Mass kidnapping by FARC

Mr. Hollywood says on Nov 29, 2005, 17:20:

English story Colombian authorities have rescued 14 people from a
group of 22 who were kidnapped by suspected leftist rebels in the southern Guaviare department, police said Tuesday.

The kidnap victims were freed after Colombian forces exchanged fire with guerrillas in a treacherous jungle area, Colonel Angelo Franco told Radio Caracol.

Authorities earlier said 16 people had been kidnapped Monday, but Franco, Guaviare's police commander, said 22 people had been seized by suspected rebels from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

The victims were motorists and merchants who were stopped at an illegal roadblock in a rural area in the municipality of Guacamayas, he said.

Witnesses said rebels killed a young man on a bike.

About 3,000 people are kidnapped each year in Colombia, although recent government figures show that only 172 people were kidnapped in the first quarter of 2005, the lowest figure in two decades.

The country has endured a four-decade-old conflict, pitting leftist
guerrillas against the government, that has killed more than 200,000 people.

jalf12 says on Nov 29, 2005, 17:38:

I've been to colombia sveral times now, both of my two sons were born in Bogota. Once I went to Pereira on a bus and three of the toll booths had been blown up by the FARC. I talk a lot with my father-in-law about the situation in Colombia and he usually knows both sides of the story. I see there is so much desperation there it is hard to condodne or condemn either side. As an American I would like to think if my country were in a similar situation wouldn't I be fighting?, and which side your on may just depend are where your born. But my father-in-law really doesn't like the US world polocies and didn't really like gringos until he met one:ME:) Now he has not one, but two gringo son in laws........
"Si no le gusta la sopa le dan dos platos"

platano says on Nov 29, 2005, 22:23:

Hmmmmmm, from 3,050 down to 400 in only three years... If my math is correct, we only need reelect Uribe as President and kidnapping will be completly eliminated from Colombia in short order.

plátano

caslug says on Nov 30, 2005, 06:29:

wait! i thought around COL was safe!.. WTF!!! he, he...

litost says on Nov 30, 2005, 07:23:

It's Guaviare... not even those of us most accused of sugar-coating the security situation in Colombia would recommend a foreigner going there. It's simple, there are still some regions where it is clearly better not to go. Many others are actually quite safe. It seems that it's an equation that's difficult to understand for some people... so the easiest is just to say COLOMBIA IS UNSAFE!!!

Sr Tertius says on Nov 30, 2005, 07:40:

No excuses This happened just 5 km from the "Joaquín París" battalion, at the heart of the Plan Patriota operations.

http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/coar/ACC_MILITARES/accionesarmadas/ARTICULO-WEB-_NOTA_INTERIOR-2633661.html

There is no excuse for an incident like this. The Colombia that supposedly became safe is not the urban centers, but the periphery where the armed conflict has traditionally been fought. If this administration cannot guard a 5 km perimeter around its own battalions, something is going terribly wrong.

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

litost says on Nov 30, 2005, 08:22:

I wasn't making excuses for anything, just as far as security for people panning on visiting Colombia is concerned, what may happen in places like Guaviare, Arauca or Putumayo is pretty irrelevant. It is not representative of what you encounter in the majority of the country, majority being where most of the population lives and where the most visited tourist destinations lie.

juancegomez says on Nov 30, 2005, 18:53:

Then again...

Seems nobody cares too much about pointing out the fact that this seems to be the first such kidnapping (as far as is known) in the region in about two years.

Nor about the fact that most of those kidnapped (14/22 or so) were quickly released due to prompt military pressure.

That, obviously, doesn't remove the other side of the coin: that it was a major blunder to permit such a thing to happen in the first place.

It reveals, as has been said, that the security situation is very far from being fully safe, and thus it definitely deserves to be criticized for what it is: only a partially and unevenly improved situation, but relatively improved nevertheless.

However, both sides need to be taken into consideration. Neither aspect of the situation is occurring in a vacuum.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 1, 2005, 07:34:

If I were middle/upper class... I'd be reading this from Miami Tinto, if you were middle/upper class Colombian, you would certainly be happier with the current situation, relative to, say, a few years ago. It's the rather free association of Uribe and prosperity that I question, and that this incident is revealing of:

"- best kidnapping stats in a decade
- best homicide stats in 20 years"

Because of Uribe or because of policies at a local level that are, in fact, inconsistent with "seguridad democrática"? I'd be happy with Mockus, not Uribe.

"- much improved road security" True
"- fewer attacks on infrastructure" False: http://www.seguridadydemocracia.org/datosConflicto.asp

"- a "world community" that has pretty much lumped the FARC, ELN and AUC into the category of narcos/terrorists/insurgents/whatever."

Thanks to Pastrana, not Uribe (who in fact, has seen a resurgence of international legitimacy of the FARC)

"- best economic growth in a decade"

Yes, this is a positive point. That being said, it is not as good as most of our neighbors in South America. Everyone is growing, we are growing slower, yet, better than before.

"- best coffee prices since 1998
- best crude oil and natural gas prices ever
- probably the best prices and largest amount of coal exports ever"

Again, to what extent Uribe has control over this? Prices are set by the international market, over which Colombia is a very minor player. The rebound in the price of coffee was expected, Uribe or no Uribe.

"- lowest inflation in five decades"
"- a stable/increasing peso"

These are responsabilities of the central bank (Banco de la República), which is independent of the executive branch.

If you look at the responsibilities of the executive branch, security is kind of important, particularly because Uribe has put it first in his agenda. This is were things have gone horribly wrong, regardless of the perception of the most affluent (see http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/15113). As I check the 100 point manifesto of his campaign, I don't see any reference to offering security only "where most of the population lives and where the most visited tourist destinations lie", where security is more a matter of local, not national policy. What I do see in the transcripts of his former interior+justice minister are promises of erradicating the drug business from Colombia by 2003. How did that go?

"but whatever you want to call it, there's still a violent conflict or war going on...things aren't going to change overnight for all people."

Has anything changed overnight for anyone? I mean, the war has been fought, for 50 years, in relatively marginal areas or rural Colombia, not in the cities. Yes, Pastrana+Uribe had to face an attempt by FARC to force negotiations by bringing the war to the cities, but that lasted, what, 3 years at most, and it finished not because of much of what the central government did, but because of the clear incompetence of the FARC to operate as urban guerilla. Taking a larger perspective on things... well, things haven't changed at all for the people who were promised that this war was going to be on its way out. Yet this failure of president has the most chances of being re-elected... something is going terriby wrong!

Juance: "Seems nobody cares too much about pointing out the fact that this seems to be the first such kidnapping (as far as is known) in the region in about two years."

Yes, some credit should be given to Uribe. The thesis that the FARC was "replegada" (my English fails me, and so does my dictionary) seems to gaining validity. But "replegada" is not "eliminada", is not even on its way to be "eliminada". Plus, Uribe has taken a rather honest approach to the mass kidnap incident (http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/coar/ACC_MILITARES/accionesarmadas/ARTICULO-WEB-_NOTA_INTERIOR-2635931.html). That's a very positive sign, a move that past presidents wouldn't dare to take. He even corrects some of the wrong data that juance presented here.

Today's editorial from El Tiempo:

http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/opinion/reda/2005-12-01/ARTICULO-WEB-_NOTA_INTERIOR-2635642.html

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

juancegomez says on Dec 1, 2005, 09:49:

Sr Tertius... I knew somebody would think/say something like that as soon as I read the EL TIEMPO article this morning...

"Plus, Uribe has taken a rather honest approach to the mass kidnap incident (http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/coar/ACC_MILITARES/accionesarmadas/ARTICULO-WEB-_NOTA_INTERIOR-2635931.html). That's a very positive sign, a move that past presidents wouldn't dare to take. He even corrects some of the wrong data that juance presented here."

I may or may not be wrong...but curiously enough, I seem to remember you, or possibly some other people here, criticizing Uribe for making such repeated "ear pullings" in order to assume the role of the "teacher" punishing the "bad students", scoring political points by redirecting any responsibility. Guess things do change a bit here, from time to time.

Uribe has not presented any information that backs up his description of the situation, other than as his own re-interpretation.

However, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to know that if there had been no military reaction, or only a much slower one, that the guerrillas would easily have hauled most/all of them off. Why wouldn't they?

Obviously they may have had more interest in taking off with five or six individuals in particular, but who can say that they wouldn't have tried to take ten or twelve or fifteen if possible?

To state with complete certainty that they surely would, or wouldn't, is pointless.

Hence I'm afraid that it's quite questionable to state that what I mentioned is "wrong" or "correct", at least not without a much more detailed presentation and analysis of the facts.

In the meanwhile, it's an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Just as valid as that of anybody else here, or Uribe's for that matter (as long as he keeps any unknown but potentially important information to himself, but we cannot assume that automatically).

Lisa Zee says on Dec 1, 2005, 22:55:

Que Paso con INGRID BETANCOUR? Who can tell me about Ingrid Betancour?

juancegomez says on Dec 2, 2005, 12:18:

Nada nuevo. The FARC, or the next closest thing, I imagine.