Wow, I never thought you'd actually proclaim your sympathy for Colombia's FARC and ELN (AKA, collar bombs, kidnappings, cocaine smuggling, etc.) in such a public fashion. So, can we assume this means you also share the same "Bolivarian ideals" with the FARC that Chávez spoke of last month?
" "These are not terrorist groups, they are real armies, real armies that occupy territory in Colombia, that occupy a position," said President Chavez in an address to the Venezuelan National Assembly.
"One must give recognition to the Farc and the ELN, they are insurgent forces that have a political project, that have a Bolivarian project that is respected here." "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ameri...cas/
7184529.stm
Well said, OW.
Thanks for this article. May I ask Paul and SR why they have called FARC "clueless" and what they would propose the FARC and ELN be doing instead of what they are doing?
So you want the FARC to prevail so Colombia can enjoy their version of freedom, democracy, and social justice. ..and maybe they can replicate Chavez's economic model too.
http://www-usa.laprensa.com.ni/a...cas/
caricaturas
The from my perspective left wing podcast colombia informa podcast has some interesting material about FARC...
They brutalize the whole country. Keeping hostages for 7 years and more... From our cozy homes in New York or Frankfurt we may create empathy for them, but if you ask the people of Colombia there would be an overwhelming mayority urging FARC to stop their "activities". The colombian governments surely have comited lots of mistakes in the past, but there are communist parties in latin-american countries. They don't atract a lot of voters and nobody wants to enter in a coalition with communists.
"...don't fall for cheap and false propoganda (sic)."
This post is cheap and false propaganda. ...and simplistic.
How so JSB? Are the events described here false? And if not, then what should people who want change in Colombia do if they want change but dont' want to get killed participating in electoral and other open activities?
""One must give recognition to the Farc and the ELN, they are insurgent forces that have a political project, that have a Bolivarian project that is respected here." "
I agree with that statement - it is true.
Now do I agree with their political project? Maybe parts, maybe not with other parts. But that is not the point. When people cannot attempt to advance their political beleives peacefully through a democratic system then they are entitled to look for alternatives.
Or would you be perfectly fine with it if in Venezuela the government started hiring people to kill those who oppose it?
"but if you ask the people of Colombia there would be an overwhelming mayority urging FARC to stop their "activities""
Actually Colombians were asked what they thought and they voted plenty of Union Patriotico members into office. Then those same elected officials were systematically murdered.
It is true the party went down hill from there but it is kind of hard to run an effective campaign when you are dead.
"The colombian governments surely have comited lots of mistakes in the past,"
Sure, killing thousands and thousands of you political opponents over decades is a "mistake".
"but there are communist parties in latin-american countries. They don't atract a lot of voters and nobody wants to enter in a coalition with communists."
I hope you take such a benign attitude of it if Chavez opponents start getting killed in Venezuela - "Well, they never won many elections anyways"
ow said,
Now do I agree with their political project? Maybe parts, maybe not with other parts. But that is not the point. When people cannot attempt to advance their political beleives peacefully through a democratic system then they are entitled to look for alternatives.
I hope you remember that when you think of IRAQ
"I hope you remember that when you think of IRAQ"
Yes, firepig. You see? The war of the Americans and the 'Coalition' in Iraq was actually under the initiative of the Iraqi people, who were anxious to get invaded by the Americans and be dragged into a situation that makes Saddam's Iraq look like paradise. Good for you.
endorsing violence seems to be only from vantage point...one's interpretation of events.
so using the moral high ground here is only endorsing one's belief system.
Pepito,
I think that went by him 
Our friendly opposition bloggers who are kind enough to keep us up to date on all of Chavez's bad deeds even when they are at the beach - dead. Etc, Etc., Etc.
Guillermo Parrot -
All you do is repeat the same shit everywehere you go ad infinitum ad nausea. You cannot imagine how incredibly boring you are - 4 fucking years of the same shit from you.
El pulpo de la playa ,
we only mirror Slave Revolt's attitude when we endorse "tough love"
More wonders performed by the occupiers:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080...n_re_mi_ea/
iraq
Pepito: That is probably the least of what they are doing.
They just announced they are increasing the military budget in the US 8% (most other things are frozen or cut ). Among other reasons for the huge increase they said they are having to make millions and millions of dollars in payments to Sunnis in Iraq to get them on the U.S. side.
Killing them all didn't work out so now they are trying to bride them. Over time that probably won't work so then they'll revert to trying to kill them.
Or maybe they'll bring some of the paramilitaries from Colombia who have lots of experience killing people and who are running out of victims there.
Yup, ow.
Among the new amazing developments brought by the 'surge' is a four-fold increase of U.S. bombing in civilian areas. That's the 'success' they're trying to sell us. Where's the American mainstream media hiding all those dead by the bombing campaigns.
The Iraqi civilians must be ecstatic.
Yeah, I have noticed there are lots of bombings by US planes in the press. And of course, that is probably not all the ones that are occurring.
The Turks are also bombing the Kurd region. I am sure they have US approval to do that.
I wonder what it is that Kosovo Albanians get the U.S. military to intervene so they can have their own country while the Kurds get the U.S. to intervene to make sure they don't get their own country?
ow,
great post. you really know how to make the contras squeal.
be well,
Bravo OW. Let’s not forget El Salvador – a good example of justified insurrection. More than a century of struggle against injustice, that included abundant assassinations of those trying to work for a fair deal for the poor, resulted in a guerilla. When finally forced by the world to sit down and work out a peace accord (one which has never been fully implemented by successive right-wing govts., by the way), the insurgents became a political party. And, they’re probably going to win the next presidential elections. Despite the success of the FMLN, death squads and paramilitaries still flourish in El Salvador, and FMLN politicians, leaders and supporters are murdered on a regular basis (the most recent being a young, progressive mayor). When Colombia can finally sit down and negotiate a peace settlement with the insurgent FARC – that’s when we’ll see the flowering of a democratic process that includes everyone (okay, perhaps this is too optimistic, but I’m still hopeful!).
OW,
It's good to see that you are willing to speak the truth and put the Colombian situtaion in context. Few Americans have the courage to speak truthfully about the Colombian situation. I have no love for the FARC, I think that when they started getting involved in drug trafficking and kidnapping they lost most of whatever moral legitimacy they had. But clearly _some_ kind of armed struggle is legitimate in Colombia today, where right wing repression has made peaceful revolution impossible.
"May I ask Paul and SR why they have called FARC "clueless" and what they would propose the FARC and ELN be doing instead of what they are doing?"
Armed insurgencies can be smart, effective and moral, or they can be the opposite of that. Ideally, they should be trying to win militarily but also win hearts and minds if you will. Brutalizing the population would not be right and not be effective.
How is the FARC doing with respect to that? I don't know. As I said, I think there is likely a lot of propaganda in the reports about them coming from the usual suspects. In any event, armed struggle there clearly is a necessary and legitimate step.
"When Colombia can finally sit down and negotiate a peace settlement with the insurgent FARC – that’s when we’ll see the flowering of a democratic process that includes everyone (okay, perhaps this is too optimistic, but I’m still hopeful!)."
That is what happened in the 80s when the U.P. was formed - supposedly the government was going to allow the FARC and others to participate in electoral politics. Instead it turned out to be a set up for slaughter.
I think the FARC is going to have to see some REALLY, REALLY convincing evidence that the government is being honest before they go for that again.
BTW, here is a good on topic article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...672.html?
sub=AR
It doesn't mention the Patriotic Union but it does discuss what the paramilitaries did with the support of the government and elite. Oh, and they were in on the drug trade too by this account.
So its NOT the FARC that is running the drug trade?!?!?!
I believe the FARC is peripherally INVOLVED in the drug trade - running it would be a stretch - that's left up to the government and paramilitaries. BTW - you haven't mentioned the majority of assassinations in Colombia have been committed by the government and by paramilitaries, not the FARC (although they are no polyannas). This has been well documented.
Boli:
There has been fighting going on in Colombia a LONG time and I don't know who has killed more than who.
But there has clearly been a policy of killing all leftists who engage openly in political or union activities.
The result is there is no alternative but armed insurgency.
BTW, what I would like to know is if the FARC makes money off the drug trade then how come they are always so broke?
They are terribly equipped. For example, they don't even have real RPGs. They make their own crude ones out of gasoline cannisters of the type used in people's homes. And why no anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down all the fany helicopters the US gives Colombia?
So I dont' believe they are making any real money off the drug trade. I think that mainly goes to the cartels and their allies - the right wing paramilitaries.
I haven't read the rest of the comments--I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume most of them are provocative flamebait from grac, firepig et al. which carefully avoid the central point made because they can't refute it.
Well spoken, ow.
If you had read them you'd have found most are supportive.
What are the trolls going to say - yeah it is ok to kill all your political opponents?
I don't think they want to go their considering a good chunk of the Venezuelan opposition could be finished off in a matter of days.
Went back and read the comments.
Wow, did I nail it or what?
Well, no, there was actually some good discussion. But they did try, and of course because there wasn't much they could say directly to the point they studiously evaded it.
Since I asked them some questions on their assertions they haven't been heard from.'
I hope they haven't been "disappeared" !!
The result is there is no alternative but armed insurgency.
ow | Homepage | 02.05.08 - 1:04 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Which turns out to not be a tea party. It is easy for those not doing the fighting to pontificate as to what the guerillas should and should not do. Not having walked in their shoes though I'm going to assume that they are doing whatever they have to do. It's not a game or a boxing match with a referee. It's life and death.
OW - here are some serious numbers - the writer is a professor of political science and focuses on the Colombian conflict:
http://www.colombiajournal.org/
c...colombia229.htm
I agree. But insurgents do things right sometimes and do things wrong sometimes.
Hopefully the FARC are doing things the right way. After all, doing things that are politically and military wrong makes you lose - and that isn't what we want.
Boli:
Thanks for the article. That is very interesting.
I am supposed to read a very good book on this soon which I am sure will document this also.
The typical the end justifies the means. Great job ow.
"The typical the end justifies the means"
No, not at all. The ends only justify political activity.
That that activity has to be an armed insurgency rather than electoral politics results from the murderous policies of the Colombian establishment.
So it is survival that justifies these means.
"The typical the end justifies the means"
No, not at all. The ends only justify political activity.
That that activity has to be an armed insurgency rather than electoral politics results from the murderous policies of the Colombian establishment.
So it is survival that justifies these means.
ow | Homepage | 02.05.08 - 3:08 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
So the end justifies the kidnappings, right?
No the war waged by the right justifies the fighting back by the left.
BTW, lot better to be kidnapped than gunned down walking through an airport.
BTW, lot better to be kidnapped than gunned down walking through an airport.
ow | Homepage | 02.05.08 - 3:52 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Better being gunned down walking through an airport than being raped by seven linebackers and cut into pieces.
They are both wrong, neither can be justified. You are yet another victim of Chavez's rhetoric.
Please post more picture of supermarkets shelves. I think the ones you posted last time are a bit out of date.
Grac,
There is no rhetoric here - just a discussion of how Colombians should behave.
So what should people who support socialism, or trade unions, or the FARC in Colombia do?
the end justifies the means?? ja jaja
just what is the end??? those short sighted folk who believe in ends, just live in means while thinking that are getting somewhere
Means is all there is guys...so make them good, otherwise your life will suck.
oh and I also think that the words right and left need to be more clearly defined....it seems as though some of you use the word left for everything you like( sounds more soulful), and then use the word right for all you dislike( sounds more retrograde)
too much image reliance here and not enough substance.
Anything to say about the Patriotic Union firepig - or do you have some special reason why you are avoiding it. Maybe its so horrible what happened you are just blocking it out?
All of the antis and paramilitary groups are a result of Colombia's 1930s La Violencia. That is also when the killing of political opponents began.
Interesting to note Uribe was a member of the Colombian Liberal Party (left wing) as opposed to the Colombian Conservative Party (right wing).
He was a member until he ran for President, then he simply claimed "Independent". As a short lived Senator, Mayor of Medellin, and Governor of the same region, he belonged to the Liberal Party. Btw, the Colombian Liberal Party is Socialist.
Pablo Escobar was also a member of the Liberal Party.
Anyhow, the Left and Right wing elites of the 1930s started the whole mess that is Colombia today.
Uribe was supposedly also tied to the paramilitaries and Pablo Escobar from his days in Medellin - at least according to what Newsweek magazine reported US officials as saying at the time.
So what should people who support socialism, or trade unions, or the FARC in Colombia do?
ow | Homepage | 02.05.08 - 4:09 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
The ones that support socialism and trade unions should abide by the law and participate in democracy. The ones who actively support FARC should be treated as terrorists.
"The ones that support socialism and trade unions should abide by the law and participate in democracy."
Thats what they tried doing and they got killed.
And they are being killed up to this day.
So what should they do?
Overall a good post.
The FARC is a Maoist based nationalist group. Being based in the middle of nowhere, it has no chance. It has tactics that only strengthen the government.
The real radicals are in the city, doing union work.
The FARC is a Maoist based nationalist group...
That is why the butcher Colombians left and right.
"The ones that support socialism and trade unions should abide by the law and participate in democracy."
Thats what they tried doing and they got killed.
And they are being killed up to this day.
So what should they do?
ow | Homepage | 02.05.08 - 5:26 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Too simplistic an explanation. Get back to the drawing board. Bye.
if one lives in a place where the majority opine differently one should learn to live with it until the day that it changes.One can educate.One can complain...one can even be passionately against...but one does not have the right to lie, kill, kidnap, distort, etc.
politics is not the only arena where individuals have to live with others peacefully despite differences.
I have plenty experience of being and thinking differently in many ways to my fellow man, but it never occurs to me to throw bombs or kidnap for my beliefs....even if others do so....
you would be amazed at the difference in life when violence is channeled into creativity, humor, inner strength, and passion....one can be passionately against something ...but to kill, torture, or kidnap is not going to do any good.
"Uribe was supposedly also tied to the paramilitaries and Pablo Escobar from his days in Medellin - at least according to what Newsweek magazine reported US officials as saying at the time.
Yes, all Colombians know this fact. He supported Escobar's candidacy for office, which Escobar won too. Yes, he is number 82 on the infamous DOD report listing the Cartel members.
His father, another politician, who was killed supposedly by FARC, was charged on an indictment in the US for his part in the Cartel. He was popped before anything further.
The man was Mayor of Medellin and governor of Antioquia for goodness sakes. No one got to be Mayor of the Medellin home base without Escobar's say so. Also there is no way he could have been governor of Antioquia, an AUC stronghold, without complicity.
If the US or anyone else really wanted to know who is involved in manufacturing the cocaine, they only need to follow the potassium permanganate. Can't make cocaine without it and you need a lot of it for the amount being produced.
Ow, shame on you.
You do not count the murders but for those you care about.
It is really disgusting.
"The real radicals are in the city, doing union work."
Are there many of those people actually alive?
I can't imagine you can do much of that work other than clandestinely.
"Ow, shame on you.
You do not count the murders but for those you care about.
It is really disgusting."
Please elaborate.
Do you think it is ok for a whole political tendency to be murdered?
And if not, what should the members of that political grouping do.
Personally, I think its disgusting so many people condem the FARC without first answering those questions (or even acknowledging they exist!!!).
The AUC is the group that committed 80% of the atrocities and massacres during the conflict. A government elite sponsored paramilitary and a Chiquita corporation sponsored one. Also listed as a terrorist group. That leaves FARC, ELN, M19, etc to split the other 20%.
None of what was done was right, but to pretend only FARC was a problem in Colombia is ridiculous. Its beyond ridiculous.
...and yes, I don't expect people to sit around writing satire when their families are being killed by the corrupt government or its paramilitary arm.
I recall some people getting pissy over some tea and resulted to armed insurrection. They certainly didn't sit around writing satire waiting for things to get better.
It is not good to be murdering anybody. The simple fact is they have done nothing at all with all the war they are going on with right now but killed many more people, specially innocent people.
What you don't get it: even if they are in a conflict with another group of murderers: that is no license to kill other people.
Why can't those narcoguerrillas do exactly what the Colombian Chavista PM is doing?
How many people have the FARC murdered?
What are their accomplishments after so many decades? How many people want them to go with the fighting?
"The simple fact is they have done nothing at all with all the war they are going on with right now but killed many more people, specially innocent people."
They haven't won the war (yet) but what are they supposed to do? Losing a war doesn't mean your cause is wrong.
So is what they are doing wrong? If so, why? And what alternative course of action are they to take if they can't participate in politics without being murdered?
If it helps, think of it this way - if there were Chavista death squads who had killed 4,000 of the most prominent opponents of Chavez what would you say the opposition should do?
So, let's make accounts
The paramilitary kill activists and senators and the FARC kill mayors and deputies to the congress... that squares somehow...
The paramilitary and the FARC both bury antipersonnel mines that do kill innocents. But that squares too...
The paramilitary practise kidnapping and extorsion and the FARC have the same "rights". That squares also...
The paramilitary groups have recruited child soldiers. So the FARC is inherently authorized to do the same. Don't want to be left behind in recruitment, heh?
Simply told, you are telling us that the actions of a group of scoundrels and murderers will somehow justify the actions of another group of scoundrels and murderers?
Funny, if you will believe Carlos Castańo's story, that's the way the paramilitary groups started. Because the FARC killed his father and he and his brothers wanted revenge.
Now he was a mass murderer, do not misunderstand me. His acts speak for themselves. Countless innocents fell to the barbarous groups he started.
I do think that civilized life hinged on justice and freedom. The FARC and the AUC are monsters, in every sense of the word.
Of course, we the dumb and cowardly oppos could have begun shooting back when they were sending red shirted "fasci di combattimento", armed with guns, and on motorcycles our way every time we organized a march. Chose not to and nonviolence paid handsomely. And now we reap the good results. Chavez has turned mad because he has been defeated. In a year or so he will be gone, because he has made mistake after mistake. The latest is the FARC connection. Ordinary Venezuelans HATE "malandros", and the FARC and paramilitary are nothing else in their eyes. Ordinary Venezuelans will not go to war with Colombia and with ordinary Colombians for the sake of "malandros". This makes Chavez more of a goner than he ever was.
No, Chavez will not turn Venezuela into Colombia however much he tries. Even if he is VERY succesful in letting my country and city slide into the blood chilling post of the murder capital of the world. And in making our countryside a desert as regards food production too.
Definitely not go on killed more people, both Chavistas and innocent for decades and decades, SPECIALLY if they know most people do not want them anyway.
Just ask around.
Kepler,
So what would you do? Just ignore it?
Again, if confronted with this you have to do something. So dont' tell me just what you wouldn't do. Tell me what you would do.
Ow, let's make it simpler for you.
Imagine you are in NY. There are the Giulliani and the O'Kelly and they both live there. The O'Kelly believe in X. The Giulliani don't, they believe in Z. The Giulliani killed an O'Kelly. Then they killed 2 (from now on G and O). O kills 1 G.
G kills 2 O. O kills 2 G. It goes on and on. Meanwhile they are killed 2 Lopez, 3 Alfonso, 2 Brown. The neighbourhood (Wyoming c ounty) has preferences: 5% support O, 5% support G. Still, the vast majority of the population dislike both what G and O are doing.
The O family still thinks they are on their right because the day they stopped fighting, 2 of their kin were killed. The O clan finances their guns by stealing from the Gonzalez, the Jimenez, the Johnson, etc. The G do something similar.
What the fuck does that have to do with the majority?
Now you say "oh, the thing is that the G are supported by the mayor, so it is fine for O go to the next municipality in NY and make a deal with the mayor of that municipality. Let's call it Yates Council and its mayor Hugh Charleston.
Of course there is in the Colombia story no federal force that intervenes. UN won't do that.
Still, there are other possibilities apart from just fucking the life of the whole county even if the huge majority does not want that.
As homework I let you make some proposals.
Keep it simple. NY. G versus O.
"The paramilitary kill activists and senators and the FARC kill mayors and deputies to the congress... that squares someh"
No it doesn't square.
ONE political party was wiped out - the main leftist political party. All the others are still there. If the violence was mutual, as you imply why was only one political party wiped out.
"Simply told, you are telling us that the actions of a group of scoundrels and murderers will somehow justify the actions of another group of scoundrels and murderers?"
No, what justifies armed insurrection is that fact that certain groups who tried to participate in normal politics all get killed. The Patriotic Union was a peacefull political party - and they pretty much all got killed. So take a stab at answering the same question no one else has given me an alternative answer to yet - what should members and supporters of that party do? Just dissappear? Be content to be martyrs? What?
"Of course, we the dumb and cowardly oppos could have begun shooting back when they were sending red shirted "fasci di combattimento", armed with guns, and on motorcycles our way every time we organized a march. Chose not to and nonviolence paid handsomely."'
Of course you know better than this - the opposition in Venezuela has not been targeted for violence. Please provide a list of all the prominent opposition leaders who have been killed. Any congressman or former congressman? Mayors or town council people? Union leaders? Newspaper editors?
The fact is in Venezuela the opposition can participate in electoral politics because they are allowed to do so peacefully. In Colombia the left cannot do so because they are systematically murdered. Just compare the what has happened to the Patriotic Union to what HAS NOT happened to Primero Justicia, MAS, UNT, AD etc., etc.
They could write commie sounding stuff such as " a government of the people, by the people, for the people".
They could write cool anthems that speak of rockets and bombs leading to a symbolist flag of freedom.
Kepler,
Why do you come up with a bogus example that has nothing to do with what actually happened rather than answering the question. You act as if there is some sort of equality here - there isn't. There is ONE political party that was wipted out.
To be realistic - suppose the opposition killed some Chavistas. However Chavista death squads killed virtually the entire opposition leadership and many of its supporters. What should the opposition do under those circumstances? What would it be entitled to do?
BTW, just out of curiousity - maybe you can answer why if the was some sort of equality in this (which there isn't) why your opposition collegues only showed up to anti-FARC demonstrations and didn't say anything about the paramilitaries.
Why do they only think the FARC is bad and not the paramilitaries? Do you have pictures of any protesters holding up anti AUC signs? If not, why not?
If you decided to tear up or burn down a college in the US, the police would beat the living shit out of you ... and you'd be in jail.
If you tried a failed Presidential coup in the US, you'd be over in Gitmo waiting for your turn at the firing squad ... never to be heard from again.
If you tried either of those things in Colombia, you'd be shot on the spot. Any reporters trying to plead your cause would be shot on the spot too.
ow..It is possible that the opposition would counterattack with violence, and then the 2 could kill each other till nobody is left.
sound good to you???
at some point violence has to stop...however if we look to the past we will always find the excuse.
especially bad however is that farc kidnaps innocent people...not soldiers..if it were just soldiers against soldiers in a volunteer army...the violence is less evil in my opinion.
the farc are particularly evil in their methods.there are levels of good and bad.
those who need a change need to learn to tell the truth and start an honest dialog and be prepared that they might not get their way...this is what they should do...while of course remembering to vote in elections.
Ow, do you have any pictures of Chavistas holding posters about what Putin is doing in Chechnya? Or about human rights in China? Or about the people being hanged in Iran?
This is a waste of time. It is not a bogus example. The vast majority of Colombians don't want the FARC. Just go fucking there and ask around, but really getting a representative sample.
There are a thousand forms how one can get organized and defeat an enemy even if it is IN PART supported by the government. Look what we are doing in Venezuela. Use the international press. You won't make friends if you kidnap innocents and tell the international press they have to pay attention to you because you have those hostages and you have guns.
I am really wasting my time here.
There are other ways than violence and besides: you don't fuck the life of the whole town because you want to make a point about your own bloody little group against another bloody little group.
Are you so clueless? I am not going to give you more clues. You will hear from us in a couple of months.
I wish your pals in Colombia or in Venezuela were able to be constructive instead of taking a whole nation hostage because of their bloody ideologies (and actually more nowadays because of their drug deals).
"ow..It is possible that the opposition would counterattack with violence, and then the 2 could kill each other till nobody is left.
sound good to you???"
I don't think that is the idea. I think the idea is to a) overthrow the government or b) at least get them to stop their violence against you so that you can participate in the democratic system.
Sound reasonable?
The vast majority of Colombians are indifferent. As long as FARC isn't bothering anyone, the vast majority don't care if they exist.
The vast majority is in poverty and too busy being interested in surviving daily.
I would say that Colombia as a whole would be better off without any of the groups.
"Ow, do you have any pictures of Chavistas holding posters about what Putin is doing in Chechnya? Or about human rights in China? Or about the people being hanged in Iran?"
No but neither do I have pictures of them say holding up pictures of Russians killed by Chechens. So I don't see them taking sides in that conflict period. The Venezuelan opposition on the other hand.
you still avoid the question and state things that even you most know are meaningless - like appealing to the international press. Sure, the New York Times reported that the Patriotic Union was being massacred, what did that do? Did it stop it?
You only have this luxury of avoidance and obfuscation because fortunately for you and the Venezuelan opposition the Chavez government is neither repressive nor violent. You can say whatever you want in Venezuela and sleep soundly.
The Patriotic Union wasn't so lucky.
"Just go fucking there and ask around, but really getting a representative sample."
Is this your way of saying you want me dead?
I mean, really.
perhaps those who prefer to live in a communist society should think of immigration rather than murder.Try Belarus guys....I am sure you would love it there...they certainly could use a few more hands to scape ice off the streets for a pittance and a dull life in a 23 de enero style ghetto building
Now Chavez is giving the Belarusans a chance to play mafia in Venezuela, like the Russians do in Belarus..i guess communism doesn't take care of their needs after all.I would be fine with it,
but I seriously doubt that any of you would.
Do you mean Socialist society, firepig?
Like Norway, Sweden, etc?
" perhaps those who prefer to live in a communist society should think of immigration rather than murder"
I think it would be more accurate to say "rather than BE MURDERED".
Now there is an idea. Just leave the country.
How 'bout all the Venezuelan opposition move to Colombia and all the Colombian leftists move to Venezuela. Everyone gets their own country.
Deal?
Hear that Kepler? Just renounce your Venezuelan citizeny (if you still have it) and become a Colombian national. That solves all your problems and we don't ever have to listen to you complain about Chavez again?
Are you game for that?
problem is that since the Farc has been violent for so long, and has committed so many atrocities, it would be impossible and unfair to let them start over...then there would be no rule of law.
It is a predicament, but it will have to be others and not the Farc who start a new political party, that supports more socialist ideas....
Right now most people seem to like Uribe
Firepig, it was AGREED by the government and the FARC for this party, the Patriotic Union, to be set up in the 1980s. The FARC did that, along with other leftists, and they got murdered.
So lets keep our facts straight - this is a fact based blog after all.
And by the way it needs to be said, though it should be obvious, no-one favors violence nor wants it. But if you live in an undemocratic society or one where violence is systematically used against you while exercising your political rights than you have the right to use violence to defend yourself and bring about democratic change.
The leftists in Colombia have that right.
The people of Pakistan have that right.
The people of Cuba have that right.
The people of North Korea, Egypt, China, Saudi Arabia, etc all have that right.
People living in, say, Canada, the UK, or the US don't have any legitimate reason to resort to violence because they can freely exercise their democratic rights.
Capiche?
Only 29-30% of the Colombians voted in the last election.
Its like the stupid official in DC, rendering a report on Chad. He talked about how he was surprised when he heard perfect Arabic spoken in a transmition ... so it had to be the Taliban. Too dayum STUPID to know that Arabic and French are the official languages of Chad. No knowledge of history, just talking out of his ass.
Think that's bad, there was a Judge in Maryland who threw out a murder case because the prosecution was unable to find an interpreter ... get this ... for a guy from Liberia. Too dayum STUPID to know Liberia's official language is English!
God bless you ow.
"Only 29-30% of the Colombians voted in the last election."
read up on the Patriotic Union and you'll see that areas that voted for it were attacked and people killed and forced to flee.
That will get people to at the least not vote!!
I am very aware of who they were and what happened. The elimination by death of opposing political parties, labor unions, student groups, teacher's unions, and peasants.
I think you may be wasting time on this subject. You want others to look deeper into what is going on but you are talking to people whose minds could not fathom living under those conditions.
Its like Darfur, we all know there is unprecedented suffering and death going on there ... we watch it on television ... but how real is it to us?
Wouldn't it be interesting to be reading a world report say, 20 years from now, which calls the Dafuris terrorists because they have taken up arms and are running around destroying stuff in both Sudan and Chad?
I wonder how our conversation with the 21 yr olds of that time will go, since they will be giving views based on their reality of the situation which may be vastly different from ours?
You could be right.
Still, the points are worth making.
Sadly, you are lost, Dan. I never expected this from you.
OW,
Thanks for telling the truth about the Colombian situation.
In a war, if it goes on long enough, eventually the more decent and humane fighters get killed off, and only the really hard core ones are left. It's a tragedy that the FARC is so embroiled in criminal enterprises like kidnapping and drugs. But it shouldn't be forgotten that the cause that they started fighting for was just. The Colombian oligarchy can only be dealt with with force and armed struggle. They proved that when they killed several thousand of the UP supporters. The Colombian left had no choice but to keep on the armed struggle, just as they had no choice but to take up arms in the 1950s.
I WISH that the armed struggle in Colombia was being carried on by someone other than the FARC. I have no particular love for the FARC because of their ties to criminal elements. However, they wouldn't be the first guerilla movement to do whatever it took to survive. The blame falls on those people who made them take up arms in the first place- the Colombian ruling class.
The fact that some people here are acting as though the left initiated the violence and as though the armed struggle is not justified, is disgusting. there is no depth to which these people will not stoop to justify oligarchical oppression.
Ow,
"Do you want me dead". Don't be such a bloody sissy. I have had several relatives who go regularly there (no, not for smuggling)
and they ask people. I have friends living there. We know many Colombians who go back and forth and they are not precisely of the landowner type.
They do not want the guerrilla and they think the guerrilla should stop now.
I repeat it for the nth time:
The FARC has no support in Colombia but for a small minority. They NEVER EVER HAD EVEN 10%.
They only can do what they do now thanks to the drug trade. I am actually thinking most of those murders were related to their pals the drug traffickers who just want a war to go on forever in Colombia so they have the perfect playground.
The opposition in Venezuela instead is growing stronger by the day and Chavez thug regime is collapsing. I now am actually hoping Chavez regime can last until 2010 because there is a group of Venezuelans who still have to understand what his management is doing to the country. We need a couple of years of purgatory
(mind, I am protestant, but the expression is useful here)
If you have something functioning as brains, you would see there are many more ways than violence. There is intelligent use of media. There is effective propaganda. Don't tell me you are going to get more killed by doing that
than what the narco guerrilla is doing right now.
Chileans had a much worse regime than anything you can accuse the Colombian governments of doing for decades and yet they did not go to the stupid methods of the Colombian guerrilla.
Ow, I stop discussing this. I won't answer. You are, as jsb said, completely lost and this is thus a complete waste of time.
You have no ethics.
As for Venezuela: we will be advancing much faster. In a couple of months you will be hearing about something interesting happening in Venezuela. It won't be the bullshit Chavez has accomplished after so many years of oil boom.
Chavez will try to stop it. He won't be able to do it.
The pox on the left and the right. Can you ever mature and see this is besides your bloody flag waving and betting at the red versus the blue?
It is about finding maximizing happiness for everybody while never letting the rights of the minority be trampled upon. In a year or two Chavismo will be the minority in Venezuela (well, right now it is around 30% already, there are always the big majority of Venezuelans who will always vote blindly for a government while oil booms last)
Hector, it is fucking beside the point who started the violence. VIOLENCE IS BAD, specially when there are many other means and THEY EXIST.
It is not just about those guys becoming again
deputies and letting that happened that happened back in the eighties.
I leave you with two quotes I use on my blog:
"I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life."
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"
I repeat lastly: in a couple of months you are going to see something very interesting happening in Venezuela. Meanwhile go on justifying belligerence.
Uribe's antecedents Published on August 4 1991 by US Defense Agency in declassified docuemnts.
Alvaro Uribe Velez- A Colombian politician and senator dedicated to collaboration with the Medellin Cartel at high government levels. Uribe was linked to a business involved in narcotic activities in the U.S. His father was murdered in Colombia for his connections with the narcotics traffickers. Uribe ... has worked for the Medellin Cartel and is a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar Gaviria. He has participated in Escobar's political campaign to win the position of Assistant Parliamentarian to Jorge Ortega. Uribe has been one of the politicians from the senate who has attacked all forms of the extradition treaty (with the U.S.). Source: Confidential declassified document of the DIA (U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, September, 1991. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB131/)
OW is 100% right. Before the assassination of Gaitan in April 1948, Ospina the then president was committing state terrorism against the Colombian people.
The oppo bloggers refer to the FARC as if they are "terrorists landed from oter space". The fact is that the FARC is made up mainly of Colombian peasants figthing against state repression, murder and taking away their lands.
The best chance of peace in Colombia was with the UP but the paras and political death squads carried out their work in typical Colombian political/culuiral style.
This story today from Globo is a propagandea attempt to justify the wiping ot of the FARC, supposedly surrounded by the Colombian army.
http://www.globovision.com/news....s.php?
nid=78177
Never did get an answer but I guess Keplers point is that as long as you are a small minority it is ok to wipe you out and kill all of you.
If the opposition doesn't even get a parade permit at the time they want and the location they want they scream "REPRESSION" to high even. Given that THEIR freedoms and liberties are so well respected they don't care about people's whose aren't. Actually, that the people who supported the UP don't have much money probably made them all the more worthy of death.
Anon, Thanks for the link. THe original document is right here:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSA...1/
dia910923.pdf
Uribe is number 83 and is completely tied to the drug trafficters (as was his father!!).
Interesting in this confidential document on the drug trade the FARC never comes up!!! Though they do mention that several of these scumbags were involved in killing UP politicians (almost by way of commendation I guess).
At the very end there were two who they said were tied to the ELN.
Personally, looks to me like this "FARC is into drug dealing" line is overwhelmingly a fabrication.
"I repeat lastly: in a couple of months you are going to see something very interesting happening in Venezuela."
Really, hmmm, there are no elections in a couple months.
Wonder what it could be?
Give me a hint, is it something the opposition has tried before - like a coup?
Ow, you mean "something the Chavistas and the extremists on the opposition tried before, like a coup".
No, we have other methods.
Meanwhile, keep supporting murderers of any side.
We will do something useful and peaceful instead.
Example,
there are many things I do not like about US, great injustices, and so forth...but it never occurs to me that I can go out and kidnap and bomb to get my way....the problem with the left in my opinion is that they notoriously use wrong means, therefore they get wrong results...that is called Karma.
What do I dislike ?: expensive health care monopoly, consumerism, boring architecture, monopoly on transportation,political correctness, c corporations and their lack of liability....just to name a FEW
But there is much that I do like however, and I greatly admire the American people in many ways.
But the point: I realize I am in the minority.There are many like me, but we are less....and I will not go out there to lie, cheat, steal, bomb, kill , kidnap etc...
There has never been rule of law in Colombia.
let it start now.... remembering to respect fully the rule of law.
This respect for rule of law will not happen if what starts is criminal .If the Farc is legitimized, it would collapse the concept of rule of law.
In order for the government to exist in a country like Colombia it has to be more oppressive than some other governments elsewhere precisely because of the amount of lawlessness.
remember , the elected government is the higher authority, and without a certain respect, rule of law will never exist.
Just one hint: oil
Firepig, Ow does need a trip to Minsk. Chris might find some job there once he is out of Venezuela.
It has been widely documented by plenty of HR organizations that the AUC was responsible for the vast majority of drug dealing and atrocities. In fact, I think they are generally credited with around 90% of the atrocities. I'm not sure how this has changed in recent years.
"there are many things I do not like about US, great injustices, and so forth...but it never occurs to me that I can go out and kidnap and bomb to get my way....the problem with the left in my opinion is that they notoriously use wrong means, therefore they get wrong results...that is called Karma."
Sure, because in the U.S. no-one is murdering you.
In hte US did they murder all the communists or socialists? No they didn't.
In Colombia they do all get murdered and your solution is that... they just all sit there and get murdered.
Nice.
"In fact, I think they are generally credited with around 90% of the atrocities. I'm not sure how this has changed in recent years."
It hasn't. See the link left above by Boli-Cannuck or PLG (can't remember which) and they point out the overwhelming majority of murders are still committed by right wing death squads.
yet you know who protests against the FARC!!!
Ow, no, that is not what we propose. It is not just "shooting or getting killed".
You have to be a little bit more intelligent.
But do your homework. Think.
Oh, I get it, its so obvious that it is beneath you to even say what it is even once in a 100 comment thread.
Anyways, even if you don't want to share it here if I get you the names of some of the widows and family members of all the UP people killed will you at least let them know? Or don't you share life saving info with commies?
O, disculpa. I thought you were an Irish American male, not a Colombian widow.
We are contacting the people we need to contact for a couple of projects. It won't be a miracle, but just a step forward and ill be more useful than writing on a blog, yours or mine.
Just wait. Qué impaciencia, carajo! Mientras tu Hugo no hace más que joder la paciencia.
I stop discussing FARC matters...por ahora.
OK, 3 hints: oil, Uslar Pietri, peace. See you in 2 or 3 months.
james north said"
The words “Colombia” and “violence” have become synonymous, often with the implication that kidnapping and murder are an intrinsic part of the nation’s history and culture, and that change is therefore hopeless. In fact, the violence in Colombia is not of the result of irrational outbursts but rather a cold, calculated strategy by the politically dominant to hang onto, and increase, their power.
there is a third way, and this is what I refer to.
the way of respect for law, and non violence in Colombia...
in 1993 I was stopped, along with 4 colleagues of mine( all psychiatrists)...on our way into Bogota after a meditation course in Villa de Leyva.They held us for 2 hours against the car, and searched both the car and our persons.My friend finally made them laugh and they let us go....they were the Colombian armed forces, ski masked and with some kind of guns( I know nothing about gun types).
If that had been the Farc, I would not be here today.
"My friend finally made them laugh and they let us go"
Ahh, so that is it. It is the fault of the Patriotic Union people that they couldn't make their assasins laugh, and so they got killed.
If only they had been commedians like firepigs imaginary friends those 4,000 people would still be alive.
Just curious, what is the best way to be pre-emptively funny, when someone rides up on a motorcycle and shoots you through the car window? You know, how can I get them to laugh, before they pull the trigger? It would be nice to know, just in case...
Kepler - where is the milk hidden? And the eggs?
The milk for Venezuela is coming from Brest. The eggs come from Minsk. Keep waiting. They must be somewhere in a ship across the ocean.
If they get sunk, it is the gringos' fault, Chavez will say. That is why Hugo Chavez needs those U-Boats.
Meanwhile I will be drinking in the EU EU-subsidized milk in your name.
You drink Venezuela-subsidized Scottish whiskey in my name.
Well, ow, it's only a matter of possibilities!
The FARC is known for systematically murdering candidates for public office. Particularly mayors and deputies. I gather that they are only taking out the competition. So do the paramilitary.
It does NOT SQUARE. I was being ironic. It is barbarous. It is morally bankrupt even suggesting that such a pattern of action be blessed by "belligerance" status. The AUC is terrorist and murderous and terrorist and murderous it stays. So the FARC are terrorist and murderous.
And, Chavez is barking mad if he thinks he can pull us Venezuelans, who despise the FARC as much as the AUC as narcotics armies and racketeers of the worst sort, into an spat with Colombia and Colombians for the sake of such criminals.
We did receive thousands upon thousands of Colombians fleeing these two plagues and know very well what it is about.
"The FARC is known for systematically murdering candidates for public office. Particularly mayors and deputies. I gather that they are only taking out the competition. So do the paramilitary."
Obviously not. The Colombian congress is still there. Uribe is still there. All the previous presidents are still there. So who exactly among the mainstream Colombian politicians have been killed and how many?
Read the article - virtually the ENTIRE leadership of the UP was murdered.
The violence of the two sides is not equivalent.
i never said that it was the humor of my friend that saved us...i just described the event as it was.
you are inventing things here.It could however have influenced...but that is not the main point.
the main point is that we were not treated nearly as badly as the Farc would have treated us.
the even bigger point:
why defend criminals at all, no matter what side they are on?????
Except you're forgetting more than a few little details, but I suppose that's to be expected. Most of those who bring up the UP almost always tend to do so, consciously or not.
First off, there are no precise figures. If you want to use 4000 figure, that's fine, as long as you willing to admit it's an estimate calculated over more than a decade, not something set in stone. The real figures could well be lower or higher.
Second, you're leaving lots and lots of context aside. The Patriotic Union wasn't attacked in an empty vacuum.
First off, FARC never demobilized at all. Some individual FARC members did, but the group as a whole was trying to do both things at once: create a legal political party and continue to build up an illegal armed group through extortion, kidnappings and recruitment. The FARC had just had their 7th Conference in 1982, which wasn't exactly a plan for peace: it outlined their future expansion strategy for the creation of an insurgent army.
Would you expect too many people to be tolerant of that, even as their lives and properties were being attacked?
The drug cartels were booming and becoming increasingly violent, not only against the government's and mainstream society's initially feeble law enforcement attempts, but also against the guerrillas which kept kidnapping and extortioning them, and those they identify as their "underbelly": the UP, unions and others. The 80's and early 90's saw thousands of other deaths, even among the traditional political class, not just the UP's.
The peace process which began with Betancur was weak because he couldn't really do anything right. He couldn't convince the guerrillas that they needed to do more to show their real willingness for peace, nor could he restrain the military and other sectors which were actually or potentially threatened by the guerrilla's continuing actions or simply intolerant of communist activity.
If you really want to present a better picture of the context in which the UP massacre occurred, you should try reading the book "Walking Ghosts" by Steven Dudley. It doesn't hide the horrors, but it also doesn't slip into simplistic and one-sided descriptions and conclusions.
Also, the fact that the Alternative Democratic Pole, in the current context, has gained far more acceptance than the UP ever did, while not suffering from any such mass-scale extermination, should also tell you that things aren't exactly the same, even if violence as whole isn't zero.
Not to mention that later UP leaders like Bernando Jaramillo, who was subsequently killed as well, were able to reject both FARC's actions and the government's, insisting on a peaceful road despite all the ongoing carnage.
Trying to say that there is nothing other than the armed struggle is betraying and spitting on those people who gave their lives for peace.
This isn't really important, now that I saw it mentioned here....but that DIA list with Uribe as number 82 has its limitations and errors, though that doesn't mean he doesn't have other links to the drug trade.
The document itself says it's not finally evaluated, which means it's still raw intelligence, not necessarily verified and confirmed conclusions.
The version it has about the death of Uribe's father is incorrect. Even other critics of Uribe admit that his father was killed by FARC, not exactly for the reason outlined in the DIA report.
Uribe says that his positions on extradition were different, and that they can be found on past newspaper and congressional records. Anyone with some effort could easily verify this in any relevant library, either confirming his words or strengthening the case against him. That hasn't happened.
Carlos Vives, the singer, is also on the list, ostensibly because of an uncle. How much sense does that make? One would expect the uncle to show up on the list himself, since family connections don't automatically have other implications. Not exactly a sign of careful thinking on the part of the one who made the list.
Fidel Castańo (aka Rambo) is mistakenly identified as "Fidel Castro". That's a very obvious mistake that any serious proofreading of the report would have caught....why wasn't it?
There are others, but those are enough to show that the document isn't "the word of God", so to speak, even if it does contain other useful information.
Finally, while FARC's relationship with the drug trade may have been exaggerated, let's not kid ourselves. It hasn't been a static relationship and there are subsequent events over the years which indicate it may have been increasing.
Why was a Brazilian drug lord captured together with FARC guerrillas? Why did FARC guerrillas suddenly find themselves wearing shiny new uniforms and weaponry after the mid-1990s? It wasn't exactly a spontaneous progression. Why, when FARC's alias "Chiguiro" was captured in Venezuela during the rescue of a baseball player's mother, were there 600 kilos of cocaine in the same motel? And so forth.
"First off, there are no precise figures. If you want to use 4000 figure, that's fine, as long as you willing to admit it's an estimate calculated over more than a decade, not something set in stone. The real figures could well be lower or higher."
Oh, gee, the New York Times reporter may have gotten it wrong - it might have only been 3,500 or 4,500. That is a substantial objection - not.
"First off, FARC never demobilized at all. Some individual FARC members did, but the group as a whole was trying to do both things at once: create a legal political party and continue to build up an illegal armed group through extortion, kidnappings and recruitment. The FARC had just had their 7th Conference in 1982, which wasn't exactly a plan for peace: it outlined their future expansion strategy for the creation of an insurgent army"
There was a cease fire as this entering into democratic politics was negotiated and agreed upon by the government. Those that believed the government and participated in the political process were then slaughtered.
So how would the FARC be better off if they had 100% disarmed? Then the paramilitaries would have killed them all.
Also, you are overlooking the minor detail that the UP was more than just people associated with the FARC.
"The 80's and early 90's saw thousands of other deaths, even among the traditional political class, not just the UP's. "
No the traditional political elite did NOT have suffer thousands of deaths (a few yes) the U.P. did. One political tendency was singled out for extermination so don't pretend the violence was mutual here. It was not even close to that.
"Not to mention that later UP leaders like Bernando Jaramillo, who was subsequently killed as well, were able to reject both FARC's actions and the government's, insisting on a peaceful road despite all the ongoing carnage."
Obviously that didn't work out too well given that he was killed. Shouldn't the UP have been able to participate in politics without all being killed?
"Would you expect too many people to be tolerant of that, even as their lives and properties were being attacked? "
Ok, so they don't have to be "tolerant" of the UP or FARC because they are "being attacked".
So why then is it a problem if the left fights back via an insurgency - surely they have been attacked as much or more than the people you are talking about?
ow: "Oh, gee, the New York Times reporter may have gotten it wrong - it might have only been 3,500 or 4,500. That is a substantial objection - not."
It's not something so simple, actually. When the Reiniciar group presented a demand to the OAS IACHR, which was (conditionally) accepted in 1997, they presented a list with 1.163 murders of UP politicians or so...and by then most of the murders had already happened, so it's far more difficult than you think. Not just a matter of an individual reporter.
"There was a cease fire as this entering into democratic politics was negotiated and agreed upon by the government. Those that believed the government and participated in the political process were then slaughtered."
But the cease-fire didn't really convince anyone shortly after, since both the guerrillas and the military didn't respect it, not to mention the druglords. All sides violated it big time, but apparently you don't see how that would be a problem in creating an environment for real trust.
The paramilitaries didn't show up out of thin air, in many cases they were organized by people, druglords, military personnel and others, who either feared the guerrillas or communism in general, or were being victimized by them even if there was a "cease-fire" going on. If there had been a real cease-fire and a real demobilization, instead of violations and mass guerrilla recruitment (read their own information about the 7th Conference, if you want), the context would have been completely different.
"Also, you are overlooking the minor detail that the UP was more than just people associated with the FARC."
I know that very well. But the people who either distrusted or didn't tolerate the guerrillas, out of fear or out of anger for continuing violence, felt that they could equate the two. Paranoia has its ways of making things worse.
"No the traditional political elite did NOT have suffer thousands of deaths (a few yes) the U.P. did. One political tendency was singled out for extermination so don't pretend the violence was mutual here. It was not even close to that."
You really don't know how many other people died back then, do you? More than a 1000 policemen were killed in just Medellín at one point, not to mention hundreds of judges and even civilians, not to mention other politicians.
"Obviously that didn't work out too well given that he was killed. Shouldn't the UP have been able to participate in politics without all being killed?"
Should, yes. But if you ignore the context, that doesn't really work out.
So I guess that if someone is killed, you have the right to throw that person's life work into the trash. No...
This is what FARC itself says about the 7th Conference:
"1982, mayo 4 al 14. En el Guayabero se realiza la Séptima Conferencia. Se formula el Plan Estratégico de la organización insurgente que a partir del momento entra a llamarse FARC, Ejçercito del Pueblo. Al Plan se lo denomina Campańa Bolivariana por la Nueva Colombia. A partir de la experiencia de la operación Cisne 3, se plantea una nueva concepción operacional y una nueva táctica de guerra irregular hacia la integración de un ejército revolucionario."
http://farc.narod.ru/magazine/32...ine/32/
23s.html
Do you think FARC abandoned the implantation of that plan after merely two or three years? Do you think that plan and a cease-fire are coherent?
That doesn't justify the extermination, but it provides an explanation for the context which surrounded it, one of mutual distrust and continuing war even admits a so-called cease-fire.
"they presented a list with 1.163 murders of UP politicians or so"
So lets say that is the number. If that is a very large portion of your political leadership then you were wiped out. So the number doesn't change anything.
Further, you then state:
"You really don't know how many other people died back then, do you? More than a 1000 policemen were killed in just Medellín at one point, not to mention hundreds of judges and even civilians, not to mention other politicians."
In this you are again avoiding what happened. The numbers on the UP overwhelmingly refer to the leadership of a political party - not party supporters, peasants, union members, etc. etc.
If you are going to asser that what happened to teh UP was not unique then please name another political party that that happened to.
"All sides violated it big time, but apparently you don't see how that would be a problem in creating an environment for real trust."
The lefts political candidates were slaughtered en masse. Those of the establishment are pretty much all still there (with a few exceptions). So how this leads to "all sides" violated it is beyond me. The violence was very asymetrical.
"But if you ignore the context, that doesn't really work out. "
I haven't seen anything in your context that justifies what happned to the UP.
"So I guess that if someone is killed, you have the right to throw that person's life work into the trash. No..."
No, my point has been the left in Colombia is entitled to, as a matter of survival and self-defense, continue with its insurgency. If some think they can overtly pursue leftist politics in Colombia all I can say to them is good luck - their odds are pretty bad.
"Do you think FARC abandoned the implantation of that plan after merely two or three years? Do you think that plan and a cease-fire are coherent? "
yes, they negotiated with the gov't and accepted a peace plan. I mean, didn't Saadat go to Israel a few years after the '73 war? Happens all the time.
Obviously they made a huge mistake which they will be more carefull about in the future.
And just what is the left demanding that is worth kidnapping and murder???what do they need?
"So lets say that is the number. If that is a very large portion of your political leadership then you were wiped out. So the number doesn't change anything."
It's not a big detail, nor am I saying that's the real number. It's just a sign of how difficult it is to come up with a precise count, when it is actually necessary to do so for a real legal case.
"In this you are again avoiding what happened. The numbers on the UP overwhelmingly refer to the leadership of a political party - not party supporters, peasants, union members, etc. etc."
Really now? While the leaders were probably proportionally the most affected by the massacre, that doesn't mean that they were the majority of those actually killed. A lot of the sites all speak of (2000, 3000, 4000, etc) "UP members", not just "UP leaders".
"If you are going to asser that what happened to teh UP was not unique then please name another political party that that happened to."
On such a scale, no, that's not what I'm claiming...though the FARC did heavily attack the demobilized EPL's Esperanza Paz y Libertad party, accusing it of being pro-paramilitary, it wasn't on that scale so it's not a real comparison. But the point isn't that they were the party which suffered the most, which is probably true, but that Colombian society and politics were colored with lots of different blood back then, so much so that the overall homicide rate jumped up to the sky.
"The lefts political candidates were slaughtered en masse. Those of the establishment are pretty much all still there (with a few exceptions). So how this leads to "all sides" violated it is beyond me. The violence was very asymetrical."
Look, the UP may have been the one sector proportionally most affected, but that doesn't mean that it's realistic to ignore the rest of the violence, nor the fact that the FARC themselves were not engaging in an entirely peaceful operation, to say the least.
"I haven't seen anything in your context that justifies what happned to the UP."
Justify, no. There is no possible justification.
Explain part of how and why it happened, yes, as opposed to "oh, these people were all killed just because of intolerance (and nothing else was going on), that's why nobody can try to make peace".
"No, my point has been the left in Colombia is entitled to, as a matter of survival and self-defense, continue with its insurgency. If some think they can overtly pursue leftist politics in Colombia all I can say to them is good luck - their odds are pretty bad."
So it's a bit of a circular argument then...you're justifying, after-the-fact, the reality that FARC did not respect the cease-fire, continued implementing the conclusions of the Seventh Conference in order to create an army, all of which didn't help create an environment for peace and trust, rather one of provocation and paranoia, and which is co-responsible for the massacre of the UP.
As for t
As for the odds, if you ignore the fact that the Polo Democrático isn't suffering the same fate, I suppose you could say that...
"yes, they negotiated with the gov't and accepted a peace plan. I mean, didn't Saadat go to Israel a few years after the '73 war? Happens all the time."
Except there is absolutely nothing which shows that they stopped.
In fact, if I were willing to, I'd quote testimonies from people who were in the UP who admit that the FARC wasn't exactly helping things at all.
But you probably wouldn't believe me. They are in the book "Walking Ghosts", which I hope you do read one day if you care about this subject beyond just blogging about it. The bloodshed is explicitly described, tragically enough in fact, so there is no disrespect for the victims and their relatives (several were even interviewed), but not without context.
"Obviously they made a huge mistake which they will be more carefull about in the future."
Unfortunately, some in FARC do think like you...ignoring their own dirty laundry, as if the massacre of the UP justified their own double-game at the time, which made things worse in the first place.
"So it's a bit of a circular argument then...you're justifying, after-the-fact, the reality that FARC did not respect the cease-fire, continued implementing the conclusions of the Seventh Conference in order to create an army, all of which didn't help create an environment for peace and trust, rather one of provocation and paranoia, and which is co-responsible for the massacre of the UP."
The FARC didn't respect the cease fire? In what way? That they didn't all come out of the jungle so that they too could be killed? The paramilitaries still existed as did the army. The agreement wasn't that the FARC would stop existing it was that they would pursue electoral politics, which they tried to do, and they were slaughtered (along with the non-FARC members too).
Further, killing elected political leaders and presidential candidates furthered fighting the FARC how? Who exactly were those politicians threatening, and in what way.
Just curious, what should the UP have done.
"It's not a big detail, nor am I saying that's the real number. It's just a sign of how difficult it is to come up with a precise count, when it is actually necessary to do so for a real legal case."
That is more sad than funny - how many "real legal cases" were there in Colombia over this? How many people went to jail for these murders? I think the answer is precious few.
"On such a scale, no, that's not what I'm claiming...though the FARC did heavily attack the demobilized EPL's Esperanza Paz y Libertad party, accusing it of being pro-paramilitary, it wasn't on that scale so it's not a real comparison. But the point isn't that they were the party which suffered the most, which is probably true, but that Colombian society and politics were colored with lots of different blood back then, so much so that the overall homicide rate jumped up to the sky."
"Look, the UP may have been the one sector proportionally most affected, but that doesn't mean that it's realistic to ignore the rest of the violence, nor the fact that the FARC themselves were not engaging in an entirely peaceful operation, to say the least. "
ok, now that we are clear on this, if you are of the political persuasion that is being disproportionally wiped out here what do you do?
ow:
"The FARC didn't respect the cease fire? In what way? That they didn't all come out of the jungle so that they too could be killed?"
You really don't think that FARC's continuing to recruit people, continuing to extort, continuing to kidnap, and so on, is a sign of respecting a cease-fire, do you?
If you need examples, they can be found, or you can read the book which also covers this subject, but c'mon...
"The paramilitaries still existed as did the army."
But, curiously enough, it was precisely during the 80's that paramilitarism began to expand until it shot through the roof, in no small part fueled by the drug cartels as an emerging class of newly rich and violent gangster, which were being pressured and attacked by the guerrillas (not just FARC, but also by the M-19 and others).
One of the most iconic paramilitary groups, Muerte a Secuestradores, was in fact created during this period. The name itself is also telling: if you piss off the narcos by kidnapping their relatives, they'll respond by attacking you, your families or your real / perceived political allies.
"The agreement wasn't that the FARC would stop existing it was that they would pursue electoral politics, which they tried to do, and they were slaughtered (along with the non-FARC members too)."
I'm not saying that FARC should have stopped existing. But they could have stopped recruiting people and pissing off the drug cartels and others through kidnapping and extortion, which not only led to violent retaliations against the UP and simple civilians (it's easier to do than to find guerrillas in a jungle, so it's no surprise that the paramilitaries and hitmen would do that), but it also fed the anti-communist paranoia of the military and other sectors.
Those retaliations and that paranoia could have been reduced instead of increased, don't you think?
"Further, killing elected political leaders and presidential candidates furthered fighting the FARC how? Who exactly were those politicians threatening, and in what way."
For you and for me, not at all. I'm not saying I agree with the following line of thought.
But for a drug cartel, paramilitary leader or a rabidly anti-communist military commander, the elected politicians are just tentacles which are part of a communist military strategy, combined with the actual guerrilla activity itself.
It's sort of like whatever real or merely perceived paranoia and distrust Chávez may have towards the Venezuelan opposition, not only against the specific sectors and individuals which participate in coups and terror acts, but much greater given the different amounts of violence and disorder.
"Just curious, what should the UP have done."
I've already said what I think the FARC should have done.
If not immediately demobilize, which while preferable would have been hard to see at first, then at least focus on increasing trust by reducing armed activities all acros
"Just curious, what should the UP have done."
I've already said what I think the FARC should have done.
If not immediately demobilize, which while preferable would have been hard to see at first, then at least focus on increasing trust by reducing armed activities all across the board.
The UP itself is, comparatively, quite innocent in the midst of everything else, so I wouldn't change too much on that front....to the point that even some UP leaders recognized the problem which I'm trying to explain here: that FARC wasn't helping, and that they were contributing to the slaughter, indirectly if you want.
sometimes it is not about doing OW,
It is about being or understanding,
because it is from being and understanding that later shapes and guides our doing into improved actions.
Certainly just waring back and forth gets us nowhere.
at the point that we are in a new understanding, then the new plans unfold accordingly.
Nothing is created from what is
what is created has to start from 0
ow:
"That is more sad than funny - how many "real legal cases" were there in Colombia over this? How many people went to jail for these murders? I think the answer is precious few."
True, but I'm pointing you to the one relevant (international, not Colombian) legal case which Reiniciar sent to the OAS InterAmerican Comission, which is still in progress and may in fact have some repercussions, once the Court itself has to decide (and, most likely if you ask me, will punish the Colombian state as such for its unavoidable complicity in many of the murders, one way or another).
"ok, now that we are clear on this, if you are of the political persuasion that is being disproportionally wiped out here what do you do?"
If you change absolutely nothing else in history, just placing me or you in a random UP position, then pray (so to speak).
"If you change absolutely nothing else in history, just placing me or you in a random UP position, then pray (so to speak)."
I'm not big on that. I can think of other things I'd have done.
In any event, thank you for your contributions to this discussion. Though we may not agree on this you've contibuted to everyones understanding of these events.
BTW, I am probably going to do a post on the "Walking Ghosts" book fairly soon. So maybe you can check that out when I do it.
so let me ask you ow, where do you draw the line? If you say that given that the left has been excluded and persecuted in Colombia they have the right to kidnap and violate every human right that we can think of, would that also morally allow them to, say, nuke Bogota blow up planes?
You seem to be on a guilt trip after criticizing Chavez for the last couple of months. This issue is indefensible. The FARC are a bunch of terrorist and they should be treated and should go down in history as such.
ow: Death, exile, legal political struggles and joining the guerrillas are all options too, but praying is an admission of how difficult it would have been to survive under those conditions, no matter what one did.
Thanks for the kind words though. While I sometimes come off as too aggressive, I also appreciate reasonable and respectful discussion, even if we do not agree.
On that note...if you do have the "Walking Ghosts" book, that could certainly spark some discussion, more so if I happen to be around to participate in it.
OW,
Very brave post... unfortunately there is A LOT of context being left out of both sides of this debate.
Let me say for the record that I agree with Chavez's plan for recognizing the FARC as an insurgent (not terrorist) group that would then have to abide by international laws of war and end kidnapping, landmines, and civilian attacks.
That said I know Colombian people (living here in Costa Rica) whose family members are being held by the FARC apparently for pure financial gain. This policy has been a huge blow to what legitimacy they may have otherwise had in Colombia.
The UP affair is a huge part of the current problem, but you should go back even farther to La Matanza, a period following WWII were as many as half a million Colombians were killed, and social justice experiments (like squatter towns setting up there own land reforms on unused lands) were destroyed through violence. This is the actual origins of the FARC and similar groups.
As long as there is no social justice component in a peace plan (especially for rural people) there will be no peace.
I find it amazing that people say the FARC are just selfish criminals, when in fact even their leaders lead harsh miserable lives on the run in the jungle, in constant danger and with virtually no positions.
Obviously they have strong ideals, and many have formulated those ideals into policy plans that resemble what's happening in Venezuela (or at least as it's presented by Chavez et al).
Where they are really mistaken is in believing that a military victory is possible. They've fought their hearts out to basically achieve a stalemate against a vastly superior force.
Now I think Chavez is the bet hope for Colombian peace, but Uribe is NOT about to let that happen... he and his allies are married to the paramilitaries and their drug money.
I know that many Colombians do admire him, falsely crediting him for the decrease in urban violence and instability... but in a country where even moderate journalists are afraid to sign their names on articles critical of the government, where half the landmass is governed by an "outlaw group" and where the supreme court and other supposed instruments of accountability are simply pawns of the executive branch, there is NO WAY that Uribe can be considered a legitimate leader.
Viva el Polo Democratico.
where is the social justice in kidnapping innocents??
this is pure psychological projection, and nothing more nor less
christian blood: For the record, I've been a fairly consistent voter (not card-carrying member) for the Polo Democrático, although that doesn't mean I agree with every single leader or every single declaration made by the party.
"Let me say for the record that I agree with Chavez's plan for recognizing the FARC as an insurgent (not terrorist) group that would then have to abide by international laws of war and end kidnapping, landmines, and civilian attacks."
Although FARC are indeed an insurgent, politico-military organization, which is participating in an armed conflict (things which Uribe does not currently recognize)...that's not the same thing as being "belligerent", which is the word Chávez has employed, needlessly some would say.
The International Red Cross has confirmed that the obligation to respect international humanitarian law already exists in practice. Even if FARC has said that IHL is a mere "bourgeois concept", the obligation is not tied to any particular recognition.
"This policy has been a huge blow to what legitimacy they may have otherwise had in Colombia."
To say the least
"The UP affair is a huge part of the current problem, but you should go back even farther to La Matanza, a period following WWII...."
Other estimates for La Violencia are around 200-300K, actually, and while it's true that FARC eventually emerged from that environment, it was a partisan struggle: liberals and communists massacred conservatives, conservatives massacred the rest. It wasn't a one way thing.
"As long as there is no social justice component in a peace plan (especially for rural people) there will be no peace."
True, any peace agreement should include provisions and efforts in that direction, but social justice per se can never be achieved during war either.
"I find it amazing that people say the FARC are just selfish criminals, when in fact even their leaders lead harsh miserable lives on the run in the jungle, in constant danger and with virtually no positions."
For the most part, although there are plenty of pictures showing some of the commanders with laptops, stolen vans and so forth...so conditions vary, to say the least, let alone their personal characteristics.
"Obviously they have strong ideals, and many have formulated those ideals into policy plans that resemble what's happening in Venezuela (or at least as it's presented by Chavez et al)."
I guess the "strength" of those ideals over their own actions also varies, in practice, as opposed to rhetoric.
christian blood:
"They've fought their hearts out to basically achieve a stalemate against a vastly superior force."
I'm sure some think that way, but I don't pretend to know what all of them want to achieve on that front...
"Now I think Chavez is the bet hope for Colombian peace, but Uribe is NOT about to let that happen... he and his allies are married to the paramilitaries and their drug money."
I originally thought Chávez had a key role to play as well, and could still have one if things change in the future, but it's not just Uribe who has messed things up, you know...
"I know that many Colombians do admire him, falsely crediting him for the decrease in urban violence and instability... "
It's something which has been vastly exaggerated and excessively personalized, to say the least.
"but in a country where even moderate journalists are afraid to sign their names on articles critical of the government"
This is also an exaggeration though...I could name way more than a dozen who do provide their names, even by reading off current newspapers and magazines.
"where half the landmass is governed by an "outlaw group" "
The thing is, the kind of "government" they implement is still rather fleeting...you won't find too many permanent positions where they can stay and do that in the open, outside of very deep and underpopulated jungles and so forth. The closest thing they had to real, functioning government was the Caguán DMZ, which was also the time when they came up with a couple of actual "laws".
"and where the supreme court and other supposed instruments of accountability are simply pawns of the executive branch"
I think you're completely wrong about this though, if you care to look at more than a few things done by the Supreme and Constitutional Courts, to go no further. If they were mere pawns, they wouldn't act against him or his wishes.
"there is NO WAY that Uribe can be considered a legitimate leader."
I certainly don't like him or consider him legitimate either, but I just don't see the point in demonizing him, as if he's the only obstacle in sight.
OW. You obviously live in a society, which do not have experience with activities of terrorist groups over a longer period of time.
Violence is a vicious cicle, which creates lots of damage to anybody involved. In Germany there is still lots of interest in the time of RAF terrorism. Some very interesting books and tv documentals has been written about it. Its complex topic.
I am no expert, but in Colombia there had been times the violence could have been dimed down. Before Uribe Colombians voted a president with a much more negotiative approach. It did not work. Even quite socialist exiles from Colombia like Colombia Informa podcast emphasize that the violence has to be stoped by any means necesary.
"In Germany there is still lots of interest in the time of RAF terrorism.:
"Red Army Faction" or "Royal Air Force" Dresden was a crime too.
OW, there was once a Colombian Chavez of sorts, but he was of course murdered by the oligarchs, plunging the country into an endless spiral of violence over the past 50 years. I like very much your post. Thanks.
OW. You obviously live in a society, which do not have experience with activities of terrorist groups over a longer period of time.
----------------------------
Exactly! US imperialism has been for the most part an implementer of terrorism, than its victim. I want to mention however, that one of the first modern acts of terrorism in the US was organized, financed and implemented by Pinochet's goons.
May I make a gloomy prediction: the Colombian oligarchy and US imperialism will never allow any legal and peaceful political force to come electorally to power in Colombia.
Correction: "peaceful political force": peaceful leftist political force
Too bad that history isn't really bound by our predictions, Moyhabin...we are only human beings, not prophets.
Correction: "peaceful political force": peaceful leftist political force
Moyhabin | 02.06.08 - 5:00 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Like the FARC, for instance?
Moyhabin,you said,
"Exactly! US imperialism has been for the most part an implementer of terrorism, than its victim. I want to mention however, that one of the first modern acts of terrorism in the US was organized, financed and implemented by Pinochet's goons"
so therefore some think that the left should imitate what they claim to hate????
who starts what first is only a matter of opinion...and even if it were not, there is no morality in claiming to do the same as what ones claims is evil.
Well said, firepig5!!! Moy-boy's moral double-standard is pathetic. His posts provide great entertainment, though.
Nimeacuerdo,
Thanks for a very accurate response, you did indeed clarify some of my more exaggerated statements.
In a country of over 40 million people there will always be exceptions. While some journalists and supreme court members are brave and independent, the worrying point is that many journalists are afraid to publish under their own name and also that a blatant criminal (according to even the US DEA) like Uribe remains president.
Learn more about the Colombian equivalent to Chavez:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jor...cer_Gait%C3%
A1n
His assassination was a big cause of La Violencia (sorry I called it La Matanza, my mistake).
You're right that focusing all the blame on Uribe is inaccurate and counterproductive.
I'm not so sure that the FARC couldn't be convinced to permanently end kidnappings and civilian attacks, and I think getting them recognized as more than "terrorists" would be a part of that.
All and all thanks for your replies, I would be interested in hearing more from you about the situation on the ground in Colombia at any time.
Thanks!
I'm not so sure that the FARC couldn't be convinced to permanently end kidnappings and civilian attacks
christian blood | 02.06.08 - 6:00 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
hahahahahahahaha!!! Where were you hiding all this time. You are an outstanding comedian. ahahahahahahahahaha!!!
OW,
Don't bother responding to grac and firepig/kepler, they are just babbling. But I am curious about one thing. I thought you were a moderate-liberal, and opposed to the Socialist ideology that Chavez is trying to promote. so how come you are defending the FARC of all people? I mean, I'm as far left as they come in terms of politics, and I agree with pretty much everything Chavez has done so far (_especially_ the socialist measures) and even _I_ don't know if I support the FARC- they are fighting for a good cause, certainly, and they have the legitimate right to be carrying on an armed struggle, but many of the methods that they have been using over the past few decades are, to say the least, atrocious and horrific. The kidnapping and drug trade involvement are a reality, even if the government and paramilitaries are far worse. So I can see it both ways when it come to the FARC- but I don't get it- how can you be in support of the FARC and yet opposed to the Chavez socialism which is much more moderate?
Grac: Cain represented the oligarchy when he killed the innocent leftist, Abel. Therefore all else is justified.
HEctor,
It is not a question of supporting everything of what the FARC stands for ideologically or even all of their methods necessarily.
My point is that when the left has tried electoral politics in Colombia it has been slaughtered. That is totally unacceptable. And it would be equally unacceptable if it was Chavistas in Venezuela who were using death squads to slaughter those opposing Chavez.
Once peaceful and democratic methods are foreclosed and someone is using that sort of murderous violence against you then you have the right to fight back and defend yourself. No one is obligated to sit back and passively accept their own murder. In fact, if you have a brain, that is precisely what you will do, unless your whole goal is just to be a martyr. Further, once you have to go that route, your goal should be to win and for that a good offense is generally more helpful than a good defense.
So this isn't about ideology, this is about fundamental rights like being able to effect political change through democratic means and not to be murdered in the process of doing so.
Hector,
Just to show demonstrate the point that you don't have to be the marxist lenninist to get the point here even this write for the New York Times magazine picked up on it after a measely 600 assasinations through 1989:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/ful...n=&
pagewanted=6
He had been a Union Patriotica mayor in a Macarena village until repeated death threats forced him to leave, so he has no illusions that peace will quickly prevail. Last year his fledgling party publicly severed its ties to the guerrillas in favor of political solutions. But when the U.P. press chief, Julio Santana, videotapes their meetings he knows he may be documenting faces of party leaders who will be dead by the time of the next gathering. ''After 600 slain, isn't it suicide to keep fielding candidates?'' I asked Santana.
''We can never abandon the country to sicarios.''
Suicide indeed.
nimeacuerdo, thank you for putting ow in his place. You taught everyone here a lesson. Unfortunately, ow is not too smart as revealed by his PU and D2 miss-steps. This guy knows zero about Colombia and to see the way he attached himself to PU story made me cringe. Ow, there is no aura get over yourself.
Profound comments Ron.
But I too appreciate nimeacuerdo's comments, at least he deals with what happened rather than avoiding the issue altogether as others did here - even if the only suggestion he could give was to pray.
Comparing Gaitán with Chavez? What a joke.
How can people be so bloody simplistic?
Ow: going underground without killing people would have been a solution.
It would not have been easy, but it would be easier than what they are doing now. It is not like Colombia is the size of Luxembourg.
They could have used some of the tactics used in Chile by the resistance. They could have denounced things more effectively abroad.
Please, tell me: what have the FARC reached in over 40 years of fighting? Only millions of people dead.
I repeat my question:
what have the FARC reached in over 40 years of fighting?
You won't answer unless I ask again:
what have the FARC reached in over 40 years of fighting?
Now another one:
how much do you think is Colombians' support for them?
how much do you think is Colombians' support for them?
how much do you think is Colombians' support for them?
30%? 40? 50?
Not even 10%, man.
Go and ask, you won't get killed for that. It is easy. If afraid, ask so: what do you think about the conflict? and then: what do you think about the FARC's strategy? And then: what do you think about FARC?
OW,
I suppose you're right. Nevertheless I wish that FARC had been a little....oh, I don't know, "cleaner" about their methods. The Sandinistas, Fidel Castro's men in the Sierra Maestra, the Montoneros, the FMLN, and Che Guevara's men in Bolivia were all fighting legitimate wars against tyrannies that did not allow them to compete electorally. Some of them were fighting against enemies who were probably almost as brutal as the Colombian oligarchy. None of them wound up being involved with drugs or kidnapping.
I don't have a problem with FARC when they shoot at soldiers, or even government officials, but the kidnapping and drugs involvement strikes me as a bridge too far. The war against the Colombian oligarchy needs to be fought, I just wish there was someone other than FARC to do the fighting. But then again, probably all the other factions of the left have been killed.
Kepler and Hector,
I can reply to both of you because the same point needs to be made. yes, Kepler, just going underground is a possible way of responding - thanks for finally coming up with one.
However, there is one reason why that may not work - and it why it is a lot harder for the Colombian left than it was those who opposed Batista or Samoza or Pinochet.
The reason is Colombia is not a comlete dictatorship like those other societies were. In Colombia the middle and upper classes, and those in the lower classes who support the established parties, have a democracy. They have freedom and they can vote in and out politicians. The left can't do that because of the repression that is directed at them. However, because the repression isn't generalized and doesn't effect the whole society they can't really employ a strategy of going underground and waiting it out like people in Chile and Argentina and Venezuela did. The reason is that the rest of society won't join in an effort to topple a repressive government becuase in Colombia the rest of society is not repressed.
In this respect the repression in Colombia is much more sophisticated (if violent) and harder to deal with when you are the victim of it. So while going underground is an opposition I don't see it having much chance of success.
Kepler, you have a couple bad flaws in your logic. First, how do you know what support the FARC does or doesn't have, or the left more broadly. I think it is ironic that someone who claims about Maisanta or what Rafael Ramirez thinks that in a place like Colombia where people are routinely murdered for their political believes and whole town that vote the "wrong" way are attacked people will give you honest answers about what they think. And walking around and talking to the people you likely talk to you would probably think Chavez doesn't have more than 10% support in Venezuela.
Also, that the insurgency hasn't been successful doesn't mean it isn't a legimate fight. Are the Chechens bad because they lost. Were the U.S. indians bad because they lost. Maybe you think that there mistake was to have fought back against Custer and they should have just handed out leaflets?
Is the Palistinian cause wrong just because they haven't yet prevailed? Personally, I doubt many would know there was such a thing as the Palistinian people if not for the fact that they have fought all this time and refused to just fade away.
Were the Jews wrong to fight back in the Warsaw ghetto.
The tactics of the insurgency in Colombia may or not be right. But they clearly have the moral right to fight back just as the people I've listed up above did.
"I don't have a problem with FARC when they shoot at soldiers, or even government officials, but the kidnapping and drugs involvement strikes me as a bridge too far. The war against the Colombian oligarchy needs to be fought, I just wish there was someone other than FARC to do the fighting. But then again, probably all the other factions of the left have been killed."
Hector, I don't think its good to discuss this in a public forum. But once you determine you have to go the road of using violence then the question become what will be most effective.
And will killing soldiers who themselves are generally be poor and working class people be the most effective way in this case? I don't know.
Something could be said for going after the people who are sending the assasins after you rather than the assasins themselves. Ie, if they attack you and your leadership maybe you should attack their base (ie, the affluent) and their leadership?
Anyways taht is something people there have to decide. And of course, they can decide on something that works or decide on something that doesn't work. Making the right decision isn't easy a lot of the time.
Yet the actual left in Colombia still doesn't really share ow's conclusions, for the most part, which is what keeps this discussion somewhat out of perspective.
The Communist Party is in the Alternative Democratic Pole, not to mention the MOIR and other organizations which have long histories without necessarily being exterminated like the UP. That should tell you that things aren't as simplistic as they seem.
The Pole explicitly rejects the armed struggle but, according to ow, they should embrace it because what happened to the UP means that, forever and ever, there will be "no other way".
Also, according to some of the recent replies made by ow here, someone who doesn't know better would conclude that there should be absolutely no elected opposition politicians remaining in Colombia at all, or they and their electorates should all be automatically murdered after a certain point in time, as part of an endless process. But when one looks at the details, it's not exactly so simple, to say the least.
As for FARC's support, in the end we're all just making assumptions. It's clearly not "zero", that would be stupid, but it's not exactly a majority either. That is, it's probably a local majority in certain regions, in particular those rural areas were its presence has direct historical roots, but it's not too difficult to see that it doesn't have enough support to succeed on a national scale, especially in urban areas, which is where most of the population lives.
If it did have widespread urban support, despite all repression, it would be a relatively simple thing to organize a mass insurrection, as bloody as it would need to be. In fact, you'd even have existing left parties on FARC's side, instead of actually running for office. But that's not how things work.
"Also, according to some of the recent replies made by ow here, someone who doesn't know better would conclude that there should be absolutely no elected opposition politicians remaining in Colombia at all, or they and their electorates should all be automatically murdered after a certain point in time, as part of an endless process. But when one looks at the details, it's not exactly so simple, to say the least"
I think you are making a false caracture of things here. The U.P. was wiped out as a party. Thousands were killed and many others had to leave the country. Does that mean that the ENTIRE leadership was killed? No. And definitely not all its members were killed.
But the violence was so large that those attackign accomplished what they wanted - eliminating it as a party.
Just think of this. If in Venezuela Chavez had death squads that killed thousands of the most prominent opposition leaders what would happen? It would probably cease to exist as a formal and effective political entity. Of course, there would be many people who agreed with the opposition alive - but they will likely be cowed which is all that is really needed.
Further, you don't even have to go after all the opposition - you can go after those you most consider a threat while leaving more benign ones, say PODEMOS, alone.
But if thousands of Primero Justicia leaders are killed I really don't think you are going to see that party reconsituted for a very long time - if ever. And that is the goal.
"I think you are making a false caracture of things here. The U.P. was wiped out as a party. Thousands were killed and many others had to leave the country. Does that mean that the ENTIRE leadership was killed? No. And definitely not all its members were killed."
There was some hyperbole in there...but it applies in the sense that what happened to the UP doesn't mean that all opposition parties ever since (or even before) have to suffer the same fate....and they haven't.
Violence against the opposition isn't zero, but no such levels have been seen again, and that hasn't exactly made the opposition into a silent group of collaborators. Uribe's own family has been criticized by opposition leaders, to give you one recent example.
What I said was mainly a response to this:
"...a place like Colombia where people are routinely murdered for their political believes and whole town that vote the "wrong" way are attacked people will give you honest answers about what they think."
Yes, that has happened. It makes me sick to think of it. But that's clearly not the routine nor a rule...if it were so, it would be impossible for opposition politicians to be elected anymore, so the caricature, as exaggerated as it is, was an extrapolation of what you said.
"Just think of this. If in Venezuela Chavez had death squads that killed thousands of the most prominent opposition leaders what would happen? It would probably cease to exist as a formal and effective political entity. Of course, there would be many people who agreed with the opposition alive - but they will likely be cowed which is all that is really needed."
And I'm not denying that people have been cowed, some of them to this day. But it doesn't mean that such pressure lasts forever, or that it's going to transmitted to other individuals 20 years later, in a different context.
BTW, Colombia still has a very high rate of trade unionists being murdered:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/
2008...colomb17876.htm
So obviously murder is still used as a tactic.
Just curious, do you know what the numbers are on the political leaders being killed? And to the extent it has lessened why do you think that is?
ow: For the record, I'm against the FTA, for those and other reasons not mentioned, but discussing them would be too off-topic.
I never said it wasn't still going on. I've said the scale has been reduced. Which means the structural problem of intolerance hasn't been resolved, but in practice the changes do have different consequences. It's not the same thing to lose as many leaders as the UP did, including two presidential candidates (of former, one pre-) which were national party leaders, than to lose a much smaller number, including no presidential candidates and national party leaders as far as we can tell, to give you one example.
Unions aren't identical to political parties though. Labor disputes are usually the reason they are killed by (or through the orders of) the specific industries and companies they are working for (Drummond, Coca-Cola), not inherently because of a political stance. It's not a direct comparison to the UP or any other party.
But if you want to discuss that, even critical sources admit a reduction, even if they use different explanations for it (to get the FTA passed, because of changes in paramilitary tactics, etc.). Maybe several of those factors are responsible, not just one.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/11...07s02-
woam.html
http://www.solidaritycenter.org/
...lombiaFinal.pdf
(Page 59 acknowledges a reduction since 2002)
As for political leaders and parties, there are figures for generic "political violence", but that includes civilians and others, not politicians alone (essentially, it's people killed for "political reasons", one way or another).
So I don't have exact figures for the number of people within the PDA or any other individual party, which would be needed to make a real comparison to the UP (the overall "political violence" back then wasn't limited to the UP alone, logically).
However, if the number and proportion was as high as that of the UP, or within a similar range, one would expect to see parties denouncing it and giving us specific figures.
You may want to argue that it's been reduced simply because less opposition leaders remain and their electorate is smaller, but that's not necessarily the case.
That was probably the immediate effect in the short term, but over time (it's been 10 to 20 years) new factors and other leaders can also enter the equation. For example, The UP received around 4.5% of the votes in the 1986 presidential election, while the PDA received 22% in 2006. The percentages themselves aren't set in stone, of course, as there may be fraud and so forth, but they still do show a relative and absolute growth.
nimeacuerdo--suffice to say that there is 'enough' violence engaged by the rightwing paras, the government, the oilgarchy--with tacit and consistent support of the empire--to keep the left weak, and to ensure that the status quo relations of power keep rolling along relatively unchanged.
The fact is that most of the terror in Colombia has been engaged as a tactic from the rightwing, not from the FARC.
So the largest, most consisent source of terror is 'legitimized' by the empire and the transnational corporate elites via constant disinformation and grotesque propaganda.
keep you eye on the ball--understand who the world's most consistent promulgators of terror really are. you can dress it up in the fancy rhetoric of 'democracy, freemarkets, and freedom' but it is still corporate/empire supported terror used to influence political outcomes.
Eugune, i oppose FARC for tactical reasons. When faced with a terror state, the people have the right to engage armed rebellion.
There are in fact numerous high-profile ex-Guerilla in Colombia's government like Gustavo Petro, and Navarro Wolf, and the last 2 mayors of Bogota were leftists. While there is a lot of truth to this post, its also over stated in my opinion.
Commenting by HaloScan
