Pros and Cons of US aid to Colombia

monoprecioso says on Jun 24, 2005, 11:32:

Pros & Cons of US Aid to Colombia I'd say you're pretty much on the money there. Anyone who sees the FARC as the defenders of the poor and powerless is delusional beyond reason or belief. Even Robin Kirk sees US military aid and influence as a positive thing--though she does curb her enthusiasm about too much military and not enough aid (for civil projects and infrstructure-oriented development)...

007CA says on Jun 24, 2005, 17:01:

No, FARC are definitely not defenders of the poor and powerless. That ideology changed with the drug trade. Both guerrillas and paras are very well funded with the cocaine trade. It seems to be a greed based war now, not a political one.

Returning to the subject:

PRO:
With U.S. helicopters, the army has been able to fly in and out of the mountains easier to find the rebels.

CON:
The aeriel fumigations have not decreased the amount of cocaine coming into the United States.
Some of the military aid has indirecly gone to the paramilitaries since they work hand in hand with certain sectors of the Colombian Army (the 17th Brigade for example). Paras commit unthinkable human rights atrocities.

And, yes, most of the aid is military, there is very little aid in social programs.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 24, 2005, 17:21:

A fact aboout social aid I checked the USAID website to see what their Colombia budget is, since they're the primary channel for US social and humanitarian aid. According to this page http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/country/program_profiles/colombiaprofile.html the US is giving about $125 million per year to Colombia in non-military, purely social or humanitarian aid. That isn't bird feed.

You're right, then, about "most is military" but your wrong that there's "very little in social programs."

What I'd love to know is how much of the annual aid goes soley for helicopters and the fuel to run them.

platano says on Jun 24, 2005, 17:58:

"Aid" to Colombia CON: Since Colombia became the third largest recipient of US foreign aid in the world, political murders and displacement have doubled. USA tax dollars arm and train the Colombian military who directly support and collaborate with the right-wing paramilitaries. The Colombian security forces and paramilitaries together are responsible for 84% of all political killings and forced disappearances, according to Human Rights Watch.

PRO: From the War on Communism to the War on Drugs to the War on Terrorism, US foreign aid to Colombia has been great for Corporate America (McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed Martin, Hughes, etc.) and Plan Colombia has funded USA "civilian" contracting which functions as a force multiplier. Plan Colombia has been great for USA corporate profits.

plátano

Condorlisa Arroz says on Jun 24, 2005, 21:06:

The USA wouldnt give anything if they wouldnt expect something in exchange. Nothing is Free, not even death, and especially not free developmental aid CA Montañas de Colombia

CA Montañas de Colombia

Sr Tertius says on Jun 25, 2005, 14:45:

A huge and generally ignored CON: Plan Colombia costs the Colombian taxpayer $4 billion, and a large extent of that goes to the defense industry in the US.

I don't understand why people keep calling this "Aid to Colombia". If anything, this is Colombia's "Aid to the US", more specifically, it subsidizes its defense industry. And for what? To intensify the "War on Drugs"? A war that the average Colombian couldn't care less about?

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

caslug says on Jun 25, 2005, 15:55:

I wonder why US can be more direct.. The two major insecurity problems in COL are the FARC/AUC, Why don't we(US) provide AID to combat these items. We provide millions/billions of AID to Iraq&Afghan Govt to take care of Insurgent(which is the major cause of insecurity) NOT to erradicate poppy fields. Once you have a stable country THEN you can go after the Drug CARTEL if that is what you want. Instead of spraying fields, why not but money $ resource to destroy Insurgent(FARC/AUC). Maybe even send in US troops! Oops, forgot we're already there. I bet US troops are lot more gung ho about a tour in COL than Iraq or Afghan where they can't get laid or have drink.

Sr Tertius says on Jun 25, 2005, 18:48:

Major insecurity problems I'd say that a major insecurity problem, both for Colombia and the US, are the chickenhawks in Washington. Since we (Colombia) are already paying Sikorsky, Lockheed-Martin (their motto is "we never forget who we're working for"), et al, to make guns, we should show a bit of solidarity and help the US get rid of their plague. Let's ask these guys to build a chickenhawk-erradicator; once foreign policy in the US returns to international standards, THEN we can go after our own insurgency while US troops get their VDs at home.

"El que a hierro mata..."

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

Mr. Hollywood says on Jun 25, 2005, 20:08:

Plan C Caslug, at this point I think a lot of the Plan Colombia money is going to anti-insurgency, not just to anti-narcotics. It was President Bush who changed the law allowing US money and resources to be directed at going after guerillas and private
AUC armies because, I think, he realized that the two are so intertwined it's difficult to separate the FARC and AUC from their drug activities.

Condorlisa Arroz says on Jun 26, 2005, 00:59:

At the end everything is the same. Weapons are lethal. Drugs are lethal. Weapons are good business for the USA, so OK Drugs are good business for other Contries, so not OK. How about a free market society? Let the people, the customers decide what they want to buy. Noone is forced (at least sometimes) to buy weapons. Noone is forced to buy drugs. Let the customer decide what they would like to buy. Drugs, weapons, chocolate, flowers.... CA Montañas de Colombia

CA Montañas de Colombia

platano says on Jun 26, 2005, 07:24:

Free market solution would eliminate defense welfare system... The world is spending around the equivalent of 950 billion USA dollars on world military expenditure and almost half of that is spent by the USA.

You want to allow customers to decide, CondorLisa? That would destroy the largest welfare program ever. The customers would never spend that much voluntarily, but through government handouts the military contractors are doing quite well. Colombia is playing an important role with both Uribe and Bush believing that violence can solve the drug and insurgency problems.

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE: Imagine if more of the money being spent on training and arming people to kill other people were spent instead to expand rural credit, title land, improve marketing, and develop rural infrastructure. Imagine if the money were spent on combating poverty and strengthening rural communities. FARC would be starved of recruits, and farmers would not grow illegal crops for the narcos, solving both the drug and insurgency problems without firing a shot.

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

007CA says on Jun 26, 2005, 07:42:

you go, platano! 100% agreed!

Condorlisa Arroz says on Jun 26, 2005, 08:43:

Maybe you all misunderstood me. Perhaps my comment was too subtle. I am against druds and against arms. Only thing: The USA makes huge business with arms, thats why it is allowed, although arms are absolutely lethal. OTHERS make business with drugs, thats why they are forbidden. If the USA allows weapons sale, then they should also allow drugs sale and leave it to the PEOPLE to decide if they want to buy or not. Better: outlaw weapons and drugs Just imagine: all the money spent for wars, defense, military, deception.... If they would spend this money for development and research, the world would not be in such a miserable situation as we are right now. CA Montañas de Colombia

CA Montañas de Colombia

Tinto (Moderator) says on Jun 26, 2005, 09:01:

Yes, just imagine... But how do you propose to change humankind? Since the beginning of our history people have fought for more land, more salt, more water, more gold, more oil, more religious influence, more trade routes, more empire, more power, etc



Pacifism is a tidy little theory but six billion plus souls are never going to buy into it.

platano says on Jun 26, 2005, 09:11:

Human nature is not fixed... Tinto asks: "how do you propose to change humankind?" This question seems to presuppose that human nature is fixed, a mistaken assumption in my opinion.

Change is the law of life and the evolution of humankind toward more humane behavior is possible through means such as education and meditation. Either the 6.5 billion souls embrace pacifism or we risk nuclear annihilation.

Land, salt, water, gold, oil, etc. were all developed as a result of pacifist principles of cooperation and collaboration, principles which permit development. Agriculture, business, law, etc. are all based on pacifist priniciples of civil discourse and nonviolent cooperation. Pacifism makes development possible. Violence subverts development.

We are spending US$950 BILLION a year worldwide promoting militarism and violence, promoting the idea that organized violence is necessary. Violence only results in destruction. Violence breeds more violence. That way will not yield development of a harmonious and peaceful future.

plátano