More information has come to light in the case of the release/ rescue of the FARC hostages- Ingrid Betancourt, three Northrop Grumman operatives, and 11 others. Questions have also been raised from numerous sources, while a response to Swiss Radio’s allegation that the rescue was faked has been formulated.

Many questions about the alleged rescue have been raised, especially from those on the left of the political spectrum in Latin America.

• This is the second of three posts on the Colombian hostage release. The first one was “Coincidence? McCain In Colombia During Allegedly Fake Hostage Release”

• The third post is “Media: Wall Street Journal Uses Questionable FARC Hostage Release to Bash Human Rights NGOs”

In support of the hypothesis that the release was paid for, many have questioned whether FARC, which has been seasoned by years of fighting, are foolish enough to have been tricked by such an operation as was alleged in the mainstream media. The official story is that the Colombian military had set up the operation on a long term basis by planting this fake NGO to help FARC and gain their trust. Others have noted that no video of the operation has been released, although it is standard procedure to make a video of this kind of operation. (see here) (Other sources have also claimed that video was released). It has also been noted that Betancourt appeared to be in good health, in contrast to a video released of her recently, in which she appears emaciated and apparently suffering from a hepatitis infection. (see here) Other questions center on the whereabouts and silence of the alleged FARC collaborators in the rescue, who were allegedly whisked away to the United States. It has also been noted that one of them appeared to have been tortured, while the other did not.

This Video Discusses the Political Ramifications of the Hostage Release

Other facts which have come to light which suggest that the hostages were released for a ransom rather than a military rescue, include the fact that two envoys, one Swiss and one French, had been in Colombia to negotiate with the FARC for the release of the hostages. Apparently they have remained silent about their mission since its completion. It as also noted that one month ago Uribe reported that he had ben in contact with FARC to obtain the release of the hostages in exchange for certain guarantees. (see here) (and here)

Others have pointed out that this victory came at a critical juncture for Uribe, who has recently faced a conflict with the Colombian Supreme Court. The Court investigated charges that a Constitutional amendment allowing Uribe to run for a second term in office was accomplished by paying a bribe to a Colombian lawmaker to get the amendment out of committee. On 26 June Uribe announced a referendum in response to the Supreme Court’s challenge. If the referendum is approved, it is thought it would allow Uribe to stand for a third term in office in 2010. (see link) (and here also)

In another tidbit, it has been reported that agents from Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, were also involved in the said “rescue”. This, as well as the involvement of the US in providing logistical support, have been used to contradict Uribe’s statement that it was a 100% Colombian operation. (see here)

Meanwhile, the Colombian Vice President Santos has responded to the Swiss radio report by saying that FARC has several allies in Switzerland, which planted the report as part of disinformation to save face and undermine the credibility of the Colombian government. (see here) Respondents to an articles in the UK based Times Online have argued that the story is unlikely, since 20 million USD is small money to FARC,which engages in narcotics trafficking. Internet readers were skeptical that FARC would give up its prize hostage for such a small sum.

In analysis from French media outlet MediaPart, it is claimed that the FARC had set up a base inside Ecuadorian territory with permission from the Ecuadorian government, at least partly to negotiate with Hugo Chavez on the release of the hostages. It alleges that the release had already been arranged for 8 March, 2008, when the Colombian military attacked the outpost, killing the FARC commander. It alleges that one of the motives for this attack was to prevent Chavez and Ecuadorian President Correa from getting credit for the release of the hostages, which would have been a PR boost for these two enemies of the Uribe regime.

It further alleges that the July release of the hostages had been arranged, and that supplies were made available to the FARC collaborators, in order to ensure that Betancourt and the other hostages were in good health when their release was enacted. (see here)

Meanwhile, Fidel Castro has urged FARC to stop holding hostages as a political ploy, saying that “I have openly and energetically criticized the objectively cruel methods of kidnapping and holding prisoners in the jungle.” On the 9th of June, Hugo Chavez also called on FARC to release its hostages and “lay down their arms”, saying that he believes that the days of guerilla movements in Latin America are over. (Castro) (Chavez)

Analysis

While the details of the release/ rescue of Ingrid Betancourt, the US hostages, and 11 others becomes increasingly murky, it appears that we may never know the truth about what happened. Whether one believes the reports of the mainstream politicians or not seems to depend mostly on how one perceives particularly, Uribe and his government. I’m not actually very familiar with this region and the Colombian conflict, so I am not in a position to offer my own final assessment on the truth of the official statements.

However, it does seem that the end of the conflict in Colombia is clearly in the interest of its people, as the the ongoing conflict is resulting in numerous human rights abuses to its people, including killings, intimidation, forced relocation, and of course, kidnappings. Since FARC and the ELN are essentially the only parties not aligned with the government in Colombia, and since their resistance is the raison d’etre for the conflict, it seems to me that they should stop their war of resistance and insurrection. This does not mean, in fact, that they are the only ones committing acts of violence and committing human rights abuses, but if they were not resisting the Colombian government, there would not be a civil war in Colombia.

From the perspective of the left, it may be argued that FARC is fighting a legitimate cause based on the class based injustices in Colombia. While this is arguable, I hold that the path of violent insurrection is not actually benefiting the people the FARC would presumably claim to want to help. Further, numerous communist parties around the world have laid down arms to participate in non-violent democratic contests, including the FMLN of El Salvador and the Maoists of Nepal. The recent exhortations of both Chavez and Castro should weigh on them, that even those with a similar ideology believe they should stop this waging this war. According to my own impression as well, Colombians themselves are not favorably disposed towards the FARC, and Uribe currently enjoys a high approval rating.

This does not mean, of course, that all of Colombia’s problems would be solved if FARC were to stop fighting. However, in a climate in which Uribe and his government no longer have an enemy to fight, their own abuses would become illuminated and would be more intolerable to the Colombian public and the international community, leading to increased pressure to improve the situation.

This may be a naive analysis, however, because it ignores one key component: drug production and trafficking. It may be that it is neither in the interest of FARC, the paramilitaries, or even the Colombian government to end the fighting, since it provides a justification and cover for the production of the drug. Again, while I don’t have sufficient detail to analyze the situation, there can be no doubt that drug production and trafficking is a critical component fueling the ongoing conflict there, and one which complicates accomplishing the end of the war.

We can only hope that the long lasting civil war will soon come to an end, and as citizen activists, we should seek to understand the situation to come to a better understanding, and advocate for better methods of bringing it to a conclusion.

: : : : : : : : : : :