Ciao!

Hi, Miguel,

Couple of things:

1) I like your blog. Very informative on doings in Bolivia, and your analysis pieces (oddly enough over on Jim Schulz's blog) on populism, the historic roles of Morales et al, are really informative, at least for someone like me, who's never been to Bolivia.

2) Your comments on Colombia, where I have lived (I live in Ecuador now) and where I do follow events (Colombia, that is): Compared to what's happened in Colombia in the last 100 years (e.g., the War of a Thousand Days or La Violencia) what's been happening there over the last 10-15 years is really minor stuff (except for the people directly involved, of course), that I don't know whether you can really call it a civil war.

If you consider all/all of the non-governmental forces involved (FARC, AUC, whatever's left of the EPL, say 50,000-70,000, max/max) and compare that number to the overall population (around 42 million these days), plus the fact that not much of the violence affects large cities or much of the country at all, I'm not sure it can be called a civil war in the same class as earlier Colombia conflicts or the other conflicts cited in Wikipedia.

Colombia seems to be more along the lines of the low intensity conflicts that have afflicted some places like the guerrilla warfare that afflicted Ecuador in the middle 80's (subsequently crushed by Febres-Cordero's government). In the case of Colombia, of course, the place is so big that the GOC can't project its presence throughout the whole country nor ever really hope to completely defeat the FARC. As well, as you say, the FARC found the perfect way to finance itself via drugs (as my brother says, the FARC went private sector a long time ago).

Anyway, to close out, my point is that while the FARC is a stubborn...insurgency? band of drogeros? (Pick your own term), which will be around awhile, it'll never be capable of engaging large parts of the country or the populace in general armed combat of the sort that I envision when we talk about civil war.

Bolivia and Venezuela? Potential could be there for those places... I look forward to your continued analyses, especially about the situation in the eastern departments (la media luna... de donde viene esto nombre?) and the thinking of leaders in those departments. Take care, Tambopaxi

Good points. Yes, how to define Colombia's "la violencia" is definitely tricky. It's certainly not like Chechnia or Biafra. But I used it as an example that even in an "advanced" Latin American country, such conflicts -- even long, drawn out ones -- are possible. Too many people (especially in Bolivia) think "that can never happen here" and in so don't take steps to prevent them.

But I also think the FARC and paramilitaries were more disruptive. The Colombian state has had "effective" control over only a third to half of the total territory, even though the percent of the population wasn't directly affected. Just as the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) in Peru controlled large swaths of territory. One could even add comparisons to the Montoneros guerrillas, too.

And a low intensity conflict could be just as disruptive & costly. But it's also a possibility.

I've been wanting to know this for sure as well, but I'm guessing that the name 'media luna' came about because that's the general shape that the departments of Pando, Beni, Santa Cruz and Tarija (is Chuquisaca included here?) take when seen on the map of Bolivia.

Sorry it took so long to respond. Yes, the term "media luna" refers to the shape of the territories in question. It's actually not a very popular term in the "media luna" itself, which prefers other terms (usually, their department name). But the term has stuck & is used frequently enough in Bolivian news media that I've also adopted it myself.