Plan colombia

Pamela Calvas Quezada
Friday, October 24, 2008
International Relations & Diplomacy

News Article Analysis
In September 1999 both the United States and Columbian government officials implemented the "Columbian Plan"; a contrived set of engagements on a multi-faceted political front that would eventually lead to the lessening of Columbia's economic dependency on the drug trade. The UnitedStates selective support of a mainly right-wing paramilitary regime combined with hidden agenda's caused other demographics to fall short of necessary political attention. Most of the propositions made towards social, economical and humanitarian development had not been implemented or were completely left without necessary financing; therefore, leading to a discrepancy in the justifiable approach ofthe "plan". Unrealistic objectives and alternative motives would later down the road bring to light not only the failure of the strategy to match the nature of the conflict but the blatant disregard for the sovereignty and basic rights of the Columbian people. In this essay I am going to highlight these discrepancies as well as in combination of the "Plans" reflection and forced induction ofAmerican ideology within Columbian politics.
For a "Plan" that is suppose to offer Columbia's farmers and poor an alternate economic prospective other than growing and trafficking drugs, it is hard to see how this is benefiting anyone other than the paramilitary and military aspects of both the Columbian and American governments and is in reality only succeeding in a forced rise of desperateterrorists and drug growers. This is a clear example of how the strategy is not addressing the nature of the conflict. They offer farmers financial compensation so incredibly low that they are barely to raise a family and in combination with an unrealistic approach it can not be expected of the outer regions poor farmers and impoverished to make a choice to change from growing coca or poppy to growingpineapple and plantains. How can they when there are no true trade routes where they live or any healthy markets in which to sell their stock? And with the international community seemingly unwilling to aid the proper facets of "Plan" and the massive amounts of American aid going directly and solely to military aid it is quickly becoming a discrepancy in economics if not human rights.

So wemust ask ourselves, why are the americans amongst all these discrepancies spending billions of dollars on the "Columbian Plan"?

It seems almost obvious today, Americas lack of respect for a countries sovereignty and its blatant aggressive if not violent manipulation tactics in controlling other countries outside of its immediate hemisphere of influence. This can be seen no better than in therecent history of the country of Columbia. From insurgent attacks and ideological wars of the 60's to a more recent "Columbian Plan". To begin with any foreign military presence along with special military and political advisors, which manipulate through political leverage, and make decisions that are favorable to a foreign power is a direct and conclusive attack on that countries sovereignty. Forexample, if Columbia made McDonald's illegal, it would not start making military excursions in burning down McDonalds in Texas and Florida, that would be seen as a direct attack of American sovereignty and would most likely not accomplish anything. The Americans used a weak Columbia that in the 90's was deteriorating into a state of chaos and under the cover of the "Columbian Plan" in essence madethe Columbian Government a puppet to the higher American power. With a heavy American interest and investment in coal mining facilities and oil stakes and in combination with arms deals it only seemed inevitable of Americas need to control such a region. Columbia supplied three percent of the the American oil imports in 2001 and possess much larger potential for oil and gas. Economically...