Colombia: U.S. Base Sparks Suspicions
DEVELOPMENTS
The United States and Colombia have finalized a deal that will allow U.S. military access to seven Colombian bases for the next ten years. Both parties have insisted that the agreement reinforces an existing partnership fighting regional narco-trafficking; however, very few of the terms have been released, garnering policy-makers’ suspicions and regional accusations. At stake may be U.S. aid standards founded on humanitarian and legal bases, as well as U.S. legitimacy in a pocket of the world growing increasingly resentful of historical U.S. hemispheric hegemony. After the announcement of the deal’s conclusion, Latin American leaders and policy-makers officially condemned the move; and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez dramatically declared at a meeting of the Union of South American nations that “winds of warfare” were blowing across the continent.
The deal centers on the construction of an air hangar at Palanquero, Colombia’s central air force base, with $46 million set to fund the endeavor.
BACKGROUND
U.S. President Obama, speaking with Hispanic news outlets, announced that the base deal builds on previous security agreements and that “we have no intent in establishing a U.S. military base in Colombia.” Echoing this, Colombian Defense Minister Gabriel Silva claimed: “The agreement has no geopolitical or strategic connotation, other than being more effective in the fight against drug-trafficking.” After the deal – which was negotiated swiftly, and in secrecy – was attacked by South American leaders as a yankee imperialist design to destabilize the region, U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield promised: “We won’t try and run regional operations out of Palanquero.” American forces, he assured, would not perform armed operations within or outside of Colombia.
Brownfield’s comments were negated by an unclassified U.S. Air Force budget document clarifying that Palanquero “expands expeditionary warfare capability” that offers “an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations.” The document also corroborates that Palanquero “[provides] access to the entire South American continent.”
Negotiators contend that the base deal synthesizes fifteen previous security treaties, including a 1952 military agreement and Plan Colombia. Functioning since 2000, Plan Colombia was conceived as an aid plan to combat the drug war, and is a multi-billion dollar deal bankrolled by the U.S. (Colombia is already the third largest recipient of U.S. aid, following Israel and Egypt.) The plan was later updated under President Bush as a counter-insurgent strategy against FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), which is labeled as a terrorist organization. Plan Colombia limits U.S. force deployment to 800 “military advisors” and 600 civilian contractors. Conversely, Colombian courts found the new base deal offers no maximum regarding the presence of US personnel or the number of bases in operation. The State Council, one of Colombia’s highest courts, ruled that the agreement was “broad and unbalanced for [Colombia].” It cited that the U.S. can decide the nature of operations and that these decisions will be conducted through future agreements. Furthermore, the deal includes the acknowledgment of Status of Forces Agreement, which grants US personnel legal immunity. The Council ruled that none of the fifteen previous treaties support deployment of foreign troops at Colombian bases.
According to the Colombian constitution, the presence of foreign troops must be approved by legislation (Congress), or it is considered an occupation. However, the deal has already been signed without constitutional review, and is thus constitutionally illegal in Colombia.
On October 30, 2009, the U.S. Embassy in Bogotá announced that the Defense Cooperation Agreement (DCA) had been signed and “is now in force.”
ANALYSIS
The base deal has sparked outrage in Latin America, particularly antagonizing already strained relations between Colombia and Venezuela. Venezuelan President Chavez denounced Colombian President Alvaro Uribe as a “Mafioso,” and claimed the deal was a conspiracy for the U.S. to launch attacks on his presidency. He has already frozen Colombian imports into his country, and Venezuelan troops have scuffled at the Colombian border, including burning two bridges. Other countries, like Brazil, also fear an increased U.S. military capability and proximity, and have taken measures to diplomatically siphon off Colombia in the region. Colombia has attempted to reassure its neighbors, but they remain skeptical. At a meeting with Uribe, Argentine President Cristina Kirchner joked that a General Johnson would never take orders from a General Fernandez, after Uribe insisted that Colombian officers would still be in command at the bases where U.S. forces would be stationed.
Yet regional South American leaders aren’t the only ones worried about the lack of information (or rather the abundance of misinformation, like when the agreement actually began its negotiation) regarding the deal. Speaking to National Public Radio, Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern from Massachusetts voiced his frustration. Even though he sits on a security and defense committee, he complained: “I haven’t been briefed and I haven’t read very much about what the intentions of these agreements [are].” Even members of the Colombian Congress have yet to see the agreement document in full, and worry about the potentially undermining effects it could have on Colombian statehood.
Over 100 U.S. organizations and 27 European organizations have written letters to U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and President Obama respectively, protesting the agreement. Most organizations’ and lawmakers’ concerns are focused on the humanitarian issues the deal could cause, especially for vulnerable members of indigenous communities. The presence of military troops often correlates with an increase in rape and abuse in surrounding areas; and, because of the Status of Forces Agreement, U.S. troops are granted legal immunity from the prosecution of such crimes. Furthermore, there is still concern over the far-reaching and widespread use of the “false positives” strategy. It was discovered that thousands of civilians were killed by Colombian forces, then presented as rebels to authorities. This in turn portrayed military units as effectively fighting counter-insurgent groups, and allowed for high-ranking promotions. It was later disclosed that there are many military officials operating with paramilitary groups denounced by the U.S. as human rights-abusers. This complicated U.S. assistance to Colombia, which is bound by the Leahy Provision: the U.S. cannot grant any foreign military assistance to units found to be human-rights violators. With the implementation of the new base deal, American lawmakers are worried about further legal, if not moral, implications.