Based on the Monroe Doctrine as an orientation of US foreign policy toward Latin America, the US has intervened in this region since the 19th century. Colombia is not an exception due to its geographical location in the US sphere of influence. Since its independence from the Spanish colonial rule, the US has deeply interfered in this nation by different measures, especially economic and military means. US interventionism in Colombia, and other Latin American countries is reflected in the fields of economy, sociopolitics and military, which has left the lingering consequences that the Colombian people are now suffering. Now it’s the time for the President of Colombia Gustavo and his peoples to overcome the legacies of US intervention.

​

        I.  About neocolonialism

        The aftermath of the Second World War marked the process of decolonization with the outbreak of national liberation movements attempting independence and self-determination (Council on Foreign Relations, 2023). Many colonies successfully gained independence and legal recognition as sovereign states, and started their own paths of nation-building that were separate from their former “mother countries”. Other nations were recognized as sovereign states with independence officially granted by their former colonial powers, but still remained under the control of their “old masters” or new imperial powers. The term “neocolonialism” has been used to refer to this phenomenon in newly independent countries since the fragmentation of the worldwide colonial system. 

        Neocolonialism is a successor to its more hands-on form Colonialism, highlighted by the departure having traditional colonising means, including military occupation and direct political rule under administrators from colonial empires (Uzoigwe, 2019). Both Neocolonialism and Colonialism are the products of capitalism and consist of control by a developed country over a not-so-one (Lenin, 1917, pp. 13-14), while these two systems similarly entail economic domination and exploitation to serve national interests and the build-up of henchmen local rule, they differ in the means. Instead of the physical and direct rule of its predecessor, Neocolonialism uses economic means to enforce indirect rule (Deconde et al., 2002, p. 285). By employing capitalist powers, state and corporation included, what it means for the subject nation is to be turned into a cheap supply of raw materials for the neocolonialist country at a low cost; then be driven to buy back manufactured goods produced with aforementioned resources by capitalist powers at higher prices (Intersimone, 2016). The relationship can be deepened through malicious “foreign aid”, making recipient states even more indebted, thus giving into their economic suzerain more influence and favors. Eventually, these states are politically manipulated as the neocolonial powers leverage economic and military means to push forward their interests (Intersimone, 2016).

 

        II.  Materialization of American interference in Colombia 

        American influence on the Colombian economy 

        The most notable case of the United States' economic intervention and exploitation of Colombia to this day is Chiquita Inc, formerly known as United Fruit Company (Bucheli, Marcelo. 2004.). Chiquita Inc. filed for bankruptcy in 2001 and effectively changed its name to distance itself from its troubled past. But a 2006 lawsuit brought by Colombian workers claimed in a Florida court that Chiquita Inc. paid paramilitary organizations in Colombia, including the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known as the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia or AUC) (Centre for International Security and Cooperation, n.d.), between 1996 and 2004 to torture and execute workers who did not follow the rules established by company (Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, n.d.). Chiquita Inc. admitted guilt and made a USD 25 million payment to the US government. Noticeably, the Colombian bodies directly affected by these crimes against humanity received no compensation beyond the written affirmation of guilt. Again, this shows that both the United States government and United Fruit Company/Chiquita Inc. knowingly oppressed and murdered Colombian citizens and shared the colonial gaze that only allowed them to see Colombian bodies as disposable.

        Through all of these examples, a couple of conclusions may be drawn about the U.S.’s many agendas regarding Colombia’s economic development. Firstly, the Colombian economy was deliberately manipulated to be dependent on U.S. policies and corporations, such as Chiquita. Secondly, the U.S. has always prioritized its own economic benefits over Columbia; for example, Plan Colombia, which, on the surface, was a generous aid package aiming to resolve issues regarding drug trafficking and insurgencies, actually resulted in human rights abuses and environmental damage for many years after. In hindsight, it was yet another attempt of the U.S to sink their teeth further into Latin America and strengthen control. The U.S. has leveraged economic aid, military support, and corporate influence to maintain significant control over Colombia's economic and political landscape, often prioritizing its own interests over those of the Colombian people.

        American influence on Colombian sociopolitics 

        It was argued that American attempts to enforce and uphold a political and economic status quo have led to further instability and inequality for the majority of the Colombian population (Stokes, 2005). For instance, the US’s actions in the Cold War, where multiple financial aid plans were initiated in an effort to drive back communism in Latin America (Avilés, 2008). It is important to recognize that this “aid” of this magnitude did not come from charitable purposes, as the U.S. intended to use it as leverage to control the region further. The “Alliance For Progress” plan initiated by Kenedy in 1961 is a primary example of this, with the goal of helping Colombia massively in terms of stabilizing its economy. Policies like Plan Colombia in the 2000s involved billions of dollars in U.S. aid, aiming for a “Marshall Plan for Colombia” in order to further promote sustainable economic development (Avilés, 2008). 

        While the Colombian economy has experienced a degree of uptick in the immediate aftermath of these economic plans, it is important to recognize that they do not address the core issue of the Colombian economy, which is still suffering decades after its bloody civil war (Santina, 1998). Insurgents, civil conflicts, and an unstable political environment have further contributed to the deteriorating situation, and simply injecting a large degree of financial aid into a broken economy will not fix these underlying issues. Furthermore, it must be noted that these initiatives, while benevolent in nature, ultimately serve further the U.S. interest in the region (Livingstone, 2003). Undeniably, these economic initiatives give American corporations and the U.S. government a significant degree of control over Colombia’s national economic interests, further worsening the situation while synchronously squeezing away little self-determination the Colombian people have left. 

        American influence on Colombia through military means 

        In the Cold War era, the United States sponsored the creation of the majority of the present-day Colombian paramilitary groups to combat communist influence in Latin America. The unstable Colombian political environment in the aftermath of the ten-year civil conflict has necessitated a more radical response in order to ‘shield the interests of both Colombian and US authorities against interventionist’’, to which the American advisors have called for the recruitment of civilians into paramilitary “civil defense” groups (Oeindrila and Naidu, 2015). 

        While the effectiveness of the paramilitary forces in protecting Colombian interests is debatable, the consequences of these groups still last these days. Supposedly, more American military aid to Colombia would reinforce the country’s security and stability, yet the reality has proved otherwise. These paramilitary forces are widely known to be primarily targeting left-wing communist guerrilla forces and their supporters in the region, responsible for civilian casualties (Oeindrila and Naidu, 2015). Between 1981 and 2012, paramilitary groups caused 38.4% of civilian deaths, including hundreds of political killings targeting community leaders, elected officials, and farmers. (Colombian National Centre for Historical Memory, 2013). Furthermore, these paramilitary organizations have been involved in the ongoing illicit cocaine trafficking in Colombia as they were hired by infamous kingpins such as Pablo Escobar for protection (Santina, 1998).

 

​        III.  The legacy of American interference in Colombia today

        In response to the decolonization movement in Colombia, the United States supported the “la contrarrevolución'' paramilitary groups such as the Colombian Defense Forces (AUC), as well as the increasing repression of indigenous rights movements and support for the establishment of many Latin American military dictatorships through Operation Condor (McSherry, 2002), whose alleged acts of genocide and war crimes committed against the guerilla and civilians during “anti-communist operations” accounted for approximately 70% of the casualties in these conflicts. It is alleged that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) utilises the network of wealthy landlords in Latin America to maintain the interests of American corporations and the United States, indirectly funding and creating many paramilitaries that turned into narcotic drug cartels, for example, the “Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia'', which were further deployed to conduct repression against labour movements, trade unions, and indigenous communities (Lawless, 2004). These paramilitary organisations, also known as “death-squads,"  emerged in Latin America in the 1960s from nations such as Brazil and Uruguay. They quickly spread throughout the region as a method allegedly accepted by US entities and the right-wing Colombian governments to combat the leftist insurgency until today, often employed by American corporations like Coca-Cola as a means of asset protection against insurgents. Following the principle of using “terror against terror," they conducted ruthless operations and employed brutal methods of warfare, killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process (Livingstone, 1984). 

        Following colonisation and imperialism, the formation of new states experienced political turmoil, armed insurrection, and financial difficulties. In 2022, the Colombian election marked a great milestone in Colombian decolonisation history, with the ex-guerrilla Gustavo Petro elected as the first left-wing president and many communists elected to governmental positions. His tenure saw efforts to establish peace with guerilla groups, alleviate the damage done by the imperialist war on Colombian cultural properties, and tackle Colombian decolonisation issues. However, the rightwing military remained a major disruption to the peace process, as the Colombian government was unable to eradicate them due to their connection to major economic corporations. It is in Colombia's best interest to break out of American total domination.

​

          IV.  Conclusion

        In conclusion, it is obvious that the US intervention in Colombia, like other Latin American nations, is a form of neo-colonialism. The US interference in these South American countries has taken place in both economic, political and military terms to serve the interests of this imperial power, especially economic interests for capitalist powers behind and the security in its sphere of influence. The political turmoil, current economic difficulties, social unrest, and ongoing civil war in Colombia today are the long-lasting consequences of the US's actions in this country. In the end, it is only up to the administration of President Gustavo Petro and the Colombian people to decide the fate of their nation: whether to end American domination or to continue under the control of this imperialist.

_______________________________________________________________________________________​​

 Credits

1. Trịnh Minh Quân, at Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology

2. Phạm Quang Nhật, International Business Law intake 62, at Foreign Trade University

3. Trịnh Trung Hiếu , International Politics and Diplomatic Studies intake 49, at Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam

4. Nguyen Quoc Trung, Economic and Finance Undergraduate, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

5. Do Hoang Minh, 11th Grader, at Vinschool The Harmony

​

Bibliography

1. Avilés, William. “US Intervention in Colombia: The Role of Transnational Relations.” Bulletin of Latin American Research, vol. 27, no. 3, 2008, pp. 410–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27734044. Accessed 21 May 2024.

2. Business and Human Rights Resource Center. n.d. “Chiquita lawsuits (re Colombia, led in USA by Colombian nationals).” Business & Human Rights Resource Centre. Accessed September 27, 2022. https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/chiquita-lawsuits-re-colombia/ 

3. Council on Foreign Relations. (2023, February 14). How Did Decolonization Reshape the World? CFR Education Global Matter. https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/how-did-decolonization-reshape-world#:~:text=In%20the%20years%20following%20World

4. Center for International Security and Cooperation. n.d. “MMP: The United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, AUC.” Center for International Security and Cooperation. Accessed October 14, 2022.

5. Deconde, A., Richard Dean Burns, & Fredrik Logevall. (2002). Encyclopedia of American foreign policy. Volume 1, Chronology A-D. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

6. Dube, Oeindrila, and Suresh Naidu. “Bases, Bullets, and Ballots: The Effect of US Military Aid on Political Conflict in Colombia.” The Journal of Politics, vol. 77, no. 1, 2015, pp. 249–67. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.1086/679021. Accessed 20 May 2024.

7. FALEIRO, E. (2012). Colonialism, Neo-colonialism And Beyond. World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, 16(4), 12–17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48566252

8. Halperin, S. (2024, April 5). neocolonialism. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/neocolonialism

9. Intersimone, L. (2016). Neocolonialism in Latin America. In S. Ray & H. Schwarz (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Postcolonial Studies. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119076506.wbeps271

10. Lenin, V. (1917). Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism . https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/imperialism.pdf

11. Kruhma, K. (1966). NEO-COLONIALISM The Last Stage of Imperialism. International Publishers . https://www.marxists.org/ebooks/nkrumah/nkrumah-neocolonialism.pdf

12. Livingstone, N. (1984). Death Squads. SciHub. https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20671988

13. Bucheli, Marcelo. 2004. “Enforcing Business Contracts in South America: The United Fruit Company and Colombian Banana Planters in the Twentieth Century.” The Business History Review 78, no. 2 (Summer): 181-212. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25096865 

14. Livingstone, Grace. Inside Colombia: Drugs, Democracy and War. Latin American Bureau, 2003. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hj56j0. Accessed 21 May 2024.

15. Lawless, R. (2004). [Review of The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, Central America, Colombia, 2nd revised ed., by A. W. McCoy]. Journal of Third World Studies, 21(2), 282–284. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45198510

16. McSherry, J. P. (2002). Tracking the Origins of a State Terror Network: Operation Condor. Latin American Perspectives, 29(1), 38–60.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/3185071

17. Stokes, D. (2005). America's Other War: Terrorizing Colombia. London, UK: Zed Books. DOI:10.2307/40111278  

18. SANTINA, PETER. “Army of Terror: The Legacy of US-Backed Human Rights Abuses in Colombia.” Harvard International Review, vol. 21, no. 1, 1998, pp. 40–43. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42762494. Accessed 19 May 2024.

19. Uzoigwe, G. N. (2019). Neocolonialism Is Dead: Long Live Neocolonialism. Journal of Global South Studies, 36(1), 59–87. https://doi.org/10.1353/gss.2019.0004

      

​​

​