Luis Garzón was the president of Colombia’s largest labor federation, the CUT (Confederación Unitaria de Trabajadores), from 1996-2001. He was a presidential candidate in 2002 for the new party, Polo Democrático, and won the largest support a third-party candidate has ever received in the history of Colombia. Currently, he is a key figure in the peace process, serving as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Peace Council.

Luis Garzón, “A Critical Look at the Uribe Government”
Prof. Nancy Appelbaum

Colombian politician and labor leader Luis “Lucho” Garzón shares Lula’s vision for Latin America. Speaking to a packed audience in the lounge of the Faculty Women’s Club on Feb. 27, 2003, the former presidential candidate, compared the newly-elected president, Alvaro Uribe, to Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva, the new president of Brazil. Each of these leaders, Garzón suggested, represents a different option for Latin America. Garzón presented his own differences with Uribe in regards to five important issues facing Colombia today: drug trafficking, finance, confidence in national institutions, war and the overall Latin American economy.

On the topic of drug trafficking, Garzón argued that the United States, as the end market for narcotics, shares responsibility for the drug trade, noting that only 1.3 percent of the profits go to Colombian growers. His party, the Polo Democrático, advocates using international aid to incorporate small producers into the legal economy through crop substitution, treating drug use as a public health issue and opening an international debate on the taboo subject of decriminalization.

Regarding financial policy, Garzón noted that Colombia’s foreign debt is reaching a level comparable to that of Argentina. The only positive economic trend in Colombia is that inflation is not a serious problem. Rather, Colombia is suffering from deflation. Instead of Uribe’s devaluation policies, Garzón advocated restructuring the debt and taking a more assertive stance vis-à-vis the IMF. He also proposed exchanging debt for guarantees of Colombia’s environmental biodiversity.

Colombians have lost confidence in their national institutions.The government is viewed with such distrust, that “to be a politician is disreputable.” Politicians in Latin America, as in the United States, are seen as controlled by money. Garzón believes political campaigns should be publicly rather than privately funded in order to restore faith in the legitimacy of the electoral process. Another measure supported by both Garzón and Uribe is reducing the size of the corrupt Colombian Congress and restructure it into one chamber. In addition to cleaning up congress, Garzón sees a need to change how judges are appointed.

Significant decentralization of the government is also necessary. For Colombians, the region prevails over the nation. Comparing Colombia to Spain, Garzón argued that the national government needs to recognize regional cultures. His platform advocates restructuring the state into a federation of seven regional states. Garzon’s support for some regional autonomy stands in contrast to Uribe’s policies which favor centralization.

Regarding the current war in Colombia, Garzón claimed to be one of the few polticians who still believe that the guerrillas have a real political agenda. He argued, however, that even though their agenda is political, their methods increasingly approximate terrorism. Neither the FARC guerrillas nor the government has demonstrated any serious intent to reach a negotiated settlement. Garzón interpreted the overwhelming vote that Uribe received as a vote for all-out war. However, he sees no possibility that an all-out war will force the FARC to surrender. He pointed out that the FARC’s stated goals, such as agrarian reform and restructuring congress, are in agreement with Uribe’s program. If the government were to enact such reforms, the FARC would be neutralized. Unfortunately, the Colombian state and the Colombian electorate have vacillated between simplistic poles of peace and total war, without much success.

Garzón also criticized Plan Colombia, the United States’ aid package to counter drug-trafficking and civil conflict, for focusing too much on military intervention at the expense of social investment. Although recent polls show that Colombians favor U.S. intervention, he doubts that troops will ever be sent to fight in Colombia because, in the past, not even the kidnapping of American citizens has roused public interest. The U.S. prefers to provide sophisticated technological assistance rather than troops. Direct intervention could also inspire a backlash; the FARC, which has never been able to inspire a full popular insurrection, could capitalize on an intervention to cast their fight as a patriotic war. U.S. intervention would, in essence, be doing them a favor. He also noted that U.S. policy has vacillated due to conflicts between the DEA and the CIA. Meanwhile, the conflict is spreading into the entire Andean region.

For Latin America as a whole, Garzón favors multilateral economic agreements, as promoted by the Brazilian government. While Lula supports LAFTA, the current Colombian administration unfortunately seeks bilateral agreements with the U.S.

When discussing Colombia’s economy, Garzón pronounced Colombia a finca salvaje — a backward or savage farm, when it should be a finca rica civilizada, a rich, civilized farm. Colombia has been recognized for two principal export products, oil and coffee. Coffee is no longer viable because Vietnamese producers have dramatically undercut Latin American prices. Oil is also problematic because it is extracted in the regions at the center of the armed conflict. As an alternative, Garzón advocated exports, such as African palm, rubber and maize. He described Africa as the only world region that is worse off than Colombia and Latin America more generally, and characterized Colombia as suffering from “Africanization.” He spoke as a Colombian and Latin American “who doesn’t want to disappear.”

In response to audience questions, Garzón voiced skepticism about the Uribe administration’s effort to negotiate with the right-wing paramilitary groups and incorporate them into the state. The paramilitaries are too divided and decentralized and drug trafficking has given them too much autonomous power. Moreover, the U.S. demands their extradition, and they are wanted internationally for crimes against humanity.

Describing his bid for election, Garzón said he was criticized heavily from the right for appointing a former guerrilla, Vera Grave, as his vice-presidential candidate. While the Colombian right casts Garzón himself as practically a guerrilla, he is also criticized by the left for differing from its line. He said he does not want to do traditional leftwing opposition. He sees the left in Colombia as a small and contrarian group that does not grasp Colombians’ concerns for issues like the environment, quality of life and especially public safety. Some sectors of the labor movement also came under fire for focusing too narrowly on their own concerns.

Mr. Garzón talks with faculty members and students at a lunch at the Center prior to his talk at the Womens' Faculty Club on Thursday, February 27.