Plan Colombia and the War on Drugs are not working!

Mr. Hollywood says on Dec 3, 2004, 07:48:

Please explain how Plan Colombia is responsible for Colombia's displacement problem?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Dec 3, 2004, 12:33:

I don't know if it's true I don't know if it applies in this case, but there's always another explanation for reduced price of a commodity (or luxury good, however you see cocaine), which is reduced demand.

In theory, if they're reducing supply and demand at the same rate, then the price should stay about even.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 3, 2004, 16:51:

I don't agree with the reasoning behind Plan Colombia's counter-narcotics efforts, but then again unless the U.S. changes its policies and drops prohibition, it's pointless to argue much about this.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Dec 3, 2004, 17:06:

I think an interesting statistic would be the street price of heroin in Europe ~2001. I read that the Taliban forbid production that year and the opium harvest fell from 3200 to 200 tons. If the street price did not dramatically increase, then it seems demand dropped, there was a lot of finished product inventory, or production just shifted elsewhere (SE Asia, Colombia?)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

molly Richards says on Dec 3, 2004, 20:28:

displacement all crops are destroyed by the spraying of the coca plant leaving no farming in that area as a result of plan colombia. Also it is reported that many people in those areas move because people become ill after the chemicals are sprayed on the plants.
It is rumored that the US sprays in areas to create displacement ie in areas that large numbers of people support FARC or ELN. Does anyone have any points for or against these comments.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 3, 2004, 21:12:

With what I said before still standing, and reiterating that I don't like fumigation at all....many crops are certainly damaged or destroyed, but it is an exaggeration to say that "all" of them are affected.

The stuff about some people getting sick and moving is actually a better statement and much more important in my mind.

Yet there is absolutely not a single scrap of evidence that the spraying is intentionally done "in areas that large numbers support FARC or ELN" to kill, displace or otherwise harm them.

You might see such rumors and claims in opinion columns and leftwing sites, but none of them offer anything concrete and groundbreaking to back that up.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Dec 4, 2004, 07:42:

Molly Let me preface this statement by saying that I don't particularly like the idea of aerial spraying nor do I think it's ultimately effective, but I was once invited with a politically connected friend to tour the anti-narcotics police spraying effort.

The reality is that they're very conscientious and scientificly advanced about where, when and how they spray. They don't spray fields with people living in them, they don't spray fields that aren't coca (why would they? It's costly and there's way more coca in Colombia than they can ever spray). They only spray in the morning before winds are up. And they do weeks of preparation before deciding where to spray. The airplane spray rigs are computer controlled to only allowing spraying within the GPS coordinates that have been previously determined (by satellite and photo observation) to contain coca.

There is a certain amount of economic displacement when towns in previously coke growing regions suffer an economic collapse when the government shuts down cultivation and processing there, but that's hard to work up a tear about.

If you really want to find the culprits for the mass displacement problem, you would do well to study up on how the FARC, ELN and AUC all use violence and displacement as a way of exercisiing control over lucrative narcotics production areas or, in the case of the AUC leaders like Castaño and Mancuso, to simply "buy" up ranchlands after scaring people away.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 4, 2004, 09:43:

Demand, fumigation and displacement "I don't know if it applies in this case, but there's always another explanation for reduced price of a commodity (...), which is reduced demand." But according to the National Drug Intelligence Center, demand for cocaine is, if anything, rising. (http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs3/3300/cocaine.htm)

So there goes that alternative explanation. Add to that the compensation for crop reduction through the "balloon" effect, and it is pretty clear that the so called "war on drugs" has been a 25-year fiasco for American taxpayers and Colombian citizens. Can anyone contribute some counter-evidence?

I don't know if Monsanto contributed to the Republican presidential campaign (which should amount to a scandal, if we had our "moral values" straight), but it's only them and their kind that have profited from this war on the Colombian campesino.

If you do a brief research on the Internet, you will find that it is pretty much the consensus that, even though glyphosate (the active component of Roundup) is relatively harmless, other components of Roundup are very destructive.

Juance, regardless of the intentions behind fumigations, CODHES has collected evidence that suggests that they have an impact in displacement. Of course, the main source of displacement when it was more critical was the incursions of the AUC into "guerrilla controlled" territories (nevermind the more than occasional complicity of the government), but that is a very poor excuse for the Uribe administration to continue with this policy.

Full text (in Spanish): http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2003/codhes-col-29oct.pdf
Summary (in English): http://www.idpproject.org/weekly_news/2003/weekly_news_nov03_2.htm

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Dec 4, 2004, 10:00:

Thanks for the links, Sir Tertius.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mark Antony Turner says on Dec 4, 2004, 10:32:

War on Drugs I dont know if I am wrong but drugs are like any other business they operate on supply and demand, we the US are their biggest customers so we create the illegal incentive , for them to continue to mass produce, I feel the war on drugs needs to waged on the this end, on our Continentin America more so than Colombia

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Dec 7, 2004, 09:48:

Sr Tertius, I am not seeking to deny what CODHES and other organizations are saying. Of course they have an impact on displacement, but I find it misleading to, as some people try to do, make it seem like the fumigations are part of a deliberate campaign of displacement.

And I'll say again what I say before, at least in principle: The Colombian government can't unilaterally abandon the policy of fumigation, at least not without facing a huge international backlash, as horrible and useless as this policy is (I AGREE with that), as long as the U.S. and/or Europe aren't in agreement with such a change of policy (especially the U.S. right now). And especially not during the admin. of Mr. Bush.

It may sound pathetic, and that's not what I'd want, but it's the truth.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Dobby says on Dec 22, 2004, 07:07:

Dobby Some interesting reading on the topic can be found at:

http://www.mamacoca.org/Octubre2004/doc/Editorial_fumigaciones_mayo_2004_en.htm

http://www.rfkmemorial.org/CENTER/Geneva_2002_Item_10.htm

http://www.spectrezine.org/environment/Colombia.htm

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 22, 2004, 08:36:

Just a fact Gringo,

Could you pass around the source of your facts? As I mentioned before, according to the 2004 National Drug Threat Assessment conducted by the National Drug Intelligence Center, availability of cocaine appears to be stable, and demand appears to be increasing.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs8/8731/cocaine.htm

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

boricuapr says on Dec 25, 2004, 15:47:

monsanto and dyncorp I should have posted my previous comments in this section of the board instead of the general discussion section where I kept getting comments about a cab driver and his millionaire fares. If anyone is interested in my previous posts they are under the heading of Cartagena storms of 2004. The fact that deforestation at this magnitude is already taking place is indeed regretable and has already manifested itself in the floods that took place in the lower elevations, (cartagena barranquilla etc..) the added factor of the rain patterns is also an element that will continue to contribute to the problems of flooding. Only recently did the United States Congress pass House Resolution 4818, Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2005, and included in the bill an appropriation (increased) for the U.S. State Department to "coordinate and implement with 45 days of the passage of this legislation" the continued deforestation program. Dyncorp and Monsanto (Agent Orange) are the two principal players here. The legislation says that the environmental standards of the United States SHOULD be applied when making the determination to apply the new round of defoliants. However such "permissive" and not "mandatory" language is usaually a buzword for forget the standards if some one bitches loud enough we can always change things half way. It is a bad situation that will not change any time soon since the president of colombia is in complete agreement with this program. Just one last comment. I hope that who ever reads this is not fooled by the media propoganda. There is absolutely NO coincidence that the most heavily targeted for these defoliants are those areas where there is definitively identified oil in the ground. As evidence by Occidental Petroleums claims for assistance to the State Department and the Deaprtment of Energy. It all boils down to the clearing of fields, of people, and obstructions so as to allow extraction machinery and roads to be built for better raping of the country. In return the innocent people of ccolombia are going to be faced with an unkown effect of the chemicals being sprayed not just to their land but the high probabiliy of life long congenital malformations and cancers, as well as floods and poisoned drinking water, the contamination of the food chain and the loss of their beautiful mountain side that is part of a very delicate ecosystem. what a mess.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Dec 31, 2004, 11:48:

WOLA More interesting information at WOLA: www.wola.org

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pink_lotus says on Jan 17, 2005, 20:58:

opps wrong post

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kiwiviajero says on Jan 19, 2005, 16:51:

US State Department Launches New Push to Use Agent Green Here's some disturbing infomation the chemicals the US want to use :(

http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr/pr060404.html
http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr/pr171202.html

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lpdiver says on Jan 20, 2005, 21:38:

Simple solution Legalize the drugs and scrutinize the profits closely. There will be new tradegies yes. But less than the old tradegies in place now. Put the profit from drugs in the hands of the good guys and the "War on drugs" can truly be fought on a more level battle ground.

http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/stories/6.05/000307-colombia.html

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results!

Chao,

Antony

Caveat Emptor

"cook some rice!"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 21, 2005, 10:25:

Tell that to your local Congressmen (if in USA) As long as they are willing to vote in favor of drug policies which not only don't "save our children" from drugs but create havok in faraway lands, such as Colombia....things won't change much.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 21, 2005, 11:04:

Tinto Yes, it's a global problem in the end, but the most important and influential "thinking minds" and political power-brokers are in the U.S. and in Europe (40 + 25 = 65%), definitely not in South America or in the Rest of the World (20 + 10 = 30%). You (mostly) lead, we (mostly) follow.

It's not "just" a U.S. problem, but change (whether legalization or simply tackling drugs in a much more reasonable manner, using other means) will only be effective when the "haves" (everywhere, including Colombia, if it comes to it, but *mostly* in the countries that speak softly and carry big sticks, not just in the countries that speak loudly and carry little sticks) decide to go forward with it.

And its usually easier for citizen/public opinion to have an effect in the U.S. and in Europe than here in Colombia.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Jan 21, 2005, 12:28:

Is US to balme? I thought that it was US eradication of the coca crop in Peru and Bolivia that caused coca growth to be moved to Colombia. This in turn caused exponential growth of the FARC who found a new social and economic base amongst the 200,000 or so cocaleros. By the late 90s the FARC no longer had to resort to hit-and-run guerilla tactics and started winning set-piece battles against Colombia's armed forces, over running military bases for the first time and virtually clearing the government out of half the country. US then had to prop-up Colombian military with Plan COlombia. From what I understand, the US involvement has significantly worsened the drug and guerilla problem in Colombia.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lionheart says on Jan 21, 2005, 15:49:

Europe and North America While Europe and North America are listed as main consumer nations, there is a huge global problem to be solved before anything can happen to change anything.

USA and Canada might be able to sort out differences and approach solutions together, I doubt Mexico will be part of any of this, because they will point to the USA as major owner of the consumption and complain about about the trafficking going through their own country because of that.

In Europe it would be impossible to get some kind of coorperation. Immediately the various nations will start pointing at each other to be main source of the problems, and nobody will do anything about it beyond their borders. The EU will make it an issue and debate it, but never come to a conclusion, because it isn't important enough. They only really solve issues concerning the EU itself.

So it is a global issue, no doubt, but I don't see it solved in any way as a global problem. As result, South America will keep relying on the USA for help, be it good or bad, and the Europeans are more concerned about their own backyards like Eastern Europe and the Near East as resources for drugs.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 21, 2005, 17:24:

gringoinbogota I believe he and many others here are actually talking about Plan Colombia as part of the overall anti-drug strategy. In such a context, it has failed, because that strategy clear has too.

If we look at it from a security/counter-insurgency point of view, then it can certainly claim a few partial successes.

But then again, that makes most of the fumigation, crop-busting and anti-drug aspects of the plan (and the money that was/is being spent in them) mostly irrelevant and therefore potentially cost-prohibitive.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 22, 2005, 08:51:

Cocaine is up: Plan Colombia is down Gringo: "powder cocaine use among college students aged 19 to 22 were 4.1 percent in 2001 and 5.0 percent in 2002. (...) past year [2003] use for cocaine (powder and crack) was higher among young adults aged 18 to 25 (6.7%) than among older adults aged 26 and older (1.8%)." So, demands appears to be increasing with the young folks. Furthermore, they consume it more than older adults. Could you please (for a second time) show us some data to back up your claims, particularly the decrease in demand?

Plan Colombia is not (at least nominally) a national security program but a program to combat the production of narcotics. As such, as Vladimiro mentioned, it has been tried in other contexts with other names, and the only thing it accomplished, at a great cost, was to move the problem somewhere else. And, don't forget, more than half of this US$7.5 billion program is payed with Colombian resources.

Why the hell are Colombians footing the bill for a problem that is not theirs, when the government is running the largest deficit it has ever faced? And why does Uribe sign the checks so enthusiastically? To win a strategical position against the insurgency? Can any Plan Colombia supporter please explain this to me?

About the increase in security: a) It's to a large extent due to policies adopted during the Pastrana administration, b) Few of them are directly related to Plan Colombia, c) There are winners (primarily urban middle and upper class) and also many losers (most rural and politically engaged population: they are not all FARC, gringo), and d) The main contributor has not been the retreat (and far from a defeat) of the FARC from rural "cabeceras", but the reduction of paramilitary activity, produced through political (not military) means.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 23, 2005, 10:44:

Funding other nation's wars Tinto: As for your first question, the big hike in police and military expenditure came during the Pastrana administration simultaneously with Plan Colombia. Would it had happened without Plan Colombia? Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the issue: a great portion of those monies go to anti-narcotic operations anyway. I don't think the Colombian taxpayer should pay a single cent to fight a war that they could care less about. Every time the decriminalization of some portion of the drug business is discussed in Colombia, the discussion is more focused on the reaction of the US than in strictly health-related issues. In other words, Colombians are subsidizing this war out of extorsion.

Pastrana pledged 4 billion out of the 7.5 that constitute the funding for Plan Colombia. The US and the EU were to raise the other 3.5. The US has pledged less than half of the remainder (1.3 billion). The EU backed out before making any commitments, and made a clear declaration of why they did it:

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/colombia/txt/2001/0202EP_Resolution.htm

You are right when you say that "The roots of the violence and Colombia's inability to stop it are not the fault of Europe, Asia or the U.S." Absolutely. But noone here is making such claim. All I am saying is that Colombian resources should be completely focused on solving its internal conflict, not fighting other nation's wars.

And by the deficit I meant the fiscal deficit, not foreign debt (although, due in part to payments of that debt). I don't blame the current administration for causing that problem, but it is part of its job to propose feasable solutions to it. Maintaining the current military apparatus is certainly not helping, and the budget proposals have been dissapointing, at best (see http://www.latin-focus.com/latinfocus/briefings/2003/0309_briefings/Colombia2.htm)

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 24, 2005, 08:03:

Security beyond the military Tinto,

I agree that without security it is very unlikely to be any prosperity. But if a State cannot collect the resources necessary to defend its legitimate monopoly of violence, it is probably because the State is not legitimate in the first place. I don't think that is the case in Colombia: I cannot believe that the FARC can obtain resources for its activities, while the internationally recognized and legitimated government of Colombia is incapable of doing the same by legal means without resorting to mendicity.

The problem is more likely to be, at least in part, the unwillingness of the urban middle and upper classes to support the war beyond opinion polls. Those who truly support Uribe's approach to the internal conflict should sacrifice a bit of their privileges and volunteer themselves, their children, and their money for this cause.

I don't oppose the increase in military expenditure that was aimed towards the professionalization of the military during the Pastrana administration. I still think it was a necessary step to take. But it should've been done and maintained exclusively with Colombian resources (or at least, to the extent that local resources allow), and guided by the interest of the Colombian people.

I don't claim to have an answer for everything, but I can repeat proposals that have been around for a long while.

a) Colombia's security is not dependent exclusively on military variables: political and socio-economical factors are closely linked with violence. Just an example: I don't understand how in a country with an obscene inequality in land ownership, an agrarian reform is not a topic of discussion. The only people pushing this discussion are, sadly, the FARC. This is a cause for which the EU has demonstrated interest, and although I am against any form of economic dependency, at least having a second source of aid would allow a bit more of autonomy locally. A serious agrarian reform would undermine FARC legitimacy and contribute to security.

b) The decriminalization of the production of narcotics should be seriously considered. I understand very well the risk of falling into the category of "pariah nation", but a progressive decriminalization accompanied with a strong lobbying in Washington and Europe and an equally strong public opinion campaign, it is not unrealistic (it is not easy either!). And yes, in the best scenario we would probably be a "drug haven", with a bunch of US kids coming to Bogota for spring break and stuff like that (which, btw, wouldn't hurt the economy too much), but the reward would be to take the business out of heavily armed people. Imagine that! I think it's worst the risk.

Of course, even under these (admittedly quite rosy) scenarios, Colombia would still have to face many other (relatively minor) problems. But there are specific proposals to solve them without resorting to more debt and more dependency from the US (e.g., the pension reform proposal advanced by the PDI).

Again, I cannot emphasize enough that whatever solution there is for Colombia's situation, it will not be simple. With the resourcefulness and creativity that is characteristic of Colombians, we may be able to come up with a solution. There are alternative proposals on the table that haven't been tried (like initiating an HONEST and unconditional peace process, of the kind that millions of Colombians voted for several years ago); let's give that a chance. I may not have a clear picture of how that final solution will look like, but one thing I am almost completely sure of: it doesn't look anything like Plan Colombia.

P.S. I based my numbers for Plan Colombia on the State Department's and Colombian presidency's websites. I could be wrong. If you have any numbers that show that Colombia's contribution is significantly less than what I said, please let us know.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Jan 24, 2005, 08:08:

Sacrifices "The problem is more likely to be, at least in part, the unwillingness of the urban middle and upper classes to support the war beyond opinion polls. Those who truly support Uribe's approach to the internal conflict should sacrifice a bit of their privileges and volunteer themselves, their children, and their money for this cause."

BTW, I forgot to mention: it is very unlikely that Uribe will ask for any kind of sacrifice from these groups. They are his base, and with the upcoming re-election campaign, every favorability point counts.

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jan 24, 2005, 11:20:

Re: sacrifices That's true, but then again, Uribe did ask for a so-called "war tax" early in his administration that affected precisely the higher income groups in the country and, for the most part, people complied with it. It wouldn't be unexpected for a similar measure to be taken in any possible Uribe second term (probably not before his reelection is assured, obviously). Oh, and despite campaign promises to the contrary, conscription is still active (though, obviously, it tends to affect the lower and middle income sectors more than anyone else).

Still, there's also the matter of economic ideology...he and significant sectors of Congress have generally opposed making a permanent tax hike (or just generally increasing economic pressures) because, as neoliberal economics would seem to indicate, it would apparently reduce private investment and spending, which would be "bad" for the economy (I'm no economist so I can't really go into more details here...though I'd tend to disagree for social rather than economic reasons).

0 funny, 0 helpful.