Uribe vs. Zapatero
Today is a good day, a very good day. The liberation of Ingrid Betancourt. This is a victory of president Uribe’s efforts in fighting the terrorism.
Mr. Uribe fighting against terrorism is the cornerstone of his government since the very beginning. He agreed with United States of America for collaborating in the fighting against terrorism, in several ways: by teaching or coaching the Colombian army on tactics, tools ans intelligence; by having more resources such as helicopters; etc. But this is not the only actions he took. He increased the police on the cities (and now cities such as Medellín and Bogotá are analysed as an example on the increase of the security); and proclaimed laws to enforce the security and the democracy, and he tried to beat guerrilla on its own territory, reducing more and more the power of the guerrilla on remote places. And also, tried to convince its neighbor countries of the necessity of combat the terrorism. One can doubt about his methods, but the truth is that Uribe’s popularity in Colombia is high all over his mandates.
Mr. Uribe is an example of combating the terrorism on all the fronts. As opposite to Mr. Zapatero.
Mr. Zapatero negotiated with ETA, offering not only a relaxed attitude towards the terrorists, but also territorial concessions such as Navarre. Mr. Zapatero denigrated the victims of the terrorism, who had to manifest for several times on the streets of not only Madrid but also the rest of Spain. Mr. Zapatero did not showed any sign of willing to beat the terrorists but to dialog with them. Mr. Zapatero allowed to ETA (or its political arms) to be presented on the Spanish municipal elections, but only to those candidacies that were not threatening the supremacy of the PSOE. Mr. Zapatero is using the terrorism for its own benefit.
The difference between Mr. Uribe and Mr. Zapaterois basically the difference between a man with a huge vision of state, who looks for his country, who fights for his people, and a man who is only wanting to take personal and political profit of the terrorism.
Leave a Reply