Const. Court rules Uribe can run again

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 19, 2005, 17:05:

Link to Politics forum http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/13966

Hunter says on Oct 19, 2005, 17:07:

Good news because I love Uribe.

Hunter

juancegomez says on Oct 19, 2005, 17:10:

Repeating what I posted elsewhere The Court overwhelmingly voted in favor, from what the tally of the different decisions (in response to the different demands presented before the Court by critics) thus far shows.

Of course, Uribe's way to reelection is not clear yet. Not at all.

As sitting president, he apparently may not be able to stand for reelection in 2006 unless the "Law of (Electoral) Guarantees", which will be examined next by the Constitutional Court (taking up to a month in its review process), is approved and implemented by then.

The Uribistas in Congress had tried to get over this by including a clause in the reelection reform for the "Law of Guarantees" to be decreed by the State Council (in a way parallel to what the Constitutional Assembly once assigned to it, but in a different context), in the case of its abscence.

The Constitutional Court, however, has decided that the State Council cannot be given legislative functions. So that ship has just sunk.

Hence another round of nail-bitting for opponents and supporters is likely, until the Court has reviewed the Law of Guarantees sometime in November.

Still, I guess now all former presidents are able to run for the presidency if they want.

arnav says on Oct 19, 2005, 17:17:

Uribe again Great news....as a gringo with esposa colombiana...we love that president and Colombia very much

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 19, 2005, 17:41:

Other Candidates? Any thoughts on what this does to the "campaign" for president? Seems like Uribe or not, some other candidates need to start campaigning before Christmas.

b bruce says on Oct 19, 2005, 17:44:

Viva Colombia! If this news is true, it is very good news for the Colombian people!He is very popular among the masses. Uribe is certainly a man of the people! Also well respected by leaders around the world.

silviat says on Oct 19, 2005, 17:46:

I am sorry but I disagree.

Very sad news!

:(

Gator says on Oct 19, 2005, 18:40:

Viva Colmbia!!!!!!! This is GOOD news.

"Brevior Sltare Cum Deformibus Mulieribus Est Vita!" .

silviat says on Oct 19, 2005, 19:51:

Colombiano X Its fine that you and other people believe what you decide to believe in... I still disagree because I have a different idea of this situation.

I don't like many of his ideas as much as I dont like him, and I am sad that he will be re elected as the president of my country without being a part of any of the groups you mention on you PM to me.

I still respect anybodys opinion on this subject...

Just thought on replying to your message in the public thread since there isnt really anything private on it

Silvia

"Very sad news!"

...it's sad news for the FARC, ELN, Paramilitaries, narcotraffickers and all the other scumbags who want to keep Colombia down! Viva Uribe!!!!!

ColombianoX

'Defensor de la Colombianidad'

Colombiche says on Oct 19, 2005, 20:04:

With Results like that to back him up.... Who really could do a better job? Results speak for themselves. People can cry and complain about Uribe all they want, but the fact of the matter is that under his rule, Colombia has stabilized tremendously, security has incremented. How can anyone deny that? IF there wasn't an overall climate of confidence, why would the Colombian stock market rally right after receiving the news?

Some people argue that only the rich support Uribe. I spent a lot of time with the workers at the farms I stayed at, there was a big pro-Uribe sentiment among them, they even referred to him as "papa Uribe" and commented on how much easier it was for them to travel by road with trucks full of horses and livestock. They no longer feared for their lives like they used to.

Uribe can't fix Colombia in a couple of years. I am happy for his reelection, I personally at this moment don't trust anybody else to match the standards that he has set.

He might not be perfect, but he is the only decent president Colombia has had in a very very long time.

Show me a better man than Uribe and I will vote for him. For now, Uribe is the best we have got.

At the end, history will tell.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

BAQ says on Oct 19, 2005, 20:49:

THERE GOES THE PESO, UP, UP & AWAY !!!!! Well, you can expect to see the PESO continue to rise. BAD NEWS for the DOLLAR !

Semper Fidelis !

Sam Salmon says on Oct 19, 2005, 22:55:

Excellent News! Let's hope it all works out for Colombia-a fabulous place that needs all the fair breaks it can find.



' a la orden!'

' a la orden!'

platano says on Oct 19, 2005, 23:03:

Uribe... I think Uribe will be President of Colombia for life, (kind of like Chavez) or at least for the next 8 years, or whichever comes first. And I expect FARC will still be around...

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

adrimm says on Oct 19, 2005, 23:17:

Agree Looking in from a country that elected the same person 3 times in a row (for better or for worse), given the turtle-pace of beaurocracy I can't imagine how any leader could get much done in just four years. If they are doing a job people like then opportunity for 2nd term re-election for any leader is only fair. If people don't like the leader, well the leader won't be re-elected.

Question is, can Colombia handle it? What is the original reasoning in only allowing a leader to have one term? Prevent dictatorship?

adrimm says on Oct 19, 2005, 23:32:

GdL I think he's saying he thinks that Uribe may be "taken out" before a second term is up. I'd say I have similar concerns if Colombia were to re-elect Uribe.

Mind you, they really shouldn't (for their interests) becuase 1) he could become a martyr and incite even greater public anger against FARC 2) It would completely blow whatever remaining threads remain of good-will mediation-intervention from any large international organisations.

Either that or he's saying Uribe wouldn't step down/aka eternally change the consitution to stay in (personally I doubt he would do this).

Rubiazo says on Oct 20, 2005, 00:51:

Well when he gets elected Maybe I can fly down there and charge $1000 to sing 'The Star Spangled Banner'.

Colombiche says on Oct 20, 2005, 06:48:

GDL "Uribe maybe taken out before a second term is up".

Don't even say that, that is such a horrifying scenario for Colombia, that would be like the Bogotazo all over again (the infamous day in Colombian history when Gaitan was murdered).

I wish Uribe health, strength and fortaleza, because it is no easy undertaking to fix a country like Colombia.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

Fionalatina says on Oct 20, 2005, 08:08:

Great news for Colombia!! I think me, and most of the people in Colombia are very happy with the desition of the Supreme Court.

Now, we all (who live in Colombia) will have to be very carefull... I don´t think the FARC will be very happy with this desition and will try not only to kill Uribe (as they have tried before) but to destabilize the country with their usual methods (TERRORISM!!!).

Let´s pray that God keep him safe and we all have to tight together to support and help our President the best we can.

Fiona

Fiona

silviat says on Oct 20, 2005, 10:40:

GringoDeLouisi Thanks for the compliments about my photo gallery.

First, I dont like Uribe, that I maintain. But I wish if he gets reelected (which he very likely will) he can develope those of his plans that may be good for the country.

I know Uribe is the most competent president Colombia has have in a very long time... if not ever. He is smart, he works hard, he is very articulate and has a good speach, etc. The fact that I dont agree with some of his ideas doesnt stop me from seeing that.

I also can't deny that he has done good things and that the situation looks better now than it did a few years ago.

However I am not a pro-war person, I dont think war solves anything and I dont believe we will ever get to a solution for the colombian conflict through violent ways. And by saying this I am not supporting the Novela of "Peace conversations" of the Pastrana government. But in my opinion the only way to solve the colombian situation is through a real commitment of the actors (actores) of the conflict and of the civil society .

The other reason why I dont like Uribe's government is because of the obvious and open support to the paramilitares...

Guerrillas are bad, they are evil and they have no sense of the value of life, but in my opinion Paramilitares are even worse and I dont understand or agree with a government backing an armed group that causes so much pain and damage to its citizens.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/colombia/document.do?id=FDA1174B2271E6D285256DE4006D4AD5

"... Reports indicate that in nearly 55 percent of cases, torture is committed by army-backed paramilitaries, 11 percent by security forces, and almost 7 percent by armed opposition groups. (In the remaining cases responsibility is not known.)"

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/colombia/document.do?id=80256AB9000584F680256D8F005C576F

On the other hand... I am not trying or expecting anyone to change its views or believes on this issue because of my opinion. I respect other persons opinions and expect mine to be respected as well... the posibility of expresing your views its supose to be one of the greater attributes of democracy right?

Saludos

Silvia

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 20, 2005, 10:45:

I have abstained giving my opinion in this issue this far, but I'll have to state that the previous comment made by silvia echoes my sentiments about uribe and re-election issue almost to 100%.
Cheers,
Desi

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

silviat says on Oct 20, 2005, 10:49:

Colombiano X I never wanted to have a private discussion with you, that is why I am writting on public forum.

I am not planning on getting on a debate with you about this because I believe politics & religion are two sensitive topics that should just be touched with people who is able to have an adult and calm discussion.

Please stop sending me private messages, I think they are starting to get offensive and I don't like it.

I am not interested in mantaining a private conversation with you and I am letting you know about it openly.

Have a nice day.

Thanks,

Silvia



Patadas de ahogado.....
Date: Thu, 10/20/2005 - 12:22

"Its fine that you and other people believe what you decide to believe in.."

Perhaps it's you who wants to believe something that is not in touch with reality, because it's an undeniable fact that under Uribe kidnappings are down! Crime is down! Inflation is down! Unemployment is down! Foreign investment is up!

Most reasonable people will agree that these are all GOOD THINGS for Colombia!!

Ah, y una cosa más, me parece muy mala educación de su parte poner mi mensage PRIVADO en el foro público. Aprendamos a ser un poco más discretos y no tan sapos, vale?

ColombianoX

'Defensor de la Colombianidad'

Sr Tertius says on Oct 20, 2005, 10:53:

"Don't eat the cake before the wedding" My mother used to say... although I think she meant something else specifically, it applies to the current situation: The constitutionality of the Law of Electoral Guarantees is not decided yet, and that may take some time. If it goes back to Congress, it may include conditions that would make it impossible for Uribe to run, so I wouldn't celebrate just yet.

Also, remember that Serpa was in a similar position in terms of vote intention at about the same time in the previous elections (close to 50%)... many things may happen in the next few months.

Various opinions on the matter (including mine) are here: http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/13678

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

BAQ says on Oct 20, 2005, 11:01:

You need to remember Uribe understands that when it comes to war and the FARC, one must remember the fundamentals, one of which is THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND. I honestly believe that IF the FARC are ever defeated, you will see the Govt crack down on the Para-Military groups. Until then, WHY would you want to piss off and turn againt you groups that openly go after the FARC??

Hope you understand the reasoning here. When fighting a war, especially a protracted war, allies are not only helpful, they are CHEAP in terms of money spent fighting an enemy.

Semper Fidelis !

silviat says on Oct 20, 2005, 11:04:

Sr Tertius I like the comparison you madee in the last line of your comment on the Reelection thread.

I lived in Argentina for a couple years, and when I went back to Colombia for a few months earlier this year I had the sensation that my country was heading to the same situation...

I really hope from heart that I am wrong because the Argentina post Dec 2001 was devastated, emotionally hurt and somehow out of countrol, but I really have that feeling when I compare the situation of the 2 countries.

Silvia

Sr Tertius says on Oct 20, 2005, 11:14:

The enemy of the enemy of the cousin of my uncle... Tinto: Or your allies are Mujahideens that have no qualms in arranging for suicide airplanes to pay you a visit. Or how about a moustached dictator that ends up gassing his own people under the aegis of your friendship. Or a pinneaple-faced thug that pays you back with white powder.

Oh, yes! A fundamental principle that has worked beautifully in the past. From Clausewitz's own manual!

BTW, the small farmer in rural Colombia is more my friend than my enemy, so I guess chainsawing him alive doesn't fall within BAQ's military strategy.

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

Rubiazo says on Oct 20, 2005, 11:24:

It's not so much that I don't like Uribe I don't like a lot of the ideals that he is pushing. I believe that Colombia could end up as messed up as the USA if it continues pushing the ideal of law and order, WHATEVER the cost. People like to talk about Colombia as a nation with deep-seated problems, and this is all well and true, but it also has a lot going for it that other countries don't have and it has a lot to lose!! You know what they say, don't know what ya got till it's gone!

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 20, 2005, 11:52:

another good article in Chicago Tribune --------------------
Uribe's most significant legacy
--------------------


October 20, 2005

By almost any measure, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has done a spectacular job in office. He has improved public safety dramatically--no small feat in a country at war with itself for approximately 40 years--while keeping the economy humming. He is the Bush administration's favorite son among Latin American leaders. In Colombia, Uribe's approval ratings approach public adoration, as high as 80 percent according to some polls.

Uribe says he needs four more years to negotiate a way out of the civil war that has killed more than 35,000 people, and to complete other items on his agenda. So at the behest of his supporters, Congress has abrogated a provision in the Colombian Constitution that limits presidents to one term. Now Colombia's Constitutional Court, meeting in marathon sessions, is considering whether Congress acted properly. A decision may come this week.

The pull to retain Uribe may be strong. No likely presidential successor enjoys Uribe's charisma or popular support. There's also the possibility that without Uribe's tough policies the country could relapse into violence. About a week ago a close political ally of Uribe narrowly survived a car bomb attack that injured several bodyguards and bystanders--a warning that recent gains in public security are not yet secure. Economists and some foreign investors also predict a decision against a second term for Uribe could affect confidence in Colombia's economy.

Despite Uribe's stellar performance, though, there are reasons to worry about this effort. Latin America has two long-standing, and dangerous, political traditions: strongmen who justify their authoritarian ways as necessary to save the country from some imminent catastrophe and a tendency to treat constitutions as silly putty that can be molded to suit political expediency. Unchecked presidential power, fueled by a belief in national saviors, has quite often led to authoritarian rule in Latin America.

Colombia has far stronger democratic traditions than most of its neighbors and so far Uribe seems to be following the rules on the way to a second term. Still, there have been allegations that he tried to grease the congressional vote in favor of a constitutional amendment by offering jobs to relatives of some legislators. Some Uribe allies floated rumors that guerrillas and narcotraffickers had threatened members of the Constitutional Court to pressure them to vote against re-election.

This has left some political analysts in Colombia with the uneasy feeling that Uribe--who ran as a selfless leader interested only in solving the country's crises--may have succumbed to the lure of power.

Uribe has served Colombia admirably during one of the most critical moments in its history. He need not worry about his legacy. His most significant contribution now would be to call off the drive for re-election, groom someone who can run as a successor and if elected continue the work of bringing peace to this battered country. To edit the constitution so he can remain president will tarnish both Uribe's remarkable accomplishments and Colombia's gains toward constitutional order.


Copyright (c) 2005, Chicago Tribune

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

juancegomez says on Oct 20, 2005, 16:30:

Well, what can I say...without going on into a long, boring post that people in this area of PBH might not want to read fully.

Basically, I do not support Uribe's reelection, on a personal level. I share some of the same concerns expressed by silviat, Desideria, platano, Rubiazo, Sir Tertius and others who also appear to be in that big camp.

But I have to disagree with some of their stated reasons too, and I've been critical of similar arguments when they've been made in the other sections of PBH. I won't make a detailed list of points here because that'd be seen as boring and unnecessary.

Suffice to say that I don't believe in one-sided views, positive or negative, whichever side they belong to (that goes for every single party at conflict in Colombia, legal and illegal), as Colombia's situation has historically proven to be far too complex and more ambiguous than that.

Still, I obviously respect everybody's positions and, despite my disagreements, share a common desire to hopefully have someone else at the helm in 2006.

juancegomez says on Oct 20, 2005, 17:54:

Maybe because not all of us agree that the results are exactly limited to those being presented as positive by the government, and because other hands might preserve the good Uribe has done while at least attempting to reform/avoid/lessen the bad.

Still, I once again must point out that my criticism/evaluation of Uribe is not identical to that exhibited by the others, and in fact it has significant differences (in quality and/or in quantity) in some respects.

adrimm says on Oct 20, 2005, 18:32:

For the record I just wanted to say that I'm not really in either of the "elect or don't elect Uribe" camps. My cheers are mostly just for the ability to re-elect a leader to a second term.

This ability to run again for a second term would be a permanent change, applicable to all presidents presumably from Uribe onwards, correct?

~ A

Sr Tertius says on Oct 20, 2005, 18:42:

Well-done task? "Still, I think you guys are all 'ideologists'"

I appreciate your conciliatory tone, but I would not consider myself an ideologue: I don't pretend to persuade anyone of any particular set of values. I take certain assumptions (what Chomsky calls "truisms") and apply what I consider a healthy dose of skepticism in evaluating the behavior of my government. I work on the basis of verifiable facts, and that's why I have more questions than answers. Which leads me to the next point:

"It is easy always to criticize the people in the world who 'make the big and important calls'... umpires, Politicians... very easy to say what you think."

a) No, it's not always easy. In some places, people get killed for speaking their minds.
b) It's not easy to articulate what you think in a reasonable way. Spouting slogans is much easier.
c) It's my job as a member of civil society to keep a critical eye on my government. That's not monday-night quarterbacking: that's being a responsible citizen. The umpire and the politician have an enormous responsibility in making important and sometimes difficults decisions, I grant you that. But that doesn't exonerate them of gross incompetence. When I do my job, I expect that the consumers of my products will criticize me for my mistakes. If I went out saying "boo-hoo, it's so easy to criticize... my job is so difficult...", well, I would be looking for a new job in seconds.

"why you would want to hand this well-done task over to other hands, now."

Because task was not well done. This administration, IMHO: a) does not represent my interest, and b) I sincerely believe that it is back-tracking the best accomplishments of Colombian society. I've made more specific points in other threads.

"But, it is difficult to argue with results."

I agree 100%. The question is, what results do you select? I don't think that EVERYTHING that Uribe has done is wrong, but the most important topics in Colombia are either neglected (agrarian reform? labor standards to confront the TLC? protection of human rights? reform of the health system? environmental protections? improvement of indices of human development? autonomy from US influence?) or misrepresented (security? In Putumayo and Arauca? reduction of criminality... isn't that the job of municipal authorities?).

I could go on and on. And the Uribistas may have some good points, which I would be interested in arguing. But I certainly hope that they don't rely on the toughness of the job as an excuse. If it is so difficult, let other politicians take the job: there are many interested, and some are far more qualified.

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

Sr Tertius says on Oct 20, 2005, 18:46:

Adrimm "This ability to run again for a second term would be a permanent change, applicable to all presidents presumably from Uribe onwards, correct?"

Correct. Which brings up an important issue: the Constitution is being reformed to allow a president, ANY president, to run for re-election. If this was such a great idea, how come it was never mentioned during any of the administrations that have played by the rules of the '91 Constitution?

Whether you like Uribe or not, we should all be wary that this is a decision about the Constitution, not about Uribe.

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

Rubiazo says on Oct 20, 2005, 19:04:

Very good points Tertius Adrimm pointed out that in Canada one can run for as long as one wants (of course Canada has a Parliamentary system and not a presidential one). But I feel that has long been a part of the problem with politics there, I think that the term limits they have in place at all levels of government in the US are a much better deal for the people. The longer a n administration is incumbent, the harder it is to run against them, and the more they turn to cronyism and pork-barreling. For that reason alone I would be 100% opposed to the reform.

Everybody seems to focus on security as if it were the #1 important part of life on Earth, to be secure. To me this is just another form of the basest materialism. We should look at what the quality of our lives are before we even bother worrying about whether or not they are worth hanging on to!

The growing LACK of autonomy from the US in Colombia SHOULD be a cause of concern for every Colombian citizen, it has far-reaching and potentially devastating consequences.

platano says on Oct 20, 2005, 20:09:

I would like to affirm what juancegomez says: Still, I once again must point out that my criticism/evaluation of Uribe is not identical to that exhibited by the others, and in fact it has significant differences (in quality and/or in quantity) in some respects.

I certainly understand juancegomez wanting to distance himself from my criticisms. My criticism can be simplistic, strident, emotional, irrational, and angry. I get pissed off and throw around emotionally laden words like SHAME! when Uribe protects his mafia friends (though, in my own defense, I do try to restrain myself regarding the use of capital letters as it is not often necessary to shout).

juancegomez, on the other hand, is eminently rational and tries not to be simplistic, looks at both sides of the issues, has considerable knowledge upon which to draw, and though sometimes sharp in his response, does not intentionally aim to offend or insult. He stays focused on the ideas being discussed.

For those reasons I agree with his distancing himself from me and my critical positions as my positions are often not as elegantly expressed as his are.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

Gator says on Oct 20, 2005, 20:17:

Sr Tertius Yes, BUT every president prior to the adoption of the 1991 Constitution could seek reelection. So that constitution was reformed not to allow subsequent terms. I guess we will find out if he is reelected. Four years is a very short period of time for a good government to complete its work. So may not like him but 76% do.

"Brevior Sltare Cum Deformibus Mulieribus Est Vita!" .

platano says on Oct 20, 2005, 20:31:

Gator, In four years I can imagine the same argument being made. In only eight years you cannot expect Uribe to fix a hundred years of violence. After eight years the same argument can be made... maybe it takes twelve years or sixteen years.

Four years ago when some of my friends were so excited about Uribe because he was going to "dáles plomo" (murder Colombians) I tried to say it wasn't going to work. You cannot "fix" Colombia with more violence. And it won't work in eight years or twelve years or twenty-four years of Uribe as President. Violence only creates hatred, desire for revenge, and leads to more violence.

Do you think murdering every member of FARC and ELN is a solution? You would have to murder every one of the FARC and ELN and "milicias urbanas", maybe their sympathizers, too: the union activists, the human rights workers, and any other bleeding heart liberals.

And for each of those you kill you would also need to kill their parents, and their children, and their cousins, and their aunts and uncles, and their grandparents (just to be sure) and the grandchildren, too. Then, after you have killed a large part of the population of Colombia, do you think Colombia would be a nice place to live?

People who believe military solutions and violence will solve Colombia's problems (whether they be guerrillas, paramilitaries, or patriotic Colombian soldiers) are dreamers who have not got a clue.

¡Dios nos salve de tanta violencia!

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

Gator says on Oct 21, 2005, 07:09:

Please, Platano, Do Not... credit me with things I did not state. Especially if it is your usual left-wing drivel.

Ten cuidado no metas la pata. Platano? Va de mal en peor.

"Brevior Sltare Cum Deformibus Mulieribus Est Vita!" .

silviat says on Oct 21, 2005, 07:24:

I'll suport platano in this... "Violence only creates hatred, desire for revenge, and leads to more violence."

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 21, 2005, 08:04:

question Platano, are you suggesting that it's Uribe's position that murdering every last guerilla will solve Colombia's problems? (Do you think murdering every member of FARC and ELN is a solution?) I thought his platform was to bring security and state presence, including schools, medical care, civic infrastructure, etc. to every corner of Colombia. I missed the part about murdering every last member of the guerillas. Please provide a pointer to this aspect of Uribe's political philosophy.

kat1 (Moderator) says on Oct 21, 2005, 10:27:

Uhmmmmm Re-election tricky, I don't mind Uribe being re-elected but imaging 8 years with Serpa alias Monkey face ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

Rubiazo says on Oct 21, 2005, 10:40:

HEYYY my gf voted for him!!

kat1 (Moderator) says on Oct 21, 2005, 10:50:

oops (^_^)

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 21, 2005, 10:50:

I think it's high time to get Ingrid back from the jungle. Think all this time she has had to get to understand the guerrillas, make connections, find a way to negociate with them...

Cheers,
Desi

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Gator says on Oct 21, 2005, 11:21:

Plus.... she learned to sit in a circle with he amigos and sing "Kumbaya."

"Brevior Sltare Cum Deformibus Mulieribus Est Vita!" .

kat1 (Moderator) says on Oct 21, 2005, 11:27:

oe she may come back as Mrs J Or she may come back as Mrs Jojoy

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 21, 2005, 11:31:

hey! let's be serious, kat Don't you think el mono already has a missus? Ingrid is still married to that Lecompte dude, isn't she?

Gator, maybe that's exactly what this world needs, more campfires and more kumbaya. See our dear platano for example, he's a much different person after his experiences with the jungle guys.

Cheers,
Desi

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

kat1 (Moderator) says on Oct 21, 2005, 11:35:

LOL Desi i dunno everything is possible in camp Jojoy, but the way she may come back like Platano. :0
Do you think she will post in PBH?

On the serious note I don't think she was or will be fit to be a president. and I don't think she will get many Sympathizers when she gets release

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 21, 2005, 11:53:

Ingrid I'm guessing that if Ingrid ever makes it out of the jungle alive, she'll be singing a different tune, and it isn't going to be Kumbaya. After 4 years eating tree bark and picking leaches off of her private parts she might just come back so far to the right that Uribe looks like commie next to her.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 21, 2005, 12:03:

like kat said, everything is possible at camp jojoy. It might well turn out to be that tree bark has become her favorite dish and she has become an expert on how to cook sancocho of the barks of different jungle trees.

Life is a constant process towards unknown goals.

Cheers,
Desi

(Seriously, I think she'd make one heck of a president for Colombia)

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

juancegomez says on Oct 21, 2005, 12:42:

platano: platano, you do know I'm going to have to provide a medium length reply...still, if I'm misreading what you typed, I apologize.

Maybe you took my post far too personally, considering that I wasn't only referring to yourself alone. I was just trying to be sincere and highlight the existence of differences between many of the involved individuals and myself, whether they are differences in style or in content. I respect those differences. I don't seriously claim to know the ultimate truth, and thus I engage in long debates with the intention of exchanging ideas and feedback. If I thought I knew the only truth, I'd just ignore all of this and shut up.

I'll say it once again: I agree about not wanting Uribe to stay in power, and fully agree with some of the reasons you and the rest have expressed. For example, I also believe that non-military alternatives should be prioritized and in general sympathize with your ideals of non-violence over violence, of negotiation over non-negotiation.

But I would be intellectually dishonest if I didn't reject some points, including the vocabulary and the methods sometimes employed to address otherwise sincere preoccupations. I prefer to come right out and say so rather than keeping it all to myself, even if it costs me the sympathy of several PBH posters in the process. Fine, I don't want to win any popularity contest.

And obviously, I'm far from being perfectly rational all the time. That is completely impossible. Nobody in this planet can do so, and in fact I've had my fair share of errors, misinterpretations and omissions that are certainly worth pointing out and discussing.

Gator says on Oct 21, 2005, 13:55:

Desideria I often agree with you but not this time. I lost a farm and a good investment because of FARC, et.al. You know the area, San Antino out from Cali towards Juamdi, my Isuzu had the AK-47 bullet holes in the rear and I and one of wy wife's sisters just made it past the road block. I watched my wife lay on the floor of the finca crying while the bastards took pot shots at the house. My wife's sister-in-law was murdered in Medellin so don't YOU tell ME what the world needs. I KNOW it doesn't need these pieces of mierda.

I will quote my brother-in-law, translated of course, "War is a terrible thing but not the most terrible thing. A person who thinks nothing is worth a war is worse for they are miserable creatures who are only kept free through the exertions of better men then themselves."

Now, move this goddamn post to the proper board.

"Brevior Sltare Cum Deformibus Mulieribus Est Vita!" .

Desideria (Moderator) says on Oct 21, 2005, 14:20:

gator, first of all, I am not a guerrilla supporter and I would probably have a more astringent view on the internal strife in Colombia if I had chosen to stay there instead of choosing to return to Scandinavia when things started to look really ugly. After all these years, I don't think either that I can tell you anything about Colombia that you don't already know. I have much respect for your opinions.

I simply voice my opinion of a non-political person who'd prefer a peaceful solution to this prolongued internal strife in Colombia. No, I don't advocate for a guerrilla takeover in Colombia, I advocate for peace talks, mediation and cease of hostilities. I advocate for the restoration of civil rights, law and order in Colombia; where the dissidents can form a political party and campaign without being murdered and where the public opinion is not manipulated by tilted press.

Cheers,
Desi

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." —Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

platano says on Oct 21, 2005, 17:28:

Mr. H., I will provide a pointer but it probably won't convince You ask: "Platano, are you suggesting that it's Uribe's position that murdering every last guerilla will solve Colombia's problems?"

No, my rhetorical question was not meant to insinuate that Uribe wants to kill every last guerrilla. It was meant to say the problem is not guerrillas or paramilitaries, the problem is violence. I know Uribe does not want to kill every guerrilla. Uribe wants peace. As his concessions to AUC demonstrate, Uribe is willing to make great sacrifices for peace.

Nonetheless, since you did ask for a pointer I will provide one, from Revista Semana (no. 1.085, 17 a 24 de. febrero de 2003). Shortly after Uribe took office he went to great lengths and travelled far outside Colombia in order to have FARC offically recognized as "terrorists." by the international community.

This happened within a global context of the post-9/11 invasion of Iraq which has killed over 100,000 civilians according to the Lancet study (which I understand some people would like to discredit. I believe the number is over 110,000 by now.) Mr. Bush was dealing with terrorists in a black/white, -- "you're with us/or you're against us" -- way... and he was dealing death to "terrorists".

Uribe intentionally, within that atmosphere of political desire to deal death to terrorists everywhere, went out of his way to have FARC internationally recognized as terrorists. (I do not dispute that FARC commits terrorist actions and I condemn FARC terrorism.) and Uribe did so at the same time as he was receiving billions of dollars of miltary aid, training and equipment and weapons, from Mr. Bush as part of Plan Colombia.

Now, I put two and two together, and the conclusion I come to is that the soldiers are not being trained and equipped to do social work or to negotiate nicely... the intention which Mr Uribe had, and as far as I know still has, is to kill guerrillas. And he can now do it with international support because they have been recognized as terrorists.

Still, I do not believe it is Uribe's intention to kill EVERY guerrilla, just to kill enough guerrillas to force them into a position of capitulation and surrender. Do you disagree with my analysis?

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 21, 2005, 17:37:

Terrorist designation Thanks for the explanation of your statement, Platano. And I agree that Uribe believes that military force is necessary to convince the guerillas to actually negotiate (I can't imagine them "surrendering")

One thing you should recognize about the terrorist designation is that it's not a mere semantic game. Getting the FARC, ELN and AUC all listed as terrorist organizations severely limited their ability to move money around the world and to take refuge in other countries.

BAQ says on Oct 21, 2005, 17:55:

Sr. Tertius You need to RE READ what I wrote. "THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND". It isn;t my military strategy, it's pure logic, assuming you want to WIN. Now if you are stupid, then you alienate BOTH the FARC and the Para Militaries, then you get to fight BOTH groups.

You pick the LESSER of two evils, politically you don;t openly support them or give them your blessing, but you don;t stamp them out either.

As far as military stragegy, which is better, higher losses amount your own troups fighting BOTH groups or lower losses amount your own forces and allowing the Para Militaries the up the body count of the FARC?

Just a thought.

Semper Fidelis !

juancegomez says on Oct 21, 2005, 18:40:

Actually, it was Andrés Pastrana himself who headed a national and international effort to successfully make the FARC be declared as terrorists (and he also pushed for the ELN and the AUC to be labelled as such) once the Caguán process collapsed.

The FARC was included in the European Union's list of terrorist org. in June 17 2002 (date according to Pastrana's book "La Palabra bajo Fuego").

That throws a little loop into platano's argument, but doesn't necessarily alter its ultimate logic.

The SEMANA article itself doesn't spell it out because it's interested in Uribe's efforts along the same lines in light of the El Nogal bombings, which led to the ELN being included in the European Union's terrorist org. list in 2004, but the clues as to Pastrana's previous work are there too.

September 11 happened in 2001, obviously when Pastrana was president. He did not go right out and declare the FARC to be terrrorists then, even denied it in the interests of the negotiation...but did issue a warning: Their actions would determine whether they deserved to be called terrorists or not. Needless to say, the FARC's own actions in the middle of the peace process eventually led to its end, so...

platano says on Oct 21, 2005, 19:03:

THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND The problem with that philosophy is the law of unintended consequences, also called "blowback". Provide Osama bin Laden with weapons and support because he is the enemy of the Soviet Union and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Later you lose the World Trade Center.

Fund the Convivirs because they are fighting the FARC... later they turn into AUC and threaten you if you try to extradite Don Berna.

I don't think it is a very intelligent philosophy. It is neither moral nor practical, as it tends to backfire.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

juancegomez says on Oct 21, 2005, 20:02:

An analogy to lighten the mood... As a film critic, I want to point out that fellow critic platano is skipping to the end of the tape in the description of both of his movie examples, missing important and relevant plot points.

Still, I agree that the final veredict he assigns to his review is mostly spot on.

platano says on Oct 22, 2005, 08:53:

The popcorn was so delicious I didn't have time... I think the simple point is: The Ends Do Not Justify the Means

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

Sr Tertius says on Oct 22, 2005, 09:37:

Logic? "It isn;t my military strategy, it's pure logic"

How do you conclude, from the premise that A is your enemy, and that B is the enemy of A, that B is your friend?

Islamic fundamentalists were the enemy of Saddam, Saddam was the enemy of the US, therefore Islamic fundamentalists were the friends of the US. Is that how it goes?

This must be some sort of postmodern logic that I fail to follow, or maybe it's just a tactical choice (like the choice of the Carter administration to support Islamic insurgencies in Afghanistan). I go for the latter. And, more usual than not, it's a choice that blows on your face.

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

Sr Tertius says on Oct 22, 2005, 10:18:

Replies to Gator and GDL Gator: "Yes, BUT every president prior to the adoption of the 1991 Constitution could seek reelection. So that constitution was reformed not to allow subsequent terms. I guess we will find out if he is reelected. Four years is a very short period of time for a good government to complete its work. So may not like him but 76% do."

I don't know what we will find out if Uribe is re-elected. My point wasn't that re-elections are inherently wrong, just that in 1991 we decided it was a bad idea to allow any president to run for consecutive or non-consecutive re-election. What has changed so dramatically in our nation that deserves such a drastic reform of our Constitution? If it is so obvious that 4 years are not enough, how come we couldn't figure that out during the last 14 years? If Serpa was president, would the Uribistas still support such reform?

AGAIN, 99.99999% may want Uribe to be their daddy, but THIS IS NOT ABOUT URIBE, we are talking about a major Constitutional reform! Are we reforming the Constitution to fit a man's agenda? Whether we like his agenda or not, that doesn't seem like a wise thing to do.

GDL: "Life in this world is a continual struggle of good against bad"

You accuse some of us of being "ideologists", yet your statements are pure, distilled ideology. Good against bad? This is the kind of unverifiable manicheism that gives the US conservatives a horrible name. Admittedly, a "naive pacifism" is also a form of ideology. If we want peace, we first have to decide what is it that we mean by "peace" (this is more complicated than it seems) and then work on reasonable, verifiable ways of achieving it.

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

platano says on Oct 22, 2005, 12:35:

I cannot speak for Ingrid but I can say that Platano does NOT I cannot speak for Ingrid (she seems very knowledgeable) but I can say that Platano does NOT know. Platano has warmed over ideas he has stolen from others and some anecdotal evidence based on his limited personal experience... and even that is outdated and not generalizable.

What I can say is that Platano did have the guts (or the stupidity) to tell some 40 FARC militants to their faces that "The Ends Don't Justify the Means" and told the FARC they should give up violence. The FARC did not turn their machine guns into ploughshares as Platano suggested. They just got mad at Platano.

Platano is now comfortable in his Ivory Tower and the Swedish girls are very friendly.

plátano

BAQ says on Oct 22, 2005, 12:58:

Sure, in a nut shell, the Colombian Govt built an "Alliance" with the Para-Militaries, all the way back to the days of Pablo Escobar. The Colombian Govt let the para militaries do some of the "Dirty work".

PLATINO, I agree 110%, there can be a "Blow back" affect but given Colombia's limited resources if its military, it appears to have been a viable option.

Now remember this is a debate and I DO NOT AGREE with the para militaries running drugs ect.

That being said, the para militaries do basicly three things, they protect their families and "Communities" from the FARC, they run drugs and they kill the opposition. I AGREE they are a criminal gang however they are not blowing up electrical towers, planting bombs in downtown Bogota or trying to overthrow the Govt. So when you compair that to the FARC, they become the lesser of the two evils.

If you look back in American History to the 1960's, the American Govt was "Using" and "Dealing" with the American Mafia to handle several problems, one of which was Castro;s Cuba. I am not saying it is right, all I am saying is that the Colombian Govt has been "Using" the para-militaries for years.

It makes for "Strange bed fellows" but it has helped to keep the FARC in check to some degree. IF, and it is a BIG IF, the FARC were defeated, then the Colombian Govt would be able to demand the para-militaries disarm. If they refuse, then ALL of the Govt's military resources could be concentrated on disarming them.

I think, and I could be wrong, that Uribe wants those American Dollars to keep flowing so he has to do something that appears to be an attempt to disarm the para-militaries for the sake of "Human Rights" but behind the scenes, he is not using a heavy hand. Kinda like the prostitution in Colombia, yea it is illegal, but how hard is the law enforced?

JUST A THOUGHT

Semper Fidelis !

juancegomez says on Oct 22, 2005, 13:03:

While in a sense what BAQ mentioned does seem reasonable, in that factions within the state have thought to be "using" the paramilitaries, the opposite is also true: the paramilitaries have thought to be "using" factions with the state.

And I'd stress this due to the historical weakness of the Colombian state. Local powers and strong regionalistic interests, rather than national ones per se, have been much more active in developing paramilitarism as it is known today, rather than an overall and concentrated national policy.

That, IMHO, helps to better explain the fragmentation and the complexity of the Colombian conflict.

platano says on Oct 22, 2005, 13:41:

BAQ, Thanks for that concise and incisive summary! You pretty much hit the nail on the head. And, of course, juancegomez adds an additional comment that is also true. It has been possible for congressmen to be purchased, or for narcos/AUC to be elected (wasn't Pablo in Congress for a while?) where they can wield a much greater influence over the Colombian state.

Both of you gentlemen have helped understand the "...fragmentation and complexity of the Colombian conflict..."

plátano

juancegomez says on Oct 22, 2005, 14:26:

Pablo Escobar was certainly elected, but as an alternate, he wasn't the main guy on the ticket, rather more like the first deputy in line. His active time in Congress didn't last much though, once the drug war began in earnest, but it was enough for him to appear in a few sessions and for it to be a shameful thing.

So in a historical perspective, I agree that some congressmen have been purchased, and that sympathizers of the paras or narcos have been elected, but some have also been threatened against their will, and others have thought that they could take advantage of the drug mafia or of paramilitaries, by playing a deadly game that has sometimes gotten them killed or kidnapped either by the paras, the mafiosos or the guerrillas.

Sr Tertius says on Oct 22, 2005, 15:16:

Ideologies and rhyme-based military strategy "one way of thinking against another." Good-Bad, Ying-Yang, Left-Right, etc. etc... these are made up dichotomies. What are the two ways of thinking that are confronted against each other?

"But, likely 70 or 80 % of the world's population would say that the 'activities of the Farc' are 'bad'."

Likely, 95-99% of the world population don't even know what FARC are. The 0.0001% that have actually taken the time to understand FARC would most likely agree that, in the long run, this is an insurgency that is mostly detrimental for Colombia as a nation, but that has played some important positive roles locally. (I'm not anybody's history tutor, if you want to know about it, do your own homework).

"Who knows what they really think? But, it seems certain they are insistent on instilling those thoughts on others. Do they really have beliefs? Who knows?"

What do you mean "who knows"??? PLENTY OF PEOPLE KNOW!! Go to their webpage, plenty of documents there. http://www.farc-ep.ch/pagina_ingles/

"That is pretty much the way the world is: one way of thinking vs another, and the compromise to live in peace with tolerance, or not, whether it is your country, or your home, your household. Not distilled ideology; reality."

Insisting of the reality of something without a thread of evidence is the hallmark of fundamentalist ideology. Provide us with a chunk of world that looks the way you claim, and I'll be glad do discuss it.

BAQ: "I AGREE they [paras] are a criminal gang however they are not blowing up electrical towers, planting bombs in downtown Bogota or trying to overthrow the Govt. So when you compair that to the FARC, they become the lesser of the two evils."

Are we talking about the same people?: the paras are responsible for virtually all massacres and displacements in Colombia (percentwise), they are responsible for one of the largest reversed-agrarian reforms in the regions, their influence is a real threat to Colombian quasi-democracy and their actions propelled the largest political genocide in Latin America.

Well... maybe Hitler wasn't that bad after all... he didn't like those damn commies... and you know the saying...

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

BAQ says on Oct 22, 2005, 15:37:

Like I said I will repeat, I didn;t say the para militaries were "Nice people".

Personally, if I had to choose between living in a Pueblo occupied by the FARC or the para-militaries, it would be para-militaries hands down.

Again, in the "Big picture", it is not the para-militaries trying to overthrow the Govt, it is the FARC. I also don;t recall seeing or hearing of the para-militaries placing bombs in SOW, VIVERO, downtown Bogota, downtown Barranquilla, trying to assasinate the President ect ect ect.

So, priority one, defeat the FARC, THEN go after the para-militaries.

Semper Fidelis !

Cerealkiller says on Oct 23, 2005, 08:43:

Very long thread I only read the first page and I have to say I agree with both Desi and Silviat. I see the whole reelection hype as a sham, everybody knew it was going to be approved by the supreme court.

I have read Colombiche's posts and some other people's post which are very pro-uribe and honestly, I love that most of us here can discuss politics without becoming too passionate about it.

I have many doubts concerning the efficency of the governent, yes people feel safer but at what price? Comunidades de Paz being called guerrilleros, families being killed in the southern provinces, intimidation, what people here call manzanillismo, the Perdón y olvido thing, was it called ley de paz y reparación?. That is nothing but appeasement, and most people know full well the only way to keep that feeling of security is keeping uribe in power...but isnt that also making the goverment less legitimate?

The control over the media is also pretty scary, only governments afraid of opposition do that sort of thing, -and last time i checked, colombia was a democracy- why do they say coca plantations are shrinking when the second governor of Nariño says on the BBC that its only getting worse and the inmense growth of plantations is strangely not picked up by US satellites. Why if coca plantations are shrinking is the price of cocaine dropping?


As a foreigner raised in colombia, I remember very vaguely the time in which you saw mafiosos everywhere, with their gold chains and their huge SUV's. It dissapeared for a while, I left colombia for a couple of years, came back and see that the mafioso phenomenon is coming back very strong, and once again permeating all spheres of society.

It is very sad to see how when a Colomian -and this is a constructive critique- feels secure then there is nothing else to worry about, it is almost as if a lot of them didnt really bother with trying to see what is really behind everything, I guess it is a very common thing in the states, afterall it takes an iraq or a Katrina for americans to discover there are MAJOR flaws within the system, but Colombia, being a country which has struggled so much for so long should have that critical thinking imbued in them by now.

Its only a thought, I dont think the difference between Chavez and Uribe is really that much, the political spectrum is round, not flat and both of them are seeking what they believe is in the best interest of the country, but i see it as short term, the legacies of those policies will end up in one of numerous crisis...I hope I am wrong. I like it here.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives -John Stuart Mill

Sr Tertius says on Oct 23, 2005, 09:21:

My daddy wants to change the constitution "no. I think only 70 %, from what I have read and would believe, want Uribe, NOT TO BE THEIR DADDY (they already have one), but want Uribe to be their president."

Chill out, GDL, I'm not stating facts but a extreme hypothetical situation (note auxiliary verb "may"). IN FACT, it's only 54% that would vote today for Uribe according to the last NF poll... a large number, but nowhere near 70%. Please interpret the polls carefully: about 70% just have a favorable image of Uribe (my brother has a favorable image of Mr. Uribe, but will not vote for him).

"A major constitutional reform? A break, please."

One of the central components of ANY national Constitution is the method by which political officials are selected... would you disagree with that?? It's not about whether is 4 years or 1 year or 80 years (hypothetical, hypothetical!), but about how easily we can change the central rules of the game. Other aspects of the Constitution have been changed without major controversies: there is a good reason why this one has caught so much attention.

"And, this is not to fit a MAN'S AGENDA, .... but to fit A NATION'S AGENDA."

Unless Colombia suddenly turned into a fascist republic, I don't think it is possible to articulate A national agenda. Agendas are set by interests, and in a democratic society various interests are represented in the political game. And those interests rarely, if ever, fall into the "good-evil" or whatever other dichotomy you may want to invent.

I don't know about "the greatest nation in the world"; when it comes to futbol I think it's probably Brazil, and when it comes to national Constitutions, I'll rank Colombia very close to #1 (only because I don't know EVERY other Constitution, but I know the one of the US... sorry, but not #1 in my scale now). Uribe has been trying quite openly to dismantle every one of its accomplishments. Apparently, he is going to get away with this one. Let's hope we don't regret it.

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

juancegomez says on Oct 23, 2005, 09:33:

Playing the bad cop, I guess... "Comunidades de Paz being called guerrilleros"

Wait a minute. I know I'm not going to win anything by saying this, rather the opposite, but whatever...At most what has been said is that there are a few guerrilleros or guerrillero sympathizers in those communities, which is not impossible given the situation on the ground and the history.

That doesn't mean that the government and the army have historically treated these communities fairly, in fact they have committed abuses or let them be committed by the paras, but likewise the so-called Peace Communities are hardly perfect, sinless and completely blameless angels following the Will of the Lord God.

Their ideals are admirable on paper, that's clear, but their attitude and method of implementing them less so.

If you want to extrapolate that to mean that the government believes every single person in a Comunidad de Paz to be a guerrillero, it's your opinion.

"families being killed in the souther countryside, intimidation"

That's bad. But that happens in war, and it's all hardly a government monopoly, you know. Need any examples, less vague ones even, of such abuses being committed by everybody else?

"what people here call manzanillismo"

True, and that's a serious concern. That's hardly a novelty or an easily resolvable problem though, whatever person is in power.

"the Perdón y olvido project."

It is a flawed project, that is clear and I have my criticisms about it, but it is inaccurate to say it is a Perdón y Olvido. Have you read the legislation yourself? It's available online FYI. 8 pgs. Even in the least generous interpretation, it's hardly that.

"That is nothing but appeasement, and most people know full well the only way to keep that feeling of security is keeping uribe in power...but isnt that also making the goverment less legitimate?"

In some sectors I suppose, not in others. But to estimate any specific quantities or qualities is pure speculation as of yet.

"The control over the media is also pretty scary, only governments afraid of opposition do that sort of thing"

I'm going to get flak over this, but where the heck is the "control over the media" you speak of? Have you seen that the media has published numerous stories being critical of the government's actions, inactions and projects? Probably not, since you imply that the government controls the media. Why then would the government allow some very unfavorable stories and editorials to be read, seen and heard? Beats me.

What has existed for a long time, undoubtly, is a climate of self-censorship, but that is because there are threats of violence against the media from all the armed groups, common criminals, corrupt officials and others who do so. That is not equal to the government having "control over the media", however, and doesn't stop all manner of things from showing up.

"why do they say coca plantations are shrinking when the second governor of Nariño says on the BBC that its only getting worse and the inmense growth of plantations is strangely not picked up by US satellites."

That would have to be investigated seriously and constrasted with the data itself and situation on the ground. And even then, coca plantation is also estimated to be going down, nationwide, by the UN, even if at a lesser rate. I say this even if I don't agree with prohibition and the current anti-drug strategy, for the record.

"Why if coca plantations are shrinking is the price of cocaine dropping?"

There are several additional reasons that explain this even if coca plantations were numerically shrinking. Coca plantations are repeatedly replanted, moved to other regions, and drug caches exist in several locations to keep exports constant.

"I was raised in colombia and I remember very vaguely the time in which you saw mafiosos everywhere, with their gold chains and their huge SUV's, that dissapeared for a while, I left colombia for a couple of years, came back and see that the mafioso phenomenon is coming back very strong, and once again permeating all spheres of society."

That could be your personal experience, but I wouldn't make those statements in such a hurry about the entire country, either way. Then again your timeline is unknown, nor do we share our interpretation of what's going on in other spheres, so I guess we will not agree in any case.

Cerealkiller says on Oct 23, 2005, 10:18:

Bad cop...Id say Devil's advocate!!! Good job :P "At most what has been said is that there are a few guerrilleros or guerrillero sympathizers in those communities, which is not impossible given the situation on the ground and the history."

Point taken, thats true, but there is a huge difference between being a sympathiser and a militant (and I want to STRESS on the fact that I DO NOT hold friendly views towards guerrillas or paramilitaries.) Hence, there is no legitimate basis on which to condemn people who have lived in regions with no state presence whatsoever. And excluding them from taking part in a process which has far more implications for them in the countryside than you and me in the cities, by labeling them "guerrilleros" is unacceptable.

"That's bad. But that happens in war, and it's all hardly a government monopoly, you know. Need any examples, less vague ones even, of such abuses being committed by everybody else?"

War? What are you talking about, I thought there was war and no conflict. In regards to the abuses committed by all the other actors, yes youre right, but see that doesnt justify the crass mistakes from the goverment. They are the state, and they cannot, by any means resort to abuse as they are under oath and owe it to the people. Unfortunately the government is in a very difficult situation, but thats what being legitimate entails, that is the difference between being a state agent and a terrorist.

"There are several additional reasons that explain this even if coca plantations were numerically shrinking. Coca plantations are repeatedly replanted, moved to other regions, and drug caches exist in several locations to keep exports constant."

The only way the price would fall is due to a rise in production, is basic economics, yes they are being replanted, in far more difficult areas to wipe out with gliphosate. You should know that official numbers are always manipulated, its one of the most commonly used methods of maintaining popularity.

"Have you seen that the media has published numerous stories being critical of the government's actions, inactions and projects? Probably not, since you imply that the government controls the media. Why then would the government allow some very unfavorable stories and editorials to be read, seen and heard? Beats me. "

Oh indeed I have read them, but then again I ask myself, why is Vice president Santos, a journalist himself, saying the media are "Cajas de Resonancia del Terrorismo"?
http://www.cambio.com.co/html/pais/articulos/3244/
The government constantly branding the media as colaborators for writting on attacks and accussing of giving publicity to terrorists? Isnt that manipulation, subtle coertion and hence and form od censorship?
When interviewed by the Newsweek magazine, Uribe refused to finish the interview as they were "attacking him" what is that? isnt that using his own charisma to downplay they role of the media? Censoship is not only about issuing laws forbidding free expression and as a colombian, i am guessing you are, you should know better.

And I will dare and make very personal assumptions...I dont think it is a coincidence that Uribe's most fierce detractors in the media, Fernando Garavito and Daniel Coronell are now living abroad because their lives have been threatened by unknown forces.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives -John Stuart Mill

platano says on Oct 23, 2005, 11:10:

Regarding popular support I can offer anecdotal evidence... I was forced at gunpoint to move with the guerrillas. In the city (Medellin) I was "blindfolded" with sunglasses with masking tape on the inside. You appear normal but can't see a damned thing. In the country I was not blindfolded and could observe carefully.

What I saw was a guerrilla that moves like a "fish in the sea." Walking from vereda to vereda through jungle I saw the guerrillas buying, (not taking, not stealing, not using their guns), buying food from local producers (at fair market value and the guerrillas had to keep a written record of their expenditures... guerrilla-accountants! LOL!).

When I was moved between towns (in rural Antioquia) a bus appeared. The bus driver was not forced to drive, the bus was not hijacked. The bus appeared on time as previously agreed to.

When I was moved from vereda to vereda and we needed to go through rough territory that required horses (through the "trochas") the horses appeared, again as previously agreed to, not stolen, not taken at gunpoint.

When I got sick and needed a doctor, the guerrillas sent for one. He came to treat me. They said he came from "the city" but I have no idea where he appeared from. All I know is, when I needed medical attention, it was provided.

I saw no abuse of the local population by the guerrillas. I saw little or no state presence though some of the guerrillas' weapons were official army weapons which the guerrillas said were sold to them by corrupt military, so there was evidence of Colombian army collaboration to support the guerrilla.

As I say, this is all anecdotal, based on one gringo's experience of being kidnapped, but it made sense to me that the guerrillas would treat the local population with respect... you don't want to make enemies of people who could notify authorities of your presence... if there was a branch of Telecom nearby. But most people in the places I was taken did not even have telephone service they could walk to. Also no sewer, no clean water, no medical clinic, no taxis, no buses, (I did see jeeps and chivas), no police protection, etc..... No public services, no official presence. Guerrilla territory. Zona Roja.

Places most gringos (or most Colombians?) probably have never seen. Beautiful places full of beautiful people.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

juancegomez says on Oct 23, 2005, 11:53:

Either way... "Point taken, thats true, but there is a huge difference between being a sympathiser and a militant (and I want to STRESS on the fact that I DO NOT hold friendly views towards guerrillas or paramilitaries.) Hence, there is no legitimate basis on which to condemn people who have lived in regions with no state presence whatsoever. And excluding them from taking part in a process which has far more implications for them in the countryside than you and me in the cities, by labeling them "guerrilleros" is unacceptable."

I agree with the points you have expresseed in this paragraph.

"War? What are you talking about, I thought there was war and no conflict. In regards to the abuses committed by all the other actors, yes youre right, but see that doesnt justify the crass mistakes from the goverment. They are the state, and they cannot, by any means resort to abuse as they are under oath and owe it to the people. Unfortunately the government is in a very difficult situation, but thats what being legitimate entails, that is the difference between being a state agent and a terrorist."

Btw, Uribe's personal position is that there's no war/conflict, but rather only a "terrorist thread". I and others do believe that there is a war/conflict. I am not justifying it, just trying to explaining it (just as I can try to explain why 9-11 happened, for that matter, and not justify it). War, contrary to popular belief, has never been a "gentlemen's affair", so to speak, but a dirty reality. Even the laws of war, as known today, are hardly being applied even by the world's powers.

As for the issue of legitimacy, I see that there are several additional dynamics at work. On the one hand you have the government personnel that committ or allow abuses, a sizable but minoritary amount, and on the other you have those that don't (the majority, until proven otherwise). The actions of both sectors, and their motivations, affect the population's perception of the government in countless ways, and not only along political and class lines (which is the classic way of looking at this sort of thing). One can say that legitimacy is built with one hand in a certain context, even as the other one destroys it in another. The overall result is hard to decypher, though.

That's partially why the Colombian situation is so grey and not as "black and white" as both the AUC/government and the FARC/ELN usually tend to paint things.

"The only way the price would fall is due to a rise in production, is basic economics, yes they are being replanted, in far more difficult areas to wipe out with gliphosate. You should know that official numbers are always manipulated, its one of the most commonly used methods of maintaining popularity."

Yeah, but not necessarily always, and even less necessarily in the ways that people contrary to the government speculate that they are being manipulated (pointing out, once again, that the UN also conducts its own studies irrespective of what the U.S./Colombian ones say).

The price can fall if there's more than enough of an offer to meet the demand, in a given moment and location, regardless of what the total production per se is doing just now.

"Oh indeed I have read them, but then again I ask myself, why is Vice president Santos, a journalist himself, saying the media are "Cajas de Resonancia del Terrorismo"?"

Because precisely, he thinks that the media stories that are being published are NOT as pro-government as he'd like, so to speak, because he thinks they magnify the government's errors and the actions of the FARC & co. and might benefit the "terrorists".

That's a form of government pressure towards public opinion, but it has not been mixed with a practical pressure by means of anything like outright censorship.

That or something akin to that isn't only happening in Colombia, however. It's quite common in war zones and only in the most democratic and peaceful European countries is there something close to a perfect environment for the press. That doesn't justify it, just states what the situation is.

"The government constantly branding the media as colaborators for writting on attacks and accussing of giving publicity to terrorists? Isnt that manipulation, subtle coertion and hence and form od censorship?"

I wouldn't say constantly, since considerable periods of time have passed between each "branding", and not all of them have had the same tone and content.

Yes, it might be interpreted as an attempt at subtle coertion, but in practice that has not stopped nor changed the bulk of what is being published or televised. Hence the censorship that does exist, in practice, is not officially mandated, but rather uneven self-censorship, and it responds to the threats of violence that differen parties (including some from state people, but hardly most) have made against the press.

"When interviewed by the Newsweek magazine, Uribe refused to finish the interview as they were "attacking him" what is that? isnt that using his own charisma to downplay they role of the media? Censoship is not only about issuing laws forbidding free expression and as a colombian, i am guessing you are, you should know better."

I didn't agree with Uribe's reaction, he could have expressed himself more decently without changing his position, but I understood why he might feel slighted, given the manner in which Contreras was making the questions and the surrounding context it was all going on.

Not wanting to answer some questions and evading them is a character flaw, not censorship, however, as politicians around the entire world do that, even if in more diplomatic ways. And that's hardly the only time that such a kind questions were asked, to say that that's an example of Uribe's overall attitude towards the press.

If I wasn't Colombian I wouldn't really be as interested in participating here and elsewhere as I am, for better or for worse.

I know that the press is not fully free here, I know that corrupt politicians, corrupt officials, the armed groups and others pressure the press and also attack it physically, to a lesser or greater degree according to the subject, the people, the time and the location involved. That's not something I'm denying.

But that is hardly everything, and it hasn't stopped many from continuing to do their work as journalists, and thus Colombians of all political colors still can read or watch all manner of news stories if they so choose.

"And I will dare and make very personal assumptions...I dont think it is a coincidence that Uribe's most fierce detractors in the media, Fernando Garavito and Daniel Coronell are now living abroad because their lives have been threatened by unknown forces."

It's not a coincidence in either way, but to me it seems indicative of something more complex than what I think you believe.

I can't speak for Garavito's case, at the moment, but as for Daniel Coronell himself (who continues expressing himself in his Semana columns just as he did before), he himself put it best in several interviews/articles at the time of his departure.

He doesn't blame Uribe himself for the threats, and appreciated the fact that he was provided with adequate protection, but personally decided to exile himself in order to be fully safe from harm.

Coronell believes that it wasn't his criticisms of Uribe per se that made him be forced to leave, but rather those he made against some shadowy individuals who happened to be friends/allies of the president.

Those people in turn threatened him as a reaction, perhaps thinking that they'd also be doing Uribe a favor in the long run. That's what Coronell understood and I suppose he knows better.

What that suggests is that Uribe has a poor taste in friends and allies, and is willing to put up with a lot of opportunistic trash as long as he can muster enough support to save his skin (politically and physically).

That is a character and moral flaw that has become undeniable (it is a reason that makes me opposed to the reelection of Uribe as a person, but not to the continuation of some of his policies through another candidate), but hardly a criminal behavior.

That doesn't necessarily mean that say, Uribe hated Coronell's criticisms and thus had to order him be silenced, as people are assuming according to their preferences alone.

Cerealkiller says on Oct 23, 2005, 12:08:

Juancegomez I think you make excellent points, but something tells me we will never reach consensus here. Thanks for the debate though, its always nice to be able to compare diff points of view...without resorting to be a%&/oles :)

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives -John Stuart Mill

juancegomez says on Oct 23, 2005, 12:10:

Responding to that anectdotal evidence once again First off, a general idea about the time and places involved would do wonders to put all this in context, platano.

Other than that...

"I saw no abuse of the local population by the guerrillas. I saw little or no state presence though some of the guerrillas' weapons were official army weapons which the guerrillas said were sold to them by corrupt military, so there was evidence of Colombian army collaboration to support the guerrilla."

Your seeing no abuse in your particular situation may be entirely correct. But that doesn't mean that abuse wasn't happening elsewhere, before or after your experience occured, or simply behind the scenes.

Likewise, the word of the guerrillas is impossible to verify and contextualize under those circumstances and details alone. We would need more information.

It is known that the guerrillas traditionally do get weapons both by stealing and through bribes to low level personnel, but in recent years they also have acquired many, many more through dealing with black market salesman and engagin in the drug trade (need I go over the 10,000 rifles Vladimiro Montesinos arranged for the FARC?)

"As I say, this is all anecdotal, based on one gringo's experience of being kidnapped, but it made sense to me that the guerrillas would treat the local population with respect... you don't want to make enemies of people who could notify authorities of your presence..."

That makes sense, up to a point. But it also makes sense that the members of the local population that would have complained to authorities have long since been dead or in exile.

Thus, those who stayed were accustomed to having friendly or indifferent relations with the guerrillas. We simply don't know without more information.

"But most people in the places I was taken did not even have telephone service they could walk to. Also no sewer, no clean water, no medical clinic, no taxis, no buses, (I did see jeeps and chivas), no police protection, etc..... No public services, no official presence. Guerrilla territory. Zona Roja."

Then that was deep in the remote rural areas, beyond even the small urban municipalities that show up in most maps. I agree that in those areas, the guerrillas do have a degree of true support, since the state is hated or its abscence is lamented.

However, it should also be pointed out that similar feelings have also been felt by the victims of guerrilla aggression who have supported paramilitary groups as a response due to the abscence of the state.

The romantic image that those who support the guerrillas are automatically all those that are abandoned is a bit of a myth, even if there is some degree of truth behind the construction of that myth.

"Places most gringos (or most Colombians?) probably have never seen. Beautiful places full of beautiful people."

Very poetic, I'll give you that. But there are both ugly and beautiful people on all sides of the multifacetic conflict we are in.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 23, 2005, 14:16:

Two explanations "The only way the price would fall is due to a rise in production, is basic economics"

Actually, basic economics would consider the other obvious possibility, too, that consumption may have fallen.

Also, an increase in plantings in Nariño witnessed by the governor there may very well be counterbalanced by a decrease somewhere else. That's kind of the balloon theory in action, right?

Cerealkiller says on Oct 23, 2005, 19:06:

Studies show that consumption has risen in years 2003 and 2004, at least in Europe, you can read about it on:

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_General_Strategy_Unit_Drugs_Report.htm
I am not familiar with the statistics in the states and I wouldn't be surprised if consumption is rising just like everywhere else.

In regards to the decrease in plantings due to the usage of gliphosate, the inspections are done right after the gliphosate rounds so it is perfectly natural for numbers to decrease but it only takes 3 months for farmers to start a new plantation and the rate of substitution is really not that positive. So I am very sceptical regarding the decrease in coca growing.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives -John Stuart Mill

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 23, 2005, 19:31:

Actually According to the UN
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2005/volume_1_chap1_coca.pdf
cocaine use in the USA is static, not increasing.

Just so you know, I'm not arguing that you're wrong, just that your assumptions were flawed. I'm pretty sure with both agree that interdiction and prohibition are ineffective and counterproductive.

platano says on Oct 23, 2005, 20:13:

juancegomez et al. You say: "First off, a general idea about the time and places involved would do wonders to put all this in context, platano."

I prefer not to provide exact dates and locations. But I will say this. I built a house (a "finca") in rural Cauca during the Pastrana administration. People would come visit often. During "puentes" we always had lots of people, salsa parties, and fun. We would also do the touristy things in the area, like visit the hot springs at Coconuco, the marketplaces in Piendamó and Silvia.

Then Uribe became President. Now, after years of Uribe being President, people don't want to vist my finca in Cauca. They are afraid to go to Coconuco or Silvia. They stay in Cali. When people say Colombia is safer now, I scratch my head and ask why the fear to leave Cali for Silvia or Piendamó?

We have about 80 family and friends. Two or three will make the trip into the heartland of Cauca. The rest are afraid... so much for Uribe and making Colombia safe for Colombians.

Plátano X
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 24, 2005, 07:49:

Just an idea, Platano Nobody said EVERYWHERE in Colombia was safer under Uribe. In fact, one might reason that pushing the guerillas out of urban and near-urban areas might make it less safe in rural areas. Also, under Uribe there's an actual war on (though he won't call it that) with the Colombian army out of their barracks and persuing the FARC farther and farther into rural or wilderness Colombia. I don't think anybody would argue that having a war disputed in your back yard, be it in Arauca, Cauca or the Sierra Nevada, is a lot of fun or safe.

But does seem fair to say that Colombia is safer for MOST Colombians.

BAQ says on Oct 24, 2005, 10:54:

This is interesting Since we are talking about safety, I thought I would ass this little tid bit.

Last night in CNN, they said BRAZIL had the highest murder/crime rate in the world. The reason they mentioned it was because of a proposition to bad gun sales in Brazil. Evidently, about 70% of the people are against the idea of banning gun sales because they want to be able to buy them for personal defense.

Just an interesting item. So now, if someone tells you that you are nuts for living here because of all the crime, you can tell em, NOOOO, BRAZIL is the "Bad" place to live. jajajaj

Semper Fidelis !

pepster says on Oct 24, 2005, 12:19:

Come on Sr Tertius,

What do you mean the constitution hasn't been played with?

How about when it was shuffled back in forth for the sake of narcotrafficers not being extradited. That was done for political reasons, albeit under the gun.

I have no problem with changing the consitution. It's a living document that must change with the needs of the people. Who in the hell wanted 4 more years of Gaviria, Pastrana or Samper?

We need Uribe...period.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

juancegomez says on Oct 24, 2005, 15:05:

Wasn't asking for too many specifics platano (more like a vague "in the southwest/east, less/more than a decade ago", or something similar to that), and it is certainly well within your rights to refuse to provide that information for the sake of your privacy and safety.

But from your post I can speculate a bit...wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't that far from Cauca, but who knows. I respect your decision though.

Other than reiterating what Mr. Hollywood said...even in times of greater or lesser overall violence, that doesn't mean that warfare is spread out consistently over the entire country.

In fact, it's possible that Cauca was less subject to violence some years back, but now that things have improved at least a little bit overall, the southwest seems to have become somewhat of a persisting focus for part of the continuing violence.

Sr Tertius says on Oct 24, 2005, 21:49:

played with the Constitution? "What do you mean the constitution hasn't been played with?"

I can't find where I said such a thing. Could you point me to that?

If by "played with" you mean ammended, how would I deny that it has been ammended? The 91 Constitution is full of ammendments.

"How about when it was shuffled back in forth for the sake of narcotrafficers not being extradited. That was done for political reasons, albeit under the gun."

a) The original version of the Constitution said "there will be no extradition". It wasn't changed to prohibit the extradition of Colombian nationals because that practice was defined as inconstitutional from the beginning. Later, it was ammended (arguably, under US pressure) to allow for extraditions.

b) If you contend that that particular article was written to benefit narcotraffickers, I'd like to see what evidence you have to prove it. Many, including me, were actively opposed to extraditions by principle, not because of any ulterior motive. I activel