Anyone even remotely familiar with Cold-War era U.S. foreign policy is familiar with our "blundering efforts to do good" in places like Vietnam and Korea. Less familiar are the dirty wars fought in Central America, the Carribean, and South America, from Kennedy's
Alliance for Progress to Reagan's war against Soviet infiltration in "our backyard."
This is a shame, because here is the best place to study U.S. foreign policy. One could judge a nation's international behavior by listening to its rhetoric, whether criticizing the behavior of select totalitarian societies or self-praise about our divine benevolence. We get a lot of that here. A better way to judge is by looking at how we actually behave, and what better place to look than "our little region over here"? Yes, that and the "backyard" are real quotes. After all, here is where we've had the most influence, relatively unchallenged by others, so the results of our divine benevolence should be most apparent here.
(more on the flip)
Well, we know that's not the case. Where U.S. influence was weakest in Central and South America, democratic movements were strongest. And the nations over which we held the most influence were nations where democratic movements were not only weakened, but jailed, disappeared, and butchered. The 1980s in Central America began with the murder of Salvadorean Archbishop Romero by CIA-trained-and-funded paramilitaries, and ended with the rape and murder of nuns involved with aid to the poor, also at the hands of CIA-backed murderers. I don't agree with the idea that our war on terror is a war on Islam, but we understand why some people might be swayed to think so. Well, based on our behavior in our "backyard," it might appear to some that throughout the 1980s, the U.S. was waging a war against Catholicism.
And let's not even get into Nicaragua - our war against that country resulted in a World Court ruling that we cease our attacks and pay reparations, which we of course did - not.
So what about Colombia, the land of the 40-year civil war, drug-funded rebels, paramilitaries also funded by drug operations as well as the government, more internally displaced people than any other country in the hemisphere, and where more union leaders and activists are murdered or disappeared than in any other country. Well, Clinton's "Plan Colombia," continued by Bush, has been an absolute smashing success, especially for U.S. defense industries and chemical manufacturers who supply the materials for crop-spraying, and the blessedly large contracts for weapons and military hardware sold to the Colombian army. For the people, it has been misery, but "democracy" according to Bush Inc. has little or nothing to do with the will of the people. Thus Colombia, according to us, is a beacon of democracy in Latin America. Because "fighting terror" means you must be a democracy, I guess.
From April 30, 2003, when President Uribe visited the White House:
Bush: It's my honor to welcome to the Oval Office a friend and courageous person, the President of Colombia. He is determined to fight terror. He is determined to fight the flow of narcotics to America. We appreciate his determination; we appreciate his strength.
[break]
All I know is [Uribe] is absolutely committed to fighting terror. For that, I appreciate it. He has got a straightforward, strong vision about what has to happen to people who are willing to kill innocent people. And that is, they must be dealt with severely . . . the President of Colombia is diligent, strong and focused. He knows what he must do to make Colombia, a great nation, more safe and more secure against people who, in my opinion, are nothing but terrorists.
Right. It turns out that "what he must do" is maintain his close ties to the right-wing paramilitaries (AUC), invaluably keeping the population terrified (not without help from FARC and ELN), and Uribe securely in power.
This was on Democracy Now! this morning:
Ex-Colombian Intelligence Official Links Uribe To Paramilitaries
In Colombia, President Alvaro Uribe is facing a potential political crisis amid renewed charges over his alleged dealings with paramilitary groups.
Yeah, that's right - he's supposed to be opposed to them. The U.S. State Department grudgingly added the Colombian right-wing paramilitaries to its list of terrorist organizations, since every serious observer agreed that the majority of deaths in the country were at their hands, and it was getting harder to justify having FARC and the ELN on the list and not the paramilitaries (AUC). Well, it turns out that he wasn't all that opposed:
The new allegations have come from a former senior official at Colombia's executive intelligence agency, the DAS. The official, Rafael Garcia, has told journalists and prosecutors the DAS provided the paramilitary groups with the names of union leaders and academics, many of whom were subsequently threatened or killed.
Ouch. If this guy gets in front of the International Criminal Court, he should probably not plan to return to Colombia anytime soon. Maybe Bush will send in the troops to depose and arrest Uribe, since he is clearly harboring and supporting terrorists. Right.
But there's always a silver lining, and here's something in this story that might warm the hearts of the Bush Administration and its minions across the country:
After initial denials, Jorge Noguera, the former director of the DAS, admitted he met with a leading paramilitary commander known as Jorge 40. Uribe himself admitted to holding direct meetings with another paramilitary commander, but blasted the media for pursuing the story. José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, said: "President Uribe's aggressive response raises suspicion about whether he actually wants the truth known, and has a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of expression."
See? A chip off the old Yankee block. But it gets better:
According to Garcia, the paramilitaries also helped Uribe win an extra 300,000 fraudulent votes during the 2002 presidential elections.
Ah, there's the stuff! When YOU know what's best for the country, you can't let a pesky irritant like an election get in your way. By the way, it might be noted that in the late 80s, FARC did cease military operations and participate in national elections, during which about 3,000 of its candidates, activists, and supporters were killed. Hmmm . . . well, at least Kerry didn't wind up with a bullet through the back of his head, so our democracy must be doing pretty well.
Oh, and remember Venezuela?
And Garcia also says he has proof the DAS worked with paramilitaries on a plot to assassinate several key Venezuelan leaders, including President Hugo Chavez.
This is likely to end badly. Colombia's society is wrecked, too many people are armed, and the likelihood of legitimate elections resulting in the popularly-elected governments of leaders like Chavez, Lula, and Morales decreases with every passing day. We could stop end this destructive and deteriorating situation with a single phone call, of course, but we do not. The security of the Colombian government is nothing without U.S. backing (that's your tax dollars and mine killing all those academics and union activists), and would fall within months if we pulled the plug on military support or demanded real elections.
The political shifts taking place in Central and South America are real, and very troubling to the Bush Administration. In fact, we are witnessing something wonderful - after decades of brutal oppression, often directly supported by us - grass-roots organization and democratization is moving across the continent. We should be inspired by it and learn from it. Imagine - an elected government that not only responds to the will of the people, but is increasingly run by the people.
Instead, we must fear the likelihood of more U.S.-backed coup attempts (Haiti and Venezuela) and perhaps increased military intervention.