By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump announced the end of US subsidies to Colombia, citing President Gustavo Petro as a “drug leader” who encourages drug production. This decision comes after Petro accused the US of “murder” for a military strike on a Colombian boat in September, further escalating tensions. Trump’s actions follow the US’s declaration that Colombia failed to uphold its drug trafficking promises, although a waiver allowed aid to continue. This move is part of a broader pattern, as the US military continues striking ships in the Caribbean Sea allegedly carrying drugs, resulting in casualties and sparking criticism.
Read the original article here
The core of the matter centers around the accusation leveled by Colombia against the United States: an act of “murder” following a U.S. military strike on a boat. The incident, as reported by the BBC, has ignited a firestorm of controversy, forcing a critical examination of the U.S.’s actions and the potential repercussions. The contrast in terminology alone, with the U.S. using the term “strike” and Colombia calling it “murder,” highlights the stark difference in perception and the potential for a diplomatic crisis. This isn’t just a semantic squabble; it’s a reflection of differing views on international law, human rights, and the acceptable use of military force.
The primary point of contention revolves around the alleged nature of the targeted boats. The Colombian President, Gustavo Petro, stated that one of the boats was adrift with a distress signal activated due to engine failure when it was hit. This raises critical questions about the U.S.’s justification for the strike, especially if the boat posed no immediate threat. The suggestion that it was hit in Colombian waters, as some reports indicate, further complicates the situation, potentially escalating the incident to a violation of national sovereignty. The absence of confirmed evidence of illegal activity on the boats fuels the accusations of unwarranted violence and an overreach of authority.
The question of whether the individuals on the boats were involved in drug smuggling, even if true, does not automatically justify the use of lethal force. As the comments highlight, even in the event of suspected criminal activity, there are established legal procedures. The U.S. Navy’s protocols, as described by someone who ran counter-drug operations in the Caribbean, included working with law enforcement and adhering to strict legal guidelines. The accounts of past operations highlight the shift from those established procedures to direct targeting, which is a major concern.
A recurring theme is the hypocrisy inherent in the situation. Many people have noted the likelihood of a very different reaction if another nation were to target U.S. vessels in similar circumstances. The double standard underscores the importance of holding all nations, including the United States, accountable to the same international legal standards. Furthermore, the argument is that even if the individuals on the boats were engaged in illicit activities, it doesn’t automatically grant anyone the right to execute them without due process.
The incident is further complicated by the current political climate. The suggestion of war crimes is a very serious charge that needs to be taken seriously. The former President’s actions are also under scrutiny, with some accusing the administration of a disregard for international norms and a willingness to use excessive force. The implication that U.S. military personnel are receiving, and potentially carrying out, unlawful orders casts a shadow on the military’s integrity and adherence to the rule of law. If our military is blowing up small, non-military boats near our borders, then it makes our claims on the moral high ground suspect.
The incident has also raised questions about the U.S.’s relationship with Colombia and other South American nations. The historical efforts of building goodwill and maintaining strong diplomatic ties could be severely damaged by this event. Comments reveal concerns that decades of relationship building are being undone. The incident’s timing, alongside the recent announcement of a Southcom general’s resignation, could further exacerbate the situation, potentially undermining the U.S.’s standing in the region.
The focus on the issue also brings attention to a critical moral question: the use of military force against civilians. The absence of a clear and present threat from the targeted boats raises troubling questions about accountability. The lack of transparency surrounding the incident and the lack of provided evidence have fueled public distrust, leaving the need for answers from the U.S. government.
Finally, it’s essential to understand the potential consequences of this incident. The “murder” accusation, if proven accurate, could have severe implications for international relations, human rights, and the rule of law. It’s a reminder of the need for transparency, accountability, and a commitment to upholding international standards, even when dealing with complex issues like drug trafficking. It’s a situation that has the potential to undermine the U.S.’s standing and erode trust in the international order, and needs to be addressed with transparency and a full investigation.