Michael K. Busch

PlanColombia: Que Lio!

 

Bogota was a ghost town on inauguration day.  Light rain and chilly winds supported the general feeling of gloom on what was supposed to be a day of national pride.  The empty streets and shuttered gates contrasted sharply with the scene I witnessed four weeks earlier on Colombian Independence Day.  On that day, it seemed that everyone was out, singing, dancing, enjoying ice creams and empanadas. 

Today was different.  I spent my time trying to figure out ways to sneak past the military checkpoints into Plaza de Bolivar, to get a better look at the ceremony.  But because I was virtually the only one on the streets, I didn't stand a chance.  Every street corner was protected by a military guard armed to the teeth.  Alleyways were filled with milling troops, and roaming squads with bomb-sniffing dogs were everywhere.  The officers I spoke with were edgy and displeased with my presence.  So I had to settle for watching the celebration a block away on a storefront display TV. 

Colombians stayed off the streets due to threats from las FARC, the left-wing guerilla group at war with the government.  Four years earlier, the FARC fired mortars at the square during Uribe's first inuaguration.  Their poor aim killed dozens of poor civilians in a neighboring barrio.  A series of car bombings throughout the country in the weeks leading up to this inauguration lent credibility to FARC warnings to expect a repeat performance.  Luckily, the day passed without incident, and the following morning Colombians resumed their normal lives. 

Now comes word that the Colombian military itself played a part in the the violence.  This is the latest outrage in a litany of other charges against officers of conspiring with rebel groups to commit acts of terrorism and drug-trafficking.  The most disturbing incident came in May.  An entire elite unit of counternarcotic policemen, trained by the United States, was massacred in the town of Jumundi, near Cali.  Investigations into the mass-killing revealed that a group of military officers were responsible for the murders.  (For excellent reporting on the incident, and the disgraceful refusal to deal appropriately with it, see Donna Harman's coverage at The Christian Science Monitor)  These revelations of Colombian military activity will be duly discussed by the U.S. Congress as it debates raising its support for the army-led PlanColombia, to a tune of $750 million a year. 

It has been evident for some time now that PlanColombia has largely failed to keep cocaine off Amercian streets, or those of Europe.  A report recently issued by the United Nations demonstrates that even though chemical spraying of cocaine plantations in Colombia is at its highest levels, coca production is up, and the yields are greater than ever before.  These statistics, combined with the potential health risks of massive crop spraying to local inhabitants, should give Congress pause. 

The L.A. Times highlights an interesting point.  Regardless of lawmakers' discomfort with PlanColombia's shortcomings, and the suspician that they may be bankrolling the very criminal groups they're trying to stop, the increased funding for Colombia will likely pass in November.  Why?  Because "Uribe knows that  he is one of the only friends the U.S. has in Latin America, and he's taking advantage of it," syas Adam Isaacson of the Center for International Policy. 

This should not be a consideration.  Instead, Congress should adopt a new three-tiered plan.  Continuing aid should be granted, but with strings attached.  Colombian and American anti-narcotics forces should be held accountable for their progress, or lack thereof.  If they demonstrate ineffectiveness, monies will be cut off.  Second, a portion of the money alotted as part of PlanColombia should be directed away from chemical sprayiong, and directed at drug-prevention programs with a track record of success.  Unlike spraying, research has proven that drug-prevention regimes are a highly effective way of combating the use of cocaine -when they're funded.  Finally, as has been routinely noted, the United States needs to seriously mend their damaged relationship with Latin Ameria, especially in those countries north of the Southern Cone.  Otherwise, the U.S. will continue to be held hostage by schemes like PlanColombia, which fill the pockets of those who should be in prisons, and do nothing to alleviate the suffering of people on both sides of the North-South divide.   

WATCHYOMOUTH

   

Hugo Chavez continued his verbal assault on George Bush today, calling for the President's resignation, and labelling the Bush Adminsitration a failure.  While this sort of thing undoubtedly plays well in Caracas, and resonates with millions the world over, I think Chavez increasingly plays a dangerous game.  The danger exists not for the international arena, as many fear, but for Chavez himself. 

Chavez's international popularity relies heavily on his petrodollar diplomacy, and willingness to audaciously attack the American president.  Both of these supports will soon give way.  As Alberto Quiros points out, Chavez's petro politics "make no economic sense, but they are part of his political megalomania, so normal economic laws don't apply.  Chavez is willing to pay any price."  His wild spending, mixed with Venezuela's inability to properly handle its oil reserves, will lead, sooner or later, to a severe strain on the country's economy.

Combine this prospect with the fact that 2008 will usher in a new President of the United States.  Barring any unforseen craziness, whomever assumes the mantle of American leadership will not provide the same amount -indeed, quality!- of fodder for the likes of Jon Stewart or Hugo Chavez.  The consequences for Chavez may be significant.  His antics this week in New York underscore his growing reliance on George W. Bush as a target to rally political support.  Chavez increasingly marries his criticism of American foreign policy with ad hominem attacks against the president.  With Bush gone, the sort of rhetorical battles Chavez has fashioned thus far with the United States will start to sound hollow, unless he can substantiate his arguments with something more than name-calling. 

The New York Times suggests that Chavez has positioned himself as the leader of an emerging "anti-American bloc."  This may be so.  But leadership, to my mind, is not always a question of "who?" as it is "for how long?"  Public insults and other theatrics garner the attention and short-term popularity in which men like Chavez revel.  Sustainable leadership, as President Bush has learned, requires responsible self-restraint and a measure of modesty on the international stage.

The Devil and Hugo Chavez

               Chavez to U.N.: "Reading is Fundamental!"

Strangely enough, John Bolton had the most intelligent response to Hugo Chavez's antics this afternoon in the General Assembly. 

Chavez (repeatedly) referred to President Bush as "the devil," noting the residual smell of sulfar from Bush's presence the day before.  While the comments received chuckles from those world leaders in attendance, the U.S. uncharacteristically took the high road by refusing to respond.  Bolton acknowledged that the Venezuelan president's remarks were "insulting," but added that they "don't warrant a response." He went on say that the Bush administration would not "address this sort of comic-strip approach to internaitonal affairs."

What Bolton failed to mention was that the actual substance of Chavez's address nicely mirrored his own views about the world organization.   Chavez did not limit his name-calling to Bush, but went on to label the U.N. as "worthless."  Bolton must have agreed with Chavez when he described the U.N. as simply a forum for "listening to a lot of speeches" and announced that it has "no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world."   

In contrast to Bolton's measured response, outrage has been expressed by some American commentators over Chavez's behavior.  I understand finding his insults offensive.  But all this furor contrasts starkly with the silence from these same people when Virginia Senator George Allen called a dark-skinned audience member at one his gatherings "macaca" ("monkey-boy" in French).  Allen's rascism was made all the uglier by the fact that most people shrugged it off as nothing. 

Is it truly the case that the words of an international loose cannon, whose rhetoric few people continue to take seriously, are scarrier to us than the racist bile of a potential candidate for President of the United States?   

Shutting Out Minorities

The New York Times recently ran an editorial demanding that the failure of New York City's public middle schools be addressed more urgently by the Bloomberg administration.  My response to the that piece ran in today's City Section (scroll down to the second letter).