School Papers

The groups push for negotiations and the fact

The Effects of War and Peace on Foreign Aid in

            Colombia is
one of the oldest developing countries in Latin America with a diversified and
growing economy. With solid functioning institutions, progressive laws, an active civil
society, and abundant natural resources.
Columbia’s main agricultural products include coffee, tobacco, bananas, and
sugarcane, with its prime industry being textiles, food processing, and oil. This
paper will discuss what the effect of war and peace have on foreign aid in

The Positive and Negative Effects that
Peace and War have on Foreign Aid in

            War is a state of usually open and declared hostile armed
conflict between states or nations( In most cases, war is a pre-planned action that is
between different groups with the intention of gaining the psychological hierarchy
or the material hierarchy of supremacy or equality amongst two or more groups. Peace
is a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or
in a state of enmity( War and peace, have contributed to influential
attraction and distribution of foreign aid in Colombia.

            Colombia follows the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.
The Paris Declaration is a practical, action-oriented roadmap to improve the
quality of aid and its impact on development( A positive effect that the war and peace have in
Colombia is the fact that Canada is part of the Donors group and the G24, these
two groups maintain an ongoing and constructive dialogue with the Colombian
government and civil society on issues of development, peace, and human rights( A negative effect is that Colombia is still in an
ongoing dispute with their government. Human lives have paid the price for the
conflict between the government. Thousands of lives lost, making Colombia one
of the largest populations of internally displaced people, many of whom have
disappeared. Another negative is the division of society in Colombia and the
ranking of class interest. Colombia suffers from a weak state with large areas of
territory in which the government is unable to exercise effective control.

            In 1999 peace process began between President Pastrana
and the FARC, and in two thousand between Pastrana and the ELN. Popular support
has made these groups push for negotiations and the fact that none of them have
the guns or political support to win the conflict militarily.As part of the
peace process, President Pastrana and the FARC created a demilitarized zone
about the size of Switzerland in the mid-south of Colombia( There have been almost four decades of constant
brutal armed conflict between the national army, leftist guerrilla movements
and right-wing paramilitary forces in Colombia. The victims of the conflict
have been the civilians, primarily church and community leaders, human rights
workers, and local labor organizers. The U.S. government sent more than 1.3
billion dollars in mostly military aid, to fight the war on drugs, in Colombia.
U.S. military aid only escalates Colombia’s violent conflict, and this is a
positive effect on the war and peace on foreign aid in Colombia( The U.S. military aid to Colombia includes aerial fumigation
of coca crops with toxic herbicides, weapons purchases, and military training. Witness
for Peace joined other human rights organizations in expressing concern for the
support of the Colombian Army, which has ties to brutal paramilitary groups(

            Colombian church and human rights leaders called for
solidarity. They organized a delegation to evaluate the U.S. aid to Colombia,
and get information about the effects of U.S. policies on the current situation.
The delegation interviewed members of Colombian civil society, internally displaced
people, government officials, and the U.S. Embassy personnel( Colombian leadership has taken action on the allocation
of foreign aid from donor nations and international lending institutions, to
relieve the severe problems caused by warfare. Andres Pastrana, the president
of Colombia with the support of Bill Clinton president of the U.S. at the time,
launched a plan in September of 1999 as an investment in the region of 7.5
billion dollars over a span of five years. In this plan, Colombia should
contribute 4 billion. The European Union was to fund the rest even though they
felt that it was an overly militaristic plan. The first part of the U.S. aid
was emergency aid they distributed 1.3 billion dollars throughout the year two
thousand. Of the 1.3 billion dollars, 321 million comprised the social
component of Plan Colombia. That included alternative development, with other social
and economic programs along with the support of the peace process( The rights of the people have been taken away under
the current situation of fighting terrorism. A big fear is that the government
will start openly calling union activities terrorist activities. The people in
civil society will be the ones persecuted under this law.

            The help of foreign aid has not significantly reduced
poverty in Colombia. There is a desperate human rights situation in Colombia, and
the short-term prospects for improvement do not look good. Ther was an average
of more than one massacre and one thousand people displaced per day( Paramilitary groups practically control the rule of
Colombia; they exercise military control over the entire area. Colombia is a
nation that is rich in natural resources. Therefore paramilitary groups are
especially interested in them. Centralization is insufficient in Colombia and
does not have complete control over all of its territories. The country can
provide security and public services in large urban areas such as Bogota and
Barranquilla; there is a lot of the country where they provide few public
services and almost no law and order. Which allows alternative groups and people,
such as Mancuso, control politics and resources. In parts of the country,
economic institutions function quite well, with high levels of human capital
and entrepreneurial skill: in other parts the institutions are highly
extractive, even failing to provide a minimal degree of state authority(Soomo
Understanding Development fourth edition, 2016).