NEW YORK PRESS, Aug 30-Sep 5
George Szamuely
The Bunker
Whore on Drugs
Bill Clinton's one-day visit to Colombia this week encapsulates
perfectly his presidency: a pointless photo-op to sell a fraudulent
bill of goods. He is there ostensibly to express his confidence in
Colombia's President Andres Pastrana, whose fight against the
narco-traffickers is being underwritten by the United States to the
tune of $1.3 billion. However, the idea of Colombia getting out of the
drug business is so patently absurd that not even Clinton's coterie of
obsequious toadies is buying this one. In the first place, the
Colombian military-to be armed and trained by the U.S.-are the last
people on Earth to allow a lucrative enterprise like narcotics slip
through their fingers.
In November 1998, a few weeks after Pastrana's visit to Washington to
assure Americans of his firm resolve to fight the scourge of drugs,
the head of the Colombian air force had to resign. The resignation
followed the discovery of over 1600 pounds of cocaine aboard a
military transport plane that had just arrived in Fort Lauderdale from
Bogota. "This incident need have no effect whatsoever on our views of
President Pastrana's determination to work with us to fight the export
of drugs from Colombia," piped up little Jamie Rubin of the State
Dept. Of course not. Any more than the recent conviction of the former
commander of U.S. Army anti-drug advisers in Colombia, Col. James
Hiett, on charges of covering up his wife's drug smuggling, need have
any effect on our views of the seriousness of the U.S. commitment to
wage war on drugs.
The US. can spray with herbicides every field from the Gulf of Mexico
to Antarctica. But someone else will always be there to provide
Americans with their drug fix. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar-the list
of candidates is long.
No, the latest round in America's melodramatic "war on drugs" has
nothing whatsoever to do with drugs. It is about corporations with
substantial investments in Colombia lobbying the U.S. government to
step in and take over the country on their behalf. In Pastrana they
have found a happily compliant Colombian leader. Colombia is burdened
with a large international debt, which it must pay off with its oil
exports. Pastrana has signed on to the usual IMF austerity program of
public spending cuts and devaluation. The result has been misery,
strikes and, naturally, a shot in the arm for the narcotics industry.
Colombia's economy shrank 4.5 percent in 1999. Earlier this month,
tanks and troops were called out to the streets of Bogota as 700,000
state workers staged a 24-hour strike protesting government austerity
measures.
But how did drugs get into the picture? It was the corporations that
came up with this wheeze. Lockheed Martin approached the Clinton
administration with a poll it had commissioned, showing a majority of
the public believing drug use to be on the rise, with Democrats, not
Republicans, being held responsible. Therefore, Democrats should do
something dramatic. Lockheed Martin's day job, incidentally, includes
making aircraft for use in military operations against drug smugglers.
One of the most ardent advocates of American military involvement in
Colombia was the U.S.-Colombia Business Partnership-which includes
such corporations as Occidental, Enron, BP Amoco and
Colgate-Palmolive. Drugs are "disruptive of any normal business
relationship," explained Lawrence Meriage, Occidental's vice president
for public affairs. But what was really troubling him was the $100
million Occidental has lost as a result of the repeated rebel assaults
on the Limon Covenas pipeline by various armed groups. Every year, the
oil companies are forced to shell out a "war tax," which they pay
directly to the Colombian army and police for their protection.
Earlier this month, Occidental suspended oil production and declared
force majeure at Colombia's second largest oil field because of
repeated bombing of the pipeline. In 1999 alone it had allegedly been
attacked 79 times. Clearly, they would be saving themselves a lot of
money if the U.S. government took over protecting the pipelines.
The Plan Colombia, allegedly a joint product of the U.S. and Colombian
governments, reads very much as if it were conceived and written in
Washington. It is full of the usual "market democracy" or "do what we
tell you or else" bromides: "Free trade agreements that attract
foreign and domestic investment"; "a fiscal and financial strategy
that includes tough austerity and adjustment measures"; "state-owned
companies and banks are to be privatized"; "foreign investment" will
be "crucial in modernizing the industrial backbone of the country";
"steps" must be taken "to promote a favorable environment for
electronic trade." The Plan gets hilarious when it describes
Colombia's economic plight. After first commending the country for
opening up "its traditionally closed economy," the author notes
sorrowfully that "production of cereals, such as wheat, corn, and
barley...were shown to be noncompetitive in world markets. The result
was the loss of 700,000 hectares of agricultural production to imports
during the decade, which in turn proved to be a critical blow to
employment in the rural areas where Colombia's conflict is mainly
staged."
Yes, but why had Colombia's traditional agriculture become so
"noncompetitive"? Could it possibly have something to do with the
explosion of subsidies afforded to U.S. farmers in recent years?
U.S. Special Forces trainers have already arrived in Colombia.
Congress conditioned the $1.3 billion package on the Colombian
government's ability to curb human rights abuses by its armed forces.
Pastrana was made to promise that military personnel accused of human
rights abuses would be brought to justice in the country's civilian
courts. Of all the demands made on his government, this is the one it
will least likely be held to.
The U.S. has too much invested in Colombia to waste time chasing up
"bad apples." Even the recent murder of six schoolchildren by
Colombian soldiers did nothing to dampen Washington's enthusiasm for
the venture. As always, the wealth of the few trumps the welfare of
the many.