Throwing Bullets at Failed Policies: US Plans For New Bases in Colombia
It was a winter day in the Argentine city of Bariloche when 12 South American presidents gathered there on August 28. It was so cold that Hugo Chavez wore a red scarf and Evo Morales put on a sweater. The presidents arrived at the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) meeting to discuss a US plan to establish seven new military bases in Colombia. Though officials in Colombia and the US say the bases would be aimed at combating terrorism and the drug trade, US military and air force documents point to other objectives.
Earlier his year, when Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa decided to not renew the US lease on the military base in Manta, Ecuador, the US set its sights on Colombia, a long-time US ally and one of the biggest recipients of US military aid in the world. Under the agreement the US eventually developed with Colombia, the US would have access to seven military bases for 10 years, stationing up to 1,400 US personnel and private contractors.
One US military document cited by the AP explains that the Palenquero base in Colombia - which the US plans transform with a $46 million upgrade - would be a stopping off point for the US military and air force so that "nearly half the continent can be covered by a C-17 (military transport) without refueling."
Uruguayan analyst Raul Zibechi writes in an article for the Americas Program that the US is shifting away from large, immobile bases to more a more flexible model involving smaller bases. He cites the U.S. Air Force's April
2009 report entitled "Global en Route Strategy" which "refers to the ability to utilize these installations above all for air transport, making it possible to have control from a distance and act as a dissuasive force, leaving direct intervention only for exceptionally critical situations." The cooperation of local governments is a key aspect of this plan. Zibechi writes, "This ongoing cooperation is much more important than direct military presence, as current military technology allows troops to concentrate in any given area within a matter of hours."
Considering the regional implications of the expanded US presence, the presidents at the Bariloche meeting agreed that UNASUR countries will "abstain from resorting to the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity" of other South American countries, and planned to investigate the military bases agreement further.
Yet what many of the region's presidents already know is that increased US militarization is unlikely to curb violence in Colombia because the biggest perpetrators of violence in the country are already allies of the US, largely through the multi-billion dollar Plan Colombia.
"The largest number of killings of civilians each year in Colombia is not committed by the guerrillas," Latin American political analyst John Lindsay Poland writes in the Americas Program. "A large majority of Colombia's 4.7 million internally displaced people were forced from their homes by paramilitary violence, with more than 11 million acres of land violently stolen. The increased U.S. military presence won't contribute anything to returning those lands to their rightful owners, nor to holding the Colombian Army accountable for more than 1,700 civilian killings committed since 2002."
US soldiers in Colombia also reportedly committed 37 acts of sexual abuse from 2006 to 2007. Poland writes, "A U.S. soldier and contractor reportedly raped a 12-year-old Colombian girl inside the Tolemaida military base in 2006, dumping her outside the gates in the morning." The two rapists remain free and are back in the US without facing charges.
An increased US military presence in a failed war on drugs is also unlikely to curtail narco-trafficking, as pointed out by President Morales at the meeting in Bariloche. Morales spoke of his experiences as a coca grower and union leader facing the brunt of US militarization. "I witness this," he said, when describing repression. "So now we're narcoterrorists. When they couldn't call us communists anymore, they called us subversives, and then traffickers, and since the September 11 attacks, terrorists," Morales said.
"The history of Latin America repeats itself."
Many analysts see the plans for these bases as an indication that Washington is not interested in changing its disastrous policies in the war on drugs. "This agreement is made within a framework of anti-drug policy that is overwhelmingly seen as a failure," Michael Shifter of The Inter-American Dialogue told NPR. "Is there a better way to fight drugs without just continuing the same policy that hasn't produced very much for decades?"
Morales said the root of the drug problem lies in the US, not in South America. "If UNASUR sent troops to the United States to control consumption, would they accept it? Impossible!"
Benjamin Dangl is the author of the forthcoming book, Dancing with Dynamite: Social Movements and States in Latin America, (AK Press, 2010). He edits TowardFreedom.com, a progressive perspective on world events and UpsideDownWorld.org, a website on activism and politics in Latin America. Email Bendangl(at)gmail(dot)com





The user who created this comment no longer exists.
I disagree
By Gremillion, Ken at Sep 11, 2009 05:04 AM
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... we are all progressives and pro-socialists here in the z-area. I am a big fan of Chomsky and others and generally agree with the concept of universality. Nevertheless, and not for the sake of being a rebel among rebels, I really don't like the idea of unilaterally abandoning all US overseas military installations just because it looks progressive. There would be nothing progressive about hostile foreign interests moving into such a vacuum and in a series of successive approximations, setting us and our allies up for geo-political and or economic blackmail.
Venezuela was recently on the verge of attacking Colombia ~ is it any wonder they would be willing to accept protection from their strongest ally? If someone wants to complain about new US bases in Colombia their ire should be directed at Hugo Chavez.
Reply this comment
Re: I disagree
By Small, Brian at Sep 11, 2009 05:38 AM
Wait a minute, with Venezuela and Colombia, who's attacking who in this picture? Maybe I missed something...
Where would you rather live (er try to survive) as a one of the 'progressives and pro-socialists' Venezuela or Colombia?
'Colombia is the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist,' says Jeremy Dear, chair of the British trade union organization, Justice For Colombia (JFC), 'In fact, more trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia during [Alvaro] Uribe's presidency than in the rest of the world over the same period.'
Reply this comment
Re: Re: I disagree
By Gremillion, Ken at Sep 11, 2009 09:28 AM
Give me Colombia any day. I recently spoke with several Venezuelan businessman while in ==============. We were all gathered around in the hotel swimming pool where the discussion was quite frank and sincere. They all did business for the government. All of them agreed that Venezuela is so dangerous these days that roving gangs and opportunists would kill for a pair of sneakers. So why isn't Chavez doing anything about the violence? According to the guys I spoke with, Chavez benefits from the chaos. Imagine his most vocal detractors getting knocked off in the streets ~ oops, must have been his sunglasses, you know how dangerous the streets are these days. Socialism is marvelous thing, but Chavez will never be its standard bearer, indeed, his clownish, unstable and dangerous behavior have become unwanted obstacles and distractions, hampering the global effort for meaningful social reform.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: I disagree
By Small, Brian at Sep 12, 2009 01:08 AM
Hi again Ken Gremillion,
It would be interesting to read about any impressions if you get a chance to talk with Venezuelan "progressives and pro-socialists" in less posh circumstances. I'm not sure how to go about comparing homicide rates and safety in Venezuela and Colombia right now, or even how they've been effected by Chavez's policies. Maybe Greg Wilpert's books has some before and after snapshots with the background to make a decent judgement. From the book blurb "In this rich and resourceful study, Greg Wilpert exposes the self-serving logic behind much middle-class opposition to Venezuela's elected leader, and explains the real reason for their alarm. He argues that the Chávez government has instituted one of the world's most progressive constitutions, but warns that it has yet to overcome the dangerous specters of the country's past: its culture of patronage and clientelism, its corruption, and its support for personality cults, all fuelled by the attention and interference of a succession of US administrations."
It sounds like you're talking by the pool with the 'middle-class opposition' that migh have other 'real reason's for hating Chavez. "I recently spoke with several Venezuelan businessman while in ==============. We were all gathered around in the hotel swimming pool where the discussion was quite frank and sincere."
Here's some articles on crime in Venezuela, big concern, National Guard troops deployed for prevention (Sounds like they're trying for an approach that will avoid Mexico's problems - increased homicide rates with military presence). Is the perception of crime worse than the actual crime rates? - makes you think of Michael Moore's documentay scenes on the crime and the news in The States.
" All of the articles make this connection between when Chavez was elected and when the murder rate started to rise, but none of them make any attempt to explain how Chavez's policies have actually contributed to such an increase....
Of course they rarely write stories about when crime was down or prevented (by the implementation of social programs and so on), or about many of the positive things currently happening here.
There is now a growing gap between real crime and the perception of it. According to the 2008 Latinobarometro report, Venezuelans saying they have been a victim of crime has been stable at 43-53% of the population, over the last 10 years. However the perception of crime as the most serious problem of all, has multiplied by 6 times over the same period.
The mainstream media creates an image of Venezuela and Caracas that is frightening, tourists often telling me that it is not at all what they were expecting. Rarely are the positive, amazing, and beautiful aspects of the country and its political process portrayed, and this omission, leading to a distorted perspective, is a kind of lie in of itself. ..."
Take it easy,
Reply this comment