Talk:Plan Colombia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Facts
can anyone tell me where the breakdown of the original plan colombia budget/funding that is mentioned here can be found. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.6.246 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Units
There was a confusing case of missing units that I fixed. The original text said: "Peak coca cultivation was apparently 267,145 in 2002 (is this right?? and what units?). " Looking at the source listed under the fact, 267 145 should have been in hectares. Just in case the author of the parenthetical comment would like their answer. ;) Columba livia 01:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Formatting
the article is poorly formatted, should I vfd? 666 20:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- A bit hasty, I think. I'll list it on Wikipedia:Cleanup, date notwithstanding. --Rossumcapek 23:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Currencies?
Are all those multi-million amounts cited USD, COP, or a mix? –Hajor 01:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Andean Counterdrug Initiative
In regards to my edits on the Andean Counterdrug Initiative paragraph, a citation for the Colombia $380 million figure can be found at this Department of State webpage (it's a PDF file). Specifically, the $380 million figure comes from the table on pages 34 and 35 of the document (or pages "38 and 39 of 186" as Acrobat Reader counts it). More specifically, the $380 million is the sum of the totals of the "FY 2002" and "FY 2002 Supp" columns. Because of the way the U.S. budget process works, the budget proposed and enacted in 2001 didn't go into effect until fiscal year 2002. The Andean Counterdrug Initiative went into operation in fiscal year 2002, the first fiscal year enacted under Bush.
The 2004 figures come from this Department of State webpage (also a PDF file). The relevant table is on page 101 (or "27 of 47" in Acrobat Reader). - Walkiped 20:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] controversial
I'm deleting the sentence, "All these considerations contribute to making the Plan Colombia initiative a source of much controversy both inside and outside Colombia," because it's superfluous and borders on editorializing. The fact that Plan Colombia is controversial is well-represented throughout the article along with the accompanying reasons for the controversy (e.g., the Amnesty International report); so we don't need this stand-alone sentence at the end of the article re-stating what has already been made clear in the article. - Walkiped 02:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You have a point there, but then again I'm re-adding the word "controversial" to the first paragraph, as it serves as a quick summary of that fact, just like it is used in other wikipedia articles.Juancarlos2004 02:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds good. - Walkiped 01:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] death squad activity
does anyone know about the articles that explains the link between deathsquad and colombian military or even American millitary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yi Zhang (talk • contribs)
[edit] A start
I hope I didnt step on any toes, I started working on this article. There is a lot of Weasel words which really weakens the article. In addition the grammar needs to be worked on, and the organization is weak. I cant do anything more with the article tonight. But I started.Travb 11:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Soft" side of plan colombia
"The level of public anger at the Pastrana government is rising ominously. When Pastrana recently traveled to one drug-producing region to sell the "soft side" of Plan Colombia (economic development), he received a harsh reception. At stop after stop he was greeted by angry demonstrators. And their message ought to trouble U.S. leaders as well as Pastrana. Many of the demonstrators waved signs showing a Colombian flag being subsumed by the Stars and Stripes, with the caption "Plan Colombia's Achievements." Other protestors greeted the president with chants of "Pastrana subservient to the gringos."
July 27, 2001 Plan Colombia: Washington's Latest Drug War Failure by Ted Galen Carpenter CATO institute
Signed: Travb 19:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's hard to say whether all the details are correct, without knowing the dates or the locations involved, but the incident does sound plausible, at first sight. Juancarlos2004 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pastrana's recent book and plan colombia
JuanCarlos2004 wrote: "btw, if someone doesn't do it, I'll have to add a couple of things re: this matter from Pastrana's recent book"
Please do, since I dont know what book you are talking about, and it is probably in Spanish anyway.Travb 19:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Roger that. I'll add some quotes from it later today, when I'm back home. Juancarlos2004 19:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- There, it's done. It took me more time than I had anticipated, but I've already managed to add the quotes and some other relevant bits of information.Juancarlos2004 05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Does Pastrana address the following issue? If the US aid was only 17% of the entire amount, then the "remaining" 83% should've been enough to develop the country as he initially intended. What went wrong? Where is the money or where has the money gone? It seems to me that Pastrana's defense of his Plan is inconsistent and therefore is not worth more than one line in this article.--tequendamia 12:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, for the record, Pastrana actually does mention several social programs and activities that were founded with the rest of the available Plan Colombia money (a couple of which have still continued into Uribe's term and are also featured in current Colombian government documents/websites). I could add some of that information to the article later on (since the subject hasn't been really addressed in the first place).
-
- It's anyone's guess whether those amounts were or were not "enough", in light of what is known about the rest of the situation and the controversy that surrounded the Plan's financing, whether it's possible that some of the available money was further reduced by corruption or due to other factors, and whether the complex problems that the Plan originally wanted to address were actually that susceptible to being resolved so easily (and cheaply, because the real Marshall Plan amounts were "$13 billion of economic and technical assistance - equivalent to around $130 billion in 2006, when adjusted for inflation", and even those wartorn countries were, to a certain extent, in better shape than modern Colombia) in the first place. As you can see, the issue isn't too straightfoward.
-
- In any event, it's still important for the article to present the opinions of those involved, both positively and negatively, in Plan Colombia, including those that came up with the Plan and were responsible for it, in addition to the opinions of its many critics (opinions which, logically, are also present in the article). Juancarlos2004 16:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Juancarlos2004 correct me if I am wrong, but the other 83% was supposed to come from other (1) foreign donors and (2) Colombia itself.
-
-
-
- (1)The other foreign donors did not like how they were not consulted, so like the Iraq war, the amount of money America was able to get commitments on was paltry.
-
-
-
- (2) Also in 1999, because of the Asian market crash, Colombia went through the largest recession in its history, it lost its status as the only country in South America that was an "investment grade" country, which meant it was unable to fund the program. That is at least what Livingstone says in "Inside Colombia".Travb 16:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- That sounds fairly accurate, for the most part.
-
-
-
-
-
- Still, it must be said that Colombia did consult other countries in order to incorporate some of their concerns, just not as much / not as early on as the US was consulted, so the Iraq war parallel isn't perfect. There, the US pretty much lost its patience and invaded even when most of the world disagreed with that decision and wanted to wait.
-
-
-
-
-
- In the case of Plan Colombia, the position of the rest of the world was more ambiguous and less monolithic (outside of specific sectors and politicians). Even if there was some degree of tension between the parties, the negotiations with the FARC were still continuing and international cooperation / feedback / interaction through that outlet was instrumental in getting the FARC on the European Union's list of terrorist organization once the talks crashed and burned (as also mentioned in Pastrana's book), and a not insignificant (even if the total was smaller than expected) amount of aid (or, in other cases, loans or access to credit lines) did end up being provided.
-
-
-
-
-
- That's something not currently reflected in the article itself, which mostly centers on the US and on the initial reluctance of other donors to be associated with Plan Colombia, even if they did provide more money than the initial US $128.6 million...money which they consider to be "outside of Plan Colombia", but which does fund some social development programs that came to exist through Plan Colombia as far as the Colombian government is concerned (Familias en Acción, Vías para la Paz, Jóvenes en Acción). See here, for example: [1]. Curious, isn't it?
-
-
-
-
-
- Even Pastrana himself, all in all, didn't become such an object of public scorn and ridicule as GWB has (though his popularity in Colombia itself did pretty much resemble that, for a while, especially among some of those that later supported Uribe's policies). Juancarlos2004 17:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I figured the Iraq war analogy was a poor one, and I hestitated to use it. Thanks for confirming my suspisions. Travb 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Livingstone
Juancarlos2004, what do you think of Livingstone's views on US aid? Are they incorrect?
I asked because you made sure in your edits that the information I provided was specifically defined as "Livingstone's" views.
Her biases were shown in her gushing about the School of Americas Watch in her footnotes: calling the webpage "an excellent resource"Travb 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that they are completely "incorrect", but rather incomplete, above all. The SOAW bit might show that kind of bias, but even so, it's hard to deny the SOA's negative role, especially during the Cold War, and the consequences that it has had, directly or indirectly. That doesn't mean that the current ex-SOA is still the "School of Assassins" nowadays, as if it were frozen in time and nothing at all had changed in spite of it all, but that a historical responsibility does exist and should be addressed.
- So, despite the fact that they tend to make a few generalizations too many, I do share the concern Livingstone and others have about U.S. aid being excessively militaristic even in its counternarcotics component, and about the relatively little importance given to the human rights conditions and to social development as a whole. The thing is, I'd propose that the U.S. role has to change, instead of merely condemning its mistakes and insisting on pulling the plug on it all (which could be a negative thing, if done rashly...though it would be well within the rights of the U.S. to do so, of course). Juancarlos2004 17:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Correct facts?
Here is the text:
"The results of Plan Colombia have been mixed. From the perspective of the U.S. and Colombian governments, the results of Plan Colombia have been positive. U.S. government statistics would show that a significant reduction in leftover coca (total cultivation minus eradicated coca) has been observed from peak 2001 levels of 1,698 square kilometres to an estimated 1,140 square kilometres in 2004. It is said that a record high aerial herbicide fumigation campaign of 1,366 square kilometres in 2004 has reduced the total area of surviving coca, even as newer areas are planted."
The graph that is cited from a web blog:
1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | ||
Total coca cultivation | 165,746 | 183,571 | 254,051 | 267,145 | 246,667 | 250,555 | <-- 1+ 2 |
Herbicide fumigation (hectares) |
43,246 | 47,371 | 84,251 | 122,695 | 132,817 | 136,555 | <-- 1 (Total added together=566,935) |
Coca left over (hectares) |
122,500 | 136,200 | 169,800 | 144,400 | 113,850 | 114,000 | <-- 2 |
Total fumigation 1999-2004: 566,935 hectares (more than half the size of the state of Rhode Island).
Reduction in Colombian coca 1999-2004: 8,500 hectares. [2004 (122,500) -1999 (114,000) = 8,500 hectares]
Here is the two graphs from the US government PDF file:
Table 1. Eradication of Drug Crops, 1999-2004 (in hectares and acres)
1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | ||
Coca crops eradicated (hectares) | 43,246 | 47,371 | 84,251 | 122,695 | 132,817 | 136,555 | <-- 1 |
Coca crops eradicated (Acres) | 106,861 | 117,054 | 208,184 | 303,179 | 328,191 | 337,427 |
Table 2. Land Under Coca and Poppy Cultivation in Colombia, 1999-2004
U.S. State Department and ONDCP Sources (in hectares and acres)
1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | ||
Coca Cultivation (hectares) | 122,500 | 136,200 | 169,800 | 144,450 | 113,850 | 114,000 | <-- 2 |
Coca Cultivation (Acres) | 302,698 | 336,550 | 419,576 | 356,936 | 281,323 | 281,694 |
Table 3. Land Under Coca and Poppy Cultivation in Colombia, 1999-2004 — UNODC Surveys (in hectares and acres) (Not used in estimate)
1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | |
Coca crops eradicated (hectares) | 160,000 | 163,000 | 145,000 | 102,000 | 86,000 | 80,000 |
Coca crops eradicated (Acres) | 395,360 | 402,773 | 358,295 | 252,042 | 212,506 | 197,680 |
"The results of Plan Colombia have been mixed. From the perspective of the U.S. and Colombian governments, the results of Plan Colombia have been positive. U.S. government statistics would show that a significant reduction in leftover coca (total cultivation minus eradicated coca) has been observed from peak 2001 levels of 1,698 square kilometres to an estimated 1,140 square kilometres in 2004. It is said that a record high aerial herbicide fumigation campaign of 1,366 square kilometres in 2004 has reduced the total area of surviving coca, even as newer areas are planted."
1 hectare = 0.01 square kilometer
169,800 hectares peak leftover coca in 2001 x .01 = 1,698 kilometers 114,000 hectares leftover coca in 2004 x .01 = 1,140 kilometers 136,555 hectared erraticated in 2004 = 1,366 kilometers
The numbers add up. Travb 02:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- We need to have the 2005 numbers in, as they are wuite interesting, as the increase of coca cultivation to 144.400 hectares..., check http://ciponline.org/colombia/060415coca.pdf for numbers...
Flo 15:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Moved from main page
I usually never delete something like this that is footnoted, but it seems out of place in the article now that Kerry has lost the election. If someone really loves this paragraph, they can put it back in, no problem.
-
- On October 15, a statement by U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry's campaign office and an interview with his Latin American affairs advisor Peter Romero, both published in the Colombian daily El Tiempo, pledged to continue supporting Plan Colombia and the efforts made by Colombian president Álvaro Uribe, but highlighted the need for the Colombian government to improve the grave human rights situation inside the country, by severing any remaining links with right-wing irregulars and to provide adequate protection to all its citizens, including rights and union workers.[2][3]
Signed. Travb 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reading more into the study than what is there?
I added this a few weeks ago:
In 2000, Human Rights Watch, together with several Colombian human rights investigators, published a study in which it concluded that half of Colombia's eighteen brigade-level army units had extensive links to paramilitaries at the time, citing numerous cases which directly or indirectly implicated army personnel.
Footnote for the added text:
Stokes, Doug Why the End of the Cold War Doesn't Matter: the US War of Terror in Colombia. Bristol University Politics Department. Retrieved on February 27, 2006.;
*Citing Colombia Human Rights Developments. Human Rights Watch (2000). Retrieved on March 27, 2006.
Problem is, the actual Human Rights Watch study although it mentions individual brigades, doesn't seem to mention "half of Colombia's eighteen brigade-level army" I am wondering where Stokes actually got the number 9 (half of 18). I didn't bother counting every single brigade that HRW mentions, does it equal 9? I don't know.Travb 09:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 78.12 percent?
From:
In the final aid package for 2004, 80.43 percent of the funds went to the Colombian military and police. (See graph, below)
To:
In the final U.S. aid package, 78.12 percent of the funds for 2000 went to the Colombian military and police for counternarcotics and military operations. (See graph, below)
Hello Juan, I wonder why you change the percentage from 2004 to 2000, is this because the entire section is talking about 2000?
signed:Travb 18:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Basically. It did seem a bit out of chronological order to quote a 2004 figure, I think. Especially now that you've added a chart that shows figures for the entire decade in chronological order. Juancarlos2004 19:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- agreed, I thought you had a very rational, sound, good reason for the edit, and as always with your edits, I was right. I wish I got along as well with other editors as I do with you! Travb 22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plan Colombia was a six year plan, right?
and it was due to stop in 2005...? so what is happening now? did they make it longer? damn, i'm lost there!
what's next then?
-Flo 14:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)