foreign aid in colombia

8/3/2019 Foreign Aid in Colombia

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/foreign-aid-in-colombia 1/13

Foreign Aid in Colombia: A Tool Of Domination.

Gearóid Ó LoingsighThis article was originally published in Spanish on the Colombian sitewww.procesocampesinolavega.org

This article aims to take a look at foreign aid in Colombia and its role in the war, arole that various NGOs deny exists. Although it is a look at foreign aid in and of itself we have to compare US and European aid as the NGOs often state that Europe’s aid isgood and the North American aid not so much.

In the month of February the European Union launched its report on the European aidto Colombia in 2008. The report explains various truths about the European Union inColombia, truths that many social organisations are unaware of and that the NGOswish to hide. So it is worth reading and analysing it.

The report is full of the supposed good nature of the EU and a few statements thatshow up the real interest they have in the country. It has not one, but twointroductions. The first is from the Ambassador and head of the EuropeanCommission’s Delegation in Colombia, Fernando Cardesa. Under the grandiose titleof The European Union, partner for Peace and Development he explains theimportance of the negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement between the EU and theAndean region countries, the fight against drugs etc. He hardly mentions peace, andwell development, one presumes, comes from an FTA with Europe. At the launch hestated that in the negotiations no topic was excluded i.e. access for Europeancompanies to the natural resources, the energy sector and the banking sector etc. willall be negotiated.

The French Ambassador Jean-Michel Marlaud continued in a similar vein explainingthat the EU is the country’s second commercial partner (although he got the figureswrong). He informs us that “ The European Union and its members States wish toachieve a lasting peace that serves development.1 He doesn’t explain what he means

by development, but it is obvious, free trade, foreign investment etc. and we all knowthat the EU is not just concerned about development in Colombia but also in Iraq andAfghanistan (here the reader can take a break and laugh).

When one tries to link the topics of the EU’s economic interest with its aid

programmes the NGOs inevitably shout out that it is not so, that one does notunderstand the good nature of the EU and its selfless pursuit of the welfare of the poor in Colombia (go on, have another laugh if you wish). But this document on aiddevotes an entire chapter to economic relations, as it is self evident to the EU that thetwo things go hand in hand, despite the angry cries of the NGOs that receive their money (with which they pay their pensions, private health plans etc, things thesupposed beneficiaries in the countryside will never have). So then, what are theEU’s economic links with the country?

Well, the report explains it well “Between 2006 and 2007 the European Union becameColombia’s second trading partner, surpassing the Andean Community (CAN) and

Venezuela. The total flow of trade between the bloc and the country reached € 6,3391 CE (2009) Cooperación: La Unión Europea y Colombia 2008, Bogotá p.6

http://www.procesocampesinolavega.org/

http://www.procesocampesinolavega.org/



million, some $8,240 millon dollars”2 compared to $18,000 million dollars of trade between the USA and Colombia in 2007.3 In other words its rise to the position isrecent and comes after many years of effort. Although the volume of trade is lower than that of the USA, the trade balance with Europe is positive. Colombia imported

€2,764 million from Europe and exported €3,575 million leaving a positive balance of

€811 million. With the USA, Colombia exported $8.600 million dollars of goods andimported leaving $9,400 million giving a trade deficit of $800 million.

Despite the supposed ‘development’ that Europe has been implementing in Colombiafor years the same report points out that “In terms of the exports to the EU in the

period 2006-2007, coal occupied first place with 32% followed by bananas (16.2%),coffee (13.8%) nickel (11.6%), fish and crustaceans (3.4%) and flowers (3.4%). 4

What is blindingly obvious is that Colombia’s exports to the EU are primary productswith any major ‘value added’, an economists term to tell us that the money is madeoutside Colombia. In the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU, the Europeansaim to “achieve national treatment and opening up of markets”5 for their companies.

With the SPG+ (a European version of the ATPDEA of the US which conditionsmarket access on support for the war on drugs) 7,200 Colombian products alreadyenter the EU paying zero tariffs (or a very reduced tariff). Now the Europeans wish toformalise the relationship in exchange for national treatment i.e. European companiesmay operate in Colombia as if they were Colombian and the government cannotrestrict their operations in any sector of the economy. This means the Europeanscould take over everything in sight, natural resources, services, banking sector andeven government contracts. The list of items up for discussion is the same list that isdiscussed at the WTO and also the same list that was discussed with the USA prior tosigning the FTA with the northern giant.

1. Market access, including tariffs and non tariff measures (general rules and nonagricultural sectors)

2. Market access, including tariffs and non tariff measures (agriculture)3. Asymmetries and special and differential treatment.4. Rules of origin5. Customs issues and the facilitation of trade6. Technical obstacles to trade7. Health and phitosanitary measures8. Instruments of trade protection9. Services, establishing and moving capital (investments)

10. Public purchases11. Intellectual property rights12. Competition13. Resolution of differences, horizontal and institutional differences14. Trade and sustainable development.6

One can’t see any difference between the items of the EU’s list and those of the WTO

2 Ibíd. p.133 USTR (2008) FTA Colombia Briefing Materials p.5 www.tradeagreements.gov4 CE (2009) op. cit. p.135

Ibíd. p.146 List taken from http://www.comunidadandina.org/index.htm

http://www.tradeagreements.gov/


http://www.comunidadandina.org/index.htm


http://www.comunidadandina.org/index.htm



because there isn’t any and as the report makes clear when it refers to the Doha roundof the WTO “ The Doha Development programme is based on: opening up of markets(agricultural goods, industrial goods and services), responding to civil societyexpectations (transparency and sustainable development) and norms (the creation of new norms on fair competition, investment, public contracts, trade facilitation).7

Neither is there any difference with the issues put forward by the USA.

I should point out here that it is not I who makes the link between foreign aid, tradeand international free trade agreements. It is the European Union which does this andeven the Bush government published a document titled Foreign Aid In The NationalInterest. The said document published by USAID describes foreign aid as the third

pillar of national security alongside defence and diplomacy.8 They feel no shame noreason to hide their aims and motives as it is, for them, as natural as drinking water (albeit privatised water). The NGOs are the ones who lie to their ‘social base’, or

better put, their unfortunate clients. They feel the need to delink the issues as it isdifficult to go to a peasant and say “I want you to get involved in a peace laboratory

or such and such a project because the Europeans wish to extend their economic power and influence”. The peasant would think twice. It is more useful to put oneover him, saying the Europeans are generous. The EU, fortunately, occasionally tellsthe truth, but not as often as the North Americans (neither is it the case that they

paragons of virtue, but they are more direct on certain issues and there is a greater wealth of information available).

Aid In Colombia

So, what then is the EU aid in Colombia? And what is it invested in? The reportcontains some detailed information on this and some statements to show how differentthe Europeans are when it comes to working with the Colombians.

The first thing to be said is that it is substantial. The EU does invest in Colombia,which for some is a sign of their commitment to the country, but for others (amongstthem myself) a clear sign that this country is of strategic importance to the EU. Thereis no such thing as a free lunch, sooner or later everything is paid for. “ The EuropeanUnion’s Aid projects underway in Colombia in 2007 reached the figure of €372million. The European Commission represents 53.24% of the community’scommitment followed by Germany (20.33%), Sweden (9.29%), Netherlands (5.87%)and Spain (4.2%)”9 These €372 million are a down payment on Colombia’s assets.

When one looks at the how the budget is divided up it would seem that thiscontradicts the affirmation of a selfish interest on the part of the Europeans inColombia. Despite the EU’s wish to foment regional integration (FTAs) and trade(FTAs again) it only earmarks 4% of its aid towards productivity and competition, thesame figure as education and health, whereas its sets aside a massive 58% for development, peace and conflict.10 For example, the three Peace Laboratoriesreceived €92 million from the European Commission as part of its contribution todevelopment, peace and conflict. However, a large part of this is spent promoting

7 CE (2009) op. cit. p.148 USAID (2002) Foreign Aid In The National Interest, USAID, Washington p. iv9 CE (2009) op cit . p.1910 Ibíd. p. 20



exotic crops such as African palm, rubber, and cocoa. This is part of their “conflictresolution” projects, which at the same time promote the planting of exotic cropswhose fruits will be exported to Europe.

Lets take cocoa as an example. The sectorial agreement on competition foresees an

increase to 130,000 hectares of land under cocoa and a yield of 156,000 tonnes by theyear 2020.11 The EU has promoted cocoa amongst the peasants, particularly in thedepartment of Santander in the north of the country, with funds from the PeaceLaboratory. It works in the following way: the EU donates the money to theColombian government which loans it to the peasants to grow cocoa. In order toreceive the money the peasants sign an agreement with a company in the sector thathas the capacity to market the product. In the case of cocoa, there are only two maincompanies, Empresa Nacional de Chocolates (National Chocolates Company) and theCasa Luker S.A. (House of Luker plc) both are companies of the Colombian oligarchyand represent 87% of the national market for cocoa. The peasant is obliged to sell tothe company with which he signed the contract. He can change to another company

(neither is it the case that he has much choice). The company gives him technicaladvice for the crop to meet with the needs of agribusiness in terms of quality, pestcontrol and other phitosanitary aspects i.e. the necessary conditions to place the

product in a foreign market. The company charges the peasant for this technical aid.This means that the peasant carries the weight of all expenses associated with

producing a crop in such conditions as allow its exportation to Europe.

The company buys it and sends it to Europe. So, as the peasants meet all theexpenses, the company has no costs and buys it cheaply. As it has no costs it alsoexports it as a grain (unprocessed) to Europe at a very competitive price. Upon arrivalin Europe the cocoa grain is not subject to tariffs and enters the market cheaply whereit is bought by Nestlé, Barry Callebaut etc. and they turn it into chocolate which isexported around the world and sold at a high price. If the Colombians turn it intochocolate they have to pay a tariff in order to import it into Europe, but if they send itas a grain they pay nothing. So what exactly happens with cocoa? The EU throughits foreign aid budget gives money to peasants to cheaply produce cocoa for Europeancompanies that later sell it a high price when they turn it into chocolate. A squaredeal, where the beneficiary is the European company. However, for the EU thesefunds are not destined to trade and competition but rather development, peace andconflict!!!

What does the USA do?

Is there ‘ere a difference between what the Europeans and the North Americans do?Well, not much. USAID also implements the same model. They oblige the peasantsto go into the so called Strategic Alliances to promote set crops. Without any qualmsor the slightest blushing they recognise that they are not willing to finance crops thatenter into competition with US products, such as corn, beans and rice etc. In fact,they are forbidden by law from doing so. The Europeans talk of marketing,competition, market position etc. they have no law like the US but they also refuse tofinance projects that compete with their products alleging viability, but at the end of

11

MADR et al (2002) Acuerdo regional de competitividad cadena de cacao chocolate, Bucaramanga pág 8



the day it amounts to the same thing. They only finance what is convenient for themand not the presumed beneficiaries.

Human Rights. The Big Difference!

The big difference, according to the apologists of European imperialism in Colombiais that the Europeans are concerned about the human rights situation in the countryand what’s more they finance human rights projects and have made various statementsagainst the government etc. etc. The argument is so cretinous that it does not evendeserve a response, but the reality is that cretinism is so rampant amongst certain

NGO sectors that we are obliged to do so.

Firstly, the argument implicitly recognises that US imperialism does exist and treadsupon people’s human rights, so there is no need to go into any detail on the sins of USimperialism (although with the election of Obama there is no lack of cretins that tell

us the US imperialism has ceased to exist).

They forget that it was the European countries that conquered the world and that therise and domination of the USA is a product of the 20th Century, particularly the postwar era which saw Europe destroyed and from which the USA came out of relativelyunscathed. In the post war period the southern countries rose up against theEuropeans and fought bloody wars in order to gain their independence. These warscaused the deaths of millions. They forget that Great Britain invaded Egypt in anattempt to prevent the nationalisation of the Suez Canal and they did so long beforethe Henry Kissinger overthrew Salvador Allende in Chile. The British, together withthe US overthrew the democratic government of Mossedeqh in Iran before theAmericans did the same in Guatemala in 1954. In one case the special interest was oil(the British) and in the other bananas and tropical fruits (the USA). In more recenttimes, we have British support for the racist regime of South Africa and its support for the Pinochet government in Chile. We also have the case of France’s nuclear tests inthe South Pacific on indigenous land and the murder by the French State of twomembers of the environmental organisation Green Peace in a stupid attempt to silencethem. Or we could look at European participation in the wars in Iraq or the invasionof Afghanistan etc. At the end of the day European Imperialism exists, the facts thatwe can cite are as abundant as those we can cite in relation to the USA.

But the definition of imperialism is not a list of barbarities, although these are anintegral part, it is rather a power relationship. We don’t have space here to discuss allthe aspects, concentration of capital, markets etc. but it is essentially an economicrelationship where one country is exploited or oppressed by another.

But they will say, and what of the Europeans’ human rights projects? Yes, it is truethat the EU finances such projects and in its report it proclaims itself to be somethingwhich “promotes a global process of conscientisation of the importance of humanrights within and beyond its borders.”12 There is more than one immigrant in Europe,more than one torture victim in the Spanish State or Afghanistan who would stronglydisagree with that statement. How unreal these declarations are can be seen in the

description of Colombia as a democratic country par excellence when it says that12 CE (2009) op. cit. p.21



“The EU recognises Colombia as a middle income country which proclaims to be aState under the rule of law, democratic par excellence, with an interesting economicgrowth and a commercial partner with huge potential and politically stable despite thehistoric conflict.”13 There isn’t the slightest criticism of Colombia to be seen, butrather the backing not only of the current government but of all the genocidal rulers

that have governed the country throughout the 20th Century. The EU’s commitmentto human rights is to be seen in its support for the justice and peace law when theyopenly vouch their support for the said law stating “that if the law is applied in aneffective and transparent way it will actively contribute to achieving peace inColombia.”14 For the EU, putting thirty thousand murderers on the streets and

pardoning them tens if not hundreds of thousands of crimes, numberless peasantsquartered with chainsaws, millions of internally displaced people etc. is the way toachieve peace and promote human rights!

Returning to the theme of the projects. A project, even if it is a good one, tells usnothing about the intentions of the funders. One has to take into account their

interests. The EU earmarked 13% of its foreign aid investments in human rightsissues. It is a substantial figure, but in and of itself, it tells us nothing. USAIDfinances the Public Defenders Office and other human rights initiatives. It does sowithin the framework of Plan Colombia. No NGO has vouched for Plan Colombia(or at least they don’t do so explicitly), however, many receive funds from PlanColombia. Currently, 9,400 people receive protection from the Ministry of theInterior due to the threats they have received. The protection comes in the form of avantel radios, cell phones, bullet proof vests, bullet proof cars and a bodyguardservice. Amongst the beneficiaries of these measures, one finds, trade unionists,community leaders, lawyers, the bosses of various NGOs and all political currents arerepresented, social democrats, liberals, revolutionaries and one or other self

proclaimed revolutionary, people committed to causes, others to their pockets. Noneof them back Plan Colombia because they receive this protection. One can’t explain,why then, they feel the need to vouch for the Europeans and deny the existence of European Imperialism when they receive aid from Europe. Or is it the case, that theydon’t deny the existence of US Imperialism? But that they would like to, and someday, they will do so. I am afraid so. We have already heard voices that talk of Obamain those terms, forgetting that Clinton, the architect of Plan Colombia, was also acharismatic democrat, albeit a white one.

Currently the threat of mining by multinationals like Anglogold Ashanti, Glencore, a

company led by convicted criminal Marc Rich and companies like BHP Billingtonhangs over the communities of Colombia. None of these companies are from the US,they are European, Australian, African etc. In fact, Canada is a mining power. Itdoubles US investment in mining prospecting in the world. Restrict the definition of imperialism to one country, not only indicates that the person does not know whatimperialism is but also commits the biggest mistake of not recognising his enemies.

Cauca, the good laboratory.

13

Ibíd. p. 1914 Ibíd



The defenders of European Imperialism in Colombia point to the department of Caucaas an example of how the Europeans are staking it all on the development of Colombia in favour of the communities. They usually draw a distinction between theMagdalena Medio region and Cauca. They say that there is no African palm nor monocultures in Cauca, unlike the Peace Laboratory of Magdalena Medio. This

difference is usually attributed to the role of the Jesuit priest Francisco de Roux andhis protagonic role. As if what is wrong with the project in Magdalena Medio were aquestion of disastrous personalities and not one of substance.

Some clarification on the lack of monocultures in the Peace Laboratory of Cauca isneeded. It has nothing at all to do with the EU’s will. It is due entirely andexclusively to the socio-economic realities of Cauca, such as land tenure andtopography. The peasant farms in Cauca are barely a couple of hectares in size, whichhinders the development of a monoculture15 and the land is very hilly. Palm requiresflat land and the only flat lands in Cauca are already under a sugar monoculture and inthe hands of the sugar barons and not the peasants. This is what explains the lack of

monocultures in the EU’s projects in Cauca.

The crops promoted in Cauca are crops like asparagus, chilli peppers, onions etc. andniche coffees. This is no accident. The Colombian government in its documentExport Stake (Apuesta Exportadora) made it very clear that priority crops for Caucaare fruits and vegetables. The EU finances certain crops in agreement with theColombian State and in case anyone has forgotten, Colombia signed a FTA with theUS and is negotiating one with the EU. There is no difference between what USAID

promotes and the Peace Laboratory. A look at the USAID web page would point thisout and they even have a special section for niche coffees, those projects that onehears so much about. The global coffee industry is dominated by a handful of US andEuropean companies. The niche coffees are a very special sector which for publicityreasons and marketing require the participation of the peasantry, but even in this casethe biggest slice of what the economists euphemistically call ‘value added’ is madeoutside of the region, as happens with normal coffee.

Neither is it the case that these other crops are more progressive. They are grown for an export market, as is the case with coffee (in some cases they partially supply thelocal market). They reproduce the neoliberal model. The southern countries producefor a foreign market and not to meet the needs of the communities or producer countries. Some organisations like the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC)

or the Committee for the Integration of the Macizo (CIMA) have lent their support tothese projects arguing that they benefit the communities and it is the communities thatdecide what to do. The CRIC is an indigenous organisation with a long track recordof struggle in defence of the indigenous communities. It organised a referendumagainst the FTA with the US. One cannot understand their silence on the FTA withthe EU nor their support for European neoliberalism in Cauca through the PeaceLaboratory. They are fooling themselves or their social base.

What’s more, both organisations take part in coordinating bodies in Colombia which

15 It is not impossible to plant palm on farms of one or two hectares. In Indonesia the peasants grow

palm on farms of this size and they enter into Nuclear Estate Management Schemes with thecompanies, something akin to the Strategic Alliances promoted by the EU, the USA and the Colombiangovernment. See Jan Oosterkamp www.cordaid.org

http://www.cordaid.org/





are affiliated to Via Campesina, the largest international organisation of peasants. Inthe Nyeleni Declaration this organisation opposed production models that require

production in far away lands of crops that can be grown in Europe itself. Although itis cheaper for Europe, the environmental impact of transporting vegetables fromAfrica, Asia or Latin America is greater than producing them in France, for example.

According to Peace Laboratories promoters, the benefits accruing to the communitiesare increased incomes. This is debateable, but even were it true, this income is spent

buying foodstuffs that were previously grown on land where the cash crops are grown(literally referred to in Colombia as exportables). However, the biggest lie is that thecommunities are the ones who decide upon their own future. Álvaro Gómez from theCauca Peace Laboratory in a speech given during the Third Environmental Week inthe University of Cauca explained that the communities form a nucleus (outside thestructures of the pre existing organisations). These nuclei discuss what they want togrow and later present a project to the Peace Laboratory of Cauca which approves the

project or not following a discussion with the community. Lies! The communities

come together and discuss what they want to do, but within the terms of reference of the competition, which is logical but nevertheless it is a limiting factor. But whomakes the final decision about whether to disimburse funds is Acción Social , headeduntil recently by the fanatical Uribista Luís Alfonso Hoyos. It is the Colombiangovernment that decides what is grown in Cauca (and Colombia in general) and notthe communities. No amount of pretty meetings, nice speeches nor having convincedsome communities changes that reality one iota.

Nowadays, the issue of the Peace Laboratories is surrounded by a lot of controversy, but is wasn’t like that in 2002. Back then, the Director of the Programme for Development and Peace in Magdalena Medio, Francisco de Roux explained withoutany hesitation the reality of what he was promoting with World Bank funds and whathe would later do in the framework of the first Peace Laboratory.

The peasantry has to associate itself with the large scale processes that make theland of Magdalena Medio attractive to large investments of money. And those

projects are the permanent tropical products [palm, rubber etc.]. If the peasantdoesn’t enter into this, he will have to leave the region.16

It couldn’t be clearer. He is not promoting a peasant economy, as he sometimes hints, but rather what he wants do to is attract large amounts of capital to the region.

Needless to say, De Roux didn’t state his intentions as clearly once the controversywas unleashed. Back then he also spoke of another supposed benefit for thecommunities. His comment is extremely cynical, but very telling. It shows to whatdegree they are willing to lie, or utter any stupid comment. They were used to adocile press and academia and so said more than was prudent. It is worth citing, dueto its contempt towards the common sense of the peasantry. In order to avoid anyaccusations of manipulation, it is reproduced in its original syntax without anymodifications.

The most dangerous thing for peasant is to be an isolated peasant. A peasantthat is in a rural zone and the paramilitaries arrive and they attack him, will

leave and all the peasants will do so, because they are not connected.16 Interview with Francisco de Roux, april 2002, Bogotá



If the peasant grows rubber or cocoa and is affiliated to a cooperative and theyhave a Forward contract with the companies that manage the product, [thecompanies] will immediately react if the peasants are attacked. If they have aloan with a private bank under just conditions the banks will immediately react

because the banks will lose out if the peasants leave. If they have a cooperativeto improve the technical aspects and if the technicians are from Fedecacao,Fedecafé and the Umatas.17 If anyone touches one of those peasants he is notalone, he is well connected. There are social interests that back him. There areeconomic interests that back him.18

The first point is that the text begins with a lie. No palm or rubber company signs Forward contracts where the sale price is fixed in advance. I would like to knowwhich bank gives loans with just terms and conditions. Well now, in 2009 and in themiddle of financial crisis there are millions of people around the world who wouldalso like to know this.

The most interesting part is that De Roux gives us a vision where the peasant onlycounts in as much as he has a monetary value to the banks and business associations.He tries to make us believe that they will intervene when faced with a possibledisplacement of the peasantry. The business associations of the Colombian oligarchy,the same one that has acknowledged its role in setting up of paramilitary groups. Inthe municipality of Regidor, Southern Bolívar, 16,000 people lost 27,000 hectaresunder palm, literally from one day to the next.19 No bank intervened and the landcame into the hands of the affiliates of the business associations, which, according toDe Roux would protect the peasants. From their own experience the peasants knowthat none of these entities will protect them and so they can judge the other statementsabout the benefits of the Peace Laboratories in the light of this delirium of Franciscode Roux. It is curious, but Uribe has just nominated Gabriel Silva Lujan , the former head of Fedecafé, as the new Minister for Defence. Perhaps De Roux would have us

believe now that the Ministry of Defence will protect the peasant.

How to get the cash with doing any harm.

There are those who say that what they are trying to do is get their hands on theEuropean cash without doing any harm to the communities. These positions rangefrom those who say they do what they want with the money, without paying any heed

to the EU to those who say the communities use the money but it has no major repercussions, as the communities continue to do their own thing.

The first position makes no sense at all as every community and organisation has tohand in a report and whilst there may be some room for manoeuvre, the funders don’tallow any organisation to what ever it likes with their money. They demand andreceive an account of everything that is done.

17 Cocoa Federation, Coffee Federation and (Umatas) now dissolved municipal technical bodies thatgave advice to farmers respectively.18 Interview with Francisco de Roux op. cit.19

Canal Caracol (08/01/2007) Denuncian nueva forma de desplazamiento en Bolívar www.canalcaracol.com.co



The second position is more common and I wish it were true. But there are a number of consequences. The first is that the communities become used to depending on

projects. They are demobilised in relation to their own State. This demobilisation isnot one hundred percent. Communities that receive projects continue to fight, but it is

notable in Colombia that on many occasions the first thought is how to get moneyfrom a project. The EU and USAID also demand a certain behaviour from thecommunities. The most infamous one is that there not be a single coca leaf in theareas where there are projects. But there are other more subtle ones. In Cauca themining companies have used the affiliation of the peasants to USAID forest ranger

programmes as a pretext to demand access to the land in order to carry out mining prospecting. This is the reality today

I recall an invitation I received to speak at a forum on the privatisation of water inCauca. The peasants that organised the event have a very clear position on USAIDand the Peace Laboratories. They see in them imperialism and want to have nothing

to do with either. They invited nearby indigenous communities to the forum. Initiallythey said yes, but later they asked about food and transportation to the event. Theywere told that it was up to each area to pool resources and organise food andtransportation between them. The indigenous suggested asking the Peace Laboratoryfor money, because they were, they said, used to someone putting up the transport andgood food at the events (how true this is, is another issue). The peasants said no, thatunder no circumstances could they ask those entities for money. So, the indigenousorganisations withdrew from the event. Though, I must recognise that it was very

pleasing to see how various indigenous walked up to five hours to get to the event,despite the negative response of their organisations. However, it is a sign thatsometimes, the fight only goes as far as the EU finance.

The other point is that even when the communities set up their own projects with their own resources, they see their future in terms of the model. When it comes to growingsomething, they no longer think of fighting the model that keeps them in poverty butrather how to place their products in a foreign market, when really the problem issolved by changes in the economic policy of the State and not by substituting one

product for another.

It is the case that foreign aid can limit the actions taken and even have influence over defining which struggles to participate in. There are human rights NGOs that have

refused to present certain lawsuits or have refused to take them to the Inter-AmericanCommission on Human Rights as a result of pressure from their funders.

The War

However, there is another point which should worry all the social organisations. ThePeace Laboratories and USAID form part of a war strategy. Before I am accused of

being a cheap lefty, the statement that they are part of a war strategy is not mine, it isthe Colombian government’s and moreover it is Acción Social , the governmentalagency in charge of rubber stamping all projects by both entities that says so. And asalready pointed out Acción Social has the last word.

The Coordinating Centre for Integral Action (CCAI) an entity, which is



dependent on Acción Social , is in charge of what is termed Social Recovery of the Territory. The then Minister for Defence, Juan Manuel Santos describesIntegral Action in the following terms.

The Doctrine of Integral Action, in aiming to consolidate territorial control,

combines the legitimate use of force with social actions of the State and thecommunity in a way that the members of the Security Forces apply principalsand protocols to carry out an adequate coordination with the rest of the stateinstitutions.

The Security Forces will work closely with the Coordinating Centre for IntegralAction (CCAI) wherever it has a presence and when this is not the case, it willcarry our with the local authorities and state agencies that are to be found in thearea coordinated actions of a social nature that satisfy the most urgent needs of the population.20

The document proceeds to sketch an integral vision of how to beat the enemy andimplant a model of society. For those who would rather not recognise this reality weshould remind them that the nature of the CCAI was clearly highlighted by theColombian government in its 2006-2010 development plan. For once, Uribe wishedto explain reality to us, but there are NGOs that operate in a reality all of their own.However, we shall give the president some space to explain what it is that he aims todo.

Firstly, in this sense, it is noteworthy the founding in 2004 of the CoordinatingCentre for Integral Action (CCAI) led by Acción Social and to which variousentities of the Colombian government belong, that complement and support

military recovery of the territory (bold not in original) with social andeconomic projects.21

On the same point, another official State document also makes it very clear.

This doctrine should take into account the possibility of acting on two differentfronts. The first front is where the Coordinating Centre for Integral Action(CCAI) of the Presidency lacks the means to rapidly arrive in an area andconsequently the Security Forces must act in order to stabilise the zone. Theother front is where the Security Forces, given the resources that they have,

directly support the efforts of the CCAI,. In either case the coordinationbetween the CCAI and the Security Forces is a prerequisite (bold not inoriginal).22

But, what does this have to do with the EU? The CCAI is made up of permanentmembers and liaisons. Amongst the permanent members is Acción Social , the EU’s

20 Min. Of Defence (2007) Política de Consolidación de la Seguridad Demócratica, Min. Defensa,Bogotá. p.1221 DNP (2006) Plan Nacional de Desarrollo, Estado Comunitario- Desarrollo Para Todos, DNP, Bogotá p 9722

DNP y DJS (2007) Estrategia de fortalecimiento de la democracia y el desarrollo social 2007 -2013versión final, DNP. Bogotá p. 88



principal partner in Colombia. The Ministry of Defence is also a permanent member.Amongst the liaisons are USAID and the oil company Occidental Petroleum. Perhapsthis last entity reveals the real nature of the CCAI. Although the Peace Laboratoriesare not formal members of the CCAI, Acción Social lists them as achievements in thesocial recovery of the territory, a term employed to describe the joint efforts of that

agency and the army.

Part of the confusion about the role of foreign aid in Colombia may have its origin inthe language used. The German researcher Bettina Reis states that:

Whilst the Ministry of Defence refers to a region and population in terms of carrying out a ‘war plan’, or that the army enters areas to ‘clean’23 them, Acción

Social , principal entity of the CCAI employs a language that reminds one of theway human rights and peace NGOs express themselves. The word ‘war’ isnowhere to be found, rather they refer to “life options to build peace” or theytalk of “the legitimate and complete exercising of the rights to peace,

sovereignty and freedom of conscience.24

However, just as Bettina Ries did, a quick look at the public documents from Acción

Social , the Ministry of Defence etc. shows up the reality. The social organisationsthat have a positive view of the Peace Laboratories and the USAID projects owe anexplanation to their social base as to why they support imperialism in Colombia. TheState’s documents are clear and there is no duplicity there. The only duplicity is onthe part of some social organisations and the NGOs. None so blind as those that donot wish to see. There is no lack either of erstwhile lefties. They know how to reachout to the communities with a language that is even revolutionary in form, but withthe aim of betraying the communities. The bureaucrat has always been the enemy of the people, more so, when his/her high income is dependent on pleasing foreigngovernments.

The CRIC is obliged to explain to their social base how they square their support for free trade with Europe with their opposition to an FTA with the USA. The CRIC’sinternal debate (and there is more than one position within the CRIC) must be settledin favour of their communities and in opposition to imperialism in all its shapes andforms, whatever its origin.

Foreign Aid in Colombia is what it always has been here and in other parts of the

planet. It is weapon in a war to impose a model. This neoliberal model, just likecapitalism itself does not have one homeland. To believe that Europe is notimperialist or that its imperialism is softer shows a complete ignorance of historyand the nature of capitalism and prepares the indigenous communities and

peasantry for their eventual defeat. One doesn’t beat one’s friends only one’senemies and in order to do that, they must be considered as such.

23 One must bear in mind that in Colombia the term ‘clean up areas’ has negative connotations of serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity, given that frequently the parmiliatariesrefer to their actions in such terms. (footnote in original citation),24

Reis, B (2007) Cooperación para el control social y poblacional. El concepto de la cooperación civil-militar en el caso colombiano [draft version] p.9 (electronic copy)

foreign aid in colombia

Documents