Editor's Note: Readers may find it useful to refer to a Washington Post editorial on the same subject. The author references this editorial in his response to reader comments, which is posted directly below the original op-ed text.
By Mark Weisbrot
It has had the makings of a telenovela – a Latin American soap opera: hostages held for years deep in the Colombian jungle, anxious anticipation and tearful reunions, and most spectacular of all, the boy: Emmanuel. Born three and a half years ago in captivity, of a liaison between a FARC guerilla and captive Clara Rojas, his tiny arm broken at birth by a difficult Caesarean under jungle conditions, surviving leishmaniasis and dumped off on a poor rural family that transferred him to the state – he somehow survived and was found in time to reunite with his mother as she savored her long-awaited freedom.
But for those who had the time to look beyond the headlines, there were important political realities that the drama underscored. Most importantly, the Bush Administration has once again staked out a position on a long-running armed conflict that puts Washington outside the mainstream of the international community.
First, the facts: Clara Rojas was a vice-presidential candidate when she was kidnapped by the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) in 2002; at the same time, the FARC also kidnapped presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt. Consuelo Gonzalez, a Colombian Congresswoman, was kidnapped in 2001. The FARC is holding hundreds of other hostages and prisoners, and hopes to exchange at least some of the high-profile ones for prisoners held by the government.
The Colombian government appears to believe that it can win the 40-year war through purely military (and paramilitary) means. The Bush Administration shares this view, and supplies Colombia with more than $600 million annually in military aid, which is sometimes labeled "anti-drug" aid. But there has been increasing pressure for negotiations: from inside Colombia, led by the courageous Senator Piedad Cordoba; from the families of the hostages; and from Europe – where Ingrid Betancourt, a dual French-Colombian citizen, is well-known and has much sympathy.
President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela offered to mediate, and in August, President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia accepted his offer. Uribe and Chavez had maintained a mostly cordial relationship for years, despite being on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
But on November 21st, Uribe suddenly withdrew Chavez's authorization to mediate. The move came just after a phone call from President Bush, who clearly did not want Chavez to have an international diplomatic success on the eve of a Venezuelan constitutional referendum (December 2). Chavez was furious at what he saw as a betrayal by Uribe, and suspected Uribe was caving to his most important funder. Uribe's stated reason for sacking Chavez was that the Venezuelan president had, very briefly, talked to one of his generals after Piedad Cordoba had passed the phone to him. It seemed like a flimsy pretext for cutting off the negotiations without even a phone call to Venezuela, and Chavez let loose with a barrage of insults.
But Chavez persisted and by the weekend of New Year's Eve, a mission was assembled to receive the two women and the boy Emmanuel, with representatives of Brazil, Argentina (former President Nestor Kirchner), Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Switzerland and the Red Cross on hand. While the other governments expressed hopes that the release could lead to peace talks, Washington showed no interest in the effort. It failed, and the story took a new twist when it turned out the boy was not in the FARC's custody after all but in foster care in Bogota.
On Friday, the two women hostages were finally released to Venezuelan and Red Cross officials, and on Sunday Clara Rojas was reunited with her son.
Interestingly, the foreign policy establishment here – which includes most of the major media – does not seem to notice that the Bush Administration is the outlier in this situation. For them, Chavez is the enemy, and his intervention is viewed with suspicion, and even as an attempt to side with the FARC.
In the last few days, Chavez has called for the FARC to be recognized as insurgents rather than terrorists. This has been portrayed as "support" for the FARC. However, his position is the same as other governments in the region, which have consistently rebuffed U.S. pressure to officially label the FARC as a "terrorist" organization. Brazil’s government has said that to classify the FARC as “terrorist” organization would likely damage any prospects of negotiating a solution to the country’s civil conflict.
The FARC clearly does engage in actions that can be considered terrorist, including kidnappings. However, so does the Colombian government, and over the years international human rights groups have found right-wing paramilitaries linked to the government responsible for the vast majority of atrocities. And during the last year, revelations of ties between Uribe's political allies and the death squads have severely damaged the government's reputation, and led to the arrest of more than a dozen legislators.
To label only one side "terrorist" would therefore be seen as adopting the U.S. strategy that favors violence over negotiation as a means of ending the conflict – which is why other governments in the region have refused to do so. For his part, Chavez has stated clearly that he does not support the FARC’s armed struggle or kidnappings, and has offered to try to convince its leadership to put down their arms and pursue a peaceful, electoral route to political change.
The Bush Administration's policy of "no negotiations with terrorists," with the label selectively applied, makes no more sense in this hemisphere than in other parts of the world. It is also a blow to the families of three U.S. military contractors who are currently held by the FARC. The release of Clara Rojas and Consuelo Gonzalez is progress, and could be a first step toward negotiating an end to this prolonged war. Washington should join with the rest of the hemisphere – including Venezuela – and support a negotiated solution.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net).
Response to Comments From Author Mark Weisbrot, 9:30 a.m., January 17, 2008
Let me respond to some of the comments below. First, as a few alert readers pointed out, most of these comments do not apply to anything that I wrote, since I did not say anything at all about the FARC, except that they have engaged in actions which can be considered terrorist. And anyone who reads my op-ed carefully will see, I simply argued that most of the governments of this hemisphere – other than the U.S., Canada, and Colombia – who have refused Washington's requests to officially label the FARC as terrorist, have a valid reason not to do so. They believe it would be counter-productive and do not want to be identified with the U.S. strategy of favoring a military solution. It has nothing to do with whether the FARC commits terrorist acts, which all would agree is true.
In fact, even President Uribe has said that he is willing to drop the label "terrorist" for the FARC "the moment that peace advances."
Several readers cited the Washington Post's January 16 editorial board piece, "Ally to Kidnappers."
The Post's claim that "Mr. Chávez was endorsing groups dedicated to violence and other criminal behavior in a neighboring Latin American democracy, and associating his agenda with theirs," is clearly misleading, as evidenced by his widely reported (but omitted in the editorial) statements against the FARC's armed struggle and kidnappings, etc. The Post also claims that "even governments allied with Mr. Chávez, such as those of Argentina and Ecuador, recoiled from his appeal," but there were no criticisms of him from these governments, and in fact President Rafael Correa of Ecuador praised Chavez for his role in negotiating the hostage release. In short, this editorial is just one of many diatribes against Venezuela from an editorial board that has become one of the most extremist voices, among U.S. newspapers, of hostility towards left-of-center, democratic governments in Latin America.
Finally, with regard to the aborted hostage release mission on New Year’s weekend, Chavez and others claimed that it failed because of Colombian military operations in the area. Uribe claimed that the guerillas were simply lying and had no intention to release anyone, because the FARC did not have the boy. According to one of the released hostages, former Colombian Congresswoman Consuelo Gonzales,
"'On December 21, we began to walk toward the location where they were going to free us and we walked almost 20 days. During that time, we were forced to run several times because the soldiers were very close,' she said. Gonzalez also lamented that on the day that Alvaro Uribe set as a deadline for the release, the Colombian armed forces launched the worst attack on the zone where they were located. 'On the 31st, we realized that there was going to be a very big mobilization and, in the moment that we were ready to be released, there was a huge bombardment and we had to relocate quickly to another place.'"
I could not find any reference to this statement by Gonzalez in the U.S. press.
Mark Weisbrot
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Comments (232)
OPITA: As you must know by now, on February 4th, 2008, Colombians all over the world from Australia to Afganistan to Africa and to the USA cried out with a single voice - "No more FARC" and also wore t-shirts saying "COLOMBIA - I AM". In Bogota alone nearly two million marched in the streets - men, women and children all united for the same cause. And yes, they expressed their feelings with the sentimentalism and patriotism that you no longer feel for the country that gave you birth. Not that it matters much to you since NOW you consider yourself a citizen of the world - as if that slogan were to make you a better person than the rest of us.
February 22, 2008 2:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2008 14:57
To Opita:
Ha! I had not read some of the latest postings. Opita: you are wrong. We are very well informed, we have family in Colombia, we visit Colombia, and we follow all the news. The FARC IS a terrosit group, they HAVE kidnapped hundreds of people for money and for politics. The finance themselves with DRUGS, They HAVE attacked, bombed, killed civilians in Colombia, by design and by accident (this is so because they don't care civilians are close).
They abused the Colombianb govt. hospitality during the Pastrana presidency and used the DMV to kidnap and traffic.
I find it silly that all of you go to the classist argument of being better educated than the other... useless!! no need to go there. The FARC's acts speak by themselves.
BTW the FARC may have officially formed in '64, but the Liberal guerrillas (of which Tirofijo was a member) had already been fighting the conservative govt since Gaitan was killed in... 49? (I may be wrong). The FARC came to be 'cause they followed comunism and they separated from the liberals when these would not support their new ideology.
I love my country, I love the US and I will not take it lightly when somebody who has never set foot in Colombia, dares to write such lies as I have read here.
January 30, 2008 12:33 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 30, 2008 00:33
Let's not forget that what motivated everyone to write about Mr. Weisbrot article has to do with personal feelings and different opinions. We respond because we care for the future of our country Colombia, we care about everyone suffering in captivity, and injustice from anyone who disturbs the progress of our society. Every Country has its weakness, strong believes and we can still voice our opinions in both Colombian and US. Thank God!
You can accuse me of "sentimentalism, typical Colombian attitude, nationalism, patriotism" What is wrong with that? 100% Colombian. "above all cost no matter how wrong it might be." Please, stop attacking your own roots. You most be talking about criminals. If I could I would go back to my country, I am working on it.
Over 40yrs ago, we Colombians have split, because of unhappiness with our government, but it is sad to see that whatever motivated members of different groups against our government are killing their own people and destroying our hope for a better live in our own Country. This is a reality that needs to be address, it’s all about CONTROL and personal benefit not about what is right for everyone in Colombia. Maybe our government learned the lesson and is willing to work together with citizens of Colombia. Let’s work together, I do feel there are many intelligent and educated Colombians everywhere but we need to work together, with and not against our government.
January 24, 2008 2:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 24, 2008 14:32
Let's not forget that what motivated everyone to write about Mr. Weisbrot article has to do with personal feelings and different opinions. We respond because we care for the future of our country Colombia, we care about everyone suffering in captivity, and injustice from anyone who disturbs the progress of our society. Every Country has its weakness, strong believes and we can still voice our opinions in both Colombian and US. Thank God!
You can accuse me of "sentimentalism, typical Colombian attitude, nationalism, patriotism" What is wrong with that? 100% Colombian. "above all cost no matter how wrong it might be." Please, stop attacking your own roots. You most be talking about criminals. If I could I would go back to my country, I am working on it.
Over 40yrs ago, we Colombians have split, because of unhappiness with our government, but it is sad to see that whatever motivated members of different groups against our government are killing their own people and destroying our hope for a better live in our own Country. This is a reality that needs to be address, it’s all about CONTROL and personal benefit not about what is right for everyone in Colombia. Maybe our government learned the lesson and is willing to work together with citizens of Colombia. Let’s work together, I do feel there are many intelligent and educated Colombians everywhere but we need to work together, with and not against our government.
January 24, 2008 2:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 24, 2008 14:30
Let's not forget that what motivated everyone to write about Mr. Weisbrot article has to do with personal feelings and different opinions. We respond because we care for the future of our country Colombia, we care about everyone suffering in captivity, and injustice from anyone who disturbs the progress of our society. Every Country has its weakness, strong believes and we can still voice our opinions in both Colombian and US. Thank God!
You can accuse me of "sentimentalism, typical Colombian attitude, nationalism, patriotism" What is wrong with that? 100% Colombian. "above all cost no matter how wrong it might be." Please, stop attacking your own roots. You most be talking about criminals. If I could I would go back to my country, I am working on it.
Over 40yrs ago, we Colombians have split, because of unhappiness with our government, but it is sad to see that whatever motivated members of different groups against our government are killing their own people and destroying our hope for a better live in our own Country. This is a reality that needs to be address, it’s all about CONTROL and personal benefit not about what is right for everyone in Colombia. Maybe our government learned the lesson and is willing to work together with citizens of Colombia. Let’s work together, I do feel there are many intelligent and educated Colombians everywhere but we need to work together, with and not against our government.
January 24, 2008 2:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 24, 2008 14:30
In response to Padilla, Odgar, and Larios:
By birth I am a Colombian, by nature and self-indulgence I do not belong to any one country. That should set me apart from you. I have family in Colombia, I travel there often and I have lived in areas that are so called dangerous. My brother is a flying instructor for the armed forces of Colombia. I served in the military during the VietNam war.
Mr. Padilla, I am not uneducated, actually, I have a higher education than you, but that is besides the point, as the article nor my posting was intended as a personal comparison between us.
Mr. Padilla, you claim to have followed the struggle the Colombians have endured with the FARC during the last 60 years. The problem with that statement is that the FARC-EP, Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia–Ejército del Pueblo, was established in 1964 as a military wing of the Colombian Communist party, since then they have been reclassified as a terrorist group by the US and the Colombian puppet government. Either your math or your history is lacking. Which one is it?
I am not surprise that you take offense or annoyance to my posting and I take your challenge to demonstrate that I am smarter than the rest as laughable, that is the typical reaction which I was referring in the first place - you prove my point, your attack is based on sentimental patriotism for a country you don't care about as much as you think you do. Let me ask you, what have you done for Colombia?
You ask, under what premises I believe you are wrong? Well, in your initial post you state: "Although you are correct that there were terrorist acts committed by paramilitary groups that had alleged links with the government, these groups did not commit the vast majority of terrorist acts as you indicate in your commentary. " then in your second post you seem to contradict yourself with: "This is where you commit your biggest mistake since nothing could be further from the truth as attested by the multitude of negative responses to your article." - The funny thing is that you accuse Mr. Weisbrot of not doing a thorough research, Do you really think that you should based your argument on "the multitude of negative responses"? Do you consider that a good research? The problems with you is that you let sentimentalism control your behavior. You have missed the whole point of the article, I suggest you read it again and try to comprehend it.
Mr. Odgar, Self serving? How is my post self serving? Neither do I consider myself arrogant. Bold, yes. I am well educated, but that is besides the point as I told Mr. Padilla.
My opinion should be valued for what it is, an opinion. You are correct I am neither an American nor Colombian as I don't recognize those type of boundaries. The problem with you is that you assume things as reality when in fact they are not. Take for instance your accusation that I have abandoned my Colombian roots, virtues and moral values to be replaced by decadent egotistic and self serving ideologies. Have we met? How do you know so much about me?
The problem is that the Colombians didn't criticize the article as much as they attacked the author with vicious attacks without foundations. It is a typical Colombian attitude, nationalism, patriotism above all cost no matter how wrong it might be.
Mr. Larios, you ask why Colombians kill Colombians? for the same reasons that Costa Ricans kill Costa Ricans, and Americans kill Americans.
You are right, this discussion has become absurd and irrational.
So sad that many people didn't comprehend the original article.
January 19, 2008 5:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 19, 2008 05:02
With all the vitriol that has been spewed in the comments, is it any wonder that Colombia is the most violent country in the world? It really makes one wonder, in spite of Mr. Weisbrot's optimism, whether a peaceful solution really is possible. If polite dialogue is impossible between Colombians who disagree on the matter, what hope is there that this conflict will be resolved peacefully in our lifetime?
Colombia may have one of the second oldest 'democracies' in the hemisphere, but the people there have very little to show for it...
January 18, 2008 8:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 20:08
OPITA, James, Caesar, and some others now let me understand why Colombians kill Colombians...
This discussion forum becomes in something absurd and irrational, with no add value nor smart way to do something for your own people.
I leave this page right now ´cause there are too much Bla-bla-bla with nothing to really help 700+
suffering people in jungle.
I wonder what the future history books will comment about this our time.
My sincere respect for all involved families in this tragedy.
January 18, 2008 5:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 17:50
OPITA:
What an arrogant and self serving indivisual you are.
Why don't you show us how well educated you are and how a better Colombian national you are. Tells us why your opinion should be valued above the others and tell us on what basis you opinion is more insightful than the rest of Colombians who have critisized this article. You are neither an American (Americans do not trash their own people) and neither are you a Colombian because you seem to have abandoned your Colombian roots, virtues and moral values long time ago to be replaced by a decadent egotistic and self serving ideologies. :(
January 18, 2008 5:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 17:37
This is actually a response to one of the commentators called OPITA.
OPITA:
You say that unfortunately Colombians are not well educated as they think they are.
That is quite a boisterous, ignorant and egregious remark to make about your fellow Colombians. Let me tell you why I can say that.
Like you, I also have resided here in the United States for a long time – actually since my childhood in the late 60’s. I graduated from high school and then went to obtain a degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from a highly reputable university in the great state of New Jersey. While working for a cosmetic company I also obtained an engineering degree in Vacuum Technology and thereafter I started a career in IT consulting that has taken me all the way into project management for the telecommunications industry and I and not done yet! Although I am a US citizen I still have a lot of family back in Colombia and have visited there frequently during the last six years and have continued to follow closely the struggle that Colombia has endured with the FARC during the last 60 years.
I therefore take umbrage at your callous remarks and challenge you to demonstrate that your are indeed smarter than the rest of us who has criticized Mr. Weisbrot article.
OPITA – Please show us under what premise you believe that we are wrong, make reference to points in fact and site references instead of calling us ignorant. Please let us know what literature you read and what information you have obtained to infer that we do not know what we are talking about. If I did not know better I would say that you are an uneducated individual who despises your own roots – what a shame OPITA
January 18, 2008 4:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 16:38
Hilarious of Weisbrot using Argentine websites to substantiate Colombian hostage claims. You mean the author could not find anything in the Colombian press?
This article is full of unsubstantiated assumptions and is carefully written to objuscate and distract from the real and true story.
The question begs, why is Mark Weisbrot so interested in anything related to Hugo Chavez? Is Mark's company CEPR funded by Chavez?
January 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 14:51
Mr Weisbrot, is the Venezuelan government a client of yours? Thank you. //Jules
January 18, 2008 2:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 14:42
Ricardo, you asked Peter, "Here's a new word I just learned thanks to you: "opining". Who's failing, my English teacher or your indoctrinator? I've never heard that one before."
Apparently, your English teacher should have failed you, but as a typical Colombian you put the blame on others, in this case your English teacher.
opining - Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
Opining \O*pin"ing\, n.
Opinion. [Obs.] --Jer. Taylor.
[1913 Webster]
Opine \O*pine"\, v. t. & i. [imp. & p. p. Opined; p. pr. & vb.
n. Opining.] [L. opinari, p. p. opinatus; akin to opinus
(in comp.) thinking, and perh. to E. apt: cf. F. opiner.]
To have an opinion; to judge; to think; to suppose. --South.
[1913 Webster]
January 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 14:20
I am a Colombian residing in the US most of my life, and I congratulate Mr. Weisbrot for a well thought and written article.
It is unfortunate that Colombians are not as well educated as they think they are, it is obvious that the majority of the people commenting on this article has missed the point - it is useless to repeat it, so I shall not - however, if one is to take these comments seriously, it does show that Colombians are ignorant of their own struggle, not a single comment is based on fact as much as it is based on sentimentalism. Sadly educational progress has not served my countrymen well.
January 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 14:00
Wow! Unbelievable!
I would have never expected to find an article of such poor quality in the Washington Post. It's unfounded, misguided, and a total deception for all freedom-loving people. You obviously don't have a clue about how we Colombians feel about the FARC. How would Americans feel if I ask the world to recognize the Osama Bind Laden's movement as one legitimate organization seeking change in the world? Well, that's exactly the message you sent.
Please do us (colombians) a favor, don't write about us. We are alone fighting our "farc-disease". We don't need your intervention. It hurts.
January 18, 2008 1:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 13:30
Interesting. Wonder how much of the funding of your organization comes from Venezuela directly or indirectly.
January 18, 2008 1:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 13:05
Interesting. Wonder how much of the funding of your organization comes from Venezuela directly or indirectly.
January 18, 2008 1:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 13:04
Mark, I am aware of your work for the Venezuelan government. "Shill" is the word I would use to describe you. You make no disclosure about this in your article above when the Venezuelan government is probably your biggest client.
January 18, 2008 12:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 12:49
Peter:
Here's a new word I just learned thanks to you: "opining". Who's failing, my English teacher or your indoctrinator? I've never heard that one before.
In any case, you can have your opinion, I haven't said otherwise. Believe or not, Colombia and the US are free countries and people can say and think and do whatever they please. I'm just saying you are uninformed, naive and even funny -opining... that was hilarious!-
January 18, 2008 11:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 11:56
Ricardo: If you don't want US Citizens opining on the war in Colombia, then you should petition the Colombian government to stop accepting billions of dollars to fund the war. We have a right to determine where our tax dollars go in a democratic country.
Once more time - Just because I do not support the current policies of both the US and Colombian governments does not mean that we support the FARC.
January 18, 2008 11:34 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 11:34
! Mark Weisbrot
Usted esta absolutamente desinformado , se ve que no conoce a nuestro pais.
Venga y se dará cuenta que no todo es sentarse detrás de una pantala de Pc y lanzar juicios
en contra de nuestro pais.
Sea objetivo.....LAS FARC las guerrilas Chavez, Piedad Cordoba y demás secuases no lograrán seguir dañandonos
COLOMBIA adelante!!!!!!!!!!!
January 18, 2008 9:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 09:56
I am very unhappy that these kinds of articles published in such "serious" journals around world (mostly by misinformed journalists considered to be serious) affects very dangerously the DEMOCRACY (believe, it exists in Colombia!). Please note YOU ARE replicating the misinformation.
Because of people like you, dollars (from those that believe in social equity) enter OUR country to support kidnapping, extortion, bombs and murder of people. YOU ALL ARE BEING VERY MISINFORMED, all these dollars are not invested in altruist causes. This is more than a political view! It is serious.
I claim you to be careful and ethic when you publish such opinions about a situation in country that you certainly do not know. I can imagine that it is very difficult for someone how had never live under the menace of terror (i.e. bombs, kidnapping), somebody who have no one from your family menaced nor mutilated or kidnapped, how have never seen the explosion of a cylinder or a anti-personal mine, to have these perspectives around OUR problem, and I don’t hope you will never live such abominable situations.
These are the words from a person who does not accept TERRORISM. I can say you, certainly: I KNOW the problem, because I LIVE HERE. You are reproducing a GREAT LIE. It is real TERROR what FARC does. Have no other name.
Finally, I hope the entire WOLRD WILL LISTEN TO US on next 04.02.2008. Our pacific voice will be heard. We don’t want more lies. And hopefully you will publish a newer article clarifying that this is not COMUNISM. It is real TERROR.
PLEASE STOP TO SUPPORT TERRORISM
January 18, 2008 9:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 09:25
In Colombia we hate the FARC. People like Mark Weisbrot and like Oliver Stone spoke about the Colombia situation without the enough knowledge (Its sad but its the reality). I am amazed that in the USA have the same wrong conception of some europeans.
January 18, 2008 9:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 09:20
W regards Chavez' human act as "support to terror"...
And what has W done and said only last week?
In his Ramallah press conference W provided another glorious example of his disdain and contempt of the international community:
"Question: Mr. President George Bush -- you launched war against Iraq after the Iraqi leadership refused to implement the United Nations resolutions. My question now is, what is the problem to ask Israel just to accept and to respect the United Nations resolutions relating to the Palestinian problem, which -- facilitating the achievement of ending the Israeli occupation to the Arab territories and facilitating also the solution between Palestinians and the Israelis?
GWB: look, the U.N. deal didn't work in the past. And so now we're going to have an opportunity to redefine the future by having a state negotiated between an elected leader of the Palestinian people, as well as the Prime Minister of Israel. This is an opportunity to move forward... and the only way to defeat the terrorists in the long run is to offer an alternative vision that is more hopeful. And that's what we're attempting to do, sir.
We can stay stuck in the past, which will yield nothing good for the Palestinians, in my judgment..." -- Said the Lopsided Lord, GWB.
As if it was not the U.S. which continues to stop U.N. resolutions from succeeding, by casting numerous American Unholy VETOES, to "save Israel"? As Weisbrot says:" "The Bush Administration has once again staked out a position on a long-running armed conflict that puts Washington outside the mainstream of the international community".
Didn't W negotiate with EHUD & EHUD, State Terrorists First Class? And did he grant them his permission to attack GAZA, SYRIA and IRAN?
January 18, 2008 8:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 18, 2008 08:56
Peter, there's no question your comments are very naive, uninformed, and even funny:
"Oh and another thing - stop claiming to speak for all Colombians. You tell Weisbrot to visit Colombia, but it is obvious that you have not seen much of your own country."
Coming from someone whose name is 'Peter' and claims to know better than actual Colombian Citizens that LIVE there and SEE with their eyes what's happening there, you'll agree that we have enough reasons to find you amusing.
Just one invitation: don't miss the opportunity to tell the millions of Colombians all over the world that will march on February 4th against FARC (http://colombiasoyyo.org) that they should talk to you for an accurate sense of their reality. Please be there and do it. That will be hilarious.
Paul Escobar says:
"In the real-world, Ingrid Betancourt's mother and daughter completely agree with President Chavez's position on FARC."
They are simply playing the only card they have: They know very well that between FARC and the Colombian government, they have better chances at getting a democratic government to demilitarize Pradera and Florida -2 towns with a population of 120,000 people- than getting a terrorist organization to agree and free Ingrid Betancourt under the reasonable conditions proposed by the Colombian government, which is to demilitarize 140 squared-kilometers rural zone. Putting pressure on the government is easier and more likely to succeed also because they have Chavez support as well as France's president and the opposition party in Colombia (PDA). In fact, by direct petition of president Sarkozy, the Colombian government freed one of the top guerrilla leaders, Norberto Granda.
Asking us to get in line with the French movement for the liberation of Ingrid is very idiotic. People in France are under the impression that THE GOVERNMENT has Ingrid kidnapped. Perhaps you haven't seen the ads in France that ask the Colombian government to free Ingrid...
But at least understand these facts, you moron: There are 120,000 people in Pradera and Florida. FARC kidnapped 6 people right the next day after they liberated 2 hostages! What makes you think that they won't take 120,000 people hostages in a demilitarized zone? They want the government to liberate 500+ criminals in exchange for 42 civilians (aprox proportion 1/10 in case you are not good with Math either). The government has not tried a rescue by force precisely because most families oppose this option. Totally understandable, but if the government has not dared doing this with 42 people's lives at stake, do you think it will do it with 120,042 lives at stake? FARC has gone as far as putting a child in a bicycle loaded with explosives and paying him to ride by a police station so that they can blow the policemen inside it along with the kid... I don't need to go over this again. Read the other 200 comments one more time.
I'll tell you one more thing: HRW seldom mentions these atrocities while they are quick to report on military abuses. They are real and brought to justice, just as happened in the US with the Abu Ghraib scandal. The difference is precisely that THEY DO NOT constitute Government's Policy and therefore equating the Colombian government to FARC, as Mr. Weisbrot and you do, is an insult and a dishonesty beyond belief. I'd like to see Mr. Weisbrot and You equating Al-Qaeda to the Government of the US because, after all, US forces have also violated human rights. Haven't they?
Mr. Weisbrot can push his political agenda all he wants. What we Colombians strongly disagree with, is that he uses our country, and our tragedy to do so. Clearly this is funny to him. So funny, that he thinks this is a 'telenovela'. Or what, if not amuse and entertain, is the purpose of a 'telenovela'?
Mr. Weisbrot article is full of fallacies and many of them have been pointed out already. It's so easy to detect them that 200+ people have already expressed their anger. As far as Peter and Paul, you both can go back to your madrasas and continue your indoctrination but please stay away from Colombia. We don't want you here.
January 17, 2008 11:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 23:34
"I'm not sure where you guys live, but here in the US, everything Chavez says or does is awful, while the motivations of Uribe and the US are hardly scrutinized. "
Unless you're Mark Weisbrot, in which case everything Bush says or does is awful, while the motivations of Chavez and FARC are hardly scrutinized.
January 17, 2008 9:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 21:19
NOBCENTRAL and JOHN-MICHAEL - Thank you for actually addressing my points.
The term "terrorism" is manipulated cynically by many governments - the US is near the head of that line. But terrorism has both a "layman's" and a legal definition (which is not well-defined). Legally, only a non-state actor can be referred to as a terrorist. But then, what do you call the same exact behavior committed by the military (or paramilitaries with military support)?
I am not alone in being weary of any term that attempts to shut off debate on a given group or political ideology. As the author has said, there is no doubt that the FARC commits terrorist acts. And I do not think taking them off the Colombian list right now is politically viable or necessary.
But that does not mean that when one calls attention to the effectiveness of the military/terrorism strategy of the Colombian and US governments that one supports the FARC.
Many of the people posting here talked about how horrible the FARC is, and how they were solely responsible for the Colombian tragedy. They also implied that the author defended them. I think that is disingenuous and/or ill-informed.
NOBCENTRAL - I agree that the government is made up of various different actors and cannot be grouped together. However, there are many members of the government that are engaged in coca and extortion, or at least in the pockets of right-wing groups that are.
JOHN-MICHAEL - Can you show me the figures that show that the FARC is by far the worst abuser? And are we talking last 5 years or 40? Another 1999 HRW report attributed over 75% of abuses committed in 1997 on the paramilitaries. It is hard to come up with solid numbers, but I would not feel comfortable betting against the violence of the right-wing paramilitaries/military.
There are people that have written here that the paramilitaries are gone.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "reading too much into what people said and ignoring the basic veracity of their complaints."
Many posters ignored the basis of the author's article implying that he defended the FARC and that Uribe is a savior.
I'm not sure where you guys live, but here in the US, everything Chavez says or does is awful, while the motivations of Uribe and the US are hardly scrutinized.
That is one of the points of the article, and also the point of my responses.
January 17, 2008 6:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 18:44
Another difference between FARC and the Colombian government is that, without FARC, the government wouldn't be engaging in violence and tacitly supporting paramilitaries, etc. The converse is not true: without the government, FARC would simply face less resistance in its campaign to violently subsume all of Colombia. Even if you believe that "most" of the abuses have been committed by the government, the point remains: FARC is the aggressor here.
January 17, 2008 6:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 18:32
Mr. Weisbrot, thanks for an excellent article.
Nothing you said is wrong. And all of it is backed up by the families of prominent hostages themselves.
The responses are embarrassing, if they are reflective of Colombian public opinion. Off-topic accusations and pro-Uribe campaign slogans do not make up for a lack of factual argument.
No one has yet to prove any of Mr. Weisbrot's points wrong.
In the real-world, Ingrid Betancourt's mother and daughter completely agree with President Chavez's position on FARC.
In the real-world, the recently freed Consuelo Gonzales agreed with President Chavez's accusaion that Colombia attempted to prevent the December release by bombing the nearby area.
When you extremists are done spamming the comments section here, you all can visit the "Free Ingrid" website to "educate" the Betancourts. Chase down Consuelo Gonzales and "educate" her on what she actually saw.
January 17, 2008 5:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 17:47
@Peter
No one has said that the military does not commit any human rights abuses. Instead people point out, and rightly so, that farc is the worst abuser by far.
No one has said that the paramilitaries are gone but that Uribe is the first president to make significant progress dismantling them.
You just cannot equate the abuses of the military versus the abuses of farc. I think you are the one with the bias issue for reading too much into what people said and ignoring the basic veracity of their complaints.
January 17, 2008 5:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 17:43
Peter - there is a clear difference between an organization whose SOLE goal is to inflict violence and terror on innocents and a government that is complicit with extrajudicial violence against its own. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs you wouldn't be comfortable with, but you wouldn't call the Colombian Government a Terrorist Organization because it wouldn't make sense - only a very small portion of the actual military is involved in human rights abuses and violence and while the central gov't has shown a reluctance to prosecute or admit culpability, that shouldn't be an indict on every agency and branch of the govt. If it were, we would call the US Gov a terrorist org and the term would lose all meaning.
I strongly agree with HRW and Amnesty on this issue and it is an outrage that the government allows this sort of thing to go on unchecked. But there IS a difference between the two. The FARC's battle plan is to attack, forcibly recruit, and kidnap innocents. That makes them a de facto terrorist group. Not to mention the fact that the legitimate, democractically elected gov't doesn't engage in coca cultivation or extortion.
Finally, the point of democracy can not be understated. The people, the citizens, have within thier power to change the government and put and end to its (in)direct involvement in extrajudicial violence. There is no such recourse available for the FARC.
January 17, 2008 5:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 17:38
October 17, 2007 - (3 months ago for the small-minded posting on this site)
"Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Watch are calling on members of Congress to question Colombian Defense Secretary Juan Manuel Santos during his two-day trip to Washington about the steep rise in reports of extrajudicial executions by the Colombian military."
Reports of extrajudicial executions are thought to be in the hundreds annually. Various reports show a pattern of soldiers allegedly killing civilians and presenting them as guerrillas killed in combat. Investigations, when pursued, are often done under military jurisdiction, and more often than not, are inadequate."
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/10/18/colomb17131.htm
Are you idiots going to go after Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (who have for years also condemned FARC and ELN abuses) as supporters of the FARC?
Are you going to continue to distort the message of this article?
Are you going to continue to pretend that the FARC is the only evil in Colombia?
It is obvious that many of you are blinded by your ideological bias.
Oh and another thing - stop claiming to speak for all Colombians. You tell Weisbrot to visit Colombia, but it is obvious that you have not seen much of your own country.
January 17, 2008 4:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 16:58
Stop accusing the author of not doing their research, when it is you who choose to ignore overwhelming evidence of continued human rights abuses by the military and paramilitaries. Or wait they're all demobilized! Yeah right.
Example - San José de Apartadó - Military kills 8 men, women, and CHILDREN (ages 11, 5, and 18 months) with MACHETES on February 21-22, 2005. Uribe blamed it on the FARC until November. They could no longer IGNORE the 160 witnesses.
http://www.elespectador.com/elespectador/Secciones/Detalles.aspx?idNoticia=18109&idSeccion=22
January 17, 2008 4:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 16:49
Mr. Weisbrot did not answer my question. Are he and his Center financed by opponests of the US-Colombia free trade agreement? Readers have a right to this information and the Post has an obligation to find out and disclose if Weisbrot will not.
January 17, 2008 2:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 14:38
Mr. Weisbrot,
By reading your response to the commentaries of your article, I see that you still don’t get the message. Let us (I am speaking in behalf of many readers) therefore be more specific.
In your article you write:
“The FARC clearly does engage in actions that can be considered terrorist, including kidnappings. However, so does the Colombian government, and over the years international human rights groups have found right-wing paramilitaries linked to the government responsible for the vast majority of atrocities. And during the last year, revelations of ties between Uribe's political allies and the death squads have severely damaged the government's reputation, and led to the arrest of more than a dozen legislators. “
The first objection that we have here is that you say that the FARC has committed acts that can be considered terrorist as if there could be room for these criminals acts to be considered something else besides what they are - terrorist acts.
Then you say within the same paragraph that the Colombian government is guilty of the same acts and that they are in fact guilty of the “majority of atrocities”. This is where you commit your biggest mistake since nothing could be further from the truth as attested by the multitude of negative responses to your article. (Please read them again)
Then you procure to insinuate that the current government in Colombia has ties to death squads. Here again you seem to be in grave error since all of that turned out to be mere allegations by the opposition of our current president. Yet you write as if these things were facts.
Then you write about the courageous acts of a senator called "Piedad Cordoba". The fact is that this senator has declared her sympathy for the FARC and has publicly called for the FARC to be given a political voice despite all of their terrorist acts. For your information Mr. Weisbrot this courageous senator (as you call her) is now being recalled back to Bogota by members of her own party where she will most likely be admonished for her anti-patriotic conduct and outrageous comments made abroad and possibly be asked to resign her senatorial seat.
Mr. Weisbrot, you should verify your sources more carefully before writing such incriminating acusations especially since you have little understanding of our political history and of our social goals. It is quite apparent that you have never visited our country or read about our history and that all you have come to know of our conflict has come third handed from sources that apparently have nothing more than an agenda against our government.
Please read the commentaries of the readers again, may be this time you will get it right.
One last piece of advice – Do a thorough research before writing and article on the political affairs of another country that is foreign to you. And if you venture that far, please do not bring with you the venom and contempt that you have for your own government.
It will do you better if you write a detraction to your article rather than make excuses for your errors.
January 17, 2008 2:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 14:29
The claim that the rest of latin america is not on board with the "Farc are terrorists" strategy is false. Weisbrot either made that up or is talking about the past. There is virtual unity (excluding Ven, Cuba, and Nicaragua) that the FARC are terrorists and should be labeled as such.
Fundamentally, Weisbrot is wrong in his premise that giving gifts to the FARC will further a peace process. The terrorist list is something to be negotiated out after sufficient confidence has been built into both sides and that FARC commits to becoming a legitimate political force. It's really quite simple - the PLO stopped being a terrorist org when it stopped using violent means and entered into a legitimate political process. Why should the FARC be any different?
January 17, 2008 2:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 14:26
"And anyone who reads my op-ed carefully will see, I simply argued that most of the governments of this hemisphere – other than the U.S., Canada, and Colombia – who have refused Washington's requests to officially label the FARC as terrorist, have a valid reason not to do so. They believe it would be counter-productive and do not want to be identified with the U.S. strategy of favoring a military solution."
Except, of course, that this is also a Colombian strategy. That various Latin governments are more interested in poking Bush in the eye than in showing solidarity with the Colombian people says more about them (and you) than it does about America, Colombia or anything else relevant to the situation. Also, in your original post, you referred to America being outside the "international community," which language has now been amended to "the hemisphere." Could it be that you noticed that the EU also classifies FARC as a terrorist group, and you wish to avoid calling attention to this fact, as it undermines your thesis of American isolation and intransigence?
"It has nothing to do with whether the FARC commits terrorist acts, which all would agree is true."
Funny, just a moment ago you were employing weasel words about how they "could be considered terrorist." But, anyway, thanks for explicitly admitting that regional resistance to the terrorism label for FARC has everything to do with cynical geopolitical posturing, and nothing to do with the undisputed facts of the situation.
"In fact, even President Uribe has said that he is willing to drop the label "terrorist" for the FARC "the moment that peace advances." "
Yes, if they stop committing terror attacks, they'll cease to be terrorists, and their designation will reflect that. That doesn't mean that rushing to molly-coddle a group of child-slavers and drug traffickers is going to get them to act nicely, and suggeting otherwise makes it abundantly clear that, like many Latin states, you're more interested in pushing a pacifist agenda onto the United States than actually coming to grips with real problems.
One thing the posts on this board have made abundantly clear to me is that America is on the right side of this issue. When and if the Colombian people decide they want a different approach, that's when we should consider changes. In the meantime, the rest of the governments in Latin America can mind their own business or, better yet, show some spine and get on board.
January 17, 2008 1:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 13:41
Mr. Mark Weisbrot;
I don’t think you had any bad intention writting about a country that, obviously you have no idea what is going on there.
I just want to give you an advice that I am pretty sure you received when you went to college:
Prepare yourself, read, learn and do a very good research before doing wrong statements like the ones you did about Colombia.
The FARC group doesn’t have any goals at all and the only thing that they have done all these years is bringing violence, sadness, dead and a lot of poverty in my country.
I wish you go down there and visit my country. Please go an interview the people, interview the government and interview FARC people and I am pretty sure your point of view will change 180 degrees.
Your comments more that show bad intentions, they show a lot of ignorance and lack of judgment from your side. I feel very sorry for you but I hope you do better next time.
January 17, 2008 12:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 12:09
How dare you Mr. Weisbrot??
How dare you give an opinion with no information on the situation of our country?
Calling piedad cordoba (whose name I wouldn't even dare writting in caps) a "courageous senator" is an insult to every Colombian who has been a victim of the violence of farc. She is not a courageous senator, what she is is a member of the guerrillas herself, she's their toy in the senate. She has expressed support for those terrorists who have been killing us, kidnapping us, bombing our cities, and recruiting our children amongst many other crimes.
I do not support Mr. Bush, in fact I think very little of him as a person and as a president. However, this is not about Washington giving orders to our president. Mr Hugo Chavez had no right to be intervining in our internal matters, he has expressed his support to the guerrillas (if you had in fact done your research you may have found out about that, i.e.: his goverment minister shaking hands with the guerrillas and telling them to keep fighting, that they had the support of the venezuelan government- but it seems like research is not really your thing), and we Colombians cannot accept anyone who defends our vicitmaries, who have caused us so much suffering and have pushed us out of our country.
Mr. Chavez was not "mediating" he was in fact just getting a favor from his friends, which would help him look like the good guy to everyone with little information on our situation (like yourself). I realize that you have not researched mr. chavez's plans for the region, he calls Bush an imperailist when he himself is planning on being the head of the south american "Bolivarian" empire. Next time please do your research before posting an article such as this one.
We Colombians do not believe in military rescue as an option to end our conflict, as it would mean death of all our inocent kidnapees. That is why we are organizing a world wide march to protest against farc and to let the world know that we need help from the outside to rescue our kidnapees and put an end to this non-sense violence. But again, since you didn't do your research you said the exact same opposite in your article...
Regardless of our agreement/ disagreement with our president's policies, I think most of us agree on the fact that his government is not terrorist, our men and women of the public forces are fighting to defend our country. We elected our president democratically with over 60% of the votes, so please do not insult us by implying that we are inflicting more pain on ourselves.
Last but not least, I'd like to express how proud I feel of all the colombians who have replied to your misinformed article. We need to let the world know of the truth of our situation.
January 17, 2008 12:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 12:02
Mr. Weisbrot wrote: "since I did not say anything at all about the FARC, except that they have engaged in actions which can be considered terrorist."
So 9/11 can be considered a terrorist act? but in reality wasn't?
Also you never talked about what Chavez is doing to support the FARC and what about the release of Granda? did the Frac did some kind of gesture towards the Colombian Government? I didn't see anyone held by the FARC released.
And isn't it obvious that the FARC had promissed to release three people but since they did not have the small boy they had to come up with some kind of excuse/lie. And you are just feeding off the hate that Chavez has for Bush.
January 17, 2008 11:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 11:48
In fact, to date, the only government to support Chavez's desire to remove the FARC from the terrorist list is Nicaragua which is kind of a joke since they're good buddies and President Ortega is still smarting from the recent ICJ ruling that kept San Andres, Providencia, and Santa Catalina in the hands of Colombia.
January 17, 2008 11:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 11:45
Since my last post has been "held" for some reason, let me just state that your claim that South America doesn't support keeping the FARC on the terrorist list is simply false.
"La propuesta de Chávez, hecha el pasado viernes, al día siguiente de que con su mediación las FARC liberasen a dos políticas colombianas que tenían retenidas desde hace más de seis años, no ha concitado siquiera el apoyo de sus aliados, como Argentina, Bolivia y Ecuador."
and
El Gobierno de Perú también mostró su negativa a secundar la idea de Chávez y a través de su primer ministro, Jorge del Castillo, señaló que las FARC "no pueden pretender pasar a una situación de calificación distinta como precondición para liberar a los secuestrados".
http://www.cronica.com.mx/nota.php?id_nota=342509
Get your facts straight.
January 17, 2008 11:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 17, 2008 11:40
Mr. Weisbrot
After reading your response it is evident that you are having trouble comprehending why so many were angered by your piece. I will try to show you where your words cause consternation.
"The Colombian government appears to believe that it can win the 40-year war through purely military (and paramilitary) means. The Bush Administration shares this view, and supplies Colombia with more than $600 million annually in military aid, which is sometimes labeled "anti-drug" aid. But there has been increasing pressure for negotiations: from inside Colombia, led by the courageous Senator Piedad Cordoba; from the families of the hostages; and from Europe – where Ingrid Betancourt, a dual French-Colombian citizen, is well-known and has much sympathy."
What Colombians and many others that keep a close eye on the conflict in Colombia realize is that negotiation with Farc is folly. They have only used past truces to regroup and refit. President Uribe has done an excellent job of weakening Farc through military means. There will be no honest negotiation until the Farc are beaten. They have no popular support. They are made wealthy by the drug trade which they have to a large extent usurped from the traditional cartels. They have no incentive to give up their trade unless all hope is lost. Agitating for premature talks can only serve to prolong the conflict. Oh, "the courageous Senator Piedad Cordoba" is viewed by most Colombians as a Chavez hack and not terribly courageous.
"But on November 21st, Uribe suddenly withdrew Chavez's authorization to mediate. The move came just after a phone call from President Bush, who clearly did not want Chavez to have an international diplomatic success on the eve of a Venezuelan constitutional referendum (December 2). Chavez was furious at what he saw as a betrayal by Uribe, and suspected Uribe was caving to his most important funder. Uribe's stated reason for sacking Chavez was that the Venezuelan president had, very briefly, talked to one of his generals after Piedad Cordoba had passed the phone to him. It seemed like a flimsy pretext for cutting off the negotiations without even a phone call to Venezuela, and Chavez let loose with a barrage of insults."
Certainly Bush did not want a propaganda victory for Chavez, but what business does Chavez have speaking with members of the Colombian military without the knowledge and approval of Uribe? That just does not happen.
"But Chavez persisted and by the weekend of New Year's Eve, a mission was assembled to receive the two women and the boy Emmanuel"
Yes, and he also lined Farc's coffers with a cool mil that will doubtlessly be used to terrorize still more Colombians.
"In the last few days, Chavez has called for the FARC to be recognized as insurgents rather than terrorists. This has been portrayed as "support" for the FARC. However, his position is the same as other governments in the region, which have consistently rebuffed U.S. pressure to officially label the FARC as a "terrorist" organization. Brazil’s government has said that to classify the FARC as “terrorist” organization would likely damage any prospects of negotiating a solution to the country’s civil conflict."
Two questions: How is taking off the terrorist label not aiding and abetting Farc? It makes it a lot easier for them to operate financially for one thing.
And, how does having them labeled as terrorists hurt chances for peace? It is just one more piece of leverage the government of Colombia has or wouldn't have if they shared your world view. Do you think they will be so offended as to not want to negotiate?
"To label only one side "terrorist" would therefore be seen as adopting the U.S. strategy that favors violence over negotiation as a means of ending the conflict – which is why other governments in the region have refused to do so. For his part, Chavez has stated clearly that he does not support the FARC’s armed struggle or kidnappings, and has offered to try to convince its leadership to put down their arms and pursue a peaceful, electoral route to political change."
For your information the AUC is also labeled as a terrorist organization. Both sides have been labeled as terrorists and rightly so. Your reference to Farc's "armed struggle" would be humorous if it was not so tragic. Colombia is fighting an army of narco terrorists. The words armed struggle and kidnapping bring to mind a much more sanitary picture then the reality of the situation that might include a justified cause for Farc. We are talking about murder, assassination, rape, kidnapping (resulting in murder if no ransom can be found), forced prostitution, the enslavement of child soldiers and the accompanying and often permanent psychological damage that entails, and on and on; all in the name of perpetuating the immensely enriching trade in narcotics and hopefully achieving a stable situation in which the dollars can keep coming indefinitely.
"The Bush Administration's policy of "no negotiations with terrorists," with the label selectively applied, makes no more sense in this hemisphere than in other parts of the world. It is also a blow to the families of three U.S. military contractors who are currently held by the FARC. The release of Clara Rojas and Consuelo Gonzalez is progress, and could be a first step toward negotiating an end to this prolonged war. Washington should join with the rest of the hemisphere – including Venezuela – and support a negotiated solution."
As far as I know the label is applied pretty generally. Like I said the AUC is on the list as well as pretty much every other terrorist organization I know of. I am sure there