RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Massacres in Colombia Lay Bare Next Phase of the Conflict Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56284"><span class="small">Thomas Power, NACLA</span></a>   
Saturday, 19 September 2020 08:25

Power writes: "In recent weeks, seemingly every day there is news of another massacre in Colombia. On August 11, five teens were slayed in Cali, and five days later eight more youth were killed in Nariño."

'Massacres have risen 30 percent during the first two years of Iván Duque's presidency.' (photo: Contagio Radio)
'Massacres have risen 30 percent during the first two years of Iván Duque's presidency.' (photo: Contagio Radio)


Massacres in Colombia Lay Bare Next Phase of the Conflict

By Thomas Power, NACLA

19 September 20


Under President Duque, massacres are on the rise, especially in areas where FARC-EP guerrillas previously controlled territory.


n recent weeks, seemingly every day there is news of another massacre in Colombia. On August 11, five teens were slayed in Cali, and five days later eight more youth were killed in Nariño. The following week, there were massacres in Arauca, Cauca, Antioquia, and another in Nariño. Then on September 7, there were three massacres in 24 hours, two in Antioquia and one in Bolívar a mere two days after a massacre left three dead in Cauca. On September 9, a video circulated social media showing police in Bogotá killing Javier Ordóñez. Twelve more died in the ensuing protests.

Massacres have risen 30 percent during the first two years of Iván Duque’s presidency. Through August 25, Colombian think thank Instituto de Estudios para el Desarrollo y la Paz (Institute for the Study of Development and Peace, Indepaz) registered 55 massacres this year. The killings coincide with areas where social leaders have been murdered in recent years, and where the now demobilized FARC-EP guerrillas previously controlled territory. While the massacres follow past patterns of violence, they also indicate new dynamics, where the actors and interests behind attacks are not always clear-cut.

The regions with the most massacres this year have been Antioquia with 12, followed by Cauca and Nariño on the Pacific coast with seven each, and Catatumbo on the Venezuelan border and Putumayo on the Ecuadorian border with four each.

“There is an interest to control these areas: Control of strategic corridors, of places for political control, and of places where there is conflict between armed groups,” says Abilio Peña, a human rights defender based in Bogotá who works with the NGO Ansur, which gives self-protection workshops to grassroots communities .

“It’s obviously systematic. It isn’t coincidental that there have been more than 40 massacres this year. There is a pattern,” says Peña.

Leonardo González, author of the Indepaz report, pointed out the conflict between armed groups to control territory is linked the failure to implement the 2016 Peace Accords with the FARC-EP.

“There are two phenomena. One is the homicides of social leaders, and the other is the massacres,” says González. “These phenomena began to appear in 2016, and with a sharp increase more recently. We could say this has been a response by armed groups to impose order in areas vacated by the FARC.”  

Post-Peace Accords, Cycle of Past Violence Continue

In August, the number of social leaders assassinated since the 2016 Peace Accords passed 1,000. There is nearly an identical geographical correlation between departments with the highest number of assassinations of social leaders and the highest number of massacres. In Cauca, 240 social leaders have been killed, 133 in Antioquia, 91 in Nariño, 75 in Valle del Cauca, and 61 in Putumayo.

The apparent deepening of the conflict should not be viewed in isolation but, instead, as connected to cycles of past violence. “There have been patterns throughout history. During the times of President Turbay, torture was more frequent. During the time of Samper and Uribe, there were more forced displacement,” Peña says. “Today, they have combined selective assassinations with massacres as strategies of social control. As a way to exercise dominance in certain areas. And, obviously, there are economic and political interests in these areas.”

Willian Aljure can also speak to the connection between today’s violence and the past. He lives in the municipality of Mapiripán, on Colombia’s eastern plains, a disputed territory. He is the president of a network of Indigenous, Afro-Colombian, and campesino communities called Comunidades Construyendo Paz en Colombia (Communities Constructing Peace in Colombia, Conpazcol). Aljure has lost parents and grandparents to the Colombian conflict, and his land is currently occupied by the palm oil company Polygrow.

“This isn’t new, at least, speaking from the experience of the Aljure family. My grandfather had signed peace accords with the government that in the end weren’t upheld,” he says. 

The Colombian government has denied that there is conflict. As if lifted straight from the Principles of Newspeak, President Duque described the recent wave of massacres as “collective homicide.” The Colombian Defense Minister blamed drug trafficking, enraging victims and using a common trope for the state to avoid responsibility for its own inaction to prevent these tragedies.

The Colombian High Commissioner of Peace, Miguel Ceballos, went further, denying that there were any massacres at all, and attributing the deaths to disputes between drug-traffickers, except for the assassination of the eight youths in Nariño.

Massacres as a Form of Social Control

Massacres are not collateral damage as armed actors dispute territory. They are an intentional strategy to consolidate social control.

Massacres are intended to send messages to those who live. “If they want to have territorial control, they need to have social control,” says González of Indepaz “For example, illegal armed groups are massacring people for having violated the quarantine. So, it’s a way to tell the population ‘we are the ones who are in charge here.’ Massacres are a message to the population.”

Aljure agrees. “They are different contexts, but in the end it’s the same story. And the story is to kill at all costs to send a message. In Nariño, they were adolescents having a good time, and look at what happened… …They aren’t killing old men anymore, just look at the quantity of children they have killed the past few weeks,” he says. By killing children, those behind the massacres are trying to intimidate any resistance that might oppose their domination.

Another contrast between the current moment and the past is the clandestine nature of the modus operandi of the armed groups carrying out the violence. For example, in 2017, 62 percent of murders of social leaders were perpetrated by an unknown assailant or assassin.

“It isn’t like an armed group is arriving to an area, threatening people, and then carrying out a massacre,” González says. “It’s a new modality because before you knew the identity of the armed group and you knew what this group was trying to accomplish. Today, we don’t know who is moving the chess pieces of war, who is winning and who is losing.”

Violence Linked to Economic Interests and Paramilitaries

Enrique Chimonja is a human rights defender with Fellowship of Reconciliation and Conpazcol, and a victim of the armed conflict who lives in the department of Huila. He adds that in addition to the clandestine nature of today’s illegal armed groups, the political goals of these organizations have been subordinated to economic aims.

Chimonja says that the economic interests go beyond drug-trafficking. “The model has no other option but to resort to what it has always done,” Chimonja says “And that is to resort to violence and criminality. It has to take advantage of the state’s weakness to displace and continue consolidating its economic project of accumulation without limits that characterizes the neoliberal model.”

Armed groups aim not only to control drug-trafficking corridors but the resources in these disputed regions. Extractive economic projects exist in many of the municipalities where there have been massacres. For example, in El Tambo, Cauca, where six were killed on August 21, there are solicitations for coal mining licenses. In Samaniego, Nariño, where two massacres happened this year including the eight youth killed in on August 15, there was a meeting between the mayor and the National Mining Agency in 2017 to explore the extraction of gold and other minerals. Arauca, where five where killed on August 21, has extensive oil interests. The Canadian company Colombian Crest Gold Corp owns gold mining titles in the municipality of Venecia, Antioquia where three were killed on August 23, and the municipality of Andés, Antioquia, where three were killed on August 28, has a dozen mining concessions in gold, coal, and other minerals with solicitudes for dozens more. In the region of Catatumbo, where four massacres have happened this year, there are agro-industrial and mining interests at stake.

Aside from achieving territorial control and controlling populations, Aljure refers to a third factor which he was almost reluctant to admit. The current political context of Colombia includes the recent order by the Supreme Court to put the former President Álvaro Uribe Vélez on house arrest.

Peña says that while there is no direct relation between the order to arrest Uribe and the massacres, there are correlations. He says that since the days of Pablo Escobar, a sort of mafia-drug trafficking-landowning class had been rising in power, peaking with the arrival of Uribe to the presidency in 2002. “And now, we are in a moment where this power is in decline, and the capture of Uribe is a symbol of this. However, this doesn’t mean the power will end soon,” Peña says.

“The spirit, the mentality of paramilitarism has been conceived by the ex-president Uribe. With the Convivir, with the massacres, with the parapolitica, are all connected to the ex-president Uribe. And this continues intact. This hasn’t changed,” Peña says. The Convivir was a legal mechanism created in the 1990s to allow for private citizens to defend themselves against the guerrillas, but became a nexus for coordination between paramilitaries, militaries, and private companies. While governor of Antioquia, Uribe advocated for the use of Convivir throughout the department. The “parapolitica” scandal involved over one hundred Colombian lawmakers and politicians under investigation for relationships with paramilitary groups. Recently released cables show that during the Bush Administration, the U.S. Defense Departments strongly suspected Uribe of having ties to paramilitary groups.

Peña also pointed out the U.S. administration’s “unconditional support” for Uribe. Vice President Mike Pence tweeted his support for the former president.

There has been fear growing in the territories of Colombia. Aljure, as president of Conpazcol, is concerned about community of the Naya River which received news of a possible massacre on August 23. This Afro-descendent community on the Pacific Coast lives in a disputed region, where three people disappeared in 2018.

Aljure says that more international attention to the massacres is needed. “Not just to talk about what already happened, but to avoid what may happen.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Every Newspaper Should Be Calling on Donald Trump to Resign Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Friday, 18 September 2020 12:28

Pierce writes: "It is beyond doubt that the current president has 'failed to put his nation's interests first.'"

It is beyond doubt that the current president has 'failed to put his nation's interests first.' (photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg)
It is beyond doubt that the current president has 'failed to put his nation's interests first.' (photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg)


Every Newspaper Should Be Calling on Donald Trump to Resign

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

18 September 20


It is beyond doubt that the current president has "failed to put his nation's interests first."

y favorite statistic of this misbegotten era—and by "favorite," I mean the one most likely to make me drain the Earth's entire supply of whiskey—is the one that press critic Eric Boehlert likes to toss around when he reminds us that more than 100 of the nation's newspapers called for Bill Clinton to resign during the Great Penis Chase of 1998. Clinton, we were told, over and over again, had demonstrated his unfitness for the office of president because of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. As Boehlert recalled in his essential Press Run newsletter: 

"He should resign because he has resolutely failed — and continues to fail — the most fundamental test of any president: to put his nation's interests first," USA Today announced unequivocally of Bill Clinton in September 1998. "Bill Clinton should resign, echoed the Philadelphia Inquirer. "He should resign because his repeated, reckless deceits have dishonored his presidency beyond repair." The Denver Post, Washington Times, Orlando Sentinel, San Antonio Express-News, Anchorage Daily News, and Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader were among the dailies that joined the resignation chorus.

Yet, as Boehlert points out, none of these guardians of the people's liberties has called for the resignation of a president* who dishonors the presidency just by getting out of bed in the East Wing every morning. It probably wouldn't do any material good; Clinton ignored the calls for his resignation, too. But it would be a demonstration that another institution was pushing back against a criminal presidency*, the fundamental incompetence of which has contributed to the deaths of over 200,000 citizens. 

The New York Times, which has not called for the president*'s resignation either, has the latest entry in a bill of indictment that now reaches from the Potomac to a spot somewhere in north Georgia.

The guidance said it was not necessary to test people without symptoms of Covid-19 even if they had been exposed to the virus. It came at a time when public health experts were pushing for more testing rather than less, and administration officials told The Times that the document was a C.D.C. product and had been revised with input from the agency’s director, Dr. Robert Redfield. But officials told The Times this week that the Department of Health and Human Services did the rewriting and then “dropped” it into the C.D.C.’s public website, flouting the agency’s strict scientific review process. “That was a doc that came from the top down, from the H.H.S. and the task force,” said a federal official with knowledge of the matter, referring to the White House task force on the coronavirus. “That policy does not reflect what many people at the C.D.C. feel should be the policy.”

As the Times notes, this isn't the first time that political hacks installed at HHS have monkeywrenched documents from the CDC regarding public safety during the pandemic. BUT WE GOT FOOTBALL AGAIN! Jesus. That any thinking human being would vote for four more years of this madness makes me wonder if Darwin wasted a lot of time.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The US "War on Terror" Has Created at Least 37 Million Refugees Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56271"><span class="small">Daniel Bessner, Jacobin</span></a>   
Friday, 18 September 2020 12:27

Excerpt: "A new study finds that America's 'war on terror' has displaced at least 37 million people around the globe. The US left has a responsibility to push an internationalism that aids the victims of American imperialism - and acts in solidarity with workers no matter their country of origin."

U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. (photo: Getty)
U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. (photo: Getty)


The US "War on Terror" Has Created at Least 37 Million Refugees

By Daniel Bessner, Jacobin

18 September 20


A new study finds that America’s “war on terror” has displaced at least 37 million people around the globe. The US left has a responsibility to push an internationalism that aids the victims of American imperialism — and acts in solidarity with workers no matter their country of origin.

ast week, Brown University’s Costs of War Project released a report that revealed a startling statistic: since George W. Bush’s initiation of the “Global War on Terror,” “at least 37 million people have fled their homes [as the result of] the eight most violent wars the U.S. military has launched or participated in.”

The interventions in Afghanistan have resulted in 5.3 million displaced people; Pakistan, 3.7 million; Iraq, 9.2 million; Libya, 1.2 million; Syria, 7.1 million; Yemen, 4.4 million; Somalia, 4.2 million; and the Philippines, 1.7 million. These numbers are “more than those displaced by any other war or disaster since at least the start of the twentieth century with the sole exception of World War II.”

The 37 million figure is a conservative estimate — the total number might be as high as 59 million, if not higher, since no estimation has accounted for the number of Africans driven from their homes due to US military interventions on the continent. These numbers also say nothing of the human toll wrought by displacement. Edward Said, the late Palestinian literary theorist who spent most of his life living outside his homeland, spoke for many when he described exile as “terrible to experience.”

It [exile] is the unhealable rift forced between a human being and a native place, between the self and its true home: its essential sadness can never be surmounted. And while it is true that literature and history contain heroic, romantic, glorious, even triumphant episodes in an exile’s life, these are no more than efforts meant to overcome the crippling sorrow of estrangement. The achievements of exile are permanently undermined by the loss of something left behind forever.

While many of those deracinated by the United States will no doubt come together to build new lives in new places, many will also remain in “permanent exile,” to borrow a phrase from the intellectual historian Martin Jay, forever disconnected from, but attached to, their native land.

Unsurprisingly, the United States has done little to aid those it has separated from their homes; since fiscal year 2002, the government has only allowed in about 950,000 refugees. Put another way, in absolute numbers, the United States has welcomed just 2.5 percent of the 37 million people it has displaced through its military misadventures — a pathetic amount, especially for an incredibly wealthy nation that has chosen to govern the world and which is therefore responsible for its state.

What is to be done?

One of the most exciting elements of Bernie Sanders’s run for president was how he centered non-Americans. According to Sanders’s campaign, his administration intended not only to aid people in the United States, but also to “change the terms of the global economy to lift up workers everywhere.”

This humanist message, which recognizes all people as worthy of respect and dignity regardless of where they were born, must remain central to any left-wing project, and must be explicitly connected to the disasters wrought by US imperialism. Americans have a responsibility to those whose lives our government so carelessly destroyed. With the climate crisis escalating, we should also expect a sharp increase in refugees fleeing the Global South. Here, too, we have an enormous responsibility.

In the wake of Sanders’s failed bid for the Democratic Party’s nomination, it looks like the social-democratic left will remain on the sidelines of national governance for the foreseeable future. But this doesn’t mean we can’t take inspiration from previous generations of radicals who used their time outside government to develop, articulate, and promote novel programs and policies ready to be implemented when they finally achieved power. For today’s left, a humane and just refugee policy must be one of those.

What would that look like? Perhaps it would involve offering blanket amnesty to anyone displaced as the result of US behavior, capaciously defined. Perhaps it would involve resettling refugees in the United States, creating jobs programs for the millions of Americans who have lost their employment in the long decades of deindustrialization. Or most ambitiously, perhaps it would mean dismantling the US empire entirely, the cause of so much despair.

Regardless of the details, US-based socialists cannot limit our vision and plans to the United States itself. Since 2001, the United States has launched a series of wars that have shattered the lives of people the world over. We have a responsibility to these people — both because our government caused their suffering and because we, as socialists, must act in solidarity with working people everywhere.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Ranked-Choice Voting Is a Better Way to Vote Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56269"><span class="small">Elizabeth Warren and Jamie Raskin, The Boston Globe</span></a>   
Friday, 18 September 2020 11:23

Excerpt: "To defend our democracy, we need to fortify it. One way is by strengthening the principle of majority rule while defending and protecting the rights of all individuals, including those in the minority."

Maine allows for ranked-choice voting in state primary elections and in general elections for federal office. (photo: Robert F. Bukaty/AP)
Maine allows for ranked-choice voting in state primary elections and in general elections for federal office. (photo: Robert F. Bukaty/AP)


Ranked-Choice Voting Is a Better Way to Vote

By Elizabeth Warren and Jamie Raskin, The Boston Globe

18 September 20


In a large, diverse field of candidates, ranked-choice ballots would guarantee democratic majority rule.

cross the country nearly 1,000 people are dying each day from COVID-19, an infectious disease that should have been under control by now. The economy is being squeezed to its breaking point. The fight for racial justice has reached an inflection point and demands bold action. And from postal sabotage to old-fashioned voter purges, voting — the very foundation of our democracy and an essential instrument for change — is under siege.

To defend our democracy, we need to fortify it. One way is by strengthening the principle of majority rule while defending and protecting the rights of all individuals, including those in the minority. Massachusetts voters have a chance to do just that in November by approving ranked-choice voting on Question 2.

Although many people believe that majority rule is a core part of what it means to be a democracy, numerous examples show why this isn’t the case in the American system of government. In two of the last five presidential elections, the antiquated Electoral College system has propelled two popular-vote losers (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016) to the Oval Office. The Senate is still tied up in knots with the anti-majoritarian filibuster rule. And, in far too many other races, elected officials win not because they actually earn anything near a majority of the votes but because they collect a few more votes than the runners-up. That is how the current plurality system works.

To fix this, communities across the country — from Maine to California, and even here in Amherst and Cambridge — have taken steps to safeguard our democracy by adopting ranked-choice voting.

So how does ranked-choice voting work? Under the current plurality system, each voter is allowed to vote for only one candidate, and the candidate who receives the most votes is elected — period. That works fine when only two candidates are on the ballot. But in a big field of candidates, particularly in a primary, this means that someone with 30, 20 or even 10 percent of the vote could be declared the winner simply because the remaining 70, 80 or 90 percent of the votes are scattered to many different candidates.

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank their choices among as many of the candidates as they want, and no candidate is declared the winner until someone receives more than 50 percent of the votes. The ballots are counted for everyone’s first choice. If no one has a majority, the votes for the candidate who finished last are then distributed to voters' second-ranked candidate. If a candidate breaks the 50 percent threshold, the winner is declared. If not, then the votes of the remaining candidate at the bottom are reallocated to those voters' next choice — and so on until someone gets a majority.

By requiring the winner to reach more than 50 percent of the vote, ranked choice voting ensures the winning candidate is the one with the broadest appeal to the majority of voters. The ability to mobilize the broadest and deepest appeal across the electorate would replace the ability to target a passionate minority constituency, which may be extreme or nonrepresentative from the standpoint of most voters as the key to winning.

Today’s elections host some of the largest and most diverse candidate fields — and that’s great. But in the current plurality system, large fields split up common voting blocs. So most voters might overwhelmingly prefer to elect identified environmentalists to their town council, and a dozen environmentalists might show up to vie for that spot — but as the green dozen divides up the majority of votes, a single, pro-fossil-fuel candidate who stirs up antienvironmental sentiment could win with only a small fraction of total votes cast.

Ranked-choice voting has another remarkable virtue: Everywhere it has been adopted, it has replaced the politics of personal destruction with positive coalition politics. If two like-minded candidates are running against each other in a large field, they are more likely to work for the second and third choices of their opponent’s supporters by appealing to what they have in common rather than focusing on divisive issues.

For everyone who worries that they won’t know enough about every candidate to rank multiple candidates, they can leave the other options blank. If that voter’s choices don’t make it into the final round, then that voter is no worse off under RCV than under the current system.

Ranked-choice voting can make our elections more positive and require successful candidates to build broad coalitions. It can ensure that everyone’s vote counts and open the door to elections that more fairly represent the electorate. Most important, ranked-choice voting can make sure that the winning candidates have successfully appealed to the majority of the voters. That’s a stronger democracy.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: We Need a Commission to Oversee the 2020 Elections Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=56268"><span class="small">Dan Coats, The New York Times</span></a>   
Friday, 18 September 2020 11:11

Coats writes: "Electoral legitimacy is the essential linchpin of our entire political culture."

American voters face the question of whether the American democratic experiment will survive. (photo: Mark Makela/The New York Times)
American voters face the question of whether the American democratic experiment will survive. (photo: Mark Makela/The New York Times)


We Need a Commission to Oversee the 2020 Elections

By Dan Coats, The New York Times

18 September 20


Trump’s former director of national intelligence on how to firmly and unambiguously reassure all Americans that their votes will be counted.

e hear often that the November election is the most consequential in our lifetime. But the importance of the election is not just which candidate or which party wins. Voters also face the question of whether the American democratic experiment, one of the boldest political innovations in human history, will survive.

Our democracy’s enemies, foreign and domestic, want us to concede in advance that our voting systems are faulty or fraudulent; that sinister conspiracies have distorted the political will of the people; that our public discourse has been perverted by the news media and social networks riddled with prejudice, lies and ill will; that judicial institutions, law enforcement and even national security have been twisted, misused and misdirected to create anxiety and conflict, not justice and social peace.

If those are the results of this tumultuous election year, we are lost, no matter which candidate wins. No American, and certainly no American leader, should want such an outcome. Total destruction and sowing salt in the earth of American democracy is a catastrophe well beyond simple defeat and a poison for generations. An electoral victory on these terms would be no victory at all. The judgment of history, reflecting on the death of enlightened democracy, would be harsh.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 Next > End >>

Page 352 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN