Someone hand Washington a sweat rag

By Carol Hansen, USLEAP

This week the New York Times exploded with coverage on the escalating violence in Colombia…on the front page of the New York Times website! The sugarcane strikes and the indigenous protests in Colombia that have been going on since September sadly have not received much U.S. national news coverage at all. However, yesterday The New York Times came out with a doozy on military violence in Colombia and its ties with the U.S. It’s nice to see the New York Times making a real journalistic effort to cover the reality of the situation in Colombia, even if it means discrediting the U.S.

Fellowship of Reconciliation also came out swinging with an article discussing US-trained Colombian army officers dismissed for the murder of civilians. Amnesty International also just recently came out with a new report on the dire situation in Colombia.

I like to think that the recent news coverage of the situation in Colombia will open the eyes of the American public, maybe even influence some votes in the presidential election, and put some pressure on Washington.

Considering a growing number of civilian victims, a high level of impunity, and little for the Colombian government and military to show for themselves, it leads me to be a bit suspicious about the U.S.’s relentless fight in the “war on drugs”.

If the violence and human rights abuses are so bad in Colombia, why would the U.S. decide to suspend Bolivia from the Andean Trade Act and not Colombia? In October, the Bush administration announced they will suspend Bolivia’s trade benefits because of Bolivia’s failure to combat drug trafficking. (For more recent coverage click here) However, between 2006 and 2007 Bolivia’s cocaine production increased by 5%, whereas Colombia’s cocaine production increased by 27%...

Bolivia’s inability to cooperate in the fight against drug trafficking? What about the U.S.’s inability to cooperate in the fight against world poverty and inequality? After all, aren’t Bolivian farmers reliant on coca as a form of quick payoff in an increasingly competitive economy and uneven playing field? The Bolivian case perfectly illustrates the fact that trade is sometimes politically motivated. Trade is used as a tool by developed countries to get what they want, and what they want has nothing to do with human rights.

In a perfect world, it would make more sense for the US to decide to suspend Colombia’s trade benefits in order to influence Colombia to shape up and put an end to corruption and human rights abuses. Sadly, we live in a world where chocolate chip cookies don’t always come out perfectly chewy and decisions amongst world leaders are not always based on equality and the value of human life.

Obviously, there are certain motivations and relationships steering economic and political decisions between the U.S. and Latin America. I’m glad to see U.S. media picking up on it and unveiling the true character of this administration. With Bush still scheming to pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement before the end of his term, I can imagine there are a lot of people in Washington sweating over this critical media coverage.