NACLA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS report: in the name of democracy

Democracy and Plan Colombia

Plan Colombia, a “pro-democracy” package, was established as a plan to wipe out Colombia’s trade, but it soon became clear that it had the additional objective of defeating the guerilla movement.

by Héctor Mondragón

R E S I D E N T G E O R G E W. B U S H H A S A S K E D T H E that has since been repeated in a State American people to “be patient” so that D e p a rtment document. Obviously, these “other PIraq can become like Colombia—so that t h reats” to Colombian security do not refer to the Iraqis can defeat terrorism and establish a sta- e x t r a t e rrestrials, but to forces like the Chávez ble democracy like the one Washington has nur- g o v e rnme nt in Venezuela and the indigenous t u red in Colombia. I would like to comment on mobilizations in Ecuador—forces that re p re s e n t this nightmare . anti-neoliberal, anti-imperial changes in South Héctor Mondragón Plan Colombia, a “pro-democracy” aid pack- America by way of democratic elections and pop- has been a human rights worker in age provided by the to Colombia, ular mobilization. Colombia for 35 was established in 1999. Its primary stated objec- Washington has now spent $4.7 billion on years, working tive was to end drug trafficking in Colombia. Plan Colombia, and if you include the expendi- closely with homeless Later on, it was discovered that the plan had the t u res of the U.S. Agency for Intern a t i o n a l shelters, labor f u rther objective of defeating the guerrilla move- Development (USAID) in that total, it re a c h e s o rg a n i z a t i o n s , human rights and ment, though that component of the plan was $7.7 billion. But despite this investment, the c h u rch groups, and never acknowledged by Washington while Bill U . S . - s u p p o rted government of Alvaro Uribe has a number of indige- Clinton was in office. It was, however, made defeated neither the drug traffickers nor the guer- nous groups. Tr a i n e d explicit in subsequent versions of the plan rilla movement. To the contrary, the plan’s only as an economist, he devised by George W. Bush’s administration, success has been to guarantee a majority to the has worked as an adviser to the which identified its principal objective as com- p a rties that supported Uribe in the Congre s s i o n a l Indian National bating “narc o - t e rrorism,” thus conflating the elections of March 2006, and to guarantee Uribe’s O rganization of d r ug war with the anti-guerrilla stru g g l e . own re-election last May. Colombia and the F u rt h e rm o re, the Bush government has pro- When Uribe was first elected, his primary Peasant National posed that the plan combat any other threat to campaign promise had been to defeat the guer- Council. the security of the Colombian state, a pro p o s a l rillas, and to accomplish this, he instituted a 4 2 J A N U A RY FEBRUARY 2007 report: in the name of democracy

one-time war tax. In his campaign for re-election, he pro- lends the money back to itself. It plays the same game with posed a second “one-time” war tax. The reality is that, far its public health and pension funds. What’s going to hap- from being defeated, the guerrilla movement in Colombia pen when the government has to pay this money back? is today much stronger than when Uribe began his pres- But this doesn’t explain the whole story of Colombia’s idency. The guerrillas had been hard hit in the last year of spectacular growth. There is a much more important the Pastrana government and during Uribe’s first year, in explanation: the agreement with the paramilitaries. Many part thanks to U.S. technical assistance to the Colombian have criticized this agreement, arguing that it amounts to air force that allowed it to engage in effective anti-guerril- an amnesty for crimes against humanity. But all of this la bombing campaigns. The guerrillas had also suffered discussion has obscured the economic essence of the setbacks due to their own political and strategic errors, agreement, which is to allow the legalization of billions of many of which negatively—and gravely—affected the paramilitary narco-dollars. The paramilitaries finance not civil population. only their operations, but also their lifestyles with the Nevertheless, the U.S. Southern Command and the Never before have country’s largest drug-trafficking Uribe government committed a huge erro r operations. known as , which called for the Colombian drug traffickers had Since negotiations between armed forces to surround and annihilate the guerrillas in so much power in Uribe and the paramilitaries their interior strongholds. But these were locations the began, billions of dollars and guerrillas knew well and where they enjoyed solid popu- Colombia. Today e u ros in drug profits have lar support, allowing them to soundly defeat the military. they have penetrated e n t e red Colombia. Thro u g h o u t Today the guerrillas—especially the FARC—have gained the stock market, 2003, 2004 and the beginning of political momentum after having launched an effective 2005, more o v e r, the paramili- counter-offensive. Over the past year the Colombian mil- laundered their drug taries exported a huge quantity of itary’s losses in the civil war have considerably surpassed money in the form of the they had stockpiled, those of the U.S. military in Iraq. The departments of knowing that anything sold prior Putumayo and Caquetá have been paralyzed for well over treasury bonds and to the amnesty would be par- six months, and in many areas of Colombia the army gained a foothold in doned under the peace agre e- cannot guarantee anyone’s safety. Yet despite failing to the electoral process. ment. This is the true cause of the fulfill his main electoral promise, Uribe still managed to e n o rmous wave of speculation— be re-elected. How was this possible? To paraphrase Bill a sea of illicit funds entering Colombia. And like an emper- Clinton: It was the economy, stupid. or of ancient Rome, Uribe was able to provide the popu- Like many other areas in the world, Colombia is expe- lace with “bread and circuses” prior to the pre s i d e n t i a l riencing a post-Iraq-invasion economic boom. But elections of May 2006. Was Washington aware of this? Of C o l o m b i a ’s boom may be the least sustainable of them all. course it was. Stock exchange values have increased 1,100%, meaning prices have multiplied 11 times. This has not occurre d WHAT IS THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF PLAN COLOMBIA? a n y w h e re else since the 1920s, simply because no other Never before have drug traffickers had so much power in c o u n t ry would allow it. Any other national bank or feder- Colombia. Today they have penetrated the stock market, al re s e r ve system would intervene to curb such inflation, l a u n d e red their drug money in the form of tre a s u ry bonds knowing that such rapid unchecked increases in value— and gained a foothold in the electoral process. And which are not the result of growth but of pure specula- although those in Uribe’s party who have been publicly tion—will eventually cause a terrible recession. In identified as drug lords were purged, they created their Colombia this has not only been allowed, but actually own parallel pro-Uribe parties and have gotten themselves encouraged through specific economic measures. For elected to Congress. This is not to say anything of those example, the Colombian state buys its own tre a s u r y d rug lords who have not been publicly identified and who bonds. It takes the money from its left pocket and lends it remain on Uribe’s part y ’s lists. to its right pocket, and whereas a moment ago it had only In the past, drug traffickers financed electoral cam- four dollars, it now has eight—four dollars plus a cert i f i- paigns from the shadows, financing publicity and paying cate proving it has borrowed another four! So Colombia for hotels and travel. This was a relatively small-scale oper- receives billions of dollars from the United States as part of ation. To d a y, however, they openly finance entire electoral Plan Colombia, and the Colombian government then campaigns. The govern m e n t ’s own statistics acknowledge 4 3 NACLA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS report: in the name of democracy

that in 2005, $3 billion flowed through Colombia, with In Colombia, however, there is also a democratic civil no re c o rd of how the money entered the country. No resistance that rejects the guerrillas’ methods and that is one planted money seeds and grew the $3 billion; this often, in fact, victimized by the guerrillas. It proposes a is just a portion of the billions of dollars and euros that d i ff e ren t country—one not ruled by drug barons, where the paramilitaries have laundered. Why does food is secure and where the social movements that Washington, with its moral crusade, the War on Dru g s , have resisted decades of terror have the political weight p e rmi t this? Because Colombia serves as its base for they deserve. Before paramilitary narco-dollars arr i v e d , attacking the democratic processes taking place in this civil resistance was able to elect the mayor of neighboring countries. Bogotá and defeat a re f e ren dum in which Uribe sought This is the reality of U.S. intervention in Colombia. to change the constitution to nullify our democratic Colombia is becoming an eternal battleground, in ord e r rights. It has organized general strikes in December to secure the country as a base of operations for contro l- 2002 and October 2004; massive indigenous marc h e s ling Ecuador, Venezuela and possibly even Peru, Brazil called “mingas”; and a popular consultation against the and Bolivia. They say, “Have patience with Colombia; f ree-trade agreement in indigenous regions, in which w e ’ re heading to Venezuela and Ecuador! Be patient m o re than 86 percent of the population voted. with Iraq; we’re on our way to Iran.” E v e r y day those of us in social movements risk our In Colombia we are used to the fabrication of news lives to change Colombia so that our country will stop that prevents us from seeing the reality that Uribe’s gov- moving against the grain of the rest of Latin America. e r nment reaps a harvest of terror; of 60 years of vio- E v e r y day we risk our lives so that Colombia can be lence; of the killing of 4,000 trade unionists; of the united with Venezuela and Ecuador, with what the MST d e s t ruction of workers’ rights; of the displacement of (Movimento dos Tr a b a l h a d o res Rurais Sem Te rra) is t h ree million peasants from their land—and of transna- building in Brazil, with what the Uruguayans are doing, tional capital, which finds abundant cheap labor now with what our people are doing these days in Los that its trade unions have been violently destroyed. Angeles. The future of our country is in the balance. ■

n o t e s

Benevolence or Intervention? Spotlighting U.S. Soft Power 2 . . For a discussion of Braden’s extensive intervention, see Bryce Wood, T h e Dismantling of the (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1. References to the United States as an empire have found their way into main- 1985), chapter 6. stream discourse, as a recent NACLA Report points out (“Empire and Dissent,” 3 . The first IMF agreement akin to this one was signed in South Korea in 1997 September/October 2005). and included the IMF, the South Korean government and all presidential can- 2. “Remarks at a White House Ceremony Inaugurating the National Endowment d i d a t e s . for Democracy,” December 16, 1983, www. n e d . o r g / a b o u t / r e a g a n 1 2 1 6 8 3 . h t m l . Democracy or Polyarchy? 3 . “Supporting Emerging Democracies,” Renaissance Hotel, Washington, D.C. (May 17, 2005), http://www. i n t h e n a m e o f d e m o c r a c y. o r g / e n / n o d e / 9 3 . 1 . This essay is based on the opening keynote speech at the conference, “In the 4 . For an estimate of U.S. fiscal year 2006 spending on democracy, see Don Name of Democracy: US Electoral Intervention in the Americas,” April 7, 2006, Pressley and Lawrence Groo, “Streamlining U.S. Democracy Assistance,” Yale University. For an extended exposition on the themes in this essay and p. 114; for other figures on U.S. and European “democracy assistance,” see corroborating documentation, see Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: U.S. Kim Campbell, Sean C. Carroll, “Sustaining Democracy’s Last Wave,” p. 47- Intervention, Globalization, and Hegemony (Cambridge University Press, 49, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs (62: Summer/Fall, 2005). 1996), and for an update to that work, see Robinson, “Promoting Polyarchy in 5 . Lawrence J. Korb, A New National Security Strategy in an Age of Te r r o r i s t s , Latin America: The Oxymoron of ‘Market Democracy,’” in Eric Hershberg and Tyrants, and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Three Options Presented as Fred Rosen, eds., Latin America After Neoliberalism: Turning the Tide? ( T h e Presidential Speeches (Council on Foreign Relations Press: 2003), excerpted at New Press, 2006), and Gindin and Robinson, “The Battle for Global Civil h t t p : / / w w w. a m e r i c a n p r o g r e s s . o r g / s i t e / p p . a s p ? c = b i J R J 8 O V F & b = 3 5 3 1 2 . Society: An Interview with William I. Robinson,” June 13, 2005, available at h t t p : / / i n t h e n a m e o f d e m o c r a c y.org/en/node/57 and at http://www. v e n e z u e l- Electoral Intervention in the Americas: Uneven and Unanticipated Results a n a l y s i s . c o m / a r t i c l e s . p h p ? a r t n o = 1 4 7 7 . 2. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New Yo r k : 1 . The Boston Globe, December 15, 2005, p. A34. Harper and Row, 1942), p. 285.

4 4