RugbyRebels

Thanks for the links, I'll have to get a book about FARC or something, though I've never seen one on the shelves. They have all these accusations & counter-accusations in Central America, too, over who is killing more of the native population, the US-backed dictatorships or the leftist rebels. I have read quite a bit about that topic (Stephen Kinzer's written some great books about it) and it does seem most of it is being carried out by the former. During my time in Spain I had a number of Colombian friends and they were generally supportive of FARC, while also acknowledging they'd committed their share of atrocities. I think that's where I came in, not defending FARC at all, only supporting the peace negotiations . . .

Well, looks like they're pushing ahead with peace negotiations anyway. Obviously the terms won't be the same as those set out in the referendum, but this is a good sign, and no doubt spurred along by Santos' Nobel Peace Prize.

Writes Noam Chomsky in Who Rules the World:

"Another fateful Kennedy decision in 1962 was to send a special forces mission to Colombia, led by General William Yarborough, who advised the Colombian security forces to undertake “paramilitary, sabotage and/or terrorist activities against known communist proponents,” activities that “should be backed by the United States.” The meaning of the phrase “communist proponents” was spelled out by the respected president of the Colombian Permanent Committee for Human Rights, former Minister of Foreign Affairs Alfredo Vázquez Carrizosa, who wrote that the Kennedy administration “took great pains to transform our regular armies into counterinsurgency brigades, accepting the new strategy of the death squads,” ushering in what is known in Latin America as the National Security Doctrine. . . . [not] defense against an external enemy, but a way to make the military establishment the masters of the game . . . [with] the right to combat the internal enemy, as set forth in the Brazilian doctrine, the Argentine doctrine, the Uruguayan doctrine, and the Colombian doctrine: it is the right to fight and to exterminate social workers, trade unionists, men and women who are not supportive of the establishment, and who are assumed to be communist extremists. And this could mean anyone, including human rights activists such as myself.

"Vázquez Carrizosa himself was living under heavy guard in his Bogotá residence when I visited him there in 2002 as part of a mission of Amnesty International, which was opening its year-long campaign to protect human rights defenders in Colombia because of the country’s horrifying record of attacks against human rights and labor activists, and mostly the usual victims of state terror: the poor and defenseless. Terror and torture in Colombia were supplemented by chemical warfare (“fumigation”), under the pretext of the war on drugs, leading to huge flight to urban slums and misery for the survivors. Colombia’s attorney general’s office now estimates that more than 140,000 people have been killed by paramilitaries, often acting in close collaboration with the U.S.-funded military.

"Signs of the slaughter are everywhere. On a nearly impassible dirt road to a remote village in southern Colombia a year ago, my companions and I passed a small clearing with many simple crosses marking the graves of victims of a paramilitary attack on a local bus. Reports of the killings are graphic enough; spending a little time with the survivors, who are among the kindest and most compassionate people I have ever had the privilege of meeting, makes the picture more vivid, and only more painful. This is the briefest sketch of terrible crimes for which Americans bear substantial culpability, and that we could easily ameliorate, at the very least.
"

I said I'd read up on this

A little good news, perhaps:

Colombia's government and the country's biggest rebel group have signed a new, modified peace accord following the surprise rejection of an earlier deal by voters in a referendum.

The latest agreement, signed on Saturday in Cuba, aims to address some of the concerns of opponents of the original accord, who said the deal was too lenient on the FARC rebel group, which they allege committed kidnappings and war crimes.

President Juan Manuel Santos and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) inked an initial peace deal on September 26 to international fanfare after more than four years of negotiations. But voters rejected it on October 2 by just 55,000 votes, dealing a stunning setback to Santos who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end Colombia's conflict.

"The agreement that was signed in September was, according to studies, one of the best in recent history," Santos said in a televised address. "But with all humility, I want to recognise that this new agreement is a better agreement."



http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/c ... 36609.html

More good news here, the government has entered peace talks with the National Liberation Army in neighbouring Ecuador. This is Colombia's second largest rebel group, and will hopefully follow on from the agreement already negotiated with FARC last year. FARC has been given the go-ahead to form a political party in exchange for surrendering their weapons. The National Liberation Army was founded by Catholic priests and inspired by the Cuban revolution. Though not as powerful as FARC, with only 2000 active soldiers, it is thought to have a wider support base among the population.