Tanja Nijmeijer fought at a young age with the FARC, the ‘Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia’, a Marxist-Leninist guerrilla group which has waged war on the Colombian government from the jungle for 60 years. She was involved in acts of violence. Does this make her a terrorist? A 2023 documentary about her life mainly highlights her idealistic side but does show both sides of the coin.

Tanja Nijmeijer has been called both a revolutionary (by herself) and a terrorist (by others) and is on Interpol’s most-wanted list. The documentary Tanja—Dagboek van een guerrillera (Tanja—Diary of a guerrilla), directed by Marcel Mettelsiefen, gives us Tanja’s life in a nutshell: she describes how she became involved with the FARC and how her thinking has developed over the years. Her mother, who received no signs of life from her daughter for years and had to get all her information from the media, also gives her side.

Tanja was born in 1978 and spent her childhood in the far north of the Netherlands. In 1998, she visited Colombia as a student in training to become an English teacher. She became involved in the conflict between the established order and the FARC, which she joined in 2002.

When the Colombian state began to waver under the ongoing violence, the US military entered the conflict. Tanja worked her way up in the FARC and became a significant player. She was romantically involved with one of the FARC leader’s nephews until 2010 and, from 2012, she even took a prominent role in the peace negotiations which led to an agreement between the FARC and the government in 2016.

In the documentary, she denies that she can be equated with a terrorist. She says she fought in a revolutionary war with a clearly defined goal, which she claims is very different from the type of attacks by, for example, al-Qaeda. She is asked questions about the tension between ‘acts of war’ and ‘terrorism’. But this distinction gradually becomes blurred by the facts presented in the film, even as the film increasingly portrays Tanja herself as a rebellious peacemaker and great reconcile.

The documentary leaves open the question of whether Tanja’s actions actually killed people. Tanja is accused of taking part in the kidnapping of three American citizens and she was involved in the bombing of a passenger bus which resulted in no casualties. But, as the documentary states, tragic deaths could just as well have occurred in this type of attack. And how exactly did this bombing contribute to military objectives? The film argues that the FARC wanted to target those at the heart of business and government and thus targeted the environments frequented by such people. But can one describe these as legitimate military targets? Was the FARC truly less terroristic than other terrorist groups?

Tanja describes in her diaries that she saw the flaws of the movement very clearly—corruption, sexism, favouritism, and financial reliance on drug production and distribution. She also mentions that the ultimate goal, the foundation of a new kind of society based on equality, camaraderie, and communality, gradually vanished behind the horizon. Nevertheless, she remains loyal to the movement, even after Colombian media translated and published parts of her critical diary in 2007.

‘How do you deal with this?’ the interviewer asks her. ‘Are you nostalgic when you think about your family?’

‘It was a great sacrifice’, Tanja says, looking bright-eyed into the camera, fierce and confident, wearing an army cap, with an automatic weapon gleaming against her shoulder. ‘But if I had chosen to be with my family, I couldn’t have been here. It’s one or the other. This is the route I chose. I am convinced that this sacrifice must be made.’

‘The guerrilla [movement] is your family?’ the interviewer asks. ‘Yes, of course’, Tanja replies with a smile. ‘The guerrilla [movement] is even much more than that. I have this to say to the world: I am a guerrilla fighter for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and a guerrilla I will remain until we win or until I die.’

It is clear why the FARC did not execute Tanja after her critical diary fragments fell into enemy hands. She is very mediagenic. Her eyes shine and she speaks with a disarming charm; she is obviously ready to fight and die for what she believes in. Energy, fanaticism, and drive emanate from her. The documentary relies heavily on this, and it seems to choose Tanja’s side. With her recurring ‘You know…?’, the viewer is made to feel like a confidant: You know this situation—you understand what I am talking about.

In this way, the documentary stands up for Tanja. Is that just? I had to let the film sink in for a long time.

I cannot deny being intrigued by the ‘abysmal’ (my word; see below) choice she made. She has shown herself able to let go of all her certainties and to fight for her ideals without restraint. In my 2022 book Wees Afgrondelijk (Be Abyssal), I describe the kind of inner transformation that this requires: a leap of faith associated with a willingness to burn bridges behind you. At the macro level of geopolitics and ideology, the birth of any worldview comes from just such a leap.

Her Marxist-Leninist guerrilla warfare was more important to this young lady, who literally had her whole future ahead of her, than her family. Tanja could have died at any moment, blown up by bombs dropped from American planes or as a result of one of the many dangers of the jungle. These risks are intertwined with the destiny she chose to follow, and she seemed to accept them completely—she was truly willing to die for the cause.

In choosing this path, she consciously opted to reject the bourgeois existence that loomed in the 1990s. When the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union dissolved itself, the monomaniacal fear of communism and nuclear war gave way to a wider range of uneasy projections of the future. Liberal democracy became hegemonic: there were no longer any existential challenges or serious alternatives to it. And the highest virtue of liberal democracy was that it was easy; it offered comfort and material prosperity.

However, as Nietzsche prophesied, bourgeois-capitalist existence is too boring and too flat for a truly heroic soul. It would not do justice to the human appetite for intense passions, perilous adventures, and absolute justice. Tanja Nijmeijer, preeminently Nietzschean, made the choice to dedicate her life to a revolutionary mission and to subordinate her individual identity to a collective war effort.

If you grew up in Colombia, such a choice would perhaps be understandable. Suppose you were born in such a country. The government is corrupt and cares little about the people born into poverty. Any politician who does not allow himself to be bribed and does not collude with the existing networks of power is destroyed by smear campaigns in the mass media.

In this situation, you try to climb up through hard work, but criminals and corrupt officials make this impossible. Inflation makes building a decent life an even more unlikely prospect, and all the rules serve only to strengthen the position of the people who already have money and power. What tangible option does one have in this situation other than to try and effect change through revolution? The last glimmer of hope lies in armed uprising. But Tanja herself came from a rich country with a family that loved her: she involved herself in a conflict that had very little to do with her. This was an extraordinary choice.

Every revolution starts with good intentions but ends with new elites replacing the old ones. Even in the so-called egalitarian communes of the 1960s and 1970s—in which even sex partners were shared—the male leadership figures had more access to the women. Any levelling in the name of equality requires a distribution mechanism, and therefore authority, and therefore inequality in power. And even if property is divided equally, jealousy remains—it is just shifted to personal qualities such as beauty, intelligence, musical talent, or whatever else.

Organised violence of any kind requires hierarchy, and these hierarchies persist after the original aims of the violence have been achieved or have fallen away. Dissident voices must be suppressed in order to keep spirits high and to ensure an atmosphere of solidarity. Those who have fought and suffered in battle then think that they are more entitled than others to the fruits of victory. Every revolutionary order thus takes on the shape of the old order that it deposed.

It is not without reason that Tanja’s descriptions of the internal corruption within the FARC are reminiscent of Orwell’s Animal Farm. In that story, the oppressive farmers who were driven out and the pigs who took their positions of power became, in the end, indistinguishable.

Ultimately, however, Tanja does not go all the way. Although she says halfway through the film that she will either triumph as a revolutionary or go down fighting, things turn out differently. She begins to see that the balance has turned. The Colombian government has grown stronger, backed by the US, and the FARC’s attacks and its business model—based on kidnappings and drug money—have turned popular opinion against them. Although the FARC cannot be completely destroyed—it is still difficult to wipe out a guerrilla army in a jungle—the battle is no longer winnable for them either. Tanja decides that a compromise must be made, and peace must be sought.

The hardened jungle warrior transforms into a figure of reconciliation, gets an international platform, and everything seems to improve. This about-face doesn’t seem to cost her much. She remains as mediagenic as ever, blazing with militancy as well as charm. Was giving up her ideals a bitter pill to swallow? In the end, the status quo wins, but we get little idea of how this affected Tanja psychologically.

As a viewer, you are left with mixed feelings. Tanja Nijmeijer is a fascinating person, a beautiful woman, passionate and eloquent as well as temperamental. The film colludes with her in portraying the case for her as sympathetic while downplaying the case against her—or at least she herself manages to do so when she gives an account of her choices. The viewer feels inclined to forgive her for almost anything. But how deserved is such forgiveness? After all, the FARC killed many innocent people and was responsible for a great deal of human misery.  

The questions raised by Tanja Nijmeijer’s life and choices are perennial, and maybe even unanswerable. A final thought: perhaps the documentary not only offers a portrait of the past but also hints at a possible future. Given the current state of affairs, might we see revolutions breaking out in the streets of Europe itself once again? The disappearance of the middle class under the pressures of globalisation and immigration, the ever-growing gap between the established order and the ‘populists’/‘nationalists’, vast inequalities across the continent not only in wealth but also in social mobility… With people like Tanja Nijmeijer among us, and with the ineradicable human impulses she represents, revolution certainly cannot be ruled out.

The post Tanja Nijmeijer: revolutionary or terrorist? appeared first on The Freethinker.

Below are edited extracts from the interview. Nehrych describes what it was like to hear the bombs falling on his city and how people there have responded. He also explains why Ukraine, for him, is culturally European, how young Ukrainians are keen to change their country for the better, and why it is important not to fear death.

Freethinker: What was your experience of the beginning of the invasion?

Nehrych: I woke up when they started bombing Kyiv. That was at 05:00 a.m. on 24th February. And that was a real shock. I can’t even explain it to you, I can’t even find words for what I felt at time. It was horrible. I was prepared for it – I knew that Russia would attack us, but I didn’t know when. But they did it in the morning, just like Hitler did. In the morning, they were bombing all infrastructure, airports, warehouses, et cetera. They came close to Kyiv in a few days.

I lived in a district called Vynohradar – it was pretty close to the battle. On the day of the invasion, my friend called me up and said, “Andrii, it’s easier for us to live together for now.” So I moved to the apartment he shares with his girlfriend in the Obolon district on the edge of the city. Here we cook together, buy food together. It was much easier for us to survive this way.

The second day, my friend went to our local territorial defence office and took me with him. There were a lot of men there who wanted to get guns and defend the city. But the office told us, “we have a lot of people who have experience, so no need for you here.” I had never served in the army, and they told us that we could make things worse. So instead we helped at centres here in the Obolon district, sorting clothes, food, carrying all this stuff to people who couldn’t come to the centres.

Freethinker: What was the most difficult period for you?

Nehrych: The most difficult was the first month when Russian Army was around Kyiv. They didn’t surround us from all sides, but they did reach the northern left bank, on the edge of the city. That was horrible. We couldn’t sleep because we were hearing those bombs all the time. Each minute – each minute – each five minutes. But then we got used to it. There were two air bombs close to us – one about 700 metres from our house and another 300 metres. But still we were lucky, because not even our windows were broken.

When Ukraine was in the USSR, air raid shelters were built under each apartment block. So the first time when we heard air defence siren, we went to the shelter. It’s not very safe, but it’s much better than being on, say, the 16th floor. But maybe after the first week, we just felt like – it’s okay, and stayed in our apartments. We understood that if the bomb goes straight into our place, we would not be alive. So then we reached an acceptance of this: either we survive or we die. No other option here.

We have friends who are in the territorial defence. They described us how the different bombs sound. Before the invasion, I couldn’t have imagined that I could become some kind of expert in artillery and bombs. But this is life. We saw rockets launched into the sky. It was like in some Hollywood movie, except that I saw it with my own eyes. I can’t tell you what I felt at that time. It was a mixture of feelings. It was scary, but I was also happy that we had some guys who could defend us. If they hadn’t defended us in Kyiv, we could have suffered the same fate as in Bucha.

The first week, it was also hard to find food, even bread. But there were some funny and warm moments. Maybe 200 metres from us, near the underground station, there is a Georgian restaurant. From the beginning of the invasion, they were cooking special Georgian bread and distributing it to all the people who wanted it.

From around 29th-30th March, the Russian army moved out from the Kyiv region, and they have stopped bombing us. Now everything is okay. All our stores, food shops, they are full of food again – for the moment.

Freethinker: Did you ever consider leaving Kyiv and going somewhere safer?

Nehrych: A lot of young people, families, ran away from Kyiv when the war started. My mum and grandma live in the western part of Ukraine. From the beginning, they were asking me to come back to a safer place. But I didn’t run. I told them, if I run, if we lose here in Kyiv, then we will lose there too. Putin will not stop at Kyiv. So I decided it was better to remain and help people here.

Freethinker: When you go out on the streets, can you see how the city has been affected by the conflict?

Nehrych: I went to see the flat where I lived before the war. Some of the apartment blocks in that area are ruined – you can’t live there anymore. You would have to build them from scratch. But it’s not a problem – they can be rebuilt. What is horrible is that people have died.

In our district, through all Kyiv, we have a lot of roadblocks, a lot of anti-tank constructions, where the army and territorial defence are making preparations. They also check your documents, check your luggage, check all your things, all the possessions you have with you. This is because during this month in Kyiv, some collaborators – in Ukrianian we call them diversante (‘saboteurs’) – were caught filming and photographing the places where our army have their positions and sending them to the Russians for money.

Right now, maybe in the last ten days, a lot of people are coming back to Kyiv. From my window, as I’m talking to you, I can see a lot of cars outside. Shops, cafés, restaurants are opening back up. I’m not sure if it’s a good idea, but it’s good for the economy.

Freethinker: How have people in Kyiv responded to the invasion?

Nehrych: When the invasion happened, everyone was shocked. A lot of people didn’t know what to do, but it makes me proud that maybe half the population of the city, from the first day of the invasion, started helping the army and the territorial defence. We were digging special trenches. We were helping with the sandbags so that they could make defences around the city. All the people started doing what they could.

Even old ladies, like 80 years old, who were pretty poor, were going to the shop buying bread and other food, taking it to the army, saying, guys, please take it. And the soldiers, said, no, leave it for yourselves. And then one old lady told them, no, if I don’t help you, then the Russians will come and kill me.

I’m happy that I’m Ukrainian because I’ve seen such things done by our people. Even our IT guys, who don’t know how to handle a gun, started working on the internet to gather money to make attacks on Russian government websites. Some entrepreneurs who were supplying food reorganised their factories to help to make helmets and gilets.

Freethinker: How much support has there been for Russia in Ukraine, in your experience?

Nehrych: Before the war, there were many more people who were supporting Russia than there are now. But even some of them have finally opened their eyes and understood that we are not friends. For centuries, the Russians have been saying that we are brothers, because we are Slavic – but so are the Poles, Slovaks, Czechs, Belorussians. They tell us that we are brother nations, and then they come and kill us.

Because human life, for the Russian regime, has no cost – they can kill thousands, millions. The Holodomor of 1932-33 killed around seven million people, they took all their food. We still have that memory in our DNA. [Nehrych refers to the Great Famine in Soviet Ukraine.]

A lot of young people, we don’t tend to watch TV or listen to the radio. We are mainly on social networks, which we can filter. But sometimes we read Russian propaganda channels to see what they say. Russian propaganda is very strong – if you’re a weak person, it could work on you very easily. It could break you.

Freethinker: Culturally, in your opinion, where is Ukraine in relation to Europe and Russia respectively?

Nehrych: We are Europeans. We are closer to Europe than to Asia. In the 1990s, Ukraine was a poor country. But in the last two decades, a lot of Ukrainians, especially the younger population who had started businesses and made some money, visited Paris, Rome, Berlin, and began to ask, “Why do we live like this in a shit country? We can make it much better.” And they started asking the same question of politicians. Ukraine requires changes and it will be done, because young people want it to change.

Freethinker: Do you think Zelensky is a good leader?

Nehrych: It is good that he didn’t run away – he could have done. He stayed here. Right now we are very happy that he is not a coward. That doesn’t mean that we want to make Zelensky emperor, or a king who will sit in office until he dies. But right now we don’t discuss anything except the war. We’re all in this together.

Freethinker: Is that something that you are afraid of, that Russia will use a nuclear weapon? Is the fear still there?

Nehrych: We have no fear. Many Ukrainians, especially men who are defending our country, are ready to die. Whether it’s a nuclear weapon, whether it’s artillery or air bombs, it doesn’t matter. We are ready for this. It’s better when you are ready and when you’re not scared. Had we been scared, we would have been defeated in the first week.

Freethinker: What are your plans for the immediate future?

Nehrych: A week ago, when I was still looking for new job, I was almost about to give up the search and join the army as well, because for people like me who have no experience in it, there is a fast track in the army. You are taught how to handle a gun, how to fight in city combat, forest combat, et cetera. For the last month and a half I got used to ‘doomscrolling’ on social networks – but it’s a really bad addiction. Right now I have just got a new position, so I am trying to focus on normal life.

The post A view from Kyiv: Ordinary life during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine appeared first on The Freethinker.

In Cohen’s view, ‘freedom of conscience’, as advocated by the Archbishop, ‘ought to mean that in matters of opinion there should be at least equal freedom of expression, with the understanding that with some questions that freedom cannot be absolute.’ But in fact the Church’s understanding of ‘freedom of conscience’ extended to religious privileges, such as enforcing blasphemy laws on non-believers, keeping bishops in the House of Lords, and requiring the King to swear a coronation oath in which he had to ‘avow his belief in a special form of religious belief.’

This article was written at a time when the ideas and values of civilised society were being threatened on all sides. The abuses of the War would eventually lead to the drafting of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). In both of these documents, ‘freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ is a separate right from ‘freedom of expression’. In contrast, Cohen here analyses freedom of conscience as effectively a form of freedom of expression. He notes the extent to which religious organisations can use ‘freedom of conscience’ as an excuse for imposing their views on others, thereby restricting freedom of expression for them. The clash between the two rights continues today.

The post From the archive: What is freedom? appeared first on The Freethinker.