Colombian incursion in Ecuador

[Anathema]

I'm a little surprised nobody made a thread about this yet.

Anyway, what are your opinions here? I support Colombia, in their shoes I'd have jumped at the opportunity to kill a high ranking FARC member as well. I'm anxious to hear wether they can substantiate their allegations against Chavez.

[Dunenewt]

Ah those crazy South Americans, when will they ever learn to respect borders.

To be honest, this is the first I've heard about it.  I'm going to look it up now.

[Edric O]

The Colombian regime is a murderous capitalist oligarchy, and it is corrupt to the bone. Of course the FARC rebels are guilty of drug trafficking, but most of the cocaine in Colombia is grown and sold by ultra-reactionary pro-government militias. The government has killed civilians on numerous occasions, it has been repressive for decades, it has crushed civil rights, it has bent over backwards to accomodate multinational corporations and it has exploited the Colombian people on a massive scale. They are tyrants and kleptocrats that should be shot for crimes against humanity, not supported or appeased.

[Dunenewt]

Yes, but they're not half as bad as Chavez and his lot.

Cuba: Former President Fidel Castro, writing in the Communist Party newspaper Granma, blamed the United States for the dispute, saying it was a consequence of "genocidal plans of the Yankee empire."

Bless him, he'll never give up.

[Edric O]

Yes, but they're not half as bad as Chavez and his lot.

You've got to be kidding. Chavez is one of the best leaders in the region in terms of actual policies - which, by the way, have little in common with his fiery and overblown rhetoric. In Europe, Chavez's policies would be seen as moderate social democracy. The fact that he has delusions of being some kind of radical revolutionary doesn't change anything. I wish he were as radical as he sounds, but he isn't.

[Dunenewt]

He provides the terrorist organisation FARC with money, no?

[Edric O]

Not that I know of, and there is certainly no evidence of it. However, if he did, I would consider it a good thing. FARC is much better than the current Colombian government and they need all the help they can get. I hope they win - and of course, I consider them freedom fighters rather than terrorists. I don't really approve of their methods, but I'm sitting here comfortably in my room while they are out there in the jungle being hunted by government troops, so I have no right to complain that they're not playing nice. You don't win wars by playing nice, especially when you are outgunned.

[Anathema]

The Colombian regime is a murderous capitalist oligarchy, and it is corrupt to the bone. Of course the FARC rebels are guilty of drug trafficking, but most of the cocaine in Colombia is grown and sold by ultra-reactionary pro-government militias. The government has killed civilians on numerous occasions, it has been repressive for decades, it has crushed civil rights, it has bent over backwards to accomodate multinational corporations and it has exploited the Colombian people on a massive scale. They are tyrants and kleptocrats that should be shot for crimes against humanity, not supported or appeased.

Eh, Uribe is a democraticly elected leader you know. And a fairly popular one at that, because in the few years that he has been president he has had some major successes in disarming militias, and fighting the FARC (who refuse to disarm)

Not that I know of' date=' and there is certainly no evidence of it. However, if he did, I would consider it a good thing. FARC is much better than the current Colombian government and they need all the help they can get. I hope they win - and of course, I consider them freedom fighters rather than terrorists. I don't really approve of their methods, but I'm sitting here comfortably in my room while they are out there in the jungle being hunted by government troops, so I have no right to complain that they're not playing nice. You don't win wars by playing nice, especially when you are outgunned.[/quote']

You are either misinformed or totally insane. The FARC started out as a marxist guerilla group but nowadays it's just a terror cell that finances its existence with kidnapping and drug trade.

Chavez, for his part, supports the FARC (and other groups, like the ELN) and considers them to be legitimate political organisations.

Now, the Colombian army crossed less then 2 miles in Ecuador territory (the entire region is composed of rainforrest) because they knew that the FARC's #2 was hiding there, and killed him. They immediately apologized for the incursion, claiming it as self-defense. And I happen to agree.

Later on they claimed that they found a laptop belonging to the FARC that, among other things, indicate that Chavez supplied the FARC with about 300 million dollars. If it's true (they haven't actually shown any proof), there might be a connection with the hostages that were released last month after Chavez negotiated with the FARC. I'd say however, that 300 million is a little generous for a handful of hostages, considering they still have hundreds in captivity.

[Edric O]

Eh, Uribe is a democraticly elected leader you know. And a fairly popular one at that...

True. But the exact same thing is also true about Chavez. That doesn't seem to stop right-wingers calling Chavez authoritarian anyway, so I will apply the same standards to Uribe.

The fact is that Colombia suffers from extreme social stratification. Not only is there very little social mobility - the rich stay rich and keep their wealth in the family, while most people have no hope of rising out of poverty - but there is also very little political mobility. The Conservative and Liberal parties that have dominated the country since the 1950s are entrenched oligarchies. Yes, there are elections in Colombia, but you have no chance of becoming a candidate unless you are part of the ruling oligarchy. Uribe himself is a former member of the Liberal Party and an establishment insider.

...because in the few years that he has been president he has had some major successes in disarming militias, and fighting the FARC (who refuse to disarm)

Yes, Uribe has made Colombia more secure, and that has increased his popularity. However, security is not quite so great if it means that your country will remain in the hands of a rigid ruling class that has no interest in the lives of ordinary people.

You are either misinformed or totally insane. The FARC started out as a marxist guerilla group but nowadays it's just a terror cell that finances its existence with kidnapping and drug trade.

I've heard those accusations. I've also heard people strongly denying those accusations and claiming that FARC is still committed to Marxism and have only resorted to the drug trade after 1989 because they had no other source of money and it was a matter of life and death. I'm not sure what to believe, but for the moment I think a FARC victory would do much more good than harm. If Colombia was a more democratic and progressive country, I would probably oppose FARC.

Later on they claimed that they found a laptop belonging to the FARC that, among other things, indicate that Chavez supplied the FARC with about 300 million dollars. If it's true (they haven't actually shown any proof), there might be a connection with the hostages that were released last month after Chavez negotiated with the FARC. I'd say however, that 300 million is a little generous for a handful of hostages, considering they still have hundreds in captivity.

As you said, there is no proof, so Chavez is innocent until proven guilty. However, even if proof was given, I'd have to look at the conditions attached to the money. Was it payment in exchange for the hostages? Was it payment for the hostages plus a little extra meant for specific activities? Or was it a blank check that FARC could use for anything it wanted? FARC is suspicious and untrustworthy; they must not be given money with no conditions attached, so if Chavez did that, it should count against him. However, he might have given them money on certain conditions, or not given them any money at all. We'll have to wait and see.

[nemafakei]

"Bless him, he'll never give up."

To be fair, the US *has* been busying itself with a dirty war in Colombia for a while now, supplying both the Uribe government and the right-wing paramilitary groups with weapons and (possibly) soldiers. As vile as Uribe is, if a left-leaning or just plain US-critical government got into power, the country would be ripped to shreds. It's why Uribe *is* democratically elected.

[Dunenewt]

I do agree with you, I was just commenting on the fact even after his retirement he's still not out of the news.

[Anathema]

True. But the exact same thing is also true about Chavez. That doesn't seem to stop right-wingers calling Chavez authoritarian anyway, so I will apply the same standards to Uribe.

That's where I disagree with a lot of Americans. Chavez is a populist, and it's never a good thing for a single person to have so much power, but that doesn't make him a dictator.

I've heard those accusations. I've also heard people strongly denying those accusations and claiming that FARC is still committed to Marxism and have only resorted to the drug trade after 1989 because they had no other source of money and it was a matter of life and death. I'm not sure what to believe' date=' but for the moment I think a FARC victory would do much more good than harm. If Colombia was a more democratic and progressive country, I would probably oppose FARC.[/color']

Would you have supported the Red Army Fraction if you had been born 20-30 years earlier? The fact that Colombia isn't as egalitarian as you or I would like doesn't mean that it's allright for a bunch of wannabe revolutionaries to overthrow the elected government by force. If these people had any decency at all, they'd accept amnesty and try to change the country the democratic way- but they'll never do that, because the FARC is immensely despised by most Colombians.

As you said' date=' there is no proof, so Chavez is innocent until proven guilty. However, even if proof was given, I'd have to look at the conditions attached to the money. Was it payment in exchange for the hostages? Was it payment for the hostages [i']plus a little extra meant for specific activities? Or was it a blank check that FARC could use for anything it wanted? FARC is suspicious and untrustworthy; they must not be given money with no conditions attached, so if Chavez did that, it should count against him. However, he might have given them money on certain conditions, or not given them any money at all. We'll have to wait and see.

By the looks of it we're never going to find out wether or not Chavez has been paying the FARC- he and Uribe have kissed and made up already.

"Bless him' date=' he'll never give up."

To be fair, the US *has* been busying itself with a dirty war in Colombia for a while now, supplying both the Uribe government and the right-wing paramilitary groups with weapons and (possibly) soldiers. As vile as Uribe is, if a left-leaning or just plain US-critical government got into power, the country would be ripped to shreds. It's why Uribe *is* democratically elected.[/quote']

Uribe has been getting money from the US to help him fight the FARC and reduce cocaine production, true. Do you have any sources at all proving that the US has been supplying paramilitaries since, say, 2000?

About your hypothetical scenario of a left-leaning candidate winning, I have no idea, but the main reason for both of Uribe's electoral victories and current popularity is his policy of (and succes in) fighting the FARC and giving the country a sense of security again. He negotiated a deal with the AUC (a conglomerate of right-wing paramilitaries) to get them to disarm wich, as far as I know, is proceeding well enough. He has extended similar offers to the FARC but only on the condition that they stop their attacks, wich they refused and continue to kidnap thousends of people per year and setting of bombs in public places. I, like the majority of Colombians, hope that Uribe continues until the last FARC rebel is arrested or killed.

[nemafakei]

"Do you have any sources at all proving that the US has been supplying paramilitaries since, say, 2000?"

Nope!

I've been to lectures, seen pictures, and read sources that indicate quite strongly that this is the case - but I don't have copies to hand, I'm afraid.

I should hasten to point out that unlike Edric, I don't see the FARC as a force for good or whatever. I'm just cynical about Uribe's military power and how democratic you can call elections where in essence an entire country has a gun to its head.

[Edric O]

That's where I disagree with a lot of Americans. Chavez is a populist, and it's never a good thing for a single person to have so much power, but that doesn't make him a dictator.

Then we actually agree about Chavez.

Would you have supported the Red Army Fraction if you had been born 20-30 years earlier?

No. For two reasons:

1. Red Army Fraction was a tiny group numbering a few dozen people at most. It never had any realistic chance of any kind of success; they only antagonized people and made them angry. I could never support pointless violence.

2. I said that I would not support FARC if Colombia was a more democratic and progressive country. West Germany was a relatively democratic and progressive country - certainly much more so than Colombia, anyway.

The fact that Colombia isn't as egalitarian as you or I would like doesn't mean that it's allright for a bunch of wannabe revolutionaries to overthrow the elected government by force.

Yes it does. The less egalitarian a country is, the more difficult it is for the average citizen to participate in government. And the more difficult it is for the average citizen to participate in government, the less legitimate and democratic the government becomes.

Holding elections is not enough to make a government democratic or to give it legitimacy. It is only the first step.

If these people had any decency at all, they'd accept amnesty and try to change the country the democratic way - but they'll never do that, because the FARC is immensely despised by most Colombians.

Or because they know they don't have a chance in hell to change anything without a fight. It is difficult enough to change things in Europe, where politicians are generally well-behaved, rarely corrupt (compared to most other countries), where there is an active civil society and where average people can get involved in politics if they want to. Imagine how much more difficult it is to change the status quo or challenge the ruling class in a country that has none of those things.

About your hypothetical scenario of a left-leaning candidate winning, I have no idea, but the main reason for both of Uribe's electoral victories and current popularity is his policy of (and succes in) fighting the FARC and giving the country a sense of security again.

Yes, but as I said before, security is not quite so great if it means that your country will remain in the hands of a rigid ruling class that has no interest in the lives of ordinary people.

I, like the majority of Colombians, hope that Uribe continues until the last FARC rebel is arrested or killed.

...while the right-wing paramilitaries get away free with a slap on the wrist?

Unlike you, I support the people who believe it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

[Anathema]

1. Red Army Fraction was a tiny group numbering a few dozen people at most. It never had any realistic chance of any kind of success; they only antagonized people and made them angry. I could never support pointless violence.

2. I said that I would not support FARC if Colombia was a more democratic and progressive country. West Germany was a relatively democratic and progressive country - certainly much more so than Colombia, anyway.

The FARC doesn't have a realistic chance of toppling the government either (anymore). Their actions, too, merely antagonize the Colombian people and encourage them to vote for people devoted to a right wing agenda.

Of course Colombia isn't a 100% functional democracy and of course there is to much poverty- but given time, those issues will be adressed.

Incidentally, is that one of the reasons why you support the FARC? Do you hope that they overthrow the government before it's to late, that is, before it can turn Colombia into a progressive market economy, in wich case a socialist revolution will be even less likely?

...while the right-wing paramilitaries get away free with a slap on the wrist?

Uribe is sometimes criticized for allowing paramilitary leaders' date=' who more often than not are guilty of some horrorible stuff, to get off with mild sentences or just letting them walk away in exchange for disbanding their organisations.

That's not exactly just, but sometimes this is required in order to prevent worse. And I stress again that if the FARC leadership wanted, they could negotiate for similar terms but they're only interested in seizing control or die trying.[/color']

[Edric O]

The FARC doesn't have a realistic chance of toppling the government either (anymore).

True. But that may change in a decade or two. The top priority for FARC today must be to survive until the international and internal situation changes to allow them a better chance at toppling the government.

Their actions, too, merely antagonize the Colombian people and encourage them to vote for people devoted to a right wing agenda.

It is highly unlikely that anyone not devoted to a right-wing agenda could win the Colombian elections, FARC or no FARC.

Of course Colombia isn't a 100% functional democracy and of course there is to much poverty- but given time, those issues will be adressed.

The solution to poverty and tyranny is not to sit back and hope things get better of their own accord.

Incidentally, is that one of the reasons why you support the FARC? Do you hope that they overthrow the government before it's to late, that is, before it can turn Colombia into a progressive market economy, in wich case a socialist revolution will be even less likely?

Not really. The age of the progressive market economy is coming to an end. Colombia can never become a social democratic welfare state like the ones we enjoy in Europe, or even a moderately progressive free market economy with some welfare provisions like in the United States. The choice for Latin America, Africa and most of Asia is now between two options only: either socialism or ruthless neoliberal capitalism.

The anti-socialist strategy invented by Bismarck - create a welfare state to keep the masses happy and avoid revolution - is no longer viable, because of the pressures of globalization. Today the ruling class must use other means to deal with working class discontent, and these other means generally fall under the "divide and conquer" category: give the workers something else to worry about that will distract them from the goal of social change. Terrorism, immigration, crime and military threats from foreign countries serve this purpose best. Capitalist governments, particularly in poor countries, will increasingly have to maintain their legitimacy by making people afraid of something or other - usually something foreign, like, say, Islam.

In Colombia, of course, the government can just make people afraid of FARC. That is the negative impact of FARC's existence. But I think that, for the moment, the positive impact of having a strong leftist insurgent group outweighs the costs. If FARC were small and weak, then it would do more harm by providing the government with propaganda material than any good that might come out of its struggle, so I would oppose it.

In other words: All guerilla/insurgent groups help the government by providing it with an excuse to scare the population into submission. I believe this negative effect is rather inelastic with regard to the size of the insurgent group - the government would scare the population to the same degree regardless of whether FARC was big or small. However, if an insurgent group is large enough, it can pose a real threat to government authority and even hope to overthrow the government one day. I believe this positive effect is highly elastic with regard to the size of the insurgent group - larger numbers give you not only additional firepower, but also more confidence and better morale.

So, for small insurgent groups, the negative impact is greater than the positive. For large insurgent groups, the positive impact is greater than the negative. FARC is clearly on the large end of the spectrum.

the FARC leadership [...] are only interested in seizing control or die trying.

...which is evidence that they may not be as corrupt as you claim. Corrupt leaders would just take the money and run. FARC leaders seem determined to die fighting. That seems to indicate that they are courageous and refuse to betray their principles.

[nemafakei]

"but given time, those issues will be adressed"

By whom and what methods? That's a fairly optimistic idea you're hanging your entire argument on!

[Anathema]

It is highly unlikely that anyone not devoted to a right-wing agenda could win the Colombian elections, FARC or no FARC.

Why? It's not as if the poor can't vote.

Not really. The age of the progressive market economy is coming to an end. Colombia can never become a social democratic welfare state like the ones we enjoy in Europe' date=' or even a moderately progressive free market economy with some welfare provisions like in the United States. The choice for Latin America, Africa and most of Asia is now between two options only: either socialism or ruthless neoliberal capitalism.[/quote']

I don't see why it wouildn't work. International competition may be fierce, but the low wage countries that are causing this won't always remain low wage countries. And for that matter, no president before Uribe has increased social spending or lowered the unemployment as much as he.

The anti-socialist strategy invented by Bismarck - create a welfare state to keep the masses happy and avoid revolution - is no longer viable' date=' because of the pressures of globalization. Today the ruling class must use other means to deal with working class discontent, and these other means generally fall under the "divide and conquer" category: give the workers something else to worry about that will distract them from the goal of social change. Terrorism, immigration, crime and military threats from foreign countries serve this purpose best. Capitalist governments, particularly in poor countries, will increasingly have to maintain their legitimacy by making people afraid of something or other - usually something foreign, like, say, Islam.[/color']

I think that the dangers that the FARC and the ELN pose are a lot more tangible than some of the far fetched conspiracy theories Chavez likes to spout in public concerning the USA (or any western government that says anything negative about him personally).

...which is evidence that they may not be as corrupt as you claim. Corrupt leaders would just take the money and run. FARC leaders seem determined to die fighting. That seems to indicate that they are courageous and refuse to betray their principles.

I don't think they're corrupt' date=' not in the sense wich politicians can be (and often are) corrupt. I do believe that they're blind for the possibility that continuing armed resistance is no longer in the best interest of the Colombian people; that they are fanatical in their conviction that only a government run by them can be legitimate. In essense, I think they're self-righteous, power hungry murderers and kidnappers.[/color']

[Edric O]

Why? It's not as if the poor can't vote.

Oh, they can vote just fine, but they can't run for office.

I don't see why it wouildn't work. International competition may be fierce, but the low wage countries that are causing this won't always remain low wage countries. And for that matter, no president before Uribe has increased social spending or lowered the unemployment as much as he.

The current global economy is built upon a large supply of cheap labour. If that supply runs out - if all low-wage countries start moving towards higher wages - then the entire system of global capitalism as we know it today will be undermined. It may not mean the end of capitalism, but it will certainly mean the end of the current form of capitalism. And for that reason I believe corporations and Western governments will do everything in their power to stop it happening.

But that's not the point. Social democracy is not a question of wages, it's a question of regulations, taxes and social services. Even if average wages rise in Colombia, the government will still have to avoid regulations or corporate activity, keep taxes low and refuse to provide social services if it wishes to avoid capital flight. International competition makes social democracy less and less possible.

I think that the dangers that the FARC and the ELN pose are a lot more tangible than some of the far fetched conspiracy theories Chavez likes to spout in public concerning the USA (or any western government that says anything negative about him personally).

If I were a leftist leader in Latin America, I'd be paranoid about the US too. There are plenty of good historical reasons to believe that the United States government would like to kill Chavez. They sponsored assassinations of other similar politicians in the past, after all. Whether they are actively trying to kill Chavez at the moment is another question entirely. I think they are not. But that may change.

I don't think they're corrupt, not in the sense wich politicians can be (and often are) corrupt. I do believe that they're blind for the possibility that continuing armed resistance is no longer in the best interest of the Colombian people; that they are fanatical in their conviction that only a government run by them can be legitimate. In essense, I think they're self-righteous, power hungry murderers and kidnappers.

Self-righteous, definitely. Power hungry, maybe. Murderers - that depends on your definition of what kind of killing counts as "murder." Certainly they kill and kidnap; but in their eyes these activities are necessary and justified, because they are fighting a war, they are on the side of justice, and they can't afford to be nice and gentlemanly to the enemy.

I do not know what it is like to live in a country as poor as Colombia, in conditions as bad as those of the Colombian working class. For this reason I refuse to condemn the FARC on the grounds that their methods are violent and excessive. Who am I to judge what is "excessive" in a struggle for life and death? Or, for that matter, who are you to tell the FARC in particular and the exploited people of the world in general that they should be nicer to their oppressors?