FARC: No Prisoner Exchange while Uribe is President

Miguel says on Jan 2, 2006, 09:58:

Let's see progress Uribe is going to be re-elected. La Farc is always going to be the fly in the ointment. The AUC is always going to be their version of Robin Hood, and the regular colombiano is going to pay the price.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Jan 2, 2006, 10:19:

WEBSITE Problems Two days in a row I have posted and almost half don't make it visible.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 2, 2006, 10:41:

Additional info in English Colombia rebels reject prisoner swap

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) -- Colombia's main rebel group said Monday that a proposed exchange of their jailed comrades for hostages will not happen as long as Alvaro Uribe is president, an apparent attempt to hurt Uribe's re-election bid.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/01/02/colombia.rebels.ap/index.html
?section=cnn_latest

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 2, 2006, 11:27:

... Most of the FARC guerrillas in prison (allegedly 500) aren't high ranking members though, and most of the 60 people that are subject to an exchange (according to the FARC) are not normal citizens but rather high profile personalities or soldiers.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jan 2, 2006, 14:37:

The exchange: soldiers for soldiers... juancegomez says the FARC prisoners "are not normal citizens but rather high profile personalities or soldiers."

From the FARC perspective all 500 of the FARC members in Uribe's prisons are soldiers (and a few may be high profile FARC personalities). plátano

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 2, 2006, 15:32:

...... gringoinbogota:

"but even with that said I still don't get it? These FARC guys are they in prison for a crime and when they have served it they are out or are they just there forever?"

Obviously they are already being released or will be released, sooner or later, depending on their specific sentences and elegibility for additional benefits. Something which, obviously, those held under FARC control have no right to.

"Release them as time served but by making some sort of hostage for prisoner exchange you are sending a wrong signal to the FARC in my opinion."

Well, the earlier is already going on...the later has been, and still is, a matter of much debate in Colombia.

"If I were a FARC I think I would be happy to keep a good supply of kidnapped people on hand so I can exchange them and release my buddies when they get caught. Does anyone else see it this way?"

Plenty of people have more or less discussed that point, actually, but there is no overall concensus really...right now, most people seem to be focused around the matter of getting both parties to talk (or not), rather than on dwelling too much on the specifics of an exchange or its eventual consequences. Even here in PBH.

"My point is it just invites more kidnappings and deals a better hand to FARC than for Colombia. Colombia and Uribe just comes out looking weak and FARC looks strong."

In theory, maybe. Still, the vague assumption that some people have defended is that a successful exchange would ideally have to include a negotiation with the FARC that deals with the nature of kidnapping as a whole. Or, utopically, as a way or re-starting a peace process. Logically, the FARC won't buy into that easily these days...so it's all up in the air.

"All FARC had to do was say what they just did and now they are the dominating figure in such a negotiation and Uribe looks the fool."

Maybe in the eyes of some, but in the eyes of others, the opposite seems to be the case, at least right now. There's hardly a definite answer though...

platano:

Maybe, I didn't automatically rule that out (though those would be very few, really).

However, the fact is that the FARC has hundreds of ***other*** hostages, which are not subject to the exchange as far as the FARC is concerned.

In other words, if the exchange took place, the FARC would still have more than 500 additional civilian hostages in their power, and they'd have nothing to exchange them for, since they were kidnapped for extortion purposes.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 2, 2006, 21:58:

GIB, in answer to your question, yes, almost everyone involved has thought about your questions many, many, times. That doesn't, however, stop it from being a very hot political issue both domestically and internationally. So Uribe needs to address it, whether he thinks it's a great idea or not.

Luckily for him, the FARC just demonstrated their incredible arrogance and isolation to the world better than if he'd written their response himself.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jan 2, 2006, 22:38:

... GIB says: "They can not be trusted sorry to say. A treaty is only as good as the men who are signing it. So an unconditional surrender by FARC would be the only negotiating I would do."

If FARC signed an unconditional surrender, how could we trust their signature?

But as Mr. Hollywood indicates, we won't have to worry about that question because FARC has just shot itself in the foot again with its arrogance. FARC ought to take my advice and disarm... or take a hint from subcomandante Marcos who just embraced nonviolent struggle: Zapatistas' Marcos Quits Armed Struggle for Peaceful Campaign by Jo Tuckman (January 2, 2006, Guardian/UK)

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Jan 3, 2006, 07:43:

Political pressure on government is high I think the kidnappings may put significant pressure on the governments, especially if the right person is kidnapped. M19 leader Navarro Wolf said that when he learned that M19 had kidnapped an important politician he knew the peace process between the M19 and the government would succeed as it would put enough pressure on the government to make them offer a deal that was acceptable to the M19. Also, the narcotics dealers have been able to exact concessions and I think even changes to the constitution through kidnappings and terrorism. So if the pressure is on the government - and with some American CIA/contractors and important Colombians captive the pressure may be significant - it may not matter whether the FARC look bad or mean for refusing a humanitarian exchange.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jan 3, 2006, 08:09:

GIB, Even in an unconditional surrender there really are conditions, namely those provided by international law. You cannot mistreat, torture or murder the enemy after an unconditional surrender.

Would you respect international law if FARC surrendered unconditionally and treat the surrendered FARC members as Colombian citizens with equal rights?

Your answer may reveal why FARC is not interested in surrendering unconditionally.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jan 3, 2006, 11:39:

GIB, We are in agreement, it all begins with a FARC surrender. You are willing to go much farther than I am in helping the FARC find work. My hat is off to you.

Uribe is doing the best job he can, and it is a difficult situation he is in right now. FARC is not seeking to work with Uribe toward peace. FARC will pay a price for that stubborness.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 5, 2006, 01:41:

FARC's inept response, Uribe's failed strategy. The letter from FARC is here: http://www.farcep.org/novedades/comunicados/sec2006/enero_01a.php

Miguel: "(...) and the regular colombiano is going to pay the price."

Sadly, that's the case.

Mr H.: "the FARC just demonstrated their incredible arrogance and isolation to the world better than if he'd written their response himself."

I would qualify this a bit. First, this is not to defend FARC, but they have unilaterally released what they consider to be legitimate prisoners of war; can't say the same about the government. Now it's hard for me to figure out what should've been FARC's response (I must admit, I find it REALLY hard to put myself in their shoes). Uribe and FARC have the moral imperative to find a solution to this problem. FARC has to stop extorsive kidnapping, that's for sure. The question is, given the current situation, what would've been a reasonable response from FARC? From Uribe's side, and particularly if Mr. Lecompte's accusation is true, this has all the elements of an electoral tactic at the expense of those kidnapped: If the FARC had said "yes", he could've extended an electorally profitable charade of talks, just to end it as soon as reelection was guaranteed; if the FARC said no (as in fact they did), that supports his view of them as heartless bastards and promotes his national security strategy. Should FARC have played along in a game that their opponent was going to win EITHER way?

Ultimately, Uribe's strategy (if there is any) to free those kidnapped is failing. As much as it may help his reelection, blaming FARC does not alleviate their situation. If FARC won't come to the table under reasonable terms, then his government should figure out something else, a sound military option if necessary. Yelling is certainly not a strategy.

As for FARC, they should've replied with an alternative deal that would have seemed reasonable to public opinion, a take-it-or-leave-it maybe, to avoid playing Uribe's game. But they didn't, and that's where their "incredible arrongance and isolation" lie: in their indifference towards public opinion, and their presumption that they don't need to propose anything.

Vladimiro: "M19 leader Navarro Wolf said that when he learned that M19 had kidnapped an important politician he knew the peace process between the M19 and the government would succeed as it would put enough pressure on the government to make them offer a deal that was acceptable to the M19"

I think this quote is false. Could you direct us to where you got it from? Particularly because the Barco administration did not make an "acceptable" offer to M19: M19 pretty much surrendered, and simply asked for amnesty for non-atrocious crimes. Navarro himself has stated that M19's decision was rather unilateral and mostly because of huge military blunders combined with a more open political framework on which to operate.

Vladimiro: "I think even changes to the constitution through kidnappings and terrorism."

There is no evidence of that, and I personally don't believe any of these were the case.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jborrero says on Jan 5, 2006, 10:34:

FARC is a CARTEL FARC is no longer a rebel group, all left wing rebel movements in Latin America either collapsed or dismantled after the fall of the Soviet Union, with Cuba in such precarious situation, they ran out of funds to support their fight, so they either disappeared or negotiated a cease fire.
Colombia's Guerrillas substituted Soviet and Cuban assistance, with profits derived from drug processing. In the beginning they just charged a tax to the drug lords, then they realized that the real business was in running the whole operation themselves. Nowadays it has become such a profitable endeavor that they have no real interest in striking any deals with this or any other Colombian administration, besides the guys who are running the FARC are ignorant men who have been in the jungle their whole lives, and have no since of what the world is.
It's time to face the truth, the FARC must be brought to their knees and eradicated like the pest they are, there will never be a serious negotiation unless they feel that they are defeated, it was the same with the M-19, who only agreed to turn their weapons, after they were badly hit by the troops. ALL COLOMBIANS MUST STAND BEHIND OUR ARMED FORCES IN THEIR TASK OF ERRADICATING THIS SAVAGE BEASTS.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Jan 5, 2006, 10:47:

Cartels do not publicize their illegal activities.... Cartels do not invite the attention of government officials, they prefer to work in the shadows. Profit is the goal of a cartel. Governments only interfere.

FARC maintains a public website where you can read their political positions, issue statements, communiques, history, etc. Power is the goal of FARC. They use government attention, such as military action, to further their propaganda efforts among the populace.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jborrero says on Jan 5, 2006, 12:15:

FARC has no political agenda Whatever pollitical agenda the FARC once had, has long been lost; these guys are in it for the money...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jborrero says on Jan 5, 2006, 12:21:

FARC's lack of sense Colombia's capital, Bogotá, has a left party mayor, this is considered the second most important public position in the country, the same happens with Medellín, el Valle governor etc. Political spaces are beginning to open for left wing politicians who resolve to democracy, guarantees are give. Many countries in Latin America have chosen left wing presidents.
It is funny, if the FARC were to demobilize, Colombians would be more open to support the lefts proposals, but since they keep on murdering, kidnapping and trafficking; Uribe's popularity keeps sky rocketing. The more terrorism they do, the more convinced Colombians become that they have to be dealt with a strong hand.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 5, 2006, 17:21:

Drugs and errors GIB: "Legalize the drugs and let's move on. No money no FARC."

That, in fact, is FARC's position: http://six.swix.ch/farcep/Documentos/legalizar.html

jborrero: It's not necessarily lack of sense. It's very old FARC policy to intensify the conflict. Their real enemies are not Uribe and the conservatives, but the democratic left. As for your first post, it's full of factual errors. Take your first sentence: "all left wing rebel movements in Latin America either collapsed or dismantled after the fall of the Soviet Union". Not Chavez's 92 movement, nor the cocaleros in Bolivia, the indigenous insurrections in Ecuador and in Peru, or the other insurgencies in Colombia (ELN, ELP). Many of the insurgencies signed peace treaties in the late 80s in Colombia, not because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, but because of political reforms attained through (believe it or not) negotiations of the FARC with the Betancur administration. As you can see, correcting your factual errors takes too much typing, so I'll leave it there.

"ALL COLOMBIANS MUST STAND BEHIND OUR ARMED FORCES IN THEIR TASK OF ERRADICATING THIS SAVAGE BEASTS."

If that was their only job, and these guys were literally "savage beasts", I would. In fact, I'd join them, as is the only logical action one could follow given your assessment (what's your rank jb?). But neither one is completely true, so I remain a fully critical civilian citizen.

"these guys are in it for the money..."

How much money do they make? How much do they spend? What's the net profit?

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 5, 2006, 17:43:

Let's do the math 35 million x year / 25 K = $1400 per capita, per year. Divide it by 12 months, and I don't think you don't even make it for a minimum salary. What about expenses (transportation, guns, etc.)? Are they included? If not, we are talking about a meager few thousand pesos.

If the FARC are in it for the money, maybe they are as stupid as some people think. But I am a follower of Sun Tzu; I assume that my enemy is smarter than me until proven otherwise.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 5, 2006, 18:08:

FARConomics "Sounds like a task for the whiz kids in Langley, VA."

Bet your ass someone is already running those numbers, he he.

I'll look around for that analysis. Quantum mechanics seems much simpler to me than FARConomics. Income coming from all different sources, all kind of weird expenses, which compound by their illegal nature, and on and on. I wonder how this is all sorted out.

One thing seems clear to me, though. Almost everyone who is "in it for the money", regardless of how uneducated s/he may be, doesn't get the money just for the sake of it, but to enjoy it. Even if every legal system is after you, you can always find a sympathetic nation that will take you along with your bank account. So, why would the FARC elite, some of whom are highly educated for Colombian standards, would choose to spend their money hiding in the middle of the Colombian jungle, with the constant fear of getting killed or incarcelated? Even if you make, say, US$100K a year, which is not a criminal amount, you would have a lot of trouble spending the whole thing in the middle of Guaviare!

They certainly like the money... they NEED the money... but are they "in it for the money"? Sounds kind of dumb to me.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Wastelandlive says on Jan 5, 2006, 19:35:

Interesting viewpoint Sr. T. One of the most common errors in political analysis is to demand consistency, unity and/or rationality in explaining some group's - any group's - behavior.

Wasteland

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 5, 2006, 22:06:

Sr. Tertius

I don't understand how the FARC very occassionally doing the right thing and releasing POWs somehow mitigates for their kidnapping of thousands of innocent civilians. These dudes try to hide behind the Geneva conventions yet daily drag civilians into the conflict as human shields, targets, kidnapping victims, unwitting bomb carriers, etc.

And I'm curious why you perceive the government as so harsh against their own captives from the FARC? Most of the FARC guys in prison on long terms are there for secondary crimes, like murder or kidnapping. Those doing time for rebellion don't get very harsh sentences at all and are released. And, also, you have to factor in the goverment programs for FARC deserters, which let them skip the prisoner phase entirely and go right into being fed, housed, educated and taken care of in a way they never were before.

My personal thought on the FARC's refusal to negotiate is that these "VIP" captives are the equivalent of a kidnapping insurance policy for the top FARC leaders. It's only a matter of time before Raul Reyes or Mono Jojoy or some other Secretariat member ends up captured. And when that happens I think you're going to suddenly see them offering the 3 Americans and/or Ingrid as bargaining chips to get their own guy back. Until then, it's pretty cheap to keep them all eating bugs out there in the jungle.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Jan 6, 2006, 05:59:

And what about the AUC nice guys? Should they be broguth to their knees as well, considering that not all AUC groups have participated the so- called "ceasefire", if you can call it that.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Jan 6, 2006, 06:03:

Ask Simon Trinidad Why don't you guys ask Simon Trinidad. He is now in Custody and was a bank president before joining the FARC. I believe he delt with FARC Finances.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 6, 2006, 07:24:

Cali373 I don't want to divert this topic but the AUC is structured rather differently from the FARC. The AUC is a catch-all phrase used to describe paras, but not all paras were in the AUC. So a number of para groups refused to participate in the peace negotiation and, as a result, are still very much on the wrong side of the law. The FARC has a central command which has direct rank over ALL members of the FARC

Another thing to consider is that written into the "Peace and Justice" law that was negotiated with the paras and that is criticized for being too lenient, there is language guaranteeing the exact SAME treatment for any other illegal group, including the FARC and ELN, who wants to come in from the "cold" and accept the same terms.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

landcruiser77 says on Jan 6, 2006, 12:17:

25 years talking and meetings with farc KEEP TALKIN MY COLOMBIA,KEEP TALKIN WITH FARC

£æ

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 6, 2006, 13:46:

... Mostly agree with the points made by Mr. Hollywood and Sr Tertius, even if some may seem to be mutually contradictory (I don't really think so, with a bit of additional tinkering they can work together just fine).

Some people in the FARC are definitely in for the money or for employment, while others simply want to gain power, and others probably have other goals. Among those, the arguably "political" ones are still present (as much that may not be the FARC's immediate priority as a whole, their "political" character nevertheless exists, in the long term). It's important to note that, though the FARC does have a centralized command, not all their fronts and commanders are identical in their "greediness", "ambition", "ideological zeal", "barbarity", etc.

Oh, and something that I don't necessarily agree with is that the most important members in the FARC's secretariat are in any real danger of getting captured anytime soon. Why? Because they are the ones that are protected by the greatest number of veteran guerrillas in the most favorable defensive environment (the deepest jungles, for example), so they are definitely a hard nut to crack.

Doesn't make the capture of any secretariat member something impossible, just unlikely, and in the end it all depends on the degree of "papaya" that happens to be available. "Raul Reyes" was apparently in Ecuador when "Simon Trinidad" was captured, but managed to slip away.

Btw, though the FARC and ELN officially reject the "Justice and Peace" Law, it's not just because of some perceived "moral superiority", but because they also consider that it's too harsh for them to submit to.

0 funny, 0 helpful.