Thoughts on Colombia's old laptop tale
By Justin DelacourLatin America News Review
December 28, 2008
After posting an excerpt of an article by Calvin Tucker that questions Colombia's old, defunct laptop allegations against Venezuela's government, I have decided to republish my following rebuttal to an anonymous commenter's assertions that (1) "every sentient being... knows FARC and Chavez have the same goals" and that (2) Tucker's article is "transparently idiosyncratic, lacking pedigree, provenance, credibility, and even a whiff of journalistic integrity."
Question posed by anonymous commenter:
If you were Uribe, just how would you go about convicting the president of a sovereign nation of conspiracy under these evidentiary circumstances...?
My answer to anonymous commenter:
If I were Uribe, I'd do exactly what he did and not bother trying to convict anyone because (1) the "evidentiary circumstances" were anything but auspicious for a case and (2) he knew it.
The logic of your argument is extremely poor because you lack basic knowledge of the region. I suspect you don't even really understand the immediate history. Prior to November 2007, Hugo Chavez's relations with the Colombian government had been essentially cordial (with the exception of a short flare-up at the beginning of 2005). Uribe invited Chavez to broker hostage negotiations with the FARC in September 2007.
So here's how the convoluted logic of your argument goes. Uribe --who was on good enough terms with Chavez to negotiate the construction of a binational pipeline with him, to have the Venezuelan leader go so far as to call Uribe his "brother," and to have Chavez serve as a mediator in hostage negotiations with the FARC as late as November of 2007-- suddenly "discovers" some incriminating laptops just in time for the Colombian government to go on a diplomatic offensive against Ecuador and Venezuela in the wake of Uribe's bombing of Ecuadorian territory. So suddenly --only six months after Uribe has invited Chavez to serve as a mediator in hostage negotiations with the FARC-- the newfangled story is that Chavez and the FARC are ideological brethren with intimate military and economic ties.
Now, explain to me this, my "sentient" one. If Chavez was so chummy with the FARC, why would Uribe negotiate the construction of a pipeline with Chavez and invite Chavez to serve as a mediator in hostage negotiations with the FARC as late as September of 2007? Given that you fancy yourself to be a person of high "pedigree," I am oh-so curious as to what undoubtedly stellar explanation you have to offer.
And please tell me this, my dear man of great "provenance." What interest does Hugo Chavez have in providing the United States with a pretext to step up its hostility towards Venezuela? Not even the Cubans would think to run the risk of inviting the wrath of Uncle Sam by aiding another country's guerrillas in a post-Cold War era in which the Soviet umbrella is a relic of history. There is simply no geo-political logic to your argument. Why would Venezuela's president make such a perilous bet, with no prospect of winning anything in light of the fact that the FARC hasn't been within striking distance of achieving power for several years and has negligible popular support in Colombia? What's the logic?
I'm sure that a man of such "integrity" as yourself can dazzle us with his brilliance by answering these questions.
Now, here's what I think. I think Colombia and Venezuela's relations went sour when Chavez started taking his mediator role seriously and talking about negotiating for peace, which was way beyond what Uribe bargained for but was also the primary interest of Chavez and his fellow Colombian negotiator Piedad de Cordoba. While Uribe was only half-heartedly interested in the most limited sort of negotiation (over hostages), Chavez has had a long-standing interest in helping resolve the conflict so as to remove the pretext for U.S. intervention in the region. The problem for Uribe was that Chavez's overtures were putting greater international pressure on him to negotiate seriously at the very moment when Uribe was poised to deal major military blows to the FARC. In other words, the interests of Chavez and Uribe would become fundamentally incompatible once Chavez called for peace negotiations. Since Chavez's efforts at mediation were therefore creating problems for Uribe, the best way Uribe could find to neutralize Chavez was to trump up a whole smorgasbord of outlandish charges against him and to thereby sully the image of Chavez in the international community. In other words, the whole purpose of the laptop ruse was to remove Chavez from any mediary role. In that, Uribe has largely succeeded, but at great cost to the truth, in my view.
posted by Justin Delacour | 11:20 AM
9 Comments:
Justin, your response makes sense, however, I would also frame these events in classic democracy/oligarchy politics.
Just the fact that Chavez is on the democratic left makes him an ally of the FARC in the eyes of the empire and oligarchy.
Fundamentally, what these conflicts are all about is democracy, a radical concept. The monumental problems that humankind faces at this juncture will require a renewed sense of participatory, grass roots democratic organization. This entails democratic progress in the economic and political arenas.
To the traditional ruling elite, enspousing basic human rights is akin to 'communism'. The level of ideological delusion is simply off the charts (as you know as part of an institution).
Lastly, the 'magic laptop' stuff was b-movie psychological warfare. The destablization and disinformation is part and parcel to US 'interests' in the region. Essentially, the politics is against the people of the region increasing their power--it is more than about Chavez.
Reflect on how horrendous US corporate journalism is with respect to Latin America. It's really terrible. The wire reports don't educate and inform--because real, nuanced education would strengthen the 'demos', the people. As it is, the contorted flow of information is psychological warfare directed at the people in the US.
You understand all this, but defending in the face of relentless distorted information is an uphill battle.
The bought-off quislings for comprador rule and empire (deep down) know the lies as well. They are just cynical and anti-democratic at the core. They believe what is the easiest to believe (e.g., Chavez is a dictator--the US is a force for 'democracy', etc.) The fact remains that corporate capitalism is ruining the planet and configuring people into passive wage slaves.
Anything that points out the obvious will be attacked by the cynics that don't believe in authentic democracy and human rights. To a good degree, 'educated' people maintain a level of ignorance in the face of what is really on the surface and obvious.
Delusion is a huge problem that democratically inclined people have to mediate in this corporate capitalist world order.
The people that challenge the information and interpretations that you present here--without developing a rational argument backed by facts--suffer from varying degress of delusion and wretched cynicism.
First, perfessor, the pedigree and provenance referred to had nothing to do with persons, but with the article you posted. Stop long enough to clear the spittle from your beard and you will see this I think. What exactly were the proceedings, where is the full transcript in its original language, and how can we judge its authenticity? These are good questions, since the quotes provided did NOT make the point you had carelessly assumed they did, namely that there were no emails found. I demonstrated this clearly enough to you yesterday to elicit this shirty reply. Now, on to your questions...
If Chavez was so chummy with the FARC, why would Uribe negotiate the construction of a pipeline with Chavez and invite Chavez to serve as a mediator in hostage negotiations with the FARC as late as September of 2007? Let me answer your question with a question. If the US is fighting terrorism, why does it have Pakistan as an ally? Only in your classroom and dialectic imaginings can things be drawn so black and white.
Next....
Why would Venezuela's president make such a perilous bet, with no prospect of winning anything in light of the fact that the FARC hasn't been within striking distance of achieving power for several years and has negligible popular support in Colombia? What's the logic?
Answer... First, Chavez is an egomaniac and a man of action who doesn't think like a college perfesser, and second, he is savy enough to know that passing bucks to the revolution in Columbia isn't going to elicit an invasion from Uncle Sam, probably never and certainly not now. In conclusion, if you have evidence that the laptop story was bogus, you need to supply it. The post you gave us might have been written by one of your more earnest grad students.
If the US is fighting terrorism, why does it have Pakistan as an ally? Only in your classroom and dialectic imaginings can things be drawn so black and white.
So your idea of a cogent response to the charge that you lack knowledge of the region is to tell us nothing about Colombia or Venezuela and to simply assume that the dynamics are analogous to a completely different region of the world, with a completely distinct set of conflicts.
I'll let others be the judge if that makes any sense.
To accuse me of thinking in terms of black and white is a classic case of psychological projection on your part. Your own discourse sounds like something out of a bad John Wayne movie, so you subsconsciously project such manichaean thinking onto others. In fact, I'd say you're a textbook case of manichaeanism. Your enemies are "freedom-hating and death worshipping cranks," while your ideological brethren are the "good guys." If you want to see an exhibit in black-and-white thinking, just re-read your own comments on this blog.
Chavez is an egomaniac and a man of action who doesn't think like a college perfesser, and second, he is savy enough to know that passing bucks to the revolution in Columbia isn't going to elicit an invasion from Uncle Sam, probably never and certainly not now.
Nobody said that such a move on Chavez's part would necessarily elicit an invasion in the immediate term, but a sustained diplomatic campaign that offered real concrete evidence of such a move would isolate Chavez diplomatically. In other words, you've yet to establish what the logic behind such a move on Chavez's part would be, meaning that --unlike the prosecutors in the O.J. case-- you haven't even managed to establish a motive yet.
Now, if you think that Chavez has managed to survive politically for this long without thinking strategically, you don't understand politics. Almost any successful politician has an instinctual understanding of the correlation of forces, also known as the balance of power. If he hadn't had such an instinctual understanding, he wouldn't have lasted this long.
A mature political thinker doesn't underestimate his or her political enemies. This is the first lesson that all manichaean thinkers fail to understand.
Justin, a very intelligent and cogent response to our anonymous friend.
I would add, also, that participants to any discussion worth engaging would have to have a rudimentary knowledge of recent human history, philosophical and political concepts, the ability to recognize fallacies and engage critical thinking.
Sadly, this is absent from most of the managerial classes-and it requires an almost fanatical predisposition to become semi-educated in these matters. Instramental thinking is functional.
I am sure that in your field there are a majority of intellectuals that don't recognize the sins of ommission and truncated narratives that hold sway. More, to make the dominant, acceptable narratives more nuanced and problematized (reading against the grain) can be bad for one's career aspirations. One has to be careful and recognize openings when they occur.
But, as to your response to anonymous, I think that it is telling that this person doesn't provide a structure of logical argument with respect to your suppositions. You will notice this tendency most often among the rightwing: their burden is to protect unjust hierarchies and imperialist/oligarch violence. They cannot do this through vigorous argument that is subjected to rebuttal.
The implied audience is most often the 'demos'--and with competent debate most of the people, most of the time, will come to conclusions that lean toward the democratic ideal.
Since we have moved onto the new subject of motivation and personal psychological analysis, I can assume that we agree that the actual debate is over. The stories reported widely in the WSJ, Washington Post, New York Times, and elswhere, wherein dozens of reporters, many of whom would be as disposed to support the latest revolutionary fad in SA as you yourself, analyzed and reviewed hundreds of documents, and concluded that they proved Chavez was supporting FARC, remain uncontradicted. Thats what I wanted to establish, my dear perfesser. I am sure that with your contacts you have access to documents that others do not, and I sincerely hoped you might produce them. Since you cannot, this probably explains why this "breakthrough" hasn't been reported in the mainstream, rather than the grand right wing conspiracy that you and your poster imagined. As to the motivations of world leaders, as a scientist I don't like to argue too far beyond my facts, though I admit a guilty pleasure in baiting leftist clowns when time permits. At the moment I am on Christmas break and stumbled into your little sewer. I won't be back, you needn't fear. I perceive you exactly as a drooling fan outside Neverland yelling support for Michael as he faces the latest charges of child abuse, then retiring to his hermitage to IM about the latest work of those malign conspiratorial forces aligned against his hero, or concoct a new pet theory of his innocence. But I have more respect for Michael's fans, because they haven't enjoyed the advantages you have, perfesser. There is a lot more money to be had running a disinformation campaign in extraterrestrials, or perhaps something against the Jews, should you tire of this. What a colossol waste.
Anonymous, there is ample evidence that the major corporate news media in the US consistently obfuscate, omit, and engage in outright misinformation. So your citing these sources--without referencing specific documents as 'evidence'--is simply par for the course with what you have (failed) to present here.
Again, please link to sources that support your accusations. This is what is required for any type of debate.
You are big on name calling, but short on presenting anything that would back up your rant. It seems that you focus on Justin as a type of childish projection.
The requirement/onus is on you--the one making accusations of Chavez supporting FARC--to present evidence that backs up your claim. Again, referring to US corporate media--who have been derelict and abysmal with respect to Venezuela--won't cut it.
Go fish.
First off, the notion that U.S. newspapers would somehow have an inclination to sympathize with Chavez is so devoid of empirical and theoretical merit that it doesn't even deserve a response. No real social scientist would take such a proposition seriously.
With regard to the mainstream press, what we had is a whole slew of U.S. journalists who --like anonymous-- wanted to believe the version of events that most fits their culture's preconceptions of the world. So, naturally, the newspapers were all too eager to run whatever the Colombian government forked over to them. No matter that the Colombian government wouldn't even submit the supposed laptop documents to the OAS. No matter that there was no independent investigation as to whether the documents submitted to the press had even come from the laptops.
The press never even pondered the possibility that the documents they were given might have been cherry-picked for propaganda purposes.
Fortunately, OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza understood something that you fail to understand. Here's what he told the Miami Herald:
"Would you dare, with the documents you've seen, begin an investigation? I wouldn't dare begin an investigation with the things I read in the newspapers."
I love that Insulza comment. It's funny he said that to the Miami Herald reporter ... how apt.
"Anonymous", next time you're tempted to post here, do yourself a favor and blow your nose before you go on the Internets. It makes me embarrassed for you to see the way you carry on. I don't wonder that you don't leave your name--if I were so foolish as to post half the drivel you have, I'd probably choose to remain anonymous too.
BTW, what the hell is "pedigree" and why does it lend credibility to anything? All the pedigreed dogs I've ever seen had congenital deformities. Not something I'd look for in an animal, much less a report on a highly dubious laptop that allegedly survived a missile assault undamaged.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home