This is the week I'm really expecting the floodgates of comments to come open :) I've really enjoyed seeing many of you engage the material and each other and I hope that even more of you do this in the coming weeks.
This week's articles
Ecuador's Election: the man with the mighty microphone
Falkland Islanders 'must decide own future', says Hague
Colombia's Farc proposes legal coca and marijuana crops
I had trouble finding new articles with a unifying theme or two this week. Thus, I am posing three questions for discussion.
1) To what extent should Latin American leaders and their voters give liberal democratic principles (traditionally defined) priority over other goals?
2) Can legitimate colonial territories exist in the 21st century. If so, under what conditions?
3) How much (and what) should the Colombian government be willing to give up in their quest for peace with the FARC and other guerilla groups?
Remember, if you signed up for a weekly post than your post must address at least one of the articles and one of the questions. Comments should be informed by at least 1 article, respond to either a discussion question or a classmate's post, make a clear point, and be professional.
Remember that your study of Latin American current events does not have to be limited to this blog. Below I am posting links to several great information sources:
BBC News: Latin America and the Caribbean
BBC Mundo
BBC Brasil (Portuguese)
Economist Americas section
NY Times Americas section
Americas Quarterly
There are also an abundance of foreign-language on-line newspapers specific to every country in the region.
Enjoy!
The dispute between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands is a complicated issue because it involves issues of identity, nationhood, statehood and sovereignty, which are all issues that continue to be debated over in the 21st century. According to the article, the majority of Falklanders seem themselves as a nation, a group with some shared history or culture. In their case, they identify with a culture/history that is distinctly British, not Argentine. However, Argentina clearly does not recognize the people of the Falklands as a nation, labeling them as merely "settlers." This brings up questions about what constitues a nation and how the nation should be governed.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, I support the decision to let the citizens of the Falklands decide for themselves which state they belong to. In thinking about the origins of the doctrine of self-determination, the idea was to transfer sovereignty from the monarch to the people and let the people choose their own government. When the UN Charter was first created, it recognized the right to self-determination in order to facilitate the process of decolonization.To answer the question of whether colonies can exist in the 21st century, I do not think they can because I think the right to self-determination and the principle of nationalism have become established norms in international law over time through entities like the UN and cases of succession throughout history. As I mentioned above, the UN created a framework to end colonization and over time, the UN has become a major framework for international law that is recognized by the majority of states today. In the case of the Falklands, I think it would go against international norms to force a people to become part of a state in which they clearly do not identity with and who feel so strongly connected with another state/culture.
Also, I find Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timmerman's complete disregard for the voice of the Falkland people (saying the dispute involves only 2 parties: the UK and Argentina) also goes against international norms related to sovereignty and self-determination in the 21st century. Timmerman talks only about the British interest in the Falklands and does not seem to acknowledge the concerns of the people whatsoever. Ultimately, I think this sheds a negative light on Argentina in that it is so uncooperative in resolving the issue and in its blaten disregard for the sovereignty and will of the people of the Falkland Islands.
I agree. I believe Timmerman and Argentina are acting almost in a childish manner toward the matter of the Falkland islands with the UK. I do believe that in the 21st century a territory should be able to decide their own freedom and way of life. Additionally, if Falklanders believe that they are more closely tied to the heritage of the UK, than it makes more sense for the Falkland Islands to remain a British territory.
DeleteI also think that Argentina invading the Falkland islands during the 1980s displays their aggression and negative perceptions to the Falkland islands. It shows a sense of 'obligated ownership' negatively.
Although I agree that the people of the Falkland Islands should be able to decide for themselves which state they belong to, I think it is important to take into account the fact that there is more at stake than just the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this whole situation is the prospect of oil and natural resources in the area surrounding the Falkland Islands. It is apparent that there are two debates going on here, one over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and the other over the natural resources surrounding the Islands. I think that the best way to settle this dispute would be to allow the people of the Falkland Island to decide for themselves how they would like to be governed while at the same time allowing Argentina to gain rights to all of the oil and natural resources that are discovered in the area surrounding the Islands.
DeleteTo what extent should Latin American leaders and their voters give liberal democratic principles (traditionally defined) priority over other goals?
DeleteI think that this is a rather complicated question. While I personally place a very high value on the establishment of liberal democratic principles in all countries, I cannot - considering the state of the Latin American economies and the extremely unequal distribution of wealth - definitively state that it is reasonable for either the leaders or the voters in these countries to make this their top priority. From an objective standpoint, it makes perfect sense to do so, for only with the fundamental rights and protections afforded by democracy can a population hope to avoid the long-term oppressive effects of being ruled by self-serving non-democratic political actors. Subjectively, however, when a person is presented with a choice between a theoretical "democracy" and a loaf of bread to feed his/her family, it is a much safer (and one could argue smarter) decision to choose the guaranteed basic necessity. While this is an over-simplification, it does reflect the dilemma faced by many poor individuals who do not have the luxury of placing their principles (no matter how noble they may be) above the survival of their families. In a similar, yet rather different way, the same logic extends to the leaders of these countries. While democracy is a lofty ideal to strive for, it is a risky prospect for ambitious individuals who wish to lead, for winning in a democracy is never guaranteed. It makes far more sense for these individuals to place other goals above democracy - such as reducing poverty, improving infrastructure, and growing the economy - for this will help them to placate the masses and secure their grip on power. While this can be a difficult and dangerous pursuit (and one which does not always last - as Pinochet demonstrated), such high-risk gambles can pay big dividends.
I'd like to close with two quotes which sum up my argument:
For the people: "One in the hand is worth two in the bush."
For the leaders: "Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt!"
Cheers.
Mandy, I agree with you that the ultimate decision is up to the citizens or "settlers" of the Falkland Islands. It would be interesting to conduct a purely economic decision and vote along with what country will be best for the monetary well-being of the country. In my opinion, the long-term consequences of choosing to live under the sovereignty of either Argentina or Great Britain will bring about mostly negative economic results. Independence will result in a hostile neighbor to the north and at best, a decrease in trade with Great Britain. The best option may be to avoid hostilities and simply join Argentina.
DeleteThe article "The Man With the Microphone" explicitly portrays the characteristics of Latin American political culture discussed in class. Particularly, the article demonstrates the importance of personalism in politics by disclosing that the current Ecuadorian president’s plan for reelection includes “a seductive message which, according to opinion polls, seems certain to give him a comfortable victory”. This suggests that the voting population is willing to overlook the pitfalls of his political platform because of their commitment to Correa as a leader. The matter of the president’s “use of the presidential veto to rewrite laws has limited the power of the legislature, where his party was in a minority” suggests how political behavior on the part of the president can affect the outcome of the election. This questions the level of democracy in Ecuador. Furthermore, this measure of democracy is challenged by the “fear (that) another term will see a slide to a more autocratic regime”. Because this event provides an example of a potentially diminished level of democracy in Latin America, it calls in to question the importance of democracy (as traditionally defined) over other characteristics of a nation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Ecuador may have been worse-off economically in the years prior to Correa’s election, there is a growing chance that the country is headed in a more precarious direction regarding the protection of citizens’ civil liberties. While it is important for Ecuador to maintain its improved state, brought about by many of Correa’s actions such as state spending on health and education, the people of Ecuador should weigh the pros and cons of the political situation. “His use of the presidential veto to rewrite laws” is particularly worrisome, as well as the seizure of several privately owned media sources. It may be clear that a man so opposed to criticism and opposition could pose a serious threat to Ecuador’s democracy, bringing about a more autocratic state. But given Correa’s hard-liner persona, toughness, and vibrant charisma, Ecuador seems to greatly value and respect him, as with Venezuela and Hugo Chávez. I gather from the opinion polls mentioned in the article that the majority of Ecuadorians hold a strong leader, one who is a “man of the people” in higher regard than the liberal democratic values that Ecuador has been working toward, particularly in the past few decades. It is my personal opinion that the country should be wary of Correa and his increasingly frequent abuses of the democratic principles that Ecuador has striven to stand upon. Nevertheless, a strong leader who embodies the “caudillo” persona will have a great chance in winning the next election, not to mention someone who has successfully aided and improved the lives of Ecuadorians through improved infrastructure, education, and health.
DeleteI agree that the citizens should stay wary of Correa. These non-democratic actions that Correa has made throughout his time in office seem to be symptoms to a large problem that may erupt in the future. Putting myself in Ecuadorians shoes, it would be hard for me to take a couple of steps back and see the darker side of the president when he has provided such positive services to the country. That being said I think that it is very important for the citizens of Ecuador to take those steps back and evaluate all sides of the leader, and the other candidates, before making a decision.
DeleteIts hard to take a step back and look at a leader like Correa because many of the citizens are not educated enough to make a decision. All they see is the manipulated media and the advertisements of all the "good" he has done. I believe that we as a country should be wary of this "Presidential Security" that he wants to create as I can see this turning violent towards those who protest against Correa. Its hard to convince the public to back the other candidates when the majority of the country is poor and is in one way or another benefiting from Correa's regime. At the end of the day Correa will most likely win the election and increase his power within Ecuador with little competition.
DeleteIn my opinion the only reason Correa has been able to maintain power, and is favored to win reelection, has been favorable oil prices. Without that source of income, I doubt, or rather, I would hope that the citizens would not tolerate such autocratic polices such as attempting to silence all critics, and buying news stations. However, the public has finally seen some of the profit of oil sales, as evidenced by the decrease in impoverished people. Overall, I think once oil prices stabilize, Correa's autocratic tendencies will have to be shut down, or he will find himself out of office.
DeleteI think its important to strive a democratic future in Ecuador. However I think this article provided the important point that Correa has done some good things for Ecuador. Previous to Correa being in power the natural resources were there, yet the wealth gap was huge and the majority of people were living in extreme poverty. I think his policies of trying to move the population out of extreme poverty will someday lead to a more democratic state. Even then who can guarantee that more democracy will lead to a more prosperous future? If through this reduction in poverty the population becomes more educated and civically engaged, I think Ecuador will keep prospering economically and civil liberty wise.
DeleteI do not see why this is stated as a dichotomy: democratic values or better economy. There are plenty of examples of countries in Latin America where democratic values are preserved and respected and yet their people enjoy a decent living by achieving more than just basic needs, Brazil and Chile, just to mention a couple. I think the one variable that should be taking into consideration is education. When a country’s leaders purposely or clumsily ignore education, as several Latin American countries have, the people’s capacity or knowledge to discern, advocate or demand is limited. Then, we have seen how their leader rapidly proceeds to identify an enemy, the cause of all their penury, which he/she can only fight and liberate them from. Meanwhile, the beloved leader provides gifts or alms. Subsequently, she/he becomes the source of security and wisdom, providing basic needs and therefore happiness. Venezuela’s Chavez and his copycat, Ecuador’ Correa are perfect examples of implementation of this vile and yet proven strategy.
DeleteAfter reading "The man with the mighty microphone," I cannot help but be reminded of our in-class discussion about the relationship between a country's middle class and democracy. Many people argue that a strong/growing middle class often leads to an increasingly democratic government - because once citizens' most basic needs have been met, they are more likely to make further demands for civil liberties, transparency within the government, an end to corruption, etc. I think it's very interesting to consider this in terms of Ecuador. Poverty levels have drastically been cut and increased government revenue has gone to social spending. Whether or not Rafael Correa can take credit for this a separate question; However, I'm wondering if this new wealth will affect the government in future years? Will a growing middle class make demands for a more democratic government under Correa, or as the article suggests, will Ecuadorians look away from the "ugly side" of Correa's progression towards authoritarianism as long as the good economic times last?
ReplyDeleteI have a lot of similar thoughts related to the article on Correa. The question you pose at the end regarding the future of this type of government and economic system is what catches my eye. The Ecuadorian public is certainly going to enjoy the benefits from Correa's regime with poverty decreasing and infrastructure rising, but the smaller movements Correa is making is what worries me. The bit in the article regarding the media explaining how Correa controls them and doesn't allow much opposition should make the Ecuadorian public concerned. These are the kind of actions that get one person or regime too much power. I am not suggesting that Correa is going to be like a Pinochet and murder opposition, but to not allow opposition media is just too far. The people should be able to watch and read what they wish with no restrictions. That being said, the media can be nasty and Correa may be predicting that a strong opposition media group could bring down his support. This may not be an issue if media wasn't as corrupt as it can be.
DeleteSam Holz
ReplyDeleteBlog Post #1
It is clear to me that Latin American leaders and their voters should be giving liberal democratic principles a huge amount of priority, but this certainly does not seem to be happening in some Latin American countries, with Ecuador being a prime example.
Some might ask, why would citizens continue to support a regime where they clearly do not have certain freedoms and liberties that others are afforded in so many countries across the globe? In Ecuador, it is because citizens are often times being deceived and confused by their government. Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador, who seemingly will be reelected in the near future, uses biased media outlets to lie and manipulate citizens in order to pursue his own agenda. Due to the fact that Ecuador has been highly successful in a number of areas over the past few years, Correa can argue that his type of government and leadership style is conducive to a successful country. However, according to the article about Ecuador, Ecuador and Mr. Correa’s recent success is due to “a mixture of luck, opportunism, and skill.” Yet, it seems doubtful that the country will continue this upward surge in the forthcoming years. Prices for oil exports went up, and Mr. Correa was able to take full advantage. Because Mr. Correa has built up a powerful media empire and is more or less in charge of the two main television networks in the country, he can distribute whatever information he chooses to citizens, which often leaves them misinformed about certain darker realities of Correa’s regime.
If Correa continues to garner more power for himself and the central government, and the country does not continue its recent economic success, citizens will be stuck in a very tough position. If prices for oil exports go down and Ecuador’s economy struggles, citizens could potentially be stuck in poverty without opportunity for growth and change, because of a practically non existent private sector and lack of business prospects due to what looks like is going to become an overwhelmingly powerful central government.
Thus, it is evident to me that Latin American leaders and their voters should commit to traditionally defined democratic principles, to avoid catastrophe and abuse of power. In my opinion, the potential downfall of electing like a leader like Correa to another term far outweighs the potential benefit of continued financial success, which is by no means a guarantee. However, obviously, leaders are power hungry and often times not willing to commit to these principles, and it is difficult for voters to turn against leaders who seem to be helping their respective countries’ economies and quality of life.
Committing to democratic principles should take priority over all else, in my opinion, because I believe it lays the foundation for a more successful economy and peaceful way of life. However, not all people believe in democracy, its ideals, and its potential benefits. It also registers to me that it would be very difficult to convince Latin American citizens of the importance of prioritizing democratic principles when looking for a leader, rather than its countries recent successes that might have stemmed from a non-democratic regime. So, to conclude, I believe it is highly important to emphasize these democratic principles, but this is far easier said than done, especially in certain places in South America like Ecuador.
I find it interesting how closely this article reminded me of Pinochet. When he finally allowed for an actual election he too waisted no time taking advantage of photo shoots of new housing projects that he helped build or new hospitals and schools. Pinochet too took power when the economy is extremely poor, and helped turn it around, by some measures at least. Pinochet, like Correa was not found of criticism, and had tight control over the media. Pinochet even bought out judges on his way out so he could appoint fresh ones of his choosing, only Correa is not waiting until he leaves to pack the court. I don't think this type of government can last forever. It might need to run its course like it did in Chile, or maybe if there is a sharp downturn in the economy. I will say that if the public wants to get rid of Correa, it sounds like they will have an easer time then trying to get rid of Pinochet.
DeleteThe Farc (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) is a terrorist/ guerrilla organization that has been in Colombia for over 50 year making most of its profits from illegal drug sales. Now, finally, the leaders of this organization are negotiating peace with the Colombian government and trying to reach an agreement in order to cease the violence, but the Farc is asking, as one of its conditions, to have the government legalize the production of coca, poppy and marijuana in the country and for the government to not penalize the people involved in said production.
ReplyDeleteThe main problem with this condition is that if the government was to make these products legal there would be a big possibility of an increase of their use in the general civilian population increasing drug use and addiction problems. Also the Farc is a violent organization that has gotten a good amount of income from producing and selling these drugs. So their legalization would make it so that the Farc does not have to work “undercover” or hide the production which could increase the capacity of the organization to produce more drugs, sell more and, thereby, increase its resources and power.
It is true that Colombia it’s popular for the production of coca for medical use. But an increase in plantations due to legalization, even if the Farc does not directly own them, could increase corruption and there would, simply, not be way to stop the Farc from taking over some of these plantation in the long run in one way or another.
Overall, even if this conditions seem somehow simple on the short run, especially to alleviate the violence and problems in the short run, the Farc would end up actually gaining profit and power on the long run either by taking over plantations by force, by blackmailing the workers (increasing corruption) or by simply being allowed to produce and export more drugs without many worries or restrictions.
A Guerrilla as powerful, violent and with such a big story as the Farc should never be taken lightly and will never dissipate, goes away or stop its actions in a simple/civilized manner since there is just no real reason for them to stop what has been being done for fifty plus years, in fact, on the contrary their goal is/will be eventually not other but to gain size and power in order to keep on with their “revolution”.
The Colombian government needs to legalize production of these crops and cease aerial spraying because it is harmful physically, economically and socially, regardless of the request from the Farc. Other countries too, like Bolivia, have called for similar measures from Colombia and the US. Cultivation of marijuana, coca and poppy is a major part of Bolivian agriculture and could boost their impoverished economy substantially if other countries would revise their policies. Further, both US and Colombian governments perform aerial sprays of these crops. In other words, we spray Round-Up all over the rain forest and its indigenous people because Nixon was concerned about crack babies. But poisoning poor local populations and destroying their entire livelihood in the name of this evangelist cause is okay, right? Right??
DeleteI think a lot of people don't realize that these crops, especially coca, are not exclusively used for drug purposes. Coca is used as a tea to help with headaches, stomach aches, altitude sickness, and many other ailments. The drug trade is a problem in Columbia, but spraying these crops with toxic chemicals is not the way to prevent it. I'm a believer in legalization, and while I think initially drug use might go up, in the long run it will even out and the country will prosper overall.
DeleteI agree there is the possibility the FARC would just take advantage of drugs production being legal, but it is not okay to spray crops and affect the innocent communities. In Portugal, they decriminalized the use of all drugs in 2001, and today reports say that drug use is half of what is has been before. In addition, it has helped in the economy by lessening spending on fighting the war of drugs and then money goes to business owners instead of the gangs/drug lords like FARC. This could potentially be a similar situation and the Colombian government should take the chance like Portugal and allow the legalization.
DeleteSeeing as many Latin American countries have tended to fluctuate between democratic and more authoritarian-style regimes throughout history, I think that it should probably be more of a priority for them to focus on the liberal democratic principles. While things may look good from the voters/citizens point of view in Ecuador—new roads, schools, his help with poverty, I feel that people are completely unaware that while these things are all great and important, I don’t believe he focusing on the main democratic principles that he should be. In the article, it states how he has a “darker” side to him, in that he is “intolerant of criticism,” he requires television and radio stations to carry his broadcasts, he is using the presidential veto to rewrite laws which has “limited the power of the legislature.” These few things all remind me of Russia’s Vladimir Putin—who also scores very high in opinion polls, but he has a very dark side to him, which people seem to disregard because of all of the good he has done for Russia. Correa, like Putin, seems to be abusing his power as president, which is something to worry about. These things that Correa is doing are not very democratic, but because people in Ecuador see such a change and things are finally looking up for them, they seem to be blind to how Correa is going about fulfilling these things. It is definitely worrisome and will pose a threat to having a stable, democratic government because I feel that it may very well be possible to easily slip into a more authoritarian-style regime at the rate things are going now. While I understand that what he has done for Ecuador has been great and life-changing for many citizens, I believe that people need to focus on the big picture here and the future of Ecuador. Sometimes focusing on the democracy aspect may not get you the best results you would like, as soon as you would like, I still believe it’s a safer bet than heading towards a more authoritarian/autocratic path. As I mentioned previously, Correa shares similar characteristics of Putin and how he leads Russia—they both are skillful, likable, and have had a great deal of luck throughout their presidencies, however, we all know Putin is not the most democratic leader out there, so it worries me that we may see Correa head in that direction. In a place that is so prone to having government collapse, as we saw happen with Allende in Chile not many years ago, I believe it’s important to focus on the main democratic principles of a democracy rather than giving people what they want in a less stable/democratic manner. However, I do understand that voters who can see this "dark" side to Correa are probably in a very tough position because they are seeing this economic success that Correa has provided them with, but it's hard to tell what is going on behind the scenes--his abuse of power. Citizens and voters will continue to be deceived by all of the good Correa has done, while continue to be blind to the fact that their freedoms and liberties may be at risk in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think Americans have all been pretty well-trained to frown upon any kind of Socialism, so the obvious answer is to wag a finger at Correa. I don't think Ecuador needs to worry as much about Socialism itself, but the personalism of a single figurehead and the culture that could be born from it. As we've studied with Pinochet's authoritarian regime, the Ecuadorian people could be risking civil liberties of their own. What would interest me are the psychological aspects of men who grab for power-- opportunists, as the article so clearly mentioned several times.
DeleteFor those of you commenting on (or otherwise interested in) the article about Ecuador's Rafael Correa, here is the link to an article BBC News put out today about Correa's campaign.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21379601
There has been hostility between the Colombian government and the FARC since 1964 - almost five decades of consistent conflict. As stated in the article: "Land use and ending drug trafficking are among the key issues at the talks." Although the FARC denies claims that this legalization is to promote narcotics trade, the Colombian and U.S. governments think otherwise, and justly so. Personal cultivation and use of these drugs is one thing, but to have these drugs legalized nationwide is a bit much to ask. The FARC makes a significant profit through drug sales, and with nationwide legalization would come larger profit. Legalization would also decrease the United States’ influence in Colombia by de-legitimizing the war on drugs. However, these peacetalks do suggest that they do want to end the war, which makes for an interesting development.
ReplyDeleteBecause drug trafficking is such a significant problem in Colombia the government will be hesitant in drug legalization. Perhaps allowing for controlled and monitored legalization of marijuana, poppy and coca cultivation will aleve some tension between the two, but the government will not accept these terms lightly. The big question to ask is, should the Colombian government accept legalization terms, and if so, what would come with it? With nationwide legalization comes the potential of stronger economy, but also addiction to these newly legalized drugs.
Land redistribution, though, is a whole different problem in itself. There has been general talk of progress between the two sides, however, the Colombian government will once again be hesitant in terminating mining operations and exploration in order to give land to the nation's poor.
The FARC has officially requested almost 20% of Colombia be handed over to the poor along with consideration of minor drug legalization. These terms seem steep, but other recent news articles on this topic claim that the two are rapidly advancing in their peace talks, so maybe the terms that have been stated don’t need to be tweaked much more. The results of these terms could lead to a much larger problem farther down the road opposed to what temporary peace can bring.
Unfortunately I think that until they make some negotiations with the FARC they are going to continue to struggle with conflict with them especially in a violent manner. I don't think that this would necessarily end if they legalized the drugs and they redistbuted all the land, but some negotiation need to be arranged. I think that if they are willing to put in the work, if they legalize it in some sense, then maybe they would be able to regulate the drugs better and the money going into the production, as opposed to trying to fight against a ton of legal activity.
DeleteConnor Hatton
ReplyDelete2/14/2013
There is a culture in Latin America of the government not trusting its citizens. As a result, rampant violations of human rights and liberal rights have been a prevalent and integral part of many regimes throughout history in the region, especially recently. It once seemed as though, these violent and oppressive regimes were part of a bigger picture, that the repression was just part of a larger transition to democracy. However, as more and more time passes, it is becoming harder to justify this idea. It seems as if the region is in danger of consolidating these Machiavellian as fundamentals of the political make-up.
The case of Ecuador is no different. Correa, like many heads of state before him, has largely benefited from a prosperous economic climate. In this regard, Correa has hidden his repressive ideals behind a facade of economic prosperity. The economic prosperity has resulted in popular ambivalence, as most individual citizens are like to turn the blind eye towards violations of liberal principles for the sake of industrial development. What follows here, it should be noted, is a matter of opinion, opinions shaped by a liberal upbringing in a fairly transparent political climate with the utmost respect for individual rights above all else. That said, this prospect terrifies me. Our study of Chile has brought to light, at least for me, the true potential of such an ideology. The potential for abuse is too high for comfort. Formerly altruistic dictators (one could perhaps justify Pinochet as an example of this) have lost sight of short term economic goals and have been perverted by the prospect of power. It seems to be a slippery slope. An executive with too much power lacks checks and is highly susceptible to abuses of said power for personal gain. The danger here is evident, and it would seem that, in large part, Correa is headed down this path (as discussed at the end of the article). A new presidential security force and a new penal code are a threat to the Ecuadorian people and their individual rights.In addition, it is not unreasonable to view this as a sort of incremental stride towards executive autonomy and the replacement of the rule of law with a far more dangerous rule of man.
I do not doubt that Correa has the interests of Ecuador at heart. He would like to push the country forward in this especially trying and defining period for Latin America. With Chavez in a state of deteriorating health, there is a leadership void in the region as a proverbial leader and liberator. Chavez has justified his actions under the banner of the former revolutionary, Simon Bolivar. He sees himself as a liberator from the bondage of free market capitalism and American imperialistic bonds. No doubt, Correa has similar ambitions. It is this philosophy that causes me the most worry. With such grandiose ideals, a new penal code can only be one step in many to come, with unknown implications for the citizens of Ecuador. Latin American heads of states know no bounds in asserting personal goals (often motivated by the well-being of the state), forgoing individual rights in the process. I do not believe that a strong and empowered executive is all bad, but I do believe that it inspires a lust for more power, and more power, until there is a total delineation of justice and national interest. Therefore, the protection of individual rights is of the utmost importance, as it represents perhaps the most important and powerful check on governmental power. Opposition and free speech present a counterbalance to abuses of power, which cannot be substituted for any other check. A Judicial or legislative check alone is not enough to mediate this threat. Populations and the individuals that comprise these populations are a self-determining force that have the power to ameliorate this threat. Without this, the machine will prevail and the people are likely to suffer as a result.
A true democracy in Latin America, or at least as far as many have defined it, seems to have been a struggle for many of the countries throughout the region's history. Through the struggle of trying to recover from significant national debt and other issues, each country has also had many struggles with their leaders. Ecuador through its many difficulties saw some light with the leadership that was brought on by president Correa. And whether or not he just had so many success by chance or however the article outlined it, he made obvious strides. But at what costs? Corruption, censorship, and other forms of control that Correa has used in his previous term make for an unfair system. Ecuador is still struggling with debt, but on the home front citizens have a hard time seeing the bad sides to Correa. Unfortunately we are living in a world drowning in self interests. People have a hard time considering the future, when for so long in the past they struggled and now that things are starting to turn around, they don't see why it should change. It kind of reminds me of the communist situation in China. Why would people want to change what they have and go through an entire shift in politics when things aren't so bad at home. Maybe in the long run Correa is not the best fit for the future of Ecuador, but if people are willing to sacrifice other aspects of their lives and potentially jeopardize the future of Ecuador, then it is their vote. That is in some sense the definition of a democracy right? Their ability to vote for whomever they please. It does have an affect on the other aspects of democracy that many people would consider but in the case of the Ecuadorians, that is not so much a concern.
ReplyDeleteIf the goal of the Colombian government is to achieve peace while conceding as little as possible to FARC’s demands then their best option is to use an incremental, tit-for-tat negotiating strategy. For instance, given FARC’s demand that 20% of land be redistributed to the poor the government could tie a very gradual land entitlement system to a cessation of hostilities. The government could award deeds to citizens on a regular basis so long as FARC abides by a ceasefire. Through this process the government provides a constant peace incentive because the continuation of deed granting is conditioned upon FARC’s nonviolence. Even though handing out land to the poor is clearly not what the Colombian government wants to do, it is something it could benefit from doing. The mere act of beginning a redistribution program would serve to reduce animosity towards the regime and reduce approval for FARC’s violent actions due to the negative repercussions that would be felt by the larger community if land grants were suspended.
ReplyDeleteThe Colombian government faces much greater external pressure when it comes to the legalization of substances such as cannabis, poppies, and coca. Even if the government were comfortable altering the legal status of any of those items it would face disapproval and possibly retaliatory policy action from both the United States and the European Union at least. That being said, the FARC will certainly want to press this issue as it would legitimize some of their operations and demonstrate their power and political relevance. There will almost certainly be breakdowns in the negotiating process and outbreaks of violence. When these occur the government should respond with full tactical force against the incident, and immediately suspend any positive reciprocation in the negotiating process until peace has been restored for an appropriate time period.
As a powerful force, the FARC and other guerilla groups have imposed hostilities in Columbia that have been responsible for intense intrastate conflict for over half a century. One of the biggest contributions to the widespread corruption in Columbian society has been the penetration of drug trafficking.
ReplyDeleteFrom the research I have done on rebel groups in Columbia, it seems that the majority of them formed following the Cuba revolution in 1959 in response to the elimination of political competition that came from an agreement between the Liberal and Conservative Parties. The armed conflict that is currently taking place in Columbia is fuelled by drug-related violence, organized crime and tensions with neighboring Ecuador and Venezuela.
In my opinion, the question of how to establish peace in a country inundated with conflict is very difficult to answer. The Columbian government has a duty to protect its citizens, and answer to the people who are in opposition of their policies and governing. While it might not be in the governments best interest to negotiate with the FARC and other guerilla groups, they have no other choice but to ‘give in’ to a certain degree if they have any hopes of ending a brutal conflict that has resulted in extreme violence and many deaths over the past couple of decades. Perhaps the answer to what the government should be willing to give up lies within the article. While the legalization of drug crops could have other ramifications, it would eliminate the very source of funds that fuels the conflict. Regardless of whether this is a good answer or not, the government needs to be willing to give up a high degree of whatever it will take to end this end this brutal conflict and protect innocent citizens.
According to the article concerning the Farc rebels on the issue of drug crop production seems like a reasonable proposal in keeping peace. For one, certain crop production provides valid argument for therapeutic treatment and it’s also culturally recognized. The idea of trafficking and distributing the crops provide for a beneficial access of income which in all benefits the countries economy and provides jobs for local farmers. Instead of eradicating the idea of illegal drug production it would be better to make peace and monitor what is accessible.
ReplyDeleteI really think it's insane for Colombia to give into the majority of demands to FARC. Right before the talks began occurring on Jan. 31 they stormed an energy, a police station, and a town center killing four police officers. I see this as a bull rush move in an attempt to get the Colombian government to give in. They're asking for 20% of Colombians land be given to the quote on quote country's poor. Which is a flat out lie, these are the same people who often terrorize and abuse the poor until they meet their demands, such as hiding them. These crooks in my opinion would likely sieze any land given by force and claim to manage it for the "good" of the people in the area. If the government really wants to get people on their side they probably should stop spraying pesticides and begin to fund permaculture or other means to produce large amounts of cash crops that also feed their people.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the situation in Ecuador may seem troubling to many citizens of the United States, I think a lack of cultural comprehension is occurring. As the class read, in the last years of Pinochet enough people rose up and protested eventually forcing him to create an election. Although Pinochet and Correa's tactics seem at times wrong and unfair, the people still followed and follow them because that's what they want and what the feel is right for the country. It may not be what many western cultures would deem right or correct, but then many western cultures don't understand how Putin could for most of time in power have the highest approval rating of any Russian leader.