

Colombia and the FARC

Talking about talks

This time negotiations might eventually bring peace

See article

Readers' comments



There is no such thing as containment without deterrence

This is a priciple that has to be taken in account by any leader if not, theres is going to be as aresult a lost decade or more for a nation.

These fowl people, the FARC members, are the lowest in moral terms I have ever seen. They harvest and sell cocaine and thats their only cause.

I believe in such people as Gandhi or Nelson Mandela, who sacrificed themselves on behalf of a nation, not in opportunist men who sacrifice a nation and its legimate interests ,meaning by this Santos, Piedda Córdoba (I know who in the world knows this people) but yopu should believe me when I tell you how they lack courage, bravery and truthfulness. In exchange for their own selfishness and willingness of winning the nobel price of peace they offer us a circus that will end in the guerrilas ruling an entire department of Colombia or worse more than two.

sad words, but true


There are certainly signs for optimism in these peace talks. By limiting peace talks to outside Colombia with no ceasefire inside the country, the government avoids giving perverse incentives to FARC of negotiating to buy time to recover from the army attacks. Secondly, the relatively few points of talks' agenda, one of which is the end of the conflict as the main aim of the talks, contrasts with the large and improvised list of topics covered in previous peace processes. Finally, what impresses me the most is that the parties where comitted enough to keep exploratory talks in secret for so many months (notably, FARC did not bring them to life even when Alfonso Cano was killed nor Cuba when Colombia did not invite it to the Americas Summit).

I think that after 10 years of amazing military efforts against FARC and large yet insufficient successes in security, it is quite obvious that the FARC are too spread out, the jungle too vast to find them all and the drug business too lucrative for there to be a definitive military end to the conflict. Thus, there is no other way but to negotiate. And yes, there will probably be FARC fighter who will not abide to their leaders if the peace talks are successful and will continue to commit crimes, but a formal end of FARC as a historic group with political vindications would be over and that would be a huge step.

The road will certainly be tricky and there are many enemies of peace in our country who benefit from war that will do everything they can trump the talks. More importantly, I think that one key hurdle is to convince the large share of the population that live in cities who have not been affected that much by the conflict of the necessity to make some concessions with the FARC in order to end the deaths of so many people in distant regions of the country. I for one, although I remain skeptical of FARC and their true intentions towards peace, hope the peace talks are successful.

Walker Rowe

I hope the peace process really works. I've been to Colombia many times and know people there who have lost family members due to extortion and kidnapping. But that was long ago and the country is safe now as long as you stay our of FARC territory. One key question is who will take over the cocaine business? We will see a new mafia emerge? I imagine one key sticking point is going to be the issue of land redistribution. After all that is part of the communist agenda even if they are not really a political force anymore.


i really hope, as a colombian, for the peace process to fail.. Santos is not doing things right, he is just trying to have us all convinced that he is by a load of propaganda. his speech when running for presidency was continuity, according to him, being Uribe's Defense Minister was what made him perfect for continuing attacking and finishing the different guerrilla groups that hurt our country since the beginning of it all. but since he took office all that he has done is try to have a good relation with everyone which is impossible, he wants us to see him as our saviour because he is focused on economic issues, which i think is also needed, but without worrying completely on the security of the country. he wants to give a good image of himself, but we don't feel secure in our cities, just like we did before Uribe, its all falling down again and just because our president cannot face the facts because he is hiding in his propaganda trying to show that everything is fine, i hope that when it explodes it wont hurt us as bad as it seems.

The FARC, ELN (who have publicly stated that want to get involved in the peace process as well), and other illegal groups in Colombia cannot be reinstated to society and to democracy in colombia because they don't have the education for that, they are savages and any one who tries to deny that is wrong. we don't need more "parapolitica" in our system, which works mainly with corruption.

Vicious2 in reply to Neisenband

I fear you exaggerate and show a serious lack of attention. Colombia is still much more secure than it was ten years ago, though it certainly isn't perfectly at peace. How could it be? Security improved under Uribe, but he never defeated FARC and even late into his term we continued to see attacks and assaults from the guerrilla. This is basically the same thing, so you ironically gain nothing by blindly believing in Uribe's negative propaganda and claiming that the sky is falling, when the strategic situation is still in favor of the state and shows numerous differences from the older Pastrana and Samper periods. Think about this with more patience and accuracy.

kLnXNQcdmT in reply to Neisenband

If you prefer Mr Uribe's policies than Mr Santos' that is completely fine, the beauty of democracy is that we may all have different opinions. President Uribe is credited for saving Colombia, and I agree with that, thanks to his hard hand he weakened the FARC as never before. Weakened does not mean eliminated and the FARC still exist. One dead commander just leads to a new commander, easily replaced. While the FARC's numbers have decreased dramatically, they still pose a threat and realistically there can be no complete military victory over the FARC, they are just too spread around and hiding, even if they are driven out of Cauca they can regroup somewhere else.
The only way to finish this struggle is by grasping this opportunity in which they are weak and they know it. This is the time for a peace agreement in which they can surrender their weapons. Of course, as in any agreement, not everyone will be happy. I myself would rather see them all rotting in jail but, come on, is this realistic?
Mr Uribe weakened the FARC as never before, now is the moment to sit and talk about peace, otherwise war could go on for many years to come.

YeyoTorres in reply to Neisenband

It´s a false statement that the country is even more dangerous now than when Mr Uribe was in charge, if you take a look at the statistical data the murders rate is at it´s lowest point since more than two decades ago.

Sergio Torres


The biggest hurdle to any pace talks with the FARC is the fact that they don't realize the lack of support in the general population for any of their ambitions/demands, nor acknowledge the despise Colombians feel towards them as an organization. Therefore expect their demands for demobilization to border on the absurd to say the least.

Negotiating with a decaying organization which still see's itself as the flag bearer for the poor and crusader of the unjust will be like trying to convince a psychotic patient of the imaginary nature of its illness. So the question is not whether the government and the Farc can come to an agreement, but much rather whether the Colombian civil society accepts the terms of such an agreement.

JuanRobledo in reply to Adelicus

I agree with you that the FARC probably overestimates the support they enjoy from the Colombian population. But I also think that colombians who live in cities and relatively well-off rural areas (me included) underestimate the support FARC has from those who cannont read or write or participate in society who live in remote rural regions where the presence of the State has always been non-existant. Those people are invisible to our media, our society and our State, but they exist nonetheless.


Santos may, if lucky, end with the FARC as an organization; but the criminals behind it will continue to live with impunity. These criminals must receive the full weight of the law: The armed forces and the colombian justice system must consistently pursue and attack them until they have no choice but to turn themselves in or die, without conditions.


There is nothing political about the FARC. They are just a bunch of drug dealers, terrorists and criminals, with no interest other than making money and staying alive and out of jail. These peace talks will only reward the criminals and should not be done. It gives little incentives for peace and more for violence. Put yourself in the shoes of a FARC commander: I get to pillage and plunder for years, making millions of dollars out of drug trafficking and kidnapping, then I deposit the money in a Swiss bank account or a hidden part of the jungle, then I turn myself in at the "peace talks", receive reduced or no jail sentences at all, and then, I go to another country to enjoy the money I stole during all those years. Or even worse, I pursue a political career to continue stealing from the rest of colombians. Splendid idea Mr. Santos, splendid.

It seems to me that you just described the Narcoparamilitary's strategy when negociating with Uribe, the saint fo your devotion. Contrary to previous peace negociation attempts, the government has been able to turn the tables and position itself and the FARC in a better place to negociate to Colombia's advantage. Not taking advantage of this would be to miss a chance that only presents once every 20 years. Capturing, killing and processing all the guerrillas its an impossible and unrealistic task. Better to get done with this and focus on solving the real issues in this country. Poverty, development, economic growth and equal oportunity. They say that Colombia could boost growth by 1-2% if we got over our silly war. In 20 years that could mean that the Country is 22% to 48% richer that it would otherwise be. Hope you can get over those idiotic prejudices. Despite me and my family having being touched by this conflict we are not focused on getting revenge. My guess is that most Colombians feel the same way.

First of all, Uribe is by no means the "saint of my devotion", and I never voted for him, although I agree with many of his views on politics and some of his actions.

Second, you are assuming that if the FARC organization is dismantled, the internal conflict in Colombia would be over. My friend, I wish it were that simple!

Third, and most importantly, is that you are missing the point: The FARC are not a political movement anymore, they are just an organized criminal organization which finances itself by drug trafficking and many other illegal ways; the only difference they have with the bacrim (criminal bands) is one of scale. FARC, ELN, Urabeños, Rastrojos, bacrim, they are all the same thing, a bunch of organized outlaws.

In conclusion, in my opinion, negotiating a "peace process" with the FARC is nearly as "incomprehensible", like your good friend Mr.Uribe said, as negotiating one with the bacrim in Colombia. In fact, were it not for their long history and considerable size, the FARC should be considered as just another bacrim, because it is what they are in reality today.

Many people are very optimistic just because their desire for a Colombia without the violence of the FARC is so great, but they are unwise and fooling themselves if they think that the FARC have an ounce of goodwill.

Philosoraptor in reply to Vicious2

You are assuming that ending with the FARC as an organization will end the armed conflict. That is very sweet and innocent for someone who calls himself "Vicious".
And yes, I do prefer 50 more years of war (although that is an exaggeration: it would not take 50 years and it is not an all out "war")or insecurity problems in ever less areas of the country, than see the state forgive criminal acts that range from recruitment of minors, rape, enslavement, to kidnapping, assasination, torture, blackmailing, drugdealing, etc, and that show no hope of truly rejoining and contributing to colombian society.


Dear Sr.,
In your article Talking about talks (September 1st), you presented a well informed picture of the state of peace negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC guerrillas. However, you concluded incomprehensibly that "the prospects for successful talks with the FARC look better than ever before." There are many good reasons to be skeptic.

The parties involved were incapable of keeping the process secret, which shows that they are not in control. The whistle blower was first expresident Uribe, the most fervent opponent of the negotiation, and then Telesur, a foreign news outfit.

Past mistakes are being repeated. The FARC is setting up a legal political party while pursuing the armed seizure of power. The role of the UP (Patriotic Union), massacred by paramilitars in the 80s, today is being played by the MP (Patriotic March).

The content of the filtered agenda is another good reason to be skeptical. It includes policy issues such as access and use of the land, infrastructure, health, education, housing and poverty. For once, it is hard to imagine that Colombian will swallow that education policy be decided behind closed doors between the president and a terrorist organization. Besides, it is hard to believe that they will reach an agreement.

One of the most scary precedents is the attempted murder of Fernando Londoño on May 15th, while the current agreement was being discussed in La Habana. Mr. Londoño is a conservative commentator and "obvious target for the FARC", according to your article A blast from the political past, May 16th. This terrorist act leaves serious doubts about the intentions of the FARC and about the position of the government.

As Londoners showed with the organization of the Olympics last month, low expectations is perhaps the best strategy to achieve success.

Vicious2 in reply to dGiFC85AnL

Your conclusion is warranted, but I have certain criticisms about the rest tof your interpreation. The Colombian government participated in the further leaking of the details as a way to control the damage caused by Uribe. Which has worked, since most reactions, both internally and abroad, have been positive ever since. It's worth noting that all the leaks happened in less than a month before the formal announcement, which was intended for this week anyway. Not a big deal.

The Patriotic March is not identical to the Patriotic Union, despite the superficial naming similarity, nor are the political and historical circumstances equivalent. It isn't the result of any agreement but part of a more complex social process, even if it may also involve sectors of the left who are among FARC's constituency (which exists, whether we like it or not).

You claim that the agenda speaks of infrastructure, health, education, housing and poverty in general, when it in fact only mentions those points with respect to the wider topic of rural development. It is, therefore, a much narrower focus: the entire national educational policy will not be discussed, but how to provide education to farmers and peasants who have suffered from illiteracy for decades. The same thing goes for poverty, which is widespread in FARC's areas of influence. While I do not believe reaching an agreement will be easy, I believe this interpretation is more faithful to the text of the agreement than yours.

As for the terrorist acts, it must be said that the Colombian government has insisted on not declaring a bilateral cease-fire first, precisely for the purposes of letting the military remain prepared for any outcome, at least in this first part of the process. An initial cease-fire is not automatically preferrable to one reached afterwards. In any case, only time will tell.


Over the last two decades, FARC have been acting as a drug cartel, kidnapping individuals, forcing children into their vanguard, destroying Colombian infrastructure, and planting bombs for maiming Colombians. Farc is not a political group anymore. It is a confederation of outlandish criminals/gangsters playing the worst of the roles for a human being. For that reason, they enjoy the support of 2% of Colombians, and Mr Hugo Chavez. I would be very happy if finally such an absurd conflict is wiped off. This beautiful country deserves the best. Unfortunatelly sometimes I
feel this "guerrilla" can be dealt with only by the use of the arms ... I hope I´m mistaken

Neisenband in reply to guest-iolnwej

you are completely right, they are not a political group since a long time ago. and it seems that we didn't learn from our ex president Andrés Pastrana which showed us that trying to make peace with these groups is a mistake.
this is only Santos way of saying he will bring peace, which i think will only leave Colombia much worse than it was before.
it seems that we don't remember things, and don't learn from our mistakes. when Santos took office and started demoralizing all of Uribe's policies and everything he did, most Colombians agreed and Uribe started losing a lot of approval within the country. now people are realizing that we need someone like Uribe who wont stop until our guerrillas are finished. as i said in my other comment we don't feel secure anymore, and we don't like santos anymore.

Vicious2 in reply to guest-iolnwej

The problem is that "only the use of arms" has not led us to a solution during these past 50 years and, in the end, despite their criminal nature FARC still remains a group which represents rural Colombians that are completely forgotten by everyone or otherwise repressed. If you don't recognize that criminals may have legitimate demands, then have fun with even more endless war.

Philosoraptor in reply to Vicious2

You say that the FARC is a group that represents rural colombians? My god, HOW? By recruiting the poor farmers children by force? By threatening them with death should they succumb to the demands of a paramilitary group who request they give them all their chickens? By throwing gas cylinders in the middle of rural towns? By enslaving the indigenous populations? The FARC and other criminal bands are the ones who opress the rural colombians, and it is they who impede the access of government resources and investment to the area. The FARC may have some legitimate demands, but I have not heard them, and they have absolutely no authority to make them. To hear the FARC commanders pretending to defend the rights rural colombians is to hear cinism in its purest form.


Sirs, your article appears pretty optimistic compared with the reality of current and previous facts (indeed, it looks like written out off the hot press of the president's PR office). The Farc have betrayed the Colombians trust in the past and there is NO reason whatsoever to believe it will be different this time. At present, they have increased terrorist attacks, which confirms that they are not willing to negotiate, but to impose (just as 12 years ago). Further, a magazine of your prestige has to ask itself whether it is commendable to negotiate with one of the largest drug cartels in LATAM. And more importantly: negotiate WHAT?. The Farc demand overturning free trade agreements, nationalizing mining and oil explotaition, increasing taxes on investment, territorial control, and other principles that--as far as I know--are not the ones your magazine defends. Last, but not least, there is NO peace process anywhere in the world that has ended successfully whilst one of the sides believes they have the upperhand. FARC believes its powerful and they don't want to demobilize. They want power; the goverment is deterring the military with these so-called negotiations and we will see further guerrilla advances. The days of a secure COlombia, with certainty for its citizens and investors may be off. This is what you missed to point out in your rosy article.


Never Talks with terrorist ....FARC IS A DRUG CARTEL ...Santos know that; but his vanity and ego kneel again a colombian people to terrorism....God protect us

Ricardo Urdaneta

The main thing to bear in mind is that these talks take place within the boundaries of an act of Congress called "the legal framework for peace". This framework requires that, as a precondition for any actual negotiation, all kidnap victims be released and all child fighters be sent home (plus other requirements).

Any negotiation that flaunts these terms is a breach of the law on the part of the government, a mockery of the democratic process, and makes any outcome of the negotiation illegal by definition, and the Government an accomplice in abiding fighting children and kidnapping.

The Government and local media are bound to be willing to iron over these "wrinkles", but that the same countries that grandstand every day for basic human rights may be willing to abet this is a shame to the so called defenders of the rule of law and Western values.

Vicious2 in reply to Ricardo Urdaneta

Actually, I believe you are misinterpreting the recently approved legal framework, which was in fact an initiative backed by the Santos government and its political supporters.
It did not establish preconditions for any negotiations, but merely conditions in order to set up transitional justice mechanisms. Note the difference. Negotiations can be legally and rightfully held right now, until matters of transitional justice come up and are to be implemented. In other words, it will only be pertinent when the guerrillas actually intend to be pardoned or otherwise given a different treatement.
If you are going to speak about illegal acts and "wrinkles" I'd advise you to study the text of the law first.


In as much as the Government does not give in to Farc demands of territory, talks to be held in Colombia etc the government is right to give it a shot or two.

Alvaro Uribe, now is opposition, is clearly missing the limelight of the Presidency and cannot conceive of any other way tahn his own. Nothing constructive there, unfortunately.

Farc use to have a raison d'etre, but that was a very long time ago.
Since many years now it has lost all measurable popular suppport as it resorts to narcotics trade and extortion. Nothing about social progress there.

President Santos is educated at one of the worlds elite institutions:The London School of Economics and as such has a thorough understanding of matters economics and politics, accepting different points of view is therefore a strong negotiating partner.

I say good luck to him. Nothing drawn-out, but do give it a try.

Calima Locombia



In Colombia (and in most of latin america) the justice system does not work appropiatelly. The laws fall always victim to the plane incompetence of the judges and the self-described juditial activists, and to the power hungry national and local politicians. In addition, the educational system has two heads, for one part the state works to improve the level of education of the general population, while at the same time the teachers unions and other political activists work toward radicalizing the student body against the governmment and in favor of their own political causes.

The messages are always mixed, the state enforces the law, but the judges have their favorites. The state provides education, but it comes loaded with antigoverment political garbage from the unions. The same can be said of other state activities. In this context Gabriel Gracia Marquez's fiction ... is no fiction at all ... just another description of "reality". If ther is multiple interpretaions of "reality" ..... and every interpretation of "reality" has the same value ... nothing will ever change and much less improve.

The first thing Colombians (or latin amricans) should to do is to get their goals straight, look around to the countries that have made progress lately .... if you want progress .... you have to educate yourself, work hard, save, invest, protect yourself and your belongings and those of every law abiding citizen from the multiple predators that abound in the country, and most importantly create strong civil intitutions that project the same message to every citizen.

One last thing ... beware of populist political leaders ... they are worst than the plague ... dividing and conquering for their own benefit .. they get into power like white doves ... taking private and public moneys to distribute to their political base ... and at the end enslaving their own populations .

There is no free lunch ... just plain work.


If there is fighting, it implies that it's occurring from various sides and that there are unmet needs. A group like the FARC doesn't exist to merely exist, it has grown because the primary needs of many citizens have been pushed aside by the government. I in no way condone the violence in Colombia whether from the FARC, the government, the right-winged paramilitaries, or other revolutionary groups. However, I do urge people to truly study all aspects of the conflict, which reveal issues entrenched much earlier than 1964 (birth of the FARC).
Colombia's government has been weak in representing the vast needs of its citizens, and it is shown in the inequality that permeates all aspects of its society. It is not only arguably the most stratified country in the world (Bogota), but it has one of the highest number of IDPs (Internally Displaced People.
These talks will not be the first moves toward peace, as Colombia has a strong peace movement within its civil society, but it will hopefully be an impetus for establishing peace in unity. That said, civil society should be included in these talks.
"Peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of justice" - MLK Jr.

kLnXNQcdmT in reply to abaracal

I don't agree. Colombia is an unequal country but its inequality is similar to that of other Latin American countries which have no violence (Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Paraguay, Panama). The reason why there are so many displacements is because of this outlaws, such as the FARC and paramilitaries. Colombia has the strongest democracy in Latin America with very few times of dictatorships, the FARC, ELN and paramilitaries are nothing more that terrorist groups whch benefit from extorsion, kidnapping, and drug dealing. Still, hopefully negotiations can bring peace.

abaracal in reply to kLnXNQcdmT

To suggest that the other Latin American countries have no violence is a vast generalization. If you've heard of Cochabamba and their water wars, the treatment of journalists in Ecuador, and the overall marginalization of indigenous people in all of the nations you've mentioned, then you'll see that violence is occurring. The point, however, is that Colombia's conflict is more complex than side A vs side B. As I mentioned in the previous post, the violent means to attain ideologies have developed as a result of unmet needs. The social thread in Colombia is intricately composed of indigenous groups, afro-latinos, Spanish descendants, etc. and that fabric hasn't always seen as a whole.
The anger toward the FARC, ELN, etc. is understandable, but what needs to be looked at is the reason for their growth. Children in the FARC, for example, have been noted to join because their parents cannot afford to send them to school, young women are empowered by the more egalitarian approaches of the group, and farmers subject to growing illegal drugs because they can make a greater profit to sustain their families. Rather than solving this growth through fear, by fumigating fields and killing participants in the name of peace, there needs to be talk and representation of the Colombian people.

CarlosH_84 in reply to abaracal

Many children are recruited forcibly by Farc. Parents and children that resist are murdered or ordered to leave town. Furthermore, even if parents voluntarily sent their own children to Farc, it would be against human rights to make them fight.

I do not know what you mean by more egalitarian gender approaches by FARC. Did you know that female militants are used as sex slaves by commanders? Did you know that they are forced to have an abortion if they get pregnant?


"history repeats itself". I am not saying that we should be against peace talks, but I think just like in 1998, the FARC will use the opportunity to strenghten up. I do not agree with Mr. Santos but for the sake of the country I hope they go well but I think the FARC will jsut disappoint everyone and keep fighting


The issue is not whether the Colombian government has to negotiate o not, off course they have to. The issue is with what will the Colombian government give in?

No more kidnapping, raping, trafficking and blowing up infrastructure in a country that desperately needs it should not be the objective of the negotiation but the bare minimum conditions to start talking...


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The week explained: March 14th 2014: Fuelling tensions
The Economist explains 1 hrs 13 mins ago
The crisis in Venezuela: Another day, more bodies
Americas view March 13th, 16:49
A tribute to Robert Ashley: A perfect life
Prospero March 13th, 16:22
Commodities and the economy: Copper bottomed
Buttonwood's notebook March 13th, 15:58
Germany's Hoeness trial: Uli goes to jail
Charlemagne March 13th, 14:18


Products & events