Posted on September
25, 2001
Kristine A. Herwig
kaherwig@hotmail.com
Macalester College
1600 Grand Avenue
St.
Paul, MN 55105
Abstract
In order to
reduce drug consumption in the United States, the U.S. government is supporting
Colombia with $1.3 billion dollars in an effort to eradicate the illegal drug
crops in Colombia. U.S. action, however, is controversial on several levels.
The
first is the environmental consequences that Colombian lands and peasants are
suffering due to the aerial eradication efforts using the herbicide glyphosate.
Glyphosate has been shown to cause severe environmental damage, as can be seen
by its effects in Colombia. On a less apparent level, oil is another important
factor in Plan Colombia. Some U.S. officials have gone so far as to state that
U.S. support of Plan Colombia is based on the United States’s interest in
securing safe oil operations. Such controversies bring to light possible
alternative intentions of U.S. involvement in Plan Colombia.
“Visions of profit often animate those who set themselves
the task of developing nature’s potential.
In their attitudes toward the natural, Americans reveal the essence of
both their capitalistic and their imperial drives” Frederick B. Pike 1).
Introduction
Colombia is home to the richest lowland and montane forests
in the world, including nearly every group of plants and animals and many
endangered species (Olson). But
this incredible land of biodiversity is currently in grave danger of extinction
due to heavy use of the herbicide glyphosate that has negative environmental
effects. This environmental damage is part of a government-developed
plan that is supported primarily by the United States known as Plan Colombia.
Plan Colombia is a U.S. aid package of $1.3 billion, 80% marked for
military use, intended to help eradicate coca and heroin poppy plants from which
cocaine and heroin that are sold in the streets of the U.S. are produced
(Rosenberg 51). In this paper, I
will describe the degree of the environmental effects of Plan Colombia and that
this initiative fits within the pattern of U.S. relations with Central and South
America.
History of U.S. Interventionism in Latin
America
Environmental interventionism is not something new to the
region of Latin America. It began
with the arrival of the Spaniards, whose initial purpose was to extract natural
resources in the newly discovered regions of what is today Latin America by
enslaving Indian labor to harvest the wealth for the benefit of the Spanish
Crown (Faber 17). In fact, Daniel
Faber argues that it was ecological imperialism that created the conditions for
the Spanish colonization of Central America (Ibid.).
They introduced large-scale agricultural practices, such as cattle
ranching and indigo cultivation, which led to the clearing of land (Ibid. 18).
For example, by 1800, 300 to 400 haciendas
devoted to cattle ranching and commercial crops had destroyed 30 percent of El
Salvador’s forests (Ibid. 20).
As Latin American countries gained their
independence, the U.S. was quick to form relationships with countries of the
region and offer them aid and assistance in a way that some have characterized
as neocolonialism. The U.S. helped
Central America develop an agro-industry model to serve the interests of U.S.
corporations, agrarian bourgeoisie, and Central American oligarchies (Faber
193). Central American countries
began producing only one or two major crops, which forced them to intensify
their dependency on the U.S. (Ibid. 51). The
expansion of the capitalist export agriculture gave the U.S. virtually unlimited
and unrestricted access to the region’s rich natural resources (Ibid. 193).
According to Daniel Faber, “the roots of deforestation can be traced
back to decades of development policies that have favored the expanded
production of traditional and nontraditional capitalist agricultural exports
over the sustainable use of natural resources for meeting the needs of Central
American people” (Ibid. 120).
Militarization and U.S. foreign policy have served
to accelerate this process in Central America.
Counterinsurgency campaigns in Guatemala and El Salvador, the Contra
war in Nicaragua, the conversion of Honduras into an armed camp to support
military operations in neighboring countries, and the bombing and invasion of
Panama with 26,000 U.S. troops were all wars promoted by the U.S. in the 1980s
under the Reagan/Bush administration. Involvement
in the wars was based on the fact that these countries threatened U.S. capital
access to cheap labor, natural resources, and markets in Third World countries
(Ibid. 197). As a result of U.S.
military aid in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras and a counterrevolutionary
force aimed against the Sandanista government in Nicaragua devastating amounts
of environmental damage occurred in those regions.
For example, scorched earth tactics that involved the burning and bombing
of forests where guerrillas might be hiding took place in El Salvador.
According to U.S. military sources 2,829,000 pounds of bombs were dropped
on El Salvadorian countryside between 1984 and 1985 (Ibid. 204).
U.S. involvement and the military component of Plan Colombia are being
compared to these U.S. foreign policies in the 1980s.
Plan
Colombia
Colombia, which is roughly the size of Texas, New Mexico,
and Oklahoma combined, supplies the U.S with as much as ninety percent of its
cocaine and seventy percent of its heroin (Rosenberg 51).
The U.S. has been involved in spraying herbicides on drug crops for
nearly a decade in Colombia, but since 1995 production has doubled and a country
known for its extreme violence and dismal human rights record has seen both
escalate to even higher levels, implying that U.S. efforts thus far have had no
success (Rohter). Because of this,
in 1998 Colombian President Pastrana sought help from the Clinton administration
to seek aid in reducing drug trafficking, negotiating peace with the guerrillas,
and investing in development programs to wean peasants away from growing coca
and heroin poppy (Bald). What was
born in 2000, however, bore little resemblance to what Pastrana had originally
proposed as Plan Colombia. The
Clinton administration had given Plan Colombia a very different face that
involved a military component of nearly $800 million dollars, 80% of the total
1.3 billion dollars being offered (Rosenberg 51). This
military aid, however, may offer little chance of reducing the production of
cocaine and heroin and is “likely to make things worse – to widen the war,
handicap the peace talks between the government and the rebel groups, embolden
the hard-liners and cause more civilian death” (Ibid.).
Plan Colombia is part of a larger global policy that
focuses on the eradication of drugs as a solution for the drug problem.
This policy, entitled “Supply Reduction Strategy”, operates on the
premise that if forceful actions are taken on the “source country”, drug
production will be eliminated and consumption will decrease as a result of
decreased exposure to these drugs (Meza 21).
The military component of Plan Colombia is part of the U.S. philosophy
that drug cartels and guerrillas said to be protecting coca-growing operations
pose an internal threat to the national security of Colombia (Klave 20).
In the words of the plan itself, “the success of the government’s
strategy depends on its efforts to reform and modernize the military forces in
order to guarantee the application of the law and to return the sense of
security to all Colombians, in the totality of national terror” (Rogers 10).
The U.S. supports its military presence in Colombia by claiming that it
is in the interest of Colombian national security.
Glyphosate: The
Herbicide
The principal method used to eradicate the illegal crops is
through an increase in aerial sprayings that have been occurring for the last
ten years. Glyphosate, the chemical
herbicide being used in the aerial sprayings, is commonly known as Roundup.
It is a class III toxin which requires caution in handling as improper
handling of the substance can result in gastrointestinal problems, vomiting,
enlargement of lungs, pneumonia, mental confusion, and destruction of red
corpuscles in the mucus membrane (“Cross-border impact”).
Just five years ago, U.S. labels on glyphosate products produced by
chemical company Monsanto read, “safe, nontoxic, harmless, and free of risk”
(Rohter). Following a 1996 lawsuit in New York, however, Monsanto was forced to
make the labels more truthful. They
now warn users to “avoid direct application to any body of water”, do “not
apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either
directly or through drift,” and “only protected handlers may be in area
during application” (Ibid.). Monsanto
no longer claims that their glyphosate product is free of risk and has made
public the dangers involved in using it.
The application of this product can also impact the effects
that it might have. For instance,
glyphosate is susceptible to drift, or being carried by the wind, no matter what
method is used to apply it. Studies
have shown that application by airplane leads to the greatest drift and has been
found up to 800m from target when this method was used (Nivia).
Given that this great amount of drift can occur during application, it is
alarming that “damage due to drift is likely to be more common and more severe
with glyphosate than with other herbicides” (Massey).
In addition, a study done in Canada on glyphosate determined that a
buffer zone should be 75m to 1200m in order to prevent damage of vegetation not
intended to be sprayed (Nivia).
Environmental effects of glyphosate have also been
researched, with results that indicated negative effects on both plant and
animal life. It was found that this herbicide has toxic effects on
most plant species. It affects
trees, shrubs, and crops, increasing the susceptibility of crops to disease.
Endangered species present in the area are also at risk.
The chemical affects fish, birds, and small mammals as well, not only by
direct contact but also as a result of the killing of plants.
These dramatic changes in the plant community have a detrimental impact
on the animals that depend on those plants for food and habitat (Nivia).
Fish are especially susceptible to suffering toxic effects, as the
temperature of tropical waters is greater than in areas where tests were
conducted on the effects of glyphosate on fish (Farley).
Research results also indicated that soil contamination
occurs with the use of glyphosate. Glyphosate
kills many beneficial soil microorganisms, and because much of Colombia’s soil
is poor in nutrients could be more pronounced that if it occurred in a temperate
forest where testing was done (Farley). This
also has serious implications for animal life as well as peasants who rely on
these lands to produce for them.
Direct Environmental Impacts of Plan Colombia
The regions where the intense fumigation efforts are being
employed are rich and unique in biodiversity.
Regions include both the Andean mountains, described as a cloud-shrouded
region of waterfalls, rushing rivers, dense forests, and deep mountain gorges,
and the lush Amazon Basin (Rohter). The
current measures being taken by the U.S. only intensify the negative effects of
fumigation that have been occurring over the last ten years and impact the
civilian population, the environment, and legal agriculture the most (Chomsky).
David Olson, the Director of Conservation Science at the
World Wildlife Fund, says that from a global biodiversity perspective the
current poisoning of vast areas of Colombian forests – an area equal to 3
national parks each year – is like dynamiting the Taj Mahal.
He likens actions being taken by the U.S. to the spraying campaign of
Agent Orange in the Vietnam War that disturbed wildlife and natural ecosystems
to such a large extent that they have never recovered.
The spraying campaign in Colombia will, and already is, having
devastating environmental effects. Due
to the use of glyphosate, affected forest areas are stripped of their leaves,
which results in a loss of habitat for species leading to “increased
fragmentation of intact forests, terrible erosion of shallow soils, and
destruction of streams and rivers” (Olson).
The method that the U.S. is using to apply
glyphosate also has very serious environmental implications.
Airplanes are being used to spray fields growing illegal substances,
fields that are often right next to legitimate crops such as corn, yucca, banana
plantations, or large dense forest areas (described above).
Given that this method results in the largest amount of drift, legitimate
crops growing near coca or poppy crops are in danger.
Once sprayed, all other vegetation is left to wither and die because a
proper buffer zone is not being enforced. As
a result, many peasants are suffering because their food supply is being
destroyed by the U.S. government and their water supplies are being contaminated
as well (Massey). These legal crops are often part of the crop substitution
programs that have been implemented by the Colombian government in an effort to
move peasants away from the production of illegal crops (Chomsky). In addition, farm animals such as chicken and guinea pigs
have died as a result of the spraying while larger animals such as cows and
horses have fallen ill (Rohter). Iván
Alberto Chicangana, mayor of a remote Yanacona Indian village in the Andean
highlands where spraying has affected the land and the people, said, “The
damage done to the physical and economic well-being of this community has been
serious and is going to be very difficult to overcome” (Rohter).
The aerial spraying undoubtedly has serious
consequences for the peasants who live in the region, most of whom live in areas
of dap poverty where subsistence agriculture is a way of life.
With their crops completely destroyed, whether legal or not, they have
little choice but to start over. This,
too, has pressing effects on the environment.
Peasants are forced to clear new land to replace lost crops, having to
relocate if damage in their area has been too extensive which also means pushing
deeper into the forest to clear land to build a new house.
These new farms are being cleared in intact rainforests and national
parks, demonstrating a tremendous impact of overall forest loss (Olson).
A Republican congressional aide who favors
Plan Colombia referred to it as, “a very expensive game of
hopscotch,” failing to realize that the costs just might outweigh the benefits
(Rosenberg 54). Sergeant Vincente,
who has served for 11 years in the United Self Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC),
sees the spraying as useless because the peasants will just go somewhere else,
yet the spraying continues.
The environmental effects are likely to also be
felt outside Colombian borders, as Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil and Venezuela
all face the possibility of the escalation of the drug trade in their own
countries. Peru and Bolivia have
recently largely reduced their drug problems by sixty-six and fifty-five percent
respectively. Their success,
however, has come at the expense of Colombia where the coca trade moved as
result of “success” in these countries.
Ecuador, who borders the province of Putumayo where the coca production
is concentrated as well as the spraying, is already feeling some of the
consequences. Aerial spraying is
not only missing target by hitting crops and forests in Colombia, but it is
crossing the border and doing the same in Ecuador. “Success” in Colombia might mean devastation, both
environmental and social, for Ecuador or another neighboring country.
U.S. Denial
The U.S. answers complaints of the effects of the
herbicide being used claiming that it is “less toxic than table salt or
aspirin” and that the complaints of spray victims are “scientifically
impossible” (Massey). In
Washington, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State R. Rand Beers claims that the
fumigation program is designed so that pilots “shouldn’t be anywhere close
to alternative plant project (…) If that happened, the pilot who flew that
mission should be disciplined” (Rohter).
The U.S. seems to be doing little more than denying that the widespread
reality of many peasants in Colombia exists or is even impossible.
To make matters even more frustrating, neither the president nor the
secretary of state have given the American people any coherent explanation of
what is at stake in Colombia or of how massive military assistance can do
anything but make matters worse (White).
The U.S. Department of State has posted a
glyphosate Q&A Fact Sheet that answers any questions people might have about
the use of glyphosate in Colombia and the actual effects that it is having.
Questions include; “Is glyphosate harmful to human beings?” “Is
glyphosate dangerous for the environment?” “Is spraying contributing to the
deforestation of Colombia?” and, “If glyphosate is so benign, why are there
complaints of damage from its use in Colombia?” (“U.S. Support”)
All of these, and other questions along similar lines, are answered
matter-of-factly, denying the reality that glyphosate damages the environment or
causes any harm to human beings. All
answers are in direct conflict with the experiences of those Colombians whose
daily lives have been and continue to be deeply affected by the devastating
effects of glyphosate.
The Oil Factor
Although the United States has a long history of
associating its oil supply with the countries of the Persian Gulf, today the
northern South American countries of Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela produce
more oil than all Persian Gulf countries combined.
In June of 2000, Colombia announced its largest oil discovery since the
1980s. Colombia and transnational
oil companies such as Enron Oil and Gas Co., Exxon-Mobil, BP Amoco, and Shell
are all eager to begin exploration and production activities (Leech).
However, as long as Colombia’s guerrilla groups remain a threat, it is
unsafe for the U.S. to pursue their interests in the oil.
Only 20% of Colombia’s oil regions, containing 2.6 billion barrels of
oil, have been explored due to the extreme violence (Dunning and Wirpsa 1).
The guerrilla groups are opposed to foreign control of their nation’s
petroleum and kidnap oil company employees for ransom and extortion, which
generates up to $140 million per year (Dunning and Wirpsa 2).
The U.S., ironically with its military package, aims to increase the
security of oil operations so that it can move in, begin production, and reap
the benefits (Dunning and Wirpsa 1).
World oil prices are at all-time highs, with an
expected increase of 25% in U.S. oil consumption over the next two decades.
The timing of Plan Colombia is no coincidence; it is a strategy.
Some U.S. officials, such as former U.S. Special Forces intelligence
sergeant Stan Goff, harbor no illusions about their involvement in Colombia.
He defined Plan Colombia’s purpose as “defending the operations of
Occidental, British Petroleum and Texas Petroleum and securing control of future
Colombian fields. The main interest of the U.S. is oil” (Dunning and Wirpsa
1).
In terms of the environment, it is known that along
with oil production comes substantial amounts of serious environmental
destruction. The story of the
devastation Texaco left behind in the Ecuadorian Amazon, once the richest
tropical rainforest on the planet, is one such example (Switkes 106).
After 20 years of oil production in which environmental regulations were
not enforced, what was left behind was a spill of 16.8 million gallons, 50% more
than the Exxon Valdez spill (Ibid 107). The
Quichua and Cofán Indians, who live in the areas where the devastation
occurred, have filed suit against Texaco, demonstrating that the people of these
countries in which foreign investors practice their imperial policies are not
going to take it any longer (Ibid. 108).
Petroleum companies, on the other hand, claim that
their presence in Colombia is actually quite desirable because it creates
alternative employment for coca farmers and moves more people towards
counterinsurgency efforts, thus promoting “peace and stability.”
Royal Dutch/Shell, British Petroleum, and Occidental even co-sponsored an
ad in the Houston Chronicle which
referred to oil production as “a powerful new weapon…in the war against drugs”
(Dunning and Wirpsa 2).
Conclusion
So if the U.S. is (silently) promoting oil as one
of its major reasons for involvement in Colombia, maybe they really are
promoting “peace and stability.” But studies have shown that the extraction of natural
resources by transnational corporations leads to little more than violence and
lawlessness. Promises of economic
and political stability are used just to make the package look pretty.
And since the implementation of Plan Colombia last September violence
against the oil industry has only intensified.
The fact that the U.S. is deploying these
biological weapons, despite well-attested evidence that proves, “if deployed,
(these weapons) will have a profound and disastrous effects on the countries in
which they are used” does not speak well of U.S. intentions (Cockburn).
Convincing evidence that goes against what the U.S. claims is happening
seems to be abound, yet the U.S. refuses to admit that any of their actions are
in conflict with the environment or the people.
Therefore, it is worthwhile to consider what other motivation other than
the “war on drugs” may be behind U.S. action. With so much damage being done
to a country caused by a plan that doesn’t seem to be doing anybody a whole
lot of good, there must be something else behind it that is motivating the death
and destruction this plan is causing. (consider moving this paragraph to the
conclusion)
The fact that the U.S. is deploying these
biological weapons, despite well-attested evidence that proves, “if deployed,
(these weapons) will have a profound and disastrous effects on the countries in
which they are used” does not speak well of U.S. intentions (Cockburn).
Convincing evidence that goes against what the U.S. claims is happening
seems to be abound, yet the U.S. refuses to admit that any of their actions are
in conflict with the environment or the people.
Thus the U.S. involvement in Colombia is a sad
representation of U.S. policy these days. This
holds particularly true for developing countries where past U.S. interventions
in Vietnam and El Salvador can be likened to the current situation in Colombia.
With oil as an U.S. military priority, U.S. policy will follow suit. According to former U.S. Special Forces intelligence sergeant
Stan Goff, American military forces can be found in places where the U.S.
expects to find oil reserves – Iraq, the Caspian Sea, and Colombia to name a
few (Dunning and Wirpsa 5). With
President George W. Bush so closely linked to oil companies, it is likely that
oil will remain a high military priority.
If Plan Colombia really aims to eradicate drugs in
order to reduce the consumption in the United States, they are going about it
the wrong way. A Rand Corporation
study found that plans focused on domestic drug treatment were 23 times more
effective than those that approached the problem from the supply side (Chomsky).
The U.S. also has also never succeeded in reducing the supply of drugs in
the world market by using force against the illicit crops (Meza 21).
In 1971, President Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs, directing
two-thirds of the funds towards domestic treatment. This plan reached a record number of addicts and saw a
dramatic decrease in drug-related arrests as well as crime rates (Chomsky).
The U.S. is trying to rid itself of a problem that is firmly rooted in
the U.S. with a military aid package to Colombia.
Judy Mann, in an article for the Washington
Post wrote, “It is cruel and inhumane for us to try to solve our drug
problem – which is one of demand – by attacking the livelihoods and
environment of peasant farmers without providing them with other ways to make a
living.”
Although coca and heroin poppy production do, in
themselves, constitute environmental damage, it is because of U.S. demand that
this industry continues to prosper. Yet
the plan targets the civilian growers who only do this as a sustainable way of
life. Their involvement, as
compared to that of the guerrillas and the paramilitaries is relatively
innocent. Yet the U.S. plan offers
over $800 million dollars of aid in military assistance that can do nothing but
escalate the violence while the money could make a dent in the demand for these
illegal drugs here at home.
The future of Colombia is in the hands of the United States
who is interested in little more than profit for themselves.
It is an example of neocolonialism at its best, and the effects are
devastating and will continue to be. The
environment and the poor farmers are the ones who are most affected, yet neither
are the source of the problem. If
they really wanted to get rid of the drug problem, as the Plan claims, they
could take a look at a long list of historical evidence that would show them the
problem lies not in the jungles of Colombia, but in the homes of U.S. citizens
and on the streets of U.S. cities. But
they will not do that, because it is oil they are after, although it is coming
at the expense of others. The U.S.
is powerful and influential and has historically done a good job of hiding its
intentions and meddling in other people’s affairs.
Maybe in thirty years we will be able to look back and realize our
mistakes, but by then it may be too late for Colombia.
Works Cited
Bald, Margaret.
“On the Drug War’s Front Lines.” World Press Review. April
2001: 6.
Chomsky, Noam. “The Colombia Plan: April
2000.” June 2000. 27 March 2001. http://www.stranded.com/govschool/messages/3728.html.
Cockburn, Alexander. “Biowar in the Andes: The
CIA’s next secret weapon.” CounterPunch. Ed. Alexander Cockburn and
Jeffrey St. Clair. 7:11 (June 2000) 27 Mar. 2001.
http://www.groups/yahoo.com/group/stopwar/files/Colombia/Biowar.html.
“Cross-Border Impact of ‘Plan Colombia.’”
Orientation Global Network. 16 October 2000. 27 March 2001.
Dunning, Thad, and Leslie Wirpsa. “Oil Rigged:
There’s something slippery about the U.S. Drug War in Colombia.” Connection
to the Americas. 18 (Feb. 2001): 1-5.
Faber, Daniel. Environment Under Fire:
Imperialism and the ecological crisis in Central America. New York: Monthly Review, 1993.
Farley, Linda. “U.S. Fumigation in Colombia and
the Third World.” Home page. 20 Nov. 2000. 19 Apr. 2001. http://www.usfumigation.org/NovPressConfSpeakers/LindaFarley/LindaFarley.htm.
Klare, Michael T. U.S. “Aid to Colombia’s
Military: The Oil Connection.” NACLA Report on the Americas. Jan./Feb.2000:
20-21.
Leech, Gary. “The Well-Oiled Presidential
Campaign.” Colombia Report. 15 Oct. 2000. 23 Apr. 2001. http://www.colombiareport.org/colombia35.html.
Mann, Judy. “U.S. Fumigation in Colombia and the
Third World: Waging Chemical Warfare in Colombia.” Washington Post, 16
Mar. 2001.
Massey, Rachel.
“Echoes of Vietnam.” Online posting. 7 Dec. 2000. Rachel’s
Environment and Health News. 20 Mar. 2001 http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?St=2.
Meza, Ricardo Vargas. “Biowarfare in Colombia: A
controversial fumigation scheme.” NACLA Report on the Americas.
Sept./Oct. 2000: 20-22.
Nivia, Elsa. “Effects on health and environment
of glyphosate-containing herbicides.” Home page. 29 Mar. 2001. http://www.usfumigation.org/NovPressConfSpeakers/ElsaNivia/ElsaNivia.htm.
Olson, David. “Ecocide in Forests of
Colombia.” Home page. 29 Mar. 2001. http://www.usfumigatio.org/NovPressConfSpeakers/DavidOlson/Olson.htm.
Pike, Frederick B. The United States and Latin
America: Myths and stereotypes of civilization and nature. Texas: Austin
Press, 1992.
Rogers, Tim. “Plan Colombia.” Commentary. Z
Magazine, Dec. 2000: 8-11.
Rohter, Larry. “To Colombian, Drug War is Toxic
Foe.” Home page. 1 May 2000. 29 Mar. 2001. http://www.usfumigation.org/Literture/P…%20Drug%20War%20Is%20a%20Toxic%20Foe.htm
Rosenberg, Tina. “The Great Cocaine Quagmire:
Can Bush resist expanding Clinton’s Colombian Drug War?” Rolling Stone.
866 12 April 2001. (51, 52, 54).
Switkes, Glenn. “The People vs. Texaco.” NACLA
Report on the Americas. In Culture and Development Academic Seminar.
Fall 2000.
Back to Top
