Conversations around a letter

juancegomez says on Feb 1, 2008, 17:51:

Could be a very interesting discussion, I think .

If those letters and other similar expressions were used in order to create an effective movement seeking common ground, I'm sure it would be a step in the right direction.

So, in the end, I'm personally in favor of more general rejections of ALL kinds of violence as well.

But one limitation with those, however, is that unless they have specific concerns and proposals beyond saying "no to violence, no to each violent actor", they are basically a generic wild card: any of the parties in conflict can interpret parts of the march as favorable to their own positions, actions and objectives.

Which means that specific proposals and demands are still necessary, even during general "no to violence" protests, like those outlined above but also far beyond them.

Which is also why I think specific anti-paramilitary, anti-Uribe or, in this particular case, anti-FARC demonstrations remain necessary, in order to drive certain points home without any potential or actual distractions.

As for the "pro-Humanitarian Accord/anti-war/anti-kidnapping " concentration (it's apparently not a march per se) being opposition and the anti-FARC march being pro-government, I see why some people can reach that conclusion, but I definitely do not agree.

While it would be hard to find pro-Uribe sectors in a concentration which, while not limited to just doing so, seeks to criticize either his policies or his handling of the situation (nothing wrong with that, mind you, because it deserves to be criticized a lot) ...the fact is there are many people who are anti-Uribe who can and will participate in the anti-FARC march, even if they may not be 100% satisfied with it.

The Liberal Party has decided to support the march, and even the PDA itself isn't an internal monolith...in fact, I have the impression that Gustavo Petro tried to get the PDA to participate in the original march, failing and ultimately having to compromise. His position may be in the minority, but I don't think he's the only voice with similar thoughts, the PDA being as pluralistic as it is. The Mayor of Bogotá may apparently end up marching as well, at least for a short while.

And that, while ultimately resulting in the creation of another protest that is just as valid and worth respecting, tends to give Uribism a bit more room to maneuver, ironically enough...as opposed to presenting a more unified front, even while still expressing different opinions.

So, backtracking a bit, I think that one of the issues which needs to be addressed by "common ground" initiatives would be that of the need for both general and specific protests, not just one or the other.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 1, 2008, 20:08:

Intelligent letter, and an intelligent post above.

I just hope this polarisation and hysteria in Colombia and Venezuela stops soon. Both countries have got enough problems without generating new ones.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 1, 2008, 20:24:

"I just hope this polarisation and hysteria in Colombia and Venezuela stops soon"

And SIV, who do you think is generating 90% of the hysteria in OFFICIAL (as opposd to on PBH) relations between Colombia and venezuela?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 1, 2008, 20:47:

Well, I haven't really been noting down all the official communications, but obviously hyperbole is Chavez' speciality. I don't really think either of the presidents have acted with the prudence and responsibility that goes with the position, though.

As for the media, I live in Colombia, so I can only speak about what I see here, on RCN and Caracol. I'm sure there's a similar amount of partial reporting going on Venezuelan TV.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 1, 2008, 20:55:

SIV, by 'official' I wasn't really thinking of the media, but when you think about it, except for the state controlled media, Venezuela's media isn't that enamored with Hugo's hystrionics, and certainly the FAVs are not. And like him or not Uribe has been very circumspect on the subject since the initial hizzy fit by both presidents, he has even asked the marchers on monday to show respect for Venezuela. So I don't think you can even come close to comparing the two on this question.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SiV says on Feb 1, 2008, 21:00:

Yeah, I think Uribe shut up from a reckless opening phase. I think being in Europe at the time calmed him down, someone must have put a word in his ear.

Stultórum númere infinitum est.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 1, 2008, 21:04:

"someone must have put a word in his ear."

I think you are right there.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) (Trustee board) says on Feb 2, 2008, 02:45:

Don't even think about dedicating less time to us here on PBH, Sr. Tertius. We need people like you and juance to balance out all the gringomania in the political discussions and other forums too. I was checking out on alexa.com the user composition on this site and it turns out that only 18% are US Americans and it was close to 30% who are Colombian and yet it's the US originated posters that dominate these debates. This causes a great unbalance and plenty of misinformation especially on political forum, because a great number of our posters do not read Spanish and the availability of in-depth analysis and good articles in English of the Colombian armed conflict and politics in general is extremely limited.

I read Mr. Ospina's letter and have to say that I agree with him, almost 100% . I could've signed that letter.

I also read the follow-up articles.

This is good stuff. Keep it coming.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Feb 2, 2008, 14:15:

Very kind words, Desi, thank you. I've always been happy to discuss in a reasonable manner, and to turn my BSD (bullshit detector) on some threads. Unfortunately, I had to set the BSD threshold way up, because with discussions like those on Chomsky by PBH luminaries, it almost blew on my hands. (BTW: He's my intellectual hero too, not so much because of his ideas but because he can disarm most fallacious arguments with a couple of well-placed sentences: Look up his debate with WF Buckley. And I had the privilege of meeting him personally. He is quite charming!)

Juance: Maybe civil society needs to send targeted messages to the multiple violent agents in Colombia and to the international community, but that can only stem from figuring out what we all reject, and what is up for debate. For instance, I believe that we can all agree that FARC's violent conduct is not acceptable, but it is debatable whether their nominal political aims are legitimate. And FARC's conduct is not acceptable because it is inherently wrong, not because it comes from them.

There's also the issue of supports. Any demonstration whose organizers don't reject the support of violent actors (whether they are nominally demobilized or not) and the government, is already on thin ice. And a demonstration against kidnapping that doesn't have the support of the relatives of those kidnapped and their organizations, is mere posturing. The argument that the relatives of hostages are biased because of their condition is an underhanded and offensive way of discounting their opinion: Not only they lost their relatives, now they supposedly don't have a right to a voice.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Feb 2, 2008, 14:55:

Sr Tertius y Juancegomez,

I just wanted to say that I agree w/ Desi. While I have been known to let my emotions guide me a little into the extreme on this site from time to time, I have always admired both of your comments as they appear to be well thought out and honest. So much on this site is just regurgitated sound bites and knee-jerk jingoism.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) (Trustee board) says on Feb 2, 2008, 15:04:

I mean it, really. Without you and Juance we would have NO knowledgeable political commentators at all who are fully bilingual and have a consistently high standard left. at all.
You guys are of vital importance and a real asset to our political forum.

Sometimes I really miss Colombia very badly. Like right now, with soft snow falling, peace and quiet around me, no big worries ...it looks like all the action is over there! Even this march against the FARCS has become something tropical and pintoresque, with fake communiqués from the FARCS, with a simultaneous manifestation for Humanitarian Exchange, with a lot of differen tpolitical agenda involved...life is just so much more colourful there. More painful, too.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Feb 2, 2008, 16:16:

Desideria I agree with you about Sr Tertius. He and I are at opposite poles of the political/philosophical spectrum but I find his discussions interesting.

There was a time when he appeared bitter and used language unbecoming for diplomatic dialogue. At first he seemed to attack the poster but now he mainly concentrates on the merits of his argument. He has stopped attempting to belittle the poster.

He is intelligent and has a working knowledge of the socialist leftist mantra. In effect one better have a firm intellectual basis when entering into an exchange with him. If not he can make you feel like a dunce.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Feb 2, 2008, 19:21:

Wow, thank you guys. All I can say is, let's try to keep a respectful dialogue. PBH's rule of "no personal attacks" and so on is a very minimum standard. We should rise a bit above it and try to appreciate what others say, particularly when we disagree. The mods are already doing a great and thankless job (congrats Desi... and where's Tinto?), the rest of us could help a bit.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Feb 3, 2008, 12:22:

In addition to Sr Tertius, I must also thank you, Desi, Lcacique and others as well, for the kind words.

All I can say is I also try to be respectful and reasonable, even when we are discussing quite controversial subjects. Sometimes I may slip into anger or frustration, but even then I try to limit the damage to others and to myself, so to speak.

Perhaps the "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" quote, usually (incorrectly, I've read) attributed to Voltaire, provides a helpful perspective on the matter.

I may not agree with a lot of things, and may even repeatedly defend my point of view while strongly criticizing that of others, but I try to respect everyone's right to freely express themselves and to continue having very different ideas.

SrTertius: "Maybe civil society needs to send targeted messages to the multiple violent agents in Colombia and to the international community, but that can only stem from figuring out what we all reject, and what is up for debate."

Certainly enough.

"For instance, I believe that we can all agree that FARC's violent conduct is not acceptable, but it is debatable whether their nominal political aims are legitimate. And FARC's conduct is not acceptable because it is inherently wrong, not because it comes from them."

True, but then there's the base issue of their being a group which seeks to either change or control society/government through force of arms. A revolutionary armed group, in short.

As such, their armed struggle in itself, which is an essential part of their existence, is also subject to being considered unacceptable by those who prefer exclusively peaceful methods, even if FARC's political ideas and social motivations are potentially valid (or at least understandable). Even if they didn't employ their worst methods, the armed struggle necessarily remains quite violent.

This doesn't make all the individuals in FARC inhuman monsters who seek to cause harm and evil...because many of them do have legitimate (from their point of view) reasons for taking up arms.

But their being part of a group which seeks change through violence is something which deserves to be rejected, even if it can also be placed in a context which explains why that is the case, or even if they are to be provided with a certain amount of leniency and/or treated as political actors in the context of a negotiation.

Some may disagree but, precisely, that's why these discussions need to be made.

"There's also the issue of supports. Any demonstration whose organizers don't reject the support of violent actors (whether they are nominally demobilized or not) and the government, is already on thin ice."

Several issues need to be addressed here.

First, rejecting the support of the government is not an inherent necessity in my opinion.

The organizers have said and repeated, on and off camera, that they are not marching in favor of Uribe, nor that they necessarily agree with his policies per se (though, of course, there has to be some inevitable overlap considering the entire "anti-FARC" concept, it's far from absolute or even obligatory). Whether each of us chooses to believe it or not, they have said it.

But that doesn't mean they have to reject the support/participation of legal political parties, including those within the opposition (an important point, especially if you think about the opposite scenario: marches which the government rejects merely because they are supported by the opposition, ironically enough) and those which are part of the Uribe government, as well as the support of the state itself and many other particular (non-violent) entities.
.
I don't believe the organizers have to close the door to that, though they could be more explicit and aggressive in presenting the nuances of their positions to the media (or the media could, alternatively, be more willing to provide their full positions in context). The important thing, I think, lies not in receiving the support of the state or of individual political parties, but in the fact that the organization and the march itself actually goes far beyond those limits.

Second, the organizers have said that they do not support the AUC, as even teleSur (grudgingly, in an otherwise more or less unbalanced article) admits:

"Ante la opinión pública, los organizadores del evento se desmarcaron del respaldo de los paramilitares y lo rechazaron. "Desde el comienzo dijimos que estamos en desacuerdo con cualquier forma de violencia de todos los actores del conflicto. Y desde luego, no comulgamos con la ideología de las AUC", dijo Carlos Andrés Santiago, uno de los promotores de la marcha contra las FARC."

http://www.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/nota/23947/familiares-de-r...

You may not agree with their choice of words, but there it is. I admit that a more explicit rejection could be welcome (or could have been actually transmitted by the media, if it was already made). Just as, for that matter, opposition leaders of parties could be more explicit in rejecting any instances of FARC support for similar events or demonstrations (or, again, the media could actually transmit such rejections in a better way).

But then that takes us back to what has been said before: the support, sympathy or even participation, of FARC/AUC/ELN doesn't automatically have to poison any kind of protest, demand or mobilization, even if it should always be rejected in some way, shape or form.

In any case, for a bit more information about the organizers and their positions (some of them based on debatable or even incorrect premises, yes, but there are also some relevant remarks):

http://www.colombiasoyyo.org/docs/RUEDA%20DE_PRENSA_23-01.pdf

http://www.colombiasoyyo.org/faq.html

"And a demonstration against kidnapping that doesn't have the support of the relatives of those kidnapped and their organizations, is mere posturing. The argument that the relatives of hostages are biased because of their condition is an underhanded and offensive way of discounting their opinion: Not only they lost their relatives, now they supposedly don't have a right to a voice."

This isn't so clear cut though.

It clearly doesn't have the support, at least in public, of several relatives of certain high profile hostages, as well as certain related organizations.

All of which are free to either disagree with the march itself, or may simply consider that it would be dangerous/counter-productive for the victims to be too opposed to the ones (FARC) who have the "key" to the liberation of their relatives, because it doesn't focus on (though it doesn't exclude) what they consider to be the practical solution (an agreement).

That's not an accusation of bias, mind you: it's a description of a position which some of them may or may not assume, depending on what each person thinks.

Still, I wouldn't rush to conclude that the march doesn't have the support of any hostage relatives at all -or even past hostages themselves-, including many which are not among those few potentially subject to a future "exchange". Admittedly, the media provides little information about this side of the coin, unfortunately.

Btw, here's a communique with the position of País Libre:

http://www.paislibre.org/images/PDF/comunicado%2028%20enero.pdf

If you ask me, however, I think that maybe the organizers, the families of the hostages in question and others could have had direct face to face discussion beforehand, in order to try to reach a consensus which better represented their multiple positions. Still, even that problem doesn't automatically make the march a mere "posturing", all other things considered.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 3, 2008, 16:12:

SrT- I still think you're full of crap- but it's the non-offensive sort. ;)

(I hope you know I'm just yankin' your Chain, T! The lovefest was borderline intolerable- something had to be done! jajajaja)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

fecherklyn says on Feb 3, 2008, 18:02:

We seem to have a concensus....any thread that attracts the full attention of both juancegomez and SrT is going to be interesting and informative. Normally I find the range of their comments provides a reasoned, non-opinionated examination of the entire spectrum of their chosen subject matter. Normally. Today, and for the 1st time, I disagree with some of what SrT had to say:

"And a demonstration against kidnapping that doesn't have the support of the relatives of those kidnapped and their organizations, is mere posturing".

Juancegomez has already reacted to this comment in a manner I cannot hope to emulate but I feel sufficiently aroused to want to contribute my penny's worth anyway.

In short, I feel it is very "human" and healthy to want to let off steam. Undeniably, many of those manifesting may have differing backgrounds, social and/or political motivations but so long as they all feel the need to say "enough, something needs to be done"....then I think it is a worthwhile message.

Not so many years ago I lived on the "Grands Boulevards" de Paris (perhaps not far away from Cassini, what a thought) and our windows overlooked the route of the weekly manifestations that usually terminated at the Place de la Republique. After an initial period of wishing them to hell for the infernal din they made on otherwise tranquil Sundays I began to appreciate what a privilege they represented. Every opinion was allowed to manifest and often it was only the banners that differentiated contrasting motivations for their presence within the same parade. Yes SrT, one might argue whether or not the kms they travelled and the debris they left behind them contributed one iota to any change....but they had manifested rather than allow some disagreement to fester.

"(BTW: He's (Chomski) my intellectual hero too, not so much because of his ideas but because he can disarm most fallacious arguments with a couple of well-placed sentences: Look up his debate with WF Buckley. And I had the privilege of meeting him personally. He is quite charming!)"

I'm not too certain of my ground here. By "Chomski" are you referring to the presdent of a neighbouring nation? If so, I have also met him and he is NOT my hero.

Agreed, the Chomski I am referring to "is quite charming".... TO YOUR FACE. IMO this is his one of his major qualities. Unfortunately he says so many different things to so many persons; it all depends upon his audience. I have been present when he has intentionally reassured his audience they need fear nothing about matters he has diametrically disavowed later. Similarly, I have heard him say "patience" to a poor woman who approached him about a personal problem only to tell his personal aides seconds later to "make sure people like this do not approach him in the future".

The poor in Colombia and Venezuela have a common problem...better representation and a more equitable portion of whatever pie can be baked. I do not find any necessary reason why Colombia's electorate cannot call for the FARC to stop their non-political activities whilst at the same time criticizing their govt for the lack of progress on social improvements.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Feb 3, 2008, 20:48:

Desi,

Alexa stats aren't going to tell you what the nationality of posters here is. Instead, it attempts to tell you where those posters are logging in from. So a Colombian like Sr. T. logging in from the US is likely to show up as a "gringo" and "Gringo in Bogota" is going to show up as Colombian.

And that's assuming that the tracking systems used by Alexa are even remotely accurate.

0 funny, 0 helpful.