Pst! Don't go to the easy 7 second sign up. Existing users: sign in.

FORUMS

all forums, active | friendly talkzone, travel tips, visa & paperwork, renting, selling & meetups, politics & the war, espanol

Update - Farc didn't have the boy

Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, January 2, 2008; Page A06
BOGOTA, Colombia, Jan. 1 -- A 3 1/2 -year-old boy whom Marxist rebels pledged to include in a hostage release that collapsed Monday is not in their hands, and has almost certainly been living in a foster care program in Bogota, Colombian officials said in interviews on Tuesday. They believe they have located the boy and are conducting DNA tests to confirm his identity.

In an intricate operation overseen by Venezuela, helicopters from that neighboring country were to have picked up the boy, his hostage mother and another female prisoner in the jungle and flown them to Venezuela. But anguished families who have waited as long as six years to see their loved ones freed were instead shattered as the mission unraveled.

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, blamed government military operations in the area for the failure of the long-negotiated release. But Colombian officials questioned how the release could have gone forward at all, saying they had learned that the boy, born in captivity to hostage Clara Rojas, had passed out of rebel hands in 2005.

An emissary working for the rebels turned over the boy, named Emmanuel, to child protective services in the isolated town of San Jose del Guaviare in 2005, two senior officials said Tuesday. From there, he apparently wound up with a foster family in Bogota, his real identity unknown to anyone, the officials said.
The astonishing twist in a saga that captivated Colombia before the Christmas holidays began to go public Monday when Colombian President ¿lvaro Uribe flew to the operation's staging area in the town of Villavicencio. The rescue attempt, mediated by Venezuelan President Hugo Ch¿vez, drew prominent observers to Villavicencio, including filmmaker Oliver Stone and former Argentine president N¿stor Kirchner.
Uribe, known for his intense hostility toward the FARC, publicly accused the rebels of reneging on their pledge to liberate the three hostages because the group did not have control of the boy.

"When the FARC began to say that they were not turning over the hostages, supposedly because of military operations, when we had done everything possible within our reach to facilitate the hand over, we saw that the FARC was trying to fool Ch¿vez, the international community and us," said Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos in a telephone interview.

The FARC, responding on its de facto Web site, denied that the boy was not in its care and said the government had launched a "ball of smoke" to divert attention from the real reason for the operation's collapse: Uribe's intransigence.
The Uribe administration said it is hoping to scientifically match DNA from the boy, who is being closely guarded by child protection authorities in Bogota, with samples from the family of Clara Rojas, a kidnapped politician who is believed to have given birth in a rebel camp in 2004. A rebel commander is reportedly the father.

On Tuesday, a special team was dispatched to Caracas to take DNA samples from Clara Gonzalez de Rojas, mother of Clara Rojas, and the prisoner's brother, Ivan Rojas. They and other relatives of the hostages have been in the Venezuelan capital since last week, awaiting the release of their loved ones. DNA samples are also being sought from other relatives of the boy, said Santos, who said that authorities hoped for a clear match within a few days with samples from the boy found in Bogota.
"We don't lose anything by doing this," Ivan Rojas told reporters in Caracas on Tuesday. "Why would we put things in doubt?"

Last year, the boy's existence received broad news coverage in Colombia and beyond after a policeman, Jhon Frank Pinchao, escaped from a FARC camp and spoke of how he had been with Rojas and her newborn son in 2004. He said the boy was named Emmanuel. The guerrilla group received widespread condemnation for holding a child prisoner.

On Dec. 18, it announced it would hand over three hostages to Venezuela's government: Consuelo Gonzalez, a former congresswoman held since 2001; Rojas, a politician kidnapped in 2002; and the boy.
The FARC pledge prompted hope that the group, which has more than 750 hostages, including three U.S. Defense Department contractors, was prepared to make other unilateral releases.

The pledge came shortly after the Uribe government had terminated an effort by Venezuela to mediate the release of prisoners. Colombia approved the renewed role for Ch¿vez, and he began orchestrating a complex operation in which Venezuelan helicopters would fly deep into rebel territory to pick up the hostages.
But Santos and another senior government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Tuesday that military intelligence and infiltrators into the rebel group determined that while Ch¿vez was overseeing the preparations, the FARC was frantically trying to locate Emmanuel. The FARC is widely dispersed and has a decentralized command.

The guerrilla leaders who offered to give up the boy may not have realized they no longer had him, the Colombian officials said. Or they may have thought they could quickly recover him.

The guerrillas began accusing the Colombian military of launching operations, which Santos and the other senior official denied.
After the government received a tip about the boy's real whereabouts, authorities began to go through the records of about 100 children who had been turned over to child protection services in southern Colombia in 2005. They quickly narrowed their search to three boys and, by Friday, felt that they had located Emmanuel, now bearing a different name.

Santos and the other official said the boy they found had suffered an injury at birth, the same kind of injury that the escaped police officer reported Emmanuel had suffered. The boy had burn marks on one hand, a wound that Emmanuel also had. He also had suffered from jungle maladies, including malaria and leishmaniasis, which are unheard of in this chilly capital 8,000 feet above sea level.

"The coincidences are many," Santos said. "When we saw that the information coincided, well that gives us a certain level of confidence that the hypothesis that they didn't have the boy was true." The defense minister also said that the man who turned the boy over to authorities in 2005, whom he identified as Jos¿ Gomez, had gone back to child protection authorities in recent days to try to retrieve the boy.

On Tuesday morning, the officials said, Gomez confessed to prosecutors in San Jose del Guaviare that the FARC had turned the boy over to him in 2005. Claiming to be the uncle of the boy's mother, he had then given the boy to authorities.
The Colombian government's account at first irked the Venezuelan government. But after receiving details Tuesday, Ch¿vez struck a more conciliatory tone, wishing Uribe a happy holiday and calling for the two to work together for peace in Colombia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/01/AR2008...

By elk on Jan 2, 2008, 05:31 in Politics & the war.

elk says on Jan 2, 2008, 05:48:

I wonder what our friend "Hugo" will have to say if the above is true?

tasco66 says on Jan 2, 2008, 05:54:

After this I don’t think anybody will believe the lies of farc-chavez anymore…

Veni, vidi, vici

joshhyman says on Jan 2, 2008, 07:11:

If it is true that the boy was never with the FARC this entire time I want to hear Oliver Stone say he was completely wrong about the FARC and apologize to the Colombian people.

Gator says on Jan 2, 2008, 07:23:

"The guerrilla leaders who offered to give up the boy may not have realized they no longer had him, the Colombian officials said. Or they may have thought they could quickly recover him." Todos mongólicos

"Chavez struck a more conciliatory tone, wishing Uribe a happy holiday and calling for the two to work together for peace in Colombia." Yeah, right! !El güevón y un triplejueputa!

And some continue to call him and FARC a savior. Pardon me while I puke. You can NOT believe anything FARC say and I have been listening to these cara de vergais for years. Do I hate them, YES! They cost me my finca outside of Cali and a lot of hard work went with it plus the murder of one of my workmen.

"Brevior Sltare Cum Deformibus Mulieribus Est Vita!" .

elk says on Jan 2, 2008, 11:13:

Geneticists arrived in Caracas yesterday to take DNA from the Rojas family, La Nacion said, citing an interview with Emmanuel's uncle, Ivan Rojas. Rojas said the test results would be available in ``two or three days,'' La Nacion reported.

Clara and Emmanuel Rojas were among a group of three hostages that the rebel group, known as the FARC, said they would release last month in a mission backed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The mission failed.

juancegomez says on Jan 2, 2008, 11:36:

I'm still waiting for the DNA results before assuming anything about the boy's actual identity.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 2, 2008, 11:38:

I agree with Juancegomez. It all seems very tenuous.

Not implausible, just that there are a lot of other possibilities beside this one.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 2, 2008, 13:12:

Regardless of the outcome... this shit isn't serious.

I mean, c'mon, our international relations hang on a DNA test... what the fuck is this? Maury? A Venezuelan culebrón?!

Can you imagine this happening in any other country? Only in Colombia... and only with Uribe. Who, btw, had the nice touch of putting the Col government at the same level as a criminal insurgency, yelling "¡El gobierno cumple! ¡La guerrilla miente!"

This is not serious.

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

Desideria (Moderator) says on Jan 2, 2008, 13:19:

Like Mr. Desi would say: "Este es un pais muy pintoresco. Desi. Con el tiempo, lo vas a aprender a querer. Aqui no se vive pero se goza." But that was before.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 2, 2008, 13:43:

I find it deeply sad that so much hope and yearning is pinned on something so half-assed. I understand the yearning of the families, but it's not even like the FARC was making a serious offer to release all or even most of the dozens or hundreds of people they're holding. Or to renounce kidnapping as a weapon and tactic.

All that's been accomplished is to generate a bunch of publicity for the FARC, Chavez, Uribe and Oliver Stone, none of whom really need the attention.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 2, 2008, 14:30:

Ay Desi, Colombia es un pais intenso: se goza mucho pero también se sufre mucho. Yo me aguanto mucho de su folklor, pero en Colombia y Venezuela nos pasamos la raya. Nada es serio, todo es una mamadera de gallo, hasta el sufrimiento ajeno. Y después la gente se molesta porque nadie nos toma en serio.

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

cassini77 says on Jan 2, 2008, 15:30:

""When the FARC began to say that they were not turning over the hostages, supposedly because of military operations, when we had done everything possible within our reach to facilitate the hand over, we saw that the FARC was trying to fool Chavez, the international community and us," said Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos in a telephone interview."

Mr Santos, did you read what is written in the Internet site of your "cuarta division"?

http://www.cuartadivision.mil.co/?idcategoria=196968

billyb says on Jan 2, 2008, 15:34:

Wow, those sound like high intensity military ops. What were you expecting? have the army sent home for the week?

Desideria (Moderator) says on Jan 2, 2008, 15:39:

Sr. Tertius, it's like a defense mechanism. You laugh at everything because you don't want to feel the pain. I have always admired Colombian people for their resilience and resourcefullness.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

catherine b says on Jan 2, 2008, 15:45:

Sr Tertius says "Nada es serio, todo es una mamadera de gallo, hasta el sufrimiento ajeno. "

I may have to agree with you. I remember the hostage release started on el dia de los inocentes and my mom was saying that she hoped the media in Colombia did'nt pull any stupid jokes and I said to her "no way. They would'nt joke about something as serious as this." To which mom responded "Ay mija, es que usted no conoce ya a los Colombianos?"

cassini77 says on Jan 3, 2008, 18:34:

No fights, Mr Santos ?
Did you read this (from colombian army):

http://www.ejercito.mil.co/?idcategoria=197055

juancegomez says on Jan 3, 2008, 20:40:

cassini77: Do you happen to know for certain that the areas and dates mentioned in there have anything to do with the areas and dates that are needed for the liberation?

If you do, then please explain. In detail, if possible.

If not, then what is the point?

It makes little sense to complain against any and all military actions in those departments if you do not elaborate.

To pretend that all kinds of military action in several deparments should be stopped at once is...unreasonable, if you do not have specific areas and dates that have a real impact in this discussion.

Gator says on Jan 4, 2008, 06:05:

jauancegomez. the same thought occurred to me-I would like to hear the "tie in."

"Brevior Sltare Cum Deformibus Mulieribus Est Vita!" .

athensugadawg says on Jan 4, 2008, 10:53:

Simple enough....there isn't one....

billyb says on Jan 4, 2008, 10:58:

Chavez must have burst a couple of blood vessels this morning.

cassini77 says on Jan 4, 2008, 12:34:

Juancegomez, Farcs did not give me their coordinates so I am sorry I cannot answer you.
The only thing I saw is that there were hard operations near Venezuela and near Villavicencio.

juancegomez says on Jan 4, 2008, 13:17:

I understand that, but the problem is that without knowing the exact area (or at least having a very specific general region as a reference), there is no way to tell if those operations really prevent the release or not, intentionally or otherwise.

The border with Venezuela is huge, those departments are pretty big and we have no idea where the FARC hostages are right now, so we can't really draw a map without some more information.

Villavicencio is the place where the helicopters were located, but I imagine that they would have to travel somewhere else to make the actual pickup. How far? I don't know.

cassini77 says on Jan 4, 2008, 13:22:

http://www.ejercito.mil.co/index.php?idcategoria=197055

billyb says on Jan 4, 2008, 13:25:

Only a moron still won't accept the real reason why they weren't released. Does anybody here fit that description???

athensugadawg says on Jan 4, 2008, 13:33:

Hey Cassini....give it up. There is a very distinct reason why the hostages were not handed over. Are you truly that stupid or just plain stubborn???

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 4, 2008, 13:46:

What I'm trying to figure out is why the farc even bothered to offer a hostage they didn't even have?

billyb says on Jan 4, 2008, 13:50:

I don't think the higher-ups knew that he wasn't in their custody when they made the deal. Expect some FARC heads to roll in the next couple of days.

robi666 says on Jan 4, 2008, 14:03:

Or, they were so sure they could get the boy again...

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

Sr Tertius says on Jan 4, 2008, 14:07:

In hindsight, the whole thing doesn't seem so outrageous, but there are still a few holes in the story.

My hypothesis (not Stone's screenplay): Instead of keeping the kid in captivity, FARC had someone look after him pretending to be a relative. In that process the kid somehow ends up in ICBF. When FARC needs the kid back for the Villavo show, they can't get him back, and with some astonishing (almost incredible) work of intelligence, the Colombian government identifies the kid.

There seem to be a few holes in the story, though.

(1) How did the government know that the kid was in ICBF? How did the information run so fast from one of the worst bureaucracies in the Colombian government all the way up to the Defense ministry?

(2) Who is the guy who pretended to be the father? A guerrillo? Well, it appears that the guy was actually a council candidate in El Retiro for Uribe's party, Colombia Democratica (!!)

In the best scenario for Uribe, this shows that he has no communication with FARC whatsoever, which can only make things more difficult. Otherwise, why didn't the government contact FARC and tell them "look, we fucked your plan and we have the kid, now we need the other two; set them free and we'll say that you set the kid free too"? Why rush to embarrass FARC when the gov had such a powerful bargaining chip?

At the end of the day we have 1 free, 699 (or so) still in the jungle, with even less chances of seeing freedom in the future. It's going to be hard for them.

Juance: I think Cassini is taking Minister Santos's words literally. He said that there were no operations in the area. Since no one knows what was the "general area" where FARC were to deliver the kidnapped, some (including me) pressumed that there were in fact no military operations in the whole southeast of the country, not because they were holding fire but because there were no incidents. In that sense, Santos was wrong. But he is a moron, anyway, so my mistake was to take his word literally.

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

robi666 says on Jan 4, 2008, 14:12:

" How did the government know that the kid was in ICBF? How did the information run so fast from one of the worst bureaucracies in the Colombian government all the way up to the Defense ministry?"

Tertius, the FARC threatened the faked uncle to get back the boy and when he saw he could not, the man called the police for protection. That's how... o no?

catherine b says on Jan 4, 2008, 14:14:

What I heard was that the farc gave the child to this guy to care for, but the baby was so sick the man became frightened and left him at a hospital. The hospital then contacted bienestar familiar because the child looked as if he were being abused.

The same man now claims that farc threatened both him and his family to recover the child by December 30. The government claims they received a few phone calls "alerting" them to the identity and whereabouts of this child. It seems to me more likely that the govt. intercepted calls in those days OR this guy panicked realizing he would'nt be able to recover the child in time for farc and contacted the govt himself. He and his family are now under witness protection.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jan 4, 2008, 14:40:

I think once the guy came forward looking for protection from the FARC and told the govt the story it was simply a matter of good investigative work to track down the kid.

But, again, my question is why, of all the hundreds of people they have in captivity, did they offer the one they didn't actually have? Someone is pretty inept.

juancegomez says on Jan 4, 2008, 14:46:

SrTertius: "(1) How did the government know that the kid was in ICBF? How did the information run so fast from one of the worst bureaucracies in the Colombian government all the way up to the Defense ministry?"

In addition to the above...not exactly the best answer, especially as far as speed is concerned, but the government's version also seems to depend on two separate calls to GAULA (one recorded, one not) and the subsequent connections. See:

http://www.eltiempo.com/tiempoimpreso/edicionimpresa/politica/2008-01-...

"(2) Who is the guy who pretended to be the father? A guerrillo? Well, it appears that the guy was actually a council candidate in El Retiro for Uribe's party, Colombia Democratica (!!)"

Surprising indeed, if true, but according to an article in EL UNIVERSAL posted elsewhere in PBH, the guy only received 30 votes and claimed to be a displaced person, being sponsored by CD barely three months before the election.

I don't know if that's completely true but...that doesn't necessarily prevent him from being related to FARC either. I'd question their intelligence work if they didn't even try to get people to infiltrate political parties, the Uribistas included, at least at a local level. Then again...

"In the best scenario for Uribe, this shows that he has no communication with FARC whatsoever, which can only make things more difficult. Otherwise, why didn't the government contact FARC and tell them "look, we fucked your plan and we have the kid, now we need the other two; set them free and we'll say that you set the kid free too"? Why rush to embarrass FARC when the gov had such a powerful bargaining chip?"

I guess "little to no strategy" answers this. Uribe probably concluded that replying to FARC's letter, read by Chávez on TV hours earlier, was more important...was it good for the government in the short term? Apparently so. But we don't know if it'll be good for Colombia in the long term...apparently not so much.

"At the end of the day we have 1 free, 699 (or so) still in the jungle, with even less chances of seeing freedom in the future. It's going to be hard for them."

Of course, but again...we go back to the same point. The current administration likes to improvise and doesn't really want to stop and think too much about the future, at least far as this subject is concerned.

"Juance: I think Cassini is taking Minister Santos's words literally. He said that there were no operations in the area. Since no one knows what was the "general area" where FARC were to deliver the kidnapped, some (including me) pressumed that there were in fact no military operations in the whole southeast of the country, not because they were holding fire but because there were no incidents. In that sense, Santos was wrong. But he is a moron, anyway, so my mistake was to take his word literally."

I guess. I never assumed that there would be no operations in the whole east/southeast of the country (cassini77 also posted a link to military operations in Arauca, btw). One or two departments, or portions of the same, is what I was thinking of.

However, I do imagine that the actual diplomats and government officials in Colombia and Venezuela should be, in secret, talking about far more specific areas. Or at least they should have been...

Sr Tertius says on Jan 4, 2008, 15:08:

The stories that I am reading, including the one posted by Juance, tell the story that robi, catherine, and Mr H. tell me, but in reverse order: Uribe revealed the plot, and then the guy who tried to take the kid asked for protection in exchange for further information. Juance's link explains the situation a bit more, with the two phone calls, which still seem kind of mysterious to me. Who made those calls?

Juance: Like you, I don't think that the political affiliation of this guy says anything about any kind of conspiracy theory, but it reveals the lack of background check on those who join the Uribista parties. You'd think that with the whole parapolitica scandal they would've learned.

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

catherine b says on Jan 4, 2008, 15:25:

I was just reading about Las Madres de Plaza de Mayo giving their support to FARC!!?! It seems incredible to me that these women (regardless of their political ideology) who had their own children and loved ones taken from them and murdered would feel solidarity towards ANY group that kidnaps, tortures and murders others. What about solidarity for the mothers and loved ones of the hostages taken by farc???
http://www.talcualdigital.com/Avances/SeccionAvances.asp?IdAvance=2924...

Sr Tertius says on Jan 4, 2008, 15:38:

I don't know, but Doña Hebe seems to be pretty pissed off.

http://www.madres.org/asociacion/jueves/jueves.asp

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

catherine b says on Jan 4, 2008, 15:46:

Jejeje. Yeah, I was doing some research on her and among other questionable things such as her support for ETA and Al Qaeda (she just loves those terrorists) she was also the cause of a schism between Las Madres De La Plaza de Mayo. It's divided now into two groups; the radical one presided over by de Bonafini and the moderate apolitical one who've denounced her style as abusive and dictatorial.

juancegomez says on Jan 4, 2008, 15:50:

Ignorance, I guess, explains it. The comparison is structurally flawed, because the conditions of most FARC prisoners are completely different than those of most kidnapped victims. I shouldn't even need to say this, let alone explain it in detail, but apparently some people, like this woman, can't grasp that.

Jailed FARC personnel have specific sentences and access to reductions and other benefits which are absolutely unknown to people under FARC's control. Even if you counted those cases in which Colombian authorities might abuse prisoners, there are still way too many differences.

Several of which can be summed up in one word: rotation. It's not the same 500 (or whatever the real figure is) FARC people staying behind bars for years until the Colombian government generously decides to liberate them in an exchange. The hostages in FARC's hands, unfortunately, do tend to be there indefinitely. It makes no sense to talk of FARC "hostages" rotting in Colombian jails, when everything is considered.

I don't know if she's essentially using her experiences in Argentina as a guide, but...again, ignorance says it all. I'm sure there is far more logic to her own cause in Argentina than to her opinions about Colombia.

catherine b says on Jan 4, 2008, 15:53:

From what I've recently learned about her, they don't seem to like her much in Argentina either and there's even some doubt that her sons are even "desaparecidos". Some claim the boys could'nt stand mom (can't imagine why) anymore amd took off to live with their dad in Europe.

juancegomez says on Jan 4, 2008, 15:55:

Well, that shows how little I know about Argentina...but at least you won't see me talking about it in public.

billyb says on Jan 4, 2008, 16:20:

billyb says on Friday January 4th, 2008 13:50: edit

I don't think the higher-ups knew that he wasn't in their custody when they made the deal. Expect some FARC heads to roll in the next couple of days.

robi666 says on Friday January 4th, 2008 14:03:

Or, they were so sure they could get the boy again...

Either way, I guarantee that there are FARC heads rolling for this mistake as we speak.

catherine b says on Jan 4, 2008, 16:26:

billyb says "Either way, I guarantee that there are FARC heads rolling for this mistake as we speak."

And with farc that could be literally, not just figuratively.

robi666 says on Jan 4, 2008, 18:31:

Have a look at the new stuff about the FARC... and the new version!
Uribe kidnapped the child!

billyb says on Jan 4, 2008, 21:57:

How do you kidnap a hostage? Just goes to show how deluded they are.

cassini77 says on Jan 5, 2008, 00:36:

The extremist declarations of Las Madres de Plaza de Mayo show there is certainly a big problem between colombian government and public opinions in the rest of the world.
The channels of communication seem broken between Uribe and the other south american countries as they are broken inside Colombia (look at the problems for Uribe receiving Moreno; in other "democratic" countries it is not a problem for the president receiving opposition alcades).

billyb says on Jan 5, 2008, 16:13:

Again, who cares what a bunch of left wingers in the rest of think? All that matters is what Colombia thinks.