April 28, 2003

Interview with Alexander Lopez

by Garry Leech

In this interview conducted on February 22, 2003, in New York City, Colombian Congressman Alexander Lopez discusses the proposed privatization of EMCALI, the city of Cali's municipal-owned public services company; the assassination of labor leaders; the upcoming referendum proposed by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe; and the U.S. military intervention in Colombia. As then-president of SINTRAEMCALI—the municipal workers union in Cali—Lopez led a 35-day occupation of Cali's Municipal Administration Center (CAM) that ended in January 2002 when the government agreed to halt the privatization of EMCALI. Two months later he was elected to the Colombian Congress.

Q: What is the current situation regarding the privatization of EMCALI?

A: In January 2002, the government of President Pastrana made an agreement with the people of Cali, with the workers, and with the mayor of that city (see, Workers Protest Privatization in Cali). The agreement was that EMCALI would not be privatized nor liquidated. They were also going to guarantee low prices to the inhabitants of the city. But the position of President Uribe has been that he would not honor this agreement, and that his politics were not "public" ones, that he would not favor the public. On the contrary, Uribe's politics are to privatize state businesses, to liquidate state businesses. Obviously, in light of the Uribe government's decision to ignore an agreement made by the previous administration, and given its decision to ignore the agreement made by the people of Cali that said they did not want to privatize their public enterprises, clearly there would be a response, a reaction—not only from the workers, but also from the community, and from politicians like me. We are calling on the people to protest against these policies that are obviously going to result in misery for the people of Cali, the natural owners of the company (see, The SINTRAEMCALI-Uribe Showdown).

Q: What needs to happen to protect unionists in Colombia?

A: First of all, there needs to be a complete change of state policies. It seems to me that the Colombian state in some very covert way is complicit in the genocide of the Colombian workers. I believe that close to 3,500 union members have been murdered, and yet with all of these crimes, not one of the culprits has been discovered. I believe this is a very serious sign of the impunity that compromises the Colombian government with regard to the deaths of Colombian union leaders.

The state needs a policy quite different from the current one regarding the Colombian labor movements. The situation whereby government representatives brand Colombian workers as guerrillas or terrorists cannot continue. It seems to me that this policy of government officials labeling labor leaders as guerrilla members seriously compromises the Colombian state with regard to what is happening to Colombian unionists. Union members need guarantees, not simply that they will be allowed to live as unionists, but also that they will be allowed to carry out their union activities. Another example of this policy occurred with the labor reform laws, when the labor movement was beaten and many labor rights were stripped. The government should assume a policy that not only preserves the lives of unionists, but that also guarantees their rights and freedoms. It is also important to eliminate all of the impunity that has existed throughout the genocide committed against Colombian labor activists during the last ten years.

Q: What do you think about President Uribe's proposed referendum?

A: The government is using the referendum to present itself to the Colombian people and to the world as a democratic government, a government that consults Colombians about specific issues. But this referendum has been labeled—not just by the opposition political class, but also by labor and other social sectors—as a trap for the Colombian people. We have characterized it not as a referendum, but as a plebiscite. Because in practice, eighteen articles contain support and affirmation for a political economy that has been designed by this government. The referendum contains points, such as tax reforms, which do not favor Colombians; cutbacks in social investment, which do not favor Colombians; aspects of clientelism, such as extending the terms of current mayors, government representatives, and congressmen for another year in order to obtain the necessary votes for the referendum. Therefore, this misnamed referendum, really a plebiscite, has been designed to try to put a different face, a more democratic one, on this government, when in reality what it seeks from the Colombian people is their consent for a number of economic measures against themselves.

Q: What are your thoughts regarding the deployment of U.S. troops in Arauca as part of Washington's war against terrorism?

A: I do not agree with the military intervention in Colombia. I feel there is no reason to have U.S. resources to fight the war in Colombia, nor do we need military forces from the United States in Colombia or in any other country of the world. The government of the United States is not the world's police force. I feel they should respect Colombia's autonomy. There is a military intervention in the conflict that affects only us, the Colombians. I am among those that call on the international community to ask the United States to not only withdraw the economic and military support that it is sending to Colombia, but also for the U.S. government and its armed forces to take responsibility for the situations that develop as a result of their military presence in Colombia.

Q: What type of help does Colombia need from the United States in place of the military aid?

A: It needs to respect the autonomy of the Colombian people. It seems to me that this is the first thing, the basis: to respect the right of the Colombian people to their democracy. It seems to me that the U.S. government has no interference from any other government, and the fundamental thing we ask of the U.S. government is that it respect the autonomy and the decisions of the Colombian people.

Q: What is the significance for Colombia of the elections of Gutierrez in Ecuador, Lula in Brazil, and Chávez in Venezuela?

A: I feel that there has been a reaction from the Latin American people to the aggression that Latin America has faced as a result of globalization and the neoliberal model. I think that the people of Latin America who have been victims of this globalization model are reacting in a direct and decisive form against this aggression. In this logic, the electoral, democratic answer that we have seen in Venezuela and other Latin American countries is a natural episode of vindication. We can say that it is a decision to reject the neoliberal model, a rejection of the neoliberal model's tolerance of corruption. I think that the neoliberal model, for twenty years, has protected certain political parties in Colombia, corruption in Colombia. And it seems to me that what the Latin American people are doing is rejecting this model, which obviously serves as a model and example of democratic politics functioning in these countries.

In Colombia it is clear that there is a policy of dirty war against all those who do not support globalization and the government. Political life in Colombia is very difficult because far-right groups consider all of us who think differently from the Colombian and U.S. governments as military targets. I think Colombia operates under its own logic, because there are paramilitaries who direct all of their actions at those who are struggling against injustice, against globalization, and against the impunity that reigns in Colombia. Thus, it is very important what happens throughout Latin America, but the situation in Colombia is very serious and very dangerous, and this gives importance to the intervention of the international community to find a negotiated and peaceful settlement to the conflict in Colombia.

Q: What do you think of the negotiations between the Colombian government and the paramilitaries?

A: These organizations—the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the paramilitaries—are considered terrorists by the government of the United States. I don't understand how the [Colombian] government can open negotiations with only one of these illegal groups. There cannot be good terrorists and bad terrorists in Colombia. I feel that if there is to be a policy of reconciliation in Colombia, it should be with all the groups, not with one group in particular. I believe that there is a clear tendency on the part of the Colombian government to favor one sector in particular, when in reality the problem of the war is lived by all Colombians. By this logic, the government should set in motion a national reconciliation, and not simply create space for reconciliation with just one of the armed groups in Colombia.

Translated from Spanish by Robert Booth.

This article originally appeared in Colombia Report, an online journal that was published by the Information Network of the Americas (INOTA).

Back to Top . Comments

Copyright © 2003 Colombia Journal. All rights reserved.