Recent murders in Colombia
Adam Isacson discusses the spate of threats against and murders of labor and human rights activists immediately following the March 6 protests in Colombia (four were killed that week). The upshot is that since Alvaro Uribe (and particularly his close advisor José Obdulio Gaviria) made a point of rejecting the protests and even equating them with the FARC, they gave the green light to paramilitaries to attack. If you can dehumanize protesters by labeling them terrorists, then you can rationalize doing anything.
42 comments:
One of the interesting political fallouts from the March 6 protest was the split among Colombia's right.
While those inside the Uribe administration rejected the protest, several key Uribe allies outside the administration including Marta Lucia Ramirez, Gina Parody and Sergio Fajardo praised and actually marched in the protest. Being that at least Ramirez and Fajardo will be running for president next time around, this issue of how protesters are treated could possibly come back up as one of the defining differences on the right.
I think it's not simply a matter of how protesters are treated, but whether someone accepts paramilitary violence as equally bad as the FARC.
but whether someone accepts paramilitary violence as equally bad as the FARC.
I agree, as did many of those who marched. Here's the quote from Senator Parody that day:
"Si no salimos a marchar, prácticamente legitimamos los crímenes distintos a los de las Farc, pero que también han significado violaciones sistemáticas a los derechos humanos. No se puede construir nuestra historia teniendo una memoria sesgada y parcializada".
I agree, as did many of those who marched. Here's the quote from Senator Parody that day:
"Si no salimos a marchar, prácticamente legitimamos los crímenes distintos a los de las Farc, pero que también han significado violaciones sistemáticas a los derechos humanos. No se puede construir nuestra historia teniendo una memoria sesgada y parcializada".
How are paramiltary crimes "different than those of the FARC," which is what Senator Parody says above? Parody seems to persist in the Colombian right's penchant for holding the FARC and the paramilitaries to two different standards. The quote does not suggest to me that Parody "accepts paramilitary violence as equally bad as the FARC."
Notice that, unlike Greg or Adam, Boz laments Uribe's complicity in Colombia's political violence only in the comment section of somebody else's blog, not in the actual posts of his own blog. Boz will tactically schmooze with Adam and Greg, but the omission of this awful story from his own posts speaks much louder than his schmoozing.
The phrase "tactically schmooze" receives no hits on Google. I was amused and thought I'd point that out.
Well, let's see. The word "tactically" is not in dispute. And the word "schmooze" is now in the American Heritage Dictionary. It's defined as follows: "To converse casually, especially in order to gain an advantage or make a social connection." Now, put 'em together, Boz. What do you get? Hmmm.
I think Boz knows all about schmoozing to try to "make a social connection." And notice that he evades the question: How are paramiltary crimes "different than those of the FARC"?
Justin, You got Parody's Spanish wrong.
Parody said, "If we don't march (in the March 6 protest) we effectively legitimize crimes different from those of the FARC (that is, crimes committed by non-FARC elements), which also represent systematic violations of human rights. We can't build our history on the basis of biased and selective memories." She's very clear in condemning all human rights violations here..
No, actually, Tambopaxi, you got the translation wrong. 20 years in Ecuador, but you still can't read the language properly. You even remove a key word from the sentence.
"If we don't go out to march, we are in practice legitimizing crimes that are different from those of the FARC, but that have also signified systematic violations of human rights."
That's the correct translation. And it quite clearly reflects the notion that paramilitary crimes are somehow different and should therefore be subject to a different standard.
Try brushing up on your Spanish, Tambopaxi.
"Si no salimos a marchar, prácticamente legitimamos los crímenes distintos a los de las Farc, pero que también han significado violaciones sistemáticas a los derechos humanos."
Justin, You've still got it wrong. Parody's referring to crimes other than those of the FARC and equating those crimes with those of the FARC in justifying her participation in the march, which march was a good idea, I should say.
Yes, my read was that she meant there were crimes "not committed by the FARC" as opposed to "crimes different than the FARC's." I would guess her entire statement would also provide the context to determine which translation is more accurate.
Tambopaxi's translation is closer to the actual meaning. I pulled that quote from an El Tiempo article that was on the web that day.
Here's a statement from her website that should help clarify her views, but obviously not the translation.
My Portuguese is much stronger than my Spanish, but it's the same word in both languages. I believe the phrase should be translated as "distinct from the FARC," which can mean other than the FARC.
I suppose it depends on what one is looking for.
Fellas, this is the direct translation of Parody's sentence.
"If we don't go out to march, we are in practice legitimizing crimes that are different from those of the FARC, but that have also signified systematic violations of human rights."
Now, if you prefer to translate the term "distintos a los de las FARC" as "distinct from the crimes of the FARC," the meaning of the phrase does not change at all.
"Si no salimos a marchar, prácticamente legitimamos los crímenes distintos a los de las Farc, pero que también han significado violaciones sistemáticas a los derechos humanos."
If Parody didn't mean to differentiate paramilitary crimes from FARC crimes, then there would be no need for the "but" conjunction in the middle of the sentence. The distinction Parody draws is completely transparent. Nonetheless, some of you are just playing dumb to the obvious distinction drawn.
And here lies the problem. The Colombian right --as well as people like Boz and Tambopaxi-- differentiate paramilitary crimes from FARC crimes and therefore do not hold the paramilitaries to the same standard. You see, even the "dissident" faction within Uribismo that would have preferred to march against the paramilitaries retains the same assumption that undergirds the central problem that we're discussing: the relative indifference to paramilitary atrocities.
Here's a statement from her website that should help clarify her views, but obviously not the translation.
What seems to be the problem is that Senator Parody tries to stay on good terms with the Colombian right by assuring it that paramilitary atrocities are somehow "distinct from those of the FARC" (which is precisely what she said, however much some of you would prefer to cover her ass).
Now, Boz is quite correct that Parody makes some noble statements that may very well reflect her views. One important statement is this one: "En Colombia no tenemos víctimas de primera y víctimas de segunda." (Well, actually, there are "víctimas de primera y víctimas de segunda" in Colombia, as exemplified by the state's relative indifference to paramilitary violence, but the sentiment that there shouldn't be first and second-class victims is a noble one).
The problem is that, by prefacing one's support of the anti-paramilitary march with a rhetorical capitulation to the right (i.e. that paramilitary crimes are somehow "distinct from those of the FARC"), Parody has, in effect, helped to legitimize the notion that some forms of organized extra-legal violence are less bad than others (and, by extension, that some victims are less worthy than others).
In other words, there are contradictions between Parody's different statements.
You're still translating the meaning of the statement incorrectly. Tambopaxi had it right in his first comment.
You are completely full of shit, Boz. Some gringos can't translate, obviously. Tambopaxi deliberately ommitted the conjunction "but" from his translation, which clearly demonstrated that Parody differentiated paramilitary crimes from FARC crimes. There's nothing to debate about this. Tambopaxi is simply dishonest.
One minute Boz refuses to answer the question as to how paramilitary crimes are "distinct from those of the FARC." The next minute he says it's not clear as to what Parody said but that he knows what she meant. The next minute it's that Tambopaxi, the guy who deliberately omitted a key conjunction from his translation, got it right.
You're like Uribe, Boz. Your story is ever-changing.
A principled statement that doesn't differentiate between paramilitary and FARC crimes would have read like this:
"If we don't go out to march, we are in practice legitimizing crimes that have signified systematic violations of human rights."
A principled statement doesn't read like this:
"If we don't go out to march, we are in practice legitimizing crimes that are different from those of the FARC, but that have also signified systematic violations of human rights."
Think about it. What's the purpose of the distinction? An atrocity is an atrocity. The fact that she would even feel the need to say that a non-FARC atrocity is also an atrocity speaks volumes about the utter depravity of those with whom she is debating.
"You're like Uribe, Boz. Your story is ever-changing."
Here's a good example of ever-changing stories:
``I don't support, I have never supported nor will I ever support the Colombian guerrillas, nor any subversive movement against any democratic government. I swear to God and to my sacred mother . . .''
-Hugo Chavez, 2004
Fast forward to March, 2008: Chavez hails a room temperature Raul Reyes as a "true revolutionary," and asks for a minute of silence to pay tribute to the dead terrorist. Reyes' laptop reveals collaboration between Venezuela and the FARC.
------------------------------
"So it's just false to suggest that Chavez has rhetorically supported the guerrillas' armed struggles."
~Justin Delacour
Reyes' laptop reveals collaboration between Venezuela and the FARC.
Actually, it hasn't "revealed" squat to that effect.
"Actually, it hasn't "revealed" squat to that effect."
I haven't seen any dispute at least about the money the FARC gave Chavez back when he was in prison.
Anyway, I always find it amusing how you dodge around Fatboy's support for the guerillas who drag Colombians into the jungle and tie them to trees like animals. Just realpolitik, right, Justin?
I always find it amusing how you dodge around Fatboy's support for
You need to work on your elementary rational faculties, Paul. Try putting two and two together. You say Chavez supports the FARC, and your "evidence" is that the FARC allegedly sent Chavez money back when he was in prison. Huh? Even if that were true, that tells me nothing about Chavez supporting the FARC.
the guerillas who drag Colombians into the jungle and tie them to trees like animals. Just realpolitik, right, Justin?
Yes, a rather unpleasant form of realpolitik. Realpolitik has always been extremely ugly and was understood to be such even by its early proponents, such as Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Just look at your buddy Uribe's realpolitik. The FARC's realpolitik happens to be a little less gruesome than that of state-allied paramilitaries who are literally murdering trade unionists and human rights activists every week now, but no form of realpolitik is ever good. The point is that realpolitik is all-pervasive within Colombian society; all of the different armed actors engage in brutal forms of realpolitik. A negotiated peace is the only solution to the violence.
Two statements from Justin in this thread:
1. What's the purpose of the distinction? An atrocity is an atrocity.
2. The FARC's realpolitik happens to be a little less gruesome than that of state-allied paramilitaries...
2. The FARC's realpolitik happens to be a little less gruesome than that of state-allied paramilitaries...
And???
You haven't contested the point.
I'm inquiring as to what the purpose is of insinuating that paramilitary crimes are somehow less contestable than FARC crimes. We could argue 'til we're blue in the face about who's more gruesome, but I'm not here to argue that any side's atrocities are any less (or more) reprehensible.
Sooner or later, people like you, Boz, are going to have to come to terms with the fact that none of Colombia's armed actors have the moral highground here. 20 years from now, you and your ilk are probably going to disingenously lament the mass graves for which Washington's man in Bogota is responsible. But, in the meantime, you'll give us polls to suggest that some atrocities are less reprehensible than others (especially when Washington's side is complicit in them).
People like Boz will have a lot of blood on their hands, but since the Washington hack has no real principles, he won't lose any sleep over it.
"..and your "evidence" is that the FARC allegedly sent Chavez money back when he was in prison. Huh? Even if that were true, that tells me nothing about Chavez supporting the FARC."
Oh, that wasn't the only evidence, as you well know. But I guess you're trying to say here the FARC just hands over tens of thousands of hard earned blood money to just anyone.
"The FARC's realpolitik happens to be a little less gruesome than that of state-allied paramilitaries who are literally murdering trade unionists and human rights activists every week now, but no form of realpolitik is ever good."
Boz already pointed out your inconsistency here. Anyway, the deaths of trade unionists and the overall homicide rate have dropped 70-80% under Uribe. That's something people who read Garry Leech's paeans to terrorists never seem to remember.
" A negotiated peace is the only solution to the violence."
That's the biggest lie in your entire arsenal of bullshit. We know what you mean by "negotiated settlement." The Colombian people reject your terms. All the FARC has to do is let the hostages go and throw down their weapons and the conflict is over.
Anyway, the deaths of trade unionists and the overall homicide rate have dropped 70-80% under Uribe.
Haven't yet attempted to verify your figures on trade unionists, but the simple fact of the matter is that, if state-allied paramilitaries kill THOUSANDS of leftist trade unionists over a couple decades, there comes a point when there aren't so many left to kill. Nonetheless, the paramilitaries are now killing some more every week.
All the FARC has to do is let the hostages go and throw down their weapons and the conflict is over.
Which is another way of saying you want war to no end because the FARC is not going to cave to Uribe's terms. The point of negotiation is to try to reach some sort of compromise between the different sides' terms. Demands for "peace" on one side's terms alone generally means no peace at all.
People like Boz will have a lot of blood on their hands...
That's a bit of an overreaction in response. All I did was quote you twice:
1. What's the purpose of the distinction? An atrocity is an atrocity.
2. The FARC's realpolitik happens to be a little less gruesome than that of state-allied paramilitaries...
That's a bit of an overreaction in response.
That's a reaction to your general approach to Colombia, not just to what you write here. Your general approach --which is much less principled than Senator Parody's-- is to insinuate that paramilitary crimes are less reprehensible than FARC crimes because the polls suggest Colombians are relatively indifferent to paramilitary crimes.
Now, even if we were to assume that there were no problems with Colombian polls, your arguments would be analogous --in ethical terms-- to saying that segregation was okay and George Wallace was a good governor because most white Alabamans thought so (Remember Lynard Skynard: "In Birmingham, we love the governor...").
If most Americans were to endorse torture, would you use that as your ethical yardstick for assessing the practice, Boz?
Your general approach...is to insinuate that paramilitary crimes are less reprehensible than FARC crimes
I've never said or insinuated that. All crimes and human rights violations are wrong and should be prosecuted.
If Parody didn't mean to differentiate paramilitary crimes from FARC crimes, then there would be no need for the "but" conjunction in the middle of the sentence.
On the other hand, if she really meant to make the case that the crimes were different, why didn't she use the word diferente?
I've never said or insinuated that.
No, actually, you've repeatedly insinuated that paramilitary crimes are less reprehensible than FARC crimes. You insinuate it by simply presenting polling data that Colombians are relatively indifferent to paramilitary crimes and then refusing to provide any of your own qualifiers. The implication is that paramilitarism must not be so bad if a poll indicates that many Colombians are indifferent to its atrocities.
All crimes against innocent civilians in Colombia are wrong, no matter which group commits them. I hope for peace and security for the Colombian people. Nothing I have ever posted says or "insinuates" otherwise and nobody should take it any other way.
All crimes against innocent civilians in Colombia are wrong, no matter which group commits them. I hope for peace and security for the Colombian people. Nothing I have ever posted says or "insinuates" otherwise and nobody should take it any other way.
I'll be waiting for a post on your blog to that effect, Boz, because your other posts clearly suggest otherwise.
All crimes against innocent civilians in Colombia are wrong, no matter which group commits them.
It's just that some such crimes come out looking less wrong than others on your blog, Boz.
I stand by my original comments. I think your distorted view of my blog isn't shared by many other readers.
I think your distorted view of my blog isn't shared by many other readers.
Oh, don't kid yourself, Boz. It's pretty obvious to most that you represent the Washington establishment.
Everything I write is my own point of view. I only represent myself.
Everything I write is my own point of view. I only represent myself.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. If you were honest, that would be your personal motto.
I am honest. Everything I write is my own point of view.
...Just got back from week at the beach to find this thread still going.
I'm glad that, while it took Justin a while, he understands the intent of Parody's statement.
Justin's statement about Boz and I not differentiating between the FARC and paras is inadvertently amusing. A while ago, Boz and I had a genteel difference of opinion (that is, we didn't insult each other) on this subject in an email exchange.
I maintain then and do now, that the AUC and FAC personnel who ally themselves with the AUC are worse than the FARC.
Notwithstanding FARC atrocities and their narco-activities, one can make the weak argument that the FARC ostensbily stands for an ideology and a vision of where they want Colombia to go, and that their actions, despicable though they are, are guided to an extent by those two factors. In that context, the FARC has tried to make nice with various putative allies (European organizations come to mind), and it has tried to present some semblance of a rationale for why hold prisoners besides just money.
The paras, on the other hand, have had basically one goal, and that's to destroy the FARC by any means possible. They are utterly amoral and ruthless and they are not prisoner takers. No group of any political stripe is clean and pure when it comes to political violence in Colombia, but some do adhere more closely to societal mores than others.
In that context, then, I do see a kind of hierarchy (I don't know if moral would be the right adjective) among the three major groups (the GOC, the FARC, and the AUC), with the GOC most civilized (in the Colombian context), the FARC next, and then AUC, who in my book are the meanest,baddest boys of all on really rough and dangerous playground.
Post a Comment