Advocacy and U.S. Foreign Policy
Advocacy and U.S. Foreign Policy
U.S. Foreign Policy in Columbia Through 1999 | United States Foreign Policy in Colombia: 2000 to Present | The Social and Environmental Effects of Herbicide Spraying in Colombia | Proposed U.S. Foreign Policy Changes Regarding Colombia | Recommendations for U.S. policy | Tips for writing to a congressperson | Contacting your representatives | Sample Letter
U.S.
Foreign Policy in
Colombia
Through 1999
U.S.
Picture credited to www.visitandlearn.co.uk
The U.S. began sending large amounts of financial assistance to Colombia in 1961 with the introduction of the Alliance for Progress program. Between 1961 and 1965, Colombia received $833 million from the U.S. to bolster the nation’s economy, social programs, and land reform. The same year the Alliance for Progress was started, the U.S. sent its first military training team to help train the Colombian military. During the Vietnam War years, the situation in Colombia was largely overlooked as our attention was focused elsewhere. In 1973, the two countries signed a bilateral agreement allowing more aid to be transferred.
By the 1980’s drug use in America had reached a new high. This led President George H. W. Bush to use more agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard to help eliminate drugs at their source. In 1989, Bush created the Andean Initiative, according to which $2.2 billion would be given to Colombia over a total of five years. This made that region the largest recipient of military aid from the U.S. government. The first phase of the Andean Initiative sent $65 million consisting mostly of military equipment. This created a trend that has caused most of the aid going to Colombia to be military related.
By the end of 1992, three years had gone by, $2.2 billion had been spent, and cocaine was as cheap and plentiful as ever in the U.S. In 1993, with the change in presidency from Bush to Clinton, a change in policy came as well. Anti-drug aid was cut from $387 million to $174 million and the Office of National Drug Control Policy was reduced from 146 employees to 25. After a Republican majority came into Congress after the midterm elections in 1994, many congressmen vocalized their criticisms of the soft line of Clinton’s anti-drug policy. The administration, wary of the effectiveness of the aid going to Colombia and the alleged ties between Colombian President Ernesto Samper and a drug cartel, insisted that Samper cooperate with U.S. policy in order for aid to continue. A forced agreement between President Samper and the U.S. government turned out to be a crucial part of the war on drugs. The agreement stipulated that in return for cooperation from President Samper, the U.S. government would not draw attention to the ties between the President and the drug cartel. Soon after, President Samper started a program that initiated the fumigation of illicit crops in the country. In response, thousands of farmers marched in demand for an end to the fumigation. They also bombed 40,000 barrels of oil coming from Ecuador and took over seven oil pump stations. To appease farmers, President Samper set up a $150 million fund to encourage farmers to replace their illicit crops with legal ones. Later in the year of 1994, influenced by the U.S. government, Samper set up a 6,000-troop force to take down the very drug cartel with which he was associated. Additionally, many government officials were fired because of ties with drug trade.
President Ernesto Samper
Picture credited to http://www.un.org
Despite small efforts such as this, Samper never fully complied with U.S. requests, and as a result the war on drugs was not very successful during his presidential term. During the 1998 presidential elections in Colombia, Pastrana was elected. He was much more receptive to the U.S. policy and combating drugs in his country. In 2000, with help of the newly elected President Pastrana, Clinton implemented the Plan Colombia program.
In July of 2000, the United States implemented its “Plan Colombia” idea to provide aid for Colombia. Its intention was to help the country combat drugs and violence. Since then it has also expanded to include counter-terrorism programs.
Former Colombian President Andrés Pastrana proposed a “Plan Colombia” when he came into office in 1998, asking foreign governments to collaborate on a plan of economic aid to Colombia’s neglected countryside in order to promote peace. This plan received practically no response internationally. In 2000, however, due to increased concerns about drug production, the stability of the Colombian government, and the potential failure of the peace process, the Clinton Administration proposed a massive U.S. assistance package for Colombia, also called “Plan Colombia.” This U.S. initiative bore little resemblance to Pastrana’s initial proposal.
President Andres Pastrana
picture credited to images.encarta.msn.com
The new Plan Colombia funded a variety of economic initiatives; however, it also included a significant military component, which was not in the original request. According to the U.S. Department of State,
U.S. aid for this program will help Colombia address the breadth of the challenges it faces—its efforts to fight the illicit drug trade, to increase the rules of law, to protect human rights, to expand economic development, to institute judicial reform, and to foster peace.
By 2001, Plan Colombia had been renamed and expanded by President Bush into the “Andean Regional Initiative,” a package of economic and counter-narcotics assistance, as well as an extension of trade preferences and other measures for Colombia and its regional neighbors. Most of the funds in this program are still earmarked to fight drugs, under the new heading, the “Andean Counter-Drug Initiative.”
The U.S.-led war in Iraq further affected U.S. policy towards Colombia. Concern about how the conflict might affect U.S. oil supplies increased the importance of protecting access to oil from countries in Latin America. This included training Colombian soldiers in Arauca province to protect the Cano-Limon oil pipeline from being bombed by guerillas. In 2001, 20 percent of U.S. oil imports came from Colombia. Pipeline protection programs have resulted in further displacement of communities and human rights abuses against those who speak out on the behalf of the displaced.
U.S. assistance to Colombia has grown exponentially since the initiation of Plan Colombia in 2000. Colombia is currently the third largest recipient of U.S. military aid after Israel and Egypt. Colombia has received more than $2.5 billion for counter-narcotics assistance in the last four years from the U.S. Most (80%) U.S. assistance to Colombia is supporting military and police activities. The funding for military and police aid includes anti-drug activities, anti-terrorism activities, foreign military financing (which now includes funds for a brigade that guards the Con-Limon oil pipeline), and military education and training. The funding for economic and social assistance includes funding for refugee assistance and alternative development.
Sources:
Latin American Working Group (http://www.lawg.org/countries/colombia/intro.htm)
Lutheran World Relief pamphlet on US foreign Aid to Colombia
The Social and Environmental Effects of Herbicide Spraying in
Colombia
One of the biggest problems facing
Coca and Opium Plants
Pictures credited to
http://en.wikipedia.org and http://www.suchtzentrum.de
Picture credited to www.colostate.edu/.../ 4DMG/Weed/herbicid.htm
Studies show that herbicide spraying has not significantly decreased
A 1994 RAND study concluded that source-country drug control efforts, including aerial eradication, are the least cost-effective means to control
This demonstrates that what is being done in
Eradication efforts have not been thoroughly studied. There are harmful effects when the herbicide does not reach its intended target and pollutes the land and water areas surrounding it. There have been many instances where an area of land was sprayed for illegal crops but afterwards it was found that no drugs had been planted there. Many people use the land for growing legal crops and those are also being destroyed. The herbicide pollutes water sources that are used by people for bathing and drinking. Many people are being displaced from their homes because of the eradication efforts and they are not eligible for assistance from the government. Many people are inflicted with painful rashes, respiratory problems, and allergic reactions to the type of herbicide that is being sprayed currently.
Herbicide Spray Victim
Picture credited to www.betabodega.com
People’s environments and lives are being destroyed because the United States refuses to see the facts that what we are doing in Colombia currently is not working and that we need another plan of attack. The United States needs to come up with a policy that has human rights involved with it. If the United States continues to use eradication efforts, there needs to be more extensive testing done on the herbicides being used and its effects on humans, animals, and the environment. The United States needs to send more funding for economic programs, so the people who need aid for things like food can get it. If farmers could get more money for selling legal instead of illegal crops then maybe coca and opium poppy production would go down. There may different solutions to this problem and the current situation needs to change because right now it is not working.
Currently 80% of the $4 billion for the 2000-2005 U.S. aid goes towards military assistance in
One of the reasons for
In 2006, the
Picture credited to www.pbs.org
The aid that goes to the Colombian armed forces needs to be more closely watched by
More U.S. aid needs to be given to help provide a better judicial system in Colombia. Currently some cases being heard by the courts are judged with bias if military personal are involved. Crimes committed by military personal should not be excused and officials should not look the other way when military personal commit crimes for which they should be prosecuted.
Recommendations for U.S. policy:
1.) Use U.S. leverage far more vigorously in support of human rights and the rule of law. The vast majority of human rights abuses committed in Colombia—including those involving the security forces—go unpunished. The State Department must do more to help Colombia to overcome this chronic impunity: existing U.S. law already includes tools to condition aid on effective investigation and prosecution of abuses.
2.) Support the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for Colombia as an agreed-upon multilateral framework for improving the rule of law.
3.) Insist upon the complete dismantlement of paramilitary forces and structures, within an effective legal framework for justice, truth, and reparations.
4.) Support a strong judiciary and an independent human rights sector. U.S. aid and policy must focus on reducing impunity, insist upon an effective Attorney General’s office, and encourage the independence of the judiciary. U.S. aid should fund Colombia’s Procuraduría and Defensoría and the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and should support civil-society groups.
5.) Expand alternative development within a comprehensive rural development strategy, and end aerial spraying.
6.) Encourage the strengthening of civilian governance in rural areas. The United States should work with the Colombian government to increase the presence in conflictive zones of police, courts, schools, public health, agricultural extension, microcredit and other state services. Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities must be included and consulted.
7.) Make trade policy consistent with sustainable drug policy and human rights. AFTA must include protection for Colombia’s small farmers. A shock that could worsen the conflict or force farmers to turn to illegal drug crops must be avoided. The United States should use the AFTA negotiations to leverage progress for worker rights and against impunity for violence against trade unionists.
8.) Increase and improve humanitarian assistance, and expand protection, to displaced persons and refugees.
9.) Encourage negotiations with the guerrillas for a just and lasting peace. The United States should be supportive of any effort to re-start a dialogue with guarantees of truth, justice and reparations.
10.) Reduce U.S. demand for drugs through evidence-based prevention strategies and improved access to high-quality treatment. Proven prevention strategies should be implemented far more widely here at home, especially in schools and communities at highest risk. Treatment works, but not for those who do not seek it or cannot gain access. Closing the treatment gap will require a far more ambitious federal role in funding treatment at the state and local level.
Source: Center for International Policy’s Colombia Program (http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/0503blueprint.pdf)
“Legislators estimate that 10 letters from constituents represent the concerns of 10,000 citizens. Anybody who will take the time to write is voicing the fears and desires of thousands more.”
--Former Congressperson Billy Evan
One of the most effective ways we as individuals can advocate for a different American foreign policy in
- Spell names correctly and use appropriate titles (“The Honorable ___” for
- Say who you are and list your “credentials”, including any professional or personal experiences related to the subject of your letter. Identify yourself as the congressperson’s constituent; most congresspeople disregard letters from non-constituents.
- Clearly state your purpose for writing. Focus on one specific subject or issue in the letter—don’t stray from topic to topic.
- Give reasons for your concern and points to emphasize your argument. Provide more detail—give specific rather than general information about how the topic affects you and others. Be factual, not emotional.
- Close by requesting the action you want taken: a vote for or against a bill, or change in general policy.
- Write your own letter—make it personal. Avoid sending pre-written letters. A sample letter is provided below to give you an idea of what a good letter looks like, but you are highly encouraged to write your own.
- Be thorough but concise. A one-page letter is best.
- Thank the official for taking the time to read your letter.
- Letters, faxes, and phone calls usually carry more weight than emails.
- Follow up on their vote/stance on the issue. The idea is to keep the pressure on—if you haven’t heard back in a month, write another letter politely restating your position and ask for a reply.
(Compiled from http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa020199.htm, http://www.lwr.org/advocacy/lettertips.asp, and http://environment.about.com/cs/politics/ht/writeelected.htm)
Contacting your representatives
President George W. Bush
The White House
(202) 456-1111
president@whitehouse.gov
The Honorable Norm Coleman
320 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-5641
The Honorable Mark Dayton
SR-123, Russell Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3244
The Honorable Gil Gutknecht
425 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2472
You are also encouraged to contact your hometown’s representatives in Washington, D.C. To obtain contact information for these officials, visit congress.org’s website and do a search with your hometown’s ZIP code.
A Sample Letter
As noted above, a personal letter is much more effective than a letter that is pre-written by somebody else. If a congressperson receives multiple copies of the same letter from different people, it shows that the senders cared only enough to print out a letter and sign their own names on it. A letter containing personal experiences along with an original, persuasive argument, on the other hand, is much more influential. Nonetheless, we provide a sample letter here so that you may see an example of an effective, professional letter to a congressperson.
Sample letter available in Microsoft Word format or Adobe Acrobat.
Thank you for visiting the Sal y Luz Project website here at Gustavus Adolphus College, in conjunction with Lutheran World Relief.
Created: May 08, 2005
by the Intro to Peace Studies class of 2005
