FARC-EP: an analysis by James Brittain

[chebol]

The FARC-EP in Colombia: A Revolutionary Exception in an Age of Imperialist Expansion
James J. Brittain
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0905brittain.htm

The United States and the Colombian ruling oligarchy have, since the 1960s, repeatedly implemented socioeconomic and military campaigns to defeat the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia–Ejército del Pueblo, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia–People’s Army (FARC–EP). However, this offensive, whose main purpose is to maintain capitalist accumulation and expansion, has resulted in an embarrassing setback for U.S. imperialism and the Colombian ruling class. In a time of growing and deepening U.S. imperialism, it is important to examine this failure. Over the past four decades, despite U.S. efforts, support has risen for what has been the most important continuous military and political force in South America opposing imperialism. I examine how the FARC–EP has not only maintained a substantial presence within the majority of the country but has responded aggressively to the continuing counterinsurgency campaign. I also show as false the propaganda campaign of the U.S. and Colombian governments claiming that the FARC–EP is being defeated. This analysis provides an example of how a contemporary organic, class-based sociopolitical movement can effectively contend with imperial power in a time of global counterrevolution.

Some Historical Background

Many years ago, Che Guevara drove through Colombia and wrote in his Motorcycle Diaries (Ocean Press, 2004, 157) that the so-called oldest democracy in Latin America had “more repression of individual freedom” than any other country he had visited. Since Che’s journey, little has changed.

During the mid-twentieth century Colombia was to experience several firsts in Latin American. Colombia was the first state to receive assistance from the World Bank (then called the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development). It was also the first country to receive official counterinsurgency and military assistance from the United States. During the decade of the 1960s the percentage of the national budget allocated for military expenditure, for the purpose of combating peasant and guerrilla forces, was over 16 percent.

In the current period Colombia finds itself in the throes of civil war, embedded in a model of neoliberal economics and overall subordination to the United States. A small group of very wealthy landowners and capitalists within the country have the ability directly to affect governmental policy and economic conditions. Polarization of wealth is extreme. The richest 3 percent now own over 70 percent of the arable land, while 57 percent subsist on less than 3 percent of that land. The richest 1 percent of the population controls 45 percent of the wealth, while half of the farmland is held by thirty-seven large landholders.1

The current president, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, has sought to implement a neoliberal model throughout Colombia by way of mass privatization, the removal of tariffs, and restricting labor unions. Uribe has supported measures that have reduced overtime wages, raised the age of retirement by a third, and cut the salaries of public sector workers by 33 percent. After neoliberal restructuring the disproportion in wealth yet further increased. In 1990, the ratio of income between the poorest and richest 10 percent was 40:1. By 2000 the ratio reached 80:1.2 This economic reality underlies all political and legal events in Colombia. All hypocritical blather about democracy and the rule of law aside, the Colombian state is ruled with great brutality by what Venezuela’s Chávez has termed a “rancid oligarchy,” supported of course by the United States.

In the face of this reality, Colombia has maintained a strong tradition of leftist opposition. In an 1872 essay, “The Possibility of Nonviolent Revolution,” Marx suggested that some countries may contain a proletariat that “can attain their goal by peaceful means”; however, he asserted, “we must also recognize the fact that in most countries” this is not the case and that “the lever of our revolution must be force.” If this be true of any country in the world today, that country is Colombia.

Class consciousness in Colombia has again and again constructed itself organically in the face of its ruling class. In the late 1930s through the 1950s several hundred rural-based Colombians, of communist ideology, organized themselves into structures of cooperation and security in response to expanding capitalist interests penetrating the hinterland. State-induced repression and violence aimed at small landholders, peasants, rural workers, and other semi-proletarians met a peaceful, but firm (and armed), response. Trying to exist as an autonomous geographical community, these “self-defense groups” were based on nuclei of peasants operating land collectively in relatively isolated regions of the country. They sought to establish a stable society, uncorrupted, and based on local control, and to counter the repressive central government by extending the communities into other areas. With support from a significant minority of the rural population, these localized self-defense groups progressively expanded their spheres of influence in the late 1950s and early 1960s to include multiple areas of southern and central Colombia. By 1964, over sixteen such groups of communities had been successfully established throughout the country. The communities, although peaceful, were considered a tremendous threat to not only the large landowning class and rising urban capitalists but also to the United States’ geopolitical interests. As a result, these regions became military targets during the Cold War offensive in Latin America that intensified under the Kennedy administration.3

In May of 1964, the United States and the Colombian government agreed to carry out attacks against the rural collectives, with ground zero being the Marquetalia region in the department of Tolima in southwestern Colombia. The military assault, commencing May 27, 1964, was made possible by extensive economic and military support from the United States through the Latin American Security Operation Plan. As a result, the FARC–EP considers May 27, 1964, the official date of its origin. Contrary to the reports of several scholars that the FARC–EP had been liquidated; the organization not only maintained its existence but consistently expanded throughout the country.

The FARC–EP—pursuant to Protocols I and II of the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate that oppositional armed movements vying for state power must formally arrange themselves into a visible ranked military construct—is formally organized as an Ejército del Pueblo (a people’s army) with a distinct chain of command. The Secretariat of the Central General Staff consists of seven members (Manual Marulanda Vélez, Raúl Reyes, Timoleón Jiménez, Iván Márquez, Jorge Briceño, Alfonso Cano, and Iván Ríos), who oversee the Central General Staff composed of twenty-five members specifically located within seven blocks throughout the country (Eastern, Western, Southern, Central, Middle Magdalena, Caribbean, and Cesar). In each of these blocks there are a number of fronts that contain, on average, 300 to 600 combatants per unit. By 2002, it was generally conceded that 105 fronts exist throughout the country. Figures obtained by the author through participant observation and open-ended interviews with the FARC–EP establish that there are at least an additional dozen fronts. Today the number of regions in Colombia with a significant FARC–EP presence is substantial; however, very little analysis of this topic has been collected, examined, or presented to the larger public.

Immediately after its founding, the insurgency was active in four municipalities and expanded its influence during the 1970s and 1980s. It was during the 1990s—with the rise of neoliberal economic policies accompanied by increased state repression, often carried out with unspeakable brutality by government-sanctioned paramilitaries—that the FARC–EP dramatically increased its social presence throughout the country. A comprehensive study published in 1997 revealed that the insurgency had tangible influence in 622 municipalities (out of a total 1,050).4 In 1999, the FARC–EP had increased its power to more than 60 percent of the country, and in less than three years it was estimated that over 93 percent of all “regions of recent settlement” in Colombia had a guerrilla presence.5 One example is the department of Cundinamarca, which completely surrounds the capital city of Bogotá. Within this area the power of the FARC–EP extends throughout 83 of the department’s 116 municipalities. Although its power varies in each borough, there is good reason to believe that the FARC–EP is present in every municipality throughout Colombia. Some areas are formally arranged by the FARC–EP with schools, medical facilities, grassroots judicial structures, and so on, while others may have a guerrilla presence albeit in a much smaller capacity. In conjunction with the material rise of the FARC–EP it cannot be denied that the insurgency has considerable support from the civilian population. Over the past several years, an increasing number of rural inhabitants have begun to migrate to FARC–EP inhabited regions, be it for protection or solidarity. During peace negotiations between the insurgency and the Colombian government (1998–2002), over 20,000 people migrated to the FARC–EP held Villa Nueva Colombia in one year alone. Many preferred to live in the rebel safe haven since it provided a sense of security and the ability to create alternative community-based development projects.6 No better example of the growing support for the FARC–EP exists than the number of rural inhabitants entering the FARC–EP maintained demilitarized zone (DMZ), acquired by the insurgency during the peace talks. The DMZ, prior to (official) FARC–EP consolidation, had a population of only about 100,000 inhabitants.7 By the time the Colombian government invaded the region and ended the peace negotiations there were roughly 740,000 Colombians who had migrated to the guerrilla held territory.8

Throughout the four decades since its inception, the FARC–EP has developed into a complex and organized movement (see Table 1). Its program addresses a range of critical political, social, cultural, and economic issues. Based upon ongoing research conducted by the author, the current constituency of the organization has grown from its base in the subsistence peasantry to incorporate indigenous populations, Afro-Colombians, the displaced, landless rural laborers, intellectuals, unionists, teachers, and sectors of the urban workforce. Forty-five percent of its members and commandantes are women. What began as a largely peasant-led rural-based land struggle in the 1960s has since been transformed into a national sociopolitical movement attempting alternative development objectives through the realization of a socialist society. By constructing a substantial support base, extensive geographical distribution, and an expanding ideological model of emancipation, the FARC–EP has, with the exception of Cuba, become the largest and most powerful revolutionary force—politically and militarily—within the Western Hemisphere.

Read the rest at:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0905brittain.htm

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Great article comrade, thanks for posting!

[Janus]

Yes, they may have a powerful guerrila force but does that mean anything? They have certainly not used it to its full potential. FARC has neglected its ideological background in order to embrace the corruptive influence of drugs. Now, they see attaining wealth through kidnappins and drugs as a means in itself.

[chebol]

Which "full potential"? HOW do you suggest they use it? Are you are trained guerrilla? Got a few revolutions under the belt?

The FARC-EP have long had a defensive strategy- based on their origins as self-defence forces for the autonomous communities. That they haven't rushed in and tried to take state power by force actually speaks in their favour. They are not strong enough to do that, and it would have been a bloodbath. Their strategy has been the defence, and involvement, of the peasants and workers in developing a vision for a new colombia.

They have certainly NOT "embraced" drugs. I challenge you to find ONE reliable source for this claim. While you're at it, maybe you'll find out the relationship of the FARC-EP to the communities for whom coca production is the only viable source of income in the present fucked-up colombian state.

True, the FARC-EP are not perfect, but such criticisms as they deserve should be based on reality, not slander.

[WUOrevolt]

I did hear stuff about them participating in assasinations and kidnapping and drug deals.

[WUOrevolt]

FARC has financed itself through kidnapping ransoms, extortion, drug trafficking which includes but it is not limited to coca plant harvesting, protection of their crops, processing of coca leaves to manufacture cocaine, and drug trade protection. Many of their fronts have also overrun and massacred small communities in order to silence and intimidate those who do not support their activities, enlist new and underaged recruits by force, distribute propaganda and, more importantly, to pillage local banks. Businesses operating in rural areas, including agricultural, oil, and mining interests, were required to pay "vaccines" (monthly payments) which “protected” them from subsequent attacks and kidnappings. An additional, albeit less lucrative, source of revenue was highway blockades where guerrillas stopped motorists and buses in order to confiscate jewelry and money, which were especially prevalent during the presidencies of Ernesto Samper Pizano (1994-1998) and that of Andrés Pastrana (1998-2002).

Over time, fewer recruits joined the organization for ideological reasons, but rather as a means to escape poverty and unemployment. “FARC's narcotics-related income for 1995 reportedly totaled $647 million.” Although the FARC rarely provides a regular cash pay to the majority of its members, per capita income for Colombian guerrilla fighters has at times been calculated to reach at least 40 times the national average.

By 1998, some studies showed that FARC's ranks could have swelled to approximately some 15,000 guerrilla fighters, up from an estimated 7,500 in 1992, and effectively were in a position to control and freely operate through large rural areas of the country (the high-end estimates being about 40%-50%, according to some analysts). One observer controversially noted that, on average, they would appear to be “better armed, equipped, and trained than the Colombian armed forces.” Other observers would dispute the current applicability of this assessment in the face of increased U.S. aid and training to the Colombia state and its military.

The FARC-EP has employed vehicle bombings, gas cylinder bombs, killings, landmines, kidnapping, extortion, hijacking, as well as guerrilla and conventional military action against Colombian political, military, and economic targets, to attack those it considers a threat to its movement. It has not been uncommon for civilians to die or suffer forced displacement, directly or indirectly, due to many of these actions. The FARC-EP's April 16 and April 18, 2005 gas cylinder attacks on the town of Toribió, Cauca led to the displacement of more than two thousand indigenous inhabitants and the destruction of two dozen civilian houses. A February 2005 report from the United Nation's High Commissioner for Human Rights mentioned that, during 2004, "FARC-EP continued to commit grave breaches [of human rights] such as murders of protected persons, torture and hostage-taking, which affected many civilians, including women, returnees, boys and girls, and ethnic groups."[4]

The FARC's tactic of employing improvised missiles made from gas canisters (or cylinders) as explosives, a weapon it often uses when launching attacks at towns and sites in them that they consider as military objectives (such as police stations), has a high degree of inaccuracy. Resulting targetting difficulties have caused these weapons to often level civilian houses and/or harm civilians, such as was respectively the case in Toribío on April 24, 2005, and the earlier 2002 attack on a church in Bojayá which killed 119 civilians.

Human Rights Watch considers that "the FARC-EP's continued use of gas cylinder bombs shows this armed group’s flagrant disregard for lives of civilians...gas cylinder bombs are impossible to aim with accuracy and, as a result, frequently strike civilian objects and cause avoidable civilian casualties."[5]

In March 1999, the FARC-EP killed three U.S. citizens, who were Native American rights activists, in Venezuelan territory after kidnapping them in Colombia. After initial denials and claims that these individuals would be CIA agents, the FARC-EP subsequently admitted that this action was a mistake, and claimed that it would internally punish those responsible. International NGOs and observers have argued that the FARC would have yet to apply any serious punishment to those involved in the incident.

The FARC-EP is responsible for most of the ransom kidnappings in Colombia. The group's kidnapping targets are usually those that it considers wealthy landowners and businessmen, as well as foreign tourists and entrepreneurs, and prominent international and domestic officials. Colombian and international NGOs have documented that in recent years the FARC has also resorted to kidnapping people from lower income sectors (that is, from the Colombian middle class downward), in particular when they are thought to be collaborators or relatives of the FARC's enemies. It is argued that many of these kidnappings have taken place with little to no regard for the target's age, gender or health conditions.

The FARC is believed to have ties to narcotics traffickers, principally through the provision of armed protection, including a form of "taxation" over drugs crops and their profits. During the mid- to late-1990s, several drugwar analysts have stated that the FARC would have become increasingly involved in the drug trade, controlling farming, production and exportation of cocaine in those areas of the country under their influence. This claim is also supported by U.S. and Colombian authorities.

Brazilian druglord Fernandinho Beira-Mar was captured in Colombia on April 20, 2001 while in the company of FARC-EP guerrillas. Colombian and Brazilian authorities have claimed that this constitutes proof of further cooperation between the FARC-EP and the druglord based on the exchange of weapons for cocaine, though Fernandinho himself and the FARC-EP have denied this. FARC itself has claimed that in their areas of influence the growth of coca plants (while this has been an enduring tradition, in one form or another, in the Colombian countryside by some of the indigenous communities for centuries, it had never reached its contemporary levels of plantation) by farmers would be taxed on the same basis as any other crop, even though there would be higher cash profits stemming from coca production and exportation.

During the first quarter of 2005, joint intelligence and police operations by law enforcement authorities from Honduras and Colombia resulted in the seizure of a number of AK-47 and M16 assault rifles, M60 machineguns, rocket launchers and ammunition cartridges that were stated to be part of illegal weapons shipments from criminal gangs and black market dealers in Central America to the FARC in exchange for drugs, allegedly for two thousand kilos of cocaine. Ethalson Mejia Hoy, a Colombian who was illegally released from Honduran custody in July 2004 24 hours after his arrest, was named as one of the key figures in such an arms-for-drugs traffic. It was reported that "Police intelligence were monitoring communications between two 14th Front guerrillas when they heard 'the package' being discussed. In actuality the package consisted of sufficient weapons to arm a minimum of 180 combatants." Arms dealers in the region were also accused of providing similar weapons to rightwing paramilitaries in Colombia. [6][7][8][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary...ces_of_Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Wikipdia is not a reliable source as anyone can post anything on it. How many times should this be said here?

And on a side note: how can you be a "leftist marleyist"?

Bob Marley was a Rasta -- they worship the late U.S.-puppet, anti-communist dictator Haile Selassie as the embodiment of God.

Your name is an oxymoron on so many levels.

[WUOrevolt]

The 6,7,8,9 at the end of the article are links to the sources that this docyment was researched on.

[WUOrevolt]

Can you supply us with sources that prove my wikipedia sources wrong?

If you do, I would be glad to change my opinion of the FARC-EP

[Correa]

Good read. Columbia's neighbor to the east makes this even more interesting. I wonder how Venezuela will influence the Columbian Socialist movement.

Venezuela and Colombia Gas Pipeline to Promote Regional Integration

Friday, Nov 25, 2005
By: Simone Baribeau - Venezuelanalysis.com



Venezuela's President hugo Chavez and Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe.

Credit: ABN

Caracas, Venezuela, November 25, 2005—In a $230 million agreement designed, in part, to help promote regional integration, Venezuela and Colombia have agreed to build a gas pipeline between the two countries. Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez and Colombia’s Álvaro Uribe made the announcement yesterday, while they met at the oil refinery complex of Paraguaná, on Venezuela’s northeastern coast.

The pipeline will run approximately 134 miles, from Colombia’s Puerto de Ballena to the East Coast of Venezuela’s Lake Maracaibo. The project will begin in the first quarter of 2006 and be completed within two years.

“Venezuela will be the owner and operator of the pipeline. It will, of course, charge a tariff on the initial export of gas from Colombia to Venezuela, and later from Venezuela to Colombia,” said Colombian President Álvaro Uribe.

For the first seven years of the pipe’s operation, Colombia anticipates pumping 4.24 million cubic meters of natural gas into Venezuela daily, a quantity which Venezuelan Foreign Minister Ali Rodriguez estimates to be worth more than $153 million a year. Afterwards, when Colombia runs out of natural gas reserves, the pipeline is planned import gas to Colombia from Venezuela.

Both presidents touted the deal’s importance to regional integration. It is part of PdVSA’s Plan Siembra Petrolera (Plan for Sowing the Oil), a development project with regional integration as one of its six main goals. The project represents about 1.4 percent of Plan Siembra’s budget over the two years of the pipeline’s construction.

In a second phase, the presidents say, the pipeline will be connected to pipelines in Central America. “We have to connect ourselves not only to Central America, but also from Colombia to the South, to the Pacific Ocean, to Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, with a natural gas pipeline of 6,000 kilometers,” added President Chávez.

Despite the two leaders’ dissimilar politics, disagreements over the value of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement, border problems, and a brief diplomatic rift over the arrest of a Colombian guerilla in Caracas, the two countries have maintained relatively good relations. The gas pipeline agreement is seen as further evidence of close ties between the countries.

According to the Venezuelan daily Panorama, in a related announcement, Uribe said that Colombia has agreed to allow PdVSA to construct an oil pipeline across the country in order to allow Venezuela to increase its oil sales to Asia.

Oil exports are critical to both the Venezuelan and Colombian economies. However, Colombia’s state-owned oil company’s agreements with private companies have been controversial, provoking long-term attacks by guerilla groups and international campaigns to supporting indigenous groups effected by environmentally destructive pipelines.

When the meeting between Chavez and Uribe concluded today, Colombia’s Foreign Minister Carolina Barco told the press that the meeting was highly satisfactory and that the two presidents had a “constructive dialogue.” According to Barco, Chavez promised to visit Colombia in December.

[Tekun]

I support the socialists objectives of the FARC, such as land and wealth distribution reforms

Yet, despite that article, certain things pop up which make me doubt the actions of the FARC

If anyone can refute or clear them up for me....

Specifically:

- Fernandinho Beira-Mar was captured in Colombia on April 20, 2001; he was in the FARC controlled region (too many sources to cite, just google it)

-There has been many kidnappings, including the kidnapping of Ingrid Betancourt and other ppl (widely known)

-Many of its members are under the age of 18 right now or when they are recruited



BTW, the wikipedia sources that leftymarley mentioned were a joke!
(especially the AOL source :lol: )

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

- Fernandinho Beira-Mar was captured in Colombia on April 20, 2001; he was in the FARC controlled region (too many sources to cite, just google it)

I don't know the whole story, but why are you upset that a drug kingpin was captured??


-There has been many kidnappings, including the kidnapping of Ingrid Betancourt and other ppl (widely known)

Yep. More done by the right-wing AUC death squads than anyone. The ELN also does alot more of this than FARC. But FARC does do it occasionally. So?

As they say, "a revolution isn't a bed of roses."

They have to deal with what they're given. They need constant funding; they're up against a huge military which is fully backed by the most powerful nation the world has ever known.


-Many of its members are under the age of 18 right now or when they are recruited

Yep. And 35% are women. Know why? Women and children are oppressed.

Why shouldn't/wouldn't they take part in their own liberation?

Would you rather them wait for "the men" to take care of everything?

[Tekun]

Im in no way attacking u brother, but to me u sound quite defensive....oh well :rolleyes:



I don't know the whole story, but why are you upset that a drug kingpin was captured??

Well, Im not upset that he was captured
Im perplexed by the fact that he was captured in a FARC controlled region, meaning that the FARC knew that this scum was in their region
And many sources report that he was captured with a company of FARC members, a fact that I refused to mention in my initial post
Any info on this??




Yep. More done by the right-wing AUC death squads than anyone. The ELN also does alot more of this than FARC. But FARC does do it occasionally. So?
As they say, "a revolution isn't a bed of roses."

They have to deal with what they're given. They need constant funding; they're up against a huge military which is fully backed by the most powerful nation the world has ever known.


There u go sounding defensive again bro
I understand that they're up against a military empire, but doesn't this kidnapping resemble extortion?
And isn't the money the receive from taxing coca leaves enough?
Im not trying to condemn these brothers, kuz they have the goodwill of the ppl in mind, but should we consider kidnapping as a way to fund a socialist resistance?



Yep. And 35% are women. Know why? Women and children are oppressed.

Why shouldn't/wouldn't they take part in their own liberation?

Would you rather them wait for "the men" to take care of everything?

I realize that they are oppressed, my heart goes out to them
They're oppressed just like my ppl were oppressed in Guatemala, during the 80's

But, I don't think exposing children to the violence and death of guerilla warfare is a good move
Not only are they scarred for life, but they see "shit" that no children should ever see; do they honestly know what they're fighting for??
Women are okay, but children IMO should not be exposed to that type of atmosphere, they should be in the FARC sponsored schools learning and striving to become FARC guerillas at around 17 or 18

Just chill bro, Im not attacking them or u
I just want to clear up a couple of things :blush:

[Andy Bowden]

What justification did the FARC provide for kidnapping a Green Presidential Candidate, Ingrid Betancourt?

Id be very surprised if the Green party was part of the establishment in Colombia.

[metalero]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 27 2005, 07:38 AM
What justification did the FARC provide for kidnapping a Green Presidential Candidate, Ingrid Betancourt?

Id be very surprised if the Green party was part of the establishment in Colombia.
Ingrid Betancourt was the presidential candidate for Oxigen party. Her platform wasn't near left. It was actually a political kidnapping, a mean to pressure the Colombian government to carry out an humanitarian exchange (according to Humanitarian International Law and geneve conventions) for FARC guerrillas held as state prisoners. FARC is also holding as prisoners of war 47 soldiers, a dozen of politicians and three US military advisors, all of these included in an exchange list for some 600 FARC members held captive in sub-human state prison, where they are isolated and subdued to torture.
The majority of Colombians favour an humanitarian exchange, including captive's relatives and international political figures who are ignored by right wing president Alvaro Uribes who represents the interest of war profiteers, such as the corrupted military institutions and the american military-industrial complex. An humanitarian exchange would recognize FARC as a legitimate belligerent force in the colombian undeclared civil war, something the oligarchy doesn't want since they wont'be able to keep portraying them as "terrorist".

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well, Im not upset that he was captured
Im perplexed by the fact that he was captured in a FARC controlled region, meaning that the FARC knew that this scum was in their region
And many sources report that he was captured with a company of FARC members, a fact that I refused to mention in my initial post
Any info on this??

They didn't neccessarily know he was there. They don't know the whereabouts and identities of everyone in the area they control -- not even the U.S. does.

And I'd like to see the sources you mention.


I understand that they're up against a military empire, but doesn't this kidnapping resemble extortion?

You have to look at everything in context.


And isn't the money the receive from taxing coca leaves enough?

Apparently not.


Im not trying to condemn these brothers, kuz they have the goodwill of the ppl in mind, but should we consider kidnapping as a way to fund a socialist resistance?

Taking money from the rich? Sure, why not? Taking prisoners for an exchange for your comrades during a civil war? Of course.


But, I don't think exposing children to the violence and death of guerilla warfare is a good move
Not only are they scarred for life, but they see "shit" that no children should ever see; do they honestly know what they're fighting for??
Women are okay, but children IMO should not be exposed to that type of atmosphere, they should be in the FARC sponsored schools learning and striving to become FARC guerillas at around 17 or 18

They are exposed to violence, death, murder, persecution, etc. whether they want to be or not! The right-wing government and the death squads it sponsers make sure of that. All oppressed people have a right to fight for their liberation, and that includes children, teens, etc.


Just chill bro, Im not attacking them or u I just want to clear up a couple of things

Understandable; and I didn't take your post as an attack of any sort. Please don't take my response the wrong way, I'm just defending FARC with a response based in fact.



Ingrid Betancourt was the presidential candidate for Oxigen party. Her platform wasn't near left. It was actually a political kidnapping, a mean to pressure the Colombian government to carry out an humanitarian exchange (according to Humanitarian International Law and geneve conventions) for FARC guerrillas held as state prisoners. FARC is also holding as prisoners of war 47 soldiers, a dozen of politicians and three US military advisors, all of these included in an exchange list for some 600 FARC members held captive in sub-human state prison, where they are isolated and subdued to torture.
The majority of Colombians favour an humanitarian exchange, including captive's relatives and international political figures who are ignored by right wing president Alvaro Uribes who represents the interest of war profiteers, such as the corrupted military institutions and the american military-industrial complex. An humanitarian exchange would recognize FARC as a legitimate belligerent force in the colombian undeclared civil war, something the oligarchy doesn't want since they wont'be able to keep portraying them as "terrorist".

Exactly comrade! Glad to see that someone is informed on the situation.

[Andy Bowden]

Im curious as to wether or not Ms Betancourt was kidnapped because she was famous and political - and generally a good bargaining chip or if she supported repressive measures.

If Ms Betancourt was the latter it is justified, but if the former it becomes a little dodgy.

[metalero]

As I said, Ingrid Betancourt was a presidential candidate, part of Colombian ruling elite (establishment) and she didn't propose any substantial change. FARC are not asking for any ransom or economical profit out of the kidnapping; they thought that way they could pressure the government, but specially to catch the attention of the international community (since she's also a french citizen) about the conflict and the need for an humanitarian exchange. FARC have sought intermediaries (UN office in colombia) to make a prisoners exchange long ago but the government just gives a shit about low rank soldiers and the pain of their relatives, as well as those kept captive in the infamous colombian prisons. So they thought that by taking an important political figure a humanitarian exchange could be reached.

[chebol]

Betancourt was captured because she drove out to FARC-EP controlled areas to TELL them to stop fighting, and begin peace talks.

It's a bit daft, and when you're presented such a goose on a platter, you don't turn it down. They have tried to use her as a bargaining chip, but the Colombian government refuses to let them (eg FARC-EP representative Granda who was kidnapped by colombians in Venezuela was in fact involved in negotiations for her release with the French government- Betancourt is half-french).

In the last week, there appears to be some space opening up again for prisoner exchanges as the Government returns to the table. Watch this space.

[WUOrevolt]

Heres is a profile of the FARC by BBC

Colombia's most powerful rebels
Most of Colombia's 3,000-odd kidnappings every year are carried out by the FARC rebel group, who use the ransoms to fund their long-running war on the state.

FARC denies responsibility for the deadly Bogota club bombing
The group's roots can be found in the Liberal guerrilla bands of La Violencia, a civil war between the Liberal and Conservative parties that raged from 1948 until 1958, which became disillusioned with the leadership of the Liberal Party and turned to communism.

One such guerrilla band was led by Manuel "Sureshot" Marulanda (his real name is Pedro Antonio Marin), who in 1966 baptised his group the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Manuel Marulanda, now more than 70, still heads the FARC.

Drug taxes

Until the 1980s the growth of the FARC was slow, restricted mainly to the outer reaches of the country where hardy peasants had carved land from the jungle and where the state has neglected to follow them.

But then the FARC discovered drugs - not consuming them, which is prohibited in the rebel ranks, but taxing them.

Now they tax every stage of the drug business, from the chemicals needed to process the hardy coca bush into cocaine and the opium poppy into heroin, right up to charging for the processed drugs to be flown from illegal airstrips they control.

And they make at least $300m from the drug trade every year, added to which is their income from kidnapping and extortion, making them probably the richest insurgent group in the world.

Closed route

The FARC did briefly flirt with a political route to power, establishing a political party, the Patriotic Union (UP), in the late 1980s.

But the UP was decimated by right-wing death squads, sponsored by drug traffickers and with links to government security forces.

Some 3,000 UP members were murdered, including the UP's 1990 presidential candidate, Bernardo Jaramillo Ossa.

The political route was therefore effectively closed to the FARC and they focused on the military route to power, which they are still following today.

Turning tide

In 1998, the rebels were granted a 42,000 sq kilometre safe haven in 1998 by then President Andres Pastrana - their condition for sitting down at the peace table.

But the FARC talked peace with the government while making war, bringing violence and kidnapping to record levels.

They used their safe haven to import arms, export drugs, recruit minors and build up their military machine.

The territory was revoked last year by a new government under President Alvaro Uribe, who cancelled the peace talks after FARC rebels hijacked an airliner, forced it to land on a rural road and kidnapped a Colombian senator who was aboard.

President Uribe and the Colombian army have this year launched a fresh offensive against the rebels - backed by $3bn of US military aid.

While the tide is believed to be turning against the FARC, the rebels still believe they can take power with violence.

In September, eight people were killed - including a two-year-old child - after a bomb strapped to a horse has exploded in a market. The FARC was blamed.

The group was also accused of a deadly bombing at a Bogota social club earlier this year, which killed 33 people, although it denies the allegation.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1746777.stm

[Janus]

So if FARC doesn't rely on cocaine than what do their financing operations consist of? Does anyone have any figures?

[WUOrevolt]

Some of their financing comes from kidnappings and extortion.

[Janus]

Yes, but what are the figures and does FARC see these money gathering operations as an end in itself?

[Correa]

Liberals? Since when do Liberals engage in guerilla warfare? Hahaha! :lol:

[WUOrevolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:57 AM
Liberals? Since when do Liberals engage in guerilla warfare? Hahaha! :lol:
What is this in referance to?

[chebol]

The farc grew out of the self-defence groups that protected liberal-supporting peasants and workers in southern colombia. While many of the initial members were also from the communist party, the majority were liberals forced to defend themselves from the conservative state (which already had US support).
From that time, it's politics have evolved until it became a marxist, leninist, revolutionary, organisation.

So, yes. Since when? Since then- when they had to.

[Correa]

Hmmm....interesting. The notion of "liberals" taking up arms seems comical to me, but I guess technically it has happened. Hopefully the liberal faction of FARC is small in numbers.

[chebol]

You miss the point. This happened half a century ago. The FARC was officially formed 41 years ago. Since then, the whole organisation has evolved in many ways.

And as for liberals taking up arms- who do you think made up a large proportion of the July 26 Movement?

[The Grey Blur]

Yes, they may have a powerful guerrila force but does that mean anything? They have certainly not used it to its full potential.
I think they conrol something like a third of Columbia and they consistently carry out successful attacks on the corrupt government, what more do you expect from them? All-out revolution? - They would be slaughtered and then the poor and oppressed of Columbia would have absolutely no hope of a free, equal life.


FARC has neglected its ideological background in order to embrace the corruptive influence of drugs.
The FARC tax the cocao growers and do their best to provide alternative crops for these impoverished farmers - approximately 1% of the amount of cocaine that is exported from Columbia comes from the FARC territory, the rest from the AUC and other state-backed paramilitary groups.


Now, they see attaining wealth through kidnappins and drugs as a means in itself.
See above comment regarding drugs, on the subject of kidnappings I don't have much sources or evidence on this myself but I know for sure that whatever kidnappings take place are blown out of proportion by the propagnda-mills within Bogota and Washington.

[Janus]

Yes, they control a major portion of Colombia but much of that territory was given to them by the government. Anyways, thanks for clearing up the FARC drug business. I'd always thought that FARC ideology had been eclipsed by drugs but I guess that I've just been fed lies by the media. So what is FARC's future now that the AUC is disbanding?

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 28 2005, 10:30 PM
Yes, they control a major portion of Colombia but much of that territory was given to them by the government. Anyways, thanks for clearing up the FARC drug business. I'd always thought that FARC ideology had been eclipsed by drugs but I guess that I've just been fed lies by the media. So what is FARC's future now that the AUC is disbanding.
:o I didn't know the AUC were disbanding - whoa (although it might just me like the loyalists disbanding here in Ireland - lose the ideology but keep the criminality)

Most of what I posted came from another thread (I'll find the link) were I posted almost the same critiscisms as you but was corrected by CDL - he is a lot more knowledgable on the Latin American situation than me.

There's quite a few threads in fact:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43144

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...c=41534&hl=farc (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41534&hl=farc)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...c=38221&hl=farc (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38221&hl=farc)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...c=36662&hl=farc (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36662&hl=farc)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...c=32838&hl=farc (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32838&hl=farc)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...c=31991&hl=farc (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=31991&hl=farc)

[Janus]

[QUOTE]I didn't know the AUC were disbanding

Yeah, it's true. They've been disbanding for over a year now. However, it doesn't really matter because the drug lords and rich landowners can easily recruit more people. Anyways, this policy is just letting former murderers off the hook without doing much for the long-term well-being of the nation.

[chebol]

***************WARNING****************************
THE AUC ARE NOT "ABOUT TO DISBAND"!!!!!

This is a smokescreen, and not a new one. Furthermore, it is a smokescreen that is dissolving as we speak, and the 'disbanding' is in 'danger' or 'stopping'.

The right wing paramilitaries known as the AUC are not the first such groups, but merely one of the latest. They merely change hats when the heat gets too much. Many of them are also in the army.

The "Peace and Justice Law" essentially prevents any real prosecution of AUC members, whilst handing most of them immunity, and then arming them to go out and "defend the community" again.

Some background:
http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia185.htm
http://www.ww4report.com/node/view/uribe.html
http://www.colombiaweek.org/newsmakers.html#auc
http://www.narconews.com/narcocandidate1.html
http://www.americas.org/item_16025
http://www.zmag.org/content/Colombia/podur...egotiations.cfm (http://www.zmag.org/content/Colombia/podur-col-para-negotiations.cfm)
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/auc.cfm
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/630/630p15.htm

And personally? I don't really believe thatthose who chainsaw children are really that likely to suddenly become 'nice people'.

[metalero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:59 PM
***************WARNING****************************
THE AUC ARE NOT "ABOUT TO DISBAND"!!!!!

I just thought the same expression! the actual "peace process" between the government and paramilitaries it's a farce since AUC has never rebelled against the state, all the opposite, they were created by military institutions and financed by the oligarchy to wage dirty war against the colombian people, specially those who supposely or allegedly form the popular support for the guerrilla (Union leaders, peasants, intellectuals, student movements). Alvaro Uribe has closed ties with these groups; while governor of Antioquia province during the mid 90's he created the CONVIVIR (private armies who where later declared unconstituional) and appointed Salvatore mancusso as their leader. These days Mancusso is the main leader of the AUC, responsible for tens of horrendous chainsaw massacres and displacemnet of thousands of poor peasants.
The true purpose of the "peace process" is to create a legal frame where paramilitaries can walk out free of being charged for crimes against humanity and to legalize all the property and lands taken by force away from small farmers and peasant families. Something like "I'm sorry, I don't know who exactly did it but it won't happen again, let's grab our hands and forget everything". No Justice, No truth...No peace.
Anyone in Colombia can tell you that paramilitaries are not dismantling, they are actually consolidating their social and economical supremacy in society. They control many burocreatic institutions and are taking over the cities, It's like the the turning point from buorguoise democracy to fascism.
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr230192005

[Entrails Konfetti]

In 1999, the FARC–EP had increased its power to more than 60 percent of the country, and in less than three years it was estimated that over 93 percent of all “regions of recent settlement” in Colombia had a guerrilla presence.

I'm confused; if FARC had 93% of Columbia, why didn't they overthrow the state?

Perhaps I misread this. Whats exactly are "Regions of recent settlement"?

[metalero]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 3 2005, 01:54 AM

In 1999, the FARC–EP had increased its power to more than 60 percent of the country, and in less than three years it was estimated that over 93 percent of all “regions of recent settlement” in Colombia had a guerrilla presence.

I'm confused; if FARC had 93% of Columbia, why didn't they overthrow the state?

Perhaps I misread this. Whats exactly are "Regions of recent settlement"?
Guerrilla presence is different from guerrilla control. They are present in almost all the colombian territory, mostly in the countryside where they control huge territories in south and central colombia. But they are merely present in the major cities (clandestine urban militias) where most of the population is.