Chaos and violence in Iraq has strengthened the notion that insurgencies cannot be defeated and so must be appeased. Colombia's experience shows that this is not the case. A combination of military force, political incentives and economic growth that benefits the wider population can begin to bring an insurgency to heel.
Despite a democratic tradition dating to 1830, Colombia has suffered a bloody 40-year insurgency by the narco-terrorists of the so-called Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN). Over the last eight years, these narco-terrorists have murdered thousands of people and taken more than 6,000 hostages, including 140 foreigners. These innocents are often kept in grossly inhumane conditions without access to medical care.
This criminal insurgency is fueled not by popular support, but by the spoils of the cocaine trade. Yet, while some rural areas are under guerrilla influence, and despite the wealth that drug trafficking has brought them, FARC and the ELN have proven too weak and unpopular to mount a serious threat to bring down Colombia's government. Theirs is not a revolution; it is cocaine-crazed nihilism.
Given the murderousness of the FARC and ELN campaigns, it is no surprise that sinister forces arose to counter them. Some 13,000 paramilitaries such as the United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia (AUC), Bloque Central Bolivar, Alianza Oriente and Vencedores de Arauca now challenge the cocaine Marxists for political control of rural areas. On the principle that you become what you hate, these paramilitary groups have also captured a slice of the lucrative drug trade.
Yet, despite countless atrocities committed by both sides, Colombia's government has entered into dialogue -- aided by the Mexican and French governments, as well as the UN -- with all of these illegal groups in the cause of peace. Since December 2002, the paramilitaries have mostly adhered to a cease-fire, and are in talks with the government under the mediation of the Catholic Church and with the support and monitoring of the Organization of American States. A written agreement to demobilize more than 10,000 paramilitaries by next year has been agreed to, and plans are being laid -- including a transitional period of limited immunity from arrest -- to reintegrate them into civilian life.
Partly as a result of this demobilization, but mostly due to the strengthening of the security and justice apparatus, there has been a 50 percent reduction in Colombia's homicide rate and a 70 percent drop in kidnapping in the country, making Colombia's major crime rate equal to that of Brazil.
But for rebels to be reintegrated into society, jobs are needed. So Colombia has focused on strengthening its economy. President Alvaro Uribe's administration has committed itself to reducing the public-sector deficit to below 2.5 percent of GDP and pursues an export-led recovery which has received widespread acclaim internationally and from business leaders. Although unemployment remains too high, ordinary Colombians are seeing real signs of change and hope for the future. These new signs of economic vigor have strengthened Uribe's popularity.
Colombia's government has gone as far as it can, in the face of much criticism from its own supporters, in not insisting on immediate disarmament or surrender, but instead offering a cease-fire and the rebels the possibility of reintegration into civil society under international observation. What little public support once existed for the FARC and the ELN is evaporating, and both groups know it. By combining staunch military resistance to rebellion with a political program designed to entice rebels back to normal life, the Uribe government has demonstrated that insurgencies can be curtailed.
Francisco Santos Calderon is vice president of the Republic of Colombia. Charles Tannock is vice president of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the European Parliament. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath