U.S. imperialist domination of Colombia: This is how the devil repays those who serve him well

Francisco Cuartas (PST, Colombia)

Trump’s military aggression against Venezuela has reached its peak with the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and the demand that Chavismo collaborate with him to impose a colonial regime as a model for the imperialist domination of Latin America. This logic has led to U.S. imperialist domination of Colombia, a country that has historically been an unconditional and strategic “ally” of the United States in the region. Trump has also made direct threats against Petro and Colombia’s sovereignty.

Throughout the 20th century, the Colombian bourgeoisie, both liberal and conservative, has been concerned with maintaining a subordinate relationship to U.S. imperialism. Colombia’s institutions, economy, and armed forces became unconditionally supportive of U.S. interests after the Bolshevik Revolution, which threatened to spread worldwide.

After World War II, there was a significant rise in mass movements around the world, including in Latin America. When the world was divided by the Yalta and Potsdam treaties, revolutionary processes threatened the stability achieved. In 1949, the Chinese Revolution triumphed and spread to Korea. Colombia collaborated with the United States by sending troops to the Korean War in 1950.

In Latin America, the postwar rise was confronted by U.S. imperialism, which sponsored coups d’état and promoted the Alliance for Progress, a Kennedy-era welfare policy intended to contain the growing influence of the Cuban Revolution on the continent. The United States used the rhetoric of democracy and human rights while organizing coups and counterrevolutionary groups through the CIA, as in Central America, and indoctrinating the continent’s armed forces in techniques of torture and dirty war.

Drug Trafficking as a Pretext for Imperialist Intervention

During the 1960s, narcotics production flourished in Colombia thanks to the bourgeois factions’ tradition of enriching themselves through bonanzas.

The growth of the drug trade soon became a “national security” issue and a new pretext for imperialist policy. In 1968, Nixon coined the phrase “war on drugs,” expressing the bellicose and “national security” character that took shape under Reagan and Bush in the late 1980s with the military treatment of the drug problem.

While drug trafficking profits enjoyed impunity in the United States, military intervention in Colombia increased, combining counterinsurgency with the persecution of drug traffickers. Similarly, DEA agents had free rein to operate in Colombia with immunity from local and international laws. The war on drugs has been nothing more than a pretext for imperialist intervention.

In December 1989, Bush invaded Panama and overthrew its president, Manuel Antonio Noriega, citing his alleged involvement in drug trafficking.

The drug trade injected millions of dollars into the Colombian economy, fueling the armed forces of guerrilla and paramilitary groups while permeating and corrupting virtually all Colombian political institutions. Allegations that the Cali cartel financed the presidential campaign of liberal candidate Ernesto Samper reached a crisis point, thanks to leaked recordings made by the DEA. Together with the military strengthening of the FARC, this led to significant regime destabilization in 1996, paving the way for conservative governments under Andrés Pastrana and Álvaro Uribe Vélez.

In 2000, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, the U.S. launched Plan Colombia to address the crisis. Once again, the U.S. modernized the military apparatus and institutions of the Colombian political regime according to its own model and needs.

However, the plan’s scope extended beyond Colombia’s borders. The plan also served as a preventive containment strategy amid significant political instability in the region. During that time, insurrections brought down several governments in Latin America, and “progressive” governments threatened the stability of imperialist domination on the continent. Having an unconditionally subordinate country like Colombia served the United States as a means of containment and prevention amid a highly unstable situation. Meanwhile, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which was replaced by bilateral FTAs after its failure, sought to advance economic subjugation in service to the United States. In this context, Colombia received the dishonorable nickname of the “Israel (Cain) of Latin America,” illustrating the historical role of this country’s bourgeoisie. In fact, Colombia received over $10 billion in military aid from the United States between 2001 and 2016, making it the third-largest recipient after Israel and Egypt.

With Donald Trump’s victory in 2016 and his “America First” policy, foreign policy toward Latin America was redirected. In Colombia, the relationship with Trump remained close and harmonious given the pro-imperialist nature of the Juan Manuel Santos and Iván Duque governments, despite Trump’s disinterest in and contempt for the region. Trump also equated growing migration with terrorism and drug trafficking as national security issues, leading to more aggressive policies, especially toward Central America.

Petro and the United States

Between 2019 and 2021, Colombia experienced a significant increase in protests, which were part of a wave that primarily affected Ecuador and Chile. During this time, the masses mobilized against their governments and their policies, which had become unbearable. As a result, “progressive” governments triumphed once again. In Colombia’s case, the arrival of Gustavo Petro to power in 2022 marked the country’s first popular front government, breaking two centuries of liberal-conservative bourgeoisie hegemony.

Initially, Petro had favorable ground for his project of “human capitalism” in relation to the United States. He also had Joe Biden’s approval, as long as he did not fundamentally question the pillars of U.S. imperialist domination over Colombia. In fact, Petro renewed Colombia’s role as a privileged partner of the United States in the region and played an important role in negotiating a transition in Venezuela. Biden praised his intentions to renegotiate the FTA, seek debt relief in exchange for protecting the Amazon, and appease the class struggle raging on the continent. Petro even proposed to Biden that they reactivate Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress. However, the United States made no significant changes to its anti-drug policy, trade exchange, or interference in political processes on the continent. Contrary to Petro’s wishes, Biden continued to reduce U.S. aid and crack down on migration.

Trump’s return to the government and the intensification of Israel’s genocide in Gaza have caused significant friction in relations with the United States. This friction has been fueled by the Colombian right-wing lobby, which has important connections with Republicans, especially Marco Rubio. The lobby has sought support from Colombia’s right wing and has pressured Petro’s government on the issue of drug trafficking to politically weaken it.

Petro has openly criticized Trump’s stance on the climate crisis, the energy transition, migration, drug trafficking, and, above all, his position on the genocide in Gaza and the severing of relations with Israel.

Trump responded to criticism of the aggressive deportation of Colombian migrants by threatening to impose higher tariffs on Colombian products. Petro has denounced Trump for denying science and climate change. However, these contradictions have not undermined the pillars of U.S. imperialist domination over Colombia.

The real qualitative change has come from Trump himself and his change in foreign policy, as seen in the new U.S. National Security Strategy. With this strategy, Trump openly revives the Monroe Doctrine and proposes his “Trump Corollary,” which resumes a policy of a greater US military presence in Latin America, expelling powers that dispute US hegemony, and establishing openly transactional relationships with states and governments that obtain clear advantages and gains for the United States.

For months now, under this new strategy, rhetoric has hardened toward the Maduro and Petro governments, using drug trafficking rhetoric as a pretext to advance a military offensive in the Caribbean specifically directed against Venezuela and Colombia.

This was demonstrated by the January 3rd military incursion into Caracas and the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Trump’s current naval military campaign in the Caribbean Sea and the Colombian Pacific, which involved bombing small boats and hijacking oil tankers, was primarily in line with his plan to overthrow Maduro and take over Venezuelan oil. To the bitter surprise of the right-wing bourgeois opposition, led by Corina Machado, Trump’s control over Venezuela will be executed by Chavismo itself.

Maduro’s kidnapping was also an open warning to Petro. Trump says that if Petro does not follow his dictates to the letter, he will suffer the same fate.

The hours and days following the action against Maduro were filled with anxiety and distress for Petro, as Trump repeatedly hinted that Petro would be next. Like the right wing throughout the continent, most of the Colombian right-wing bourgeois opposition applauded the U.S. intervention and asked Trump to go after Petro.

While the threat of intervention is serious, the situation in Colombia is not the same as in Venezuela. While Maduro represents the decline of the bourgeois nationalist Chavista project, with which the Venezuelan masses have largely broken, Petro still enjoys significant popular support. In the event of an attack on Colombia, this support could trigger a new wave of struggles with an anti-imperialist component, which could further destabilize the region. Trump’s commitment to a transition controlled by Chavista authoritarianism in Venezuela shows that he cares about minimizing costs. Therefore, any possible intervention in Colombia would have to consider the class struggle much more.

Under these circumstances, Petro resorted to anti-imperialist rhetoric to denounce not only Maduro’s kidnapping but also the threat against his government and Colombia. He pointed out the serious violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty and the precedent it set for other countries. Petro called for an anti-imperialist mobilization on January 7 and even called for armed resistance against a possible intervention in Colombia, if necessary. However, Colombian diplomats sought to establish direct dialogue with Trump through the State Department. This resulted in a phone call prior to the mobilization, which apparently defused the situation by establishing commitments on the part of the Colombian government regarding drug trafficking.

Following the call and mutual praise, Petro’s anti-imperialist rhetoric subsided. Fundamentally, however, it is clear that Trump’s threat to Colombia is real. Whether it materializes as direct military action against Petro or remains a deterrent threat depends largely on Petro’s response to Trump’s growing demands and how the masses respond to imperialist aggression in the streets.

Although the course of the current crisis is unclear, it is evident that the current imperialist offensive against Colombia is the most serious since Panama’s separation. This offensive deepens Colombia’s semi-colonization and that of the continent.