|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
lettersMail from three continents Thinking about London's tragedy The recent bombings in London got me to thinking about conflicts between "terrorists" and governments. In the US, we have had very limited --- albeit tragic --- confrontations with foreign people wishing us harm. Thankfully. But the Brits HAVE been living in a state of "elevated threat" for decades from politico-religious extremists who punctuated their point of view by way of explosives, people who were willing to die fighting for their beliefs, and take as many of the "enemy" with them as they could. Let's look at the Irish Republican Army (and all their offshoots) as an example. They objected to troops of a "foreign" government establishing permanent bases in their homeland seemingly to support the local government in power to combat these "insurgents." The foreign government sent in troops to fight the locals in an effort to "promote peace" and eliminate the "terrorists." It was extremely hard for this invading force to tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys," because they all looked alike and didn't wear uniforms to distinguish themselves as "the enemy." The invaders rounded up lots of people, innocent as well as guilty, and held them as long as possible in order to gain intelligence. During conflicts, many innocent bystanders were killed and injured in the fight to eradicate the terrorists. As a result, resentment started to foment among the people who originally supported the presence of these troops. Calls for their removal were ignored by their government, citing the need to have them stay until the job was done, the insurgency quelled, and the terrorism stopped. The insurgents continued a campaign of violence against the invaders until the invader's home country decided to eliminate the local government and replace it with direct rule from the invader's government. In the homeland of the invaders, the government and citizenry were outraged to find the conflict spilling over onto their "shores," involving bombs and the death of their citizens. The official government response was to declare that they would take the fight elsewhere so they "wouldn't have to fight them at home." Righteous emotional reaction to the attacks caused most of the populace to back their governments stance and seek the total elimination of these "foreign terrorists." Jingos and flag waving ruled the day. "We will not bend, we will not relent!" echoed throughout the political landscape...from BOTH sides... There were, however, a minority of voices calling for the government to change their stated policy of "no negotiating with terrorists," realizing the futility of trying to kill ALL of the terrorists. They asked for an understanding of the key issues behind the conflict, discussion, and negotiation. These voices were ignored. For the next 30 years, the fighting continued, both in the country most directly involved in the conflict and through terror tactics in the homeland of the invaders. It took a long time, but eventually the innocent citizenry of both the home country and the invaded began to see the wisdom of changing the policies that precluded discussion and virtually insured that bloody conflict would continue. They called on their respective governments to TALK with the opposing side, and the government finally acceded and began peace talks. It was not a perfect process; both sides were firmly entrenched in their points of view, stubbornly insisting on keeping the provisions that led to the initial conflict. There were a series of truces and resumptions of armed conflict, but moderate voices succeeded in bringing the opposing sides back to the table to try and bring an end to the violence. The home government steadfastly refused to allow the most violent of the opposing forces a place at the table, and the violence continued until the home relented. As it stands now, there is peace. There are still problems, but there has been a cessation of killing while diplomats seek final solutions to conflicts. The "terrorists" were NOT eradicated as the government insisted was the ONLY way to resolve the conflict. "Negotiation" has taken the place of eternal battle. To date, 3523 people have died as a result of this conflict and 51 percent of these casualties were CIVILIANS, not involved in the conflict whatsoever, other than trying to scratch out a life amidst the combatants --- 1799 people associated with no military, police, resistance group or militia. "Collateral damage." How much death and destruction could have been avoided if those marginalized voices calling for discussion had not been ignored at the beginning of the conflict? Would a thorough understanding of the issues rather than a macho stance brought an early, peaceful end to the fight before it began? Why did it take 30 years to come to this basic truth: If you don't understand your opponent's issues, you can NEVER resolve the problem. It is impossible to get a completely accurate accounting of casualties, but using the LOWEST figures available, the number of civilians killed due to the Al Qaeda/Afghanistan/Iraq/United States/Non-US Coalition Forces conflict since 9/11/01 stands at 29,561(some sources put the estimate at over 100,000). In contrast, combat deaths of coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq stand at 2,171 --- less than eight percent of the total fatalities are military in these "wars." Figures for the wounded are even harder to come by, but the LOWEST estimate tops 400,000. And the violence is increasing. How many years are we going to have to wait until we realize that brute force, firm resolve, and attacking the problems with guns and bombs will not work?? How many people have to die and be maimed until we again reach the truth that we must begin a dialogue with "the enemy"? No war lasts forever, it only continues until somebody says "Enough!"
Tim
Coney
News brief describing Ken Darlington as South African consul As a South African who owns property in beautiful Altos del Maria, and who regularly reads your publication, I came across your reference to a Mr. Ken Darlington, who was arrested for illegally dealing in fire-arms, and whom who described as the South African Consul in Panama. I immediately contacted the South African Department of Foreign Affairs, who confirmed that they had already some eighteen months ago terminated the services of Mr. Darlington, who in any event wasn't ever a South African Consul, but only at the time a honorary consul. With South Africans knowing only too well the consequences of illegal arms trading, one would hope that justice will take its course, but lest it be thought that any serving official representative was engaged in such reprehensible actions, you may wish to take note of this clarification. Thank you for a very interesting and informative publication. Willem Steenkamp Editor's note: I stand corrected. I would note that, as on previous occasions when The Panama News contacted the South African Department of Foreign Affairs, this time again they did not respond to our questions about Mr. Darlington. Also, whether the government that chose to be represented by a gangster wants to call him merely "honorary" or not, Darlington did in fact display the South African consular shield at the office of Marc Harris and did in fact conduct consular business for South Africa for many years.
Map would have helped I very much enjoyed your two well photographed travel articles. I felt taken to some place and even though the text was sparse, the pictures said much. The Toboga article would have climbed a notch with the inclusion of a map up front. But I still give you a 9/10. The photograph of the orchid was splendid. A wider photo of the same orchid in context may have added to that experience. Well done! My alarm at the Torrijos government's antics has indeed spoiled my view of your country and I have to frequently force myself to remember that these are just the slanted wheelings and dealings of a few power players and does not truthfully reflect on the people of Panama. I still remain positive to vacation there with a view to relocation. I follow your publication with great interest. Best regards and keep up the good work.
Paul
Newman Editor's note: For a small-time operation like ours, maps are a problem. It is possible to obtain maps of Panama from public domain sources, but on a smaller scale maps are usually subject to copyrights. We try to obey copyright laws at The Panama News, and lack the budget to buy maps which, as you suggest, would improve certain stories that we do.
Looking for relatives here My father was born in Panama. I would like to get your help to find my relatives. They are the Williams family, from Calidonia. My uncle used to work at the Holiday Inn Hotel. I was in Montserrat in the West Indies, but am now living in Brooklyn, New York. I read your paper to learn about my father's roots. Thanks for your help. I am hoping to hear from you.
Aubrey Osborne
Want information on grandmother from La Chorrera's roots My grandmother was from La Chorrera. We believe she was an Indian. Her family was from the mountains and we are trying to find out what tribe she was from. Her last name was Barrias. Do you have any info or leads we can follow? Thank you.
Pat
Paradiso Editor's note: Panama has several indigenous ethnic groups. We also have a lot of people who, by the US standard of being one-quarter or more Native American by ancestry would be legally considered "Indians" in the USA, but here are not considered "ind’genas" because they don't live the ethnic culture. Many of the ancestors of such people with marked indigenous features but totally assimilated hispanic culture, particularly in Panama Oeste and Cocle province, are descended from Nicaros who were sent by Pedrarias the Cruel from Nicaragua to work as slaves in Panama. La Chorrera is not particularly close to any of the indigenous comarcas, but like the entire Panama metropolitan area it has a substantial urbanized indigenous population. Basically the comarcas are the most poverty stricken parts of Panama, which drives many people from those places into the cities in search of work. The phone directory includes many people in La Chorrera with the surname Barr’a, quite a few named Barr’os and some by the name of "Berr’o," but we don't see anybody there by the name of "Barrias." However, there are a few people of the "Barr’as" surname listed here and there in the telephone book at various places around Panama, and it might be possible to look these people up and call them to get connected to relatives from your grandmother's family. "From the mountains" is also a difficult description, as this country has this mountainous spine running down its length, parts of which are home to several of the indigenous nations here, but most of all to the Ngobe, who are sometimes called the Guaymi.
News | Business | Editorial | Opinion | Letters | Arts | Review | Community | Fun | Travel
|
|||||||||
|
