Last night the Senate approved the 2008 supplemental appropriations bill. (Best recorded vote title ever: “Motion To Concur In House Amendments To Senate Amendment To House Amendment To Senate Amendment To H.R. 2642.”)
The final bill, now on its way to the President, includes $400 million for Mexico, “of which not less than $73,500,000 shall be used for judicial reform, institution building, anti-corruption, and rule of law activities.” An additional $65 million will go to Central America, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
Human rights conditions over aid to Mexico were softened significantly, changed to be less stringent than either the House’s or Senate’s versions of the bill. The final bill does nonetheless require that human rights cases be investigated and tried by civilian prosecutors “in accordance with Mexican and international law.” The earlier language had triggered a “violation of sovereignty” outcry from the Mexican government. This morning, though, the Mexican government said that it found the final bill’s human-rights conditions acceptable.
- In Colombia, President Uribe called a press conference at 11:15 PM last night. He was reacting to a decision by Colombia’s Supreme Court: a guilty verdict against Yidis Medina, a former congresswoman who had cast the decisive vote on constitutional reform legislation that made it possible for Uribe to run for a second term in 2006. It turns out that Medina cast her vote in exchange for promises of political favors, and will now spend 3 1/2 years under house arrest for accepting bribes. In the text of its decision, the Court seriously called into question the legitimacy of the process that led to Uribe’s re-election. Uribe’s reaction last night was extreme.
I have wanted to fight for a safe, prosperous and equitable country. The trap of the power of terrorism in its death agony – to which justices of the Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice have lent themselves – does not appear to have a judicial solution.
After saying on national television that the justices who questioned the re-election amendment process are doing the bidding of terrorists, Uribe called on Colombia’s Congress to schedule a national referendum to repeat the 2006 elections.
- Against this backdrop, John McCain has provided more details about his planned visit to Colombia next week. He will be in Cartagena on Tuesday and Wednesday.
- The Mexican polling firm Mitofsky has compiled a useful compendium [PDF] of recent poll results in the region. The approval ratings of 16 presidents in the hemisphere are as follows:
- 84% Ãlvaro Uribe, Colombia (3/08)
- 61% Felipe Calderón, Mexico (5/08)
- 55% Antonio Saca, El Salvador (5/08)
- 55% Evo Morales, Bolivia (5/08)
- 55% Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, Brazil (3/08)
- 54% Hugo Chávez, Venezuela (4/08)
- 53% Rafael Correa, Ecuador (6/08)
- 51% MartÃn Torrijos, Panama (4/08)
- 49% Ãlvaro Colom, Guatemala (3/08)
- 45% Tabaré Vázquez, Uruguay (3/08)
- 44% Oscar Arias, Costa Rica (4/08)
- 44% Michelle Bachelet, Chile (6/08)
- 38% Manuel Zelaya, Honduras (2/08)
- 34% Stephen Harper, Canada (3/08)
- 32% Alan GarcÃa, Peru (6/08)
- 30% George W. Bush, United States (6/08)
- 26% Cristina Fernández, Argentina (5/08)
- 21% Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua (2/08)
- 5% Nicanor Duarte, Paraguay (3/08)
- Colombia’s El Tiempo reported yesterday that VÃctor PatÃño Fómeque, a former top Cali Cartel figure extradited to the United States, will serve only six years in prison. After that, he and his family will be given new identities in the U.S. federal witness protection program. A source in Colombia’s Prosecutor-General’s Office (FiscalÃa) told El Tiempo that at least two of the top paramilitary leaders extradited in May are interested in getting this deal for themselves. “Diego Murillo, ‘Don Berna’ and Francisco Javier Zuluaga, ‘Gordolindo’, are aiming for a similar arrangement.”
June 27th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
As seemingly every Colombian analyst consulted by the national media has mentioned, one key question is why the hell would a re-run of the election resolve problems with the congressional vote to change the constitution? There are loads of WTFs related to Uribe’s announcement but this is one of the most basic.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I think McCain should think twice visiting Colombia. The world today is a global network connection and millions of people already know that yesterday the little fiend prepared Colombians for a coup d’etat.
June 27th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
“Colombia’s El Tiempo reported yesterday that VÃctor PatÃño Fómeque, a former top Cali Cartel figure extradited to the United States, will serve only six years in prison”
How much did he pay the DEA for that puny sentence ? Oh wait, the term is forfeiture….right
WTF is McCain doing coming to Colombia to to meddle in our affairs ? WTF ??? Who does he think he is coming and getting in the middle of what’s going on in Colombia? this little man who married into money and has used the one good thing he did in his life (get captured) and used it to paint himself as somebody worthy of trust… where’s he from again ? Arizona? Ah, another one of these minority-majority states where whites keep electing right wingers in their bid to keep their privileges
June 27th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
what’s the difference between the original language of the Merida Initiative bill being discussed which set human rights “conditions” and the current bill which passed yesterday which contains human rights ‘guidelines’?
Could you provide the source for your interpretation/understanding of this?
Also, in what way at all were the human rights conditions ’stringent’? I think you describe these in a manner that at the very least suggests that they were stringent and i wonder why.
My understanding is that the conditions which were ’softened’ only applied to 25 % of the military aid package to Mexico and that they could be waived by the Secretary of State. That means 75% of the military aid package would LACK ALL CONDITIONS.
It seems relevant that these conditions are formally very similar (identical?) to those which were attached in Plan Colombia. The latter served to stop a grand total of $55 million of lethal aid all of once (out of $7+ billion). Have those also been ’stringent’ or effective conditions in your view and given the assassinations of labor leaders (dubbed ‘communists’ and social activists)?
Or is it that you support the counter-insurgency mission of Plan Colombia at all costs? And are ok with it being introduced to Mexico as PEMEX, Mexican nascent democracy, the possibility of indigenous peoples’ autonomy and other key popular resources are fought over.
Could you explain this? (I think you went to Yale, yes?)
June 28th, 2008 at 12:17 am
jake: It wouldn’t, which is also part of why that, in itself, wouldn’t be enough for the “coup d’etat” Jaime is expecting, even from a purely practical standpoint.
Even if Uribe were to win such a proposed referendum, for whatever reason, that doesn’t mean much as far as the original problem is concerned, unless other measures, far more forceful or at least far more illegal, were also involved in order to overrule whatever further rulings may come up.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has not addressed the matter directly either, albeit its deciding against Yidis Medina does have certain implications it does not exhaust the entire subject at all, and it will probably be up to the Constitutional Court to do so.
So again, even if it may sound boring or worse, I prefer to wait.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:57 am
I’m in the wait-and-see camp, too. All of my Colombian rightwing contacts think this reelection business is a real bad idea and are baffled as to what’s gotten into Uribe. In any case, it looks like he’s trying to leverage his popularity into a third term. But he may mean a new election for only the remainder of his term and if I were the court, it’s what I would give.
Still, just because a congresswoman took a bribe and went to jail shouldn’t invalidate what went down. The world’s nations are full of tainted votes that decided big things – how about the Essiquibo decision that some drunk Brits on the take made, giving land to Guyana when it really belonged to Venezuela? Although the dispute remains, most of the world today accepts the Guyana borders are they are known. My only point: bad stuff happens. I think the court ought to leave the result as it is.
Still, if a vote is held, how would Colombians vote? Anything could happen, but if I were Colombian, I’d vote for the man who brought me the only pride and security I had ever known, the man who made my country blossom and the world to start recognizing it for things other than massacres and drugs. The foremost of all human rights is the right to security and if he brought me security, I’d vote for him as if my life depended on it. Probably does for many Colombians in any case.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:34 am
With 84% popularity… I don’t think Uribe is worried about anything. In fact, he can take such an aggressive approach because of his popularity.
If I were his opponents I would emphasize the integrity of the Colombian constitution and law, which prevents Uribe from running a third election.
Screaming paramilitary ties and human rights against the President isn’t working with the general population.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Robert, the post has links to the House, Senate and final versions of the Merida HR conditions. Compare them and you can see how they were watered down. The earlier versions weren’t particularly stringent, but they _were_ more stringent than the final product. And neither had a waiver.
Your critique of the conditions’ usefulness in Colombia is right, however unnecessarily nasty. (Though $55 million per year is a significant amount to hold up, and much aid since 2006 remains on hold right now.)
This language, though, is the best that our community has been able to get. Maybe we’re not the most effective advocates in Washington, but it sure would help if those in Congress who would rather see _no conditions at all_ were in a far smaller minority than they are today.
Perhaps your frustrations would be more usefully vented in their direction.
June 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Everything I’ve read points toward the proposed referendum validating the ‘06 election, not extending Uribe’s term.
Maremoto, Who are you to deny McCain has every right to visit Colombia and meet with Uribe, the most popular elected leader in the Americas? That last part really drives you crazy, doesn’t it?
I’ll say it again: Uribe, the most popular elected leader in the Americas.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Constitutions, Crises and Courage
By John I. Laun
June 27, 2008
On June 26 Colombia’s Supreme Court issued a sentence finding in effect that the government of President Alvaro Uribe had bribed Congresswoman Yidis Medina to vote in a Congressional committee in favor of Uribe’s re-election. Her vote was needed in order to approve the proposed constitutional change. In the current Colombian context the decision of the Supreme Court was a real demonstration of courage. President Uribe has sought to expand the powers of the Presidency greatly, at the cost of the separation of judicial, legislative and executive power set forth in the Colombian Constitution. His administration has featured close ties of high government officials, including his cousin and close friend Senator Mario Uribe, with paramilitary forces. According to the Permanent Committee for the Defense of Human Rights (Comite Permanente por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos), 33 members of the Colombian Congress are now imprisoned for their ties to the illegal paramilitaries, while 60 more are under investigation for such ties. Many of these are of parties close to the President.
President Uribe several weeks ago tried to influence the Supreme Court by making a phone call to a magistrate of the Court to whom evidence supposedly had been conveyed which identified Uribe in a negative light. Before that, in his first term, he had tried to eliminate the Constitutional Court, created by the 1991 Constitution, which has acted as a brake on Presidential power. He was unsuccessful. Informed of the Supreme Court’s decision on June 26, the President immediately called the press to condemn the decision and to propose that Congress approve a referendum to repeat or ratify Uribe’s victory in the 2006 election.
What is obvious here is the attempt to use the powers of the Presidency to consolidate even more power in that office, emasculating the courts. President Uribe, buoyed by surveys that show he has an 84% approval rating, is like another President in this Hemisphere, playing the role of the “decider†whose word is law. The threat to constitutional government, and in fact legitimacy of the government, could hardly be more serious.
The Colombia Support has continuously opposed Plan Colombia and the U.S. aid component of the Plan. But at our National Meeting last month we favored aid to the Colombian court system and the office of the Attorney General (Fiscal General), if that aid could be allocated to the investigation of crimes of the paramilitaries and of agents of the Colombian state and prosecution of those responsible for these crimes. I doubt that any effective allocation of these funds for the specified purposes could be made during the Uribe Administration in Colombia and the Bush Administration in the United States. But we should express our support for the determination of the Colombian Supreme Court to investigate crimes of state and to bring to justice those implicated in these crimes. And we should also support the work of Attorney General Mario Iguaran, who has directed substantial resources to investigation and prosecution of paramilitary leaders and their crimes.
The very existence of constitutional government is at stake in Colombia. But remarkably, much the same is true in the United States. President Bush, our “deciderâ€, has concluded that executive privilege covers virtually all of his determinations as President; Congress in his view has no real oversight role. Karl Rove, “Scooter†Libby, and other Presidential or Vice Presidential advisors are immune from Congressional oversight. Bush can establish by so-called “signing statements†that a law passed by Congress will be enforced not according to its terms, but as he decides to interpret it. These statements have no constitutional basis; we should be dumbfounded that this foolishness is not roundly ridiculed and reproached by Congress and the Courts. And how is it that John Yoo can misread the Constitution and ignore this country’s commitment to international treaties on human rights in his eagerness to enshrine an imperial Presidency in this country? As one who studied constitutional law at Stanford Law School under Professor Gerald Gunther, I wonder what crazy misconceptions Professor Yoo’s students at the University of California Law School at Berkeley may take from his classes. Torture is morally wrong and contrary to the Geneva Conventions and to develop a rationale under which it is acceptable is the height of folly. It is wrong for our country and wrong for the world.
Colombia may have an advantage on us as far as the respective Supreme Courts are concerned. While the Colombian Supreme Court withstands Presidential pressure and seeks to protect the Constitution, a majority on our Supreme Court has undermined our privacy and curtailed freedom in a number of ways. And we shrug our shoulders as Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia and the Court majority in Bush v. Gore abandon the states rights position they had developed over several years so that the Republican candidate, Bush, having received 500,000 fewer votes than Gore, could become President. Now we see Justice Scalia trying to divine what the Founding Fathers wanted when this country was much different over 200 years ago; this exercise is, in a word, foolish. Yet we hear serious debate about it.
It is, in short, no less important for us than it is for Colombians to be concerned about protecting our Constitution. Presidential usurpation of power is a phenomenon we both share. Hopefully sensible people in both countries will energetically support the defenders of these two quite remarkable Constitutions.
Colombia Support Network
P.O. Box 1505
Madison, WI 53701-1505
phone: (608) 257-8753
fax: (608) 255-6621
e-mail: csn@igc.org
http://www.colombiasupport.net
June 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
# Paul Says:
June 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Everything I’ve read points toward the proposed referendum validating the ‘06 election, not extending Uribe’s term.
Maremoto, Who are you to deny McCain has every right to visit Colombia and meet with Uribe, the most popular elected leader in the Americas? That last part really drives you crazy, doesn’t it?
I’ll say it again: Uribe, the most popular elected leader in the Americas.
Paul, you’re wrong, Uribe’s popularity doesn’t “drive me crazy”, it saddens me because I know very well where it comes from.
Uribe’s popularity, if you know anything about sociology, (and right wing machinations) you will know that when there is serious instability and institutions are discredited and weak, such as Colombia’s starting from the late 1980’s and all through the horrendous 1990’s, under the bloody of the FARC and the paramilitaries (funded courtesy of your “War on Drugs”), people will above all seek security and this means a strongman. This is where Uribe’s popularity comes from or did you think that in Colombia nobody has heard of DIA’s report of Uribe’s close ties to Escobar or Pablo Escobar’s lover, Virginia Vallejo, a well known tv personality in Colombia in her tell-all book confirming the allegations?
Let me put this situation into context for you: your ally, Mr. Uribe, was a narcotrafficker facilitator, to the same man whose organization had my Dad tortured for throwing their drugs into the sea. Would you like evidence of what I’m telling you ?
the following links show my Dad receiving a Danish knighthood by the hand of Ambassador Ole Phillipson on May 5th, 1986. If you look closely enough you’ll see the American Consul, Roy Apel, in the picture too
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii255/zaknick/2.jpg
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii255/zaknick/09-1.jpg
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii255/zaknick/4.jpg
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii255/zaknick/3.jpg
And these, a year later, record the incident were my husband was tortured for hours by Mr. Victor Anicharico (the one with Colombian Senator Luis Lorduy as his facilitator) for helping US Customs and “standing against those who would poison American children”, in US Customs Agent Victor Thompson’s words. All three of our ships had undercover US Customs agents for years until one day when one of the agents was discovered to be law enforcement and showed up on our doorstep in the middle of the night one step ahead of assassins. We had Colombian National Police bodyguards for almost a decade due to your “War on Drugs” and this night was no different and so were able to save his life.
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii255/zaknick/21.jpg
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii255/zaknick/22.jpg
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii255/zaknick/23.jpg
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii255/zaknick/24.jpg
Mr. Anicharico was Pablo Escobar’s man in my hometown. You know after this incident (which came after my Dad suffered two assassination attempts) my Dad’s golfing buddy, Colombian Army General Eduardo Plata and some soldiers raided this man’s house and they found dozens of machine guns which they couldn’t confiscate because some corrupt General in Bogotá had signed some permits, so it’s not just your “War on Drugs” but the corruption of Colombian officials which destroyed Colombia.
But what I’m trying to illustrate to the people reading this blog is that Colombia’s political situation has underlying causes, chief among them the havoc wreaked by billions of dollars going to this insane Second Prohibition’s Al Capones in Colombia and Mr. Uribe, and his popularity, are all just a part of that insanity. I loved Colombia in the 1970’s. You have no idea, I mean really, you are unable to fathom how innocent and peaceful and colorful life in Colombia was. When these gringos, pilots from the Vietnam war, came to the Sierra Nevada in Santa Marta and planted marijuana (which is where drug trafficking started in Colombia) and smoked it up with all those Peace Corps kids, we all thought it was nutty but harmless; little did we know what that innocuous seeming situation would end up doing to Colombia. So you see, Paul, that you are on the wrong side of this issue. And coming from a citizen of the country whose drug habit destroyed Colombia… well, enough said.
June 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Paul,
My response to you is being rejected by Wordpress as “duplicate comment” erroneously so I’ve published it on Google’s servers:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddjd6f6x_180djgg5bhk
it’s a pity because my response gives the necessary context for all of these discussions on Colombia
June 28th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Maremoto,
Whatever. Your rant is a grudging admission Uribe has brought more security to Colombia, as if that’s a bad thing. You promised evidence of all his ties to Escobar, but all you give is the de rigeur one line from that old DEA report, unsubstantiated allegations from some soap opera actress, and a bunch of irrelevant photos of your old man. Good luck convincing anyone with that.
I have no idea what your involvement is with the Colombia Support Network, but they’re the same bunch of communists who brought the FARC supporting Gerardo Cajamarca to the US to go around the country spreading lies about Uribe, Leftist propaganda, or orgasmic Chavizmo, depending on the venue. So I’m a tad suspicious of anyone who cites that organization approvingly.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I am happy with the Plan Merida program. It’s not as much cash as I wanted for Mexico and I don’t like the meddling conditionality of it, because I think it should be given without conditions, and I especially don’t like the prospect of the Countrywide-corrupt Chris Dodd sticking his nose in Mexico’s internal affairs and constantly finding fault strictly with the Mexican government and never the drug traffickers or leftist terrorists, but I think all around, this came to a decent solution. I respect all players involved for doing it.
It definitely wasn’t all I wanted, but I believe all sides can make it work and find things in it to satisfy everyone. I think this is the meaning of compromise and everyone can be decently proud for coming to consensus instead of resorting to Pelosi-McGovern congressional tricks like damming the bill up on technicalities as was done with Colombia’s free trade treaty to please Big Labor special interests.
It’s not everything I wanted, but it is something. Good job. Now let’s hope everyone can make it work!
June 28th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
This blog could put up a contest for the ‘dweeb of the day’.
Without any doubt Pablo and O’grady would be second to none.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Hey Maremoto,
Uribe’s popularity not just “saddens you” but it also “saddens” the FARCs, Chavez, Ortega, Correa, Morales & Co.
I AM COLOMBIAN so you can start cutting the crap about “oh you don’t know what you’re talking about” the reason why me, my friends and family voted not once but TWICE and will vote AGAIN (in case of a referendum) for president Alvaro Uribe Velez is because we finally got our voices heard!!!
I’m not the daughter of an Ambassador, my dad was just a blue collar worker, so we did care when we couldn’t even travel by bus within our country (I’m sure you were taking vacation in the US like all the rich kids) I also cared when the economy was “de culo pa’l estanco” getting worse because of the inefficiency of your beloved unions and the lack of foreign investment because of the violence.
You don’t need to know about sociology or psychology or astrology to connect Colombia’s increased average growth rate, the staggering reduction in violence, unemployment and poverty level rate during Uribe’s administration with his approval rating!
June 28th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
OK. Let´s see if I understand this one. So, Uribe tells us that the Supreme Court is to its eyeballs in corruption, working hand-in-glove with the paramilitary. In fact, they have been dining in La Enoteca!! (Whaddya´know? Apparently I´m also in cahoots with the paramilitary, then.) So, as you would expect from such a Court, it does everything to corrupt justice administration among other things by dragging its feet when it comes to judge links with… the FARC! Apparently the paras are buying the Court but they aren´t getting their money´s worth. Now, this would have gone on were it not because the government discovered the whole thing and now has pressed charges in Congress against the Court. The fact that they did so immediately after the Court pronounces on Yidis is, we´re expected to believe, a pure coincidence and nothing whatsoever should be inferred from it.
If this isn´t confusing enough, now it turns out that the Court´s pronouncement on Yidis is entirely corrupt and therefore should be ignored by any rational human being. That´s what the government tells us. So, if the Court´s indictment of Yidis is a miscarriage of justice, there would be no legitimacy crisis whatsoever, don´t you think? But no. Turns out that it is a big deal after all and that therefore we need to do something, anything, to avert this terrible crisis generated by a wrong verdict from a corrupt court. Huh?
There are many options to handle this non-crisis that results from the non-verdict about the non-accomplice of the non-corrupt ministers. But apparently the best one is a referendum to ask Colombians if they consider the government legitimate, which of course it is because the reelection law was approved by purely clean means so there is nothing to investigate, but then we need to settle this legitimacy thing now, even though the Court´s verdict is worthless, and therefore there is no legitimacy crisis, except that there is one and, help! Someone pass me the Excedrin before my head bursts!
Thanks, that´s better. Now that my head has stopped spinning, I´m beginning to think that the referendum has nothing to do with any crisis. It´s just part of what, in the memorable expression of Scott McClelland, we may call “the permanent campaign.”
June 28th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
and are baffled as to what’s gotten into Uribe.
Oh please. Regardless of how one feels about Uribe, it’s plainly obvious to most sentient beings that the man has a massive ego. Indeed, the very loudly whispered talk about his possibly seeking to change the constitution to run for a third term is evidence of that.
June 28th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
LFM: It probably is a good example, from that point of view, of what a “permanent campaign” implies.
However, whatever the results of any such referendum, the Courts should be supported from Uribe’s onslaughts and their decisions should be respected, or only questioned through existing legal mechanisms of defense, not through political and populist intimidation or worse.
Again, while this would be the perfect time, in a way, to make this about a third term, apparently that isn’t the idea.
Unless of course, it ends up looking that way by the time this referendum leaves Congress and is examined by the Constitutional Court, which could throw it out if its legality is as questionable as it seems, or just otherwise modify it.
That is, if the proposal survives long enough. I really hope it can be shot down, through legal means and reason, before that.
June 28th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
jcg: Agreed, part of me thinks that the whole thing will die an ignominous death in a few days. Has someone mentioned that the government already got burned with a referendum? Anyway, yeah, it´s scary stuff.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
When these gringos, pilots from the Vietnam war, came to the Sierra Nevada in Santa Marta and planted marijuana (which is where drug trafficking started in Colombia) . . . little did we know what that innocuous seeming situation would end up doing to Colombia.
These constant characterizations of idyllic purity and perfection that have been destroyed by those rapacious Americans is old and tired. Funny how these characterizations NEVER include the rapacity of the local nationals who were actively engaged and profiting from the mischief of the “ugly Americans.” These tangos ALWAYS blame others (mainly the US), and NEVER include their own complicity.
Perhaps you should get a copy of “Cocaine Cowboys,” a documentary that’s been running up here lately of what these “innocent, peaceful, colorful” Colombians were doing on the streets of Miami in the early 80s. Of course, it was the Americans who turned these innocent Colombians into the kind of people who sprayed innocent bystanders with machine guns outside discoteques to which they were denied admission.
Your points are generally cogent. Please stop moralizing. It is unbecoming.
June 29th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Awesome documentary! Lots of things new to me about the Miami Mafia take over. Thanks, Fabio.
June 30th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Shrill Paul, very shrill …lol
your attempt to discredit Colombia Support Network falls flat on its face
this is CSN
http://www.colombiasupport.net/newsletter/CSN_Spring_08_newsletter.pdf
http://www.colombiasupport.net/newsletter/CSN_in_action_Sp08.pdf
might as well criticize mother Teresa…lol
Fabio, you’re right many Colombians (including Uribe’s Dad, who’s in Jinetes de la Cocaina too) have contributed to Colombia’s destruction no doubt about it… but above all what has destroyed and will keep on destroying Colombia is the fact that the “war” on drugs has become big business to a group of rapacious gringos…no doubt about that
but
your attempt to paint me as anti-American fails cause I have many gringo friends and have had for many years.. shit US Consul Roy Apel was my Dad’s friend….don’t you know that in the US there are many different tribes ? As a matter of fact I just came back from dinner with a gringo couple who happen to be very nice and educated people…furthermore I think there are good people and bad people everywhere no matter what race or nation
but your attempt to twist my words and appeal to jingoism might have its own agenda eh ?
June 30th, 2008 at 2:39 am
oh and Carito…I doubt your sincerity…unions create middle classes and foreign investment is not the wonderful thing you so loudly proclaim…not when not when the Colombian state gets less than 1% revenue on oil and mineral wealth deals with multinational…look up that book translated by Prof Chomsky’s daughter Aviva Chomsky into English detailing how these corrupt bastards sell the country…
oh and Paul, here’s your buddy Uribe with paramilitaries caught on tape:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUx642yfDMU&feature=related
June 30th, 2008 at 8:27 am
“Unions create middle classes.” Funny, I’m middle class and so are most of my friends. None of us have ever been in a union. The only thing unions create with certainty is higher unemployment and inefficiency.
Ha, and “Noam Chomsky.” The same anti-American douche Chavez lauded onstage at the UN last year. Yeah, there’s an unbiased source for you to read.
“My buddy Uribe” brought violence down in Colombia, that’s all that matters in the end. What happened to all your solid evidence of his ties to Escobar? Run out of irrelevant pictures of your dad?
June 30th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Paul,
Of course unions have been central to strong middle classes. In the U.S. union and labor protests/conflicts were central to you enjoying your week-end, 8 hour days, minimum wages as well as living wages for the manufacturing sector of our economy during this country’s greatest economic boom (first few decades after WWII). In fact, the U.S. economy had its most successful (and equitably distributed) growth period during a time in which unions were much larger part of our economy than they are today. I haven’t even begun with how central unions have been to the middle class lives of Western and Northern Europeans. By the way they have also been key to democratic transitions and the ultimate consolidation of democracy. Colombia, like most of Latin America, could do with stronger unions, it might help address the inequality that makes the region one of the most (if not the most, I have to double check that) unequal places on earth.
Uribe has supported/allied himself for decades with individuals directly involved in the promotion (financing, arming, colluding with) of paramilitarism. In 2008 do we really need further support for this statement?
Sincerely,
Will
June 30th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Will,
It’s simply absurd to give unions all, or any, credit for economic progress. Two of the major components for growth are efficiency and productivity, both of which unions fight tooth and nail. I’ve worked up close on union sites and know all about arcane featherbedding rules, “spreading the work around” nonsense. Unions can be good for those who can gain membership. But their gains come at the expense of non-unionized workers.
Post WWII? Can you think of, I dunno, any other major coinciding events besides union membership that may have led to high growth rates in the US? It’s a nice idea that all you have to do is create 8 hour work days, minimum wage laws, etc, and presto, a dynamic middle class is created. Reality intrudes, however. There are third world countries with higher union rates than in the US, would you trade our economy for theirs?
Maremoto purported to show Uribe was thick with Escobar. The evidence for that has always been tangential or insufficiently sourced(like one line from a DEA report.) However, Uribe’s policies have led to great reductions in overall violence in Colombia since his policies went into effect. In 2008 do we really need further support for this statement?
June 30th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Hope this refreshes Pablo’s memory:
“President Uribe’s credentials are impeccable. He was educated at Harvard and Oxford, is as sharp as a tack, and a very able bureaucrat. At the tender age of 26 he was elected mayor of MedellÃn, the second-largest city of Colombia. The city’s elite in the 1980s was rich, corrupt and nepotistic, and they loved the young Uribe. But the new mayor was removed from office after only three months by a central government embarrassed by his public ties to the drug mafia. Uribe was then made Director of Civil Aviation, where he used his mandate to issue pilots’ licenses to Pablo Escobar’s fleet of light aircraft, which routinely flew cocaine to the United States.”
June 30th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Paul,
You don’t seem to understand my point. Your write:
“Post WWII? Can you think of, I dunno, any other major coinciding events besides union membership that may have led to high growth rates in the US? It’s a nice idea that all you have to do is create 8 hour work days, minimum wage laws, etc, and presto, a dynamic middle class is created. Reality intrudes, however. There are third world countries with higher union rates than in the US, would you trade our economy for theirs? ”
I didn’t argue that unions caused this economic growth, only that this golden period for our economy coincided with the highest rates of unionization we have ever seen in the U.S. Thus, your point that unions inherently undermine economic growth is not true. Union rates in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and the UK are higher than in the U.S. and the quality of life for the average citizen in these countries is higher than in the United States. Unions played an important role in obtaining those benefits in those countries, as well as the relatively meager benefits that the average U.S. worker/citizen receives. They didn’t just happen because of the benevolent love of our leaders.
In regards to Uribe and reductions in violence, there definitely is a relationship between his policies and this outcome. This does not contradict Maremeto, Jaime or my statements/evidence regarding his links with paramilitarism. Of course I am pretty sure that this blog has addressed this question multiple times.
BTW can you provide us any insights on President Uribe’s recent actions, he seems to have some problems with a judicial branch that questions his authority/legitimacy, given your general disgust for Mr. Chavez aren’t you alarmed by Uribe’s personalist politics? Its quite Chavista of him don’t you think?
Thanks.
Will
June 30th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Jaime,
Nice lift from the pro-FARC Colombiajournal.org. Also on that website, you ought to check out Garry Leech’s articles where he denounces “slandering” of the FARC and another where he takes a fieldtrip to a FARC camp and licks the boots of Raul Reyes. You quote these sources often?
The accusation about Uribe being removed from office due to his drug connections have been alleged but not proven. According to Arturo Sarabia Better, there were no elections in Medellin for mayors until 1988. Mayors were appointed and dismissed by the central government, and their terms in office could be of varying lengths as a result. So much so that several reforms attempting to establish a *minimum* of two years in office were defeated. Perhaps that’s wrong, but I have yet to see it refuted.
I’d never deny Uribe knew Escobar, anyone of prominence in Medellin at the time would be guilty of that. I also recognize he would have to choose his battles wisely in order to stay in office/stay alive. I cut him some slack because he had to negotiate a very dangerous terrain, and because he’s done such a good job as president.
June 30th, 2008 at 11:31 am
“Thus, your point that unions inherently undermine economic growth is not true.” No, “thus” does not follow. The fact that US growth rates coincided with higher union rates doesn’t prove causation. I can make the case other variables created high growth in spite of the union drag effect. I could say growth would have been even higher without the opportunity cost of union membership.
“Union rates in Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and the UK are higher than in the U.S. and the quality of life for the average citizen in these countries is higher than in the United States.” So now you’ve switched from growth rates to a harder to quantify “quality of life.” Since you’re a fan of using only one variable to prove a point, union membership has declined in Europe over the years, and so has their unemployment rate(traditionally higher than the US on avg.) “Thus” I’ve proved unions cause unemployment. Have I got the Will methodology down?
“he seems to have some problems with a judicial branch that questions his authority/legitimacy, given your general disgust for Mr. Chavez aren’t you alarmed by Uribe’s personalist politics?”
Oh yeah, he’s thin skinned, sure. He knows the bad faith opposition will use the ruling to undermine his final years in office. So he’s proposing the opposition get an unexpected chance to knock him out of the rest of his term. He’s saying “bring it on.” So what?
My wife is excited about the chance to reconfirm her support for him, if only for symbolic reasons.
“Its quite Chavista of him don’t you think?”
Not at all. He’d still leave office in 2010, from what I’ve read. Chavez would never give his critics a free shot to knock him out.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Paul,
Again. The existence of high levels of unionization in itself does not stop or prevent economic growth. Our highest period of economic growth coincided with the highest level of unionization we have experienced as a nation. I am not making any argument for causation or that unions created the boom, only simply pointing out how silly it is to suggest that with unions comes inefficiency, stagnation, low economic growth etc….nothing less, nothing more. In addition, the fact that they existed at higher levels during this time contributed to the fact that more of the wealth created during this period was distributed more evenly across society as opposed to economic growth periods in the 1980s and 1990s in which wealth increasingly was concentrated in the top 10 or 5% of the U.S. population.
The reference to the high quality of life was to address the other part of the argument, being the existence of a strong middle class. There was no switching involved. The high standard of living and governmental supports that people in these nations still enjoy, though it has been under attack by your allies for a couple of decades now, was historically in part a consequence of union/labor power. Again, I am not arguing (and have not argued) that unions were the ONLY reason, but they were an influential one. One could only hope that workers/unions would have a similar level of influence/power in Latin America to help address the inequalities that I am certain you hold dear.
BTW, Chavez’s critics are so divided and generally incompetent they really don’t need much of an effort from Chavez to undermine them. Right now he would still leave office in 2012.
Best,
Will
June 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Little Paulie, what a die hard Uribe’s fan you are.
Belisario Betancourt appointed alias “El Salgareño” as mayor of Medeliin, because his father had contributed a good amount of money for his campaign. After several tips on Uribe meeting Pablo Escobar the Ochoa Vazques, Carlos Ledher Rivas and Rodriguez Gacha, he decided to dismiss him, but not because he wanted to but because of pressure by his government collaborators.
The last straw was a meeting were he was picked up by Escobar’s personal chopper to meet with him and Rodriguez Gacha who used to call him “Varito”, a term of endearment surviving to this day.
But of course I made that up too.
In Fact there is plenty of evidence, of alias “El Salgareño” being close to Pablo Escobar”. and here is one you won’t find on the internet: When Pablo Escobar fled The Cathedral, Escobar’s own built jail, “El Salgareño” was appointed mediator to negotiate with Escobar, before he was gunned down, as Mr Chavez was appointed mediator to negotiate with the FARC.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Jaime: If I may interrupt…there is, however, a difference between publicly available facts that cannot be questioned at all (the existence of Chavez’s mediation effort), and claims which aren’t so public and definitely not self-evident, requiring further verification before they can be universally treated as facts by, say, a national or international court.
Some of those claims have, in fact, been already proven partially or completely, but others remain open to debate. I have no intention of carrying out such a debate here, but at the very least it should be accepted that not every single accusation is as clear and spotless as you may be presenting it. The existence of an accusation is not evidence of its accuracy.
Regardless, I still think that, even relying on just the firmest and most public set of facts, it’s fair to say that Uribe has an authoritarian and intolerant character, is a man who values political opportunism over institutionalism and morality, is a man who allies himself with factions and individuals who do not seem to have Colombia’s best interests in mind, and is a man who has implemented actions and policies (or parts of the same) of a questionable nature for different reasons.
June 30th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Kalyman, remember Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion, not for being a mobster.
June 30th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
That’s strange, I must have left my turban somewhere…maybe I should ask Mrs. Córdoba for a spare?
And that might be so, setting aside whether the individual comparison (and the ones I’m using below) even applies if the entire context is considered…but does it automatically make every single claim about Al Capone or his activities true?
I doubt it, and the same could be said about other criminals or simply historical figures.
Even individuals such as Hitler (yes, you may invoke Godwin’s law) or Stalin are often blasted in ways that many historians, for example, would find flawed, incomplete or just questionable, regardless of their common representation, even while they were alive.
So I’m sure there will be a “popular” level of discussion, good and bad, and a more “professional/historical/judicial” one, also good and bad, when the dust finally settles, even in Uribe’s case.
You can probably tell which level I prefer.
June 30th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
jcg, so you consider Al Campone was not a mobster but an “aggressive businessman” he he he.
Good luck with your turban hunting.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:58 pm
” The existence of high levels of unionization in itself does not stop or prevent economic growth.”
I would sort of agree, but dependent on the union and the concessions the union manage to extract. I could set up a “union” at my office and it wouldn’t mean squat until concessions were wrung out for my group to the detriment of the non-unionized, of course. And there comes a tipping point in which union demands create great harm to industry. Just ask GM if you have any doubts about that.
“I am not making any argument for causation or that unions created the boom, only simply pointing out how silly it is to suggest that with unions comes inefficiency, stagnation, low economic growth etc….nothing less, nothing more. ”
You obviously have never been around a union site if you say that. Union rules are often designed to “spread the work around. ” I worked on a site once and was told I could not lift some rebar because that was an iron workers job. They had to call a iron worker in from another site to move the rebar I could easily have done myself. Time and money were wasted for that stupid rule. That’s a microcosm of how many unions create inefficiencies in order to “protect their jobs.” Of course, as noted above, a union could be theoretically harmless if demands are below or in line with the market.
“In addition, the fact that they existed at higher levels during this time contributed to the fact that more of the wealth created during this period was distributed more evenly across society as opposed to economic growth periods in the 1980s and 1990s in which wealth increasingly was concentrated in the top 10 or 5% of the U.S. population. ”
You can say that all day long, but you provide no actual proof. The economic conditions of the post WWII period were radically different than what we face today in the global economy. Again, I could just as easily make the case that a more efficient(less unionized) economy would have seen greater economic growth for all. Besides, unions today are what, around 12% of the US workforce?
The fact that others are doing well in the middle class without a union card calls into serious question every thing you say here. Clearly, unions are not needed to get past the theoretical Iron Law of Wages.
“One could only hope that workers/unions would have a similar level of influence/power in Latin America to help address the inequalities that I am certain you hold dear.”
Yeah, a higher minimum wage and more vacation time will propel Latin America into the 1st world. ‘Cuz that’s the problem…
July 2nd, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“Little Paulie, what a die hard Uribe’s fan you are.”
Little Jaime, what a die hard Uribe hater you are. You are part of the small Colombian minority, even smaller after today’s news. You are the fringe.
I never accused you of making stuff up, just lifting material from pro-FARC websites. Which you did. So I’m not about to accept anything they say as truth, or anything you say considering your souces, and also now that you contradicted yourself without any acknowledgement whatsoever. You first said Uribe was elected mayor of Medellin. You now admit he was of course appointed. Consistency is just not your thing. Nor, apparently, is a truthful dialogue.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Look Mary Paul O’Grady, I did not say he was elected all I did was google “Uribe Pablo Escobar mayor” and I quoted what I found, it’s not like I keep bookmarks of all the millions of sites on the internet denouncing Mr. Uribe.
I don’t care if you believe it or not. Your hero is a ‘traqueto’. And once a ‘traqueto’, always a ‘traqueto.’