GOVERNMENT AND ELN - THE NEGOTIATION NEEDED BY NOBODY

       Someone at one time mentioned that the ELN did not take it into account for a simple reason; historically coca plantations have not been for this group a priority in military and political terms, on the one hand. On the other hand, after the Anorí operation in the 1970s by the Colombian military, it is said that it was substantially reduced.

       So much was his military weakening that Carlos Castaño, the chief of the AUC at the time, referred to this subversive group in a contemptuous way. The same is true for the United States government, or rather, for the presidents who have passed through the White House; this group has not posed a major threat to the region. In fact, some columnist mentioned something like that, within the rare and contradictory political ideology of this guerrilla group, supposed to have as reference the Cuban revolution, is that the ELN wants a revolution without war, something like a war Without war.

       And it seems that this perception is generalized by the general population, which has been indifferent to the negotiations that are carried out in Ecuador except for some academics and columnists (as always happens), say that in the facilities of a Jesuit farm is the Table of negotiations. Because, to finish off, after what happened with the priest Camilo Torres, has had the aura of being a kind of guerrilla Catholic militancy. A rare kind of passive subversive group.

       Now, what does it mean that the negotiations being carried out in Ecuador are minimized in their smallest proportions? The answer can be summarized in two factors, first, the historical ignorance of the terrorist acts of the subversive group in Colombia and the Andean region in general, and second, because it has not been the subject of any political party.

       What would happen if it became a political issue as was done in the case of the FARC or as it is done in the case of the FARC? What do the FARC have that the ELN does not have to move the matter to a second line? It is as if a distinction is made between the terrorist group ISIS and Al Qaeda.

       Generally, when that kind of differentiation occurs for some political party or government, there is an interest or convenience behind everything, such as when US governments ignore arms smugglers or dictators precisely because it serves their Conveniences and political interests, and, in the case of society, indicates that there is a double standard.

THE VIOLENCE OF 1950 HAS RETURNED IN COLOMBIA

       It is pathetic the spectacle offered by the so-called people when confronted in the streets, media or social networks on account of the debates generated by some statement by Uribe or Santos, or some of his friends. And the most terrible thing is that these people echo the speeches, when on one side and the other side, they try to defend the country, that abstract and meaningless thing when at the moment of defining it, and one does not know for sure what concepts to use or in what ways to refer.

       And the defending people of I do not know what, concentrates its attacks on the corruption of the one having as reference to a corrupt or vice versa. That is, there are people who refer to the corrupt Uribe as an intact man, impeccable, defender of the country, and that there are people who refer to the corrupt Santos as a defender of peace, or as a kind of missionary in Defense of freedom and many other things.

       It is pathetic because the speeches become so repetitive that it seems a reggaeton. That the so-called Fibristas want to destroy the peace of the people, who identify with those of the extreme right, or that the so-called farc-santistas want to turn the Colombian people into a more Venezuela, they want to destroy the country, Only makes the people into a kind of trained dog that follow the designs of their respective masters.

       And it was precisely at the end of the 1940s and during the 50s that one of the most bloody fratricidal wars that the country has experienced because of the same speeches that the two corrupt leaders are wielding today, Say, the corrupt president Santos and corrupt ex-president Uribe. At that time, the people split between the Liberal party and the conservative party, led by another pair of corrupt, and initiated by the death of another corrupt.

       Which of them is more corrupt? Who defends whom? Or, who defends what? The most pathetic of all is that it is repeating the same spectacle of the mid-twentieth century. Political leaders surrounded by escorts (even to buy the market in the corner), with all the comforts of medieval princes, with medieval mentality, always protecting interests of economic groups, seeing how the town divides and engages in a war of Words to realize then, that the poor is still poorer and the rich is still richer ... and that with war or without it the establishment will remain the same.