Kidnapping by Pablo Escobar, a book review (see English below)

García Márquez, Gabriel. Noticia de un secuestro (Nueva York: Vintage Español, 1996) pp. 329. El poseedor del Premio Nobel de Literatura narra en este libro las experiencias de varios colombianos que fueron secuestrados por Pablo Escobar, el infame traficante de drogas, en la última etapa de su vida criminal.

En vez de escribir otra obra más de ficción, García Márquez se puso a trazar el recuento de uno de los rehenes que Escobar había capturado en 1990, Maruja Pachón Castro, perteneciente a la elite colombiana, que, en unión con su esposo, Alberto Villamizar, solicitaron al autor que escribiera sobre su experiencia inolvidable. Obviamente amigos, García acepto, pero pronto vio la necesidad de incluir otras personas que también habían sido apresadas en esos días.

Entonces el gobierno colombiano consideraba establecer un acuerdo con el gobierno de EEUU para extraditar criminales colombianos dedicados a la exportación de estupefacientes como la cocaína. Sintiéndose amenazado, Escobar ordenó el secuestro de los colombianos mencionados comenzando con Pachón Castro para utilizarlos como rescates o fichas para negociar.

Debido a que el autor entrevistó a las personas que sufrieron directamente como rehenes, así como también oficiales del gobierno involucrados en esta crisis, la obra ofrece detalles minuciosos relacionados al cautiverio. Estos incluyen como fueron transportados los apresados secretamente, las condiciones de las prisiones informales, como se relacionaban los rehenes con los guardaban, como se alimentaban, las condiciones en las que dormían, como fueron tratados, etc.

Mas allá de estos detalles, la impresión más fuerte que recibí de esta obra fue el peso político que logró ejercer Escobar en contra al gobierno de César Gaviria. García Márquez dibuja a Escobar desplegando la misma fuerza o casi la misma fuerza política que Gaviria. Este contrapeso político no aparece en el caso mexicano, tan notorio como lo es, pues ninguno de los jefes de los cárteles de drogas parecen haber ejercido el poder personal que García Márquez atribuye a Pablo Escobar.

Es más, el autor nos ofrece un mejor entendimiento de los pormenores que atendieron el fin de Escobar, acribillado a balazos después de todo por la policía colombiana en 1993. [December 2023]

—

The winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature narrates in this book the experiences of several Colombians who were kidnapped by Pablo Escobar, the infamous drug trafficker, in the last stage of his criminal life.

Instead of writing another work of fiction, García Márquez began to tell the story of one of the hostages that Escobar captured in 1990, Maruja Pachón Castro, belonging to the country’s political elite. She and her husband, Alberto Villamizar, asked the author to write about this unforgettable experience. Obviously, friends, García accepted, but soon discovered the need to include other people who had also been apprehended in those days.

The Colombian government was then considering an agreement with the U.S. government to extradite Colombian criminals dedicated to the export of narcotics like cocaine. Feeling threatened, Escobar ordered the kidnapping of the aforementioned Colombians, starting with Pachón Castro, to use them as objects of ransom.

Because the author interviewed the hostages, as well as government officials who became involved in this crisis, he offers thorough details about their captivity. This includes how they were secretly transported, the conditions attending to their informal prisons, how they interacted with their guards, how and what they were fed, in what conditions they were able to sleep, how they were treated, etc.

The strongest impression I gained beyond these details, is the political weight that Escobar was able to exert against President César Gaviria. García Márquez shows Escobar wielding the same or almost the same political influence as Gaviria. This political counterweight seems absent in the Mexican case, despite its notoriety, because none of the drug cartel leaders appear to have exercised the kind of political weight that García Márquez attributes to Pablo Escobar.

The Girl Who Played with Fire, a book review

Larsen, Stieg. The Girl Who Played with Fire (New York: Vintage, 2009), tr. Much like the author’s first book in this Swedish trilogy, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, With Fire kept my interest and enjoyment high all throughout the 630 pages. It was a pleasure. And, exciting too.

Lisbeth, the main character in both novels, cuts a daring portrait once again with her slight, teen like body contrasted with an ability to kick, ride a motorcycle, and otherwise defend herself physically, juxtaposed with an awesome ability to investigate via the Internet. She is a deadly hacker. Her adversaries are misogynistic men who maligned her when she lived in an orphanage, and afterwards.

Although she is a confirmed loner, Mikael Blomkvist, a partner from The Dragon Tattoo also appears here in a gripping yarn that also involves her father who turns out to be a blackguard villain. I prefer books with a historical dimension and this one contains very little, but it is an entertaining read. The novel was made into a movie in 2010.

El olvido que seremos (Colombia’s “violence” from a personal perspective)–a book review

Abad Faciolince, Hector. El olvido que seremos (Bogotá: Planeta, 2006). [English below]

El autor escribe un elogio apasionante a su padre en El olvido que seremos y una denuncia enérgica de sus asesinos, al mismo tiempo. También es una memoria de su infancia y su íntima relación con su padre, tierna evocación que además nos ofrece una mirada conmovedora a la “violencia” colombiana, tan larga y tan dolorosa.

Abad pinta a su padre como un educador totalmente entregado a tender una mano a sus prójimos y abrir las puertas a jóvenes estudiosos pero desprovistos. Nos habla de su devoción total por levantar los estándares de vida de la gente pobre. Y también nos cuenta como esta mentalidad se vuelve subversiva en un conservadurismo empedernido y salvajemente criminal, incluyendo al clero católico. Es asesinado. Irónicamente, el autor nos hace ver, además, que sus familiares pertenecen a esta corriente tradicional retrógrada como obispos, monseñores y monjes, y por ende el lector descubre a nivel personal el laberinto enredoso atrás de estas circunstancias.

A pesar de incluir varias páginas verborreadas que parecen ser productos de la emoción causada al recordar ciertos eventos, El olvido me ayudó a entender la tal llamada “violencia” colombiana. Por eso vale este libro. Creo que a los colombianos les faltó una revolución para deshacerse de un conservadurismo de corte colonial.

---

The author writes an enthralling eulogy to his father in El olvido que seremos (The Forgotten That We’ll Become) and an energetic condemnation of his murderers, at the same time. It is also a memory of his childhood and his intimate relationship with his father, a tender recall that also provides the reader a distressing look at Colombia’s long and painful “violence.”

Abad describes his father as a totally dedicated educator who reaches out to his community by opening doors to young but destitute scholars. He tells us of his father’s total devotion to raising the living standards of poor people, and how this world view became subversive to hardened and criminal conservatives, including the Catholic clergy. He’s assassinated. Ironically, the author’s family members belong to these retrograde institutions as bishops, monsignors and monks, so the reader can catch a glimpse of how intricate and complicated these situations can be up close.

Despite pages in which a verbal diarrhea seizes the author, no doubt triggered by the emotion that comes from remembering certain events, El olvido helped me understand Colombia’s infamous “violence.” That’s why this book is worth reading. I believe that Colombia missed having a revolution that might have shaken away its colonial conservatism.

MEXICO’S NEW PRESIDENT IS IMPRESSIVE AND TROUBLING AT THE SAME TIME

 

Andres Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), was inaugurated President of Mexico today. He declared a war against corruption by slashing government spending, including government salaries, ending neo-liberal policies, and fighting drug-trafficking-related violence, all of which he believes he can achieve without new taxes. He will not prosecute corrupt officials of the past. He said little about President Trump, but his few words were positive.

***

* He rode in a conventional, white, 2010 VW sedan to his inauguration with a small police escort, not in a big, black SUV.

   * He said:

-“Material things do not interest me”

-“I will cut my salary by 40%”

-“I will not live in Los Pinos” (a luxurious executive mansion)

-“I will end all corruption”

-“I will not allow my wife nor my children to gain through politics”

-“I don’t have the right to fail you”

-“In 2 ½ years you can vote me in or out”

Wow! The statements above, coming from a freshly elected president, rang loud and clear in my mind, and I think you know why, these days: our President Trump is openly benefiting from business ties and his children are too, and all we can do is gape open-jawed.

Mexico recognized AMLO as the new president today, December 1, 2018, and I saw and heard his entire inaugural speech on Televisa and was very encouraged. I regretted not being in Mexico City, even though, had I been a Mexican citizen, I wouldn’t have voted for him back in November.

Having followed the presidential campaign there, I was dubious of his candidacy in part because I’ve studied Mexico nearly all my life and concluded that he was an old 1970’s leftist who was out of touch with 21^st century politics. I sympathized with his political leanings but felt that the political winds were moving on and so should he. I wrote as much on my blog.

He won with 53% of the electoral vote (he was one of 4 candidates) and his coalition party captured both houses of Congress. He achieved a clear and overwhelming victory and utterly defeated the PRI, the party that ruled Mexico for nearly a century, building up a selective and muscular apparatus of generously-paid government and party leaders. Clearly, Mexican voters turned their back on the political status quo. AMLO is now all powerful because his people-oriented party (populist?) will most probably endorse his initiatives; there was every indication of that today. No one would have predicted this last year.

             AMLO in his VW sedan

 

I paid attention to things he said and did after he won and before he was officially installed today. An old-line politician, he hails from a modest, traditionally agriculture southern state (Tabasco) and his personal behavior also appears modest and unassuming, hence the 2010 VW white sedan instead of a big, burly, black SUV, and his refusal to live in luxurious Los Pinos on the edge of Mexico City (he’ll live and work in the presidential palace, in front of the zócalo, where most presidents did long ago). He strikes me as an honest ol’ chap; campechano, his friends might say.

      Benito Juarez

He is inspired by 19^th century liberal leaders, like Benito Juarez, Mexico’s only Indian president, many of whom fought to the death in favor of a secular and fully democratic republic. This is what AMLO pledged today, and this impressed me very much, since I too admire Juarez and his comrades.

As AMLO spoke in front of both chambers of Congress, I paid attention to his predecessor, Ernesto Peña Nieto, who minutes earlier had removed the tri-colored presidential sash from his shoulders, signifying executive authority, and handed it to AMLO. He sat impassively nearby, listening to AMLO’s powerful repudiation of his PRI administration and the other preceding regimes. (Historically, this is hugely important since previous outgoing presidents did not easily walk off the political stage).

No more corruption, AMLO promised throughout his campaign. He emphasized this message today too, in a country whose high-ranking government officials earn U.S. $ 65,000 to $100,000 per year when you include generous end-of-year bonuses, allowances for new autos, gasoline, I-phones, life and medical insurance, private hospital care, paid vacations, and so on. He vowed that no government employee will earn more than he does and swore today to cut his own salary by 40%, averaging about $65,000 annually. He’s also selling the nation’s presidential airplane and already stopped the completion of what would have been one of the world’s biggest airports near Mexico City. Mexico doesn’t need such costly expenditures, he insisted. Trimming these allowances will eliminate the need for new taxes, he contended, and there is no doubt it will affect many well-heeled families in a country where government jobs prevail and enjoy high status but  where the average worker earns no more than $5 a day.

My biggest concern is that AMLO linked far too many challenges to corruption in his speech today. This is one of the reasons I would not have voted for him had I been a Mexican citizen—he spoke too vaguely about big issues, even today. For example, he devoted a good part of his speech to condemning Mexico’s neo-liberal economic policies of the 1980’s (i.e., free trade, privatization of government owned enterprises, and the general dominance of the public sector in the economy) suggesting that ending them would help eliminate corruption, somehow, yet he welcomed foreign investment and continued free trade!

He clearly suggested too that wiping out corruption would, by some means, bring down drug-trafficking violence but provided no details except for a reorganization of the nation’s security forces, controversial even now, plus a vague reference to amnesty, although he didn’t use the word. He won’t prosecute past acts of corruption but promised to bring closure to the 43 Guerrero students who disappeared.

Without going on too long here, the bottom line is that AMLO sounded good today, but as many street people interviewed on TV said: “I hope he keeps his promises.” AMLO recalled a young citizen on a bike riding up to him (AMLO doesn’t like too much security) recently and telling him, “you cannot fail us!” In his speech before Congress today he said, “I don’t have the right to fail you.” You can remove me in two and a half years if I do.

The world awaits, including me.