The Daily Grasshopper

Sorry for the late entry, but I was a panelist tonight at a presentation on globalization over at MIT (http://web.mit.edu/hemisphere/events/congress108-te.shtml). I had to do a lot of research for it, so I didn’t get around to writing anything before now. And I’m going to try to be brief.

Here’s the front-page story in the New York Times on Venezuela’s “strike”:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/16/international/americas/16VENE.html

And here’s the front-page story from the Narco News website revealing that a New York Times reporter was forced to resign the other day from his Venezuela beat because of a “conflict of interest” (he’s anti-Chavez, and has a website that details his opposition views):

http://www.narconews.com/Issue27/article584.html

The New York Times is “the newspaper of record” in this country, the sort of “gold standard” for journalistic integrity, and every beat reporter’s dream job. We should continue to be skeptical about the mainstream press and what they are (and aren't) telling us, and this is just one more example.

I was with a Colombian trade unionist named Hector Giraldo last night at the Pioneer Valley Central Labor Council in East Springfield, Mass. He told the workers there his story about being under threat of assassination by paramilitary death squads in his home country, simply for wanting to be able to organize his fellow workers for good wages and benefits. I wrote about this last year, as many of you know. If you didn’t read the article, it should still be available on the MIT website (first link, above).

The day before, Human Rights Watch released its 2000 World Report. It’s pretty interesting reading. The stuff that Hector was talking about is explained in there, just like he laid it out for the workers in Springfield:

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/americas4.html

The only reports we saw about it in the mainstream press talked about how U.S. treatment of prisoners of war made it easier for other countries to abuse human rights. Here’s the story in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/15/international/15RIGH.html

Here are some much more damning excerpts from the HRW report:

“The United States continued to play a pivotal role in Colombia because of its status both as the primary purchaser of the illegal narcotics produced in Colombia and used by armed groups to finance war, and as the main supplier of military aid to the Colombian government. In 2002, the U.S. government provided Colombia with $374 million in military aid and, in a new development, lifted restrictions preventing the Colombian security forces from using the funding to combat illegal armed groups. The change revoked a long-standing requirement that funds only be spent on antinarcotics activities. As of September 13, according to government reports, there were 138 temporary and permanent U.S. military personnel and 250 U.S. civilians retained as individual contractors in Colombia.

The aid legislation included human rights conditions that required the Colombian military to take effective steps to break ties with paramilitary groups, suspend from duty officers implicated in gross human rights violations, and cooperate with civilian authorities in prosecuting alleged human rights abusers. In the biannual reviews required by law, Human Rights Watch and two other human rights groups showed that Colombia had failed to meet these conditions. The State Department pressed Colombia to make progress, and the United States suspended military assistance for several weeks to reinforce the message. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Colin Powell ultimately certified Colombia's compliance with the conditions on May 1, thereby releasing 60 percent of the funds available. The certification decision sent a harmful message to the Colombian authorities, and particularly the armed forces, that human rights were less important than the ability to wage war freely.

Human rights groups took part in a second round of State Department meetings in late August, linked to the certification of the remaining 40 percent of military aid. Human Rights Watch again demonstrated that Colombia had failed to meet a single one of the statutory conditions and described disturbing setbacks since the May 1 certification. Nevertheless, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage certified Colombia a second time on September 9.”

Here’s the best part:

“The United States also pressed Colombia to sign a "non-extradition" agreement that would prohibit the extradition of U.S. and Colombian servicemen to stand trial before the ICC. Colombia complied, in large part because the U.S. threatened to prevent countries that were signatories to the Rome Statute and who had not signed the immunity pledge from receiving U.S. military aid. Colombia was receiving more military aid than any country except Israel and Egypt.”

You can read the whole report, or any parts that you think might be of interest, here:

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k3/

You definitely won’t be reading about it anyplace else!