What if Andean countries "Just Said No" ?

Let's say in the 90s, Colombia, and then possibly the other Andean
drug-producing states quit the drug war. A PoD might be a decision by
Andres Pastrana who was working toward a domestic peace process. So,
the new Colombian policy vis-a-vis drugs to the US is, its your
problem, we won't spend a peso on preventing the export of drugs. How
does US policy and the policy of neghboring countries adjust? What
are the internal effects in Colombia?

And let's not limit it to Colombia. If Colombia isn't your pick, what about Peru or Bolivia?

Quite easy (and sad). There will be an US-sponsored coup, and the newly installed dictator, most likel ysome amry general, supported by the excusive upper class and backed by the USA will resume to be an US lackey.

At a guess, I'd say the government in question is overthrown by a US-backed coup within 6-10 months. But I'm an incorrigible cynic, so don't mind me.

And anyway, it isn't like US-backed coups always work - far from it.

They would face a tough time dealing with the American response in general. Just how much money are these countries getting from the US these days? On the other hand, if they play their cards right, they can now get rich taxing cocaine.

raharris1973 said:

Let's say in the 90s, Colombia, and then possibly the other Andean drug-producing states quit the drug war (...). What
are the internal effects in Colombia? And let's not limit it to Colombia. If Colombia isn't your pick, what about Peru or Bolivia?

Click to expand...

Without a concentratet effort to curtail the drug lords, the mentioned countries, at least Bolivia and Colombia I'd say, would succumbe to anarchy and chaos. The drug lords would reign supreme in their own fiefdoms, kidnappings and violence a part of everyday life, and the cities would be battlezones were the hired guns of the cartels clash in turf wars.

Btw would the US be able to do something about this in the 90s? The coup idea sound awfully Reaganish.

Best regards!

Mr.B.

The US just might take matters into their own hands, as in "Clear and Present Danger". Satellites might be launched and tasked for nothing but spying on drug trafficking, US planes might launch herbicide bombs on drug fields, US special forces might sneak in and shoot up drug labs, and US warplanes could shoot down planes carrying drugs. At the least, you could bet that the US would cancel every dime of foreign aid going to these countries....

David, I think that you have the right idea. The foreign aid issue is of course a no-brainer, but let me add that it would be simple enough to make sure that these countries find it very difficult to get credit through international banks, the World Bank, and the IMF.

That should teach them to refuse the requests of their betters...

well, I don't know if I'd go that far. Cutting off our own foreign aid would be justified; interfering with international sources of aid would be petty. Actually, I think the US would balk at attacking the drug side inside another country's borders, but I bet you would see a big increase in actions on the high seas, in the air, etc....
I'm just going to ignore that whole "their betters" comment..

As I understand it, there's ample evidence that any US attempts at drug interdiction in any foreign nation are a favor to that nation, not the other way around. Even if the drugs were legal in Peru (and coca leaf is I believe in some areas) they could not tax them profitably since the major money is in the US. Drug enterprises would remain mainly criminal enterprises, since smuggling drugs into the US is still criminal even if raising the drugs isn't. As such they have a survival interest in controlling the government "by any means necessary" and so are a destabilizing influnence.

The US money would be better and more efficiently spent patrolling our own borders, since the raising area simply shifts once we're successful. Its the other nations of the world that point out we have an obligation to rid them of drugs since we provide the majority of the world's consuming market.

If, of course, we legalize it the problem will disappear for both parties even if the foreign nation chooses to keep it illegal. They will still have whatever small illegal drug problem their own poor internal market can afford but the huge effect of criminal money being pumped into their economy will be gone

Pundits in these countries (where they're permitted) should firstly beg us to legalize drugs on a regular basis. Failing that they can point out rightly that we have an obligation to help them control the criminals we support.

Coca leaves ARE legal in Peru and Bolivia...

It is too ingrained an habit for the Indian poulation in both countries; one of the reasons the Bolivian president fell last year was he was leaning too hard on coca planters to stop planting coca.

David: Let me make sure that I have got this right... Military incursions into a soverign state (use of special forces against drug infrastructure, and airstrikes against drug fields) combined with revocation of foreign aid to those (often desparately poor) states is OK, but use of the IMF and the World Bank (instruments of trade) is 'petty'? As for my 'betters' remark, the sarcasm obviously didn't reach you. If we are financing these narco-whatevers with our habits, isn't it a bit hypocritical of us to strongarm those states?

I don't believe that legalization is a perfect solution (too many of the libertoids here miss externalities that might tarnish things), but I have reluctantly come around to the view that the alternatives are far worse. The idea that we would conduct military operations in countries with whom we are at peace because they wouldn't help choke off a trade that is drive by OUR demands strikes me as far worse than pressuring a few trade organizations to make credit harder to get...

The question remains why the USA would fall back to the usage of special forcs. Tehy didnt do so befroe, and just toppled latin american governments they didnt like. Why whould that change in this case?

"Tehy didnt do so befroe, and just toppled latin american governments they didnt like"

When the US toppled gov'ts in Latin America we didn't like, we typically took advantage of forces at play already in those countries...we simply helped 'em out a little bit with $$, arms, etc. Hence little or no need for actual US boots on the ground.

Example: Arbenz, in Guatemala. The landowners and Army officers didn't like him. The common folk loved him, but they were badly-educated and largely unarmed (thank you, gun control). We simply assisted the forces who opposed Arbenz in doing what they'd wanted to do anyhow.

There are other examples of US meddling (most of which were more moral), but the above one, in my estimate, was the most tricky to pull off--in other cases, the leader being toppled was just another caudillo, not a freely-elected quasi-populist. In every case, however, there were people who were willing and able to replace the leader we didn't like.

In the case of Colombia, who are we going to replace the government with? The Communist FARC, the ELN (the lesser Commie movement), and the right-wing paramilitaries are drug-dealers too. Everyone in that misbegotten little war sells drugs.

With Peru, are we going to help the Shining Path, a homicidal Maoist group, mount a coup? We spent most of the Cold War helping Peru fight those characters; realpolitik might require a volte face sometime, but I think even the most hard-core drug warriors would find those characters repellent. Plus Shining Path dealt drugs too.

Ecuador? I don't know enough to make a judgement.

Now, we need to figure out what sort of government in these countries would do such a thing. Are there any existing political parties that advocate booting the US out? Is there a Latin American equivalent of the Libertarian Party that wants to end the Drug War? Or does such a scenario require the actual takeover of a state or states by a major drug-dealing group? An analogue could be the Taliban in Afghanistan...they limited drug cultivation to drive up prices for the stockpiles they confiscated from peasants in the name of the "War on Drugs."

If you want a major drug gang to take over a country, a POD would need to be before the destruction of the cartels in the mid-1990s. "Killing Pablo" doesn't work out so well?

In the event of the Medellins taking over Colombia, the US probably would go to war outright. Right or wrongs of the drug war aside, allowing criminal gangs to take over countries would be VERY bad for regional stability. However, if its a domestic political thing, then what? The US isn't a friend of Chavez or Aristide and we didn't intervene on the side of those who oppose those two.

US coup, definitely.

Not Reaganish really. Its been US doctrine for two centuries to keep the rest of America in line with its interests no matter how.

Of course the USA used forces already present in the country. I do not argue this. However, the USA initiated those coups, and gave enough support to make them suceed. I think this qualified as "USA toppling those governments".

And what about simply the military, with a general on top of a junta?

"Of course the USA used forces already present in the country. I do not argue this"

I brought up the in-county bit b/c you said something about "why the need for special forces." If there's no in-country force that we can really support against the established gov't, we'd need to either fish or cut bait; full-blown US invasion or nothing. In the former case, that'd be tricky for domestic political reasons. However, "nothing" won't work either, for the same reason.

"And what about simply the military, with a general on top of a junta?"

That might work--in fact, in most cases, assuming we can find a pliable enough general, it would.

However, in Colombia, with the gov't, the rebels, and the paramilitaries all selling drugs, it's likely that any pro-US junta would be another case of same-old, same old--gov't officially helps US fight drugs, but at the same time, powerful elements in the gov't sell drugs and profit from Drug War-induced higher prices.

P.S.

I remember on the old board, you were talking about how you'd have to serve a term in the German Army once you graduated high school. Has that started up yet? You were away for some time; I figure if you were doing basic training, you wouldn't have access to a computer for a good while (US Army Basic is two months, Marines is three).

Would the US also have gone so far in such a POD of no foreign bases in Central America to fight the Drug War, as authorising the CIA to conduct assassination campaigns against Pablo Escobar and other druglords, and revoke the Boland amendment ? Of course, sending in the CIA + Delta and other SOCOM operators without local support would be awful tricky...

Nah wasnt that. Still am in school, for *looks at clock (date)* 4 more months.
However, were nearing a-levels, so time gets stressy. This, and my connection mugged up.