In the case of the little Cuban raft boy, it is not clear which side is more grotesque: whether the US side, with Senator Dan Burton calling on a six-year-old child to testify before the US Congress, or the Cuban side, with President Fidel Castro announcing that when the six-year-old boy returns he will be proclaimed a socialist hero. This is subject for mockery and bitter contemplation of political frivolity, opportunism, hypocrisy and imbecility. Poor child. This is paedophilia and it is punishable by imprisonment, both in the United States and in Cuba.
But there is another even more grotesque subject, and with a greater dose of frivolity, opportunism, hypocrisy and imbecility, as well as being loaded with the threat of disaster: it is the US "military aid" to the Colombian government. This time it is not a simple rumour, immediately denied by the authorities in both countries. It is a formal announcement that confirms the many times denied rumour. President Bill Clinton did it "urgently". President Andres Pastrana celebrated it radiantly, "It is good news! I am very satisfied! We Colombians should feel very happy!"
What is this "aid" of nearly 1.7bn dollars for? Clinton says it is to "preserve democracy and support human rights in that country (Colombia)." His anti-drug Tsar Barry McCaffrey is more direct, "It is to recover the southern part of the country, currently under guerrilla control." Seeing as most of the money (1,274m dollars) comes in the form of weapons for the armed forces (planes, helicopters, machine-gun systems) and only a small part (238m dollars) is earmarked for "alternative development programmes" and "policies for human rights, strengthening justice and the democratic system", it is evident that Clinton has not looked at the figures, whereas the general has. This aid is for war.
So that the government will win? No, it is clearly not enough for that. At unadjusted prices dating back to the Vietnam War 30 years ago, each dead Vietcong guerrilla cost a million dollars. The package promised to Colombia would only "take out" 1,574 guerrillas. And, above all, it is not to win the war, for the simple reason that the problem is not that Colombia lacks weapons (to the contrary, there is a surplus). The problem is that everything else is lacking: human rights, justice and a democratic system. In this way, the US "help" is not to end the Colombian war, but rather to aggravate it.
This is what took place, in its time, with the civil war in Angola, where the United States armed Jonas Savimbi's UNITA against the FNLA Marxist guerrillas. Then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger explained that this would not help UNITA win the war, but it would make it difficult for the FNLA to win. The results were two-fold: Angola was destroyed and the armed conflict stretched into an eternity. Nearly 30 years after Kissinger's ingenious phrase, the unfortunate African country continues to be at war and in debt (to the United States) to finance it.
This is also Colombia's future, though perhaps President Pastrana has not heard this from Madeleine Albright, the current US secretary of state, this Kissinger in a dress who raises doubts about the judgment of those who say that if women ruled, the world would live at peace. A future of destruction, indefinite war and indebtedness. (The latter was explained by John Foster Dulles, another secretary of state, "When the United States gives weapons, it buys a client.")
And this is the vision of the future that, in Pastrana's opinion, we Colombians should be happy about? I said that in this article I was going to talk about politicians' opportunism and hypocrisy, of their frivolity and imbecility. The former two traits describe Clinton, McCaffrey and Albright. The latter two, our enthusiastic president.