Wednesday 2 December 2015

Colombians want peace, but ask to also include the issue of social justice (translation)

Originally published at: http://www.revistadebate.net/revista_debate_wp/?p=4510

Posted By: editor December 2, 2015
Felipe Rangel Uncacia y Francisco Ramírez Cuellar durante una conversación con la comunidad latinoamericana en Toronto.
Felipe Rangel Uncacia and Francisco Ramírez Cuellar during a conversation with the Latin American community in Toronto.

OSCAR VIGIL / TORONTO /

Colombia appears to be starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, given the end of the bloody armed conflict that has been going on for more than 50 years and left 220,000 deaths could be settled in the month of March of the coming year. But Colombia needs something more than the silencing of rifles, it needs a peace with social justice, explained the two leaders in Toronto last week.



Felipe Rangel Uncacia is an indigenous leader of the U’wa people of Arauca, Colombia, spokesperson of the Original Nations and land defender with the Association of Town Councils and Indigenous Authorities of the Department of Arauca, who assures that it is important that the dialogue between the Colombian government and the guerrillas might be taking up the issue because it is the problem that the peasants, the indigenous and African-descended peoples principally experience.


“There are many social problems in our communities, in our towns, and what we expect is that it truly acclimates and lowers the level of intensity of the conflict that we experience in Colombia. But the conflict is caused by certain factors: first by the state abandonment that the government has had for peasant, African-descended and indigenous communities in the country, and the other, also because the government has been implementing many policies that destroy the environment, that destroy everything related to the territory and it also has policies that go against a process for the Indigenous peoples and against all of society in general”, he assured.


Concretely, the Indigenous leader said that it should negotiate also the issue of the socio-economic model by which Colombia can reach a just and lasting peace.

“This process is of great importance because it is important that the war ends, but at the same time we need the government to commit itself and look more at the social issue, that is the most important. We have said also that it is important to converse about the issue of the economic model, because they are structural issues that have been affecting noticeably the Colombian people”, he explained.


Rangel Uncacia come to Canada to tour different cities of the country explaining what the situation is like for the peasant, indigenous and African-descended population, particularly in the context in which they are at the point of reaching the last agreements necessary for the signing of a peace agreement between the Colombian government and the guerrillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

In Toronto he was special guest of the Colombia Action Solidarity Alliance (CASA) in diverse activities with the Canadian, Latin American and Colombian communities, and in some of them accompanied by another special guest, the union leader, Francisco Ramírez Cuellar, member of the legal team of the United Federation of Workers (la Central Unitaria de Trabajadores), and responsible for the international legal actions in the civil jurisdiction of the United States, England and Canada.


Ramírez Cuellar also agreed that the Colombian peace process has remained limited in its scope. “That is a political negotiation that is necessary to do it because it disarms one part of the armed conflict, but we think that while it doesn't discuss the economic model, that is the motor that generates the violence, the inequality, the social, environmental problems, etc., of Colombian society, there there isn't going to be any possibility of peace”, he assured.

The negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC, which take place in the city of Havana, Cuba, started formally on the 18th of October, 2012 and comprised of four phases, the first was the stage of secret rapprochement , later the settlement of the agreements (in which it finds itself at the moment), the third is the ratification by referendum of the agreements and the fourth will be the implementation of these agreements.

In these rounds of negotiations, in which the highest leaders of the FARC, as well as high representatives of the Colombian government participate, have been addressing five topics: policy of comprehensive agricultural development, political participation, the end of the conflict, the solution to the problem of illegal drugs and reparations for the victims. A sixth separate topic will be address the issue of the implementation, verification and ratification through referendum of the agreements.

The agricultural issue is included, but both leaders agree that the scope of the issue will be minimal, for which it is necessary a wider and deeper negotiation that includes the social and economic issue. In contrast, the process is going to remain only in “a negotiation and a peace process, between quotation marks, like what South Africa, El Salvador and Guatemala had, that was a total failure, and new forms of social violence are going to emerge that express the application of a criminal model”, explained Ramírez Cuellar.

On her part, Sandra Cordero, co-ordinator of Colombia Action Solidarity Alliance (CASA) and organiser of the tour, said that many Canadians of Colombian origin that live in Toronto agree with the approach of the two leaders.

“Peace is being negotiated between two organisations to get rid of the armed link, that is very good, but in their agenda the issue of the neoliberal system or globalisation isn't included, and if this topic isn't there, there isn't going to be social justice, there isn't going to healthcare for the people, there isn't going to be public services or education or work”, she pointed out.




Thursday 19 November 2015

Argentina – Election in continental code (translation)

 ** Article published in Argentinian version of El Tiempo.
Originally published at: http://www.telesurtv.net/bloggers/Balotaje-en-clave-continental-20151029-0004.html

By Juan Manuel Karg

29 October 2015

The upcoming 22nd of November. Argentina will go to the a second round of elections for the first time in the history of the country, faced with two antagonistic political models; that expressed by the Front For Victory (Frente Para la Victoria), presently in government, and that headed by the conservative coalition, PRO+UCR1, that looks to retake political power in the country after twelve years of Kirchnerist governments.

What is the regional importance that these elections have? Why are the Latin American right-wing huddled waiting for a hypothetical triumph of Macri? The novelty of the closeness between Daniel Scioli (FPV) and Maurico Macri (PRO), expressed at the ballot box the past 25th of October, has already passed, it necessary to realise that the insertion of the second round in Argentina is the framework of a regional debate.

To contextualise: after the decisive elections in Argentina two important electoral dates in Latin America will take place. The 6th of December Venezuela should renew its National Assembly, in a growing contest between the pro-government PSUV2 and the conservative alliance MUD3; and the 21st of February of the coming year Bolivia will got to the ballot box to define if will allow Evo Morales Ayma to stand again for a new presidential period.

Therefore Henrique Capriles took a stance, scarcely knowing the news of the second round in Argentina, saying that “the big challenge that Mauricio Macri has if he wants to win the election is to be the leader of change”. What is Capriles after? That a hypothetical triumph of Mauricio Macri might strengthen the Venezuela right, to look to the 6th of December to overcome Chavismo4 at the ballot box, something that hasn't happened ever – with the exception of the 2007 referendum – since Chávez arrive to Miraflores5 in 1999.

In similar manner the Bolivia cement business owner, Samuel Doria Medina – also an ex-presidential candidate –did the same by saluting “the unity lead by Macri, unity that will be a victory 22-N”, in order to later annouce that “a new time arrives”. What is the intention of Doria Medina? That a hypothetical triumph of Macri might strengthen the “NO” a possible renomination of Evo Morales. You also have to highlight the link of Ecuatorian banker and leader of the opposition to Rafael Correa, Guillermo Lasso, who said that “the struggle of Mauricio Macri inspires us and fills us with energy to reach better days in Ecuador”.

Verifying an advance of the right in Argentina could have direct repercussions not only in the elections of Venezuela and Bolivia, but also in the institutional framework that the region has constructed during these years. An example: Will Mercosur6 will in a “flexibilisation” - such as Aécio Neves in Brazil and Luis Alberto Lacalle Pou in Uruguay were demanding in their respective campaigns in 2014 – so that the member countries can sign FTA in a direct way with, for example, the European Union? Judging by the document presented last April by the “Consensus Group” - space of encounter of the guides of international politics of the PRO and of radicalism -, yes, asking “to strengthen our relations with Europe and the United States” and advancing in a “fast, broad and frank discussion with our partners in Mercosur”, looking for an opening towards the Pacific Alliance7.

It isn't hare-brained, then, with these important elements, to consider that the second round in Argentina will have a significance that surpasses, by far, the borders of the country. It puts in play, such as happened in the elections in Venezuela in 2013 and in Brazil in 2014, one of the most important governments of the post-neoliberal administrations in the regions, that precisely said NO to ALCA8, ten years ago.

Will there be a “conservative restoration” or will the Argentinian people confront this option, as they have been doing in the last regional elections? Judging by these direct precedent – no government from the “change de epochs” being defeated in elections – one can be an optimist.




1PRO - Republican Proposal (Spanish: Propuesta Republicana, PRO) is a center-right political party in Argentina.
UCR - The Radical Civic Union (Spanish: Unión Cívica Radical, UCR) is a social-liberal political party in Argentina. The party has been ideologically heterogenous, ranging from classical liberalism to social democracy.

2United Socialist Party of Venezuela, the main party of government supporting the revolutionary process

3Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (Democratic Unity Roundtable; MUD), the electoral coalition of right-wing Venezuelan opposition parties.

4Political movement supportive of and following the policies and politics of Hugo Chávez

5The official workplace of the President of Venezuela, the presidential palace.

6Spanish: Mercado Común del Sur; is a sub-regional bloc. Its full members are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela. Its purpose is to promote free trade and the fluid movement of goods, people, and currency. It is now a full customs union and a trading bloc.

7The Pacific Alliance (Spanish: Alianza del Pacífico) is a Latin American trade bloc, with some features of further integration. It currently has four member states—Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru, which all border the Pacific Ocean.

8The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) (Spanish: Área de Libre Comercio de las Américas) was a proposed agreement to eliminate or reduce the trade barriers among all countries in the Americas, excluding Cuba.

Wednesday 28 October 2015

Contributions to Understand the Argentinian Labyrinth (translation)

By Alfredo Serrano Mancilla

Originally published at ALAI AMLATINA, http://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/173228

26/10/2015.

Everything that habitually happens in Argentina after an electoral date has commenced. The battle of the day after started even before the electoral day itself had ended. Everyone proclaimed themselves the winners. Sergio Massa (Unidos por una Nueva Argentina [United for a New Argentina]), that achieved third place, assumed himself the winner because it was the first time he stood in a presidential election and he obtained a good result, 21.34%. Second placer getter, Mauricio Macri (Frente Cambiemos [We Change Front]), with 34.33%, sees himself with possibilities to be first. And the first place getter, Daniel Scioli (Frente para la Victoria [Front for Victoria]), with 36.85%, forcibly happy, because in the end there wasn't any other option but to celebrate being the person who got the most votes despite being far from what was desired.

With this panorama, what one can affirm is that up until this moment there still isn't a President. The first round only served to open the debate for the second round. In Argentina, one only wins in the first round if it happens that: 1) you get more than 45% of the votes, or 2) you get more than 40% and you have a difference of 10 points with respect to the second highest tally. Neither of these two situations has taken place. The country already thinks about a second round, the first time in history, on the 22th of November: the contest will be between the pro-government candidate Scioli and the conservative Macri.

The majority of the polls showed again their incapacity to ascertain the electoral preferences in a country where society has changed drastically in a few years. There hasn't been any poll that has dared to predict a margin so narrow between both alternatives after that a few months ago, in August, in the Obligatory and Simultaneous Open Primaries (PASO), Scioli obtained 38.67% facing the 30.12% of Macri. What happened between the PASO and what happened in this electoral conflict? What has occurred with these more than 8 points of difference that has now converted itself into only 2? What happened to the 54% that the President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) obtained in the previous presidential elections of 2011?

Some reasons to respond to these questions are the following:

1. The principal thing, undoubtedly, it that Scioli wasn't the best candidate of the Kirchnerist projects. During these months officialism tried to set up the idea that
the candidate is the project as a formula, to combine the figure of Scioli with what Kirchnerism has been doing. All the evaluations of Kirchner policies and of the President were looking very positive (above 50%) in the recent months. It was so much like this that the the electoral tactic of the opposition wasn't characterised by confrontation. The campaign didn't focus on the nationalisation of YPF[1], or Aerolíneas Argentinas, nor the triumphant restructuring of foreign debt, nor on the public policies guaranteeing social rights. Scioli tried to capitalise on all of it, but he didn't manage to do it. He tried to be the candidate of the project, but he didn't achieve it. There was too much difference between the candidate and the project. Scioli isn't written with a K.

2. CFK didn't want to (or couldn't) be the determinant throughout the campaign. The President withdrew even since before it was established that Scioli was going to be the candidate. She scarcely participated in the campaign. She didn't managed build up a candidate more tailored to her either, more allied to the centre of Kirchnerism. She didn't have that fight; or she had it, but lost; or she believed that she didn't have a winning candidate in her ranks; or she trusted in herself believing that she could think about the next presidential contest without having won still this one. This
distance of CFK from the elections has had a high cost. The figure of the Vice-President, imposed by the President, Zanini, appeared, at moments, to be a candidate from another party. More an ally than a running mate. The Kirchnerist proposal for the Province of Buenos Aires, Aníbal Fernández, wasn't correct in light of the results: he lost a Peronist bastion at the hands of the Macrista María Eugenia Vidal. In short, you can affirm that the President didn't add up to what was expected. It was so much so that for example her most symbolic and important organisation in these years, the Cámpora[2], didn't even attend the closing of Scioli's campaign. In politics, every detail counts. And this attitude of distanceof CFK from Scioli has undermined and surely erroded more than what was predicted.

3. Scioli carries the weight of an administration of eight years in the Province of Buenos Aires (36% of the electoral roll), with his good decisions, but also with his mistakes. He has a presidential profile, but very distance to the epic, to the emotivity, of the Kirchnerist narrative. Scioli didn't manage to identify himself with the youthful impression that has so much characterised Kirchnerism in recent years. He is too much from the 20th century, perhaps, for 21st century politics. His discourse is surely typical of a more obsolete Peronism than that which Kirchnerism has been moulding. Besides, Scioli opted for scarcely confronting: he preferred to talk like he had already won. He accepted easily in this way the field proposed by Macri's advisers (especially of Durán Barba) of avoiding to dirtying himself in the boxing ring. And in politics, in the democratic electoral game, to win, you have to enter the arena, and fight, giving and receiving, with respect, but also cornering to the rival questioning him on every proposal. Surely, it will be like that the Scioli that we will see from now until the end of the campaign of this second round. Better late than never.

4. The Argentinian right has known to reinvent itself. That which appears to be an isolated attempt with Macri as the leader in the capital, has today converted into a movement with a presence in all the territory. Macrism went from a little: to covering the length and breadth of the country. Bringing together in the first stage characters know to be remote from traditional politics. But later, in the second moment, it commenced to weave alliances with old political parties (particularly with radicalism) to provide itself with territorial structure. Macri has been using a very 21st century language, with the new tone of the right on good terms. Constantly avoiding confrontation; distancing itself from its own past of neoliberal appearance; knowing to carry out everything advanced by the political opponent. It has scarcely proposed anything new despite having wanted to present itself as the leader of change. Its programmatic emptiness was packed  with political marketing. This is the new strategy of the regional right that obeys good sportsmanship and resignation that the new common sense is characteristic of a change of epics in Argentina and in a good part of Latin America. In this way Macri has managed to slip through to a second round with real options of winning. This election it has tallied up; it leaves with the wind in its favour. But its real capacity of victory will depend a great deal on how it finds itself in a ring against Scioli. Up until this moment, a scenario not desired either by one or the other. We will see what happens from now on.


5. The mediator, Massa, managed to remain inside despite the duel of the two. Massa, the past of Kirchnerism, and now more anti-Kirchnerist than Macri, knew to negotiate what is supposed to be the importance of the votes useful in this type of electoral situation. He snuck into the party to stay. His discourse had a pendular movement: from conservative right in everything referring to punishment against insecurity, and liberal in everything economic. He was more critical of the role of the State than Macri. He looked to the extreme for confrontation, which served to express with notoriety his political proposal. No doubt that getting 21% of the vote permits him to constitute himself as the key to the second round. In his speech last night, he put his price: he sold himself to the highest bidder. Although everything appears to indicate that he will end up as an ally of Macri, one mustn't either rule out that he might offer himself to Scioli (he is anti-Kirchnerism, but it isn't so clear whether he might be anti-Scioli); or maybe he might not decide for either of the two in an explicit way thinking from here more on what could happen in four years.

6. Finally, it is always a key that brings with it the maximum difficulty at the time of explaining what happened in a electoral contest: it is that which we call the people. In Argentina, in these years, the social majority isn't by any means that which left from the crisis, from the playpen, from hungry and from misery. The change is change in all is fullness. And meanwhile what society thinks, demands, imagines, and votes for transforms. What a decade ago was a social demand, today (fortunately) is a naturalised right. The people want more; they have new questions, and it requires new responses. The popular and plebian can't at all be conceived as a static category. This is without doubt one of the fundamental axes of these future years in dispute, between the attempt of conservative restoration and the process of change that is in march.

These are some lines to understand what happened in this new map of Argentinian electoral politics after the elections. There isn't else left to do, but await the following electoral date to know who will be President from the 10th of December this year. From now, starts another campaign that had nothing to do with the previous one. Surely, the final outcome will depend more the Kirchnerist strategy than on what Macri can do. What Kirchnerism proposes and what Scioli decides to do will be the keys to what comes. But that is already another story.


- Alfredo Serrano Mancilla is the Director of the Strategic Centre of Latin American Geopolitics (CELAG).








[1] YPF, the initials of Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales ; English: "Fiscal Oilfields ", is a vertically integrated Argentine energy company, engaged in the exploration and production of oil and gas, and the transportation, refining, and marketing of gas and petroleum products


[2] La Cámpora is an Argentine political youth organization supporting the governments of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. It is named after former Peronist president Héctor José Cámpora.

Monday 26 October 2015

Ana Elisa Osorio: “This is the worst crisis in the last 40 years” (translation)


“Voting for another option in the Process[1] that isn't the government isn't a betrayal”

Originally published at: http://www.aporrea.org/ideologia/n275968.html

By: Carlos Carcione and Lucero Benítez - Marea Socialista (Socialist Tide) | Tuesday, 18/08/2015 10:59 AM | Printable version

As we announced in the interview carried out with Professor Héctor Navarro, in this submission we present an interview carried out with Ana Elisa Osorio. Doctor, Deputy of Latin American Parliament, ex-minister of President Chávez, ex-member of the national leadership of the PSUV[3]. Remembered for her valiant attitude confronting the coup d'etat in April 2002. Today in the struggle against corruption, she is part of the Platform for a Public and Citizen Audit against Embezzlement from the Nation.

How do you evaluate the current situation, from the point of view of the people that have been accompanying the revolutionary process?


Ana Elisa Osorio: We are currently passing through a difficult, complex situation, in which, that from my point of view there is a breakdown of the morale of the people in relations to principles.

In that sense, I believe that this is the worst crisis that we have dealt with in the last forty years. In previous crises nobody lost morale, nobody gave up losing morale faced with the difficult moments like the coup d'etat or the oil strike-sabotage. In contrast to previous crises, the people now don't feel supported in the difficulties. We have never reached the situation in which we are today. The government already seems less than what it was previously.

Of course there are aspects of this crisis that are objective, among them are the economic elements like inflation, like smuggling. But the other aspect of the crisis is more subjective, it is a crisis that hits morale and public sentiment.

The revolution remains in these moments only in the hearts and minds of the people. A people that, by the way, in the midst of all of this situation is confused.

Of course, not all the issues that influence the crisis are exogenous. The administration of foreign currency is a black box, for example. Also there are objective conditions for all the corrupt people in the government at the moment. There is currency flight, and also there are multiple exchange rates, that influence everything.

There are great shortages, and many of the achievements of the process have deteriorated a lot, above all in the area of food products, the food missions. In the area of health, there has been a mistaken direction of no having an orientation to primary healthcare, what they have made the hospitals do to themselves, they might collapse at the moment, or that we might have technology in the healthcare area that is being underutilised, because it wasn't planned at the level of the necessities of the people.

During these years there was a redistribution of the income that translated into important achievements. But in this moment I consider that we are going back to the situation before Chávez.

Based on this and returning to the issue of the elections, I see that in these upcoming elections for the National Assembly there is Chavista[4] discontent that doesn't want to vote for the government nor the MUD[5]. I see that there is “neither-nor” feeling that comes from the people that feel a betrayal of the Chávez model, and that because of that nowadays they are “neither-nor”.

The polls say that we are losing, and it would be terrible that the right might achieve the majority in the National Assembly given that it can get rid everything that remains of the revolutionary process. Therefore there must be a policy for those who don't want to turn out to vote.

Who benefits from the situation of the dollar?


AEO: There is bad management and corruption of the public funds and the foreign currency that enters the country, around which different actors are connected.

On the one hand there is a corrupt national bourgeoisie that doesn't produce anything, and that has its counterpart, that are the people that are in the organisations that have do the negotiations for the awarding of foreign currency to that sector, like CENCOEX[6].

If that counterpart didn't exist inside of those organisations, everything that is happening wouldn't be happening. When we ask ourselves to whom and how the currency is handed over, we see that there is a great degree of complicity inside those organisations. But the issue of corruption related to foreign currency goes both ways, on one side by those who request the dollars and on the other side by those who award them.

That has led us to the situation we are in currently of bankruptcy due to a bad administration of the foreign currency coming from the oil income, not due to a crisis like that of the coup d’etat on the 11th April or that of the oil strike.

Returning to the electoral theme, what do you think about the elimination of direct voting for the representatives of Venezuela to Parlatino?


AEO: It surprised us all the change announced in the previous months with respect to the method of selecting the deputies to Parlatino. In that sense, it might mean that in contrast to what some say, the treaty that Venezuela signed about Parlatino isn't violated, careful with this. Nevertheless, it is important to know that in Venezuela we were pioneers in electing our representatives to this organisation, in the framework of protagonist and participative democracy expressed in our Constitution.

The measure brings the discontent of all the deputies to Parlatino, but not all of them have made statements in that respect. The opposition have said it and I have said it myself. The rest haven't expressed it due to a question misunderstood discipline. I'm not saying that I don't believe in discipline, because I firmly do believe in it, the question is in that that fact represents a step backward for protagonist and participative democracy.

To the contrary of what has been decided here, at the moment there other countries in which that move to selecting by popular vote the representatives to Parlatino, like in Boliva and Ecuador.

And about the recent ruling of the CNE[7] that demands gender equality for all the lists of candidates?


AEO: The CNE on other occasions had named that resolution, and this year it has done it, only that from my point of view, it has done it at a bad time, that is to say, after the primary elections have happened, and after many candidatures have been defined.

I agree with the question of parity. The CNE makes a positive discrimination, as the representation of women to the National Assembly is very small. Due to which it is necessary, in the sense of making that women project themselves further into the spaces of public life, further than their domestic sphere of existence, in the community.

What I believe is incorrect about this measure is doing it at the wrong time. And that it is applied only to the small parties, and not to the big ones like MUD or PSUV. In both sectors there are more men than women as candidates.

Then, the CNE is permissive with them and not with the rest? It represents a discriminatory and anti-democratic fact. These decisions of the CNE at the wrong time, aren’t in of keeping with a trajectory with respect to what it has meant and done in the past.

What is the policy to get the neither-nor people to participate electorally?


AEO: I believe that one option is looking to the coordination among all the so-called small parties of the process, if there was a third party or third option that emerges from the revolution, like that, from my point of view, is the solution.

On something I insist, and it is that the way isn't abstention. I believe in joining to other parties of the process, and in the invalid vote as an alternative.

It also must be clear that voting for another option in the process that isn't the government isn't betrayal. It is the high government that betrays Chávez, when they don't contain the problems when they have a solution.

We live in a society that it becoming sick, and it isn't solving in a strong way the things, that isn't by the way of force, it is with a coherent government.

In Venezuela we had far exceeded the “every man for himself” mentality, a situation that we are lamentably returning to...

Definitively, we need a leadership that helps to reverse this situation.




[1] The Bolivarian revolutionary process

[2] Latin American Parliament (Parlatino), is a regional, permanent organization composed by the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean that was created in 1964. It is a consultative assembly similar to the early European Parliament.[1] Currently the institution is being considered to become the legislative organ of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

[3] United Socialist Party of Venezuela, the main party of government supporting the revolutionary process

[4] People that are supportive of policies and politics of Hugo Chávez

[5] Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (Democratic Unity Roundtable; MUD), the electoral coalition of right-wing Venezuelan opposition parties.

[6] National Bureau for Exterior Commerce that issues foreign currency for trade.

[7] Venezuelan National Electoral Council

Friday 23 October 2015

The OLP, a new law of vagrants and miscreants? Coincidences of today's government with the governments of yesteryear. (translation)

Originally published at:
http://www.aporrea.org/actualidad/a212457.html

By: Zuleika Matamoros | Monday, 17/08/2015 01:12 PM | Printable version

And as someone who arrived without being invited we know the Operation of Liberation and Protection of the People (OLP). Among its first “actions” the “operation” in the mistreated and forgotten Cota 905 leaving a toll of 14 deaths and hundreds detained will remain in the memory, as will too the attack in the San Vicente neighbourhood in the state of Aragua or in the Panamericana[1]. The confusion and the amazement were the impressions of those of us that found out via the news broadcast of such actions. Above all those of us who live in the barriers and that suffer from the issue of insecurity in much smaller measure than the scourge of the violence associated with crime as a consequence of poverty.

The OLP presents us, by its methods, as a former law of vagrants and miscreants because it is directed exclusively at the people of the poor neighbourhoods, at the poor, a those eternally excluded, at those of us who have less opportunities. Will it be possible to end violence and insecurity if it doesn't attack the big drug traffickers who, like everywhere else in the world, flaunt their relationships with the local and international bourgeoisie, businesspeople, bankers, military and high government officials? Will it be able to get rid of the “bachaqueros”[2] or the street vendors while big articulated trucks cross the border with total impunity and that are escorted by high military officials from the accounts of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants affirm that are in macrobachaqueo? Will it be able to end common crime if the example that today's Political Leadership gives is the same that the bourgeoisie of always: corruption, impunity and abuse of power? Will we be able to get rid of malandraje[3], if it doesn't attack the corrupt people that took for themselves, and are still taking for themselves, the dollars of the nation, some as businesspeople and others as functionaries of the “revolution” and that have allowed Venezuela to be ruined and indebted?


The policy of “Lead to the underworld”


Social violence is a scourge that attacks the most vulnerable sectors of society. The neighbourhoods in which the working masses, whether they might be in the formal sector or not, live are those which suffer with particular intensity the phenomenon of social violence; especially that which manifests itself through crime. The door of the Morgue is full of poor people demanding justice without much hope of getting it.

The “answer” to insecurity and violence on behalf of those that have held Power has been for decades the same: seeing crime as a strictly individual problem and not social. The OLP acts against the “criminals of the poor neighbourhoods”, against the “bachaqueros”, against the students of public high schools and not against those who have put us in this profound crisis of grand proportions, for them there doesn't exist a possible OLP. They took 259 billion dollars from the nation (which highlights the embezzlement from CADIVI), they don't import the supplies necessary for production, they do disgusting business with the food of the people, they don't change the productive model because it attacks their interests; they generate poverty, hunger and misery and try to get rid of the consequences through repression and not the causes.

In the areas which are inhabited by those of us who live only by our work we suffer from criminal violence, institutional violence and violence from the bodies “of security” of the State today personified by the OLP. In the poorer neighbourhoods we live the forget, the indifference, the apathy, the crime, the exclusion, the need and today we relive, through the OLP, the terror, the mistreatment, the fear, the indignation, impotence.

Sometimes we wonder if by robbing a banker or an industrialist (a sector that has plundered the resources of our country, the resources of the people and that in their criminal accumulation of Capital leaves us with hospitals without supplies, with schools with major problems, with starvation wages), you could assassinate or execute the persons that committed a minor crime like the robbery of one of their cars is (like the recent case of Poliaragua[4]). It isn't my intention to justify one crime in relation to another, but is the life of the common (poor) criminal worth less than one of the trucks of a “smart-looking industrialist”? In the specific case of Aragua it was 4 lives for the truck of an industrialist.

Is the undercover implementation of the death penalty that criminalises poverty and tries to make you see as “just” those whose have filled their pockets not only through the exploitation but through embezzlement from the nation, that at the end of accounts is the embezzlement from the people, and their rights and that takes them to the abyss of exclusion and poverty.

Preventing a popular uprising?


Contradictorily those who today are in government and call themselves “the children of Chávez”, forget that they are there precisely because the people rose up against the disgrace that the governments of the “Pact of Punto Fijo”[5] were. Because not only were we excluded, without opportunities, but we were also those to whom they used to apply the law of vagrants and miscreants. That is to say that the same people that turned you into the excluded, used to make you into a criminal. So, one of the things that connected us to Chávez is that he precisely gave us the sensation that that wouldn't happen again, because in the first place he arrived with the firm intention of settling the social debt and because one of his first signs was precisely the stark criticism that he used to make to such an shameful law, precisely for criminalising poverty, abolished a little before his arrival to the presidency. We recovered together with Chávez our identity, we felt represented by him and we knew that his relationship with the people was the product of the respect for our struggles waged against the exploitative and repressive State.

Today, in the midst of a profound crisis that has us not only making humiliating queues, but immersed each time further in a poverty that advances in an accelerated manner, the Government's response is repression. In the market queues to get food we see today officials of the GNB[6] or of the PNB[7], that besides mocking the people by letting in their little friends without lining up or taking themselves the products in large quantities, they are quick to arrest anyone that gets angry and dares to protest in a loud voice. What exposes itself is that the OLP is the form that the State has found to avoid that discontent turns into the “shake-up” that we are still waiting for Maduro to make. These conditions that we are passing through today demonstrate to us that the Government hasn't had the capacity to answer our needs. Our purchasing power is totally destroyed, the feeling is of ungovernability.

The “fashion”of the high officials together with the big businesspeople that enrich themselves with the dollars handed over by the government at the preferential price[8] is to try to manipulate us; some with the inane argument of “Economic War” and “infiltrated paramilitarism”. A dangerous breeding ground for xenophobia; the others with the blatant lie “that they need more dollars to produce and import” when in more than a decade they haven't produced anything and they have made disproportionate importation and speculative practice a big business.

The contradictory and sadly paradoxical thing is that the same government that has given that prerogative to the bourgeoisie and that has let them act without control because they are part of the same business, tries today to repress the people that suffer the consequences of that perverse and mafia-style action and are those who have sustained them as Political Leadership. They have forgotten about Chávez the anticapitalist, about Chávez the rebel, about the Chávez that said “Here you can smell sulphur”, about the Chávez that said “I put all my money on the workers “ that gave birth to this Bolivarian People in struggle, because we are sick and tired of the Adeco[9] and Copeyano[10] governments of yesterday and is due to this that we are outraged when the present government for whom we casted our votes to continue on the path of transformation, of the transition to socialism, today appears more like “them” than “us”.

The hypocrisy of the opposition of the Right


Today we listen to an opposition that criticises the OLP in a stark way, in its grim dispute for the votes “of the poor that is angry and could abstain”.

They are the same people that have been mistaken as always because in truth they believe that the people have a short memory, they overlook the fact that we were the ones that recognised that same “Law of vagrants and miscreants” that was the legal subterfuge that criminalised poverty for 58 years and that remained in the collective memory as the violations of the rights to liberty, to life, as raids without judicial orders, as executions, as assassinations and was the legal shortcut that they used for decades to deprive revolutionary political leaders of liberty. This law was maintained in force by the same people that today try to manipulate us lifting the fake banner of “human rights”.

It is the criminalisation of poverty, devised by the governments of Pact of Punto Fijo who are the true miscreants that deserve to be in prison for the crimes they committed. They are the same slackers that have lived from the theft and embezzlement from the nation. Only citing one example, we have Ledezma[11], who filled with grief for the families in the Caracas slums, as well as the families of the prisoners of the Retén de Catia[12] and for the mothers of students while he used to fill his pockets with the money of the people.

The painful thing of all this is that the government with its implementation of the OLP appears that tries to act in the same way that the high officials of the Venezuela of the Fourth Republic. It appears that agrees with that premise that says “that to make serve the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past”. They dare to qualify as a scourge the “bachaqueros” who are products of a crisis for which they are responsible.

It would seem, the high command of the “revolutionary” government has lost all reflection with relation to those that live only through their labour, to the excluded, in short with the fundamental base that sustains this revolutionary process...

...Our dead, our people and our revolution don't deserve it...



For analysis of the OLP check out this interview

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/11489






[1]
A roadside community that was raided by the OLP in July, 2015


[2] People that hoard government-subsidized products (i.e. corn flower, toilet paper, etc.) and resell them at exorbitant black market rates


[3] Thugs


[4] A case in which the State pólice of Aragua were implicated in extra-judicial killing of car thieves


[5] Pact of Punto Fijo was agreed between representatives of Venezuela's three main political parties in 1958: Acción Democrática, COPEI and Unión Republicana Democrática. The pact bound the parties to limit Venezuela’s political system to an exclusive competition between two parties and the distribution of power between the two main political parties.


[6] National Bolivarian Guard


[7] National Bolivarian Police Force


[8] Venezuela currently has different Exchange rates for the U.S. dollar with those used for necessary imports being the cheapest.


[9] Acción Democrática party


[10] Copei - Independent Political Electoral Organization Committee, is a social christian party.


[11] Venezuelan opposition Mayor and longtime rightwing politician, Antonio Ledezma


[12] a Caracas prison

Sunday 27 September 2015

Guerrero: a history of social struggle, chiefdoms and poverty (translation)

The violence in the state corresponds to a long history of guerrillas, confrontations, chiefdom and poverty

Verónica Calderón México 8 NOV 2014 - 01:05 CET

A student from the Ayotzinapa teacher-training college. To the right, an image of Lucio Cabañas. / José Méndez (EFE)

The 43 Mexican student teachers assassinated the last 26th of September belong to the Rural Teacher-Training School of Ayotzinapa, a tiny mountain community of scarcely a hundred inhabitants in Guerrero, in the south of Mexico and one of its poorest states. But it isn't the first time that the word has resounded in the ears of the country. The Mexican guerrilla, Lucio Cabañas, also graduated from that Rural Teacher-Training School, from Ayotzinapa. Cabañas founded the Party of the Poor, an armed group that in 1974 kidnapped the senator – who became a governor a year after - Rubén Figueroa Figueroa. The event, from 40 years ago, recalls that Guerrero bears a long history of poverty, forget, chiefdom and violence: a cocktail that the massacre in Iguala, ordered by the municipal mayor himself according to the investigations, has left bare.

At least 14 of the 80 municipalities of Guerrero have already been taken over by federal forces in the month that has passed since the tragedy, but the violence has gone up for a long time. Its winding geography of mountains doesn't make access to the towns easy. Meanwhile a quarter of its 3.4 million inhabitants live in Acapulco, that have the third highest rate of homicides in the world, only surpassed by San Pedro Sula (Honduras) and Caracas (Venezuela), according to the figures of the Citizen's Council for Security and Peace. Not even talking about the other towns. The crossing of the Sierra Madre and those of the south turn into paths that appear impregnable at a distance and fertile terrain for a network of chiefdoms that are decades old.

You only have to follow the trail of some of its leaders to understand the reach of that network of chiefdoms and their reason for existence. The poverty that extends to the other 80 municipalities of Guerrero oblige the majority of its inhabitants (men, women, children) to wander all over the country to work as harvesters in the crops of tomato in Sinaloa, apples in Chihuahua or chilli peppers in Guanajuato and, together with their neglible wages, surviving thanks to federal subsidies managed, on many occasions, but their regional leaders.

The case of Cabañas and Figuero is emblematic. Their confrontations is one of the episodes of the Dirty War in Mexico: the period of political and military repression carried out in the sixties and seventies whose objective was dissolving armed and political opposition movements against the dominant party of the country, the PRI1.

Cabañas' movement initiated demonstrations, at the start peaceful, to denounce the poverty of the populations and the confrontation, each time greater, between the peasants and the regional chiefs. “The chiefs have been the people that do everything, make themselves authorities, buy cheap harvests, manage the economy as they please. The governments relied on the chiefs for nothing other than the promotion of voting, they were the leaders that used to do everything: but that brought as a consequence difficulties, because the rest of the people want to develop themselves, they want to study, they want to get better health-wise, they want that their family might get ahead”, affirms Evaristo Castañón, peasant from El Quemado, a community from Atoyac, 100 kilometres from Acapulco, in an investigation by the George Washington University.



Cabañas, that carried out guerrilla activities for at least 10 years, ordered the kidnapping of Figueroa (then a senator and in a political campaign for the governorship of Guerrero) the 30th of May 1974. The event shook the country. He was liberated in a military operation on the 8th of September of that same year, but the U.S. embassy doubted that it might not have paid a ransom, such as has been demanded by Cabañas, according to a cable from the State Department revelled by Wikileaks in 2011. Figueroa became the governor of his state in April 1975. By then, Cabañas had already died in a conflict with the Mexican army in December of the previous year.

Upon the arrival of Vicente Fox, from the conservative National Action Party (PAN) in 2000, the Special Prosecution's Office for Past Political and Social Movements was created in 2002, to clear up the disappearances, assassinations and repression that occurred during that period. Rubén Figueroa Figueroa was filled with pride that they might have given him the nickname The Tiger of Huitzuco, and his son, Rubén Figueroa Alcocer, followed in his footsteps in politics and also became governor of the state until another scandal obliged him to leave the position. The massacre of Aguas Blancas, occurred in 1995. A group of peasants, that were walking to a demonstration to demand freedom for a rural leader, were ambushed by the police. Seventeen died and 21 were injured. Figueroa's initial version was that the officers “had been attacked first”. A video also showed that what happened had been an ambush against unarmed civilians. The successor of Figueroa? Ángel Aguirre Rivero, that later would decide to insist in returning to hold the position, now through the ballot box and in the ranks of another party, now the PRD2, in 2010. He held the post until Thursday the 23rd of October, obliged by the pressure of another massacre: this time the one of Ayotzinapa.

The loose ends finish with the recently named interim governor of Guerrero: Salvador Rogelio Ortega. In his inauguration speech, Ortega mentioned his mother, Rosaura Martínez, also a teacher. The journalist Roberto Ramírez Bravo remembers that, in the times of the dirty war, Ortega was detained by the police and illegally held prisoner. His mother was to receive an award for 20 years of work as a teacher at the hands of the governor, Rubén Figueroa Figueroa, The Tiger of Huitzuco himself. She refused to receive the diploma and faced him head-on. Ortega was let go a little afterwards.




1PRI - Institutional Revolutionary Party, Mexican political party. Its modern policies of neo-liberalism and privatization have been characterized as centrist or even as Centre-right
2 The Party of the Democratic Revolution (Spanish: Partido de la Revolución Democrática, PRD) is a social democratic political party in Mexico that advocates for democracy.

Thursday 24 September 2015

Paramilitarism and Counterinsurgency in Mexico, a necessary history (translation)

25 August 2015

By Gilberto López y Rivas
Mexican politician and anthropologist. He denounced the Party of Democratic Revolution in 2003 due lack of ethics. He participated in the student movement of 1968. Worked as a deputy in the 54th and 57th Legislatures of Congress of the Union of Mexico.

This article was originally published at teleSUR:

http://www.telesurtv.net/bloggers/Paramilitarismo-y-contrainsurgencia-en-Mexico-una-historia-necesaria---20150825-0002.html.
 
Paramilitary groups have already existed for more than forty years in our country. During those four decades, paramilitaries have been dedicated to the annihilation of guerrilla organisations, and the violent harassment of student and popular movements.


Paramilitarism is recognised in the military lexicon of all the armies of the world, including the Mexican one. Retired brigadier general, Leopoldo Martínez Caraza, in his book Léxico histórico militar[1], published by the Ministry of National Defense (SEDENA), notes: “Paramilitary: that has an organisation with similar procedures to soldiers, without having this character”. The definition helps, but it is vague and completely insufficient. It doesn't clarify how it comes to have this similarity with the armed forces in organisation, or military procedures.

John Quick is more precise. He defines paramilitaries as: “those groups that are different from the regular armed forces of whatever country or state1, but that observe the same organisation, equipment, training or mission as the former.”[2] This is a better approximation: militaries as much as paramilitaries have the same organisation, training and mission. However, the origin of the paramilitary organisation is still vague. How does it achieve that organisation? Why does the professional military and the paramilitary have the same mission? Who gives to the latter the same mission?

 In that case, the paramilitary groups act by a delegation of power from the state and they collaborate with its ends, but without forming part of the “public administration” strictly speaking. In this way, the paramilitary doesn't define itself only by similarity in its missions or organisation, but because it originates in a delegation of punitive force from the state.

In Mexico, this delegation of functions has come directly from the army, from the intelligence-security bodies, or from the combination of both, but usually under the orders of the Executive Power, in its quality of supreme chief of the armed forces, and always as a direct delegation of the state.

 “The Falcons”, one of the first paramilitary groups, was created by the initiative of officials from the army, although under the administration of the then Department of the Federal District. Its members were youths from gangs with military training and leadership, dedicated to the control, infiltration and destruction of the student movement, as well as any guerrilla foco2 that could have come out of the ranks of it. It is fully documented that this group was created by a colonel of the Mexican army whose services were rewarded afterwards with impunity and military promotion.

Gustavo Castillo García gave detailed information in the newspaper, La Jornada, in 2008, about the most well-know paramilitary group during the so-called “dirty war”, from his documentary research in the General Archive of the Nation:

The Special Brigade, as it officially called the White Brigade, integrated in June 1976 a group with 240 elements, among them the police of the capital and the state of Mexico; military and personel from the Federal Directorate of Security (DFS), as well as the Federal Judicial Police, to “investigate and locate by all means the members of the so-called September 23rd Communist League. The order was to limit the activities of the league and detain “the guerrillas that were taking action in the valley of Mexico, according to the documents obtained from the Attorney-General of the Republic's Office (PGR) that are the support of the investigations that are still being carried out around the events that happened during the so-called dirty war. According to the official reports, although the White Brigade formed in 1972 and operated in Guerrero, Sinaloa, Chihuahua, Nuevo León, Jalisco, Puebla and Morelos, it wasn't until June 1976 when the government of Luis Echeverría decided to form a special group that would take action in the City of Mexico, and in which the commands were in the hands of Colonel Francisco Quiroz Hermosillo, Captain Luis de la Barreda Moreno and Miguel Nazar Haro. The consulted documents have their original under protection in the General Archive of the Nation. In them it details “ Plan of Operations Number One: Tracking. The group had 55 vehicles, 253 arms: of them 153 were Browning nine millimetres.[3]

In this way, the state link gives a fundamental element to an understanding attached to the Mexican experience. Based on this experience, I propose the following definition: paramilitary groups are those that have military organisation, equipment and training, to which the state delegates the execution of missions that the regular armed forces can't carry out openly, without that involving the recognition of their existence as part of the monopoly of state violence. Paramilitary groups are illegal and act with impunity because this fits the interests of the state. Paramilitaries consist, then, in the illegal and unpunished exercise of state violence and in the concealment of the origin of that violence.

Historically, paramilitarism has been a phase of counterinsurgency, that one applies when the power of the armed forces isn't sufficient to annihilate insurgent groups, or when the loss of military prestige obliges the creation of a paramilitary arm, linked clandestinely to the military institution.

Mexican military doctrine doesn't call them paramilitaries, but “civilian personnel” and establishes their urgent necessity to control the population during counter-guerrilla operations. The Manual of Irregular Warfare of SEDENA holds that:

531. counter-guerrilla operations form part of the security measures that a commander of a theatre of operations adopts in their rearguard zone, to avoid that regular operations suffer interferences caused by the action of bands of traitors or enemies, to it which the commander of a theatre of operations should employ all organised elements and even the civil population in order to locate, harass and destroy opposing forces[4].

The aim of the utilisation of the civilian population is evident in this paragraph. But here, the necessity of civilian population is random and it is only used in the case of interference by the enemy. However, further on, the Mexican military manual establishes a more permanent and organic manner of utilisation of civilians in rural counter-guerrilla operations:

547. When Mao affirms that “the people are to the guerrillas like water to fish”, undoubtedly that is a saying of lasting validity, as we have already seen that the guerrillas grow and strengthen themselves with the support of the civilian population, but, returning to the example of Mao, for the fish one can make life in the water impossible , agitating it, or introducing elements that are prejudicial to its survival or more ferocious fish that attack it, pursue it and oblige it to disappear or to run the risk of being eaten but these voracious and aggressive fish are nothing more than the counter-guerrillas.[5]

The experience of the Mexican army in the annihilation of the guerrillas that the schoolteacher Lucio Cabañas directed between 1968 and 1974 demonstrated that the use of peasants and gunmen as informants was fundamental to locating, encircling and annihilating the Settlement Brigades of the Party of the Poor.

But the use of civilians goes further: according to the Manual of Irregular Warfare, counter-guerrilla operations are led with civilian or militarised personnel (civilians or police directed by military chiefs). We might look at the following paragraph of the Manual:

551. From it presented earlier, one can establish that counter-guerrilla operations are those that one leads with units of military, civilian or militarised personnel in their own terrain in order to locate, harass and destroy forces made up by enemies and traitors to the homeland that carry out military operations with guerrilla tactics.[6]

The type of counter-guerrilla operations one carries out with civilian personnel and is allocated to the control of the population is pointed out in the Manual:

552. Counter-guerrilla operations comprise of two different forms of interrelated operations that are:

A: Operations to control the civilian population.

B: Tactical counter-guerrilla operations.

553. As one can appreciate, the first form isn't a classical military operation, as it can be led by civilian or militarised personnel, although it is directed, advised and co-ordinated by the military commander of the area, while the tactical counter-guerrilla operations are led by military and militarised units.[7]

According to the Manual of Irregular Warfare, the responsibility of the use of the civilian population falls on the federal government and on the agreements with the governments of the states and diverse authorities in the area of conflict. Paragraph C of point 562 describes in detail:

562. The commanders that plan counter-guerrilla operations and the civilian population are governed by restrictions and agreements that the federal government has with the states and diverse authorities of the places in conflict. In case the problem is provoked in areas occupied by the enemy, the counter-guerrillas will establish co-ordination with the resistance to locate and destroy the groups of traitors.[8]

This paragraph indicates that the responsibility for the use of civilians in counter-guerrilla operations falls directly on the federal government, just as much as on the local and state authorities of the area in conflict. The Manual itself establishes that international law is applicable in the case that the armed forces commit inhumane treatment or criminal acts against the civilian population.

F. Psychological Factors. A population that actively supports the guerrillas increases the possibility of detecting the guerrillas. Generally in our territory we will encounter the support of the population and specifically in liberated areas in which that they opposed the objectives of the enemy force. The population that supports the objectives of the enemy favours their guerrillas. The military objective of destroying the guerrillas acquires greater importance over other considerations, even so the operations must be planned to making sure to minimise the damage to civilian property. The counter-guerrillas should in all cases treat the civilian population in a just and reasonable manner, not rely on our force. Inhumane treatment to criminal acts are serious violations and punishable under international law and our laws[9].

Mexican military doctrine holds that operations of control of the civilian population one exercises through a committee that brings together the military authorities with representatives of the civilian authority and organisations related to the army:

592. To control the civilian population, it is necessary that total co-ordination exists between the military forces and organisations that take part, for which should be established a committee with representatives from all the forces in order that they can plan and co-ordinate their actions under a single command.

593. The forces that normally take part in the operations to control the people and their resources are:

A. Government organisations.

B. Police forces.

C. Military forces.

D. Social, political and economic organisations, like political parties, unions, sports organisations, chambers of commerce, etc.[10]

From 1994, and the same as the paramilitary groups that existed during the internal wars in Guatemala and El Salvador, the paramilitary groups in Chiapas have dedicated themselves to sowing terror in the indigenous communities that sympathise with the EZLN3, through assassinations, ambushes, burning towns, death threats, expulsions, cattle theft, detention and torture of the support bases or Zapatista militants.

The denunciations of the indigenous people presented since 1995 to the human rights groups that have worked in Chiapas insist that the paramilitary groups operate in co-ordination with the public security corporations, they receive support and training from the Mexican army and that, on occasions, soldiers and police officers that control the towns of the North and the Heights of Chiapas are among the contingents.

In my capacity as a Federal Deputy and president on duty of the Commission of Harmony and Pacification (COCOPA), I presented a complaint in the Attorney-General of the Republic's Office about the existence of paramilitary groups in the state in 1998; in a conversation with the members of this commission of the Congress of the Union with then Attorney-General, Jorge Madrazo Cuellar, this functionary informed us of the existence of at least 12 groups of “presumably armed civilians”, a euphemism to refer to the paramilitaries. A special attorney's office was created for the case, which disappear without shame or glory, years after.

It is evident, however, that the Mexican federal government can't manage, like in the Colombian case, that the paramilitaries remain at the vanguard of the state war against the insurgent groups. In Colombia, as I observed in the department of Putumayo, the paramilitaries were maintaining effective control of extensive zones of the territory of that nation and constituted the semi-clandestine vanguard of the counterinsurgency. Apparently it was already out of the control of the Colombian state, the paramilitaries received funding from landowners and drug traffickers and they had been a force that even had demanded recognition as a belligerent party4. By recommendation of the CIA advisers, the Colombian army integrated the paramilitary groups into the structure of the national military intelligence.

For all the observers and citizens that have observed the conflict in Chiapas since 1994, the federal and state governments and the Mexican military trusted that the paramilitary forces from the north of Chiapas, “Peace and Justice” and “the Chinchulines”, at the start, might achieve territorial control and make it unnecessary for the army to intervene and sustain direct combat with the Zapatista support bases. However, the mobilisations of the Mexican army that maintained themselves during all these years, indicate that the federal government considered it necessary to maintain its military intensity in the zones of high Zapatista political presence. It is evident, then, that the paramilitaries aren't sufficient for this purpose; even so, the co-existence of military squads and paramilitaries in the same theatres of operation implies the possibility that in Mexico it might occur something which is already routine in other countries: joint operations of paramilitaries and the army.

The government has maintained the use of paramilitaries despite some symptoms of fatigue. The non-government organisations from Chiapas reported ten years ago that the paramilitaries bases existed, in some cases, the same famines that the Zapatistas and those that were discontented because of their leaders, like Samuel Sánchez, head of Peace and Justice, was developing his own hotel and tourism empire in the municipality of Tila, while the indigenous Choles continued in the same poverty. In Tila, even, an Association of ex-Militants of Peace and Justice was created and some paramilitaries without land have carried out occupations of land in the North of Chiapas.

In these years the acronyms and names of groups supposedly disposed to fight against the EZLN and their communities of support have proliferated: “Los Tomates” in Bochil, “Los Chentes” in Tuxtia Gutiérrez, “Los Quintos” in the municipality of Venustiano Carranza, “Los Aguilares" in Bachajón, "los Puñales " in Atenango del Valle, Tepisca and Comitán.

The activities of the Army, far from making clear before the population a real policy of peace of the PRI-PAN5 federal executives, demonstrates the opposite. The concern provoked in the population by the presence of paramilitaries, the harassment of Zapatista support bases that operate in the Autonomous Municipalities and the Assemblies of Good Government, the major presence of the Army in Chiapas, and in other indigenous regions of the national geography, highlight tactics tending to provoke aggressions and massive displacements in regards to the creation of optimal conditions for the development of big capital in the process of comprehensive occupation on behalf of all types of corporations.

The Federal Army keeps up an intense labour in the Zapatista regions and extensive zones of Guerrero, Oaxaca, Veracruz,among other states with a indigenous population. From the orchestration of intelligence work that has to do with a more precise outline of maps that reflect the dynamic of the population, to understand and control the daily activities of indigenous communities by the full knowledge of their rural roads, their work and the precise location of their habitats, but above all, the scope of natural and strategic resources coveted by transnational companies.

It worth highlighting that phenomena like militarism and its concomitant paramilitarism are given in terms of a new international division of labour that tries to allocate to Mexico and Central American region a role of provider of biodiversity, of a cheap workforce and a exit route for U.S. goods to the markets of the Pacific, besides what the country represents for that other transnational corporation, which is organised crime. With that strategy in mind, Mexican government programs have been put into practice like Attention to the 250 micro-regions, Sustainable Development of the Rainforest and Integral for the Sustainable Development of the Rainforest, etc.

The attempts to dislodge 110 communities in the Lacandona Rainforest and the Integral Reserve of the Montes Azules Biosphere, for example, go precisely in the direction of creating conditions of inhabitability for these communities. Those who have been doing the dirty work, they receive the pressures from transnational companies like the mining companies or like the supposedly ecological corporations, Conservation International. Pulsar Group, Mc Donalds, Disney, Exxon, Ford and Intel, this last one with an investment of 250 million dollars.

To achieve their aims they have had the inestimable support of departments from the federal sphere like Federal Attorney-General's Office of Environmental Protection and the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat). Accompanying these authorities have been the Mexican Army, with their programs of active or latent counterinsurgency and the use of ferocious fish or paramilitaries.

Far from demonstrating a vocation of dialogue and peace, the Army carries out constant patrols in remote indigenous communities. Showing a supreme ignorance of the Constitution, or consciously ignoring the Supreme Law, the Army has awarded itself the functions of a police force, and for this, it assists judicial police, paramilitaries, vendors or religious preachers, in the oldest style of the Linguistic Institute of Summer.

As well as this, the State continues damaging the social fabric through the financing of productive projects that break the traditional vocation of the land and the common forms of collective property and production of the land. Such is the case of it carried out by the past PAN governments that introduced highly predatory and profitable activities, like raising cattle or royal palm. In this sense, some years ago, they carried out activities on behalf of the coffee growers from Ocosingo (ORCAO), who, with the help of official programs, developed economic activities without the consent of the community, increasing the violent actions against it and the autonomous authorities.

Summarising, paramilitarism serves the ends of counterinsurgency, destroying or damaging severely the social fabric that supports the guerrillas. It acts under the most diverse expressions. Attacking providers of social services in the camps of displaced peoples, causing conditions of inhabitability in indigenous and peasant communities that provoke displacements, making common cause with civil authorities, exercising harassment through the action of bribable judges, infiltrating religious associations, carrying out intelligence work, suggesting developmentalist dilemmas that cause environmental damage, assigning as enemies of development the communities that refuse to follow the logic of capitalist profit, with its consequent instability, and above all causing or increasing the spiral of violence in the communities making from this a way of life through drug trafficking, militarisation and criminalisation of opposition.

The features of many communities has changed due to militarism, organised crime and paramilitarism. The arrival of phenomena like prostitution, drug addiction and drug trafficking aren't natural circumstances, but the result of a strategy of penetration of capital, with its multiple armed wings at the service of the State.

The autonomous praxis expressed precisely in the Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities and Assemblies of Good Government, in the communities that adhere to the CRAC6, of Guerrero, in Cherán, Michoacán, or in municipalities of Oaxaca, by mentioning, the most visible cases, has called attention and has meant the increase of the military activities, and the whole gamut of armed groups related to organised crime and the paramilitaries. These experiences, by acquiring importance through their de facto autonomies have put themselves once more in the sights of the State. By displaying strategies of resistance, protected in international jurisprudence, like those expressed in Convention 169 of the OIT7 and Universal Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples issued by the United Nations, the autonomous communities give an example of anti-capitalist struggle.

Therefore, any future project to rescue the nation requires debating in depth the constitutional tasks of the armed forces with the aim of totally shifting it from its present condition: which in fact is a truly a force of occupation of the peoples. A project to democratise the country requires strengthening civil and legislative control of the armed forces and definitive disappearance of of the fourth illegal, secret, armed force that is grouped under the paramilitaries and on which the government bases its undercover operations against the EZLN, other armed groups and the whole gamut of civilian organisations that take part in peaceful resistance in the national territory.

[1]Leopoldo Martínez Caraza, Léxico histórico militar. Biblioteca del oficial mexicano. Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional, México, 1993.
[2] John Quick. Dictionary of weapons and military terms. McGraw Hill. Estados Unidos, 1973. [3]“El gobierno creó en 1976 brigada especial para “aplastar” a guerrilleros en el valle de México” La Jornada, 7 de julio de 2008.
[4] Manual de guerra irregular. Operaciones de contraguerrilla o restauración del orden. T. II, SEDENA, enero de 1995.
[5] Ibíd.
[6] Ibíd.
[7] Ibíd.
[8] Ibíd.
[9] Ibíd.
[10] Ibíd.

Translator's notes:
1 the state being the institution or complex of institutions which bases itself on the availability of forcible coercion by special agencies of society in order to maintain the dominance of a ruling class, preserve the existing property relations from basic change and keep all other classes in subjection
2 Foco – centre of a guerrilla organisation that could provide a focus for general discontent against a sitting regime
3 EZLN - Zapatista Army of National Liberation or simply the Zapatistas, is a revolutionary leftist political and militant group based in Chiapas, the southernmost state of Mexico. Since 1994, the group has been in a declared war "against the Mexican state", although this war has been primarily defensive, against military, paramilitary and corporate incursions into Chiapas.
4 Belligerency is a term used in international law to indicate the status of two or more entities, generally sovereign states, being engaged in a war. Once the status of belligerency is established between two or more states, their relations are determined and governed by the laws of war.
5 PRI - Institutional Revolutionary Party, Mexican political party. Its modern policies of neo-liberalism and privatization have been characterized as centrist or even as Centre-right
PAN - National Action Party has been linked to a conservative stance in Mexican politics since its inception.
6 Regional Network of Community Authorities
7 ILO – International Labour Organisation