Publius Pundit
Articles Archive

« Previous · Home · Next »

When you hire a Truthteller...

Filed under: Latin America

...You shouldn't be surprised if he tells the truth.

Over in Colombia, that doesn't seem to be entirely clear to President Alvaro Uribe.

Now, as you know, I'm his biggest fan. But he did something today that struck me as incoherent. He chewed out his new foreign minister, Fernando Araujo, for telling the truth about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Not as in namecalling, like I might do. But as in a story about an experience in his life.

Do you know who Araujo is?

If you don't, let's just put it this way: while you and I were celebrating our Christmases three months ago, Araujo was tied up, stuck in a jungle cage, starved, deprived of human company (his captors definitely aren't human) and smothered in the dark - for his sixth straight year. He had been an economic development minister in Colombia back in 2000 and was jogging on the beach in Cartagena one day. Suddenly, hooded thugs with guns sprang out and kidnapped him taking him away to deep deep into their jungle hideout and away from civilization. His life was never going to be the same. For six long years, he was a prisoner of the FARC, the odious Marxist narcoterrorist guerrillas who have made Colombia a living hell since 1964.

While there, he focused on survival, focused on getting his kidnappers not to kill him. He wanted to live. He had no knowledge of 9/11, didn't know about the Iraq war, had no idea who the U.S. president was, never heard of iPods, and the last he heard of the U.S. was news about how Al Gore was disputing the 2000 U.S. election with George Bush. After that, his life was all about trying to stay alilve.

Some of it was tragic: his wife had left him for another man two years into his captivity, assuming he would never return - and many people he knew had died during his six long years in a FARC dungeon - he only got to learn who they were when he eventually escaped, later saying it was like all of the people he'd known dying in one day.

His escape was a breathtaking one. Alvaro Uribe had gotten intelligence on a FARC hideout deep in the jungle. He sent his helicopters in, shooting, and as the FARC narcoterrorists shot back, Araujo realized he had one flash moment in his six years captivity to escape. He took it ... running through a miles of minefields the guerrillas had encircled themselves with to protect their hideout. He ran though tall grass and machinegun fire. He dodged bullets. He made it to the forest and from there, walked around for five days, free at last, but marooned in the terrifying jungle full of savage wild animals and things with sharp teeth. Five days later, he spotted a villager outside the wilderness and ran into his arms and told him who he was. After that, he made it back civilization for the first time in six years, awed and full of wonder. Colombia celebrated his extraordinary escape with huge parades and rejoicing. Newspapers put it on the front page. A dead man had come back to life.

The story got even more dramatic in February. Not two months away from the clutches of the FARC, Uribe asked him if he would be his foreign minister. It was awfully soon, but Araujo's indomitable spirit of survival had impressed him. In fact, it impressed everyone. Putting his country about himself, Araujo said yes.

It was like Magic Realism.

Araujo was chosen because Uribe was having political troubles. The U.S. Democrats in Congress were threatening to cut off aid to Colombia and Colombia needed to win its war on terror. They didn't want to be left high and dry. The FARC remains a formidable enemy and flip flopping on war funding was only going to embolden them. But the Dems were obsessed with supposed human rights violations as if winning the war was not urgent. Uribe needed someone who could bring Colombia's true story of courage and suffering forward to the Americans. Who better than someone who suffered six years as a hostage of the FARC - even though it was only a few weeks ago. The aim was to get someone who could tell the truth compelling, and who wouldn't turn heads in Washington like a man who'd suffered from narcoterror as a hostage for six years up until just a few weeks ago? It was risky to pick him but it was also a brilliant idea. Colombia needed a truth teller to the world, to tell the truth about the FARC and its evil.

Araujo was in Washington this week and he did tell the truth, from the pit of his soul, from his own experience. He said what he say in the FARC camp - he said that the FARCsters were big worshippers of Hugo Chavez who was their hero. With his own hostage eyes, he watched as they mooned over the Venezuelan dictator's speeches, studied them in the camp, and gushed whenever he came on TV. Chavez really excited them. Araujo said that Chavez was their ideological leader. There was no question that they were crazy about Hugo Chavez. The FARC and Hugo were like lips and teeth.

Simple truth of course, something everyone expected.

But it wasn't so simple as that. Hugo Chavez screamed about the truth telling, saying Araujo had disrespected Venezuela in so doing. Chavez always like to silence the truth tellers. The FARC's drooling over him didn't bother him - Araujo's truthtelling did. See here

President Uribe scolded Araujo today, saying he needed to be more 'wise' in his choice of words around Chavez. Uribe is looking at the pragmatic picture - Hugo Chavez could badly damage the Colombian economy by threatening to shut the border. Chavez would do just that because being a dictator, he no longer has to answer to voters on the Venezuelan side or look out for their trade. But Uribe could face political consequences from voters if the border were to shut. That's why he acts with caution. He also needs the minimal support he can get from Venezuela in its war on narcoterror. I would call it less appeasement than pragmatism and usually it works pretty well.

But not this time. Araujo was hired to tell the truth about Colombia's plight to the world. He experienced it himself, with his own body, mind and soul, for six long years. Yes, he knew the truth about the FARC and its love of Chavez. He said it. It needs to be said as often as possible. An eyewitness is a powerful person to say it. So he did.

But now he's being accused on all sides of being undiplomatic.

I look in askance at Uribe's go-softly approach. Pragmatism can become appeasement pretty darn quickly if enough pragmatic moves are made. Now the word is out about what the Colombia government really thinks about Chavez. They're not alone. I've had lunch with Mexican cabinet officials in the past who've totally lashed out at Chavez in private. But no one wants to go on the record with the truth about the antidemocratic, criminal, gangsterly nature of chavismo. Everyone just wants to preserve the polite fictions, the most fictitious of these being the idea that Chavez was elected democratically. He wasn't.

Sooner or later, the truth will out. It already has come out with the ex-hostage Araujo. When will it come out for everyone else?

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


Robert Mayer says:

What an amazing article, Mora! Araujo sounds like my kind of guy. It's like a more modern McCain kind of story, but even more enthralling the way you tell it. I'm glad someone out there knows who and what Chavez and his chavismo really is, but he shouldn't be getting shutdown for it. People should be listening.


John Hussey says:

WOW..Great post!


Justin Fox says:

OK first of all Hugo Chavez is not a dictator, he was democratically elected in 98 with 53% of the vote, re-elected in 2000 under the new constitution with 59% of the vote, won in the presidential referendum by a landslide, and won by a similar landslide in the 06 election. One could easily make the case that he is the most voted for president in the western hemisphere. Moreover here is a little bit of Chavez history, don't worry we'll get back to the FARC and Columbia soon enough. In 2002 the US backed a coup against Chavez led by high ranking officers in the Venezuelan military and wealthy business leader Pedro Carbona. The coup failed when common soldiers refused to take orders and the presidential palace, Mira Flores was surrounded by angry Venezuelans demanding the return of the president they had voted for. The next challenge for Mr. Chavez came when the opposition organized a collective worker lock out of supermarkets, restaurants, businesses, and the oil industry. The Venezuelan press called it a strike, and after sixty days and change the lock out ended with the wealthy and middle class participants worse off than they were in the beginning and stronger solidarity and support for President Chavez among the poor for whom he had opened government subsidized supermarkets (Mercal) to help them weather the storm. The reason for Mr. Chavez hold on power in Venezuela comes not from authoritarianism; it doesn't need to, it comes from support by the poor and until now excluded majority of Venezuelans who make up 80% of the populace. And why do they support him? Because he has spent and continues to spend Venezuela's vast oil revenues on providing access to quality medical care, education, housing, and opportunities for financial betterment of those same poor that previous Venezuelan governments have spurned. So why the confusion? Because commercial media outlets in the US and Europe instead of truly investigating the matter and reporting in an unbiased manner have relied on parroting the elite owned Venezuelan commercial press. If the author of this blog spent any time at all hiking around the foothills and barrios of Caracas as I have recently done they would see a people truly excited and involved with the activities of their government. Unfortunately most western corespondents spend all their time residing in the center of the city with the privileged, reading their privileged newspapers, watching their privileged television programs, dining in their privileged restaurants, and all the while absorbing only the perspective of the privileged They are not in touch with the reality that exists in the tin and clay shanties that line the hill sides for miles and miles around the Venezuelan capital. Hugo Chavez is.
Regarding the nation next door, Columbia, it is a country that has been at civil war for many, many years. The left leaning FARC controls large portions of the country while the right leaning government controls others including the capitol. It is true that FARC receives much of its funding from the production and trafficking of narcotics, so do government supported militia groups, and government officials. The actions of the government and FARC have been violent and merciless in the extreme and many many innocent people have lost their lives over the years. Chavez has met with both officials from Bogot� and FARC and as violence frequently spills across the boarder it is in his interests to do so. It is not surprising that members of FARC would admire and support Chavez as he has taken a firm stand against the harsh neoliberal policies imposed on Latin America by Washington via the IMF and World Bank. Columbia has been no exception to those policies and as a result much of the rural poor in Columbia have had to resort to the cultivation and harvesting of coca, marijuana, and opium in order to feed their families. The FARC is not unmindful of this reality but apparently Washington is or it would work to change the structural mandates of its foreign policy that exacerbate or bring into existence situations like the the one in Columbia. That said my heart goes out to Fernando Araujo and it is my sincere wish that educated individuals would devote their pours of argument and persuasion to dissecting and dismantling the causes of want and war rather than using them to polarize and divide their readers into identically disparate left and right so that in the future no one else will have to endure Mr. Araujo's terrifying ordeal.


maria gonzalez says:

Justin Fox:

Sir, your are more blind than a mole with respect to the Venezuela situation. I don't want be so long in commentaries like you, but, as a venezuelan woman and mother living here in Venezuela, have to contradict all and everything of your assertions on Venezuela and Venezuela'situation. Good liberals have accepted Hugo Chavez like a kind of paladin, champion, defender of our people. Nothing farther of reality. I can accept that the situation with the bipolarity of the prior political parties was certainly encroached, in everything of the senses. People wanted a change, a change for better, and not for worst (which is what have happened). As grossly is difficult for me explain the situation, I will say that all, hear: ALL the vital and economic indexes have disminished, no matter what say the government (Ch�vez ordered his man in charge of the National Statistic Office to draw back his words and say poverty had disminished (when happened the contrary). The economy is becoming �a disaster! It doesn't matter the macroeconomic ciphers. The oil is high, so is the government income, but the national reserves have been by-passed out from PDVSA, out of control of the Central Bank, and roughly (not certainly, I am only a housewife) 12 (twelve) billions of dollars (yes, billions, that is, thousands of millions) have been transvased...until now, not even one statement of account, not even the mimicry of one. You only can guess what are doing with that enormous quantity of money. Poverty, hunger and violence are increasing. Children dying of famine, violent death every day, over all of young men. So, Mister Fox, our President, having stepped up over of the democratic powers, (Legislative, Judiciary and a recently created "Moral"�!Moral�, all of them pregnant with his adherentes), continues ahead with the next take, that is, Governors, Mayorships (Alcaldias) and, yes, have the design to reach the normal citizen by "Communal Councils" a.k.a. the Revolution's Defense Commitees from Cuba. Besides, continues taking private (and already developed) producing farms, and don't let near any increase of food products. Results: black market and prices rising per force. Sincerely, I could continuing very much more, by example, on the electoral fraud, but, Mr. Fox, instead I suggest you come here to Venezuela, and live on yourself, say, six months. (Pray you could stand it)


Justin Fox says:

Mrs. Gonzalez,
Thank you for the kind invitation to your country, also, allow me to pay you a compliment on your writing. Your comment was well structured, to the point, in English, which to you is presumably a second language, and clearly the product of someone with a fine educational background. If only such an education had been available to the exploited majority in your country. Actually I do not speak as a complete stranger but as someone who has been to Venezuela as a guest, of friends who live in the barrio, on the steep sloping mountain sides of Caracas, and the country side beyond. In Latin America I have seen hells where children go hungry, where there are starving packs of orphans on the streets. I have seen places in your country where the poor have had to pay a premium for a gallon or two of water to carry it a mile up hill to reach homes of cardboard and corrugated tin on hillsides rife with sewage. No, I am not unmindful of the hell you speak of, but for those who may not be, I think we should agree to make it transparently clear that this is not a hell that is the making of President Chavez, but a hell that he has inherited from corrupt administrations of the past. Administrations who have lined their pockets with the cash and gold from your country's oil, just as they lined the hillsides with poverty and famine by way of submission to the guidelines set out by the government of my own country through the Washington Consensus. Administrations under the previous constitution such as that of Carlos Andres Perez came to power on a promise of real change to the people, only to agree to socially irresponsible terms of the IMF and use brutal police power to crush the exploited majority in your country when starvation and price hikes drove them to desperation and rioting. President Chavez has not caved in to the pressures of the rich, the IMF, or Washington, but has fulfilled his promises. For that his popularity has waxed with every election despite bellicose rumblings of doom from the Venezuelan rich owned news sources such as El Nacional, or RCTV. Instead of an honest assessment of Chavez polices they have produced a steady stream of propaganda ostensibly to discredit him, but Chavez has put into motion a remarkably shrewd plan for development. He has as you point out used Venezuela's comparative advantage, oil, to fund a massive plan of endogenous development. Rather than investing capitol in foreign businesses and markets as has been done in the past Chavez has put the vast oil wealth to work creating businesses and opportunities at home, in the public sector through health and education and in the private sector by making available low interest micro-credit, with supporting programs that offer training and assistance to borrowers. Venezuelan tax codes and law favor small family businesses and co-operatives over massive multinational corporations that would otherwise disrupt and destroy all local competition as they have done in the past and continue to do in third world countries elsewhere in the world. By developing from within Chavez fosters the independence of Venezuela. As far as the oil money running out, it could happen if oil were to lets say drop to $8.00 a barrel, but the aggressive destabilizing actions of our own US president have made that kind of a price drop extremely unlikely. That coupled with Chavez own work with OPEC and the rising demand for oil in China are a virtual assurance that the Bolivarian Revolution will remain well funded. Finlay Mrs. Gonzalez I would hope that you realize, the community councils, and bolivarian circles up on the hillsides you label as communists are indeed made up of some communists, but mostly they are groups of people gathered together hopping for a better future for their children. Are you really that dis-similar? Or are you not connected by a common thread of humanity with these people? Should you not use your own role, as housewife and mother to reach out to them and build a bridge across that common thread? Your country has one of the most progressive constitutions in the world, no other constitution guarantees a pension to people of your critically important occupation. Is this not progress? If you would but open your heart and mind imagine what a positive difference you could make in re-inventing Venezuela into the bright beacon of humanity it should have been years ago, and under Chavez may yet become if its citizenry are able to unite across their mutual bridge of humanity and forever leave their mutual distrust that has already cost so many so much.


James Burke says:


Justin Fox - do you work for a liberal ( ie, communist) think tank?
When you use terms such as neo liberal and left leaning you only confuse people who are confused enough by the World MSM.

First off, I have been to Colombia seven times in the last three years and plan to go again in December.

Says Justin: " The left leaning FARC controls large portions of the country"

1) left leaning - The FARC was born in 1964, the same year as the PLO ( interesting?) and like the PLO probably were trained in China or Eastern Europe to use ammo and Commie propaganda.

They are vicious, America hating, Israel hating free market hating lefties. As is the anti semetic Chavez who like Hitler also hates the people ofvenezuela as he tries to give medial help to the poor. According to my sources in Venezuela he has not done a lot to help them economically in 6 years. The average wage is still $US 250 a month.


The FARC kidnap people (at least 3,000 people ) and explode things like Hamas, Fata, Al qaeda and Hezbolla which they most likely train with ( Mr Bush watch that southern border).

South America is poor because of a history of very mean and corrupt govts who marketed themselves as "liberal" ie Allende. The Spanish stole the gold.

Yes, the gringos exploited them but still the Spanish were very vicious as are the Spanish speaking FARC.

2) " control larege portions of land"

Blame Clinton for this with his idiotic "Land for Peace" dream. As he was trying to destroy Israel for his Dubai friends, he was selling this rubbish to Colombia as the same time.

Colombia gave large lots of land ( AS BIG AS SWITZERLAND) which the FARC used to grow marijuana, install laboratories and hide arms and minefields to keep Araujo in and Uribe out.

Now, Colombia Govt has less land and no peace.

Back to you Justin


Melissa Rose says:

I have been reading, with great interest the comments regarding Columbia and Venezuela. I find many of the points quite interesting. I believe it is a wonderful testimony to freedom that we can all disagree so passionately and yet be so open with our individual points of view. Just to add to the fray, I'd like to make a few comments.

First to Ms. Gonzalez- I think I can understand where your dislike of many of the new policies in Venezuela (and Chavez) has come from. I would imagine it is difficult to adjust now that the rich are not getting richer and the poor are, well getting the assistance they require to obtain equal education and health care the upper class has enjoyed for so long. It is wonderful that you have had the opportunity to be a housewife and mother. I am a mother, but unfortunately I have to work outside the home as well, in order to make ends meet. How do you feel about the constitution recognizing your worth as a homemaker and mother? Also I would be interested in seeing the evidence of the �electoral fraud� that so many people have announced (but no one has proven).
By the way, I would welcome the chance to spend 6 months in your shoes, being respected as a housewife and mother.

And to Mr. Burke-
I found many of your comments to be quite confusing. First, you chide Mr. Fox for his use of the words �neo liberal� and �left leaning� because it confuses the already confused masses. (Neoliberalism really isn't that difficult of a concept and as time goes on, those masses confused by �MSM� have been seeking other independent media sources, only to find themselves less confused- imagine that!). But I digress. What actually confused me about your remark was that several sentences after your comment on Mr. Fox's vocabulary use you stated �They are vicious, America hating, Israel hating free market hating lefties.� I'm not sure how your term is less confusing.
-Also, I would again be very interested in the evidence that you have to back up your claim that Chavez is anti semetic (or semitic which is what I think you meant). I also don't recall ever reading anything about Hitler hating the people of Venezuela. Yet another comment I find a bit perplexing is �As is the anti semetic Chavez who like Hitler also hates the people of venezuela as he tries to give medial help to the poor.� I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. How does giving medical help to the poor show that Chavez hates the people of Venezuela? And on a very serious note, Hitler massacred millions of people in concentration camps. I don't remember what good deeds HE contributed to society. I really don't think you can compare Chavez to Hitler regardless of whether you agree with his policies or not. -As far as your comment about your sources in Venezuela saying Chavez' policies are not helping people, I would love to know the specifics of who those sources are. I wonder if they are people who live in the Barrios or in one of those fancy apartment buildings behind electric fences and barbed wire?
-South America is not just poor because of a history of very mean and corrupt South American governments. It is also poor because of many policies of the United States government which believes that it has the answers for ALL people in the world, regardless of different cultures and societal norms.
One last comment on your statement of �They are vicious, America hating, Israel hating free market hating lefties�. Free market economies have their place. But free market economies have their own set of problems as well. Just remember this, the United States government has caused our country to become one of the most hated cultures in the world. Our government insists on pushing its version of �democracy� and �free market economies� on cultures and societies that would be better off just being left alone. Instead of focusing on our own problems of poverty and security within our own country, our government feels the need to focus on Chavez (couldn't have anything to do with being scared of getting our oil supply cut off???). There are many cultures that hate America. Maybe if we stop being the world neighorhood bully we'd have more friends and less enemies. I think Mr. Fox makes some really good points. I do not think suggesting he works for some liberal communist think tank is productive. Maybe if our government would stop bullying the world into �Americanizing� and spent more time seriously considering some of Chavez' (and other progressive thinkers)ideas, we could solve some of the astronomical issues of poverty, crime, lack of education and health care in our OWN country.


ic says:

"they would see a people truly excited and involved with the activities of their government"

In the thirties of the last century, they would see a people truly excited about the Fuhrer, and involved with the activities of their govt. especially the young brown shirts goose stepping in their parades, the black shirts rounding up undesirables...

In the forties of the last century, they would see a people truly excited about their Great Helmsman, the Red Sun of the East, the creator of the Little Red Book, and involved with the activities of their govt., the young denouncing their parents, workers taking over factories, peasants killing landlords,...

Those were good old days. Those were Utopias.


Justin Fox says:

No, ic, those were not Utopia's those were actually right wing dictatorships not participatory democracies. The idea behind a participatory democracy is not to goose step along behind your dear leader be he right or wrong, the idea behind a participatory democracy is that the people may hold their leaders to account. This is the farthest thing form the kind of servility you seem to be implying.


Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/17