Serpa

ARMacleod says on Mar 4, 2005, 14:05:

Horacio Serpa ? Please excuse my extreme ignorance on this fellow. Who is he, a quick C.V would do from someone. Thanks.

(I am trying to learn as much about colombia as I can before I finally settle there this year)

pax vobiscum.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 4, 2005, 14:30:

It actually seems that Horacio Serpa will NOT run for president in 2006, though he will campaign for the Liberal party and/or the opposition candidate, whoever he/she is.

He was the Liberal party's candidate in both 1998, when he actually narrowly defeated Pastrana in the first round, and 2002, when he was crushed by Uribe. After his latest defeat, he accepted to become ambassador before the OAS, but he has recently retired from that post and become politically active once again.

He was Ernesto Samper's main minister (during Samper's 1994-1998 period) and he defended his boss vigorously during the scandals that the former had to face.

That loyalty probably cost him his chance to win both races, to an extent...he was seen by many as "the continuation of Samper" and a sort of "everybody but Serpa" coalition loosely existed around Pastrana in the 1998 race (even with that in place, Serpa almost won though...until Pastrana brought out the peace process card).

In 2002, on the other thand, Serpa was actually seen as much more "peace" inclined than Uribe...but the country didn't want peace at the time any more. It wanted a show of strength, and that's what we got, for better of for worse.

Perhaps the memory of Samper as one of the weakest presidents also damaged Serpa's image too (Samper had the misfortune of being hated by USA and of suffering military blows from the FARC).

Serpa seems to be much less loyal to Samper at the moment and closer to leftwing forces barely inside/outside the Liberal party (though Serpa's always beeng a leftwing/social-leaning politician, and an interesting one at that, for what it's worth).

Hence while he wants to be president eventually, he apparently only wants to run a third time if he's sure to win (third time's the charm, as they say)..

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Mar 4, 2005, 15:08:

Digame... When in 2006 does the election take place?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 4, 2005, 15:15:

May 2006, if nothing else changes. The exact date escapes me, so it might vary.

If any second round is necessary, it would usually be held in June 2006.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Miguel says on Mar 4, 2005, 15:46:

Gracias Much appreciated.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ARMacleod says on Mar 5, 2005, 01:34:

juancegomez Muchas gracias Sr

I am indebted to you for your time and trouble yet again.

Thank you


James

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Gomezman5 says on Mar 5, 2005, 05:44:

juancegomez--excellent points,,,But May I add however that Samper was more than a weak president. He was disgustingly corrupt as well. If you will recall, he was also the president that accepted a 5 million dollar contribution from the Cali Cartel. The evidence was overwhelming inasmuch as it was caught on tape. Semana magazine did an excellent job at bringing this corrupt activity to the surface. In fact, Samper narrowly survived an impeachment vote.

There hardly could have been a weaker president than Pastana. This man was as naive fool. But then again, so were the foolish Colombian peopel who voted for him in the first place. Tirofijo, and his clan made fools out of Pastrana again and again. It was only in the last 6 months of his presidency did Pastrana realize that his strategy of negotiating peace with terrorist would not ever work.

As to Serpa, the laws of diminishing returns will hopefully apply to him. In other words, the more you try to run and lose, the less likely you will be elected. Serpa is viewed as a loser and therefore, the people will reject him. On the other hand, Uribe not only won because of his fresh talk tough message, he also won because he wan an outsider who offered some new ideas If Serpa were to get elected, he would be a disaster for Colombia.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 5, 2005, 09:21:

I'm not denying the scandals around Samper's corruption, but in itself that was probably not the biggest of the country's problems by the time his presidency was over.

Pastrana may have been naive in his treatment of the guerrillas, plus somewhat prone to being ridiculed in public and in private, but there was little else to be done at the time of his election, and he played some of his other cards right.

He helped erode a lot of the FARC's "romantic" image in Europe (it still survives in some hardcore leftwing organizations here and there, but in a much lesser degree than before), he reorganized and reequiped the Armed Forces, he got Colombia back into the good graces of the U.S. (which is both a positive and a negative, depending on your perspective), and so on.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Mar 5, 2005, 10:45:

Samper, Pastrana, Serpa Although my sympathies are very far from Samper, or from most of the Liberal party's leadership anyway, the caricature that is often painted of him, as well as of Pastrana, is completely detached from reality.

The connections of Samper's presidential campaign with the Cali Cartel were not as unusual in the Colombia's political game as some people might want to believe. Many of the politicians that tried to work independently of the Cartels got killed. Uribe was certainly not one of them: while being the mayor of Medellin, the city became a haven for the drug business, and while he was the governor of Antioquia, the paramilitaries consolidated their domination over the northwestern portion of the department. This is not to excuse Samper or any of the politicians that have been related in one way or another with the Cartels, but to put a bit of context when judging him and contrasting his situation against Uribe's.

Let's not forget, also, that it was under the Samper administration that the Cali Cartel was dismantled (and, of course, a new breed of mini-Cartels flourished, but that is a different story).

My sympathies are not with Pastrana either, but to judge him as a weak president is not quite what his record shows. He played a crucial part in the implementation of Plan Colombia, and legitimized the Colombian government with the EU by developing diplomatic connections that Uribe was eager to exploit just recently. It was through Pastrana that the international community understood that it had to stand alongside with the Colombian State, not with the insurgency. This is, to a great extent, the fuel that has sustained Uribe's foreign policy, to the point that he didn't even dare to touch the diplomatic connections that Pastrana left in Washington.

Pastrana was many things, but not a "naive fool". If anyone was naive, were those that thought that his administration was actually interested in a negotiated peace: it was only interested in a)delegitimizing the FARC, domestically and internationally, and b) strengthening the military through its professionalization, increased funding, and Plan Colombia. In both fronts, Pastrana was successful. The FARC understood the plan in the early part of the process, and used as much of it as they could to their advantage. The only ones who lost in this sham of a process were those of us who saw some hope of peace.

As for Serpa ("should be in jail"? Why exactly?), in his interviews he seems like a very reasonable person, but his political decisions (particularly his links to some of the worst of Colombia's political class, and accepting a position in Uribe's government) are very questionable. He moves very comfortably through the Liberal electoral machinery, and could be an asset for Uribe's opposition, as long as he keeps a low profile. My impression is that he understands that.

Uribe an outsider??? Where in hell do you get that from??? Unless by being an "outsider" you mean backstabbing the Liberal party that consistently backed you up until the moment when you feel that you don't need their support anymore. "New ideas"? What new ideas? full front war? That is the oldest idea in Colombia's internal conflict, geez, you don't need a genius to figure that one out; but if it hasn't worked for decades, you would think that something different should be tried, right?

And Uribe's "fresh talk tough message" is far from new. Landazabal and Bedoya, among many others, had consistently promoted this kind of (rather stale) talk. But they didn't have a chance to win the presidency because they didn't have a history of support from any of the traditional parties. So, you may be missing a little factor when determining why Uribe was elected. He was definitely not one of the "anti-políticos" that were so fashionable in the mid-90s.

"I am alone, and they are all together"
Denis de Rougemont, on a 1936 Nazi rally

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

santiBOG says on Mar 5, 2005, 14:24:

I have to agree with Tertius on his assessment of the Samper and Pastrana administrations.

It's easy to ridicule Pastrana because he was 'weak' and held peace talks with the Farc. But think about it, that's why he was elected, to hold peace talks. Some criticize him because he did not require that there be a cease-fire for the talks. In reality, there needs to be war in order for you to have 'peace' talks. You can't take medicine if you're not sick.

True, it did take Pastrana too long to break the peace process. Much has been said about the Pastrana administration. In the end, however, I am happy that Colombians were able to keep Serpa out of the Casa de Nariño.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Mar 5, 2005, 15:51:

"that's why he was elected, to hold peace talks" I have transcribed below the "Mandato Ciudadano por la Paz" (Citizen's Mandate for Peace), which was backed in 1997 by more than 10 million votes:

"Me comprometo a ser constructor de paz y justicia social, a defender la vida y a rechazar toda acción violenta y acojo el Mandato de los niños por la Paz. Exijo a los actores del conflicto armado: NO MAS GUERRA: resuelvan pacíficamente el conflicto armado. NO MÁS ATROCIDADES: respeten el Derecho Inter-nacional Humanitario. No vinculen menores a la guerra. No asesinen, no secuestren, no desaparezcan personas. No ataquen a la población civil, ni la desplacen por la fuerza No vinculen a los civiles al conflicto armado."

Let me translate a little bit that may not be clear to everyone: "I demand from the parts in conflict [i.e., government, guerilla, paramilitaries]: NO MORE WAR: solve the armed conflict peacefully".

That was the feeling just before Pastrana's election. He took the clamor of millions and turned it into an electoral asset: he played with Colombia's hope for peace and reconciliation, and crushed it. He never gave peace a chance: while pretending to be the "President of Peace", he was letting the paramilitaries run free, and cooking Plan Colombia in the backyard. (Of course, the FARC were not innocent either, but they are an illegal organization, not my representatives).

Pastrana is an accomplice of one of the biggest crimes in Colombian political history: he helped convince everyone that a negotiated peace was not possible, that only the same guns that have been firing for 50 years are going to bring the eventual surrender of the insurgency.

If anyone should go to jail, that's him.

"I am alone, and they are all together"
Denis de Rougemont, on a 1936 Nazi rally

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jaramillo says on Mar 5, 2005, 18:23:

Tinto Yes, Uribe's father was kidnapped and killed by Farc (the same happened to the Castaño brothers, Fidel and Carlos).

The Ochoa brothers (Jorge, Fabio and Juan David) were involved in the drug business. When I lived in Medelin the word was that their father (Fabio Ochoa Sr.) was not involved. He shared a love of horses with Uribe’s father, they were said to be friendly. But that was the end of it. I do not know if this was true at all. I am just repeating what people said.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 6, 2005, 13:23:

Sr Tertius makes plenty of good points, but... ...I believe a few things are a bit more complex, though I obviously can't adequately pretend to represent the entire situation either...

"If anyone was naive, were those that thought that his administration was actually interested in a negotiated peace"

That depends..I have the idea that he believed (and made many of us believe) that peace was much closer to coming true and that it was an easier deal than it really is/will be, and hence he was not prepared to do all that was necessary when such a scenario became much more complex and difficult.

"The FARC understood the plan in the early part of the process, and used as much of it as they could to their advantage. The only ones who lost in this sham of a process were those of us who saw some hope of peace."

Perhaps, but the FARC also came to the peace process expecting that a weakened government would be prepared to submit to their demands much more easily, and had their own ideas about using the "demilitarized zone" as part of their longterm military and political strategic plans before Plan Colombia was even a concern.

The second statement is actually mostly true, and that's pretty sad as well, in my opinion.

"He never gave peace a chance: while pretending to be the "President of Peace", he was letting the paramilitaries run free, and cooking Plan Colombia in the backyard. (Of course, the FARC were not innocent either, but they are an illegal organization, not my representatives)."

Well...Plan Colombia as originally proposed was not a bad idea at all. As eventually implemented, it did end up turning into a anti-drugs/military enforcement strategy, but going into why that happened is another story and has more to do with the circumstances and the cold realities rather than with Pastrana's own will.

As for letting the paramilitaries run free...there are several, apparently contradictory, elements at work here. Yes, the paramilitaries multiplied themselves during Pastrana's administration, but he also was the president that, in the eyes of NGOs and other governments, began many investigations against them and against military abuses. Some of those were later, wrongly or not, closed by the current Attorney General (originally appointed under Pastrana, btw). Pastrana also refused to negotiate or even discuss terms with the paramilitaries, and they reciprocated by preventing the establishment of the ELN's "demilitarized zone".

"Pastrana is an accomplice of one of the biggest crimes in Colombian political history: he helped convince everyone that a negotiated peace was not possible, that only the same guns that have been firing for 50 years are going to bring the eventual surrender of the insurgency."

That's certainly a possible way to look at it, since his presidency led to Uribe's...but I doubt he actually wanted that to happen as a pre-conceived notion/planned objective. Especially because his image and his popularity were literally crushed to bits in the process, even in official polls.

0 funny, 0 helpful.