Considering a growing number of civilian victims, a high level of impunity, and little for the Colombian government and military to show for themselves, it leads me to be a bit suspicious about the U.S.’s relentless fight in the “war on drugs”.

If the violence and human rights abuses are so bad in Colombia, why would the U.S. decide to suspend Bolivia from the Andean Trade Act and not Colombia? In October, the Bush administration announced they will suspend Bolivia’s trade benefits because of Bolivia’s failure to combat drug trafficking. (For more recent coverage click here)
However, between 2006 and 2007 Bolivia’s cocaine production increased by 5%, whereas Colombia’s cocaine production increased by 27%...

Bolivia’s inability to cooperate in the fight against drug trafficking? What about the U.S.’s inability to cooperate in the fight against world poverty and inequality? After all, aren’t Bolivian farmers reliant on coca as a form of quick payoff in an increasingly competitive economy and uneven playing field? The Bolivian case perfectly illustrates the fact that trade is sometimes politically motivated. Trade is used as a tool by developed countries to get what they want, and what they want has nothing to do with human rights.

In a perfect world, it would make more sense for the US to decide to suspend Colombia’s trade benefits in order to influence Colombia to shape up and put an end to corruption and human rights abuses. Sadly, we live in a world where chocolate chip cookies don’t always come out perfectly chewy and decisions amongst world leaders are not always based on equality and the value of human life.

Obviously, there are certain motivations and relationships steering economic and political decisions between the U.S. and Latin America. I’m glad to see U.S. media picking up on it and unveiling the true character of this administration. With Bush still scheming to pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement before the end of his term, I can imagine there are a lot of people in Washington sweating over this critical media coverage.