Tony Blair's Colombian Conflict

Tony Blair

Tony Blair ended his prime ministership of the United Kingdom with a generally positive image, it seems to me, as a dynamic, innovative leader (despite following the United States into the disastrous Iraq war). Since then, however, he has garnered criticism by parleying his fame and connections into a fortune calculated by some in the many tens of millions of dollars.

Now, Blair's initiatives are earning him flack in Colombia.

Windrush Ventures, which receives fees for consulting done by Tony Blair Associates (TBA), signed a contract to advise Colombia on the use of royalty income from mining. However, the work is being paid for by the oil-soaked United Arab Emirates.

That might sound like a sweet deal for Colombia. However, the arrangement has people asking whether the payment arrangement constitutes a conflict of interest. Will Blair favor Colombia, or his paymaster, the UAE?

"In this way, the Arabs pay Blair to obtain privileged information from each nation where they want to invest and also to facilitate their business by arranging meetings with government officials to accelerate the investment process," columnist Jose Manuel Acevedo wrote in an opinion column in Semana magazine entitled 'How Much Does Tony Blair Cost Us?

Colombia's Procuraduria also sent a letter asking similar questions.

The UAE recently invested in a Colombian gold mine.

What's more, Blair is the Middle East envoy for the Madrid Quartet, consisting of the United Nations,

Blair and Juan Manuel Santos.

U.S., the European Union, and Russia, whose mission is to resolve the region's connections. Some asked whether, if Blair was receiving payments from a Middle Easter nation, he could act as a neutral broker in the region.

Complicating more the situation, Blair is a long-time friend of Colombian Pres. Santos. The two even wrote a book together in 1999 about 'the third way,' a political philosophy developed by Blair and adopted by Santos.

In response to the questions about Blair's Colombian work, the Colombian government issued a statement asserting that Blair was not privy to any sensitive information about mining resources.

On his website, Blair said that Tony Blair Associates maintains strict confidentiality and denied any impropriety:

"TBA’s work has included support to improve the country’s Royalties’ distribution system, to help boost economic development and ensure that government revenue is allocated more equally across the population...TBA has also been helping establishing a Delivery Unit, so that the government can better deliver services which will increase jobs, reduce poverty and transform the lives of people in Colombia."

TBA also says that its commercial ventures finance Blair's philanthropic work, including combating religious conflict, promoting sports and Middle East peace efforts.

Blair is unquestionably a talented guy, and I've no reason to question his good intentions. However, the ex-leader of an resource-poor nation doesn't seem like the obvious choice to advise about resource revenue use. Couldn't they find someone from resource-rich Canada, Australia or Norway, instead? This sounds rather as tho the Colombian government sought Blair's stamp of approval to open export markets for Colombian minerals.

And the potential conflicts of interest are obvious: Is the TBA really looking out for the interests of Colombia, or of the UAE, which is paying it? Can Blair really be an impartial actor as a mid-east envoy when an he's accepting payments from one of the region's nations?

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

How Panama Created the United Kingdom

Colombia has not played much of a role in the campaign for tomorrow's Scottish independence vote.

However, if not for territory which was for a time part of Colombia, Scotland might never have united with England in the first place.

The Gulf of Darien, with New Edinburgh
on the right.

During the 1600s Scotland was a small struggling nation on the edge of Europe - but with dreams of greatness. Why shouldn't Scotland become, like England, the center of a great empire?

Scottish leaders set up a business scheme, which finally settled on establishing a colony on the Gulf of Darien on the Isthmus of Panama. Panama was strategic, the Scots believed, because it would be the pathway to trade between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

But English business interests, fearful of competition and of antagonizing the Spanish empire, prevented the Scots from raising money in London and on the European continent. As a result, the Scots had to raise their money at home, from patriotic Scotsmen and women. Ultimately, between one fourth and one half of all the money circulating in Scotland was invested in the Darien Scheme.

The first five ships, with 1,200 colonists, sailed in 1698 and established New Edinburgh in present-day Panama. But the expedition quickly turned disastrous from disease, internal quarrels, hostility from the Spanish and lack of aid from the English, who didn't want to antagonize the Spanish empire, which also claimed Panama. Only 300 people survived to return to Scotland.

Panama, the country which created the United Kingdom.

But before the survivors returned to tell their tale, another set of ships full of eager colonists had set off for Panama. This group also met disaster, including a Spanish military siege. Only a few hundred survived to return to Scotland. They left behind few traces, but today a town on the would-be settlement site is sometimes called Puerto Escocés.

In the wake of the disaster, the Scottish company invested its remaining money in two ships which bought slaves on the coast of Africa. However, on Madagascar those ships were seized by a pirate, who ultimately burned and abandoned them.

Thus ended Scotland's colonial adventure, which nearly bankrupted the nation. Scots seemed to conclude that they'd have better luck by uniting themselves with their larger, wealthier southern neighbor. The parliaments of Scotland and England passed acts of union, creating the United Kingdom in May, 1707.

The Spanish Empire eventually consolidated its control over the Isthmus of Panama. When South America became independent, Panama became part of La Gran Colombia, which also included what today are Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Venezuela. When La Gran Colombia broke up in 1831, Panama remained part of Nueva Granada, which became the Republic of Colombia. U.S. Pres. Theodore Roosevelt wanted to dig a canal across the Isthmus, but Colombia's Congress was reluctant.

Not to be stopped, Roosevelt encouraged the Panamanians to rebel, which they did in 1903, and the U.S. recognized Panama's independence. The U.S. dug the Panama Canal, which was completed in 1914. In a way, the Americans fulfilled the Scots' centuries-old plan of connecting the oceans.

Scotland, meanwhile, seemed to flourish in its union with England. Edinburgh became a center of culture and philosophy, while Glasgow evolved into an industrial center. Many Scots played prominent roles in the British empire.

When Scots go to the polls, will they keep Colombia's role in their history in mind? Probably not.

And if Scotland votes 'Yes' and becomes independent again, will they take up once again the old dream of having their own empire? Panama had better watch out!

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours

Bogotá's British Moment

Bogotá's not going to become a British colony, or change its official language to English. But a flurry of events have made this a somewhat British moment for Colombia's capital.

Thanks Avianca. Recently, Avianca started non-stop flights between Bogotá and London. A long haul.

Business is Great. The UK government is marketing the country as a gateway to Europe for Colombian businesses.

The UK set up a website promoting trade between the two countries.

And, not long ago, Britain's education ministry opened an office in Colombia to recruit students for UK universities.

Despite the distance between them, Colombia and Britain's ties go way back. The British sent a British Legion to fight against Spain alongside Simon Bolivar's armies. (There is still a British Cemetery in Bogotá, beside the Central Cemetery.) Later, British recognition of the newly independent states was crucial in their being recognized by other nations.

Colombia and Britain have warm relations today in part because of geopolitical and geographical coincidence. London argues that history and population trump geography in its claims to the Falkland Islands, which are located off of the coast of Argentina, which also claims the islands and calls them the Malvinas. Using somewhat similar historical arguments, Colombia claims the San Andres archipelago, off of the coast of Nicaragua, which has a rival claim to the islands.

By Mike Ceaser, of Bogotá Bike Tours