Unity of action and
Enshrined in an official document, the solidarity between
Brazil’s Workers’ Party, PT, and the drug-dealing Colombian guerrillas is
not a theory, not an interpretation, not a conjecture. It is a fact no one
dealing in public affairs in Brazil has the right to deny or hide.
By Olavo de Carvalho
Since 1990, the Brazilian Workers’ Party (PT, Partido dos Trabalhadores) has
realized -- and Mr. Luís Inacio Lula da Silva has presided over -- no less
than ten international conferences to discuss "proposals for unity of
action," not only with other official socialist and communist parties --
what would be entirely legitimate -- but also with the Colombian FARC, other
terrorist organizations and drug dealers in Latin America -- what is clearly
immoral and criminal. After all, what kind of "unity of action"
could there be between the licit and the illicit that would not be illicit in
itself? What "unity of action" could there be between law and crime
that would not be the abuse of the law for the practice of crime?
The expression I reproduced between quotes is not mine: it is taken from the
text of the final resolution of the first São Paulo Forum, dated June 4,
1990. From this date to the last Forum, held in Havana last year, PT not only
remained faithful to this infamous proposition, but raised itself from the
simple “unity of action” to active solidarity, signing the Resolution
number 9, of December 7, 2001, in which the assembly of the Forum, after
condemning the anti-guerrilla action of the Colombian government as "State
terrorism" and as "a true plan of war against the people,"
decided: "9. To confirm the legitimacy, the justice, and the need of the
fight of the Colombian organizations, and to express their solidarity with
Enshrined in an official document, the solidarity unity between Brazil’s
Workers’ Party, PT, and the drug-dealing Colombian guerrillas is not a
theory, not an interpretation, not a conjecture. It is a fact no one dealing
in public affairs in Brazil has the right to deny or hide.
The presidential front-runner Luís Inácio Lula da Silva himself does not
have this right. However, he proclaims the inexistence of any connection
between his own party and the FARC, undermining the authority of the signature
he himself put under such a vile pact, thus making as fraudulent and void the
one he is going to put on the Presidential commitment on January 1 (that is,
if the ceremony of coming into office is not postponed until January 6, in
honor of Fidel Castro).
Mr. Giancarlo Summa, Lula’s campaign assistant for the foreign press, does
not have this right. However, he gave an official statement on October 17
denying any connection between PT and the FARC, proving only his own ability
as a professional liar.
Most of all, the Superior Electoral Court does not have this right. However,
they forbid candidate José Serra of touching on the subject in his electoral
campaign, stealing the candidate’s right to state an urgent truth, giving
support to the lie’s victory.
[It is true that the proof presented by Serra’s campaign coordinators was
not Resolution number 9, which does not leave room for doubt, but a minor and
indirect indication, a doubtful workbook from Rio Grande do Sul State Bureau
of Education praising the FARC. But when it prohibited the candidate from
mentioning this document, the Superior Electoral Court, according to what I
read in CNN’s dispatch, did not limit itself to that: it vetoed, in a
general manner, any reference that can associate PT to Fernandinho Beira-Mar,
the drug dealer that distributes the cocaine for the FARC in Brazil.]
And, of course, the media does not have this right. But they avoid touching on
the issues of the PT-FARC connections, or treat them as mere hypotheses
vaguely suggested by the North American media, drawing away the reader’s
attention from the documental proof and blocking the access of the people to
essential information about the man about to govern them.
All the allusions to the PT-FARC connections bring to
mind necessarily the association of Lula with local drug-dealing. The fact
that this association exists -- even if it is remote, indirect, merely
political and with no personal financial interest at stake -- is precisely the
fact that Resolution number 9 testifies to irrefutably and without the least
ambiguity: since the FARC are the main cocaine suppliers for Brazil, helping
them is to help infest the country with drugs. Unity of action is unity of
action: whoever helps a part helps the whole, and whoever helps the whole
helps all the parts.
Denouncing this fact is not only a right, but a duty, the maximum and
undeniable duty of any candidate running against Mr. da Silva. In truth, the
candidacy of any politician directly and publicly associated with the FARC and
indirectly with national drug-dealing via "unity of action" is
illicit in itself and the Superior Electoral Court would have the elementary
obligation of not even allowing its registration.
Instead of that, the Court forbids, together with the exhibition of the bad
evidence presented by José Serra, the presentation of any other new evidence,
good and conclusive as they might be. It forbids, in limine and without
the least examination, any mention of the connections between the FARC and the
If Minister Gerardo Grossi, who signed this prohibition on October 18, ignores
the São Paulo Forum, ignores the "unity of action," ignores
Resolution number 9 and imagines that all there is to prove the PT-FARC
connection is a mere workbook for Rio Grande teachers, then he is a cynical
fool that allows himself, without an in-depth study of the existing evidence,
to make a decision that might affect in a tragic way the destiny of a whole
If, on the contrary, he ignores none of this and still prevails (due to the
weakness of particular evidence) to forbid the presentation of any other, then
he is an accomplice of the “unity of action”, of the hiding of evidence,
and author of the greatest electoral crime ever practiced along all the
History of this country.
It does not seem to me that, between these two hypotheses, it would be
possible to conceive a third. Being more inclined to attribute human sins to
stupidity and lack of conscience than to conscious malice, I choose the first
hypothesis and, acquitting the court of any malign premeditation, I am content
to accuse it of massive incompetence which, due to the infernal magnitude of
the consequences, leaves the dominion of innocent stupidity to enter what Eric
Voegelin, speaking of the German judges who favored through incompetence the
rise of Hitler, denominates ‘criminal stupidity’.