Civil War and the Real Price of Freedom

[Panama Jack]

One thing that bothers me when reading many of the messages on this board regarding Latin American history/politics in general is how few people know what has happened in these countries (Chile, Panama, Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala). Added to this is the complete ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding the role the US government has played in manipulating and controlling the outcomes of historical internal conflicts in Latin America.

For instance many Americans can't even begin to understand how over the last 40 years Colombian union workers have not only been fighting for their rights as workers but for their lives. I never hear anyone mention that in the 1980's that the FARC and ELN were asked to lay down their arms and participate in a new Colombian democracy. When they came to meet together with the Colombian leadership to discuss this shared participation, the rebel groups were kindly greeted with slaughter and treachery. Oh yes, much is at stake in this beautiful
country called Colombia. It really strikes me as arrogant when I listen to Americans on this board talk about how Castano, the Colombian Army or even the US should just go in and wipe out the rebels. I will be the first to admit that the methods and avenues used by the FARC to fund their counterinsurgency have highly discredited their cause. On the other hand it would be very important to remember that the very core goal of the Colombian civil war has been to bring Democracy to a country that has experienced a violent and corrupt history (worse than Mexico).

It really makes me laugh how our previous American Presidents (Reagan, Bush and to some degree Clinton) have praised leaders of many Latin American countries on their devotion to "Democracy" when the goals of many of these leaders has been to crush any reforms, movements or organizations that would have helped Latin America to move towards real "Democracy". The fact of the matter is that the Pentagon would rather see Latin America ruled by the Aristocracy with dictators (or juntas if you prefer). Democracy is exactly what the US Military-Industrial complex and the Latin American upper class do not want.

So, my friends. Lets keep one thing in mind when we talk about Latin American history/politics or are enjoying one of the best riches of Latin America (it's women):

That in the in the United States we are able to enjoy an economic/political freedom unlike any country in the world. A freedom that has been paid for with the blood of Patriots who were determined to rid themselves of the tyranny of a colonial empire.

[kevinsnurb]

... in response to Civil War and the Real Price of Freedom, posted by Panama Jack on Jan 18, 2002

(Chile, Panama, Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala). + (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Florida, --&)

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n062/a03.html?2394

"After all, the United States is the principal sponsor of Colombia's military"

[Pete E]

... in response to Civil War and the Real Price of Freedom, posted by Panama Jack on Jan 18, 2002

Yes,the United States has backed some governments that were more dictatorships or run by an elite few.I think we did this out of fear of the alternative,leftist totalitarian governments.I think we felt threatened by this in the past.I think communism is now so thoroughly discredited as an option and we don't need to worry about it much from a security standpoint.The message hasn't yet sunk in with one old marxist in the caribean,but he will never get it,he is still charging windmills from the past.His country will will be much better off when he moves on to that prolitarian utopia in the sky and they can begin to dig themselves out of the wrenching poverty that 40 some years of marxist thinking has brought on.
We don't live in a perfect world,but it is better than it was.Some times we have made the practical choice,even if it was less than democratic.I think it was usually better than the alternative.Other times not.Consider Iran.Jimmy Carter was an niave Idealist and thought we should not be backing a dictator like the Shah.Look what happened after that.They would be way better off with the Shaw.
Now that we have gotten over our obsesive fear of communism maybe we can start to be more concerned with the welfare of the countries than our own security.We should help our Latin american neighbors economically and militarily if needed.
The FARC and the ELN are killing Colombia.They offer no solutions,only problems,they have evolved in to  criminal organizations,taking what they want from the people under their control and taking a cut of the drug money.Some one put the number of the FARC and the ELN at 17,000 the other day.I have heard estimates from there to 80,000.Assuming its no more than 40,000 and the population of Colombia at 40,000,000,thats one tenth of 1% of the people causing great problems for the country.Thats not a civil war,its a group of bandits that the government hasn't got up the guts to deal with yet.They will be way better off when they do.The ultimatum should be do you want to surrender or die,think it over for a day,not open to any more BS negotiation.
Your argument sounds like the old rant against colonialism,which really doesn't even exist anymore.There world has changed but old misguided thinking still persists.Colombia will be much better off working towards a more prosperous and economic society in  a evolutionary
process instead of looking back  to tired old failed leftist policies as a solution.Never has worked anywhere,failed every time,at a great cost in human freedom and suffering.Its time for Latin America to join the 21 st century,They need our help.

Pete

[Panama Jack]

... in response to Re: Civil War and the Real Price of Free..., posted by Pete E on Jan 19, 2002

Pete,
Thanks for your post. Your viewpoints come from experience and I can appreciate someone who does their homework instead of just waving the flag.

With your comments about Fidel in Cuba. I agree that Fidel has chosen a path for Cuba that has highly limitted the personal freedoms of Cuban people. However when one goes to Cuba, the streets are not lined with Burger Kings and McDonalds. Granted our system in the US may be the best in the world for experiencing personal freedom, but at what cost to our society and planet? Another important point to remember when talking about Cuba is that the Cuban Revolution was foundated upon ousting Batista and the Mafia from the island. The aftermath is a Cuban state ruled by a dictator with an economy cutoff from the free world. Most Americans would argue that Cuba would be better off if Castro died and the island was opened to US markets. It's clear that the average Cuban WOULD be better off than now if this happened. But to analyze Cuba from such a limitted perspective misses the point. Cuba (whether right or wrong)represents the last bastion of rebellion to US imperialism in the Western Hemisphere, period.

A deeper and challenging question for all of us as Americans is: Do many of the countries in Latin America have the democratic institutions in place AND the autonomy from US influence to develop out of a 2nd and 3rd world level? My answer is for the most part, NO. Many Latin American countries owe so much money to the World Bank and the IMF that in some countries (Argentina, Brazil) it gobbles up more than 40% of their Gross Domestic Product. You can't get out of poverty with that much debt.

An important point I would like to make in response to your comment regarding how we help out the militaries and governments of Latin America. Yes, we should. But do we want to continue giving loans to dictators and corrupt politicians who have as much vision for their country as an Enron CEO does for its stockholders. It's easy to give a loan to a Latin American dictator (like Somoza in Nicaragua for example) and then when the country defaults on their loan payments 4 years later say, "Gosh, these Latin American governments just can't manage their economies". It seems the US government is more interested in having access to cheap labor, precious metals, timber and oil rather than making sure true Democracy is evolving.

With regards to your comments about how the FARC and the ELN have no support in Colombia. Maybe their support level is down. And granted who would want to say they support an organization that endorses terrorism and the random killing of civilians and government officials. However, if one looks to Nicaragua for example, the Sandanistas are a legitimate political party. If the people of Nicaragua don't like the policies of Daniel Ortega then they don't vote for the Sandanistas. I say let the FARC and ELN have their own political parties. If the people of Colombia don't like what they stand for, then they won't be elected. It seems to me that all sides involved (Colombian govt, military, ELN, FARC, Castano) must be willing to give up something to arrive at a peaceful settlement.

You also seem to be saying that the ELN and FARC are here today because a Colombian Civil War never existed. It's very convenient for the Pentagon to call it a "Drug War" or "Rebel Insurgency" to justify a military solution. If it was really recognized as a Civil War, then the institutional problems (paltry civil rights, lack of political representation, wholesale corruption) that were the cause of the rebellion in the first place would have to be addressed. The United States has no intention of curing the illness and helping Colombia move to a higher Democratic level. It instead prefers treating the symptoms
while pursuing it's own selfish agenda.

You say that my perspectives are an old rant against colonialism. Well, I say the current US policy in Colombia is old wild west (We'll solve it with more guns!)when it comes to settling this conflict.

It seems to me a little more Democracy and a little less power and greed would go a long way to ending the violence. Unfortunately, it appears that power and greed rule. We need to look no further than the evening news to see who runs the show here and abroad. Enron types!  

Pete, I do appreciate your views. I hope you can respect mine.

[Pete E]

... in response to Civil War and the Real Price of Freedom, posted by Panama Jack on Jan 19, 2002

Jack,
I appreciate your attitude,maybe we are not so far apart when it comes right down to it.First let me say I know my arguments don't address the fact that there is great inequity of opportunity in most latin countries.Small groups of people control most of the land and capital,so poor people can get frustrated with their lack of opportuities and be ripe for communist type arguments.I think this sends them down a dead end road that won't resolve the issue of their economic problems even if a communist regime is able to take power.They are much better off with incremental improvements through political,not revolutionary action.As someone said here FARC has almost no political support so they went the revolutionary route.
I think the rest of the world would be supportive of the political action approach,but they have very little international support for their cause now.And,more importantly,they are doing tremendous damage to the country they are trying to reform and hurting their fellow citizens.
Cuba represents the last bastion of rebellion to US imperialism in the Western Hemisphere?I disagree.I think US imperialism in the Western Hemisphere has been dead for a long time.We have replaced it with an approach of trying to foster stability and economic progress in the Americas.Even our old Communist phobic attitudes have changed.None of Latin America is anything like a colony of the United States.We are very interested in stability in the region.I don't think our motives are primarily economic but political.
So I don't think we have economic exploitation of Latin america by the US to any significant extent.Thats a sweeping statement I'm sure many could disagree with on many grounds.Significant is the key word.Also its a different world than it was even a few years ago when we supported the Contras.Its also interesting to see the Sandanistas become a legitame political party.We have done alot of underhanded things in Latin america in the past,and it may have been justified considering the alternatives,but its a different world today.
So I think you see this colonial power trying to dominate other countries for economic benefit of its companies.I think this view is mostly wrong today.Also it troubles me that you make negative references to Burger Kings and McDonalds.Cuba could be so lucky that they had the money for these restaurants to make a profit there.That would be way ahead of what they have now.Also you mention Emron,as if they are symbolic to US greed.Emron is symbolic of bad management and even worse accounting practices.They are going to be the poster boy for lots of reforms.But free enterprise is what makes this country the economic power it is.The freedom to try,and succeed or fail,and if you fail try again.Government run beauracratic monopolies can't even come close to matching the efficiency of this.Take a look at conditions to the north and then to the south of that 90 mile strip of water between Florida and Cuba.No contest.Freedom and prosperity to he north,totalitarianism and poverty to the south.And its not the embargo.Thats just an excuse we should take away from them by getting rid of it,but Florida politics makes this unlikely any time soon.
I love the free enterprise system.I think its working much better than a few years ago when we were more inefficient and hampered by big labor wanting menial jobs to pay the same as professional jobs(or more,engineers passed plumbers only recently,and not all of them)Competition got rid of that.And we had more barriers to free trade.I'm a free trader all the way.I look forward to the day all trade barriers are eliminated everywhere.We should start by giving latin america the same rules we are now giving China.Free trade causes each country to do what they do best and import what they do worst.And the consumer benefits the most from this.I think trade barriers by latin countries hurt their own people and help a few of their richest.Why should a used car you can buy for $500 in the US sell for $5000 in Colombia?Trade barriers.You can ship it for $500.How about a TV I can by for $200 costing $500?
It goes on and on,to the detrement of the people who live there.
But I diverge again.To summarise,political action not terrorism,free enterprise not governrent imneptitude,free trade not monopolies.Freedom not totatitarianism.Get rid of the terrorists and the criminals if you have to shoot every f----g one of them.
Maybe we should get back to talking about women.I already have mine,maybe thats why I can get more in to politics.

Pete

[Panama Jack]

... in response to Free enterprise,not Colonialism, posted by Pete E on Jan 21, 2002

Pete,
Thanks again for the dialogue. Hopefully our posts will at least encourage others on this board who are searching for a lovely latin lady to understand some of the issues that affect people in Latin America on a daily basis. Now to the meat of the matter!

I find your comments honest, yet disturbing when you say that you are not addressing the fact that the rich are becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer. This is not only a Latin American problem. We are experiencing a degradation of the middle-class here in America that will/could have major repurcussions down the road. Back to Latin America though. You are correct when you say a small percentage of the people control most of the land and capital. In Latin America this figure is very disparate where less than 5% of the people (called "Ladinos", who roots are traced to the historical aristocracy) own and control more than 90% of the land and capital. The political institutions and laws of many of these countries are still today very closely tied to the historical colonial system that put them into place over 500 years ago. VERY LITLLE has changed in these countries when it comes to economy and politics.
For example on the topic of Personal Freedoms:
* Free speech is still suppressed in many Latin American countries where governments respond with crackdowns and blatant miltary/paramiltary terror (El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Chile, Argentina) when the general population attempts to voice thier disapproval.
* The right to a fair wage and freedom to negotiate/arbitrate labor agreements is virtually non-existent. Workers who try to organize are almost always fired or receive threats to their lives and families. In Colombia since 1984 over 30,000 union leaders and workers have been murdered! Many more have been threatened. Judges and civic leaders in Colombia who have attempted to implement political labor reform have been exposed to the same treatment. We are not talking about people murdered by the FARC!

Problem Areas in Latin America
On the topic of Government and Economy:
* Political Parties that have ruled for eternity. One needs to look no further than Mexico to realize that it's a small group ruling over the masses. The PRI controlled Mexico for over 70 years until Vicente Fox won the latest presidential election. But as we have seen here in the US, there isn't much difference between Republicans and Democrats, just like in Mexico there is little difference between Vicente Fox's party and the PRI. When you really get down to the nuts and bolts of everyday politics taking a bribe/kickback and representing your constituents is still the modus operandi. These politicians are not representing the interests of the majority of the population.
* Lack of a Tax system that supports infrastructure projects (Schools, Medical Facilties, Roads and Bridges). The tax laws are so loose and disfunctional in Latin America that I've heard people mock others who are actually honest and pays their taxes.  

The reason why people take up arms in Latin America is that there are no political options left for these down-trodden masses. That is why nationalist movements end up becoming armed insurgenies. And because none of the other political parties that represent an alternative to the colonial structures in Latin America (Christian Democrats, Social Moderates) have the motivation nor political critique to address the economic/politiacl structural changes that need to take place, national movements that have any possibilty of removing the chains of the colonial system eventually end up in the camp of Socialist/Communist ideology. It is however futile to continue further discussing this topic if we as educated Americans/Latinos refuse to admit that the current free-market(Neo-Liberal) policies in-place in Latin America only serve to maintain the historical power structures of the colonial system that have never been removed.

Pete, when you say US Imperialism has been dead for a long time, can you let me know at what point in time you feel it ended? What economic/political foreign policies brought about this change from colonialism to free-market nirvana? Surely not Neo-liberalism?

When you say political stability (not economic) in Latin America is the primary motive of the United States aren't you implicitly implying that economic dominance (an imperialist goal) can be obtained through political control? Political stability is definitely not the same goal as political reform, that which Latin America is in dire need of before economic policies will ever make things better. At this moment I will refrain from an analysis of the effects of Neo-liberal policies in Latin America.

I also might comment it is quite unfair of you to compare the economics of Cuba to the US and Canada. To analyze Canada it would be necessary to discuss the 1989 Fair Trade Agreement signed between the US and Canada. On to Cuba. For one thing Cuba has been cut-off from foreign investment (this includes the Castro-sympathetic Socialist countries of Italy, France, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark ) for over 40 years. For example, when these European countries wanted to support Nicaragua during it's Sandanista era the United States threatened them with additional import tariffs. Nicaragua represented an intersting political/economical analysis considering that for 3 years (1981-1984) they balanced their fiscal budget while implementing a huge land reform policy. However, the Sandanista model of Socialism was in danger of becoming a good example for other Latin American countries to follow. It was supported by many in Europe, but Ronald Reagan would not let this dangerous example of Socialism flourish in the Western Hemisphere. For that reason the Reagan administration spent millions of taxpayer dollars to wage a war in Nicaragua, a war that was deemed illegal by US Congress, the United Nations and the European Community. I will however refrain form commenting further on this topic for time constraints.

You are correct that when you say the trades ruled here in America during the 1950's throught the 1970's you are correct. This was a period when America achieved it's industrial apex. Unfortunately, unions had overstepped their boundaries and become beauracracies with even subtle ties to the mafia. The unions were not created to serve the agendas of it's leaders. They were created to bring justice to labor practices and ensure that hard-working individuals were rewarded and shared in the affluence of companies that made millions in profits. When Reagan busted the unions in the 1980's it dealt a major blow to labor policy, but it had to happen considering this country was about to experience a technolgy boom. However, I will admit that even though many workers in the current technology market do receive good pay, the long term security of working for these companies offers no security for the common Joe (See recent Enron scandal). In other words we have arrived at a point in time where workers once again have limmited rights with regards to protecting their hard-earned assets (retirements).

I'd like to comment about about the ridiculous tariffs that Latin American countries charge for the import of luxury items like autos and electronics. Tariffs have traditionally been one of the few ways these underdeveloped countries have had to protect their economies from the uncontrolled influx (because of archaic economic/political laws) of foreign commodities and goods. The US has consistently preached a Neo-liberal foreign policy of knocking down trade barriers (tariffs, government subsidies) in Latin America. However, when one studies the practices of the US regarding it's agricultural policy we find that it's okay for us to subsidize our farmers to support the price of agricultural commodities (corn, soy, wheat), but Latin American countries have been forced (because of overwhelming external depts) to slash their subsidies in the agricultural sector. This is hypocrasy! The result is that the price of corn and wheat for example in Mexico have decreased to the point that poor campesinos can't make a living in the countryside. Results: massive exoduses to metrpolises like Mexico City where the population has balloned to over 25 million! Thousands of Mexicans have left their farms to illegally come to the US because of these destructive and hypocritical economic foreign policies. I will leave a discussion of Mexico, NAFTA and the crisis of the peso for the future. Tariifs and subsides are put in place by countries to protect their people from the uncontrolled influx of commodities and products whose prices can destroy the livliehood and future of it's peoples. We use them too!

When you say that trade barriers hurt the poor and help the rich you may have a point. Because a large portion of this tariff money is being pilfered by corrupt politicians, right? I guess I buy that. However, could you imagine what a large influx of foreign automobiles would have on a country like Colombia or Ecuador? The roads already in dire need of repair and expansion would be all the more congested. Or could you imagine what an uncontrolled influx of electronic goods could do to the existing limmited power generation/distribution networks. Can you say BLACKOUT? That is why Latin America needs to implement a tax system that supports infrastructure. It seems that US foreign policy is only intersted in investing in infrastructure projects (Power, Water/Wastewater, Roads, Dams) when multi-national firms like Bechtel, Shell, Tyco, Enron, and Harza can make millions. Of course the cost of these projects are added on to the existing tab of overwhelming foreign debt payments these countries already owe to the World Bank. To convince these Latin American countries to move forward with these huge projects Latin American political leaders are promised to get cut-in on some of the money (campaign support, media support, promised jobs to cronies who own construction companies, etc.) The result is that Latin America gets a few token infrastructure projects and the political leaders of these countries say YES to the US, IMF and World Bank and NO to any political reform their own country badly needs. In other words the current system of neo-liberalism perpetuates the existing political power structures already in place rather than fomenting change.

Pete, it may not sound like it, but I love my country. I'm proud to say I'm American. I have served my country in the military (4 years)and still support young people who say they are going into the miltitary. I feel blessed to have grown up in a country with such economic prosperity and freedom. My goal is to awaken Americans, to address the issues of our country and world from a foundation of principles and morals. I beleive that many Americans have been numbed by consumerism and media propaganda and cannot think clearly for themselves. I love Latin America too. I have lived in Ecuador and Colombia and invested years of my life working on infrastructure projects with the poor here in the US and in Latin America. Colombia is especially dear in my eyes with its vibrant people, fantastic music, mysterious history and colorful culture.

Pete, my friend, if you are already married to a latina you are probably a lucky man. I still continue my search for that special woman. However, my path in life not only involves the love of things latin, but includes seeing in the future a Latin America where the majority (instead of the minority) of the population can experience the fruits of freedom we sometimes take for granted here in the US.

[pack]

... in response to Civil War and the Real Price of Freedom, posted by Panama Jack on Jan 19, 2002

panama " rant " jack...if america is such a bad place and is such a imperialist country and cuba is so great    why dont you just move there?

[kevinsnurb]

... in response to Re: Civil War and the Real Price of Free..., posted by pack on Jan 20, 2002


A brilliant, thoughtful and original reply!

However I've heard that Castro is cracking down on the flood of illegals (mostly middle aged white men),that is pouring in from Florida.

KS

[TexasRob]

... in response to Civil War and the Real Price of Freedom, posted by Panama Jack on Jan 18, 2002

If you will lay on your back with your feet elevated I believe you might get more oxygen to your brain.  I am not sure this works but in your case it is worth a try.

Hey maybe we will be lucky and Ted Kennedy will be our next president.

[El Diablo]

... in response to Civil War and the Real Price of Freedom, posted by Panama Jack on Jan 18, 2002


Corruption exists everywhere in Colombian society and politics unfortunately. On the right, on the left and everywhere in between. Although it's not up to our standards perhaps, democracy does exist in Colombia and you're being disengenuis to suggest it doesn't. Poloitical parties are allowed to be formed and elections do take place. If the FARC were truly a party of the people, they could win elections and begin influencing policy through the government.

The reality is that they know they can not win elections as they have absolutely ZERO support among the real people of Colombia. So instead of being part of the solution, they play spoiler and resort to terrorism. They don't even have the balls to tarrget the military but rather they resort to bombings and kidnappings of innocent people, the very people they claim to represent. This isn't about creating a new democracy, this about money and power.

I'm truly amazed by your comments!!

El Diablo

[pack]

... in response to Civil War and the Real Price of Freedom, posted by Panama Jack on Jan 18, 2002

oh hi...taliban jack!

[CaliBound]

... in response to Re: Civil War and the Real Price of Free..., posted by pack on Jan 18, 2002

Let's buy "Jihad Jack" a one-way ticket to Afhanistan.  There are plenty of people who dislike the U.S. down there that would welcome him.  Renting a place to live will not be a problem.  There are hundreds of empty caves in Tora Bora.