FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Discourse and War in Colombia

by Philip Cryan

Last week, Carlos Castaño, longtime leader of the AUC (United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia), announced that the group was disbanding. For years the AUC has united the many local rightwing paramilitary groups in Colombia within a single federation.

The previous week, Colombia’s largest newspaper (“El Tiempo”) and major television news programs provided extensive coverage of civilian resistance to a FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the country’s largest guerrilla group) takeover in Toribio, a small town in the southwestern Colombian province of Cauca. The news sources claim that the people of Toribio have provided a new model for Colombians to emulate in supporting the government’s counter-guerrilla war, by standing up to the FARC, who had threatened to execute members of the defeated local police.

On August 7, Alvaro Uribe Velez will be sworn in as the next president of Colombia. Uribe’s foremost campaign promise was an intensification of the counter-guerrilla ­ or “counter-terrorist,” as it’s now of course invariably called ­ campaign: a decisive re-ordering of the balance of power between the government and the FARC, achieved militarily. In addition, Uribe has proposed the establishment of a network of “a million friends” ­ one million Colombian civilians enlisted as “eyes and ears” for the military’s campaign against the guerrillas. Though strongly criticized by Colombian social organizations of all kinds, this proposal has not met with the kind of general aversion to which President Bush’s similar proposal (“TIPS”) was recently ­ thankfully ­ subjected.

These three issues ­ the AUC’s announced dissolution, the Colombian media’s reverential coverage of a new form of “civil resistance” to the guerrillas, and Uribe’s campaign promises ­ seem to me deeply related (“deep” in the sense of fundamental but also in the sense of tectonic, below the surface, their conflagrations not yet visible). I will try to lay out some of these subterranean relationships, acknowledging that at this early stage such an analysis can only be speculative.

First: the cooptation of civil resistance (“resistencia civil”). Until a couple weeks ago, “resistencia civil” meant popular resistance to all of Colombia’s armed actors, a nonviolent opposition (often led, as was the case in Toribio, by indigenous communities) to the AUC, the FARC and ELN (National Liberation Army) guerrillas, and the Colombian State security forces (military and police). The first transformation carried out by media coverage of and Colombian government officials’ statements about Toribio was to shift the meaning of “civil resistance” from “resistance to all armed actors” to “resistance to the guerrillas.” CRIC (Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca, the largest indigenous coalition in the province) leaders insist that the actions of the people of Toribio in fact were driven by a principled opposition to all armed actors, yet media coverage and government statements consistently portrayed those actions as opposition solely to the FARC.

The second transformation was to make “resistencia civil” mean active support of the Colombian State security forces. The actions of the people of Toribio were reframed as spirited defense of the police and State. This new model has been offered by the media and government for the emulation of the Colombian populace in general: stand up for the State and against the guerrillas. While anchormen discuss “civil resistance,” images of police and military forces flash across the television screen. An impressively executed rhetorical coup. When I recently visited a Colombian Army battalion in Popayan (the capital of Cauca province) they had a newspaper article about civilian support for the military, titled “La resistencia civil,” tacked up on the wall at the entrance.

The second element is the announcement by Carlos Castaño, the longtime leader of the AUC paramilitary federation (which is responsible for over 70% of the civilian deaths in Colombia’s conflict), of its dissolution. His stated reasons for pulling out of the federation were, basically, 1) that he disapproves of many members’ heavy involvement in drug trafficking, and 2) that he disapproves of the judgment and actions of some members in carrying out assassinations and kidnappings.

There are many things to say about this announcement. First, it is entirely unknowable at present whether or not the dissolution actually happened, whether this is their spin on an actual schism in the federation or whether it is pure p.r. It will probably be a while before anyone knows which of these is the case. Either way, Castaño’s “casting out the bad seeds” and distancing himself (and the regional paramilitary group to which he has now returned) from drug trafficking clearly serves strategically in a broader project of legitimization.

Bringing in the third element, Castaño’s announcement prepares the ground for this legitimization process under Uribe, who takes office in little more than a week. In addition, it creates space for the U.S. government to rethink its stated opposition to the paramilitaries, since now some of them will supposedly be ‘clean’ (having ‘purged the bad elements’) and potentially legitimate in the eyes of the new Colombian administration. This despite the fact that Castaño and the other ‘clean’ defectors have been involved in a mind-boggling series of brutal massacres, torture, death threats, and a host of different forms of social control and repression for more than a decade (all amply documented in Castaño’s memoirs). Crucial to this courting of U.S. government approval is Castaño’s moralizing condemnation of the great Satan of drug trafficking.

The move also coincides happily with the U.S. Congress’s first-ever approval of aid to create a Colombian military battalion charged specifically with fighting the paramilitaries. U.S. military aid in general is to be used against State Department-designated “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” ­ the FARC, the ELN, and the AUC. Now that they are no longer the AUC, are the paramilitaries an approved target of U.S. military aid?

The key to linking this move towards legitimacy by the paramilitaries with the cooptation of “civil resistance” and with Uribe’s proposed “million friends” program is a study published last summer by the RAND Corporation, a U.S. think-tank. The study, called “The Colombian Labyrinth,” offered advice to the U.S. government in its ongoing support of the Colombian military. Even before September 11th ­ in the days when the U.S. Congress and Bush administration disavowed any interest in Colombia beyond the Drug War ­ the RAND study argued that establishment of stability and “peace” in Colombia would require much more than crop-dusters to spray coca fields. The RAND study’s analysis brings the various recent developments in Colombia together in a neat and carefully-constructed package:

Realistically, because the paramilitaries are the product of an environment of insecurity, they will continue to be a factor in Colombia’s crisis as long as the conditions that gave rise to them are not changed. An alternative approach could be to establish a network of government-supervised self-defense organizations. Legalized self-defense units could at least give the central government more control over their activities, and possibly improve the prospects for peace by empowering local communities to provide for their own security.

So this, it seems, is where Colombia may well be headed. “Civil resistance” will mean “legalized self-defense units” legitimized by the new government ­ groups which, like the current paramilitaries, will actively support the Colombian military. As in the 1980s and early 1990s, collusion between the government and these “self-defense units” will not be disguised. And civilians will be enlisted ­ if not as soldiers, then as informants and supporters ­ in this project, queerly called “resistance.”

Such a world we live in, no? The Gap sprays graffiti on its own store-windows; the Colombian military’s dirty work outsourcer re-outsources its dirty work. A nonviolent stance becomes active support for war.

Resistance is allegiance; and war is peace.

Phillip Cryan lives in Bogotá, Colombia. His essay “Defining Terrorism,” first published by Counterpunch, is included in Shattered Illusions, a collection of essays on post-September 11th politics, now available from Amal Press. He can be reached at: phillipcryan000@yahoo.com

 

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail