Talk:Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
|
|
Really, it can be argued that the FARC began as a social movement in its very early beginnings, and i can be also argued that they represent some social sectors to a certain degree (as does every single violent organization in the world , for that matter), but to pretend that it is still merely a social movement in this day and age, which is what a lone social movement classification suggests...is rather curious.
Their clear status as guerrillas, insurgents and, as viewed by the USA, the UN, the OAS and the EU, an organization of significant terrorist character, makes such a lone label misleading.
The EZLN, for example, is a totally different movement that can be considered a thousand times more social, given their different methods, scale of action, representation, goals and international recognition.
But the FARC, if they would belong to any category, using neutral terms, it would be to that of insurgents or rebel groups, terms which the FARC THEMSELVES have used to describe their own organization (especially the word insurgent).
The category of social movement might be acceptable if it was accompanied by several other qualifiers/describers (or simply other categories).
Here we go again with the "Terrorist Group Profiles, Dudley Knox Library, Naval Postgraduate School". This might be a worthwhile source but lifting everything from it is not NPOV. --Daniel C. Boyer
"Human rights are not subject to negotiation. They must be respected by all. It is time for the left-wing rebel groups -- and the right-wing paramilitary forces -- to end their blatant disregard for human rights and the rule of law in Colombia. It is time for the people of Colombia to take back their country from these terrorists." --This is pure advocacy and doesn't have any place in Wikipedia. --Daniel C. Boyer
- Good job pointing this out, Daniel. I'm going to remove the advocacy. 172
I agree that the original article was quite POV. I think I did a pretty good job cleaning it up and I added some original content based on other sources. Please point to specific problems and I'm quite open to revisions. Just deleting the entire text is non-productive especially since my text is nowhere near the text before your original deletion. Daniel Quinlan 09:22 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I should also note that prior to my changes, the article contained factual inaccuracies. The peace talks are basically dead since the February 2002 (when the presidential candidate was kidnapped, she's still missing as far as I know). Daniel Quinlan 09:26 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I think your latest version was a good start. The only thing that is missing is a bit of historical perspective, ie, why the FARC arose, etc. Perhaps it can be added in due time. -- Viajero 14:50 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think after recent edits by Viajero, myself, and others that we can remove the NPOV banner now. Okay? Daniel Quinlan 22:46, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)
- I think it's the most balanced article I've seen on them yet. I say ditch the POV warning notice. -- Jake 07:29, 2003 Aug 19 (UTC)
This may be quite some question but,
How do you join?????
- Dane Genarro Curley
I doubt that anyone here is with the ejército del pueblo. Pehraps FARC will have info in their website at http://www.farcep.org/ 172 05:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Joining the FARC is not like joining a Book Club or even joining the EZLN...be careful what you wish for.
Compliments on a Well Done Article; More Details
I lived in Colombia (Bogota) for several years, and your article captures, in an acceptably NPOV way, the FARC. I suspect there are things going on with the FARC that have not yet been broadly accepted as fact, but will be in the fullness of time, e.g. very tight links of FARC leaders to narcotics trafficking, especially following the power vacuum caused by the collapse of the monolithic Cali and Medellin cartels in the 1990's. Many people with experience in Colombia take these as accepted facts, but it is one thing for people there to know something experientially, and another to have a body of evidence to make it accepted more broadly. The article covers it pretty well. You might expand the history of the FARC to include the 19th century fights between the Liberal and Conservative parties: the FARC came out of a splinter of the Liberals. This conflict, known as "la violencia" (the violence), is the origin of the deep division in Colombia. Even the roughly equal-in-size police and army supported opposing sides of this conflict. Animosity and distrust between them continues to this day.
I think it would be useful for you to put something in your timeline about the bombing of the El Nogal club (Avenida 7a, Bogota) in 2003 (I think). It was an important event because it was a major bombing in Bogota, and the most directed attack at the wealthy Colombians. It might have signaled a more intense urban phase of the war. Time has not borne that thesis out, though it might mean it was a *failed* attempt to start a more intense urban phase of the war. Either POV would be important to evaluating the situation.
Also: you mention Fernando Beira Mar (AKA Fernandinho), but do not mention a FARC counterpart with whom he worked very closely: El Negro Acacio, a high-level FARC leader (head of the 16th Front) in eastern Colombia, on the border with Brazil. The presumption is that Negro Acacio, an Afro-Colmbian from Colombia's Valle Department, directs little fighting in his area, is actually more responsible for maintaining the logistic pipeline to FARC units nationwide. There is ample evidence that the Brazil and Venezuela borders (Cucuta, especially) are used as the principal transit and trans-shipment points for FARC (less so the Peruvian and Ecuadorian bordrers). Negro A. manages drugs being produced and shipped out of Colombia to Brazil (and onward), and the Brazilians are happy to provide money and weapons in return. Negro Acacio has been indicted in the U.S. for narcotics trafficking, with what I understand is ample evidence.
Based on a significant experience there, my own personal "unified theory" about Colombia is that the conflict has been corrupted. The theory goes, as regards only FARC, that FARC is not by design and original intention a narcotics trafficking organization, but they are "hooked" on money the trafficking gives them, and money they get from tactical alliance with the cocaine and (growing) heroin traders in Colombia. On the other side, the cocaine/heroin traders are not by design terrorists, but they use the FARC (and AUC) to keep up the chaos in the country that prevents effecitve police efforts to stop the drug trafficking. It is an eager marriage of convenience; both benefit, and the Colombian people suffer as a side effect. If my theory approaches the objective truth, it is a tragically sad situation: FARC leaders convince young followers they are fighting for a better society, when the truth is that the leaders are just enjoying big money and perks from their narcotics trafficking ties (blue label scotch, Rolex watches, stolen Luxury 4x4 vehicles, women). The typical grunt FARC guerrilla suffers in deprivation, and even if he (or she) sees the situation realistically (i.e., aspiring get a piece of of that big money FARC leaders enjoy), it only reduces their participation to a race for (in this case, illicit) wealth. No political component at all. This is pathetic, given what Colombia could achieve in peace, if it only would (there is still a stubborn "have and have not" problem in Colombia to consider). Very arguably, the FARC is not even really seeking political power anymore, since the current situation serves their economic needs just fine, and peace would jeopardize the cocaine/heroin/counterfeiting cash cow. Despite world political events since then (i.e. fall of USSR, Eastern European Communist regimes), the FARC cling to a minimally-modified 1964 model of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary dogma that has no reasonable possibility of success. I don't have many doubts about the situation, but I leave it to your good judgement.
The Colombian conflice is very complex, and there are others who benefit from continuation of the violence. Of course there are societal inequities and injustices in Colombia, which my note does not address. Also, none of the above intentionally minimizes or excuses the activities and ties of the paramilitaries (AUC); I just chose to focus on FARC for the purposes of this discussion.
The additions made by 66.189.89.87
First off, I'd say that they are on the whole some very interesting and much needed contributions to the article, especially as far as the historical background is concerned.
On the other hand, several direct quotes are made without pointing out the specific sources of the same...