http://www.coha.org/cambio-the-obama-administration/ COHA is an NGO specialized in monitoring Latin American and Canadian Relations for more than 30 years... Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:22:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.coha.org/cambio-the-obama-administration/comment-page-1/#comment-36184 Ari Wed, 03 Mar 2010 04:35:15 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=7807#comment-36184 If any of you have ever spent more than a two week vacation in Colombia or don't live in a middle/upper class Colombian life style, you would come to realize that COHA's presentation about Colombia is straight on. After becoming intimately acquainted with desplazados, police, army, orphans, widows, paramilitaries, NGO workers, and drug smugglers, you realize how utterly hopeless a country can be, and how things really haven't changed (unless you count the superficial security "improvement" in the cities and kidnapping "statistics"). I originally had hope in Obama, and many Colombians do because he's "black". As with most Colombians, as well as U.S. citizens, surface news reporting becomes absolute truth, and ignorance is perpetuated. Thanks to organizations like COHA, and articles like the one above, we can come to acquaint ourselves with a more balanced, and consequently, critical view: one that I can back up with personal and academic experience. If any of you have ever spent more than a two week vacation in Colombia or don't live in a middle/upper class Colombian life style, you would come to realize that COHA's presentation about Colombia is straight on. After becoming intimately acquainted with desplazados, police, army, orphans, widows, paramilitaries, NGO workers, and drug smugglers, you realize how utterly hopeless a country can be, and how things really haven't changed (unless you count the superficial security "improvement" in the cities and kidnapping "statistics"). I originally had hope in Obama, and many Colombians do because he's "black". As with most Colombians, as well as U.S. citizens, surface news reporting becomes absolute truth, and ignorance is perpetuated. Thanks to organizations like COHA, and articles like the one above, we can come to acquaint ourselves with a more balanced, and consequently, critical view: one that I can back up with personal and academic experience.

]]> http://www.coha.org/cambio-the-obama-administration/comment-page-1/#comment-35907 Pedro Marquez Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:30:19 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=7807#comment-35907 This analysis of the Colombian situation is such bullshit. COMPLETELY biased, politically motivated and botched analysis. "Plan Colombia has been a failure in lowering overall violence" Yeah.. I guess that why kidnappings are down 96% since 2002 right? I just wasted 20 minutes of my life reading this piece of cr@p. This analysis of the Colombian situation is such bullshit. COMPLETELY biased, politically motivated and botched analysis. "Plan Colombia has been a failure in lowering overall violence" Yeah.. I guess that why kidnappings are down 96% since 2002 right? I just wasted 20 minutes of my life reading this piece of cr@p.

]]> http://www.coha.org/cambio-the-obama-administration/comment-page-1/#comment-35864 Alejandro A. Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:02:20 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=7807#comment-35864 (con’td) COHA's position demonstrates it is more concerned with its own agenda than it is with an academic, enlightening, and objective analysis. The authors also ignore that foreign policy is not a one-way street—we can devise our plan but the target of that plan plays a significant role. Latin America isn’t the audience of a one-man US show; it is a participant. We need to recognize that no amount of outreach will get Hugo Chavez to be a responsible democrat locally and a reliable neighbor regionally; the ever-obstructionist Itamaraty is more responsible for any lack of progress or cooperation in US-Brazil relations than a lack of ideas coming out of State Department (and I'm not convinced this is the case); and while the US’s response in Honduras could have benefited from a healthy shot of coherence, this issue was the region’s to resolve, not ours; yet even Brazil—whom our authors call “indomitable” and a “truly non-aligned superpower”—decided to sit this one out and relegate itself to hand-wringing and conspicuous inaction following the unheralded arrival of Zelaya to its embassy. (con’td) COHA's position demonstrates it is more concerned with its own agenda than it is with an academic, enlightening, and objective analysis. The authors also ignore that foreign policy is not a one-way street—we can devise our plan but the target of that plan plays a significant role. Latin America isn’t the audience of a one-man US show; it is a participant. We need to recognize that no amount of outreach will get Hugo Chavez to be a responsible democrat locally and a reliable neighbor regionally; the ever-obstructionist Itamaraty is more responsible for any lack of progress or cooperation in US-Brazil relations than a lack of ideas coming out of State Department (and I'm not convinced this is the case); and while the US’s response in Honduras could have benefited from a healthy shot of coherence, this issue was the region’s to resolve, not ours; yet even Brazil—whom our authors call “indomitable” and a “truly non-aligned superpower”—decided to sit this one out and relegate itself to hand-wringing and conspicuous inaction following the unheralded arrival of Zelaya to its embassy.

]]> http://www.coha.org/cambio-the-obama-administration/comment-page-1/#comment-35863 Alejandro A. Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:59:58 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=7807#comment-35863 A constant and thorough analysis of any administration's foreign policy is necessary in our democracy and helps advance our thinking and improve our policies. Unfortunately, while Hursthouse and Ayuso provide many interesting thoughts, their piece suffers from an obvious ideological bias, it is rife with inaccuracies, and it portrays COHA as the keeper of all wisdom and knowledge as regards the "correct" US foreign policy toward Latin America--witness how COHA discusses its "warnings" to the administration. Furthermore, the authors ignore their own contradictory stances, even as they condemn the administration for its contradictions. To illustrate just one: Hursthouse and Ayuso indicate Obama should drop any "preconditions" prior to dealing with Cuba (e.g., when insisting the island demonstrate some progress on human rights) but wholly support human rights improvements in Colombia as a precondition for a Free Trade Agreement. The message? That it is acceptable to deal with governments who imprison their people for exercising free speech but it is not acceptable to deal with a country suffering a crime problem and a lack of judicial capacity. A constant and thorough analysis of any administration's foreign policy is necessary in our democracy and helps advance our thinking and improve our policies. Unfortunately, while Hursthouse and Ayuso provide many interesting thoughts, their piece suffers from an obvious ideological bias, it is rife with inaccuracies, and it portrays COHA as the keeper of all wisdom and knowledge as regards the "correct" US foreign policy toward Latin America–witness how COHA discusses its "warnings" to the administration. Furthermore, the authors ignore their own contradictory stances, even as they condemn the administration for its contradictions. To illustrate just one: Hursthouse and Ayuso indicate Obama should drop any "preconditions" prior to dealing with Cuba (e.g., when insisting the island demonstrate some progress on human rights) but wholly support human rights improvements in Colombia as a precondition for a Free Trade Agreement. The message? That it is acceptable to deal with governments who imprison their people for exercising free speech but it is not acceptable to deal with a country suffering a crime problem and a lack of judicial capacity.

]]> http://www.coha.org/cambio-the-obama-administration/comment-page-1/#comment-35542 Garrett Connelly Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:01:29 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=7807#comment-35542 Sounds a little bit like the silent majority that didn't stand up as dominoes fell on their theory about Vietnam. Now that was funny. One need not be on any fringe to notice that during Vietnam the shortages revolved around guns and butter while now there's billions for bombs and bailouts and the squeeze is on schools, health insurance and mortgage adjustments to keep millions in there homes. Sounds a little bit like the silent majority that didn't stand up as dominoes fell on their theory about Vietnam. Now that was funny. One need not be on any fringe to notice that during Vietnam the shortages revolved around guns and butter while now there's billions for bombs and bailouts and the squeeze is on schools, health insurance and mortgage adjustments to keep millions in there homes.

]]>