Samper Enters the Venezuela Fray

The crisis in Venezuela has become increasingly entangled with Colombian politics. While they were presidents, Hugo Chávez and Alvaro Uribe sniped at each other constantly. At a 2010 summit they even almost brawled, with Raúl Castro (of all people) calming things down. After leaving the presidency, Uribe has been on a Twitter rampage, often tying the FARC to the Venezuelan government and blaming Juan Manuel Santos. There is even a birther movement claiming Maduro was born in Colombia! More recently, the Venezuelan government constantly blames violence on the Colombian right.

Now there is a new twist. Former Colombian President Ernesto Samper is blaming the murder of Robert Serra on Colombian paramilitaries. In other words, the accusations usually came from Venezuela, but not they're also coming from a Colombian. As you might guess, the Venezuelan press ate this up. Especially since Samper is the new Secretary-General of UNASUR and therefore has an international platform, this Venezuela-Colombia tangle will get more attention. Uribe has responded to Maduro, but I have not seen him respond to Samper. As it turns out, Samper has poked fun at Uribe for all this tweeting, so now may become the recipient of it.

Making the Colombia Peace Talks Public

Via Adam Isacson, here are all the documents associated with the negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC. One point he makes is how reasonable the proposals seem to be. In the document on drugs, for example, there is careful discussion of rural development, voluntary crop substitution, technical support, protection of the environment, a focus on public health, judicial reform, and the like. It's ambitious, yes, but a tremendous step forward.

In fact, showing that fact is really the main reason they decided to go public with what are obviously very sensitive and fluid proposals. Here's the public statement:

Sin embargo, persisten todo tipo de especulaciones sobre lo acordado. Especulaciones que son producto unas veces del desconocimiento de los comunicados y los informes, y otras de una intención clara de desinformar a la opinión pública.

Quick and dirty translation:

However, all kinds of speculation persist about the agreements. This speculation is sometimes the product of a lack of knowledge about the communications and reports, and sometimes from a clear intention to mislead public opinion.

The point is to counter criticism, especially from Alvaro Uribe. He fired back yesterday, saying the plans somehow were giving in to terrorism and that they were intentionally complex so that they would never be fulfilled. He'll never be satisfied, of course, but now everyone can take their own look and come to their own conclusions. He'll be fighting a more uphill rhetorical battle as a result.

Pacific Alliancing

Michelle Bachelet, Juan Manuel Santos, Enrique Peña Nieto, and Ollanta Humala have a joint op-ed about the Pacific Alliance. Its basic thrust is that the free movement of goods and people will improve welfare.

One interesting point to consider is that both Bachelet and Humala were bashed when they took office for being leftists (remarkably, this was true even just recently for Bachelet). Santos, meanwhile, is center-right but bashed by his predecessor for, among other things, being willing to reach out to the left. So all the easy ideological labels don't work too well.

This is also notable for the "losing Latin America" argument I've periodically tried to counter. A majority of Latin American countries are market-oriented, which has consistently been a U.S. policy goal. Like it or not, it's reality. The Pacific Alliance is a good example of how Latin American countries can actually come together in pursuit of something the U.S. favors but is not directing. That's hardly "losing." It just means that leading is not synonymous with directing.

Accepting the FARC

Ana María Montoya has an analysis at AmeriasBarometer about Colombians' views of the FARC in an electoral context. Their poll was taken in 2013 in areas hard hit by the insurgency.

Executive Summary: The peace negotiations currently underway in Colombia between the Juan Manuel Santos government and the guerilla group known as the FARC are setting the conditions for the eventual electoral participation of FARC ex-combatants, including the opportunity for them to run for office. This Insights report examines the attitudes of Colombians towards the FARC’s formal participation in the country’s political system. In particular, I examine respondents’ reactions to a hypothetical electoral victory by a FARC ex-combatant in the 2015 local elections. While a majority disapprove of such an outcome, I find that those more satisfied with Colombian democracy and those in favor of peace negotiations are more likely to accept the election of a FARC ex-combatant. These findings could offer a path for the eventual acceptance by most Colombians of the FARC as a legitimate political organization in the post-conflict Colombian system.

This may well go in the "we shouldn't be surprised" category, but it highlights how people like Alvaro Uribe who oppose peace talks and political incorporation are not reflecting a consensus--they are hardliners. More importantly, it emphasizes how the opinions of those who live in conflict areas need to be taken into consideration as they are more in favor of accepting an election. They are war weary and deserve a voice.

Colombia Skeptical of FTAs

For all the excitement and claims about free trade agreements, Colombian legislators remain skeptical to the point that they rejected South Korea until the one with the U.S. can be studied more.

Congress of Colombia voted against the free trade agreement, which did not make it past the third debate in the House of Representatives, as it was decided to further study some of the more controversial clauses including one which affected the automobile industry, which would have been one of the hardest hit by the trade agreement, reported El Universal....The FTA was signed by the two countries in February 2013, although the trade pact has been held up in the Colombian Congress three times, and has always faced stiff opposition from different sectors of industry.

The prevailing line in the United States was that the delay in ratifying the free trade agreement was largely the fault of Democrats--the U.S. media rarely reports on the doings of Latin American legislatures. But remember back in 2008 when the Bush administration was insisting that Colombia needed this agreement because it was so awesome and Life As We Know It could not continue without its passage?

Yeah, that was all bogus.

Santos and Obama

Juan Manuel Santos' victory in the second round is not about the United States. But stop for a minute and consider U.S. policy, especially in the context of constant chatter that the Obama administration is ignoring the region and slighting its allies.

In December 2013 President Obama stood with President Santos and praised the FARC negotiations:

I congratulated President Santos on his bold and brave efforts to bring about a lasting and just peace inside of Colombia in his negotiations with the FARC. Obviously, this has been a longstanding conflict within Colombia. It is not easy; there are many challenges ahead. But the fact that he has taken this step I think is right, because it sends a signal to the people of Colombia that it is possible to unleash the enormous potential if we can move beyond this conflict. But obviously, there are going to be some very challenging questions moving forward. I’m pleased to see the President’s strong commitment on that front. The United States is supportive of those efforts.

The Obama administration hitched its horse--wisely in my opinion--to the peace negotiations and so clearly hoped for a Santos victory. Really, really quickly after Santos got over the 50% hump, the State Department issued a congratulatory statement:

We congratulate President Santos on his victory, as well as the Colombian people and electoral officials on a peaceful and orderly election. We look forward to continuing to work with President Santos and his administration to advance our bilateral relationship and to continuing to support the Colombian Government and people as they pursue a negotiated end to the conflict there.

I had argued in a recent op-ed that the Obama administration was engaging a lot with Latin America, but just quietly. This is one example. We got over the militarized Bush-Uribe era and quietly encouraged conflict resolution. It seems the Colombian people chose the same. From the standpoint of U.S. policy toward Latin America, it's refreshing.

FARC Election Ceasefire

The FARC declared a three week ceasefire and criticized Oscar Iván Zuluaga for being a fascist tool (here is the full text in Spanish on the FARC's website). The runoff election is June 15.

The logical questions: who does this help? Or does it even matter?

My immediate thought relates to power politics. The FARC just made a unilateral concession based largely on credible threats from Zuluaga to mpose much stricter conditions on the peace process. That provides a boost to Zuluaga, who (obviously with Alvaro Uribe whispering in his ear) makes the guerrillas nervous. I could imagine conservative voters in particular liking the idea of making them more nervous. On the other hand, the FARC has declared ceasefires before, even around elections, so this is not unprecedented even absent Zuluaga.

Does it matter? When the polls are neck and neck, it definitely could. One important factor is participation--turnout was not high (40% of eligible voters) in the first round so does this bring out conservatives in higher numbers? I have a harder time thinking of why this would increase turnout from centrists.

Ending 50 Years of Conflict in Colombia

I highly recommend Adam Isacson's detailed report on the negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC, Ending 50 Years of Conflict: The Challenges Ahead and the U.S. Role in Colombia. It provides background, context, policy options, and a sense of where everything stands right now.

One of the many important takeaways is how painful a post-conflict scenario will be. The Colombian armed forces, the FARC and the United States have known nothing but civil war for many, many years* and will find it difficult to rethink their roles, which will entail some measure of mutual acceptance, budget cuts, and mission revisions. This has worked elsewhere but it's tough and we cannot take it for granted. Just having talks is only a beginning.

But if the talks fail, then violence continues. Much is made of the FARC's weaknesses, and indeed they're weaker than in the past, but this shows how much violent impact they still have:

If peace talks should fail, it will take many bloody years to defeat the FARC on the battlefield. This chart, from Colombia’s Peace and Reconciliation Foundation, shows the number of FARC “armed actions” in recent years. The guerrillas are weaker than they were a decade ago: most of the more recent “actions,” like sabotage of infrastructure or detonation of landmine fields, are smaller in scale, and occur in more remote areas. But they are still capable of several actions per day all around the country, despite an enormous effort by the security forces. On the battlefield, the conflict is decidedly not in the “home stretch.”

Several attacks a day is nothing to sniff at, especially when it contributes directly to the swelling ranks of the Colombian displaced. Americans take drugs, the FARC makes money from the drugs, and uses the money for weapons and supplies. If the talks fall through, that dynamic remains, and millions of Colombian continues to suffer.

* a very rough demographic estimate is that 85% of the Colombian population is 54 years old or younger. The FARC was founded 50 years ago, and so only a very small fraction of Colombians can remember a time when it was not fighting the government.

The FARC's Version of Sharia

Adam Isacson posts a photo about the FARC's self-proclaimed laws in Putumayo.

A colleague in Colombia sends this sign posted to a wall in Putumayo, Colombia by the FARC’s 32nd Front.
Here’s a translation. (A U.S. dollar equals about 2,000 pesos.)
Punishments and FinesNorms For Living in a Dignified and Honest Community

• Owners of animals that damage others’ crops 500,000 pesos

• For those who fight 500,000 pesos

• For those who gossip 200,000 pesos

• For swindlers 1,000,000 pesos

• For those who sell basuco to users 500,000 pesos

• For those who damage signs 500,000 pesos

• For those who poison streams 200,000 pesos

• For those who don’t clean their plots of land 500,000 pesos

• For those who bring unknown people 2,000,000 pesos

• For those who bring prostitutes 1,000,000 pesos

• For basuco addicts: work or fine valued at 500,000 pesos

• For those who buy or sell lands without consulting the FARC-EP 2,000,000 pesos

• For those who damage stores: it is closed and they pay everything

• For those who don’t close their establishments after 2:00AM 500,000 pesos

• For those who don’t perform community work projects 200,000 pesos

• For whoever mistreats his/her significant other 200,000 pesos

• For those who hunt with dogs or groups of people with shotguns 1,000,000 pesos

• Owners of land can cut trees but cannot sell the wood.

• Do not remove wood from empty lands, fine 500,000 pesos.

• Don’t drive vehicles after 6:00PM. Whoever does so loses the vehicle or pays a fine of 2,000,000 pesos

• For whoever sets up an individual shop 2,000,000 pesos

Sincerely, 32nd Front, Southern Bloc, FARC-EP Welcome

I love the "welcome" part. And by "dignified and honest" they mean "totalitarian and scary."

Old News on Colombian Covert Action

Dana Priest has a lengthy article in the Washington Post about covert action in Colombia. I kept reading and reading, waiting to see something that was not already common knowledge, but then got to the end without finding it.

The U.S. has been helping the Colombian government track the FARC and provide bombs to dismember it, including an attack over the border in Ecuador. That was over five years ago and even at the time everyone knew it was impossible that the Colombian military was spearheading it.

Alvaro Uribe and Juan Manuel Santos are both committed to bombing their own country to defeat the FARC--or force it to the negotiating table--and the U.S. has provided billions since 2000. Legal niceties are unimportant and there is a black budget with tons of secrecy. Sadly, this just confirms what was already conventional wisdom. So what's new here? There are some slick maps, photos of Super Tucanos with teeth painted on them, and a few juicy operational details but little meat.

Perhaps I am just too jaded after reading and writing about this for so long. It is good for people in the U.S. to read this, though unfortunately the tone is so rah-rah that it doesn't encourage a critical response.

U.S.-Latin American Relations Should Be Boring

Boz notes how positive U.S.-Colombian relations are:

After the meeting, Santos told reporters, "The relations of our two countries find themselves at their best moment ever." 

That's an important message that analysts in both countries and across the political spectrum need to hear. It would be a shame if anyone thought the "best moment" in US-Colombia relations was when we had good police cooperation during the Pablo Escobar era or great military training during the implementation of Plan Colombia. The "best moment" should never be defined as the moment at which the most military aid was provided.

This jibes with something that has become like a mantra for me. In U.S.-Latin American relations, boring is good! That deserves some bold. Here is the last time I got cranky about it.

There is a strange yet persistent view that U.S. policy toward Latin America is only positive and successful when accompanied by massive plans and grand strategy. U.S. relations with Colombia right now are "boring" in that regard, and that's good. The same goes with most other countries in the hemisphere. There is a lot going on under the media radar that involves progress, especially in trade, but without the hype.

The FARC On Gay Marriage

I bet you didn't know the FARC has taken on a stance on gay marriage. Their take is that it is an understandable demand, but not revolutionary. The true revolutionary destroys marriage entirely.

As I read I wondered how it was relevant to the peace talks (the website is focused on those talks) and here is the answer.

Promoting an egalitarian transformation of the social structures and changing educational structures, designed to meet emerging community needs, is to rethink the concept family", without linking it to marriage. The marriage contract would then become unnecessary.

For a group supposedly seeking to integrate itself into Colombian society, this doesn't seem a very fruitful argument. "Support the peace talks and together we can make marriage unnecessary because we're all family" doesn't have a good ring to it.

Uribismo

Talk about personalistic politics. Former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has a political movement, the "Uribe Centro Democrático" (here is the official website). He does not bother hiding that he is the personal driving force of this movement, which is driven by, naturally, uribismo.

Oscar Iván Zuluaga just won the candidacy of these Uribes. He immediately said that he would be the "greatest defender of Uribismo." When asked about whether the choice of candidate was actually fair, Uribe wouldn't answer. And btw, like Uribe, Zuluaga is being investigated for his ties to paramilitary groups, which I think means that for Uribe he is the perfect choice.

Photo from this news story

I guess one thing we've learned is that Uribe's complete and total obsession with Hugo Chávez has had the effect of copying him. Long live the eternal Uribe and his pack of Uribes!

Alvaro Uribe on Democracy

Alvaro Uribe testified before the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the U.S. House. The title was "Challenges to Democracy in the Western Hemisphere." It is pretty much what you would expect: ALBA countries are bad, most other countries are pretty good, and Juan Manuel Santos is a jerk for negotiating with the FARC.

One unstated but very clear theme is that "democracy" must involve "good investment climate." That is especially prominent in the brief discussion of Honduras:

In Honduras, the 2010 elections that followed the 2009 exile of President Manuel Zelaya, which resulted in the election of Porfirio Lobo as a Honduras’ new president, have allowed the country to undergo a reconciliation process among political groups and create a more stable investment climate. 

That's a warped view, to say the least, and it is not widely shared. Even conservatives who hate Mel Zelaya are not necessarily fond of Porfirio Lobo. Meanwhile, the Honduran way of attracting foreign investment has been to propose bubble cities that can help foreigners forget they're in Honduras.

The point is, though, that democracy should not have investment climate as part of its definition, though implicitly it often does for policy makers.

FARC Email

It was a bit surprising to check my email yesterday and find an email from the FARC, or at least from the account of its peace delegation. It was a canned email thanking me for my recent blog post on the negotiations (which, incidentally, is not complimentary but I suppose unlike many of my other past posts did not openly condemn the FARC, or the government for that matter, as I've done both) and encouraging me to write more. I can only guess that quite a few people received similar emails. I also can only guess that the NSA is loving me right now (the first thing my wife asked me was whether we'd soon be visited by the FBI).

This is part of an overall strategy of demonstrating moderation. There is no ideological war that has raged for decades, just a difference of agreement about social justice. I don't think the FARC has done anything like it in the past, and at the very least it is an indicator of how serious they're taking the current round of negotiations. How much people buy it is an entirely different story.

Havana, 2 september 2013.

Hello Dr. Gregory Weeks,

We have read your blog http://weeksnotice.blogspot.com/, which has pretty much (and objective) information about Colombia and the peace process. Thank you! We think the peace process and the struggle for social justice in Colombia needs international support badly. We hope that you will continue to support us in the future, not only during the present peace talks in Havana but also in the years to come when hopefully a peace agreement will be ratified and implemented in Colombia. We can offer you the following aids in helping to support us:

· RSS feeds that you can find at http://www.farc-epeace.org/index.php/rss.html. You could use one of those feeds to embed and publish on a special section of your website by use of a widget. And of course you can include our general RSS feed in your personal RSS-reader (i.e. Inoreader) to stay tuned about the peace process.

· We're on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and Google+ as well. Feel free to use those feeds, embeddings and links too on your website. If you do, we'll be more than happy if you link to our website on that spot as well.

· You can republish any article of which we have the copyright and that is published on our website http://www.farc-epeace.org. But please let us know in advance and mention and link to our website in that specific republished article as well.

Thanks for your attention,

Colombia Farmer Strike

Farmers are striking in Bogotá with supporters, in part because of the effects of free trade agreements. Some of the protests are getting violent:

The protests have united potato growers and milk producers with teachers, health workers and students. 

They all converged on Bogota's main square, Plaza de Bolivar, on Thursday to make their grievances heard. 

"Long live the farmers' strike," they chanted, holding up protest banners. 

At Plaza de Bolivar some protesters wearing balaclavas clashed with riot police, who responded with tear gas. 

Businesses closed to prevent looting.

I understand the concern about violence, but President Santos' response (which he linked to on Twitter) seems very hardline.

Anoche ordené la militarización de Bogotá y de cualquier otro municipio o zona donde sea necesaria la presencia de nuestros soldados. Ordené también que se destinen 50 mil hombres de nuestras Fuerzas Militares para que trabajen, junto con la Policía, en garantizar la movilidad en nuestras carreteras", expresó el Mandatario en una alocución por radio y televisión.

Very quick recourse to "militarization" and "soldiers." He also cut off talks and said he would only talk to "real peasants" (verdaderos campesinos). Those who continue to disagree with him are apparently not real.

FARC Talks and Illicit Drugs

You may not be aware that the FARC has an English-language website dedicated to telling its side of the story and publishing info about its talks with the government, currently taking place in Havana. It is a pretty slick site, and it seems they make a concerted effort to come across as moderate (or as moderate as you can be under the circumstances!). It even references it on Twitter at @FARC_EPeace

Today's "Joint Communiqué #22" focuses on illicit drugs, in which the FARC has been deeply involved without admitting it. Anyway, the two sides agreed to the following three points:

1. Illicit crop substitution programs. Integral development plans with participation of the communities in the design, execution and evaluation of the programs of substitution and environmental recovery of the areas affected by illicit crops.

2. Prevention programs of consumption and public health.

3. Solution to the phenomenon of production, consumption of narcotics.

I know that sensitive talks like this must tread lightly and stay vague, but my first impression was that this didn't sound too different from U.S. policy, especially since they don't seem to rule anything out from the "solution" of #3.

Point #1 is interesting because I have never read about much more than spotty and inconsistent success with crop substitution. However, if local populations are involved in the discussion--and not forced to accept certain crops--and the FARC, not to mention right-wing militia, stops harassing people then maybe it can work better. In this case, the FTA with the United States should come in handy.

Oppa Maduro Style

Here is a shift from Hugo Chávez to Nicolás Maduro, and not one that benefits the latter. He is going off on Juan Manuel Santos for meeting with Henrique Capriles. Now, being annoyed is understandable, but Chávez understood that keeping Santos on his side was important. In particular, he understood that Santos was moving away from Alvaro Uribe and so in many ways was more friendly with Chávez. Maduro seems not to care.

"Aquí hay bolivarianos, no se les olvide que somos hijos de Bolívar, de Chávez. No se metan con nosotros. Respeten para que se les respete", agregó el Jefe de Estado venezolano en una jornada del gobierno de calle desde el estado Carabobo. 

El 10 de agosto de 2010 en Santa Marta, Colombia, el presidente Hugo Chávez sostuvo una reunión con su homólogo colombiano, Juan Manuel Santos, donde se establecieron unas reglas, que hasta ayer se habían sido respetadas por ambas partes, relató Maduro, quien precisó que una de ellas había sido la no intromisión de los gobiernos en los asuntos internos de ambas naciones. "Una regla de juego básico para la convivencia y respeto".

I suppose he thinks he can get some short-term domestic boost just as Capriles is talking about the illegitimacy of the audit. He repeats Chávez's name over and over. But Santos is an important ally precisely because he is not a leftist. If Maduro is smart then he has already called Santos and told him to forget all the bluster that he put on for public consumption. If.

I tend to think that Santos met with Capriles as a way to blunt domestic criticism that he was too close to Chávez and is too willing to negotiate with the FARC. Plus, he can try to be friendly to both the Venezuelan government and opposition. As far as I know, he has made no recent statement about the situation, but in April he had congratulated Maduro on the win.

Maduro will be making a huge mistake if he lumps Santos and Uribe together, and from his statement he seems to come very close to doing so.