The U.S. Foreign Policy as it is Driven by the Oil in the Middle East

This paper is intended to give the reader knowledge and some understanding of the US foreign policy; however it is TOTALLY PROHIBITED to copy or reproduce for personal or academic purposes.
The author; Izabella Safiyeva
If you need more information please write to this blog and you will be directed to the author of the paper.

Izabella Safiyeva
The U.S. Foreign Policy as it is Driven by the Oil in the Middle East
Operation AJAX. Operation Anabasis. Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Introduction

The current war in Iraq and the reasons why we are there are not novel; the U.S. has developed a behavior pattern that can be traced back throughout the second half of the 20th century, moreover, the similarities between the 2003 invasion and the 1953 coup d’etat in Iran are too crucial to be overlooked. After the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but prior to 2003 Iraqi invasion, the Bush administration spoke vehemently of the imminent threat of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that Saddam Hussein has in his arsenal. That and the links to Al Qaeda, qualified the Hussein regime for a preemptive strike.
The events of the 1953 coup in Iran that toppled the democratic government of Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq and the 2003 invasion of Iraq illustrate a few of very distinctive U.S. foreign policy characteristics. The U.S. State Department will use its force, and justify its covert actions with the pretexts of national security. Since the U.S. government is naturally aligned with big business, the foreign policy that is projected abroad especially toward the Middle East, a region where oil rules, the corporate interests of U.S. multi-nationals will be the first ones to be upheld. [1]
This leads to a very firm bottom line: the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East was and is driven by private interests, mainly by the corporations that are after the oil in Persian Gulf. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, the speedy removal and execution of Saddam Hussein resembles the 1953 coup in Iran in which the U.S. in partnership with Britain changed regimes in order to put a stop to the disruption of the oil production which was hurting their corporate interests. Although the war in Iraq is still in progress and has no end in sight (i.e. no timeline for the troop withdrawal), the track record of the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East illustrates that the U.S. government is driven by its corporate interests.

Prior to the invasion, the American leaders were creating uproar and claming that democracy is vital and that Iraq has no democracy and its people are oppressed by the dictator with horrible human right abuses. Moreover, the Bush administration claimed that Iraq has WMD and the thereat of that called for a preventative war, even though the intelligence agencies lacked concrete evidence. Themes of democracy, the breach of human rights and WMD were mere pretexts to enter into the territory of Iraq as the means to go after the oil that is underneath.
In order to fully comprehend the mentality of the U.S. State Department in its conduction of such flawed approach to foreign policy, we have go back in time to trace the root causes that led to the 1953 coup in Iran. The 1953 covert undertaking will serve as a backdrop in history and it will lead to a greater understanding of the war in Iraq.

Emerging Nationalism in Iran: late 1940s, early 1950s

In 1949 a strong sense of nationalism was emerging in Iran and soon thereafter Shah Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi and his loyal royalist supporters were on the brink of losing their power. Opposition was rising from radical parties; on the left there was the Tudeh Party, a group driven by communist ideology. On the right there were the religious factions opposing any secular developments and foreign influence that was so predominant in the county. Among the religious factions, Fedaiyan-e Eslam was the important given the fact that as part of their activities, the group had assassinated a prominent secularist and historian Ahmad Kasravi. [2]
Somewhere in the middle, there were numerous liberal, anti-royalist and nationalist groups with leaning to the left. In the vast array of literature Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq is regarded as an inherent and idealistic leader who in 1949 united these groups under one banner of the National Front. Mossadeq had popular support for his famous stand to have Iran set free from foreign economic exploitation, elimination of corruption and aim for transparency in the government. One of the most distinguishing characteristics that the National Front strived for was insuring that no one would be above the constitution, not even the Shah.

According to the historical account outlined in The History of Iran, the National Front moved quickly to accomplish their nationalist agenda which consisted of taking care of the country’s most valuable natural resource – oil:

Mossadeq and the small but vocal minority of National Front members soon found an explosive political issue that put the shah on the defensive. They denounced a proposed revision of the 1933 Agreement[3] with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and began to demand the termination of the concession and nationalization of the company. This idea had almost universal appeal in Iran, including the approval of the religious groups and the Tudeh, which enabled the National Front members to use popular pressure in the streets to compensate for the numerical weakness in the Majles[4] (Daniel, 149).

On February 19, 1951 Mossadeq, as a chair of the special committee in the Majles recommended to move forward and completely nationalize the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). Less then a month later, on March 15, the Majles and the Senate passed the nationalization bill into law. It is critical to highlight the significance of nationalizing of the key natural resource under the leadership of Mossaddeq; nationalization of oil was a political expression in search for a fair royalty payment that the people and the country of Iran truly deserved and what the British refused to provide.

Nationalization of oil, which meant Iranian takeover of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and the murder of Ali Razmara, the Prime Minister of the day caused utter chaos. Daniel goes on to chronicle the events following in an already chaotic atmosphere; Hosayn Ala, Razmara’s successor could not control the situation and resigned soon after taking his new post. A conservative judge at the Majles, suggested making Mossadeq as the new Prime Minister since he was the one who introduced the oil nationalization bill into legislation and turned out to have a successful outcome.

Mossaddeq accepted the offer and Majles moved quickly to have the Shah officially make the appointment and sign the new Prime Minister into office. On April 29, 1951 the Shah accepted Mossaddeq and signed the nationalization bill on May 2. At that point, exercising his new gained authority, Mossaddeq renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company into the National Iranian Oil Company.

One can only imagine how furious the British were to lose the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, forcefully cease their operations and be expelled from Iran. The British took this matter up to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, says Daniel in his book. To the dismay of the British, in July of 1952, the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction and advised for the parties involved to work on a settlement. But Britain was not giving up just yet; they asked the United Nations Security Council to intervene. Sadly for the British, Mossaddeq was able to eloquently communicate to the Security Council in New York that the issue was a private matter, not a thereat to peace and in no shape or form did it require UN action.

Daniel concludes his account of this chapter in The History of Iran with British determination to continue this battle with the new and unruly Prime Minister Mossaddeq. Since the British were out of luck in gaining the support in the international community, they employed the tactic of economic pressure that proved to be quite successful. Included in the economic pressures put on Iran were boycott, blockade and finally the embargo of the Iranian oil. Frozen accounts in the British banks and denial of any attempts of attaining a loan were also implemented. And finally, even that oil that the Iranians were able to produce, they could not sell it; Britain was acting on its claim that the oil was now contraband, and seized the cargoes on the high seas.

Operation AJAX

Stephen Kinzer, the author of All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror explains the British fury when Mossaddeq nationalized the oil industry in 1951. For the British, the AIOC was a jewel in the imperial crown; the concession of these particular fields was particularly valuable because of the low production costs. The sale of the cheaply produced Iranian oil meant a doubled margin of profit. This business allowed the British to rise to the status of a world power. Safeguarding the status meant maintaining their hegemony in the region as well as on the world arena.

Backtracking The History of Iran for moment, Daniel explains that the profits derived from the AIOC were crucial to the suffering postwar European economy; the profits reaped from the sale of oil maintained British national economy afloat. Furthermore, the taxes paid by the AIOC were one of the biggest sources of income Britain had at the time. [5]

Mossaddeq was stubborn and not particularly savvy in economics; it cannot be stressed enough how highly depended Iran was on the sale of the oil. In 1952, Mossaddeq, was still unwilling to cut a deal with the British and rejected a settlement that was endorsed by both Churchill and Truman. It was at this time that the British became fond of the idea to remove Mossaddeq once and for all. [6]

Nurturing the idea of overthrowing Mossaddeq were the British agents in Iran. But in October of 1952, Mossaddeq found out that there is a plan to topple him. Soon thereafter he ordered to shut down the British embassy and expelled everybody working undercover. No one was left to stage the coup. The British government turned to the U.S. asking for assistance, but President Truman refused, reasoning that he does not want the CIA to participate in such activities. [7]
The people of Iran and more precisely the same groups of supporters that helped Mossaddeq come to power were now dissatisfied with the economic hardships affecting them as a result of the national oil policy. Faster and faster, the support for Mossaddeq was deteriorating; he made even more enemies by enforcing several domestic policies that were aimed at reducing the military.

Coming back to Kinzer, the author describes the atmosphere that led the British to use coercive means to get back their concession of the Persian oil. It was at this time that the British considered launching an armed invasion, but decided otherwise after weighting possible outcomes, specifically after considering the Soviet involvement that would follow. Besides, as it was mentioned earlier, the U.S. ally President Harry Truman, was not fond of the idea of the armed invasion and refused to get involved.

The luck of the British turned for the better when in November of 1952, Dwight Eisenhower became President. Truman and Eisenhower had different views on the issue with Iran; as the history would have it, Eisenhower was more receptive to the use aggression and force in Iran, provided that he would be approached in right way and the threat would be tailored to the American fears. Kinzer, writes about the special approach the British used to rally Eisnehower for his support. In making their pitch to Eisenhower, the British took a shrewd approach:
Within days of the election, a senior agent of the Secret Intelligence Service, Christopher Montague Woodhouse, came to Washington for meetings with top CIA and State Department officials. Woodhouse decided not to make the traditional British argument, which was that Mossaddeq must go because he had nationalized British property. That argument did not arouse much passion in Washington. Woodhouse knew what would (Kinzer, 65).

In his diary he later wrote “I decided to emphasize the Communist threat to Iran rather than the need to recover control of the oil industry[8].” Woodhouse came to the U.S. right in time for administration change and change of the people who would direct the American foreign policy. John Foster Dulles, the incoming Secretary of State and Allen Dulles, his brother, the incoming CIA director were among the fiercest opponents of communism and perceived it as direct threat to the U.S. In the view of the Dulles brothers, Iran was especially dangerous because of its geopolitical location and the border that it shared with the Soviet Union. The fact that Mossaddeq was a radical nationalist Prime Minister enhanced the Dulles brothers’ perception that Iran is in need of a regime change.

The British were successful at tailoring the threat of Iran to the American ideological fears; the pretext of communism worked and the Dulles brothers were on board. Following that, Prime Minster Churchill and President Eisenhower who took office on January 20, 1953 authorized the execution of the coup. Kinzer goes on to write that in February of the same year allied intelligence agencies, the CIA and the MI6 moved to cooperate in the removal of Mossaddeq; they code-named the coup Operation AJAX. Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt was chosen as the director, due to his significant experience in the agency.
After Eisenhower, Churchill and of course the Shah allowed for the covert operation to take place, Mossaddeq was about to come under intense protests and domestic unrest. The CIA was unleashing all of its tricks in Iran and the paid operatives contributed in bringing down Mossadddeq. Those Iranians who were in opposition to Mossaddeq before him coming to power, worked tirelessly to gather likeminded individuals who shared the same goal. Kinzer illustrates the depth of collaboration that it took in Iran to topple Mossaddeq; politicians, military officers, clergymen, newspapers editors and street gangs all participated to undermine the radical Prime Minister.

Anti-Mossaddeq activities intensified during the spring and summer of 1953, when CIA paid religious leaders, newspaper editors and politicians to publicly denounce their nationalist Prime Minister. By accounts of Richard Cottam, one of the CIA’s employees on the ground, four-fifths of the Iranian newspapers were under CIA influence.[9]

In early August, the capital of Teheran was erupting in protests; crowds of people paid by the CIA marched through the streets carrying portraits of the Shah thereby expressing their royalist affiliations. On August 16, 1953 the Shah officially dismissed Mossaddeq and appointed General Fazlollah Zahedi, a retired military officer as the new Prime Minister. Kinzer and Daniel, both are keen to point out that Zahedi had received more than $100,000 for his new post from the CIA. [10]

After the coup, the British and Americans accomplished their goal; they ultimately removed Mossaddeq and put pro-Western Zahedi in his place. Mossaddeq was arrested, tried by a military tribunal, found guilty of treason and sentenced to three years in prison. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest, until he died in 1967.

The British rejoiced after seeing the fruits of their labor come to life; the new Zahedi government jumped to resolve the oil issue with the AIOC. In 1954, an agreement was negotiated which allowed foreign companies to produce and market the Persian oil. The British could not have been happier, not only did they get their holdings back, but they also received compensation. Moreover, the agreement divided the production of oil among the international members.[11] As a reward for such pro-Western stand and anti-communist policy, the U.S. aid to Iran increased almost instantaneously.

The U.S. State Department and its Role in the Oil of the Middle East

The role of the American government in Persian Gulf dates back to the early 1920s, however, the government did not directly interfere in the business; but it was acting on the interests of the U.S. corporations. By the end of the World War I, the majority of the world’s oil need was provided by the U.S. companies drilling in Mexico. At this time in history, there was a global spike in demand which led to a mild shortage of oil. “Fears that the world was running out of oil brought a drive by the U.S. government to assist U.S. companies in gaining control over foreign sources of supply” (Fusfeld, 690).

Stephen Pelletiere, the author of America’s Oil Wars asserts that it was right before the start of the Depression in the 1930s when an American company, Standard of California went into Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and came out with a finding of an astonishing amount of oil that it could not market by itself. That forced the Standard of California to look for a partner and found a match in another American company, the Texas Co. The new partnership produced a merger under the name of California-Arabian Standard Oil (CASOC).

The CASOC had some problems after running into opposition from the Cartel.[12] The company needed assistance and called in on the U.S. government to help them. The State Department ceased the opportunity, got involved and even considered the possibility of buying the company; an arrangement that would make it similar to the British owned AIOC. After careful consideration the U.S. government decided not to buy the company, but the Jersey and New York Standard became interested. Finally, CASOC was saved by combining California, Texas, New Jersey and New York and making it the biggest corporation as of yet. The latest merger became to be known as the Arab-American Oil Co. (ARAMCO) (Pelletiere, 42).

In the book Musaddiq, Iranian Nationalism, and Oil, dedicated solely to the issue that seems to be timeless, an internal position paper that was obtained from the State Department argues that the U.S. needs to conduct is foreign policy in the way that would insure control of oil concessions of in the Middle East. The paper dated December 1, 1943 advises that the fullest possible production in the regions of the Middle East needs to take place under the control of both the American and British counterparts. “The instrument of policy decided upon by the State Department in 1943 was an Anglo-American Petroleum Commission to regulate post-war Middle Eastern oil production for the benefit of all concerned” (Anderson, 152).

Such favorable policies enforced by the U.S. government propelled American corporations in going after the oil; at the start of World War II, the U.S. companies were in control of 42 percent of the reserves in the Middle East (Fusfeld, 690).

However, the course of actions was slightly altered by the end of WWII, at which point that the State Department distanced itself form directly assisting the U.S. corporations because the emphasis the Middle East oil undermined and alienated the independent domestic producers in Texas. Nevertheless, the State Department continued to guide the private interests in the direction that would be in sync with and benefit the national interest.

Old habits are hard to break, so by the early 1940s, the government was once again becoming more assertive in its expression of the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East:

In October 1943, James Byrnes, then director of the Office of War Mobilization, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt decrying the fact that Britain controlled all of Iran’s oil. According to Byrnes, the government should request the British to assign the United States one-third of their interest in Iranian oil as a compensation for American contributions to the war effort. Althought the President took no action on this recommendation, it was clear that the United States had an eye on Iranian oil.[13]

Following the government mentality, the American interests only intensified after the 1953 coup. After the dust had settled, the U.S. corporations insisted on sharing what was previously exclusively a British concession. Pelletiere notes that the U.S. corporations presented a clever argument, saying that it would be inappropriate to give the full concession rights back to the British - not after what happened. So the U.S. corporations reasoned that it would only make sense to entirely restructure the production of the region.[14] Such argument served as a good bargaining chip, plus, the U.S. needed to be reimbursed after such successful execution of the coup which toppled the oil nationalizing Mossaddeq.

Operation ANABASIS, Iraq

Before going on to discuss the details of Operation Anabasis, a quick, but important note should be made; James A. Bill, the author of the essay “America, Iran and the Politics of Intervention, 1951-1953”[15] reports that the 1953 coup that staged by the CIA was well known to in Iran, but less so in America. As a matter of fact, the 1953 coup and the U.S. involvement in it was omitted from the American public, and it wasn’t until the Iranian Revolution in 1979 that Americans were slowly begging to learn about the role of their government in that historic coup. Aside from an occasional magazine article or a book specifically on the history and the work of the CIA, information about Operation AJAX was tough to find.

The fate of the Operation Anabasis falls in the same pattern; this is not an exaggeration, but while searching for the term in scholarly sources or in the mainstream media no information was to be found. In a local library, tucked far away, stood a book written by two investigative journalists, Michael Isikoff and David Corn; Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. The authors uncover incriminating inside information that was nowhere to be found before, or otherwise denied in public.

To reiterate on the point further, a Lexis-Nexis search for Operation Anabasis turned up only one short article[16] by the British Guardian – a book review of Hubris. At the fear of being dismissed as succumbing to conspiracy theories, but it seems that the American corporate media completely ignored the finding of this book, if not to say banned the book from getting the deserved attention.

According to Isikoff and Corn, George W. Bush had it in his plans to go to war with Iraq practically the moment he took office. After the September 11th attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, planning for a covert operation was kicked into high gear. The operation that was being cooked up by the CIA was the most guarded, top secret in the U.S. government. A project of such high degree of importance was given to two extremely experienced men in the Iraq Operations Group; the first officer was a Cuban American named Luis, the second officer was John Maguire, a former cop from Baltimore.

Beginning in late 2001, Maguire and Luis were busy tailoring a plan that would ultimately topple Saddam Hussein, the same way was Mossaddeq in 1953. In excerpt from their book, Isikoff and Corn reveal an almost identical coup that was previously orchestrated by the CIA:
Anabasis was no-holds-barred covert action. It called for installing a small army of
paramilitary CIA officers on the ground inside Iraq; for elaborate scheme to penetrate
Saddam’s regime, recruiting disgruntled military officers with buckets of cash; for
feeding the regime disinformation about internal dissent in ways that would cause
Saddam to lash out (most likely through mass executions); for disrupting the regime
finances and supply networks; for sabotage that included blowing up railroad lined and
communication towers; and for targeting the lives of key regime officials. It also
envisioned staging phony incident that could be used to start a war. A small group of
Iraqi exiles would be flown into Iraq by helicopter to seize an isolated military base near
the Saudi border. They then would take to the airwaves and announce a coup was under
way. If Saddam responded by flying troops south, his aircraft would be shot down by
U.S. fighter planes patrolling the no-fly zones established by UN edict after the first
Persian Gulf War. A clash of this sort could be used to initiate a full-scale war. [17]

In order to proceed with the covert operation, on February 16, 2002, President Bush signed the authorization for implementation of various elements of Anabasis. By the fall of 2002, preparation for the eventual execution of the Operation was in full swing; the CIA set up a training camp in the Nevada desert. Needless to say, the existence of the camp on American soil that consisted of Iraqi nationals training to destabilize and weaken Hussein’s regime was the most protected secret in the U.S. government. The Scorpions, as the group was later named was taught how blow up buildings, power lines, and conduct raids. [18]

From the inception of the operation, the two officers, Luis and Maguire projected that the covert understating which included sabotage, assassinations and disinformation would only undermine Hussein’s regime. Operation Anabasis, with all its bells and whistles could not be expected to get rid of the tyrant; for a complete regime change a military invasion was necessary. President Bush, Vice President Cheney and commander of the U.S. Central Command, General Tommy Franks understood what it takes to accomplish a regime change which is why plans for the 2003 invasion were under works. This leads to one final point about Operation Anabasis, in the eyes of the administration officials, the operation was in no way substitute for the invasion, no matter how successful the outcome could have been. Operation Anabasis was only the first step; it preceded the looming invasion which expected to eliminate Hussein at the root (Isikoff and Corn, 11).

But it wasn’t meant to be for the CIA trained Scorpions; the teams that were prepared to start the war by seizing the Iraqi air base, by 2003 were reduced to assistants of the U.S. commanders. General Franks called off the operation because he did not want it to interfere with his military plans. (Isikoff and Corn, 211).

Operation Iraqi Freedom

In the case of Operation Anabasis, Hubris, uncovered and exposed information that was previously unseen and unheard of. However, the book does not stop there; it points out things that do not seem to be out of the ordinary, but on the second thought are quite extraordinary because of what they have come to mean in the recent years. The authors shed light on are the January 2003 State of the Union speech given by President Bush in which he was making his final pitch prior to the invasion. In his speech the President claimed that Hussein presents a grave thereat to our national security because of his possession of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and the arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. In addition, Hussein was depicted as a heinous, democracy-crushing tyrant with even more horrendous human rights abuses which included his infamous gassing of the Kurdish population.

Just a month later, on March 19, 2003 President Bush ordered an air strike outside Baghdad, the intelligence provided alleged that Hussein would be at the compound. The intelligence was proved to be wrong, ironically enough, flawed intelligence would become the norm in the war in Iraq; hours later, Hussein was alive and making a speech on Iraqi TV about what had happened.
Flawed intelligence, or complete lack there of, in addition to the failure to provide evidence of the alleged threats that Hussein’s regime possessed is thoroughly explored in the book by Christopher Scheer, Robert Scheer, and Lakshmi Chaudhry – The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. Divided in five chapters, the authors dedicate one chapter to each lie that President Bush told the American public and the world. Before it turned out to be a lie, the thought that Al Qaeda had ties to Iraq was used to rally support during the pre-war marketing stages.

As part of their marketing plan of the 2003 Iraqi invasion, the Bush administration assured the public that Hussein has chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. It was the second week of April since invading Iraq, and still no weapons of any sort were found. That turned out to be the second and third lies as they are discussed in The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq.
The fourth lie that the Bush administration entertained themselves with, as well as the rest of the world was the thought that the war in Iraq would be easy; in fact it would be a “cakewalk.” Ken Adelman was the first to insure that the American military will have it easy in Iraq when he wrote it in the Washington Post on February 13, 2002. [19]

The fifth and the final lie as presented by the authors, is that the U.S. invaded Iraq with only the best interest in mind, which was to bring democracy to the oppressed Iraqis. The American government felt obligated to spread the joy of democracy to the rest of the world, especially to the oil rich Iraq.

It’s All About Oil.

Peter Dale Scott in his article “Bush’s Deep Reasons for War in Iraq: Oil, Petrodollars, and the OPEC Euro Question,”[20] argues that the real reasons for the war in Iraq are about its vast oil reserves and desire of the U.S. corporations to come back into the fields they once lost after Hussein nationalized the industry in 1972.

In his meticulous review of the internal and undisclosed documents, Scott argues that the Bush administration was focused on the oil in Iraq ever since taking office. Under significant influence from the Task Force report, the government officials along with the executives of the major U.S. corporations[21] agreed to increase investment in the under-developed fields as part of the post-war expansion of the oil production.

In his essay, Scott touches on another reason for going into Iraq; the U.S. was protecting the dollar hegemony, especially after some OPEC[22] countries expressed the desire to make a switch from dollars into euros. Trading oil in euros would mean that all oil importing countries, including the U.S. would need to fill up their reserves with euros instead of dollars, and purchase oil in euros, not dollars. Another prominent figure in the field of energy and the author of Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar, William R. Clark made it his thesis in an internet essay that the primary reason the U.S. is currently at war with Iraq is because Hussein, as a major member of the OPEC, dared to make a switch from dollars to euros in late 2000.

Clark argues that reason why the U.S. acted so dramatically (2003 invasion) was for the purpose of sending a message to other OPEC countries which thought about making the currency switch as well. Iran for example, also pondered on the idea, but rebuffed when the value of the euro went down in 2000. Hussein dug his own grave when he decided to make a switch to petroeuro.
What is even more interesting is the fact that this information pertinent to the biggest oil-consumers - the American public, was only shown once in October of 2000. It seems that the U.S. corporate media, once again interrupted the free flow of information, as it did in 1950s. However, there was even bigger event went entirely unreported in the media – “from 2001 up until the 2003 invasion, U.S. petroleum conglomerates were paying for Iraq’s oil in euros – not dollars” (Clark, 118).

Protecting the dollar value is critical for the U.S. economy because of its role as a reserve currency. The whole concept of petrodollars goes back to 1974, when the U.S. made a secret deal with Saudi Arabia to sell the OPEC oil only in dollars. As part of the deal, the OPEC dollars would then be invested in the U.S. banks and thus recycled back into the U.S. economy.

In his original essay, Clark insisted that, by far, the biggest reason the U.S. removed Hussein was to insure reversal of petroeuros back to petrodollars. In addition, U.S. occupied Iraqi oil fields would not longer be contracted to foreign firms, as was promised by Hussein. Before Hussein was toppled, he signed contracts with the French TotalELF, Russian Lukoil and the Chinese Sin-oil companies[23]. Judging from what we know today, the 2003 American led invasion accomplished what it set out to do; it undid the foreign contracts and reversed transaction currency back to the dollar.

“…we are an empire trying to reaffirm our position as the world’s only superpower…it is simply to install a pliant puppet-regime that will align itself with U.S. corporate interests, mainly to revert to petrodollar recycling and award Iraq’s oil contracts only to U.S. and U.K. companies” (Clark, 119). Control of the Iraqi oil fields would not be possible without a current puppet government that the U.S. took so long to construct. In a recent New York Times article,[24] Andrew E. Kramer writes about the deals that Iraqi Oil Ministry already awarded to four Western oil companies; that is in addition to the original companies[25] that operated in Iraq before nationalization of the industry took place which are all vying for no-bid contracts.

The Iraqi government depicted its decision to give contracts to Western companies solely based on the issue of modern technology and expertise. Furthermore, the Iraqi government cites the companies’ dedication of providing free advice two years before the talks of contracts even started.

Media as a Mouthpiece

In his book, Clark also attributed a great deal of responsibly of the favorable coverage leading up to the Iraq invasion to the U.S. corporate media. The media aired unfiltered government messages that were more reminiscent of propaganda than anything else. When it came to reporting on the war on terror, those in opposition, even the politicians were denounced as unpatriotic.

There is an inherent problem with American model of media ownership; 90 percent of all media is owned by five companies.[26] Throughout the 2003 advertising and public relations campaign targeted at the American public, virtually all media outlets ran the same pretexts for invading; Hussein has an arsenal full of chemical and biological weapons, in addition to the WMD. He also presents the thereat of nuclear proliferation. Hussein is directly linked to Al Qaeda, he was behind the September 11th attacks. The Bush administration propaganda efforts successfully worked into scaring the American people into thinking that Hussein, really did present a major thereat to their national security.

Throughout the pre-war campaign, the American public was bombarded with Hussein’s terrible human rights record, mainly the problems that he had with the Kurds. The corporate media took into consideration its own special interests and neglected to report on attention worthy aspects of the relationship between the U.S. and the Middle East. The U.S. media never reported on Hussein’s switch to euro, which was the biggest catalyst that propelled the move toward the invasion.

Clark makes a good point by saying that if American people want to know what really going on in terms of their government’s foreign policy, then they must look elsewhere. Foreign news outlets such as the British Observer reported on the petrodollar/petroeuro speculation before the war started. To be fair to the American media, Clark acknowledges that on June 5, 2003 the Financial Times briefly brought up that Iraqi oil sales at the international markets will be going back to dollars. [27]

Conclusion

When it comes to the relationship between America and the Middle East, and oil, the U.S. foreign policy has shown time and time again that it acts under the influence of its corporations. The U.S. government works closely with the private sector, directs these private interests in the right direction and when necessary aggressively invades under the pretext of national security.
The role that the State Department plays in the oil of the Middle East cannot be emphasized enough. The U.S. government will use its influence to make sure that the American corporations get their deals, if not; the government will utilize aggression and force, and at the end of the day it will get what it wants.

The 1953 coup d’etat in Iran that toppled Prime Minister Mossaddeq, shares a host of similarities with the 2003 Iraqi invasion. Both incidents were orchestrated and executed with the help of the CIA. In the eyes of the American administrations, both incidents were morally justified because they threatened national security. In 1953, during the McCarthy era and the Red Scare, the British were shrewd in the way they tailored Iran as a communist threat to the U.S.

The real issue in 1953 was the fact that Prime Minister Mossaddeq nationalized the oil industry in 1951 which caused the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to cease its very profitable operations in the Persian Gulf. In order to get back to their business, the British asked for the U.S. support in removing Mossaddeq and installing a pro-Western Prime Minister who would allow for his country and the people to be exploited and underpaid. Soon thereafter, the CIA was working on Operation AJAX. The operation was successful. The British got what they wanted, and as part of the deal the American oil corporations were able to acquire 40 percent of the original concession.
In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration desperately wanted to liberate the people of Iraq and bring democracy to the region that has never seen. The American people were scared into believing that Hussein had WMD, a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons that is in addition to his nuclear ambitions. However, not many people know this but in 2002, the CIA was once again setting up covert operation to destabilize and weaken regime of Saddam Hussein. Operation Anabasis, although never implemented, its objective was to provoke Hussein into lashing out as a way to start a full-scale war. True reasons for war were of course the oil fields that Iraq is sitting on.

The 2003 war in Iraq could have been avoided, if it was not for Hussein’s move, as a major member in the OPEC, to make switch in the sale of oil from dollars to euros in the late 2000. That move greatly angered the U.S. government because the U.S. dollar is tied as reserve currency. If all oil importing countries were to buy oil in euros and not in dollars that would significantly weaken the U.S. currency. The Bush administration was not going to let that happen.

It has been five years since the U.S. invaded Iraq. At the moment, the U.S. troops are still occupying Iraq, and the Bush administration refuses to come up with a plan for the troop withdrawal and shuts down any attempts by others to do so. Such reckless actions by the Bush administration have contributed to the declining domestic economy. Moreover, and strain the budget has been devastating, and deficit keeps on growing.

Regarding the Iraqis, their fate is still unknown, and it is hard to be optimistic. Although there a couple of things are definite; the war ravaged country and people will need years, if not decades for the socio-politico-economic situation would stabilize. A whole generation of Iraqis will grow up in the land of uncertainty and instability.

Despite the American corporations finally getting their hands on Iraqi oil fields, it would be years before our domestic gas prices at the pump would start to come down, if ever. It could be argued that the future on domestic issues remains grim; it is still a hardship for Americans to curb their oil consumption. The laws of demand and supply are becoming more relevant each day, as more developing countries[28] need energy for their booming economies. The global demand for oil is increasing, while the supply is dwindling. The solution for the energy crisis lies in the search for alternative fuels and energy. Finally, the U.S. needs to come up with an energy policy that would not infringe on other nation’s natural resources and that would not undermine the sovereignty of other countries.

Works Cited
Anderson, Irvine H. “The American Oil Industry and the Fifty-fifty Agreement of 1950.”
Musaddiq, Iranian Nationalism and Oil. Eds. James A. Bill and WM. Roger Louis. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1988. 143-163.

Bill, James A. “America, Iran and the Politics of Intervention, 1951-1953.” Musaddiq, Iranian
Nationalism and Oil. Eds. James A. Bill and WM. Roger Louis. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1988. 261-296.

Borger, Julian. “War on Terror: Book says CIA tried to provoke Saddam to war.” Rev. of
Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War by Michael
Isikoff and David Corn. The Guardian. September 7, 2006. 18

Clark, William R. Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar. Canada: New
Society Publishers, 2007.

Daniel, Elton L. The History of Iran. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001.

Fusfeld, Daniel R., Economics: Principles of Political Economy, Third Edition. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman and Company, 1988. 688-699.

Isikoff, Michael and Corn, David. Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of
the Iraq War. New York: Random House, 2006.

Kramer, Andrew E. “Deals With Iraq Set to Bring Oil Giants Back” The New York Times.
6/19/08.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?pagewanted=print

Kinzer, Stephen. All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

Majd, Mohammad Gholi. Great Britain & Reza Shah: The Plunder of Iran, 1921-1941.
Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2001.

Pelletiere, Stephen. America’s Oil Wars. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2004.

Scheer, Christopher., Scheer, Robert., Chaudhry, Lakshimi., The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us
About Iraq. Canada: Independent Media Institute, 2003.

Scott, Peter Dale. “Bush’s Deep Reasons for War on Iraq: Oil Petrodollars, and the OPEC Euro
Question.”
http://inguish.berkley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html.%205/27/03.

Rampton, Sheldon & Stauber, John. Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq. New York, Penguin: 2003

[1] During the 20th century, five major U.S. corporations dominated the oil industry: Exxon, Mobil, Standard Oil Company of California, Texaco and Gulf.
Daniel R. Fusfeld, Economics: Principles of Political Economy, Third Edition. (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1988) 688-699.
[2] Elton L. Daniel, The History of Iran, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001) 148.
[3] The 1933 Agreement allowed for the AIOC to receive a 30 year extension of its concession, and reduce the royalty payments to the lowest possible level. The Shah forced the Iranian negotiators to accept the terms and conditions proposed by the AIOC. The agreement takes advantage of the Iran’s ineffective bargaining abilities, especially when the prices for oil increased and the cost of production and refining decreased.
Mohammad Gholi Majd, Great Britain & Reza Shah: The Plunder of Iran, 1921-1941, (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2001) 257.
[4] Majles is a legislative body, recognized by the Iranian constitution of the 20th century; however it does fully act as an autonomous national parliament due to the restraint put on it either by the royal power or the concern to be in conformity with the Islamic laws and values.
Elton L. Daniel, The History of Iran, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001) 148.
[5] The British government owned 56 percent of the AIOC stock which made it quasi-arm of the state.
Stephen Pelletiere, America’s Oil Wars (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2004) 39.
[6] Elton L. Daniel, The History of Iran, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001)
[7] Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008) 61
[8] Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008) 69
[9] Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008) 73
[10] The new Prime Minster Zahedi held the office until 1955.
Elton L. Daniel, The History of Iran, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001) 154
[11] The 1954 agreement allocated 40% of production to the British owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, 40% to American companies and the remaining 20% to European companies.
Elton L. Daniel, The History of Iran, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001) 156

[12] Cartel, a group of similar independent companies who join together to control prices and limit competitionfrom Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=11656&dict=CALD
[13] James A. Bill. “America, Iran and the Politics of Intervention, 1951-1953.” Musaddiq, Iranian Nationalism and Oil. Eds. James A. Bill and WM. Roger Louis. (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1988) 261-296.
[14] For complete percentage breakdown see,
Stephen Pelletiere, America’s Oil Wars (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2004) 49.
[15] James A. Bill. “America, Iran and the Politics of Intervention, 1951-1953.” Musaddiq, Iranian Nationalism and Oil. Eds. James A. Bill and WM. Roger Louis. (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1988) 261-296.
[16] Julian Borger. “War on Terror: Book says CIA tried to provoke Saddam to war.” The Guardian. September 7, 2006. 18
[17] Michael Isikoff and David Corn. Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War. (New York: Random House, 2006) 8.
[18] For a detailed description on the operations of the Scorpion team, see
Michael Isikoff and David Corn. Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War. (New York: Random House, 2006) 153-168.
[19] Christopher Scheer, Robert Scheer, Lakshimi Chaudhry. The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. (Canada: Independent Media Institute, 2003) 117.
[20] Peter Dale Scott. “Bush’s Deep Reasons for War on Iraq: Oil Petrodollars, and the OPEC Euro Question.”
http://inguish.berkley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html.%205/27/03.
[21] The major U.S. corporations include: Halliburton, Schlumberger, Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, Conoco Phillips. Originally reported by the Wall Street Journal, mentioned in the article by Peter Dale Scott.
[22] Organization of the Petroleum Producing Countries (OPEC) established in 1960. The member countries are: Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela.
http://www.opec.org/library/FAQs/aboutOPEC/q3.htm
[23] William R. Clark. Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar. (Canada: New Society Publishers, 2007) 98.
[24] Andrew E. Kramer. “Deals With Iraq Set to Bring Oil Giants Back” The New York Times. 6/19/08.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html?pagewanted=print
[25] The original companies in the Iraq Petroleum Company are: Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, BP, from an article by
Andrew E. Kramer. “Deals With Iraq Set to Bring Oil Giants Back” The New York Times. 6/19/08.
[26] These five media conglomerates are: AOL Time Warner, News Corporation, Walt Disney Company, Viacom and Vivendi Universal. For more on the problems of corporate media, see
William R. Clark. Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar. (Canada: New Society Publishers, 2007) 163.
[27] William R. Clark. Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar. (Canada: New Society Publishers, 2007) 121.
[28] The BRIC developing countries. Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Colombia's Civil War - United States War on Terror

This paper is intended to give the reader knowledge and some understanding of the US foreign policy; however it is TOTALLY PROHIBITED to copy or reproduce for personal or academic purposes.
The author; Dulce Bueno.
If you need more information please write to this blog and you will be directed to the author of the paper.

Dulce Bueno
Colombia’s Civil War- United States War on Terror:

In this paper, I intend to chronologically explain how Colombia has been fighting its internal war from the early chaos of La Violencia that brought life to the guerrillas and consequently the paramilitary. Colombia’s long history of violence has led the country to its latest civil war of over 40 years between the Governments, the Paramilitaries. I discuss how the United State’s investment derailed Colombia’s civil war to the now called “War on Terror”. I proceed to explain how the United States itself has used its power over the law to waive its right and therefore provide military assistance to Colombia despite its high profile in human rights violations. I explain such violations and move to present events. With detailing the latest events I discuss the possibility of an end to Las FARC. I end the paper with discussing the critics of the possible end to Colombia’s brutal history and a look in retrospect of the benefits and to whom they go as well as open ended questions regarding the issue.

Introduction
Early Years

The use of violence to pursue political goals has a long history in Colombia. The Historian Gonzalo Sanchez described Colombia as a country of permanent war in the 19th century. “After the fourteen years of the Independence wars, there were eight national civil wars, fourteen local civil wars, many small revolts two wars with Ecuador and three coups d’état… Many factors combined to fuel the wars- political ambition, the solidarity of exploited workers, legitimate peasant grievances, and family feud” (Simons, 39)

La Violencia

In the twenty years between 1948 and 1968, Colombia fell under chaos. This epoch of chaos was later called La Violencia, or The Violence in English, as “some 200,000 people were killed... and an estimated 1 million emigrated.” (Simons, 41) “In 1949 Laureano Gomez was elected president and then set about to intensifying the terrorist campaign against the people” (Simons, 41). Many rich land owners fled the country to their neighboring country, Venezuela, due to death threats. Many others were killed as other peasants actually regain access to land that had previously been taken away.

During La Violencia, Kennedy’s “Alliance for Progress” with Latin America, felt under pressure with the Cold War. With Fidel Castro and “Che” Guevara’s revolutionary ideals as a hot topic, and with Soviet Union announcing its support to wars of liberation, the United States needed to intensify its authority in Latin America. The United States and Colombia responded with Plan Lazo, or Plan Lasso for its English translation. It was designed to “rein in the rebel groups and simultaneously provide economic stimulus to poverty-stricken rural areas” (Dudley, 9). Also known as “bullets and beans”; it was the United States way of handling communism in Latin America. “Some 16,000 troops, advised by U.S. personnel, surrounded the narrow valley of Marquetalia… and U.S. equipped Colombian air force began bombing the area” (Simons, 42). In 1964, Plan Lazo's organized offensive led to the formation of “mobile guerrillas group -that- came together at the Bloque Sur (bloc of the south) conference.” Many were peasants acting in self-defense revolting to form military initiatives of their own or joined already organized groups. A second conference officially founded the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia- FARC- (Simons, 43). Other guerrilla groups were formed as well, such as the ELN- People's National Liberation Army-. Note that this paper will be limited to discussing Las FARC due to its current high guerrilla profile.
The 80's also brought life to the Paramilitaries or “Autodefensas”, “self-defense”, groups. They are set to protect themselves from Las FARC “attacking without mercy.” Many were called “death to Kidnappers, Embryo, Small Fry and Black Faces” (Dudley, 67). Geoff Simons quotes that according to a United States Senate report, the cartel began paramilitary business when the drug lords of the Ochoa family paid $7 million “for the creation of a 2,000-man army equipped with the latest weapons” as one of the member of the Ochoa group was kidnapped by the then revolutionary group, the M-19.

FARC-EP:

Las FARC, who has been active since 1964, is a self proclaimed Marxist-Leninist revolutionary guerrilla organization.[1] Then a military wing of the Communist Party, it claims to represent the rural poor in a struggle against Colombia’s wealthier classes and opposes the United States’ influence in Colombia… fighting against privatization of natural resources, multinational corporations, and paramilitary violence.[2] Many of Las FARC members believe that the U.S.’ involvement in Colombia- providing aid in military form and investing in agricultural production- has only intensified the country’s drastic consequences of uprising peasants and guerrillas violence. Its first two top leaders were Jacobo Arenas and Manuel Marulanda, who died this year of natural causes. Its Seventh Guerrilla Conference gave Las FARC the EP initials which stand as Ejercito del Pueblo, “Army of the People”, in 1982. It was also this conference that gave power to the weak military initiatives of its own in its early years.

In the early1980’s Las FARC was being idled by the M-19. The April 19 Movement, later became a political party known as the Alianza Democratica M-19. It was its “cool” attitude of stealing milk and food and handing them to the poor, that opaque Las FARC. Although against the will of the political party, Las FARC “began to kidnap for 'political reasons only” (Dudley, 51) as well as to tax drug traffickers. This was Las FARC’s way to raise money and invest it in the purchase of weapons to strengthen their army. Their VII conference also illuminated Las FARC to think long term. It was the beginning of the Ejercito del Pueblo- EP’s master plan: a great army with a multimillionaire budget. In 1982, due to the growing power of the guerrillas such as the M-19, Colombian president Betancur began peace talks with Las FARC.

The Result of these peace talks was the Uribe Agreement. It was a cease-fire between both sides; Las FARC would condemn and forbid “kidnapping, blackmail and terrorism in all its form” as the government would fight for better social and economic services for the Colombian people. It also facilitated the creation of the Patriotic Union or Union Patriotica- the UP. The UP would be “the mechanism by which Las FARC would enter the political mainstream” (Dudley, 46).
The UP and President Betancour's Uribe Agreement gave a growing authority to Las FARC that no other guerrilla possessed then. This empowerment led Las FARC to begin to break loose from the Communist Party. Comandante “Arenas, was positioning himself to head the entire organization... and his new created political party the UP-Union Patriotica, Patriotic Union- would be an integral part of this plan… a perfect opportunity [for Las FARC] to get ready for war” (Dudley, 54).

For other guerrillas and the paramilitary, the UP was Las FARC. Violence continued on the rise and “just two weeks before the UP's national convention [in 1986], forty rebels from the M-19 stormed the Palace of Justice... UP's leaders had already been assassinated and were getting harassed...” (Dudley, 84). Las FARC’s leader, Jacobo Arenas wouldn't run for president, instead the party would agree to put Pardo Leal. Arenas and Marulanda moved back to the mountains, Las FARC opted out. On Election Day, some of the young UP sympathizer shouted “Long live the FARC! Long live Pardo Leal! Long Live Marulanda!” The UP wouldn't win “but Las FARC had shown its political strength” as it earned 328,752 votes (Dudley, 88). Pardo Leal was later assassinated by a fourteen year old in October of 1987. “Drug lord Gonzalez Rodrigues, also known as ‘the Mexican’, was apparently involved in the murder as a sponsor” [3]

US Involvement
War on Drugs

Colombia’s drug production dates back with the United States marijuana boom in the 1970’s. It was U.S. growing hippie movement that created a consumer market for Colombia’s production. However, it switched to the larger profits that came from cocaine and heroin production and drug trade. “The illegal production and distribution of drugs has helped to fuel civil war, paramilitary terror and political repression in Colombia” (Simons, 66). Colombia’s three major drug cartels were associated with particular names: The Medellin cartel represented by Pablo Escobar, the Ochoa Clan and Gonzalo Rodriguez Gacha, while the Cali cartel was led by Rodriguez Orejuela. Names like Escobar and Ochoa are worldwide known not only for their connections to drugs, but being among the richest men in the world as well. As already mentioned, the Ochoa family name was also associated with the creation of paramilitary army forces.

The pressures of poverty have turned peasants to cocaine production as it provided them with larger profits than regular crops. But it was also the crisis “in July of 1988 when the US, sensitive to alleged fair trade violations, suspended the international coffee agreement, which within two months ruined the economics of Colombia’s leading export”. This led to the increase and economic dependence of cocaine that brought altogether “rural and urban violence, corruption, rebels and paramilitaries factions able to tax drug revenues and the growing interference of US regional hegemony” (Simons, 133). The United States’ attitude towards drug trade in Colombia “is ambivalent and hypocritical.” The United States is known for its world police attitude of looking for excuses that would support its interventions into other countries. In Colombia “the ‘moral’ excuse is the trafficking [of] cocaine and heroin [that] provided all the advantages for a massive [U.S.] intervention in Colombian affairs…” (Simons, 11)

PLAN COLOMBIA: US Propaganda?

Under Clinton’s frame of the War on Drugs, Colombia became a laboratory for counterinsurgency. Since the mid 70’s the USA had helped Colombia with counter-narcotics assistance. By now the United States and Colombia have moved from the War on Communism in Latin America, to the War on Drugs. Continuing this counter-narcotic’s war, Bush Sr.’s administration’s next step was the creation of the Andean Regional Initiative in 1989. The Andean Regional Initiative rewarded $2.2 Billion to the Andean Region –Colombia, Bolivia and Peru- in military aid for a five year period. Colombia received an extra $65 million in 1990; a reward for Colombia’s ‘economic opening’. This ‘economic opening’ referred to Colombia’s “implementation of neo-liberal restructuring… and 100 US military advisers [were sent] to aid and assist Colombian security forces in their new counter narcotics role” (Stokes, 85). During Pastrana’s presidency the government of Colombia sought the United States’ international aid. Plan Colombia, as it was called, expected to receive aid from the United States that would complete the $7.5 million budget Colombia had planned it would cost to “address the country’s interwoven problems of extensive narco-trafficking, civil war and economic underdevelopment” for a three year period(Stokes, 92). Colombia would provide $4.0 million for a total of $3.5 million of U.S. expected be of assistance. However, on January 11, 2000, a United States response to Pastrana’s Plan Colombia proposal came with extras. For 2000 and 2001, a $1.3 billion was awarded in new military aid and police assistance[4].

As Simons noted, Clinton’s proposal was “yet another boost to Yankee imperialism.” Rather a call for war than for peace. Noam Chomsky best explained in his article The Colombian Plan for Z Magazine in June 2000 Las FARC reaction to Plan Colombia:
“The announcement of the Colombia Plan led to countermeasures by the guerrillas, in particular, a demand that everyone with assets of more than $1 million pay a “revolutionary tax” or face the threat of kidnapping (as the FARC puts it, jailing for non-payment of taxes). The motivation is explained by the London Financial Times: “In the FARC’s eyes, financing is required to fight fire with fire. The government is seeking $1.3 billion in military aid from the US, ostensibly for counter-drugs operations: the FARC believe the new weapons will be trained on them. They appear ready to arm themselves for battle,” which will lead to military escalation and undermining of the fragile but ongoing peace negotiations….”

In a March 2000 Communiqué, Las FARC explained that they have yet to “reach substantial agreements with the Government …because it is obvious that Colombia has two powers that are fighting head-on for the political direction of the country”. It also adds that “international corporations continue to exploit [Colombia’s] riches and the work of [Colombia’s] people”. It is also important to add Chomsky’s quotes from Klaus Nyholm, from the UN Drug Control Program, that:

“In some areas ‘[Las FARC] are not involved at all’ in coca production and in others ‘they actively tell the farmers not to grow’ [coca].” And Marulanda has also announced “a development ‘plan for the peasants’ that would ‘allow eradication of coca on the basis of alternative crops.” Still, “the targets of the Colombia Plan are guerrilla forces based on the peasantry and calling for internal social change, which would interfere with integration of Colombia into the global system on the terms that the US demands; that is, dominated by elites linked to US power interests that are accorded free access to Colombia’s valuable resources, including oil.” (Chomsky, 8)

During a televised interview reported by the Financial Times, at a round table discussion, “a FARC spokesperson ‘put forward one of the clearest visions yet of his organization’s economic program,’ calling for freezing of privatization, subsidizing energy and agriculture as is done in the rich countries, and stimulation of the economy by protecting local enterprises” present in this table were several trade unionists and Sr. Marulanda together with other FARC members. (Chomsky, 7)

There has been other ways in which the United States has been involved in the War on Drugs in Colombia. “The wife of Colonel James Hiett pleaded guilty to conspiracy to smuggle heroin from Colombia to New York, and shortly after it was reported that Colonel Hiett, who is in charge of U.S. troops ‘that trained Colombian security forces in counternarcotics operations,’ is ‘expected to plead guilty’ to charges of complicity”( Chomsky, 7). Also and most recently, McCain’s campaign backer Carl H Linder Jr. paid hundred’s of thousands of dollars since 1997 to the AUC- the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia. The AUC, a descendant of “Muerte a Secuestradores (death to Kidnappers, MAS), is a Colombian right wing anti guerrilla group which is also in the list of terrorist groups. Then top executive of Chiquita Brands, Hinder and the firm “admitted to illegally funding the paramilitaries and agreed to pay a 25 million fine.” Before Chiquita’s contributions to the AUC, Chiquita’s used to make similar financial assistance to Las FARC and the ELN guerrillas. “Those payments ended in 1997 as ‘control of the company’s banana-growing area shifted’ to the AUC.”[5]

So one asks the question: how is the Colombian government targeting the Paramilitary? It is not. Colombia’s Paramilitary forces have openly expressed that seventy percent of its funding comes from the drug trade. Some Paramilitary groups have actually started as an army protection for narco-traffickers as it also goes the other way; the paramilitaries become narco-traffickers. As Aldo Civico stated, Director of the Center for International Conflict Resolution at Colombia University, during an interview on July 8th 2008, Colombia’s government uses the media to demonize Las FARC and frames the “paramilitary as a necessary evil” to fight Las FARC. Uribe’s government has been criticized to be linked to the right-wing paramilitary. These ties might very well come from his family past of land-owning class. Uribe, a Harvard graduate, “grew up with the children of Fabio Ochoa, three of whom became leading players in Pablo Escobar’s Medellín cocaine cartel.” And when Director of Civil Aviation, it is said that he used his “mandate to issue pilots’ licenses to Pablo Escobar’s fleet of light aircraft, which routinely flew cocaine to the United States”. There is also the fact that his father, Alberto Uribe was “subject to an extradition warrant to face drug trafficking charges in the United States until he was killed in 1983, allegedly by leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas.”[6] Is this why Uribe has launched such an aggressive offensive against Las FARC? Before answering this question, I will move on to discuss how the War on Drugs change its name to the new “in” term, the War on Terror.

War on Terror

After September 11, 2001 the United States Bush Administration launched its War on Terror. It was no longer the War on Communism or the War on Drugs, but the War on terror that involved the USA in Colombia’s Civil War. Now under the Andean Regional Initiative (ARI) the United States continued to send “$367 million in military aid and $147 million in social and economic aid to Colombia” (Stokes, 105) in 2002 alone. The language has shifted from counter-narcotics to counter-terrorism.

Las FARC was nominated by as the “most dangerous international terrorist group based in the Western Hemisphere” By Attorney General John Ashcroft in March 19 2002. [7] On June 2003, a new plan was launched by the United States backed Colombian government called Plan Patriota or Patriot Plan. This new plan was a disguised or a second part of Plan Colombia to target the rebel group as terrorists. “The Patriot Plan signals the entrance of the United States into a new, more intense phase of military involvement in Colombia’s internal armed conflict… the most ambitious counter-insurgency offensive ever…”[8] There is not much change from Plan Colombia to Plan Patriota. Both received financial support from the Unites States and both target Las FARC, just under a new name. United States military and police aid remains in the $600 million dollars a year together with about 900 military personnel as part of their counterinsurgency and antinarcotics maintaining Colombia as the top American military ally in Latin America.[9] However, to add to the new 2003 funding year, the ARI package contained “$538 million with a component that will send $98 million to a new Colombian military unit trained to protect the 500-mile-long Cano Limon pipeline owned by the US multinational oil corporation, Occidental Petroleum” (Stokes, 107). According to the table provided, military and police aid decline for about $171,074,294 or a 28 percent drop from 2007 to 2008. However, the budget is expected to increase by about 21 percent for the year of 2009. From 2004 to expected 2009, the total United States amount of military and police aid to Colombia totals over $3.3 billion.

POWER OVER LAW

The United States’ power goes above the law as long as it is convenient to the U.S. It has gone as far as to waive the Leahy Provision which was meant to prevent security assistance from going to human rights abusers which was said to not be subject to a waiver:
[On] August 22, 2000, President Clinton waived the human rights conditions that were an integral part of U.S. security assistance to Colombia. His signature meant that lethal weaponry, intelligence support, and counterinsurgency training supplied by the United States would flow to Colombia's military even as many of its units worked with the paramilitary groups responsible for massacres and widespread terror. Human Rights Watch disputes that the national security interest of the United States would be jeopardized by the enforcement of human rights conditions on U.S. security assistance to Colombia. The fight against criminals and human rights abusers depends on the rule of law.[10]

The United States has also violated the law by “supporting the campaign to spray toxic chemical and biological agents on agricultural land” (Simons, 286) in Colombia. Noam Chomsky and Cabasso have both noted the relation between human rights violations and foreign aid. Cabasso in specifics explains that weapons went to governments considered by the State Department to have “poor” human rights records.[11] This is the case with Colombia and United States military aid towards the country’s internal security.

Human Rights
Violations

Human rights abuses have been committed in Colombia since the Spanish conquest and the injustices of “feudal Colombia [that] stimulated the popular appetites for reform and revolution until, in the post war world 2, the country collapsed into civil war, the brutalities and exploding drug culture and all the pressures and tensions of an escalating foreign intervention .” Human Rights profile of Colombia has been under continuo pressure. It is “Intimidation, forced displacement, terror, extra-judicial execution, torture, kidnapping, massacres, government repression, death squads, bombing, chemical warfare- social chaos and suffering that continue to rack a country” (Simons, 132)

Colombia continues to have a wide range of abuses as results of the armed conflict. “Of 2104 serious violations of international humanitarian law in 1998, recorded by Centro de Investigacion y Educacion Popular, some 1479 were carried out by the paramilitaries, 531 by the guerrillas and 92 by the army” (Simons, 157). This is equal to 70% of human rights abuses committed by the Paramilitary, the “necessary evil” the government needs to fight against Las FARC, and about 25% by the guerrillas and the rest 5% by the army.

These human rights violations by the paramilitary have also targeted the UP to weaken the power of Las FARC political form of expression. Since its founding in 1885, “the Patriotic Union, UP, 777 party activists had been assassinated”. In addition, “more than 100 trade unionists [were] killed during President Gaviria's first year in power. The number of political murders, still rising, reached 4430 in 1992” (Simons, 136). Many human- rights activist have also been targeted by such violence. “In January 1992, Blanca Cecilia Valero, who had worked for many years as secretary of the Barrancabermeja-based regional Human Rights Committee, despite constant intimidation, was shot dead by two men as she left her office.”(Simons, 139)
Carlos Castano, Leader of the AUC, Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, United Self-Defence Groups of Colombia, now a days an umbrella organization of about seven [paramilitary] groups, claimed in one occasion that the death of 42 people from the Uraba town by kidnapping was an error, that “our military force had grown enormously, and sometimes the men used the weapons for bad purposes” (Simons, 140).

Children are also a target of guerrillas, police and paramilitary’s terror. They are either being killed and routinely being recruited for combat. Little bells or campanitas as are called by the Paramilitaries or little bees, or abejitas called by the guerrillas make up to thirty percent of some guerrillas unit. They are being recruited as young as “twelve years old” and used to “collect information, make and lay mines and even ambush enemy patrols”. “Human Rights Watch found in 1998 that 7,685 children (under 18) were serving in the National Police, 7,551 in the army 338 in the air force and 83 in the Navy.” The police are known for recruiting “seven-year-old to work as ‘little patrollers’ and many of the children are expected to work in war zones” (Simons, 146).

Forced displacement as a result of Colombia’s civil war has topped Colombia to the largest internal displacement after Sudan with a cumulative total of about 3.7 million displaced persons from 2003 and 2005. The Paramilitary is said to force placement in order to enlarge their wealth through acquired land.[12] Just in 2005, over 150,000 persons were forcibly displaced in the first six month of the year and increase of seventeen percent from the same period in 2004. [13] As families witness killings, deaths and executions in their towns, such as that of a teacher “Maria Torres in El Salado, Bolivar, they are forced to abandoned towns and leave behind their houses and belongings” (Simons, 147)

As these families are forced to move, many end up moving to urban cities. Here they live under poverty and lie “trapped in -another- world of crime, exploitation and violence” (Simons, 146). Many are peasants and rural families whose education is limited and therefore unable to compete in the labor force. Other are just forced to live in camps where the population “lacks access to basic health, food, housing and educational services, and with serious overcrowding” due to lack of clean water adequate food and medical care” (Simons, 149).

Las FARC has also been cited with several massacres such as at “Finca Osaka (14 February 1996; ten men and one woman taken from a bus and executed at the side of the road)” (Simons, 143). According to Interpol, in the last 10 years, Las FARC has perpetrated 16,500 terrorist attacks, murdered 7500 people and kidnapped more than 12,000.[14] Kidnapping puts Las FARC in the mouth of everyone as it relies heavily in such to be able to fund its activities. Their most famous hostage yet: Ingrid Betancourt, on February 23 2002. Then senator, Ingrid was campaigning to president when she was kidnapped together with her campaign manager, Clara Rojas. But a new “firm hand” has brought an end to her hostage’s years.

“A Firm Hand and a Big Heart”
Uribe’s Administration

In concurrence with the War on Terror were the elections in May 2002 of right wing independent candidate Alvaro Uribe. A candidate welcome by the Bush administration and called ‘Colombia’s George W. Bush’ by The Wall Street Journal; and whose “firm hand and big heart” campaign slogan has led to his strong offense and intensified military operations against Las FARC, seeking its defeat.

In its first efforts during Plan Patriota, Uribe’s security strategy redirected Las FARC to implement its “Plan Resistencia”… “by withdrawing into the jungle and executing a temporary halt in its lager scale attacks.”[15] Most recently, however, Uribe has challenged Las FARC endurance by it largest accomplishments in this present year, 2008.

In March 1st 2008, an attack to a Las FARC camp inside Ecuadorian territory resulted in the death of over 20 people including Las FARC International Spokesman and second-in-command, Raul Reyes. Considered then the biggest blow against Las FARC which was followed by the death of Ivan Rios, another member of Las FARC leadership less than a week later;[16] the attack was condemned by Ecuador and Venezuela that led to a clash in diplomatic ties between Colombia and Ecuador. I now ask if the attack is viewed as a step towards overpowering Las FARC, why does Ecuador feels so hurt? It was Colombia’s violation of International Law, and possible a proof of mistrust towards the Ecuadorian Government as Colombia progressed on to attacking the rebel group without informing Ecuador. Ecuador might respond with “imposing trade restrictions on Colombia.” [17] As of date, both country have not come to resume diplomatic ties.

During the rebel camp raid, Interpol cites that the eight computers found had more than 600 gigabytes of data, including: 37,872 written documents, 452 spreadsheets, 210,888 images, 22,481 web pages, 7,989 email addresses, 10,537 multimedia files (sound and video), and 983 encrypted files.[18] Among the files is said to be evidence that link Ecuador and Venezuela to Las FARC.[19] The computers files “show the Quito government had improper contact with rebels about a possible hostage release” to which Ecuador’s foreign minister, Maria Isabel Salvador announced that “she wants the secretary-general of the Organization of American States, to investigate everything possible about the situation and make the appropriate determinations about the computer data. Also there is said to be evidence of Las FARC ties to the Venezuela government was that the country was planning to “give $300 million to the leftist guerrilla” although all the allegations are denied by the Chavez government.[20] In addition to this it appears as if Mr. Chavez offered Las FARC “an oil ratio which they could sell for profit and small arms, such as rocket-propelled grenades.” [21] In January of this year, 2008, Clara Rojas and Consuelo Gonzalez were handed over to the Venezuelan government. This was a liberation triumph for Chavez who stated “will continue opening the way for peace … we are ready, and in contact with the FARC.” [22] Chavez humanitarian work was a way to showing president Uribe that there is no need for force and to bring more dialogue to the table.

It appears as if the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez has changed his mind regarding Las FARC. After calling president Uribe a “liar, Imperialist and Killer” and advocating for Las FARC to be called “legitimate belligerents”[23] and maintaining his long “strong verbal supporter of the Colombian rebels”; Chavez has now called for a release of “all (Las FARC) hostages without conditions as a humanitarian gesture.”[24] I discussed such with Aldo Civico, and he added that aside from the speculations that it is possible due to actual Chavez’s ties with Las FARC, however, he believes it is more due to the fact that Venezuela will be conducting its country’s elections in November and indeed Chavez needs to “tune down its extremist behavior and also avoid U.S. pressure and to maintain his good relationship with the region.” As of Friday July 11, Venezuela and Colombia are said to repair its ties after months of threatening to cut back trades and Venezuelan troops being in the border between both countries. Such need of repair is for the benefit of both countries: trade.[25]

Interpol teams of forensic experts that examined each of the eight computers concluded that “there was no tampering with any data n the computer exhibits following their seizure on March 1st 2008 by the Colombian authorities.” There is “no evidence of modification, alteration addition or deletion” in any of the memory devices. Interpol also stated that the [Colombian] police acted professionally, honorably and effectively” [26]

Operacion Jaque.

Operation Check, Jaque, as in checkmate in Spanish, has been the most talk about celebrated liberation operation in world. It took place along the “Apaporis River in southern Guaviare province, long a FARC stronghold”. It was no “battle victory” as no attacks were made such as the one last march. Las FARC most valuable captives, Ingrid Betancourt and the three Americans, military contractors Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes and Marc Gonsalves were among the fifteen rescued hostages on July 2 2008. During the operation, Colombia’s military intelligence was able to “infiltrate Las FARC’s top hierarchy, the secretariat. A government mole had been able to convince those bosses to transfer Betancourt and the 14 other hostages to Las FARC new number one leader, Alfonso Cano.” The unit led by Comandante Cesar fell for the disguise of the Colombian government commando and gave the hostages to them to be freed in helicopters.[27]

The Hostages celebrated and thanked the Colombian government and greeted the country as they replicate Colombia’s intelligence: “We are the army, you are free”. After their health was examined and found in good health, Betancourt flew to France and reunited with her family; the three Americans were taken to a military based in The USA were their health was also examined and found in good standing. The rest of the hostages were also examined and reunited with their families.

The operation was tremendously aided by the ability that US-Colombian operations had to intervene in satellite communications. According to an article by the Associated Press, the operation began when a phone made by Nancy Conde in 2003, was intercepted when she was “calling confederates in Miami to see if they could supply the rebels with some satellite phones.” The US law officers were able to arrest the Miami contacts who to receive reduced sentences opted to contact Conde with an “FBI front company.” The company then provided the rebels with “wiretapped sat-phones and other compromised telecommunications equipment that threw the rebels off balance and eventually helped authorities strangle their supply lines” for the following years. About “5000 phone calls were then intercepted” and investigated that helped with the major blow on July 2nd. During the five years operation named “Alliance”, Las FARC not only discussed its “finances, but also food, weapons and medical supplies”. Conde was arrested in February 2nd this year, 2008, as she was about to enter Venezuela where she was intended to give birth. Thirty-nine other members were arrested including a Cuban doctor and three of Conde’s female deputies.[28]

Las FARC released a communiqué “signed July 5 that appeared on the Website of the Bolivarian Press Agency” stating that “the escape of the fifteen prisoners of war" on July 2 "was a direct consequence of the despicable conduct of Cesar and Enrique, who betrayed their revolutionary commitment." Both Cesar and Enrique boarded the helicopter that rescued Betancourt, only to be arrested. “Cesar and Enrique are among eleven suspects indicted in Washington in last September on charges of conspiracy to provide support to a foreign terrorist organization;” group that involves Conde. The United States is seeking their extradition. Las FARC also announced that it still seeks agreements to swap hostages for imprisoned rebels “independent of whatever political or military confrontation where there are victories and reversals.”[29] About 700 hostages are still being held by Las FARC. Its willingness to work towards peace talks shows proof that Las FARC new Commander, Alfonso Cano as Die Tageszeitung said “will want to secure promising conditions for a dignified pullback.” World’s most famous hostage, Ingrid Betancourt is now free; and western hemispheric oldest and most powerful terrorist group is considered to have been weakened by the intimidating attacks it has received in this year alone. Is Las FARC coming to an end? That’s the question everyone asks. Las FARC has decline is combatants from “20,000 a decade ago to about 10,000 today” and the death of Raul Reyes and death of leader and founder Manuel Marulanda together with the lost of their ace under the sleeve “points to a defeat Las FARC wont recover from”.[30] However, a solution has yet been found. As Aldo Civico suggests, “Las FARC pride and history” won’t allow for a full disarmament and/or surrender of the guerrilla. A “hard talk” as Michael Shifter, vice president of InterAmerican Dialogue in Washington suggests in Time’s article, won’t work if everyone goes into the table with the hope to “fracture and fragment even more”, Las FARC. But as Aldo Civico explained, negotiations hold the piece to try an understanding in between. Both have to be willing to work together to avoid a strong asymmetry from the government as it hopes to negotiate to Las FARC surrender. Just as Betancourt mother commented to Time before her daughter’s rescue I wonder “why dialogue is so impossible for all sides in this tragedy.”[31]

No matter what, the social inequalities that brought Las FARC to unite still exist; “the richest three percent own seventy percent of the arable land; fifty-seven percent of the people subsist on three percent of the land, while the richest one percent of the population controls forty-five percent of the wealth.”[32] Despite the US-Colombia war on drugs, other results have long lasting consequences such as its “fumigations sprayings have disastrous results, frequently killing legitimate food crops and endangering the health of Colombian communities.” In addition, Colombia’s Coca production has actually seen an increased in the past year. Even though Colombian government has engaged in hard eradication of coca programs, USA Today reports that according to a UN report dated June 18th 2008, peasants devoted 27% more land to growing coca last year.[33]

In the weekend of July 2nd, McCain visited Colombia to discuss McCain’s and Uribe’s “support to free trade and relations with the crucial ally; but Mr. Obama oppose it because of workers’ fears about job losses overseas and American labor’s concern over the killing of union leasers in Colombia.”[34] This is only a speculation of what could come about depending on which American candidate win the upcoming elections.

Conclusion

In retrospect, Colombia’s civil war has taken a toll of over 40,000 lives in the last decade alone.[35] Teachers, students, peasants, unionists, community activist and every citizen in Colombia for that matter have been victim of violence in this country. As “strong hands” come along, peace talks of efforts have become less attractive and therefore difficult to achieve. The war on drugs and on terror would hit big before its end. Colombia’s citizens are warriors that defend their beliefs to the extreme. They are trained through the difficulties they have endured their entire life.

A victory for Colombia can only mean a victory for its ally the United States. This victory boosted US confidence to show the rest of Latin America and the world that US strategies work. This years sequence of events are said to justify its years of U.S. military aid to Colombia and those that would continue. The United States has moved a giant step towards its free trade agreements with Colombia as well as the war on terror. Its “National Security Doctrine” as its known in Latin America, which is not concerned with “defense against an external enemy but rather the internal enemy” has scored and can only grow to the benefits of “military operations –which, incidentally, happen to benefit the high-tech industries that produce military equipment” (Chomsky, 11). It is also a way to protect Colombia’s natural resources such as oil as Colombia figures in top fifteen countries that provide crude oil to the United States (refer to table at the end). Part of US Aid to Colombia has been assigned to protect Occidental Petroleum’s pipeline in Colombia as stated before.

Colombia has definitely learned from US intelligence, force above law accomplishes more. President Uribe must be laughing in the back of those who believe that negotiations hold the key to the end of Colombia’s civil war. But there is still much to talk about. How soon would it be for the indefinitely end of this war? Does the elimination of the guerrillas guarantee and end to the paramilitary and drug trade? Why not shift military aid towards real aid that would alleviate the 2/3 population that lives under poverty in Colombia? To these are questions only the future holds the answers.

Works Cited
Civico, Aldo. Personal Interview. 08 July 2008.
Chomsky, Noam. The Colombian Plan. Z Magazine June 2000.
Simons, Geoff. COLOMBIA: A Brutal History. London: SAQI, 2004
Dudley, Steven S. Walking Ghosts: murder and guerrilla politics in Colombia. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Stokes, Doug. America’s Other War: Terrorizing Colombia. New York: Zed Books, 2005.
[1] Wikipedia: FARC-EP
[2] Wikipedia: FARC-EP
[3] Wikipedia: FARC-EP
[4] See Appendix 1 and 2 of Geoff Simon’s book: Colombia: A Brutal History.
[5] The Huffington Post, July 2 2008: McCain Backer’s Firm Pleaded Guilty To Funding Terrorist Group in Colombia
[6]
[7]
[8] <www.socialismandliberation.org/mag> : People’s Insurgency in Colombia Challenges US –Backed Regime
[9] New York Times, July 13, 2008
[10] <http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/colombia/4.htm> Human Rights Report, 2001.
[11] Redefining Security in Human Terms, Jacqueline Cabasso.
[12]
[13] See Consultoría para los Derechos Humanos y el Desplazamiento (CODHES), Situación de conflicto y desplazamiento en las fronteras: El cerco se cierra (Bogotá: CODHES, 2005), p. 24. CODHES estimates that 130,300 persons were forcibly displaced in the first half of 2004 and that some 287,500 persons were forcibly displaced from their communities from January to December 2004. See CODHES, Conflicto humano y crisis humanitariano en Colombia: Desplazados en el limbo, CODHES Bulletin No. 56 (Bogotá: February 1, 2005), p. 1.
[14]
[15] Wikipedia, FARC-EP
[16] Wikipedia, FARC-EP
[17] VOANews.com, 4 June 2008: Colombia Delays Resumption of Ties with Ecuador.
[18] <>
[19] VOANews.com, 4 June 2008: Colombia Delays Resumption of Ties with Ecuador.
[20] VOANews.com, 2 June 2008: Ecuador Seeks Probe of Colombian Rebel Documents.
[21] www.economist.com, May 22nd 2008: The FARC Files
[22] www.washingtonpost.com January 11 2008: Colombia Rebels Release two Hostages to Venezuela.
[23] Univision, Spanish News, July 6th 2008.
[24] VOANews.com, 9 June 2008: US Urges Chavez to Match Words on Colombian Rebel with Actions.
[25] < http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/11/venezuela.colombia.ap/index.html>
24 <http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/speeches/2008/sgbogota20080516.asp>
[27] http:www.time.com Wednesday July 2 2008: Colombia’s Stunning Hostage Rescue.
[28] Associated Press: US, Colombia Choked Rebel Communications Network.
[29] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/contnt/article/2008/07/11/AR200871101856.html
[30] www.Time.com Wednesday July 02, 2008: Colombia’s Stunning Hostage Rescue.
[31] www.Time.com Wednesday July 02, 2008: Colombia’s Stunning Hostage Rescue.
[32] www.socialismandliberation.org
[33] http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-06-18-cocacolombia_N.htm
[34] www.nytimes.com July 2, 2008: Improve Human Rights, McCain Tells Colombia.
[35] http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/colombia/topten.html