Date: 7-June-2005
Time: 2pm.
Venue: Bodenstown.
Assembly Point: Sallins, Co Kildare.
Chair: John Crawley.
Speaker: Ruan O'Donnell.
Main Speaker: Brian Arthurs.
Date: 7-June-2005
Time: 2pm.
Venue: Bodenstown.
Assembly Point: Sallins, Co Kildare.
Chair: John Crawley.
Main Speaker: Brian Arthurs.
Trump has never won California’s electoral votes but nonetheless insists that his losses in the state are due to elections fraud
President Donald Trump on Wednesday repeated his easily disprovable claim to have won California’s electoral votes as he suggested that a Republican ex-reality television star running for mayor of Los Angeles could have trouble winning because of “dishonest” elections in the Golden State.
Trump made the bizarre comments to reporters before boarding Air Force One en route to Connecticut and a planned commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
Asked about GOP mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt, Trump said he’d like to see the former The Hills star “do well” and called him “a character” and a “big MAGA person” before pivoting to unsubstantiated accusations about California’s elections.
“if you have a rigged vote out there, that's the problem. The votes are rigged. You have a really rigged vote in California. You have all the mail in ballots, everything else. Very hard to win because the elections are very dishonest,” he said.
'If we had Jesus Christ come down and count the votes, I would have won California . . . '
Continue @ The Independent.
During Friday's episode of her "Jenna Ellis In The Morning" radio program, former Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis declared that only Christians are entitled to religious freedom in the United States.
In 2020, Ellis was plucked from obscurity to serve as an attorney for President Donald Trump as he fought to overturn the results of the presidential election. As a result of her efforts, Ellis found herself facing a variety of legal troubles and saw her law license suspended.
Now, Ellis hosts a morning radio program on American Family Radio, where she interviews antisemitic figures like British cleric Calvin Robinson, who was stripped of his license to serve as a priest in the Anglican Catholic Church after he closed out his remarks at the National Pro-Life Summit in 2025 by delivering a Nazi-like salute.
Ellis interviewed Robinson about his forthcoming book "The Silent Jihad: Exposing The Islamification Of The West," which is being published by an imprint run by racist, antisemitic, and deeply misogynistic theocratic fascist Christian nationalist pastor Joel Webbon. During the conversation, Ellis insisted that the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom only applies to Christians.
In 2020, Ellis was plucked from obscurity to serve as an attorney for President Donald Trump as he fought to overturn the results of the presidential election. As a result of her efforts, Ellis found herself facing a variety of legal troubles and saw her law license suspended.
Now, Ellis hosts a morning radio program on American Family Radio, where she interviews antisemitic figures like British cleric Calvin Robinson, who was stripped of his license to serve as a priest in the Anglican Catholic Church after he closed out his remarks at the National Pro-Life Summit in 2025 by delivering a Nazi-like salute.
Ellis interviewed Robinson about his forthcoming book "The Silent Jihad: Exposing The Islamification Of The West," which is being published by an imprint run by racist, antisemitic, and deeply misogynistic theocratic fascist Christian nationalist pastor Joel Webbon. During the conversation, Ellis insisted that the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom only applies to Christians.
Continue @ RWW.
Ten links to a diverse range of opinion that might be of interest to TPQ readers. They are selected not to invite agreement but curiosity. Readers can submit links to pieces they find thought provoking.
Before We Conform, Or Condemn, Let Us At Least Be Curious
♜One recognizes one's course by discovering the paths that stray from it - Albert Camus♞
The purpose of the event was to press for the passing of the Occupied Territories Bill which the Dublin government has dragged its feet on, in addition to the parallel tardiness the government has been culpable for in relation to substantial domestic matters of housing and health.
The two main speakers were Senator Frances Black, who who was the first Irish parliamentarian to press for legislation that would bring into law the Occupied Territories Bill, and Faten Alsourani, a Palestinian Lawyer who grew up in Gaza and lost family members to Israeli violence.
The government at least is consistent in both its domestic and foreign policy in that it simply fails to act or does so at such a snail's pace that the benefits trickle down very slowly.
The government go-slow approach to the Occupied Territories Bill is characterised by delaying and deferring to such an extent that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that derailment of the Bill is the real purpose. Since Frances Black first launched her bid to have legislation enacted, the government has behaved more like a committee as characterised by Fred Allen:
a group of people who individually can do nothing, but who, as a group, can meet and decide that nothing can be done.
In addition to the two speakers Drogheda Stands With Palestine featured centrally. While Bobby McCormack chaired the event wearing his Development Perspectives hat, his keffiyeh, metaphorically, was also very much on display through his association with Drogheda Stands With Palestine. Additionally, the hall was electrified by the contributions of our very own Alan Kelly and Siobhan Newman who were both invited onto the stage to address the audience. Like Bobby, they have given both selflessly and tirelessly of their time in pursuit of a Free Palestine. The night's proceedings were concluded when yet another DSWP activist, Margaret McConnon played guitar and sang alongside Siobhan Newman.
Disappointingly, there was only one of the Louth TDs in attendance - Ged Nash of the Labour Party who has never stopped shot of typifying Israeli policy for what it is - genocide. While the Sinn Fein TD, Joanna Byrne, was not present she received huge praise for the positions she has taken up - and at cost to herself when she was ousted as co-chair of Drogheda United Football Club for calling on the Irish soccer team to boycott the upcoming match against Israel - and no one in the audience was left uncertain as to what side of the fence she is on when it comes to Palestine's Israeli problem.
At one point during the Q&A I took the opportunity to raise my concerns about the policy of the Irish Writers Union which lamentably failed at its recent AGM to support the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel,. That seemed to me to be the wholesale abdication of responsibility on the part of writers to their besieged and brutalised colleagues in the Occupied Territories. I made the point that despite very persuasive arguments presented by Kevin Doyle and Sally Rooney, the governing committee opted to side with Alan Shatter and abandon the Palestinians. It was a theme Frances Black took up when she again addressed the audience. She was aghast at how a writers union could fail so abysmally, and was wholly supportive of the efforts of those within the union to have the matter revisited.
Since the Barbican even, Helen McEntee has announced that the government intends to make progress on the Bill within the next fortnight. While this has been given a guarded welcome by Frances Black, she made it very clear at the Barbican that government promises are plentiful, actions much less so. The one message Helen McEntee and her government colleagues needs to hear is stop waffling and just do it.
Since the Barbican even, Helen McEntee has announced that the government intends to make progress on the Bill within the next fortnight. While this has been given a guarded welcome by Frances Black, she made it very clear at the Barbican that government promises are plentiful, actions much less so. The one message Helen McEntee and her government colleagues needs to hear is stop waffling and just do it.
 |
| Oil on daler board 1980, inclined to believe that the elderly man, newspaper in pocket, is “Rocky Burns” |
⏩Geordie Morrow is a Belfast artist.
From the Turas na mBan gathering in Erris, which featured various lectures and talks, to live music sessions in Ballycroy, alongside poetry, storytelling, and finally theatre in Belmullet. Looking back on it now, there was a common thread running through nearly all of them: love. Love of family, love of place, love of memory, love of one’s country, and the enduring human instinct to hold onto dignity even in the face of grief, loss, emigration, or authority. Oddly enough, it was a play that tied all of those themes together most clearly.
On Sunday, 17 May 2026, I attended a performance of We Have Him Back! at Áras Inis Gluaire in Belmullet during what proved to be a completely sold-out opening weekend. Written and directed by Brian MacSuibhne, the play tells the story of Frank Stagg, the Mayo-born Provisional IRA hunger striker from Hollymount in Co. Mayo, who died on 12 February 1976 after 62 days on hunger strike — his fourth hunger strike overall.
Frank had emigrated to Coventry in England in search of work and a better life for his family, eventually working as a bus driver before his imprisonment. In many ways, that detail alone says something important about Ireland of that era. Like countless others from the west of Ireland, emigration was not an abstract political concept. It was an economic reality for many a man from the West of Ireland seeking work.
Before the performance, MacSuibhne explained the deeper purpose behind the production. As he described it:
This project, this stage production preserves endangered oral history. Documented truth. And community memory of a censored event in modern Irish history. I wanted it to have an educational value as well as a reconciliation value. Telling of the love of a brother in the fight for a United Ireland.
The intentions of the play are grounded in the experiences of the Stagg family and the treatment they endured at the hands of the authorities in both London and Dublin. Rather than simply offering a historical retelling, the production revolves around a dying wish and a brotherly promise that was to be kept, told from the perspective of those who experienced the events directly.
The play also addresses Frank’s close friend and comrade Michael Gaughan, from Ballina, who died on hunger strike on 3 June 1974 and was buried in the Ballina Republican Plot. His presence within the story deepens the emotional and historical weight of the production, grounding it further within the realities of Mayo and the sacrifices carried by families and communities during that period.
One of the strongest aspects of the play is how it portrays the way authority can extend suffering far beyond the individual directly involved. The actions of both the British and Irish states did not simply impact Frank Stagg himself. The system deliberately affected his mother, his siblings, his wider family, and his community. Even small acts of control or denial can have enormous emotional consequences when families are grieving or enduring the strain of prison visits. What the Stagg family endured was portrayed not as abstract politics, but as an intensely personal form of suffering and cruelty. The play handles these themes carefully without becoming overbearing.
At the same time, We Have Him Back! is not relentlessly bleak and dark. There are genuine moments of humour throughout, and the production is all the stronger for it. MacSuibhne introduces characters and exchanges that bring lightness and humanity into what is otherwise extremely heavy subject matter.
In places, there are clear echoes of the great Irish theatrical tradition associated with Seán O'Casey and Brendan Behan — not in the sense of imitation, but in the way humour, working-class resilience, and sharp dialogue coexist alongside tragedy and political tension. That balance is important because it reflects real life. Even in periods of grief or conflict, people still laugh, joke, argue, and live as best they can. The humour in the play never undermines the seriousness of the story, instead, it makes the emotional moments hit harder.
The performances themselves also deserve enormous credit. The cast is largely amateur, but in truth that adds to the authenticity of the production. The performances feel raw rather than polished, emotional rather than theatrical for the sake of theatricality. There is a sincerity to the acting that suits the material perfectly. At no point does the audience feel distanced from the people on stage. If anything, the rougher edges strengthen the emotional realism of the production.
Another aspect of the play that stayed with me afterwards was the unmistakable presence of Mayo itself throughout the story. The quiet, steely reserve often associated with people from that part of the world is visible in nearly every scene. Landscape matters in Irish history, and particularly in stories like this. Place shapes people, outlooks, opportunities, hardships, and ultimately choices. The roads that led Frank Stagg from Hollymount in Co. Mayo to Coventry, and eventually towards imprisonment and hunger strike, cannot be fully separated from the social and economic realities of the Ireland he came from.
Yet despite the darkness of much of the story, the play ultimately leaves room for dignity and humanity. Without revealing too much for those who have not yet seen it, there is emotional power in the simple fact contained within the title itself: eventually, the family did get Frank back, through a promise made by George Stagg to his brother. That emotional core is what elevates the production beyond politics alone.
This is a play that should be seen by a wide audience. Certainly, those with an interest in Irish republican history or the political history of the 1970s will find much to engage with, but the appeal of the production stretches well beyond that. Students, academics, historians, and anyone interested in oral history, grief, migration, family, or the effects of institutional power on ordinary people would find something worthwhile here.
Importantly, productions like this matter because oral history fundamentally matters. Stories passed through families and communities carry emotional truths that official records alone often cannot capture. Future generations deserve access not only to dates and statistics, but to the lived experiences of those who endured these events directly. That is where theatre, storytelling, and community memory become important cultural acts in themselves.
In the end, what stayed with me most about We Have Him Back! was not simply the politics or even the historical tragedy at its centre. It was the humanity of it all. During a week in Mayo filled with music, poetry, conversation, and reflection, this play seemed to gather many of those wider themes together: love, grief, resilience, emigration, humour, authority, family, and memory.
And perhaps that is its greatest achievement. It tells one family’s story honestly enough that it begins to speak to something much larger than itself.
If you wish to see We Have Him Back! for yourself, the nationwide tour continues throughout 2026, with further dates potentially still to be announced.
Confirmed performances currently include:
- Esker Arts Centre, Tullamore, Co. Offaly — Saturday, 23 May 2026
- The Island Theatre, Ballinamore, Co. Leitrim — Saturday, 6 June 2026
- Swift Cultural Centre, Trim, Co. Meath — Saturday, 13 June 2026
- An Grianán Theatre, Letterkenny, Co. Donegal — Saturday, 5 September 2026
- TF Royal Theatre, Castlebar, Co. Mayo — Friday, 25 September 2026
- The Garage Theatre, Monaghan Town, Co. Monaghan — Saturday, 14 November 2026.
Further performances are also expected across Dublin, Belfast, and Cork as part of the continuing nationwide tour, with additional dates likely still to be announced.
⏩Daithi Hopkins is a republican socialist activist.
Ten links to a diverse range of opinion that might be of interest to TPQ readers. They are selected not to invite agreement but curiosity. Readers can submit links to pieces they find thought provoking.
Before We Conform, Or Condemn, Let Us At Least Be Curious
♜One recognizes one's course by discovering the paths that stray from it - Albert Camus♞
The proposals to eradicate coca always include some version of crop substitution. The debates are usually around how it is to be done and whether to include some proposal for the development of the regions, such as roads, schools and so forth. They rarely look at why there is an increase in illicit crops and how the proposal for substitution contributes to it.
The peasant didn’t choose the wrong crop. The decision to grow coca instead of manioc, for example, is not an erroneous decision by the peasant. It is an economic question. The peasant calculates which of the two crops has a greater market or is more profitable. This aspect is accepted by almost everyone. So the state proposes an alternative crop to compete with the profitability of coca. The state implicitly accepts that there are other factors to be borne in mind and acknowledges that the poor state of the roads is an important factor in most regions and often there is a lack of infrastructure relative to the crop, processing plants, wholesale collection points etc. But the proposals ignore a fundamental aspect. What bankrupted the Colombian countryside and impoverished the peasantry was neoliberalism.
In the history of the expansion of illicit crops and their use to make cocaine we can point to key moments in different countries. Many academic texts talk of the collapse of the price of tin in 1986 and the impact it had on the Bolivian economy. But it is not true. The price of tin did not collapse but rather it was collapsed. Until 1985 there was in place an international agreement that regulated the price. The termination of that agreement provoked the fall in the price of tin, and up to 20,000 miners went to the Chapare region to grow coca for purposes other than traditional use, amongst them one Evo Morales the future president of the country. And coca production took off, and Bolivia became, for a period, an important player in the cocaine business.
In Colombia the economic aperture of César Gaviria wrecked the countryside, and later came the collapse of the international agreement on coffee. The price of green coffee fell, whilst the price of roasted coffee rose. As Colombia, is even today, a producer of green coffee and not so much roasted coffee this impacted the Colombian countryside. It is the third largest producer of green coffee in the world in terms of volume and value after Brazil and Vietnam.
In 2024 Colombia exported 655,611 tonnes of green coffee, but the real profits are made with roasted coffee and Colombia barely exported 12,064.78 tonnes compared to Switzerland’s 111,185 tonnes, Italy’s 294,476 and Germany’s 258,672. Switzerland exported roasted coffee worth USD 3,91,239,000, Italy USD 2,748,238,000 and Germany 2,189,120,000. Colombia barely exported USD 105,998,000. This means that Colombia, the third largest producer of coffee in the world, exported coffee worth about 1.2% of the value of the three European countries where the only coffee plants are in the botanic gardens. In fact, the value of all Colombian exports of both green and roasted coffee is just 40% of the value of roasted coffee exports of those three countries in the north. But these countries, as strange as it seems, export green coffee that they obviously don’t produce. Their botanic gardens couldn’t even produce one sack of it. For example, Germany exported almost half the green coffee of Colombia. Its exports were the equivalent in value of 46% of Colombia’s exports (USD 1,609,535,000 compared to USD 3,439,384,000). In terms of volume, Germany exported 321,425,320 tonnes, almost half that of Colombia’s 655,611,110.[1] Berlin’s botanic garden must be very productive or better still the European companies dominate everything. I should point out that here I have not included figures from the USA as their production is for internal consumption, though it is the largest market.
It is worth remembering that coffee is one of the products that they say will save the peasant when he replaces the coca. The proposal makes no sense if you really believe that they aim to save the peasantry. It only makes sense when you realise that it is not about saving the peasantry but rather transforming the countryside. Francisco de Roux who was the head honcho at the Programme for Development and Peace in Magdalena Medio was clear about it:
It is an ideological proposal to deepen the process that began under the government of César Gaviria: a countryside without peasants but rather rural workers. It is a proposal from the Colombian right including the paramilitary groups that set it out in their proposal Plan for Regional Macroeconomic Integration for Sustainable Human Development, the Substitution of Illicit Crops and Peace for the Municipalities that make up the Civil Association for Peace in Colombia, more popularly known as the Macroeconomic Integration Plan.[3] It is also a proposal from a wide range of foreign governments, NGOs, journalists and of course agribusiness companies.
Through the tale of crop substitution the PDPMM managed to establish large scale African palm crops in Southern Bolívar and expand cocoa, rubber, and coffee crops there and in other parts. Also in Tibú when the right wing paramilitaries supposedly demobilised they came in with full force to plant palm. Before the paramilitary demobilisation there was just 500 hectares in all of North Santander and now there are 43,859 hectares, mainly in Tibú. As much in Magdalena Medio, Tibú and other parts the beneficiaries of the crop substitution programmes were not necessarily coca growers. Palm, cocoa, rubber and other cash crops were imposed where there was no coca. It was just an excuse and in many cases they did not keep their word with the peasants as one peasant rubber farmer from Santander explains:
Nowadays, with or without the excuse of crop substitution, the promotion of cash crops is state policy. Petro never stops talking about it. When he proposed buying land from those who financed the right wing paramilitaries in order to share it out amongst the peasants he said it was so the peasant would grow cash crops. The idea is of a Colombian countryside full of rural workers producing those crops that are raw materials for northern multinationals. In exchange Colombia imports basic foodstuffs that it used to produce. The problem the country has is that Europe and the USA can stop consuming the produce of Colombia but Colombia cannot stop importing its food. Now with the crisis in the Persian Gulf, Europe can decide that that cash crops from Colombia are a luxury that it no longer needs, but Colombia needs rice, beans and other foodstuffs and it has to import them regardless of the price of fuel.
The central argument for crop substitution is that the peasant chose the wrong crop before falling on hard times. He grew manioc or some other foodstuff and couldn’t survive on the sale of those crops and opted for coca as a very profitable crop. They say there are other crops that are profitable and don’t bring with them the social problems of coca, such as violence, prostitution, pollution and the disintegration of the social fabric etc. The softest version of this accepts that there are some structural factors such as the lack of quality roads, education, health services, etc. in the regions and they promise to do something about it. However, they ignore the central problem.
Neoliberal policies caused the crises in the Colombian countryside and in other countries. The plan was to turn Colombia into a pantry of exotic products for Europe and the USA. The plan has met with some success, as nowadays 70% of the arable land in Colombia is under six crops with coffee and palm accounting for 27.9%. The country imports basic foodstuffs that it used to produce and the regions are increasingly specialised in a small number of crops exposed to the ups and downs of the market, the rapid advance of infections in the monocultures, the loss of biodiversity and the complete absence of participation in value-added processes. They propose to speed up this process, inserting the Colombian countryside to a greater degree in the international market in exchange for little or nothing. If neoliberalism pushed the peasantry towards coca, the solution according to these nutcases is more neoliberalism.
Every country in the world exports a part of its agricultural production. It is normal and even desirable, depending on the conditions in which it is done. But if you want to substitute coca with other crops, not only do you need roads in good condition, but also native crops and a local, regional and national economic circuit where the crops are transformed within the country and what is exported is, insofar as possible, the final product. It is incredible that Colombia does not dominate the roasted coffee market or that it imports refined sugar, or that its rubber production is not of sufficient quality for the car industry. Having so much land, it is incredible that it imports basic foodstuffs. The required changes in the countryside are more than giving out free seeds or chickens to peasants but rather changes to the free trade agreements, that the food needs to be processed in the country. In other words the countryside just like industry requires a vision and real planning to meet the needs of the country and not those of the international monopolies of a handful of products. The countryside is for Colombians not for Nestlé or Unilever. Neither is it for the national monopolies in Colombia. Any half measure is another victory for neoliberalism and those who pushed the peasants into coca production with all the problems this has brought to the country.
Of course, to struggle against neoliberalism is to struggle against capitalism itself. There is no nice capitalism and the options are not between a neoliberal capitalism and one from some other golden age. Of course, those who talk of crop substitution never talk of socialism. This is not surprising. What is strange is the social organisations and the left don’t talk about socialism either in the context of drugs, illicit crops and the challenges to the peasantry and the working class. They believe that drugs and crop substitution is far removed from class struggle: naïve fools.
It is worth remembering that coffee is one of the products that they say will save the peasant when he replaces the coca. The proposal makes no sense if you really believe that they aim to save the peasantry. It only makes sense when you realise that it is not about saving the peasantry but rather transforming the countryside. Francisco de Roux who was the head honcho at the Programme for Development and Peace in Magdalena Medio was clear about it:
The peasant has to associate with the large scale processes that make the land of Magdalena Medio interesting for large investments. And those projects are the permanent tropical products. If the peasant doesn’t get into this, he is going to leave the region.[2]
It is an ideological proposal to deepen the process that began under the government of César Gaviria: a countryside without peasants but rather rural workers. It is a proposal from the Colombian right including the paramilitary groups that set it out in their proposal Plan for Regional Macroeconomic Integration for Sustainable Human Development, the Substitution of Illicit Crops and Peace for the Municipalities that make up the Civil Association for Peace in Colombia, more popularly known as the Macroeconomic Integration Plan.[3] It is also a proposal from a wide range of foreign governments, NGOs, journalists and of course agribusiness companies.
Through the tale of crop substitution the PDPMM managed to establish large scale African palm crops in Southern Bolívar and expand cocoa, rubber, and coffee crops there and in other parts. Also in Tibú when the right wing paramilitaries supposedly demobilised they came in with full force to plant palm. Before the paramilitary demobilisation there was just 500 hectares in all of North Santander and now there are 43,859 hectares, mainly in Tibú. As much in Magdalena Medio, Tibú and other parts the beneficiaries of the crop substitution programmes were not necessarily coca growers. Palm, cocoa, rubber and other cash crops were imposed where there was no coca. It was just an excuse and in many cases they did not keep their word with the peasants as one peasant rubber farmer from Santander explains:
It came here as crop substitution but in this area there wasn’t any [coca]. They came along with the tale, saying in the workshops that it was the pension for the people that planted it. That it was one of the most profitable crops in the world… They guaranteed its sale, something which never happened, those who extract rubber have to see where they can sell it and those who sell it have to wait three months for payment.[4]
Nowadays, with or without the excuse of crop substitution, the promotion of cash crops is state policy. Petro never stops talking about it. When he proposed buying land from those who financed the right wing paramilitaries in order to share it out amongst the peasants he said it was so the peasant would grow cash crops. The idea is of a Colombian countryside full of rural workers producing those crops that are raw materials for northern multinationals. In exchange Colombia imports basic foodstuffs that it used to produce. The problem the country has is that Europe and the USA can stop consuming the produce of Colombia but Colombia cannot stop importing its food. Now with the crisis in the Persian Gulf, Europe can decide that that cash crops from Colombia are a luxury that it no longer needs, but Colombia needs rice, beans and other foodstuffs and it has to import them regardless of the price of fuel.
The central argument for crop substitution is that the peasant chose the wrong crop before falling on hard times. He grew manioc or some other foodstuff and couldn’t survive on the sale of those crops and opted for coca as a very profitable crop. They say there are other crops that are profitable and don’t bring with them the social problems of coca, such as violence, prostitution, pollution and the disintegration of the social fabric etc. The softest version of this accepts that there are some structural factors such as the lack of quality roads, education, health services, etc. in the regions and they promise to do something about it. However, they ignore the central problem.
Neoliberal policies caused the crises in the Colombian countryside and in other countries. The plan was to turn Colombia into a pantry of exotic products for Europe and the USA. The plan has met with some success, as nowadays 70% of the arable land in Colombia is under six crops with coffee and palm accounting for 27.9%. The country imports basic foodstuffs that it used to produce and the regions are increasingly specialised in a small number of crops exposed to the ups and downs of the market, the rapid advance of infections in the monocultures, the loss of biodiversity and the complete absence of participation in value-added processes. They propose to speed up this process, inserting the Colombian countryside to a greater degree in the international market in exchange for little or nothing. If neoliberalism pushed the peasantry towards coca, the solution according to these nutcases is more neoliberalism.
Every country in the world exports a part of its agricultural production. It is normal and even desirable, depending on the conditions in which it is done. But if you want to substitute coca with other crops, not only do you need roads in good condition, but also native crops and a local, regional and national economic circuit where the crops are transformed within the country and what is exported is, insofar as possible, the final product. It is incredible that Colombia does not dominate the roasted coffee market or that it imports refined sugar, or that its rubber production is not of sufficient quality for the car industry. Having so much land, it is incredible that it imports basic foodstuffs. The required changes in the countryside are more than giving out free seeds or chickens to peasants but rather changes to the free trade agreements, that the food needs to be processed in the country. In other words the countryside just like industry requires a vision and real planning to meet the needs of the country and not those of the international monopolies of a handful of products. The countryside is for Colombians not for Nestlé or Unilever. Neither is it for the national monopolies in Colombia. Any half measure is another victory for neoliberalism and those who pushed the peasants into coca production with all the problems this has brought to the country.
Of course, to struggle against neoliberalism is to struggle against capitalism itself. There is no nice capitalism and the options are not between a neoliberal capitalism and one from some other golden age. Of course, those who talk of crop substitution never talk of socialism. This is not surprising. What is strange is the social organisations and the left don’t talk about socialism either in the context of drugs, illicit crops and the challenges to the peasantry and the working class. They believe that drugs and crop substitution is far removed from class struggle: naïve fools.
References
[1] All figures are taken from faostat.org
[2] Interview with Francisco de Roux April 2002.
[3] Ó Loingsigh, G. (2002) La estrategia integral del paramilitarismo en el Magdalena Medio. España.
[4] Cited in Ó Loingsigh, G. (2019) Extractivismo y muerte en el nororiente de Colombia. EJP. Bogotá. pp. 131 y 132.
[1] All figures are taken from faostat.org
[2] Interview with Francisco de Roux April 2002.
[3] Ó Loingsigh, G. (2002) La estrategia integral del paramilitarismo en el Magdalena Medio. España.
[4] Cited in Ó Loingsigh, G. (2019) Extractivismo y muerte en el nororiente de Colombia. EJP. Bogotá. pp. 131 y 132.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
