Check for web archive captures
We Interrupt This Program
By anitamckay on 2009-08-12 08:26:48
My post this week is supposed to be the second part of the piece about Vietnam. I've decided to leave that until next week
because of events in the news that cry out for comments. The first item is the decision of the United States to position US
troops at seven bases in Colombia. The decision was made after current Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa refused to
renew a ten year lease unless the United States would allow an Ecuadorian military base in the US. The expiring lease was
given by the former President in spite of strong domestic objections. Whether the Colombian bases are a necessary part of
the endless, ineffective and expensive war on drugs is not the immediate issue. The immediate issue is that the US did not
bother to inform or discuss plans in Colombia with the adjoining countries, which are understandably upset and concerned.
How would we take it if the Chinese, for example, leased bases in Canada? For that matter, how did we react when there
were Russian missiles in Cuba or even when tiny Grenada was trying to build a one-runway airport with the help of Bulgaria
and Cuba? Why does our foreign policy have to be carried out with unilateral arrogance? The second item concerns the US
(non) response to the coup in the Honduras. Our laws require that we stop trade with and support for illegal regimes, yet
President Obama has labeled those who call for the enforcement of our laws "hypocrites" who want the US not to meddle in
the internal affair of South and Latin American countries in other situations. Is he not able to understand the difference
between the covert assassination of a foreign head of state and applying legal economic pressure legally? The third item is
Obama's praise for the so-called stellar human rights record in the war on drugs. Senator Patrick Leahy seems to be the lone
voice in the wilderness for holding up any funds that can be, until the record is reviewed. A fourth item is the decision made
by Richard Holbrooke (of the failed policy in the former Yugoslavia) to allow the hunting and execution of 50 individuals
identified as drug lords. This policy is being used because the one of destroying poppy fields has failed. Too many of them
are in territory controlled by the Taliban. Never mind that one of Karzai's supporters, Sher Muhammed Akhundzada, is a
drug trafficker. There are also credible reports that one of Karzai's brothers is a dealer, too. I guess it comes down to which
side they spend the drug money on. It's interesting and instructive to note that two of the stories from south of the border and
the one from Afghanistan are connected. They illustrate how the United States makes our own drug problems the problem
of the countries producing the drugs. If we cleaned up our act, the lack of demand from the US would take care of the
production. If we legalized drugs, as an earlier post suggested, the problem would vanish, and the US would save billions
of dollars a year now wasted on an ineffective war on drugs. If Afghanistan had an actual infrastructure, perhaps people
could find ways other than drugs to make a living.
