Your article about the Farc in Colombia (Behind Uribe's 'new' Colombia, a bitter legacy of death and poverty, 7 August) glamorises a violent drug-fuelled insurgency, without mentioning that the key to Colombia's tragedy is the cocaine trade. Colombia has struggled for decades against the Farc, whose vast cocaine revenues have enabled it to buy the very best in military hardware and training. Once cocaine entered the equation, Colombia was effectively cursed. Your headline "bitter legacy of death and poverty" does more to describe the effects of cocaine on producing countries than it does the transformation of Colombia into a more secure and prosperous country. Facing military pressure from the Colombian government, the Farc recently struck bilateral trade deals with Mexican cartels, in "a catastrophic quantum leap in terms of the internationalisation of the Farc's drug-trafficking patterns" (US Drug Enforcement Administration, January 2010). Your article does not reflect on whether it befits "Marxist rebels" to become international drug dealers. Instead you credit them with providing "the only route out of poverty for rural Colombians". I question whether becoming a drug dealer, kidnapper or murderer is the kind of route out of poverty the Guardian should be endorsing.
The leftwing press and the BBC coyly describe these violent organised criminals as "Marxist rebels". Yet in May 2010 the UN listed the Farc as among the world's most persistent violators of child soldiers, and the overwhelming majority of Colombians view them simply as terrorists. Before you judge an extremely popular president for his unfashionable rightwing stance, why not examine the UK's complicity in Colombia's tragedy? The UN Office on Drugs and Crime states that the UK has more cocaine users than the rest of Europe, adding "people snorting coke in Europe are killing the pristine forests of the Andean countries and corrupting governments".
Bee Rowlatt
London