Is Telesur dabbling in guerrilla docs?

People have been suggesting there's something fishy about the FARC-video announcing the death of their leader Manuel Marulanda and released on Sunday. (You can either see it in the post below or surf here.)

First of all there's the time when it was filmed. BBCmundo correspondent Hernando Salazar reckons the whole thing was taped much earlier. We know Marulanda died on March 26 (which the FARC confirmed) and Salazar suggests they were waiting to air the news on May 27, the FARC anniversary. However, the fact that Defence ministers Santos spilled the beans to Semana newsmagazine on May 25 forced them to come out with the news earlier.

Salazar also wondered about the 'sophisticated' production and post-production work on the video. Filmed with three cameras and later edited, it gives new meaning to words "guerrilla documentary".

Finally the backdrop is slightly odd. The waving palms make it the set look more like a beach location than some far-flung jungle hideout. Former guerrilla fighter Antonio Sanguino agreed, when shown the video. "This is not the jungle, it's not Yari or the Guaviare, it looks nothing like the last proof of life we saw of Ingrid Betancourt," he told the BBC. The place the Colombian French politician is being held looks a lot more inhospitable. See the video below.

This place however, looks more managed, almost urban. So where was the footage - featuring the relatively unkown commander Timochenco - shot?

Venezuela. Or more precisely a farm in Barinas, the native province of president Hugo Chávez. According to Nelson Bocarranda, a columnist for Universal, the whole thing was produced in Barinas, and what's more, with equipment belonging to Telesur, Venezuela's state-owned news channel that also aired the footage. The Bolivarian TV-channel has denied any involvement.

However, Bocarranda claims that Information Minister Andres Izarra, who resigned earlier this week, knew what was going and quit because he didn't agree. Teodoro Petkoff, editor of TalCual, also suggested the video was shot in Barinas, but that Izarra "was fired" for precisely the opposite reason. Namely Chávez is trying to play down his ties to the FARC and was opposed to Telesur airing the video.

I've been to Barinas a few times and the palms certainly fit the description. See photo.

It's not the first time either that a FARC presence in Barinas has been rumoured. The province borders on Colombia to the south and is run by the Chávez family. Some have even suggested that Chávez and Marulanda met in Barinas in February of this year. If it's true, it's further proof that Chávez and his cronies are supporting the FARC and undermining Colombia's elected government with violence against the Colombian people.

There's something else that's interesting about this whole affair. The Cuban silence. Fidel Castro has always made a point of keeping the FARC at arms length, but even so it was surprising to see how little attention the Cuban press gave to Marulanda's death. There was a short news item in Granma, the party paper, nothing in Juventud Rebelde and Prensa Latina just ran the text version of Timochenco's speech. I guess links to South America's last embarrassingly archaic guerrilla group is hardly what the newly appointed Raúl Castro wants as he reforms Cuba one DVD-player at time.

Guerrillas in a twist

Birthdays are never easy after 40 and that goes as much for guerrilla groups as it does for the rest of us. Today marks exactly 44 years since the foundation of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC as they’re better known, and the insurgents have never had it quite so bad.



Senior FARC officer Timoleón Jiménez confirms Marulanda's death

The announcement of the death of their leader Pedro Antonio Marín, alias Manuel Marulanda, couldn’t possibly come at a worse time. First of all, in a space of three weeks in March of this year the FARC has lost three of it’s seven-member directorate and saw two senior commanders give themselves up. Meanwhile the information harvested from the computers of the slain commander Raul Reyes has proven equally lethal, leading to the arrest of arms dealers and financiers allied to the FARC as well as embarrassing their most important backer in the region, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez.

At 78 or 80 years of age, Marín was probably the closest you can get to being a career guerrillero. Born to peasant family in the coffee growing hills of Antioquia, he chose the path of armed resistance to the government, after a political assassination in April 1948 sparked sectarian violence across the country. While Fidel Castro was still only a promising law student in Havana, the teenager Pedro Marín was holed up in the mountains of Colombia and busy earning himself the nickname Tirofijo – or Sureshot.

By the time the government mounted a full-scale offensive against the wily rebel fighter in Marquetalia in 1964, his prowess was already the stuff of legend. According to FARC mythology from May 27 onwards, Marín resisted 16,000 soldiers with only 48 men under their command. The “heroes of Marquetalia” laid the foundation for one the most enduring and brutal guerrilla groups in Latin America.

Together with the Marxist Jacobo Arenas, who would be his political guide and confidant, Marín led the FARC to their apex in the 1990’s when the group claimed to have more than 17,000 men under arms and controlled an area the size of Switzerland. The war on two fronts, fought against the army and paramilitary combatants, was fuelled by drug trafficking and left thousands of civilians dead or maimed by land mines. Peace negotiations in 1999 saw president Andrés Pastrana visiting Marulanda in his jungle home and treating the rebel leader as an equal.

But luring the sly fox from his mountain den proved too much for Pastrana and in 2002 negotiations broke down, leaving the FARC in control of much of the demilitarized zone. The guerrillas, it seemed, had more to gain from confrontation and violence than from any kind of negotiated settlement. Arguably, the same went for the army, which relied and still relies heavily on US-funding.

The election of Álvaro Uribe in 2002 saw a shift in policy against Marulanda’s insurgency group, which turned down an offer to demobilize and cooperate in exchange for lighter prison sentences for the rebels. Since then the FARC has suffered several setbacks, but nothing on the scale of what was to come in March of this year.

The news of Marín’s death is more significant than might have been supposed. Analysts used to hold that he was no more than an ageing figure head, a remnant from the past, ailing away in some jungle camp. But thanks to the documents retrieved from the computers of the slain Raúl Reyes, we now know that he was still very much control of day-to-day operations. Most notably his hand was present in the FARC’s dealings with president Chávez. As a consequence the space he leaves behind will be that much more difficult to fill.

That job has been bequeathed to Guillermo León Sáenz Vargas, alias ‘Alfonso Cano.’ He is widely held to be the leader of the political wing of the FARC and Arenas’s successor, but that doesn't make him soft. Cano has also been indicted by the Colombian judiciary for ordering the killing of 40 fellow guerrilleros, apparently charged with minor infractions.

Although Marulanda’s succession looks straightforward enough, it’s still probable that some form of infighting will ensue. Cano lacks the charisma and reputation of his predecessor. Some of those close to the FARC have suggested with his accession a more ‘political’ period may begin. However, for his position Cano depends on the support of Jorge Briceño, alias ‘Mono Jojoy,’ the guerrilla’s military commander and a ruthless warlord.

Meanwhile, the FARC are at the most vulnerable they’ve been since Marquetalia. Many of the commanders are dissatisfied and face the constant threat of being killed by their own subordinates seeking reward money. That in turn has led to desertions – the most notable was that of the hardened female guerrilla ‘Karina’ last week. She left shortly after her direct superior ‘Ivan Ríos’ was killed by his bodyguard. Desertions among the rank and file are also much more common than before. According to Defence minister Juan Manuel Santos, 1300 rebels have already laid down their weapons in this year alone, many of them veteran fighters.

In any light, the death of Marín marks the end of an era that began with the outbreak of sectarian violence fifty years ago. Now, with their intransigent leader out of the way, a unique chance has opened up for the FARC to finally negotiate a lasting settlement. As far as birthday’s go, peace is the best gift all Colombians could hope for.

Blast from the past

Here's the video announcement of the death of FARC leader Manuel Marulanda. It gives you an idea of what the FARC think they represent and just how out of date the guerrillas are. Unreconstructed Marxism with little or no public support, but backed by a drug dealing empire. You wonder if they talk like this among themselves?

The Amazon and the time of the carrot

When Brazil’s Environment minister Marina Silva quit last Wednesday, she wasn’t just letting her boss President Lula da Silva know she’d had enough. She was sending a message to the planet that the Amazon rain forest is in grave danger. The steamroller of Brazilian progress is on a collision course with the lungs of the earth.

Photograph: Stephen Ferry/Liaison/Getty Images

Silva, who was raised in the Amazon as the daughter of a rubber-tapper, is an icon of the green movement in Brazil. For decades she fought alongside environmental activist Chico Mendes until he was murdered in 1988. She has also accompanied Lula since the early days of his Worker’s Party and her appointment as environment minister in 2002 was no more than logical.

Since then however, Silva’s has been an uphill battle. Efforts to conserve the rainforest were increasingly thwarted by business interests and to make matters worse she found herself loosing the ear of her mentor. Hailed as the first “green president” when he took office, Lula’s environmental credentials have disappeared at the same rate as the rainforest, as one ambitious infrastructural project after another is revealed. The Amazon has had to make way for hydro-electrical damns, highway networks and even plans for a nuclear power plant.

After many instances in which her policies were either overruled or side-stepped, Silva felt she had become something of a token ‘greenie.’ The final straw came last week when Lula overlooked her and instead chose his strategic planning minister Roberto Mangabeira Unger to oversee the implementation of a government initiative to develop the Amazon in a sustainable way. Silva made the only poignant statement she could make, and quit.

The appointment of Unger was no coincidence. If Marina Silva was emblematic of the long-gone green trade-union leader Lula da Silva, then the former Harvard professor is symbolic of the new progress-or-bust Brazilian president. Unger has plans for the Amazon, although they don’t seem to include the trees.

“The Amazon is the frontier, not just of geography but of the imagination. It is our great national laboratory," he said in a recent interview. “It is the space in which we can best rethink and reorganize the whole country, and define this new model of development.” A brave new world, albeit a concrete one.

His argument is that the Amazon is “not just a collection of trees,” but home to 27 million people who deserve economic opportunities. If they don’t, says Unger, “the practical result will be disorganized economic activity, and disorganized economic activity will lead relentlessly to deforestation. The only way to preserve the Amazon is to develop it.”

But the Amazon basin is also home to 10 per cent of the world's mammals and 15 per cent of its land-based plant species. It holds more than half of the world's fresh water and its vast forests act as the largest carbon sink on the planet, absorbing greenhouse gases.

Meanwhile, deforestation is occurring at a pace of a football pitch every ten seconds. Early successes by Silva were overturned when the rate of deforestation greatly increased last year. A double whammy, because the negative effects on the environment are twofold.

The felling of trees not only diminishes the size of the Amazon and its qualities as a unique eco-system and producer of oxygen, it also adds to global warming. Almost a quarter of the world's total emissions now come from deforestation – far outstripping the 14 per cent produced by planes, cars and industry. Yesterday's deforestation alone released as much carbon dioxide into the air as would eight million people flying from New York to London.

According to Beatrix Richards, head of forests at the World Wildlife Fund in the UK, “The Amazon is on a knife edge due to the dual threats of deforestation and climate change,” she told the Daily Telegraph. The phrase “tipping point” has been used repeatedly to describe the point we’re at.

That’s because once they start burning on a large scale, forests are more vulnerable to further burning. The loss of trees allows more sunlight to reach the forest interior, drying dead leaves and branches on the forest floor. Disappearing Amazon forests speed up climate change, influencing the amount of rainfall around the planet.

The Stern report, which was commissioned by the British government to document climate change, concluded that curbing deforestation was the single biggest thing we can do to halt global warming

Of course, the Brazilians aren’t ignorant to any of this. They know the science, but they also don’t like being lectured by foreigners. After all, the Europeans burnt down their forests to fuel an industrial revolution long before they took an interest in the Amazon. Railroad-fuelled deforestation in 19th century United States is the stuff of nightmares. So Unger and Lula are right to point out that now its Brazil’s turn to develop and use its natural resources.

Waving a stick at the Brazilians is both outdated and patronising. Instead it’s time we turned to the carrot. Luckily, according to the Stern report, arresting deforestation is cheap. 30 times cheaper than reducing emissions from fossil fuels – and no new technology is needed. Just the political will and about 80 billion dollars.

If the EU can fork out a two dollar subsidy per cow per day, as an Australian Trade minister once calculated, and if the US can spend 12 billion dollars every month in Iraq, then surely between all of us we can put together the money to rescue the very air we breath.

Cuba; leave your organs home.

The body of a Bolivian medical student who died while studying in Cuba, turned up at her family home in Santa Cruz completely stripped of vital organs. It could be that failing Cuban healthcare is simply short of transplants, but there's also the more sinister possibility that the Cuban government is involved in organ trafficking...

FARC ties not enough for terror-list

The US is being very cautious about drawing conclusions on Hugo Chávez' alleged sponsoring of the Colombian FARC guerrilla group. Venezuela is still a long way from making it onto Washington's list of terrorist sponsored states, despite the fact that the Interpol found Reyes computers to be untampered.

Telltale computers pass lie detector

Its final, because Interpol says so. The laptop computers belonging to FARC commander Raul Reyes were not manipulated, and therefore we know that;

A. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez directly financed the FARC guerrilla group, which both the US and the EU consider a terrorist organisation.

B. The presidential campaign of Ecuador's President Rafael Correa recieved funding from the FARC.

The computers, retrieved by Colombian forces on a raid in Ecuador, were scrutinized by the International Police C Organisation who say that can find no evidence of tampering. That means that the Colombian claims about Chavez and Correa based information retrieved from the laptops are true, I guess.

The question is, will the US add Venezuela to its list of states that sponsor terrorism? And if it does, can it morally still buy Venezuelan oil?

Download the Interpol report here.

EU awaits continental cacophony

The fifth Latin America-EU summit kicks off today in Lima. By Friday at least 45 heads of state from both continents are expected to have descended on the Peruvian capital to discuss alleviating poverty, food shortages and combating climate change as well as the more mundane aspects of bilateral trade.

Rafael Correa, Alvaro Uribe and Hugo Chavez in better days.

It’s a unique opportunity, a chance for the region to capitalize on its increasing economic importance. ‘Made in Lat-Am’ is in greater demand than ever before thanks not only to agricultural products and raw materials, but also petrochemicals and airplanes to name just a few. Meanwhile sustained economic growth across the region means that Latin America is an ever-increasing market for European goods.

And there’s more. “For the EU, Latin America is more than just a market,” Spanish europarliamentarian José Salafranca was quoted as saying. To demonstrate that point the EU has seen fit to ennoble Mexico with the title of “strategic partner,” at the coming summit. That honour was only recently bestowed on Brazil and other strategic partners are the likes of China and Russia.

“We Europeans have concentrated our attention on Asia while the Asians discovered Latin America,” the German chancellor Angela Merkel admitted last week, adding “we should hurry if we want to maintain our influence in the region.” She is scheduled to visit Brazil, Mexico and Colombia.

With so much attention being lavished on Latin America, you’d think that local leaders would be eager to get their act to together and show some singularity of purpose. Even the merest semblance of togetherness would greatly increase the region’s bargaining position vis-à-vis the world’s most formidable economic bloc. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

For, as the Europeans show up here with their harmonious repertoire, their Latin America hosts sound about melodious as a tone-deaf marching band. Discord has become the regional soundtrack.

For starters, this week’s summit will see presidents Álvaro Uribe, Hugo Chávez and Rafael Correa meet for the first time since a row between their three countries brought Latin America to verge of war earlier this year. Colombia and Ecuador seem no closer to a truce than when Correa cut diplomatic ties with his neighbour in March. The row started over an incursion into Ecuadorean soil by Colombian troops hunting FARC commander Raul Reyes on March 1.

Ever since his slaying, Reyes’ telltale laptop computer has become the basis for Uribe’s allegations that both his leftist colleagues are in league with the FARC. Yesterday, Correa was pleading his defence with Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero, hoping to get in the EU’s good books ahead of the summit. It’s a tactic that might work for Ecuador, but it certainly won’t make the region any more homogenous.

Meanwhile, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has been of little help in bringing the two neighbours closer together, but rather edges Correa on. On Sunday he said Colombia was “capable of provoking a war only to justify US intervention in Venezuela,” dismissing allegations that he was also a FARC-backer. Not much harmony there.

Chávez’ beef with Colombia goes back at least to when his invitation to negotiate between Colombia and the FARC was revoked in November of last year. The release of the hostages held by the guerrillas, among them the Franco-Colombian Ingrid Betancourt, is high on the EU’s agenda. Yet a joint effort to get them freed is about as likely now as Reyes’ resurrection.

Venezuela has troubles further a field as well. Ties with Mexico were frayed in an encounter between Chavez and former president Vicente Fox in another summit in 2005. Leaders of the two countries haven’t met since and México has been making serious efforts to curb Venezuelan influence in Central America and the Caribbean.

Venezuela also still hasn’t managed to get its Mercosur membership ratified. Brazilian senators and the Paraguayan parliament are still blocking the Caribbean nation from inclusion in the trade bloc. Chavez would be mistaken if he thought the election of left-leaning Fernando Lugo in Paraguay would bring that ratification any closer – the new parliament, made up of liberals, conservatives and nationalists, is no more likely to welcome the Bolivarian revolutionary than the former.

Not that Venezuela’s joining Mercosur would suddenly bring euphonic tunes to the continent. After all, the trade bloc itself is as divided as can be. Uruguay and Paraguay are traditionally resentful of Brazil and Argentina for forcing their mercantilist policies on the smaller two. Meanwhile, the row between Uruguay and Argentina over the construction of a pulp mill on the border continues to fester. The roadblocks that so damage the Uruguayan economy have only worsened with Argentina’s farmer’s dispute.

Bolivia, when not at war with itself, is also causing its neighbours an increasing headache. An answer still hasn’t been found to the gas shortages in Argentina and Brazil, to which Evo Morales’ Bolivia holds the key. Morales continuing nationalisation of the fossil fuels branch is unlikely to inspire much confidence. Meanwhile, winter fast approaches...

If that wasn't enough, one of the only few enduring alliances on the continent is on the verge op collapse as Chávez decreed the nationalization of the Argentine-controlled Sidor steelmaker yesterday. That could mean an end the romance between the Kirchner couple and Chavez. Although, to be fair, that honeymoon relied more on the contents of the suitcases than on the heartfelt passion of the threesome involved.

Thus far, the state of the region. When our leaders sit down on Friday, we should hope for unanimity, progress and harmony. But expect a cacophony.

Santa Cruz, turnout or turned-off?

UPDATE: In Tuesday's paper, with 55 percent of the vote counted, El Deber puts the abstention rate at 34,43 percent. According to my rudimentary calculations that means that in fact only around 520,000 people actually voted in favour of the referendum on an electorate of 935,000 and a population in Santa Cruz of 2,5 million!


A high abstention rate could undermine the victory of Bolivia´s rebel-province

SANTA CRUZ – Bolivia is busily trying to figure out what the repercussions are of Sunday's referendum that ended with an impressive victory of the Yes-vote. The referendum was held by the province of Santa Cruz on a statute for autonomy, a 168-article document meant to enshrine the independence of the province versus the central government. However, since both the statute and the referendum to approve it have been organized without any official or judicial recognition on a national level, the whole thing has been steeped in controversy from the start.



Nonetheless, as soon as the first exit poll results were announced on Sunday night, cruceños as the people of Santa Cruz are called, rushed into the central square waving green-and-white flags. Hundreds of 4x4 vehicles jammed the streets of Bolivia's agricultural capital, while people in the neighbouring provinces of Tarija, Beni and Pando also celebrated. All three regions have scheduled their own polls on autonomy in the upcoming months, which will either further the cause of Santa Cruz or undermine it depending on the results.

"We have placed the first stones for a cathedral of liberty, democracy and a Bolivia of autonomous regions," claimed Ruben Costas, the prefect of Santa Cruz, as he addressed the crowd. Costas was flanked by colleagues from the other three dissenting provinces. Local governments in Cochabamba and Chuquisaca provinces, who have still to decide on a referendum, also share their aspirations for greater autonomy

Opposition to the government has been fuelling these referenda just as much as the desire for autonomy, several commentators pointed out. 'Yes triumphs and Morales doesn't accept defeat,' a local newspaper headlined yesterday, making clear the link between the government and the No-vote. In fact, 90 percent of voters admitted that they hadn't actually read the drafted statute for autonomy. Voting was about a show of hands of those opposed to Morales' government.

As a result, the big win for the Yes-vote – 85 percent – calmed the nerves in Santa Cruz and left those who reject Evo Morales plans feeling triumphant. However, the victory may not be as much of a thrashing as the organizers of the poll make it out to be.

It all depends on the actual turnout. Because the vote in Santa Cruz was deemed illegal by the government and also lacked the approval of the national electoral court, opponents of the referendum were urged to stay at home.

Of the 2,5 million cruceños only 935,000 are registered to vote. The pro-referendum newspaper El Deber acknowledged that the abstention was around 25 percent and the government claims that up to 39 percent didn't vote.

If El Deber is correct in its prediction, then 'only' around 596,000 people actually voted in favour of autonomy, which is still a significant number. But if the government figures are correct, that number goes down to about 484,000 votes, which is only a very slim majority and nowhere near the landslide victory predicted by the Santa Cruz administration.

The actual margin is more important than in 'normal' elections, because of the nature of this referendum. First it's lack of any kind official recognition demands a very clear outcome of the vote, to lend it some moral authority at least. Secondly, actually implementing the autonomy statute will be nearly impossible, because the government maintains control over most mechanisms of power, such as public servant salaries.

"If the Yes-vote is really as impressive as the media make it out to be, then the government must make some major changes," acknowledged Fernando Valdivia, a political commentator and government supporter. He predicts that in that case president Evo Morales will be forced to replace his most controversial ministers and may have to rethink a proposed new constitution. That would spell all sorts of legal problems and cause Morales some embarrassing backtracking.

But if that's not the case and the abstention is as marked as the government makes it out to be, then that leaves Morales with a lot more room for manoeuvring. He will stand firm on his constitution, making any kind of settlement between the two parties almost impossible.

Why? Because that new constitution is at the source of regional discontent with the central government. It's strong pro-indigenous and socialist content and the controversial way in which it was approved – inside an army barracks – have made it a rallying point for opposition forces across the country. A referendum on that constitution was initially planned for Sunday, but postponed after Santa Cruz announced its own popular poll.

Santa Cruz´ oppostion to an all-regulating constitution is easily explained. The province has grown from an outback into Bolivia's economic powerhouse, responsible for a third of the national GDP. Exports account for more than half of the national total, the region boasts 40 percent of the country's arable land and one fifth of it's gas reserves.

Meanwhile Morales' government is pushing for more control over those resources, claiming the benefits should go to country's poor as a whole. Nationalisation of the oil and gas industry and land reform has led to outcry in the dissenting regions. The Santa Cruz government says it deserves a larger slice of the royalties from fossil fuels and claims that Morales' agricultural policies are undermining one of the few productive sectors of the economy.

And they have a point. With rising world food prices boosting the importance of agricultural production and inflation wreaking havoc on the purchasing power of the poor here, Evo Morales may do well to appease Bolivia's corn-belt, no matter how many voters stayed at home.