Learning from a visit to Colombia

a special report from Jane Hanna, former president of the Witherspoon Society
[5-5-03]

We have already posted one report from the Witness for Peace delegation - co-sponsored by the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship and the Witherspoon Society - that visited war-torn Colombia in March of 2003. Jane Hanna, former Witherspoon president, adds details to our understanding of the impact of the U.S. "war on drugs," now morphed into the "war on terrorism," on the ordinary people whose livelihoods - and lives - are increasingly threatened.

As our Witness For Peace delegation sat in the Miami airport waiting to board a flight to Bogota, television screens throughout the terminal reported the US invasion of Iraq was to begin. As we heard about the impact of US intrusion in Colombia, we were never far from the war in Iraq. It was in news from around the world, in peace demonstrations throughout Bogota, and of concern to those we met.

We were19 people, aged 23 to 83 from across the United States and one Peruvian. Most of us were Presbyterians because the Witherspoon Society and Presbyterian Peace Fellowship organized this delegation. We were fortunate to have with us also people from Methodist, Roman Catholic, Jewish and Quaker faiths.

Because Iraq has been the major focus of attention for so many months, news about US military involvement in Colombia has been rare, if it ever did rate recognition. We went to Colombia to learn about the impact of escalating US military aid and to try to understand why our government is involved in Colombia's decades-old civil war. We met with human rights advocates, women's organizations, labor leaders, displaced persons, Afro-Colombian leaders, former guerillas, US Embassy officials, and many Presbyterians.

What we heard were stories of people displaced by fumigation and conflict, of massacres and assassinations, torture and threats carried out by armed guerilla and paramilitary groups. Since our return we have been notified of a second attempt at kidnapping the daughter of one of the labor leaders who spoke to us. A few days later we had reports that a man who had been arrested for threats on the life of Pastor Milton Mejia and his family had escaped from jail. US policy has blamed the drug trade for the violence and warfare in Colombia but the roots run much deeper.

Colombians have been killing one another for a long time. Throughout most of its history, since independence from Spain in 1821, Colombians have suffered uprisings, brutal repression and persecution. The seeds of this violent history lie in the concentration of religious, economic, and political powers in a handful of families, the top 5% of the population (mostly of European descent) who have never ruled on behalf of the people. Confrontation between the privileged and underclass has marked much of Colombia's history.

Complex forces drive the violence today - age-old divisions between the rich and poor, social inequalities, ambition for land, mineral, timber and oil resources, a lucrative drug trade, industrial development, and the pressures of a global economy. Government absence and corruption in many areas, official catering to the economic interests of the wealthy, neglect of basic social services and lawless armed militaries operating with little respect for human rights have turned Colombia into the most brutal nation in the Americas.

The two largest guerilla forces, FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and ELN (National Liberation Army) grew from union movements and priest-led groups seeking more equitable economic and political justice for the poor in alliance with communists. Clear efforts for justice marked the early years of these movements, but so many leaders have been assassinated that goals and values are no longer clear. Guerilla groups engage in acts of increasing brutality, although the paramilitaries still claim the worst human rights record in the hemisphere.

The US has been active the Andes Region for decades, escalating involvement with Plan Colombia, a $1.3 billion ($2.2 million-a-day) US aid program. The heart of the program is the fumigation of coca fields with a chemical herbicide that destroys coca and all other plant life as well. Farmers whose fields have been sprayed report losing fish in their ponds, food crops, domestic and wild animals. The US denies claims they suffer illnesses, rashes, and other physical problems or that the environment is harmed.

The campesinos who grow the coca are victims, not drug traffickers. Current policy demands that farmers shift to other crops, a cruel irony because there are no roads to transport legal crops and no markets to take them to. Too often, when they have agreed to other crops, they are sprayed anyway. Besides, they can't compete with food imported from North American subsidized agribusiness. They are left with few choices. Many flee to join the growing displaced (3 to 4 million), others move to grow coca in new locations, and some join one of the armed groups, hoping to be fed and sheltered.

We were told this counter-narcotics policy ignores that it's the demand side in rich countries driving the drug economy. A study done by the conservative Rand Corporation shows drug treatment and prevention for cocaine users in the US is 23 times more cost effective than trying to eradicate it at the source. We were urged to tell Congress if aid money were spent on roads and tractors, farmers wouldn't be growing coca.

Structural Adjustment Policies of the IMF add other burdens borne by the poor. To pay off international debts, Colombia has been forced to privatize public services, cut back on spending for education and health care and increase exports. We flew over thousands of acres of greenhouses growing flowers for export, using rich land that should be growing food crops for Colombians.

What is behind the Drug War in Colombia that has now morphed into a war on terrorists? We hoped for answers. It was suggested we "follow the money." Corporate interests have reaped huge profits from this aid package. Eighty percent goes to weapons manufacturers and private contractors. Our taxes buy helicopters, radar devices, fumigation chemicals, weapons, and mercenaries. Last year President Bush announced an additional $100 million to guard the Caño Limón oil pipeline partially owned by Occidental Petroleum. In early April, Congress approved an additional $104 million for military aid to Colombia, in an Iraq supplemental bill. An amendment for $5 million of that, to help internal refugees, failed to pass.

Many are concerned that the motive behind US military presence has more to do with economic and political issues than with helping Colombia achieve peace. We were told that US military aid is not a solution to Colombia's conflict, that social problems are not solved by military means. Many said they believe the policy is to encourage the displacement of people by fumigation in areas sited by corporations for development. They look at the Free Trade Agreement for the Americas (FTAA) and Plan Puebla intended for Central America, they see how poverty in Mexico has increased since NAFTA, and they are suspicious that the rich North covets their resources.

The Urabá region that stretches from the Caribbean to the Pacific is where Afro-Colombians settled when freed in 1841. It's an area important to all the actors in the conflict because of its geographic position and natural resources. Since 1994, it has been a primary area of displacement in Colombia. It's the main banana growing region and cattle center, which makes it important to large landholders. Abundant natural resources attract both Colombian and international businesses, fueling the rumor that a new canal is planned.

The Urabá region that stretches from the Caribbean to the Pacific is where Afro-Colombians settled when freed in 1841. It's an area important to all the actors in the conflict because of its geographic position and natural resources. Since 1994, it has been a primary area of displacement in Colombia. It's the main banana growing region and cattle center, which makes it important to large landholders. Abundant natural resources attract both Colombian and international businesses, fueling the rumor that a new canal is planned.

We were told that we have a military base in Ecuador, soldiers on the border of Panama, others are in the region between Paraguay and Brazil and US military training near the Venezuelan border. Many expressed a feeling of being colonized by a foreign power that sees Latin America as a source of cheap labor and rich resources.

Over and over we heard opposition to US interference in Colombia and in Iraq as well. The influx of increasingly lethal weapons, counter-insurgency training, Special Forces and money for the military rather than for meeting the basic needs of people, only makes the situation worse. A sociologist told us that poverty does not produce violence, wealth does, especially when it is poorly distributed.

As we queried US Embassy officials, much was verified that we'd heard from the various groups we met with. US and Colombian governments blame the FARC for most of the trouble in Colombia. They were first labeled Communists, then narco-guerillas, and now terrorists. We asked about the official policy for our being in Colombia and how success would be measured. We were told that total eradication of coca is the goal. It is to force people to grow other things or move to become laborers in more highly developed commerce. The USAID Officer said social programs are part of Plan Colombia and his office has contracts with international companies to do projects, mentioning that Land O' Lakes is encouraging farmers to look at dairy products. Switching to palm oil for export is another idea, he suggested.

We reported that money from Plan Colombia, supposedly allocated for the displaced to help them resettle, was not reaching them, that we'd been asked to tell US officials that the money should be monitored. The Human Affairs Officer admitted that although the displaced were to be helped for 90 days, he knew that wasn't always happening. He hoped NGOs would address some of their problems. He added that the US cannot open Colombia's books to check on fraud, they can only show them how to monitor their money.

According to the Embassy people who spoke with us, Colombia's President Uribe and President Bush agree on what must be done to bring peace to Colombia. The first priority is to get military control of the countryside and US military help is needed to achieve this. Once control is gained it is to be maintained by trained police. The day we left Bogota, Uribe announced a program for paying peasants to police their own communities. He anticipates 18,000 peasant soldiers ready to do this by the end of the year. Once this control is achieved, then social services can be provided, we were told.

The Public Affairs Officer spoke of the Andes Trade preferences meant to encourage the growth of export activities to the US. He described the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) as a long-time project, a way to generate jobs. The military Andean Initiative (successor to Plan Colombia) in other countries has only anti-narcotic aims, he said. He praised military protection of the oil pipeline because of tax loss whenever it's attacked. The oil area, Arauca, where military training is taking place, is wealthy in resources, he said, but the people are the poorest. Therefore, their land needs to be developed. He did not mention the Indigenous U'WA who do not want their environment developed and have strongly opposed Occidental's drilling intentions on their ancestral commons.

A railroad was mentioned as a suitable project to connect the oceans, but canal rumors were merely laughed at. When we asked what businesses might be interested in investing in Colombia we were told it is too dangerous for businessmen to be in Colombia but that both governments favor trade agreements. He then admitted that some people would be hurt by trade agreements but that more would be helped and it will be positive for both countries. We didn't get the impression from the Colombians who met with us that they would agree.