Military Crisis in South America: The Results of Plan Colombia

[Judi Lynn]

Military Crisis in South America: The Results of Plan Colombia

Raúl Zibechi - 3/31/2008

The military operative executed by Colombian soldiers on Ecuadorian soil to kill the FARC commander Raul Reyes is part of the strategy of the United States to alter the military balance in the region. In the crosshairs is Venezuelan and Ecuadorian oil; however it also serves as a check on Brazil as an emerging regional power.

In official declarations, the objective of the operative is the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), or rather narco-terrorism. But in reality, the Colombian-American military operative that violated the sovereignty of Ecuador is directed specifically at Hugo Chavez. What we are witnessing could be the first phase of a vast offensive to destabilize the "Bolivarian Revolution" and to alter the relationship between the powers in South America. This strategy has been implemented in stages. First there was Plan Colombia, intended to strengthen the military capacity of the Colombian state and place it among the most powerful on the continent. Next came the "spilling over" of the internal war into neighboring countries. The third stage seems to be "pre-emptive war," which has become the Pentagon's most widely used military strategy since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

This is the first time in a long time that Washington has taken the offensive in the region, and it is capable of putting a significant portion of Latin American countries behind its strategy. It is also a show of force during moments in which Chavez is encountering serious internal difficulties and is unable to receive support for this strategy of responding to tension with more tension.

The first thing that stands out is the lack of decency of those involved. The FARC present themselves as a revolutionary and popular organization, when in reality they are an armed group that violates human rights, recruits minors for its ranks, abuses women and the hostages that they maintain in their power, and are financed thanks to drug trafficking (see sidebar). Many countries consider them a terrorist organization.

On the other side, president Alvaro Uribe Vélez has integrated drug trafficking and was aided by paramilitary groups, as it appears in the U.S. National Security Archive. This finding was revealed by Newsweek in 2004. There it was established that in the 1990's Uribe had a role in the Medellin cartel, which was commanded by his close friend Pablo Escobar.1 This is the kind of person whom on March 4 George W. Bush called "our democratic ally." Uribe has become the main operator of White House policies in the region.

New Regional Balance of Power

In 2004 the Brazilian magazine Military Power Review made a list of South American armed forces including all of the variables—from the amount of available soldiers and the quality of the units/training to defense plans and strategic projection. The analysis established a score for each nation according to its military might. Brazil came in first place with 653 points, followed by Peru with 423, Argentina with 319, and Chile with 387. Next came another group in which Colombia had 314, followed by Venezuela with 282, and Ecuador with 254.2 At that time, which was approximately four years ago, the difference in favor of Brazil's armed forces was considerable while two relatively equal groupings of countries followed.

In 2007 the same magazine reported information on the amount of soldiers of the different armed forces in each country using figures from the previous year. The statistics taken from the armies concludes that Colombia, with 178,000 soldiers, has moved into second place on the continent, very close to Brazil (190,000 soldiers). In just a few years, the military might of Colombia has climbed the rankings at an exponential rate. That same year France's army had 137,000 troops and Israel's had 125,000. In 2008, there are already 210,000 troops on the ground in Colombia, overtaking Brazil, which has a population four times that of Colombia, and seven times more territory. The military expenditure of Colombia is the highest on the continent: 6.5% of Gross Domestic Product, much higher than that of the United States (4%), NATO countries (2%), and the rest of South America (1.5-2%).

If we observe the progression of the Colombian armed forces, its growth is astonishing. In 1948, when the assassination of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán initiated the period in Colombian history known as La Violencia, there were 10,000 soldiers. In 1974, there were 50,675, which would rise to 85,900 in 1984, during which time the beginning of peace negotiations to demobilize various armed groups had begun. In 1994 there were 120,000 troops, a number that was raised to 160,000 during the first phases of Plan Colombia. Presently, the three branches of the armed forces have 270,000 uniformed members, not to mention 142,000 police officers. In total, there are more than 400,000 armed men and women in seven divisions, with a Rapid Deployment Division and an Elite Anti-terrorist Forces division.3

In 2007 alone the Colombian army created 52 new units. They received donations of Black Hawk helicopters from the United States, bought 13 fighter planes from Israel, and 25 Super Tucano fighter planes from Brazil in 2006. The Colombian armed forces are superior to those of its two neighbors. The ratio of troops is 6:1 with Venezuela and 11:1 with Ecuador. But the main difference is in the training: Colombian troops have been trained in jungle combat and can count on the logistical backing of Washington.4

In only a few years, there has been a drastic change in military power in South America. It is the result of Plan Colombia. Under the guise of combating the FARC and drug smuggling, since August of 2000, when the U.S. Congress approved Plan Colombia, the recipient of the plan has received over $5 billion dollars in military assistance. Add to that Uribe's government's application of special taxes to those with the highest income in order to arm the armed forces. Transport and attack helicopters, light armor, infrared goggles, pipeline protection, swift boats, turbo-powered airplanes with ground-attack capabilities, spy planes, and air traffic control and radar to follow illegal flights are the principal purchases.5

Getting the Neighbors Involved

In 2003, sociologist James Petras pointed out that the main worry of the U.S. Southern Command, who is the real architect behind regional politics, is that "Colombia's neighbors (Ecuador, Venezuela, Panama, Brazil), who are suffering the same adverse effects of neoliberal politics, shift politically against the military domination and the economic interests of the United States."6 This is why the strategy thought up for Plan Colombia does not consist so much in winning the internal war as it does in spilling it over into neighboring countries as a form of neutralizing their growing autonomy from Washington. Militarizing the relationships between nations is always a good business for whoever supports the hegemony with military superiority. In this sense, the FARC play a functional role in Washington's war plans.

Ecuador's president Rafael Correa mentioned that the cost of controlling the border with Colombia, where there were some 10,000 soldiers stationed before the events of March 1, is more than $100 million dollars per year. Colombia does not control this border and pushes the guerilla forces toward Ecuadorian soil, as a way of creating instability. In recent years, Ecuador has dismantled some 40 FARC campgrounds at its border and has voiced dozens of complaints for the fumigation of supposed coca crops that end up affecting Ecuadorians who live at the border.

Brazil had already decided to make its border impermeable during the presidency of Fernando Hernique Cardoso. In response to the Clinton administration's attempt to involve Brazil in the objectives of Plan Colombia, in 2000 Plan Cobra was launched (initiated by Brazil and Colombia) to prevent the war in Colombia from spilling over into the Brazilian Amazon, and Plan Calha Norte to prevent guerrillas and drug smugglers from crossing the border.7 Control of the Andean region is considered key for U.S. hegemony on the continent, as much for political reasons as for the mineral wealth that it contains. It allows U.S. corporations to regain the territory lost since the 1990s when they were partially displaced by multinational European corporations; it would also assure that the supposed benefits of the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas would impede other emerging powers (Brazil, but also China and India as well), from gaining a favorable position in the region.

And there is always the question of oil. In 1973, the United States imported 36% of its oil needs. Today, the United States imports 56% of all crude oil that it consumes. Venezuela is the fourth largest provider, who provides the United States with 15% of its necessities, and Colombia is the fifth.8 Assuring the continued flow of this energy source requires territorial control of this enclave with a military presence on the ground.


The Destabilization of Venezuela


Since the blow to Chavez's government in the referendum to reform the constitution on Dec. 4, 2007, the internal and regional tension has come to the forefront. As many analysts predicted, the economic crisis appears to be out of control and is generating problems between the government and the population.9 Now seems like the right time to attempt to destabilize Venezuela.

In effect, evidence indicates that Reyes, the most visible face of the FARC for his status as negotiator, had been located in previous occasions, but it was never decided to attack him. The decision to unleash an action of this type and at this moment has various interpretations. On one side, it takes advantage of the internal situation in Venezuela, and also undermines Correa's ability to govern at a time when his program of change, which includes state control of oil as one of its axes, and a solitary alliance with Brazil as an essential supporter, has just gotten underway.

A destabilization in the region would also have very harmful effects for Brazil, the emerging regional power that is coming out stronger from the current world economic crisis. In 2007 Brazil had an 84% increase in direct foreign investments compared to 2006 and in January of 2008 investments were double what they were in the same month one year ago. With this in mind, the magazine Exame published a report indicating that "the country is currently experiencing its best economic times in three decades" and that it has the opportunity to "enter among the elite of world capitalism."10

Occupying this position requires removing others from it. In other words, Brazil is filling the void that the growing weakness of Washington is leaving in the region. For this reason the chancellor's office is hoping for peace: both to promote business and to limit the effects of militarism, which is always the best "business" for a super-power in decline. Clovis Brigagao, director of the Center of American Studies at Cándidos Mendes University in Rio de Janeiro, pointed out that the present is "a unique opportunity" to establish a collective mediation similar to the Contadora group that promoted the pacification of Central America in the 1980s.11

Finally, Venezuela is suffering a type of destabilization that can serve as a model of reference for other countries. Julio García Jarpa, senator of Táchira state, on the border with Colombia, has observed the extension in Venezuela on the paramilitary phenomenon. "Because of the demobilization of paramilitaries in Colombia, certain groups have concentrated on the border with the Venezuelan states of Apure, Zulia, Mérida, Táchira, and Trujillo."12 From there they smuggle gasoline, hoard food supplies, and help create insecurity, corrupting local officials and generating a climate of violence.

Those states make up a third of the country, have the most important hydrocarbon resources, and, according to one claim by the Venezuelan senator, are included in a secession plan similar to that which is developing in the Bolivian departments of Santa Cruz and Tarija. After the recent events in Kosovo, where independence promoted by the West appears linked to the oil business, the theory that the Venezuelan right, defended by U.S. interests, are promoting the secession in the western region does not seem far-fetched.

At the same time, the information that has recently come to light allows the conclusion that a good part of Chavez's complaints about a conspiracy against his government are not just a figment of his imagination. The issue at hand is how to contain the tendencies toward war and how to put a stop to the polarization. In this sense, Brazilian diplomacy continues to show signs of common sense and know-how. They have not signaled out one party as the aggressor, but they have implicated the North in a plan to create a stable peace, based on regional integration, within the region. For this reason, the construction of the South American Community of Nations is more urgent than ever.

More:
http://www.globalpolitician.com/24380-colombia

[Judi Lynn]

1. If any of this reminds you of anything, let me refresh your memory that Peace Patriot called this

MONTHS AGO. You surely heard it here first!

Peace Patriot, you really read all the signs so truly.

[Peace Patriot]

2. Well, thank you, Judi Lynn! The article that really caught my attention was Rumsfeld's...

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

This mass murderer seemed awfully interested in South America at a crucial moment--the same weekend (12/1/08) that Chavez was to get the first two hostages released, also the weekend of the constitutional referendum in Venezuela. Rumsfeld sneers at Chavez's efforts to get FARC hostages released, in his first paragraph--says Chavez's efforts are "not welcome in Colombia"--but fails to state that Medellin Cartel/Bush Cartel go-to boy Uribe had asked Chavez to undertake the hostage negotiations. I think Rumsfeld was pulling the strings that weekend, when Uribe suddenly withdrew his request to Chavez, using a lame excuse, and then bombed the hostages' location as they were in route to Caracas, driving them back on a 20 mile hike into the jungle and back into captivity. What did Uribe want? Dead hostages? Anything to create a disaster for Chavez. All set up by Rumsfeld, in my opinion, from the initial request to Chavez onward. But Chavez outfoxed them, eventually, got the two hostages out, and then got four more released. The President of Ecuador became involved; also the presidents of France and Argentina. It was looking like a major diplomatic triumph for Chavez, prep to peace talks to end Colombia's 40+ year civil war. And that's when the U.S./Colombia bombed Ecuador, killing the chief FARC hostage negotiator and 24 others in their sleep, at a camp just inside the Ecuador border.

Rumsfeld seemed quite up-to-the-minute in his attention to South America. Not "retired." Planning Oil War II.

That was my read on it. This will be Rumsfeld's final gift to us--bringing the oil war directly to this hemisphere, with all its grief and horror.

The article you posted gets the drift of this, but it has some errors. For instance, it is correct that Ecuador (lots of oil, member of OPEC, leftist/social justice government allied with Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina) is a Bushite/Uribe target...

"Ecuador's president Rafael Correa mentioned that the cost of controlling the border with Colombia, where there were some 10,000 soldiers stationed before the events of March 1, is more than $100 million dollars per year. Colombia does not control this border and pushes the guerilla forces toward Ecuadorian soil, as a way of creating instability. In recent years, Ecuador has dismantled some 40 FARC campgrounds at its border and has voiced dozens of complaints for the fumigation of supposed coca crops that end up affecting Ecuadorians who live at the border."

But it also says this, which has proven to be untrue...

"...evidence indicates that Reyes, the most visible face of the FARC for his status as negotiator, had been located in previous occasions, but it was never decided to attack him. The decision to unleash an action of this type and at this moment has various interpretations....(It) undermines Correa's ability to govern at a time when his program of change, which includes state control of oil as one of its axes, and a solitary alliance with Brazil as an essential supporter, has just gotten underway."

We just saw a news report this week that Correa's numbers in Ecuador have soared, as a result of his strong stance against U.S./Colombian aggression. Support was lagging on his constitutional reforms. Now it's gone back up to 80%!

The article is correct about Chavez, for instance...

"...the information that has recently come to light allows the conclusion that a good part of Chavez's complaints about a conspiracy against his government are not just a figment of his imagination."

But then it treats the REASON for Rumsfeld & co. targeting Chavez in a rather casual manner...

"And there is always the question of oil...."

As far as I've read in the article, it hasn't mentioned Exxon Mobil's effort to freeze $12 billion in Venezuela's assets (recently stopped by a London court)--a punitive action by Exxon Mobil, which I believe was coordinated with Rumsfeld and other Bushite oil war planners. Oil is the prime Bushite motive in all this, as in Iraq, as in Iran. The writer seems to downplay it.

I'm now going to read it more carefully and read the conclusion. I've also looked at some of this author's other articles, and looked around the source web site. The author seems very well-intentioned. For instance, here's his sympathetic article on a successful worker-run ceramics factory in Argentina.

http://www.globalpolitician.com/21574-argentina-south-america

Very well-written and perceptive. It may be that his article on U.S. war plans in South America has a downer mood, merely as a quirk of the author, his read on things during fast-changing events, and not, as I initially suspected, because of some other agenda. I sometimes come across articles by foreign policy experts that seem to be objective, rational, realistic, but have hidden pro-war, pro-corporate goals. This does not seem to be the case with this author, although it's possible that he has a pro-Brazil slant. (I don't know his nationality--his creds are not revealed, although there is a list of his articles). A pro-Brazil slant is not necessarily bad. Brazil's president has been very supportive of the Bolivarian countries, but Lulu has also been rather slick in his balancing of Brazil's dealings with U.S. global corporate predators vs. the most socialist, leftist Bolivarians. It's just a particular point of view--that could be important to suss out, in evaluating this important article on Bushite war plans in South America.

[AlphaCentauri]

3. wonder whats gonna happen to latin america when their natural resources get exterminated

will it become another africa?

[Peace Patriot]

4. Further analysis of Zibechi's article on U.S. war plans in South America

First of all, I just read Zibechi's detailed, erudite article (dated 2005) on the economics of South America over the last decade, particularly the way that U.S.-dominated "free trade" policy ruined Argentina's economy, divided Argentina from Brazil--as to regional integration--and hung small countries like Uruguay and Paraguay out to dry. A "divide and conquer" strategy. (--designed by the Clinton administration, by the way). This economic analysis lays the ground work for understanding the current struggle between Bolivarian economic policy (regional integration) vs. U.S./Clinton-Bush economic policy (exploitation), which of course underpins internal and external politics, and events like the U.S./Colombia bombing of Ecuador. It is essential reading.

http://www.globalpolitician.com/21459-free-trade

--------

Zibechi's first couple of paragraphs, discussing U.S./Bush war plans in South America are right on--absolutely on the money, in my opinion:


"The military operative executed by Colombian soldiers on Ecuadorian soil to kill the FARC commander Raul Reyes is part of the strategy of the United States to alter the military balance in the region. In the crosshairs is Venezuelan and Ecuadorian oil; however it also serves as a check on Brazil as an emerging regional power.

"In official declarations, the objective of the operative is the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), or rather narco-terrorism. But in reality, the Colombian-American military operative that violated the sovereignty of Ecuador is directed specifically at Hugo Chavez. What we are witnessing could be the first phase of a vast offensive to destabilize the "Bolivarian Revolution" and to alter the relationship between the powers in South America. This strategy has been implemented in stages. First there was Plan Colombia, intended to strengthen the military capacity of the Colombian state and place it among the most powerful on the continent. Next came the "spilling over" of the internal war into neighboring countries. The third stage seems to be "pre-emptive war," which has become the Pentagon's most widely used military strategy since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

But then he says two things that so inaccurate that they gives me pause:

"This is the first time in a long time that Washington has taken the offensive in the region, and it is capable of putting a significant portion of Latin American countries behind its strategy. It is also a show of force during moments in which Chavez is encountering serious internal difficulties and is unable to receive support for this (typo? his?) strategy of responding to tension with more tension."

In fact, the OAS unanimously condemned the U.S./Colombia assault on Ecuador. Also--a very striking error by the author--he seems to be saying that Chavez escalated the tension, after the U.S./Colombia bombing/incursion, when, in fact, what Chavez did was to send Venezuelan troops to the Colombian border, in concert with Ecuador's re-enforcement of its border with Colombia, in order to assure Ecuador's President, Rafael Correa, that he was not alone, and Chavez then talked Correa out of retaliating. This is clearly what happened. Chavez saw the war trap that the U.S./Colombia had created, and moved with amazing deftness and savvy to head it off. Added to this, it was Chavez who has been trying to make peace with Bushbot Uribe in Colombia for over a year--including forgiving Uribe for the assassination plot that was exposed among Uribe associates, and accepting Uribe's request that Chavez initiate hostage negotiations with the FARC (which Chavez undertook at great risk to himself, in the hope of ending the 40+ year Colombian civil war that has caused so much trouble on the Colombian borders of Venezuela and Ecuador, and has produced millions of Colombian refugees into those countries--which the socialist governments of Venezuela and Ecuador must bear the burden of--feel obliged to help).

Finally, Lula da Silva (Brazil) made a point last week to call Chavez "the great peacemaker." He understands who de-escalated tensions after the U.S./Colombia assault.

Why did Zibechi make this error? He may be depending too heavily on corporate news disinformation, and, being primarily an economist, misses some things--sometimes adopts their spin on political or military matters. Chavez may be bombastic on some subjects (particularly Bush), but he is decidedly non-belligerent in his behavior, almost to a fault. As far as I know, the da Silva quote on Chavez only appeared in China News. Was it black-holed in the corporate news? Not sure. It was at a public event, so it must have appeared in some news outlets in South America. Zibechi's article is dated 3/31/08--tomorrow. Zibechi should have known what da Silva said.

Two big political errors in the article--that seem straight from Bush-CIA disinformation headquarters--that Chavez escalated tensions; that the U.S./Colombia incident hurt Correa at home. The opposite is true in both cases.

Still, I think these were likely errors, oversights, based on insufficient research and poor political analysis, on Zibechi's part (nothing worse). He may be more right about the Bushites' ability to manipulate some Latin American countries--although this wasn't true in the OAS resolution (or at the Rio Group, to which the U.S. does not belong). A few days ago, we saw some "terrorist-lover" crap from corrupt "free trader" Alan Garcia in Peru (against Chavez and Correa), and what appears to be use of the Colombian "mystery" computer for harassment of leftists in Costa Rica. The Bush Junta has a strong hold on Colombia, much more tenuous hold on Central American countries, and no hold in most of South America. But they can still pull some strings in some places.

-------

Zibechi points out something I hadn't even thought of--that the Bushite strategy of supporting the white separatists in Bolivia, to split up the country (and take the resources with them) may be at work in Venezuela as well.

"Those states (Venezuelan border states with Colombia where Colombian paramilitaries are active and causing much trouble) make up a third of the country, have the most important hydrocarbon resources, and, according to one claim by the Venezuelan senator, are included in a secession plan similar to that which is developing in the Bolivian departments of Santa Cruz and Tarija. After the recent events in Kosovo, where independence promoted by the West appears linked to the oil business, the theory that the Venezuelan right, defended by U.S. interests, are promoting the secession in the western region does not seem far-fetched.

Ye gods.

-------

Zibechi's conclusion is somewhat murky, however:

"At the same time, the information that has recently come to light allows the conclusion that a good part of Chavez's complaints about a conspiracy against his government are not just a figment of his imagination. The issue at hand is how to contain the tendencies toward war and how to put a stop to the polarization. In this sense, Brazilian diplomacy continues to show signs of common sense and know-how. They have not signaled out (typo-singled out) one party as the aggressor, but they have implicated the North in a plan to create a stable peace, based on regional integration, within the region. For this reason, the construction of the South American Community of Nations is more urgent than ever."

Who does he mean by "the North"? Brazil (Lulu) has "implicated the North in a plan to create a stable peace, based on regional integration"? I have to guess--either he left out a word or two, and is talking about Bush/U.S. ("the North") and its plans to de-stabilize the region, OR, he's saying that the northern region of South America--Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador--is critical to bringing peace to the whole region (which is certainly true).

He concludes with pushing the "South American Community of Nations"--which I believe is a Brazilian project. Not sure. I think Chavez/Venezuela pulled out of it, though--objecting to its orientation toward "free trade" deals with the U.S.** I need to do more research on this. Zibechi is apparently a Uruguan.*

---

*Raúl Zibechi is a member of the Editorial Council of the weekly Brecha de Montevideo, professor and investigator of social movements at the Franciscan Multiversity of Latin America, and adviser to various social groups. He is a monthly contributor to the IRC Americas Program (www.ircamericas.org).

**Note: I don't know if the "South American Community of Nations" is the same thing as the "Andean Community of Nations." The article below (2006) helps, but doesn't clear things up altogether. Venezuela pulled out of the Andean group, in favor of the more anti-neo-liberal Mercosur. Is the Andean group the same as--or developed into--ALBA, the Bolivarian trade group? The Andean group wanted a common market. Is that goal now abandoned? Re-started? Mercosur is much bigger, and involved in Brazil/Argentina trade squabbles, with the small countries complaining that their interests are not being served. But Mercosur potentially has a lot of clout, if they pull together visa vis the U.S. and EU.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/21574-argentina-south-america

[magbana]

5. Superb Article, Thanks Judi!

And thanks for the addtional input folks have provided. I think this article pairs well with the "Devil 's Workshop" I just posted.