home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
The New Print Edition of CounterPunch, Only for Our Newsletter Subscribers! 400 FEMALE MURDERS ON THE US-MEXICO BORDER Who's been killing hundreds of girls around Juarez since the 1990s: Satanists, organ traffickers, drug gangs, cops? Debbie Nathan lays bare the political and psychic economy of femicide. PLUS R.F.Blader on why feminists shouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton. Plus Michael Neumann on the One-State Illusion. Get your copy today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great holiday presents.
Order CounterPunch By Email for Only $35 a Year !
|
Today's Stories January 22, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts January 21, 2008 Kevin Alexander
Gray Linn Washington,
Jr. Pam Martens David Macaray Uri Avnery Omar Barghouti Joe DeRaymond B.R. Gowani Shepherd Bliss Jean-Guy Allard Dan Bacher Website of
the Day January 19 / 20, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Saul Landau China Hand Conn Hallinan Ron Jacobs Dave Lindorff Andy Worthington Paul Armentano Seth Sandronsky Michael Donnelly Patrick Irelan Martha Rosenberg Sherwood Ross David Michael
Green James Rothenberg Daniel Gross Peter N. Carroll Susie Day Paul Krassner Poets' Basement Website of the Day
January 18, 2008 Allan Nairn Ralph Nader Joanne Mariner Alan Farago P. Sainath R.F. Blader Andy Worthington John Jonik Brian McKenna Daoud Kuttab Website of the Day
January 17, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Christopher
Brauchli Robert Fantina Patrick Irelan Paul A. Moore Stephen Lendman Beena Sarwar Walter Brasch Brenda Norrell Adam Federman Website of the Day
January 16, 2008 Jeffrey St.
Clair Franklin Lamb Julian Sanchez Sharon Smith Allan Nairn Ayesha Ijaz
Khan Andy Worthington Richard Behan Website of the Day
January 15, 2008 Andrea Peacock Wajahat Ali Joe Bageant Ralph Nader John Ross Elaine Cassel Peter Morici Beena Sarwar Robert Weissman Binoy Kampmark Dave Zirin Website of
the Day
January 14, 2008 Ishmael Reed Roger Morris Uri Avnery Mike Whitney Allan Nairn William Blum Alan Farago David Macaray Eva Liddell Zoe Blunt Website of the Day
January 12 / 13, 2008 Andrew Cockburn Saul Landau Corey D. B. Walker Col. Dan Smith Eric Toussaint Ron Jacobs Fred Gardner Stan Cox Jacob G. Hornberger Ramzy Baroud Joseph Grosso David Díaz-Arias Stacey Warde Dan Bacher Michael Dickinson Website of
Weekend
January 11, 2008 Dave Lindorff Paul Craig
Roberts Andy Worthington Kenneth Couesbouc Jeff Ballinger Christopher
Brauchli Manuel Garcia, Jr. Andrew Silverstein Marwan Bishara Robert Weissman Patrick Irelan Website of
the Day
January 10, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Bob Wing Michael Donnelly David Macaray China Hand Ayesha Ijaz Khan Rannie Amiri Website of the Day
January 9, 2008 Cockburn /
St. Clair Dave Lindorff John Chuckman James Bovard Alan Farago Russell Mokhiber William S. Lind Peter Morici Josh Reubner Mike Roselle Website of the Day
January 8, 2008 Paul Craig
Roberts Russell Mokhiber Robert Fantina Dave Zirin Shamako Nobel John Ross Brenda Norrell Laura Carlsen Patrick Irelan Evelyn J. Pringle Jonathan M.
Feldman Michael Dickinson Website of
the Day
January 7, 2008 Chris Floyd John Blair Uri Avnery Andy Worthington Binoy Kampmark David Macaray Ralph Nader Michael Donnelly Ron Jacobs Gideon Levy Dave Lindorff Website of
the Day
January 5 / 6, 2008 Douglas Valentine Kevin Young Richard Rhames Saul Landau Marc Lynch Robert Fantina Donna Volatile Jelle Bruinsma Bob Sutcliffe Harvey Wasserman Missy Beattie David Swanson Jacob Hornberger Shepherd Bliss Ron Jacobs Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
January 4, 2008 Cockburn /
St. Clair Jonathan Cook Paul Craig Roberts Stan Goff Dave Lindorff Niranjan Ramakrishnan Allan Nairn Joshua Frank Peter Morici Mary McInnis Website of the Day
January 3, 2008 Fatima Bhutto Pam Martens Joanne Mariner Zoltan Grossman David Domke Norman Solomon Nikolas Kozloff Jacob G. Hornberger Martha Rosenberg Russell Means Website of the Day
January 2, 2008 Jeff Taylor M. Shahid Alam Gary Leupp Paul Craig Roberts Heather Gray Fred Gardner David Macaray Benjamin Dangl
January 1, 2008 Iain A. Boal B. R. Gowani Shahid Mahmood Linn Washington,
Jr. Harvey Wasserman John Ross Website of the Day
December 31, 2007 Alexander Cockburn Tariq Ali Liaquat Ali Khan Wajahat Ali Robert Fisk Ajai Sahni Marwan Bishara Uri Avnery Mark T. Harris Brenda Norrell Website of the Day
December 29 / 30, 2007 Alexander Cockburn Tariq Ali Fawzia Afzal-Khan Gary Leupp China Hand Jacob Hornberger John Chuckman Missy Beattie Ralph Nader Fidel Castro Robert Fantina Greg Moses Catherine Lutz Kristin Van
Tassel Kim Nicolini Phyllis Pollack Poets' Basement Website of
the Weekend
December 28, 2007 Farzana Versey Wajahat Ali Binoy Kampmark Ayesha Ijaz
Khan Anthony DiMaggio Ray McGovern Jim Goodman Ron Jacobs Russell Hoffman John Murphy Website of the Day
December 27, 2007 Dilip Hiro Murtaza Shibli Stephen Soldz Bill Quigley Paul Craig Roberts Omer Subhani Marjorie Cohn Allan Nairn Jacob G. Hornberger Norman Solomon Patrick Irelan Ben Tripp Website of the Day
Charles Tripp Paul Armentano Rannie Amiri Stanley Heller John Walsh Martha Rosenberg Norman Madarasz Website of
the Day
December 25, 2007 Patrick Cockburn December 24, 2007 Andrea Peacock Tariq Ali Uri Avnery Jill Jameson Steve Melendez Mike Whitney Chuck Munson John Walsh Farzana Versey Richard Neville Website of the Day
Alexander Cockburn Ralph Nader Andy Worthington Ahmad Faruqui Bill Moyers Rev. William
E. Alberts Timothy J. Freeman Anthony DiMaggio Fred Gardner Paul Krassner Seth Sandronsky William Loren
Katz Michael Dickinson Ron Jacobs David Vest Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
December 21, 2007 John Ross Jacob Hornberger Dick J. Reavis Jeff Cohen
Peter Morici Jack McCarthy Raúl Zibechi Steve Early David Macaray Patrick Bond Lakota Freedom Delegation Website of
the Day
December 20, 2007 David Rosen Alan Farago Laura Carlsen Ashley Dawson Wayne Smith Website of
the Day
December 19, 2007 Saul Landau Paul W. Lovinger Norman Solomon Dave Zirin Marjorie Cohn Sen. Russell
Feingold Sonja Karkar Anthony Papa Christopher Ketcham Davey D Website of
the Day
December 18, 2007 R. F. Blader George Wuerthner Steven Higgs Vijay Prashad David Macaray Ralph Nader Eva Liddell Martha Rosenberg Dave Lindorff Peter Morici Website of
the Day
December 17, 2007 Mike Whitney Tom Barry Uri Avnery Greg Moses Allan Nairn Patrick Bond Stephen Lendman Charles Jonkel Laray Polk Stephen Fleischman December 15 / 16, 2007 Peter Linebaugh Howard Zinn Standard Schaefer Raymond J.
Lawrence Alan Farago Saul Landau Jenna Orkin Ahmad Samih
Khalidi Robert Fantina Missy Comley
Beattie Ramzy Baroud James L. Secor Elijah Wald Website of
the Weekend
December 14, 2007 JoAnn Wypijewski John Ross Jacob Hornberger Andy Worthington Allan Nairn Dave Zirin Dave Lindorff Misty MacDuffee Ben Terrall Dr. Mustafa
Barghouthi Website of the Day
December 13, 2007 Paul Craig
Roberts Mike Whitney Ron Jacobs Norman Solomon Peter Morici Sandy Mayes Franklin Lamb Jacob Hornberger Nadim Rouhana Dave Zirin Website of the Day
Allan
Nairn Alan
Farago Ray
McGovern Winslow
T. Wheeler Evan
Jones James
Petras Joel
Hirschorn Joshua
Frank Sherry
Wolf Dan
Bacher Website
of the Day
![]()
![]()
Subscribe Online
|
January 22, 2008 Venezuela's Recognition of the Colombian InsurgencyBolívar's SwordBy PAUL WOLF
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took the world by surprise last week when he asked the Colombian government to stop calling the FARC and ELN terrorists. Chavez then appealed to the international community to formally recognize the belligerent status of the two insurgent groups. Then came a resolution of the Venezuelan National Assembly backing the President's statement. It comes very close to the legal recognition of the FARC and ELN by the Venezuelan government. Not quite as exciting as the recent release of two hostages by the FARC, to be sure, but far more significant. The Colombian government reacted to the Venezuelan declarations by panicking. Reinforcements were called in from the U.S.A. Admiral Michael Mullin, Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, flew to Bogotá to publicly affirm that, indeed, the Colombian guerrillas are terrorists. Then yesterday, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe flew to Europe to launch a "diplomatic offensive," fearing that the European Union will consider removing the guerrillas from their official terrorist list. Yet the implications go well beyond labeling and name-calling. First of all, recognition of the FARC and ELN as belligerents would provide Venezuela with a legal basis it could use to intervene in the Colombian conflict, either by arming the guerrillas, or more directly. There is no indication that Venezuela would want to do that, but legal recognition is a step in this direction. Venezuela can treat the government and the insurgents on equal terms. This is quite threatening to the Colombian government. On a more positive note, recognition of belligerent status brings with it the responsibility of the guerrillas to act in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, which among other things, prohibit kidnapping, killing civilians, and using indiscriminate weapons. Opening this door for the FARC might, for the first time in 50 years, offer an incentive for the group to mend its ways. For the ELN, decimated by the murder of thousands of its cadre over the last decade, it could offer a way to get out of this live. The ELN is already in negotiations with the Colombian government, which are being mediated by Cuba. They are slow moving and the ELN is not demobilizing. That could change. While Colombian politicians are busy wringing their hands over what they anticipate will be a debate over this in Europe, and some conservative politicians are even warning that Venezuela may intervene in the Colombian conflict militarily, it's far more productive, and President Chavez' intent, I believe, to consider that this is probably the best way to bring the insurgency under control. Colombia's relentless media campaign, the goal of which is always to denounce the guerrillas as terrorists, may stimulate the troops, but it has an equal and opposite effect on the guerrillas. The repeated use of this term, terrorist, is calculated to inflame the conflict, not resolve it. It is pointless to talk about negotiations when one of the parties won't tone down its rhetoric. So how can recognition of the belligerent status of the guerrillas help to bring peace? First of all, there will no longer be any excuse for not engaging in a dialog with the guerrillas. The Colombian government will be forced to negotiate, and that is the only way the conflict can ever end. Secondly, the guerrillas will have an incentive to not engage in the kinds of behaviors that the Colombian government is so quick to point out. These are two good reasons for supporting Chavez' position. It's useful to take a look at the laws that apply here, to understand what is at stake and where things may be heading in Colombia. Let's digress for a moment and consider how the term terrorist is used to equate one's enemies with the people responsible for blowing up the World Trade Center. That's the comparison people using the term want to make. War has always been an awful business. It's the ultimate expression of man's capacity for barbarism. Efforts to rein in the worst of it reached their zenith following the horrors of World War II, in the form of multilateral treaties making it clear that humanity would no longer tolerate torture, genocide, and the wholesale bombing of cities. The wars of the future would be conducted by humanitarians, it was believed. Unfortunately, the tactics of war have become more, not less, brutal. Today's wars are not, as a rule, waged across the national borders of the opponent. They are waged in homes, streets, universities, and meeting places, through subversion, infiltration, and guerrilla warfare. Today's combatants include civilians, guerrillas, special operations forces, and paramilitary death squads. That's an unfortunate but undeniable fact. Whether they're home grown revolutions, or proxy wars for global domination, the modern day combatant could easily be described as a terrorist. The traditional laws of war are entirely too chivalrous and impractical for the modern day warrior. Revolutionaries lack the capacity for regular warfare or the facilities to take care of prisoners, whereas the government often lacks the popular support needed to separate the revolutionary cadre from the civilian population. The reality is often that both sides engage in terrorism to discourage the civilian population from supporting the other. Governments don't respond to insurgencies according to legal rules and procedures, but on the basis of prudential calculations, despite the fact that their citizens value the avoidance of gratuitous suffering and destruction. Likewise, insurgents promise a better society while justifying the brutal methods of guerrilla warfare on the basis that they have no other way to win. For both, the laws of war are seen as somewhat sentimental and naïve when applied to their own side. Human rights finds its use in the moral justification of war propaganda and the denunciation of attrocities committed by the enemy. It's rare indeed for human rights defenders to criticize their own. Yet this was the noble intention of the founders of the League of Nations and the United Nations who sought to create a more humane world. So how should insurgent groups such as the FARC, ELN, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PLFP) be treated by the international community? Should we make a list of groups using irregular warfare methods - a list that could include practically every insurgency in world history - and call them terrorists? It seems wildly unrealistic to try to impose order in the world by labeling insurgents as the enemies of mankind. Simón Bolívar and George Washington would, by today's standards, be candidates for the terrorist list. So how does international law treat insurgent groups? Traditionally, the legal status of an insurgent group depended on their degree of success. When an insurgent group was able to maintain a sustained campaign and control a substantial portion of the national territory, the counter-government could be accorded insurgent status by third states, which would thereafter be obligated to take into account the condition of warfare in their relations with the state. If the hostilities persisted, it was permissible, and perhaps even obligatory, to recognize the condition of belligerency, provided that insurgent forces acting under responsible authority observed the rules of warfare, and that there was some need for the third state to define its attitude towards the conflict. This need could occur if the rebels became so strong in some geographical area that the third government found it necessary to deal with them as well as with the established government. Recognition was simply made by public declaration. Formal procedures for third party recognition have never existed, except in the very rare cases where the parties agreed to submit their disputes to a tribunal for settlement. The classic example of a belligerency is the American Civil War. The North, through the U.S. Supreme Court, declared the North and South to be in a state of belligerency, for the purpose of asking European nations to respect a blockade of Southern ports. In The Prize Cases, Justice Grier held that large scale insurrection constitutes war in the legal sense: Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the government. A civil war is never solemnly declared; it becomes such by its accidents - the number, power, and organization of the persons who originate and carry it on. When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory; have declared their independence; have cast off their allegiance; have organized armies; have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign; the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest is war. Therefore, we are of opinion that the President had a right jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the states in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard. This was a rare example of a nation formally declaring a state of belligerency within its borders, for the purpose of obtaining foreign assistance in blockading the rebels. Such declarations are rarely made, because the recognition of belligerency also implies the formal recognition of other legal rights of the insurgents. Any government would be ill-advised to acknowledge that such rights exist. In fact, no government has formally recognized the belligerent status of insurgents within its territory since World War II. In today's world, there is almost no reliance by third states on the traditional legal definitions of rebellion, insurgency, and belligerence. Instead, governments normally determine their relations with the competing factions on the basis of their own foreign policy goals. This often translates into supporting the forces of "law and order" in allied states, and the forces of "self-determination" in rival states. Nevertheless, the legal status of insurgents should be a matter of serious concern to the courts, which are supposed to decide cases based on objective legal standards, rather than on whether the defendant is a member of an official enemies list. That is the rule of guilt by association. The new crime of providing material support to a terrorist organization takes us back to the days of the inquisition. It is the crime of helping a group on the official enemies list of the United States or the European Union. Recently, a court in Copenhagen dismissed charges against persons selling t-shirts bearing FARC and PFLP logos. The defendants had advertised that five Euros from each sale would be donated to those organizations. The court made factual findings that the FARC and PLFP are not, under Danish law, terrorist organizations because their actions are intended to overthrow their governments, not to terrorize civilians. In the United States, this kind of political designation is not reviewable by the courts, even though it determines the rights of the individual "terrorists." When FARC guerrilla Simom Trinidad was put on trial for conspiracy to commit hostage taking for his admitted role as a prisoner exchange negotiator for the group, the court not only did not review the FARC's status as a terrorist organization, but also held that Trinidad could not be a prisoner of war, because the United States and Colombia are not at war. Trinidad is the first "international terrorist" ever extradited and tried in the US under the new law prohibiting the provision of material support to an officially designated terrorist organization. Chavez' call to the international community will have wide-ranging implications, for foreign insurgents being tried as ordinary criminals in places like Washington, D.C., for ordinary Colombians who should not have to fear being kidnapped or blown up by a land mine, and for the irrational and war-mongering "global war on terrorism," whatever that is. It could begin to undo the immense damage this one word--terrorist--has inflicted on the world in recent years. Paul Wolf is an attorney in Washington D.C.
practicing international human rights law.
![]()
|
How the Press Led the US into War ![]() Buy End Times Now! CounterPunch Books of the Crossroads: HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG By Daniel Cassidy AMERICAN BOOK AWARD! ![]() Click Here to Buy! Click Here for Dates & Venues Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz ![]() Click Here to Buy! Saul Landau's Bush and Botox World with a Foreword by Gore Vidal ![]() Click Here to Order! How They Made a Killing on the War on Terrorism ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The Occupation by Patrick Cockburn ![]() ![]() ![]() Humanitarian Imperialism By Jean Bricmont ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() CITY BEAUTIFUL By Tennessee Reed ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |