Spotlight On: Colombia Fumigation
Now is the time for those members of Congress and activist groups concerned about this atrocity to bring new players onto the field and to begin playing offense: Specifically, against the plan's weakest link and one that, by itself, causes great harm: the widespread aerial spraying of herbicides over vast tracts of farmland, including in the Amazon basin. (See Narco News' report from May 2003 for more background, plus some more recent links below.)
Everybody, it seems, from corporate America on down, claims to want to "save the rainforest." It's often a feel-good cause that even includes ice cream and other consumer products named for it. But the spear has not been sufficiently raised and pointed, or emerged beyond the kind of "humanrightsspeak" inside-the-beltway language that tends to overwhelm and blunt public outrage. Frankly, environmentalists have always been much better at sounding alarms Background:
According to a recent U.S. government report, close to 120,000 hectares of Colombian land - that's 463 SQUARE MILES - were sprayed over the past year with the herbicide named Glyphosate (whereas only 4,000 hectares - or 15 square miles - were eradicated manually: It's been an orgy of toxins pouring down from the skies).
Interestingly, from the same report in the Colombian daily El Tiempo, U.S. Undersecretary for International Narco-Trafficking Affairs Robert Charles claimed that "the progress in Colombia has not generated an increase in illicit crops in other countries like Peru and Bolivia. The report says that, in total, the area cultivated in those two countries last year amounted to 59,000 hectares, or 2,000 less than in 2002."
In other words, spraying poisons from the air is not necessary - even by Washington's ever shifting numbers game - to reduce the number of coca plants harvested in countries that don't allow aerial spraying, like Peru and Bolivia.
However, according to a report by a United Nations anti-drug bureaucracy, "the success of coca eradication activities in Colombia could cause a change in the illicit cultivation of coca, not only in countries where it is traditionally grown, like Bolivia and Peru, but also in other countries like Ecuador and Venezuela."
And this is the game: the more they spray, the more they displace the coca crops to other parts of Colombia, deeper into the Amazon jungle region, and into other countries, which then provides the State, its private contractors like Dyncorp and Monsanto (which manufactures the herbicide glyphosate under the brand name of RoundUp), and the mercenary soldiers of fortune who pilot the fumigating airplanes for big bucks, their collective pretext to make more money (yours and mine) by expanding herbicide spraying into bigger and bigger areas.
That the displacement effect tends to push coca cultivation deeper into the jungle makes this fumigation campaign more and more damaging to the Amazon ecosystem each year.
A case in point: the administration of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has launched a plan to start spraying now over important nature reserves, claiming that it has found 6,500 hectares of coca in national parks, and eagerly estimates it could be as high as 10,000 hectares: That's 38 square miles inside jungle reserves that are next up to be burned from above.
Even the daily El Tiempo, an Oligarch's Daily, has editorialized against what it calls "Parkicide."
"We have to lead a national and international crusade, to mobilize the country," says Edilberto Guerrero, a reader, to the newspaper. "I offer hours of my work. For whatever it takes I'll be there."
If there's any doubt that this herbicide causes profound damage to regular food crops, to the health of people (especially the very young, the very old, and the already infirm), and to the natural environment, one need only peek over the Colombian border into Ecuador (where farmers speak more loudly in part because they're still alive to speak), where, according to this recent report, the mere spillover of Colombian aerial fumigations into Ecuador has caused an exodus:
Since July of 2003, eighty Ecuadorian families have abandoned their farms located in Puerto Mestanza, on the banks of the San Miguel River, as a consequence of the fumigations conducted in the Amazon jungle regions of Colombia to eradicate coca plantations on the other side of the river.Victor Mestanza, the founder of the town, is one of the members of the only five families that stayed. "With the fumigations, that began in January 2000 as part of Plan Colombia," comments Mestanza, "the situation is desperate. We can't work. They have taken away our economy and our crops."
In the days before the last herbicide spraying done "by small Colombian airplanes that flew over our territory," the farmer lost "various hectares of sugarcane, banana, 170,000 fishes in aquaculture pools, 400 ducks and 70 pigs," in other words, he lost the fruit of 23 years of work in the area...
There is more, so much more, to be said and to be done about this ecological disaster underway. From our end at Narco News, we've published a lot about the lawsuit by Ecuador's farmers against these fumigations, and the overall herbicide spraying problems caused by Plan Colombia, but I want to do more.
I want to see, specifically, more reporting from the ecological standpoint, with tech support from readers knowledgeable in Amazon rainforest ecological issues, that will tie into and move existing environmental and pro-Amazon rainforest organizations (they're very influential) to enter the fray more directly against the fumigations and by using the kind of environmentalist language that has great potential for entering this year's political contests in the United States, with two of the three national candidates, and the wife of one of them, being longtime environmentalists themselves.
And so, fellow and sister citizens of The Narcosphere, I turn to you: What more can we do? An average Colombian citizen, Edilberto Guerrero, told his local newspaper. "I offer hours of my work. For whatever it takes I'll be there." If he can do that, I bet that many of us can as well.
The floor is open to suggestions and proposals.


Awareness - Arousal - Action
Submitted on March 5th, 2004 by Nora CallahanRarely does the horror of US taxpayer supported policy of spraying people and food crops with poison (in an attempt to get US citizens to stop using cocaine) get presented to the public outside of 'text based' information. But other things are missing, too.
Now and again we look for projects that environmental or humanitarian groups might be leading, and find little beyond direct lobbying at appropriations time. That said, there might be more activity, but it is difficult to find any information about US led plans, that easily involves grassroots volunteers. Not the fault of organizers, resources paltry no doubt.
We had lively discussion with November Coalition friends, in and outside usual conversations last month. What does it take to change a dire circumstance? Concerned, caring citizens willing to give time and money to a concerted effort. How do we get power like that?
What do people need -- before a process of organization to tackle something -- begins?
Awareness. People need to be aware. People need to be aroused. People must act. Awareness, arousal and action. The assumption being that some people aware, and aroused, will act.
Perhaps, at least sometimes, arousal comes first, we went on to speculate.
"Come on Joe, add a body, and you owe me friend, remember that time..."
We had all invited friends to an action, who then became regularly active.
We went on to solicit discussion from others that included this question: What happens to the person aware and aroused, if they aren't sure how they should act? Time and again if the process rolls from awareness to arousal, awareness to arousal, and a person who doesn't know what action to take, do they desensitize to an issue that could once arouse them?
We'd ponder that carefully, and went on to conclude that a goal orientated organizer would do well to make sure that resources are divided properly between these necessary ingredients to 'getting what you want.'
Sometimes that means, some people and groups do more of some processes - working in areas of expertise.
Awareness - Arousal - Action
One dear friend suggested that we say instead of 'arousal' -- inspiration. I agreed to say it that way when I'm in church. On the street? I'll say arousal... you know folks, the stuff that raises the hairs on the arms, and other physical responses -- heart quickening, perhaps melting -- people are hard these days. Once you have them at that point of heartfelt agreement, or keen understanding, what in the hell do you do with them - besides asking for money? You know folks?
At the very least - we all agreed that the people assembled (two or more principles) - people are invited to participate in deciding what it is to be. We all ought to get over the notion that we have to have a detailed answer. We don't.
What we all need, however, is to have willingness to say to each other, "I'd like to work with you to find the details that will end this madnesss."
There is a press pack available at:
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/colo mbia/presspack/
Good photos of spray-dead corn, baby covered in a rash, and two little girls in sprayed field are able to be used, with credit given.
The text information is old, 2001 - but the photos timeless, and would make a good addition to tabling, or display materials.
What happens if we keep telling people about a problem, presenting no plans for action, no solutions, and educational material leaves all but good readers -- out of the loop?
We have to wait till good readers lay plans for action that lead to proper solutions. We do it this way a lot. It's not very effective and never save enough lives...
Development of 'non-text' based educational material to add to current 'text based' info available, coupled with a plan of citizen action 'would do far more.' The action can be -- let's get together for java and talk about what more can be done. It was good to meet you today. Can we talk again, I've some friends you'd like to meet...
If there are grassroots organizations doing actions -- assisting them with broadening participation a good start. In the US, if there are programs for the community volunteer to assist in, they are difficult to find.
Having co-publishers list any known actions or projects that citizens in America entire can participate it, here in comments would be a good start.
I'll collect my info of upcoming social justice forums we are participating in, and post that info shortly, hoping, that a websearch will lead to good networking, via Al's post -- in the not so distant future.
We can certainly do more.
How Timely!
Submitted on March 5th, 2004 by Ron SmithExcellent
Submitted on March 5th, 2004 by Al GiordanoThere is only so much room on the docket of United States politics and legislating:
There's a "war and peace" slot, which is dominated by Iraq. It's very hard to get a word in edgewise regarding Colombia.
There is also an "environmental" slot, in which "the Amazon" is a big deal, and sympathy for it enjoys very broad approval.
There is a ton of good information - especially thanks to Jeremy Bigwood, and the Ecuadorian lawsuit against Dyncorp over herbicide spraying - about the human costs of the fumigations.
The "organizations" inside the beltway that deal with the issue are not, in my view, focused enough to concentrate on it. One day they do herbicides, the next day a massacre, the next day it's something at Coca Cola, the next day it's an indigenous thing, and, in terms of "theme and message," it's a mess. Thus, opposition doesn't gain traction.
The "environmental organizations" both inside and outside the beltway are traditionally more focused. Rainforest Action Network is a kickass organization. It beats Citibank and Boise Cascade and forces those giants to change policies, but it has not waded deeply into the herbicide spraying thing. There are also more establishment environmental groups which hagiograph "the Amazon," and even spend big bucks on projects there... especially in Brazil... I'm thinking of the World Wildlife Federation, those sorts of groups and philanthropists.
They're all a bit reluctant to crawl into an issue that has already been stained with the mark of "drugs" and "terrorism" and even "human rights" since the environmental impulse is, by flavor, more distrusting of "humans" than the religion of "human rights." And the language used by the few institutions out there dealing with Plan Colombia further keeps the big environmental fish out of the river, so to speak.
A new way of arguing the Colombia Fumigation issue has to be developed: a new language by which to speak of it, strictly in environmental terms, one that makes the case that this is harming the sacred cow named the Amazon, "the lungs of the world," etc... a language that, frankly, avoids the language of "human rights" or "war and peace" or "drug policy" etc.
Because if politicians in Washington are faced with an up or down choice between "are you for defoliating the Amazon or not?" they're going to rush to block these fumigations.
At some point some big groups like DPA have to jump in, and recruit some of the better, bigger, enviro groups like RAN and WWF, and people like RFK Jr. and even Ralph Nader, to develop this campaign for the next congress and administration. They're gonna have to nudge some of the usual suspects who have failed to gain traction on this matter out of the way, and bring in some real seasoned environmental advocates to carry the public water on it.
Of course, here, we don't tell the big institutions what to do. We report on their work, especially when its good and newsworthy.
But what we do, consciously, is to create the language, the poetry, the ways of forming and documenting the very specific sets of argument, that big shots like them then find irresistable. The Narco News style, again and again, has always been to build the better mousetrap that everyone else then jumps in to try and coopt and run with. And, in the case of rephrasing the fumigation issue from a "Colombia" geographic image to an "Amazon" geographic image, and from a "war and peace" niche to an "environmental" niche, I think we're in the right place at the right time.
As I see it, we have until the end of the year to make this happen. That's what I'm asking about: what can we do, through Authentic Journalism, to shift the terms of the debate onto a whole new playing field?
Quito link
Submitted on March 8th, 2004 by Trevor TopAl, nice use of hagiograph.
telling environmental organizations what to do
Submitted on April 1st, 2004 by Benjamin MelançonSo let's have them hear from us. To anyone who reads this:
- Which environmental organizations do you think will be most amenable to, and of those most effective at, taking on the campaign to stop the spraying of powerful, indiscriminate herbicides in the threatened, biodiversity-rich Amazon?
- Which environmental organizations do you belong to? Do you want to contact them individually or as a group expressing our concerns on this issue?
- Are you willing to join the environmental group or groups that would be best for winning this issue? (For instance, I'd been meaning to join the Rainforest Action Network myself.)
You can contact me directly at ben_nn@melanconent.com. (Note: that e-mail address is spam-filled, and someday I'll be turning it off. The one below this post, in my 'signature', will stay working. Take out the "DON'T SPAM" text.)