Latin America
Related: About this forumUnderstanding Colombia’s armed conflict: International actors
Understanding Colombias armed conflict: International actors
Jan 15, 2015 posted by Joel Gillin
Compared with much of the world, Latin America was relatively free inter-state wars during the 20th century, and Colombia is no exception. While tension with neighboring countries, particularly Ecuador and Venezuela, increased during the hardline administration of Alvaro Uribe, much of the violence experienced in Colombian society comes from domestic actors.
These domestic groups responsible for violence have, however, arisen in a context in which international forces have played a significant role in augmenting their the strength and objectives. The two of the most important forces that have contributed to the Colombian conflict are multinational companies and the United States.
As with drugs, rather than call these actors a cause of the conflict, it is more accurate to view them as contributors. Structural factors, such as political exclusion, inequality, and a weak state presence can be seen as fundamentally creating the context in which international forces would become involved.
The banana massacre of 1928
Famously fictionalized in the Gabriel Garcia Marquezs iconic novel One Hundred Years of Solitude, the banana massacre of 1928 was an all-too-real historical event that demonstrates well the role international corporations have played in Colombia.
The United Fruit Company was created in 1899 and had a virtual monopoly on the banana trade in a number of Central American countries. These small nations, such a Guatemala and Honduras, were to be called banana republics due to the power wielded by the company over their economy and politics. A number of high-ranking US officials had direct ties to the company. John Foster and Allen Dulles, who would go on to head up the State Department and the CIA for Eisenhower in the 1950s, were both on the companys payroll for more than three decades.
By 1928, the company employed some 30,000 Colombians on the Caribbean coast, according to historian and Razon Publica editor Nicolas Pernett. Most of these workers, however, were hired via contractors and only a few hundred were legally contracted by the company. To formalize their labor relations with United Fruit, and to demand better work conditions and increased pay, the workers went on strike.
Cables sent by then-US Ambassador Jeffrey Caffery show the the strike was seen as a threat to American interests and as subversive. He was in regular contact the United Fruit Companys representative and even requested that Washing send an American warship to be put on alert should the companys property or the 20 Americans then in the vicinity be threatened.
The company refused to negotiate with the workers and the Colombian government, then ruled by the Conservative Party, viewed the strike a violation of public order, sending in the national army to quell the unrest. When strikers, viewed as bands of Communists by the Colombian government and US ambassador, failed to disperse, the troops opened fire. It is unclear how many died. The Colombian army said the figure was only nine, but a US cable shows that United Fruit believed it to be more than 1000. A month after the massacre, Caffery told Washington: I have to honor to report that the Bogota representative of the United Fruit Company told me yesterday that the total number of strikers killed by the Colombians military exceed one thousand.
More:
http://colombiareports.co/causes-colombia-conflict-international-actors/
Judi Lynn
(160,515 posts)~ snip ~
US cold war policies in Colombia
Long before the rise of the US-funded War on Drugs in Colombia, Cold War-minded American officials were becoming increasingly involved in the country. A Special Survey Team made up of counter-insurgency experts was sent in 1959 to investigate the security situation in the country after nearly a decade of La Violencia which left more than 200,000 dead.
Three years later, a Special Forces general namer William Yarborough returned to the country for a second assessment. He recommended that civilian and military personnel be selected for clandestine training in resistance operations should the security situation deteriorate. He said this structure should be used to pressure toward reforms known to be needed, perform counter-agent and counter-propaganda functions and as necessary execute paramilitary, sabotage and/or terrorist activities against known communist proponents. It should be backed by the United States.
This was policy was eventually articulated in a Colombian decree in 1965 which stated that all Colombians, men and women
will be used by the government in activities and work that contribute to the reestablishment of order. Becoming a law in 1968, it would be legal rationale given by the armed for working with paramilitary actors, the deadliest forces in Colombian society.
Using Yarboroughs recommendations, Plan Lazo was launched providing aid and training to the Colombian military. US support was present when the military attacked one of the Communist independent republics set up in the neglected areas of the Colombian countryside. The FARCs founder, Manuel Marulanda Velez, was part of the 48 armed men in the community of 1,000 known as Marquetalia who dispersed during the attack, only to go on to found the rebel group that is now in its 50th year.
More:
http://colombiareports.co/causes-colombia-conflict-international-actors/