Implications of the Colombian Hostage Rescue

The liberation of former Colombian presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt, along with three Americans and eleven Colombian hostages was not just an exemplary military operation carried out by the Colombian army but was an action that could have far wider implications. It was a major blow which could be the beginning of the end of a 40 year old guerilla movement known as The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The FARC are closely linked to the drug cartels, and continue to be responsible for the murder, blackmailing, and kidnapping of thousands of people including innocent civilians. The FARC has also recruited and kidnapped minors for combat with about 30% of the group’s combatants being under age children. This is an organization that began as the military arm of the communist party but long ago became an inhumane group that in the name of higher revolutionary goals left moral and human considerations behind.

Indeed, the rescue operation more than liberating the hostages will have tremendous political implications not only for Colombia and Latin America but hopefully for the United States. First, the operation exposed the FARC as a weakened group. In contrast the rescue highlighted the patience, effectiveness and careful planning of the government. It further bolstered the hugely popular Colombian president who out of the ashes of anarchy has succeeded in restoring order and stability while weakening the main sources of sedition; first the drug cartels and now the FARC. The Colombian government has been able to achieve this while sustaining the institutions of democracy.

[More]Secondly, the success of the rescue operation was a major setback for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The FARC was also one of the main instruments in the hands of Chavez which he used in an effort to bring down the government of Colombian president, Alvaro Uribe. By the same token, Chavez sees the FARC’s violent methods as an important resource in spreading the Bolivarian revolution. Lately the FARC has been calling itself not just Marxist-Leninist but also "Bolivarian" in reference to the pan-Latin revolution promoted by Chavez. Evidence from last March’s Colombian raid in Ecuador exposed strong "military" connections between the FARC and Hugo Chavez. These connections were extended to Ecuadorian president and Chavez ally Rafael Correa who harbored FARC guerillas. Bolivian president Evo Morales has also been sympathetic towards the FARC. Curiously enough, Chavez, Correa and Morales are congratulating the Colombian President now when in fact they are crying over the FARC’s defeat. Chavez’s declaration in support of the Colombian government is conspicuously forged. However, it shows how cowardly and defensive he has become because a blow to the FARC is a blow to the Bolivarian revolution. However, the weakening of the FARC should not be confused with a total defeat for either the FARC or the drug industry in Colombia. The group still holds some 700 hostages, and retaliation attacks against the government and civilians can be expected. It is not out of the question that the FARC could seek to capture other high-profile hostages. In fact a former senator and FARC-hostage, recently fled Colombia after he received several death threats. Yet, the success of the rescue will hopefully give Uribe the momentum and trust he needs to achieve total victory over these groups.  

Since the attacks on September 11, 2001 and the subsequent actions taken by the Bush Administration, there has been a great deal of tough and merciless judgment against the Bush Doctrine. That doctrine- which calls for an aggressive stand against terrorist organizations and countries that harbor them as well as applying preventive measures to change the environment in which they operate- has been deconstructed by elements within the media, public opinion as well as politicians. The deconstruction of the Bush Doctrine began by reasonably criticizing its unilateralism in not reaching out to other partners in the international arena. However, such criticism was thereafter taken over by fear that a too aggressive action against terrorist organizations and rogue states could bring about revenge and proliferation of those groups. It is this fear that has led many in the US to believe that negotiations with an enemy that is ideological, uncompromising and murderous can somehow render positive results. To the contrary such negotiations only serve to make the US appear weak, a "paper tiger."

Under the auspices of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, terrorist organizations around the world, without apparent common goal or close geographical location, cooperated and developed solidarity. In the aftermath of the cold war such cooperation and solidarity continues even more, as global jihad developed. The success of one terrorist organization has a psychological domino effect because it excites and encourages other terrorist organizations. A strike on a terrorist organization, on the other hand, has a demoralizing effect on global terrorism. Despite the distance between Colombia and the Middle East, it is very reasonable to assume that there was cooperation between the FARC and radical Islam via Hugo Chavez. Consequently, President Uribe by cracking down on the FARC also helped the global efforts to defeat Jihad.

Very few have understood the role of Colombia as a strategic asset to the US. The shameful debate over the free-trade agreement with Colombia led by Nancy Pelosi understands the relation with Colombia as a commercial one and in terms of its domestic effect. Pelosi and those who questioned the agreement chose to ignore the security factor in our relations with Colombia. This happened not only because of the populist mood of pre-electoral times but also because somewhere there is an element that believes that Chavez, Correa, Morales, the FARC and the Iranian presence in the region   are not that big of a threat. In other words, fear of confrontation, lack of understanding of security issues and a blind rejection of the Bush doctrine has submerged many of our leaders in a sea of ignorance and negligence. This arrogant view is reflected in a recent editorial published by The New York Times. That editorial congratulates Uribe for the rescue operation but claims that this presents an opportunity to integrate the FARC into the political process. This is not mere ignorance of the totalitarian and wicked nature of the FARC.   It is also an expression of contempt towards the Colombian people who suffered decades of anarchy and murder at the hands of the drug cartels and the FARC. Besides what gives members of the left-wing FARC who murder and extort any more right to participate in political life than the right-wing paramilitaries? Both still choose violence over the democratic process. Uribe enjoys 90% popularity because Colombians do not want to return to those years of chaos and anarchy. The New York Times’ view of the situation reflects the ultimate sin of a very dangerous mood amongst some elites in our country. This attitude of denying reality will eventually have negative consequences for the physical security of the United States and the West as a whole.