With two weeks remaining before Colombian president-elect Alvaro Uribe Velez takes power, the largest circulation newspaper in Colombia, El Tiempo, ran an editorial that indicates a major shift in the position of the Latin American establishment in regards to the US government and its policies toward the region. Although Witness for Peace certainly does not share many of the opinions expressed in the editorial, we feel it is an important tool for giving the lie to US State Department rhetoric about the desires of Latin Americans. It is clear from this editorial that US foreign policy toward Latin America runs counter to what Latin Americans of all social classes see as viable options to climb out of poverty, misery, and corruption. Now when US Ambassador to Colombia Anne Patterson purports to speak on behalf of the Colombian people, her words will sound even more hollow--she no longer has the support of even the ruling class. Specifically, the editorial lambastes neoliberal policies in the Americas, questions the right of the US government to interfere, openly, in the democratic processes of Latin American countries, and reiterates the complete failure of the "War on Drugs".

El Tiempo, July 21, 2002

'No, thanks'

The obsessions of U.S. policy in Latin America – terrorism and drug trafficking – only serve to worsen the crises south of the Rio Grande.

Having only just recovered from the dark years of dictatorship, Latin America threw itself into the arms of neo-liberalism and then globalization with childlike enthusiasm – only to find itself, a decade later, in one of the worst situations of recent years. Behind these failures – without excusing the leaders of Latin American countries from blame – was always the United States, a country now embarking on a foreign policy that is questioned more and more every day for its interventionist and protectionist characteristics and obsessed with an anti-terrorist crusade that has eclipsed other, more pressing problems: corruption, misery, and obstacles to commerce.

The Latin American economy, with the exception of modest accomplishments like those of Mexico and Chile, is a disaster. The winds of crisis are blowing throughout the region; and projected economic growth rates have been revised downwards, postponing millions of Latin Americans' hopes of climbing out of poverty. According to the United Nations' Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, the number of people living in poverty increased from 136 million to 211 million between 1980 and 1999, while there was a scandalous growth in the concentration of wealth.

The effects of the neo-liberal hurricane are in sight. A deep-rooted populist governs a radically polarized Venezuela. In Peru, violent street protests forced the resignation of free market advocates from the cabinet of the unpopular Toledo administration.

Evo Morales, symbol of peasant resistance to U.S. anti-narcotics policies, is standing at the doors of the presidency in Bolivia, despite being vetoed. Argentina, bankrupt, is watching the life seep out of one of the most promising economies in the hemisphere. And in Brazil, the unionist Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva, another apostle of anti-neoliberal causes, is the favorite in October's presidential elections. Paraguay, shaken by street riots, watches as the shadow of the dubious Lino Oviedo emerges ominously. And Colombia is a powder-keg that threatens the entire Andean region. Mexico has not been able to avoid protests, as the expectations created by President Vicente Fox have gone unfulfilled. A recent poll revealed the extremely low popularity ratings of the majority of Latin American presidents and their political parties, and growing disenchantment with democracy as a system for resolving problems of standards of living.

And, facing this situation, what does the United States do? Occasionally, they confirm, by means of sophisticated satellites, how coca and heroin poppy crops move around from one country to another. In Bolivia, where these crops were practically done away with, they are now being replanted; and in Peru the anti-narcotics program has been suspended due to poor results. Almost all the illicit crops have moved to Colombia. In spite of the aggressive fumigation campaign, they continue supplying the huge market of the North. There, the market has proved far more powerful than the underhanded "War on Drugs" – although it would be unjust to deny that Washington's single-minded obsession with drugs has allowed for an unprecedented arrival of important resources to Colombia (partly through Plan Colombia) to strengthen the Armed Forces.

Washington, nevertheless, continues to lash out blindly due to the ultraconservative views of a president for whom, in foreign policy, there are only terrorists. The statement of the U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia against Evo Morales has caused that presidential candidate's popularity to skyrocket. After proclaiming Mexico to be the U.S.'s closest partner, Bush shelved the immigration agreement. Relations with Venezuela and Ecuador are going through bad times, and Argentina is in the hands of an I.M.F. resistant to helping them, in part due to Washington's precautionary measures. Those same measures, faced with the possibility of Lula coming to power, have Brazil's markets hanging by a thread. In terms of anti-narcotics strategies, each day there are more U.S. observers and politicians that question the efficacy of aid that "serves to support corrupt public officials and maintain the status quo," as a columnist of this newspaper wrote.

Economic signs from Washington couldn't be more incoherent. Bush's decision to subsidize U.S. agriculture is a fatal blow for a desperate Latin American agricultural sector. Congress hasn't approved trade promotion authority for Bush nor ratified the ATPA (Andean Trade Preferences Act) – a trade program that favors the impoverished Andean countries.

To let loose on these countries a war against the obvious pleasure U.S. society derives from drugs, to request that we open our market to U.S. products while they protect themselves from our goods and immigrants, and to intervene unabashedly in internal politics (as in Bolivia): all these seem to be favors that we Latin Americans should respond to by saying, as any courteous person from the U.S. would say, "No, thanks." Or, in good Spanish, "No, gracias."

Colombia Action Tools