Uribe disregards recognizing the political status of FARC

romy says on Apr 24, 2008, 11:39:

Chavez and Correa are thinking taking off the terrorist label will ease negotiations.

ColombianoGringo says on Apr 24, 2008, 11:54:

I think that those two would simply do anything to antagonize Uribe. The very last thing that should be done is to grant them belligerent status. The first thing they would do is claim that most of the hostages were now valid POWs.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 24, 2008, 16:41:

Romy, you're naive if you think it's about easing negotiations. Removing the terrorist label and giving the FARC beligerant status makes it legal and easy to fund and otherwise support them.

vladimiro says on Apr 24, 2008, 18:35:

If Venezuela and Ecuador recognized the FARC they could gain more influence over the organization. I think it is about negotiations, because neither Venezuela nor Ecuador need US or European permission to support the FARC if that were what they wanted. Not only are more violence, instability, and drug trafficking against their countries' interests, but I believe they would prefer a leftist government to be democratically elected in Colombia eventually. Reckless FARC terrorism can easily derail that goal.

romy says on Apr 24, 2008, 23:43:

Mr. Hollywood- you talk to Chavez and Correa? pretty dumb fellows (those two), if you're a reliable source. Maybe next time you talk to them ask them how they're going to explain that to their citizens who still believe in democracy...
Awesome how you write on here as if you knew the truth and assume what position I would have.

CG- arguably the soldiers and military contractors are already considered POWs. I doubt the other hostages could gain that status even if the FARC was said to be a legal force.

slguy says on Apr 25, 2008, 05:51:

"CG- arguably the soldiers and military contractors are already considered POWs"

by who? i've never seen a reference to POWs...only to kidnap victims.

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

romy says on Apr 25, 2008, 07:48:

sorry, I meant to say "by some". I'll dig it up this afternoon when I get some time, but it's out there if you want to do your own search.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 25, 2008, 08:34:

Romy, note that I've never said whether or not I talk to Presidents Correa or Chavez. Nor did I call either of them dumb. What I said is that you are naive if you think granting belligerent status is something that's intended to, or that will result in, an "easing of negotiations." And I stand by that.

Study the political and legal history of this kind of conflict a bit. You'll see I'm talking about.

jorgegdiaz says on Apr 25, 2008, 08:49:

wrong thread... sorry

Man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day.

romy says on Apr 25, 2008, 11:10:

Mr. Hollywood- I know you don't, thus the tone of my comment. The point of my comment was that you comment as if you knew the 'truth' yet I don't believe you have access to information that the rest of us don't (ie.talk to Chavez/Correa). So anything you say is your opionion, which may 100% correct but also it may be naiive to someone that actually knows what's going on behind the scenes.

I do believe that if what you said is true, then Chavez and Correa are pretty dumb (see how it's my opinion and I don't imply I have all the answers).

also, what side of the political and legal history do you imply that you have better knowledge than me? I'm not an expert in the field, so there's a lot I don't know, but I'm curious what it is you know that you think I don't know.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 25, 2008, 11:27:

For future reference, Romy, just infer a giant IMHO in front of everything I type.

Now, you're the one suggesting that Chavez and Correa are dumb for seeking recognition of the FARC as a legitimate "rebel" group. I don't think they are dumb about that. The legal details are arcane and, as always with international law, fairly fuzzy, but the key difference between a group with recognized belligerent status, ie. the Sandinistas or FMLN, and one without, ie. Sendero Luminoso, FARC, is that it becomes easier for a recognized group to travel internationally, fundraise, buy weapons, etc. It is totally legitimate for a sovereign state to show support to a belligerent group, as opposed to a terrorist group, which violates international law.

Recognition also, for better or worse, would make the FARC subject to the Geneva Conventions, which in the case of the FARC would mean that they could be subjected to war crimes trials but would also accord all captured FARC the rights of prisoners of war, rather than the standard of common criminals.

The reason I think Chavez and Correa are very anxious to see the FARC granted this status actually has a lot to do with the potential implications of international sanctions for their alleged support of the FARC.

slguy says on Apr 25, 2008, 11:47:

"Uribe disregards recognizing the political status of FARC"

it seems to me the president recognizes FARC's status very clearly. he demontrated this just across the border recently...;)

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

vladimiro says on Apr 25, 2008, 19:07:

The State Department's terrorist list and the European's terror list are not international law(some groups are on one list and not the other for instance). International law covers human rights and war crimes for all groups regardless of their political status.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 26, 2008, 14:14:

Given the choice between defending yourself in the Hague on charges of supporting a group NOT on the terrorist lists, or supporting a group that IS on the terrorist lists, which would you prefer, Vlad?

docwilliam says on Apr 26, 2008, 14:50:

FARC would have to recognise and sign on too the Geneva Convention to be held accountable. Most of the enemies of the US, sinse WWII have done niether. The North Koreans and Vietnamese prefured executing Solders' (Infantry), as apposed to taking prisoners (different for Airforce and Naval Pilots). North Korea even has a history of executing American Infantry after the 1953 ceisefire and they will never be held responsible for it, because of United Nations Politics.

"There's no time to panic"

juancegomez says on Apr 28, 2008, 19:16:

Belligerence and political status are not equivalent. Even if the press tends to confuse the two.

I support using a more diplomatic language, including the recognition of political status (which even Pastrana, Samper and others already did), but not (without going into the details, previously discussed several months ago) that of FARC as a belligerent (which has not been officially and formally done to date, ever).

That is a bit more complicated, to say the least, depending on its consequences and the context surrounding it.

romy says on Apr 28, 2008, 20:43:

can you point out the post where it was previously discussed? As it stands right now I'm not sure about 'belligerance' either, but what are you suggesting by political status?

juancegomez says on Apr 28, 2008, 22:29:

I can look for the posts tomorrow, but it's more or less along the lines of what was mentioned in this article:

---------------------------
Enero 14 de 2008

Qué es y qué repercusiones tiene el Estatus de Beligerancia


Blog: ¿Debe una palabra se interponerse en la esperanza de los secuestrados?

A partir de las recientes declaraciones del presidente Venezolano Hugo Chávez de quitarle el grado de terroristas y otorgarles el estatus de beligerancia a las guerrillas de las Farc y el Eln, Terra Colombia ha querido hacer claridad sobre las repercusiones de dicha propuesta.

En términos de derecho internacional, se trata de una figura que le permite a una facción armada no gubernamental, si cumple determinadas condiciones de mando, estructura, control territorial y respeto a las normas mínimas de la guerra, obtener apoyo y reconocimiento externo, lo que le da derecho, incluso, a tener voceros diplomáticos y apoyo financiero.

Para entender mejor este tema y sus implicaciones, es necesario definir el concepto de beligerancia.

El Estatus de beligerancia, en su acepción más simple, consiste en atribuir la importancia suficiente para contender con él. Sin embargo, el uso del concepto depende del carácter del conflicto armado en el cual se aplique.

La Beligerancia es una figura que tiene por finalidad conferir a una de las Partes en un conflicto armado (interno o internacional) un estatus especial por medio del cual, sin que sea necesario reconocerle personería jurídica, el Estado que lo reconoce como tal, tácita o expresamente, establece relaciones comerciales, semidiplomáticas, diplomáticas, políticas o económicas con la Parte reconocida. Ese reconocimiento lo puede hacer el gobierno del Estado escenario de la confrontación, aunque no es usual, por sus posibles repercusiones (cambio del gobierno y hasta desmembración territorial del Estado).

Los efectos de conceder a un grupo la beligerancia son políticos, jurídicos, militares y estratégicos. Equivale a decir, en términos prácticos, que en el Estado que sufre el conflicto hay dos gobiernos: uno de derecho y otro de facto que controla parte del territorio y ejerce autoridad en él. Ese gobierno local de facto empieza a ser sujeto del derecho internacional y por ello, puede mantener relaciones con los gobiernos y entidades que lo reconocieron y ser tratado en igualdad de condiciones con el gobierno legítimo.

Mientras tanto, el Estatus de beligerancia, en su acepción más simple, consiste en atribuirle a una de las partes del conflicto la importancia suficiente para contender con él. Sin embargo, el uso del concepto depende del carácter del conflicto armado en el cual se aplique.

Un grupo beligerante, es aquel grupo de población de un Estado que se alza en lucha armada contra un orden constitucional legal y vigente establecido.

En el derecho internacional, para que se pueda hablar de Movimiento beligerante reconocido (comunidad beligerante, grupo beligerante), es imprescindible que se le otorgue el reconocimiento jurídico internacional por parte de otros sujetos del sistema jurídico internacional, además de reunir las siguientes condiciones:

- Dominio real y efectivo de una parte considerable del territorio del Estado.
- Constitución de un aparato político-militar.
- Aplicación irrestricta de las normas del Derecho Internacional Humanitario.

Los Movimientos de beligerancia reconocidos tienen como condición imprescindible para su existencia el haber recibido el reconocimiento jurídico internacional por parte de Estados o de organizaciones internacionales gubernamentales y se clasifican en: Movimientos de liberación nacional (que combaten contra un régimen colonial, un régimen racista o una ocupación extranjera), Nación beligerante (un pueblo que en virtud del principio de autodeterminación busca a través de las armas el reconocimiento de pertenencia de un territorio y el derecho a constituir un gobierno autónomo y soberano), grupo beligerante (grupo de población de un Estado que se alza en lucha armada contra un orden constitucional legal y vigente establecido).

Otro de los términos que es importante aclara en una discusión de este tipo es el de estatus político, que es el reconocimiento que el Presidente de la República hace a un grupo alzado en armas con el fin de establecer o iniciar negociaciones. En Colombia, la ley 782 de 2002 no exige de dicho reconocimiento para la negociación con un grupo armado ilegal.

La figura del Estatus político no está consagrada en el Derecho Internacional Humanitario y no es sinónimo de beligerancia.

Algunas reacciones

Para el ex procurador Jaime Bernal Cuellar ha precisado las consecuencias de la petición de otorgarle a las Farc el estatus de beligerancia y afirmó que a nivel internacional podría permitir una mayor facilidad de presencia y de posibles diálogos como ocurría antes de haberlos incluido en la lista de terroristas.

El politólogo y analista León valencia considera que con esa propuesta, el presidente Hugo Chávez está actuando como vocero de una reivindicación que han pedido las Farc desde hace algunos años, que se puede leer en el reconocimiento político que han pedido tras la liberación de los secuestrados.

“Chávez se hace vocero de una reivindicación de las Farc que era la reivindicación principal del intercambio humanitario; es que el intercambio humanitario y la zona de despeje que han pedido las Farc están ligados a un reconocimiento político nacional e internacional que querían obtener y yo creo que aquí Chávez se hace vocero de esa reivindicación y de otra que es que los saquen de la lista de terroristas�?.

Para el ex ministro y miembro de la Comisión Nacional de Conciliación Augusto Ramírez Ocampo cree que los hechos terroristas de las Farc hablan por sí solos, de tal forma que otorgarles el estatus de beligerancia sería descabellado.

“Absurdo; va contra al naturaleza de las cosas porque es bien sabido que en el escenario mundial, una organización armada que utiliza prácticas terroristas como por ejemplo el uso de armas indiscriminadas, las minas personales, lo cilindros de gas y las bombas no merece que les quiten el nombre de terroristas�?.

Terra Colombia

http://www.terra.com.co/actualidad/articulo/html/acu7892.htm

romy says on Apr 28, 2008, 22:40:

ok, this cleared a couple of things up for me. But you suggested a political status that wasn't belligerence, and I'm not sure what you mean by that.

juancegomez says on Apr 28, 2008, 22:44:

It's a matter of internal recognition.

The Colombian government has internally, according to its own laws, been able to recognize the guerrilla groups as political movements and valid political counterparts for negotiations. Belligerence has never been explicitly or formally recognized, whether internally or internationally.

See here for examples:

Miércoles, 07.06.2000.
Colombia: gobierno devuelve estatus político al ELN

http://www.bbc.co.uk/spanish/news/news000607colombia.shtml

El Pais (Colombia)
Febrero 21 de 2002

Las Farc quedaron sin estatus político

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/farc/estatus.htm