10.20.2005
Uribe in South America
Andres Oppenheimer writes a pretty fascinating column touching on the perception of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe throughout South America. When considering presidents in Latin America, there exist several pertinent issues: one's relationship to the United States, one's approval at home, and to a smaller extent, one's perception in other regional countries.
Uribe scores very high in the first two categories. He has the highest approval rating of any regional president: over 80 percent. It is considered heresay to speak poorly of him in Colombia, in large part because of what a hard worker he is perceived to be. Colombians truly believe that he lives to resolve the decades-long armed conflict, and Uribe has given the impression (which I believe to be true) that he is a tireless worker - 16 hour days, 7 days a week.
Second, he is the closest ally of Bush in the region. Some Colombians view this as a negative, but with almost $1 billion of foreign aid pouring into the country this year for Plan Colombia, this partnership is crucial. While I believe that Plan Colombia is flawed policy, especially the fumigation, I am not anti-military aid. So despite most Colombians' hatred of Bush (common throughout Latin America), they understand that it is a necessary ally in the resolution of the internal conflict. And it becomes all the more strategic when considering the loose cannon next door.
The interesting part of the article, however, is section on poll numbers reflecting the perception of Uribe in other Latin American countries:
Uribe scores very high in the first two categories. He has the highest approval rating of any regional president: over 80 percent. It is considered heresay to speak poorly of him in Colombia, in large part because of what a hard worker he is perceived to be. Colombians truly believe that he lives to resolve the decades-long armed conflict, and Uribe has given the impression (which I believe to be true) that he is a tireless worker - 16 hour days, 7 days a week.
Second, he is the closest ally of Bush in the region. Some Colombians view this as a negative, but with almost $1 billion of foreign aid pouring into the country this year for Plan Colombia, this partnership is crucial. While I believe that Plan Colombia is flawed policy, especially the fumigation, I am not anti-military aid. So despite most Colombians' hatred of Bush (common throughout Latin America), they understand that it is a necessary ally in the resolution of the internal conflict. And it becomes all the more strategic when considering the loose cannon next door.
The interesting part of the article, however, is section on poll numbers reflecting the perception of Uribe in other Latin American countries:
The poll of government officials, business people, journalists and academics in six countries found that Uribe is seen as a model leader by only 2.4 percent of those questioned in Chile, 1.3 percent in Argentina and 1 percent in both Mexico and Brazil. The winner in most of those countries was Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, followed by Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.I certainly can understand why Lagos would be popular, Lula less so in light of recent shenanigans, but these numbers are remarkably miniscule. Uribe's dramatically low standing in these six countries undoubtedly reflects the movement of similar pragmatic left-wing governments - such as Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay - to move towards a regional bloc to counter US hegemony. Throwing in Chavez's oil wealth, this creates an interesting dichotomy between Colombia's symbiotic relationship with the US and the Southern Cone's similar relationship with Venezuela.
# posted by Juanson : 9:16 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Christian,
Good analysis, but I am curious why you are supportive of US military aid to Colombia.
Under the provisions of Plan Colombia (as I understand it), aid is supposed to be used for anti-narcotics operations -- not anti-insurgency operations. If the Colombian military uses the aid against the insurgency, then the American aid is technically being used illegally. (However, since the FARC, ELN, and AUC all use drug money, you could argue that fighting any insurgents is, in fact, anti-narcotics... in any case, it's supposed to be used strictly in the Drug War.)
Agree with it or not, the evidence is that Plan Colombia has largely failed. Drug production has not stopped. Neither has violence. Furthermore, the aerial fumigation has led drug production to bordering countries, like Venezeula, Peru, Panama, Bolivia, and Brazil.
On a different note, I think that Mexicans and other Latin Americans' love of Lula is mostly due to dislike of the United States. Lula has shown himself to be corrupt, anti-freedom of the press, and ineffective in many ways. While he may have had good intentions, he has not done that much as a president.
Good analysis, but I am curious why you are supportive of US military aid to Colombia.
Under the provisions of Plan Colombia (as I understand it), aid is supposed to be used for anti-narcotics operations -- not anti-insurgency operations. If the Colombian military uses the aid against the insurgency, then the American aid is technically being used illegally. (However, since the FARC, ELN, and AUC all use drug money, you could argue that fighting any insurgents is, in fact, anti-narcotics... in any case, it's supposed to be used strictly in the Drug War.)
Agree with it or not, the evidence is that Plan Colombia has largely failed. Drug production has not stopped. Neither has violence. Furthermore, the aerial fumigation has led drug production to bordering countries, like Venezeula, Peru, Panama, Bolivia, and Brazil.
On a different note, I think that Mexicans and other Latin Americans' love of Lula is mostly due to dislike of the United States. Lula has shown himself to be corrupt, anti-freedom of the press, and ineffective in many ways. While he may have had good intentions, he has not done that much as a president.
Is your argument that military aid is wrong because it is being used incorrectly (in other words, violating the terms of Plan Colombia), or are you against military aid in principle?
The armed conflict in Colombia cannot be won without military force, in my opinion. Negotiations with the FARC failed under Pastrana. Demobilizations are not going very well, but they are a step forward.
I am against fumigation, which I stated in my previous 3 posts. And I believe that Plan Colombia needs to be improved. I don't think the US Embassy is doing a good job in Bogota (the largest embassy in the world, I was there in May).
The armed conflict in Colombia cannot be won without military force, in my opinion. Negotiations with the FARC failed under Pastrana. Demobilizations are not going very well, but they are a step forward.
I am against fumigation, which I stated in my previous 3 posts. And I believe that Plan Colombia needs to be improved. I don't think the US Embassy is doing a good job in Bogota (the largest embassy in the world, I was there in May).
Christian,
I am not making a blanket statement that military aid is wrong. However, I do think that the Colombian military is violating the terms of the agreement if they specifically use the money to run counterinsurgency operations.
The fact of the matter is that Colombia is a poor country and the United States is a rich country with an insatiable appetite for illicit drugs.
Studies have shown that reducing demand through drug treatment programs is far more cost-effective and effective than attacking the supply of the drugs. When Richard Nixon offered treatment to drug addicts in the early 1970s, drug-related crimes dropped significantly.
We should ask ourselves "if treatment has been proven to be more effective than supply-side programs, why attack the supply?" One reason is that US arms manufacturers benefit. The money sent by the US government to the Colombian government MUST be spent on American weapons. The Colombians cannot, say, purchase guns from Sweden and helicopters from Russia. In other words, the money goes from the US government to the Colombian government to the US arms manufacturers. If the US government really cared about drugs, they would invest in treatment programs (far far cheaper and more effective than external military assistance).
One more thing:
What right does the United States have to interfere in Colombia anyway?
The United States produces and exports cigarettes, which kill far more people than cocaine. Does that mean that Colombia has the right to send weapons to the US to destroy tobacco farms in Virginia?
Last thing:
The new US Embassy in Iraq is the biggest in the world, last I checked.
Post a Comment
I am not making a blanket statement that military aid is wrong. However, I do think that the Colombian military is violating the terms of the agreement if they specifically use the money to run counterinsurgency operations.
The fact of the matter is that Colombia is a poor country and the United States is a rich country with an insatiable appetite for illicit drugs.
Studies have shown that reducing demand through drug treatment programs is far more cost-effective and effective than attacking the supply of the drugs. When Richard Nixon offered treatment to drug addicts in the early 1970s, drug-related crimes dropped significantly.
We should ask ourselves "if treatment has been proven to be more effective than supply-side programs, why attack the supply?" One reason is that US arms manufacturers benefit. The money sent by the US government to the Colombian government MUST be spent on American weapons. The Colombians cannot, say, purchase guns from Sweden and helicopters from Russia. In other words, the money goes from the US government to the Colombian government to the US arms manufacturers. If the US government really cared about drugs, they would invest in treatment programs (far far cheaper and more effective than external military assistance).
One more thing:
What right does the United States have to interfere in Colombia anyway?
The United States produces and exports cigarettes, which kill far more people than cocaine. Does that mean that Colombia has the right to send weapons to the US to destroy tobacco farms in Virginia?
Last thing:
The new US Embassy in Iraq is the biggest in the world, last I checked.
<< Home
