Colombia Farc rebels kill four hostages as one escapes

BBC News-

Left-wing Farc rebels in Colombia have shot dead four hostages, the authorities say.

The captives – all members of the security forces – were killed as troops approached the camp where they were held in the southern region of Caqueta.

All had been held for more than 12 years after being captured in rebel attacks.

Hours after their bodies were discovered, a fifth hostage was found alive.

Defence Minister Juan Carlos Pinzon said the four dead hostages had been killed execution-style – three shot in the head and one in the back.

“They were cruelly murdered with coups de grace,” he said, adding that chains – presumably used to hold them captive – were found alongside their bodies.

President Juan Manuel Santos said the Farc (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) were “solely responsible” for the deaths, which he called a “crime against humanity”.

“It is an atrocious crime that deserves the condemnation of all Colombians and the international community,” he said.

The victims have been named as police Col Edgar Duarte Valero, police Major Elkin Hernandez Rivas, policeman Alvaro Moreno, and army Sgt Jose Martinez Estrada.

The hostage who survived – police Sgt Luis Alberto Erazo Maya – apparently escaped into the jungle in the confusion as troops exchange fire with the guerrillas, who fled the scene.

The killing of the hostages is a setback for the Colombian security forces, after a series of victories against the Farc in recent years.

It comes just three weeks after Farc leader Alfonso Cano was killed in combat.

The Farc still hold 14 members of the security forces, as well as dozens of civilian captives.

In the past the Farc tried to use the hostages as bargaining chips to secure the release of captured rebel fighters.

In February they released six hostages in what they called a gesture of peace to the government of Mr Santos.

However the Farc have also killed hostages in the past rather than allow them to be rescued.

Families of some of the hostages have criticised attempts to rescue them, calling for negotiated releases instead.

Mr Santos has said there can be no peace talks with the rebels until they release all their captives and stop attacks.

The Farc have been fighting to overthrow the Colombian government since the 1960s.

After spending months reading about human rights and cases around Latin America where they have been highly violated, I believe that there is no universally agreed definition for them. It seems to me that people’s understanding of human rights is continually evolving. There are some general understandings, but I don’t believe they work. I think the professor is close to convert me in a non-believer.

Throughout the readings we identified that most of the development in human rights took place in the 18th Century. It was interesting the explore the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the United States ‘ Bill of Rights, among others. They clearly influenced many declarations of rights throughout the region. The growth of authoritarian regimes in the 20th Century and the carnage of World War II made pushed the world even more to the protection of human rights with the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ideally, human rights involve responsibility toward other people. Ideally, governments should ensure that citizens enjoy their rights.  But we have explored cases where the governments have done the opposite even after the creation of the United Nations.  But some people believe rights are intrinsic, rather than a societal creation intended to moderate the excesses of 20th century racial violence (among other things).

Human rights are mostly documents produced in a political process. It pains me to see hat the active supporters of human rights are a minority and media is held responsible for tracking violations. I am having a hard time finding evidence that human rights exist at all because even though we, as an international community, have agreed on these human rights, cooperation has been minimal. We continue to witness terror and bloodshed. I find it hard to understand how the world allowed the invasion of Iraq, where some many people have died due to the U.S. determination to impose rights and democracy (or at least that is how they sold the invasion—national interests were the real cause).

I want to believe we are protected by human rights and that organizations we have created to enforce them actually do their job. But the reality is different. The United Nations’ role in the world continuously diminishes. It has lost the respect of the power nations; the Security Council has no real influence in the world dynamics and refuses to evolve. How can one believe in human rights when it takes over 15 years or more for the international court of justice to finally persecute war criminals? Impunity governs our existing world and with impunity it is hard to grasp the idea of having human rights.

This period in history, all around Latin America was certainly very dark and I understand more than ever before why so many grandparents of my generation had drinking problems. What they had survived was not easy to swallow. Dictatorships marked this era and fright changed so many lives.  My grandfather was born and raised in the Dominican Republic. As a young lawyer, he marched and protested against Trujillo en la Quisquellana. As a member of a wealthy family, he fought against repression on the streets with the masses and aided the clandestine movement. But after so many death threats, my grandfather and his siblings had to flee the island and relocate in Venezuela. Trujillo bullied them out of the country and took over of all of their properties. Soon after their arrival, Perez Jimenez took power in my home country, and once again, my grandfather faced dictatorship.  My grandfather marched and protested against Perez Jimenez’s cruelty and was imprisoned and tortured for over a year in Caracas. Soon after, he developed a drinking problem that never left him until his death. Like my grandfather, many others succumbed to alcohol to ease memories and cope with trauma. This fact might not be well documented, but I can ensure you this is a reality witnessed all around Latin America: alcoholisms after dictatorships. I remember conversations with the family of one of my best friends in Argentina. Both her grandfathers were also alcoholics.

The elimination of more than 300,000 considered “potential threats to the Junta” is unforgivable. I guess their goal was not only to silence these people but to eradicate them from public discourse.  What shocks me the most is that these people kidnapped and tortured were not even threats. They were not involved in the violent, leftist guerilla groups.  The Junta targeted social activists, Marxists, left-leaning peronists, jews, catholic clergy working in slums, student activists and even psychologists and sociologists. These people had lost respect to life.

What I think is most ironic in this case, is that Admiral (Evil) Massera died as a free man last year at age 85 and that represents a deep injure to democracy. He was one dark character. He set up a newspaper of his own, called Convicción, and promoted himself as presidential candidate. I also think is ironic that this dictatorship collapsed after  another war: Argentina’s 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands.

Massera was sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity back in 1985, and I almost had a stroke when read that Menem’s granted him amnesty in 1990. AMNESTY to a criminal? I guess the logic behind this initiative was to foster a democracy without bitterness. But, how can you honestly rebuild a country with laws prevent the prosecution of hundreds of military officers, soldiers and police linked to this dirty war? That’s impunity and took 15 years to retract it. In 2005, Argentina’s Supreme Court overturned two amnesty laws.

Interestingly, a few weeks ago a victim of the dirty way was name United Nations special rapporteur on torture. Juan Mendez was a young lawyer defending opponents of La Junta and was arrested in 1976 and he spent 18 months at a prison where he was tortured with an electric prod and watched friends being pulled from their cells and executed.

Argentina seems to be moving on from this dark history and certainly the ongoing trials are helping, but I think justice came too late in my opinion and many families are still waiting to know what happened to their loved ones. They need answers to fully move on.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/17/world/americas/peru-sterilizations/index.html

To learn of forced sterilization of women is not in itself surprising, as sad as that is, but to hear of it occurring in a country like Peru as late as the 1990s was shocking to me. Its something that wouldn't surprise me if it had taken place anywhere in Latin America during the 1950-70s, I suppose. If it happened in the more poverty-stricken or violence stricken countries during the 1990s, it wouldn't surprise me either. Although Peru has dealt with guerrilla terrorism for decades now, it still doesn't have the same general reputation as other Latin American countries for human rights abuses but its yet another learning lesson of the darkness that lays beneath the surface of every developing country.

Human rights. 2 words, absolutely loaded with meaning and history, as this course has shown. I never thought though coming into this class that I'd be sitting at the end of it, not only more educated about rights and especially rights in Latin America, but perhaps also a bit more confused. After looking at each week's readings I found I had something new to mull over in my head... do rights exist or do they not? Are human rights specifically a good thing, or not? Is it fair to give precedence and importance to some human rights over others? What should we put in this damn human rights museum anyway?!

Ultimately, the things I will take away most from this course are: the awareness I have gained of human rights abuses that have been suffered in the past in Latin America, and the knowledge and awareness that I have gained from keeping a closer eye on the news via the weekly blog posts. Though the abuses we looked at occurred during conflicts which have since ended, they are something that still occurs both in Latin America and elsewhere in the world daily.
After doing those weekly blogs and reading others, I noticed I started to get sort of pessimistic about human rights in general... seeing such abuses and reading about the horror that human beings have inflicted and indeed continue to inflict on each other was rough. That being said, I feel like I needed my little idealistic bubble view of the world to be popped. Now knowing that violations such as these have occurred and are still occurring, I feel like maybe one day I want to try and do something to change this. I was even more encouraged when I read about and wrote a paper about the Madres of the Plaza de Mayo.  Too often I think it's easy to feel overwhelmed by the severity of the world's problems and think "yeah, but what can I do about this?" but these women showed me the power of perseverance and courage and in believing in change, and in fighting for, and believing in the re installation and value of their human rights. They stood up to a government committing human rights violations and advocated for change, inspiring others around them and creating a new idea about women in Argentina. I think as long as we have people like these women, who never stop fighting for their rights and for the rights of others - yes, we have human rights.

This class was great. The discussion was always rigorous and informative, and the points and arguments that everyone brought up always made me think a lot and gave me new angles to consider things from. The readings as well provided a lot of different opinions and insights into the relevancy (or perhaps lack thereof) of rights, as well as glimpses into the horror of the violations suffered in both Argentina and Guatemala. I think I can safely say this class sparked something in me that I will definitely keep pursuing in my studies at UBC, and maybe even as a career. Not really sure if it's a desire to fight for rights, or to keep learning about what rights are... but this class started somethin' for me.

Nevertheless, I still have no idea what we should put in the museum of Human Rights. ;)

Human rights. 2 words, absolutely loaded with meaning and history, as this course has shown. I never thought though coming into this class that I'd be sitting at the end of it, not only more educated about rights and especially rights in Latin America, but perhaps also a bit more confused. After looking at each week's readings I found I had something new to mull over in my head... do rights exist or do they not? Are human rights specifically a good thing, or not? Is it fair to give precedence and importance to some human rights over others? What should we put in this damn human rights museum anyway?!

Ultimately, the things I will take away most from this course are: the awareness I have gained of human rights abuses that have been suffered in the past in Latin America, and the knowledge and awareness that I have gained from keeping a closer eye on the news via the weekly blog posts. Though the abuses we looked at occurred during conflicts which have since ended, they are something that still occurs both in Latin America and elsewhere in the world daily.
After doing those weekly blogs and reading others, I noticed I started to get sort of pessimistic about human rights in general... seeing such abuses and reading about the horror that human beings have inflicted and indeed continue to inflict on each other was rough. That being said, I feel like I needed my little idealistic bubble view of the world to be popped. Now knowing that violations such as these have occurred and are still occurring, I feel like maybe one day I want to try and do something to change this. I was even more encouraged when I read about and wrote a paper about the Madres of the Plaza de Mayo.  Too often I think it's easy to feel overwhelmed by the severity of the world's problems and think "yeah, but what can I do about this?" but these women showed me the power of perseverance and courage and in believing in change, and in fighting for, and believing in the re installation and value of their human rights. They stood up to a government committing human rights violations and advocated for change, inspiring others around them and creating a new idea about women in Argentina. I think as long as we have people like these women, who never stop fighting for their rights and for the rights of others - yes, we have human rights.

This class was great. The discussion was always rigorous and informative, and the points and arguments that everyone brought up always made me think a lot and gave me new angles to consider things from. The readings as well provided a lot of different opinions and insights into the relevancy (or perhaps lack thereof) of rights, as well as glimpses into the horror of the violations suffered in both Argentina and Guatemala. I think I can safely say this class sparked something in me that I will definitely keep pursuing in my studies at UBC, and maybe even as a career. Not really sure if it's a desire to fight for rights, or to keep learning about what rights are... but this class started somethin' for me.

Nevertheless, I still have no idea what we should put in the museum of Human Rights. ;)

     There is something deeply attractive in the idea that every person, irrespective of citizenship and territorial legislation, has particular basic rights that others ought to respect. But the preoccupation with the concept of human rights has been irregular and erratic: human rights have taken center stage in intellectual dialogue during three historical periods - namely, the Enlightenment period, post-WWII and our current time and yet, has almost disappeared from discourse at all other moments. This (the historical unevenness of the [West's] commitment to human rights) has prompted many academics to view the central idea of human rights – being something people possess without specific legislation, as foundationally dubious and lacking in coherence. The debate on the legality of human rights is thus not concerned with the weight of human rights in applying this concept to issues on the ground (as it is not usually disputed that the invoking of human rights can be politically powerful) but rather, it is concerned with the theoretical grounding of the concept. Where do human rights come from?

     There is something deeply attractive in the idea that every person, irrespective of citizenship and territorial legislation, has particular basic rights that others ought to respect. But the preoccupation with the concept of human rights has been irregular and erratic: human rights have taken center stage in intellectual dialogue during three historical periods - namely, the Enlightenment period, post-WWII and our current time and yet, has almost disappeared from discourse at all other moments. This (the historical unevenness of the [West's] commitment to human rights) has prompted many academics to view the central idea of human rights – being something people possess without specific legislation, as foundationally dubious and lacking in coherence. The debate on the legality of human rights is thus not concerned with the weight of human rights in applying this concept to issues on the ground (as it is not usually disputed that the invoking of human rights can be politically powerful) but rather, it is concerned with the theoretical grounding of the concept. Where do human rights come from?

http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=289152

This article points at the sad reality that in many violent conflicts children bear the brunt of the violence.  In Mexico’s Drug war launched by President Felipe Calderón, it is estimated that close to 4,000 children have died.  In a broader context, its interesting to note that the declaration of the rights of children were released by the UN independently from the all-age encompassing human rights declaration.  Why the special document I wonder?

This week we focused our attention on Guatemala and what many consider to be a genocide of the Mayan people there. This history really was not all that long ago and yet I am sure many people in North America are not that familiar with what happened. A friend of mine who even lived in Guatemala was not really aware of this history. It’s interesting what history people are presented with. In North America, the only genocide most people are ever really made aware of is the holocaust. While it is important to know this history, I think it is probably only taught to us because it was a genocide of white Europeans predominantly. Since the genocide in Guatemala involved poor indigenous people in Latin America, most of the world outside Latin America most likely knows little about the situation.

I also found it interesting how much of the discussion about Guatemala is often centered around the role of the CIA and the American government or corporations. While we may see the CIA and America’s role as the root of all evil, perhaps seeking retribution for their role is not the main concern for those actually living in Guatemala that had to deal with the horrific aftermath of the atrocities. Perhaps it is a major concern for them but I wonder if since in North America we can relate to the nefarious nature of the CIA we sort of inflate their importance for others? I would imagine seeking justice from their own military leaders would probably come before anything.

With that being said, though, it is horrifying that America is never held accountable for their actions abroad. It would be great if there was an international court that actual tried people outside of the developing world. Instead we somehow think that America will just police itself. We still live in a world where the American president can win the Nobel Peace prize while waging an illegal war so it would not be the least surprising if America was still up to similar tricks in Latin America. I am sure that once the dust settles on the conflict over the drug trade in Mexico right now  we will also see how complicit the American government was in much of the violence. America thrives on the political instability of other countries. Instability allows America to assert more control over a country. If the people really had the power and the country had a stable government, America would not be allowed to intervene and force themselves upon their country in the name of “security” and “democracy”.

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has signed a law creating a truth commission to investigate human rights abuses, including those committed during military rule in 1964-85. The commission will have the power to summon witnesses under oath and access all government documents, but an amnesty law does not mean that its findings will lead to any prosecutions.