Old Gringo

So what’s been going on in the world since I’ve been out? There were two fairly significant elections in the past few months.

In Venezuela, Chavez’ party finally lost control of Venezuela’s congress.  In the lame-duck session that followed, his departing congressional allies gave Chavez a gift: the power to rule by decree.  Despite the fact that Chavez has already shut down opposition radio, TV, and newspapers, and hamstrung access to the internet, he promised not to abuse his new powers.

So Latin America has a new dictator. The silence of the global community, and the U.S. Press in particular, to the loss of a formerly thriving democracy speaks loudly about what kind of world we live in.

Contrast that to the howls of media outrage that accompanied the election of Colombia’s conservative and U.S.-friendly Juan Manuel Santos, who has spent his first year working to smooth ties with his grumpy neighbors Ecuador and Venezuela, and who is continuing a campaign against corruption in Colombia that is making that country a much better place to live and work than most other Latin American states.

The mid-term elections here in the U.S. also involved a party with complete control of government. And as with Venezuela, when people are given a say about one political entity having complete control of a country, they usually reject it. Here the Democrat party lost control of the House, and lost their veto-proof majority in the Senate.

Despite this rejection, the Democrats and their media allies are trying to portray the last two Democrat controlled congresses as an astounding success. In their own Keynesian way they were: they raised the U.S. debt more than all other previous congresses combined, going back to the first one in 1788.  They must be so proud.

Actually they are pretty proud about that, the way they keep bragging up this accomplishment.

Also in the U.S. a surprising thing happened: thanks to social-networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, the most effective tech-created grass-roots movement yet seen popped up out of nowhere.  Calling itself the Tea Party, and partly inspired by Rick Santelli’s rant on the floor of the Chicago exchange, it was more than just a protest against government spending: it has become to a revolt of the Republican party’s conservative base against certain members of their own party, the so-called RINOs, Republicans In Name Only.

Democrat and Republican politicians have always used their base as doormats, saying all the right things during the campaign, then once in office, throwing everything they said during the campaign out the window.  When the next election approaches, they’re pointing fingers and laying blame and accumulating another pack of lies to get themselves  elected again.

They know that their “base” will hold their noses and vote for them again rather than see a member of the other party take that seat, so they throw a few table scraps their way once in a while to keep their starving stomachs from rumbling too loudly, but they never quite seem to live up to all those promises they made to get that seat in the first place.

IMO a campaign promise should be written down and signed like a contract, and all votes should be accompanied by a written explanation on that congressman’s website.

If he or she voted for some off-the-wall bill in order to get some other congressman’s vote for one of their own, we know that’s part of life in congress, we’re not naive fools about it, but that congressman needs to own his votes and say so when they do that kind of thing.  Or better, when he’s about to do something like that.  Keep his constituency involved in the process.

I would like for congressmen, especially Republican congressmen, to meet or exceed Obama’s broken promises of transparency.  Be an example, show the world how it’s done.  Post everything you get your hands on.  If that shuts you out of some secret committee meeting, say so.  Be the anti-establishment rebel that the Left likes to think of themselves as.  Keep “we the people” informed.

Congress should be a fishbowl, where everyone can see everything that’s going on, and not a tomb where campaign promises are sent to be buried forever.

For that matter, the Left needs to do the same thing to the Democrats. They need a revolt of their own, a Tea Party of their own, so that the country can see what what liberalism really is, and then decide for or against it. As long as there are “blue dog” Dems out there, calling themselves Democrats but talking like conservatives (liberals name them DINOs, Democrats In Name Only), then the national “worldview” will never really be resolved. Liberalism, like conservatism, needs to be represented as purely as possible in Washington so the country can clearly distinguish between the two worldviews, and then vote accordingly.

“Liberalism” is an interesting phenomenon. One can view it as a subculture comprised primarily of middle and upper class, college-educated white people.  Nobody else in the world shares their values.   Why do liberal initiatives keep getting shot down in California?  Too many immigrants. Do you think that any self-respecting Latin or Asian or African immigrant, struggling to assimilate but still steeped in his native culture, is going to vote for gay marriage?  For public financing of abortion?  Most of the world is very socially conservative.

Yet there is a very strong upside to traditional liberalism.  They rightly won the battles of the 20th century: gay rights, civil rights, an end to systemic racism, the nation is much better off thanks to the victories of liberalism. But somewhere along the way, the liberal ideal of individual rights and liberties has given way to foreign-policy pacifism, a desire for increasing government control of industry, and in my opinion, increasing control over private lives.

So needless to say, there are huge differences in worldview between liberals and conservatives, and what we think is best for the country.  In a free Democracy the country is supposed to be able to choose between them and keep what works and throw out what doesn’t or try something else entirely, and thus we grow and evolve as a nation.

But neither side has reliable representatives of their viewpoint in Washington.  There is no accountability for broken promises, and thus we have neither a free market (we have a heavily manipulated market) nor a free Democracy nor a free and independent Press, which is why most of us who pay attention to these things get most of our best information off the internet, where stories our Press Corps won’t touch can be found and discussed.

And now they’ve laid the groundwork to control the internet.

When did we become Venezuela?

More later.

-OG

After an awesome and insane Autumn, I’ve decided to re-start this blog thing and expand its original focus.  Along with U.S. and Latin American cultural issues, I have a deep and abiding interest in U.S. culture and politics and their often-turbulent relationship with Science.

See updated “About” tab.  New posts coming along shortly.

After training my replacement at my old job, I’m trying to get another gig going and it has kept me busy full time.  I hope to be back to my usual snide self this week.  I don’t blame the people my work was outsourced to, in fact I’ve argued in favor of globalization many times, it builds up middle classes around the world, and helps raise the globe’s standard of living, not just our own here in the U.S.

So now that it’s my turn to experience one of the downside consequences, I’d be hypocritical to cry about it.   The bright young kids who took over my job have opportunities that would have been unthinkable to their parents, and I truly wish them all well.

Back soon…

OG

I’m settling back in after a week-long trip along Colombia’s Caribbean coast.  Cartegena is gorgeous, Barranquilla is bustling, the beach in Santa Marta is rockin, and Riohacha is full of Venezuelan contraband, Chavez-subsidized goods smuggled across the border by (if rumors in the area are true) Venezuela’s own under-paid military. Whoever is doing it, those goods are being traded for something that is increasing in value against Venezuela’s plummeting Bolivar currency, and even increasing in value against the U.S. dollar: Colombian pesos.

The reason why is most easily understood at the street level: Once upon a time you could spend U.S. dollars in any Latin American country and people were glad to get them.  In a several countries now, including Colombia, those days are over.  Back in the day, if you paid your taxi fare with a U.S. dollar, the cabby had two options:  exchange it right away for Colombian pesos at the current exchange rate, or else tuck it away and exchange it later.   That was an option because “later” he was sure to get more pesos for that dollar than he could get today.  For a taxi guy whose day-to-day life is based on the peso, that dollar represented a guaranteed future cash profit.

Not anymore.  The dollar is weakening against the peso, and has been for a while.  If the driver can get 1850 pesos for each dollar today, if he holds on to that dollar for a month he might only get 1800 for it later.   So on my first day in Colombia, my offer to pay a cab fare with dollars was greeted with a frown, a shrug, and a ‘look’.  The look simply said, “I’m not an idiot.”

I paid in pesos.  I got back a smile and a sympathetic pat on the shoulder.

A friend sent me a link to an article that talks about some of the investment capital pouring in to Colombia these days.  Check it out:

Mining and Oil Boom propel foreign investment in pro-Capitalist Colombia

Maybe that “pro-Capitalist” bit is why some people in the U.S. have such a problem with this country, I don’t know.  That’s too bad.  It’s been a while since I last visited, and Colombia reminded me what a wonderful country it is.  I’m already making plans to return.

I will be taking the blog on a bit of a detour over the next few days.  I was accompanied on my trip by a couple of people who had never been to Latin America before, and I had to explain some fundamental cultural differences that I have long accepted and simply taken for granted.  Tomorrow I want to begin sharing some of those thoughts here.

I’m heading south of the border, I hope to check in some time next week.

-OG

Last month I posted about four Bolivian cops who were killed in a small uprising by Bolivian Indians on the Chilean/Bolivian border (see part 1 and part 2 of that discussion).  Today I noticed that that region is highlighted in my favorite Climate Naturalist blog, Wattsupwiththat.com.

Given its altitude, that region is naturally cool anyway, as anyone who has stepped off a flight from Miami to La Paz will tell you.  When La Niña or El Niño is active, there are climate consequences throughout the region.  The first will be, hopefully, that the El Niño-related drought conditions in Colombia and Venezuela will abate, which will be good for everyone.

Maybe it will even help Mr. Chavez recover from his disastrous attempt to have the state take over management of Venezuela’s food supply.  For the sake of the Venezuelans I hope so, though doubtless Chavez will claim credit if recovery does occur.  But given the path Chavez is on, history indicates that he is doomed no matter what the weather does.

From TheBrigade.com.  Follow this link for a few more pics.  I always wondered what these things were like.

A few more are over at JunkYardBlog:

Colombia provided Mr. Chavez with some unwelcome education last week.  It’s a map of FARC bases in Venezuela.

In addition they provided the coordinates of the base camp of FARC leader Ivan Marquez, which are: North 10° 40′ 42″ West 72° 32′ 03.  That puts him pretty close to some prime Colombian tourist destinations like Santa Marta and Riohacha.  Maybe he likes the beach?

Google Maps shows it like this:

Of course, Chavez denied everything, and threw his usual diplomatic tantrum:

As on previous occasions, Chávez responded by proclaiming his innocence and denying the allegations. Chávez’s officials said the area was checked and that no such camps have been found. They charged Colombia and the Uribe Administration with seeking to sabotage relations before Santos can take office. Venezuela recalled its ambassador to Colombia.

So all of this may have been news to Chavez, but discussing this with one of my Venezuelan friends got me the response, “Yeah, so?  When I used to work in Maracaibo everybody knew that FARC was up there.”  The Venezuelan city of Maracaibo is not far from the mountains where the camp is located.

If such a thing is common knowledge to average Venezuelans, could it be that Chavez really didn’t know about it?

No.  That’s not what is happening, and I need to make something very clear: Chavez is not stupid.  I made that mistake in some of my early posts, but the man has proven himself to be a brilliant manipulator of a host of complex legal and diplomatic processes.  If he’s crude and rough and unpolished, I’m coming to believe that that’s the perfect “front” to present to a world that cannot bring itself to believe that he’s getting away with all the stuff he’s getting away with.

Anyway, if Chavez really wanted to get his hands on FARC leader Marquez, well, it looks like he’s got one hand on him already:

It should be noted that Colombian senator Diedad Cordoba, lower right in the pic, is suspected of being involved with two criminal organizations: FARC, and the U.S. congress.

Just kidding,  I’m not that cynical about congress – yet.

Based on information found in FARC commander Raul Reyes’ laptop (I touched on a different set of those laptop revelations here),  Cordoba has been charged with collaborating with FARC “outside of the parameters of her role as a hostage release negotiator.”

[OG snark: If those charges had been filed a year ago they might have helped her win the Nobel Peace prize.  It was won by President Obama instead.]

As for her contacts with congress, her participation in discussions between FARC and congressional representatives James McGovern and Nancy Pelosi is well known but – wink, wink – generally ignored.

Looks like Nancy got the memo about the Red outfit, but what’s this – no scarf?  It should be noted that James McGovern’s excuse for reaching out to FARC was that they “shouldn’t be isolated”.  However his and Nancy’s stance on the Colombian Free Trade agreement indicate their belief that the democratically elected government of Colombia should be isolated.

Shame on both of them.

Where were we.

Oh yeah, Chavez can’t find any FARC bases in Venezuela.  I’m guessing that he can’t find any airstrips, planes, cocaine labs, trucks, or heavily laden ships bound for Africa, Europe and Mexico either.  Is Chavez learning from FARC about nation-states in the narco-trafficking business?

In the blog post linked to above, Ray Walser suggests what may be at the heart of  the matter.  He states,

This latest round in the Colombia-Venezuela dispute merits serious attention by the newly established South American Defense Council, a part of South America’s UNASUR and by the Organization of American States (OAS) as well. Latin American diplomats and security experts need to step forward to support a serious investigation of Colombia’s allegations.

This is why Colombian Defense Minister Gabriel Silva held a press conference to discuss things that everyone already knew: to remind the world of what is happening, to “raise awareness” if you will, to make sure that the world takes this stuff seriously.

In the 1980′s and 1990′s the world sat on its hands and watched while Al Qaeda grew in power and influence, then we all acted like 9/11 was such a surprise, rather than a logical step forward on a path everyone could see they were on.

The world sat on its hands and watched throughout the 1930s as the pieces were put in place for the most devastating war machine in Europe’s history.

Both of these chapters in current and future history books took place in plain sight, with the world watching and sitting on its hands.   Now FARC, and Venezuela, and the ALBA nations, and narco-terrorism – where is this leading?  We’re not only watching, in many important ways we’re also enabling.

If not downright collaborating.

Yesterday one of my Venezuelan friends said that Chavez might lose in Venezuela’s September congressional elections, but that he would keep congress anyway.  The comment was made in passing while we were talking about something else, and I didn’t get a chance to pursue it.  He only said it would be because “Chavez manipulates things.”

Where Chavez is concerned, that is usually the only answer you need.  But this morning there is an article in the Miami Herald that discusses that scenario.  Here’s the link:

Hugo Chávez might keep Congress despite vote – by Andres Oppenheimer

A couple of excerpts:

- According to a nationwide poll released this week by the Caracas-based Hinterlaces firm, if the mid-term elections were held today, 28 percent of Venezuelans would vote for opposition candidates, 27 percent would vote for Chávez-backed candidates, 22 percent for “independents,” and the remainder is undecided.

- Venezuela’s economy will contract by about 3 percent this year — the worst performance in Latin America after Haiti — and the country’s inflation rate will be about 30 percent, the region’s highest, according to World Bank and private projections. Electricity and food shortages have increased public discontent in recent months.

- Chávez is likely to win a majority in the National Assembly, because the electoral laws have been written by pro-government authorities in such a way that the opposition would need more than 55 percent of the vote to win at least 50 percent of the seats in Congress. Election rules give a disproportionate representation in Congress to pro-Chávez states.

…etc.  Note that Chavez is following the process I first outlined here in discussing the Honduras situation.  Chavez is not overtly trampling on Venezuela’s constitution; instead he is manipulating constitutional process to move Venezuela toward a “narcissist-Leninist” state, as Oppenheimer put it, almost making me spray coffee.

Good article.  Check it out.

With the Colombian military nabbing laptops and other intelligence from increasingly successful operations against the FARC high command, some of Colombia’s neighbors are starting to sweat.  Who would have imagined that the paranoid, security-conscious  FARC would keep logs and emails around for over ten years?

This is a translation of an article from El Nuevo Herald (the Miami Herald’s Spanish-language newspaper).  The article discusses disturbing revelations that several of Colombia’s neighbors, including two former Panamanian presidents, maintained contact with Colombia’s FARC, all while publicly proclaiming their solidarity with the struggle of the people of Colombia.  The messages were on a laptop captured by the Colombian military.  I could not restrain myself from adding a few comments of my own.

The original article:

Mensajes revelan nexos de las FARC en la región – por Gerardo Reyes

My translation:

A message says: “Wednesday or Thursday there will be a meeting with the president of Panama.  From there I leave for Cuba where I hope to talk with the professor”.

Another one reads: “Monday night I leave for Havana, from there to Panama or Venezuela, then the Dominican Republic, and return to Havana to fly to Colombia on the 27th”.

These emails, which could be annotations in the tight schedule of a Latin American Secretary of State, are some of the messages newly revealed about a tour of the region in 2000 by FARC Commander Raul Reyes, according to revelations made last Sunday by the newspaper La Prensa de Panama.

Based on a study of Reyes’ computer, which was seized by Colombian Intelligence, the newspaper denounced the notion that the governments of presidents Mireya Moscoso (1999-2004) and Martin Torrijos (2004-2009), would have maintained contacts with FARC, or would have offered protection to guerrillas arrested by Panama.

Both former chief executives denied any contact with FARC.

The messages, some of which were known Monday by El Nuevo Herald, reflect feverish activity by the guerrilla leaders to ensure refuge and to protect money and property in the neighboring country, with which Colombia shares a 266 kilometer border.

The 34 emails obtained by La Prensa are dated between the years 2000 and 2008, and contain several references to FARC meetings in Cuba. 

Some of the international tours mentioned by the guerrillas in the messages happened at a time when the government of president Andres Pastrana (1998-2002) was attempting to work out a peace accord with FARC.

Reyes did not identify the “professor’ he was going to meet in Cuba in 2000.

The following year, a FARC message signed by Esparanza explained that he was looking to finance a trip for a delegation of Cubans for a meeting that he did not describe.

“I am going to speak with the Cuban Robertico, the replacement of Rubén so that the embassy sends a delegate”, affirmed Esperanza.

According to the messages, the approach to the Panamanian government was done in the year 2000.

“The President of Panama says that they can receive us at the beginning of September.  I received this message from the head of Panamanian government security, who received it from Relampago, and he offers guarantees for our official visit to his country”, informed Reyes on August 11 to his boss Manuel Marulanda Vélez, alias “Tirofijo” [English: “Sure shot”.  This guy was FARC's head honcho].

The meeting with [Panama president Mireya Elisa] Moscoso didn’t happen, but a delegate of FARC did meet with one of her advisers and the “head of Panamanian security”.

An unidentified FARC contact did not tell Reyes who attended the meeting without security control.

[OG – Reyes and his FARC cohorts were not stupid, they knew better than to name the names of their own in insecure email communications, especially where something as high-level as this was concerned.]

“The government is not opposed to the presence of guerrillas on its borders,” reported the [Panamanian] contact, and soon Reyes specified the conditions, namely that they would seek to obtain food and supplies, and that they would do so as civilians.

[OG senses the unspoken “under the table” message: if Panama had objected to the guerrillas' presence on the border, FARC would still have obtained food and supplies from Panama, but not as civilians.  Panama did not want to get involved in that.  OG doesn't really blame them.  But someone should have quietly passed a note to the Colombian government.]

In a statement to La Prensa, Moscoso denied the implications of the messages.

“As much to the government of Colombia as to president Alvaro Uribe, we have maintained a constant and assiduous collaboration in security matters and in the continuing battle againsnt organized crime,” Moscoso said.

As for Torrijos, reaching out to FARC was supposedly done on the initiative of the government, according to Reyes. The guerrilla leader wrote that “the government of Panama, through Venezuela, asked for the interview with FARC” to resolve a situation regarding two prisoners who were suspected of being guerrillas.

“It was a certainty that they would release them”, wrote Reyes.

[OG - what's this?  The Panamanians had two FARCsters behind bars and they asked FARC what they should do with them?  Were they scared that FARC was going to come and get them, guns blazing?  Am I reading this correctly?]

Torrijos flatly denied to La Prensa that their government had any collaboration with the FARC.  “At no time did we ever support FARC, we were always cooperating with the Colombian government against FARC”, said Torrijos.

———————–

OG:  The way I read this, Panama hedged it’s bets in 2000 and made secret arrangements with FARC, all the while claiming to be a staunch ally of Colombia.  Now it’s 2010, FARC is on the run, and Panama’s little stab in the back is being contemplated by a Colombia that has become the most experienced and deadly military force in Latin America.

Now they’re loudly protesting their innocence, and praying that the Colombians extend to them the diplomatic courtesy that they themselves were too frightened to do for Colombia.

I wonder how many other countries in the region are sweating.