Decades of fighting between the Colombian government and the revolutionary FARC movement have produced competing narratives. Every issue, from the legitimacy of various uses of violence, to territorial dispute settlement, is embroiled in an information war that produces different political. Like other civil conflicts, the portrayal of these events tends to reflect the chosen narrative of the more powerful party (virtually always the state) via their domination of the media and political discourse. Unexceptionally, the Colombian state has cloaked the conflict with its own modified trauma narrative.
The narrative in Colombia should be familiar to us. (Witness for instance the media attacks against Palestinians during this past summer's attacks on Gaza.)According to the government, Colombia’s security, citizens and interests are in danger. The danger is posed by FARC. Portraying the conflict in these terms is useful for garnering support for repressive policies and military action both at home and internationally. While propagating this narrative helps to build legitimacy, it does not help to establish meaningful democratic discourse or bring a swift end to the conflict.
The Origins of FARC
To be candid, it is easy to criticize FARC. They operate illicit economies, use child soldiers, and attack civilians, all practices the international community deems to be illegitimate uses of force. Yet before we condemn FARC as a terrorist group it will be helpful to acknowledge a few key points. One; FARC began as a movement for self-determination. Two: FARC was created in the 1950’s by people displaced and disenfranchised
by the privatization of agricultural lands in Colombia. Third; FARC's methods,
while violent, are a response to an even longer and more brutal history of state-sanctioned
violence and oppression.
The demonization and marginalization of the FARC movement is not a recent development. The political narrative and discourse surrounding their existence has been dominated by viewpoint of the Colombian government. The way in which the conflict in Colombia and particularly FARC has been portrayed worldwide over the years gives us valuable insight into who is winning the battle of competing political narratives. One 1964 New York Times article remarked about the Marquetalia region where FARC originated: "No roads connect the area to the rest of the country. The sparse economy of the area is based on meager crops of coffee, bananas, and sugar. There are a few scrawny mountain cattle. Dire poverty, disease, and illiteracy are believed to have created the discontent
that enabled the guerilla leaders to gain his power through force and persuasion," (New York Times, 1964). While revealing the desperation from which the FARC movement emerged, the article disregards it and portrays the population movement as helpless, and ignores the fact that their position was created by governmental economic policies in the first place.
The portrayal of FARC as a illegitimate terrorist movement is ongoing. In a recent interview with Slate, recently re-elected President Juan Manuel Santos stated in the same breath that "Never in 50-year history of the FARC have they been hit so hard as by my government. They used to be between 20,000 and 25,000. Today they are between 7,000 and 8,000." and, in reference to casualties regarded as having been lost by the state- "We—the government and I—have decided to put the victims at the center of the solution of this conflict. We have more than 6 million victims. Their rights must be respected and taken into account." While diplomatic, Santos’ statements are problematic. In his insistence throughout the negotiation that victims be respected and that FARC be held accountable for their crimes, he has effectively disregarded the central role his government has played in creating and propagating this conflict.
On the other side, in an interview with the International Journal of Socialist Renewal, FARC representative Timoleon Jimenez said of the state's negotiation approach, "You know that the biggest mistake of all the [previous] processes has been to come to the table to demand our surrender, without a real will to work at resolving the causes that gave rise to and continue to fuel the confrontation." He also mentioned that in emerging from fighting, the people of Colombia, who had for so long been "... ignored and victimized, must now stand up to claim their dead and missing, to demand the definitive end of the war, to prevent any enactment of impunity for the criminals, to demand satisfaction for those old outcries for those who were ravaged in such a widespread and atrocious manner," (IJSR). The tension between these statements demonstrates the ways in which both sides view themselves as righteous victims who have only reacted in but not instigated the conflict.
Attempting to determine who is right, who has legitimacy, and how to bring two diametrically opposed groups together is a daunting task. These examples merely illustrate one important aspect of this issue: the Colombian government, having its voice in mainstream media like Slate and the NY Times, has always and continues to portray FARC as an illegitimate, murderous movement of power hungry Communist ideologues. FARC, occasionally having its voice present in obscure outlets like socialist journals, has always felt that the government seeks only to do away with the inconvenience of opposition rather than address the hardship that creates it. The means and "legitimacy" of each side are worlds apart, yet history shows us their actions are largely the same.
How does this disconnect effect efforts for peace?
Currently, the Twenty-ninth round of peace talks between the Colombian Government and FARC have ended. The most recent talks focused on bringing in victims and hearing their stories. Despited their alleged "centrality", the 24 victims who have participated in the talks are unhappy with the peace negotiations and view them as ineffective. One of the most prevalent issues in the struggle between the Colombian government and FARC is the absence of a ceasefire. If this peace process is about mutual recognition and trust in constructing a power-sharing arrangement, until the State of Colombia can confess to its own crimes, acknowledge the legitimate grievances against it, and make concessions on FARC's terms as well as its own, it is unlikely that we will see lasting peace.
#Colombia&Peace #liberationstruggle
Citations:
Author Unknown. (2014). "The 29th Round of Colombian Peace Talks Ends in Cuba." Telesur. Retrieved
from http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/The-29th-Round-of-Colombian-Peace-Talks-Ends-in-Cuba-20141003- 0024.html.
Brittain, James J. (2010). Revolutionary Social Change in Colombia: The Origin and Direction of the FARC-EP. Pluto Press. pp. 74–76.
Lozano, Carlos. (2012). "Colombia peace talks: Interview with FARC leader Timoleon Jimenez (Timochenko)". International Journal of Socialist Renewal. Retreieved from http://links.org.au/node/3042
Weymouth, Lally. (2014). "Can Colombia Find Peace?: An Interview with President Juan Manuel Santos on the eve of his second inauguration." Slate. Retrieevd from http://www.slate.com/articles/
No comments:
Post a Comment