Santander: A Reflection of Colombian Governments

Published in La Jornada
(Mexico) on 2 September 2009
by José Steinsleger (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Patricia Simoni. Edited by Jessica Boesl.
During the final leg of the first independence, under the watchful eye of President James Monroe (1817-25), Simón Bolívar takes a little over five years to liberate the five South American countries of Colombia (1819), Venezuela (1821 ), Ecuador (1822), Peru and Bolivia (1824). Five years later, Washington derails their dreams of unity.

Monroe and Bolivar take a stand before the Holy Alliance of Europe, but hold radically different ideas about the fate of the Hispanic people. To Bolivar, the Yankees are rogues, warlike and calculating (Letter from Jamaica, 1815), and John Quincy Adams (Secretary of State and successor to Monroe) proposes that America be for Americans (1812).

While the Liberator draws his sword in the south, with geopolitical frigidity, Washington turns Bogota into a hotbed of intrigue destined to undermine the Bolivian ranks. Since 1822 (the year when the sovereignty of Great Colombia was recognized), ambassadors like Richard C. Anderson (Bogota), William H. Harrison (Bogota), Joel R. Poinsett (Mexico), John B. Prevost (Chile and Buenos Aires) and William Tudor (Lima) sow the seeds of racism, encouraging oligarchic interests.

The objective of Washington (purported to be neutral during the war of liberation) is to confront Venezuelans and New Granadians (Colombians). Simultaneously, the Yankee navy helps weapons smugglers, in support of Spain.

The traitors flourish. In the hero Francisco de Paula Santander, Vice President of Great Colombia and cornerstone of the first major victory against Spain (Boyacá, 1819), Bolívar belatedly discovers a sordid precursor of Monroe’s pan-Americanism.

Sounding the alarm from distant Potosi during the preparations for the Congress of Panama (1826), the Liberator warns Santander, “ . . . I hate these bastards so much that I wouldn’t have it said that a Colombian was anything like them" (October 1825). However, the mysterious death of Argentinian Bernardo de Monteagudo (responsible for drafting the premises of Congress), stabbed to death on a street in Lima, draws threatening clouds.

During April of 1826 in Caracas, Venezuelan José Antonio Páez (another hero of limited vision) rebels against Santander, but not in favor of Bolivar. And, as soon as the Liberator leaves Lima to head off the uprising, Ambassador Tudor begins to pull strings. In La Paz and Lima, New Granadian rebel regiments revolt. The Venezuelan officers arrest rioters, placing them under the orders of Santander.

Upon arriving in Guayaquil, Bolivar receives the news that the Colombian Congress has given a Yankee shipping merchant, John B. Elbers, a monopoly on navigation of the Magdalena River for 21 years. He revokes the decision and recommends that Santander “ . . .maintain the greatest vigilance over Americans who frequent the coasts. They are capable of selling Colombia for a pittance.”

The die was cast. Bolivarian America, double the size of the United States and with three times the U.S. population, begins to be fodder for separatism and oligarchic regionalism. In June 1830, it completes its task by killing the great marshal of Ayacucho, Antonio José de Sucre, expelling him from Bolivia, with shouts of “Out with mulattoes!”

Bolivar dies in 1830, and the beasts of balkanization fight over bits of land in conflicts and fistfights that historians call a civil war. But the apparent differences between federalists and centralists, and liberals and conservatives, become glorious when they come together to drown in the blood of their villages.

At the end of the 19th century, Washington supports Panamanian merchants desiring separation from Colombia, remaining there in perpetuity with the inter-oceanic canal. Although it had taken 12 years to recognize the independence of Great Colombia, only a day or less was enough to recognize the independence of Texas (1836); of Nicaragua, liberated by the pirate, William Walker (1856); and of Panama (1903).

From the pro-Yankee doctrine, “Look North” or “Follow the North Star” (Res Pice Polum) of Marco Fidel Suárez’s conservative government of 1918-21, to the democratic security of the paramilitary narco-trafficker Álvaro Uribe Vélez; through the bloody Heroic Act of conservative, Miguel Abadía Méndez (1928), and the bestial repression of Laureano Gómez and others during the decade of the 1950s, the economic groups and leaders of Colombia have never been able to fend for themselves.

Washington's warmongering inspires them, the servility of Santander guides them. And the people of Latin America, more than noticing and caring about their warlike work, despise them with their souls, their minds and their hearts.


Durante el tramo final de la primera independencia, bajo la mirada vigilante del presidente James Monroe (1817-25), Simón Bolívar ocupa poco más de cinco años en la liberación de cinco países de América del Sur: Colombia (1819), Venezuela (1821), Ecuador (1822), Perú y Bolivia (1824). Cinco años después, Washington desbarata sus ideales de unidad.

Monroe y Bolívar fijan posición frente a la "Santa Alianza" europea, pero guardan concepciones radicalmente distintas en torno al destino de los pueblos hispanoamericanos. Para Bolívar los yanquis son "canallas", "belicosos" y "de espíritu aritmético" (Carta de Jamaica, 1815), y John Quincy Adams (secretario de Estado y sucesor de Monroe) propone que América debía ser "para los americanos" (1823).

Con frialdad geopolítica, mientras el Libertador desenvaina su espada en el sur, Washington convierte a Bogotá en hervidero de intrigas destinadas a socavar las filas bolivarianas. Desde 1822 (año en que reconoce la soberanía de la Gran Colombia), embajadores como Richard C. Anderson y William H. Harrison (Bogotá), Joel R. Poinsett (México), John B. Prevost (Chile y Buenos Aires) y William Tudor (Lima), siembran la cizaña del racismo, estimulando los intereses oligárquicos.

El objetivo de Washington (que se proclama "neutral" en la guerra de liberación) consiste en enfrentar a venezolanos y neogranadinos (colombianos). Simultáneamente, la marina de guerra yanqui ayuda a los contrabandistas de armas, en favor de España.

Los traidores florecen. En el prócer Francisco de Paula Santander, vicepresidente de la Gran Colombia y piedra angular de la primera gran victoria contra España (Boyacá, 1819), Bolívar descubre (tardíamente) a un sórdido precursor del "panamericanismo monroista".

A modo de advertencia, desde la lejana Potosí y durante los preparativos del Congreso Anfictiónico de Panamá (1826), el Libertador advierte a Santander: “…aborrezco a esa canalla de tal modo que no quisiera que se dijera que un colombiano hacía nada como ellos” (octubre 1825). Sin embargo, la misteriosa muerte del argentino Bernardo de Monteagudo (encargado de redactar las premisas del congreso), asesinado a puñaladas en una calle de Lima, dibuja nubarrones de tormenta.

En abril de 1826, en Caracas, el venezolano José Antonio Páez (otro prócer de mirada corta) se subleva contra Santander, mas no en favor de Bolívar. Y no bien el Libertador parte de Lima para conjurar la revuelta, el embajador Tudor mueve los hilos. En La Paz y Lima se sublevan sendos regimientos neogranadinos. Los alzados arrestan a los oficiales venezolanos, poniéndose bajo las órdenes de Santander.

Cuando llega a Guayaquil, Bolívar recibe la noticia de que el Congreso colombiano había entregado al naviero yanqui John B. Elbers el monopolio por 21 años de la navegación por el río Magdalena. Revoca la concesión y recomienda a Santander “…la mayor vigilancia sobre estos americanos que frecuentan las costas: son capaces de vender a Colombia por un real”.

La suerte quedó echada. La América bolivariana, que duplica en extensión a Estados Unidos y lo triplica en población, empieza a ser pasto del separatismo y el regionalismo oligárquico, que en junio de 1830 remata su tarea asesinando al gran Mariscal de Ayacucho, Antonio José de Sucre, a quien habían expulsado de Bolivia al grito de ¡fuera mulatos!

Bolívar muere (1830) y las fieras de la balcanización se disputan pedacitos de tierra. Conflictos y golpes de mano que los historiadores a modo llaman "guerras civiles". Pero las diferencias aparentes entre federalistas y centralistas, liberales y conservadores, se tornan gloriosas cuando se unen para ahogar en sangre a sus pueblos.

A finales del siglo XIX, Washington apoya a los mercachifles panameños que anhelan la separación de Colombia, quedándose "a perpetuidad" con el canal interoceánico. Si para reconocer la independencia de la Gran Colombia el imperio se había tomado 12 años (1822), le bastó un día o menos para reconocer la de Texas (1836), la de Nicaragua "liberada" por el pirata William Walker (1856) y la de Panamá (1903).

De la doctrina proyanqui "Mirar al Polo o Mirar al Norte" (Respice Polum) del gobernante conservador Marco Fidel Suárez (1918-21), a la de "seguridad democrática" del paramilitar y narcotraficante Álvaro Uribe Vélez, pasando por la sangrienta "Ley Heroica", del conservador Miguel Abadía Méndez (1928), y la bestialidad represiva de Laureano Gómez y otros en el decenio de 1950, los grupos económicos y gobernantes de Colombia jamás han podido valerse por sí mismos.

El belicismo de Washington los inspira, el servilismo de Santander los guía. Y los pueblos de América Latina, a más de tomar nota y cuidado de sus afanes guerreristas, los desprecian con alma, inteligencia y corazón.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Austria: Trump Is Playing with Fire. Does He Want the Whole House To Go up in Flames?

Venezuela: The Devil in Los Angeles

Germany: If You’re Not for Him, You Should Be Afraid*

Topics

Germany: If You’re Not for Him, You Should Be Afraid*

Austria: Trump Is Playing with Fire. Does He Want the Whole House To Go up in Flames?

Taiwan: Taiwan Issue Will Be Harder To Bypass during Future US-China Negotiations

Venezuela: The Devil in Los Angeles

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Poland: Los Angeles Riots: Battle for America’s Future

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Related Articles

Mexico: US Pushes for Submission

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Afghanistan: Defeat? Strategic Withdrawal? Maneuver?

México: Is the ‘Honeymoon’ Over?

Malta: New Modelling Reveals Impact of Trump’s Tariffs – US Hit Hardest