Legitimizing the FARC

By -

Legitimizing the FARC
The FARC has dominated resources, economics, and politics in Colombia for years. It has been very difficult for Colombian leaders and citizens to free themselves from the overwhelming force that is the FARC. In the beginning, the FARC seemed to be a revolutionary group that was really passionate about social change and liberating Colombians. As time went on and little change occurred, the FARC got more and more violent and started to participate in illegal tactics. These illegal tactics produced a lot of revenue for the guerilla group but also established them as a force not to be reckoned with. Colombia’s president, Andres Pastrana, was passionate about negotiating peace between Colombia and the FARC. The United States supports President Pastrana in his quest for peace. In 1998, he granted a piece of land, the size of Switzerland, to the FARC in hopes that it would lead to peace between the two parties. Safe havens for the FARC were established but were accused of being used as artilleries. From here, peace-talks were not well received by the people of Colombia and violence continued to happen. The legitimizing of the FARC as an entity, privileged to negotiations and pieces to bargain, furthered the corruption in Colombia.
            For the purpose of this paper, the FARC will be considered a terrorist group. Peter Neumann writes: “The argument against negotiating with terrorists is simple: democracies must never give into violence and terrorists should never be rewarded for using it”. He continues by saying that negotiations with terrorists only legitimize their efforts and “undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful means”. The kidnapping, drug deals, and killings are just a few tactics used by the FARC  for political gain; those things seemed to be swept under the rug when the government decided to make a peace deal. The assumption that the FARC were of the same caliber to make political negotiations is baffling. Violence cannot be negotiated.
            Neumann argues that negotiations should only begin after a terrorist group has promised to permanently end any acts of violence. Colombia was smart to do this in 2001 when it accepted the FARC’s ceasefire to proceed with negotiations. This was the first ceasefire by the FARC in a long line of ceasefires declared over the years. Negotiations were never peaceful or concrete because Colombia already recognized the FARC as its own entity capable of making its own decisions and abandoning any negotiations or ceasefires already established. Neumann writes that permanent ceasefires are essential to “maintaining the stability of a government’s political system” because it acts as a public commitment that can be sanctioned. He talks about maintaining the “democratic protocol” which means showing terrorists and citizens that the government won’t let crucial outcomes be dictated by violence. Even in June of 2007, Colombia released FARC members from prison in the hopes that the FARC would release hostages. There was no guarantee that hostages would be free, there was no ceasefire, no democratic practice present. Unfortunately this process would continue for years.
            It would be unfair to say that the Colombian government is responsible for all of the violence and corruption but it is responsible for the way that it handled it. Colombia lacked consistency in promoting democratic principles and the government only legitimized the violence and corruption that the FARC committed. Colombia did not practice the policies that it wanted the FARC to follow and that only multiplied the magnitude of the FARC.

Works Cited
BBC News. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-
19390164
Neumann, P. (2007). Negotiating with Terrorists. Council on Foreign Relations, Vol. 86,
pg. 128, 133-134.
Romero, C. and Eira, R. (2002). War Peace and Jobs. The World Today, Vol. 58, pg.
23-24.


Comments

  1. Taylor WhiteApril 25, 2018 at 9:34 PM

    Hi Rachel,

    This was a very interesting post. Like the Colombian government, I believe that it is difficult any group who commits violent acts, especially a terrorist organization. With these groups their motives and goals are often unclear and the members of such groups remain unidentified, adding to the danger in trusting them. Yet the Government's hesitance to deal with the FARC could mean that it is responsible for some of the violent acts. While they were correct in remaining cautious, sometimes they missed the chance to properly deal with the group which could be why the group terrorized Colombian people for such a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownApril 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM

    Great post Rachel! I thought it was interesting how you argued that by appealing to the FARC with peace talks and donation of land, the Columbian government has legitimized the group and perpetuated the corruption that has taken place.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownApril 27, 2018 at 11:33 AM

    Great job Rachel! I liked how you talked about what goes into negotiating with terrorist groups such as the FARC, this was a great point to consider. I definitely agree that the way Colombia dealt with the FARC did not benefit them in any way but only made the FARC stronger. I also liked the point you made about violence not being negotiable, i also agree with this statement. Overall great blog post!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is Terrorism?

By -
Cassandra Monteiro Global Politics of Terrorism Professor Shirk February 5 th 2018 What is Terrorism?             Terrorism occurs when a weak person or group of people who are involved in a struggle of power premeditate an attack against a more powerful nation-state with the aim of inflicting terror and fear among the group and people involved or within. Terrorists use violence with attempts of getting their beliefs and ideas across to others. Terrorism occurs when the group or person is rebelling the current state and aims to get a response from the one’s in power. Motive is one of the main keys in defining terrorism as there has to be a political or power motive involved. Terrorism is not just a random attack for no reason, it is often made very clear what the reason for the attack is as one of the goals is to get a response from the people being attacked and for changes to be made.    ...
Read more

How the Media Impacts Public Perception of Violent Attacks: ELF

By -
Taylor White POL 357 Professor Shirk 31 March 2018              How the Media Impacts Public Perception of Violent Attacks: ELF             As society transitions from print media in the form of newspapers to broadcast media via television, the headlines and breaking news of news outlets including CNN and Fox News draw in viewers and impact the way they perceive the information. In class on Thursday, we discussed how the media influences the way we view public events; the media molds the public perception of the ideology of all groups to which attacks are linked, and therefore is the catalysts for the way the nation either condemns or praises the act. Regarding the Earth Liberation Front(ELF), broadcast media is to blame for why the members of the group have been demonized and why the movement deemed futile.             When a ...
Read more

NORAID assignment

By -
Rachel Sousa NORAID reading 1)       Noraid’s premise for existing was to advocate for the Irish after perceived abuse by America and the British. Irish immigrants in America were exploited and discriminated against and Irish citizens struggled for their independence from Britain; these two scenarios inspired the birth of Noraid. Representatives from the PIRA and Irish activists in New York founded the Noraid. The purpose of the group was to provide “financial and practical assistance to nationalist districts in the north”. Eventually, the group supported the families of Irish prisoners who advocated for Irish independence. In addition, they subtly raised money for arms for activists. At first, the group wanted to gain support from Irish Americans to the plight in Ireland but the public perceived them as the “ sole representative” of the PIRA in America. Noraid wanted to spread the influence of PIRA and try to convince Irish republicans...
Read more