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.