Colombia

Colombia

Most Americans pay no attention to the goings on in a land just a

three hour flight from Miami. But that is all about to change.

Over the coming months, the U.S. Congress will be deciding

thumbs up or down on supplying the Colombian government with

some $1.7 billion in aid to combat the narco-terrorists and the

insurgents who threaten to topple the democratically elected

regime.

We have some real strategic interests in seeing that the current

government survives. First off, Colombia is a key exporter of oil

to the U.S. Second, continuing instability in Colombia threatens

its neighbors; Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador and Panama. A regional

crisis would clearly force heavy U.S. involvement. Third, drugs.

The vast majority of the cocaine and heroin finding its way into

America is produced in Colombia.

On the latter point, as I write this there was some good news as

the Colombian government arrested 46 individuals involved in a

massive heroin ring. U.S. help was important in pulling this off.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

So how did we get to this point, or rather, who are the players

and how did it all start?

Colombia is the 3rd largest nation in Latin America. Until the

1990s, it was a model for development on the continent. It had

been the only Latin American nation that didn”t have to

renegotiate its foreign debt in the 1980s. Today, it”s mired in a

deepening recession.

The current ruling government, headed up by Andres Pastrana,

came to power in August of 1998. Pastrana had been preceded

by Ernesto Samper Pizano, an immensely corrupt politician who

was credibly accused of having accepted $6 million from the Cali

drug cartel during the 1994 presidential campaign. As a result,

the U.S. revoked his visa, prohibiting him from traveling to the

U.S., and our government fully decertified Colombia for failing to

cooperate in the fight against drugs.

Pastrana then won the election in 1998 and quickly won

recertification from the U.S. In addition, he sought to negotiate

a settlement with the insurgents over the decades long civil war

that had torn Colombia apart. There was a spirit of optimism

throughout the land. It didn”t last long.

Colombia is a land of left-wing insurgents and right-wing militias.

The principal guerrilla organizations are the Revolutionary Armed

Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army

(ELN). Both date back to the 1960s.

FARC emerged from the period of fierce land battles in Colombia

known as La Violencia (1948-65) which claimed some 200,000

lives. ELN began as a student movement with links to a strand of

the Catholic Church. FARC has about 15,000 combatants and

ELN around 5,000. ELN is concentrated in the Northeast where

Colombia”s oil industry is located. FARC is in the rural areas.

During the Cold War, both FARC and ELN steeped themselves in

Marxist doctrine. Both once had ties to Castro but today, neither

takes their instructions from him.

In the mid-1980s, FARC attempted to enter mainstream politics

in Colombia by setting up the Patriotic Union (UP) party. This

displeased the large landowners immensely and, when the UP

began to gain at the polling booth, the landowners contracted out

paramilitary units (who often had the tacit support of Colombia”s

armed forces) to wage a systematic campaign of extermination

against UP officials. Several thousand were killed. As a result,

today, FARC has a tremendous amount of distrust towards the

government.

It”s not exactly clear whether FARC and ELN want to shape

national policies or just maintain control of territory they already

have taken (at least 40% of the country). Both groups receive

about $900 million a year in revenues, $500 million of which is

derived from taxes on coca producers and the rest of which

comes from kidnapping and extortion . [Dot-com companies take

note. These are potential revenue sources.]

Colombia is the most violent nation in the world when raw crime

numbers are looked at. Some 10 Colombians are killed every day

in political violence and every political faction commits abuses.

The right-wing paramilitaries, however, are blamed for three-

quarters of the killings.

The growth of the right-wing militia groups has been one of the

most disturbing trends in Colombia today. Their size is estimated

at 4-5,000 combatants. The army and landowners organized

them as self-defense units in the 1980s. Their power is immense

and, as with the insurgents, it is the poor who suffer most.

The poor are also the principal victims of Colombia”s criminal

gangs. They are responsible for 85% of the 30,000 annual

homicides.

The violence is spreading to, and beyond, the borders of

Colombia”s neighbors. Peru”s Fujimori has blasted President

Pastrana for being a wimp in negotiating with the rebels. It was

Fujimori who stood up to the Shining Path and Tupac-Amaru

revolutionary movements in his country. He couldn”t understand

why Pastrana was willing to negotiate away a large part of his

own territory. Venezuela”s President Chavez has basically

recognized the gains made by Colombia”s insurgents. And

violence has spilled over into Ecuador and Panama. In the case of

the latter, Panama has no standing army and the canal is easy

pickings.

So you can see that U.S. involvement, either today or tomorrow,

seems inevitable. Former army officer and strategist Ralph Peters

says that to date U.S. policy has been “to send a check and cross

our fingers.” The $1.7 billion package currently under

consideration would most likely include about 30 Black Hawk

and 33 Huey helicopters. Peters says that would be a drop in the

bucket. “We can keep the Bogota regime alive, but we cannot

make it victorious.”

The main concern of most in Congress is how does the U.S. avoid

another Vietnam? Peters notes that Vietnam started with just

“advisers” and escalated, just as in the case of Colombia, the U.S.

actually has more of a strategic interest than they had in southeast

Asia. He comments that with respect to our advisers, they “tend

to bond with their student units and have been known to bend the

rules to extend their ”training rules” into the battlefield.” Peters

concludes, “The salient lesson of Vietnam is that no amount of

U.S. largess or American might can save a government unable to

save itself. We can only prolong the gruesome status quo.”

But if the U.S. doesn”t support the democracy of President

Pastrana, as Alaska Senator Ted Stevens recently said, “Who

goes in if this thing blows up?”

The debate is heating up. We have real interests here. The

narco-terrorists cannot win, but the American people are not

ready to make a commitment. That”s a lack of leadership and

President Clinton is going to have to make a case to all of us if he

expects to carry the day in Congress and turn over a winning

strategy to his successor.

Source: “Colombia on the Brink,” Foreign Affairs (1999).

Michael Shifter.

Brian Trumbore