Colombia (and Cardoso)

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky Gorojovsky at
Thu Aug 31 16:35:00 MDT 2000

En relación a Re: Colombia (and Cardoso),
el 31 Aug 00, a las 22:37, João Paulo Monteiro dijo:

> Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:
> > So that I am twice as surprised not to see him perceiving the strong
> > red thread that links these considerations with the fact that a
> > "well behaving" country such as Brazil coordinates military work on
> > the Colombian borders of Amazonia with a "potential rogue state"
> > such as the Venezuela of Chávez.
> >
> In fact, my daily newspaper entitled its whole article on Clinton's
> visit "Brazil declares war on plan Colombia".
> But what the article says is that there are 22 thousand brazilian
> troops along the colombian border, and more battalions from the South
> coming in, for as long as "Plan Colombia" lasts. Then brazilian
> foreign minister Lampréia is quoted as saying the plan "represents a
> threat to the brazilian territory" but his fears seem to be of
> infiltrations of guerrillas and traffickers on the run.

Of course, Joao. What else would you have expected? But, at the same
time, it would be naive to suppose that American intervention in
Colombia will not spread hundreds and thousands of people to Brazil
and elsewhere. This is what the Brazilians are, as a first step,
against. And in opposing this, they oppose the "plan Colombia"
itself. On the other hand, Lampreia is expressing the disgust of the
Brazilian Foreign Relations bureaucracy at this coup of the United
States, which they reasonably understand as a coup directed ALSO
against Brazilian independent policies in South America.

> I do hope that the FARC will be able to stand its ground. On my
> wildest dreams, I keep remembering that the collapse of Batista's army
> also started with a "final" offensive on the Sierra Maestra.

Too wild a dream to become true. We are not facing a new Cuba, nor
the Colombian government can be reasonably equated to the
dictatorship of Batista. We still have to see the gangsters ruling
Bogotá the way they ruled Havana. Keep in mind that Batista had
become such a pebble in the shoe that the USA themselves helped Fidel
kick the Sergeant in the ass.

We are at the first preambles of a long, long drama. But this is the
drama that the United States have been shunning decade after decade.
The problem is that their best solution (local thugs) is not
available, for a host of reasons. So that this time they will have to
step in. To step in a labyrinth of high ranges in the midst of
rainforests, more than a million square kilometers wide, with open
frontiers that will spread the conflict to neighboring countries, in
an area strongly possessed of a feeling of unity at the lower

> But if
> they are forced to seek shelter across the border, my guess is they
> will be asked to disarm by the brazilians (don't know about the
> venezuelans).

Both will ask them to disarm. We may even see some of them taking
them to prison, or worse. This is not the problem, however (though of
course we shall have to struggle against that kind of behaviour), but
the fact that these regimes will have to be in the problem of
explaining to their own populations why are they doing that with the
Colombians. As to the Venezuelans, I suppose (will try to check) that
they are resenting the Plan Colombia as a kind of long range
operation against Venezuela itself.

> Brazil is saying, for now, it won't allow the use of it's territory
> for the "plan"'s military operations nor was such cooperation asked
> for. Let's see how things unfold. It's very hard to know which side of
> the war Brazil will ultimately "declare war" to, but I don't trust
> them in the least.

I trust the Brazilian people, not the government. This is the
important thing here. This is the actual Anaconda.

A hug,

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at

More information about the Marxism mailing list