Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day11

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Politiqueria vs. Program

Common Sense Latest Victim of Colombia Peace Talks

by CHRIS GILBERT

Caracas, Venezuela.

The most recent victim in Colombia’s conflict, in spite of ongoing conversations between the government and the FARC-EP guerrilla that began last year, seems to be common sense itself. With the government declining to enter a two-part truce at the conclusion of the insurgency’s unilaterally assumed cease-fire on January 20, the war naturally resumed its course. Yet now acts of war on the part of the insurgency – recent attacks on the police, the taking of war prisoners, and the destruction of infrastructure – are declared “attempts against the peace process” or “provocations.” These are terms which the guerrilla never applied to the Colombian Air Force’s bombing of its camps and assassination of its combatants during its Christmas cease-fire.

In fact, the government’s puzzling outcry about a situation that is essentially of its own making (“dialogue in the middle of the war” is the very formula advanced by president Juan Manuel Santos) only makes sense in two possible circumstances: Either (1) the insurgency is not a belligerent political force, but rather a group of lawless bandits with no right to engage in war; or (2) the peace process is simply a logistical matter of organizing the guerrilla’s rendition. Yet both of these possibilities are belied by the government’s own decision to sit down at the negotiating table with the insurgency, as it is nowdoing in La Habana.

Of course the real issue is that a sizable dose of “mediatic irrationality”and what Latin Americans call “politiqueria” interferes with the minimal political intelligence that the government manages. The government’s situation is a complicated and contradictory one; it confects a solution of the same order. That is to say, pressured by mass movements and business sectors that would benefit from peace, yet also answerable to the semi-fascist position of Uribism (position the Colombian establishment has long fueled through mediatic intoxication), the essentially bonapartist regime of Santos employs a “knuckleball” policy of contradictory impulses and spins.

In contrast, the guerrilla has shown much steadfastness and political maturity: a conception of politics that includes respect for collective processes and democratic decision-making (to say nothing of their Clausewitzian conduction of the war which works in consonance with rather than against long-term political objectives). Hence the guerrilla has dutifully updated its historical program based on inputs from the United Nations-sponsored Agricultural Development Forum held in Bogotá last December, which was one of the few concrete results of the dialogues last year.

The result is a rich series of new documents from the FARC-EP including the Agrarian Decalog [1] and Eight minimal proposals [2]. The latter document’s focus on “territorial reordering” is something like a cross between a traditional land reform directed against nonproductive estates and a strong environmentalist project based on producing for real human needs and rationally managing natural resources. This repeats a surprising dynamic that is now seen worldwide: only the so-called extreme left – Fidel Castro, the Basque Izquierda Abertzale, the Sem Terra movement in Brazil, and the FARC-EP – is able to operate with a coherent vision of planetary survival and sustainability.

Lenin once said that anyone not willing to fight barbarism with barbaric means deserved what was coming to him. In Colombia, faced with one of history’s most ruthless oligarchies and a longstanding state terrorism financed and armed in a great measure by the United States, one could easily understand an insurgent force assuming the same attitude. Yet the FARC has chosen another route: a route based on dialogue, along with petitions for cease-fire and regularization of the conflict. Upcoming months will tell us whether this route – together with popular mobilization and international pressure – can succeed in cutting barbarism’s wings in a country where it has ruled for many decades.

Chris Gilbert is professor of Political Science in the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela.

NOTES

[1] For a commentary on the Agrarian Decalog see: Cesar Jerez, “El Decálogo Agrario de las FARC”, http://prensarural.org/spip/spip.php?article10117.

[2] La Delegación de las FARC-EP: “Ocho propuestas mínimas”, http://pazfarc-ep.blogspot.com/2013/02/ocho-propuetas-minimas-reordemaniento-uso-territorial-paz.html.