Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
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….)
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
Should Russia Attack Colombia?
The President and Secretary of State are making “a largely moral case for a retaliatory response” in Syria, New York Times editors asserted recently. And Obama declared Wednesday that “the international community’s credibility is on the line,” since it was “the world” that “set a red line” regarding chemical weapons use. Suppose then that Russia, as a member of said community, attempted to uphold these ethical standards by striking Colombia.
Putin would have a strong justification for doing so. “American intelligence has not disclosed any evidence that Mr. Assad personally ordered the use of sarin,” Peter Baker admitted in the Times, but the case against Colombia’s “aerial eradication” strategy—a euphemism for chemical warfare—is airtight by comparison. Fumigation, ostensibly targeting coca production, has been official government policy for years. The U.S. embassy’s Narcotics Affairs Section in Bogotá pays for the glyphosate-based mixture and aircraft used in the herbicide-spraying flights, which generally fail to accomplish their stated aims, but consistently devastate poor farmers.
Several courageous journalists have reported on the herbicide’s health effects, no easy task given U.S. and Colombian officials’ extensive efforts to keep the policy’s details secret. Hugh O’Shaughnessy is one of them. He traveled to the department of Putumayo in June 2001, visiting a small village school, where “Gloria, a teacher, told [him] how early on the mornings of 23 December 2000 and 6 January 2001 planes had time and again swooped low over the playground, flying at the height of a palm tree.” She proceeded to explain that some “230 of the 450 pupils at our school have been ill since then with diarrhea, respiratory illnesses and constantly recurring skin infections.”
Research can be undertaken more freely in Ecuador’s Sucumbíos province, adjacent to Putumayo, and thus also affected by the spraying. Ten Ecuadorean NGOs compiled a report concluding that “it has been possible to note systemic damage in the people, such as respiratory, skin and digestive infections, and nervous complaints.” Clearly this officially-sanctioned fumigation, carried out for decades and resulting in the poisoning and forced displacement of tens of thousands of destitute Colombians, is “an assault on human dignity,” in Obama’s eloquent formulation, warranting what is apparently the only appropriate response: a “military action” that is “limited in duration and scope.”
Russia is well-qualified to carry out just such a strike. It has nothing remotely like the military presence—or history of interventions—the U.S. does in Latin America, which ought to ease fears of ulterior motives driving the attack. And Russia hasn’t invaded and occupied any of Colombia’s neighbors in the past decade, as Washington did across Syria’s border in Iraq; none of Colombia’s neighbors have ties with Russia comparable to Israel’s with the U.S., either. To the contrary: Putin’s cooperation with Venezuela, perhaps the region’s most democratic nation, stands in sharp contrast to Washington’s years of hostility towards Chávez, including efforts to oust him. One could even argue that a Russian strike might have a deterrent effect on the Colombian government, whose brutal policies continue in part because of the impunity afforded top officials. Recall that fumigation intensified more than a decade ago, right after the Washington-conceived Plan Colombia, first drafted in English, was put into effect. Decisive action is long overdue, in this case.
But no one wants a Russian strike on Colombia, for the obvious reason that it would be catastrophic. And more fundamentally, no one is issuing this call because the planned U.S. strike on Syria has nothing to do with a principled ethical stance. It’s an assertion of power—an act even less justified, more cynical, and potentially more disastrous than the imagined nightmare scenario discussed here. We’d do well to bear that in mind in the coming days.
Nick Alexandrov lives in Washington, DC. He can be reached at: email@example.com.