‘There’s another side to the violence in Colombia’ By Jose Zepeda*

dwmte7 says on Jul 11, 2008, 15:50:

thanks, sloop....it's nice to hear her speak instead of hearing others talk about what they think she said, etc.

appreciate the article
douglas

dwmte

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jul 11, 2008, 18:01:

Unfortunately, like I tried to say earlier today in a reply that disappeared for reasons I do not know and frankly do not want to find out...but if that's the way things are going to be, I'll really need to think a few things over.

I don't think it's only about there being "another side" to the violence in Colombia.

That much is true, but Piedad Córdoba should have, IMHO, been able to talk about certain comments she has made that go far beyond pointing to other kinds of violence.

Her recent words about Manuel Marulanda, for example. Why does this interview not mention that at all?

Even SEMANA was willing to address the subject in an interview with her.

This newer interview makes it seem like all she's done is point to other abuses, when that's not really so simple.

And then we have stuff like this...

"Ms Córdoba says the guerrilla is not the cause, but the result of Colombia's serious problems. This is a controversial point of view, because the vast majority of Colombians' opinion is that FARC ceased long ago to be a revolutionary movement, and is now a band of criminals who are guilty of the worst crimes."

Obviously the guerrillas are not the cause, but they are not just a "result" by now, in 2008. They are part of the problem, but that doesn't mean they are the "cause".

And like I also wrote in a previous message, this doesn't mean she should be threatened or insulted, but that criticism per se cannot be automatically equated with the above.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sloopskipper says on Jul 12, 2008, 02:10:

dwmte7 says on Jul 11, 2008, 15:50: flag

"thanks, sloop....it's nice to hear her speak instead of hearing others talk about what they think she said, etc.

appreciate the article
douglas"

My pleasure Douglas.

My late wife was Dutch and I got hooked on Radio Nederlands (and BBC) on shortwave many years ago, and I used to listen often. It was refreshing that they were usually not in lockstep with the North American news sources.

You don't need a shortwave radio now, as you can listen to the broadcasts from Hilversum on the internet, in many languages.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

dwmte7 says on Jul 12, 2008, 15:40:

i dunno, doc, i think you lost me with all that protracted logic and consequential theory. if my enemy is my friend, then i have no enemy, then i should drop my defenses, then i should just drop dead...is that how it goes.

dwmte

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Jul 14, 2008, 00:56:

Sorry doc, I do not know that I can completely swallow this one. You have a point and it certainly is one that has been put forth by some people with respect to the Cold War; however, it is difficult to accept this theory as being fruitful for Colombia.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Jul 14, 2008, 14:07:

Absolutely, doc. And of course my not agreeing 100% w/ your opinion does not mean that it is not true or valid.

My problem is this: the paras deep involvement in drug trafficking, their overwhelming infiltration of politics, and their spectacular rise to the top of the list in terms of human rights violations, makes them a pretty difficult friend to tolerate. Also, the complicity between certain politicians, army officials and the paras makes it difficult to say with absolute certainty that the paras were not part of the system (it blurs the lines) instead of a simple enemy of Colombia's enemy (the FARC). It is hard for a government to be taken seriously when it condemns terrorism, yet turns a blind eye and/or assists one terrorist group simply because it claims to be opposed to a common enemy. The paras are more famous for killing innocents than FARC combatants; therefore, many Colombians would be justified in recognizing them as an enemy of Colombia. Colombia has always had a weak State...in my view, the paras are an extension of that and their recent activity (during the last couple decades) in many ways has made the State weaker.

In South America during the Cold War...well, I would argue that the US was consumed with irrational fears. Most of the leftist leaders that we opposed in the region had tenuous relations at best with the Soviet Union. Some were pushed into this relationship by the US. Ironically, many of these leaders were not even supported by the communist party in their own country, yet the US distributed propaganda to make it seem like they were Soviet puppets. What I always found interesting is that we accused the Soviets of being these despicable/evil characters, yet we acted just like them committing the same if not worse crimes all over the region. And we gave these violent/repressive dictators more that financial aid. My view is that it was not necessary, effective and it possibly did a lot more harm than good.

That, however, is just my opinion. And you do not have to swallow any of it, but I do have faith that we can still be friends.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 14, 2008, 14:25:

besides, Cordoba is part of the government.... how can she be her own enemy? this logic fails.
And what I think lcacique implies- there is no evidence that would indicate the end of paras if FARC was absolutely wiped out, maybe change in form but not cease to exist...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

quantum says on Jul 14, 2008, 18:25:

change in form, como? U mean to drug running mafiosos, immersed in every kind of criminal activity. What other reason would they have to continue to exist once the FARC go the way of all things?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 15, 2008, 00:13:

you need to read on the essence of the vigilante and if that's not disgusting enough for you then sure add the drug related criminalities.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Dolfi says on Jul 15, 2008, 00:52:

"The Ememy of my Enemy is my Friend."

I agree, this is a typical guideline of Us foreign policies. It made them support Saddam Hussein against Iran, the Taliban against the Russians, Somoza against the Sandinistas. And it allways ended in a desaster.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 15, 2008, 08:58:

It's all about perspective... sure from my perspective FARC is who I need to fear most, though all the anti-para commentary I make probably puts me high on their list too. Anyways, my expereince from talking to people from all social classes and regions of the country, paras are much deadlier. Nevertheless FARC is also a bunch of thugs of a different breed.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Jul 15, 2008, 12:39:

doc, like I have said elsewhere, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to consider my opinions whether you agree with them or not. It is a quality that is lacking here on pbh. I think it is a sign of strength and it is an admirable trait.

My points, in part, were based on slightly more abstract ideas. The idea that a government is hard to trust when they give either direct or indirect support to an illegal armed group that is guilty of carrying out massacres. Colombians long history of using its own military against its own civilians, wealthy landowners utilizing private militias (paramilitary) against any threats real or perceived, and the current situation where there appears to be several links between the Colombian government/military and the paramilitary severely weaken the government. A government, in my opinion, cannot say that it is against terrorism (the FARC) yet utilize it when it is beneficial (the paras). I am not just worried about the fact that the paras may continue to exist without the FARC, I am also concerned with the Colombian government's history of allowing such groups to function as well as its relationship over the years (either direct or indirect) with private militias. To me, it seems to demonstrate a troubling pattern. And there are a multitude of reasons why this should be avoided.

I do, however, agree wholeheartedly that some people welcome the paras with open arms. But as romy points out, it depends who you ask. I have also spoke with Colombians in various parts of the country, in various levels of society, from various educational backgrounds, in big cities and small towns and the answers were quite nuanced. I heard people that absolutely loved the paras, others that feared them, others that hated them, some mistakenly believed they were communists, others felt they were simply armies utilized to control the drug industry, and still others felt they were militias used to protect the expansive lands of the wealthy. Friends (who are more family than friends, actually), told me stories about waking up to dead bodies in the streets of their town at the hands of the paras. They lost family members and close friends. From their perspective, there was no difference between the paras and the guerrillas, similar to how Gabo claimed in Cien años that "The only difference today between Liberals and Conservatives is that the Liberals go to mass at five o'clock and the Conservatives at eight."

I also met many, Many, MANY people (from all parts of Colombia) who praised Pablo Escobar, people that considered him a saint. Several were certain he was still alive. And there was also a lot of love for Carlos Ledher. So, public opinion, especially in a country like Colombia where people are not always exposed to all of the facts about a given issue, is not always the best tool in deciphering what is needed in terms of policy.

I also do not see the issue as one or the other. If we assume, like the people you have spoken with--doc, that Colombians disapprove more of the FARC than the paras (which I assume is most likely the case), this in no way means that one cannot fight the paras at the same time. It is like saying that the police should not deal with street crime because the people are more worried about the FARC than they are of some petty criminal. And the police definitely should not arrest criminals that are against the FARC because they may be useful for the time being until the war with the FARC is over. One of the FARC's greatest enemies was the drug cartels. It is too bad that Pablo's dead, but we could release all of the other major figures from the cartels so that they can do battle with the FARC also. On a serious note, fighting the paras does not really include the Colombian military so it is not as if you need to redirect the military's resources away from its war on the FARC.

But look, there is no doubt that Colombia is extremely complex and that it faces many more obstacles. I do not have the answers.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 15, 2008, 12:52:

another thing to think about in further considering that the raison d'etre of paras isn't merely to wipe out FARC, is the difference between Paras and bodyguards? the difference between paras and hired guns?... the lines are very blurry and gives an insight on why these will continue to exist, particularly in Colombia if nothing else is done in addition to getting rid of FARC. Thugs will continue to thrive, be they left leaning or in this case right leaning...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Jul 15, 2008, 13:16:

That is funny, doc. Sometimes I think that people simply choose a party because they like one color over the other. In many cases (not all, and not necessarily everywhere), there is not very much difference between the two parties if you ask me.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jul 15, 2008, 13:23:

I could never be a republican... knowing the history. Though I could see myself agreeing with with one of their candidates...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jul 15, 2008, 14:26:

"I could never be a republican... knowing the history. Though I could see myself agreeing with with one of their candidates..."

Which one?

Not being bound to swear to the dogmas of any master

0 funny, 0 helpful.