Fiddling While Colombia Burned Dr. Jorge Eliécer Gaitán Ayala had looked almost certain to become Colombia's President at the second attempt in the elections due in 1950. His assasination in April 1948 plunged the nation into an orgy of violence. The aftermath of the rioting that followed his murder ensured that Colombia trod a disastrous path and that a plethora of conspiracy theories were spawned, all but ensuring that the full truth of Gaitán's assassination will never be known.
A split Liberal Party fielded two canditates in 1946, allowing the Conservatives to win and initiate a brutal policy of land seizures that resulted in armed resistance by dispossessed peasants.This was seen by some commentators as the true beginning of one of the darkest periods in Colombia's modern history – La Violencia – rather than the murder of Gaitán.
Despite his sympathies with the peasants who had been robbed of their land, Gaitán eschewed violence as a means of effecting social change. Nevertheless, he was seen a formidable threat to communists, opponents in his own Liberal Party and conservatives alike. He had no shortage of enemies, who would benefit from his death, even if they played no part in it. That gave rise to an industry of conspiracy theories and all but ensured that the assassination posed more questions than answers.
Gaitán was assassinated on April 9th 1948 – ironically, given his beliefs, an event that unleashed at least a decade of bloody reprisals and counter-reprisals. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had completed its take over of Eastern Europe with barely a whimper of protest from the western nations. However, the USA was detetrmined that the USSR would not get a foot-hold in Latin Amrica. Bogotá was hosting the Inter-American Conference when the events that shook Colombia to its core occurred. The delegates to the conference decided to continue their business, maintaining a deafening silence on the assassination. Meanwhile, Bogotá and Colombia burned and the devastation continued for decades.
Conspiracy Theories The assassination was quickly pinned on a young man, suffering from delusions, which included believing that he was the 19th century Colombian national hero Francisco de Paula Santander y Omaña. Juan Roa Sierra had tried to get close to Gaitán previously seeking employment, but never got an appointment. He was certainly near the scene of the crime and had possession of a gun, but Roa may well have been one in a long line of patsys. There is no evidence that he was proficient with firearms, but the assassination of Gaitán was clinically efficient – two shots to the head and one to the chest.
Roa took refuge with a police officer, but irate supporters of Gaitán stormed the building and beat him to death, later dumping his naked body, giving rise to numerous cospiracy theories. One blamed communists, even claiming that future Cuban President Fidel Castro and another Cuban Rafael del Piño were responsible, based on del Piño having been in Roa's company just 90 minutes before the assassination.
The plan, it was alleged, was for Soviet influence in the Caribbean to be increased and that Castro tried and failed to recruit Gaitán to the cause. The minor inconvenience with this nonsensical hypothesis is that Castro was not a communist but a nationalist wanting closer ties to the USA at the time and remained that until the refusal of the USA to deal with his government a decade later gave him little option but to change his political allegiance.
This inconvenient fact appears lost on conspiracy-theorists, anxious to take advantage of Castro's presence in Bogotá at the time of the assassination and its aftermath. Castro was present during the Bogotazo Riots that followed the assassination and therefore got a first hand view of the power of the people when aroused to anger. It certainly may have influenced his beliefs and strategy for the future, but there is no credible evidence that Castro was involved in the assassination of Gaitán.
On any view, the death of Roa was convenient. If he was part of a larger conspiracy to assassinate Gaitán, he took his knowledge of the others involved to the grave. There were no shortage of suspects and Roa was definitely a convenient suspect. The Conservative President of Colombia, Mariano Ospina Pérez, who benefited to some extent from the assassination, is one of many who believed that Roa was not the assassin. There is certainly evidence questioning his involvement – something modern forensic science may have been able to resolve.
Roa had no fire-arms training and was, according to Ospina, used as a pawn – paid to stand nearby with a recently fired gun. The gun used to kill Gaitán had only been sold two days prior to the assassination and Roa did not have the opportunity to learn to shoot. Gaitán was shot dead precisely – twice in the head and once in the chest. He stood no chance. It was a clinical and efficient kill, which supporters of Roa's innocence, which include the 1982 Nobel Literature Prize winner and Colombian treasure, Gabriel García Márquez, argue points to Roa's innocence. With Gaitán and Roa dead, the violence spiralled out of control and plagued Colombian history ever since.
|