What the Farc?!

There have been a few developments since we took our what-might-be-called slightly tongue-in-cheek look at the early candidates for Colombia's 2018 presidential election.

Rather than having a clearer picture of the state of play, things have got even more muddled (heck, we might throw our hat into the ring yet; well, if everyone else is ...).

Former defence minister under outgoing President Juan Manuel Santos, Juan Carlos Pinzón, has entered the running, distancing himself from the now unpopular Santos in the process; a man's got to do what a man's got to do.

'The Farc is dead, long live the Farc!'

On the female front, Angela Merkel lookalike Clara López is making another bid for the top job while the Conservative Party's Marta Lucía Ramírez is gearing up for a third attempt; suckers for punishment, eh? 

Very much on the other side of the political spectrum to Ramírez we've Piedad Córdoba on the list for the 'loony left' (don't shoot the messenger; it's how Córdoba and her ilk are generally viewed here).

Speaking of the left, arguably the most eye-catching move has been the founding of the political party for the former guerrillas, Farc. 

In a bid to distance themselves from the image of death and destruction that they represent for most Colombians, they've come up with a novel name: Farc.

The, um, devil is the detail. This Farc stands for Common Alternative Revolutionary Force (Fuerza Alternativa Revolucionaria del Común), different to what the armed Farc stood for, which was Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. See the difference?

We could say it's a case of 'keep it simple, stupid'. At least it will make it easy for both supporters and opponents alike to know who they are. 

No need to copy the Northern Ireland scenario where people said (and some still say) Sinn Féin-IRA, linking the party to the armed group it represented/represents. Farc was/is Farc, a rare instance of efficiency in Colombia that, to look at it positively.

Of course, as mentioned here on umpteen occasions and alluded to above, the left is a dirty concept for not only middle-class Colombia but large swathes of its lower-classes as well. Come on guys, not all leftists are unwashed, miserable hippies. We shouldn't generalise now.

So the fear in some quarters that the political Farc could be a force to be reckoned with at the polling booth next year — we've parliamentary elections in March, before the presidential contest — seems quite irrational. 

Yes, it did register a less negative image than the other political parties in a recent opinion poll (the biggest thing that this poll highlighted was the lack of confidence in politics here in general).

However, if there's one thing we can rely on in Colombia, it's the electorate's unfailing support for the centre/centre-right when it comes to election day. Thus, the guaranteed seats Farc is to be given, five in each chamber as per the 2016 peace agreement, might be the party's lot for now.

What's more, the mess that we have in socialist Venezuela weakens further Farc's chances of making any significant political inroads in the near future. 

We must note here that just because a government says it is socialist doesn't mean it actually is that way in practice. The 'whatever you're having yourself' political experiment that Venezuela currently is has done more to damage the left than the right ever could.

That aside, what 'post-conflict' (no sniggering down the back there) Colombia needs is a massive clampdown on corruption — we're talking generations to achieve that; a culture doesn't change overnight — and, as far as we're concerned, a healthy dollop of social democratic thinking and policy.

The question is, do we have a political party here that can actually deliver that? You cynics will say no, but we live in hope -- honestly, we do. 

Failing that, Venezuela might sort itself out in the next decade or so.
________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Colombia decides: Imperfect peace or perpetual war?

In a country with such vast inequality, along with a significant disconnect between officialdom and the masses, to say Colombia's 'vote for peace' is its moment of truth might be overstretching it a little. 

 

Nonetheless, in the unlikely event of the Colombian electorate rejecting the 2 October plebiscite on the agreement reached between the government and Farc rebels, such an outcome would be met with bewilderment by a watching outside world; a people says no to peace. (Although, as written about here previously, it wouldn't be a complete surprise to those who have been following events closely.) 

It would also signal the need for a change of administration, one that would have to pursue a far tougher line on leftist guerrillas; not virgin, if largely unsuccessful ground that.

Much more peaceful times ahead for Colombia?  (Photo from Facebook.)

The opinion polls, in any case, tell us that the yes side should comfortably win the day, despite a not-insignificant no minority that appears to cross class boundaries. 

From well-to-do business people and professionals to tienda owners and hard-pressed youths in working-class barrios, in my conversations I've encountered more people who are going to vote no than yes. (Odd enough, considering the no side is polling at about 30 per cent.) 

 

I've also spoken with plenty who just won't bother to cast their ballot; a symbol of that disconnect from 'official' Colombia in what, according to the powers that be, is such a momentous decision for the country.

Leaving aside the argument that the referendum question is of a leading type favouring a yes, Colombians must ask themselves the following: Is this an agreement that will be a positive game changer for the country, a step in the right direction? 

Or is it just a coming together of a few elites, unrepresentative of the reality on the ground, and something that will change very little? A 'television peace' as one Colombian farmer put it.

You won't find many, even the most optimistic of yes voters, expecting instant change. Peace won't come overnight. We've seen that before in the likes of Northern Ireland — not that we can draw too many comparisons between the two conflicts.

Another argument from the no side is that the agreement is overly lenient towards Farc from a financial and political point of view — guaranteed senate seats for the leftist movement is one bugbear in this regard. 

 

For a country that has traditionally steered a centre-right/right path in national politics, there seems to be some fear that this deal might mark the start of a drift towards some sort of socialism, a dirty word in these parts considering the situation in neighbouring Venezuela, together with Colombia's sour relationship with that republic.

Another source of fuel for the 'no' ire comes from El Presidente himself, Juan Manuel Santos. His approval rating has been at an all-time low and it appears some Colombians just can't bear to endorse anything that he is behind. The wrong occasion for a protest vote it might be, but it carries weight.

Other points being made against the agreement include the belief that there are greater problems in the country that need to be sorted out. This may be so, but the counterargument is that by at least putting the Farc to bed, the other issues can then be tackled with more vigour. 

As for former Farc members carrying on their criminal ways under a different banner post-peace endorsement, only time will tell on that one.

Should, as expected, the yes side win on Sunday, it's not, at the risk of sounding facetious, going to be a case of peace and love from Monday onwards. However, the hope must be that it marks the start of a move to a more positive era in Colombia's story. 

 

As Santos said, and here's hoping he and his ilk mean it, 'the hard work starts now.' 

Creating a more equitable Colombia is something that requires much more than a few handshakes and the signing of an agreement. 

A sceptical Colombian public needs convincing that the times are indeed a-changin' for the better.
____________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

The Spy Wednesday Agreement — ominous for Santos?

In conflict resolution, common practice in both academia and realpolitik is to compare different regions that have experienced or are experiencing violent problems. While no two conflicts are exactly the same, broadly speaking there is a common blueprint to follow to go from war to peace.

Dark days ahead for President Santos? (Photo from Facebook.)

In this regard, and as has been written about here before, Northern Ireland's peace process has provided Colombia with plenty of food for thought — in theory if nothing else. 

In fact, Holy Week has been chosen as the defining moment for Colombia's current peace talks, discussions that have been ongoing for three-and-a-half years. It may be just purely coincidental, but you could see it as a nod towards the agreement that signalled a new, more peaceful direction for Ireland, signed on Good Friday (Viernes Santo) 1998 and named after that historic day.

Yet even the day picked by the Colombian government, 23 March, in the English religious vernacular in any case, is somewhat ominous: Spy Wednesday. 

It might be a bit of a stretch to portray President Juan Manuel Santos as Jesus, but it's not stretching it to state that a grand betrayal of the peace deal he seems so desperate to sign may be on the cards; without any miraculous resurrection in the days, months and years to follow.

It comes back to one of those principal points in conflict resolution: that all parties involved see a greater benefit in a new way rather than continuing with the old.

If you look at the Northern Ireland situation in 1998, it's pretty fair to say that the agreement signed promised a better, more "legitimate" life ahead for the main protagonists involved and their cohorts. In contrast, and this has always been the issue, what brighter, legitimate future can be assured for Farc guerrillas should a permanent peace deal be signed?

For the movement's heads, things might improve somewhat; there may even be some political participation, despite the right-leaning nature of the Colombian electorate. 

Yet for the foot soldiers on the ground — and this applies for hard-pressed civilian Colombians, too — the money that can be made from underground activities such as illegal mining and narcotics is far more attractive than anything the state and its foreign helpers can provide.

On top of all this, even if Farc en masse accepted a final peace deal, there is still the question of the other, not-insignificant guerrilla group, ELN. It hasn't been privy to these exact talks, so there's a chance that its hand could be strengthened at the expense of the Colombian state, a process that has already started according to some reports.

Throw in a still present paramilitary element on the other side of the divide that also profits well from illegal trade and it's not difficult to see the huge problems with 'Santos' Peace', as some Colombians call it.

There aren't too many out there who still see this conflict as a simple 'guerrilla left' versus a government and military that are more right of centre, as its origins may have been. It's more complex than that. 

As long as large sums of "easier" money are to be made by illegal methods that neither the national government nor foreign powers seem capable of tackling, a meaningful, lasting peace for Colombia seems a long way off.

A bold new blueprint is needed for conflict resolution here, one that goes well beyond the country's borders.
___________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

2015: finding the positives from a difficult year

2015. Best summed up as a year I'd largely like to scrap from the memory bank. Any time you lose a loved one is never easy; this is made even more difficult when it's someone who left this earth way before her time, someone who had so much more to give.

Yet, in some small tribute to my sister Lynda, a person who could find the good in the bad and who displayed great mental strength and positivity where others would have wilted, here I'll go through the personal and not-so-personal plus points of the year as we prepare to bring it to a close:

Happier times ...

Family first

We weren't to know the hammer blow that was coming, but a family reunion in February to celebrate our parents 40th wedding anniversary provided the opportunity to get all of us together.

 

It also coincided with a belated 30th birthday for yours truly. Considering what transpired a few months later, this happy get-together has taken on an even greater significance. We'll always have the memories.

IQuiz holders going into 2016.

IQuiz Bogotá is born

The seeds of the idea to get this going actually came from the February trip home. A night at a pub quiz during my two weeks in Ireland reminded me of how much I enjoy them — even if I seldom win. 

So on return to Bogotá, in partnership with my Dutch mate Pieter, we set about creating our own quiz night in the Colombian capital. So far it's been eight down and not out.

OK, Pieter may have departed the Bogotá scene, but the hopes are that IQuiz will return in 2016 in some shape or form — minus the promotional videos that is.

Extending the extended 'family', Venezuelan style

It was with much curiosity and a touch of apprehension that I took up a friend's invite to visit her and her family in Caracas. Yes, I've been to Venezuela before, but not to the 'bloody' and 'dangerous' capital city with a heated election taking place.

What I found there was what pretty much felt like a home from home. My hosts were extremely accommodating and great fun, representing in a way all that's good about Venezuela and its people.

The country may be in a bad state politically and economically — the latter making it cheap to visit when entering with foreign currency — but if you are willing to take the security risks there are decent rewards.

The Venezuelan family!

Come on you boys in green

Europe's big international summer football (soccer) fest returns next year and Ireland, for the first time ever, will be represented on the double. Both Northern Ireland and the Republic, in varying degrees of impressiveness, booked their places at Euro 2016, so what could be seen as a D-Day-esque invasion of green-clad supporters awaits France in June. 

Now, while the Republic really only made up the numbers at the previous renewal in 2012, and did so very badly at that, it's nice to have the chance to mix it with the 'big boys', times two as it is, all the same. Just ask the Dutch (or Scottish).

There you go. There's not much else to do with 2015 now but to move on from it. Of all the uncertainties there are, what we do know is that time will continue to tick on, however we measure it. Happy New Year to all.
________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

'Who's a good sport, eh?'

There's no doubt that sport can have a very positive impact on society. For one, those who actually engage in a sport generally have much better all-round health than those who don't.

Then you have the uniting aspect to it. Sport can bring together a diverse range of people and help to break down barriers, especially racial or political ones.

Sport: it has its good and evil sides. (Photo from fourfourtwo.com.)

For one, in post-apartheid South Africa, both rugby and football (soccer) were seen as important in this regard. Rugby in the African country had mainly been the preserve of the white elite and the national team, the Springboks, was seen as a symbol of white supremacy for many blacks.

The oval-ball game’s part in helping to build bridges came in 1995 when South Africa hosted and won the World Cup. The moment when then-president Nelson Mandela — a man who spent decades in prison under white minority rule — walked onto the pitch dressed in a Springboks jersey to present the trophy to team captain Francois Pienaar is etched in history. Black and white, united in sport.

Football's day came in 2010 when South Africa hosted the Fifa World Cup. Again, a sport that had once represented division — football was predominantly a black affair — brought the country together.

Yet, many in the Rainbow Nation feel the transformative powers of those momentous occasions have been exaggerated in some quarters. In other words, once the fanfare died down, things pretty much returned to how they had been — better than the dark days of apartheid for sure but far from an equal country.

Indeed, as much as sport can be seen as a uniting force, it can be just as divisive, too. 

In the case of another region slowly emerging from a troubled past, sporting splits exist in Northern Ireland. The differences may not be as marked as previously, but rugby is still associated more so with the British nationalist, Protestant community while Irish (Gaelic) football and hurling are chiefly played by those from the Irish nationalist, Catholic tradition.

Support of football/soccer, in general, could be seen as the one commonality between the two. However, the team you follow very much depends on what side you come from. Tensions in the terraces and on the pitch are at breaking point when the two tribes meet.

Of course, such rivalries aren't unique to current or recent conflict zones. There doesn't need to be political, racial or religious differences at play for fierce, and sometimes deadly, sporting clashes to emerge, especially so in the world of football.

'Is it football or a fight today lads? Or both?'

Here in Bogotá, authorities are on high alert when you have a Millonarios-Santa Fe derby, to name but one. Only this year in Buenos Aires you had violent scenes that forced the abandonment of the Boca Juniors-River Plate clásico.

Moreover, while we're often quick to highlight the benefits of playing team sports, they can also instil some very negative practices in people. I've seen and been part of what can only be described as on-field violence to the extent that if the same conduct was being carried out on the streets the culprits would be locked up. Damn the rules and sportsmanship when you're defending your team's honour.

What all this highlights is that sport, like other things such as politics and religion, can be both a force for good and a force for evil. And in the same way as most other human interests, it comes down to the mindset of the individual in how he or she utilises it.
______________________________________
Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan - The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Any which way but lose . . .

We've had a lot of time to think over these last couple of months. Too much time, you might say. Indeed, as a good friend tells us, that’s generally the start of our problems – when we begin to think that is.

That "advice" aside, our return to the home soil was always shrouded in doubts and questions as to what we would do once the chief reason we came back for was over. 

A big factor in this was that we were leaving a place, Colombia, where despite the many virtues it had – and has – for us (see http://bit.ly/1bJI3eg), from a work point of view it hadn't really got us too excited (that’s not to mention the very modest financial returns that accompanied said employment – we’ll say no more on that for a number of reasons).

Back to basics, back to the bog. Or should that be Bogotá?

However, from early on in our sojourn home, we pretty much convinced ourselves that we wouldn't be staying for any considerable length of time. We feel we’re just not ready to relocate to Ireland right now. 

Much of that may be due to the fact of where we are. Back under the parents’ roof for what is now the longest period of time in over five years, extremely grateful as we are not to be paying rent, in a rural Ireland suffering from a pretty dramatic youth drain whilst having no gainful employment*. 

These points conspire to ensure our social life doesn't come close to what it has been like over the last number of years.

The bounce we got from coming home and catching up with family and remaining friends has waned considerably. Rather than feeling re-energised, we’re fast becoming drained. 

Of course, there may be an element of a self-fulfilling prophecy in all of this. We expected Ireland not to deliver for us, so we've done little to counteract that. We envisaged ourselves leaving again, so in one sense not doing so would be a comedown. Basically, we've enjoyed not being in Ireland. We've become comfortable being the emigrant, the ‘outsider’.

There’s even a hint of embarrassment for us now when we meet people, 'Oh, you’re still here. We thought you’d be gone by now.' So did we, so did we.

Being in a house where RTÉ Radio One (the Irish state broadcaster) is the station of choice doesn't help things either – if you’re feeling a bit too happy in yourself, an hour’s listening to this will see you right. Perhaps it's just reflecting the general mood of the nation? 

In any case, with our political, critical and at times cynical nature, we’re just the type of listener Radio One sucks in. We ignore the health warnings and indulge in it to dangerous levels. Changing that dial, both physically and mentally, is proving to be quite a difficult task.

In a more benign way, our attitude towards Ireland could be compared to a mother who wants her little Johnny to be the best he can be and is at times overly critical and demanding of him. Sometimes, though, it’s best to leave Johnny to his own devices.

Belfast's 'exotic' side.

We've been here before, of course. In 2009, when we returned home after a year of travelling, it wasn't too long before we started looking for the exit doors again. As it turned out, a speculative job application came good and we found ourselves Belfast-bound. 

Considering we’d never been to that city before, it did offer freshness and its own exoticness (don’t laugh) for a Free-Stater**. The small bit of the Queen’s pound that came our way was well received, too. In any case, it staved off the wanderlust for a while.

So, you ask, why are we still here? Well, trying to get a work visa for Colombia, the default go-to right now, has proved to be a convoluted process; although an end does appear to be in sight. Alongside this, an unsolicited, potential job offer has come our way. 

Given the employment plight of many Irish people these days, we feel at the very least that whatever may be on the table merits some serious thought.

Here we go again, though – back to thinking. Was that not our problem in the first place? The tried and trusted coin toss is beginning to look like the best solution to our predicament.
_________________________
*For more on that 'youth drain', see previous post No country for young men at http://bit.ly/1aV6tn4.

**A 'Free-Stater' is a term of, um, endearment used by Northern Ireland residents in reference to people from the Republic of Ireland, which was previously known as the Irish Free State.

The damned Irish question

For Winston Churchill it was ‘the damned Irish question’. Fast forward the guts of a century later and for Rory McIlroy it’s the damned – although perhaps not in the same venomous way as Sir Winston – Irish or British question. 

And it appears, unsurprisingly in some contexts, that the United Kingdom resident is siding with the latter. Although, he has been at pains to state in recent days that he is yet to fully make up his mind.

Mean in green. Or not? Rory McIlroy.

For those of you in the dark on the above, we’re referring to where Northern Ireland-born Rory McIlroy – the number one golf player in the world right now and arguably the sport’s biggest superstar – will pledge his allegiance for the Rio de Janeiro Olympics in 2016. 

 

As he correctly pointed out in a recent open letter on this subject via his Twitter account, no matter which side he opts for, he is going to upset some people. 

By the tone of that correspondence it seems this whole subject is one he wishes he didn’t have to deal with. Or at least if it was one that was taken out of his hands. He’s certainly not in an enviable position.

Of course, it shouldn’t need to be stated that as a UK citizen he is fully within his right to plump for Team GB. Hailing from Northern Ireland, he can choose to have either a British or an Irish passport – as yet there is no separate one for NI. 

So, the fact that he holds a British passport is a pretty strong guide to his preference. 

However, we are aware of some Northern Ireland residents considered to be more in the green sphere than orange who hold British passports for the simple fact that they are cheaper to obtain. What price your nationality, eh? About £20 it seems, for some. 

The whole political position of Northern Ireland is one that we regularly get questioned about from locals here in Colombia. Most of them assume that it is British, confusing Great Britain – the island to the east of Ireland consisting of the countries England, Scotland and Wales – with the UK, the sovereign state that is Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 

So looking at this from a purely geographical perspective, if you are born on the island of Ireland – be it in the Republic or the North – you are Irish. 

For most people, though – Rory McIlroy included – nationality is much more than just where you were born. It’s about where you come from in a background sense – your blood, your heritage. 

For McIlroy and many of his kin in Northern Ireland, their roots on the island date back to Britain’s Ulster Plantation in the early 1600s. 

 

These new settlers – mostly Scottish Presbyterians although there were also English Anglicans – remained fiercely loyal to their motherland of Britain. 

Also, chiefly because of religious, political and indeed language differences, they did not end up mixing with the dispossessed ‘old Irish’ as happened in other parts of the island where British settlers had been previously planted. 

This divide was only made deeper after the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 where the Protestant King William defeated the Catholic King James, ensuring the Protestant succession for the English, Scottish and Irish thrones and thus the religion’s ascendency in Ireland.

Perhaps even the Brits are Irish at heart?

In the following years, up to and including the creation of the Irish Free State in 1921 and its subsequent declaration as a Republic 27 years later, the political and cultural differences between the settlers in the north-east of Ireland compared to residents in most of the rest of the island sharpened further.
 

In this context, what it meant (and still means in many ways) to be Irish was completely at odds with the customs and mindset of the planted stock in what is now the state of Northern Ireland. 

Namely, to be Irish usually meant Catholic, anti-British (here you can include British sports such as cricket, rugby and soccer versus the Irish sports of Gaelic football and hurling) and anti-royalty, to name just the most relevant in this regard. 

Now, while many of these differences were unavoidable from the get-go, they were given further legitimacy by the direction taken by the early leaders of both states. 

Northern Ireland’s first Prime Minister, James Craig, summed this up in his response to Éamon de Valera’s (his southern counterpart at the time) declaration in 1934 that the Irish Free State was a Catholic one, stating: 'They still boast of Southern Ireland being a Catholic State. All I boast of is that we are a Protestant Parliament and a Protestant State.'

So bearing all this in mind, for Rory McIlroy, while geographically he may be Irish, or Northern Irish if you will, culturally he may feel more British – or at least the Northern Ireland version of what it means to be British. 

 

It may feel more natural to him to march behind the Union Jack rather than the tricolour – even allowing for the fact that the green, white and orange of the Irish flag signifies the hope for peace, understanding and harmony between the Irish nationalist and British nationalist/Orange traditions that exist on the island. 

Indeed, it could be argued that the flag has more significance today for the North considering the uneasy peace process it is going through than it has for independent Ireland.

All this begs the question, is it possible to be Irish if you come from a Northern Ireland Protestant/Orange tradition? This really depends on how you define what being Irish is. 

It also depends on what you want to be yourself. If you can be British and Scottish, British and Welsh or British and English, than surely you can be British and Irish? 

 

Many past and present rugby players, from a similar stock to McIlroy, have donned and continue to don the green jersey of Ireland when it comes to representing their "country". There is, however, an important difference here: there is no British rugby team (it’s the British AND Irish Lions remember). The Olympics, on the other hand, forces a choice.

What's in a shirt? C'mon 'Norn Iron'!

Perhaps, though, there is still time for a compromise – one that may be closer to being a reality than most people think. That is representing the fully-fledged, independent Northern Ireland at the Olympics – not Irish, not British, but Northern Irish. 

From our highly enjoyable time living in Belfast, we encountered a number of locals – from both sides of the divide – who expressed such a desire.

Considering the arrogance, ignorance and indifference that many citizens of both Britain and Ireland have towards Northern Ireland, this might be the best solution for all. For one, we’re sure Rory McIlroy would like it if that were the case right now.
______________________
*For a somewhat related piece, see Punching back.