Justin Podur: Can you introduce, and explain briefly to readers who don’t know, what the ‘para-scandal’ is, how it came to be exposed, and what its effects have been on politics in Colombia?
Jorge Robledo: Colombia has long had the phenomenon
of “paramilitarism”. Paramilitaries are armed groups linked
with the state. One sector of the paramilitaries was organized by
wealthy rural landowners for the purpose of attacking the guerrilla
movement, but many paramilitary crimes have been directed against
the civilian population. They are closely linked with narcotrafficking
and organized crime. This has been the case for at least 20 years.
Over this time, the paramilitaries have become a significant political
power, in regional governments, municipalities, governorships, the
congress, and the senate.
The ‘para-scandal’ is this: in recent months it has come
to light that the paramilitaries are connected throughout the political
system of the country, and especially the congress and senate. The
supreme court has sent some congresspeople and other politicians to
jail. According to the national newspaper, El Tiempo, there
are 19 more congress members who could end up in jail. No less than
the chief of the secret police, DAS (departamento administrativo de
seguridad) is in jail. There are publicly available documents signed
by congresspeople and paramilitaries, explicit agreements.
But the other part of this scandal that’s less-often discussed,
is that all of the paramilitary-connected politicians, almost all
of them, are friends of the Uribe government (Colombia’s President
is Alvaro Uribe Velez). So even though the scandal is referred to
as a scandal of “para-politica”, it makes more sense to
call it “para-Uribismo”.
JP: But the connections between paramilitarism and
the state, connections between paramilitaries and politicians, between
paramilitaries and the army – these were all well-documented
and well-known, and have been for years. What is it that has raised
common knowledge to the level of a ‘scandal’?
JR: That’s a million-dollar question, and you’re
completely right. Years ago, one of the paramilitary chiefs said that
they had 30% of congress in their pockets. This was known. The new
part today is that the supreme court has proceeded with an investigation
and sent 8 congresspeople to jail.
JP: How far do you think the ‘scandal’
will go? What will its effect be on politics in Colombia?
JR: What we hope is that many more congresspeople
who we know are connected to paramilitarism, as well as governors,
mayors, and others, end up in jail. This is just the beginning. We
know the connections are very deep but we do not know how far the
process will be allowed to go. There are very powerful forces who
do not want the truth to be known. When the final accounting is done,
we know that it will involve business, the armed forces, the judiciary.
So we are all wanting to see it pursued and concerned about whether
it will go far enough, how far it will implicate the President, for
example. Uribe continues to have the polls even though 90% of the
paramilitary-connected politicians who have been exposed and punished
so far are his friends, people he supported, people who supported
him in his campaign.
Manuel Rozental: You mentioned the chief of the secret
police, DAS, Jorge Noguera. We know that Noguera is very close to
the President, and that the charges against him are very damning of
the President and of the US. Can you talk about this?
JR: This is, in the midst of a massive scandal, one
of the most scandalous pieces of information. The director of the
nation’s secret service, DAS, Jorge Noguera, is in prison for
his participation in paramilitary crimes. This is a real scandal because
the charges include electoral fraud, assassinations of unionists,
academics, activists, the use of president’s own car used for
paramilitarism. Noguera was chief of Uribe’s electoral campaign
in Magdalena. Uribe has stayed at Noguera’s house various times.
These two people are very close. When the charges were coming to light
Uribe tried to get Noguera a post with the Colombian Embassy in Italy.
When the press challenged him, Uribe became very intemperate, as he
often does.
MR: Can you explain also the link between the para-scandal
and the ‘peace process’ between the government and the
paramilitaries?
JR: The government has accused those of us who are
bringing the evidence of “para-politica” or “para-uribismo”
to light of trying to ruin this “peace process”. So the
“peace process” was started by the national government
in 2002-2003. It was a process to pardon the paramilitaries from their
crimes and resolve the legal problem, to legalize them, giving some
of them light sentences, not amnesty but a very generous pardon. This
process was supported by some of the politicians who are in jail now.
Part of the “peace process” was that the paramilitaries
confess their crimes, their connections, and their relations. And
in these confessions, the paramilitaries are saying things but they
have not yet exposed the main connections. They have confessed some
of their links to the military, Salvatore Mancuso, the paramilitary
chief, talked about connections to various brigades of the army, but
very little of the connections with politicians has been brought to
light through the “peace process”.
JP: Some people close to Uribe have proposed, as
a solution to the para-scandal and the loss of credibility by politicians
linked to paramilitarism, the closure of Congress. What do you think
of that “solution”?
JR: That is correct. One of the Uribistas, Marta
Lucia Ramirez, who was the Defense Minister, about two weeks ago proposed
that congress be closed. We in the PDA frankly opposed this because
in Colombia’s conditions, there are no laws to permit the closure
of congress. Congress cannot be revoked. To do so would be a break
from judicial order, and this would benefit the president who would
become a dictator. To change the norms to close the congress, they
would basically have to have a coup. We have called this an “auto-golpe”,
or a “self-coup”, which is what President Fujimori did
in Peru. It’s important to remember that nearly the totality
of those implicated in paramilitarism are Uribistas. Not all of congress
is involved, and those who are, are all Uribistas. So it’s unacceptable
that the solution be to close the congress. The effect would be to
throw out those who are denouncing paramilitary control and connections
to congress and hand all power to the Presidency, whose role in paramilitarism
has not yet been investigated or determined.
There is another important point of legality to consider. If Ramirez considers that congress is illegitimate and should be closed, presumably because of the evidence that has arisen of widespread electoral fraud organized in part by the paramilitaries, then she has to also consider that these same votes helped to elect the President. If congress’s mandate is revoked, she’d have to revoke the mandate of the President also. She is not talking about doing that, and so this is all manipulation in order to try to hide the political responsibility of the President (not the legal responsibility) for the “para-politica”.
JP: Your political work has been devoted to opposing
the “free trade agreement”. Can you explain this work
and, are there any connections between “free trade” and
the “para-scandal”?
JR: From before I got to congress, in the 1990s,
I was organizing against neoliberalism, which is now called “free
trade”. For nearly five years since I have been in congress
we opposed the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement is not
to integrate the economies of Colombia and the US, but to annex Colombia’s
economy to US monopolies and multinationals. This is easy to demonstrate.
It is the same model that the US imposes on all countries. In the
text of the free trade agreement, the White House declares its interests,
and they are imposed on countries like Colombia. This imperialist
imposition makes us a colony. It has practically ruined our agriculture
and industry. It is responsible for much of the barbarity, corruption
and horror we have experienced. It is responsible for the deterioration
of labor rights, the environment, poverty, and unemployment, for the
past 17 years since the economing ‘opening’ in 1990.
This whole “para-politica”, is a project of the Right.
The Right is the agent of neoliberalism, close to White House, close
to Washington. The Right in Colombia’s congress has supported
all the neoliberal reforms, since they ruined the economy with the
‘opening’ of 1990, privatizating state enterprises, giving
privileges to foreign investors. As the economy has been devastated,
the paramilitaries and the ‘para-politicos’ have seen
their fortunes grow. Their wealth doesn’t come from the national
economy, but from kidnapping, crime, the seizure of land.
MR: They would have us believe that Colombia is unique
for the level of violence it faces and the paramilitary strategy.
But if you look at Latin America’s history you see the same
strategy was used with the death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala
or the Contras in Nicaragua. The strategy goes beyond paramilitarism
and the US is always behind it.
JR: Everything happening in Colombia has to do one
way or another with Washington. We’re in the orbit of the emprie,
by way of Plan Colombia. Plan Colombia of 2000 did more than just
impose a way of managing ‘narcotrafficking’. There were
also 20 pages of small type in the Plan that detailed the reorganization
of Colombia’s economy.
So if Plan Colombia imposed an economic, political, and military model
on us from the US, then we wonder how it is possible that the US Embassy
and State Department don’t know about paramilitarism in this
country. How can paramilitary crimes be so pervasive without the US
knowing about it, or being involved? We’d like to know how the
US is involved, and we’ll know more when large numbers of Americans
demand that their government assume responsibility for paramilitarism.
MR: Can you speak a bit more about Plan Colombia,
now entering its second phase?
JR: Plan Colombia was designed between the US and
Colombia with the proposal of reducing production, processing, traffic
of drugs by 50%. That was its basic objective. Not to end narcotrafficking,
but to reduce it by 50%. To this end, over $1 billion from the US
and over $4 billion from Colombia were spent. The money was spent
on “security”, fumigation, helicopters, mercenaries, and
so on. This is well known.
But it also has another aspect that we have tried to raise, the small
print connecting Plan Colombia to economic changes, and this is how
imperialism covers its “free” support. They came to “save”
us but the fine print says for example that Colombia has to join the
free trade agreement. The fine print outlines the importance of Colombia
getting foreign investment - ie., to give the country to US investors.
The state enterprises, energy, banks, were all given notice in the
fine print. And everything there has come to pass.
Another thing to say about Plan Colombia is that it’s a failure.
The objective was to reduce trafficking by 50%. But all analysts agree
that prices haven’t risen – prices are the simplest and
most effective way of knowing that supply hasn’t been reduced.
So it is a failure to reduce the drug traffic.
I see it as an imperialist pretext for the US to get involved in our
country and loot our economy.
JP: Uribe’s habit, like Bush’s, is to
accuse those who oppose him of being “terrorists”. He
has done so with the Polo Democratico. What is the intention behind
these smear campaigns and how can they be defeated?
Remember that Bush and Uribe are right-wing spokespeople for the global
right wing. This right wing is currently defending torture as a technique
of criminal investigation, this right wing invaded Iraq with the support
of Uribe, who supports that invasion to this day. These are characters
of the extreme right, which has been using “terrorism”
to justify everything. Everything they do justify by “terrorism”.
Every opposition is stigmatized as terrorism.
Uribe gave a speech recently saying the passage of the free trade
agreement was a victory against terrorism. That implies that those
of us who opposed free trade are friends of terrorism. The PDA, folks
like Gustavo Petro, have exposed the “para-politica”,
or “para-Uribismo”, and so Uribe’s tactic is to
distract people. He has had some success in his aggression against
us. He called us “terrorists in civilian clothing” –
he’s trying to imply we are guerrillas or friends of the guerrilla.
He wants to polarize.
We are trying to say there are more than two positions. We have a
third position, we don’t have any faith in violence, neither
in violence of the paramilitaries nor of the guerrilla. Our manipulative
president makes insinuations to paint democrats as guerrillas. This
is a political attack on us partly because, and we have to admit this,
partly because the guerrillas are at an all-time low of prestige,
because Colombians are sick of violence.
JP: Colombia’s democratic left parties have
suffered terror and assassinations like Colombia’s social movements
generally. How does PDA organize in such a context? What are the risks
you face? What are the possibilities for the future?
JR: There is, unfortunately, a long history of political
violence in Colombia. In the 1940s and 1950s, we had “La Violencia”
of Liberals and Conservatives, the two parties of Colombia’s
oligarchy killed each other for 15 years, with 400,000 killed. After
that there were various stages of guerrilla movements, which were
favored by Colombia’s complicated geography and size, many different
guerrilla organizations, all facing the establishment with a left
position.
In the 1980s, as part of a peace process, a party called Union Patriotica
was created. That party was destroyed by the establishment, who first
insinuated they were friends of the guerrilla, and then killed them.
This was a real, dramatic massacre of thousands, for which the Colombian
government could be called to account in international courts.
So this is a permanent part of our history. The number of people who
have been killed for their involvement in political parties, unions,
social movements, guerrillas, is immense.
In this context, Uribe’s practice of linking the polo with the
guerrilla is shown to be an extremely irresponsible thing to do. In
the case of the PDA it’s made even worse, because we are a democratic
left, a coalition of many forces, and one of our points of unity is
that we do not use violence in politics. We don’t make our demands
by way of arms. We don’t agree with kidnapping or assassination,
irrelevant of the goals.
MR: There are multiple levels of “para-politica”.
At the local, regional, municipal levels, we have seen the infiltration
of the state by the paramilitaries. At the national level, the investigation
is getting closer to Uribe. And internationally, it is impossible
to believe the US is not behind much of this. Democratic senators
like McGovern and Leahy of the US are starting to say publicly that
Uribe is not just an observer in what is happening with paramilitarism.
Bush in his visit is saying that he supports Uribe because Uribe is
getting to the bottom of paramilitarism. So we have Bush protecting
Uribe, who is actually acting on behalf of the US.
JR: That’s why I use the term “para-Uribismo”.
All the congresspeople who have gone to prison already are Uribistas.
Of the 19 in line for judgement, 17 are Uribistas. One of the famous
documents, the document of Santa Fe Ralito, signed by paramilitaries
and congresspeople, the congresspeople who signed were Uribistas.
The director of DAS is an Uribista. The organization ARCOIRIS, with
83 congresspeople from paramilitary-controlled zones, 90% are Uribistas.
This is not to say that all Uribistas are paras, but it does say the
phenomenon is that these are friends of the president. This is understood
in the exterior, and democratic senators in the US like McGovern and
Leahy have noticed as much. Leahy said in El Tiempo that the US government
must correct its support for Uribe. Leahy said “someone explain
to me who we are working with in Colombia.”
We in the PDA insist that these are political, not just penal, responsibilities
for Uribe. He has to explain why so many of his friends are involved.
And we also want to know how far is the US involved? The US embassy
is full of CIA, DEA, FBI, and they don’t have any idea what
is happening with paramilitarism? It is not credible.
JP: Do US officials have the moral high ground to
ask questions like: “Who exactly are we involved with in Colombia?”
Should they not just ask, more simply, “Who exactly are we?”
JR: Good question. And we do not know with precision
how involved the US has been, but we do know that Plan Colombia was
voted in by both Democrats and Republicans. On the other hand, the
attitude of any such Democratic politician is very helpful. And we
don’t want to say they’re all with Bush, and we have to
work with everyone who can help. For there to be people in the US
looking for truth is important. The big battle of PDA and Colombia
is the search for truth and Uribe is doing everything to prevent this,
that’s why he tries to silence us. If he can prevent the truth
from getting out, then every one of our problems will be made worse.
So for people outside the country, in Europe, in the US, to be raising
questions, is very important! It’s a big help
Uribe has two things working in his favor. Less than a year ago he
was re-elected, with significant support, and that makes the political
fight against him for two reasons. First, he is seen, internally and
externally, the leader of the struggle against the guerrillas. He
is able to take advantage of the war-weariness of Colombians. People
are so sick of violence that the result is a society that is permissive
and tolerant of the kinds of measures Uribe has passed. Second, Uribe
is a cynical, professional manipulator.
These two things combined have given Uribe enough support to move.
The US says “he’s our guy over there”. He’s
contained the indigenous rebellion, the opposition struggles, the
campaigns against free trade, all things the US doesn’t like.
In the US, Bush was able to get the free trade agreement passed without
the Democrats. But this fight isn’t over. I don’t have
illusions about the Democrats, Colombia doesn’t matter much
to them, it’s a transaction between politicians to them. But
when Bush talked to El Tiempo last week he was pessimistic about various
matters.
MR: What is the future of the PDA in this context?
JR: The present is very positive. We’ve managed
to unite 99% of the democratic left in Colombia. There is no precedent
for that. We have 18 members of congress. We had 2.6 million votes
for Carlos Gaviria in the presidency.
In this battle with the government of Uribe, free trade, and the para-politica,
I don’t mean to be immodest, but we have struggled well. Supporters
of democracy in Colombia see us sympathetically. I’m optimistic,
we’re in conditions to advance rapidly. Uribe has para-uribismo,
he has no solutions for the country, for problems of poverty and development
and violence. We have an option, we have a chance in 2010 and we’ll
see. We should be able to actually create an effective alternative.
MR: How is Bush to be welcomed in Colombia?
JR: There have been huge demonstrations in Bogota
and elsewhere. There are mobilizations in all universities against
Bush, and on Monday we will have a concentration near the Plaza in
Bogota and it will be good. There are many things in the media. Colombia
is starting to wake up like so many Latin American countries, to struggle
for sovereignty, national independence, opposition to imperialism
and neoliberalism.