Uribe’s post-retirement blues

[Judi Lynn]

Uribe’s post-retirement blues
Thursday, 04 November 2010 08:32 Pablo Rojas Mejia

Despite his immense popularity in Colombia, Alvaro Uribe is facing an array of legal and political problems in his first months out of office. Unfortunately for him, more trouble is sure to come.

A number of weeks ago, I wrote a column about President Juan Manuel Santos’s surprising eagerness (and ability) to lead a government very different in its tone and priorities from that of his wildly popular predecessor, Alvaro Uribe. The divergence really began a few days before Santos was inaugurated, when he began preparing for the resumption of normal diplomatic relations with Venezuela even as Uribe publicly accused Hugo Chavez of supporting the FARC.

Whether or not one believes that there were behind-the-scenes tensions between Uribe and his disciple over the Venezuela issue, it has since become clear that Santos has a significantly different vision for the country than many people imagined. In his first months in office, he has made victims’ rights and compensation a centerpiece of his political agenda. He has continued to engage in friendly and constructive talks with some of Uribe’s left-leaning adversaries in the region, from Venezuela to Ecuador and beyond. As I wrote last week, Santos unexpectedly defied Uribista tradition by intervening in U.S. domestic politics, accusing the Americans of hypocrisy over a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in California.

Uribe, one can imagine, is just as surprised as anyone about how all of this has turned out. Not too long ago, Uribe had enough political capital to virtually hand-pick his successor, and he chose to back Santos. Now, his former Defense Minister is changing course with remarkable success. Colombians doubtless prefer normal diplomatic relations with Chavez; even if the Venezuelan is a nuisance, he was even more annoying and downright dangerous in combination with the equally aggressive Uribe. Similarly, although there are legitimate disagreements about the victims’ compensation initiatives, fact that Colombia is finally taking serious steps to address the human cost of its armed conflict is a cause for celebration.

More:
http://colombiareports.com/opinion/the-colombiamerican/12737-uribes-post-retirement-blues.html

[Peace Patriot]

1. The breezy, superficial, Time-Newsweek magaziney style of this article makes me wonder

what the author's agenda is.

The style:

Author uses phrases like "immense popularity" and "astronomically high approval ratings" to describe Uribe, without examining who is free to speak in Colombia and who speaks at peril of getting their head blown off. THOUSANDS have been murdered by the Colombian military and its closely tied rightwing death squads, for asserting their human and civil rights in Colombia. Uribe himself said that everyone who opposes him is a "terrorist." How can polls and votes be trusted?

The author says that Uribe’s "legacy" remains intact "in the eyes of "MAINSTREAM Colombians." Who creates the illusion of the "mainstream" in Colombia if not the corpo-fascist press and the fascist government? FIVE MILLION peasant farmers have been displaced by state terror in Colombia. How do they fit into the "mainstream"? Do they have a say? Do they get to vote? Do pollsters ask them questions? How do the pollsters find them? Does anybody even NOTICE this HUGE displaced poor peasant population?

He asserts that there are "legitimate disagreements" about the "victims’ compensation initiatives," again without examining the facts. This is like saying that there were "legitimate disagreements" about compensating American Indian tribes for U.S. government theft of their lands and egregious violations of treaties. "Legitimate" according to whom? "Legitimate," my ass.

The author denigrates the human rights movement at Georgetown U. as "small"--a typical corpo-fascist marginalization of people who are speaking the truth--without examining their charges, except to treat of the "odds" that Uribe will or won't be prosecuted. In particular, he omits the charge against Uribe of creating and running death squads made in a letter by a Jesuit priest in Colombia, a highly respected human rights defender who himself has been threatened.

He describes Bernardo Moreno, Uribe's former personal secretary, as "one of the latest VICTIMS" of prosecution--possibly a "slip of the pen" but not likely, considering his other colorations of this story.

And, finally, consider how he describes Hugo Chavez and the threat of war, Colombia against Venezuela, that Uribe created in his last days in office: "Colombians doubtless prefer normal diplomatic relations with Chavez; even if the Venezuelan is a nuisance, he was even more annoying and downright dangerous in combination with the equally aggressive Uribe."

The president of Venezuela is "a nuisance"? This author himself has debunked Uribe's charges against Venezuela (about "harboring" FARC guerrillas). How was Chavez defending Venezuela "a nuisance"? And how was Chavez "equally aggressive" as Uribe? That is absurd. It is in fact a lie. But it is carefully couched as the view of 'mainstream' Colombians--a group that has been identified by reading entrails and consulting crystal balls.

If you want to talk about a "nuisance," how about the "nuisance" to Venezuela and the Chavez government of a quarter of a million refugees from Colombia, over the border into Venezuela, in flight from the Colombian military and its death squads?

And what is the point of all these sly lies and sneaky colorations? The author concludes...

"The good news in all of this – for everyone but Uribe – is that this process has reconfirmed the strength of Colombia’s democratic institutions. Few Latin American legal systems would be able to put so much pressure on high-ranking members of a recent government that remains highly popular, and whose allies still occupy nearly every key position in the executive and legislature. Colombia is on pace to uncover the truth about Uribe-era abuses sooner than many expected, and the former president can only hope that these robust investigations will reveal his innocence."

I think what we're looking at is State Department/CIA propaganda. The point is to rehabilitate Colombia as a candidate for U.S. "free trade for the rich," which has been obstructed in the U.S. Congress by labor Democrats who object to the short life spans of union leaders in Colombia (hundreds murdered by the Colombian military and its death squads--about half and half, proportionately, according to Amnesty International). Well, if this is true--that we are looking at a trumped up scenario of rehabilitation--the State Department/CIA is lagging behind Diebold-ES&S in preparing a Congress that will gladly trade with mass murderers.

And, frankly, I don't think that Uribe will ever be prosecuted. I think he is a CIA/Bush Cartel "made man." That's what the academic sinecure at Georgetown U. is all about. (Note: George Tenet is an alumnus!) That's what the Obama administration's honoring of Uribe with an appointment to a prestigious international legal commission is all about. And these investigations/prosecutions in Colombia--though the actual judges and prosecutors may be sincere--is just a show. They've been let off the leash to go just so far and no further--enough to make Colombia APPEAR TO BE rehabilitated but without any consequences for the TOP DOG "made" war criminals, just as it goes here, with Bush Jr., Cheney and Rumsfeld. (Note: Current CIA Director Leon Panetta was a member of Daddy Bush's "Iraq Study Group"--an "old CIA" Daddy Bush pal--and, in my opinion, is the architect of this rehab scenario and Uribe's protector, as well as the person in charge of cleaning Junior's bloody trail in Colombia and elsewhere.)

I DON'T KNOW if this author is consciously designing propaganda, or is just a sloppy, unreliable, imitative writer, trying to ape this slick corpo-fascist 'news' style--a style that handles truth as a matter of numbers (how many protestors at Georgetown U.? what the "mainstream" thinks in a country where thousands have been murdered for their political views?); an amoral style which worships power and treats power as the only value. In either case, conscious or unconscious--or semi-conscious--the article rang my alarm bells as to a hidden agenda.

"...this process has reconfirmed the strength of Colombia’s democratic institutions." RE-confirmed???

[pablorojasmejia]

2. @peace patriot

@ Peace Patriot
I do not typically respond to commentary on my columns but, at the end of what has been a long day, I feel compelled to address your criticisms.
To begin, I am not some sort of fascist spy or CIA agent. I am a Colombian student living in the US who has written countless columns over the past few years on Colombia Reports criticizing the Uribe government. I have worked with human rights organizations that have received death threats from paramilitary groups. Many friends and loved ones have died at the hands of death squads in my country, so your kneejerk characterization of my column as pro-government propaganda is way off the mark and frankly offensive.
1. Uribe’s government IS immensely popular. I’m not necessarily happy about that, but if you’ve ever actually been to Colombia you will find that even poor people support the former president. It is a bizarre phenomenon but it has little to do with the silencing of displaced people or something like that. Opinion polls in Colombia do a fairly good job of gauging real public opinion and, unfortunately for our country, people like the former President. It would be silly of me to deny his popularity if the facts suggest otherwise. Colombian democracy is deeply flawed and corrupt, but I doubt that in the absence of these flaws election results, at least for the presidency, would be very different in the short run. This opinion is shared by most Colombian leftists and human rights defenders, including many who have lost their lives fighting for justice and democracy.
2. When I referred to legitimate disagreements about victims’ compensation, I was not referring to disagreements over whether there should be compensation. There are no such disagreements in public debates and, if there were, I could not consider them legitimate. Rather, I was referring to the fact that some left-leaning analysts have criticized the Santos compensation plan on some technical points.
3. The Georgetown group is small. I would love for it to be bigger. I can’t lie for the sake of my own happiness and pretend that they were mass protests. I have lived in D.C. and am friends with many current Georgetown students. I’ve also have some contact with the protesters themselves. I know that the group is small; sorry that you’re not happy about it. It certainly isn’t propaganda.
4. When I called Moreno a “victim” it was in a neutral/sardonic tone. “victim”, in this colloquial sense, does not imply any sympathy with the man. If I said “IBM has been the latest victim of Apple’s recent expansion”, it wouldn’t have anything to do with my sympathy for either company.
5. I appreciate the fact that you’ve read my prior comments about Chavez and the FARC. Chavez is no doubt a nuisance. I think that the fact that you deny Chavez’s flaws is indicative of your broader blindness to the real issues. I’m no Uribe lover, but to say that Chavez played no role in the absurd escalation of border tensions would be to deny the truth. Chavez and Uribe together played a dangerous political game that boosted their popularity at home but nearly drove both countries to war. Again, I would challenge you to find a serious Colombian or Venezuelan observer – including of the left – who feels differently.
6. I do think Colombia’s democratic institutions are fairly strong. Uribe officials are having all sorts of problems that, in other countries, they probably would not have, at least not right away. I am proud that my country is taking some steps –albeit baby steps – to deal with all the Uribe-era wrongdoing.
Look, I understand that you are generally someone who is prone to believe conspiracy theories – George Tenet’s history at Georgetown has absolutely nothing to do with Uribe’s appointment – and I normally let this kind of nonsense go, but it is plainly offensive for someone who has been involved first hand in addressing many of the problems in Colombia and US policy toward Colombia to be called a CIA agent or, if not that, a sloppy writer.
It is very convenient and self-serving to think that you and only you know the truth and everyone else is an agent of some evil conspiracy, but you are simply alienating people who are dealing with tough issues much more honestly, often at their own peril. While you sit at your computer accusing people of links to the CIA, other people are taking serious risks and working much harder than you to deal with these problems.

[EFerrari]

3. It's always good to hear from the American Enterprise Institute!

[Judi Lynn]

4. I've read about Uribe's fantastic popularity with the poor people of Colombia.

Have read in multiple articles the paramilitaries even have gone into the voting centers, even into the booths, to help the people vote for him, in case they needed assistance. So thoughtful.

Here's one article I located quickly:

COLOMBIA
"Mark Him on the Ballot - The One Wearing Glasses"
By Constanza Vieira

BOGOTA, May 8 , 2008 (IPS) - "With Uribe, we thought: this is the guy who is going to change the country," the 41-year-old fisherwoman told IPS.

~snip~
When the rightwing president’s first four-year term came to an end in 2006, most of the villagers decided again to vote for him, reasoning that he just needed more time to reduce poverty.

The odd thing was that in both the 2002 and 2006 elections, despite the fact that the villagers had already decided to vote for Uribe, the far-right paramilitaries, who had committed a number of murders since 1998, when they appeared in the region that was previously dominated by the leftwing guerrillas, pressured the local residents to vote for Uribe anyway.

The paramilitaries did not kill people to pressure the rest to vote for Uribe, as they did in other communities, but merely used "threats," said L.

"If you don't vote for Uribe, you know what the consequences will be," the villagers were told ominously.

And on election day, they breathed down voters’ necks: "This is the candidate you’re going to vote for. You’re going to put your mark by this one. The one wearing glasses," they would say, pointing to Uribe’s photo on the ballot, L. recalled.

More:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42290

[naaman fletcher]

6. You could try going there. nt.

[Zorro]

7. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Thanks for the morning chuckle.

[naaman fletcher]

5. thanks for checking in.

However your mission is hopeless as you see the world in shades of grey. Here everything is black and white. You are either pure evil - Santos, or pure good - Chavez. There is no between, there is no nuance. There is no cultural or tribal understanding or nuance (except that the more tribal you are, the more pure you are). It's just black and white.

[pablorojasmejia]

8. I should've known that ahead of time

Yeah, it was pointless for me to write on here. It's unfortunate that so many people - uninformed on Colombia - are missing the point.

Look, I've spent plenty of times in slums in Medellin, Cali and Bogota with displaced people from virtually every corner of the country. Inexplicably, they all like Uribe. It's easy to link up a few reports and dismiss Uribe's popularity as a lie if you've never been to the country, but to me this stinks of pure paternalism. If you want to help Colombia, go there yourself or at least try to understand it on its own terms.

Poor people often vote against their own interests - even in the absence of intimidation. Here in the U.S., plenty of blue collar voters supported Bush and McCain, but there were no paramilitaries. That phenomenon is a problem in and of itself, but it is pretty silly for you guys to think that Uribe's popularity is some kind of lie that I'm perpetuating. Again, I would encourage you to read ANY serious leftist Colombian analyst on this issue, rather than self-appointing yourself experts. I insist that nobody, not even people that have lost their lives working with peasants, would seroiusly argue that Uribe's approval ratings are lies promoted by the CIA or the AEI.

Of course I recognize the immense gravity of the paramilitary phenomenon. I'm one of the few people who have written on the topic repeatedly in English, at my own risk. For you guys to sit here on this isolated form and criticize the few people actually putting in effort to solve these problems is pathetic. I'll leave the forum for now on as it is not a space for rational debate.

[Bacchus39]

9. sorry you're leaving, but you are correct there is no rational discussion here

our fellow "Democrats" here have a preference for governments with an antagonistic relationship with the US. and believe me, there has been absolutely no change in their opinions from the Bush administration to the Obama administration.

[naaman fletcher]

10. One would think

That a Colombian journalist checking in here would be a great event for this forum for people who cared at all about learning and the exchange of ideas.

[Bacchus39]

11. unfortunately no. he/she was on the "wrong" side of the discussion n/t

s