Betancourt's Role and the Shortcomings of Gringo Media

I'm going to depart from the facts for a little commentary on two points related to Friday's march...

First, why was Betancourt leading the rally from Madrid?

Betancourt is rightfully seen as a hero in this country. Her endurance and survival have made her a powerful symbol of strength in the face of the violent elements that have held this country hostage for so long.

Betancourt is French-Colombian and after her release she returned to France to recover and reconnect with her family. That sounds like an excellent and appropriate idea. In fact, I wouldn't blame her for never wanting to return to Colombian again. However, she is a strong leader and realizes that she is in a unique position to lead the public in resisting FARC and the other armed actors in Colombia.

If she weren't planning on returning to the country, then leading the rally in Madrid makes complete sense. The French and Spanish in particular have stood by the Colombians in denouncing FARC and they are strong international partners on this issue.

However, Ingrid came back on Saturday. Why not return a day earlier and lead the marchers here? This is where the conflict is and, while cultivating European support is a worthwhile endeavor, at the end of the day change must come from withing Colombia. This is where the work must be done.

I assume there are serious security concerns that would prevent Betancourt from making such an open public appearance in Colombia. Regardless, I think from an organizing standpoint, public knowledge that she is here and unable to safely appear in public is a much more powerful draw for people to join in the protests. At the risk of sounding too harsh, a rally in Madrid is effectively an empty gesture and more of a photo-op than a real political organizing strategy. But you do get to kick it with the Spanish foreign minister.

Anyway, this is only the beginning of her leadership on this issue and I trust she knows what's she doing much better than I. I look forward to watching and reporting on her work here.

Second point, English language media coverage of Friday's protests.

Nearly all the English language coverage of the marches framed them as solely anti-FARC in nature. As someone who was here on the ground I have to say that this is a pretty egregious misrepresentation of reality. Now, I'm not a reporter nor am I an expert on the internal conflict here in Colombia, however any person who has decent eyesight and a basic understanding of Spanish could see that, while the majority of signage and slogans were anti-FARC, there was a very noticeable contingent of people protesting other guerilla groups, paramilitary groups, and ongoing human rights abuses by the Colombian military.

I'm told many people here use the term FARC to mean guerrillas in general and anti-FARC could be broadly understood to mean anti-guerrilla. However, focusing only on guerrillas means you are gravely oversimplifying the nature of this conflict. Framing the conflict in this way amounts to nothing less than poor journalism.

I think the best frame I've been exposed to is this: the conflict can be best characterized as armed actors (i.e. guerrillas, paramilitaries, and government security forces) assaulting the peace and human rights of the civilian population. In other words, its the guys with guns against everybody else. Who's 'side' the are on is largely irrelvant. All sides have been linked to hundreds of instances of murder, kidnapping, and other atrocities.

For some good background on the armed actors, check out this report by Amnesty International.