The Providence Journal (R.I.) Oct. 7, 2016

Why did a small majority of Colombians vote “no” last weekend to a plan for peace? They concluded it would be nothing more than a faux peace.

For some time, the general consensus had been that voters in a referendum would strongly approve the Colombian government’s deal to end a bloody civil war with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

FARC is a left-wing guerrilla outfit that has been terrorizing the people of Colombia for more than 50 years. The group’s total membership has never been properly determined. It is believed to have around 10,000 to 15,000 members. A 2005 Human Rights Watch report, however, estimated than 20 percent to 30 percent are minors who were forced to join.

Steeped in Marxist-Leninist ideology and revolutionary socialism, this group has always claimed to support the agrarian community, workers and the poor. Its actions, however, have been violent and bloodthirsty, harming the people it claims to want to help.

FARC is hell-bent on employing terror to achieve its goals. The United Nations estimates that FARC and a smaller guerrilla outfit, ELN, have caused 12 percent of the country’s civilian deaths during the protracted military engagement.

Meanwhile, FARC has reportedly earned significant amounts of ransom money by kidnapping people. It has also extorted funds from businesses, robbed banks, and produced and taxed illegal drugs, among other things.

This has enabled it to acquire $60 million to $100 million annually, according to some reports.

In 2008, millions of Colombians went to the streets to demonstrate against this Marxist-Leninist terrorist group.

And last weekend, a slim majority of 50.2 percent of voters rejected the so-called plebiscite for peace. They clearly didn’t trust the arrangement made by Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and FARC after four years of negotiations.

The changing political dynamic in Colombia (and other Latin American countries) may have also played a significant role. Leftist ideology appears to be fading in Latin America.

Conservative Álvaro Uribe, a former two-term president who had committed himself to vanquishing FARC, had campaigned passionately against the deal, warning that it represented giving in to terrorists. The guerrillas, he argued, would not go to prison, FARC would gain seats in Congress, and the deal would effectively legalize narcotrafficking. Thus, the election’s outcome was a clear victory for Mr. Uribe and a rejection of the establishment
government.

But what’s next for the country?

Colombia, strongly allied to the United States, is enjoying rapid economic growth, with the fourth largest GDP in Latin America. It has gradually shifted from an agrarian economy to such industries as shipbuilding, electronics and mining.

Unfortunately, its people have continued to struggle with murder, corruption, extortion and kidnapping, in part because of the government’s battle with guerrilla outfits like FARC.

Colombia’s biggest problem, though, is the illegal drug trade. Several drug cartels control a fantastically lucrative market with an iron fist. For decades, this country was the world’s leading producer of coca, which is used to make cocaine. (Peru now holds this unenviable distinction.) Other drugs, including marijuana and heroin, are commonly produced here.

These long-standing problems still have to be dealt with in Colombia, with or without a peace treaty.

At this point, there’s no peace in sight – and the future remains a series of question marks. Certainly, those who voted “no” want to see the country vanquish the FARC thugs, rather than reward them with a share of power and trust them to end their violence.

Rutland Herald (Vt.), Oct. 5, 2016

Democrats are betting that in the event Donald Trump loses the election they will be able to brand his supporters within the Republican Party with a Scarlet T for a generation to come.

That’s why Republicans have been so nervous about voicing support for Trump, sometimes going so far as to renounce him altogether. The responses of three candidates in Vermont show the dilemma faced by Republicans and the advantage enjoyed by Democrats.

In a recent conversation, Deborah Bucknam was confronted with the question of whether she supported Trump. She is a lawyer from St. Johnsbury and the Republican candidate for attorney general. Her instant response was to say, “No comment.” Then she added, “I’m going to be a coward.”

She had nothing bad to say about Trump and nothing good. She herself recognized that this response was less than courageous. It is not a position in which any candidate likes to find herself. But in this extraordinary year, most Republicans have found the conduct and words of their standard bearer to be indefensible. So they mostly have taken a pass on trying to defend him.

Bucknam is in a bind. She acknowledges that one reason she is running is that T.J. Donovan, her Democratic opponent and the overwhelming favorite, should not run unopposed. For the sake of the party, somebody had to be the good soldier, and she decided she would step forward.

Also as a loyal Republican, she knows Trump was the winner of the Vermont Republican primary, so he has a following among at least some of the voters who may vote for her. It will be hard enough for Bucknam, an untested candidate, to gather a following without alienating her natural constituency by denouncing Trump. At the same time, she knows most Vermonters are likely to find Trump repellent on many grounds, and she doesn’t want to alienate them either. Yet if the Democrats are right, her refusal to stand up against Trump will tar her forever.

Phil Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, has been firmer in his rejection of Trump. He has said he will not vote for Trump, though unlike former President George H.W. Bush, he has not gone so far as to say he would vote for Hillary Clinton. The presence of Trump on the ticket appears to be deeply troubling to Scott, which annoyed Republicans on the right during the primary. At least Scott has preserved his dignity.

Democrats are in a far stronger position. When she was asked about Trump, Sue Minter, the Democratic candidate for governor, denounced him in clear and emphatic terms. She said his campaign was founded on “racism, hatred and division,” and that the nation needed strong leaders to counter the destructive trends touched off by the Trump campaign. Clearly, she intended to be one of those leaders.

She quickly directed her conversation to the efforts to settle Syrian refugees in Rutland, and she congratulated Rutland Mayor Christopher Louras for his courage in launching the resettlement effort. She described her own family’s experiencing hosting a refugee family from Russia several years ago at their home in Waterbury.

Thus, she not only condemned Trump and his racism-soaked campaign, she presented herself as a kind of anti-Trump, willing to speak up where Republicans have become mute.

It is a matter of speculation at this point what kind of crack-up the national Republican Party will undergo following a Trump defeat. One can imagine that establishment figures such as House Speaker Paul Ryan would hope to wall off the extremists who have gained such a destructive hold on the party, but Ryan has learned he must tread carefully for fear of alienating a significant part of his caucus.

In Vermont, the Trumpian right has seldom been strong enough to gain control of the party. Moderates such as Scott and Douglas have generally had the upper hand. This year, they are being tested. And they don’t much like it.