Death of the left-wing guerillas

As Ingrid Betancourt is settling back into normal life after six years held hostage in the Colombian jungle and Alvaro Uribe crows over his successful blow to the Farc, the left-wing rebel group seems to have been left in tatters. 

Freedom: Ingrid Betancourt greets her family

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Uribe has waged a war on the guerrillas since he came to power in 2002, killing key members and leading to record numbers of deserters handing themselves in.  The organisation seems to have been all-but defeated, yet it still survives due to a stronghold in the forgotten rural areas of the north-west. 

 

A similar situation is occurring in other Latin American countries.  In 1994 the EZLN, an armed revolutionary group based in the poorest region of Mexico entered the world stage.  Its enigmatic leader, Subcomandante Marcus, captured the world’s imagination and summed up the romantic notion of a rebel fighter with his ski mask, rifle and Marxist rhetoric.

 

However, during the presidential campaign in 2006, when the Subcomandante went on the road to drum up support and encourage civilians to boycott the elections and consider the complaints of his rebel group, the turnout at his speeches was in the hundreds rather than the thousands he enjoyed in earlier years.  His cause seemed outdated to most Mexicans living in the modern, prosperous cities.

 

Once again though, he has the support of the rural, indigenous population.  In fact the EZLN has a hugely popular radio station in the south and support for this group of rebels is far from waning. 

 

So, surely the Colombian and Mexican governments are missing a trick here?  Yes, the rebel groups are losing popularity in the cities much to the relief of politicians, but the rural population still feels it has something to fight for.  Often these poor areas are forgotten by politicians and the very work carried out by the rebel groups highlights the lack of interest in these areas from the government.

 

Rebels: The Farc is mainly made up of young, rural fighters

 In southern Mexico the EZLN has set up the radio station in order that isolated communities feel connected.  Both the Farc and the EZLN have built an infrastructure in the areas they control, with leaders and community groups in which villagers can air opinion. 

  

A government that ignores the unrepresented groups of poor rural villages, creates the perfect environment for a rebel army to form and flourish.  Often these indigenous rural workers form the backbone of the economy but have no way to interact with central government.  Instead they can air their grievances with rebels based in their area who understand their needs.

 

The Latin American revolutionary may be a dying breed but he has taught us something about the importance of regional representation.  The government that takes this lesson on board and reaches out to these marginalised communities can educate and develop the most poverty-stricken areas of their country.  An engaged population can begin to close the gap between the rural and urban peoples and will be less open to abuses suffered at the hands of companies and landowners today.        

    

The US election – In all the excitement did they forget Latin America?

Presidential hopefuls: Will McCain or Obama address the elephant in the room?

The two hopefuls have taken their shows abroad with Obama touring Europe, while McCain visits Colombia and Mexico.  However, it is our modern-day Kennedy that has stolen the limelight, leading to a somewhat spiky ad campaign from the McCain camp. 

 

The advert, released on 1^st August entitled ‘¿Y dónde quedó América Latina?’ is the latest in a string of adverts attacking Obama.  Doctoring the Berlin address to highlight the omission of Latin America from Obama’s speech, McCain claims that the Democrat has forgotten Latin America.  A definite play for the mainly Democrat-supporting population of 35 million Latinos in the US.

 

Despite this fighting talk over Latin American policy from McCain, there is not much to differentiate him from his rival, with whom he clashes on every other policy.  Both candidates acknowledge a need for tougher border security, an old argument resulting in the physical wall being built along the border with Mexico.  Both talk about cracking down on the employers of illegal immigrants, helping those without papers in the US become citizens, the need for immigrants to learn English and a change in the immigration system to eliminate a backlog of applications.  They are certainly not reinventing the wheel.

 

So, why are both candidates avoiding strong policies on Latin American issues?  Could it be that they are scared of opening that figurative can of worms?  Obama recently caused a backlash by suggesting that he would hold talks with Raúl Castro of Cuba, a less than popular idea among the powerful Cuban exiles in Miami. 

 

Therein lies the problem for both candidates, there are very few Latin American governments in America’s good books at the moment, with most embracing socialist policies and anti-American feeling.  It is all very well talking about working more with Latin American countries but by appearing too soft , or receiving approval form the wrong leader the candidates could well estrange themselves from the Latinos based in the US. 

Obama had a close call with endorsement from Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, until recently when he changed his mind declaring that Obama was as bad as the rest of the imperialists – a sigh of relief was heard in the Obama camp.

 

Colombia and Mexico seem to be the only safe countries for the candidates to visit without sparking controversy about meeting with tyrants, oppressors or worse, socialists.  McCain has stormed in there to talk free trade and claim Central and South America for himself, dropping a barbed comment about how great it would be if Obama visited to see Latin America for himself.  It will be interesting to see how Obama retaliates; will he come out fighting, whipping a couple of surprise policies from up his sleeve?  Or will he peddle the same ‘we will work together with mutual respect and dignity’ line? Yawn.

 

The battle for the votes will only continue and the candidates will clash on every topic they can, using the chance to flex some political muscle.  However, it is the topic on which they have had the least debate that could prove important when the votes are counted.  Playing it safe is a good way to avoid offending communities, but engaging them with fresh ideas to improve their situation is certainly a way to secure that crucial support.

 

Instead of throwing accusations of ‘forgetting Latin America’ whilst proudly recycling old policies the candidates have the chance to build bridges both within and beyond the US border.  And who knows, by engaging Latinos across the continent a forward-thinking candidate could secure the presidency and pave the way for positive changes on the issues of immigration, drug trafficking and the future of the American economy.