# la politica de la coca



## mrenglish

Hablando de la elección de Evo Morales en Bolivia. Qué se implica para Vd. 'la politica de la coca,' y también el adjectivo 'cocalero.'


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Para mi:

los cocaleros son los que cultivan la coca en las Yungas, Chapare, etc.  No son narcotraficantes, sino campesinos.

Eso de la politica de la coca es un tema muy grande, pero en verdad la economia de la coca involucra muchas industrias comunitarias.  Morales tiene el apoyo de mucha gente, no solamente los cocaleros; por la primera vez la gente indigena se siente que tiene la voz.

La coca se usa en tantos formas en Bolivia (masticando la hoja, tomando mate de coca, "leyendo" las hojas, quemando las hojas para sacrificios, etc.), que para mi no se puede separar la politica de la coca de la cultura de la coca.


----------



## mateitop

Estoy de acuerdo con los comentarios de Chaska. 

Un aclaración:-
_La hoja de coca no es cocaína. Al productor de la hoja de coca nadie lo puede acusar de narcotraficante ni de drogadicto. Además conocemos investigaciones de Harvard, de la ONU, de la OMS, que dicen que la hoja de coca en su estado puro no hace daño a la salud, y vamos a desafiar ese prejuicio para despenalizar la hoja de coca a nivel internacional, para que tenga circulación internacional. Pero ¿qué es la droga para Estados Unidos? Es un instrumento de dominación, una simple excusa para que mejore su dominación como la llamada certificación, que es un instrumento de colonización. Como las armas de destrucción masiva en Irak que nadie ha visto. _

Opino que la _planta _coca, en la campaña de Evo Morales y la gente de Colombia, representa un símbolo de la lucha contra los poderes de EEUU, y por el derecho de mantener una tradición, además de la lucha por la vida. La coca y la cocaina son cosas distintas, pero la falta de conocimiento sobre la distinción parece haber creado la cara polémica de la discusión. Lo importante es recordar que la coca se ha cultivado en Colombia por mucho tiempo, mientras la cocaina no. La coca es una tradición y un estilo de vida, mientras la cocaina no. Por eso, Evo Morales dice:-

_"Me siento cocalero. Yo soy productor de coca. Cocalero no es cocainero. Productor de coca no es narcotraficante, consumir la hoja de coca no es ser narcodependiente. Y la hoja de coca es sagrada. Es patrimonio de nuestra nación. Yo aprendí ahí a ser dirigente y de ahí me llevaron a la delegación política", aunque agrega: "ahora mi problema ya no es (sólo) la coca, sino nacional e internacional"._


----------



## Fernando

Me parece que os habéis equivocado de foro. Hay otros muy buenos de  política.

Para responder al que pregunta:

Cocalero = cultivador de coca

Política de la coca = influencia que el cultivo de la planta de coca para producción de cocaína y el dinero que mueve tiene sobre la política de determinados países.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Fernando said:
			
		

> Me parece que os habéis equivocado de foro. Hay otros muy buenos de  política.



Tal vez ... pero Mr. English dice "Qué se implica *para Vd*.?", y entonces explicamos nuestros pensamientos.


----------



## belén

Muevo el hilo a discusiones culturales

Saludos,
Belén


----------



## Fernando

Excellent, Belen, thank you very much. Then:

- Cocalero are the people who grows coca. The coca leaf has been consumed for centuries in the Peruvian "altiplano". The usual way of use is to chew it. It has some advatages to bear the altitude (as an example, La Paz is at 3,500 meters high).

- Coca politics: In all Andes countries (specially in Colombia and Bolivia) coca has become a major crop as a result of the demand of cocaine. The typical use of the coca produced is the illegal export to US and Europe.

Coca production is the source for killer guerrillas in Colombia (FARC) and paramilitaries (los paras).

In Bolivia the government controlled the cultivation of coca leaf because of the money US spent on the country. Nevertheless, the farmers from some valleys in the center of the country (specially around Cochabamba) suffered this policy since they earned very much more from illegal crops than legal ones (specially coffee). They found a leader in the demagogycal Evo Morales and MAS party (there are some threads about Evo Morales and I do not want to stay arguing about). 

They performed a strategy of blocking La Paz and the main country road (La Paz-Cochabamba-Sta Cruz). After years of blockings and interference in elected governments he had achieved the power in the recent polls.

The former governments promotioned the legal uses of coca. As an example the mate de coca (coca leaves in tea bags for infussion). I have had coca mate and of course it has no effects further what camomilla could have. Unluckily I can not pay for mate de coca what a drug addict can and the consume is negligible in comparison with illegal uses.


----------



## mateitop

I think you are a little confused, Fernando. No se habla de los efectos de la cocaina. Además, en el contexto actual (del mundo de la política de Bolivia), la política de la coca se trata de la cultivación de la coca como producto no narcótico, y de esta manera la promoción de su uso legal para tés, comestibles... Todo esto ayuda a fomentar una vida respetable - nada que ver con las drogas - para los indígenas, que son los principales partidarios de Morales.
Finalmente - orta corección - Coca production is not the 'source' of guerillas and FARC, COCAINE production is. 

Mp


----------



## Fernando

Maybe you are right, but promotion of alternative (I mean, not illegal) uses of coca leaves had been encouraged long before Evo Morales. When I tasted mate de coca was several years ago. I even rememeber queen Sofía having mate de coca in an official travel also several years ago.

Of course, FARC have been funded (sorry for the improper use of source) by cocaine, but I assumed that coca production was necessary. 

The production of coca for other uses (than production of cocaine) is not significant and, as far as I know, nobody has protested against that, except if used as a cover for cocaine prodcution.


----------



## grumpus

Fernando said:
			
		

> Maybe you are right, but promotion of alternative (I mean, not illegal) uses of coca leaves had been encouraged long before Evo Morales. When I tasted mate de coca was several years ago. I even rememeber queen Sofía having mate de coca in an official travel also several years ago.
> 
> Of course, FARC have been funded (sorry for the improper use of source) by cocaine, but I assumed that coca production was necessary.
> 
> The production of coca for other uses (than production of cocaine) is not significant and, as far as I know, nobody has protested against that, except if used as a cover for cocaine prodcution.




HI all,
just a note.  Most cocaine trafficking/production in Colombia is by the paramilitaries (many time in cahoots with the military and politicians).  This is also true of terrorism, the guerrilla doesn't even come close. Funny how we tend to focus on the FARC or ELN (not associated with drugs).  Take a search on the Web to see Uribe's ties to drug traffickers, very curious (even appeared in the L.A. Times).

Final analysis, in my opinion, coca and cocaine (all drugs) should be legalized.

Grumpus


----------



## Fernando

If you see my post #7 you will see I did little discrimination. 

It is the first news I hear about Uribe's link to drug traffic, but I am not an expert. I only want to see Colombia free from Tirofijo, his mates, his cousins and the paras. Up to now, I think Uribe has been the most efficient president in such a task. Colombia needs a chance for political fight instead of a constant civil war.

I disagree with you in the legalization topic. I had some doubts, it is far from being obvious, but since tobacco smokers are being treated as criminals (I am not) I see no reason to treat cocaine otherwise. Coca (leaves or tea-bags) are legalized and it is perfect to me.


----------



## grumpus

Fernando said:
			
		

> If you see my post #7 you will see I did little discrimination.
> 
> It is the first news I hear about Uribe's link to drug traffic, but I am not an expert. I only want to see Colombia free from Tirofijo, his mates, his cousins and the paras. Up to now, I think Uribe has been the most efficient president in such a task. Colombia needs a chance for political fight instead of a constant civil war.
> 
> I disagree with you in the legalization topic. I had some doubts, it is far from being obvious, but since tobacco smokers are being treated as criminals (I am not) I see no reason to treat cocaine otherwise. Coca (leaves or tea-bags) are legalized and it is perfect to me.




Hi Fernando and others, 
I would like to see and end to conflict in Colombia also.  But this also relates to the other post on ETA.  Without solving the fundamental inequalities in Colombia, there will always be conflict.  Uribe is part of the oligarchy so he's not the right person for the job.
We could go on, it's an important topic.  But I am deviated from the original post.

Saludos,
Grumpus


----------



## cuchuflete

grumpus said:
			
		

> Hi Fernando and others,
> I would like to see and end to conflict in Colombia also. But this also relates to the other post on ETA. Without solving the fundamental inequalities in Colombia, there will always be conflict. Uribe is part of the oligarchy so he's not the right person for the job.
> We could go on, it's an important topic.  But I am deviated from the original post.
> 
> Saludos,
> Grumpus



Just a question about logic, or lack of same:  Assuming that Uribe is a member of the oligarchy (read, wealthy, connected to powerful economic and maybe military interests), why does this disqualify him from dealing with two gangs of thugs, who use political ideology as an excuse for murder and kidnapping and drug trafficking?   
You may not care for his politics, but does one have to be poor and oppressed to manage effectively?


----------



## cuchuflete

> Without solving the fundamental inequalities in Colombia, there will always be conflict.



That's a load of horse manure.  There are dozens of countries in the world with really terrible inequalities in income, with small minorities having 70% or more of the national wealth, miniscule middle classes, and gobs of poor people.  They do not have the same situation as Colombia...far right paras, and
narcotraficantes who are equally murderous, and the citizenry in the middle fair game for both.

Why not stop sloganeering and look at the realities?


----------



## grumpus

Hi Cuchuflete,
 I guess since your the moderator we can follow in this vein.
No country in the world with the inequality that Colombia has does not suffer from violence. (U.S. is  good example compared to most of Europe).  
But a better comparison would be Brazil (1990 -2000) over 300,000 people died violent deaths.  How about El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala?    Colombia has the misfortune of
having large groups armed to the teeth with lots of drug money (result principally from U.S. and European drug use).  And a brutal military allied with the paras (as Human Right Watch called them "the 6th division")  (Washington pays this part to keep our hands on their oil, sound familiar?)  

You need to look back now and ask yourself where did the FARC or the ELN come from?
Was it drugs, No!  I bet you don't know.

Now, directly related to the origins of the FARC (and inequality), you have the oligarchy and guess who.  Whose father was a wealthy land owner who was supposedly killed in a kidnapping attempt (more likely a drug vendetta).??

Uribe's (that's who) fundamental stance is maintaining the inequality.  Not just in land distribution (seriously land reform is needed) but in protection of worker's rights.
More union leaders are killed in Colombia than the rest of the world combined.  No one has ever been prosecuted to my knowlegde for these crimes. 35 % of the Congress is controlled by the paras, maybe more.  It doesn't seem to be a big concern for Uribe.  So the violence will not go away.
This is why I don't agree he is the "right" person.  
BTW, Paras have killed more in the last few months since they began "disarming" (an amnesty law criticized around the world.)

Just because you watch PBS or listen to NPR doesn't mean you're informed (more like indoctrinated).  Also, study a bit more about L.A.  before you challenge me, ehhh.

saludos,
Grumpus


----------



## cuchuflete

If you are going to be smug and confrontational about being educated, try this on for size:



> Moderators are also forum members. Unless they say otherwise, or it is clear from context, their posts are made as members.



Obviously you haven't read the forum rules with comprehension.


----------



## cuchuflete

Who indoctrinated you?

I'll take your phoney "facts" list and address them one by one.
I will not sink to political cant, and ideological slogans and pseudo-purity of vision.  That went out with Nikita and Che, though some folks never seem to notice.  



> No country in the world with the inequality that Colombia has does not suffer from violence. (U.S. is good example compared to most of Europe).
> But a better comparison would be Brazil (1990 -2000) over 300,000 people died violent deaths.



OK, let's talk about Brazil.  The deaths you mention...of course we should accept your numbers with no source given, and no comparative number for Colombia...very week Grumpus, even a high school kid could trash that in a debate
as having no credibility.

Brasil has a much worse income distribution problem than Colombia.  It does not have the same massive splits into factions.  The deaths you refer to are mostly from violent crime, not paramilitary actions or drug-funded warlords.

So, in short, it's a crappy comparison.  It sheds no light on
why a member of an oligarchy should or should not try to bring about peace or reform.   It's a red herring designed to 
make your point that the world is full of injustice.

Well yes, the world is full of injustice.   And sloppy logic won't help fix a damned thing.


----------



## cuchuflete

> Just because you watch PBS or listen to NPR doesn't mean you're informed (more like indoctrinated). Also, study a bit more about L.A. before you challenge me, ehhh.


Your"ehhh" is pretty damned lame. You make a ridiculous and totally falacious remark about what I watch on TV? I don't own a TV and don't watch it. And you
seem to think Human Rights Watch is an impeccable source of fact? It's totally indoctrinated, as are you. Prove that it is credible before you declare yourself well-informed. 

"Keep our hands on their oil" OK, who owns the oil? By what legal system was it acquired? Do you happen to know the percentage of ownership of oil explorations and extraction in Colombia? How much is European? How much is Colombian?
More political sloganeering.   

" You need to look back now and ask yourself where did the FARC or the ELN come from?
Was it drugs, No! I bet you don't know." The suspense is killing me. Please, pretty please, bestow your superior knowledge on us ignoramuses. Did Human Rights Watch tell you where the FARC came from? 

Try reading about La Violencia and Jacobo Arenas and the Columbian Communist Party in the late 1940s and early 1950s... that's when the FARC got started...

I'm not going to give you history lessons, after all you already have all the answers. Unfortunately, they are seen and spouted through a prism of political orthodoxy worthy of the SDS in 1969. 

Saying that serious land reform is needed is practically a platitude in most countries in the world. It doesn't make a case for a change in government, unless you want to go to 
soviet style farming.

Quoting a source you seem to trust...describing the kidnappers and murders who share your desire for radical change in Colombia...



> Human Rights Watch señaló que los recientes ataques de las FARC han incluido graves violaciones al derecho a vida y el derecho internacional humanitario, tales como la ejecución deliberada de civiles y el uso de bombas de cilindros de gas de manera indiscriminada.


 That's dated 6 marzo of this year.   

Let's be clear.  If you trust Human Rights Watch, you can't very well find much nice to say about las FARC:



> *Estas masacres parecen haber sido programadas para generar terror antes de las elecciones y para socavar el proceso democrático. Al seguir cometiendo atrocidades, las FARC han demostrado una vez más su completo desprecio por la vida y el bienestar de las personas a las que dicen representar.*
> 
> José Miguel Vivanco, Director para las Américas de Human Rights Watch


http://hrw.org/spanish/docs/2006/03/06/colomb12762.htm


----------



## cuchuflete

The FARCs origins were political. So what! It has become a major organized crime ring. It derives its income from extorsion, kidnapping and mostly drugs. 

Its bitter oponents are no better.  They are murderous thugs.

Both groups wrap themselves in ideology, but that ideology has the depth of Madonna's nail polish. They fight for money and power.





> También de rebote el comercio de las drogas ha invertido tendencias del añejo conflicto armado colombiano. En alguna medida se han narcotizado las guerrillas y se han politizado los narcos. Los cultivos ilícitos le llevaron a la guerrilla a unas selvas donde habitaban relativamente solitarias, una masa de desposeídos que le sirvieron de base social y le trajeron además -a las Farc- una fuente de riqueza que les permitió fortalecerse a pesar de su descrédito entre el pueblo y de la decadencia de su discurso. Esa misma riqueza los ha llevado a actuar con soberbia en el campo militar sin que les importen las consecuencias políticas de sus acciones.


http://www.revistacambio.com/html/portada/articulos/503/


----------



## maxiogee

Irish interjection....

The FARC fight with the aid of the IRA - who long ago (before I was born) lost the mantle of being a purely *political* organisation and are nowadays a bunch of thugs and international criminals. Anyone holding up FARC as an example needs to answer the question of what the "Colombia three" were doing in Colombia, on false passports. There are strong links between the IRA and Irish (north and south) drug gangs.


----------



## grumpus

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> If you are going to be smug and confrontational about being educated, try this on for size:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you haven't read the forum rules with comprehension.



HI Cuchuflete,
I'll try to respond quickly.  Above is irrelevant, who cares?.  You should know the rules better than I do.  
Your type of language got me reprimanded one time.  Again you should know better.


----------



## grumpus

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Who indoctrinated you?
> 
> I'll take your phoney "facts" list and address them one by one.
> I will not sink to political cant, and ideological slogans and pseudo-purity of vision.  That went out with Nikita and Che, though some folks never seem to notice.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, let's talk about Brazil.  The deaths you mention...of course we should accept your numbers with no source given, and no comparative number for Colombia...very week Grumpus, even a high school kid could trash that in a debate
> as having no credibility.
> 
> Brasil has a much worse income distribution problem than Colombia.  It does not have the same massive splits into factions.  The deaths you refer to are mostly from violent crime, not paramilitary actions or drug-funded warlords.
> 
> So, in short, it's a crappy comparison.  It sheds no light on
> why a member of an oligarchy should or should not try to bring about peace or reform.   It's a red herring designed to
> make your point that the world is full of injustice.
> 
> Well yes, the world is full of injustice.   And sloppy logic won't help fix a damned thing.





i again,
Nice, paint me an ideologue.  Look at my other posts, you'll see this is nonsense.  There is no one more anti-FARC/ELN than I am. I don't have much say there (little influence).  MY goverment supports worse thugs (Military/Paras), I do have a say there (a little more).

You said violence had nothing to do with inequality. Violent crime is not "political".  That reminds of the NPR-type ideologues who say immigrants from Mexico and El Salvador are economic, but from Cuba they are political  (neat mental gymnastics).  
You don't understand Brazil either.  Yes, the drug wars in Brazil along with land-conflict
account for a large number of the deaths.  Police/military death squad do social cleansing there.   The figure was from (A Folha de Sao Paulo).  I saw not to long ago.  Do a google search (you seem to be good at this, i.e., no base knowlegde).

Why would Uribe want to undermine his wealth and priviledge (his constituency's).  
Does George Bush want democracy for Iraq?  He says he does, so it must be true.
YOU  LOOK AT THE ACTIONS.  Uribes is not prosecuting the killers of the union leaders?   THe paras and amnesty?? Not good, if we want a just society.  

Continued below.


----------



## grumpus

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Your"ehhh" is pretty damned lame. You make a ridiculous and totally falacious remark about what I watch on TV? I don't own a TV and don't watch it. And you
> seem to think Human Rights Watch is an impeccable source of fact? It's totally indoctrinated, as are you. Prove that it is credible before you declare yourself well-informed.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Hi again,
> at least I give examples of organization that you can check.  There are others.  Would you like a list???
> I'll send it to you.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> "Keep our hands on their oil" OK, who owns the oil? By what legal system was it acquired? Do you happen to know the percentage of ownership of oil explorations and extraction in Colombia? How much is European? How much is Colombian?
> More political sloganeering.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> So why Plan Colombia????  What are we doing there?? Drugs?? Don't think so.
> Occidental Petroleum  (is it not a continual target of pipeline bombings)
> A good book which  I have read on the subject of US Corporate/ Colombian State/Paramility involvement is controlling Colombia's resources and the violence
> "The Profits of Extermination" ,  Francisco Ramirez Cuellar ( a surviving union leader)
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> " You need to look back now and ask yourself where did the FARC or the ELN come from?
> Was it drugs, No! I bet you don't know." The suspense is killing me. Please, pretty please, bestow your superior knowledge on us ignoramuses. Did Human Rights Watch tell you where the FARC came from?
> 
> Try reading about La Violencia and Jacobo Arenas and the Columbian Communist Party in the late 1940s and early 1950s... that's when the FARC got started...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Bingo !!!  You have discovered Google. It almost makes you seem like you know what you're talking about.   Tell us more about "la violencia"  the campesinos who united to protect themselves against the oligarchy (big land owners, sound familar??)
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not going to give you history lessons, after all you already have all the answers. Unfortunately, they are seen and spouted through a prism of political orthodoxy worthy of the SDS in 1969.
> 
> Saying that serious land reform is needed is practically a platitude in most countries in the world. It doesn't make a case for a change in government, unless you want to go to
> soviet style farming.
> 
> Quoting a source you seem to trust...describing the kidnappers and murders who share your desire for radical change in Colombia...
> 
> That's dated 6 marzo of this year.
> 
> Let's be clear.  If you trust Human Rights Watch, you can't very well find much nice to say about las FARC:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Again, my position on the FARC/ELN is clear.  I despise them.  I just despise that we give hundreds of millions in weapons to worse criminals.
> End the violence, fantastic.  I would love to see it.
> Tell our readers about M19 and their party UP. Here's a hint.  Some guerrillas gave up their arms and formed the UP, what happened then in the shining example of democracy that Colombia is.
> 
> Let's try to not call each other names.  Let's debate heatedly, but no name calling.
> 
> un super saludo,
> 
> Grumpus


----------



## cuchuflete

You obviously believe deeply in democracy.  Who elected the oligarch?

Mr Bush likes democracy too, except when people vote for anything that he doesn't agree with.

I don't think you are like Bush, but please tell me who elected 
Uribe? You don't think he is of potential help, because he comes from wealth. The voters in Colombia don't seem to share your thoughts on that.

By the way, if you are not a believer in name-calling, please give it a rest.   
Google is a way to find materials.  That doesn't demean the materials.  Not all knowledge is imparted by the parlour pink
visionaries of the world.  Some of us go to libraries, or bookstores.  Others learn from friends.
Cheap debating tricks like wisecracks about google don't lend credence to anything.  

I don't care where people learn. It's what they have learned and understood that makes an impression. Heavens! One might even learn a thing or two by listening to NPR. That's where I discovered Cesaria Evora.


You wrote:

"Again, my position on the FARC/ELN is clear. I despise them. I just despise that we give hundreds of millions in weapons to worse criminals."

Here you and I differ.  I abhor both factions equally.  I don't believe that a right-wing paramilitary butcher, funded by whomever, is any less vile and despicable, nor any more so, than a drug-dealing FARC extortionist, kidnapping, murdering h de p.  They commit attrocities against human beings.  

If you wish to persist in saying that some monsters are worse than others, based on who pays them, that's your privilege.  I do not and will not agree with you.  Do you also judge some kidnap victims to be more or less worthy, based on their parentage?  That would be consistent with your other remarks.

Where does coca come into all of this?  Obviously the coca grown in Colombia is not mainly for domestic consumption.  It's raw material for cocaine.  The FARC, and very likely the paras as well, try to get their filthy murderous hands into the trade as deeply as any multinational oil company tries to control petroleum.  No good guys.  No relatively good guys.
One assassin is as bad as another, and they all like to make money on the coke business.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Gentlemen:

What started out as a thread on one potentially interesting topic appears to have been hijacked.

Please conduct your attacks on each other's intellects somewhere else.


----------



## zebedee

Yes, exactly. 

This thread is getting closed until everyone calms down.

If anyone wants to add anything pertinent to the thread topic in a civilised tone




> Hablando de la elección de Evo Morales en Bolivia. Qué se implica para Vd. 'la politica de la coca,' y también el adjectivo 'cocalero.'



please send me a PM and I shall open it up again.

Thank you for your cooperation,

zebedee
Culture Moderator


----------

