View of Colombia (Economist correspondant)

From the diary of a correspondant to the Economist, discussing various aspects of Colombia.

http://www.economist.com/daily/diary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9025655

Excerpts...

Thirty metres in, but invisible from the road, edged by banana and papaya trees, is a small coca field. The coca bushes, distinguished by their pale green leaves, have been neatly planted in lines marching up the mountainside. The field tilts at an angle of almost 45 degrees. Its surface is of rocky scree. We slither and slide across it and watch as the Social Action workers, dressed in gumboots, jeans and blue T-shirts, use spades with handles two metres long to lever out deftly each bush. It is backbreaking work. Is it also pointless? Back in the hamlet near the helipad, I had talked to some local people. With the police looking on they refused to give their names. But their anger was clear enough. “Coca didn’t make us rich, it was just to get by,�? said one. “First the government should send something else, seeds or some project. They just come and yank the coca out.�?

...

I ask Mr Uribe for his reaction to opposition claims that his administration is in cahoots with the paramilitaries. As in my previous interviews with him, we start in Spanish and he quickly switches to English. He is self-taught (he practises by reading The Economist aloud), and he has diligently acquired a wide vocabulary. He speaks slowly and deliberately, searching for the exact words he wants.

“Colombia was dominated by paramilitaries and guerrillas,�? he says. “My administration began the process of recovering the country. Before, many people knew about the paramilitaries, but they grew and grew with no government action against them. My administration has killed 1,700 of them and demobilised 30,000.�?

Some of the left-wingers in Congress who criticise his government, he points out, are former guerrillas who “were beneficiaries of previous peace processes, never confessed their crimes, and were given amnesties or pardons.�? He says that he supports the investigations of the Supreme Court and the attorney-general into paramilitary links. “This country needs to know in depth the tragedy, to realise what is the future we need—a country of institutions, without guerrillas, paramilitaries, drug-trafficking and corruption.�?

That, say his critics, is self-serving spin from a president who has often aggressively criticised media outlets and opposition figures when they have unearthed the claimed paramilitary penetration. But with Mr Uribe, what you see is what you get. He asks for and gives no quarter. His defects are his qualities. He is belligerent, stubborn, and has a fierce—and sometimes misplaced—loyalty to subordinates. He is also tireless. Ministers privately complain that he will ring them at home at 1.00am and then again at 6.00am.

...

It occurred to me as I awoke to the sound of my neighbour's ablutions that this was another sign of progress: I needed protection against sound more than I needed protection against bullets. Bogotá had become relatively safe—which is to say, it was less violent than Caracas, or Rio de Janeiro, or São Paulo, for example. That partly reflects a general decline in violence in Colombia in recent years. But it is also a consequence of a municipal renaissance.

A series of reforming mayors, including Jaime Castro and Enrique Peñalosa, both liberals, Antanas Mockus, an independent, and Lucho Garzón, a moderate socialist, has transformed Bogotá into one of the best-governed cities in Latin America.

Mr Mockus launched civic-education campaigns aimed at reducing violence by means including stronger regulation of alcohol and firearms. Earlier, Mr Castro had sorted out the city's finances. Mr Peñalosa began a modern mass-transport system, something that had been sorely lacking in a city of almost 7m people. The Transmilenio, as the system is called, uses articulated buses running on dedicated carriageways with fixed stops resembling railway stations. It has cost about $10m per kilometre to build—much cheaper than a metro. It has cut travelling times, congestion and pollution significantly.

...

In places such as María la Baja, there are fears that the paramilitaries are returning to action. Some 7,000 people displaced from their farms in the nearby hills have taken refuge in mud huts on the outskirts of the town. Some recount how paramilitaries killed family members or robbed them of their farms at gun point. There is nervous talk of threatening graffiti appearing in the town from a new death squad called the Black Eagles. To make matters worse, the paramilitaries are said to control the local government. “They've handed over their weapons but not their power�?, says a local priest.

At the town hall, there is a power cut. The municipal government has failed to pay the bill, admits Alejandro Marimón, the mayor. But this is not because the paramilitaries have looted the town's budget, he insists. Mr Marimón, an Afro-Colombian like most people in this part of the north coast, sweats gently as he contemplates the motionless fan on his desk. The leader of his faction of the Liberal party is one of half a dozen Colombian congressmen now in jail on charges of collusion with the paramilitaries.

In Mr Marimón's view there has been too little government help for former paramilitaries. “For there to be peace we have to give employment and opportunity to people�?, he says.

By Man Tequila on Apr 20, 2007, 22:42 in Friendly Talkzone.

slguy says on Apr 21, 2007, 06:30:

Sorting out American politics... ...for me, is a walk in the park compared to understanding Colombia's poltical scene. My degree is in politics, and I've always been fascinated by it, but I just can't get a handle on even the broadest view.

I seem to see LOTS of anti-Uribe sentiment- but wasn't he recently re-elected in a landslide? Has the paramilitary link scandal only surfaced after the election- does this explain much?

He strikes me as a straight-talking, focused man with a clear vision of what he hopes to do for his country, almost Reaganesque. What am I missing? I only in the past year have spent any time paying close attention to Colombia - but it seems the country has made real progress during Uribe's time. Why are people so pissed with him - or is it primarily liberal sentiment I'm seeing?

I'd really appreciate some input - or a link to an analysis that's done in a politically neutral approach...

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

utopiacowboy says on Apr 21, 2007, 15:14:

Slguy, when you're reading these comments always consider the source and evaluate them accordingly. Everybody has an ax to grind especially here.

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.

Man Tequila says on Apr 21, 2007, 18:03:

On the whole the articles struck me as relatively balanced. The guy who wrote them has been in Colombia since the 80s and knows his way around. I don't find them strongly for or against Uribe.

Aunque no me creas/ si me lo propongo/ lograre olvidarte/ porque a fin de cuentas/ no soy tan cobarde./ Y termino todo una de estas tardes/ no sera dificil buscar algún sitio donde refugiarme/ donde nunca mas vuelvas a encontrarme. (Polo Montañez)

slguy says on Apr 21, 2007, 18:05:

Thanks, UC But that's part of my problem - I don't know who's grinding which ax!

I read about real progress in internal security, and judging by the building boom that's evident in Colombia, something right is happening in the economy...what is it about Uribe that pisses people off so? Or is it just liberals that would whine at any strong, conservative president?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

Man Tequila says on Apr 21, 2007, 18:26:

Colombia is socially conservative. There is debate on how much credit Uribe personally deserves for progress, the degree to which he is involved with paramilitaries, and concern about areas of Colombia outside the cities (and around Calí) that may not be progressing.

Plan Colombia is not without controversy. If you are talking about Democrats whining about Republican policies (or vice versa), that seems to me to be politics as usual. I wonder when reasoned political debate and the ability to discuss things without making everything partisan disappeared in the US (if it ever existed)? This is especially sad since major positions of both parties on many issues does not seem all that different.

utopiacowboy says on Apr 21, 2007, 22:46:

Deleted to protect the guilty. OK a few innocents as well.

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.

slguy says on Apr 22, 2007, 05:20:

Andres Oppenheimer's column today This is the guy I most respect about Latin American political matters. His column today is pretty timely for my curiosity...

http://www.miamiherald.com/421/story/82669.html

He cites a 70% approval rating for Uribe in Colombia. That answers a lot of my questions! ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

cali373 says on Apr 22, 2007, 12:54:

"Reaganesque" You have got to be kidding me. While Reagan provided leadership against the ideals of the soviet union he was also a puppet (perhaps I am missing what reaganesque means). While I have some criticisms of Uribe and he comes from the aristocracy , he does want a better colombia and is doing something about it. He does not necessarely want all Colombians to live better but for right now he is improving the security situation. Why the criticism. It is naive to believe that he is not involved with paramilitarism at a certain level and they are involved in terrorizing colombians. Wouldn't that be enough reason to get some criticism. The man is not going to admit to anything that involves him with a group that is listed as terrorists by the U.S. I would not either. He is part of the land owning class that has paramilitarism roots since independence. I have done much reading about the civil strife of Colombia since independence. If you are asking why Uribe gets criticized when the country appears safer, well then there is much to review.

Smile if you are a thinker!

cali373 says on Apr 22, 2007, 13:03:

One other thing is that do not take Colombian poll numbers too seriously as they are seriously flawed. They mostly come from people who reside in the big cities which are completely removed from what happens in areas where the most of the conflict happens and guerilla controlled areas. You have to keep in mind that areas may be guerilla controlled but they are still colombia and inhabited by colombians. The people of these area may not be guerilla sympathizers but they are not be pro Uribe either. Yet you will not find them part of the polls.

Smile if you are a thinker!

goin_south says on Apr 22, 2007, 13:19:

I don't claim to be the most widely informed gringo on matters in Colombia; FAR from it, for sure. I don't even have time to read the lengthy articles here, by the more, or less well intended posters, Colombian or otherwise.

But, if I have been reading on PBH for nearly two years, a year before the Re-Election of Alvaro Uribe, I believe I remember reading as simply very regular news and information that A.U.'s family ties were with the Paramilitaries forever.

So, I don't really understand why all this writing about the matters now, being so astounding or difficult to believe/accept. As an Uninformed, I have always thought it was a fact without discussion. But, I guess now, it is just taken time (as usual in any administration, be it USA, Colombia, or other) for the media and others to get the facts out in the forefront and to begin slowly purging their way to their own preferences.

USA...it's no Disneyland.
Colombia; It's.... THE MAD HATTER!

why can't the freakin Chung King Chinese just LEAVE THE FREAKN DOLLY LLAMA and Tibet ... ALONE!

Robert Jorge says on Apr 23, 2007, 00:04:

Alright Cali - how was Reagan a "puppet?" Who was pulling his strings? I can't wait to hear your answer to this. A puppet would imply there is a larger, political power in the background that controls the person, like a former East German president in relation to the Soviet Union. Some would say Nancy influenced Reagan a lot. I say hogwash, but even if true, so what? If Ronnie did what Nancy told him to do, and that is why things happened the way they did, she was one of our best presidents, IMHO.

juancegomez says on Apr 23, 2007, 12:55:

cali373 You know that the areas "controlled" by the guerrillas are the most remote and underpopulated, especially considering the fact that Colombia has become an increasing urban country (more than 70% of the population lives in urban, not rural, areas).

Still, I agree with your statement about not making such assumptions about the people who may live in such areas.

Other than that, Uribe does deserve plenty of criticism, and the company he keeps is usually (but not automatically) despicable, but I do believe that it's better to commit the sin of excessive prudence rather than the sin of excessive imprudence. In other words, I prefer to wait things out and see how many of the accusations actually have firm roots, before making many other assumptions. He's probably not an innocent baby in my book, but that doesn't make all the accusations accurate or even relevant either.