The FARC and terrorism
In comments in yesterday's post on Colombia, the issue came up of Hugo Chávez asking Colombia to start treating the FARC as an insurgent group rather than as a terrorist one. I argued that they should be considered terrorists in anyone's book. Today Steven Taylor has a good discussion of the practical implications of labeling in Colombia, making the argument that negotiations have been the only means of successfully addressing violence in Colombia, and so even if the FARC is conducting activities most would consider "terrorist," it is not useful to have the official label "terrorist" because that immediately precludes any negotiation. Since the Colombian government has been unable to defeat the FARC militarily, some sort of negotiation is necessary.
Food for thought.
12 comments:
Chavez’s proposal is only radicalizing further the Colombian situation, which seems to be his objective.
Anonymous, you seem particularly cranky this weekend.
hehe
I don't think its odd to ask not in Colombia. All of their groups were on US terrorist lists but Colombia has negotiated with two big ones which mostly disbanded.
Colombia negotiated a cease fire with FARC years ago, gave them an autonomous zone, which brought the violence to a lull ... that is until Uribe became President and decided to be an Indian giver.
Well, even if we were to assume that the term "terrorist" was an accurate description of the FARC, it would be extremely hypocritical for Uribe to say that he wouldn't negotiate with them on such grounds. Colombian paramilitaries have been at least as deserving of the label "terrorist" as the FARC, and yet Uribe has not only negotiated with them but has, in fact, been in bed with them his entire political carreer. In fact, some people might go so far as to suggest that Uribe himself has a "terrorist" past.
So, personally, I think this discussion has been framed in a way that is a bit disingenuous. Uribe has no real moral authority on the question of who's a terrorist and who isn't.
Bosque,
Not clear on the "indian giver" comment, the zone was ended by Pastrana in early 2002...the de-militarized zone was gone before Uribe came to office. Uribe definitely doesn't have much credibility on the "terrorist" label (the U.S. government has serious credibility problems of its own), however its clear that the rhetoric/label does little to contribute to a negotiated solution which is the only way that the war will come to an end. However, I don't expect that a negotiated solution is going to happen during the Uribe government, as the FARC seems satisfied to wait until a new government comes to power and Uribe is...well doing what he has been doing since the early 1980s.
bosquè,I'm sorry but you're just plain wrong. There seems to be a great deal of ignorance abroad relating to the complexity of the Colombian Armed Conflict.
President Andres Pastrana gave FARC an autonomous zone(El Caguan) during the negociated peace talks of 1999.
It was only supposed to last a few months,but FARC,as they always do,placed obstacles to the negotiations and dragged the "peace talks" for as long as they could.
When Andres Pastrana realized he was being duped and that El Caguan was being used as a criminal safehaven for drug traffic and kidnapping,he ordered the Colombian Army to retake the zone. Look in Wikipedia for "FARC-Government peace process (1999-2002)"-it's incomplete but it will give you a layout of the situation.
During those times the violence DIDN'T diminished AT ALL.
Every single colombian citizen realized then that FARC is just a narcoterrorist organization with no interest in peace.
It's EXACTLY becouse of this that the Colombians elected Uribe,becouse he was willing to retake the country from the armed groups(BOTH PARAMILITARY and guerrillas),and right now as a colombian, I have to say i've never felt safer.
I'd also like to add that THE PARAMILITARY GROUPS ARE MOSTLY DISBANDED BECOUSE OF THIS GOVERMENT.(Except for the "Aguilas Negras",a group that simply reyected disbandment and returned to criminal activity)
The goverment openly invites common citizens to denounce the disbanded leaders of the AUC on public hearings(through open television and radio).
During and before the negotiations,the army was relentless in the fight against every single group that threatened the colombian people.I know becouse I 've seen it myself,and the numbers prove it. The "Democratic Security" successes are obvious in plain sight,as there are no longer mass kidnappings on main roads,very few carbombs against civilians and terrorist disarmaments are in an all-time high.
The "ralito document" discovered by the police during the hunt for Jorge 40 (ordered by Uribe),an important paramilitary leader, was what started the paramilitary scandal.
It included signatures of several congressmen and governors with paramilitary leaders about a plan to "refund the state".
After 2002 most political parties took side with him,mainly becouse of his popularity levels.It is apparent then why most of these polititians(Currently disbanded and being prosecuted) were on parties supporting Uribe. These polititians are obiously anti-guerrilla and Uribe is probably one of the most anti-guerrilla president in the history of colombia,considering his own father was killed by them.
Uribe didn't thought twice about sending the paramilitary leaders to jail,they will recieve reduced sentences,even for the most barbaric acts,but thats an acceptable price for Colombians.
A price that we can also give the FARC leaders, but not as long as they keep kidnapping and using terror as their motto.
Telling me that the FARC are not a terrorist organization is like telling me that the sky is red or that Bush is a great president and buddy of Bin Laden.
I remember the car bombings againts civilians,I remember the massacres and the kidnappings.I have the picture of Ingrid Betancourt completly broken and with no desire to live.I remember the cries of the FARC teenaged escapees as they related how they were taken away from their families,forced to enlist,used as sex slaves and then forced to abort by their commanders.Stories that are repeated time after time.
The horrifying stories are always the same,the only thing that changes is the victim.
IF THAT'S NOT A TERRORIST ACTIVITY THEN TELL ME WHAT IS!
FARC are terrorists becouse they use terrorism against civilians,not becouse the US and Colombian goverments say so.
I'm also very sorry for any grammar mistakes,(becouse-because)but I just felt like the world needs a better insight on the Colombian case,as the international media doesn't really seem to care very much.
Only a nostalgic intelectual left wing gringo defend FARC
Anon,
The AUC was Uribe's family paramilitary group to mostly disband in the first place, that is why his brother and close friends are in jail for running it.
Most of the massacres were done by AUC with the aid of Govt troops, Police and Chiquita Corporation. This does not mean the FARC did not engage in its share of insanity.
If FARC indeed killed Uribe's father, to me they did nothing but kill a drug dealer.
Considering how many people the various sides killed, its hypocritical to deal with one group your own murderous cadre) and not the rest.
For those who dispise the use of the terrorist label.
Yesterday the Venezuelan government acussed a cartoonist of terrorist, because he depicted Chavez as Saddam four years ago after Chavez said to have proof of an imminent American invasion. They will open a case against him.
If they don't like the use of the terrorist label for political purposes. Why do they do it?
Must be the big Hegemon. It justifies any action they take, as long as the US does it.
Post a Comment