The Colombian government has repeatedly stated that
the FARC is no longer a political force, but a band of
armed thugs involved in extortion and drug trafficking.
Even a group of respected intellectuals from the
Colombian left has recently published an open letter crit-
icizing the guerrillas for no longer having a political-
ideological program. Can one speak of a political pro-
gram of the FARC?
W e’ve come to expect these criticisms, but they
ignore the fact that we have a clear proposal
based on pluralistic principles. Our program
is based on ten points, and we invite all Colombians
who are interested in creating a country that is funda-
mentally different to participate. We’re talking about a
government that would be truly committed to defending
the interests of the nation; a government that would put
a different economic model in place; a government that
would be committed to social peace and to defending
the country’s sovereignty; a government that would
attempt to resolve the problem of drug trafficking in
Colombia through a truly democratic agrarian reform
program; and one that would return land to the peasants
without any strings attached and provide them with
technical assistance for communications and market-
VoL XXXI, No 1 JULY/AUG 1997
ing. This government would create subsidies for peas-
ants in order to provide incentives for them to continue
working in the countryside, to promote food production
and to create jobs.
Whenever we put forward this pluralistic and patri-
otic proposal, we do so with the hope of resolving the
problems responsible for the violence that has swept
through Colombia. We talk about an economic model
that is independent and not subservient to the demands
of the IMF and the World Bank. These are the funda-
mentals of our program. They all relate to the political,
economic, social and cultural needs of the country.
You talk about a ten-point platform for a government of
reconstruction and reconciliation. What are its basic
points?
To begin with, we’re calling for a political solution to
the conflict facing our country, and an end to the years
of violence that have devastated generations of
Colombians. In order to attain this goal, we must
address the role of the state security forces. We must
change the country’s military doctrine and rethink the
role of the armed forces. They must exist to defend the
country’s borders, and never turn their arms on the peo-
ple. The primary role of the armed forces, therefore,
23VOICES ON THE LEFT
would be to protect national sovereignty, not to attack
what they perceive as opposition or subversion, which
in Colombia can very often mean anything.
We’re also calling for mass democratic participation
on a national, regional and municipal level to make
decisions about the many issues affecting our society.
For us, participation means opening up the mass media
to broader segments of the population. Elected officials
would be more accountable, and the rights of opposi-
tion forces and minorities would be respected and
defended. On an economic level,
directing 50% of the national
budget towards social welfare
issues like health, education,
housing and employment, so
that all Colombians may enjoy
these rights. Those people who
have more wealth would be
taxed more to create a more
equal distribution of wealth.
As I said before, agrarian
reform is a major component of
our platform, as is the protection
of our natural resources from
exploitation by multinationals.
These are some of our basic pro-
posals for a government of
reconstruction and national rec-
onciliation, which the current
illegitimate government doesn’t
even want to discuss.
Is it feasible to talk about this
kind of agrarian reform when
such a great portion of the land
you’re talking about is controlled
by drug cartels that have consid-
erable autonomy from any state
oversight or control, and to a
we would call for
We disti
between the
traffic
and the ca
The big
are conne
the political e
the guer
the campesino
The campesir
coca because h
means of st
great extent command just as much if not more eco-
nomic and military resources than the actual govern-
ment?
Drug trafficking in Colombia is a social, political
and economic phenomenon which must be resolved by
social, political and economic means. The FARC does
not consider the solution to the problem to be violence.
That is why, for example, we have totally opposed the
crop fumigations that have been occurring throughout
the country with the support of the United States. This
only creates more problems for the campesinos. The
campesino cultivates coca because he has no other
means of subsistence.
We realize that agrarian reform is a problem that must
be resolved by the state. The state has to figure out how
to give land to those people who actually want to work
it. It will have to resolve the problem with those who
currently control the land, either by buying it from
them, or by convincing them that they have to give up a
certain amount of their vast holdings.
But what we have in Colombia is a government that
has not wanted to change its policies. We have a gov-
ernment that has created a repressive apparatus that
doesn’t permit people to protest or to make demands.
When the people say that they are hungry or that they
need jobs, housing or health care, the government
immediately labels them subversives. They or their
families are threatened, or they
wind up dead. What we have in
Colombia is state terrorism.
inguish This was clearly seen in the
case of the Patriotic Union
major drug (UP). Five thousand Colom-
bians who belonged to the UP
ckers lost their lives in the last decade
alone. The biggest problem is mpesinos. not that there are cartels that are
cartels autonomous from the state. The
problem is that the state is heav-
cted with ily armed and it exists to protect
the interests of big capital at the
lite, not with expense of working people. In
rillas or fact, the government often uses the cartels as an excuse. They
o movement. say, “we can’t resolve these
issues because we have the drug
no cultivates traffickers on top of us, threat-
ening us.” Yet we now know e has no other that the current government is
subsistence. an illegitimate government that
was elected with the support of
the Cali cartel. It’s a govern-
ment which has been proven to
be corrupt.
The government has been using the term “narco-
guerrilla” to describe the armed opposition in Colombia, charging the FARC with being directly involved in the
drug trade. What do you say to these accusations?
We have always made our opposition to drugs in any
form very clear, and we have stressed the impact drugs
have had on the deterioration of society, not only in
Colombia, but throughout the world. We also have
pointed out that those responsible for drug trafficking
are not the campesinos. So when we, as an organization
with a nation-wide presence, find ourselves in an area
where illicit crops are being cultivated, we deal with the
people in the same way that we do when we are in areas
where there are legitimate crops, such as coffee, bananas and corn. We distinguish between the major
drug traffickers and the campesinos, because we see
NACIA REPORT ON THE AMERICASVOICES ON THE LEFT
that the big cartels are connected with the political elite,
not with the guerrillas or the campesino movement.
Under what conditions would the FARC be ready to
negotiate a peaceful settlement with the government?
What would it take to get back to the negotiating table?
First, we have to point out that in Colombia, there is
no real policy for achieving peace. The government
would have to offer guarantees in order for the insur-
gents to sit down and begin to discuss the new
Colombia that we all must be involved in creating. For
the moment, there are no such guarantees. They con-
tinue to offer rewards for the capture of guerrilla lead-
ers, and they continue to carry out political assassina-
tions and massacres. The presence of paramilitary
groups throughout the country is also increasing–
directed, fed, instructed and armed by the armed forces,
and specifically by the Commander-in-Chief of the
Army, Gen. Harold Bedoya Pizarro. They are the ones
who are always opposed to talking about any possibili-
ties of peace, because they benefit from waging war.
How do you justify your struggle in an era when most
armed conflicts throughout the region have been
resolved politically and old Cold War antagonisms are
apparently gone?
Many people say that the end of history has come now
that the Berlin Wall has come down, the Soviet Union no
longer exists, and the left has been defeated throughout
the world. We all can have different interpretations about
what has happened in the world during these very com-
plex years. But the fact of the matter is that some things
have not changed at all, and in many cases, they have
gotten worse. We can see that in El Salvador they signed
a peace agreement and ended a bloody war that had
lasted for years. We applaud that and see it as a victory
for the Salvadoran people. But even with peace, the sit-
uation has not been totally resolved. Issues persist such
as hunger, poverty, lack of jobs, lack of education and
health, and these are the issues that led up to the war, that led people to take up arms and confront the military
government in the first place. In fact, the recent neolib-
eral policies of the current Salvadoran government have
made matters worse for many.
Nevertheless, the people of El Salvador are able to
breathe a little easier now, compared to the levels of vio-
lence they had to confront daily during the war years.
That is correct. That is why I said we must applaud
and salute the valiant and victorious people of El
Salvador for what they’ve been able to achieve. But
they were able to get here only through years of armed
struggle that, in effect, forced the government to nego-
tiate. And the only reason they were able to negotiate a
peace accord is because there was a political will on all
sides to come to a negotiated settlement after so many
years of war. There was pressure from the international
community, and the government was forced to provide
guarantees for the rebel combatants and their leader-
ship. There was a political commitment to peace on the
part of all sides of the conflict, something that we can
say does not exist in Colombia. This brings us back to
your initial question about how we can say we are com-
mitted to a peaceful solution to the conflict, while still
holding onto our weapons. We will continue to fight
against this illegitimate government, to defend our-
selves, to protect the interests of the people, and to
struggle by any means, until we see that there is a real
and true commitment to peace.
The credibility of the armed insurgency in Colombia has
fallen off considerably in recent years. Even within pro-
gressive circles in Colombia there have been many
expressions of disillusionment with the FARC. What must
the FARC now do to regain some of the credibility it had
for many years of the insurgency, up until about 1992?
The guerrilla movement in Colombia has a lot of
credibility. The guerrillas are an option of power. We
provide an alternative to the many problems facing the
country. I think that now there are even greater expec-
tations for the guerrillas than in 1992, when the gov-
ernment of C6sar Gaviria broke off peace negotiations.
But as always, the political and ideological apparatus of
the state is going to contradict this. So it’s natural that
the hundreds of denunciations, the reports of massacres
and assassinations of thousands of UP militants, and all
the violations of human rights that are committed
against the popular sectors in Colombia barely get
reported. The government wants to show that Colombia
is a shining democracy where no real problems exist.
In this way, the media have been able to create the
illusion that the most important story coming out of
Colombia is the fact that President Samper received
some money from the Cali cartel to fund his campaign,
and that if he were to be removed from power all the
problems of the country would be resolved. But the fact
of the matter is that the problems in our country are
much deeper than this. So it’s not true that in Colombia
there is a free press. In Colombia, the government lim-
its a lot of information, and the journalists in turn have
to limit what they repeat. Their main sources of infor-
mation are the many press briefings held by the gener-
als, who tell them what is going on throughout the
country, which then get published as news. So it’s nat-
ural that every time they discuss the guerrillas, they
refer to them as “narcoguerrillas” or assassins. Since
information is controlled so tightly, it is not surprising
that people know so little about the FARC.
Menu
