COLOMBIA'S "SEQUESTRADOS"

The news focus on the tragic situations being endured by the kidnapped victims of the FARC is putting a lot of pressure on the Colombian government, and particularly on President Alvaro Uribe Velez, to reach some sort of "humanitarian accord" with the guerrillas. The idea seems to be that thousands of convicted guerrillas held in Colombian prisons should be exchanged for about 50 "exchangables"...prominent hostages held by the FARC.

The pressure on President Uribe is based on a number of factors.

1. One of the most prominent "exchangeables" is a dual citizen of France and Colombia. Ingrid Betancourt, former Green Party candidate for president was captured by the FARC after entering a "red zone" near Florencia despite repeated warnings from the military that she should not go (and the refusal of her bodyguards to go with her...one said later that his job description did not include suicide). The French government wants her freed and is pressuring President Uribe to do anything necessary to get her out, regardless of what principles have to be ignored, or what notions of national sovereignty must be destoyed...in other words, do what France would do.
2. The recent photos of Ms. Betancourt show that she is in terrible shape. She looked, to put it in the vernacular, like death warmed over.
3. Other Colombians also want their loved ones returned. Some of them have been in captivity for almost 10 years. In reality, there may be as many as 3000 hostages, though only the 50 most prominent are usually mentioned.
4. The FARC wants a "zona de despeje", which means a large area of the country which they can control, in order to "negotiate" the exchange of prisoners/hostages.
5. The recent rupture in relations between President Uribe and Venezuelan President Hugo Chaves Frias has created another pressure point because, for some reason, Chavez has taken it personally that he was disinvited from interfering in Colombia's internal affairs. He is threatening to create obstacles to Colombian-Venezuelan trade, which could hurt the Colombian economy (also the Venezuelan economy, but that is a matter of indifference to Chavez as he thinks he can insulate the country from such effects through the use of petroleum revenues).

All of this raises some questions for the Renaissance Man.

• Why the focus on one hostage? While Ms. Betancourt is important, is she really that much more important than the farmers, police officers and infantry privates who are also held? Their families miss them too. The Renaissance Man finds this focus on but a single hostage distasteful and elitist.
• If Chavez and President Sarkozy of France (and, for that matter, the other Europeans) are so fond of the idea of a "zona de despeje" why not have one...in Venezuela, France, Switzerland...
• Finally, given the attitude of moral superiority of France, the Renaissance Man has a question for President Sarkozy. According to recent news reports out of the United States, the practice of "waterboarding" seems to provide fast and accurate intelligence, though some people regard it as torture. My question is whether, if a captured FARC guerrilla knew the location of Ms. Betancourt, would an interrogation that included the use of "waterboarding" be justified in order to ascertain her whereabouts?

Just asking.

CHAVEZ AND THE REFERENDUM

Following Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’ “gracious” (by his weird standards) concession speech following the Referendum, the Renaissance Man told everyone who would listen to just wait. His pattern is to start out calmly and then, after a slow burn, explode. Just the most recent example, of course, was when Colombian President Alvaro Uribe V. removed President Chavez from the negotiations for a humanitarian accord regarding the hostages held by the FARC. Pres. Chavez, at first, accepted the decision with magnanimity and as the sovereign decision of a sovereign state.

Later in the week (and really up until this minute) he went off the deep end.

As usual, the Renaissance Man was right about what would happen this time. Graciousness has been replaced by vulgarity, rage and threats. On Wednesday of this week, just two days after the concession speech, Chavez attacked the winning “No” side as having had a “shit” victory (it went on like that, but the Renaissance Man sees no need to dirty this blog with additional vulgarities).

Yesterday, Chavez attacked his supporters for not going out and voting. He attacked those who voted “No” as “little Yankees” and castigated his followers for not getting enough “Si” votes out to the polls. He attacked the voters of Caracas saying that they owed him a debt, which they had not repaid by supporting his constitutional reform. He then threatened “We’ll see if the debt is repaid or not”.

The Renaissance Man has a few short points to make here. First, the complete contempt in which Chavez holds not only his opponents but their democratic victory in the referendum is clear and troubling. It is evident that those who regard his acceptance of the results of the referendum as a manifestation of his essentially democratic nature are seriously mistaken. In fact, he clearly holds no respect for democracy, its norms, the right of citizens to disagree with their leaders, or for democratic outcomes that run counter to his wishes.

Secondly, Chavez’ remarks reconfirm his abysmally shallow understanding of democratic, republican and even socialist theories of government. In democratic and republican theory, the people NEVER “owe” any sort of debt, personally, to their leaders. In a republic, the leader is simply a citizen representative and in no democratic or republic style system can an elected leader claim any personal right to be supported by the people. On the contrary, he or she owes their position to the people. The debt, if there is one, runs the other way.

Even socialist theory, which is based upon equality of all, would deny that any leader can be owed a personal debt by his/her subjects. Of course, socialist theory frequently collapses, in practice, into statism and dictatorship.

Chavez reveals, in these comments, his true nature. He is neither republican, nor democrat, nor socialist. He regards the presidency of Venezuela as his personal fiefdom, and his so-called “populism” is merely a convenient tool to buttress what is essentially a dictatorship in waiting.

Thirdly, despite the shrewdness that some people attribute to him, the Renaissance Man is concerned that there is a certain instability about Chavez. The way he ratchets up his anger, for example, is not normal. In some reports, following his Tuesday attack on his opponents, it was posited that he was drunk. After looking at the video, who knows? The Renaissance Man ventures no opinion on Chavez’ sobriety, much less on whether or not an alcohol problem would be better or worse than a mental condition.

All that can be said is that Chavez is dangerous to the world, the region and to Venezuela.