ZNet Commentary: Colombia Assassinates Raul Reyes of FARC
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 4th, 2008 at 4:29 PM and filed under Americas (incl. Carribean), Articles, Foreign Affairs. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.
3 Responses to “ZNet Commentary: Colombia Assassinates Raul Reyes of FARC”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Umm,is FARC a guerilla group that is not trying to create an armed insurection? I ask the question as I have no knowledge of Columbian affairs, and this article has done nothing to enlighten me. If in fact FARC is armed and use their arms to promote their point of view, then surely they can expect those they are against to respond in kind?
Posted on 05-Mar-08 at 3:00 am | PermalinkI feel like I must be missing something here.
FARC may or may not be the good guys in this instance, but if you are a guerilla, you expect those in authority to try to kill you by any means they can devise.
The aside about Columbia’s relationship with Equador and Venezuela was interesting but nowhere near detailed enough.
A balanced article about this part of the world would be appreciated, but not this silly assortment of info bites.
I agree with Ben Stagg. That is all pretty tendentious stuff of Porud’s. I live in Buenos Aires where the official posture is pro-Venezuela partly for ideological but mostly for financial reasons. PDVSA, Chavez’s private piggy bank, has a an awful lot of petro$$$ to spread the word. Here are a few facts, which I will try to convey impartially:
1. Military: Colombia’s armed forces amount to 250,000 battle hardened forces, US equipped and trained against a combined force of 172,000 untested Venezuelans and Ecuadoreans. Chavez has recently bought $3bln of Russian arms including 24 Sukhoi SU-30 fighters, which they haven’t learned to fly yet, 100,000 AKs and 53 helicopters, which sounds impressive but I think that, to use Podur’s Israeli parallel, that Colombia would quickly make mincemeat of Ecuador and Colombia (with or without overt US aid) as Israel did of the combined Arab forces in 1967 and 1973. I think that Chavez and Correa know this and I think that a war is therefore improbable.
2. Economic: Venezuela’s food production has collapsed as a result of Chavez’s nationalisation of farmland, price controls etc and most of its $5bln pa border cross trade with Colombia consists of food imports, which it (Venezuela) cannot do without. Similarly Ecuador depends on its $1.8 bln pa trade with Colombia. Economically a war would not make sense.
3. Political: Chavez’s populist demagoguery has left the local economy in a shambles and his popularity is dropping. There is nothing like a bit of sabre rattling to distract the voters’ attention. Ditto Correa although actually Ecuador’s initial reaction to the Colombian raid was fairly muted and one gets the imppression that they were subsequently ramped up by Chavez. In Colombia Uribe apparently enjoys around 70% support at the polls right across the political spectrum and he heads a democratic government, which impartial observers feel was fairly elected – not exactly the case in Venezuela and Ecuador. The raid was probably illegal under international law but it happened 2 kms inside Ecuadorean territory in a remote jungle area and no Ecuadoreans were harmed.
I do not feel sorry for the Reyes or the FARC. These were not cuddly bunnies. The seized laptops allegedly prove top level Venezuelan and Ecuadorean support of the FARC, which you might argue is in itself a casus belli for Colombia but I think it better to leave that discussion to the lawyers and politicos.
4. Humanitarian: probably bad news for the 750 odd hostages being held in terrible conditions by the FARC, the most high profile one being the French/Colombian national and former Colombian vice presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt, who is said to be ailing. I say ‘probably bad news’ because in the past the official French policy of paying kidnappers ransom for kidnapped French nationals has only led to more French being taken hostage (viz. the Lebanese civil war). The Anglo Saxon view was and I suppose still is that the more often you pay ransom, whether financial or political the more you encourage the kidnappers and that therefore, horrible though it is for those concerned (your kidnapped nationals) it is actually better for the majority of your people if they are not seen to be an easy target. This seems to approximate to Uribe’s view.
Comment: On the streets of Latin America, paradoxically, it is Colombia’s alliance with the US (obviously a big + for it militarily), which is the political mill stone around Uribe’s neck. George W. Bush is so loathed down here that people cannot bring themselves to support anyone, who has anything to do with him, however much they might objectively support Colombia.
Conclusion: A lot of shouting, screaming, posturing, door slamming, name calling and hot air. A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing – or almost nothing.
AL Baraka
Posted on 05-Mar-08 at 11:52 am | Permalinkgreat clarifications
Posted on 05-Mar-08 at 4:50 pm | Permalinkthanks
Michael