 |
|
Ingrid the ingrate? |
Ãngrid Betancourt endured inhuman treatment as a FARC hostage in Colombia’s jungles for nearly 6 1/2 years. Though it’s hard to imagine, after her miraculous July 2 rescue there were people out there – people able to publish their views in widely read media – who apparently asked themselves, “how long until we can start attacking her?”
The answer, we now know, is 26 days.
In a July 28 posting to the online version of National Review (which alexa.com puts within the 6,000 most-visited sites on the Internet), Bogotá-based analysts John R. Thomson and Dorotea LaSerna decided that Ãngrid’s honeymoon had gone on long enough.
Does Betancourt deserve all the attention lavished upon her, even after six and a half years in confinement?…
Ingrid spent less than 24 hours in her country, and only briefly thanked President Uribe before leaving for France on Sarkozy’s airplane. …
Betancourt’s behavior problems go beyond ingratitude, though. Since her release, she has repeatedly called for an international effort to liberate the estimated 2,000 remaining hostages through negotiations. …
She has bathed in the glow of soporifically soft questioning, including appearances on CNN’s Larry King Live and the BBC’s Hard Talk (with the normally hard-nosed Stephen Sackur).
Nearly a month since her escape, the question must be asked: Is Ingrid of Paris and Bogota a reincarnated Joan of Arc, or is she suffering from Stockholm syndrome? It seems incredible that having endured numberless indignities by her FARC captors during more than six years’ jungle confinement, she could speak so naively. So far, to the chagrin of her Colombian rescuers, the record suggests Ingrid Betancourt is sadly deluded.
It is hard to say exactly what the authors expected to gain with this piece, which even if it were accurate wouldn’t reflect well on them. But it’s not even accurate – it’s riddled with misstatements and innuendoes. If the authors’ goal was to stretch the bounds of taste and publish a vicious armchair attack on someone who has just gone through hell, could they at least have gotten the facts right?
Examples:
“Ingrid Betancourt was captured by the FARC during her fringe-leftist 2002 presidential campaign”
Betancourt’s politics could be described as social-democratic, and her small political party bore the lefty name “Green Oxygen.” But this patrician politician had few ties to Colombia’s left. Most Colombians knew her as a one-issue candidate, that issue being opposition to corruption – presumably a non-ideological platform. They recall the withering, nationally televised tirade to which she subjected FARC leaders when she visited the demilitarized zone along with other presidential candidates (excluding Uribe) in January 2002. Betancourt, meanwhile, was hardly a “fringe” figure: her strong stance on corruption made her the number-one vote-getter in Colombia’s 1998 Senate elections.
“President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government took up the cause and paid a reported $500,000 in ransom, which the FARC leadership kept, together with Ingrid Betancourt.”
An incredible claim like that needs a footnote, a hyperlink, or at least an “according to” clause to back it up. (”A reported $500,000?” Reported by whom?) This may have been a reference to a July 2003 incident discussed in deceased FARC leader Raúl Reyes’s computer files (recounted by Semana columnist Alfredo Rangel) in which Villepin, fooled by a third-party hoax, allegedly made a ransom payment and sent an aircraft to Brazil to pick up Betancourt.
It is far from clear whether any payment – even to grifters posing as guerrillas – was actually made. But no matter – Thomson and LaSerna are convinced not only that it happened, but that the payment was made by Nicolás Sarkozy’s government. Even though Sarkozy didn’t actually take power until nearly four years later, in May 2007.
“[O]nce freed and safely in Bogota, Ingrid spent less than 24 hours in her country. … She showed no interest in returning to Colombia for the joyous celebration on July 20 of the country’s independence and the hostages’ release, instead watching the proceedings on a giant television screen in Paris’s Trocadero Park.”
Betancourt has made clear that she’s avoiding Colombia for now because she fears a FARC attempt on her life. But Thomson and LaSerna chalk it up to ingratitude.
“Nearly a month since her escape, the question must be asked: Is Ingrid of Paris and Bogota a reincarnated Joan of Arc, or is she suffering from Stockholm syndrome? It seems incredible that having endured numberless indignities by her FARC captors during more than six years’ jungle confinement, she could speak so naively.”
The “naiveté” the authors refer to is Betancourt’s expressed support for a negotiated end to the conflict. In their view, does anyone uncomfortable with the idea of prolonged war really suffer from “Stockhom syndrome?” And are they talking about the same Betancourt who has effusively praised the Colombian military and President Uribe, and who has recorded messages calling on guerrillas to desert and turn over hostages, which the army now blasts from loudspeakers on helicopters flying over Colombia’s jungles?
OK, enough, this is more analysis than Thomson and LaSerna’s screed deserves.
Perhaps what is most surprising about it, though, was where it was published. In its 53-year history, National Review has been a mainstay of the American right, galvanizing the conservative movement during the 20th century’s second half, because its writing was so often substantive, research-based and intent on making contributions to the public debate.
Thomson and LaSerna’s piece is none of these. It’s more Coulter than Buckley. National Review’s readers should expect better, and American conservatives will have to look elsewhere for ideas about how the United States can best support Colombia.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:50 am
Worse yet, if not worse enough, the soldiers rescued along Mrs. Betancourt were made redundant after General “Tangerine”, told the press they had been evaluated by doctors whose prognosis resulted in the ex soldiers having lost their minds because of the length of the period of the kidnappings.
But of course, Colombia is an oasis of peace, prosperity and tranquility, and Eden on earth, not ever seen before mafia took power, or something along those lines, heralded by recalcitrant war monger fact cruncher media outlets.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:06 am
The Stockholm syndrome story is not Thomson & Laserna’s, it was coined and widely circulated by furibistas a while ago to justify the zero-talk to FARC military-rescue-only approach to the hostage issue. Jose Obdulio Gaviria said something along the same lines to mean hostages’ lives were no longer worth people´s concern. One way or the other they meant if after a number of years the hostages had not become FARC accomplices they probably would be dead men / women walking.
No wonder the story is being recycled right now when the GOC has publicly despised and accused the Swiss, French and other international mediators and is quickly closing any channels left to negotiate peace with the FARC. Well, after all the FARC somehow seem to agree as they have announced they will not put their arms down anytime soon. Terrible perspective for those who remain their hostages.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:40 am
Lord knows I don´t care much for Ingrid as a politician. I´m happy she´s free, of course, and believe that kidnapping her was a heinous crime, but that´s about it. That said, I wonder if this latest round of attacks is about Mr. Santos. He considers the presidency his birthright and possibly can´t abide the idea of somebody else stealing the show from him. The only problem with my theory is that I don´t think that Ingrid is presidential material. I think that her would-be candidacy would deflate rather quickly. But probably the José Obdulio – Santos clique is getting paranoid.
Fine by me if they´re stooping to these lows. I´ve always been fond of Napoleon´s dictum: “Never distract your enemy when he´s making a mistake.”
July 31st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
http://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/justicia/2008-07-30/farc-desoyen-llamamiento-de-chavez-y-anuncian-que-seguiran-lucha-armada-en-colombia_4418863-1
Looks like the hostage resuce didn’t diminish the role of TeleSur as a viable news organization for the FARC…
July 31st, 2008 at 12:54 pm
http://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/politica/2008-07-31/base-de-estados-unidos-en-colombia-esta-descartada-afirma-el-canciller-jaime-bermudez_4419963-1
Base or no base?… I think it really depends on our next president.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:20 pm
I agree with the writers that the hysteria of the ‘negotiated solution’ crowd out there did prolong Ingrid’s illegal incarceration. The French were particularly egregious. Every single thing they did telegraphed the message to FARC that it had a valuable bargaining chip, and encouraged them to string the negotiators along, as well as bring in Hugo Chavez with all his oily throwing-around money. FARC had quite a racket going for awhile, with all those people on its string.
The people who weren’t on its string – President Uribe, the Colombian army and the Americans – were the ones who were actually responsible for her rescue.
If she’s as confused about human nature as the authors charge, that reality is going to depress her. But I don’t think they entirely made the case, Ingrid did voice gratitude, she did reveal to the world the Che tshirts, she did scold her own nutty mother into saying thank you to President Uribe and those things I see as pretty significant. Since then, she has made appeasement messages but they have been relatively mild, I don’t see it as ingratitude – she is trying to recover her old fringe-left self after years in the jungle. Yeah, she was a fringe-leftist, the kind you find in Western Europe among the cossetted Parisian elite. Going back to Paris, she is adopting the usual thinking of that crowd. It’s ok, she is THERE after all. Let her be Parisian.
I do see Ingrid as someone with Stockholm syndrome but I don’t consider that a major character flaw – people get SS to make sense of their condition and to survive, not because they are evil or something. It’s true they shouldn’t be listened to, but all the same, they can’t help it and should be treated with kindness.
The sentiment in that article is pretty widespread over in Bogota.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:34 am
Stockholm syndrom? What kind of person congratulates consistently to the enemies of his/her captors? Camilla, this is more directed at your remarks, but might I remind you that there are roughly 2,800 people still being held in the jungle, and so I pose a question to you: How long will it take for all the perfect military rescues to happen in order to free all of those people (giving you a MASSIVE benefit of the doubt that none of them will die in a military rescue)? While this line of thinking, i.e. negotiated solution over military rescues, is not perfect, I’ll add that never in the last 12 years has the number of rescues been higher than that of kidnappings (of course, neither has the number of liberated victims). So what policy should be taken in order to get these people their freedom back?
August 1st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Ingrid the fringe-leftist? My belly hurts from laughing so loud. I´m sure she can´t tell Karl Marx from Groucho Marx. It always baffled me why the French left was so infatuated with her. C´mon guys, you have friends in Colombia. Was it too much to just pick up a phone and ask the real leftists in Colombia whether Ingrid was the real article? Anyone would have told it to you the way it is.
But perhaps I shouldn´t spend time on this. The more the lunatic right spends time on Ingrid, the less damage they can inflict somewhere else.
Else than that, I concurr with Kyle.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Ingrid is, in a tragic way, a microcosm of the “problematica Colombiana”, she recklessly brought about a 6-year hell of her own choosing. Having underestimated the ruthlessness of the FARC, she made the decision to wander into a war zone that she knew was controlled by the guerrillas, against the advice of the Colombian Army.
In their Washington Times op ed, Thompson and LaSerna claim the payment from the French was discovered in “captured documents”.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/31/thomson-laserna-writing-an-end-to-colombian-terror/
August 1st, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Ingrid the Ingrate? lol
Comun I agree with you but also Mr Pastrana, then president, contributed by not letting her come along in his helicopter, yes I know he was pissed off, but, well.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
lfm,
I think Ingrid could easily tell the difference between Groucho and Karl, she graduated from the Ecole de Sciences Politiques in Paris, France’s premier school in the field of political science…I assume she has at least a basic handle on Karl Marx.
El Comun,
I am not clear how Ingrid’s major mistake illustrates a “problematica Colombiana”? It definitely was a significant error in judgement, but ultimately the FARC brought this about, not Ingrid.
Best,
Will
August 1st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Any “Stockholm syndrome” talk is certainly ridiculous by now.
Exactly how Thomson and LaSerna may have come to that conclusion could be debated, but in the end it does seem very disappointing, according to how Adam’s described the National Review’s reputation. Either way, it’s not like Ingrid Betancourt cannot be criticized, but this a very flawed attempt at doing so.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Will,
Did the FARC really bring this about? Or was it Ingrid’s naivete about the FARC’s political and military project?
The answer to that question lies at the heart of the Colombian conflict….and that is why the Ingrid Betancourt case is an emblematic case study.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:37 pm
El Comun,
Again I don’t follow. Are you arguing that the “heart” of the conflict rests with Colombians naivete about the FARC? In other words, if only “Colombians” would have treated the FARC like the “terrorists” that they are the conflict would have been resolved long ago? I have some serious doubts about your argument, if thats what you are arguing. It seems you are overly focused on the specific attitudes/tactics of Colombia’s political elite as being central, but Uribe’s government does not represent the only government in Colombia’s past that has pursued a militarized, “get tough” policy (Turbay-Ayala’s government in the late 1970s represents another one) and the period of high level paramilitarism in Colombia was not led by individuals with “naive” attitudes about the FARC, of course their attitudes were regulary insane and brutal. Again, perhaps you could be more specific in terms of what you are arguing. Thanks.
Will
Best,
Will
August 1st, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Will,
It’s not that complicated. My point is that when Ingrid drove into the jungle to get to San Vicente, she got much more than she had bargained for. When the government of Colombia went to war with a group of peasants in Operation Marquetalia in 1964, it got much more than it had bargained for.