Jun 292009
First reports from this afternoon’s Uribe-Obama meeting indicate that:
- Obama said he hoped that the U.S. and Colombian governments could “strike a deal” to help the free-trade agreement to move forward, although “there are obvious difficulties involved in the process,” particularly unpunished labor killings. This repeats the “we want to move forward but obstacles remain” tone that the Obama administration struck during the Summit of the Americas in April.
June 29th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
This is on a previous thread but I know that otherwise nobody will read it. Marcos: yes, I’m aware that there are specific differences between Colombia ca. 1990 and Honduras 2009. As I myself said, the “septima papeleta” enjoyed wide consensus unlike Zelaya’s referendum. That’s why in Colombia the Supreme Court finally went along with the crowd. I was not trying to “copy and paste” although I can see why you thought I was. My point was a bit simpler: just the fact that Zelaya was calling an irregular referendum doesn’t immediately make him a despot bent on destroying the Constitution and coup-worthy material (the line coming from the ineffable O’Grady, no party complete without her). To pronounce on the matter we need more nuance and perspective, the kind of thing that allows us to realize that, for instance, in Colombia the unconstitutional and illegal referendum wasn’t exactly the end of the world.
June 29th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
As for this news, am I not the only one who is disappointed with this? This ‘moving forward’ was used by Obama when asked by Michelle Bachelet if he wished to apoligoze for the CIA’s involvement in the overthrow of Salvador Allende. He said that he was ‘looking forward’ rather than backward. With it however he stated that there had been ‘mistakes in the past’
June 29th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
[...] “Two Terms Are Enough†[...]
June 29th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has failed, to date, to articulate a “new” policy on U.S.-Colombia relations. Dancing around the margins on counter-narcotics, free trade, human rights and now term limits, doesn’t constitute anything new or concrete that merits much attention. It hints of a new direction, but is more style than substance. His comments, taken as a whole, lack coherence and suggest that he’s trying to appear engaged on key issues, but only when his advisers flag the issues for him. In fact, Obama is letting the U.S. Congress call the shots on how and how much to fund U.S. assistance to Colombia. And when I say Congress, I mean a very small cadre of influential staffers who care about Colombian issues. If anything, I’d like to see this blog insist that Obama make a rational, strategic decision on what the U.S.-Colombia relationship is going to look like for the next several years.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:53 am
My bet, seconded by someone I spoke a few days ago and seemed to know what he was talking about, is that the Obama Administration is just waiting to see what happens with Colombia. Colombia is not high on its priority list right now, the country is not in any major crisis that needs immediate attention. As much as I dislike the current situation, if I were Obama I would do the same: wait and see, wait and see. In fact, I’m already surprised that, however obliquely, Obama stepped into the topic of reelection. I was expecting that he would simply punt on that one and limit himself to private grumbling that sometimes may be quite effective.
By the way, even that gesture may actually entail its risks. If the US government goes too far expressing public displeasure at Uribe’s third term I wouldn’t rule out Uribe or his henchmen to go on a nationalistic rampage, self-righteously pumping their fist against the “imperialistic dictates of the Americans.” There’s a long history of that in the region: during the Carter Administration, when the US eventually expressed mild discomfort at human rights abuses in the Southern Cone (I seem to recall it actually grimaced for twenty seconds) the generals began denouncing the American intervention in domestic affairs. This from the same people that couldn’t order a coffee without making sure that Kissinger would approve of it!
Ultimately, as far as Colombia is concerned, for those of us who oppose the current state of affairs Obama’s election has opened a window. But it’s up to Colombians to barge in through it. Washington will not do it on its own.
June 30th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Isaacson, aren’t you being too generous with Obama?
Listening to the whole thing I think he was extremely nice to Uribe…
Didn’t you here the last comment?
“Although if I were to serve two terms, I am sure I wouldn’t be as popular as Uribe…”
Then there is the surveillance issue…
Listening to Obama I thought “wow, he did mentioned it but almost without doing it”…it’s really watered down…
I bet you if the same words came from another president you wouldn’t have this title por ypur post
June 30th, 2009 at 11:21 am
JP, I am pretty sure Obama meant Uribe is faking polls as everybody (well not everybody to be exact) is aware in Colombia.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Regular readers know that I hated Uribe’s first term, hated his second term and am ready to hate his third term (heck, even the fourth one while we are at it). But the George Washington analogy isn’t helping here. You see, the one time Americans fiddled with presidential term limits they got none other than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, arguably the greatest American president ever and the greatest 20th Century statesman all rolled into one. So if we shake this one too much we might end up handing a talking point to the uribistas, even though they, like most Colombian politicians, seem thoroughly incurious about American history. (I’ve never understood why Colombian politicians are like that.) The last thing I want is to have Jose Obdulio penning some column comparing Uribe with Roosevelt. That would curd the milk of my breakfast cereal on the spot!
July 1st, 2009 at 10:26 am
Jaime Bustos Says
“JP, I am pretty sure Obama meant Uribe is faking polls as everybody (well not everybody to be exact) is aware in Colombia.”
It really doesn’t seem that way to me. Uribe seems to be quite popular in Colombia, and not only among the wealthy. What makes you think the polls are fake?
July 1st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Because it’s obviously impossible for Uribe to be popular at all or for anything.
Don’t ask why, it just is. Everybody must hate the guy as much as he does, or else…it’s fake!
Obama must surely be on the same note as Jaime Bustos, it’s an evident fact with no other possible interpretation. It’s an insult to even suggest otherwise.
Regards,
Marcos
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Marcos, Uribe is unpopular with radical leftwing academics, Marxist NGOs, and FARC sympathizers who continue to dream of a Better World through Communism.
Everyone else likes being left alone, working a job, and being free to walk the streets at night. The first and foremost of all human rights is personal security and Uribe has brought that to the vast majority of Colombians in spades. Most never had it in their lifetimes and it’s a glorious new experience for them, like drinking cool water after being lost in the desert. That’s why Uribe’s popular and his popularity is real.
He is the greatest president in Colombian history.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I like the way Obama put the reelection issue to Uribe, it was deftly, delicately done, and it showed humility, something he’s not usually good at. I think he’s right, too. I don’t want Uribe to end up like Fujimori, I want him to go out in a blaze of glory, the greatest president Colombia has ever had, the wise man everyone listens to. His referent power won’t go away when he leaves office because there’s never been anyone like him – and everyone will miss him. Magnificent man.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Dear Camilla,
I think your knowledge of Human Rights is quite narrow. Thanks to your post I investigated and found a pretty film by Amnesty international about the 30 Human Rights (which probably need to be expanded too). When watching each of them I was thinking of Colombia and I cannot easily “tick” the “yes” boxes.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights-anniversary/udhr-film
I think Uribe is popular with high class and some middle Colombian class (this is what the media says, and I am not sure how they collect the data – never call my family or friends or anybody I might know -). Some of them, probably share your views, some of them don’t have access or interest, or have the time to look into more detail about the reality, or perspectives of what is happening in the country (particularly when we live in big cities and protected neighbourhoods).
It is precisely in the Academy where still is possible a debate of ideas where people respect each other, based on supported data and research. This is what is Academy about!!! This debate has been silenced from most of the media, and it’s not possible to have it in other social spaces such as families or friends without finishing in an unresolved argument, or a bad joke. I feel that the “era Uribe” has divided more and more our country, and fill it up with more anger.
I found your statement similar to the one of many Uribe supporters. I think reality is not black and white, right or left. I think you have been given the same drink and so, you say the same things.
I don’t think Uribe is the greatest president you have in mind, and I hope many children don’t keep him in their memories as such. Our country is still waiting for a fair president, who governs without hate and who cares about the interests of ALL people, who work the land (peasants and indigenous), in the factories (workers), companies and industry, universities and schools (academics (researchers and teachers), students), and also of the ones with new ideas of peace, wider thoughts of culture and development for ALL (artists, thinkers, scientists). I am not quite sure about your idea of being left alone… not caring for the rest of humanity? I really hope you never feel like you are left alone.
There is alternative knowledge and research about our country and I invite you to read some of them, and to find more about the confusing threads that exist in our country. In that way, probably with a relaxed mind you can judge better, which kind of president has been Uribe.
My very best to you,
http://www.icrc.org/Web/spa/sitespa0.nsf/htmlall/colombia?opendocument&link=home
http://colombia.indymedia.org/
A very brave letter to Ingrid Betancur:
http://www.prensarural.org/spip/spip.php?article1792
July 11th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Totally agree with Obama’s lead point: no more time for Uribe as President; two terms are indeed enough for him – and the same goes for Chavez (too late there, I’m afraid), Correa, Morales, Ortega, etc.
Permanent Presidents (and the political corrollary, Presidentes Plenipotentiarios) no matter their political stripe, are the bane of LA, as witness what’s happened in Cuba and lately, in Venezuela.
The political philosophy of any of these guys is only marginally relevant (in fact they’re more like branding strategies in all cases) to the central goal of each of them, which is to accrue all power to themselves by neutralizing and/or coopting other branches of government and of course, staying in power forever.
Honduras did the right thing, years ago, in putting explicit limit of one term on their Presidents and two terms of four years is the max I’d go for. After that LA leaders begin to see themselves as essential to the survival of their countries. Absolute power does indeed corrupt absolutely…