FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Underwriting War in Colombia

by Phillip Cryan

President Bush’s budget proposal includes $98 million in military aid and training to help the Colombian government protect an oil pipeline from guerrilla attacks. The aid is being pitched by the Bush administration and its Colombian counterpart, the government of President Andres Pastrana, as a new and necessary theater for the broadening “War on Terrorism.”

Having recently returned from Colombia, where I and a group of 36 other concerned U.S. citizens investigated the effects of current U.S. aid and met with dozens of community and church leaders, it is clear to me that the proposed counter-insurgency support will create more, not less, terror in the lives of Colombian men and women.

Collusion between the Colombian military and the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)–the right-wing paramilitary group that is responsible for over 70% of civilian deaths in Colombia’s civil war–is a long-standing and well-established fact. Attempts to bring paramilitaries to justice and to root out members of the military who collaborate with them have lacked the political will to achieve concrete results. A senior U.S. Embassy official in Bogot? told us, on condition of anonymity, that although military-paramilitary collusion no longer exists “at the command level,” lower-ranking officers and solders “have and will continut to have” ties to the paramilitaries. Riding by bus through Putumayo, the Department in southern Colombia where U.S.-funded aerial herbicide spraying campaigns have been focused, we were stopped by members of the paramilitary. They boarded our bus and introduced themselves, confident and even somewhat jovial despite the fact that a Counternarcotics Brigade, created by U.S. “Plan Colombia” funding, was stationed just a mile down the road. It was a shocking confrontation with the persistent complicity, or perhaps collaboration, between the two forces.

The paramilitaries were in fact provided with weapons and training, during their first years of existence (the late 1980s), by the Colombian military. Now the Bush administration seeks to expand support to that military, in defense of U.S. oil interests. There has been consistent and vocal opposition to counter-insurgency aid from many members of Congress since “Plan Colombia” was first proposed in 1999. The Colombian conflict is complex and enduring–now in its 38th year, in fact–and the U.S. should not let itself be drawn into a military and human rights “quagmire,” Congress-members have warned. Yet in the new climate of the “War on Terrorism,” the Bush administration seems to think it can evade those concerns by presenting counter-insurgency aid as a defense of “national security” and a stand against terror. Some of the public relations leg-work needed to justify this bold initiative was kicked off during the SuperBowl, through an ad campaign seeking to equate drug trafficking with terrorism. The “War on Drugs” has been the only politically viable justification for U.S. military aid to Colombia to date–what better way to ease the transition from “War on Drugs” to “War on Terrorism” than by making the two appear identical? “Where do terrorists get their money?,” one of the ads asked. “If you buy drugs, some of it may come from you.” Narcotrafficker equals guerrilla equals terrorist: so the logic goes. A war on any one of these must necessarily, already be a war on them all. So what difference does it make if we extend funds from counternarcotics to counterinsurgency? The difference, of course, is the scale and nature of U.S. support for a military that maintains ties with one of the most ruthless killing forces in the world, the AUC. While two Colombian military brigades defend Ecopetrol’s (the State oil company’s) facility near Barrancabermeja, the paramilitaries openly assassinate, “disappear” and torture labor leaders. A staggering 60% of the union organizers killed in the world last year were killed in Colombia. By a truly uncanny coincidence (if such profound synchronies can indeed be called coincidences), barely a week after the SuperBowl ads and the $98 million aid proposal, “Collateral Damage”–an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie about a U.S. commando’s heroic crusade against Colombian narco-trafficker-guerrilla-terrorists–hit theaters, having been postponed in the immediate aftermath of September 11th.

What frightens me most is that the Bush administration’s proposal may be only a test balloon for far more aggressive U.S. involvement in the Colombian conflict. The exchange of human rights standards for oil access has characterized U.S. foreign policy for decades. It is an indefensible and tragic choice that should not be repeated in Colombia.

Phillip Cryan is a fellow at the Pesticide Action Network. He traveled to Colombia in January with Witness for Peace, a social justice and human rights organization based in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at: phillipcryan@mindspring.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 29, 2016
Eric Draitser
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation: Exemplars of America’s Political Rot
Patrick Timmons
Dildos on Campus, Gun in the Library: the New York Times and the Texas Gun War
Jack Rasmus
Bernie Sanders ‘OR’ Revolution: a Statement or a Question?
Richard Moser
Strategic Choreography and Inside/Outside Organizers
Nigel Clarke
President Obama’s “Now Watch This Drive” Moment
Robert Fisk
Iraq’s Willing Executioners
Wahid Azal
The Banality of Evil and the Ivory Tower Masterminds of the 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran
Farzana Versey
Romancing the Activist
Frances Madeson
Meet the Geronimos: Apache Leader’s Descendants Talk About Living With the Legacy
Nauman Sadiq
The War on Terror and the Carter Doctrine
Lawrence Wittner
Does the Democratic Party Have a Progressive Platform–and Does It Matter?
Marjorie Cohn
Death to the Death Penalty in California
Winslow Myers
Asking the Right Questions
Rivera Sun
The Sane Candidate: Which Representatives Will End the Endless Wars?
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia District Attorney Hammered for Hypocrisy
Binoy Kampmark
Banning Burkinis: the Politics of Beachwear
Weekend Edition
August 26, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Louisa Willcox
The Unbearable Killing of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies: 2015 Shatters Records for Bear Deaths
Paul Buhle
In the Shadow of the CIA: Liberalism’s Big Embarrassing Moment
Rob Urie
Crisis and Opportunity
Charles Pierson
Wedding Crashers Who Kill
Richard Moser
What is the Inside/Outside Strategy?
Dirk Bezemer – Michael Hudson
Finance is Not the Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Bernie’s Used Cars
Margaret Kimberley
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Patrick Cockburn
Turkey’s Foray into Syria: a Gamble in a Very Dangerous Game
Ishmael Reed
Birther Tries to Flim Flam Blacks  
Brian Terrell
What Makes a Hate Group?
Andrew Levine
How Donald Trump Can Still be a Hero: Force the Guardians of the Duopoly to Open Up the Debates
Howard Lisnoff
Trouble in Political Paradise
Terry Tempest Williams
Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?
Ben Debney
The Swimsuit that Overthrew the State
Ashley Smith
Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution
Andrew Stewart
Did Gore Throw the 2000 Election?
Vincent Navarro
Is the Nation State and Its Welfare State Dead? a Critique of Varoufakis
John Wight
Syria’s Kurds and the Wages of Treachery
Lawrence Davidson
The New Anti-Semitism: the Case of Joy Karega
Mateo Pimentel
The Affordable Care Act: A Litmus Test for American Capitalism?
Roger Annis
In Northern Syria, Turkey Opens New Front in its War Against the Kurds
David Swanson
ABC Shifts Blame from US Wars to Doctors Without Borders
Norman Pollack
American Exceptionalism: A Pernicious Doctrine
Ralph Nader
Readers Think, Thinkers Read
Julia Morris
The Mythologies of the Nauruan Refugee Nation
George Wuerthner
Caving to Ranchers: the Misguided Decision to Kill the Profanity Wolf Pack
Ann Garrison
Unworthy Victims: Houthis and Hutus
Julian Vigo
Britain’s Slavery Legacy
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail