivocado
¿Qué le parecen las medidas del go-bierno para afrontar lo que llaman el “con-flicto mapuche”?
“Este gobierno se ha equivocado, como antes también lo hicieron otros. Se prometen cosas, muchas cosas: nuevas instituciones, subsidios, tierras, pero al final todo se resume en más represión a las comunidades que luchan. Más policías no ayudan en nada, sólo alteran el orden allí donde se podría avanzar en acuerdos. En Temucuicui existen decenas de acuerdos, compromisos del gobierno que no se han cumplido desde que se entregó el fundo Alaska, hace ya más de 5 años. Se han firmado acuerdos con Conadi, con la Gobernación, con la intendenta. Lo que puede resolver el conflicto es que las autoridades cumplan lo que firmaron, ¡es tan simple como eso! Pero no hay cambio entre un presidente y otro, entre un gobierno y otro. A lo más se dejan de usar ciertas leyes más represivas para aparentar que hay cambios, pero al final es lo mismo”.
¿Qué proyección le ve al actual proceso de movilizaciones que impulsa la Alianza Territorial Mapuche, que en-ca-beza su padre y donde participa su comunidad?
“Me parece bien, se ve que no es el movimiento de una comunidad aislada sino de un pueblo, de diversos territorios de nuestro pueblo. Hoy las comunidades no están diciendo ‘somos una comunidad’, están hablando de ser ‘territorios’, de ser diversos lof que se han levantado. Así lo están planteando los lonkos y yo comparto esa visión. El gobierno debe entender que esto no tiene marcha atrás, las comunidades van a seguir movilizadas y por lo que se ve, se irán sumando otras.
Las autoridades han equivocado el camino. Cuando el subsecretario Rosende visitó la zona enviado por el gobierno hace unos meses, vino en helicóptero y desde el aire dio una vuelta y se fue. Viera-Gallo ha sido más de lo mismo, no se ha reunido con las comunidades movilizadas. Así nunca se logrará avanzar en soluciones. Recuerdo que el año 2000, cuando estaba fuerte la lucha por el fundo Alaska, José Miguel Insulza envió directamente a Robinson Pérez, quien vino a entablar una mesa de trabajo y de negociación con nosotros, que estábamos movilizados. Y pudimos avanzar y resolver el conflicto. Pero ahora las autoridades vienen a puro pasear en helicóptero”.
Elecciones de diciembre
En diciembre viene una elección presidencial y parlamentaria. ¿Qué rol debieran jugar los mapuches en esa coyuntura?
“Creo que debiéramos abstenernos. No hay diferencias, para mí, entre derecha y Concertación. Creo que como mapuches no podemos seguir cayendo en ese juego. Distinto sería si tuviéramos nuestra propia gente peleando una candidatura al Congreso. Nosotros debiéramos trabajar para tener nuestra propia gente preparada para competir en las elecciones, gente que obedezca a una línea de pensamiento político mapuche. Que sea un representante nuestro y no de los empresarios o de los partidos políticos wincas, que ni siquiera conocen nuestra realidad ni les interesa conocerla”.
¿La clandestinidad es una trinchera de resistencia?
“Es una trinchera de lucha, claramente. No se trata de estar escondido sin hacer nada. Hay peñi (hermanos) y lamngen (hermanas) que lamentablemente están presos, pero es una situación que yo no quise aceptar para mí. Es un camino válido. Estar prófugo es una lucha constante, día a día, un camino que han seguido personas emblemáticas: Pablo Neruda, quien luchó por la dignidad de los trabajadores, Gladys Marín, que luchó por el bien de toda la sociedad, son personas que dieron ejemplo en esto. Yo, tarde o temprano, voy a ser libre y seguiré luchando públicamente por la causa de mi pueblo, como dirigente”.
¿Qué mensaje enviaría a dos mapuches que han optado por el refugio político en Argentina? Me refiero a Pascual Pichún Collonao y Pedro Vivanco.
“Todo mi apoyo, toda mi fuerza para ellos. Donde sea que estén mantengan la fuerza, porque no es fácil estar lejos de tu comunidad, de la familia; sufren los niños, sufren las esposas y sufre uno. Les diría que aprovechen el tiempo, que se capaciten, que se eduquen más y así puedan ser útiles a esta lucha que seguirá a futuro y que no termina con uno. Estar clandestino o prófugo no es estar muerto, es simplemente una posibilidad de seguir luchando, de seguir preparándose. No se trata de cobardía. La justicia y el Estado nos condenaron, pero cada día en libertad es una victoria nuestra”.
52 Words That Shook Washington
Lebanon 'Accepts' Hezbollah's Weapons
By FRANKLIN LAMB
CounterPunch
"It is the right of the Lebanese people, Army and the (Hezbollah led—ed.)Resistance to liberate the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shuba Hills and the northern part of the village of Ghajar as well as to defend Lebanon and its territorial waters in the face of any enemy by all available and legal means.”
So reads the Policy Declaration of the new Government of the Republic of Lebanon, issued on November 26,2009, four days after the celebration of Lebanon’s 66 years of independence from the French colonial power, achieved in 1943.
Legally, constitutionally, and politically, Lebanon’s new National Unity Government policy legitimizes, embraces, and incorporates by reference, the National Lebanese Resistance.
For the US-Israel axis, the 52 words signal that Hezbollah - which since 2006 has enjoyed majority popular support - and the State of Lebanon are inseparable and indivisible with respect to defending this country from foreign interference and occupation. It affixes the governmental imprimatur for liberating Lebanese lands still occupied by Israeli forces.
According to some international lawyers, it also fulfills UN Security Council Resolution 1559 regarding disarming militias because Lebanon has in effect declared that the arms of the Hezbollah led Resistance are part of the defense of Lebanon itself and not a particular movement or political party. This Policy statement satisfies UNSCR 1701 for the same reason.
Apart from the Phalange (Kataeb) Party and the Lebanese forces, and their spokesmen Samir Geagea and Amin Gemayel, who will continue to condemn the policy declaration, the issue of Hezbollah’s arms has been essentially settled.
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri stressed that “Hezbollah’s arms belong to all Lebanese and their existence is linked to Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territory.”
Tawhid (Unifying) Party and Druze leader Wiam Wahhab went further and, following the Policy Statement approval, advised the media this was the same wording as was reached at the 2008 Doha conference:
The message from Lebanon’s new government to the US administration is clear according to Lebanese Human Rights Ambassador Ali Khalil:
Many people in Lebanon and the region who support Hezbollah do so not because they know all about or even very much care about the pillars of Shia Islam or the role of the Wali al Faque but because they have experienced six decades of Israeli aggression and six wars funded and armed by a US Congress that puts Israel before its own country and way before any Arab country including Lebanon. They realize that 18 years of a fake ‘peace process’ has brought nothing but misery to the Palestinians and Lebanon whereas 18 years of Resistance has freed most of Israel occupied Lebanese territory.
And they realize that there is more yet to be done.
UNIFIL sources reported this week that they expected Israel to withdraw from the Lebanese village of Ghajar before the 12-member Cabinet committee voted to legitimize Hezbollah’s arms, in order to upstage the Lebanese government decision. The Israeli government, under US and EU pressure agreed, knowing that its army could not hold the village during its next attack on Lebanon and realizing that holding Ghajar meanwhile is not worth the political and military price.
Actual Israeli troop withdrawal is expected at any moment against the backdrop of more “cry wolf” threats such as yesterdays from Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak that “all of Lebanon will pay the huge price for giving Hezbollah its Government.” More than ever Lebanon’s population believes that Israel will also pay a huge price if it launches a 7th war against Lebanon or attacks Iran or Syria.
A conference call
In Washington and Beirut the response to Lebanon’s legitimization of Hezbollah’s arms was publicly subdued. The US Embassy, for the second year in a row mistakenly sent Eid al Fitr greetings to Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman, whereas this week’s holiday, which commemorates the annual Hajj Pilgrimage and the 1,400 year old Muslim tradition of giving of meat to the poor, is called Eid al Adha. Eid al Fitr actually follows Ramadan which ended this year on September 19th. Anyhow, for sure it’s the thought that counts and the White House did promptly correct the Beirut’s Embassy error and sent President Obama’s and the American peoples Eid al Adha greetings yesterday at 2:15 p.m. Beirut time.
Privately, the reaction to legitimizing Hezbollah’s deterrence to Israeli aggressions is causing a strong reaction on Capitol Hill. AIPAC has another Congressional Resolution ready to condemn Lebanon for capitulating to ‘terrorism’. Hard to believe as it is, some members of Congress are actually tiring of all the Israel Lobby’s resolutions and the pressure tactics AIPAC uses to get them passed irrespective of what they say or whether they are read.
Before the Thanksgiving break, AIPAC organized an urgent conference call among 11 Chairmen, of key US Congressional committees, including Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Appropriations, Banking, Homeland Security, Environment, and Aging, and Rules held a conference call arranged by AIPAC.
Together, the group forms what AIPAC calls “Israel’s Firewall” which it and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations conceived of and formalized in late September 2001 “ to assure consultation and dialogue with respect to how best to launch Congressional initiatives that will preserve the special and unbreakable US-Israel relationship.”
In addition to the above members, others who have been approached to form the ‘firewall’ in the 111th Congress include all 13 Jewish members of the US Senate and the 28 Jewish House Members as well as a couple of dozen trusted evangelical Christian Zionist members.
According to a Zionist Organizations of America (ZOA) source, the group has not been very active until recently. Decisions, if any that were taken the past eight years by what is referred to by some on Capitol Hill as the “Israel Synod” is not currently known.
One recent decision that has been taken was revealed by ZOA. The ‘fire wall’ project is to ‘fast track’ a dramatic increase in US military aid to Israel to deal with supposed Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian, and Iranian threats to Israel. “These people see an urgent need to clean house and restore Israel’s military dominance and credibility”, claimed the ZOA source.
According to a staff member of the US Senate Armed Services Committee, the ‘ fire wall’ group plans to expedite US Congressional approval for more subsidies for all or part of the funds needed by Israel to purchase U.S. weapons. This will be in addition to Israel receiving over the past 24 months $ 2,070.1 billion from US taxpayers earmarked for this purpose.
AIPAC’s new ‘fire wall’ group will work for the 2010 deployment of the so called “Iron Dome” that can unleash a metallic cloud to bring down incoming rockets in the skies over Gaza or Lebanon as well as funding for a new generation of Israel’s Arrow defense system designed to shoot down Iran's long-range missiles at high altitudes.
In addition, Israel will receive US funding for more German-made Dolphin submarines that can be equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles for positioning off the coast of Iran.
AIPAC’s problem is to get Congress to overrule Pentagon skepticism of much of Israel’s ‘new weapons’ projects which some view as more psychological warfare than reliable or usable effectively in future conflicts. AIPAC appears confident and with good reason.
The Congressional Israel lobby has already achieved a commitment from the Obama administration to add Israeli systems and munitions to a new U.S.-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and deliver 25 to Israel by 2015 with another 50 delivered by 2018. The Obama administration will also integrate bombs that use an Israeli precision guidance kit called Spice along with Python 5 air-to-air missiles made by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. The ‘fire wall’ group is to assure that Israel will also get a relatively inexpensive path for hardware and software upgrades to add future weapons.
This season’s ‘mother of all bombs’
Another major Congressional weapons project for Israel is the Boeing Corporations new 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bomb.
The MOP carries more than 5,300 pounds of explosives and delivers more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor, the 2,000-pound BLU-109, according to the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has funded and managed the seed program. It is also about one-third heavier than the 21,000-pound GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb – last season’s "mother of all bombs" -- that was dropped twice in tests at a Florida range in 2003.
The 20-foot-long (6-metre) MOP is built to be dropped from either the B-52 or the B-2 "stealth" bomber and is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding, according to the U.S. Air Force. The Pentagons Central Command, which is preparing for war with Iran- just in case- is backing a acceleration request according to Kenneth Katzman, an expert on Iran at the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress. Israel wants them to attack Hezbollah’s deep bunkers in South Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.
If AIPAC can get Congress to shift enough funds to the program, Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N)’s radar-evading B-2 bomber "would be capable of carrying the bomb by July 2010. This claim has been verified by Andy Bourland, an Air Force spokesman, who added, “There have been discussions with the four congressional committees with oversight responsibilities. Officially no final decision has been made."
In fact the decision has been made according to AIPAC and Congressional sources and its “all systems go”.
Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com
By FRANKLIN LAMB
CounterPunch
"It is the right of the Lebanese people, Army and the (Hezbollah led—ed.)Resistance to liberate the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shuba Hills and the northern part of the village of Ghajar as well as to defend Lebanon and its territorial waters in the face of any enemy by all available and legal means.”
So reads the Policy Declaration of the new Government of the Republic of Lebanon, issued on November 26,2009, four days after the celebration of Lebanon’s 66 years of independence from the French colonial power, achieved in 1943.
Legally, constitutionally, and politically, Lebanon’s new National Unity Government policy legitimizes, embraces, and incorporates by reference, the National Lebanese Resistance.
For the US-Israel axis, the 52 words signal that Hezbollah - which since 2006 has enjoyed majority popular support - and the State of Lebanon are inseparable and indivisible with respect to defending this country from foreign interference and occupation. It affixes the governmental imprimatur for liberating Lebanese lands still occupied by Israeli forces.
According to some international lawyers, it also fulfills UN Security Council Resolution 1559 regarding disarming militias because Lebanon has in effect declared that the arms of the Hezbollah led Resistance are part of the defense of Lebanon itself and not a particular movement or political party. This Policy statement satisfies UNSCR 1701 for the same reason.
Apart from the Phalange (Kataeb) Party and the Lebanese forces, and their spokesmen Samir Geagea and Amin Gemayel, who will continue to condemn the policy declaration, the issue of Hezbollah’s arms has been essentially settled.
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri stressed that “Hezbollah’s arms belong to all Lebanese and their existence is linked to Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territory.”
Tawhid (Unifying) Party and Druze leader Wiam Wahhab went further and, following the Policy Statement approval, advised the media this was the same wording as was reached at the 2008 Doha conference:
“Hezbollah’s arms will remain as long as there is conflict between the Arabs and Israel. When the world tells us how the naturalization of Palestinians issue will be resolved, then we will give details on how to deal with the arms of our national resistance. They now belong to all of Lebanon.”
The message from Lebanon’s new government to the US administration is clear according to Lebanese Human Rights Ambassador Ali Khalil:
“You can have very friendly relations with Lebanon but that means dealing with Lebanon and our new government as a whole, not cherry picking certain ministries or parties in Parliament. Aid, defensive arms and equipment, economy, trade, should be negotiated with equality- not the US Embassy’s color coded push pin political affiliation map used previously. Hezbollah is Lebanon and Lebanon is Hezbollah. Try to understand and get used to it. You might be pleased if both the US and Lebanon work for our own interests but dialogue with mutual respect.”
Many people in Lebanon and the region who support Hezbollah do so not because they know all about or even very much care about the pillars of Shia Islam or the role of the Wali al Faque but because they have experienced six decades of Israeli aggression and six wars funded and armed by a US Congress that puts Israel before its own country and way before any Arab country including Lebanon. They realize that 18 years of a fake ‘peace process’ has brought nothing but misery to the Palestinians and Lebanon whereas 18 years of Resistance has freed most of Israel occupied Lebanese territory.
And they realize that there is more yet to be done.
UNIFIL sources reported this week that they expected Israel to withdraw from the Lebanese village of Ghajar before the 12-member Cabinet committee voted to legitimize Hezbollah’s arms, in order to upstage the Lebanese government decision. The Israeli government, under US and EU pressure agreed, knowing that its army could not hold the village during its next attack on Lebanon and realizing that holding Ghajar meanwhile is not worth the political and military price.
Actual Israeli troop withdrawal is expected at any moment against the backdrop of more “cry wolf” threats such as yesterdays from Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak that “all of Lebanon will pay the huge price for giving Hezbollah its Government.” More than ever Lebanon’s population believes that Israel will also pay a huge price if it launches a 7th war against Lebanon or attacks Iran or Syria.
A conference call
In Washington and Beirut the response to Lebanon’s legitimization of Hezbollah’s arms was publicly subdued. The US Embassy, for the second year in a row mistakenly sent Eid al Fitr greetings to Lebanon’s President Michel Suleiman, whereas this week’s holiday, which commemorates the annual Hajj Pilgrimage and the 1,400 year old Muslim tradition of giving of meat to the poor, is called Eid al Adha. Eid al Fitr actually follows Ramadan which ended this year on September 19th. Anyhow, for sure it’s the thought that counts and the White House did promptly correct the Beirut’s Embassy error and sent President Obama’s and the American peoples Eid al Adha greetings yesterday at 2:15 p.m. Beirut time.
Privately, the reaction to legitimizing Hezbollah’s deterrence to Israeli aggressions is causing a strong reaction on Capitol Hill. AIPAC has another Congressional Resolution ready to condemn Lebanon for capitulating to ‘terrorism’. Hard to believe as it is, some members of Congress are actually tiring of all the Israel Lobby’s resolutions and the pressure tactics AIPAC uses to get them passed irrespective of what they say or whether they are read.
Before the Thanksgiving break, AIPAC organized an urgent conference call among 11 Chairmen, of key US Congressional committees, including Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Appropriations, Banking, Homeland Security, Environment, and Aging, and Rules held a conference call arranged by AIPAC.
Together, the group forms what AIPAC calls “Israel’s Firewall” which it and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations conceived of and formalized in late September 2001 “ to assure consultation and dialogue with respect to how best to launch Congressional initiatives that will preserve the special and unbreakable US-Israel relationship.”
In addition to the above members, others who have been approached to form the ‘firewall’ in the 111th Congress include all 13 Jewish members of the US Senate and the 28 Jewish House Members as well as a couple of dozen trusted evangelical Christian Zionist members.
According to a Zionist Organizations of America (ZOA) source, the group has not been very active until recently. Decisions, if any that were taken the past eight years by what is referred to by some on Capitol Hill as the “Israel Synod” is not currently known.
One recent decision that has been taken was revealed by ZOA. The ‘fire wall’ project is to ‘fast track’ a dramatic increase in US military aid to Israel to deal with supposed Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian, and Iranian threats to Israel. “These people see an urgent need to clean house and restore Israel’s military dominance and credibility”, claimed the ZOA source.
According to a staff member of the US Senate Armed Services Committee, the ‘ fire wall’ group plans to expedite US Congressional approval for more subsidies for all or part of the funds needed by Israel to purchase U.S. weapons. This will be in addition to Israel receiving over the past 24 months $ 2,070.1 billion from US taxpayers earmarked for this purpose.
AIPAC’s new ‘fire wall’ group will work for the 2010 deployment of the so called “Iron Dome” that can unleash a metallic cloud to bring down incoming rockets in the skies over Gaza or Lebanon as well as funding for a new generation of Israel’s Arrow defense system designed to shoot down Iran's long-range missiles at high altitudes.
In addition, Israel will receive US funding for more German-made Dolphin submarines that can be equipped with nuclear-tipped missiles for positioning off the coast of Iran.
AIPAC’s problem is to get Congress to overrule Pentagon skepticism of much of Israel’s ‘new weapons’ projects which some view as more psychological warfare than reliable or usable effectively in future conflicts. AIPAC appears confident and with good reason.
The Congressional Israel lobby has already achieved a commitment from the Obama administration to add Israeli systems and munitions to a new U.S.-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and deliver 25 to Israel by 2015 with another 50 delivered by 2018. The Obama administration will also integrate bombs that use an Israeli precision guidance kit called Spice along with Python 5 air-to-air missiles made by Israel's Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. The ‘fire wall’ group is to assure that Israel will also get a relatively inexpensive path for hardware and software upgrades to add future weapons.
This season’s ‘mother of all bombs’
Another major Congressional weapons project for Israel is the Boeing Corporations new 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bomb.
The MOP carries more than 5,300 pounds of explosives and delivers more than 10 times the explosive power of its predecessor, the 2,000-pound BLU-109, according to the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has funded and managed the seed program. It is also about one-third heavier than the 21,000-pound GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb – last season’s "mother of all bombs" -- that was dropped twice in tests at a Florida range in 2003.
The 20-foot-long (6-metre) MOP is built to be dropped from either the B-52 or the B-2 "stealth" bomber and is designed to penetrate up to 200 feet underground before exploding, according to the U.S. Air Force. The Pentagons Central Command, which is preparing for war with Iran- just in case- is backing a acceleration request according to Kenneth Katzman, an expert on Iran at the Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress. Israel wants them to attack Hezbollah’s deep bunkers in South Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.
If AIPAC can get Congress to shift enough funds to the program, Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N)’s radar-evading B-2 bomber "would be capable of carrying the bomb by July 2010. This claim has been verified by Andy Bourland, an Air Force spokesman, who added, “There have been discussions with the four congressional committees with oversight responsibilities. Officially no final decision has been made."
In fact the decision has been made according to AIPAC and Congressional sources and its “all systems go”.
Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and can be reached at fplamb@gmail.com
Movimientos sociales presionan al gobierno para acelerar la Reforma Agraria
Karol Assunção
Adital
Entidades del Forum Nacional por la Reforma Agraria y Justicia en el Campo se reunieron hoy (25), en Brasilia, con representantes del Gobierno Federal para discutir sobre la situación de la Reforma Agraria en el país y denunciar las acciones de latifundistas. La cuestión continuará siendo debatida entre las partes y, a mediados de diciembre, una nueva reunión deberá realizarse para definir estrategias y acciones para el próximo año.
De acuerdo con José Batista de Oliveira, de la coordinadora nacional del Movimiento de Trabajadores Rurales Sin Tierra (MST), la idea de la reunión era colocar en pauta el modelo de desarrollo que los movimientos y organizaciones del campo quieren, en oposición al defendido por latifundistas y personas vinculadas al agronegocio. "Llevamos a la reunión propuestas para retomar la discusión de la Reforma Agraria", afirma.
Según el coordinador del MST, durante el encuentro, los representantes del Gobierno reafirmaron la continuidad de las acciones por la Reforma Agraria y el compromiso de actualizar los índices de productividad rural -desactualizados desde la década de 1980. En la oportunidad, agendaron también una nueva reunión para el próximo mes con el objetivo de proponer acciones para 2010. "Vamos a establecer metas para el año que viene", resalta.
De acuerdo con José Batista, hasta el próximo encuentro, los movimientos realizarán reuniones con el Instituto Nacional de Colonización y Reforma Agraria (Incra) para intentar avanzar en el proceso de la Reforma Agraria. Según el coordinador del MST, las entidades presentes en el encuentro están preocupadas por la lentitud del proceso.
Además del asentamiento de tierras, José Batista comenta que el presupuesto del Incra para la provisión de tierras y la educación en el campo también son asuntos que deberán ser discutidos en las próximas reuniones. Según el MST, actualmente más de 80 mil familias están acampadas y otras 40 mil están en pre-asentamientos sin infraestructura, crédito agrícola ni asistencia técnica.
La presentación de proyectos al Congreso Nacional para sacarle al Poder Ejecutivo la responsabilidad de expropiar tierras y actualizar los índices de productividad; creación de una Comisión Parlamentaria de Investigación (CPI) contra la Reforma Agraria; y cambios en el Código Forestal son algunas propuestas de los ruralistas denunciadas por los movimientos populares.
En la reunión, los dirigentes de los movimientos y organizaciones populares entregaron al Gobierno una carta de reivindicaciones. Entre las demandas, pedían: el cumplimiento de la Constitución en relación con las áreas de indígenas y quilombolas, la efectivización del control de agrotóxicos, el establecimiento de límite a la propiedad de la tierra y la aprobación de la Propuesta de Enmienda a la Constitución (PEC) del trabajo esclavo.
Además de las entidades que constituyen el Forum Nacional por la Reforma Agraria y Justicia en el Campo, estuvieron presentes representantes del gobierno como Gilberto Carvalho, jefe de gabinete de la Presidencia de la República; Ministro Luiz Dulci, de la Secretaría General de la Presidencia; y Rolf Hachbart, presidente del Incra.
Traducción: Daniel Barrantes - barrantes . daniel @ g m a i l. c o m
Adital
Entidades del Forum Nacional por la Reforma Agraria y Justicia en el Campo se reunieron hoy (25), en Brasilia, con representantes del Gobierno Federal para discutir sobre la situación de la Reforma Agraria en el país y denunciar las acciones de latifundistas. La cuestión continuará siendo debatida entre las partes y, a mediados de diciembre, una nueva reunión deberá realizarse para definir estrategias y acciones para el próximo año.
De acuerdo con José Batista de Oliveira, de la coordinadora nacional del Movimiento de Trabajadores Rurales Sin Tierra (MST), la idea de la reunión era colocar en pauta el modelo de desarrollo que los movimientos y organizaciones del campo quieren, en oposición al defendido por latifundistas y personas vinculadas al agronegocio. "Llevamos a la reunión propuestas para retomar la discusión de la Reforma Agraria", afirma.
Según el coordinador del MST, durante el encuentro, los representantes del Gobierno reafirmaron la continuidad de las acciones por la Reforma Agraria y el compromiso de actualizar los índices de productividad rural -desactualizados desde la década de 1980. En la oportunidad, agendaron también una nueva reunión para el próximo mes con el objetivo de proponer acciones para 2010. "Vamos a establecer metas para el año que viene", resalta.
De acuerdo con José Batista, hasta el próximo encuentro, los movimientos realizarán reuniones con el Instituto Nacional de Colonización y Reforma Agraria (Incra) para intentar avanzar en el proceso de la Reforma Agraria. Según el coordinador del MST, las entidades presentes en el encuentro están preocupadas por la lentitud del proceso.
Además del asentamiento de tierras, José Batista comenta que el presupuesto del Incra para la provisión de tierras y la educación en el campo también son asuntos que deberán ser discutidos en las próximas reuniones. Según el MST, actualmente más de 80 mil familias están acampadas y otras 40 mil están en pre-asentamientos sin infraestructura, crédito agrícola ni asistencia técnica.
La presentación de proyectos al Congreso Nacional para sacarle al Poder Ejecutivo la responsabilidad de expropiar tierras y actualizar los índices de productividad; creación de una Comisión Parlamentaria de Investigación (CPI) contra la Reforma Agraria; y cambios en el Código Forestal son algunas propuestas de los ruralistas denunciadas por los movimientos populares.
En la reunión, los dirigentes de los movimientos y organizaciones populares entregaron al Gobierno una carta de reivindicaciones. Entre las demandas, pedían: el cumplimiento de la Constitución en relación con las áreas de indígenas y quilombolas, la efectivización del control de agrotóxicos, el establecimiento de límite a la propiedad de la tierra y la aprobación de la Propuesta de Enmienda a la Constitución (PEC) del trabajo esclavo.
Además de las entidades que constituyen el Forum Nacional por la Reforma Agraria y Justicia en el Campo, estuvieron presentes representantes del gobierno como Gilberto Carvalho, jefe de gabinete de la Presidencia de la República; Ministro Luiz Dulci, de la Secretaría General de la Presidencia; y Rolf Hachbart, presidente del Incra.
Traducción: Daniel Barrantes - barrantes . daniel @ g m a i l. c o m
Lou Dobbs, Looking at Public Office, Says He's in Favor of Policy He Used to Spin as "Shamnesty for Illegals"
By Joshua Holland
AlterNet
First, under pressure from above, Lou Dobbs gave up on the birther conspiracy theories.
Then he said that perhaps he'd been wrong to assert that illegal immigrants were spreading leprosy far and wide across the U.S. (or at least he claims to have said he'd been wrong).
And now, in the ultimate betrayal of the faux-populist shtick he's been riding all these years, Dobbs told Telemundo (in an interview caught by the Wall Street Journal) that he now favors the very legalization process for unauthorized immigrants that he's long derided as a brain-dead "amnesty" policy pushed by pernicious liberal elites in order to keep down the wages of good, hardworking Americans.
If you've followed Dobbs' career at all, you'll understand that this is no standard-issue flip-flop:
Perhaps reports in The Onion are accurate, and Lou Dobbs really is an undocumented Mexican immigrant named Luis Miguel Salvador Aguila Dominguez who's been passing as an American citizen since 1961.
The only other explanation for Dobbs' eye-opening reversal on comprehensive immigration reform is that the "fiercely independent" talk-show host is one of the greatest hypocrites the universe has ever known. Dobbs is reportedly eyeing a senate run in New Jersey. And here's a fun fact: in the 2000 census, Jersey was one of just six states with a foreign-born population of more than a million! And according to America's Voice, it was one of the three states in which Latinos represented the highest share of new voters since 2000.
But I'm sure Dobbs' sudden embrace of what he's long derided as "shamnesty" is heart-felt, and a result of sober introspection on the issue rather than some crass political calculation.
One has to pause for a moment and consider how Dobbs' most loyal fans must be taking this news (in the unlikely event they're fans of Telemundo). He's always sold himself as a fearless, plain-spoken everyman whose lack of mushy-headed political correctness drove him to call it as he sees it, never mind the repercussions. And this ostensibly put him a world apart from those craven political elites who would sell out the white working-class in a heartbeat for a few dusky "new voters."
That straight-talking right-populism has always been his appeal, and Dobbs' most ardent supporters lapped it up. What a sad joke it is -- sold out by their most passionate and visible champion. And how insulting it is to those fans that Dobbs even thinks he can hold onto their devotion and also try to soften his image with Latinos by going jiggly on the very issue on which his' hard-line stance has long defined him.
He won't be able to do it. Dobbs' problem is one shared by anyone who goes too far with the anti-immigration rhetoric and then seeks public office -- it reliably pleases the base and loses general elections. Dobbs' rants averaged 650,000 viewers out of a nation of more than 300 million; to grab a Senate seat he needs over half of New Jersey's 3.6 million voters.
Now let me offer an easy prediction. Dobbs has always lied, quite blatantly, about the legalization provisions in the comprehensive immigration reform bills Congress considered during the Bush years. If he's called on this flip-flop, he'll continue to do so. He'll say that he's for legalization, "with conditions," and spin it as if they weren't the exact same conditions in the Senate bill which prompted Lou to shake his abnormally large head and marvel: "This is no longer amnesty, but shamnesty."
As I've written before, the 2007 bill that Dobbs devoted so many hours condemning as a free ride for "illegals" was anything but -- the whole narrative was a Big Lie. While an amnesty connotes simply making people legal -- the bill Ronald Reagan signed required just a criminal background check and a very small paperwork fee -- the Senate proposal would have required undocumented immigrants to prove they'd been working and paying taxes in the country for an extended time, then fork over $9,000 in fines and application fees (for a family of four), and that would only have gotten them to the back of the line, with a four-year "Z" visa. Then, after those four years were up, the head of the household would have been required to return to his or her native country and file an additional application -- paying $4,000 more in penalties and application fees. Then, if the adults were to pass a health screening, an English proficiency test and another test of American civics, the family could become legal. But only after the backlog of existing applicants was cleared -- no "cutting in line."
The Lou Dobbs of this world knew all his at the time, and they also understood that people favor this approach as long as they know something about the various approaches to immigration control. That was the key finding in an analysis of a whole bunch of public opinion data by political scientist Ruy Teixeira during the 2006 immigration debate. "If you just ask, with no further specifications, whether we should make it easier for illegal immigrants to become legal workers," Teixeira wrote, "you get a negative response … And you get an even more negative response on whether we should make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens. But that initial reaction turns around if it sounds like helping illegal immigrants to get legal worker status or to become citizens isn't a free lunch for those who broke the law."
Teixeira concluded:
Public opinion's been relatively steady for years. Americans don't like "amnesty," but when pollsters explain that immigrants would be required to jump through some hoops to become legal -- paying fines and back taxes, learning English and American history and getting in the "back of the line" behind those already working the legal process -- large majorities say they favor the approach.
And while Dobbs prides himself on being the voice of the middle -- of independents and pragmatic moderates -- popular support for earned legalization, with those hoops, cuts across ideological and party lines. That was clear from a poll of Republican voters conducted this summer. When asked if they support Congress passing “comprehensive immigration reform” without hearing details about the plan, 63 percent of GOP supporters said yes, and when given the details behind reform -- asked whether they'd support a law that would “Secure the border, crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, and require illegal immigrants to register for legal immigration status, pay back taxes, and learn English in order to be eligible for U.S. citizenship” -- almost nine in ten were on board.
Obviously, what they support is not in any way an "amnesty" policy -- Americans don't favor an easy ride. So Lou Dobbs and his fellow travelers just spun it and spun it until thousands of furious constituents flooded their representatives' offices' with complaints about what they thought the reform legislation contained. And not only did Dobbs call the proposals "amnesty bills," he also had the nerve to accuse his opponents of dishonesty when they tried to correct the record.
Now, as he considers public office, he'll counter-spin, claiming that he's always championed a pragmatic approach to undocumented immigrants based on a tough-love process of earned legalization. But don't be fooled -- when it comes to "shamnesty for illegals," Lou Dobbs was against it before he was for it.
AlterNet
First, under pressure from above, Lou Dobbs gave up on the birther conspiracy theories.
Then he said that perhaps he'd been wrong to assert that illegal immigrants were spreading leprosy far and wide across the U.S. (or at least he claims to have said he'd been wrong).
And now, in the ultimate betrayal of the faux-populist shtick he's been riding all these years, Dobbs told Telemundo (in an interview caught by the Wall Street Journal) that he now favors the very legalization process for unauthorized immigrants that he's long derided as a brain-dead "amnesty" policy pushed by pernicious liberal elites in order to keep down the wages of good, hardworking Americans.
If you've followed Dobbs' career at all, you'll understand that this is no standard-issue flip-flop:
Former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, pondering a future in politics, is trying to wipe away his image as an enemy of Latino immigrants by positioning himself as a champion of that fast-growing ethnic bloc.
In a little-noticed interview Friday, Mr. Dobbs told Spanish-language network Telemundo he now supports a plan to legalize millions of undocumented workers, a stance he long lambasted as an unfair "amnesty."
[...]
Mr. Dobbs twice mentioned a possible legalization plan for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., saying at one point that "we need the ability to legalize illegal immigrants under certain conditions."
Perhaps reports in The Onion are accurate, and Lou Dobbs really is an undocumented Mexican immigrant named Luis Miguel Salvador Aguila Dominguez who's been passing as an American citizen since 1961.
The only other explanation for Dobbs' eye-opening reversal on comprehensive immigration reform is that the "fiercely independent" talk-show host is one of the greatest hypocrites the universe has ever known. Dobbs is reportedly eyeing a senate run in New Jersey. And here's a fun fact: in the 2000 census, Jersey was one of just six states with a foreign-born population of more than a million! And according to America's Voice, it was one of the three states in which Latinos represented the highest share of new voters since 2000.
But I'm sure Dobbs' sudden embrace of what he's long derided as "shamnesty" is heart-felt, and a result of sober introspection on the issue rather than some crass political calculation.
One has to pause for a moment and consider how Dobbs' most loyal fans must be taking this news (in the unlikely event they're fans of Telemundo). He's always sold himself as a fearless, plain-spoken everyman whose lack of mushy-headed political correctness drove him to call it as he sees it, never mind the repercussions. And this ostensibly put him a world apart from those craven political elites who would sell out the white working-class in a heartbeat for a few dusky "new voters."
That straight-talking right-populism has always been his appeal, and Dobbs' most ardent supporters lapped it up. What a sad joke it is -- sold out by their most passionate and visible champion. And how insulting it is to those fans that Dobbs even thinks he can hold onto their devotion and also try to soften his image with Latinos by going jiggly on the very issue on which his' hard-line stance has long defined him.
He won't be able to do it. Dobbs' problem is one shared by anyone who goes too far with the anti-immigration rhetoric and then seeks public office -- it reliably pleases the base and loses general elections. Dobbs' rants averaged 650,000 viewers out of a nation of more than 300 million; to grab a Senate seat he needs over half of New Jersey's 3.6 million voters.
Now let me offer an easy prediction. Dobbs has always lied, quite blatantly, about the legalization provisions in the comprehensive immigration reform bills Congress considered during the Bush years. If he's called on this flip-flop, he'll continue to do so. He'll say that he's for legalization, "with conditions," and spin it as if they weren't the exact same conditions in the Senate bill which prompted Lou to shake his abnormally large head and marvel: "This is no longer amnesty, but shamnesty."
As I've written before, the 2007 bill that Dobbs devoted so many hours condemning as a free ride for "illegals" was anything but -- the whole narrative was a Big Lie. While an amnesty connotes simply making people legal -- the bill Ronald Reagan signed required just a criminal background check and a very small paperwork fee -- the Senate proposal would have required undocumented immigrants to prove they'd been working and paying taxes in the country for an extended time, then fork over $9,000 in fines and application fees (for a family of four), and that would only have gotten them to the back of the line, with a four-year "Z" visa. Then, after those four years were up, the head of the household would have been required to return to his or her native country and file an additional application -- paying $4,000 more in penalties and application fees. Then, if the adults were to pass a health screening, an English proficiency test and another test of American civics, the family could become legal. But only after the backlog of existing applicants was cleared -- no "cutting in line."
The Lou Dobbs of this world knew all his at the time, and they also understood that people favor this approach as long as they know something about the various approaches to immigration control. That was the key finding in an analysis of a whole bunch of public opinion data by political scientist Ruy Teixeira during the 2006 immigration debate. "If you just ask, with no further specifications, whether we should make it easier for illegal immigrants to become legal workers," Teixeira wrote, "you get a negative response … And you get an even more negative response on whether we should make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens. But that initial reaction turns around if it sounds like helping illegal immigrants to get legal worker status or to become citizens isn't a free lunch for those who broke the law."
Teixeira concluded:
… the public favors a tough, but not punitive, approach to the problem of containing illegal immigration and is willing to consider fairly generous approaches to the illegal immigrants already here, provided they feel expectations for these immigrants are high and that they will play by the rules.
Public opinion's been relatively steady for years. Americans don't like "amnesty," but when pollsters explain that immigrants would be required to jump through some hoops to become legal -- paying fines and back taxes, learning English and American history and getting in the "back of the line" behind those already working the legal process -- large majorities say they favor the approach.
And while Dobbs prides himself on being the voice of the middle -- of independents and pragmatic moderates -- popular support for earned legalization, with those hoops, cuts across ideological and party lines. That was clear from a poll of Republican voters conducted this summer. When asked if they support Congress passing “comprehensive immigration reform” without hearing details about the plan, 63 percent of GOP supporters said yes, and when given the details behind reform -- asked whether they'd support a law that would “Secure the border, crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, and require illegal immigrants to register for legal immigration status, pay back taxes, and learn English in order to be eligible for U.S. citizenship” -- almost nine in ten were on board.
Obviously, what they support is not in any way an "amnesty" policy -- Americans don't favor an easy ride. So Lou Dobbs and his fellow travelers just spun it and spun it until thousands of furious constituents flooded their representatives' offices' with complaints about what they thought the reform legislation contained. And not only did Dobbs call the proposals "amnesty bills," he also had the nerve to accuse his opponents of dishonesty when they tried to correct the record.
Now, as he considers public office, he'll counter-spin, claiming that he's always championed a pragmatic approach to undocumented immigrants based on a tough-love process of earned legalization. But don't be fooled -- when it comes to "shamnesty for illegals," Lou Dobbs was against it before he was for it.
Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.
Puerto Rico y México, La Tercera Frontera
César J. Pérez Lizasuain
Rebelión
Recientemente el gobernador de Puerto Rico, el conservador Luis Fortuño, aseguraba que la imparable ola criminal en la isla, consecuencia del tráfico ilegal de drogas, se debía a que el país constituye la tercera frontera, después de México, en cuanto al flujo de sustancias ilegales y que sirve como puente para llegar a los Estados Unidos. Aseguraba que dada las fuertes restricciones y medidas de seguridad en la frontera México-Estados Unidos, Puerto Rico se convertía en esa tercera frontera. Según el gobernador aproximadamente un 30% del tráfico total de sustancias ilegales que penetran a los Estados Unidos transitan por las fronteras puertorriqueñas. No es mi intención juzgar aquí ese dato o estadística que parece ser muy exagerada, habiendo reportes del Departamento de Justicia Federal de Estados Unidos, del año 2007, que ubican la cantidad en 1%. Al parecer, al igual que en México, el trasiego de drogas y la fuerte ola criminal constituyen la nueva justificación del gobierno de turno para legitimar y justificar la sociedad de control, la sumisión a un estado de excepción que ha trastocado todo el sistema jurídico del país y la imposición de políticas económicas neoliberales. Esta es la verdadera tercera frontera que propone la burguesía criolla en el país: la subsunción real de la vida toda bajo el capital criollo.
México, la segunda frontera, actualmente vive una gran crisis criminal nunca antes vista en su historia. Los conflictos entre bandas asociadas al narcotráfico, la policía y el ejército federal dan la fatal imagen de una guerra civil que se ha extendido mucho más allá de la ciudad capital del D.F. y que le ha servido al gobierno de Felipe Calderón para justificar su guerra (ius ad bellum) y mantener muy activo al ejército federal entre la misma población de ciudadanos mexicanos. Ésta segunda frontera empezó a construirse en 1994 con la aprobación del tratado de libre comercio NAFTA. Desde entonces México vive una tendente caída en su economía, su sistema político (si es que era posible que cayera aún más) y en su sistema jurídico plagado de toda una red corruptiva. ¿Se nos parece este cuento a alguna realidad cercana a nosotros? Desde el 1994 los factores y elementos económicos apuntan a un estancamiento de la economía mexicana, a altas tasas de desempleo, al congelamiento de sueldos y al aumento en el costo de vida, a la fuerte devaluación del peso, al estar expuesto a un desventajoso e injusto comercio con las subsidiadas empresas agrícolas norteamericanas y a un tratado de libre comercio con una doble y selectiva permeabilidad: en la cual los norteamericanos tienen libre acceso al territorio y al mercado mexicano y los ciudadanos mexicanos se encuentran, en su transitar hacia el norte, con un impermeable muro cuya frontera se extiende más allá del Río Bravo persiguiendo a los inmigrantes mexicanos en el territorio norteamericano. Las migraciones globales van creando nuevos espacios-fronteras. Ésta es la segunda frontera: México.
Paralelamente, el 1 de enero de 1994, el mismo día en que entraba en vigor el NAFTA, se creaba una tercera frontera en el sur de México: el levantamiento Zapatista en Chiapas. De esta manera, tras una fuerte ofensiva mediática, se construye un importante referente en las modernas resistencias al neoliberalismo, no sólo en México, sino en todo el globo. Es probable que el Zapatismo haya sido el primero en un ciclo, o al menos que haya sido el más visible, de una oleada de gritos insurgentes para rechazar al neoliberalismo que culminara en 1999 con las manifestaciones en Seattle. De este modo, fue el precursor de los nuevos movimientos sociales y anti-sistémicos. El Zapatismo – sugiere John Holloway – es la insurgencia del hacer, del poder-hacer que ha suplantado las relaciones de poder por el reconocimiento común de la dignidad de las gentes. El Zapatismo suplantó, luego de la caída de la Unión Soviética, el papel hegemónico, y el modus operandi, de los movimientos anti-sistémicos tradicionales: el partido de los obreros, el sindicato y la toma del Estado. “La caída de la Unión Soviética – indica Holloway – no sólo significó la desilusión de millones de personas: también implicó la liberación del pensamiento revolucionario, la liberación de la identificación entre revolución y conquista del poder”. La insurgencia en 1994 del Zapatismo y, 12 años más tarde, la insurgencia de los movimientos sociales de Oaxaca en 2006, organizada bajo la Asamblea Popular de los Pueblos de Oaxaca (APPO), han contribuido, en ese país, a construir una tercera frontera, pero en este caso, constituyente de lo nuevo.
Siendo nuestro país, Puerto Rico, uno latinoamericano, no estamos exentos de los procesos que se construyen en Nuestra América. La Comuna de Vieques (1999-2000) también representó un importante referente, un nuevo paradigma que quebró con nuestras formas tradicionales de la acción colectiva y del hacer política. Vieques suplantó nuestra maniquea forma de concebir la política y, por primera vez, se constituyó en nuestro territorio la multitud puertorriqueña compuesta por una diversa gama de actores y sujetos que se encargaron de iniciar la construcción hacia una tercera frontera: la frontera de lo común. El éxodo que se iniciara en Vieques hacia la tercera frontera ha quedado inconclusa, siendo estos difíciles días que vivimos potenciadores de retomar toda esa subjetividad producida en Vieques y de incluso superarla. La resistencia en Puerto Rico existe, no siempre en grandes y multitudinarias manifestaciones, pero también fragmentadas en pequeñas reivindicaciones y actos de autodeterminación entre la gente común. ¿Será posible la creación de redes que interconecten las diarias y comunes luchas, reivindicaciones y movimientos en pos de refundar el país? ¿Podremos re-articular el llamado a una asamblea constitucional de status por una Asamblea Constituyente, convocada desde nosotros mismos, para refundar, más allá del status político, nuevos modos de convivencia y de relaciones sociales en nuestro país? Quare…
La frontera, en primera instancia, usualmente se le conoce como el límite o final del territorio estatal. De esta forma podría significar el fin, lo acabado; pero también supone el acceso a otro territorio, es decir, a otro lugar. La ocupación de las calles, edificios públicos, de los centros comerciales y también de las distintas expresiones culturales/artísticas (culture jamming) en las recientes manifestaciones en Puerto Rico van produciendo una nueva definición de la territorialidad; ligada a la autodeterminación, autonomía y soberanía del mismo modo que lo han hecho los Zapatistas, los Sem Terra de Brasil, los Piqueteros en la Argentina y los movimientos indígenas en Bolivia. La construcción de una tercera frontera de lo común supone el fin de lo que existe y el éxodo constituyente a ese otro lugar. Por lo tanto, la crítica que podamos realizar al desarrollo capitalista y a la construcción de otro mundo va surgiendo “…desde el punto de vista del más allá del sistema – señala André Gorz –, de la posible superación que madura en los hechos…”. Sin embargo, contrario a lo que pensaba Gorz, la crítica y la superación de situación actual se origina desde adentro, desde las mismas fuerzas productivas que componen el nuevo proletariado social.
Relata el Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos lo siguiente: “Cuentan que los más primeros dioses, los que nacieron el mundo, tenían muy mala memoria y rápido se olvidaban de lo que hacían o decían […] Este mal lo heredaron a todos los gobernantes que en el mundo son y han sido […] Así que, como antídoto para su amnesia, los más primeros dioses, los que nacieron el mundo, hicieron una copia de todo lo que habían hecho y de todo lo que sabían. Esa copia la escondieron bajo el suelo de modo que no se confundiera con lo que había sobre la superficie. Así que debajo del suelo del mundo hay otro mundo idéntico al de acá arriba, con una historia paralela a la de la superficie. El mundo primero está bajo la tierra”. [1] Es probable que otro mundo no sea ya sólo posible, sino que ya exista y estemos caminando sobre él. La cuestión está sobre la mesa: la tercera frontera que propone la burguesía criolla vs. la tercera frontera (y más allá) del éxodo constituyente de lo común.
[1] Sub-comandante Marcos, “Un periscopio invertido (o la memoria, una llave enterrada)”, www.ezln.org
Rebelión
Recientemente el gobernador de Puerto Rico, el conservador Luis Fortuño, aseguraba que la imparable ola criminal en la isla, consecuencia del tráfico ilegal de drogas, se debía a que el país constituye la tercera frontera, después de México, en cuanto al flujo de sustancias ilegales y que sirve como puente para llegar a los Estados Unidos. Aseguraba que dada las fuertes restricciones y medidas de seguridad en la frontera México-Estados Unidos, Puerto Rico se convertía en esa tercera frontera. Según el gobernador aproximadamente un 30% del tráfico total de sustancias ilegales que penetran a los Estados Unidos transitan por las fronteras puertorriqueñas. No es mi intención juzgar aquí ese dato o estadística que parece ser muy exagerada, habiendo reportes del Departamento de Justicia Federal de Estados Unidos, del año 2007, que ubican la cantidad en 1%. Al parecer, al igual que en México, el trasiego de drogas y la fuerte ola criminal constituyen la nueva justificación del gobierno de turno para legitimar y justificar la sociedad de control, la sumisión a un estado de excepción que ha trastocado todo el sistema jurídico del país y la imposición de políticas económicas neoliberales. Esta es la verdadera tercera frontera que propone la burguesía criolla en el país: la subsunción real de la vida toda bajo el capital criollo.
México, la segunda frontera, actualmente vive una gran crisis criminal nunca antes vista en su historia. Los conflictos entre bandas asociadas al narcotráfico, la policía y el ejército federal dan la fatal imagen de una guerra civil que se ha extendido mucho más allá de la ciudad capital del D.F. y que le ha servido al gobierno de Felipe Calderón para justificar su guerra (ius ad bellum) y mantener muy activo al ejército federal entre la misma población de ciudadanos mexicanos. Ésta segunda frontera empezó a construirse en 1994 con la aprobación del tratado de libre comercio NAFTA. Desde entonces México vive una tendente caída en su economía, su sistema político (si es que era posible que cayera aún más) y en su sistema jurídico plagado de toda una red corruptiva. ¿Se nos parece este cuento a alguna realidad cercana a nosotros? Desde el 1994 los factores y elementos económicos apuntan a un estancamiento de la economía mexicana, a altas tasas de desempleo, al congelamiento de sueldos y al aumento en el costo de vida, a la fuerte devaluación del peso, al estar expuesto a un desventajoso e injusto comercio con las subsidiadas empresas agrícolas norteamericanas y a un tratado de libre comercio con una doble y selectiva permeabilidad: en la cual los norteamericanos tienen libre acceso al territorio y al mercado mexicano y los ciudadanos mexicanos se encuentran, en su transitar hacia el norte, con un impermeable muro cuya frontera se extiende más allá del Río Bravo persiguiendo a los inmigrantes mexicanos en el territorio norteamericano. Las migraciones globales van creando nuevos espacios-fronteras. Ésta es la segunda frontera: México.
Paralelamente, el 1 de enero de 1994, el mismo día en que entraba en vigor el NAFTA, se creaba una tercera frontera en el sur de México: el levantamiento Zapatista en Chiapas. De esta manera, tras una fuerte ofensiva mediática, se construye un importante referente en las modernas resistencias al neoliberalismo, no sólo en México, sino en todo el globo. Es probable que el Zapatismo haya sido el primero en un ciclo, o al menos que haya sido el más visible, de una oleada de gritos insurgentes para rechazar al neoliberalismo que culminara en 1999 con las manifestaciones en Seattle. De este modo, fue el precursor de los nuevos movimientos sociales y anti-sistémicos. El Zapatismo – sugiere John Holloway – es la insurgencia del hacer, del poder-hacer que ha suplantado las relaciones de poder por el reconocimiento común de la dignidad de las gentes. El Zapatismo suplantó, luego de la caída de la Unión Soviética, el papel hegemónico, y el modus operandi, de los movimientos anti-sistémicos tradicionales: el partido de los obreros, el sindicato y la toma del Estado. “La caída de la Unión Soviética – indica Holloway – no sólo significó la desilusión de millones de personas: también implicó la liberación del pensamiento revolucionario, la liberación de la identificación entre revolución y conquista del poder”. La insurgencia en 1994 del Zapatismo y, 12 años más tarde, la insurgencia de los movimientos sociales de Oaxaca en 2006, organizada bajo la Asamblea Popular de los Pueblos de Oaxaca (APPO), han contribuido, en ese país, a construir una tercera frontera, pero en este caso, constituyente de lo nuevo.
Siendo nuestro país, Puerto Rico, uno latinoamericano, no estamos exentos de los procesos que se construyen en Nuestra América. La Comuna de Vieques (1999-2000) también representó un importante referente, un nuevo paradigma que quebró con nuestras formas tradicionales de la acción colectiva y del hacer política. Vieques suplantó nuestra maniquea forma de concebir la política y, por primera vez, se constituyó en nuestro territorio la multitud puertorriqueña compuesta por una diversa gama de actores y sujetos que se encargaron de iniciar la construcción hacia una tercera frontera: la frontera de lo común. El éxodo que se iniciara en Vieques hacia la tercera frontera ha quedado inconclusa, siendo estos difíciles días que vivimos potenciadores de retomar toda esa subjetividad producida en Vieques y de incluso superarla. La resistencia en Puerto Rico existe, no siempre en grandes y multitudinarias manifestaciones, pero también fragmentadas en pequeñas reivindicaciones y actos de autodeterminación entre la gente común. ¿Será posible la creación de redes que interconecten las diarias y comunes luchas, reivindicaciones y movimientos en pos de refundar el país? ¿Podremos re-articular el llamado a una asamblea constitucional de status por una Asamblea Constituyente, convocada desde nosotros mismos, para refundar, más allá del status político, nuevos modos de convivencia y de relaciones sociales en nuestro país? Quare…
La frontera, en primera instancia, usualmente se le conoce como el límite o final del territorio estatal. De esta forma podría significar el fin, lo acabado; pero también supone el acceso a otro territorio, es decir, a otro lugar. La ocupación de las calles, edificios públicos, de los centros comerciales y también de las distintas expresiones culturales/artísticas (culture jamming) en las recientes manifestaciones en Puerto Rico van produciendo una nueva definición de la territorialidad; ligada a la autodeterminación, autonomía y soberanía del mismo modo que lo han hecho los Zapatistas, los Sem Terra de Brasil, los Piqueteros en la Argentina y los movimientos indígenas en Bolivia. La construcción de una tercera frontera de lo común supone el fin de lo que existe y el éxodo constituyente a ese otro lugar. Por lo tanto, la crítica que podamos realizar al desarrollo capitalista y a la construcción de otro mundo va surgiendo “…desde el punto de vista del más allá del sistema – señala André Gorz –, de la posible superación que madura en los hechos…”. Sin embargo, contrario a lo que pensaba Gorz, la crítica y la superación de situación actual se origina desde adentro, desde las mismas fuerzas productivas que componen el nuevo proletariado social.
Relata el Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos lo siguiente: “Cuentan que los más primeros dioses, los que nacieron el mundo, tenían muy mala memoria y rápido se olvidaban de lo que hacían o decían […] Este mal lo heredaron a todos los gobernantes que en el mundo son y han sido […] Así que, como antídoto para su amnesia, los más primeros dioses, los que nacieron el mundo, hicieron una copia de todo lo que habían hecho y de todo lo que sabían. Esa copia la escondieron bajo el suelo de modo que no se confundiera con lo que había sobre la superficie. Así que debajo del suelo del mundo hay otro mundo idéntico al de acá arriba, con una historia paralela a la de la superficie. El mundo primero está bajo la tierra”. [1] Es probable que otro mundo no sea ya sólo posible, sino que ya exista y estemos caminando sobre él. La cuestión está sobre la mesa: la tercera frontera que propone la burguesía criolla vs. la tercera frontera (y más allá) del éxodo constituyente de lo común.
* César J. Pérez Lizasuain es egresado de la Facultad de Derecho Eugenio María de Hostos en Mayagüez, Puerto Rico; y del Instituto Internacional de Sociología Jurídica en Oñati, País Vasco.
[1] Sub-comandante Marcos, “Un periscopio invertido (o la memoria, una llave enterrada)”, www.ezln.org
Post-War Internment Hell for Tamils
Impunity in Sri Lanka
By RON RIDENOUR
CounterPunch
"The impunity with which the Sri Lankan government is able to commit these crimes [referring to 2009 war atrocities, including brutal internment of 300,000 Tamils] actually unveils the deeply ingrained racist prejudice that is precisely what led to the marginalization and alienation of the Tamils of Sri Lanka in the first place. That racism has a long history – of social ostracism, economic blockades, pogroms and torture. The nature of the decades-long civil war, which started as a peaceful protest, has its roots in this,” wrote author Arundhati Roy. (47)
“`This is something similar to what occurred in Gaza or worse, because neither observers nor journalists had access to the war zone, ´ stated a UN source who asked for anonymity. The army acknowledges that 6,200 soldiers and 22,000 guerrillas died in the last three years of the longest civil war in Asia. The UN affirms that between 80,000 and 100,000 persons died in the conflict,” wrote Elisa Reche of Prensa Marea Socialista. (48)“During the war,” Reche continued, “the army had 200,000 troops. Now with peace, 100,000 are being incorporated…A strange peace it is that requires more troops than in actual combat.”
More troops are needed because systematic ethnic cleansing is now the order of the day for the Tamil people. Their Homeland will be obliterated by introducing more Sinhalese settlers. This is what M.K. Bhadrakumar, an ambassador for India who served in Sri Lanka and other countries, wrote about the day after Sri Lanka declared victory.“See, they have already solved the Tamil problem in the eastern provinces…The Tamils are no more the majority community in these provinces. Similarly, from tomorrow, they will commence a concerted, steady colonization program of the Northern provinces where Prabhakaran reigned supreme for two decades. They will ensure incrementally that the northern regions no more remain as Tamil provinces…Give them a decade at the most. The Tamil problem will become a relic of the bloody history of the Indian sub-continent.” (49)
Ethnic cleansing goes hand-in-hand with the policy of imprisoning and mistreating hundreds of thousands of Tamils. For more than a year before its military victory, the Sri Lanka government enticed Tamils, wishing to flee the war zone, into so-called ‘welfare’ centers or villages. Tens of thousands became ‘Internally Displaced Persons’ (IDP), and are thus subject to United Nations regulations concerning decent living conditions, food and water, freedom of movement and the right to leave and rejoin families. All these rights and necessities have been denied them.
“Really if I starve the Tamils out, the Sinhala people will be happy,” President J.R. told the Daily Telegraph, (UK) on July 11, 1983.A quarter-century later, the current president is striving to fulfill his predecessor’s genocidal intentions. Mahinda Rajapakse has claimed that no IDP is held against his/her will and all are treated well. However, the few United Nations visitors—there are no official investigators into abuses since the Human Rights Council majority blocked such a possibility—who come to observe have quite another picture.When UN’s political chief, Lynn Pascoe, visited camps in September he said people were not free or well treated…”this kind of closed regime goes directly against the principles under which we work in assisting IDPs all around the world.” (50)Rajapakse told Pascoe another tale about “free movement”. He said that detention was necessary because the army was clearing the area for mines, and it was still looking for guerrillas hiding among civilians. However, as the UN resident coordinator reported, and Amnesty quoted (50): “Under international humanitarian law, captured combatants…may be held pending the cessation of hostilities. Once active hostilities have ceased, prisoners of war must be released `without delay´.”At of July, there were 9,400 individuals with purported links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) held separately from the rest of the population. They have not been released nearly half-a-year after internment.Amnesty also reported that the camps are clearly militarized. The 19-member Presidential Task Force established in mid-May “to plan and coordinate resettlement, rehabilitation and development of the Northern Province” is headed Major General Chandrasiri, who was also appointed governor of the province. All inmates are enclosed by barbed-wire fences, guarded and brutalized by well-armed soldiers. “Arrests have been reported from the camps and Sri Lankan human rights defenders have alleged that enforced disappearances have also occurred,” wrote Amnesty.“Sri Lanka’s history of large-scale enforced disappearances dating back to the 1980s, and the lack of independent monitoring…raises grave concerns that enforced disappearances and other violations of human rights may be occurring…Previous research [shows] that [persons] suspected by the government of being members or supporters of LTTE are at grave risk of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearance, and torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.”
“Although the government calls these facilities `welfare villages´ , they are effectively detention camps…”. Amnesty also reported that not only are people not free to move as they wish, women and girls are raped by soldiers, and people live in sewage, disease-infested conditions, with little food and water and medical attention. They die in droves because of these imposed conditions.Women and children are especially mistreated, which was the subject that James Elder, spokesperson for UNICEF, complained about to Sri Lankan authorities, who then expelled him from the country. Elder described the “unimaginable suffering” of children caught in the fighting, including babies he had seen with shrapnel wounds. (51)United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had refrained from criticizing Sri Lanka’s government, leveling his critique only at LTTE for carrying out atrocities. But less than a week after the end of the war, he told CNN after briefly visiting Manik Farm, the most presentable of Sri Lanka’s squalid and dangerous internment camps for Tamils civilians “I have traveled around the world and visited similar places, but this is by far the most appalling scenes I have seen…I sympathize fully with all of the displaced persons.” The UN Chief has also promised international action regarding the heavy shelling of civilian populations during the recent fighting.(52)
Out of the 280,000 IDPs afterthe end of the war (there were nearly one-half million over a year’s period), only between 15,000 and 40,000 had been released by November 1. Half of them, perhaps, have been ransomed. The “Sunday Times” wrote about “human trafficking at the internment camps”. Relatives were made to pay camp authorities in order to secure their release. (53)
Future
A week after the end of the war, the LTTE communicated that several of its leaders were killed, but the organization would continue struggling for an independent Tamil Eelam in peaceful ways. July 22, the LTTE announced that its chief of international relations, Selvarsa Pathmanathan—known as KP—was made the new leader, and that a new strategy for a “free Tamil Eelam” would occur. (54). On August 8, The Independent (UK) wrote that Pathmanathan was under arrest by Sri Lanka and held incommunicado. (55)
Our task must be to press for the lives and rights of the Tamil people. Australia’s Democratic Socialist Perspective and Socialist Alliance said it well in its October 2009 international situation report:
It’s a matter of basic ethics. Life shall not be abused or destroyed by our conscious hand. A moral person, organization, political party, government acts in daily life and in the struggle for justice with that ethic in mind.
Ron Ridenour has written,"Cuba at the Crossroads"", "Backfire: The CIA's Biggest Burn", Yankee Sandinistas, and many articles about Cuba.
This is the last of a five part series.
Notes:
47. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/01/sri-lanka-india-tamil-tigers
48. http://www.aporrea.org/imprime/a79295.html
49. http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55839.shtml
50. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a_SMjax2xKq8
51. www.csmonitor.com/2009/0921/p06s06-wosc.htm
52. http://malaysiasms.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/sri-lanka%E2%80%99s-camps-%E2%80%98most-appalling%E2%80%99-in-the-world-%E2%80%93-ban-ki-moon/
53. “Doing the Right Thing in Sri Lanka”, Rohini Hensman, 1/10, www.dissidentvoice.org
54. http://www.tamilnation.org/ltte/international_relations/090722kp_leader.htm
55. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/new-tamil-tiger-overseas-head-captured-1769210.html
8. http://www.dsp.org.au/node/229
By RON RIDENOUR
CounterPunch
"The impunity with which the Sri Lankan government is able to commit these crimes [referring to 2009 war atrocities, including brutal internment of 300,000 Tamils] actually unveils the deeply ingrained racist prejudice that is precisely what led to the marginalization and alienation of the Tamils of Sri Lanka in the first place. That racism has a long history – of social ostracism, economic blockades, pogroms and torture. The nature of the decades-long civil war, which started as a peaceful protest, has its roots in this,” wrote author Arundhati Roy. (47)
“`This is something similar to what occurred in Gaza or worse, because neither observers nor journalists had access to the war zone, ´ stated a UN source who asked for anonymity. The army acknowledges that 6,200 soldiers and 22,000 guerrillas died in the last three years of the longest civil war in Asia. The UN affirms that between 80,000 and 100,000 persons died in the conflict,” wrote Elisa Reche of Prensa Marea Socialista. (48)“During the war,” Reche continued, “the army had 200,000 troops. Now with peace, 100,000 are being incorporated…A strange peace it is that requires more troops than in actual combat.”
More troops are needed because systematic ethnic cleansing is now the order of the day for the Tamil people. Their Homeland will be obliterated by introducing more Sinhalese settlers. This is what M.K. Bhadrakumar, an ambassador for India who served in Sri Lanka and other countries, wrote about the day after Sri Lanka declared victory.“See, they have already solved the Tamil problem in the eastern provinces…The Tamils are no more the majority community in these provinces. Similarly, from tomorrow, they will commence a concerted, steady colonization program of the Northern provinces where Prabhakaran reigned supreme for two decades. They will ensure incrementally that the northern regions no more remain as Tamil provinces…Give them a decade at the most. The Tamil problem will become a relic of the bloody history of the Indian sub-continent.” (49)
Ethnic cleansing goes hand-in-hand with the policy of imprisoning and mistreating hundreds of thousands of Tamils. For more than a year before its military victory, the Sri Lanka government enticed Tamils, wishing to flee the war zone, into so-called ‘welfare’ centers or villages. Tens of thousands became ‘Internally Displaced Persons’ (IDP), and are thus subject to United Nations regulations concerning decent living conditions, food and water, freedom of movement and the right to leave and rejoin families. All these rights and necessities have been denied them.
“Really if I starve the Tamils out, the Sinhala people will be happy,” President J.R. told the Daily Telegraph, (UK) on July 11, 1983.A quarter-century later, the current president is striving to fulfill his predecessor’s genocidal intentions. Mahinda Rajapakse has claimed that no IDP is held against his/her will and all are treated well. However, the few United Nations visitors—there are no official investigators into abuses since the Human Rights Council majority blocked such a possibility—who come to observe have quite another picture.When UN’s political chief, Lynn Pascoe, visited camps in September he said people were not free or well treated…”this kind of closed regime goes directly against the principles under which we work in assisting IDPs all around the world.” (50)Rajapakse told Pascoe another tale about “free movement”. He said that detention was necessary because the army was clearing the area for mines, and it was still looking for guerrillas hiding among civilians. However, as the UN resident coordinator reported, and Amnesty quoted (50): “Under international humanitarian law, captured combatants…may be held pending the cessation of hostilities. Once active hostilities have ceased, prisoners of war must be released `without delay´.”At of July, there were 9,400 individuals with purported links to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) held separately from the rest of the population. They have not been released nearly half-a-year after internment.Amnesty also reported that the camps are clearly militarized. The 19-member Presidential Task Force established in mid-May “to plan and coordinate resettlement, rehabilitation and development of the Northern Province” is headed Major General Chandrasiri, who was also appointed governor of the province. All inmates are enclosed by barbed-wire fences, guarded and brutalized by well-armed soldiers. “Arrests have been reported from the camps and Sri Lankan human rights defenders have alleged that enforced disappearances have also occurred,” wrote Amnesty.“Sri Lanka’s history of large-scale enforced disappearances dating back to the 1980s, and the lack of independent monitoring…raises grave concerns that enforced disappearances and other violations of human rights may be occurring…Previous research [shows] that [persons] suspected by the government of being members or supporters of LTTE are at grave risk of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearance, and torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.”
“Although the government calls these facilities `welfare villages´ , they are effectively detention camps…”. Amnesty also reported that not only are people not free to move as they wish, women and girls are raped by soldiers, and people live in sewage, disease-infested conditions, with little food and water and medical attention. They die in droves because of these imposed conditions.Women and children are especially mistreated, which was the subject that James Elder, spokesperson for UNICEF, complained about to Sri Lankan authorities, who then expelled him from the country. Elder described the “unimaginable suffering” of children caught in the fighting, including babies he had seen with shrapnel wounds. (51)United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had refrained from criticizing Sri Lanka’s government, leveling his critique only at LTTE for carrying out atrocities. But less than a week after the end of the war, he told CNN after briefly visiting Manik Farm, the most presentable of Sri Lanka’s squalid and dangerous internment camps for Tamils civilians “I have traveled around the world and visited similar places, but this is by far the most appalling scenes I have seen…I sympathize fully with all of the displaced persons.” The UN Chief has also promised international action regarding the heavy shelling of civilian populations during the recent fighting.(52)
Out of the 280,000 IDPs afterthe end of the war (there were nearly one-half million over a year’s period), only between 15,000 and 40,000 had been released by November 1. Half of them, perhaps, have been ransomed. The “Sunday Times” wrote about “human trafficking at the internment camps”. Relatives were made to pay camp authorities in order to secure their release. (53)
Future
A week after the end of the war, the LTTE communicated that several of its leaders were killed, but the organization would continue struggling for an independent Tamil Eelam in peaceful ways. July 22, the LTTE announced that its chief of international relations, Selvarsa Pathmanathan—known as KP—was made the new leader, and that a new strategy for a “free Tamil Eelam” would occur. (54). On August 8, The Independent (UK) wrote that Pathmanathan was under arrest by Sri Lanka and held incommunicado. (55)
Our task must be to press for the lives and rights of the Tamil people. Australia’s Democratic Socialist Perspective and Socialist Alliance said it well in its October 2009 international situation report:
“Now the Tamil struggle has entered a new phase. The immediate campaign must focus on defence of basic human rights, release and resettlement of the Internally Displaced Persons currently held in SL government concentration camps, an end to murders, torture, rapes, and provision of basic housing, food and drinking water to the Tamil people under brutal occupation.” (8)
It’s a matter of basic ethics. Life shall not be abused or destroyed by our conscious hand. A moral person, organization, political party, government acts in daily life and in the struggle for justice with that ethic in mind.
Ron Ridenour has written,"Cuba at the Crossroads"", "Backfire: The CIA's Biggest Burn", Yankee Sandinistas, and many articles about Cuba.
This is the last of a five part series.
Notes:
47. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/01/sri-lanka-india-tamil-tigers
48. http://www.aporrea.org/imprime/a79295.html
49. http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55839.shtml
50. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a_SMjax2xKq8
51. www.csmonitor.com/2009/0921/p06s06-wosc.htm
52. http://malaysiasms.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/sri-lanka%E2%80%99s-camps-%E2%80%98most-appalling%E2%80%99-in-the-world-%E2%80%93-ban-ki-moon/
53. “Doing the Right Thing in Sri Lanka”, Rohini Hensman, 1/10, www.dissidentvoice.org
54. http://www.tamilnation.org/ltte/international_relations/090722kp_leader.htm
55. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/new-tamil-tiger-overseas-head-captured-1769210.html
8. http://www.dsp.org.au/node/229
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Armas
