juancegomez has left 3015 comments

juancegomez comments on 3000 less guerrilleros in 2008

turnmeon: That's an interesting hypothesis...but, not to deny the existence of racism and racial tensions in Colombia, neither FARC nor ELN have a racially-centric discourse and the demographics of the country aren't so clear-cut. For an easy example, FARC's top leadership (the Secretariat) is overwhelmingly white and mestizo. The only armed group that could be honestly called native or indigenous-based was the Quintín Lame movement. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on 3000 less guerrilleros in 2008

borat: It depends on who you ask and, most importantly, *when* you want to make the comparisons. Were those governments "very different" 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 years ago? I think not, or not as much as today's political map would make it seem. Uribe, whom I dislike for reasons that aren't unrelated to the subject since he does represent some of the darkest sectors, hasn't been President forever you know, nor have all preexisting Colombian Presidents been part of some faceless and unchanging conspiracy. There are continuities and discontinuities involved. The government, as a whole, is certainly responsible for our current mess, but not alone. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on An example of courage and fortitude...

Then I guess it's better to stick to that explanation, at least in the absence of anything else. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on 3000 less guerrilleros in 2008

borat: I brought Latin America into it just to highlight that, while the situation in Colombia has its own differences, it isn't unprecedented in that respect. The percentage is terribly bad, never said otherwise, just not to that degree. The region isn't literally up in arms, since most of it is relatively peaceful outside of Colombia even where there is social unrest, which is what I meant. Figuratively speaking, I can see your point, but I was being literal. Of course, but what will be result and exactly how will it come to pass? That is another matter and history takes its own routes. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on There were no e-mails in the PC of Reyes

Considering what I said before, I don't think many people were "fooled"about that initial claim, since it didn't last long anyways before it was discussed and corrected, even in Colombian media. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on An example of courage and fortitude...

Education would be the basic answer, as it has been mentioned by Planb, but it feels like that isn't enough to explain everything. The article in Spanish doesn't explicitly say that the pork she ate was definitely undercooked, only that it was affected by the parasite. It is probably far more likely to find said parasite in undercooked meat than otherwise, I agree, but...the fact that it's not mentioned leaves me wondering a little bit. We can assume that was the case, but was it really? It is also not like that is particularly specialized knowledge either...this is something that even TV programs or educational ads, let alone traditional sources of information like word of mouth within a community or family, repeat from time to time. You don't need to be rich or educated to find this out. I wonder if she just never received said information at all, or... -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on 3000 less guerrilleros in 2008

borat: To make a long story short...I think you may have your heart in the right place, because you are in fact pointing to real issues, but that doesn't mean we can't debate your descriptions and arguments. We are exchanging opinions, after all. It is clear that in Colombia, like in other Latin American countries and the region in general throughout history, there is a minority that monopolizes wealth and benefits at the expense of the majority. That structural condition is of course no "secret", I would agree. In many countries, not just in Colombia, this situation has led to the use of violence, not just in one but in several directions at the same time. Yet even at its worst, this isn't a "1% vs. 99%" scenario. It is far more ambiguous. If the lines were so clear-cut and self-evident, then the future would be easier to predict than it actually has been and the entire region would be up in arms. Honestly, what makes Colombia's violence unique? Not the fact that a minority is in power or that it has "kept the people down" through inequality and violence. That general diagnosis is much more common, but the result isn't always the same as the one we can see in Colombia. Studying this nation's history has told me that much, at least, and it is one of the reasons why I don't think one can say "oh, the answer is THIS and nothing else". Lots of different factors are involved, not just a group of "bad guys" attacking "good guys", whoever you wish to place in either role. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on There were no e-mails in the PC of Reyes

That claim was discredited pretty quickly at the time even using the documents themselves, so...it leads nowhere. Apparently it had to do with re-selling the materials to someone else, not with "nuclear weapons". -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on 3000 less guerrilleros in 2008

borat: "live in bogota." That makes two of us then. "In bogota you can see no major efforts to change the fact that the transport system is completely broken." If you mean right now and nothing else...but if you look at things in perspective, I would say that there are past, ongoing and future efforts, so it may take quite a while to see any major results. Transmilenio still has issues that could be ironed out, the possibility of a subway/metro system is in the air and it could materialize, among others. "So....no I don't know what you think of that?" I did mention, in another comment you didn't quote, that I think the U.S. is at the very least co-responsible for it. The exact degree of responsibility varies from case to case, as those differences in each nation would indicate. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on Colombia: Social Conflict Replaces Warfare

The article definitely makes a good number of necessary points about recent developments in Colombia and how there are groups with valid complaints who haven't been given the attention they deserve by the government, and are instead often ignored, toyed with or subjected to continuing repression. That said, I do think it isn't entirely complete in its representation of the overall situation, and certain incidents could have been covered from a more nuanced and balance view, without contradicting the above. To borat: "uribe has improved colombia for a very small proportion of the population" I'd say that he has both improved, worsened and kept Colombia "as is", depending on what you want to talk about. "plus, it isn't uribe that has made colombia safer, it's US dollars that pay to militarise the place, take that away and........." I believe this can be rather simplistic, as per our most recent exchange in another discussion topic. To dwmte7: I would tend to agree with what you've said, but for me Uribe himself is also part of the problem, not just the people he chooses to tolerate or support (and vice versa). He could have made decisions that would make it easier for his merits to outweight his flaws and those of his supporters, but that hasn't been the case in many particular areas. Including those under discussion. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on DMG, do you believe David Murcia Guzman?

Which is why I think the government should have intervened in such a way that those people would hold DMG responsible. Instead, it now seems that the government just randomly "stole" their money and that they must "believe" in the DMG "family" to get it back or else...nothing. I feel bad for these people, as much as it is partially their own fault, but the government should have tried to limit damage much more efficiently when it decided to intervene. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on Colombian Gov. war data "vastly exagerated"

Since this came up in a related discussion and I will still be around for a short while, I think it is worthwhile to re-post my comments on the matter. I believe there are other questions that we must also take into account. The BBC article is a very rough summary of what the Codhes report says. Here's a link to the actual source: http://www.codhes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=384 I would advise that anyone genuinely interested in the issue would read the report, available in PDF format, carefully. Just to highlight a few things...these would be the government figures in question, according to Codhes, for the 2002-2008 period: 19.263 Killed (including 3.948 Government Security Forces) 49.523 Captured 17.750 Demobilized (Individuals) 11.488 Wounded (Government Security Forces) 1.759.179 Displaced 8.504 Kidnapped Looking at the report, its basic criticism is that government figures would not "match up" with pre-existing (2002) estimates about the total number of people in illegal armed groups: 20.000 guerrillas and 12.000 paramilitaries. That is where the 30,000 figure quoted by the BBC comes up. The problem I see there, however, is that this argument from Codhes completely sidesteps the very nature of the discussion. How many people are part of the guerrillas and paramilitaries has never been clear. If anything, I would say that the 30,000 figure, or any other you may find, has always been a conservative estimate. Not just because of propaganda purposes but because of how difficult it is really to measure such a thing in the first place. Think about it for a minute. The figure that could have the most holes at first sight would seem to be that of those "captured" 49.523. However, we don't know how many of those people are later processed by the judicial system, how many of them are set free, or even how many of them are repeat offenders. There's more than one explanation for how this figure can be calculated and, as it were, inflated. There's also the matter of those people who may not be "officially" part of any armed group but are collaborators and logistical supporters (it would be rather naive to believe that a guerrilla or paramilitary army can exist without those, as fighters can't sustain themselves alone, can they?), relatives or acquaintances....or simply innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time. This obviously means acknowledging that there are a number of false accusations involved too, of course, but not all of them have to be "false positives" in the sense usually talked about these days: suspicion can land on people who are innocent without being part of some premeditated plan. At other times, unfortunately, that is precisely what happens, as we have come to tragically and increasingly realize, but that isn't the entire picture. Just as well, in the case of those "demobilized" 17.750, there can be "false positives" of a different kind...people unrelated to the armed groups who present themselves to authorities seeking benefits on their own, or in coordination with corrupt officials. The possibilities are endless, so to speak. In conclusion, I would definitely say that the government's figures may well be in part propaganda and due to "false positives", of course, but that doesn't mean they should be unilaterally dismissed so easily, much less without thinking about other details involved that can also explain why the figures may be inflated or simply inaccurate estimates. Everything has more than one explanation, in my opinion, especially when such complex subjects are being discussed. I do not claim to be privy to the ultimate "truth", these are just my own observations, but hopefully some of the things I've mentioned will allow others to think a little bit beyond the "oh no, the government has to be lying and/or telling the truth" paradigm. Informed debate is always a good thing, in my opinion. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on Second letter to the FARC for the peace in Colombia

billyb: Generally speaking you may be right, but if nobody tries then we will never know for sure, or will we? Let them try and we will see what happens. If FARC just wants to buy time, they will start asking for concessions that will be easy to identify as such, giving little to nothing in return. Just talking isn't going to be much of a problem so far. Giving FARC political space can be a negative, if the war continues, but it is also a positive, in order to seek its end. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on DMG, do you believe David Murcia Guzman?

I agree with ColombianoGringno there as well. I don't think people have to think about the future all the time, but there are limits and extremes, especially when investing in such enterprises. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on 3000 less guerrilleros in 2008

To borat: "All available resources here go to the military, you can't walk one hundred yards without walking into a soldier, there are four of them on the street outside now." I don't know where you live, so that might well be true there, but that doesn't work as a generalization. Yes, there is an increasing militarization in Colombia, to deny that would be blindness, but not everywhere and certainly not all at once. Let alone enough to conclude that "all available resources" go to the military. More than what we both would like? Yes. All? Nope. "Colombia has other basic needs that aren't being addressed as a result, you just have to sit it the traffic to see that there are many basic infrastructure issues with absolutley no action to make any changes." Those needs aren't being addressed as much as they should and could be, rather, but not in the literal way you describe it, which implies that nothing at all has been done. Infrastructure issues date back a long time, even to decades during which the military was getting a ridiculously small amount of the budget, so that has more to do with both historical neglect and inherent difficulties, not just with currently high military expenses. That is merely an easy scapegoat for more complex problems. Reducing the military budget is just one of many factors involved in addressing said issues more efficiently. It is the tip of the iceberg, not the iceberg itself. Not to mention that you are ignoring, to name one easy example, the efforts of recent local administrations in Bogotá and elsewhere, which have produced some real though still insufficient results. If I were to take your words literally, that would have been impossible and unreal. "When you keep such a huge majority of the population crushed, you have to put all resourses into security." So what would you say about how a "huge majority of the population" was being "crushed" when that ("putting all resources into security") wasn't the case? At the very least you would need to acknowledge that the situation is more complex than how you are describing it. "With regard to colombia's defense budget and aid recieved, no I don't know the figures but when you put it together it provides colombia, or a very small percentage of the colombian people with a fearful security force." Then maybe you could look at those figures? If you wanted to. In addition to what I've mentioned before, you make it sound like the military and police have no other purpose than being "fearful". I do not deny this is part of what they do, and it can be ugly part at that when it leads to abuses, but not in such an absolutely manichean fashion. "I'm talking about human rights abuses, support (both logistically and financial) for human right abuse." Then you should already know what I think about that...but my point there was that you still listed a bunch of different situations, each with their own particulars, even with respect to the above statement. I'd wish U.S. aid was the beginning and the end of human rights abuses in Colombia, because then everything would be so simple to resolve. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on Second letter to the FARC for the peace in Colombia

The letter isn't necessarily going to produce any immediate or conclusive effects, but I think the intention behind it, to establish a dialogue with FARC and find out what they are actually willing to say and, most importantly, do, is not worthless at all. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on There were no e-mails in the PC of Reyes

I imagined it was going to be something along the lines of what ColombianoGringo has explained. If you were to seize my own PC you wouldn't find any actual e-mails on it either, since I use hotmail and similar external providers for everything. But throughout the years I have kept an archive of letters, messages, e-mail addresses, drafts, telephone numbers, links and other things in text documents. I imagine that is what someone like "Raúl Reyes" would have done, only much more methodically. There are of course unresolved questions and issues about this matter, the judicial value of the documents and their interpretation which need to be addressed, but this "revelation" hardly puts an end to this if you think about it. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on An example of courage and fortitude...

It is truly an example of courage in the middle of a very difficult situation, though one can't help but wonder if this could have been avoided after all. Regardless, I can only wish him and his family the best. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on DMG, do you believe David Murcia Guzman?

romy: You are right, but pyramid schemes around the world can also last quite a while before anyone does something about them, laundering or no laundering. This isn't just a Colombian problem (if only). Btw, I was discussing this with a couple of relatives some months ago, and the general concensus was that there's no way this operation could economically sustain itself. It simply isn't possible. Sooner or later it was going to fall, though perhaps later than sooner, as it continued to expand. Unfortunately, far too many people, including some of those in need, just choose to believe in what gives them benefits *now*. The future? Who cares about that. But to make things worse, the government intervened in a sloppy way, not just late. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on Colombian Coca Production Increases

To Darloup: I would say that both of those statements are true, depending on the specific circumstances, but the second one may be the most powerful motivation from what I've read. As for the main subject...I agree that there are some interesting comments about it, but whether or not coca production has actually increased, the sad fact is that the war on drugs continues to head nowhere, at the end of the day. Relative progress can be made, but absolute? Most likely not, as long as Prohibition continues. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on 3000 less guerrilleros in 2008

To borat: "I know that 99% of the aid goes to the military, I live here, I don't need to see any government reports to tell me that, the place is completely militarised." I live in Colombia on a permanent basis but just "knowing" things is not enough. It is very true that most aid goes to the military, just not in such a generic fashion as you describe it. If you want exact figures you could always study the tables here: http://justf.org/Country?country=Colombia Or read this, which appeared on a CINEP (a Colombian NGO) publication: "As late as 2007, 80 percent of U.S. aid went to Colombia’s security forces. For 2008 the Congress, newly led by a Democratic Party majority, improved this proportion to 65 percent military aid". "And fourth the fact that, between the spiraling increase in Colombia’s defense budget and the dizzying fall in the U.S. dollar, Washington’s military aid now represents a much smaller contribution than it did in 2000." http://www.cipcol.org/?p=712 Finally, do you realize that Colombia's own defense budget is not only larger, on a yearly basis, than all recent U.S. combined but has been growing as well? You can't just say that U.S. aid is the only, or even the main, source of said militarization. It is a contributing factor, and an important one, just not everything there is to it. "Do you mean to say that you believe the US government is responisble with regard to human rights, when distributing aid, logistical or financial, or direct military action." It is quite co-responsible, at least. "Well I don't know what has led you to believe this......loas, cambodia, vietnam, iraq, israel, afganistan, iraq, indonesia, the philippines, egypt, turkey, nicoagua, guatamala, el salvador, haiti....etc" I'm well aware of those cases and, more importantly, some of the differences between them. "Interesting equation." I'll take your word for it but since you've mentioned equations, mathematics is a very exact science where figures, constants and developing trends can be identified, measured over time and discussed. The more complex a process is, the more factors influence it. Leaving all those elements out and just pointing to a single factor, such as U.S. aid, doesn't represent that too well. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on 3000 less guerrilleros in 2008

To borat: Well, you can easily find publicly available information from the U.S. Congress itself and certain websites like that of the Center for International Policy (CIP), if you want to see the specific ways in which aid is distributed. Some of that aid is even used for human rights training and to protect vulnerable groups, if you didn't know. Evidently, the international community, or the U.S. in this particular case, has a right not just to ask questions but to implement a vetting process and otherwise exert pressure. I definitely support that. Which includes using existing and working, albeit imperfectly, mechanisms to suspend aid to units or personnel involved in abuses, something we've seen happen. That doesn't stop abuses, no, and complete removal of all aid wouldn't either, but it is one of the available tools. To Darloup: Sorry about that, but the discussion was already heading in a different direction by the time I showed up. I think that's hard to say. A lot more is needed. Military pressure on the guerrillas is part of the process but it must be maintained as well as tied to a real negotiation strategy and a certain amount of political flexibility, not to mention lasting investment in other areas to make security gains worthwhile instead of merely temporary relief, as well as cleaning up the government's own human rights record and addressing paramilitarism. That's what I think. EDITED: You could say I essentially agree with Romy there. -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on BBC interview with Ingrid Betancourt

Thanks for the welcome, everyone, but unfortunately I can't promise that much at the moment. I'll very likely have to go away again in a day or two, give or take some hours. Oh, how I'd wish this were a sabatical...I'll probably need a genuine one at a not so distant point in time, if you ask me. ;) Signing off... -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on 3000 less guerrilleros in 2008

To billy: I can't quite call myself the "voice of reason", but you're welcome. To borat: "I suppose the trade union leaders must be murdering themselves." I've implied nothing of the sort and explicitly rejected the actions of those who, among others, are responsible for such kinds of crimes. That's why I said what you quoted. Violence against all the groups you've mentioned has certainly continued, unfortunately, that is something I have never denied. Not now and not in the past. "At SB plaza they were giving speaches condeming US aid which goes to the security forces that keeps these people crushed. They were protesting for pensions, health care, decent wages and conditions, all of the reasons why the union leaders are shot, brave people, they knew they were being watched. After about 20 minutes the military police moved in and tear gassed everyone, from children to old people, no talking in Colombia." Which is something I also haven't denied. The security forces are one of the factors involved in "keeping these people crushed", and to that extent I would also condemn them, but I'd say they far from being the only one. Additionally, I have been at other events, including the March 6th protest marchs, where this didn't happen, or at least not in the manner described above (until some anarchists showed up and began doing their thing, which isn't really worth describing), but I still get your point. "Like my friends who work in the rural communities with those vunerable people say, the paramilitaries no longer are able to carry out massacres, I suppose it would be a bit difficult to explain to the american people that this is were there taxes are going, but if anyone is seen to be organising......anything to bring more human rights for these people, well you all know the statistics." I believe that massacres per se were being significantly reduced but not to zero, according to non-government figures from CERAC and others. Instead, there have been consistent or even rising targetted killings affecting those groups, which is extremely ugly as that means transforming one form of violence into another. Yet that doesn't stop them from organizing and doing what they need to do, which is indeed a brave and necessary action from those people. It would be very simplistic to say, however, that "this is where their (U.S. American) taxes are going". That implies that either such aid inherently promotes these massacres or that those responsible have necessarily received aid. Which isn't the case. Committing these crimes does not really require any aid because targetting innocents or unarmed victims is, comparatively speaking, extremely simple. Tragic but true, this has been going on for years, way before U.S. aid even mattered, whether at the hands of state agents, paramilitaries, guerrillas, criminal bands, private enterprises, big landowners or drug lords, among others. Doesn't mean I agree with how current aid is used, for those and other reasons, but I think we need to see things in other colors than just black and white to get the entire picture. Signing off.... -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on Husband of Indigenous leader killed by Colombian security forces

The circumstances are very suspicious, pointing to possible premeditation even in the case of allegedly skipping a supposed roadblock. The government can't simply exonerate the Army in that respect. Still, I recognize that "innocent until proven guilty" is how the soldiers involved should be treated before the law, but it is good that at least the UN has been allowed to participate in clearing up the situation, as well as letting civilian and not military authorities handle the case from a judicial perspective. The sad fact is that these tragic crimes still happen all too frequently, unfortunately, and disproportionately affect vulnerable groups such as the indigenous and others. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I can't stay around here for long...but this crime has definitely caught my attention. Signing off and wishing PBH Happy Holidays, -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on BBC interview with Ingrid Betancourt

I can't stay for long, but this is definitely a good interview. Whatever you may think about Betancourt in political or personal terms (including her beliefs), she went through a lot and the experience has obviously allowed her to re-examine parts of her life and perspectives. Signing off and wishing PBH Happy Holidays.... -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on 3000 less guerrilleros in 2008

There are many things I could say, since this isn't exactly the best time for me to come out of my prolonged absence, as it were, but as the song goes, "la vida te da sorpresas, sorpresas te da la vida". Unfortunately, this will not last. Or rather, it can't, for reasons I can't really talk about here. Going straight to the point then. To borat, webmanco: The particulars aside, I completely reject both ongoing paramilitary activity and crimes committed by agents of the state (often related, though they are not one and the same), including the recent examples. To ixent : This subject has indeed come up, in one form or another, several times before. You have made a very good point, but I believe there are other questions that we must also take into account. The BBC article is a very rough summary of what the Codhes report says. Here's a link to the actual source: http://www.codhes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=384 I would advise that anyone genuinely interested in the issue would read the report, available in PDF format, carefully. Just to highlight a few things...these would be the government figures in question, according to Codhes, for the 2002-2008 period: 19.263 Killed (including 3.948 Government Security Forces) 49.523 Captured 17.750 Demobilized (Individuals) 11.488 Wounded (Government Security Forces) 1.759.179 Displaced 8.504 Kidnapped Looking at the report, its basic criticism is that government figures would not "match up" with pre-existing (2002) estimates about the total number of people in illegal armed groups: 20.000 guerrillas and 12.000 paramilitaries. That is where the 30,000 figure quoted by the BBC comes up. The problem I see there, however, is that this argument from Codhes completely sidesteps the very nature of the discussion. How many people are part of the guerrillas and paramilitaries has never been clear. If anything, I would say that the 30,000 figure, or any other you may find, has always been a conservative estimate. Not just because of propaganda purposes but because of how difficult it is really to measure such a thing in the first place. Think about it for a minute. The figure that could have the most holes at first sight would seem to be that of those "captured" 49.523. However, we don't know how many of those people are later processed by the judicial system, how many of them are set free, or even how many of them are repeat offenders. There's more than one explanation for how this figure can be calculated and, as it were, inflated. There's also the matter of those people who may not be "officially" part of any armed group but are collaborators and logistical supporters (it would be rather naive to believe that a guerrilla or paramilitary army can exist without those, as fighters can't sustain themselves alone, can they?), relatives or acquaintances....or simply innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time. This obviously means acknowledging that there are a number of false accusations involved too, of course, but not all of them have to be "false positives" in the sense usually talked about these days: suspicion can land on people who are innocent without being part of some premeditated plan. At other times, unfortunately, that is precisely what happens, as we have come to tragically and increasingly realize, but that isn't the entire picture. Just as well, in the case of those "demobilized" 17.750, there can be "false positives" of a different kind...people unrelated to the armed groups who present themselves to authorities seeking benefits on their own, or in coordination with corrupt officials. The possibilities are endless, so to speak. In conclusion, I would definitely say that the government's figures may well be in part propaganda and due to "false positives", of course, but that doesn't mean they should be unilaterally dismissed so easily, much less without thinking about other details involved that can also explain why the figures may be inflated or simply inaccurate estimates. Everything has more than one explanation, in my opinion, especially when such complex subjects are being discussed. I do not claim to be privy to the ultimate "truth", these are just my own observations, but hopefully some of the things I've mentioned will allow others to think a little bit beyond the "oh no, the government has to be lying and/or telling the truth" paradigm. Informed debate is always a good thing, in my opinion. Signing off and wishing Happy Holidays to PBH... -Juancegomez

juancegomez comments on The picture perfect rescue unravels: Colombia admits rescuers posed as journalists

Those who were "posing" were doing so in the context of a fake "international mission" linked to a non-existent organization, not simply dropping some journalists and other personnel out of the blue into some FARC camp. In other words, those disguises gave more credibility to the operation, but the act in itself wasn't limited to that by any means, nor were those the main elements. We've known that since the beginning, more or less. The specific details don't change that. A generic fake journalist is little different from a fake teleSur journalist, in terms of what impact it may or may not have on the ability of other reporters to talk to FARC. Now, it's true that this might increase risks for others, and whatever responsibility is proportionally applicable will be assigned in time through later events, but it's not like those risks didn't exist beforehand. In fact, if you ask me from a purely cold-hearted perspective, it would have been better for Colombia to hide as much information as possible about this rescue, to reduce those risks even if they remained offenses on a moral level. Or not engage in such deceptions in the first place, but that debate is pointless now, isn't it?

juancegomez comments on Farc murdered two wounded soldiers in a red cross ambulance

billyb: teleSur is no Red Cross, that's all I will say.

juancegomez comments on Body of missing Colombian labor leader found in dump

I wouldn't disagree with that either.

juancegomez comments on Body of missing Colombian labor leader found in dump

CG: "There is a lot of prejudice against unions in Colombia. The elite and the media have done a pretty good job of painting them as leftist, guerrilla sympathizers. They don't help their image when they sometimes openly associate themselves with organizations or causes that are tied to the farc. Still, none of this justifies killing them." I would agree, there is no justification for these murders and atrocities, and that this worsens the situation of unions as a whole. But I must say that there are, in fact, unions that are not harassed and attacked in such ways, so there are definitely sectors, companies and unions which bring together greater or lesser risks than others. Which does not justify those violations that in fact occur, however.

juancegomez comments on TORTURE VICTIMS IN COLOMBIA

Though I also have reservations about IPS, and would have preferrred if more details were provided to back up certain statements and other pieces of information mentioned elsewhere...I agree with Desi that the content of article is disturbing and that, whatever one might say about the details, the fact is that this man -and others- have been tortured, killed or disappeared, often apparently by or with the participation of members of the security forces. That is a serious problem that does not usually receive the attention it needs, I can't deny that, whether intentionally or otherwise (or both), regardless of one's personal political preferences. This is a subject of basic humanity. On the other hand, small parts of the article also make it known that there are in fact institutions within the state that work against these things, even if not always efficiently. That this man's body could be found instead of being forever lost, like so many others, can't possibly make up for his murder, no, but it is something that should be supported, even as more efforts are demanded to actually prevent this from happening in the first place.

juancegomez comments on

I do agree with robi666 about his point that the peace process was flawed, that paramilitarism is still a considerable problem, and that the government is certainly lying or at least horribly misrepresenting the current situation by calling it "the end of paramilitarism".

juancegomez comments on Proponen reconocimiento político a las Farc

Unlikely but it could actually be used as a way to test if FARC really wants to talk or not. ColombianoGringo: "Anyone that knows the history of the Union Patriotica should know that the farc will likely never accept this. Honestly, they would be stupid to do so. " Reading the article, this isn't exactly the same thing per se. I'm hardly an expert, but I have a fairly reasonable amount of knowledge about that tragic history and (more importantly, I would say) its context. I think that they were already "stupid" during the UP days, among other things, precisely because they did not demobilize and tried to take advantage of the situation, for various reasons. A political party could not have survived in the kind of climate that, in no small part, FARC's own actions, the other guerrillas and their enemies (narcos, the military, etc.) were helping to create despite the naive but well-intentioned efforts of Betancur. The UP massacre cannot be morally justified, but it can be explained, and I think FARC completely lacks sincerity and self-criticism about their own actions and intentions during that era. It's not just a tale of the murderers and their direct victims, as tragic as that was.

juancegomez comments on

Does "hacer presencia" in an area mean that they are responsible for all crimes there, as if it were a monopoly (even supposing nobody else is "present" there or nearby, as is actually the case in many areas)? Yes, they might very well be responsible, that is possible. But that line alone doesn't scream to me "yes, they are". So I don't think that is a concrete indication of responsibility. It's not a matter of how to call them, but of what that information actually says or not. If more information backs that up, then fine. Though that was just a minor detail, again...it doesn't matter too much either way, it's just one thought I had, and it's not even the main point. Nitpick vs. nitpick.

juancegomez comments on Swiss envoy Jean-Pierre Gontard to Farc: Please Let Us Know What We Should Do

Looks worrying, however one may choose to interpret this...whether it's real or not.

juancegomez comments on Colombia FARC rebels: We'll never disarm - Summary

How much of that represents the entire FARC leadership depends, basically, on what influence Rodrigo Granda and Jesus Santrich have over people who are actually in the Secretariat, or vice versa. At least I would think so. That these two are "top ideologists" doesn't mean the actual top commanders will completely agree, now or in the future...though it also doesn't mean they won't, but I would expect at least some internal discussion within FARC, even if along some lines we can't always distinguish. ABP, of all sources, isn't exactly going to properly represent that. What will be the results of those discussions? Time will tell...

juancegomez comments on

I'll just post some thoughts as they come out, no more and no less. I don't see, especially in the linked article, any indication that this particular massacre was committed by the paramilitaries, as they are certainly not the only ones who are capable of such things. Regardless of that and either way, it's true that there are still paramilitary murders, as well as those involving guerrillas, drug mafias and common crime (which makes up the bulk of it, one way or another). Nobody would really say that the country is truly at peace now, I would agree, and even the end of the conflict -evidently not here yet- would not present us with a paradise on Earth. To say the least, look at the rest of Latin America for an overview of how many problems can persist even without war or subversion, and that also shows that peace can be obtained without a comprehensive solution to those same problems. What is the point then? That the relationship between social issues and violence, while undeniable, isn't so simple and straight forward as rhetoric would indicate: "solve social problems and there will be no war" or "there will always be war as long as there are social problems" are phrases with a hint of truth but with huge gaps that cannot explain reality, or only do so vaguely, in my opinion. And then there's also the criminalization of society through Prohibition and the drug business it fuels, as an additional factor that complicates the formula present in such phrases. I also think that polarization is definitely a problem. There have been three main marches: the march against FARC, the march against paramilitarism (and state violence), and this one against kidnapping. ***All of them**** have had additional political slants, which have been exploited, more or less successfully, for political purposes. Uribe, undeniably so, is the main winner here, no way to beat around the bush. It would be better if we could all put politics aside and just focus on the issues -all those and many others-, but I don't think it's going to happen in this climate of polarization. Does that mean we shouldn't march at all? Personally, I think that is not the case.

juancegomez comments on Secuestrado Liberation March on the 20th: Yay or Nay?

Regardless, I am going to try and do my best to show up, but I've been busy lately, so it's completely possible that I may miss this one.

juancegomez comments on Colombian military used Red Cross emblem in rescue

SUERTE GRINGO: Considering FARC's own behavior, I don't believe this will be much of a lesson, to be honest, if that's your point.

juancegomez comments on Colombian military used Red Cross emblem in rescue

Explanations are not justifications. Proportionality must be considered when any punishment is to be applied, as not all violations are equal under national or international law and proper responsibilities must be determined. And for those wondering, there have already been cases where FARC has violated the protection of actual Red Cross vehicles, not as an excuse, but in order to highlight that such risks already existed before this incident.

juancegomez comments on Colombian military used Red Cross emblem in rescue

Certainly, he didn't have the symbol there for no reason at all, whether it was a contingency he organized or part of the plan from the beginning. As for returning the prisoners...I'd only imagine FARC or ANNCOL seriously asking for that.

juancegomez comments on Colombian military used Red Cross emblem in rescue

SUERTE GRINGO: "The symbol being used in any manner by any one individual is a complete violation, period." I haven't argued otherwise, period. Only made some observations. "Uribe's popularity support in Colombia did not take a negative hit after the rescue mission, political benefits nonetheless were a direct result." Ahh, but there's a difference between premeditated used of the symbol for that purpose and other options, isn't there? You're interpreting that information, I'm doing the same. Tinto: "Unfortunately for Colombia, Uribe lied and then was forced to fess up when a soldier wanted to sell his story to a big media company. As one of today's stories said "it takes some shine off an operation that was advertised as perfect." True, but there's always the issue of whether he knew about it beforehand or not, as far as how much of a lie that is. The result is similar, in any case. " Interesting discussions, but hell if I know what the answer is." Nor do I...

juancegomez comments on Colombian military used Red Cross emblem in rescue

SUERTE GRINGO : You can hardly say, especially at this point, that this was "for political gain", when the symbol was only worn by one individual, not by the entire team nor by the helicopters. Read the CNN report yourself. While the government's version of why it was worn could be questioned, that doesn't mean that the symbol was key to the operation (when only one guy was wearing it? doubtful) or that it needed to have been premeditated by evil Uribe, sitting in his office while smoking a cigar or what have you. Tinto: Considering that there were only three "medical personnel", one doctor and two nurses, why would the reporters, fictional NGO officials and pilots need to have Red Cross symbols? Makes little sense, especially since, again even CNN says, there was a completely different symbol being used on the helo. Perhaps the contingency was to give those symbols to the medical personnel, but even that's a bit of a leap, since CNN didn't see anyone else wearing it in their review of the unpublished footage.

juancegomez comments on Colombian military used Red Cross emblem in rescue

Colombian president says Red Cross symbol was used in hostage rescue mission The Associated Press Published: July 16, 2008 BOGOTA, Colombia: Colombia's president says a Red Cross symbol was worn by a member of the military rescue mission that freed 15 hostages from leftist rebels. President Alvaro Uribe says his government has apologized to the International Red Cross for the incident, which he said was not authorized. A team of Colombian military intelligence agents posing as members of a fake international humanitarian group airlifted the hostages to safety on July 2. Those rescued included French-Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt and three U.S. military contractors. Uribe said in a speech Wednesday that a single member of the rescue team got nervous and affixed a cloth International Red Cross symbol on his vest. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/16/news/Colombia-Red-Cross.php

juancegomez comments on Colombian military used Red Cross emblem in rescue

News flash via Caracol…apparently President Uribe has confirmed this and someone, he or Juan Manuel Santos, has officially presented excuses (to the Red Cross?). More information will be available later, I suppose.

juancegomez comments on Colombian military used Red Cross emblem in rescue

As I've commented elsewhere, the specifics seem to be that the symbol was misused by one man (the guy who was pretending to be a doctor, perhaps?), not by the entire team or the helicopter (which, according to CNN, had a different emblem linked to a “Misión Internacional Humanitaria" NGO, supposedly based in Barcelona, but whose existence CNN couldn’t verify…doesn’t sound like a real organization, in other words). Logically, such misuse during the operation would still be a violation of international law (and if so, a possible war crime, though one of the cleanest such crimes I can imagine). As such, I suppose it could be prosecuted (proportionally, I would expect: there should be a difference between falsely representing a Red Cross agent, which is what seems to be the case on the surface, and falsely presenting the entire operation as a Red Cross one, which doesn’t appear to be the issue per se, at least not without extrapolation).Which also requires establishing responsibilities. And while this is just a formality, right now the only specific evidence we have is a frame in the edited video most of us should have already seen. That's what's on the website. CNN apparently had brief access to more materials, showing allegedly the same man still wearing a Red Cross bib, but declined to buy them from the source. In other words, they no longer have it in their possession. In any case, it seems that the Red Cross has been confidentially talking to the Colombian government about this, and they should be able to decide whether to prosecute this violation of international law.

juancegomez comments on Colombians Intoxicated With Delusions U.S. Not Involved In Hostage Rescue; Uribe Is Savior

As an overview, it's interesting though also somewhat inaccurate or incomplete in certain parts... Petro's role has been important, but would have been better if other individuals were mentioned as well, even if they weren't interviewed. On another note, I think he has both gained and lost popularity, even among his own party, not just because of his efforts in revealing the scandal but also due to other positions he's assumed. Marta Lucia Ramirez is actually pro-Uribe and in one of the affected parties. Doesn't hurt her own opinions, but it does place things into perspective. "Uribe has long denied accusations that he owed his political rise in the 1980s to his ties with illegal paramilitary groups in Antioquia state, where he rose through the political ranks before he was elected president in 2002." Most of the accusations regarding his 1980s ties had little or nothing to do with paramilitarism, but rather with Escobar or the Medellín cartel. Yes, there's a difference, you know... "Uribe marshaled his forces to defeat the proposal, however. Leaving the seats vacant probably would have cost him his congressional majority, analysts noted." This was ultimately true, but it should have been mentioned that the same proposal, in its original form, was actually supported by the government. It then suffered some modifications, including vacating the seats at earlier stages in the judicial process, which the government openly opposed. "Lopez began receiving death threats two months ago and now travels with a police bodyguard." Lopez has been courageously working on this for many more months, if not actually a couple of years...perhaps threats intensified two months ago, however.

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

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.

juancegomez comments on Colombia: The ramifications of a split in the Polo Democrático

So the conclusion is that Mr. Leech agrees with the late "Raúl Reyes", essentially. Not too surprising, but it's interesting to see in any case. The idea that only the most leftist side of the left is capable of doing anything worthwhile, whether in terms of peace or just managing the country, is, well...very questionable. I think it is specific actions and policies that matter, not where one stands in an ideological "purity" scale. Too bad Mr. Leech seems to disagree. I'd agree that an united party is preferable, above all, however.