I just read today two articles
published in the CUSLAR newsletter (Fall 2000) "The Colombian Aid Package:
A Time Bomb in Waiting" by Elvira Sanchez-Blake and "The Latest Weapon
in the US War on Drugs in Colombia". It was the latter that motivated me
to do a quick search
on "experiments" by U.S. groups in other countries.
I found an interesting article
in the archives of El Nuevo Día, an online newspaper of Puerto Rico,
where I am from. It's dated March 17, 1998 and is about secretive experiments
conducted by NASA and other US institutions, all in the name of science, in
Puerto Rico in the past [including the very recent past].
There's really nothing new
but a few valid, probably well-researched, and very poignant questions that
are raised: "In the continental US there are large uninhabited territories
that could be used for experimentation. Why didn't they try the Orange Agent
in the tropical forests of Florida? Why didn't they consider the Florida Keys
instead of Lajas for the proposed radar? Why didn't they place the antennas
of the Voice of the Americasin the Rocky Mountains? Why not try the new herbicide
that kills coca plants on the vast prairies of Kansas?" [my translation].
The problem is that, unfortunately and to be expected, NASA (or any other group
that conducts these experiments) will categorically deny any harm done. If this
herbicide, like Helen Franks questioned in her CUSLAR article, is so "environmentally
safe", why is it that they can't/won't provide results of experiments conducted
over a reasonable period of time over nearby land (I mean, around the areas
they live/work)?
Here on US continental territory,
it seems almost always on purpose. For decades, the US has at times allowed
and even encouraged and supported experiments of the sort on foreign soil. Let's
wait and see 2-5 decades from now what happens to the people, crops, and livestock
exposed to these new chemicals to determine THEN their safety for use on US
soil. To make things worse, those in charge of conducting these experiments
never tell the whole story about them and the true objective of the experiments
to their guinea pigs - people who are unwilling, uninformed or misinformed,
and sometimes coerced by force or threats.
If a group of nationals
in Puerto Rico, Colombia, Mexico, Honduras is actually consulted, when have
the US researchers, scientists, or politicians respected the free, uncoerced
will of those people? Once it is decided that an experiment is to take place
at one place or another, that's that. Maybe the government officials of those
countries will allow "things" to happen in exchange of some money
to (re)build roads or make newer technology available in schools. Maybe a whole
community comes together and they make a difference by delaying a final decision,
by forcing them to look for alternative locations, etc.
The media is very powerful
everywhere around the world - it decides when, what and how much of what they've
observed and interpreted to "share" with the rest of the world. Conclusions
are reached based on half of the information or one-sided stories. Meanwhile,
newer resistant bacteria, viruses, fungi keep "cropping" out of nowhere
(or somewhere? with unknown capabilities for destruction, propagation, and mutation.
Meanwhile, some powerful people with deep-rooted fears to change and diversity
are suffering from insomnia when reading about the growth of the Hispanic population
in this country, and trying to figure out what to do about it.