|
it also doesnt help that 50 years down the line, you find out that american intelligence really did stick their hands in everything despite official protests and it’s hard/foolish not to extrapolate that to the present day, and by the very nature of how this stuff works you won’t have hard evidence of clandestine fuckery until well after the fact. all we can do is analyze these situations informed by historical context, and the history is unambiguously colored by spook interference
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
wielder posted:It is darkly hilarious when you see people on both the right and the left downplaying protests and blaming international parties for civil unrest, rather than acknowledging local tensions and concerns. wielder posted:It's pretty clear that this began as a legitimate protest movement but has transitioned to a coup. Doctor Jeep posted:lol shut the gently caress up bootlicker
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
@uninterrupted What's your point? Evo Morales can be the victim of a coup by a bunch of right wing zealots, which I acknowledge, and that doesn't mean he was inherently above criticism beforehand. Even Lula, who was recently released, basically said that Evo made a mistake in running for yet another term. That doesn't mean the coup was right. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/22/exclusive-bolsonaro-is-turning-back-the-clock-on-brazil-says-lula-da-silva THS posted:it also doesnt help that 50 years down the line, you find out that american intelligence really did stick their hands in everything despite official protests and it’s hard/foolish not to extrapolate that to the present day, and by the very nature of how this stuff works you won’t have hard evidence of clandestine fuckery until well after the fact. all we can do is analyze these situations informed by historical context, and the history is unambiguously colored by spook interference The US has participated in supporting military coups in Latin America and elsewhere. That's a fact of history and people are right to bring attention to it. What I do find problematic is the suggestion, whether spoken out loud or not, that foreign intervention is the only or even the most important factor in every situation. Especially when it's used to shut down criticism of a ruling government. wielder fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Dec 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
my read is basically that when morales lost a referendum on term limits, he should've respected that rather than seeking judicial review. he did seek judicial review, however, and won - and in this case there's no reasonable objection to him running. still, taking it to the court after losing a referendum is unfortunate behaviour. morales' judgement here was very likely that he was the guy who could actually win the election, with the right relatively emboldened and his personal brand so strong. this might've been true; regardless, it's a very flimsy pretext for a coup.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Defending the repression of any and all protesters worldwide to own... who, again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
I will post in here so I can follow up with the thoughts of people on Mexico President. I am really interested in knowing how other people see it that are not pro AMLO.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:my read is basically that when morales lost a referendum on term limits, he should've respected that rather than seeking judicial review. he did seek judicial review, however, and won - and in this case there's no reasonable objection to him running. still, taking it to the court after losing a referendum is unfortunate behaviour. I agree, although I do find the specific judicial argument to be debatable (it was based on a particularly novel reading of a 1969 treaty that, as far as I can tell, was not interpreted in the same manner throughout the region, at least not until this case). Nothing justified a coup, either way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
a coup is never a purely external thing, one always needs fairly strong local support or it'll just fail. in the case of bolivia, it looks like the local right wing knew that there was a chance and kicked off the protests using whatever grievances they had to mobilise a fair amount of guys - much like the yellow unions that were loving with allende, there's no particular reason to believe that these groups are not sincere, but the leadership and probably some level of funding will have strong connections to the CIA or whoever are doing coups for the yankees these days
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
the wider point is that these kinds of tragedies would happen far less if there wasn’t constant US government meddling through various state department funded NGOs, “pro-democracy” groups, outright bribes, and covert ops. opposition from domestic capitalists and their allies can only go so far, and in the case of Bolivia i do not think they would have succeeded in a coup on their own the discussion about term limits is extremely boring and ignores the most relevant issue: the necessity of destroying the United States and its secret police and espionage services
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
wielder posted:I agree, although I do find the specific judicial argument to be debatable (it was based on a particularly novel reading of a 1969 treaty that, as far as I can tell, was not interpreted in the same manner throughout the region, at least not until this case). Nothing justified a coup, either way. in matters of the bolivian constitution, i defer to the bolivian supreme court. i do think elected judges is a bad institution, but i also think that about presidential systems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
MikeStmria posted:I will post in here so I can follow up with the thoughts of people on Mexico President. I am really interested in knowing how other people see it that are not pro AMLO. I talked to a mexican immigrant living in California on a plane fight and she was mad that AMLO had shut down the oil lines and hadn't expanded refineries in Mexico. The people who oppose AMLO don't know what the gently caress they are talking about half the time. It's all about "Castrochavismo" and "We'll become just like Venezuela." AMLO is notably very weak and very bad when it comes to combatting drug cartels but there's not really a great path forward there. If you look to Colombia as an example of a situation, you can scale up violence, kill the drug lords, and inevitably change the way drug cartels do business forcing them underground and "officialize" them by rolling their very complex net of import/export, real estate, and food and drug businesses into the local economy and turning a blind eye, bringing down innercity violence, but you'll never get rid of them permanently in the countryside without militarization and massive investment. Also considering how badly Trump has gutted the state department I really doubt how much meddling they are able to do now days. I don't really see any specific US involvement in the Bolivia coup. They may have funded say, the paying off of some military figures, but I have a feeling the rich in Bolivia would have been able to obtain that money if it came to it with how protests were going at that point in time. The Colombian ambassador to the US was caught on open mic bitching in Washington DC about how nobody at the state department takes them seriously anything or knows what they are doing and that he regularly has to make poo poo up about Venezuela to get attention from Trump and Co but half of the time he doesn't give a gently caress anyways. There are moles up and down the department at this rate anyways and if there is someone moving against one of Putin's allies from within the department they probably already know about it. The goal here is chaos. The Bolivia situation fits perfectly into that. ThanosWasRight fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Dec 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
MikeStmria posted:I will post in here so I can follow up with the thoughts of people on Mexico President. I am really interested in knowing how other people see it that are not pro AMLO. Perdón pero no entiendo lo que quieres decir. No hay nigún mal sí te queda más fácil escribir en castellano.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
I think Evo's actions make sense when you look at Brazil in 2014 and Uruguay this year. Democracy is cool and all, but it's definitely stacked against leftist candidates. You have to be a bigger-than-life figure to get elected and bigger-than-life figures aren't dime a dozen. Lula had Dilma, who was a pretty drat good option on paper - a bureaucrat, a woman, a revolutionary, the only thing she didn't have was prior executive experience - but Dilma didn't have the charisma or the personality of Lula, so she was weaker...and she was ousted. Uruguay had Mujica and the other FA leaders, and they had a pretty nice run with four mandates, but their attempt to get reelected with a "new face" failed (by a slim margin, sure, but failed nonetheless). Uruguay is interesting because the right won by such a small margin and liberals were celebrating "fair play" and acceptance of democratical results, and all that jazz. I'm 99% sure that wouldn't have happened if the 51/49 split went the other way - mostly because Brazil illustrated what happens when the left holds on to power by the skin of their teeth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
wielder posted:@uninterrupted The point is you support all the current fascist coups the US has caused, and for some reason have no problems with the fasc gunning down innocents but think you understand Bolivian law better than the Bolivian Supreme Court, and think Lulas opinion on Bolivia’s political process matters more than the Bolivian Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Latin American Megathread - December 2019 - Cerrá el orto chupamedias
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
ThanosWasRight posted:I talked to a mexican immigrant living in California on a plane fight and she was mad that AMLO had shut down the oil lines and hadn't expanded refineries in Mexico. Take this with a grain of salt since I am totally opposed to AMLO. For context. I'm mexican, living in mexico. He has the right ideas, he just don't has the knowledge or ability to make them happen. He wants more refineries, but the issue is the budget and that he wants it done in 3 years. Heard the other day in the radio that some of the people he made contact with, which are some of the best in the world. Told him he needed double budget and sooner will be ready in 8 years. The shutting down of the oil ducts, was just a complete stupidity that he didn't tought for more time than a goon thinks before posting. The drug issue is something like super complex as you said. There is no real way to eliminate them now days. Probably the best is just to legalize and tax them. But then again, its something super complex, and me not being expert have ot much ideas on how to deal with this. I don't believe he will ever accept US help to fight cartels even if he wanted. That will gently caress his view of the all mighty that he thinks he is. Mexico is currently highly divided by AMLO supporters and anti AMLO. So getting a neutral stance is hard. When I found this, I figured this could be the best place to find a neutral stance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
MikeStmria posted:I don't believe he will ever accept US help to fight cartels even if he wanted. That will gently caress his view of the all mighty that he thinks he is. or maybe it's because almost everything the US touches turns to poo poo or another scenario - there's a popular left-wing president in mexico, do you think the US is gonna help him deal with the cartels or are they gonna do what they can to increase the tension there to get him ousted?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
Doctor Jeep posted:or maybe it's because almost everything the US touches turns to poo poo I think the people in the state department that made those kind of judgement calls are long gone. The ones determining foreign policy based upon political positions of presidents are people who don't know south American and Latin American politics real well. AMLO was really smart to suck up to Trump repeatedly because Trump and the state department have stayed mostly silent about him and his leftyness. They probably don't know the difference between him and the last president. That's what happen when you fire all the state department staff. Also there is no one left in the upper branches of government that can stop a foreign threat to the us in any way or form now. We've seen this in Syria where one decision brought ISIS back to life and nobody was able to do anything. If there was a cuba missile crisis today nobody over there would even know the name of the current head of the Cuban military. The US has zero protection right now against any kind of foreign threat. They can not tell Osama Bin Laden from anyone else. ThanosWasRight fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Dec 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:The point is you support all the current fascist coups the US has caused, and for some reason have no problems with the fasc gunning down innocents but think you understand Bolivian law better than the Bolivian Supreme Court, and think Lulas opinion on Bolivia’s political process matters more than the Bolivian Supreme Court. This is nonsense and extremely disingenuous. You lack reading comprehension, to put it lightly, because I am neither supporting the coup nor doing what you are describing. Unless you're arguing that saying something critical about Morales getting to run again equals being on the side of the coup. Which isn't true. The fascists behind the Bolivian coup can go to hell. Gunning down innocents is criminal and immoral. Is that clear enough for you? By the way, it's not an argument about a uniquely Bolivian law. It's about the American Convention on Human Rights, which was an international treaty signed by multiple nations. The Bolivian court said that treaty should be applied in a preferential manner (that is, above the prohibition from the referendum) and thus allowed Evo Morales to run...which isn't how the actual meaning of the treaty has been typically understood elsewhere (apparently only 4 out of over 20 countries have adopted this sort of reinterpretation). quote:A su turno, el Ministro de Justicia en relación a la Sentencia Constitucional 0084/2017, señaló que la misma cumple plenamente la Constitución boliviana, y que “se desarrolla el derecho interno boliviano, sino que cumple y desarrolla el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, aplicando de manera preferente la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, Pacto de San José de Costa Rica, a todos los derechos en general y a los derechos políticos en particular”. http://www.cancilleria.gob.bo/webmre/noticia/2963 wielder fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Dec 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
in the context of the bolivian constitution, the bolivian supreme court is qualified to make that call. one can disagree with it, but there seems to have been no impropriety in how the decision was made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:34
|
|
|
honestly, if going to the court had been morales' first strategy for removing term limits my only real criticism of his conduct would be void. party political courts are bad, but when that's the constitution it will happen. following the constitution is a good thing, and in a sovereign country interpreting constitutional law is the remit of the supreme court. there simply are no two ways about this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:No, I objected to the suggestion that everyone right of center should be put in forced labor camps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:in the context of the bolivian constitution, the bolivian supreme court is qualified to make that call. one can disagree with it, but there seems to have been no impropriety in how the decision was made. They certainly can make that call, legally speaking, but people can criticize them for it. Just like a lot of folks in the U.S. disagree with numerous high court rulings, including the Citizens United decision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
wielder posted:They certainly can make that call, legally speaking, but people can criticize them for it. I'm sure you would have been just as sanguine if right wingers couped the government after Roe v. Wade because they "disagreed" with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:49
|
|
|
wielder posted:They certainly can make that call, legally speaking, but people can criticize them for it. “Why would you say I support the coup?!” ~begrudgingly condemns the literal fasc, repeats their arguments that stopping the unofficial count around 80% was weird (it wasn’t, it’s happened for every other presidential election) and complains that morales ran, an argument which, in it’s entirety, is ‘whitey doesn’t like bolivian law’~ If your complaints about Morales are that he wasn’t decorum-y enough, and not that he didn’t have the same right wing lunatics gunning down innocents right now in labor camps or ideally shot in their sleep, you support the coup. Full stop. Hell, let’s try it this way: what Aaron Sorkin bullshit do you think Morales should have done to keep Camacho from deciding indigenous infidels didn’t deserve death?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:58
|
|
|
wielder posted:They certainly can make that call, legally speaking, but people can criticize them for it. certainly it's odd but it is still entirely proper per the constitutional mandate of the supreme court. one may expect a democratic leader to adhere to the law of the land, whatever that is, and use it to the fullest extent deemed legitimate. morales' error was political, not legal, and certainly in the context of an armed seizure of power it seems a little petty to quibble about the peculiarities of some judgements from an institution entitled and empowered to make exactly such judgements
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
like, one can disagree with citizens united, but while it's in place you use the leeway it affords because anything else would be stupid as poo poo. the proper way to object to an objectionable verdict would be to replace the supreme court justices using the channels made for such replacements or to renegotiate the treaty in question. that is legitimate; however, trying to get laws challenged and overturned in supreme court is *also* legitimate. whether the bolivian constitution is a good constitution isn't that important so long as it's followed, which it absolutely was in this case. it makes no sense to start complaining about it, though i will reiterate that i think morales should've dropped the issue after he lost the referendum. that's bad politics though, not any sort of illegality on his part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:“Why would you say I support the coup?!” I've already condemned it, but fine...the coup is an act against democracy and the people of Bolivia. Or do you need me to scream that from the rooftops? Have you directly verified that bit of previous electoral history for yourself? If you're so confident and demanding, I really hope you've done all the work. Multiple countries signed the same drat treaty. Most of them aren't reading it in the same manner. You don't need to be Bolivian to have an opinion. I initially thought stopping the quick count was weird simply because there are other elections around the world where even that type of count isn't usually interrupted . And other situations were interrupting a count can lead to fraud. I'm allowed to find that odd on a purely human level. This doesn't automatically mean that something was unequivocally wrong in the Bolivian case. Either way, I realize the people who were planning the coup didn't really care about any of that and were just looking for an excuse. quote:If your complaints about Morales are that he wasn’t decorum-y enough, and not that he didn’t have the same right wing lunatics gunning down innocents right now in labor camps or ideally shot in their sleep, you support the coup. Full stop. This is such a straw man, but I am not sure you're open to reading anything that's not exactly what you want to see. quote:Hell, let’s try it this way: what Aaron Sorkin bullshit do you think Morales should have done to keep Camacho from deciding indigenous infidels didn’t deserve death? Given that you're the expert, I'd rather hear your answer to that rhetorical question. CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:I'm sure you would have been just as sanguine if right wingers couped the government after Roe v. Wade because they "disagreed" with it. Depends. There's a rather large line between disagreement, even vocal or insulting in nature, and carrying out a coup. You know that. I fully support abortion rights, as a matter of fact, but not everyone who is currently against them would be in favor of such a coup. V. Illych L. posted:certainly it's odd but it is still entirely proper per the constitutional mandate of the supreme court. one may expect a democratic leader to adhere to the law of the land, whatever that is, and use it to the fullest extent deemed legitimate. morales' error was political, not legal, and certainly in the context of an armed seizure of power it seems a little petty to quibble about the peculiarities of some judgements from an institution entitled and empowered to make exactly such judgements I am not disagreeing. I wasn't even talking about this until someone tried (and failed) to play "gotcha!" by bringing up an older post. wielder fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Dec 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
Please coup!! quote:A survey by Meganálisis released Wednesday found that just 10 percent of those surveyed still “believe, trust and support” Guaidó — the man who Washington and 50 other nations consider the country’s legitimate president. When asked about Maduro, who has been in power since 2013, the survey found that 9 percent said they still support him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
wielder posted:Multiple countries signed the same drat treaty. Most of them aren't reading it in the same manner. You don't need to be Bolivian to have an opinion. Just spitballing here, but maybe that's because other countries don't have Article 13.IV of the Bolivian Constitution governing their judicial system. Article 13.IV posted:. International treaties and conventions ratified by the Pluri-National Legislative
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
wielder posted:I've already condemned it, but fine...the coup is an act against democracy and the people of Bolivia. Or do you need me to scream that from the rooftops?  Maybe you should do the tiniest bit of research and not blindly believe WaPo when they say “but come on, the jews were getting real uppity”
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
wielder posted:Evo Morales can be the victim of a coup by a bunch of right wing zealots, which I acknowledge, and that doesn't mean he was inherently above criticism beforehand. It's no longer relevant or meaningful to criticize Evo's mistakes after he's been ousted by a coup. It's tantamount to saying "he was no angel" of some teenager murdered by the US police, or "what was she thinking, wearing that outfit in this part of the town" of a rape victim.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 11:01
|
|
|
MikeStmria posted:Take this with a grain of salt since I am totally opposed to AMLO. For context. I'm mexican, living in mexico. There's a strange contradiction in being for AMLO's ideas but at the same time totally opposed to him (and presumably, his government). Did you prefer some other candidate? Maybe someone from a party that hasn't been running things into the ground over the last couple of decades. For what it's worth, projections on big projects like oil refineries are almost always optimistic everywhere in the world, especially when they're filtered through non-experts like politicians. The point is that the political will to improve things exists at all, and by itself imo that's a loving miracle. Like I would've preferred clean energy investments (like nuclear; Laguna Verde proves Mexico can do it as well as anyone) -- but I'll settle for anything that directly improves the lives of poor and middle-class Mexicans. What's been so infuriating is that the resources are there, it's a rich country, but it's mostly been siphoned off by narcos and the 0.1% (with... some overlap). quote:The drug issue is something like super complex as you said. There is no real way to eliminate them now days. Probably the best is just to legalize and tax them. But then again, its something super complex, and me not being expert have ot much ideas on how to deal with this. Yeah, it's had time to become really deep-rooted. It's not just about drugs, but about the cartels and how they've infiltrated both the private and public sectors with corruption and lawlessness. It poisons everything and I loving hate it. Anyway, last time I checked, legalization was on AMLO's agenda. quote:I don't believe he will ever accept US help to fight cartels even if he wanted. That will gently caress his view of the all mighty that he thinks he is. For better or for worse, he's already compromised plenty with the US, on immigration and trade for instance. And I'm sure the kind of cross-border police cooperation that led to the extradition of El Chapo is still ongoing. A lot of this stuff happens way below presidential/cabinet level. But yeah, he'd probably say no to US soldiers, and rightly so because it'd be a total shitshow. quote:Mexico is currently highly divided by AMLO supporters and anti AMLO. So getting a neutral stance is hard. When I found this, I figured this could be the best place to find a neutral stance. You've come to the right place friend, *radio announcer voice* doble-u doble-u doble-u something awful punto com, famed for its neutrality in Latin American matters. We are neutral here. Welcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 12:31
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It's no longer relevant or meaningful to criticize Evo's mistakes after he's been ousted by a coup. I find this hypocritical because people on this site do this all the time. Especially when it comes to the death of famous political figures like John McCain. Which is fine and good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Hey the Washington Post published an analysis of the current situation in Colombia , written by two actual Colombian polisci professors! https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/05/colombia-is-having-its-largest-wave-protests-recent-decades-why/ Pretty good takes in there, and a good primer for anyone who's a bit curious about what's going down in Colombia right now and the recent events in its history that led up to the protests (hint: it's neoliberalism implemented by incompetents) I've never actually heard of The Monkey Cage, which is where this article was posted, but apparently its purpose is to give a platform to academics on the ground to explain to the Anglophone world what's going on in different regions. Pretty cool, too bad WaPo's actual reporting blows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 16:05
|
|
|
ThanosWasRight posted:I find this hypocritical because people on this site do this all the time. Especially when it comes to the death of famous political figures like John McCain. John McCain wasn't assassinated AFAIK, and I don't remember his cancer making a press release about how McCain's political opinions are why it decided to develop. So I don't see your point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 16:24
|
|
|
Let's talk about Colombia more-in-depth. There are several important things that are happening on the ground. Some are good. Some are bad. Some are worrying. Protests have continued with yesterday being a big day. A lot of people were predicting they'd end by December. Their predictions were wrong. Let's take this latest article from La Silla Vacia which paint's an excellent picture of current sentiments in the nation from the latest gallup round of polling (post-protest).  National sentiment on conditions in the country have reached one of the lowest point in the past 20 years. The public hasn't been this pessimistic since the presidency of conservative leader Andres Pastrana. His failed FARC peace talks that saw the expansion of terrorism, daily terrorist bombing campaigns, mass kidnappings of politicians and citizens, saw Colombia descend into a failed-state and emerge as the single most dangerous nation on earth.  As has been noted, Duque has reached the lowest point of his presidency. But the thing is he's dragging other political figures into the dirt with him.  As a result of Duque's poor management of the country Alvaro Uribe's popularity is dropping drastically. This is the lowest he has ever been with a 66% disfavorability. Alvaro Uribe Velez is a very controversial figure, and is rightly hated by the left and adored by his personal cult of personality. Emerging from the Center-Left Liberal party where he would go from Mayor, to Senator, to Governor. Uribe is the son of rich Colombian landowners. His father was murdered by the FARC soon after he entered politics. He also served in the cabinets of several Liberal Party Presidents. Most infamously he controlled the entirety of the nations Civil Aviation as Director of this entity from 1980-1982 during a period which reform of each air region and airport in the region allowed them to function as independent entities. There are a lot of theories that Uribe was a fundamental figure in the rise of the use of aviation as the cartels transportation of choice for drugs. Beyond that his family has a strong connection to Paramilitary organizations. The famed 'Bloque Metro' of paramilitary organization 'Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia' or AUC was formed on the same farm that Uribe's father was murdered on in 1995 following the theft of cattle by Catholic Marxist Guerilla group the ELN. Uribe, at the time Governor of the department of Antioquia passed a law that allowed the formation of private security services known as CONVIVIR that eventually morphed into paramilitary drug running groups. Following the failed presidency of Andres Pastrana the far-right paramilitary organizations and FARC groups were at war throughout the country side and this war spread into the cities. Alvaro Uribe ran for president, leaving the Liberal party to form his own party. His campaign promised "A Strong Hand, and a big heart." to deal with the terrorism and violence striking the country. The central platform of his campaign was a policy known as "Democratic Security" which involved expanding the war against guerrilla and paramilitary organizations by expanding military operations to regions they were not previously present in amongst a variety of other strategies designed to demoralize and demobilize these groups. Uribe became the first presidential candidate in the history of modern Colombia to receive more than 50% of the vote in the first round of elections and avoid a runoff. His presidency brought order to a country that was in the midst of extreme violence. During his presidency he was extremely popular and the nation changed drastically in terms of violence. To compare him with another South American president, I would say he is a very similiar figure to former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori. I will say that there were good things that came from Uribe's presidency.If Uribe had decided to resign from politics following his first two terms people would generally be kinder to him despite his many political crimes. He left a long list of scandals during his presidency, and is what I would call a proto-fascist. He bribed members of the senate to change the Colombian constitution to allow his reelection. His generals and army killed thousands of young poor children and claimed they were enemy combatants. He wiretapped all his political enemies. He enacted neoliberal trade reforms that destroyed local agriculture. He financed the campaigns of his political party with drug money from paramilitary organizations. He provided millions of dollars in handouts to large corporations that was meant to go to poor farmers. Despite this the transformation that took place in Colombia during this time period was massive and Colombia today is completely unrecognizable compared to what it was from 1997-2002. At the peak of the FARC and Paramilitaries power in 2000 the nation saw 3,572 kidnappings, 26,000 political assassinations, 75,000 murder, and over 550,000 people displaced internally on an annual basis. Last year Colombia had less than 200 kidnappings. In 2001 the number of massacres perpetrated peaked at just over 1,600, there were well over 300 terrorist bombings that year. All these numbers have come down drastically. They are less than 1/10th of what they were previously. This combined with the peace agreement means that Colombians have actually gotten to talk about things other than war and violence when it comes to politics. And it turns out their pretty unhappy about how things are going. They blame the center and right wing that has controlled the country politically for the entirety of its history. But there's something more interesting. Colombians do not trust the current representatives of the left. Gustavo Petro, former Mayor of Bogota, the losing candidate of the last elections, and former M-19 Guerrilla member, has high unfavorability as well. It does not help that he has somewhat of a God complex and attacks other leftists consistently, including recently elected LGBT Bogota Mayor Claudia Lopez of the green party. Especially considering she endorsed him in the last election.  But beyond that for the first time in history the media finds itself in the crosshairs. Partly in due to the fact that it has made a strong campaign against the protests and has worked hard to carry water for Duque's government. Colombia has a long history of a independent and strong journalistic community (mostly due to a history of terrorist attacks from drug groups) that is slowly being destroyed by corporate takeovers and the influences of those in power, who own the newspapers and news organizations, trying to force journalists to cover the president positively .  But beyond that there is starting to rise in the country strong sentiments of anti-venezuelanism. Following attacks by unknown vandals on gated apartment complexes and stores throughout the nation in a night of fear during the first protests, thousands of whatsapp chains were used to spread messages blaming Venezuelans. While overall Colombians have been accepting to the Venezuelan population, the speed at which Venezuelans have entered the country and the number are starting to cause cracks to emerge in the social fabric of Colombian life. While in terms of culture the Colombia and Venezuelan immigrants are similiar, and Colombians show solidarity to the plight of the Venezuelan people, over 1.3 million Venezuelans have entered Colombia in a very short period of time (2-3 years approx). Colombia is already a very crowded country, having grown massively in the post-war period. Beyond that the tendency of Venezuelans to take informal jobs for well below the minimum wage (at times even 50% or more below it) are causing massive deflation of wages in a country where the majority of employment is informal. The unemployment rate has risen over the past 3 years in Colombia and is currently sitting at 10% up from 7%. This could be contributed to Venezuelans taking jobs that Colombians previously held but I don't have any hard data to back that. If something is not done to remedy these issues this underlining sentiment of xenophobia could explode into a situation similar to what we saw in Ecuador. The challenges the government faces is that even if they do provide legal right to work to Venezuelans, with a market that primarily run by informal employment there is no particular incentive for Venezuelans to seek jobs for legal wages when they are desperate to work. The fact is that the complexities of formal employment in Colombia makes regulating informal work to ensure Venezuelans receive fair wages and do not depress wages overall extremely difficult. Colombians as formal employees have far more rights and payments than Americans do and the official hiring process in Colombia is far more complex than in the US. ThanosWasRight fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Dec 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
ThanosWasRight posted:Let's talk about Colombia more-in-depth. There are several important things that are happening on the ground. Some are good. Some are bad. Some are worrying. This is really interesting thanks. My Colombian co-worker is far more knowledgable about the stuff going on and she attended a solidarity protest on Sunday. I'm still a bit shy about going to such things, since I still have my own issues with my identity and just how exactly it is or isn't expressed, but it's always nice to learn more about the place my parents grew up in and eventually left. Though they do plan going back. I was wondering where the peace process has ended. Duqué just kinda stopped making any efforts, so didn't the FARC say they'd take up arms again, with the intent of no longer attacking civilians or something like that? I've always had and was given a bad impression of Uribé from my folks, though I know their family, back in Medellín, are far more into the guy than them. Doesn't help that he's somewhat local I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
RIP Syndrome posted:There's a strange contradiction in being for AMLO's ideas but at the same time totally opposed to him (and presumably, his government). Did you prefer some other candidate? Maybe someone from a party that hasn't been running things into the ground over the last couple of decades. Yeah, I in fact voted for a different party with different views. It's well known that there are issues with petrol and fracking and all this. I read once that Mexico could turn into the number one clean energy produce if we just installed solar panels along a part of the dessert we have, and that with that alone, we will produce 80% of the electric needs of the country. Mexico is rich in resources. There are ways to make things work, we just need some one smart enough to do it. Let me elaborate a bit more on me liking his ideas but opposing to him. Basically what he has done and is trying to do is give free money to the poors, because poor poor people (we know this is a political movement) he wants to improve the education, but with his own ideas that he thinks are the correct ones. He wants to help develop low resorces areas or areas that historically have had low oportunities, liek the south of Mexico. Adding to this, the south part of Mexico is way more poor than the north part. In a note I read time ago it said that it was becuase the south has all the resources they need, water, food, natural resources. While the north parth has the lack of everything you need. So the north people develops and looks for ways to improve, while the south, sits and waits for the next orange to be ready for pick up from the tree. I also am oppsed to AMLO because he ran for president for 12 or so years. That is 3 times, he lost on 2 of them, and in one of them he declared himself the legit president of Mexico, held his own State press things, celebrations and so on. He blocked one of the main ways of Mexico City for more than 2 years. Causing millions of loses in pesos to bussinesss and people losing their jobs. He claims to want to help the poor but has disolved every single social program that was in place to help them. Health care, kindergarden free schools for single mothers that worked, and some more. I don't want to rant on everything that I think AMLO is doing wrong. I am not an expert in politics or anything of the sort. As a final note, right now in Mexico, being opposed to AMLO is being opposed to the government. He is the leader of the party that controls 80% of the states in Mexico. He has the majority in both the politcal chambers and 7 of the 13 judges of the Supreme Court are subjuged to him. Also the head of the National Human Rights Agency is some one that pleads to him. Currently he is trying to take over the Electoral Agency head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:05 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/michaelreid52/status/1202636032384151552?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 20:58
|
|
