FARC denies committing crimes against people of Colombia

[Bacchus4.0]

http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/peace-talks/26568-farc-denies-committing-crimes-against-people-of-colombia.html



FARC negotiator "Ivan Marquez" on Thursday rejected the possibility that members of the guerrilla group are sent to jail after reaching a negotiated end of Colombia's armed conflict, claiming his organization committed no crimes against the people.

"We have not committed any crimes against the people," claimed Marquez, whose organization has been accused of having committed thousands of murders, hundreds of kidnappings of civilians, the recruitment of minors and drug trafficking.

According to the rebel representative, prison sentences for FARC members could not be justified as the FARC has been "the response to terrorist state violence."

Marquez spoke to the press following a joint press conference held together with representatives of the Colombian government in which the FARC laid out its demands for comprehensive socioeconomic reforms.



Ivan Marquez gets a hug from a friend.

[COLGATE4]

1. Yep, the 'peace' negotiations are going

swimmingly, don't you think?

[Bacchus4.0]

2. actually, if I am not mistaken the position is similar to what Uribe offered them

lay down your arms and walk away to the rank and file. the leadership would have gotten reduced prison terms. The AUC accepted the terms and the FARC did not.

I find it difficult to think the FARC is going to abandon the drug trade even if they do abandon their violent political motives. Any political motives have probably been a smoke screen for at least 20 years anyway.

[COLGATE4]

3. FARC has been a criminal enterprise disguised as

a political-revolutionary movement for much longer than the past 20 years. I believe you are correct that they will never give up the immense profits and power they obtain from the drug trade. Everything else is just so much talk.

[bemildred]

4. Political revolutionary movements generally are criminal enterprises.

It's the nature of the beast. Established elites rarely welcome revolution, so the revolutionaries are usually criminals, in fact and in deed.

[flamingdem]

5. Please prove that with links regarding the Sandinistas, FMLM

or for that matter the movement lead by Fidel Castro.

[bemildred]

6. No. nt

[flamingdem]

7. That's what I thought!

porque no hay

[bemildred]

8. Well now you know. nt

[flamingdem]

9. I see we agree on other issues but I did

find it strange you would post something like that - so I was hoping for an explanation of your views to some extent. Maybe you do know something I don't know but I followed the Central American situation and don't even remember the right wing going on about their ties to organized crime. It was quite the opposite, the contras were up to their necks in drug money

[bemildred]

11. That's not the way to get an explanation.

I am not at the beck and call of DUers, though I do try to respond to people who are polite, as long as they make some sense. Whether I choose to engage with babble depends on my mood.

But that does not apply here, you misunderstood, in a reasonable way, and I did not want to get into some argument about what I did or did not really mean.

You misconstrued my use of the word criminal, as implying fault, which would be reasonable in other contexts but is not what I meant. Try a shorter form: all rebels are criminals, outside the law, isn't that true? So all governments that start out that way, start out as criminals? Like, say, our own government, or Greater Colombia's back in the day.

Of course people will freak out all over you if you make such comparisons.

There are things about FARC I don't like, but there are things about the Oligarchy I don't like either, and it's that kind of war isn't it. That all seems (unfortunately) pretty normal to me.

I know enough History to know who started and perpetuated most of the violence these last 500 years.

[naaman fletcher]

10. They don't all start out that way..

But human nature is such that if you give a group of people control over a population and a lucrative trade (drugs, or whatever) they will become criminals.

[bemildred]

12. With the caveat that that includes existing governments,

as well as hopeful wannabes, yes, I agree, if there are pots of money laying around to be made, somebody will keep deciding to make use of it. In these civil conflicts it's become the nearly the rule.

Edit: it would be very interesting to observe the effects if the drug war were ended. Think about what would happen if all that money dried up. It's scary.

[COLGATE4]

13. You can't conflate one thing with another. While it's true that

most revolutionary groups turn to criminality for economic reasons, FARC's leadership has long since abandoned any real political interest in favor of being the biggest drug lords in Colombia. The 'revolutionary shpiel' is for the poor foot soldiers who get to be cannon fodder so that the movement can continue to exist and prosper.

[bemildred]

14. It has been going on for quite a while now, around 50 years isn't it?

1964 wiki says. It's not as stable as the DMZ situation in Korea, but it's not going anywhere either.

I'm not trying to defend the FARC or the leaders of FARC, I just don't see anything unusual about the criminality of the situation at this point. Half a century of war will fuck things up.

The only thing I see interesting is the new "peace negotiations", since I remember the other "peace negotiations", and it leads me to wonder why we are here again? Uribe was supposed to have fixed this all up by now.

[COLGATE4]

15. It has really been going on since 1948

starting with the assassination of Jorge Eliecer Gaitan and has proven to be intractable so far. There have been other peace initiatives, which all failed miserably. The most notable one in fairly recent history is that proposed by then-President Andres Pastrana who agreed to give the FARC a large part of Colombia as a free haven, in return for them stopping guerrilla activities. The only result was that FARC took advantage of the truce to re-arm and re-equip. President Uribe took a very hard hand with FARC with the result that Colombia began for the first time in years to enjoy some degree of security for everyday people. Unfortunately his policies have been thrown overboard by his handpicked (and former V.P.) successor Santos, the actual President of Colombia today.

[bemildred]

16. I would argue that you can go back as far as you like, but OK.

I don't care much where one chooses to draw a start point. I'm just saying what we have now is the product of past policies, so if we want some different results, we ought to consider different policies.

And as I said, war fucks things up, it does not fix things.

Otherwise, I don't see much we have to discuss.

[COLGATE4]

17. I'm more in agreement with you than you

perhaps think. But I believe we differ in that I am not at all optimistic about this latest 'Peace initiative', simply because I doubt that FARC has any real interest in arriving at any type of a genuine settlement. They are simply too entrenched in the wholly criminal enterprise of cocaine production and distribution to want to give it up, and the whole 'revolutionary' meme is simply cover for keeping the drug enterprise flourishing. I don't know how you can find a different policy that works under those circumstances. My personal belief is that the Colombian government's approach under Uribe was the correct one.

[bemildred]

18. Closer than you might think, yes.

Though I can see some things we would have to thrash out too.
But that is a long discussion, I can see, so perhaps another time.

I will say this much now, I tend to the "pox on both their houses" school, and I doubt the situation can be improved much while drug production and distribution remain a source of exorbitant cash flows. Those situations have a long history, and effects are much the same anywhere you find them, in particular the turf wars and "free companies" and government repression to control the revenues, etc.