Planning Columbia

President Bush recently toured South and Latin America as a countermeasure for certain recalcitrant never-do-wells that have the gall to muck about in Uncle Sam’s “backyard.” Bush is calling 2007 the “year of engagement” for Latin America – because we have been neglecting the area (notwithstanding a failed coup attempt of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez a few years ago). The yard is a dump now, overrun with weeds and fire-ants with broken glass strewn about.

Of course, Bush was met with protest and scorn wherever he went. Our press ascribed the mass protest facing Bush to his policies in Iraq. I suppose that is part of it, though I suspect Latin American anger is rooted in its firsthand experience with U.S. efforts to foment democracy and regional stability at the barrel of a gun.[1] The esteemed Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek gives voice to collective Yankee shock at their hesitation to throw themselves into our outstretched arms,

“Until Bush's election in 2000, American foreign policy toward Latin America had been on the right track for two decades. Ronald Reagan orchestrated an extraordinary turnaround, supporting human rights, democracy and free trade in several countries.”[2]

Those hot blooded Latinos and Latinas, who wouldn’t want the U.S. foreign policy combo-platter Zakaria describes?

Well, that is one way of putting things. Another way is that they vividly remember U.S. trained and armed death squads that turned the region into an abattoir during the Reagan administration. The crimes included – but were not limited to – torture, repression, theft, rape, political assassinations which included dissidents, civilians, members of Church groups, and journalists, and yes, your hardcore commies among others. One example of a hardcore commie in El Salvador was the Archbishop Oscar Romero, who used his pulpit to speak out against the horrific human rights violations and wrote letters to the U.S. Congress pleading with them to take notice of what they were supporting. His thanks was assassination when a gunman linked to Reaganite favorite Roberto D’Aubisson gunned him down after he gave mass. Elsewhere, security forces liquidated another subversive communist cell when they kidnapped, raped and murdered four American nuns. Their brutal deaths were distinguishable from the hundreds of thousands of others only because they were Americans.

Our own intelligence agencies admitted at the time that the people supported the leftist governments we conducted our terrorist operations against, which tweaks Zakaria’s assertion that U.S. policy had been geared towards democracy. “Terrorist operations” is not a flit of hyperbole in this case; it is based in a legal ruling. In 1986 the International Court of Justice found that the U.S. was guilty of the “unlawful use of force” – or terrorism – for mining Nicaragua’s harbors. The U.S. refused to participate or acknowledge the court’s legitimacy, which is right in line with the long standing unofficial policy of the U.S. to disregard international law when it doesn’t suit their needs and pose as the world’s barrister when it does. One might be inclined to forget this at times, such as when U.S. officials argue that they are compelled to invade other countries because of their continued violations of UN resolutions to maintain the sanctity of the rule of law. No one really takes that sentiment seriously however; even the British recognized in internal documents – later leaked - in the run-up to the Iraq War that the U.S. is a rogue nation that interprets law as it sees fit to conform to policy.[3] As Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, put it in an editorial published by the Washington Post, the U.S. should seek to reform the UN in such a way that “international law” would “work as a tool of American [policy] rather than as a constraint on it…. multilateralism and international law at its best” serves as “hard-edged tools to further American and global interests.”[4]

This post is not meant to rehash the grisly history of American policy in Latin America, of which I have barely touched upon, the gruesome details can be found in a number of reports from Oxfam, Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, declassified and leaked CIA or other military documents in the U.S., and various analysts. I am only calling attention to some of the details as a counterpoint to Zakaria.

Let’s narrow the focus of our discussion and return to Bush’s recent trip through the region: One of the last whistle-stops on Bush’s America Loves You (to death) tour was Columbia and it is to this country I want to devote the rest of this post to. The Associated Press reported that Bush arrived to somewhat muted protest in Columbia compared to the nastier receptions he received elsewhere.

U.S. munificence in Columbia began roughly in 1962, when JFK sent counter-insurgency (CI) specialist General William Yarborough down for two weeks to come up with a CI plan to help resolve an existing conflict between the wealthy land holding elites and the restless many; a familiar enough story. Yarborough recommended that the U.S. help Colombia create a security apparatus to “execute paramilitary, sabotage and/or terrorist activities against known communist proponents.” Following his advice, the U.S. trained and armed Columbian “hunter-killer teams.” One manual for Colombian counter insurgency forces suggested that no institution was off-limits; “Is the public education system vulnerable to infiltration…” and what “is the nature of the labor organizations?” The military was to attack “leaders of dissident groups (minorities, religious sects, labor unions, political factions) who may be able to identify insurgent personnel.”(emphasis mine) Insurgent activities included things like letter writing to local newspapers or politicians “deploring undesirable conditions and blaming individuals in power”, labor strikes, and various other activities most of us think of as the natural rights of people in a free, democratic society. [5]

In the 19070s Washington escalated U.S. involvement through the CIA, which began training Colombian security forces at the “bomb-school” in Los Fresnos, Texas. Coursework included progressive topics such as “Terrorist Concepts; Terrorist Devices; Fabrication and Functioning of Devises; Improvised Triggering Devices; Incendiaries,” and “Assassination Weapons: A discussion of various weapons which may be used by the assassin.” Under Congressional testimony advisors later admitted they were instructing trainees on how to create bombs.

The long standing ties between the paramilitary groups and elites have been well known and understood for some time. For example, Human Rights Watch has published several reports, one of which in 2000 stated “Evidence… links half of Colombia’s eighteen brigade-level army units to paramilitary activity.” HRW also documented an corpse-weapons exchange program between paramilitaries and the official Colombian military.[6]

In the 1990s Columbia emerged as one of the largest recipients of U.S. aid - 75-90 percent military depending on the source - in the world. There is a high correlation between the amount of U.S. military aid, the brutal repression of human rights and political repression, and this case is no exception.[7] George F. Kennan once outlined the rationale, explaining that the US “should not hesitate before police repression by the local government” to protect its interests.[8] Clinton’s Plan Columbia institutionalized this primarily military aid as part of the foreign policy budget. Ostensibly it is for eradicating drugs and defeating FARC guerrillas (the supposed drug traffickers.) The problem with this is that although FARC guerrillas are involved in drug trafficking, the right wing paramilitary groups we indirectly support through the Colombian military are involved in a far greater volume of drug trafficking and violence and have been for several decades, as we are well aware. Colombian specialist Doug Stokes comments,

“a report produced by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs found no evidence of the FARC’s export of drugs to the USA. On the other hand, it did outline the extensive drug smuggling to the USA by ‘right-wing paramilitary groups in collaboration with wealthy drug barons, the armed forces, key financial figures and senior government bureaucrats.’”

In 2001, the Columbian government estimated that FARC was responsible for 2.5 percent of trafficking, while the rightwing paramilitaries responsible for 40 percent, their estimate was later corroborated by officials from the U.S. DEA and United Nations. The paramilitaries also have a similarly comparative advantage with respect to violence and are responsible for far more murders and fear than FARC guerrillas, which rely somewhat on the goodwill of the masses for their continued existence. A 2005 United Nations high commissioner for human rights report states Colombian security forces are known for killing civilians and then disguising the corpses as civilians, a finding the Colombian government expressed “surprise and concern” over. [6, 9]

One thing to note is that the nature of U.S. policy and support has changed very little over the years from Yarborough through Plan Colombia, but the political justification has seamlessly morphed from the Cold War, to the War on Drugs, and after 9/11 to the War on Terror.

This is all relevant background information for an ongoing scandal roiling Columbia’s political system. Recently, several highly placed Columbian political officials have been implicated in political assassinations, paramilitary groups, and drug trafficking. The scandal goes all the way to the top, implicating several politicians that are close to President Alvaro Uribe. Counted among those already disgraced are the foreign minister, former head of security police, and eight congressmen. Some of them have already admitted their guilt and sit in jail.

Last December, Chris Kraul of the Los Angeles Times reported “growing bipartisan concern over alleged corruption in the Columbian army,” although there was not so much concern that Congress would seriously consider defunding Plan Columbia, but there was still some attention. One uncovered plot involved several army officers who planted explosives in Bogota right before Uribe’s inauguration, a cynical ploy to exploit a frightened population, making them easier to control, and to collect rewards for uncovering a terrorist plot. In May 2006, Colombian military forces really fouled up when Colombian army troops, under the orders of narco-traffickers, killed 10 U.S. trained anti-narcotics officers in a shootout.[10]

We have an almost five decades old policy to arm, train, and support violent, repressive, and drug trafficking groups in Colombia – all done in the name of fighting communism, drugs, and terrorism. I’d say it is highly questionable whether the given pretexts have any real relationship to our policy. I have not put forth any kind of alternative explanation as to what the real reasons for our policy and will leave that as an exercise for the reader. I will close with another example of how this history has been presented in the media. We reviewed Zakaria’s take above. Elsewhere the Washington Post’s editorial board says that we should “Help Columbia,” where U.S. policy has been a “success.” They note that the U.S. has invested nearly $5 billion in Plan Columbia this century as part of “a broad attempt to reduce drug trafficking and violence…” It seems counterintuitive to give billions of dollars to violent drug traffickers if that is your goal, but the Post does not dwell on this peccadillo. And they certainly don’t mention that this program has had no discernible effect on the drug trade, which is as strong now as it was before. The Post lauds the program because “now, at last, the paramilitary network in Columbia and its military and political alliances are being exposed and uprooted.”[11] Just as they have been, are, and ever shall be.

Notes:

1. McDonnell, P., Latin America wary of new U.S. attention, in Los Angeles Times. 2007: BUENOS AIRES.

2. Zakaria, F., Right Ideas, Wrong Time, in Newsweek. 2007.

3. Justin. The Money's On The Other Side. 2005 [cited 2005 June 15, 2006];

I excerpted from several internal documents and wrote,

"There are also several frank assessments that the U.S. is a rogue state that ignores international law. The “U.S. views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community.” In another leak titled Iraq Legal Background, the author discusses possible legal pretexts for the invasion and U.S. ambivalence for the rule of law. “It is for the Council to assess whether any such break of those obligations (NSC resolutions) has occurred. The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the assessment of breach is for individual member States. We are not aware of any other State which supports this view.” And from the Iraq Options Paper, “In contrast to general legal opinion, the US asserts the right of individual Member States to determine” whether another State has breached UN Security Council Resolutions, thereby rendering moot international law and the Security Council. All acknowledged that the American goal of “regime change has no basis in international law.”"]. Available from: http://americancrackpot.blogspot.com/2005/06/moneys-on-other-side.html.

4. Slaughter, A.-M. and T. Wright, Punishment to Fit the Nuclear Crime, in Washington Post. 2007.

5. Stokes, D., Iron Fists in Iron Gloves: The Political Economy of US Terrorocracy Promotion in Colombia. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2006. 8(3): p. 368-387.

6. Scott, P.D., Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina. 2003: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

7. Chomsky, N. and E. Herman, Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (Political Economy of Human Rights). 1979: South End Press.

8. Stokes, D., The Heart of Empire? Theorising US empire in an era of transnational capitalism. Third World Quarterly, 2005. 26(2): p. 217-236.

9. Stokes, D., America's Other War: Terrorizing Colombia. 2005: Zed Books.

10. Kraul, C., Doubts Aside, U.S. Set to Boost Colombia Aid, in Los Angeles Times. 2006: BOGOTA, Columbia.

11. Editorial, Help Colombia, in Washington Post. 2007.