FARC, again

utopiacowboy says on Apr 8, 2005, 08:07:

I guess we are going to hear the usual excuses too. So much for the theory that the Uribe regime is winning the civil war.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kikiortiz11 says on Apr 8, 2005, 10:28:

utopiacowboy THE USUAL EXCUSES.....THE THEORY THAT THE URIBE REGIME IS WINNING THE CIVIL WAR...

when a leader is voted in to run a country for a period of time, its called a mandate, not a regime.... there is a huge diference....

and whether uribe's mandate is winning.. how can you say this.. because if uribe is winning we all are winning.. this is not uribe's war only, but our war. our war against guerrillas turned terrorists who want to strip us of our freedom. so pray that 'uribe's regime' wins...

Kiki Ortiz-Matallana

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 8, 2005, 11:16:

Winning the war Since when does taking casualties mean you're losing the war? This is a tragedy but it's the result of the fact that Colombian troops are out there in the field doing what they're supposed to do, rather than hanging out in the barracks and whorehouses, which is what a lot of people say was the primary habitat of the Colombian army up until recent years.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Apr 8, 2005, 11:42:

We've been all through this, Kikiortiz. Who are "we"? To be sure, the Uribe regime has the support of the middle and upper class but it appears that much of the rest of the population is opposed or passively indifferent to the regime. Many of the previous attacks were known to the local population but they don't do anything to stop them or warn the army. This may have been the case here as well. They like to portray this image that the Colombian nation is united in their fight against the guerillas but this is far from true. It's a civil war that's been going on for 40 years and it is certainly going to last another 40.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 8, 2005, 11:56:

as long as "we" are being identified as the Colombian middle and upper class then I'd say that kikiortiz is right. However, there's a little problem there. The campesinos of Vichada and Vaupés are also Colombians and they have gained little under the mandate of Uribe. Another region of Colombia that has been badly neglected is the Valle del Cauca; the port of Buenaventura just lost over 10 million Us dollars that were preliminary allocated for the deepening of the access canal to the port.
As I have stated before, I don't have any personal dislike for Uribe. He does have strong support in the country but that might turn out to be much less than what the polls indicate.
Cheers,
Desi

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Apr 8, 2005, 13:20:

Count me out of "We" Kiki: A regime, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is "now frequently applied disparagingly to a particular government or administration."

Uribe's government is the current regime in Colombia.

"because if uribe is winning we all are winning.." Not me.
"this is not uribe's war only, but our war." WAIT A SECOND HERE! Didn't Uribe himself said that there was NO WAR, NO INTERNAL CONFLICT, that all we had were criminal incidents or something like that? So this is not Uribe's war, because, according to him, THERE IS NO WAR. I do believe there is a war and, as millions asked some years ago in the "Mandato por la Paz", I encourage both parties to solve their conflict in peace and don't expect me to take sides. (But I choose to take sides: I side with the State -not with any particular regime-, but only because I want it to start functioning like a real State, and Uribe is not going in that direction).

"our war against guerrillas turned terrorists who want to strip us of our freedom." I don't know what you mean by "striping us of our freedom". You see, I don't like vague terms like "freedom" and "homeland" and "values": without further specification, they tend to develop a strong ideological flavor. I don't play that game.

"so pray that 'uribe's regime' wins..." I won't. To start with, I don't pray. But I see where you are coming from.

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 8, 2005, 13:41:

I also take sides and have always done that: I side with Colombians, rich and poor, city-dwellers and campesinos, people from the middle-class and people from the barrios. Everybody has something to gain with bringing the 40-year-conflict to an end. The main difference is the methods that are used: I have hard time accepting a military solution, it's too late, besides, it's not working.
Cheers,
Desi

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

SantaFe con Cola says on Apr 8, 2005, 13:57:

What is your solution Desi? What do you recommend Desi? Something more like the Pastrana approach? Give the FARC a Despeje so they can effectively kidnap the entire population of Bogota by surrounding it and setting up roadblocks along every roadway out of the city?

I don't get it. Everybody always has to complain so much about every country's current government, everywhere in the world. Governments are run by people who are far from perfect.

It'd be nice to acknoledge improvements even if there hasn't been overnight solution. The kind of change that Colombia needs doesn't happen over night. Progress sounds good to me whatever the methodology. How about supporting a President who has at least made it safe for you to leave Bogota in you car without serious worries about being stopped at a roadblock and wisped away by the FARC's free ecotour vacation package.

...damn I love that commercial.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 8, 2005, 14:14:

if I had a solution I could recommend I would have already posted it. I'm sitting here, in my comfortable and totally safe apartment on the other side of the globe trying to figure out the situation in Colombia and discussing things I know little of, with people who have far more knowledge than I, yet the common sense is that if something's not working you should try another approach.
I have to admit that I was sorely disappointed when the Pastrana negotiations failed and the peaceful approach was abandoned in favor of the military solution. No, I don't want roadblocks or guerrilla takeover in Colombia. Call me naive, but I still believe the solution would have to be built up from the base, from the grass-roots, providing people better alternatives for a decent life.
Cheers,
Desi (dreaming again)

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Apr 8, 2005, 14:14:

Siding with Colombians, and old discussions Mono: You are asking for old arguments (old, at least, for me). In other posts, this site has provided plenty of (IMHO) well-thought criticisms to the current regime. Take some time to go through them if you are truly interested, and let me know if there is anything that was left unanswered that a rational discussion may answer. I'd be glad to participate.

Desi: I'd also like to say that I side with Colombians. But then I remember: Tirofijo is as Colombian as Mancuso, Mancuso as Colombian as Uribe, Uribe as Colombian as many of us here, and many more living and dying in Colombia. I suppose one of our local fundamentalists may say that we should side with the "good Colombians", and s/he probably would not be shy of drawing the line him/herself. If it was that simple I'd go for the military solution: kill the baddies. But it isn't, and I agree with you, the current tactics are not working. My best guess (and I don't think I'm alone) is that the solution is (at least in part) to have a strong State. That's what Uribe promised, and he has failed: he equated strength with force. A strong State doesn't impose its force over civilians, as it has done in San José de Apartadó. A State that doesn't have the legitimacy to get the support of civilians without resorting to extortion is not a strong State.

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 8, 2005, 15:12:

tertius, there's some kind of fault in that reasoning but I just can't put my finger on it. Mancuso, Marulanda, Mono Jojoy? They're not the people I would side with, even if they are Colombian. I don't feel sympathy with the criminal elements in this country either, yet I could state that I side with the Swedes. They're not representative of Colombians in any way. The campesino kids drafted to their cause would be the ones I was thinking about.
Yes, a strong state, and what would that be? Strong in which way? Strong in democratic principles, strong in military presence, strong in their commitment ot all people in Colombia?
Yes, the roads in and out of Bogotá may be safer now, specially on holidays. Big deal. The Farallones of Cali is still crawling with guerrilla and the road to Buenaventura and Popayán unsafe at night.

Cheers (not),
Desi

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 8, 2005, 18:31:

"Majority" You know, it's entirely possible that a vast majority of Colombians support Uribe even if people in the country don't (which nobody has actually shown). Hell, 25% of Colombians live in Bogota alone. Count in the other big cities and you've got a pretty highly urbanized population.

I imagine, however, that just like people in the urban environments are divided about Uribe, people in the country are too. It's a bit too simplistic to say that people in rural Colombia all act monolithically.

Interesting point Sr. Tertius raises about jojoy and mancuso being just as Colombian as Uribe. That's a point I often make in a slightly different way when Colombians talk about their violence as a culture as if it's an EXTERNAL problem that's been imposed on them. Colombians have been fighting, torturing and killing each other for a very long time, and I hope they find some semblance of a peace soon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Apr 8, 2005, 19:27:

Strong State Desi:

I think that the fault is in a rather romantic view of "the people" as a crowd of rather happy, hardworking, honest, etc. etc. individuals. I see society as a set of conflicting interests in constant interaction and transformation. In our civil war, some people want to maintain the status quo, others want to subvert it, others just want to make money, some are plain out psychopaths, others are doing whatever it takes to survive, an so on (and most of them are, personally, quite pleasant individuals). I agree with Mr. H: we have fallen in a sort of unstable equilibrium mostly due to our own actions (although the interests at play go beyond our national borders). I don't think this is going to be solved by intensifying the conflict, or by just sitting down and pledging to play nice. Peace can only be achieved when it is in the best interest of everyone to have peace, and that is not the case today, and I don't see it been the case any time soon, maybe in the next generation, who knows.

I lost faith in public opinion some time ago. The same urban upper-middle class that staunchly advocates for war today, was waving green flags asking for peace a few years ago: it was clear then, as it is now, that merely sitting down the parties in conflict on the same table wouldn't solve anything by itself; it would take patience, hard work, and many frustrations before both parties could find a way of coordinating their interests. But as soon as the first attempt failed (due to the actions of BOTH sides), the public went all out for war. That was an eye-opener.

So: Can't count on the militaristic option, can't count on the goodwill of both parties, and can't count on public opinion. What are we left with?

I'm not sure, but I'd say (and I think we both agree here) that we should try something new: how about pushing for a functional State? By that I don't mean just having soldiers and police in every town (as Uribe and his cadre seems to think), but also teachers, judges, roads, drinkable water, etc. Only then people will receive the soldiers and police with open arms, not with fear. This is what I mean by a strong State. It's not going to happen tomorrow, or any time soon, but we should at least move in that direction. Currently, we aren't.

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

b bruce says on Apr 8, 2005, 20:01:

FARC I have just returned from Colombia. Being an American. I did not feel threatened at all. But everyone I spoke to about my trip said I was crazy to go to Colombia. It is much to dangerous a country! The internal strife that has been going on in Colombia has been going on in most Latin American countries for decades. The rich looking down on the poor and not giving a damn! It may look like a civil war. The haves against the have nots. The Farc depend on the support of socialist regimes and the poor and uneducated. At the moment I feel Uribe is the best man for Colombia. Winning hearts and minds sound familiar But the military still needs some work as far as human rights are concerned. Uribe is a man of the people. He has traveled to villages putting himself in harms way to meet the have nots. And to let them know they are not forgotten. It is going to take time. Be patient. Colombia is a wonderful country full of beautiful and friendly people. It will get better. Viva Colombia!!!!!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 9, 2005, 04:09:

Count me in, tertius sounds good to me. I was afraid that it should be more complicated than that: I can understand the argument for a strong state, it isn't beyond my grasp. A government that would be for all Colombians and that would fulfill it's comittment with the "people" and the society. Institutions that would reach all levels and all regions of the vast country, that would be respected by the people and trusted by everybody. Sounds like a utopia at the present time, but definitely a goal to work for.
Cheers,
Desi

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 9, 2005, 08:13:

and then again, there's that... however, Spain has a separatist movement and Ireland has that age-old religios/political struggle. Both countries have a non-violent, civil back-up movement for the armed struggle and terrorism is used by a fraction of the supporters only. The comparasion with Colombia is not really valid, not on those premises.
I'd go back to tertius's statement that I also share very strongly: when all involved parties are convinced that they have more to win by laying down their guns than continuing to kill each other then and only then there can be some hope for bringing an end to this conflict. The conditions for that would not only have to include a strong, functional government but also a just, equitative society and erradiction of utmost poverty in the country. So, we're back to square one.
Cheers,
Desi

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kikiortiz11 says on Apr 9, 2005, 08:13:

UtopiaCowboy "much of the rest of the population is opposed or passively indifferent to the regime."

There are many people from the poorer classes who support Uribe. But in most cases in FARC dominated areas these people are afraid to speak out because of FARC intimidation. So in a way we are all not divided here in this civil conflict. Becuase FARC does not let the people speak openely to show their opinions. I would also agree with him that their is no civil war anymore. In the past this may have been untrue, but the FARC have in all ways lost their ideologies. They are no more than a terrorist organization.

Kiki Ortiz-Matallana

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 9, 2005, 10:27:

Colombia When you have people who don't have water and a mile away you have people who have it all then there is a problem. And I am not taking Colombia, I am taking the US - Mexico border. For me the problem goes beyond corruption and all the same crap argued by those idealists. The world is a highly unequal place and as long as this remains like this then violence will continue to grow. Since the possibility of redistribution of wealth around the whole world is utopia, then I do believe that the only option is strive for economic growth each to its own. And it is only through trust in investment that you can build more roads, more schools, more libraries and then you might find a better society. But unfortunatelly you can not build more schools etc when the guerrilla is bombing every corner of the country, you need a strong military hand that brings confidence to the Colombians, so they decide to spend money to jump start an economic run towards a better future. I do not think the campesinos support the FARC, especially because it is them who are the front line in this war, most of the dead are put by them. And unfortunatelly is them who vote for the traditional corrupt politicians, because in their ignorance they do not know better. The new politicians have been voted from the cities, from the more educated young generations who are fed up with everything as they had to inherit it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 9, 2005, 11:34:

the new politicians Who are the new politicians voted from the cities you were referring to, juanalejo?
Cheers,
Desi

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 9, 2005, 12:19:

Uribe I don't think President Uribe would disagree at all with the need to bring services and government to the remote and long-neglected parts of the country. That's the fundamental strategy of his policy. However, it's also a difficult trick. First, one must be able to ensure some semblance of security for those teachers, doctors, water system engineers, etc. Hard to do when the FARC loves to kidnap and murder them. So it seems the men with guns and bombs must go first.

Hopefully the rest does follow and Colombia finds the resources to meet the needs, because it's the most crucial part of the whole equation.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Apr 9, 2005, 12:52:

Support support support The issue of the extent of the support that rural communities provide to the FARC has been discussed before (http://www.poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/6591). In the light of that discussion, I can only say that kiki's and juanalejo's statements are quite simplistic, to say the least.

Equally simplistic, I believe, is juanalejo's equation of violence and poverty/inequality. Poor and highly hierarchized societies have lived RELATIVELY peacefully in many places in the world. Internal conflicts are a constant of any society, but the brutality you see in Colombia has few precedents. Poverty and inequality are, undoubtedly necessary yet insufficient conditions to generate violence. There must be something else that we are missing: that little piece, I think, is a very complicated one. It includes, but is not limited to, a long history of political exclusion, a complicated dynamic of local powers, the development of drug and weapons business... and a VERY long etc.

"Since the possibility of redistribution of wealth around the whole world is utopia (...)"

This is quite an assumption. I think social justice -not just redistribution of wealth- is quite possible in many places in the world TODAY. Now, the idea of unending global economic growth through market deregulation: there you have a utopia. A dangerous utopia.

What follows in juanalejo's thread is a repetition of the official dogma: growth comes from (private?) investment, which is threatened by the guerrilla, so we must get rid of the guerrilla first and talk about development later. I have many issues with this dogma, too many to enumerate here, but I'll try my best to be succint:

1. Economic growth is not everything: Economic justice is also crucial. We had economic growth during the 80s. We didn't have economic justice. Look at where we are now.

2. Economic growth doesn't depend and shouldn't depend exclusively on private investment. Because private investment, like any other agent in society, has its own interests, namely, profit. And there is nothing wrong with profit, but I don't want the priorities of the nation to be driven by particular interests for whom I'm a consumer first and a citizen second. I'd like the nation of whom I'm a citizen to take a central role in orienting the priorities of social and economic investment. Such role requires a strong State, and private interests (which are, again, perfectly valid) should subserve the democratic process of resource allocation. I don't expect even the best of governments to be as cost efficient as a private corporation (that is, in general), but that's the cost of democracy: the most efficient government, of course, would be a dictatorship.

3. A civil war is certainly not the most auspicious environment for economic development, but we cannot assume that the war was brought on to Colombians from aliens or something like that. If there is a war in Colombia it's for several reasons, and some of them may have to do with the indifference of the central government towards certain parts of our national geography. Try to view it from the perspective of those living in the periphery of Colombian society: why would anybody trust the armed forces of what is a de facto foreign government under the promise that it will bring future prosperity? A strong military, by itself, doesn't automatically generate confidence.

Finally, juanalejo's view on campesinos seems quite patronizing to be taken seriously, and I find it quite offensive personally. Before assuming that the reason they vote for traditional local politicians is because they are "ignorant", you should look at the mirror and ask to yourself: do you think you know more about local politics in rural Colombia than the people that is born, live and work there? It would be quite arrogant to asumme so! There are plenty of books on clientelism and politics in Colombia, if you are honestly interested in understanding local politics in rural Colombia, any of them would serve as a good introduction.

Hint: Once you get even a loose grasp of local politics in rural Colombia, come back to the question of whether campesinos support (or not) the FARC. Now, think of the FARC as an armed clientelist machinery. Does the question make any sense, any more? What would "support" mean in that context?

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Apr 9, 2005, 13:08:

Post-militaristic fantasies "That's the fundamental strategy of his policy."

That what he SAYS he is doing, but he is definitely not, unless you restructure the government to comprise a single institution: the armed forces.

Does anyone have the stats on teachers, doctors, personeros, etc. murdered in rural Colombia by the FARC? I don't think that working in FARC-controlled territory is a trip to the beach, but it's not a deathwish either. I've done it, many friends have done it, and I have one friend currently working in Putumayo, all working for the government or a government-sponsored institution. Not a single problem, until very recently (and it wasn't a death threat or anything of that caliber).

It may be a coincidence that we all have had relatively positive experiences, or maybe it is because we were not permanent residents in those areas, maybe. But I'm sure this can be worked around without having to resort to the militaristic imposition that some people are experiencing.

And this is for the currently FARC-controlled areas. What about those that the government has retaken control of, like southern Cundinamarca? Is it flourishing with the best resources that the government can direct towards that region? Short answer: no.

So this fantasy of post-militaristic prosperity is going to have to end. And I hope it does soon.

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 9, 2005, 13:15:

as you all know I live in a Scandinavian country well-known for its socialdemocratic governments and equalitarian society. Even if the social democracy is declining even here in favor of privatization and neoliberal policies I still firmly believe that this country was built upon those principles, erasing the class society predominant in the past, providing a sustainable living conditions for all its citizens including heavily subsidez health care and free education all the way to an academic degree. As this society now moves away from its founding principles we still think that they certainly served their purpose at that time in the history.

I'm not setting up Sweden as an example for Colombia; the premises are altogether too different. My question would be: which one is the cause of retarded economic and social development in Colombia? Is it because the violence, the guerrilla and the social unrest that the remote areas can't be developed? Or is it because of the bad administrations, corruption, greed and and naked capitalism favoring only certain classes and certain areas of the country that has caused the insurrection, the social turmoil, the violence rampart in the country? Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Cheers,
Desi
(PS. I've always considered myself as a non-political person, without any strong sympathies for any party or policy. Then, one day, as I was sitting on the blue carpet in my classroom, with a bunch a trusting, bright-eyed six-year-olds looking at me expecting me to know everything I realized that anything I could say to explain why they should solve their small conflicts with a dialogue, empathy and patience consisted a political act).

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Apr 9, 2005, 13:56:

Tinto I'm not eliminating the "military option", but the "exclusively military option". Not because it hasn't worked in 4 years: it hasn't worked in 40. Admittedly, the armed forces are not the same today as 10 years ago, and the development towards a professional force is welcomed, but the policies haven't changed. We've heard of the big offensives in Marquetalia, more recently in Casa Verde, and even more recently in Putumayo, Arauca, Sumapaz and Southern Cundinamarca. What happened after the military took over? I'm not expecting them to turn into Switzerland overnight, but there should be some sort of non-military presence of the State there, right? FARC is apparently back in Arauca, it's creeping back in Putumayo, and Southern Cundinamarca is more desolate than ever.

We have a much better military force, but if the policies don't change, little progress will be attained.

"what have the hundreds of NGOs really accomplished?" I don't get your point. Are you comparing the role of NGOs with that of government agencies? Most NGOs large and small have done a great job working with displaced population, human rights abuses, funneling resources to marginal communities, etc. But I don't think there is one that claims that they can do the job of the State.

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Apr 9, 2005, 14:13:

a "real" chance? "Seems to me that for 40 years Colombia has given 'peace a chance'"

Marquetalia was giving peace a chance? The Doctrine of National Security under Turbay? Landazabal during the Betancur regime? The offensives under Barco, and Casa Verde under Gaviria? Plan Colombia under Pastrana?

Aside from the talks with the Betancur and Samper administrations, and the negotiations under Gaviria (which were, mind you, quite successful), Colombia has not seen a glimpse of peace during the last 40 years (not to go any further back). Remember that during Pastrana the war continued while the talks were conducted: that was part of the design of the negotiation.

I think it is quite a misrepresentation to say that peace has been given a better chance than war.

I don't think, on the other hand, that there is much of a chance of obtaining a negotiated peace with the FARC, not any time soon (and the current regime is only making things worse). It is quite myopic, however, to think that the only alternative then is the military. If whatever has kept the FARC going for decades is progressively eroded, you may see them moving away from their current practices, not out of generosity, but ultimately I don't care about their motives.

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 9, 2005, 16:32:

I'm gonna add something I'm going to add something to the list of things that must change before there's social justice in Colombia: The wealthy classes need to accept paying taxes. I've never seen as much open and, indeed, proud evasion of paying taxes as I do among Colombia's monied classes. A friend recently sold a very nice piece of property for close to a million dollars. Did they pay taxes on that? Did the new price increase the Colombian property tax base? No, because the whole transaction was done offshore and the "official" price was listed as a pittance. This kind of stuff is standard operating proceedure.

If you want resources sent to the poor, that presupposes the existance of government resourses in the first place.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Apr 9, 2005, 19:04:

You got that right, Mr. Hollywood. They want Uribe's regime and its army out there fighting the FARC but when it comes time to pony up and pay for it they all run for cover. No wonder there's no money for social infrastructure - nobody's paying any taxes! I have an idea if the wealthy and middle class Colombians want people to stop thinking of the place as Third World. Try acting like we do in the First World and pay some taxes. I love paying my property taxes because I know it goes to pay for the public schools that my children attend. Of course my wife says in Colombia the politicians would take all the money so that's why there's no point paying taxes.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 9, 2005, 19:05:

Off course the problem in Colombia is far more complex than what I or any have here tried to explain. But as simplistic and even insulting also is the stereotyped charecterization that the opposition wants to portray Uribe as. I like Mr Uribe because I see a project of construction of a country, but that might just be my opinion. But it is not only private investment I am saying, like I said before the public needs to invest and for that you need taxes to be spent and for that you need private individuals to pay more taxes and for that you need private investment. And obviously a civil war is not the best of options, that is why people like me feel a strong hand is needed because we are sick of being in a country with a guerrilla and paramilitary that do whatever they feel. Maybe if they find that the military option for them is not profitable, maybe they can decide to stop killing. According to a poll this week 65% of the people are willing to forgive paramilitaries AND guerrilla if the war stops, but Uribe`s tactic is equally as popular. I have never heard the guerrilla is going to be defeated, it is simply a tactic to bring them down to a table under real interest. I know there are many conflicting interests but the guerrilla tactic of bombing people to achieve recognition is not a valid one in this day and age. We have a leftwing ex union mayor in Bogota which under the same polls some people do not like to recognize is as popular as Uribe, and as popular as the anti establishment rich boy mayor of Medellin. Yet not as popular is the blind antiestablishment mayor of Cali. Uribe very popular in the cities not as much in the countryside, yet the famous referendum was voted high in the cities like Bogota where the mayor is a left wing guy and it was voted low in rural areas such as los LLanos or the whole Caribbean area, areas that still post old traditional chiefs in Congress, unlike those posted by the major urban areas.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 9, 2005, 19:15:

TAXES I absolutelly agree that taxes should be paid by everyone, and here I am not excusing the people in Colombia who do not. The tax havens in the world are not in the third world, they are not supported by the third world either. I find those places disgusting, yes I am taking Bermuda or Bahamas or the Channel Islands or Monaco or Switzerland. Most of those off shore money comes from scams in the first world so do not run too quickly and blame the Colombians for it, those rich boys in Colombia are simply a minority among the same mafias of rich boys in the US and Europe. I also pay may taxes, so do all in my family, but unfortunatelly most people in Colombia do not qualify for tax paying. They do not make enough, but yes Mr Uribe is trying to lower the tax bracket, he did once last year and he will do it again next year. Yes Mr Uribe, the man from the "right" is bringing up the taxes. So if I were to blame somebody for it, apart of course from your friends who do the wrong deals, we should blame the First World for allowing tax havens to exist, specially in such "social" places like Switzerland.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 9, 2005, 19:23:

Mockus And please do not forget that under Mockus administration in Bogota, 30% of the population payed and extra voluntary 10% on the housing tax which was destined for social benefits one could specifically choose. And the most interesting thing was that even though most of the donors were Strato 6 or 5, there were even a few strato 2 who contributed. Now that is constructing a tax mind set and being succesful in it. Obviously you need, credibility, education and educated public to believe in a project like that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 9, 2005, 19:23:

3rd world tax havens Colombia's neighbor Panama is one of the largest and most successful tax havens in the world. So is Belize. Nor can you fairly call the caribbean tax havens "first world." Switzerland, for what it's worth, is no longer much of a tax haven.

The "offshore" transaction I referred to actually took place in the USA, which seems to be the favored place for rich Colombians to keep their money, provided it's not narcodollars.

But the offshore banking stuff is just a fraction of the tax problem in Colombia. My understanding is that to be required to pay income taxes, one must earn about $30,000US or more. That's a higher bottom bracket than even the USA.

I hope Uribe does raise taxes to pay for government reforms, both on the middle class and by enforcing tax laws more strictly on the truly rich.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juanalejo says on Apr 9, 2005, 19:40:

taxes Mr. Hollywood, I know about Panama and Belize and Cayman also, but they all started as tax havens under the US or UK administrations. And about the Narcodollars I would not put my hand on fire, as at least I know the family of Chepe Santacruz was given assylum by the US and they now enjoy the good life in Coral Gables. But back to taxes, the 30.000 US bottom is not right. If you are employed you start paying taxes around 1.200.000 pesos per month, this taxes are retained by your employer, the 30.000 USD bottom bracket has to do with filling the tax paper work to ask for a return or to pay some more. If you own your business you pay 30% regardless of earnings, obviously rules apply. The idea now is to set the bottom bracket according to your assets to try and bring more people to do the tax paperwork and have more control over movements. So the idea is to make more difficult the tax evasion which is quite high. The government is investing on making the data more reliable, all of us who "declare rent", which is what you call those of us who fill in the paperwork, had to go and get a new tax id number as a new system has been put in place to comply with the governments new rules.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Apr 9, 2005, 22:10:

About this thread (Which I started)
Thanks for everyone's input, comments, opinions, and especially for keeping it on topic. "La Violencia" has been going on in Colombia for such a long time, and those of you who are up to speed on history know that yesterday commerorated the 57th anniversary of the assasination of Gaitán. Yesterday's EL HERALDO from Barranquilla had a great article written by a Barranquillero student about the theory of who really pulled the trigger on this guy. You should read it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 10, 2005, 06:00:

Thanks for the clarification on the tax thing. I didn't know that.

My point, btw, isn't to harp on Colombians; people in the US evade taxes, too. But somehow our government manages to raise enough money to provide the services it offers. If Uribe is going to expand those services in Colombia, as he should, he not only needs to grow the tax base but also to increase the burden of taxation. I know he understands this, as demonstrated through the national patrimony tax. It remains to be seen if the powerful classes of Colombia agree.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Apr 10, 2005, 09:51:

Taxes and the State I found this paper by accident while roaming through the internet:

http://www.princeton.edu/~plas/publications/Cuadernos/C7-chapter3.pdf

It articulates with some precision the standard approach to governability in Colombia -an approach from which Uribe cherrypicks to legitimize his policies.

When you have two States that function at completely different levels, like the US and Colombia, it doesn't make much sense to compare particular functions like taxation. People pay taxes not when they feel like it, or when they "stop thinking Third World" (more on that below), but when the State legitimately monopolizes a societal project. Bogotá under Mockus is an excellent example (thanks Juanalejo).

"Stop thinking of the place as Third World"

UC: I'm not sure how you are using the term Third World, but I am a proud citizen of the Third World, and I think of my country as Colombia, my part of the continent as Latin America, and my part of the world as the Third World. Maybe you want us to start thinking of the place as Miami? The people of Atlantis Plaza already did.

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Apr 10, 2005, 12:13:

You've got the wrong straw man, Tertius Re-read the thread, my friend. You're putting Utopiacowboy's words in my mouth.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Apr 10, 2005, 12:17:

Edited and fixed Sorry Hollywood. Re-aiming...

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kamilo says on Apr 10, 2005, 12:42:

I dont think the solution for Colombia is talking about peace with guerrillas and paramilitaries, nor the militar option. the solution for me is to keep attacking them and at the same time fighting against very powerful interest to improve the distribution of the wealth of the country. we have the money to bring as much as half of the poor ppl out of poverty, we just need to redistribute the resources the state already has.
other thing the state also should do is to invest a lot more in the countryside independently wether theres guerrilla or not.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kikiortiz11 says on Apr 10, 2005, 13:33:

Sr. Teitus My comment may have seemed a bit simplistic, but you see that was the point. It is plain, straight, and simple. Earlier you stated "count me out of we".. Why is it that you are sympathetic to a terrorist group that kidnaps, extorts and murders OUR people. How can this be?? They even murder their own camaradas when they choose to desert. It is plain in simple. On one hand we have a terrorist group whom have terrorized Colombia's progress for the last 15 years and on the other hand we have a president who is finnally standing up to the terrorists. We have a president who is trying to run a respectful goverment and armed forces. We have a government who has made a hell of an effort to bring Colombia foward so that maybe one day EVERYONE can all live in peace and prosperity. But lets look at the other option one more time. FARC- who only propose 40 more years of the same bull shi*!

"don't expect me to take sides" - It is time for everyone to choose a side.. Becuase this is our country and the worst thing that could happen is for the people to not choose sides because then we will go no where. Once again we must all unite behind our chosen goverment and show the terrorists that we are tired of their terror. You would be suprised how powerful people can be if we were to just all united to demonstrate this. For example when communism fell in the Czech Republic, it was because the people went out to the streets all united against their communist goverment. It is time we do the same in support of our government(even though you may not agree with every decision they make) and to denounce the terrorist groups. No more Neutrality! This conflict will only end when the people choose for it to end.

Kiki Ortiz-Matallana

0 funny, 0 helpful.

utopiacowboy says on Apr 10, 2005, 16:49:

Sr. Tertius, you may be a proud resident of the Third World but most of the Colombians I encounter do not want to be thought of as Third World. They are the ones who care, not me. Personally I don't care if they're Third World or not and I certainly don't want it to be Miami, a combination of the worst of the First and Third Worlds.

Kikiortiz, you are going to be waiting a long time when you say "This conflict will only end when the people choose for it to end." They're never going to choose that - it's a way of life at this point. I guarantee you that we will have people living on Mars and the civil war in Colombia will still be going on.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Apr 10, 2005, 17:59:

Taking a stance/side Seems like a good and logical place to start.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kikiortiz11 says on Apr 10, 2005, 19:47:

UtopiaCowboy I know what you say is probably true.. about Mars jajaja but damn Why not?? Why not Colombia?? Yes it is a part of life, but start caring! But you see Im not going wait around... do something.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke

Kiki Ortiz-Matallana

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Apr 16, 2005, 20:21:

Kiki: "plain, straight, and simple." And wrong. Your Manichaeism confuses neutrality with sympathy for those you oppose, and also with inaction. The neutrality of civil society was voted by the Colombian electorate in the "Mandato por la Paz" and accepted by the State when it adhered to the International Humanitarian Law. This hasn't made Colombian civil society inactive at all: check the activity of all the NGOs in our territory.

"We have a government who has made a hell of an effort to bring Colombia foward so that maybe one day EVERYONE can all live in peace and prosperity." Does EVERYONE include those in Arauca that were arrested without warrants, or the journalists that have no access to combat zones, or those of the peace community accused of siding with the guerrilla...? The Uribe government has done plenty against its own people, but you seem to be more comfortable with generic slogans than the specifics discussed in other threads where your comments were absent.

UC: I'm afraid the people that you've met are living in la-la land. Not thinking of Colombia as Third World is not going to change its position in the world, just like thinking of Colombia as a European country is not going to move the country to a different continent, and thinking of myself as being 6'10" is not going to make me any taller.

Let's get it straight: "Third World" is not an insult. It is the "Third World mentality" of Nehru, Nasser and Sukarno that put India, Egypt and Indonesia in the world map. It is the "First World mentality" of Third World nations that generates the Suhartos.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.