‘A Devastating Blow’
By Interview with Michael Shifter
Newsweek, July 3, 2008
After six years, fourth months and nine days in captivity in the rebel-held jungles of Colombia, former Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt didn't expect to see her would-be rescuers wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. "This is FARC," she thought to herself, referring to the leftist guerrilla group that kidnapped her as she campaigned for the presidency in 2002. "This is no health matter. It's not a rescue team, it's not anything."
But rescue team it was. On July 2, the Colombian military, backed by support from the White House, duped the leaders of one of Latin America's oldest active militias into surrendering 15 of their highest-profile captives, including Betancourt and three American contractors, who were taken hostage in 2003 when their plane went down in the FARC-held jungle region. The rescue was Bogota's latest blow against the Marxist FARC, which has seen several of its top leaders killed or captured in recent months.
Michael Shifter, an expert on Latin American politics at the Inter-American Dialogue, spoke to Newsweek's Katie Paul about how the rescue could affect regional politics and the future of the FARC. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: Is this the FARC's last stand?
Shifter: It's a devastating blow against the FARC, perhaps the most serious blow that they've suffered, and they've had a number of setbacks in the past months, including the death of their main leader and the attack that killed the second highest in command on March 1. This successful operation has exposed lots of problems in FARC discipline, and it's going to be very difficult for them to reverse that. The big question is whether the FARC will acknowledge that and recognize that they lost the war. That will take some time; they've been around for over four decades, have thousands of combatants, have millions of dollars, so they could still cause some damage. But in terms of their struggle against the Colombians, it's basically over.
Have there been any indications that they want to negotiate an end to the conflict?
Not that have become public. I suspect these kinds of blows and this pressure that will be sustained by the Colombian government will force them to try to strike a deal. But they've lost the coherence and discipline that they had before. The likely scenario is that the group will fracture and fragment a lot more. We've gotten a lot of information from a growing number of FARC defectors, and there seems to be a general breakdown in communication and organization all pointing in the same direction.
With the FARC seriously weakened, how will that impact Colombia's somewhat controversial relations with the U.S.?
This obviously is a great victory for the government and everybody is rejoicing. It's a real feel-good story, but I'm not sure how much impact it will have in terms of, for example, the free trade deal pending in Congress, which has been negotiated but still hasn't been approved. Even though there will be greater stability, there are continuing concerns about human rights and corruption, and questions about President [Alvaro] Uribe. He may be very efficient and audacious, but I don't think these actions will erase those doubts.
Without the FARC as an ominous threat, won't it become harder for him to justify some of those violations?
Some of the abuses that have been committed have been explained in terms of armed conflict. If there's no longer an armed conflict, it becomes more of a stretch to resort to those explanations. The government has tried to have it both ways, saying there's tremendous progress but still a terrorist threat. But if the FARC collapses as an army, it's not that violence is going to fade away--the drug trade is still strong, there's still a lot of criminality--but the government will have less of a rationale. And I think they should be held to account.
Are there still as many terrorist bombings in the cities?
The bombings have diminished somewhat. The FARC has definitely been on the defensive. They continue to commit kidnappings, as they just did the other day in an indigenous area. But they know that the government has been on the offensive, so some experts think they're trying to hold off and regroup. I wouldn't be surprised to see them trying to demonstrate their strength to remind everyone they're still around.
There's been a good deal of speculation about the timing of the operation, with some commentators dubbing it "suspiciously convenient" for both domestic and international political reasons. Given the corruption scandal Uribe's dealing with in Colombia, what do you make of those accusations?
You would have to be naïve to think politics isn't a factor. On the other hand, my sense is that Uribe was really waiting for the best opportunity for the strike. The FARC has suffered a lot of blows and has showed signs of becoming weaker, so this seemed to be a good time. If there were political considerations in terms of problems he's facing on corruption and questions from the Supreme Court decision against him, yes, that may have played into it, but I don't think it's the primary reason.
What about suggestions that John McCain's presence in Colombia affected the timing of the operation?
Again, if it had any connection, it was secondary to the Colombians' plan. I also think that in contrast to the Reagan case[in which US hostages held by Iran were released the day of Reagan’s 1980 inauguration, prompting accusations of political manipulation], if John McCain was expecting to get a boost from this, well, he doesn't gain very much electorally or politically. It certainly doesn't hurt him, but if it were coordinated for political effect, I'm not sure it was a good use of political resources.
Was the White House involved?
The White House was obviously concerned about the three Americans hostages held there over five years. Certainly, there was a lot of support in terms of intelligence, but I don't think this was a decision made at the White House. We can all imagine if it didn't work, what the costs would have been for both the United States and the Colombians.
How does this affect the political dynamic, both within Colombia and in the region?
It enhances Uribe's standing in the region. He's someone who has been seen as tied to the United States. This action was greeted by congratulations by other Latin American leaders. To some extent, his approach has been vindicated. He didn't want to give in, didn't want to make concessions, and he was able to achieve results without making them. There's nothing that helps one's image more than a success like this, and he's been praised by even his harshest critics in the human rights community.
But you don't think it will last?
No, I don't think that will last. I think these other political and institutional problems [will come back]. His bid for a third term, which would require another constitutional amendment, feed concerns about his authoritarian impulses. He could easily have lots of criticism and challenges if he fights to stay in power and fights the Supreme Court, so this goodwill could evaporate pretty quickly.
Do you think Ingrid Betancourt will get back into Colombian politics?
She fortunately seems to be in good health, and she said in the press conference that she is interested in getting back into Colombian politics. Her image has certainly been enhanced by this ordeal and she's shown tremendous courage and endurance. I'm not sure she'll run in the next election, but I could easily see her being a very influential and effective political leader in Colombia.