Terrorism à la carte
February 11, 2008
Who bells the cat? Who dares defy evil lies and speculations about terrorism? It is enough to border on this issue to trigger reactions, some of them wary and others offending. And as it usually happens, the mass media and politicians committed to dark interests sharpen their fangs. These sectors manipulate aggressive accusations, such as The Washington Post´s, which labels Chávez as an “ally of kidnappers;” likewise, the Colombian government’s ways to deal with this issue lead ones to think of an intentional provocation with shameful purposes.
There is some kind of terrorism à la carte: one good, and one evil. This has been always said. But it is good to repeat it: there is a terrorism which is defended, and a terrorism which is condemned according to political leanings. Terrorist is always the other person. Almost all liberation movements were labeled as terrorists along history. A few of them managed to dodge this label.
The fighters against the Spanish empire in Latin America were terrorist. Those who fought colonialism in Africa were terrorist. Those who embodied freedom against the British domination in Asia were terrorist. Those who fought for the freedom of Ireland were terrorist. The Northern Ireland’s IRA is terrorist. Those in Latin America opposing the U.S. imperialism are terrorist. The Palestinian people fighting for a territory and a homeland are terrorist.
On the contrary, the repressing State which did not acknowledge basic rights in Latin America, and tortured, disappeared, and executed thousands of people in Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Guatemala, El Salvador, Brazil, is not terrorist. Nor is the State of Israel, which bombards unarmed Palestinian villages and massacres Palestinians. The Irgun and the Jewish groups resorting to violence in order to found a State were not either terrorist.
Bush is not terrorist, but he violates international law, uses a globalized repression allowing him to arrest people anywhere, disappears people, moving them from one place to another, and mounts concentration camps such as Guantanamo, where any remain of justice is extinguished. Nor is Posada Carriles, who has a personal cemetery and relies on protection of the CIA and the powerful imperial Bush family.
He who writes this column condemns any form of terrorism to justify a cause or commit crimes against the human dignity. That’s the reason why I reject manichaeism when dealing with this issue. I refuse to accept that norms to tackle the problem are delivered by those who have no moral authority. For instance: Bush’s war on terrorism is a charade to justify a policy and an ideology to compete with those on the other side doing the same thing.
That’s the reason why this issue regains validity thanks to Chávez’s remarks on the FARC. Unfortunately, this debate again starts with the same old mediocrity and opportunism. While Chávez has had the courage to place this issue on its real context, others trivialized it. Chávez has two reasons to do this: the first one is a reason of State, because Venezuela is the second most affected country after Colombia; the second are humanitarian reasons because the indifference to our neighbor’s tragedy is inconceivable.
Reducing Colombia’s violence and the FARC issues to terrorism is just an unacceptable simplification that has to do more with politics than to State and humanitarian reasons. Starting September 11, the FARC were labeled terrorists after 50 years of existence. Colombian presidents such as Pastrana met with the guerrilla leaders, and former Venezuelan governments prior to Chávez maintain normal relations with this organization: FARC delegates often visited Caracas and one of its representatives even gave a speech in our Foreign Affairs Ministry. Were not the FARC terrorist by then? When did they officially start being terrorist? When Bush said so? When Uribe said so?
It seems that everything is subject to personal decisions and circumstances. Of course, kidnapping people is repudiated. But is this the reason unleashing a virulent criticism against the proposal of removing the FARC from lists of terrorist groups?
Nothing justifies generalizations when we are talking about human lives, but regarding a nation plagued with violence such as Colombia, where oligarchs and landowners created - together with the Armed Forces - the genocide paramilitarism, and drug trafficking elects presidents, ministers, governors, mayors and legislators, it is very difficult to swallow the argument.
But let’s be honest and put aside manipulations. The crux of the matter is whether or not peace is wanted in Colombia. The dilemma is simple: peace or war. This conflict – as many have said in different tones – does not have a military solution.
After almost 60 years, the Colombian State has not been able to finish the guerrilla and the guerrilla has no been able to seize power. If they do not engage in political negotiations - as they did in El Salvador, Guatemala and other places -, peace will not be achieved and Colombians will continue killing each other and will be degraded by war for many years.
The guerrillas’ procedures, as well as those of the counterinsurgency, will continue and the people will still be the victim.
Chávez is right when he proposes to withdraw the FARC from the lists of terrorist groups in order to start negotiating humanitarian agreements and peace.
Uribe is aware that he has the key to open the doors to negotiations as he offered (Janury 15, 2008) to “remove the label of terrorist if the FARC start a process of peace.” This remark by the Colombian president confirms that the label does not embody the essence; the process does. Chávez has said so.
Please, let’s put aside cynicism and provocations. We have to act with the seriousness demanded by this issue. I conclude with the remarks by the Grand Mufti of Damascus in the Strasbourg’s meeting on the dialogue of civilizations. Wars are never holy. Peace, though, is holy.”
The rest is worship to violence, and the reckless exploitation of it.
By José Vicente Rangel / Venezuela’s National Radio (RNV)