A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ _The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours | of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) Anarkismo.net: Colombia, What was missing: McCarthyism indigenous (ca) by José Antonio Gutiérrez D. (ca)[machine translation]

Date Fri, 31 May 2013 11:07:09 +0300

The indigenous leaders and the Colombian oligarchy share grandstand ---- There are lines that should not be crossed or four inches. The Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca (ACIN) and the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC), just crossed one of them ten kilometers. ---- One thing is that representatives of government, general and farmers brought to popular organizations be courtiers of "guerrilla". Another thing I do different is that two organizations that are popular world who have participated in various areas of policy convergence of various social sectors, involved political platforms broader social solidarity they have received from all the popular field in their demonstrations of the past. Turns out, when we thought had seen it all, we now have what was needed: that the ACIN and CRIC, from the hand of the ONIC (National Indigenous Organization of Colombia) to join the campaign shamelessly pointing against reserve areas peasant and indigenous and other agricultural organizational expressions.

What was missing: McCarthyism indigenous

"Popular organizations, armed groups, are our brothers, and will fight shoulder to shoulder with them to defeat our enemies (...) Live indigenous struggles and the struggles of all Colombians!"
(Manifesto of Santander de Quilichao Command Quintin Lame, 1984)

There are lines that should not be crossed or four inches. The Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca (ACIN) and the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC), just crossed one of them ten kilometers. One thing is that representatives of government, general and farmers brought to popular organizations be courtiers of "guerrilla". Another thing I do different is that two organizations that are popular world who have participated in various areas of policy convergence of various social sectors, involved political platforms broader social solidarity they have received from all the popular field in their demonstrations of the past. Turns out, when we thought had seen it all, we now have what was needed: that the ACIN and CRIC, from the hand of the ONIC (National Indigenous Organization of Colombia) to join the campaign shamelessly pointing against reserve areas peasant and indigenous and other agricultural organizational expressions.


When ACIN and CRIC have been marked "front of the guerrillas" in the past (eg during Minga 2008 or expulsion of troops from Cerro Berlin in 2012), all the popular movement has sympathized with them; their chiefs have torn his clothes denouncing this demonization of government, because they understand the sensitivity of these accusations. But now these same organizations believe perfectly natural stigmatizing and labeling organizations who dare to disagree with their bosses in the same way they have been reported in the past.

A statement from the ACIN, dated April 29, condemning the "ideologues of the FARC" for allegedly sponsoring "within communities, organized groups called Avelinos, RURAL RESERVES, among others. Which has (sic) the sole purpose of territorial dominance, ideological, political and hegemonic to obstruct the development of our own organizations. Another strategy of these organizations FOR GUERRILLA has been the economic advantage of the need for community awareness and buying the commoners, offering loans and boosting productive projects that seek to break the structure of indigenous fit "[1]. All of a return to the Manichean thinking that divides Indians into good and bad (obedient vs. Guerrillas), set in counterinsurgency ideology "remove the water from the fish" regardless.

Even the language you have used is embarrassingly similar to that used by Uribe. In 2007, Uribe shouted that "every time the guerrillas and their followers feel that they can be defeated, the resource to which appeals against the violation of human rights." Today, as part of the "trial" indigenous six villagers for allegedly belonging to the FARC-EP, Alcibiades Escué, leader of CRIC that 2004 was arrested for the alleged misappropriation of funds Indian health system to finance the paramilitaries, in terms not unlike those of Uribe, attacks to a human rights organization, "the trial is now going to give it to punish villagers (...) but do not delay in taking out a statement saying the council violates human rights (...) and to the NGO advocate Human Rights Francisco Isaías Cifuentes, saying that is violation of human rights and international humanitarian law ".

This is not new. Last year, amid the conflict over the eviction of Mount Berlin in Cauca and multiple tensions between farmers, indigenous and afro, an article called "The Cauca and compensation of Memory" signed by Efrain Jaramillo, an anthropologist who says he was adviser to the CRIC. In this article, together with a number of inaccuracies, rash accusations and attacks free sectors of the popular movement, accusing organizations like the "Landless Movement Grandchildren Quintin Lame" and "Indian Association Avelino Ul" being facades of the guerrilla movement . The unfounded accusations and inaccuracies of this article have already been refuted in another time and I will not dwell on them [2]. Contributing to this atmosphere of suspicion and criminalization of popular protest, Feliciano Valencia CRIC leader said in an interview with Semana, the fight with the farmers was for control of the drug economy (sic) and "Indians "had decided" to take up the matter "[3].


And indeed they have taken "action on the matter". In a frenzy McCarthy, CRIC and ACIN guards have mobilized their indigenous to advance a true offensive against, betraying boys who have real or imagined sympathy with the insurgency and guerrilla camps harassing. Incidentally, ONIC, coming from Luis Andrade Evelis condemned the Indian guards "take matters into" against the military presence in the territories, calling for sanctions against them [4] and Feliciano Valencia himself in that interview, recognized as an "error" to the soldiers out of Cerro Berlin, but no such deal with the guerrillas. Is exaggeration, then, to assert, as does a statement of the FARC-EP, the indigenous movement has bowed to the state and its security agencies, as well as advanced constitute an effective counterinsurgency? [5]

Apparently, the rhetoric opposition to all "violent" is translated simply in active opposition to the insurgency, opposition fits firmly into the model of civil-military cooperation of the current government. Not surprisingly, Leon Valencia Santos recommended that the government, after the incident of Cerro Berlin, using the indigenous movement articulated around the ACIN and CRIC advanced precisely as a counterinsurgency. He said in his column in Week, which Santos has in these organizations "at hand a true peace movement with which it can agree ground rules to contain irregular forces without damage to anything the constitutional order and national sovereignty" [6 ]. Apparently, the government listened to their advice, and the indigenous movement obediently followed that line of conduct.

The incident that sparked this series of recriminations between the leaders epistolary indigenous and peasant and indigenous organizations and the insurgency fariana, was the capture and "trial" of six suspected militants by the indigenous guard on April 29. Event widely publicized throughout the media of the regime, which was applauded enthusiastically by the command of the Third Division of the Army. The trial in question was full of irregularities, including that there were no guarantees for the proper defense, which limited the use of the word to the accused, that the assembly was manipulated and not allowed into the local community of Toribio, being filled the hall with about 800 people brought from 19 councils and the prosecution never gave evidence against the accused. This travesty of justice, ended his "lynching" pseudo-legal with the delivery of two of the defendants to the state to lock in one of the prisons of INPEC. Thus the "Autonomous" operates this "justice". The sentences given to these two unfortunates were 40, shame it is not pre-established, having been pulled out from under the sleeve by a CRIC leader who consulted stronger screaming in the front row if they wanted 10, 20 , 30 or 40 years for the accused, as is the mob Pilate consulted if they wanted to crucify Jesus or Barabbas [7]. The same could have been victims of medieval scourges that have nothing to do with the "uses and customs" but rather indigenous colonial traditions, such as the use of stocks, the whip, water deprivation or bury the condemned to the neck . These "beauties" disguise themselves as indigenous justice: do not know why we should accept that basic human rights such as the right to a proper defense or protection of torture just entering suspend an indigenous community.


Beyond the debate about the customs and democratic credentials indigenous authorities themselves, this trial was indicative of a serious problem as the people's movement sectors are co-opted by the state for counter-insurgency and to contain popular rebellion. This has been done since the time of the "clean" liberal guerrillas turned into fierce anti-communists after being "pacified" by Rojas Pinilla in 1953. Sometimes tech sectors are sectors counterinsurgency that were once revolutionary and guerrilla or reach an agreement with the State, become "more Catholic than the Pope" as they say in Creole, which have their political prestige and privileges mortgaged in maintaining the status quo. If not, look at some of the advisers who had Alvaro Uribe and today is Juan Manuel Santos. Although neither the CRIC and the ACIN can still be compared with Carlos Franco nor a Obdulio Gaviria, the language they use every day is similar to theirs, as already noted, except for splashing their communications with some progressive phraseology.

The exercise of the "autonomy" much vaunted by indigenous movements is, at best, relative. As shown powerless against the state, is adamant sectors of popular resistance (both unarmed resistance and the army) that show differences with the authorities and CRIC methods or ACIN. Up to openly collaborate with the State (INPEC Army) when it comes to these sectors contain let themselves be used fully by the establishment counterinsurgency plans, making them worth the recognition of the media, the military and politicians. Moreover, we can say that, ultimately, the exercise of this autonomy is guaranteed by a corrupt state, paramilitarized mafia. What reveals a deeper pathology that affects part of the Colombian left from the "social contract" signed in 1991 by the new Constitution, important sectors of the popular movement, at least at the level of leaderships, were co-opted into the system and now have an objective interest in its maintenance. Those most vehement attack today social sectors resistance and insurgency are, sometimes, those from the left "progressive" believe sacred guardians of rule of law. The indigenous movement, since the "Quintin Lame Armed Movement" lay down their arms in exchange for the institutionalization of certain benefits under the new Constitution, every day is heading in this direction more decisively.

As part of this institutionalization, the Indian chiefs speak with the state "authority to authority" in a fictional situation equivalence and mutual flattery, which creates a gap between the privileged leadership (who can think up to be candidates for the presidency of this republic decadent) and the bases of communities, which often resent them and using as a pressure group when it touches re-negotiate the terms of the "contract" of 1991. So we have seen situations like indigenous ritual inauguration of Santos in the Sierra Nevada, Embera Congress in which the leadership of the ONIC Santos frantically applauded as he called for a "Minga for Democratic Prosperity" [8] and now the complaint and delivery of suspected insurgents.

The cooptation of the indigenous movement goes hand in hand with this institutionalization through a fictitious "autonomy" as well as the NGO-ization of the indigenous movement, the influx of capital from international cooperation, which (especially in the case of European cooperation and USAID, which funded the indigenous movement, CRIC, ACIN, ONIC) have political conditions. One of those conditions is to assume an active position counterinsurgency by fallacious speeches as the "neutrality" and "symmetry" in condemning all "violent" equally-ignoring the fact that "all" are not equal, nor in its origin, or its purpose, or methods. That symmetry fallacious, by the same dynamics of power, always ends criticizing and questioning the 'players' minions at the same state, which eventually comes to accept him as a guarantor of the sacrosanct rule of law [9]. In this inertia to please "international cooperation" (which is dominated by governments that share strategic interests and objectives with the Colombian State and promote the common agenda through its funding programs) have seen the indigenous movement accusing the end oenegizado insurgency of "crimes against humanity" and a delirious "extermination plan" of indigenous peoples. All this stridency is when, interestingly, the Montealegre Prosecutor himself has said that no convictions for crimes against humanity against guerrilla leaders, at which the most recalcitrant Uribe have redoubled stridency of their complaints. What are the elements to blame the insurgency an extermination plan? The existence of a social and armed conflict has repercussions within indigenous communities and of all rural communities in Colombia-conflict did not start the insurgency and conflict in which many Indians are active. Well said the commander killed FARC-EP, Carlos Patiño "Caliche", in an interview with Hollman Morris 2005 that the neutrality of indigenous authorities was to ignore the reality of the country, now we see that after the supposed "neutrality "There is a conscious partisanship.

They have guys who choose to enter the insurgency because they seek alternative leadership in their rebellion against the system, especially girls, often tired patriarchal practices, patronage and bureaucratic, not a plan to destroy the indigenous peoples. These sympathies aroused among indigenous insurgency on foot, as described by the commander of the FARC-EP Timoleon Jimenez, "for some reason we could define and clarify, seems to produce some degree of irritation in certain sector of its authorities" [ 10]. That has criticized the leadership of the CRIC and ACIN, organizations with just a few decades of existence, does not mean questioning the value of the ancient cultures of our land. That avoids bruising occasionally isolated people accused of collaborating with the army or paramilitaries, in the context of this conflict (blows that one can not share and that social movements do not share, but you have to prove with evidence and not reckless accusations) is not the same as a "ethnocide". To say that the order of the FARC-EP of his troops not to get captured by Indian guards is far from the delusional accusation that the movement has become indigenous "military objective" [11]. Similarly, it has often decide Indians shake hands with afros and farmers in other organizations, weary of their traditional organizations or narrow ethnocentric views (often egged on from the academy), or decide to form different indigenous organizations CRIC and ACIN because they see in them effective instruments of struggle, not become "para-guerrilla". Nor that makes them enemies of indigenous communities, communities that existed long before the CRIC, the ACIN or ONIC. However, as denounced by the Indigenous Partnership Coordinator del Cauca (CAIC), many of its members and leaders have been vilified and threatened by these leaderships [12], a fact which no doubt given the caliber of the comments that we have heard these weeks .

Indigenous leaders oenegizados end, as denounced a statement of FOs Cauca, representing the state to communities, claim shared by many ordinary villagers [13]. They are the guardians of the community to the establishment, a fact that is exacerbated in the current authoritarian regime and counterinsurgency. Gramsci said, analyzing Italian fascism, which he sought to force all organizations "civil society" political police roles fulfilled:

"[It is understood a] broad police, ie not just the state service aimed at the suppression of crime, but the combined forces organized by the state and individuals (...) to protect the dominance political and economic elites. In this sense in which some political parties as well some other economic organizations or gender should be considered entirely political police organizations, to have a character of research and prevention. "[14]

This is exactly what we see happening in Cauca. In this context, what concerns us is that to our knowledge there is fear that the Indian guards can be mobilized again to attack leftist groups in the communities, particularly in sectors related to the CAIC, with initiatives such as rural reserve areas , the Human Rights Network Francisco Isaías Cifuentes and Patriotic March. We hope that these fears do not materialize in new attacks, accusations and deliveries, but we're vigilant.


We have always raised the importance of unity for the advancement of the popular movement. We have a formidable enemy, who despite being a tiny minority of society, is well organized and has a monopoly of economic and political power. The popular sectors, despite being the majority, they are divided, sometimes opposing each other by secondary conflicts, disorganized and under the influence of the ideology of the dominant groups. However, witnessing a moment of consciousness, organization and advance popular struggles in Colombia. The unit is a political task is the order of the day, and while the Colombian left as well as many popular movements continue cannibalistic and sectarian dynamics, important steps have been taken as the Common Social Path for Peace and Comosocol social and political platforms as the Congress of Peoples Patriotic March and Comosoc, among others. However, these initiatives towards unity, although methods are renewing politics often end up playing the same vices of the traditional parties. It is still a mistake that many of these initiatives, despite the intentions and efforts of many grassroots activists, are still conceiving from a superstructure. The pattern of many of these valuable initiatives remains the unit from the top down, where sometimes split the charges and pre-race prior to solidify the foundation of movements.

It needs to rethink and rethink policy as the horizon for unit movement. Many times we quiet the criticism of the leadership for the sake of unity. This was finally accepted as a lesser evil corrupt mayor of Bogota, Samuel Moreno, for example. So we have also quiet the criticism indigenous movement for the sake of that same unit, only to end up getting accusations and abuse. In both cases, the result of this silence has been disastrous. We know that the unity of the resistance of the afros, peasants and indigenous is now a major issue in Cauca. My question is whether this unit is made to thinking in terms of traditional authorities denounced, persecuted, point and threaten other expressions of popular movement that will fight over hegemony.

Arguing the unit can not accommodate pernicious practices that harm the objectives of popular struggles in the medium and long term. The amplitude of a movement can include a wide range of political views, but can not include treason, and corruption, and clientelism. Nor can fall into ambiguous alliances with those who have one foot in the popular movement and another firmly nailed rotten institutions with whom they claim to speak from the people but whose political agenda is committed to foreign interests and often unspecified. There can be no unity with those who speak in code progressive but have objective interests in maintaining the status quo: the unit is to conceive the human tide of the underdog, the dispossessed, the marginalized, the exploited, the discriminated demolishes the economic, political and social that oppress them, so there is a radical transformation of present misery, whoever falls, although even the sacrosanct constitution of '91 left standing if necessary.

Nor can we believe that unity is a red that will take the leadership to decide on the backs of their bases. The unit, above all, must be done from below and in the fight, since the resistance of these communities walk. The unit is a must with these indigenous bases left to their own devices, will necessarily drive all bloods and cultures, in the context of mutual respect and understanding, without hegemony and authoritarian positions. Example of this unit have been intercultural tables to troubleshoot territory, as happened recently in Itaibe, municipality of Paez, Cauca-reference of how afros, indigenous and mestizo peasants can dialogue with arguments and not with sticks, as sadly has happened in the past, confrontations that are clearly functional to maintaining their power through popular field division [15]. This is why we raise a heated protest alleged McCarthyism popular sectors, which dent the communities that these organizations claim to defend, that sows distrust and disunity in the popular movement, which exacerbates ethnic tensions (policy have always looked for colonialists to divide and rule), which will counter to the efforts of the present moment of forming a popular block that can play an alternative project for Colombian society, at the risk of being run over by locomotives Santistas.

José Antonio Gutiérrez D.
April 24, 2013

[1] http://www.nasaacin.org/index.php/informativo-nasaacin/nuestra-palabra-kueta-susuza-2013/5689-comunidades-indigenas-condenan-a-los-ideologos-de-las-farc356

[2] http://www.anarkismo.net/article/23667

[3] http://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/la-pelea-fondo-narcotrafico-lider-indigena-feliciano-valencia/261521-3

[4] http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/politica/articulo-361013-lideres-indigenas-piden-sanciones-hechos-violentos-contra-ffmm

[5] http://www.tercerainformacion.es/spip.php?article51724

[6] http://www.semana.com/opinion/articulo/el-desafio-indigena/261595-3

[7] For an account of this judgment made on the basis of recordings and testimony was made by Human Rights Network "Francisco Isaías Cifuentes" http://reddhfic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=530:cp-toribio-20-de-mayo-2013&catid=117:comunicados2013&Itemid=229

[8] http://wsp.presidencia.gov.co/Prensa/2010/Octubre/Paginas/20101012_09.aspx

[9] These theories of symmetry and neutrality have been sufficiently challenged by the works of Father Javier Giraldo (see War or Democracy, for example), as well as Colombia Project Never Again (see especially Chapter V of Volume I ). The perverse effect of this alleged symmetry and how it ends counterinsurgency necessarily be an instrument, it appears from a recent letter by ONIC and CRIC government and the FARC-EP as part of the peace negotiations. While the government ask just respect IHL, with the insurgency are not limited thereto but detailing a long list of practices that supposedly REALIZED (which is questionable in many cases). Not specified, of course, that the State does the same and ten times worse. http://www.cric-colombia.org/portal/carta-al-gobierno-nacional-y-las-farc-frente-a-los-dialogos-de-paz-en-cuba/

[10] http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=168224&titular=nueva-carta-a-ind%EDgenas-del-cauca-
[11] http://www.kaosenlared.net/america-latina/item/57611-carta-de-los-pueblos-ind%C3%ADgenas-de-colombia-a-las-farc-ep.html

[12] http://reddhfic.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=531:comunicado-coordinacion-indigena-20-mayo-2013&catid=119:actualidad-2013&Itemid=227

[13] http://www.cric-colombia.org/portal/carta-al-gobierno-nacional-y-las-farc-frente-a-los-dialogos-de-paz-en-cuba/

[14] Poulantzas, Nicos "Fascism and Dictatorship", Ed Siglo XXI, 2005, p.393

[15] http://prensarural.org/spip/spip.php?article10916
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en

A-Infos Information Center