Setanta wrote:dlowan wrote:What's Columbia got that America wants? Not being leftist?
Columbia was long a source of high grade marijuana to the United States (especially in the 1970s), but then switched to cocaine (and was being beaten up by Mexico as a source for marijuana anyway). Organized crime in Columbia set up the cocaine trade on a theretofore unheard of scale, and funneled the cocaine from parts south (Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia) to the United States. As they became more sophisticated, they involved Mexican organized crime in the the trade route, to eliminate a potential competitor as middle men in the trade. So, Columbia has been attracting a good deal of American attention since the 1970s. Cali, near the Pacific coast (actually, Santiago de Cali, but simply referred to as Cali) became the center of the cocaine smuggling operations because of the ease of smuggling cocaine to the Mexican west coast. That meant big bucks for the cocaine lords of Columbia, without the pesky problem of getting it across the U.S. border, which is something at which Mexican organized crime was already expert.
The cocaine trade was actually languishing, though, in the early 1980s, both because it was an expensive drug with a limited market, and because the United States, especially the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) had become heavily involved in suppression of the trade. But then the "crack" form of cocaine made the cheapest, lowest grade of cocaine wildly profitable, both because it put it in the price range of the poor, and because it is highly addictive within a short period of time. Knocking off the kingpins of the Cali trade just opened up the competition. Additionally, the Sendero Luminoso, a truly bizarre guerilla movement in Peru which began circa 1980, soon moved into narco-terrorism, funding itself with cocaine produced in Peru and Bolivia.
Columbia has its own home-grown guerilla movement, FARC (from the Spanish acronym for Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia), and they weren't behind hand in taking the cue from the Sendero Luminoso. They were actually aided by the success of DEA working with Columbian officials and the Columbian army in breaking up the former cartels, which had been centered in Cali. FARC has been kidnapping and killing police, judges, army officers, journalists--almost anyone who attracts the least public attention--for many long years, and basically, they stick at nothing. When they became involved as a drug conduit, the violence and brutality of the drug trade increased, even though no one in 1980 would have believed it could have gotten any worse.
The United States became involved in Columbia in the 1970s because of the drug trade, and Columbia didn't care for the heavy-handed bullying from the Reagan administration after 1980, and told the
Yanquis that if they wanted the government to stop the drug trade, they better ante up with equipment and training. So the United States became involved in a significant way at just about the same time that FARC got involved in the drug trade. Now the United States is committed to battle communism, and the drug trade is largely forgotten (although used as an excuse for heavy funding and lots of American agents in Columbia). With our current President, you can just imagine the rhetoric about fighting communism and terrorists in Columbia.
Yeah, I assume the US govt. isn't gonna rattle its sabres on behalf of the drug trade (unless it's funding US dirty ops?????, or winking at it is a kind of bribe to people it sees as being useful???)......so I was asking if just being seen to threaten leftists on behalf of a semi-client and presumably right government was the US's way of reiterating that it will continue to do bad things to any government in the region which dares be leftist (or kinda nuts and leftist, like Chavez.)
fbaezer wrote:I agree with Robert about the implausibility of war, but wouldn't be so confident. Let's say a 5 % chance.
Since Venezuela and Ecuador reinforced their borders with Colombia yesterday .... the headline's in most European papers look today like these...
(The Guardian, Le Figaro, Wall Street Journal Europe, Hamburger Morgenpost.)
dlowan wrote:Yeah, I assume the US govt. isn't gonna rattle its sabres on behalf of the drug trade (unless it's funding US dirty ops?????, or winking at it is a kind of bribe to people it sees as being useful???)......so I was asking if just being seen to threaten leftists on behalf of a semi-client and presumably right government was the US's way of reiterating that it will continue to do bad things to any government in the region which dares be leftist (or kinda nuts and leftist, like Chavez.)
OK, i see now what the burden of your question was. When you wrote:
dlowan wrote:What's Columbia got hat America wants? Not being leftist?
. . . i read "not being leftist" as meaning that you didn't understand the interest in Columbia because they are not leftist. I now realize that you meant to ask if the interest were to prevent them from becoming leftist.
Actually, as long as they play the game of an anti-drug war, and continue to sell us coffee at a reasonable price (best coffee in the world, in my never humble opinion), no one in government here would really give a rat's ass who governs there.
Reading with interest. Especially appreciate your take, fbaezer.
There will be no war, even if Chavez wants to.
The OAS reunion was somehow a victory for Colombia. It dodged a resolution and reached a compromise with Ecuador. Colombia accepts it violated Ecuador sovereignity, and both countries will work towards ending the crisis.
Ecuador also wants Colombia to withdraw the remark that it was a haven for the FARC terrorists.
The FARC wounded guerrilla (including a Mexican woman) will be brought to Ecuadorian justice for "illegal armed presence".
Colombia says now that it was an intercepted phone call from Chavez to the guerrilla leader what gave them the whereabouts of Number Two. And that they will denounce Chavez to the International Penal Court for financing a terrorist group.
The Colombia-Venezuela border is closed by the Chavez government.
70% of Venezuela's imports arrive through that border. Hmmm.
The Group of Rio (Latin American Presidents and/or Foreign Ministers) will meet in Santo Domingo and Mexico will head the reunion (President Calderón is already in Panama, after visiting El Salvador).
---
We did a balance of the armies for the hypothetical war.
Colombia 207,000 troops, 57 war planes, 8 war ships, 4 submarines
Venezuela 82,000 troops, 74 war planes, 12 war ships, 2 subs
Ecuador 60,000 troops, 53 war planes, 5 war ships, 2 subs.
FARC (inside Colombian territory): 12,000 -17,000 troops
This is not a serious sub-continent... thankfully.
The Santo Domingo reunion was a great space for melodrama. Uribe accused Correa of having his campaign financed by the FARC; Correa accused Uribe of being the real terrorist. Correa lives the room while Uribe is speaking... excuse him, he's going to take a pee, explains the Ecuadorian foreign minister.
Suddenly they all say they want to settled their differences through politics... and start shaking hands and hugging each other.
"It's a great day for Latin America", declares the pro-tempore chairman, Mexico's Calderón, pompously. He and the host, Dominican Republic's Fernández vie for the photograph with Uribe and Chávez, friends 4ever.
"Peace, peace, peace", rattles Chávez... and Daniel Ortega, president of Nicaragua -who had fiercely cut diplomatic ties with Colombia just yesterday- takes a step back, and uncuts them.
... oh, and 4 Mexicans are among the 22 dead guerrillas.
fbaezer wrote:This is not a serious sub-continent... thankfully.
Yes and no. Certainly the comic melodrama you described gives the lie to the heated accusations; border closings; military mobilizations; etc that preceeded the OAS event.
However the continued dysfunctionality of the Equadorean government; the narco/political fragmentation in Colombia; the proclivity of Venezuela for authoritarian governments that squander the nations resources to stay in power; and the past fecklessness of the surrounding states in dealing seriously with their regional problems are all indeed serious issues that have serious consequences for the people of the region.
Oddly they really need the United States - without us they might have to seriously entertain the possibility that they are responsible for the conditions they have created.
All settled by now ...
... with a hanshake, pointing to some quite until now unknown South American unity, I think.
georgeob1 wrote:
Oddly they really need the United States - without us they might have to seriously entertain the possibility that they are responsible for the conditions they have created.
Yeah, even quarreling inmature 13 year olds must take into mind that a 17 year old bodybuilding bully lives in the same neighborhood.
fbaezer wrote:georgeob1 wrote:
Oddly they really need the United States - without us they might have to seriously entertain the possibility that they are responsible for the conditions they have created.
Yeah, even quarreling inmature 13 year olds must take into mind that a 17 year old bodybuilding bully lives in the same neighborhood.
The historical truth is we are younger, and by a rather wide margin. However, apart from that, I suppose the analogy holds - even though in this case the supposed bully had very little to do with the quarrels that so grip (and limit) the immature crowd.
georgeob1 wrote:The historical truth is we are younger, and by a rather wide margin.
Depends on when you put the birth date.
If we count the colonial phase, then the US is younger.
If we go by the Independence date, and say every 13 years is one year; then the analogy holds perfectly.
I wanted to underline that all nations in the continent are "in their teens". No exceptions.
fbaezer wrote:I agree with Robert about the implausibility of war, but wouldn't be so confident. Let's say a 5 % chance.
That was actually the first number that came to me, but the more I thought about it, the higher it seemed to me. The theatrics involved led me to believe that even the protagonists didn't take their threats seriously and that most of the posturing was anti Norte-Americano populism aimed at domestic markets.
But with all this noise, what still remains unclear to me is to what degree the sovereignty issue was resolved. Where is the line drawn insofar as incursions? I suspect that such a high-profile hit won't be attempted again in the near future but I don't see Colombia and the US limiting their actions to hot pursuit either (and don't think they should), so I'm very curious to see if this has strengthened or weakened the impunity of FARC in Ecuador.
