The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Resolved: The United States whould end Plan Colombia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
bethanie.miller has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 351 times Debate No: 98177
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I stand in favor of the resolved. Resolved: The United States should end Plan Colombia. We stand in favor for the following reasons on to our first evidence:

Plan Colombia: Drug War Is A Fail
Plan Colombia: Washington"s Latest Drug War Failure Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute July 27, 2001 November 15, 2016
The centerpiece of the Bush administration"s "supply side" campaign against illegal drugs is staunch support for the Colombian government"s "Plan Colombia." But the facts show that the plan is a waste of time and money.
Washington is backing Plan Colombia to the tune of $1.3 billion, primarily in [the]military aid. Green Beret personnel are training several anti-drug battalions, U.S. funds have helped the Colombian military buy Black Hawk helicopters and other hardware, and employees under contract to the State Department[is]fly dangerous aerial spraying missions to eradicate drug crops.
Plan Colombia"s goals are certainly ambitious. Since December, more than 75,000 acres of drug crops have been sprayed with an herbicide. U.S. satellite data suggest that there are about 340,000 acres of coca (the raw material for cocaine) under cultivation throughout the country. Colombian officials express the hope that the eradication campaign will cut that acreage at least 50 percent by 2002.
But evidence has recently emerged that Plan Colombia"s claims of success are erroneous or at least irrelevant. Even as President Andres Pastrana and other leaders boasted of the plan"s achievements, reports were leaking out that a new study, funded by the United Nations, indicated that there were more than 340,000 acres under cultivation.
Even more to the point, previous U.S. estimates of total cocaine production in Colombia-580 tons annually out of total world production of 780 tons-were too low. The new study concluded that Colombia"s actual cocaine production was between 800 and 900 tons per year.

Plan Colombia: A success?
Marcus Sales 2013 masters graduate in Intelligence and Security Studies November 17, 2016
But production has reduced in more recent years
Yes; analysts attribute this to a switch in focus from aerial eradication campaigns to more intensive, manual eradication. This strategy is more effective than aerial fumigation as it both kills the plant directly, and has the knock on effect of building a more significant government presence on the ground.
Risks are, however, higher as the military are more exposed. FARC and ELN guerrillas work to sabotage efforts, routinely laying mines and IED"s in coca fields. Such dangers may explain why manual eradication has been on a downward trend since 2010, despite its proven success.
Production is also down because of the increase in the presence of the security forces and the fact the guerrilla groups have been pushed back from areas they once controlled.
Statistics compiled by the US and the UN suggest Plan Colombia has been effective in reducing the production and trafficking of cocaine. The discrepancy in figures between the two bodies, however, troubles us. To understand the full success a more transparent and detailed methodology for data collection is needed

The failure of plan Colombia
Jens Gould regularly contributes to The New York Times, correspondent for Platts energy publications April 19, 2007 November 10, 2016
Seven years ago, the U.S. government launched a $4.7 billion anti-drug effort in Colombia, which provides more than 90 percent of cocaine that enters the United States. The program's pride and joy is an aggressive aerial spraying campaign to destroy coca, the raw ingredient in cocaine that ends up on American streets. Just three days before I arrived, U.S.-funded airplanes had dumped chemicals on La Balsa crops, and, in some areas, even on the village structures themselves.
But Jorlin Giovanny, one of the some [of] 300 peasants who live there, was already rescuing the seeds from his dead coca plants, methodically chopping centimeter-wide branches on a wooden block with a machete that left a metallic ring in the sultry air. The sun-tanned 27-year-old [they] soaked the cut-up pieces in water and replanted them that very afternoon in tidy rows in the red dirt behind a half-finished house he was helping to build for his mother. "There's no other option," said a calm Giovanni, who was well-accustomed to this post-spraying ritual and expected the seeds to sprout again in a month's time. "What else are we going to do?" Virtually every family in town continues to grow coca, even though they say planes have sprayed their crops at least five times in the past five years.
Coca farming persists in La Balsa because selling the plant remains practically the only way to make a living. In fact, farmers[said] told me the aggressive spraying campaign actually encourages them to continue cultivating the illegal crop because it makes them dependent on coca profits to buy basic food staples. This is because the planes' toxic herbicides, in addition to hitting coca plants, often kill off less-resistant legal crops such as plantains, cassava, and sugarcane -- the [the] community's main sources of food. Even aside from that risk, producing legal crops is a losing prospect here because there is no infrastructure to make transporting them to the cities cost effective. "So what else can you do to give your little kids something to eat?" asked Uber Buila, who runs a small laboratory near the town's entrance where villagers use gasoline and acid to turn coca leaf into cocaine base, the first stage of cocaine production. "The government should find another method of eradicating coca."


I will begin my first speech by attacking my opponents case. He/She has stated many times in their speech that Plan Columbia is bad. Well they are arguing the wrong side here. The resolved states that the United States should end Plan Columbia. Since they are con in this debate she should be arguing for Plan Columbia to stay as it is, but all of their evidence is just stating reasons why Plan Columbia is bad. This means that every single argument they have made is faulty and must fall in the final decision of this debate. So now I will begin building my own case.

United States social reformist Henry Ward Beecher once said "A man that has lost moral sense is like a man in battle with both of his legs shot off: he has nothing to stand on." It is because my partner and I believe that we need a moral leg to stand on when it comes to the welfare of the Colombian people that we must stand in the firmest affirmation of the Resolved: The United States should end Plan Colombia. When looking at this resolution the affirmative offers the following definition for Plan Colombia: Plan Colombia is the name of a United States military and diplomatic aid initiative aimed at combating Colombian drug cartels and insurgent groups in Colombian territory. When looking at this issue, the affirmative must look at how the effects of the plan are detrimental to our morals and logic.
Contention 1: Plan Colombia has not been effective. Although the United States has already pumped $10 Billion into the plan, Colombia is still leading the world in coca productions. From The Washington Post: "Just two years after it ceased to be the world"s largest producer, falling behind Peru, Colombia now grows more illegal coca than Peru and third-place Bolivia combined. [...] Cocaine consumption in the United States fell in the past decade while methamphetamine and heroin use soared. But a glut of cheap product could bring a new cocaine rush." Which means that not only has the United States been wasting its money and military troops on a plan that has not halted coca production, but it"s also making cocaine much cheaper and just as accessible to our own citizens as before. Therefore, it isn"t benefiting the US or Colombia.
Contention 2: The plan is doing very little nowadays to halt coca production. In past years, the main course of action that was being taken to slow the coca supply was the herbicide of coca fields, which was found to be ineffective, harmful to the crop of regular food farmers, and has recently been suspended. Now, The government has said it will focus its fight against drugs on manual eradication, alternative development programs and voluntary eradication, without giving any sort of plan to carry this out. Seems kind of vague, right? That's because it is. Plan Colombia"s objectives and strategies are in a sort of grey area at the moment, and since the cocaine production is still at its peak without many measures being taken to fix this, the plan ends up being kind of obsolete.
Contention 3: U.S. Soldiers have violated many human rights during their Plan Columbia deployments. Colombia Reports revealed that between 2003 and 2007, at least 54 children were sexually abused by U.S. troops, who were not prosecuted because of their immunity granted by clauses in bilateral agreements. In his report, the historian cited a 2004 case in the central Colombian town of Melgar where 53 underage girls were allegedly sexually abused by nearby stationed military contractors "who moreover filmed [the abuse] and sold the films as pornographic material." While the negative may try to talk down these horrific crimes brought upon the Colombian people by our own, we cannot ignore the facts of the harm we have caused, all for little to no detriments to the country"s coca productions. Since coca productions have not halted or slowed, there is no "greater good" to justify these assaults, and we have a moral obligation to the Colombian people to get rid of the plan to assure we will no longer have these problems.
To conclude, Plan Colombia is a plan that is ineffective for both the United States and Colombia, and therefore every bit of morality and logic should be telling us to get rid of the plan. It is for all of these reasons that I must strongly urge a Pro ballot in today"s debate.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.