A recent propaganda campaign in the Washington, D.C. is blinding and misleading the American leadership at a crucial crossroads for U.S.-Colombia relations.
About a week ago, after a pleasant late-summer breakfast in D.C.’s Woodley Park neighborhood, I noticed a large yellow heart sculpture outside the nearby Metro Station. In a city dotted with unexpected public art, this glowing heart caught my attention because it was lined with statistics showcasing Colombia’s ethnic diversity.
In recent days, 47 such hearts have popped up in strategic locations around the U.S. capital. They showcase the country’s beauty, modernity, and, of course, its most popular tourist destinations. The exhibit, funded in part by the Colombian government, is meant to improve Colombia’s image among the residents of what is arguably the world’s most powerful city.
Naturally, the have been more than a few complaints about the initiative. Many groups, including the satirical ColombiaVisit.org, have alleged that the exhibit is actually a propaganda campaign intended to influence U.S. Congressmen and facilitate the signing of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. They are obviously onto something: the seven largest hearts are at Union Station, an important transport hub located just a block from congressional office buildings and the U.S. capitol. Nevertheless, protest groups are misguided in their complaints. It is by no means uncommon for governments to attempt to change their countries’ image to alter political outcomes.
Nevertheless, there is something strange about this campaign. At first glance, it seems strange that the government’s method of choice in easing concerns about human rights abuses, union leader murders, environmental standards and democracy are pictures of afro-Colombians, hotels in Cartagena and Bogota’s business district.
Indeed, the bizarre premise of the exhibit is that a country with skyscrapers, gourmet restaurants and natural beauty cannot possibly be mired in violence and political repression. This simplistic mindset is common not only among Colombia’s political leaders, but also much of its citizenry.
Colombians, naturally frustrated by their country’s portrayal in foreign movies and newspapers, tend to see the country’s image in purely black-and-white terms. The country’s “good qualities” – including aguardiente, Shakira, beautiful women, and emeralds – are thought to be mutually exclusive with its “bad qualities” – most notably the FARC, but also other security and political challenges. To give a particularly absurd example, when I attended an anti-kidnapping march in Buenos Aires, I repeatedly heard exclamations like “Viva la arepa!” as if Colombian cuisine were the answer to the country’s hostage crisis.
But what exactly is so harmful about these simplistic expressions of nationalism?
When it comes to delicate and urgent political problems, this brand of nationalism tends to steer the country and its leaders away from solutions. Colombians, especially the current administration, tend to treat those who raise awareness abroad about the country’s challenges as defeatist enemies of Colombia tainting the country’s image. In other words, they are silencing the few voices spreading the truth about the country’s urgent needs, in effect rejecting the type of international support that could be crucial to sustainable solutions.
What good do we do to the country by informing America’s leading politicians of the highest-rated restaurants in Bogota? To be honest, very few congressmen are potential visitors. On the other hand, nearly all of them will have an important say in major policy decisions. Unfortunately, the current strategy of blinding policymakers with glowing hearts does little to alleviate their already crippling ignorance with regards to Colombia.
Indeed, it seems that there are only two competing views of Colombia in the U.S.: Hollywood’s portrayal of a hopelessly impoverished jungle warzone and the yellow heart’s equally inaccurate illusion of a peaceful, problem-free tourist haven. Somewhere in the midst of this battle of mirages is the quiet voice of financially struggling human rights organizations working to inform congressmen about Colombia’s challenges. The fact that any American politician can speak competently about Colombia is nothing short of a miracle.
Precisely because we are proud of our beautiful country, we should make sure that the men in Washington shaping its future are well-informed about its most pressing issues. If we don’t, who will?
Bluebird
said:
 |
... Pablo.....maybe they should be plastering large panoramic pictures of the atrocities perpetuated upon the Colombian people by the FARC, ELN, AUC, etc. etc. across the Washington landscape???? I really think that they are only trying to raise awareness of Colombia in a country that unfortunately is only vaguely aware of Colombia. Many people in the U.S. think of jungle, mud huts beside a slow moving muddy river, drugs, and other negative sterotypes when they hear the name "Colombia". Many are surprised when they see pictures of modern cities like Bogota, Medellin, etc. My point is that Colombia is just "not on the radar" of many in the U.S. and this is simply a campaign to help move Colombia onto the radar screen of the average citizen. |
Just another foreigner
said:
|
... Mr. Rojas Mejia, It is sad to read that you promote the same simplistic view of Colombia, as you accuse the people who made the yellow hearts in Washington DC have; only your view of Colombia is drenched in negativity. As Bluebird also mentions, the predominant view of Colombia by foreigners is one that is comprised out of cocaine and violence. "Isn't it dangerous to go to Colombia?", is a comment I hear frequently every time I go to Colombia. On the other hand, my experience with Colombian and their opinion about Colombia is far more balanced. They acknowledge the violence and politically slippery climate, their intermingeling with the paramilitaries, and the gap between poor and rich, but at the same time they talk with pride about the beauty of the country and its people. A beauty I have seen and enjoyed. Reading your last paragraph I believe you meant this column to be more balanced. For it to be just a footnote in response to the placing of the yellow hearts, but your failed miserably at it. Sincerely, Just another foreigner |
gringo76
said:
|
... The average gringo does not care about Colombia, and why should they? What a waste of money and resources. Buying off Congress is not going to pass a free trade treaty. The discovery channel is still showing how Pablo Escobar was killed, and Hollywood is still making drug movies about Colombia. Too bad they can not film there or do the production there. |
Pablo Rojas
said:
|
... I realize the column may have been unclear, but I think we're missing the point by focusing on being "balanced" between so-called "negative viewsw" and "positive views" of Colombia. My objection is to repeated strategic efforts to cover up problems with cheap tourist propaganda. I've spent many happy years and months in Colombia, but if I were talking to President Obama right now, my priority would not be to speak at length about how peaceful and accessible it is. The American public should overcome their Hollywood negativity with regard to Colombia, but the American LEADERSHIP should be made aware of the country's urgent needs. The hearts are where they are in D.C. to make people forget about union murders and human rights abuses and that's plainly sad. The country, rather than seeking international help to solve its problems, is only encouraging international ignorance. That is, of course, if you share my view that Colobmia has more problems than just the FARC, as the President has done a fine job of pursuing an international effort to cotain the guerrillas. When it comes to displacement, corruption, and human rights, we do more covering up than speaking out. |
Bluebird
said:
|
... I guess it comes down to whether one is an optimest or a pessimest. You, Pablo, see the glass as half empty in regards to Colombia. I see the glass as half full. Yes, there are many problems to be resolved. What country on earth does not have serious problems to deal with? But there are also good, wonderful things happening in Colombia. Those things are just as newsworthy as the negative things that you insist on focusing on. |
Adriaan
said:
 |
... @ Bluebird, But if you want help for the problems you have, shouldn't you be portraying correctly what the problems that need solving are? It's like going to a shrink and not telling him or her what the problem is and just asking him to give you drug X. |
Pablo Rojas
said:
|
... There are plenty of great things going on in Colombia. I spent the past few months working with the Medellin city government to transform the slum of Moravia near downtown. I could not have been more impressed with the project and the city government in general. But you are missing the point if you think it comes down to being a pessimist or an optimist. I am not passing judgement on Colombia in general. That is exactly the kind of oversimplification I want to avoid. The question I am really asking is is "What should American policymakers know about Colombia?" Now, of course, there can be various legitimate answers to that question. I want American leaders to know about Colombia's challenges so they can better help the country, but that does not mean that I am a pessimist about Colombia in general. The American leadership is a very particular audience that needs to hear a particular type of information. I encourage all my friends to visit Colombia. On the other hand, I just don't think, for Colombia's sake, that tourist propaganda is what we should be showing foreign political leaders. |
gringo michae
said:
 |
... to think that members of Congress are unware of prob;ems in Colombia is a falshood, indeed there are a few who consider themselevs experts on Colombia and have made numerous speeches in Congress about Colombia and problems there. . I agree with blue on this the ads are to promote a more positive image, Having lived in Colombia , I find myself on a regular bases taking with co workers and even family about Colombia and that it is not just a country or murderers and drugs, which today is still the prevailing image most in the USA have of Colombia. I also think these postive images give those fighting for help to the problems as a way to point out that Colombia is more then just drugs and killers, that the Colombian people have great resolve to work towards fixing the problems but they need some help along the way. That Colombia is a place worth investing engery and money to fix the issues it faces. |
Pablo Rojas
said:
|
... I agree that there are a few experts on Colombia in Congress (as the column suggests), but they are a small minority. The flow of information to Congress about Colombia is remarkably weak. I think most of us can agree that if Congress really did have good information on Colombia, American policy would show a little more wisdom. Having worked on Capitol Hill, I generally found only two opinions on Colombia. The first, which I think we all agree is an unfortunate falsehood, is that Colombia is a godforsaken jungle full of drugs and murderers. The second view, which is only slightly more informed, is the worryingly vague idea that "things are better now", the type of view that the yellow hearts are trying to promote. I think there is an urgent need to move beyond both generalizations. Colombia is worth the world's energy because its people deserve it and because many of its people are still suffering. The hearts, I'm afraid, show only the former point and try to cover up the latter. |
Bluebird
said:
|
... Pablo.... you and Adriaan seem to believe that it is crucial that U.S. lawmakers need to know all of Colombia's dirty laundry. Why is it so critical that they see this dirty laundry? Do you think they can solve the problems of Colombia? Only Colombia can solve Colombia's problems. I think the best overall strategy is for Colombia to work toward improving it's image abroad and work toward resolving it's internal problems at home. |
Pablo Rojas
said:
|
... Bluebird (and I promise this is my last comment)... FIrst, Adriaan doesn't endorse my opinions. Second, Nobody is calling on the U.S. to solve Colombia's problems. The fact is that the U.S. is already very involved in Colombia (and dozens of other countries) whether we like it or not. Given that reality, it would be better for both countries if that involvement were as well-informed, sensible and constructive as possible. International politics is not simply a matter of improving your country's image while you solve your domestic problems yourself. Foreign collaboration is increasingly crucial to solving issues of domestic importance. Colombia, like most other countries, can greatly benefit from sensible help from the U.S. and the international community in general. |
Bluebird
said:
|
... Pablo.....my last comment as well ( I promise). The problem with that is......who determines what is "sensible" help from the U.S. or any other country? What i may view as "sensible" help would probably be viewed as "outrageous" by you and what you may view as "sensible" would probably be seen as "outrageous" by me.. And one other thing.....once you get the international community actively involved in "helping" Colombia it is extremely difficult to get them to stop "helping".. The old saying....."Be careful what you wish for because you may get it" .... is very true. Just something to think about. |
Adriaan
said:
|
... Ok, my final one on this one too then :-) If the U.S. wants to form a policy on what to do and forms a policy on what to do, it should be well informed. This way it can have an effective policy (which supporters and opponents then agree of disagree with). Colombia has expressed on several occasions it needs U.S. help to solve problems with drug trafficking and guerrilla / paramilitary groups. If Colombia does so, it needs to inform the U.S. correctly on what it needs help for or the American taxpayer is just going to spend a lot of money on corrupt politics. |
LENDAKARI
said:
|
... Nobody of you knows about colombia's Presidents past. In fact he was the son of a Drug Dealer and he made drug deals with Pablo Escobar when he was Director of AEROCIVIL in Colombia the Equivalent of F.A.A. in the US, he is deeply involved with Paramilitary people and he is best friends with some of the most important parmilitary commanders...Americans dont have any idea of who Mr. Uribe really is! |
gringo76
said:
|
... Why should the Congress of the USA care that much about Colombia when they are focused on the current health care debate, and how to get elected. If you ask a gringo who is Alvaro Uribe? Every time I go to Colombia my co-workers ask me to bring them back a kilo, so why is the government of Colombia wasting time and money trying to buy-off the congress of the USA? I want my congress to know about the dirty laundry of Colomba. Why ? I am a US tax payer who does not want my tax dollars to go support a Uribe |
Kidnapped
said:
|
... While I do believe Colombia is progressing at a miraculous rate, Pablo does have a point. Colombia still has its fair share of problems worth noting. These hearts mask the true needs of Colombia and serve as propaganda for the FTA approval from Congress. Congressmen should be informed of the needs of Colombia, not just the wants. I do agree with Bluebird, however, that Colombia does deserve a more positive image. With Washington D.C. as the most metropolitan and influential city such positive information can spread easily. I love Colombia and it does sadden me to hear misguided views of such a wonderful country. I think it's great that people are active in changing the view of their beloved country. LENDAKARI, nobody was disputing Uribe's qualifications. I fail to understand the relevance of such a comment. Most Americans don't have any idea of who President Uribe is, period, much less who he "really" is. We have no (legal) say in who Colombia's president is, but we do have say in our political relations with Colombia. |
Andrewmann552
said:
|
... Sadly Colombia under Uribe is simply becoming a militarized, almost lunatic state, not the Colombian people who are no doubt well-informed, but the Uribe regime itself is a lunatic regime desperate to cling to power and like classic Latin American oligarchies, latches on to the imperial power of the moment. Jorge Elicier Gaitan would be ashamed of how Uribe desperately runs to sit on Tio Sam's knee. |
Spy
said:
|
... The large majority of Colombians approve of Uribe given his outrageous approval ratings, week after week. Comparing his popularity to any other countries leader suggests that lunatics writing here are the anti-Uribe fringe types. Having to give the writers of this site a pass because they clearly use English as a second language and then apologize because their point is misunderstood should be sent back to class. Opinions are fine. Believe what you want as well. The governments JOB is allow you to fix as many problems as possible, NOT do it for you. When you are willing to turn on those who want to destroy peace and opportunity for their political motivations your voice will mean something. Until then you are just a revolutionary who wants us all poor. |
makopp5
said:
|
... Andrew I think you have no idea how Colombia have progressed under Uribe. And the people love him for this. Perhabs you should come to Colombia and see how the people talk about him. |
Andrewmann552
said:
|
... makopp5. The largest refugee crisis after Sudan, unemployment shooting through the roof, #1 human rights violator in the hemisphere, you consider this progress? The Uribistas only worship the guy because he's hit FARC hard, that's his only accomplishment. I've been to Colombia many times, I am Colombian, and the university students and poor people in the rural zones are not big fans of Alvaro. |
Albeiror24
said:
 |
... Reading the article and comments I would reflect like this (dividing in three comments): 1. Promoting the image of a country (developing the tourist industry), is a right of any country, including Colombia. Let's compare it with Thailand and its current political instability, Cambodia and its shameful corruption... Even Cuba promotes a tourism that is blind of what happens inland. No one in an office of the Ministry of Tourism would portray misery or internal conflicts to attract visitors. We could not way "welcome to Colombia, an exciting adventure full of paramilitary groups, guerrilla commandos, mafia and kidnapping... enjoy our city slams, the coca grows and be a survivor in the most dangerous country of the word"  Next... |
Albeiror24
said:
|
... 2. I believe that the development of the tourist industry has a real effect in how the image of a country can be changed (Cambodia is my model). First, an ordinary tourist visits a foreign country to relax and has fun. That is not a sin itself. If an US tourist will choose a country to visit according to its level of transparency, improvement of human rights, political instability and so on, the options will be very reduced, because even US has international demands for human rights violations. However, the rise in the number of tourists to a country, means that such country is widening its space of peace and social stability. Without checking references, I can assure that foreign visitors to Afghanistan is 0% now. When it will be 50%, then we can say that something has improved in that nation. Next... |
Albeiror24
said:
|
... The presence of foreign tourism in Colombia is very important for all Colombians, I am completely convinced of it and I work with my conviction for Colombia in that sense. It means employment, it means that our people will open their minds and enter in touch with other nations and cultures, it means the enforcement of security, the improvement of life in the tourist regions (even the most marginalized will enjoy attention from officials)... Tourists want just to take pictures... They create many other problems, it is true, but they open ways and opportunities as well. Bringing tourism to Colombia is not, then, a task of the government. It is an interest of many sectors of our society, private and public, rich and poor Colombians. Next... |
Albeiror24
said:
|
... 3. We Colombians face a long polarization in many aspects. One is the problem of what to say about Colombia: Should we show our problems or our beauties? International media gives a gloomy image of Colombia, of course. Then, most of us feel the duty to balance such gray image with color. The solution becomes as subjective as the problem itself. My proposal is the chiaroscuro. Again, agencies have not the task to show the dark, but the color. One of the spaces to show that chiaroscuro is the media and journalism. Next... |
Albeiror24
said:
|
... This is so far our philosophy in CR. It is possible to demonstrate that showing just one face of any country has its problems: if you point out only the problems of a nation, you finish with a generalized image of that country like we have on the Colombian image (talking about the image): mafia, paramilitaries, guerrillas, crime, cocaine... This single image is not helpful in any sense. It creates antipathy for that country and international opinion tends to punish the whole country, making more suffering to innocents. Maybe we can compare it with how international media uses to portray Africa: the pictures of ravenous children only have attracted several NGOs promoting paternalism, pouring dollars into corrupt systems and Africa, still the same... we live from this forever image of an everlasting huge slam. In many cases, Colombia has faced the same. At the other side, if we concentrate only in how great is Colombia, the model will be Thailand: the European haven... ignoring its problems. This theory of the chiaroscuro... we have to develop it. We show how great is Colombia, its people, its music, its traditions... and we show that those great things are the main reason why we look everyday for solutions to our daily conflicts, that are real and painful. The End |
