Once upon a time in a democratic country a demagogue rose to power with high popular support. He had a mandate to carry out drastic changes to ultimately eradicate those elements in society that subjugated millions of innocent civilians to violence, misery and poverty. This character became a Messiah with wisdom, courage and values that no other previous president had demonstrated.
One constitution change and a re-election later the president continued with high popular support as a result of an apparent alleviation of society’s ailments. However, the means that this leader utilized to reach such ends emerged to be a double-edge sword that commenced to erode people’s freedom and altered society’s sense of justice. At the current pace this leader appears to be leading the country to more misery, violence and poverty that had ever existed before. Yet, the masses continue turning a blind an eye to such excesses that threat the same political fabric that permitted his re-election. This omniscient man has decided to update the constitution once again in order to perpetuate his power and continue disseminating his double standards.
Who is this description alluding to? This depiction would certainly fit many rulers that, at first instance, have encapsulated the hope of millions, but eventually emerged to be just a mirage of illusions that only the thirst of justice could have induced. The patriot in this narrative depicts not one but two characters, the Colombian and Venezuelan president. Uribe and Chavez are poles apart in terms of ideology and personality, yet they embody the same disregard for democratic values and the respect for institutions. These two nemeses are what Obama referred in his speech as being in the wrong side of history. Both are clinging to power through corruption and deceit.
Obama asserted that those thirsty for power, who were ready to unclench their fist, could expect a helping hand from him. The question, therefore, is whether Obama would use the same criteria to judge these two caudillos that are similarly clinging to power. Obama recently stated that Chavez had been a destabilizing force in the region that had hampered progress. Yet, Uribe has not been the target of such rants from Obama, in fact the opposite has occurred. For instance, Hoyer, the House of Representatives majority leader, insisted in the overwhelming benefit that the FTA would have in both nations. He went on to state that Colombia would remain a valued partner for years to come. Echoing another congressman, Rangel, who stated that Obama wants to work together with both parties for the ratification of the current signed FTAs. Obama has barely unpacked his suitcases and disinfected the white house before a bias criteria appears to have been taken.
It can be expected that Uribe's government Human Rights violations, close ties with right-wing paramilitary groups, increasing number of extra-judicial killings, innocent peasant’s displacement and naturally his clinging to power will be overlooked by Obama. The USA is more willing to permit gross violations to the democratic values that they claim to defend by a close ally that obediently follows their whims than a very similar demagogue that has stood his ground towards neo-colonialism. In sum foreign policy in the US would continue to be devise by the interest of the elite.
Author Sebastian Castaneda is Colombian studies psychology and political economy at the University of Hong Kong
Gringo Fiddler
said:
 |
... Frequent changes to the Colombian constitution to extend the term limits for any President are bound to do more harm than good. Having said that, any comparisons bewteen President Uribe and President Chavez of Venezuela are off the mark. President Uribe, while by no means a saint, has provided for an unprecedented period of security and stability for Colombians. President Chavez has brought a serious economic decline to Venezuela, in addition to a number of attempts to extend his presidency into a lifetime appointment with near dictatorial powers. Given that President Obama has been in office for about 48 hours, it is far to early to assume that he will be supportive of "friendly" dictators. Besides, it would be foolish of him to draw a line in the sand without regard to context and circumstances. President Bush was criticized for a foreign policy that was "black and white", rather than nuanced, so why should Barack Obama follow that model? |
gringo michae
said:
|
... While I am not a big fan of Uribe, your bias is very clear, for you are far off the mark trying to compare Uribe as being the same as Chavez.. HOw long have you been living in Hong Kong ? when was the last time you were home inColombia? |
Monito
said:
 |
... @ Gringo Michael, How is it relevant or even helpful to be in the country. Doesn't the climber see the mountain better from a distance? If we're going to use arguments like this, no one is allowed to form an opinion. One's not been in the country for long enough, the other's been out the country for too long or not long enough and the other's been in the country too long. There's absolutely similarities between the two and that's what's so "funny" about it. They both have a very creative way of using democratic means to stay in power too long. And we can all figure that the U.S. will treat both countries differently, because U.S. interests in both countries are different. the president may be different, but the national interest is still the same. |
Sebastian Castaneda
said:
|
... Obama has brought drastic changes to the internal political environment in the few hours that he’s been in power. However, there have been a few comments (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...srael-gaza) by him supporting the actions of Israel in Palestine that follow a similar stance to previous administrations, thus suggesting that foreign policy in the US may not change drastically. Even though the US ambassador in Colombia, in recent remarks, has implicitly disapproved of the efforts to pass the referendum on Uribe's new term, there have not been similar and more explicit calls from Obama's administration. The main idea in the article is that even though both presidents have wide support in their countries and have achieved changes that some sections of the population applaud one cannot disregard their similar obsession to power. Therefore, Obama’s remarks on leaders perpetuating in power should also be applicable to Uribe. |
gringo michae
said:
|
... my point of being away is has he been gone long ? how in touch is he with what is going on in his Home country? One thing about opinions , everyone has one. There are many in Colombia who have pushed for a Uribe third term, As there have been those in Venezuela for Chavez, but both men govern clearly different , one had brought major change for the good to his country the other has squander his countries wealth. Like I said I am not a fan of Uribe and think two terms is enough, but cleary these two men are very different people. The story cleary shows a bias like it or not. Hence it is not a news story but an opinion piece. Just like what I write here is my opinion of both men and the opimion piece written. |
gringo michae
said:
|
... Sebasttani, Yes Obama has brought change, but I think you expect to much in the short time he has been in office. Wether Uribe will run or be able to run for a third term is the least of his concerns, for it is the up to the people of Colombia to decided not the President of the USA. I differ with you on the obession for power, Chavez has sought to rewrite the Constitution to give him more power and to stay in office for life, Uribe supportors are loking to make a change to allow a thrid term ( which I disagree with) . I see Uribe running for a thrid term not for power but more so becuase he has brought some postive change to Colombia but has not finished everything he had hoped to do. I think another person, a new face woud serve Colombia better, Uribe has had 8 years it is time for him to move on. Just as it is time for Chavez to do the same. This is my opinion, but in the end it wil be up to the people and voters of both countries to decided these matters. |
Gringo Fiddler
said:
|
... "Obama has brought drastic changes to the internal political environment in the few hours that he’s been in power. However, there have been a few comments by him supporting the actions of Israel in Palestine that follow a similar stance to previous administrations, thus suggesting that foreign policy in the US may not change drastically." (Sebastian Castenada) No American President of eithe party or any ideological stripe will ever utter anything other than complete support for Israel, so this is not a fair litmus test for President Obama. Whatever Obama's instincts, it is not even an issue that can be openly debated without severe negative consequences to his presidency. |
