Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Chavez's Call for FARC Disarmament Takes Washington By Surprise
Also in Media and Technology
Only in America Could a Two-Faced Creature Like McCain Attain Such Media Status
Rory O'Connor
How the Media's Tarring of Hillary Hurt Obama Too
Eric Boehlert
Digital TV: A Giveaway to Corporate Media
Bruce Dixon
Progressive Media's New Smackdown Power: Why Swiftboat Tactics Aren't Working in '08
Eric Boehlert
Communication Breakdown: How Cell Phones Hurt Communities
Benjamin Dangl
Arizona Shock Jock's Dangerous Call for 'Bloodshed' in Polling Places
Rory O'Connor
Washington's foreign policy establishment -- and much of the U.S. media -- was taken by surprise this week when President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, said the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) should lay down their arms and unconditionally release all of their hostages. The FARC is a guerilla group that has been fighting to overthrow the Colombian government for more than four decades.
Chavez's announcement should not have come as a surprise, because he had already said the same things several months ago.
On January 13, for example, Chavez said: "I do not agree with the armed struggle, and that is one of the things that I want to talk to Marulanda (the head of the FARC who died last March) about." Chavez also stated his opposition to kidnapping, and has made numerous public appeals for the FARC to release their hostages.
Chavez had also explained previously that the armed struggle was not necessary because left movements could now come to power through elections, something that was often difficult or impossible in the past because of political repression.
The surprise in U.S. policy and media circles is a result of a misconception of Chavez's recent role in Colombia's conflict. A comparison: former President Jimmy Carter has recently called upon the United States to negotiate with Hamas -- dismissed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and its allies in Israel and Europe. Carter is not an advocate of Hamas nor of armed struggle. He has met with Hamas and called for negotiations because he is trying to promote a peace settlement.
The same has been true for Hugo Chavez in the Colombian conflict. This is how Chavez's role has been seen by the families of the FARC's hostages (including U.S. military contractors), Colombian anti-violence activists, the governments of Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia and almost every other state in the region, and also in Europe. None of these people (including FARC kidnapping victims) or governments are admirers of the FARC. They have strongly supported Chavez's efforts, including but not limited to his success this year in gaining freedom for six hostages that were held by the FARC.
But for Washington and its right-wing allies in Colombia, Chavez and the FARC have become comrades in arms. The media has honed in on about two or three positive statements uttered by Chavez about the FARC (out of thousands of hours of his speeches) to describe Chavez as a "staunch FARC supporter" (Time Magazine June 9). On June 10, the Associated Press reported, falsely, that Chavez had five months ago been "urging world leaders to back their [the FARC's] armed struggle."
The U.S. State Department has even said it would consider placing Venezuela on its short list of "state sponsors of terrorism." This is unlikely in an election year, since Venezuela is our fifth largest oil supplier and the Republicans are already getting enough political headaches from gasoline at $4.00 a gallon.
For at least six years the Bush Administration has tried to make it look like Chavez and his government have been arming, funding, and otherwise supporting the FARC.
Until March of this year, Washington had supplied no evidence, documentary or otherwise, of such support. News articles containing such allegations were for years based on anonymous sources. But on March 1 the Colombian military bombed and invaded a FARC camp in Ecuador, killing more than two dozen people. These included FARC commander Raul Reyes, who was also the chief negotiator for the release of high-profile hostages held by the FARC, and some non-combatants. The incursion was condemned by governments throughout the hemisphere, except for the United States and Colombia.
The Colombian military claims to have captured eight computer exhibits, including laptops and flash drives, during the attack. Since March, the Colombian government has been releasing various files that allegedly come from this equipment, claiming that these files and communications indicate that Venezuela's government has been supporting the FARC. The government also alleged, on the basis of these files, that the FARC had helped finance the 2006 electoral campaign of Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa. Both Venezuela and Ecuador have contemptuously dismissed the charges, with President Correa arguing that the computers and equipment did not even originate in the FARC camp.
On May 15, the international law enforcement organization INTERPOL released a report that was widely described as having "authenticated" the computer files. But the report is ambiguous. In one part it says, "INTERPOL found no evidence that user files were created, modified or deleted on any of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits following their seizure on 1 March 2008 by Colombian authorities."
See more stories tagged with: chavez, venezuela, colombia, uribe, farc, propaganda
Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »