|
January 20, 2003
Colombia's Neoliberal Madness
by Garry Leech
Last week, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
agreed to provide Colombia with $2.1 billion over the next two years
as long as the Uribe administration abides by the economic agenda
put forth by the international lending institution. This agenda
consists of privatizing one of the country's largest banks, Bancafe.
It also calls for the restructuring of Colombia's pension program
and the dismissal of tens of thousands of state workers in order
to cut deficit spending. While announcing the new loan agreement,
IMF officials made it clear that they do not expect Colombia to
use any of the money, which the international lender classifies
as a "stand-by loan." In other words, Colombia has been
approved for a $2.1 billion credit linewith $264 million available
immediatelyto which it can turn in case of an economic emergency.
All of this begets the question: Why would Colombia agree to implement
severe economic austerity measures that hurt the majority of Colombians
in return for a loan it doesn't really need? The answer lies in
the complex military/economic relationship that exists between Washington
and Bogotá.
In
the late 1980s, drug traffickersprimarily the leaders of the
Medellín cartellaunched an urban bombing campaign in
an attempt to convince the Colombian government to end the practice
of extraditing drug lords to the United States to stand trial. Bogotá
turned to the administration of George Bush Sr. for military aid
to combat the narco-traffickers. President Bush was more than happy
to provide the necessary aid, albeit with certain strings attached.
In return for Colombia's share of the $2.2 billion Andean Initiative
aid package, Bush called for economic reforms based on "market-driven
policies." Shortly after receiving the aid, the Gaviria administration
initiated an "economic opening," which implemented the
neoliberal policies called for by Washington.
While Colombian officials like to hold the violence
responsible for the country's deteriorating economic performance
over the past decade, the blame can be more accurately placed on
the neoliberal policies introduced during the 1990s. After all,
the intensity of Colombia's conflict during the late 1940s and 1950s
far exceeded that experienced during the 1990s, and yet the economy
displayed impressive growth during that period. In fact, this economic
growth continued until the 1990s, making Colombia one of the more
economically stable countries in Latin America during the second
half of the twentieth century.
But by 1999, Colombia’s economy had sunk
into its worst recession in more than half a century. Even more
worrying for Colombia's political and economic elite was the growing
military strength of the country's leftist guerrilla groups. For
the first time in more than 40 years of insurgency, Colombia's rebels
were capable of seriously threatening Colombia's urban elite through
kidnapping and bombings. And as it had done a decade earlier when
confronted with the Medellín Cartel's urban bombing campaign,
Bogotá once again turned to Washington for increased military
aid to combat the escalating insurgency. The Pastrana and Clinton
administrations devised Plan Colombia, which called for massive
amounts of foreign aid in order to boost Colombia's economy, dramatically
diminish drug trafficking, and end the civil conflict (see, Plan
Colombia: A Closer Look).
The economic component of Plan Colombia simply
consisted of IMF-imposed austerity measures. And only one month
after the Pastrana administration agreed to a three year, $2.7 billion
loan from the IMF in December 1999, President Clinton proposed $1.6
billion in mostly military aid for Colombiathe $1.3 billion
approved by Congress in July, 2000, made Colombia the third-largest
recipient of U.S. military in the world behind only Israel and Egypt.
As was the case ten years earlier, Bogotá adhered to economic
policies that favored the economic interests of the United States
and multinational corporations in return for increased military
aid that served the interests of Washington and Colombia's political
and economic elite.
The terms of the 1999 IMF loan to Colombia were
virtually identical to last week's agreement. Colombia was forced
to lower tariffs, privatize state-owned entities, and implement
fiscal policies acceptable to the U.S.-dominated IMF. For the most
part, despite resistance from unions, guerrillas and even Colombia's
Constitutional Court, Bogotá has satisfied Washington's economic
demands (see, Colombians Protest IMF-imposed
Austerity Measures). And in return for implementing policies
that have failed to alleviate the economic hard times being endured
by the majority of Colombians, Bogotá did not receive a penny
of the $2.7 billion IMF loan money. As is the case with the new
loan agreement, the money simply served as an unused credit line.
Bogotá officials claim that the loan approval
by the IMF will make it easier for Colombia to obtain some $8 billion
in grants from other sources, including the World Bank and the Inter-American
Development Bank. But these lending institutions have provided countries
with funding in the past without demanding a de-facto credit rating
approval by the IMF. Furthermore, unlike an individual's credit
rating, an IMF-determined credit rating is not based on a country's
past debt repayment performance, but on a nation's willingness to
subject itself to neoliberal austerity measures that favor the economic
interests of the United States and multinational corporations.
It is tragic that a country is forced to relinquish
its political and economic autonomy through demands that it implement
policies that further impoverish its citizens in order to halt,
albeit only temporarily, the country's economic hemorrhaging. And
to add insult to injury, these IMF-imposed policies virtually guarantee
that the borrower will be forced to return for another handout in
the near future. But what is even more tragic, and sublimely ridiculous,
is that a country be forced to implement neoliberal austerity measures
that place its economic well being in the hands of fickle, self-serving
multinational corporations in return for no money whatsoever.
In essence, Washington has managed to have its
cake and eat it too. President Uribe is desperately seeking increased
U.S. military aid, which Washington is more than happy to provide,
especially when that aid can be used as leverage for obtaining desired
economic reforms. As was evidenced last week, IMF-imposed economic
reforms once again coincided with a U.S. military escalation in
Colombia. Under the terms of the new IMF loan agreement, the Uribe
administration has agreed to implement new economic austerity measures.
At the same time, Washington dispatched 70 U.S. Army Special Forces
troops to Colombia under the guise of the war on terror (see, Washington’s
New Rules of Engagement). As a result, the United States has
succeeded in dramatically escalating its military and economic role
in Colombia at the behest of that country's political and economic
elite, which is desperately trying to preserve its own privileged
status in the face of the growing insurgent threat.
This article originally appeared
in Colombia Report, an online journal
that was published by the Information Network of the Americas (INOTA).
Back to Top .
Comments
Copyright © 2003 Colombia
Journal. All rights reserved.
|