DOCSLIB.ORG

A Discourse Analysis of Plan Colombia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Discourse Analysis of Plan Colombia © COPYRIGHT by Johnny Holloway 2012 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Marjan, the greatest person I have ever known and ever hope to know. SUPERIORITY AND SUBORDINATION IN U.S. – LATIN AMERICA RELATIONS: A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF PLAN COLOMBIA BY Johnny Holloway ABSTRACT Conceptions of Latin inferiority and concurrent American superiority have been foundational elements of U.S. – Latin American relations throughout its more than 175 year history. Clearly articulated in the Monroe Doctrine, these taken for granted, interrelated themes figured prominently in a consistent U.S. foreign policy of direct and indirect interventions in the 19th and 20th centuries designed to ensure American dominance within the hemisphere. This dissertation focuses on drug policy as one means of evaluating U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century. Specifically, it takes as its object of investigation the American component of Plan Colombia in 2000 and (re)situates the discourse constituting this federal legislation in the wider social and historical context of U.S. foreign policy toward Colombia and Latin America generally. Rather than unproblematically searching for the reasons why this intervention occurred, this dissertation instead questions how this intervention was possible. Focusing on texts produced by the most powerful actors, transmitted most effectively, and interpreted by the most recipients, a multimethod approach is employed drawing on historical material and on data from two important institutions – government and the media. Via analytical tools and methods from drawn poststructuralism, critical discourse analysis, sociolinguistics, and critical media studies, this dissertation examines Plan Colombia relevant congressional hearings and newspaper coverage to evaluate whether historical representations of American superiority/Latin inferiority conditioned the terms of the debate surrounding this contemporary legislation. It argues that representations of Latinos as incapable of self-control and effective governance, of Latin ii America as a breeding ground for regional instability, and of the “natural” hemispheric leadership and authority of the U.S. combined to create the logical, “common sense” supporting a billion dollar, militarized aid program for Colombia. This reading of the data is supported by the failure of an identified competing discourse (informed by representations of U.S. culpability and weakness) to frame the logical necessity of a large scale domestic medical intervention to address the American drug problem. In broad terms, these findings underline the utility of social constructionist oriented analyses in the study of international politics and U.S. foreign policy that identify specific societal puzzles and challenge the existing accounts and frameworks that constitute them. More narrowly, the findings of this dissertation highlight the continuing significance of historical conceptions of American superiority/Latin subordination in the context of contemporary U.S. drug policy and overall relations with Latin America. Because it effectively shapes the very conditions of its possibility, the formulation of United States drug policy cannot be adequately explained without fundamentally addressing this core binary opposition. The dissertation concludes with a brief consideration of the utility of this analytical framework for evaluating analogous U.S. drug policy interventions directed towards Latin America. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am extremely grateful for the support and guidance provided by my committee members. Dr. Clarence Lusane (chair) and Dr. Carolyn Gallaher stuck with me through all my trials and tribulations. Dr. John Richardson was instrumental in helping me to bring this long journey to an end. From the administration of the School of International Service, I want to thank Dean Louis Goodman for his generosity, wise counsel, and enduring optimism; Dean Maria Green Cowles for continually supporting me as an adjunct at SIS and helping me pay the bills; and Doctoral Advisor Jim Gilbert for cheerfully navigating me through the bureaucratic maze that is the administrative side of the doctoral program. I am very appreciative of the feedback and suggestions I received from a number of my colleagues in the SIS doctoral program who preceded me to the finish line. A special thank you goes out to Narendran Kumarakulasingam, Dylan Craig, and Mark Hamilton Outside of the School of International Service, I am very grateful to Dr. Celine Pascale and Dr. Michael Lempert who both generously provided me with their time, sage advice, and moral support when I was faltering and losing hope that my project would ever see the light of day. On a personal note, I am grateful for the continual support of my family and friends. I greatly appreciate my mother and step-father who consistently encouraged me throughout this process. I also want to thank my mother-in-law. She was an unflagging cheerleader who never lost faith that I would finish. G.L. Fisher and Adele Asimow put me back on course at a point when I had lost my bearings and were absolutely essential elements of my ultimate success. iv Given all their unwavering and unconditional love and emotional support, my dogs Chloe and Jake should probably be listed as co-authors; they sat by the computer just as much as I did. Finally, I must extend my most sincere and profound gratitude to my beautiful wife Marjan. She is my harshest critic, my strongest advocate, and the only person whose opinion I truly care about. She has been with me every step of the way and I simply could not have done this without her. Mersi Azizam. v LIST OF TABLES Table Table 1 Articulating “Land” as a Business Opportunity .............................................................. 31 Table 2 “Land” as a Floating Signifier ......................................................................................... 33 Table 3 Three Textual Mechanisms ............................................................................................ 130 Table 4 Initial Coding Sheet Format ........................................................................................... 132 Table 5 Revised Coding Sheet Format ....................................................................................... 133 Table 6 Excerpt from 3/23/2000 House Armed Services Committee Hearing .......................... 133 Table 7 Excerpt of Colombia Coding Sheet ............................................................................... 136 Table 8 Subjects and Respective Themes Identified within Hearings ........................................ 137 Table 9 Linguistic Functions of Headlines ................................................................................. 171 Table 10 Discriminatory Macro Strategies ................................................................................. 172 Table 11 Brief Excerpt from Chicago Tribune Coding Sheet .................................................... 174 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration Figure 1 1898 ................................................................................................................................ 68 Figure 2 1896 ................................................................................................................................ 68 Figure 3 1898 ................................................................................................................................ 69 Figure 4 1899 ................................................................................................................................ 70 Figure 5 1898 ................................................................................................................................ 71 Figure 6 1899 ................................................................................................................................ 71 Figure 7 1898 ................................................................................................................................ 73 Figure 8 1904 ................................................................................................................................ 74 Figure 9 1904 ................................................................................................................................ 75 Figure 10 1961 .............................................................................................................................. 81 Figure 11 1963 .............................................................................................................................. 82 Figure 12 1915 .............................................................................................................................. 88 Figure 13 1927 .............................................................................................................................. 89 Figure 14 1947 .............................................................................................................................. 89 Figure 15 1960 .............................................................................................................................. 90 Figure 16 1981 .............................................................................................................................. 90 Figure 17 1988 .............................................................................................................................. 91 Figure 18 1904
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Counterdrug Strategy - Illusive Victory: from Blast Furnace to Green Sweep
    WARNING! The views expressed in FMSO publications and reports are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Counterdrug Strategy - Illusive Victory: From Blast Furnace to Green Sweep by William W. Mendel Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS. This article originally published in Military Review December 1992, pp. 74-87 In Northern California, Bisqueen Castles mark the beginning of spring--and the start of a new campaign season for marijuana eradication operations.1 A continent away in the Chapare region of Bolivia, the rainy season is ending allowing the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to rekindle the flames of its campaign to eradicate Andean coca plants and disrupt the drug flow to the U.S. The past five years or so have witnessed numerous large counterdrug operations such as those conducted under the aegis of U.S. embassies, DEA, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, state governors' offices, and many more. Since Secretary Dick Cheney's staunch Department of Defense letter of September 1989, the military has been actively supporting drug law enforcement agencies at home and abroad.2 In the U.S. Southern Command area, a series of Operation Support Justice actions have provided continuing military support to U.S. ambassadors' counterdrug efforts and to the host nations' counterdrug infrastructures in order to attack drugs at the source. Forces Command, by way of its continental armies and Joint Task Force 6, has been supporting major marijuana eradication operations, while the state governors' National Guards have been especially active in countering drugs at the growing source.
    [Show full text]
  • Justifying Militarisation; 'Counter-Narcotics'
    ISSN 2054-2046 Justifying Militarisation; ‘Counter-Narcotics’ and ‘Counter Narco-Terrorism’ Ross Eventon Policy Report 3 | March 2015 Justifying Militarisation; ‘Counter-Narcotics’ and ‘Counter Narco-Terrorism’ Ross Eventon* Policy Report 3 | March 2015 Key Points • Three inter-related developments within US foreign policy have emerged in recent years: the militarisation of Central America states under the auspices of confronting drug trafficking organisations and improving human security; the deployment of militarised DEA agents overseas; and the emergence of ‘counter narco-terrorism’ as a means of justifying such policies. • The DEA’s Foreign-Deployed Advisory Support Teams (FAST) carry out investigations and targeted interdiction operations overseas. They are an upgrade to a similar programme begun in the 1980s and later abandoned, and emerged in their recent form in Afghanistan in 2005 as a funding-focused counter-insurgency initiative. FAST have since been deployed in Central America where agents work alongside repressive security forces and have been implicated in a number of civilian deaths. • A surge of US aid to Central American security forces justified largely as ‘counter-narcotics’ funding continues a well-established trend: ‘counter-narcotics’ is often a synonym for militarisation. Through its parallel support for ‘iron fist’ policies, Washington has deepened the repressive capabilities of the local security forces. The concern with drug trafficking and human security is superficial. The overarching aim of US funding is the opening of the local economies to foreign investment, and the support of local political groups amenable to this agenda. • In justifying the increased aid to Central America, US officials present a simplistic interpretation of the local situation: drug trafficking and gangs are responsible for violence, and this means the ‘cartels’ must be ‘confronted’ militarily.
    [Show full text]
  • 129142NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. 1~9/q:;2 Union Calendar No. 584 • 101st Congress, 2d Session -- - - - ----- House Report 101-991 UNITED STATES ANTI-NARCOTICS ACTIVITIES IN THE ANDEAN REGION THIRTY-EIGHTH REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS together with SEPARATE VIEWS • 129142 U.S. Department 01 Justice National Institute 01 Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this""l 'r: ,. material has been granted qy Public Domain/101 st Congress Committee on Government Operations to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion 01 the~owner. NOVEMBER 30, 1990.-0rdered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 35-910 WASilImGTON : 1990 '. • t COMMI'ITEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman CARDISS COLLINS, lllinois FRANK HORTON, New York GLENN ENGLISH, Oklahoma WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania HENRY A. WAXMAN, California AL McCANDLESS, California TED WEISS, New York HOW ARIJ C. NIELSON, Utah MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma RICHARD K. ARMEY, Texas ~TEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina DONALD E. "BUZ" LUKENS, Ohio DOUG BARNARD, JR., Georgia J. DENNIS HASTER'r, lllinois BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts JON L. KYL, Arizona TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER SHA YS, Connecticut ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia PETER SMITH, Vermont BARBARA BOXER, California STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico MAJOR R.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Diplomacy and the Supply-Side Strategy: a Survey of United States Practice
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 43 Issue 4 Issue 4 - May 1990 Article 4 5-1990 Drug Diplomacy and the Supply-Side Strategy: A Survey of United States Practice Sandi R. Murphy Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Food and Drug Law Commons Recommended Citation Sandi R. Murphy, Drug Diplomacy and the Supply-Side Strategy: A Survey of United States Practice, 43 Vanderbilt Law Review 1259 (1990) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol43/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Drug Diplomacy and the Supply- Side Strategy: A Survey of United States Practice I. INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1260 II. THE SUPPLY-ORIENTED POLICY ........................ 1262 III. AID LEVERAGING AS A DIPLOMATIC TOOL FOR BILATERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS ........................ 1266 IV. CROP ERADICATION .................................. 1270 A. Economics and Ecology As Diplomacy Issues .... 1271 B. Crop Control and Aid Leveraging ............... 1275 V. LAW ENFORCEMENT MILITARIZATION ................... 1277 A. The Expanded Scope of Law Enforcement ....... 1277 B. The Mansfield Amendment ..................... 1279 C. The Posse Comitatus Act and the 1988 Amend- m ents ........................................ 1281 1. The 1982 Amendments ................... 1282 2. The 1988 Amendments ................... 1284 3. Escalation Toward a Real War on Drugs ... 1287 D. M ilitary Diplomacy ............................ 1288 VI. PROSECUTING FOREIGN DRUG OFFENDERS IN UNITED STATES COURTS .................................... 1290 A. Extradition Treaties ........................... 1290 1. Obstacles to Extradition .................. 1290 2. Deadly Diplomacy ........................ 1292 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Carleton Review of International Affairs, Vol. 3 (Summer, 2016) Blurred Boundaries: Drugs, Immigration & Border Policy Along the U.S.-Mexico Divide Logan Carmichael Abstract: Drugs, immigration, and border policy are intrinsically linked in the context of the United States-Mexico divide. However, there are often misunderstandings that border policy and immigration from Mexico are the root causes of a ‘drug epidemic’ in America. This paper dispels these misconceptions by exploring the diverse sources of illicit narcotics and examining the ideologies, government policies, and underlying domestic issues that comprise this epidemic. Drug use and abuse in the United States is a complex, yet prevalent issue that impacts a high percentage of the American population. Among Americans aged twelve and older, an estimated 49.2 percent have used illicit drugs during their lifetime as of 2014, and 16.7 percent have used illicit drugs in the past year.1 Policies aimed at curbing drug abuse share close links with immigration and border policies, especially in the context of U.S.-Mexico relations. From the American public and political figures alike, there has been a heightened sense of ‘crisis’ incorporating these three factors, a fear that drug abuse in the U.S. can be directly attributed to inadequate border policing and an inability to control an influx of unauthorized immigrants.2 Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King went so far as to declare that “for every [immigrant] who’s a valedictorian, there’s another hundred out there who weigh a hundred and thirty pounds – and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling seventy-five pounds of marijuana across the desert.”3 Such remarks are not only xenophobic but also stereotype Mexican immigrants as solely responsible for a much larger set of issues.
    [Show full text]
  • (Dea) 1985-1990
    HISTORY DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 1985-1990 New York State, four in California, two in Virginia, and one During the late 1980s, the international drug trafficking each in North Caro-lina and Arizona. One year later, 23 more or-ganizations grew more powerful as the cocaine trade conversion labs were seized in the U.S. dominated the Western Hemisphere. Mafias headquartered in The first crack house had been discovered in Miami in 1982. the Colom-bian cities of Medellin and Cali wielded enormous influence and employed bribery, intimidation, and However, this form of cocaine was not fully appreciated as a major murder to further their criminal goals. Many U.S. threat because it was primarily being consumed by middle class communities were gripped by vio-lence stemming from the users who were not associated with cocaine addicts. In fact, crack drug trade. At first, the most dramatic examples of drug- was initially considered a purely Miami phenomenon until it be­ related violence were experienced in Miami, where cocaine came a serious problem in New York City, where it first appeared traffickers fought open battles on the city streets. Later, in in December 1983. In the New York City area, it was estimated 1985, the crack epidemic hit the U.S. full force, result-ing in that more than three-fourths of the early crack consumers were escalating violence among rival groups and crack users in many other U.S. cities. By 1989, the crack epidemic was still white professionals or middleclass youngsters from Long Island, raging and drug abuse was considered the most important is­ suburban New Jersey, or upper-class Westchester County.
    [Show full text]
  • The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 1994-1998
    HISTORY DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 1994-1998 munications equipment that money could buy. The drug trade had evolved into a well-organized, highly structured enterprise Two of the most significant features of the drug trade in the that spanned the world. Drug trafficking activities were conduct­ mid-1990s were its scope and sophistication. The drug trade had ed in a seamless continuum, with individual organizations con­ expanded into a global problem, and the unprecedented power trolling all aspects of the drug trade, from cultivating or manu­ and wealth of the traffickers allowed them to manage their world­ facturing drugs in source countries to transporting them through wide business with the most sophisticated technology and com­ international zones and eventually selling them on the streets of American communities. DEA adjusted its strategy to address the unprecedented influ­ ence and power of the international drug mafias while working to reduce violent drug-related crime in American communities. Initially hampered by budget cutbacks in the late 1980s, by the mid-to-late 1990s, the agency had increased its budget, its staff­ ing, and its cooperation with law enforcement counterparts in the U.S. and abroad. During this time period, violent drug gangs proliferated around the country. Violence and drug trafficking went hand-in­ hand. More than 1.5 million Americans were arrested for drug law violations in 1996. Many crimes (e.g., assault, prostitution, and robbery) were committed under the influence of drugs or motivated by a need to get money for drugs. Competition and disputes contributed to violence as did the location of drug mar­ kets in areas where legal and social controls on violence tended to be ineffective.
    [Show full text]
  • GGD-99-108 Drug Control: DEA's Strategies and Operations In
    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters July 1999 DRUG CONTROL DEA’s Strategies and Operations in the 1990s GAO/GGD-99-108 United States General Accounting Office General Government Division Washington, D.C. 20548 B-279033 July 21, 1999 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman, Caucus on International Narcotics Control United States Senate The Honorable Bill McCollum Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives As you requested, this report discusses the strategies and operations of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in the 1990s. Specifically, the report discusses (1) what major enforcement strategies, programs, initiatives, and approaches DEA has implemented in the 1990s to carry out its mission, including its efforts to (a) target and investigate national and international drug traffickers and (b) help state and local law enforcement agencies combat drug offenders and drug-related violence in their communities; (2) whether DEA’s goals and objectives, programs and initiatives, and performance measures are consistent with the National Drug Control Strategy; and (3) how DEA determined its fiscal year 1998 staffing needs and allocated the additional staff. It includes a recommendation to the Attorney General regarding the development of measurable DEA performance targets for disrupting and dismantling drug trafficking organizations. We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Janet F. Reno, Attorney General; the Honorable Donnie R. Marshall, Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Honorable Barry R. McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy; the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and the Honorable Madeleine K.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Enforcement Administration­ Would Enforce the Drug Laws of Our Nation
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • • , = -- • -I' - .- .- I c:.f!· .-- t.-$';~."",. ----,-, 147278 U.S. Department of Ju~:ice Nationall.l1stltute of .!ustlce \ This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating It. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Nationallnstltute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this. d' . material has been granted by publjc Domajn/DEA U.S. Department of Justice to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside olthe NCJRS system requires permission of the ~ owner. a3 Marijuana ~Cocaine .. , I - - .... • ~JCC---------'---------"""!"~::::~~~~~~~~-~.~"~~"""::'IIIIIIII""'·~r';< o ~~ . <:0 ~ oin Cultivation Sites .. 11 Anniversary Message he kick-off ceremonies for DEA's 20th Anniversary on i\tlay 5, 1993, brought together DEA's agents, adminis­ T trators, friends and family-from the past and the present-to celebrate our accomplishments during two decades of fighting against illegal drugs. Twenty years ago, on July 1, 1973, President Richard M. Nixon decreed that one agency-the Drug Enforcement Administration­ would enforce the drug laws of our nation. The agents who joined DEA in those early days came from a variety of law enforcement backgrounds, and their combined talents ushered in a new, more focused era of d:ug law enforcement. It was that history of dedication to a single purpose, as well as our readiness to meet the the enormous challenges of the drug problem that enabled DEA to mature into the premier drug law enforcement agency in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • 1:09-Cr-00383 Document #: 599 Filed: 06/07/18 Page 1 of 54 Pageid #:4379
    Case: 1:09-cr-00383 Document #: 599 Filed: 06/07/18 Page 1 of 54 PageID #:4379 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 09 CR 383-16 v. ) Hon. Chief Judge Ruben Castillo ) JESUS RAUL BELTRAN LEON, ) Defendant. ) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT Defendant JESUS RAUL BELTRAN LEON, by his attorneys Stephen G. Ralls, Paul M. Brayman, and Jonathan M. Brayman, hereby requests that this Honorable Court dismiss the indictment in this case with prejudice due to outrageous government conduct (torture). This Motion is supported by the attached Brief for Defendant. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED June 7, 2018 /s Stephen G. Ralls Stephen G. Ralls Attorney for Defendant 314 S. Sixth Ave. Tucson, AZ 85701 Office: (520) 884-1234 Fax: (520) 884-9687 Email: [email protected] Case: 1:09-cr-00383 Document #: 599 Filed: 06/07/18 Page 2 of 54 PageID #:4380 TABLE OF CONTENTS MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.. iii BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT. 1 I. FACTS. 1 A. Incorporation of Previous Factual Statements. 1 B. United States Involvement in the Investigation.. 1 C. Disclosure Requests. 9 II. REASONS FOR DISMISSAL. 9 A. The Torture and Abuse, Both Physical and Psychological, Inflicted on Mr. Beltran Leon Are Shocking to the Conscience, and Violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. 10 B. The Torture of Mr. Beltran Leon Is Attributable to the United States Government Because the U.S.
    [Show full text]