The US War on Terror has left many great negative legacies in its wake. With troops mired in Iraq and Afghanistan and no clear idea of what constitutes victory in those conflicts, the results of the War on Terror has places US troops in constant danger, has alienated its once friendly supporting nations, and has taken time and energy away from the War on Drugs and Latin American as a whole.
Success has come in one form, but due to the skill of Colombia's leadership as opposed to that of Bush I's War on Drugs or Bush II's War on Terror. During the last 8 years of the War on Terror, Uribe's Colombia has had a great deal of progress. In contrast to the US in Iraq and in Afghanistan, accusations against Venezuela of drug running, and Mexican drug wars slowing killing off anyone who opposes it at will, Colombia has captured many FARC leaders including the infamous "Karina" this past week, one of FARC's top leaders and most violent assassins.
As a follow up to the capture of “Karina”, the top leader of the FARC, Manuel Marulanda was confirmed as dead this past week. While Uribe claims his death as a result of an air strike, and the FARC as due to a heat condition, the timing of the FARC leader's death in conjunction with so many of its top leaders deserting, dying or simply losing the support of many FARC rebel soldiers has done nothing more but to push the FARC closer to becoming the final historic note in the longest rebel insurgency in Latin America's history. The death of so many FARC leader in 2008 could do nothing more but to push Uribe into becoming Colombia's Winston Churchill in the fight against internal terror in the jungles of the Andean nation.
Despite Uribe's success and over 70% support in Colombia, since 9/11 the US has alienated alot of the countries that traditionally supported it on the world stage. When a country like Colombia that has had more terrorism and economic hardships than any other US ally succeeds in the War on Terror and is rewarded with criticism when forming a trade agreement, it further moves the US away from a region that requires substantial and equitable support. It could be based on the lack of understanding in the US on Colombia, or perhaps a separation between trade, anti-drug enforcement and security policy, but it poorly reflects on the US with many of their neighbours worldwide. Trade is usually the issue where this takes place as seen with Clinton's attacks on NAFTA and its North American neighbours, but in this case the prime achievement of the War on Terror or whatever people wish to call it is Colombia's success against the FARC. With some of the highest rates of drug trafficking, internal refugees and poverty in the world, any progress by Uribe or leaders of Colombia must be included when creating a foreign policy towards Latin America.
2 Comments So Far»
You’re right to point out the military successes of Uribe's campaign against the FARC. But there are several costs that you fail to mention:
Firstly, the assistance from the U.S. has allowed leftist leaders in Latin America to use Colombia as a symbol of American meddling in the region. I recently heard President Ortega of Nicaragua speak, at the Foro de Sao Paulo in Montevideo, Uruguay, where he said that the Uribe “dictatorship” has become “the most destabilizing government in Latin America.” Representatives of leftist parties from more than a dozen countries applauded.
Secondly, as Tom Hayden recently wrote in The Nation, the military campaign against the FARC undermines the “the distinct possibility that the anti-government guerrilla movement in Columbia (FARC) may be gradually convinced to evolve into a political force, as the IRA did in Northern Ireland.”
Perhaps the military campaign is still worthwhile, given the FARC's horrific history of drug trafficking, kidnapping and the murder of countless civilians. But if the Colombian military does ultimately destroy the FARC, it will have done so at a high diplomatic price.
Good Day Mr. Gedan,
I will address your points accordingly.
1. Yes, the influence of the United States in Latin America historically has had many negative effects, but the effect of Leftist organisations on Colombia itself has had a greater negative effect on Colombia. If the point of view was that the US has had a negative effect in assisting abuses in Chile in the 70's, Guatemala in the 50's and 60's and Nicaragua and El Salvador in the 80's there would be a tremendous amount of support against the US. For Colombia, who is lacking support from its neighbours, and even having Chavez and others support the FARC kidnapping and help in raging a war inside Colombia itself, you would likely not get the same applause in Colombia as leftist leaders are not seen as a positive development in that one country because of the violence. That being said, I can understand why many would not want the US involved in any of their internal affairs, but I think with Colombia there was no other choice in the matter and aid was requested by Colombia from the US itself. It wasnt a fight for another political movemment, it was a well armed drug ring who were attacking the government itself. This must be accounted for.
The rhetoric however takes alot away from the real situation. Right now Uribe, as opposed to the US has gained alot of ground in the war against the FARC. Its Uribe who has succeeded or failed in this scenario, not the US. Leftist leaders who openly support the FARC run contrary to 90% of Colombians who have had their country ruined by conflict. If the labour movement and leftists did have anything to say, it would not place blame on the US, but address the conflict between Colombia and its labour leaders, which can be read about in past blogs. In reality, no country wishes that its soverignty be violated, but this should apply to both the US and Leftist leaders who take more than oral responses to internal issues facing Colombians.
2. I think there is a great misunderstanding of the FARC in comparing them to the IRA. I actually had the pleasure to study and live in the UK and there is simply one major issues that faces Colombia that does not face the IRA. The IRA is and has always been a political movement, not supported by intense poverty but based on ethnic and religious divisions and a historical mistreatment of that one community by the government as a whole. Remember, in 1916 the fight for Irish independence started and was won on some part with the establishment of the Republic of Ireland, but with Colombia there is a root cause in poverty, that has no real ethnic base, but was created as a fight for left wing challenges against the government in Colombia and has developed into a purely narcotics motivated movement that gains support from drug profits and the miserable poverty of many in Colombia. Often they have no other option but to try to provide for their family, despite the government and the FARC, not because they support them. A test of the FARC's influence is if they didnt exist, who would be their political support? While in Ireland it is clear who makes up that political movement even though they are unarmed and in Parliament, the FARC would not be represented in a political manner by the poor of Colombia and they would likely have no political wing in the Colombian political system at all. At best the comparison between Palestinians and ther Israelis might make a bit more sense, but the FARC has lost its political motivations long ago. Hence the predicament in dealing with them on a political level.
3.Diplomatically, the price of dealing with the FARC may create some tensions between Colombia and leftist leaders who do not wish to deal with the US or Colombia in any case. I believe the situation of Colombians is severe enough that any dispatch of the FARC by Uribe or another leader will gain much political credit in Colombia, where it actually matters. Many in Latin America deal with the US on fair terms, and to place Colombia as the only culprit in dealing with the US and the added issue in trying to quell a major violence problem will only matter to those who it effects, that being Colombians themselves…who doubtfully give little attention to any leftist leader when commenting on the FARC and their own country.
Remember, leftist leaders recently tried to do everything to legitimise the FARC in Colombia, I doubt the US is seen in a worse light that those who claim to support the FARC themselves in the greater scheme of things. I think in this one case the US is not the main issue, and those who live in Colombia are intensely aware of this I believe.
Thank you for your comments!
3 Pingback & Trackback
Leave Comments Below»