Once Again: URIBE REPRESSES DISSENT IN COLOMBIA!!

pepster says on Oct 12, 2005, 10:37:

Lamentable This was not right. Uribe must be careful to respect freedom of expression. But to demonize Uribe is to weaken the country.

Uribe is their only hope. I'm not being melodramatic.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 12, 2005, 10:46:

Let's take a deep breath and be serious about this. Obviously it was "not right", but the events must be presented in a serious and realistic manner, not completely out of proportion and full of exaggeration, which will potentially mislead those with no Spanish knowledge.

Those interested should be kind enough to read the EL TIEMPO coverage on the matter, since the topic's author himself is referring to the editorial there.

1. A single indigenous person, between 50 and 60 years old, was killed in the march yesterday due to his inhaling tear gas, leading to his having a heart attack. Between 20 and 40 others suffered minor wounds, but no deadly weapons were employed, just standard riot gear used worldwide. The indigenous, on the other hand, had some machetes handy.

That is unfortunate, and perhaps the clash was unnecessary, but that hardly constitutes even a quarter of what the topic's author seems to want to imply.

2. The marchs themselves have not been stopped and in fact were permitted to continue yesterday and today, despite the one initial clash yesterday with an indigenous one.

3.In fact, today I myself saw part of a considerable march in the center of Bogotá moving forward in relative calm, even with a police escort. That's also the case elsewhere according to current information.

That is not a sign of widespread repression nor of dictatorship, at least not in the exaggerated manner presented by the topic's author.

I could argue that, in fact, that that's surprisingly little repression in practice, given historical precedents.

4. That being the case, the rest of the initial post mostly falls flat on its face, as if it were taken out directly from a political pamphlet with no consideration for reality.

That's almost like drowning in a glass of water, so to speak. Curiously, he speaks of Colombians being "blinded", yet his post clearly shows that he's looking at reality with one eye open and, as a minimum, should open his other one.

Yo de lo que me doy cuenta es de la falta de seriedad, realismo y proporcionalidad evidente en el mensaje de ColomBuenazo, que al parecer se está ahogando en un baso de agua. En éste caso particular denuncia exageradamente algo que, si bien es condenable, debe mirarse de una manera apropiada y no de una manera tan desdibujada y casi panfletaria.

Él habla de "ceguera" y de que "no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver", pero precisamente su mensaje muestra lo que es ver la realidad con sólo un ojo abierto, como mínimo debería abrir su otro ojo de vez en cuando.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pepster says on Oct 12, 2005, 12:30:

good point juancegomez makes a very good point.

What I meant by not right is the heavy handedness at the demonstration.

I do condone police intervention when the demonstration has a potential for a riot.

So it's no obvious if you don't read about the event in it's entirety.

The Pepster ColombianBlog.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColomBuenazo says on Oct 12, 2005, 13:07:

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO CHALLENGE FACTS! To think that Uribe is the only "hope" and solution to Colombian problems is short-sighted CAUDILLISMO that can be equated with the coming of a religious MESSIAH. The solid foundation of a working democratic system is its working INSTITUTIONS, but NOT its politicians who could come and go at anytime. For instance, Bogota's mayors have come and go during the last decade but Bogota's success is due to the continuation of a myriad of administrative policies that have come to fruition through the working INSTITUTIONS of the local government. In short, CAUDILLOS and MESSIAHS are not saviours of cities or countries, INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTH is.

As to the "pamphlet-like" attacks directed at my writings, I could see why it could be thought that they are exaggerated and extracted from a "pamphlet"; if writing CONCISELY, OBJECTIVELY and ARTICULATELY represents that, scientific-like journalism shouldn't be allowed in a society. My comments are greatly ANALYTICAL in principle and FACTUALLY-BASED. There's not a single comment line that is based on bogus information.

The initial posting laid out URIBE 's DICTATORIAL tendencies, but, at no time, explicited said that URIBE is Strossner or Pinochet.
Attacking ANY DISSENT in a democracy regardless if it's aimed at a single citizen or a group, is NEVER EXAGERATION, and it REPRESENTS REPRESSION and a CRACK-DOWN on FREEDOM of SPEECH. Political repression does not have to be widespread to be considered repression. WHERE IS THIS IDEA BEING EXTRACTED FROM?? Are we trying to say that there should exist two categories of repression; one that is "good, localized and acceptable" and another that's "bad and widespread"? As far as the civilized world is concerned, the definition of REPRESSION is only ONE.

Regarding the comment "I could argue that, in fact, that that's surprisingly little repression in practice, given historical precedents." DOES IT SUGGEST THAT LITTLE REPRESSION IS OKAY?

Finally, the greatly concientious ANALYSIS of REALITY based on contrasting and juxtaposing ideas (link to the actual editorial articles was included) can always seem FARFETCHED. But it is clear that most Colombians are happily living in this far-fetching SURREAL world that competes head-to-head with a RIGHT-WING version of García Márquez's MAGIC REALISM.

FACTS CAN'T BE DEBUNKED!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 12, 2005, 13:15:

Just a thought You know, any time you have to resort to the juvenile tactic of comparing people to Hitler and the 3rd Reich it's a pretty good sign that your underlying argument sucks.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColomBuenazo says on Oct 12, 2005, 13:23:

LA Times CONFIRMS URIBE'S ATTACK ON DISSENT Clearly the international press is also picking up the trend.
For more on URIBE's stiffling on dissent, please check the recently-published article by the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uribe22sep22,1,509683.story?coll=la-headlines-world

In addition, the following is another example of Uribe's "WAR ON DISSENT". He says the legitimate international and domestic NGO's and their supporters are TERRORISTS.

This man sounds like Bush!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 12, 2005, 13:37:

That depends on what the "facts" are for you ...and which set of "facts" you forget to include or outright don't see.

Personally, I must state that I have never, ever, said that Uribe is the only hope or solution to Colombia's problems. That is not the question, IMHO.

"There's not a single comment line that is based on bogus information."

Rather, most of it is based on debatable conclusions reached from not necessarily accurate information.

Then again, all that information per se is not present in the message, outside of the EL TIEMPO link (whose information can be read in a completely different way, and logically doesn't constitute your only source), but mostly your general conclusions.

"The initial posting laid out URIBE 's DICTATORIAL tendencies, but, at no time, explicited said that URIBE is Strossner or Pinochet."

That, however, was clearly the implication, and the so-called "dictatorial" tendencies you identify are also debatable.

Even with more or less the same set of "facts" as a starting point, you can hardly expect every person to automatically agree (lest they be "blinded" by "evil forces").

"Attacking ANY DISSENT in a democracy regardless if it's aimed at a single citizen or a group, is NEVER EXAGERATION, and it REPRESENTS REPRESSION and a CRACK-DOWN on FREEDOM of SPEECH."

Well, at least that is your personal opinion and certainly works well in theory.

That being the case, I wonder how many governemnts around the world are completely innocent from the accusation derived from such an interpretation. Still, even that is not the main point.

The point is how you are applying that principle to a rather more diverse and unclear reality.

"DOES IT SUGGEST THAT LITTLE REPRESSION IS OKAY?"

No. It suggests that I think that your reaction is disproportionate and leads to conclusions many would and do disagree with.

"Finally, the greatly concientious ANALYSIS of REALITY based on contrasting and juxtaposing ideas (link to the actual editorial articles was included) can always seem FARFETCHED."

Well, you're suiting yourself, so to speak.

As for the links, a completely different "greatly concientious ANALYSIS of REALITY based on contrasting and juxtaposing ideas" can be made, in significant or partial opposition to yours.

"but it is clear that most Colombians are happily living in this far-fetching SURREAL world that competes head-to-head with a RIGHT-WING version of García Márquez's MAGIC REALISM."

I think you completely underestimate both "most Colombians" and the complexity of reality, while at the same time implicitly and explicitly elevating your view to the status of "truth".

Personally, I don't have such intangible and omnipotent pretensions. Rather, I welcome debate and, therefore, am willing to exchange and modify my positions, even as I initially strongly defend them and, logically, criticize those I disagree with.

I don't believe in prophets or self-described "seers of truth". Not to mention "authentic" X o Y professions.

The world is far from simply being easily divided into "good" and "evil", "white" and "black", but rather is made up of many shades of gray.

I would invite you to open your mind, not to a different absolute "truth", not at all, but to the complexity of the real world , of the human beings living in it, and of the arguments that can be made in a reasonable manner.

I respect your opinion, but for now I disagree with it, as your argument seems to rely mostly on repeating a preexisting truth and, as of yet, not on a detailed recollection and discussion of the facts.

"FACTS CAN'T BE DEBUNKED!"

Sometimes they can, and most of the time they can be set against other sets of facts.

Usually, however, it's not necessarily the facts, but rather their interpretation, which is at stake.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 12, 2005, 13:44:

As for the LA TIMES article... ...it seems to require registration.

However, the interpretation of the facts presented in the article itself doesn't necessarily lead to your conclusions.

"He says the legitimate international and domestic NGO's and their supporters are TERRORISTS."

That is a misrepresentation of what he's said, even though I myself *definitely* disagree with what he really said. But that ain't it.

It's not necessary to alter what the guy said in order to criticize it.

Hey, I could even post the guy's exact words if that makes you happy.

"This man sounds like Bush!"

Or like bin Laden, for that matter.

And guess what...so do you!

At least as far as you seem to rely on the use of absolute and self-evident "truths" which only those "blinded" can't see. Obviously you, as a human being, are more complex than that. You're just not demonstrating it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColomBuenazo says on Oct 12, 2005, 14:10:

Actual LA Times Article The initial posting was, in no way, formed or shape, based on this article, my analysis just coincides with this article that just happened to stumble into now.

Here it's the actual article for those who can not seem to be able to access it:

Colombians' Trust Buoys 'Teflon' President

Despite foundering efforts to end civil war, Alvaro Uribe has 70% approval ratings. The adulation is stiffling dissent, critics say.

By Henry Chu, Times Staff Writer

BOGOTA, Colombia — To hear his critics tell it, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe ought to be in trouble.

The foundation of his mandate, a promise to tame this nation's unrelenting civil war, is tottering. Attacks by leftist rebels have surged since the beginning of the year, and hundreds of soldiers have died.

ADVERTISEMENT

Accusations of cronyism and nepotism have dogged his administration, while unemployment and poverty remain stubborn challenges throughout the country. Cocaine continues to be a major export.

But with just a year to go in his term, Uribe, 53, is riding a wave of popularity unmatched almost anywhere in the Americas. His approval ratings rarely dip below 70%, and are so resistant to criticism and complaints that some have taken to calling him Colombia's "Teflon president." Only one other democratically elected leader in the region, Venezuela's populist president, Hugo Chavez, pulls in such impressive numbers in the polls.

How the center-right Uribe, a Harvard-educated attorney who entered the presidential race four years ago practically as an unknown, has maintained such a high level of support is a testament, analysts say, to his government's single-minded pursuit of public security during his tenure — and his carefully cultivated image as a tough-minded, hard-working leader and man of the people.

"He confronts problems very directly and in direct, colloquial language. He has a great capacity for communication with the ordinary citizen," said Alfredo Rangel, director of the Security and Democracy Foundation, a think tank in Bogota, the Colombian capital.

In many ways, Uribe's clear-cut, with-us-or-against-us approach to the battle against Marxist guerrillas and his appeal to patriotism have invited comparisons with President Bush. The two men, both former governors, are staunch allies, and Colombia has received billions of dollars in aid from Washington for its fight against drug trafficking and the left-wing guerrillas.

Rangel said Uribe's penchant for portraying issues in such stark terms, and the public adulation heaped on him, has had unwelcome effects as well, such as stifling legitimate dissent and criticism.

"It has generated an environment where to talk badly about Uribe is seen as being unpatriotic, sort of like it was in the U.S. to criticize the Iraq war," Rangel said. "To talk badly about Uribe is to ruin the collective fiesta. People continue thinking that Uribe is a redeemer, and they want to continue believing in their redeemer."

Known for his flashes of temper and what some consider highhanded ways, Uribe thrives on direct contact with voters, but Rangel warned that politics based on personal charisma could be "problematic for democracy in the long term" if Colombia's political parties or other state institutions became weakened.

That Uribe's administration has brought about greater social stability is hard to deny.

Killings and kidnappings, though still widespread, have fallen since he was elected in 2002; this year's homicide rate is on track to be the lowest in 25 years.

Attacks on major urban centers by the left-wing Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, have become rare. Right-wing paramilitary groups are engaged in peace and demobilization talks. State highways previously too dangerous to travel because of the conflict are navigable once again, at least during daylight.

By the start of this year, Uribe had all but declared victory against the FARC, asserting that his Democratic Security plan to beef up police and military forces had thrown the rebels into disarray and put them on the run.

But those claims proved premature: Rebels have since struck back hard. In June, at least 20 Colombian soldiers were killed in a single FARC attack on a remote army outpost in the jungle near the border with Ecuador, leading Uribe to concede that aspects of his security strategy in the south were in need of rethinking. In all, more than 300 troops have been killed this year.

Guerrillas also have stepped up attacks on infrastructure, setting oil wells ablaze, blowing up pipelines and disrupting electricity supply. Two blackouts this month in southwestern Colombia left at least half a million residents without power, some for days.

"The government and perhaps some analysts were a little too triumphalist" in their claims that the rebels had been defeated, said Michael Shifter of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington.

"But I think the other extreme, to say that they haven't been hurt, is inaccurate. They have suffered some losses."

Although serious, the security setbacks have not dented Uribe's popularity.

"Uribe is just [such] a remarkable president that even when things go badly, he benefits," Shifter said. "He's the guy who put the security issue as the overriding priority on the agenda…. Even though there have been lots of problems with it, and one could question how much security has been improved, it's still an issue with which he's totally identified, and people think that there's no other option other than to improve the capacity of the security forces to protect Colombians.

"There's just a sort of a trust in him," Shifter added. "He has built that bond and connection with people through his leadership style. And it's not immediately obvious what an alternative would look like."

To maintain that bond, Uribe holds regular town hall meetings around the country to hear complaints and to promise solutions, gatherings that are broadcast for hours on national television. He routinely recites, and seems to fulfill, his personal motto, "Work, work, work."

All eyes are now on the nine people who may hold Uribe's political fate in their hands: the members of the nation's Constitutional Court. The body is expected to rule soon on legislation passed last year that would permit Uribe to run for reelection, which sitting Colombian presidents currently are barred from doing. A decision is likely to be handed down by year's end.

Polls show that Uribe would be in formidable position to win a second four-year term, which he openly wants, if he is allowed to run in May's election.

But which way the court will rule is now "the million-dollar question," Shifter said, with analysts and legal observers divided over what the outcome will be.

Fernando Londoño, a former interior and justice minister, predicted recently that the amendment would be rejected, which could spark a political crisis because Uribe has not groomed a clear successor and his rivals are comparatively weak.

But Rangel said the judges could be swayed by public opinion and concern over the fallout of a decision to keep the ban on reelection in place.

"There are very solid, very strong arguments to accept or reject the constitutional amendment," he said.

"So in the final analysis, the decision by the court will be a political one."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 12, 2005, 14:20:

Mischaracterization This is what the LAT says, "Rangel said Uribe's penchant for portraying issues in such stark terms, and the public adulation heaped on him, has had unwelcome effects as well, such as stifling legitimate dissent and criticism.

"It has generated an environment where to talk badly about Uribe is seen as being unpatriotic, sort of like it was in the U.S. to criticize the Iraq war," Rangel said. "To talk badly about Uribe is to ruin the collective fiesta. People continue thinking that Uribe is a redeemer, and they want to continue believing in their redeemer."

In other words, Uribe's enormous popular support makes it unpopular and difficult, politically, to criticize him. What it DOESN'T say, or even imply, is that Uribe himself or his administration are stifling dissent. It's always hard to take an unpopular stand but that doesn't make the popular position guilty of repression.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 12, 2005, 18:18:

You're right I don't know if they're lazy, Tinto, but they're certainly not very enterprising. Sometimes I think they write most of their stories sitting in front of the TV watching Caracol news.

Rangel gets almost as much press as Uribe and he's just not interesting enough to merit that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 12, 2005, 20:04:

Can't say I'm not glad to see that Mr. Hollywood already explained what the LA Times article meant, which is something at least several large steps away from the position in the initial post here.

On another front...it's true that Rangel does seem to monopolize the representation of military analysts in international media outlets quite a bit. No idea why other analysts, not only national ones but also including several foreign ones which have published very interesting papers about the current military situation, aren't interviewed more often too.

Curiously, as time most people people tend to realize that the mainstream Colombian media itself exaggerated the significance of both the FARC's apparent weakness and is now exaggerating the reemergence of its attacks. They were hurt, but far from being defeated, and their surge is hardly a resurrection or complete restoration.

The 2005 attacks, thus far they certainly evidence a clear tactical surge, but are not yet changing the strategic landscape to the pre-Pastrana status or further back (I say pre-Pastrana because Pastrana himself gets too little credit for what he did...maybe I'm being overly influenced by his recent book, but then again he's been traditionally demonized in such ways that a little recognition can't hurt).

And for the record, Uribe himself was quite prematurely optimistic, but never declared victory outright though, and relatively early (2003 even) began to refer to what we can call the "snake analogy" (ie: "the snake is still alive, it not's dead yet, etc.").

Not that I can fully agree with his way of facing the FARC (I can't), since I have my own criticisms as to its effects and its efficiency (including some of Rangel's points), which again partially explains why I don't want him to be reelected.

Just don't see the need to demonize the guy (just as the FARC, while I tend to see them as a proportionally more negative force, aren't simple "evil doers" or just "mindless terrorists" either).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 12, 2005, 20:13:

On Rangel There was an interesting excerpt in the "readings" section of the Sunday El Tiempo this week of Rangel's new book about the AUC and other Paras. The section I read seemed like a really sophisticated and nuanced analysis of the paramilitary phenomenon in Colombia. Nice to see a piece like that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

BAQ says on Oct 13, 2005, 05:59:

Kill em all, let God sort em out

Semper Fidelis !

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Neonovo says on Oct 13, 2005, 11:04:

Homemade rockets meant for Uribe? Did anyone see this elsewhere?

Homemade rockets that were meant to be fired at the residence of
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe were found in a police raid on a house in Bogota, he said. Uribe took office vowing to crush a communist insurgency, and a rocket attack on his inauguration day in 2002 killed 19 people. The discovery came less than a day after a senator allied with Uribe survived an attempt on his life, apparently by leftist rebels.

Paz
Neonovo

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Oct 13, 2005, 11:19:

Yes, we saw it It was all over the news, Neonovo.

Not all that surprising considering the FARC shelled his inaugeration from almost the same location.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

greg says on Oct 13, 2005, 14:46:

More on uribes crackdown on dissent
www.justiceforcolombia.org

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Oct 13, 2005, 17:43:

"Justice for Colombia"'? How ironic... ...and funny that their website mentions absolutely nothing about the abuses committed by the guerrillas and other parties except in a cursory fashion, and automatically attributes everything that goes wrong to the Colombian government (and to the paramilitaries, but according to that website they're the "same thing").

Is that supposed to be "justice"? Justice "for Colombia"? I don't think so.

If dividing everything into "good" and "evil" and carefully describing events in order to favor only your side provides a realistic perspective, then I must be a raving lunatic.

Strangely, I don't think I am. In spite of what flaws I do have, I am not guilty of that. But "Justice for Colombia" clearly is.

That website should change its name to something akin to "Selective Justice for Only a Part of Colombia and Complete Indifference for the Rest".

That's rather more descriptive of that organization's perspective, and reflects the bias that seeps through almost every page of that website.

Those of you who enjoy looking at reality with only one eye open might like it. Those with a more open mind should still take a look at it, but with a bit of critical thinking.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Oct 13, 2005, 17:45:

LA Times, Times(US)... ...CNN, are all the same. Only come from the left!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ARMacleod says on Oct 16, 2005, 15:21:

Left, right, middle? In times of leftist supremacy the right will usurp
In times of conservative supremacy the left will agitate
When there is no clear mandate, left or right
The hand wringing, bed wetting and cap doffing liberals, triumph.

Why??

Because we have a fair and stable society.

(It does not always benefit us)


Pax vobiscum. ARM

The brain is like a parachute, it only functions correctly when it is open. Pax vobiscum.

0 funny, 0 helpful.