Military Impact
From WolfWikis
Contents |
Plan Colombia
In 1999 and 2000, Congress and President Clinton agreed to the provision of $1.3 billion in aid to Colombia. The aid would to go Plan Colombia to help in the eradication of drugs being grown in Colombia and "to prevent the flow of illegal drugs into the United States." [1] To combat the drug problem in Colombia, the United States has had to take two approaches. Those two approaches include the destruction of the farms where the coca plant is being grown and the training of Colombian counter-narcotic agents. The problem with Plan Colombia is that "'drug traffickers have flooded the Amazon Territory with money so that farmers will grow coca there.'" [2] To give a better idea of the evolution of U.S. strategies, the CRS Report for Colombia stated that "in 2002, the Administration requested, and Congress approved, expanded authority to use U.S. counter-narcotics funds for a unified campaign to fight both drug trafficking and terrorist organizations in Colombia." [3] The United States quickly began taking a more aggressive role in Plan Colombia when the financial aid that the United States was sending to Colombia was determined to be ineffective.
The Eradication Methods of the Coca Plant
The United States has had a positive and negative impact in Colombia in regards to its eradication methods of the coca plant. The methods that are used include aerial fumigation and voluntary eradication. The latter of the two is conducted by the small, local farmers in Colombia. Linda Panetta, the director of the School of Americas Watch/Northeast, traveled to Colombia in January to get a better understanding of what the United States and Colombia were doing in their efforts to stop coca production. Panetta said that "Colombia's military uses helicopters and airplanes to spray rainforests with glyphosate." [4] Glyphosate was approved in 1974 by the Environmental Protection Agency and was then recertified in 1993. Colombia is not the only country that glyphosate is employed in. In fact it is one of 100 countries that currently uses it. The problem with this method of spraying the crops is that, because it is impossible to keep the chemical contained over the coca farm itself, the chemical can spread to other farms. Linda Panetta said that "in La Horminga...the spraying killed medicinal plants and food crops such as Yucca." [5] The after effects of the chemical have resulted in a number of contradicting comments and ideas. In a report found on the United States' State Department website, the Boston Globe said that "it has a very low acute toxicity in humans... [and] is specifically approved for use around water." [6] However, when Linda Panetta visited Colombia, she spoke of dead fish in contaminated rivers, the loss of butterflies and birds in certain areas where the chemical had been sprayed and the loss of farm animals. She also said that people who lived in and near the areas sprayed had shown symptoms of diarrhea, fevers, and other problems. [7]
In an effort to reduce the amount of farms that are sprayed, the Colombian government and the United States offer an agreement to small farmers of the coca plant. The agreement states that should the farmers destroy their coca farms themselves, the Colombian government, with the help of the United States, will provide support to the farmer in finding alternative ways of making a living. The United States' State Department reports that some 11,000 families have destroyed their small coca farms in exchange for assistance while the Colombian government claims that some 44,000 families, since the start of Plan Colombia, have destroyed their coca farms. While these families have voluntarily given up the production of the coca plant, other families were already in the process of cultivating alternative crops. The effect of the fumigation of coca plant farms has had an increasingly devastating effect on alternative farms. In the CRS report for Congress on Colombia, the report says that "spray drift has destroyed licit crops and that growers seeking compensation...are regularly denied benefits." [8] This destruction of farms other than the coca farms is a serious problem in Colombia. The Colombian government, with the help of the United States, is spraying glyphosate loosely and the negative effects are hurting the population. In the United States, the overall attitude toward fumigation is very supportive. U.S. leaders feel that it is not a harmful chemical. However, the citizens of Colombia feel differently. Fumigation has both positive and negative effects. For one thing, leaders of both countries cannot deny that fumigation gets rid of the most coca farms that any other form of eradication. Unfortunately, the coca farms are being re-planted faster than the Colombian and US government can locate and fumigate, it is still obvious that fumigation works best. The down side is that fumigation is causing a lot of problems, with the possibility of more unforeseen problems down the road. Contaminated rivers, dead fish, no bird and butterflies, diarrhea and other medical ailments are proof that the chemical glyphosate is dangerous. While the EPA has approved it, they have obviously overlooked, or kept hidden, some important details. With an understanding of the eradication process and its impact, it is now necessary to understand the military aspect.
Impact of US Military Intervention
In recent years, the counter-narcotics operatives in Colombia have met increasing resistance from the cartels. While the three most famous drug cartels, Cali, Medellin, and Norte del Valle, are no longer the main problem, the constantly increasing number of small time drug families is a serious problem. In Colombia, the United States is not taking a direct role in the use of armed forces. The aid that the United States is providing to Colombia is through military equipment and through the training of Colombian counter-narcotic agents in Colombia. Also with the $1.3 billion in aid given to Colombia, the United States has also pledged an additional $341 million to improve the Colombian radars and to help provide an increase in intelligence on guerilla activities in southern areas of Colombia. The United States Department of Defense "maintains that there are approximately 250-300 U.S. military personnel and 400-500 U.S. mercenaries contracted to work in Colombia." [9] However, in 2004, President Bush increased the limit of military personnel to 800 total. In an article found at BBC news, the article spoke of the use of U.S. troops to protect an oil pipeline. While protecting this pipeline, "70 U.S. soldiers spend more than three months training 6,500 Colombian soldiers in counter-insurgency and intelligence gathering techniques." [10] The United States impact, militarily, has been positive in that it is helping to train the Colombian forces rather than using the American forces completely. By training the Colombian military in counter-narcotics, counter-insurgency and intelligence gathering, the domestic support of the United States is very high. The less troops that the United States provides, the more support the United States will receive in its efforts to aid Colombia.
Colombian Military Impact
The impact of the Colombian military is different from that of the United States. In 2005, a report on the human rights violations in Colombia was submitted to the United States. Such violations include unlawful killings, torture, overcrowded prisons, harassment, corruption, child abuse and child prostitution, and human trafficking. The report claims that these violations "were committed by illegal armed groups." [11] The inability of the Colombian military and police forces to keep pace with the drug cartels and the gangs in the cities means that "thousands of civilians live in fear of being kidnapped, killed, or 'disappeared.'" [12] In the same article that the previous quote came from, the author stated that "the crisis in Colombia is exacerbated by the Colombian government's lack of political will to protect human rights." [13] In Colombia, the United States is providing a large amount of money in aid and a large supply of military weapons. The problem is that the U.S. personnel cannot train the Colombian forces fast enough to combat the drug cartels. Another problem is the amount of corruption that the United States is facing. For instance, Michelle Lescure, a correspondent for the World Press Review, referenced an article from El Tiempo, the Bogota daily newspaper, that said that "the head of Colombia's anti-narcotics police, Gen. Gustavo Sacho, had been relieved of his duties and transferred to another post after it came out that U.S. aid had been misappropriated." [14] The total amount of "misappropriated" funds came to a total of $2 million.
If you click on this link, you can see a chart of the percentage of human rights violations committed in Colombia over the past eleven years. In Colombia, the impact of the military forces has been poor and hurtful to the people of Colombia. The aid that the United States is providing is meant to help counter-narcotics. Instead, part of that money is being stolen, while the rest is going to support Colombian operatives that have already been bought off by the drug cartels. This means that the impact that the Colombian military is having is little to no positive effect. The civilians are still being harrassed by the paramilitary forces, the guerilla forces, and now the corrupted government officials. For the most part, Plan Colombia is not as successful as the creators of it would have liked to have seen it. The Human Rights Violations, the recovery rate of the drug farmers compared to the fumigation rate of Colombia and United States, and the amount of money being made through the drug trade will continue to keep Plan Colombia a failure. If Colombia and the United States can eliminate the corruption and human rights violations and then turn the focus to the eradication process, then Plan Colombia might have a chance of success. If Colombia and the United States cannot do this, then Plan Colombia will never be successful.
References
- ↑ Veillette, Connie, Plan Colombia: A Progress Report, May 9, 2005 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/48382.pdf
- ↑ Garcia-Barrio, Constance, "U.S. War on Drugs in Colombia is Ravaging Farms and Land," Philadelphia Inquirer, March 26, 2001 http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0326-03.htm
- ↑ Veillette, Connie, Plan Colombia: A Progress Report, May 9, 2005 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/48382.pdf
- ↑ Garcia-Barrio, Constance, "U.S. War on Drugs in Colombia is Ravaging Farms and Land," Philadelphia Inquirer, March 26, 2001 http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0326-03.htm
- ↑ Garcia-Barrio, Constance, "U.S. War on Drugs in Colombia is Ravaging Farms and Land," Philadelphia Inquirer, March 26, 2001 http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0326-03.htm
- ↑ Beers, Rand, "Plan Colombia is Well Woth U.S. Support," The Boston Globe, July 9, 2001 http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/op/2001/4053.htm
- ↑ Garcia-Barrio, Constance, "U.S. War on Drugs in Colombia is Ravaging Farms and Land," Philadelphia Inquirer, March 26, 2001 http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0326-03.htm
- ↑ Veillette, Connie, Plan Colombia: A Progress Report, May 9, 2005 http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/48382.pdf
- ↑ Stokes, Doug, "Colombia Primer: Q & A on the conflict and U.S. role," April 12, 2002, http://www.zmag.org/content/Colombia/stokes_col-primer.cfm
- ↑ BBC News, "U.S. Troops Engage Further in Colombia," January 18, 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2670913.stm
- ↑ U.S. State Department, "Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Colombia," March 8, 2006, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61721.htm
- ↑ Amnesty International, "Colombia: Human Rights Under Attack," http://www.amnesty.ca/colombia/
- ↑ Amnesty International, "Colombia: Human Rights Under Attack," http://www.amnesty.ca/colombia/
- ↑ Lescure, Michelle, "The Case of Disappearing Aid," World Press Review, June 12, 2003, http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/601.cfm