A more personal angle on the conflict

After posting my last article, I was left thinking about the conflict in Colombia and my perception of it. I also just found out that yet another local leader of the main opposition party has been assassinated (that makes 8 in the last 3 months).

I am worried that the calculus of things in Colombia right now is that instead of a violent conflict between two equally-matched sides, as it was before Uribe, now one side (the leftist insurgents) has been severely weakened. So certain indicators of outright violence have decreased (homicide, kidnapping), but the situation is now becoming one of one-sided dominance by the right (whether in the form of paramilitary groups or the government itself). So the new violence manifests itself not in outright war but in disappearances of people, assassinations, forced displacement, and the like. If this is the tradeoff, I'm not sure it's worth it. An example: I'm sure street crime and insurgency went down during the Guerra Sucia years of late 1970s Argentina, but no one remembers this time as a great stride forward for security and government stability. No, this period is remembered for its human rights violations, its torture, its forceable disappearances.

Even on its own terms, Uribe's Seguridad Democratica has some major flaws. Its philosophy is to increase security by weakening armed insurgent groups. But in the face of widespread government repression and local violence by now-uncontested right-wing paramilitaries, the leftist groups will only strengthen their moral cause. Furthermore, street violence is on the upswing everywhere as narcotraffickers and paramilitaries enjoy the confidence of impunity. I appreciate the increased government presence in the rural areas, and the better road security (and hence decreased kidnappings). But as others have said much more eloquently than I, if the formula for improving security is increasing repression, this strategy will ultimately backfire.