|
July 8, 2008
A More Plausible Scenario for Colombia Hostage Saga
by Garry Leech
In recent days, more plausible explanations for how the 15 Colombian
hostages were liberated on July 2 have appeared in several international
media outlets. The Colombian government claims intelligence officers
infiltrated the highest-levels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces
of Colombia (FARC), allowing them to convince the guerrillas holding
the hostages to hand the captives over to undercover soldiers pretending
to work for a fictitious aid organization. The whole scenario appears
farfetched and there have been suggestions that the Colombian government
actually paid $20 million to the guerrilla in charge of guarding
the hostages and then exploited a decision already reached by the
FARC’s central command to release the hostages by staging
the elaborate rescue mission.
According to the Colombian government, military intelligence operatives
infiltrated the highest levels of the FARC’s command structure.
These operatives then convinced the guerrilla commander responsible
for guarding the hostages that Jorge Briceno (alias Mono Jojoy),
a member of the group’s seven-person secretariat, had ordered
that three groups of hostages be brought together in preparation
for a humanitarian exchange agreed to by the FARC’s Supreme
Commander Alfonso Cano. The Uribe administration claims that Colombian
soldiers disguised as aid workers and journalists then arrived at
the rendezvous location deep in the jungle and retrieved the 15
hostages and captured the guerrilla commander and another rebel
without a shot being fired even though there were some 60 other
FARC fighters in the immediate vicinity. The government claimed
it was an elaborate long-term operation that was conducted flawlessly.
However, there is a far more plausible scenario. The FARC had already
decided to unilaterally release the 15 hostages following talks
with two European envoys who had arrived in Colombia in late June
to meet with high-ranking rebels in the region in which Supreme
Commander Alfonso Cano is located. Consequently, it was Cano who
gave the order to gather the hostages together from the three separate
camps in which they were being held.
Meanwhile, under this scenario, the Colombian government was seeking
to bribe FARC commander Gerardo Antonio Aguilar (alias “César”),
who was in charge of guarding the hostages, in order to gain their
release. The Colombian military had captured César’s
rebel wife several months earlier and convinced her to contact her
husband to offer him $20 million in return for the release of the
hostages.
Ultimately, the coinciding events of FARC commander Cano ordering
the hostages to be gathered in one place in preparation for their
release, the interception of this information by Colombian and US
intelligence services and the bribing of César allowed the
Colombian military to exploit the situation and stage a rescue of
hostages who would have been liberated anyway. The benefits of such
a staged operation for the Uribe administration are clear: the government
would receive the credit for the release of the hostages rather
than the FARC; and the military could sow seeds of distrust in the
ranks of the rebels by claiming it has infiltrated the guerrilla
group at the highest levels.
This hypothesis is supported by various sources that have been
quoted in the several media outlets over the previous few days and
by certain events of the last few months. Several days prior to
the liberation of the hostages, the Associated Press and other media
outlets reported that two international envoys—Noel Saez of
France and Jean Pierre Cotard of Switzerland—were seeking
to meet with FARC Supreme Commander Alfonso Cano to gain the release
of the hostages. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe’s press
secretary, Cesar Mauricio Velasquez, confirmed the presence of the
envoys in Colombia and acknowledged that they had the Colombian
government’s permission to meet with the rebels.
According to an unidentified source quoted by Inter Press Service,
the FARC Supreme Commander Alfonso Cano agreed to unilaterally release
the 15 hostages and ordered that they be brought together in one
location. “Their release was planned for this weekend (Jul.
5-6) or the next, as agreed by the Secretariat (FARC’s governing
body) and ‘Alfonso Cano’ (their top commander) himself,
that’s why they were brought together,” the source claimed.
“The (Colombian) armed forces found out, and intercepted their
liberation to make it look like a rescue.”
The success of the military “rescue” may well have
been guaranteed by the Uribe government’s ability to buy the
cooperation of FARC commander César, who was responsible
for guarding the hostages. Several months earlier, the Colombian
military had captured the wife of César, and according to
Swiss radio station RSR, quoting a “reliable source”
close to the operation, she was trying to convince her rebel husband
to release the high-profile hostages—former presidential candidate
Ingrid Betancourt and three US military contractors—in return
for a $20 million payment agreed to by the Colombian and US governments.
This claim is buttressed by recent public comments made by Colombia’s
President Alvaro Uribe that his government had established a $100
million fund to pay to individual guerrilla guards who released
their hostages. And then, last month, Uribe publicly stated that
his government was in touch with guerrillas guarding the hostages.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence that César might have
agreed to release the hostages and cooperate with the staged rescue
mission is the fact that he and another guerrilla laid their weapons
on the ground before boarding the helicopter unarmed. It is common
knowledge that FARC guerrillas are trained to never leave their
weapons and the fact that César did so suggests that he was
quitting the armed struggle rather than following orders he believed
had come from his superiors.
The Colombian government has vehemently denied that it paid any
money to obtain the release of the hostages. The Uribe administration
claimed that the unidentified “reliable source” quoted
in the Swiss radio report was none other than Swiss envoy Jean Pierre
Cotard and immediately set out to discredit him. However, in their
attempt to discredit Cotard, they also validated his credibility
as someone who would know such information.
On July 6, Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos accused
Cotard of providing the FARC with almost $500,000 in funding. Santos
claimed that emails in the laptop of the late FARC commander Raúl
Reyes suggested that Cotard was responsible for delivering the money
to FARC envoys in Costa Rica where it was later seized. Santos did
not make the alleged email public and did not explain why the Colombian
government had approved Cotard’s role as a negotiator the
week before the hostages were liberated if it believed he was affiliated
with the rebel group. Ultimately, whether or not the alleged email
exists—and if so, whether it does link Cotard to the FARC—it
is evident that Cotard has been in a position to obtain sensitive
information related to the hostage saga and his comments cannot
be summarily dismissed—if he is indeed the “reliable
source” quoted by the Swiss radio station RSR.
Ultimately, the government’s version of the how the liberation
of the hostages occurred appears too neat-and-tidy and a little
far-fetched, even given the FARC’s current disarray. The alternative
scenario seems far more plausible: that the liberation of the hostages
resulted from a combination of the FARC agreeing to release them,
government intelligence sources learning of the planned liberation,
the bribing of the guerrilla commander in charge of guarding the
hostages, and a staged rescue operation to make the Uribe administration
and the Colombian military appear heroic. The staged rescue also
allowed the government to steal the positive public relations spotlight
that the FARC would have enjoyed through a unilateral release of
the hostages and to hide the fact that the Uribe administration
paid for the liberation of the captives.
Back to Top .
Comments
The
views expressed in this article are that of the author
and may not reflect the views of Colombia Journal.
Copyright © 2000-2008 Colombia Journal. All rights
reserved.
|
|