Wednesday, 04.30.08
A Colombian Vision for Iraq
Photo by RODRIGO BUENDIA/AFP/Getty Images
May the best man win
March 4, 2008
Robert D. Kaplan calls Uribe "the opposite of a demagogue."
The Colombia trade deal
April 9, 2008
Matthew Yglesias argues that the real beneficiaries of the trade deal would be U.S. businesses.
All the debate about Colombian free trade has obscured something important: Colombia is far safer now than it was five years ago. In fact, if Iraq were reclaiming terrorist-controlled areas as effectively as Colombia is, even the most die-hard opponents of the Iraq War would admit error. Colombia is, after Iraq and Afghanistan, our third-biggest nation-building project, and it is by far our most successful.
Colombia demonstrates the value of the indirect approach in our overseas military deployments. Our military role there, started by Bill Clinton and continued by George W. Bush, has been significant: Army Special Forces have trained elite Colombian units, who have in turn engaged the narco-terrorists. When I first visited Colombia in early 2003, the border with Venezuela was a no-go zone. Now new businesses are opening, and the streets are crowded, even at night. Parts of the south and east are experiencing the same success. Indeed, by 2006 I could visit large swathes that were inaccessible before.
Colombia is what Iraq should eventually look like, in our best dreams. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has fought -- and is winning -- a counterinsurgency war even as he has liberalized the economy, strengthened institutions, and improved human rights. Nuri al Maliki and Hamid Karzai could learn from him. The failure of Congress to pass a free-trade pact indicates that the greatest threat to our power is our own domestic dysfunction. What should be the icing on the cake to a successful nation-building program has become an embarrassment.
Fledgling peaceThis Economist profile hails Uribe as "that rarest of beasts: a democratic, pro-American president winning an anti-terrorist war." |
Maybe yes, maybe noSimon Romero interviews Uribe, who demurs on the question of altering the Constitution to gain a third term. |
Carrot, stickThis International Crisis Group report gives credit to Uribe's military success, but recommends a better political strategy for counter-insurgency. |
Bad neighborsJoshua Holland features an interview with Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa, who says Uribe's government is "completely discredited." |
Of drugs and bloodFor background on the Colombian insurgency, read this lengthy account of the 38-year war up until Uribe's presidency. |
(15)
Right on target, Mr. Kaplan. The fact of the matter is that most Colombian goods enter the U.S. tariff-free as it now stands. The CFTA would simply allow American goods to enter Colombia tariff-free. What exactly is the problem with that? All it would do is HELP American businesses!
The Democrats are sacrificing free trade at the Moloch of isolationism. Clinton understood the need for free trade while Obama and Clinton II speak in closed minded voices about cutting off free trade. Look at happened when the US passed Smooth-Hawley Act in 1930, the economy went to pieces because free trade dropped off precipitously. Colombia deserves free trade status. They've done everything in their power to curb narcoterrorism but instead of rewarding them we insist on punishing them by refusing them free trade status. It's pathetic that the economy is sacrificed for political reasons yet again.
BR Leed...
Last time we had a surplus (1991), we were in a recession. In fact, recessions are a great way to bring down the trade deficit, and similarly restricting imports (I assume that is what you're alluding to) is a great way to start a recession.
But your statement is completely disconnected from any actual policy options. Saying that we'd be growing more if we didn't subtract the trade deficit is a lot like saying we'd be growing more if we didn't have inflation. Sure, it is theoretically true on some level, but any way to achieve zero-trade-deficit and zero-inflation is going to slow down the economy in another way. And really, if you want to reduce the trade deficit, you should support CFTA. As Larry said, all it does is open Colombia to American exports...
CFTA is more helpful to the US than to Colombia but would dramatically help Uribe polically. Nancy Pelosi's congress- which enjoys a 22% approval rating- has the gall to criticize President Uribe's methods and policies and stall CFTA's passage. Mr. Uribe- who enjoys an 83% approval rating-has cleaned up the cities and has started into many countryside enclaves. Many of my Colombian friends believe that if Hugo Chavez would keep his claws and money out of FARC, the current government would more quickly be gaining ground. Pelosi's arrogance has to be driven by her union connections and their unfounded fears. Colombia deserves full free trade status as our strongest ally in SA.
Greg: I would add Rafael Correa, Ecuador's president, to the list of FARC supporters. Some emails decrypted by Interpol and the Colombian authorities extracted from Raul Reyes' laptop, who used to be -he was killed on March 1st on Ecuador's territory after Colombian army attacked him with the help of USA (thanks for that)- second in FARC's command show direct links between his Interior Minister and other Correa's close friends. Just recently Correa announced that he would give belligerence status to FARC if they would stop kidnappings... In other words, continue the killings, drug trafficking, etc, just no more kidnappings. Not to mention the fact that Colombian authorities, previously to the attack on Ecuador's territory, alerted Ecuadorian counterparts of the presence of FARC camps on their territory more than 18 times and they did absolutely nothing.
Going back to the point of this article, the CFTA makes a lot of sense for both countries and more so to the US at this point in time. However, I must say that more worrisome than CFTA not being passed in US Congress, is the fact that Mr. Obama has announced that he would slash Plan Colombia's funding significantly, which means no more or reduced cooperation in things that have been crucial to Colombia's success in its war against FARC, such as intelligence information and technology. I seriously don't think the US can do any bigger mistake if Mr. Obama's announcements become reality. The US will lost it's only ally in the region while Chavez keeps adding more and more friends to his list. He already has 6 presidents on his pocket; or rather, 6 presidents already got a hold of Chavez's pocket: Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Cuba.
This is happening after a century of civil war and once the thugs are in power. Ever heard of how once a friend of the mafia, JFK, came to power the problem just seemed to fade away, same thing in worse with Uribe who created parmilitary groups in Medellin when he was governor and has close ties with most paramilitaries who have supported most of the senators in congress who just so happen to support Uribe. So I don't see what this has to do with Irak, we could look into it again in a 100 years as Mc Cain wishes.
Uribe was studying at Oxford when the Colombian Congress approved "Las Convivir" under Ernesto Samper Pizano's presidency, the president that received money from Cali's cartel and consequently, the worst president in Colombian history. It was "Las Convivir" who gave birth to paramilitary groups. It appears to me that you are being mislead. It's easy to corroborate this by accessing the Colombian Congress archives or just reading a Colombian news paper from that time.
In fact, it was Uribe who dismantled paramilitary groups in Colombia. All of this thugs are in prison and some -at least one- will be extradited to the United States after violating agreements made during the peace talk negotiations. Just yesterday one of the most -perhaps the most- prominent drug trafficker was killed by the Colombian police. He was the commander of a paramilitary group that was excluded from the peace talks.
It is true; however, that Uribe did support Las Convivir when THEY WERE LEGAL, APPROVED by CONGRESS and REGULATED by authorities (Police). What you are saying is like saying that the US Congress today approved a law banning guns and as a result should impeach Bush for having violated this -new- law when he was Texas governor.
Also, keep in mind that the Supreme Court in Colombia is greatly influenced by their ideology -far leftist for the most part and very sympathetic with FARC-, to the point that one of their members offered some benefits, both economic and judicial, to an ex-paramilitary guy aliased Tasmania if he agreed to incriminate Uribe. There's still an investigation going on on this regard. I could go on and on. My advise is that you should get your info from different sources and don't stick just with what you read in indymedia.
Also keep in mind that if there was any prove, the slightest, that Uribe promoted any illegal armed groups, he would have been under investigation years ago. There's plenty opposition both, in the region (think of Chavez,Correa) and inside Colombia that would have capitalize something like this.
Thanks to president Uribe's leadership and the US Colombia is finally on its way to get rid of terrorists and violence.
The right approach to deal with the FARC terrorists and its supporters like Chavez and Correa is not to surrender to their demands and to be firm.
The US Congress should be ashamed that it has delayed the passing of the free-trade agreement with Colombia and should correct this situation.
Sorry to break up the lovefest for President Uribe, but Colombia is not safe for those who democratically oppose the government or stand up for workers.
Hundreds of trade unionists have been murdered in Uribe's regime, Thousands imprisoned and tortured with very few arrested and barely any brought to trial. It is regarded as the most dangerous place on earth to be a trade unionist.
In a democratic society we take it for granted that we can speak against the government, vote against the government, protest against the government without being fearful of being killed for our beliefs. That is not the case in Colombia and so no western democracy should have free trade with that country.
Colombians have been told for 50 years that they live in one of the world's great democracies. If you hear it enough and have nothing to compare your own experience to, you believe what you're told. Despite Uribe's success so far with FARC, my Colombian friends consider him a fascist. DM Andy is right.
Indeed, citizens of the USA have been told for years that they live in one of the world's great democracies. A glance at twentieth-century history, however, plainly shows that no country has been more consistently hostile to democracy than the USA.
This article is a puff piece for the politically illiterate, and a fine example of why I let my subscription to The Atlantic expire.
'Uribe has ... improved human rights.' In precisely the same manner as has George Walker Bush, even if on a lesser scale. Perhaps Mr Kaplan could be convinced - for a suitable sum, of course - to produce a (hopefully) brief hagiography of the latter personage as well - one which the Atlantic, no doubt, would be most pleased to publish ?...
Most who have responded reacted to the remarks about Colombia, not about the comparison of the situation in Colombia and Iraq. That comparison is poorly chosen. Certainly the US aid from Plan Colombia contributed to Colombia’s great strides in security and transparency since Uribe was elected in 2002, but this progress more despite of than because of the conditions put on that aid.
The US attitude was "make our drug problem go away, and if you can also deal with your illegal armed insurgents, so be it." The Colombian attitude was "control the guerrillas and the paramilitaries, and the drug problem will be greatly diminished." The US mandated aerial application of glyphosate (aka Roundup). That caused collateral damage in peasant subsistence crops, the battle for hearts and minds in the Colombian countryside, and it gave talking points to hostile neighboring regimes. Uribe, in contrast, emphasized sending in troops to eradicate coca plant by plant, and at great danger to themselves.
The great difference between Colombia and Iraq, which this article obscures, is that Colombian who agree on nothing else agree that they are Colombians and that Gabo is great, vallenato is great, aguardiente is great, and Colombia is great. The one good outcome of the fiasco of Pastrana’s well-intentioned negotiation with the FARC is that the guerillas were shown for what they are—war lords, not principled revolutionaries or “belligerents”. As of January 2008, FARC enjoyed the support of 2% of the Colombian populace. US aid worked and the US Special Forces could be effective because Colombia was ready to change.
In contrast to Colombia, one gets no sense of shared national identity in Iraq. The US is left in a position of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If we leave now, Iran probably becomes a more powerful and aggressive regional force than it currently is. If we stay, we’ll probably be making annual payments in blood and treasure for decades to come while waiting for Iraq’s “post-Pastrana” moment.
Dear Mr. neo-con Kaplan. No one should trust this administration enough to pass ANY measures labeled as helpful to security or useful in foreign policy. That's the penalty for lies -- no one believes you any more.
The comparisons between Columbia and Iraq are specious. If we Americans hope to correctly interpret the world, we're going to have to replace national templates and intellectual cookie-cutter comparisons with real understanding of different nations and cultures.
Actually, de-criminalizing narcotics would crush the drug cartels financially without much loss of life or expenditure of US money. But it would deprive our government of a way to make hundreds of thousands of blacks ineligible to vote as felons and cut off a rich source of payoffs from the drug dealers. Frankly, I'm mush more convinced of US corruption and voter suppression than I ever will be of ANY trade deals proffered by the criminal - as in war crimes - and corrupt administration.
Anyone can admire Columbia's progress without being duped to accepting the CFT agreement.
The connection between trade and foreign policy of any kind is at best accidental.The most passioned advocates of trade always separated macro-politics from trade, until the last 30 years.
Just do the math. GDP growth is 0.6% in Q1 of 2008. Trade Defictit is 5.6% of GDP. Remember that trade deficits subtract from overall GDP growth. So without the trade deficit we have an economy growing at 6.2%.
Posted by B R Leed | April 30, 2008 1:42 PM