Colombia y su
participación en la Guerra de Corea:
Una reflexión
tras 64 años de iniciado el conflicto*
Juan David Meléndez Camargo[1]
Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de
Colombia
Reception: 20/07/2014
Evaluation: 12/08/2014
Approval: 27/11/2014
Research and
Innovation Article.
Resumen
El texto hace una reflexión sobre la participación de
Colombia en la Guerra de Corea y las implicaciones políticas que tuvo para el
país. Dicha participación generó mucha polémica porque Colombia fue el único
país latinoamericano que colaboró con la causa norteamericana para derrotar la
expansión del comunismo. En este contexto geopolítico de la Guerra Fría se
iniciaron las llamadas “guerras satélite” patrocinadas por los Estados Unidos y
la extinta Unión Soviética. Para este estudio, la prensa de circulación
colombiana es de gran relevancia porque permite hacer seguimiento al desarrollo
de esa confrontación armada, desde la perspectiva de los soldados colombianos y
lo que esta intervención le dejó al Ejercito y al país. En términos generales
la competencia ideológica de Estados Unidos y la URSS, que inició tras la
Segunda Guerra Mundial, vinculó a muchas naciones tercermundistas en la
coyuntura del agitado orden político mundial y polarizó sus relaciones
políticas.
Palabras clave: Guerra de Corea, Guerra Fría, Colombia, Batallón Colombia, Comunismo.
Colombia and its participation in the
Korean War:
A reflection, 64 years after the beginning
of the conflict
Abstract
This
document is a reflection on the participation of Colombia in the Korean War and
the political implications it had for the country. This participation generated
much controversy in Colombia because it made Colombia the only Latin American
country that cooperated with the North American cause to defeat the expansion
of communism. In the geopolitical context of the Cold War, the so called “proxy
wars” began, sponsored by the United States and the former Soviet Union. The
Colombian press was very relevant for this study in political history as it
allowed t the development of this armed confrontation to be followed from the
perspective of Colombian soldiers in Korea, and the reflection about what this
intervention achieved for the army and the country. In
general terms, the ideological race of the United States and the USSR that
began after World War II, drew many third world nations into the agitated
political world order, polarizing their political relationships.
Keywords:
Korean War, Cold War, Colombia, Colombian army, Communism.
La Colombie et sa
participation dans la Guerre de Corée: une réflexion 64 ans après les débuts du
conflit
Résumé
Ce texte propose une réflexion à propos de la
participation de la Colombie dans la Guerre de Corée et des implications
politiques qu’elle a eues pour le pays. Cette participation a suscité de vives
polémiques parce que la Colombie a été le seul pays latino-américain à
s’engager dans la cause nord-américaine dont le but était de stopper l’expansion
du communisme. C’est dans le contexte géopolitique de la Guerre Froide qu’ont
débuté certaines guerres dites “satellites”, parrainées par les Etats-Unis et
la disparue Union Soviétique. Pour cette étude, est d’une grande importance la
presse colombienne qui permet de suivre au pas le développement de cette
confrontation du point de vue des soldats colombiens, et d’analyser les
conséquences de cette intervention tant pour l’Armée que pour la Colombie. En
somme, la dispute idéologique des Etats-Unis et de l’Union Soviétique, entamée
dès la fin de la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale a entraîné beaucoup de nations du
Tiers-monde dans la conjoncture mondial d’un ordre politique trouble, en
polarisant leurs relations politiques.
Mots clés: Guerre de Corée, Guerre
Froide, Colombie, Bataillon Colombie, Communisme.
1. Introduction
More than sixty years after the cease-fire was established
around the 38th parallel which ended the war between the two Koreas, and
because of the persistence of deep political and diplomatic differences in that
zone, it is appropriate to make a retrospective view that can provide a general
outline of this event. Taking advantage of the vast historiographical
production on the subject, it is also important to review the implications that
the news of the country's participation in the Asian conflict had in the
context of the Cold War.
This war, which saw action between 1950 and 1953 in North
and South Korea, was one of the conflicts with the greatest participation of
foreign countries in a single territory and, evidently, was an almost direct
confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union in a period
characterized by the greatest international political tension of the twentieth
century. By 1950, the world political order was quite complex, as the
expansionist and containment strategies of the power blocs shaped the
diplomatic future of the planet, and the struggle against communism became
widespread in some regions.
It may be surprising that, for Colombia, this conflict
in distant lands would have effects, and even more so if one speaks of the Colombian
soldiers who died in Korea or of veterans who tell their story today. This was
because of a disputed decision that turned Colombia into the only Latin American
country that really and materially collaborated with the North American cause,
to defeat the expansion of communism in Korea; a large contingent of national soldiers
fought against the North Koreans and Chinese on the peninsula.
Colombia's active involvement in the conflict meant
the beginning of a serious controversy that is still under discussion today
when the social conditions that the country lived in are recalled, in a time
marked by violence and considered key to the understanding of some processes
that today are still in existence. That support for South Korea's defense,
which was nothing more than another battle for US anti-communist policy in the
Pacific, was supported by the conservative majority in Colombia, a political
group that reflected the Western thinking that reigned at the time in the
country; but on the other hand, this support was seen as a mistake that ignored
the national reality of partisan war that was being lived and that jeopardized
the sovereignty of a country with no notable experience in international
guerrilla war[2].
The news took the citizens by surprise, but with the
passing of time it became a reality that, in the press for example, was
confirmed through headlines such as: "Colombia's effective aid in Korea
announced[3] "or
"The Colombian offer to Korea is not platonic, says Chancellor[4]”.
In the context of the Cold War and the violence in
Colombia, the bloody confrontation on the Korean peninsula lasted for three
years. It left more than half a million dead. The decision of national
participation was controversial, but it also led to the recognition of the
Colombian contingent for their performance by the Americans[5]. In the words of the recently deceased General and Captain
of the Colombia Battalion, Álvaro Valencia Tovar, it can be said that:
"More ink has been spent on Colombian newspapers and magazines in
discussing the country's military presence in Korea than in praising its
exploits on the battlefield[6]”.
In order to make such a revision, it is essential to
keep in mind the following questions: Did the assumption of a communist enemy
of order, make the Colombians understand that the country's participation in
the Korean War was a diplomatic obligation? Was the participation of Colombia
in the Korean War the result of a particular need that was superimposed on the
difficult local situation? Did the performance of the Colombia Battalion in the
confrontation in the East serve anything more than the satisfaction of a
governmental interest? Or, what were the gains of participating in the Korean
War?
This work is divided into three parts. The first
contextualizes the dynamics of the international politics that saw the rise of
the Cold War and the Korean War. The second addresses the local problem, when Laureano Gomez responded affirmatively to the call of the
UN in the midst of the "Violence". Finally, the third part deals with
the development of the war and the entry into action of the Colombia Battalion
and what this meant for Colombia.
2. Expansion or containment: A glimpse of what would
be a not-so-cold war
In innumerable and valid investigations and publications
made around the ideological confrontation that occupied half of the 20th
century, between the two powers that emerged after World War II, depending on
the side from which it is looked at, the conception changes radically. For that
reason, it is important to see this structure of social and political
transformations, aware of the western ideology that prevailed in Colombia and
the region[7].
The United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, those two powers that divided the world from the old continent,
marked the postwar period of distrust and political tension which indicated the
birth of the threatening Cold War. The political and economic division of the
world was clearly marked by the Yalta and Potsdam accords, and the interests were
sufficiently opposed for one to think that diplomatic relations would normalize
after the great war.
The US government, in addition to being focused on the
reconstruction of Europe, for its geographical position and its economic
interests in regions such as the Pacific and Middle East, where, for example,
oil played a very important role, would become the sponsor of both internal and
international confrontations to support groups of third parties, who would
eventually become militants of all kinds in areas as isolated as strategically
desired.
For this reason, within the new United States foreign
policy adopted since 1947, the Asian territories would be as important as
Western Europe and it would seek to stop the communist advance from there. For
1950 with Harry S. Truman in his second mandate leading the United States, said
foreign policy was based on containment and espionage. The Americans were in
the full rearmament of their forces and the reconstruction of Europe, but
criticisms of some of the president’s decisions were increasing. In April of
that same year, the National Security Council of the United States decided to
abandon its policy of nonintervention, which allowed the communist advance of
China, and which went on to be reconstructed as a military power able to
respond to any challenge[8].
On the other hand, Stalin's Soviet communism began to be
seen as a risk as from 1946 when, in a speech with obvious ideological content,
the top Soviet leader announced the postwar course that his country was going
to follow. For the Americans, that meant "a definitive break with the
spirit of the Great Alliance; the speech contained not a single friendly word
to the Western powers[9]." Slowly an atmosphere of rejection and
hostility towards the Americans was created and communism became an option for
part of devastated Europe, "the revitalization of chauvinism and
nationalism and the ideological belief in the aggressive hostility of 'Western
imperialism' towards the Soviet Union were factors that contributed to creating
the powerful amalgam that caused millions of Soviet citizens to subscribe in
good faith to Stalin's post-war plans[10]."
The Cold War would then develop with two leaders who,
without arriving at direct aggressive confrontation, had under their control
several nations that would act on their behalf, or worse, define their local
problems on their lands and with their people, but with the conditioned and
interested military support of the powers. The nature of the conflict took on a
global character and was part of a "universal struggle between good and
evil[11].”
The so-called containment theory promoted by the
United States sought only one thing: to keep communism away from the western
zone and to control it in places where it already had influence. The idea was
to block any possibility of an expansionist advance of Soviet theory, beyond
what would be known as the "iron curtain." The task was monumental
and it was sought by all means to make the countries that were under the
influence of the United States see that the enemy was communism and the
eradication of any of its forms of introduction was essential for the rulers to
apply and thus, not jeopardize their political and economic stability.
In the case of Latin America, the emergence of the
Cold War was of great impact. It transformed the regional policy completely and
took this anti-communist mentality to the most hidden levels of society.
Barbara Skladowska very well defines what a foreign
war meant for the continent and especially for Colombia, where they
appropriated various situations of the world context on a local level, for her
it is interesting to see "how the Latin American continent translates
external conjunctures, how it appropriates them. How it configures its
representations, trying to find a place of significance in the complex
geopolitics of the Cold War[12].”
This view of the Eastern ideology as a threat to be
eradicated at the global level, led Colombia to consider blindly that forming
an alliance with the United States in this mission would be a good way to give
the government a firm image regarding the communist foci that already existed in
Colombia[13]. Containment in Colombia would then be applied as it
was on the global level, distorting the communist discourses and attacking the
currents or movements that would support the policies of the USSR in the region[14].
An example of the Conservative party's repeated
attempts to combat the alleged alliance between liberals and the Communist
Party can be seen in the invitation made in 1949 by the National Conservative
Directory to create a National Anti-Communist Front, arguing the alleged
dangers and the damage brought to the motherland by these new totalitarian
ideas.
At the time, Colombia had good relations with the US
government and, in diplomacy, the following points can be highlighted, which at
the end of World War II served as cohesive elements in the international
policies of the two countries: first, the "active subordination"
applied by the liberal government; second, the appointment of Alberto Lleras Camargo as the continental leader of the Pan
American system; third, entry into the UN in 1945; fourth, the creation of the
International Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance with the United States; and
fifth, the creation of the OAS with Colombia as a fundamental part of the process[15].
For an anti-communist government, as the great
majority of the American nations in the mid-twentieth century were, to support
the United States in a cause such as halting the spread of Chinese Communism in
Asia, would represent a future recognition by the Americans, but could also
mean a military and economic failure for the country. For the United States,
the possible assistance of a Latin American country did not mean so much, since
there was little that the Americans could receive materially from Third World
nations, but, as evidenced by the voices of the main leaders and by The United
Nations[16], the need was great and there was an urgency to
receive any kind of support and this action was expected promptly regardless of
the nation[17]. Perhaps the human factor did represent a significant
contribution to the troops that would be available in Korea, but politically,
the countries of the region continued in a relationship of submission to the
country of the north, which were practically forced to take action with a
contingent; such was the case of Colombia.
But it all began on the other side of the Pacific when
the scene of hostility formed and the tension of the nascent Cold War
intensified with the victory of the communist revolution in China in 1949, when
the USSR understood the importance of completing its dominion in the region[18]. Control of the Korean peninsula, which since 1945
had been snatched from Japan and distributed conveniently with a parallel as a
referent, was in the hands of what began to be recognized as capitalist Korea
and communist Korea. From that moment, the sector acquired a global political
background with the two blocks of power as main actors, but with the particular
problems and the interests of the rulers of the zone as detonators.
The troops of the North Korean army of Kim II-Sung,
with Mao pulling the military strings from mainland China, crossed the 38th
parallel on June 25, 1950, arriving in the outskirts of Seoul with great ease
and thus beginning the Korean War. This outbreak of war "radically
militarized the Cold War and virtually reduced the space for peace talks and
agreements in Europe to zero[19]." Both the United States and the Soviet Union
that year had just withdrawn the bulk of their troops from the Korean
peninsula, established there as guarantors of Japanese disarmament after World
War II, and rearmament now seemed imminent.
After hearing the news of the advance of the North
Korean army into the south, Truman decided to use force to respond to the invasion
and, without consulting Congress, approved a military defense of the zone,
sending ships and regiments and he immediately requested the support of the United
Nations, which approved the intervention without much delay. Those who gathered
around the president in Washington believed that the invasion had been decided
in Moscow and that the North Korean government only obeyed orders, which was
not true; "years later, when the archives of Moscow were opened, it was
clear that it had been decided by the young and impulsive Kim II-Sung and that
Stalin, always prudent, had bowed to his wishes reluctantly[20].”
Despite not being the result of a direct order from
Stalin, the North Korean incursion would have the backing of the Soviet leader
and China's triumphant people’s army. The Korean War was then born as a proxy
war, that is, on the lands of the emerging Korean nations, the two most
powerful world powers would measure forces, controlling the actions at a distance
and giving economic and material support to the second actors that, because of
the situation, were immersed in a confrontation that was inevitable.
But it was not only the United States and the USSR,
because behind them were other important elements such as the United Nations
and Chinese Communism, just to mention a few. In such a way that in this
situation the countries allied to the powers knew that their position of
support was fundamental and the declarations of aid were given politically and
militarily to the whole world. It is important to be clear that this
collaboration was not, in many cases, as voluntary as would be believed, since
the Americans did not speak directly of aid to governments, but did suggest troop
involvement and sometimes pressured countries under their protection and even
the same foreign citizens who were in the American union.
When the newly-created United Nations Security Council
quickly condemned the act and ordered the necessary assistance to repel the
attack and restore security in the region, US President Harry S. Truman ordered
the deployment of his forces and together with the contingent convened by the
United Nations, the troops that were gathered added up to about 50,000 men.
Under the command of the United Nations there were also troops from Australia,
Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, South Africa, Denmark, India, Sweden,
Thailand, Turkey and Colombia.
Viewed from the political analysis of the time, beyond
the defense of the integrity of a nation, these commitments and duties
coordinated by the United States were, "more than the spirit of the
crusade that inspired those responsible in Washington it was a generalization
of the doctrine of the containment of communism[21]". The Korean War was a political confrontation
above all else and, as Hobsbawm would say from the other side, "the
general character of the war is a more important problem than the specific
reasons that determine it. For example, it is more important to ask whether or
not it has been a just war[22]."
The outbreak of the Korean War meant what could be
called a materialization or militarization of the Cold
War, the daughter of the postwar period, a name that in the Korean case would
be paradoxical because of the intensity of the fighting. Everyone was waiting
for a military outburst from this tension, perhaps on a nuclear scale, but this
political and ideological confrontation, as history has shown, was nothing more
than a political one, which generated an extreme advance in military technological
development and obviously, widespread fear in every corner of the planet, while
the Korean War was everything that the powers did not want to face in their own
names and territories.
3. The
controversial decision to go to Korea in the middle of the Violence
The society of the mid-twentieth century in Colombia
witnessed changes in many aspects and difficulties in internal circumstances
that had historically influenced the development of the country as a democracy.
The beginning of the fifties can be understood as a transcendental moment in
the social, political, diplomatic and even military arena, this for two
recognized events that are part of that national history: first, the surprising
and controversial participation of the Colombian Battalion in the Korean war; second,
the increase of partisan violence[23] after the outbreak of the events of April 1948.
At the end of the Liberal Republic (1930-1946) in
Colombia, the conservatives gained power, but accompanied by a period of
political and social tensions between the supporters of the parties which
maintained a bloody confrontation, while the liberal and conservative directorates
experienced strong internal divisions. This phase of violence, which began in
1946, was felt strongly and the rural areas were basically in the midst of a
struggle with the emergence of the liberal guerrillas in 1948, who belatedly
responded to the crimes and abuses of official groups such as the "chulavita"
police[24]. The American influence was felt in new anticommunist
movements in national politics and, on the other hand, the situation was one of
tension between the government and the nascent rebel groups of a liberal
inclination[25]. Years ago, in the Bogotazo (April 9, 1948), there
was an accusation, on the one hand, of the entry of international communist
policies, reflected in radical liberalism and, on the other hand, the influence
and definitive support of the CIA in radical right groups, soon to be the
intellectual authors of the assassination of the liberal leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, thus reflecting a
polarization that permeated all areas of national politics, in many cases with unfounded
accusations and confrontations. The discussion about the death of Gaitan,
detonating the rebellion and those violent events, is a key piece to understanding
and contextualizing the period and many of the subsequent actions of both
rulers and the society[26].
The differences between the parties became abysmal and
would be characteristic of Colombian politics thereafter, so it is not strange
to see a reality that currently persists; as Daniel Pecaut
affirms, there are dilemmas so strong that they still exist today with
different characters, "at the political level, first, we certainly find
different actors but we would be approaching similar dilemmas: the country of
the forties, on the edge of popular insurrection and partisan engagement, and that
of today, debating between war and negotiated peace[27]”.
Seen in this way, partisanship has historically been a
determining factor in our nation, both in warfare and in the quest for peace
and even in aspects temporarily removed from different conflicts, but which,
even today, to a lesser extent, retain that tint and have been reflected in the
socio-political evolution of Colombia. Presumably, by the 1950s, this scourge
of partisan violence appropriated the local social and political sphere, so
adhering to the controversial national participation in an international
conflict could have meant that dangerous spark that was needed in the complex
Colombian panorama. It is enough to look carefully at the period, to determine
that this event would be of great importance for good or for ill and that it would
weigh in on the image of the government of time[28].
It is not difficult to say then that Colombia had its
own internal problems as well as social and political responsibilities at the
time, so as to have intervened in a project that could represent more
inconveniences and losses than benefits. Despite a slight increase in the
economic aspect that the country had had to date[29], a Latin American country was not able to cope with a
lasting military intervention abroad, since there were social priorities such
as urbanization that began at the time[30]. However, with Laureano
Gómez the ruling class was strengthened and economic dependence on the United
States was consolidated. Although it was Gómez who officialized
the offer of Colombia's active participation in the Korean War, this was a
decision that had been studied in the last days of the government of Mariano Ospina Pérez, when the United States and the United Nations
sought Latin American support in the struggle to demonstrate that the West as a
whole was against communist expansion[31]. For a year, the subject of the way in which the
American army would be supported was discussed and negotiated, since in spite
of the interest of the conservative governor, the country was aware that its
support could not go beyond the diplomatic and the United States accepted such
support, but it was logical that American interest was focused on something
tangible, as it finally found with Gomez.
The controversial conservative president, Laureano Gómez, from the outset, showed his inclinations
towards the right, structured as from a very definite catholic vision. With
great experience in the field of international relations for his multiple
positions abroad representing the Colombian government, Gómez began his career
by presiding over important public positions, but he was also transforming his
political vision to the extent of supporting the Spanish falange with speeches loaded with hatred of communism and the republic,
and advocating violence to justify self-defense[32].
The Liberal party was the target of the most vocal criticism of the president when he referred to the dangers of communism and the party's relationship with that ideology. For Barbara Skladowska: "(...) the anticommunist imaginary reached a particular tone, clearly antiliberal, which separates us, that is, Colombians, Catholics and conservatives, from the perverse them, communists, bandits, atheists and also liberals[33]." But as well, the Liberal party was the constant antagonist of the policies of Gómez and his government from the very moment of the conservative possession [34].
In addition to questioning the magnitude of the idea,
all the criticisms "(...) asked why this man, apparently so opposed to the
United States during World War II, would mobilize forces to fight alongside
that country in Korea[35]". Given Gomez's position in the mid-twentieth
century, when he supported European fascism[36], it can be said that the conservative president was
urged to erase that image in order to achieve his more immediate political
purposes. Evidently "as the United States emerged as the world's greatest
anti-Communist power, there was a radical change in the relationship between
the conservative leader and the nation that he had in the past described as Colombia's
worst enemy[37].”
Laureano Gomez was one of the conservative leaders who cared little to hide his
sympathy for the falange, but perhaps this characteristic has been given too much importance,
more than the other political expressions that the president may have had in
his public demonstrations, such as that great resentment that he held for the
United States from time to time with the loss of Panama[38]. His performance can be seen as a timely move to
ingratiate himself and gain military benefits for the Colombian army. For
researcher Cesar Torres del Rio, Laureano, with his
unconditional attitude towards the United States, pursued specific armament
improvements for his army, unlike other governments, with more planned out interests[39].
Taking advantage of his position as a recognized enemy
of communism in the region, because his discourse always showed his interest in
combating the spread of this ideology throughout the world and in Colombia,
Gomez sought to get closer to the Americans. The newspaper El Siglo shows many of the appearances of
Laureano Gomez and his new position regarding the
Americans, here a sample:
The prosperity of the United States and
that of the entire world is threatened with death by the morbid communist who
detests the well-being of peoples and seeks nothing but ruin and desperation to
stimulate the resentment which is the fundamental basis of his system and
hatred of some men for others, an animating force and unique in its methods.
The United States has understood the obvious danger and is defending against it
with irrevocable decision[40].
The president could be considered, in the eyes of
Truman's anti-communist policy, as an important ally to American interests in
the area. This possibility was important for the Colombian president, even more
when he was interested in erasing his anti-American past. National policy was
also focused on this Western view, and the position of the state was perhaps
the most obvious example of this[41]. Official statements in favor of the eradication of and
the war against communist ideology and its expansion, little by little showed
the government's interest in convincing the public that intervention in Korea
should be accepted and supported. In such a way that for the time being, the
outbreak of the Korean War was for Gomez an
opportunity to take advantage of in certain respects, and perhaps to gain
approval from a society that did not fully support his mandate. As Álvaro
Valencia Tovar affirms, the opposition saw Gómez's action as a way to gain
political acceptance and neutralize pressures[42]. But this was a project that was perfectly framed in
the context that was being lived and the decision was in line with the political
situation in the region. The interest in foreign investment and the growing
anti-communist thinking would be key elements in the decision, and the
president knew very well what were the gains that this would
bring to him, his government and his army.
One might also think that the partisan aspect had a
lot to do with, for example, the sending of Liberal officers to Korea who, for
one reason or another (political), were not in the President's affections and
he would get to kill two birds with a single stone, but this possibility was
easily dismissed because, as Bushnell states: "(...) this idea, apart from
lacking concrete evidence, is somewhat improbable. Liberal officers could cover
themselves with glory on foreign battlefields and then return to the country to
try to overthrow Gomez[43]." This, undoubtedly, could be extremely
conflictive for the interests of the president, seeing the militants of the
opposition party transformed and received as heroes.
In opposition to explanations such as Henderson's,
there is the theory that Eduardo Sáenz sets out,
affirming that far from ideas or partisanship, Gomez's opening up to the United
States in the diplomatic, political and military spheres "was due to a
strategy of pragmatism, almost political survival, and not simply ideological
motivations[44].”
The two main points of criticism or discussion as to
the President's motives for supporting the American cause were: communism being
Gomez's enemy and not an enemy of the nation, and the war as a political and
economic tool with which to fulfill the interests and
needs of the nation, its army and the president himself.
It is fundamental to analyze the justifications that were given at the time and
to see them from the perspective of power, a transcendental element of the
relations between what was the state and the citizenship of the time, with a
discourse transmitted through the press, the infallible tool of rulers over the
years in our country. Referring to Philip Abrams, it is understood not as
something hidden in political practice, but as a set of relationships and
practices of power not superficial, or rather, "that mask that prevents us
from observing the political practice as it is[45].”
The importance of seeing how the government shapes
public opinion or determines what is informed about or not, lies in the
implications that this practice had at a given time. In the case of
conservative governments, it would have to be said that the management of the
news through the press did not have to be so complex, since at many levels of
politics and society one could perceive the fear of Communist expansion and
that Western vision was only resisted by a few liberal sectors. Possibly there
was an interest in legitimizing Laureano Gomez
himself, not simply with the participation in an international war, which very
surely had its motives revolving around political interests or ideologies, but
by the local context that could be seen in the censorship of the press
(1949-1957). In such a way that the information that the
citizens received, came surely modified, far from the reality, or biased by
official publishers.
The same nature of the time marked the conception that
the society could have of that news and, possibly, what was transmitted
responded to a political tendency of the moment and it was not allowed to
criticize the situation, in such a way that the citizenry was accommodated to a
particular view of events. The search for the self-legitimation of the acts and
determinations of his government led Gómez to manipulate, as far as possible,
information or the access to it, to control that important thing that revolved
around the people, who were seen as a popular mass that approved or disapproved
of its management. The objective was to dominate by means of the discourse to
that fundamental group, and, for the case that we were dealing with, the printed media were then a bridge between the
authority and that society that witnessed the news events that came from
abroad.
Regarding the press, for Laureano
Gómez, the criticism came from the newspapers of the liberal opposition, such
as El Tiempo,
which, as Adolfo León Atehortúa notes, stated on
August 22, 1950 that "it would be better to send ten thousand Chulavitas to
fight against the communist beasts and at the same time pacify the country[46]." This is not the only example of the large
number of voices that came out to oppose the plans of Gomez, but it is the
reflection of the nonconformity of a people submerged in violence who called for
more wisdom on the part of their president.
On the other hand, the official newspaper El Siglo,
owned by Laureano Gómez, defended the decision and
explained each point that justified the closeness to the United States through
military support. This newspaper emphasized an urgent need to supply the
weapons to fight against communism[47].
One point in which these two representatives of the
press coincide for the period of war is that they see the unity of Colombia
with the United States as a strategy of power, which in the end will benefit
the two nations, one immediately and the other in the future.
For a highly useful theoretical approach when
discussing the role of power in this complex period of Colombian and
international history, we can refer to Max Weber, an author who speaks of a
clearly structured power that occurs in the relations of "political communities"
and which is a reflection of a class struggle that seeks position. Through
Weber's structuralist methodology, we can see a power in two ways, first as the
axis of the development of a struggle within the world of politics and
secondly, as the sole end of the characters that are part of that structure,
which is based on the social, but that have personal interests in the
background[48].
Global interests, understood as the pursuit of the greatest
utility in the scene of world politics in this case, can be seen as the center
of a relationship between one and others that is characterized by the alignment
with a cause (the one that is most convenient) and this is defined knowing who it
is that has the prestige and the power[49]. Colombian aid to the United States would then be
seen as a personal strategy with different objectives that would be achieved if
they were appropriately matched in the international map with the decision.
Undoubtedly, the whole weight of the matter cannot be relegated to a mere
personal desire, since there was much more in the context, but this was key in that sovereign determination for diplomatic, political
and economic purposes. For the case of the Colombian political context from
1950 to 1953, we can speak of a generalized thinking at an international level
that permeated the local sphere and was the basis of the organization by the
government of the local leaders who took advantage of the circumstances to
attack their rival politicians, ingratiate themselves with different sectors
and demonize what from the north was seen as a possible threat[50]. This is evident when Gómez, in his inaugural address
in August 1950 emphasized the fundamental role of the United States in the
struggle against communism and the importance of supporting that cause:
On August 7, 1950, at the
inauguration ceremony, Gomez gave his unconditional support to the US
government's foreign policy and its role in Korea for its "heroic effort
to save civilization"; he described the United States as "the defender
[country] of the sovereignty and independence of the people and of the freedom
and dignity of men that the communist tyranny wants to destroy[51].”
Shortly thereafter, he made the specific offer of a
full battalion created for the conflict in Asia and a vessel that would provide
logistical and monitoring support on the South Korean coast. Here is an excerpt
from the official letter that the Colombian government sent to the United
States:
[…]
the Colombian government places
at the disposal of the United Command an infantry battalion, composed of
approximately 1,080 well-trained personnel, without artillery support, composed
of regular forces. This battalion at present is equipped with an irregular
variety of European and American infantry armaments. It would be necessary,
then, that before its departure for Korea it be
endowed with the weapons of the United States infantry and trained in their
use. The Government of Colombia recognizes that it will incur the obligation to
reimburse the United States Government for the value of the training,
logistical support and any other services that the battalion must receive […][52]
The UN accepted this option and the news was released by the media in Colombia, and the controversy
inevitably arose within Colombian public opinion. The action was made official
with the trip made by the Minister of War to Washington to specify the
conditions of the aid[53], which despite being small was important, since no
other country in the region had sent troops to the conflict zone (remember that
the OAS was unable to make a massive contribution from the region to the
conflict, only Costa Rica and Colombia did so in a non-symbolic way.
This anti-communist struggle that the United States led
and which Laureano Gomez pursued for his government, undoubtedly
helped the conservative president to draw closer to the Americans and this is
why, from a diplomatic point of view, such an action would not be surprising in
the context mentioned[54]. But in spite of the different circumstances and the
background of the government's decision, the Korean War would be part of the
country's military history from that moment on.
And it is so that for years, Gómez had been managing a
discourse of patriotism that fit perfectly into that situation when he was
president. He always sought to speak of order and the importance of defending
the nation above all else, with the religious faith that characterized it; now
a war abroad that would seek to end a "threat" for the homeland would
be fully supported, all in order to fight against chaos and evil[55].
Without having a better option, the soldiers who
formed the Colombia Battalion had to defend the flags of a group of nations
that fought against something more than a simple aggressor army, without
thinking about the motivations and the real usefulness of this participation in
a war of a global magnitude.
In the eyes of the president, this was an opportunity
to improve the situation to ensure a future that was promising with the ally in
the north, regardless of the political and economic effort that it represented to
him. It should not be forgotten that the United States, in addition to its
anti-Communist discourse, always promoted a Pan-American unity in order to win
allies in the region, so for Gómez there was nothing to lose regarding the motives
that internationally they would defend, since he denounced the possible
penetration of foreign communism through liberalism. For its part, the Liberal
party in Colombia strongly criticized the purchase of weapons by the
conservative government, which was finally signed in 1952. Another criticism
was that of sending soldiers to fight and, quite possibly, to die in Korea as
if they were serving a death sentence[56].
The challenge for Laureano
Gómez was to form the contingent and to specify the armaments that it would
have in combat and that, very likely, would return to the country to be part of
the National Army. The process was by no means simple, since Colombia, as part
of the countries that accepted the call to collaborate with the United Nations,
had to respond with its own weapons or otherwise pay for them to be provided by
the United States, and this was the option to be taken by the government of
Gomez, although, before signing the agreement, they had to negotiate the economic
aspects, but in the end they would be accepted because America – for the
intensity of the war that was coming - would obviously receive the Colombian
contribution with open arms, even though it was inferior to that offered by
other nations.
It was not long after having agreed on the military
aid that the government of Gomez asked the United States for armaments for the
battalion and to thus generate a good image of the country and have an
acceptable performance in the Korean peninsula. Also, in 1951, the Colombian
minister of war considered the possibility of obtaining armaments for the
improvement of the Military Forces in the country. This situation was evidently
very untimely for the American cause, which was in need, but it was not able to
give aid and Colombia was not in the condition to pay.
4. The War and what the Colombia Battalion brought to
it
The Americans repeatedly pressed for Colombia to pay
for troop and equipment improvements in Korea, but they did not go further
because they understood the situation and were aware that any sanction or
action would cause the withdrawal of the battalion and that other allies would no
longer want to help. A study by the armed forces of that country concluded that
it was necessary to recondition the majority of the Colombian battalion and it
was not feasible to do so, but it was finally done.
On the confrontation on the Korean peninsula, many
studies have illustrated the nature of this war, highlighting the military
strategy of General MacArthur at the head of the UN's defensive troops, or the
effectiveness of the Communist armies on the North Korean side[57]. For the Colombian case, the book of Valencia Tovar
is a reference that describes, step by step, the work of the Colombian soldiers
in the East[58]. If you want to study closely the participation of
the Colombia Battalion in Korea, it is also essential to examine the work of
Brigadier General Gabriel Puyana García
Por la libertad...
en tierra extraña. Crónicas y reminiscencias de la guerra de Corea[59], a text which revives the day to day lives of the
Colombian soldiers in the peninsula and shows his perspective of the conflict
where he served as a lieutenant of the Colombian Battalion. Finally, is the
investigation carried out jointly by these two important Colombian military men,
called En Corea por
la libertad y por la gloria: participación colombiana en la guerra 1951-1953[60]. In this work, with a purely military approach, there is
an analysis of the action of the Colombian military in the bloody war against
the communists.
The active participation of Colombia began with decree
3230 of 1950 in which the frigate "Almirante Padilla" was made
available and with decree 3927 of December of 1950 which created the infantry Battalion
N ° 1 Colombia, which would be trained
in Bogota and the United States and then join one of the American companies in
the combat zone[61]; 1050 men formed the contingent sent to Korea, which
arrived in Pusan on June 16, 1951 and was received by the South Korean president,
Sygman Rhee. As commander of the
Colombian battalion was designated the infantry lieutenant colonel, Jaime Polanía Puyo and as executive and
second commander, Major Alfonso Novoa Morales.
The reinforcements joined the 24th American Division and saw combat for the
first time on August 7. On this date, we find a detailed account of Captain
Álvaro Valencia in El Espectador,
here is an aside from the text that describes the entrance to the "fire
zone" of the Colombian Battalion:
The morning of August 7
arrived at the front line of the Third Battalion after a night of vigil in
which five violent Chinese attacks crashed in their suicidal fury against
tenaciously defended positions [...] at seven fifteen, patrolmen were advancing
through the undergrowth and slowly they were approaching towards the height. I
looked at the clock: seven-thirty ... A figure was drawn behind the burnt logs
that crowned the summit, and an explosion shook the air[62] […]
The Colombian military mounted a memorable defense of Kumsong from 13 to 23
of October, in the beginning of 1952 they were transferred with the 31st
infantry division of the United States and they fought notably in the "Old
Baldy" before being relieved by the 2nd American Battalion on July 4th. By
the date that the battalion left Korea in October 1954, 131 Colombians had died
in combat[63].
The group, specially formed for the Korean War, was
characterized by the large number of volunteers who, in addition to the varied
and different personalities, probably decided to go to a confrontation outside
their country for private reasons. An example of this is told by veteran Raúl Tibaduiza:
[…]
I was 21 years old and I
decided to enter service, because you could not go anywhere safely, when the army
came and asked for papers, that tired me and I gave myself to (laughter). It
took 3 months and one day to my company of 30 soldiers,
they told us that we had to go to fight in a war in Korea. We with the illusion
of traveling and of knowing, because we did not think beyond[64] […]
These fighters in the east knew at least that they
were fighting for the cause of the United States, and they knew that their
enemy was communism, but they scarcely understood the broad context of the greater
situation, they were there for a cause and one invisible from the trenches,
battling for the "great homeland" that had sent them, from that
"little country[65]" that was nothing more than the field of war
where they had no choice but to join with their counterparts and defend not a
cause but their integrity. In short, you can say that they went without
motivation, at least a general one, and also, without a knowledge
of what they were going to do specifically and in some cases, they did not even
know where they would[66].
Many of these soldiers, especially the youngest,
enlisted in order to know a war from within and to gain recognition, often
without knowing if they would return to Colombia or not. Other cases were
civilian volunteer reservists who for legal reasons or for simple unemployment
saw a new opportunity in Korea and the government, aware of their situation,
enlisted them knowing that it had nothing to lose. Finally, there were the
officers and sub-officials who, because of their behavior or their
inconveniences in the forces were practically forced to go to combat, in this
case the volunteers "did not correspond to the reality", it is also
said that the political affiliation of many these had something to do with it.
It is said that the morale of many members of the newly formed battalion was
not adequate and that they were not there precisely for good behavior or
because they generated much confidence in their commanders[67].
But this opposition to the soldiers' testimonies came
from the high command of the military forces that years after the war affirmed
that the subject of volunteers was not certain, or at least the only determining
factor, and that the partisan political aspect was fundamental in the formation
of the initial group. The same Valencia Tovar claims that: "Serious flaws
were evident in the selection process. The "volunteers" did not
correspond to the reality. The uneasiness that was evident among the
non-commissioned officers exposed the extent to which the morbidity of partisan
politics was invading the professional and apolitical army (...)[68]. " We also find the testimony of Gabriel Puyana, who states that: "... they chose precisely
those who by their misconduct or antecedents seemed convenient to release to their
unit[69].”
As to the objectives and instructions that were given
to the Colombian military at the time of departure, it can be said that the
national contingent was destined to obey and collaborate in the demands of the
American army and to join their forces, a clear example of that is that they
fought with American uniforms. The local commanders in charge of training in Cantón Norte in
Colombia did not have specific points to develop in confrontation, more than
sending a reinforcing contingent, so any heroic act or fairly important victory
would be a gain for the high commanders who made this collaboration possible
from a distance.
The Colombian army itself reflected the situation of
its current leader, that is, it directly supported a war, but with a personal
conviction rather than a truly defined social or national motive, in other
words, with more will than reason. Soldiers within the ranks recognized an
enemy of the government but not an ideal of the fatherland, since the orders
were clear and were fulfilled, but many had personal objectives or situations
that complemented that impulse[70].
On a strictly military level, the Korean War meant for
Colombia, the deployment of just over four thousand men between infantry and
navy to totally unknown lands and to an area where war was at its peak and
there was no room to become familiar with the place much less to make mistakes,
although as there were so many allied forces, training and rest were
fundamental when they could occur[71]. Obviously, the soldiers of the Colombia Battalion
did not fight alone or without guidance, since the American troops were
constantly reinforcing and collaborating in the operations logistics of the
South Americans or vice versa, an example is the entry into action of the
Frigate Almirante Padilla in Korean waters, something that was transmitted in
great detail:
From Tokyo, they report that
the "Almirante Padilla" frigate, with Colombian crew and under the
orders of the United Nations and the North Americans, has found action in
Korean waters by supporting a British landing on the coast near the North
Korean capital, according to the barracks general of naval forces in the Far
East. The operation was developed with precision,
ships from four-nations supported the commandos[72].
As from 1951, the most violent and most important
fighting took place against the Chinese Communist armies, which suffered
hundreds of casualties, and for about two years they confronted the Red Army in
struggles for hills and strategic points that were vital in gaining ground[73]. Among the operations or battles that Colombian
soldiers had the most impact and recognition in were those of Climber and Old Baldy, as they achieved victories in strategic places and with
outstanding performances, thus showing results, somehow not expected by the
world powers that were present in the conflict[74].
The Korean War was advancing and in world politics it
seemed that a military defeat was expected in order to proceed with a dialogue
that would put an end to hostilities[75]. In the so-called "Nomad offensive", which
represented the last great advance of the Allies, the members of the Colombia
Battalion stood out before the American commanders of different divisions.
Within the group, the stories began to emerge and today these memories remain
intact:
When we did not find a mine,
it was a patrol, or if not, an agent. I was very scared of dying, because the
people spread out in the street, or the wounded who
passed without a leg or without an arm, helped by their companions. It did not
give me hope that I would return alive, many comrades became crazy because of
that chaos[76].
This is just one example of what the participation of
these men was in the peninsula, because there are many experiences and stories
that later came from this group, and which recreate what it is to live a war
from within, with all the characteristics of the military structures, and the
military men, armaments and human demands of a world-class conflict.
By 1953, before the end of the conflict, the Ministry
of War showed its intention to withdraw the Battalion from the conflict zone
for reasons of sustainability and because of increasing human losses. The
decision was made by the government of Rojas Pinilla, but not before discussing
the possibility of acquiring more weapons from the United States. However, the
Colombian Battalion would remain on the Korean peninsula, carrying out
surveillance work in the disarmament zone that was created after the end of the
conflict, remaining there until August 1954.
The results of the operations in which Colombians
participated and some distinctions that were made at the end of the war would
show that, far from being a positive event for the dynamics of the country at
that time, the participation of the Colombian Battalion fulfilled the primary
objective of providing real aid to US and South Korean troops in the war. As
for the benefits of sending the contingent to Korea, it could also be said that
it was also useful, since a large amount of armaments returned to Colombia,
and, above all, the experience acquired by the soldiers meant an advance of
years for the ranks of the Colombian military in the country, which was of
great service. And the most important thing was what was subsequently gained by
the Colombian Military Forces, since notable advances were seen in aspects such
as logistics, armaments and training[77]. According to official documents, it was stated at
the time that the participation of the country exclusively sought the American
consideration of the National Army, which included: "creating thirteen
infantry battalions, acquiring two frigates, some warplanes and transport
vehicles, to fight the guerrillas of the Llanos[78]."
This was done in two ways: by supporting, in a real
way, a country that in the future would recognize the effort that had been
made, and also achieving local military benefits that would later be reflected
in the development of the army. Two clear examples of these achievements are:
(A) in the years that followed, US military support increased sharply. B) many of the combatants who returned to the country were sent
to fight peasant guerrillas, applying the techniques learned in foreign lands[79].
For Valencia Tovar, the lessons of the Korean War can
be summarized in what is known as the 'third military reform of the twentieth
century' which included: the introduction of the Plana Mayor, the perfection of the tactics of fire and movement,
and the technical, defensive doctrine, the introduction of intelligence and
counterintelligence, the order for the logistical functioning of troops such as
transportation, rations, uniforms, etc., technical improvements in
communications, instruction through visits, manuals and texts to members of the
army, advancements in naval science, among others. Valencia Tovar acknowledges
the capacity of adaptation of the Colombia Battalion to the orders of the North
Americans and to the performance that these men had in a war that had demands
as far as the relations of control is concerned[80]. This vision, despite being that of
a military protagonist for our country in that event, serves as a reference to
interpret what the conflict meant to those men who gave their lives for
Colombia, beyond the political context that surrounded them.
5. Conclusions
The ideological competition between the United States
and the USSR that began after World War II, linked many tertiary nations in the
circumstances of the agitated political world order. Latin American, Asian, and
Eastern European countries would be involved in this post-war rivalry, with
episodes such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Central American
liberation wars, and the Gulf Wars.
The Korean War was not a simple proxy war like the one
that would be seen in the second half of the 20th century, since it
was one of the episodes in which the United States and the Soviet Union were nearest
to direct confrontation. The results of the war involving close to 20 nations,
which ended with the declaration of a cease-fire and a pact which divided the
country at the 38th parallel in July 1953, show a conflict with extremely
political international overtones, which was not resolved for the purpose of
this confrontation.
The fact that
Colombia, under Laureano Gomez's government,
affirmatively responded to the call for help from the United Nations and the
United States in defending South Korea's territory, was a matter of discussion
regarding the reasons that the president had for sending troops abroad. Many
were the theories that attempted to explain the decision taken by the
President, since it was an action that represented extensive political and
diplomatic activity and it is supposed that it was not driven by the simple
generosity of the Colombian president in a crucial moment for the country and
for his government.
His training, his ideology, his personal interests,
his political necessities, his military projects, among others, were elements that served to interpret the president's
decision in his time. But there was something to be said: that the country was
not in a good position or at a good moment to lend itself to an intervention of
such magnitude, and that his motivations were not based around a united nation.
And it is true that the period of violence, due to its complex political and
social developments, was an obstacle to the country's progress in many
respects.
The decision to join in the Korean War,
did not only generate dissatisfaction in the liberal opposition. Citizens who,
through the various media, became aware of the development of the negotiations
and, later, of the Colombian troops in the Far East, saw an ideal of the
homeland transmitted, perhaps without realizing it, by means of the constant
information of the Colombian soldiers in the War.
As for the military part, what the Colombian Battalion
contributed was significant, because of the actions of its men in important
battles alongside the United Nations troops, thus showing the other side of the
situation, because despite the discussions and the internal reality of
Colombia, this was a group that was representing the nation abroad and even
came to be received as heroes at the time.
Sixty years after the ceasefire, it can be said that
this war, obviously without ignoring the lamentable human losses, left for
Colombia certain positive aspects in the strictly military sense, since the
National Army was the institution that actually benefited from this episode, not
to mention what was learned by the men who made up the Colombian contingent,
and the reputation the national military began to acquire from this
participation.
Like all wars, the Korean War left death, destruction
and hatred in the societies of the protagonists and, as can be seen today, the
differences persist in that eastern region, suggesting that the sacrifice of
many foreigners was not enough to reach substantive agreements.
Documental Sources
“Colombia no ahorrará esfuerzo en la lucha contra el Comunismo
internacional”. El Siglo, mayo 27,
1951.
“Colombia recibe la bandera de la ONU”. El
Espectador, mayo 21, 1951.
El Espectador. Julio 15, 1950.
El Espectador. Septiembre 19, 1950
“La ONU pide envío de tropas hacia Corea”. El Espectador, julio 14, 1950.
“La lucha contra el Comunismo apenas está comenzando, dijo Marshall”. El Espectador, octubre 28, 1950.
“La Fragata ‘Almirante Padilla’ participó en una audaz operación de
desembarco en Corea Comunista”. El Espectador, junio 12, 1951.
Bibliography
Abrams, Philip. “Notas
sobre la dificultad de estudiar el Estado”. Journal of Historical Sociology Vol. 1 N° 1 (marzo
1988): 58-89.
Alfonso Álvarez,
Carolina. “Viaje sin itinerario”. (Trabajo de Comunicación Social Texto inédito. Universidad de Boyacá.
2014).
Aron, Raymond. La República Imperial. Madrid: Alianza
Editorial, 1973.
Atehortúa, Adolfo León.
“Colombia en la Guerra de Corea”. Revista
Folios. N° 27. (Primer semestre de 2008): 63-76.
Azula Barrera, Rafael. De la revolución al orden nuevo: proceso y
drama de un pueblo. Bogotá: Editorial Kelly, 1956.
Bushnell, David. Colombia
una nación a pesar de sí misma: De los tiempos precolombinos a nuestros días.
Bogotá: Editorial Planeta, 1994.
Castillo, Santiago. La unificación de Corea: el epilogo de la
guerra fría. Madrid: Catarata, 2002.
“El área económica en las relaciones
internacionales”. Credencial Historia: El siglo XX colombiano. Edición 200. (agosto. 2006).
Feffer,
John. Corea del Norte, Corea del Sur: la política
estadounidense en una época de crisis. Barcelona: RBA, 2004.
Figueroa, Celmira
(entrevistadora). “Me fui para la Guerra de Corea sin permiso de mis padres” [online]. Diario La Opinión.
03 de julio de 2010. http//:www.laopinion.com.co (noviembre 21, 2013. 09.30h).
Fontaine, André. Historia de la Guerra Fría. Barcelona: Caralt, 1970.
Fontana, Josep. Por el bien del imperio: Una historia del
mundo desde 1945. Barcelona: Ediciones de Pasado y Presente, 2011.
Guzmán, Germán, Fals Borda, Orlando, Umaña Luna, Eduardo. La Violencia en Colombia: estudio de un
proceso social. Bogotá: Editorial Iqueima, 1962.
Halberstam, David. La guerra olvidada: historia de la
guerra de Corea. Barcelona:
Crítica, 2009.
Henderson, James D. La modernización en Colombia. Los años de
Laureano Gómez, 1889-1965. Medellín: Editorial Universidad de Antioquia,
2006.
__________. Las Ideas de Laureano Gómez. Bogotá:
Tercer Mundo, 1985.
Hobsbawm, Eric J. Años
interesantes: una vida en el siglo XX. Barcelona: Crítica, 2003.
__________. Entrevista sobre el siglo XXI. Al cuidado de
Antonio Polito. Barcelona: Crítica, 2000.
__________. Historia del Siglo XX: 1914-1991.
Barcelona: Crítica Grijalbo, 1995.
http://www.adeveco.org/index.php/en/ Asociación Colombiana de Descendientes de veteranos de
la Guerra de Corea.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/korean-conflict/
http://koreanwar60.com/overview-korean-war
Advance,
Retreat, & Stalemate: A Limited War in The Nuclear Age
http://coldcol.blogspot.com/ Guerra Fría en Colombia
http://www.revistacredencial.com/credencial/content/las-dos-coreas-vecinas-que-se-odian
Jaramillo, Diego.
La Satanización del Socialismo y del
Comunismo en Colombia 1930 – 1953. Popayán: Universidad del Cauca, 2007.
Jian, Chen. La China de Mao y la Guerra Fría. Barcelona: Paidós, 2005.
Lozano, Álvaro. La Guerra Fría. Barcelona: Melusina, 2007.
Macdonald, John. Enciclopedia visual de las
grandes batallas de la historia del mundo. Editorial Rombo, Tomo 5, 1994.
Malkasian, Carter. Essential
Histories: The Korean War 1950-1953. Osprey Publishing, 2001.
Martínez Pereira,
Rafael. Los tres regímenes: fuego, arrasamiento, desolación
y lágrimas: doctor Mariano Ospina P., Doctor Laureano Gómez C., Doctor Gustavo
Rojas P. Barranquilla:
Clavería, 1974.
Medina, Medófilo. “La violencia en Colombia: inercias y novedades
1945-1950, 1985-1988”. Revista Colombiana
de Sociología. Vol. 1. N° 1 (enero-junio 1990): 49-75.
Nieto R, José M. La batalla contra el Comunismo. Bogotá:
Empresa Nacional de Publicaciones, 1956.
Pardo Rueda, Rafael. La historia de las guerras. Bogotá: Ediciones
B Colombia, 2004.
Pecaut, Daniel. Orden y
Violencia. Bogotá: CEREC y Siglo XXI Editores, 1987.
Pérez Rivera, Hésper Eduardo. “Acerca del Nacionalismo Católico de
Laureano Gómez. 1930-1946”. Revista
Colombiana de Sociología. N° 20. (2003): 31-40.
Puyana García, Gabriel.
Por
la libertad... en tierra extraña! crónicas y
reminiscencias de la guerra de Corea. Bogotá: Banco de la República, 1993.
__________. Vivencias de un ideal: Relatos que pueden ser historia. Bogotá:
Editorial Guadalupe, 2001.
Puyana García, Gabriel y Valencia Tovar, Álvaro. En Corea
por la libertad y por la gloria: participación colombiana en la guerra
1951-1953. Bogotá: Imprenta y
Publicaciones de las Fuerzas Militares, 2003.
Randall, Stephen J. Alfonso López Michelsen: Su vida, su época. Bogotá:
Villegas Editores, 2007.
Reyes Canal, Julio C. La fragata Almirante Padilla en la guerra de Corea: y
otras memorias marineras. Bogotá: Códice, 2000.
Sánchez, Gonzalo. Grandes potencias, el 9 de abril y la
Violencia. Bogotá: Planeta, 2000.
Sáenz, Eduardo. Colombia años 50. Industriales, política y
diplomacia. Bogotá: Universidad Nacional, 2002.
Schroeder González, Christian. “La influencia de la
participación de Colombia en la Guerra de Corea en la construcción de la nueva
mentalidad del Ejército Nacional entre 1951 hasta 1982”. (Tesis pregrado,
Universidad del Rosario; 2009).
Skladowska, Bárbara. Los
nombres de la patria en la Guerra de Corea. Bogotá: Uniandes,
2003.
Suescún, Armando. Derecho
y sociedad en la historia de Colombia. Tomo IV. Tunja: Imprenta y
Publicaciones UPTC, 2014.
Thomas, Nigel. Abbott,
Peter. Chappell, Mike. “The Korean War 1950 – 53”. Men at Arms series N° 174. Osprey Publishing, 1986.
Torres del Río, Cesar. Colombia siglo XX: Desde la guerra de los Mil
Días hasta la elección de Álvaro Uribe. Bogotá: Norma, 2010.
Valencia Tovar, Álvaro. Historia de las Fuerzas
Militares III. Bogotá: Planeta
Colombiana Editorial, 1993.
Valencia Tovar, Álvaro y
Sandoval Franky, Jairo. Colombia en la
Guerra de Corea: la historia secreta. Bogotá: Planeta, 2001.
Van Dijk,
Teun. La
noticia como discurso: Comprensión, estructura y producción de la información. Barcelona:
Paidós, 1980.
Weber, Max. Estructuras de Poder. México D.F:
Ediciones Coyoacán, 2004.
Zubok, Vladislav M. Un imperio fallido: La Unión Soviética
durante la Guerra Fría. Barcelona: Crítica, 2008.
To cite this article:
Juan David Meléndez Camargo, “Colombia and its participation in the Korean War: A
reflection, 64 years after the beginning of the conflict”, Historia y
Memoria N°10 (January-June, 2015): 199-239.
* This article
is the product of the research project titled: La prensa y la participación
de Colombia en la guerra de
Corea (The press and the participation of
Colombia in the Korean War).
[1] Historian, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Candidate for a Masters degree in History, Universidad
Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia. Research group: Conflictos sociales
siglo XX (Twentieth century social conflicts). Email
address: jd_mmcc@hotmail.com
[2] It is important to note that not all Conservatives agreed with Laureano Gomez's decision, many sectors of the ruling party
agreed with the opposition, saying that the offer sought to respond to external
pressures against the regime and they opposed the sending of troops
[3] El Espectador, July 15, 1950.
[4] El Espectador, September 19, 1950.
[5] As it was said within the ranks of the military forces after the end of
the War, for the US generals, the Colombian Battalion was not an exhibition army, the Colombians gained a reputation as good combatants,
surpassed only by the attitude and the performance of the Turks.
[6] Álvaro Valencia and Jairo Sandoval, Colombia en la Guerra de Corea: la historia
secreta (Bogotá: Planeta, 2001), 320.
[7] A work that can be a reference of what was, politically, the Cold War and more specifically the Korean War in the eyes of the Colombians, is that of Bárbara Skladowska, Los nombres de la patria en la Guerra de Corea (Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes, 2007), a study that deals with the war based on the national protagonists, but which does not ignore the context or the complex discourses that were handled both locally and internationally in the development of the conflict, elements which that work sees as "agents and social mirrors.”
[8] André Fontaine, Historia
de la Guerra Fría (Barcelona: Caralt, 1970), 13.
[9] Vladislav M. Zubok, Un imperio
fallido: La Unión Soviética durante la Guerra Fría (Barcelona: Crítica,
2008), 93.
[10] Vladislav M. Zubok, Un imperio fallido…104.
[11] Josep Fontana, Por el bien del imperio: Una historia del mundo desde 1945 (Barcelona:
Ediciones de Pasado y Presente, 2011), 16.
[12] Bárbara Skladowska,
Los nombres de la patria en la Guerra de
Corea (Bogotá: Uniandes, 2003), 22.
[13] A radical vision, but an absolute reflection of the thinking of that
time is that of José M. Nieto, who affirms that "Colombian communism did
not act as a loose wheel but rather as a cog in the great machinery directed
from Moscow, interested in fomenting an extensive communist social movement in
all the countries of America”. José M. Nieto R, La batalla contra el
Comunismo (Bogotá: Empresa Nacional de Publicaciones, 1956), 20.
[14] For the particular Colombian case of the persecution of this ideology, see: Diego Jaramillo, La Satanización del Socialismo y del Comunismo en Colombia 1930 – 1953
(Universidad del Cauca, 2007).
[15] Adolfo León Atehortúa, “Colombia en la
Guerra de Corea”, Revista Folios N°
27 (first semester 2008):
73.
[16] In a news item entitled "The UN
calls for sending troops to Korea," UN Secretary-General Trygue Lie urged 52 nations of the world, excluding Russia
and its satellites, for urgent effective support and especially infantry, El Espectador,
July 14, 1950.
[17] El Espectador
had the headline "The fight against Communism is only just beginning,
says Marshall", and reported how the United States Secretary of Defense called on the twelve nations of the Atlantic pact
to "raise their joint defences" and to comply with the promise of
rearmament before the communist threat, also hoping that the nations of the
pact act "more for themselves" and not expect only the help of the
Americans, El Espectador, October 28, 1950.
[18] Stalin devised an economic cooperation agreement in
northeastern China that did not include the
Americans. Its aim was
"to gain complete control of Manchuria, and the
most convenient way to achieve this was through Soviet military occupation and,
after the withdrawal of troops, using CCP forces as a counterweight to the
nationalist government of the Guomindang and the
Americans. Vladislav M. Zubok, Un imperio fallido…69.
[19] Vladislav M. Zubok, Un imperio fallido…133.
[20] David Halberstam, La Guerra de Truman el día que Estados Unidos decidió invadir Corea [online].
La Razón February 14, 2011.
18:05h. http://www.larazon.es/detalle_hemeroteca/noticias/LA_RAZON_59042/la-guerra-de-truman-el-dia-que-eeuu-decidio-invadir-corea#.Udwbbb4o7mJ (November 17, 2013. 10.00h).
[21] Raymond Aron, La República Imperial (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 1973), 182-187.
[22] Eric J. Hobsbawm, Entrevista sobre el siglo XXI. Al cuidado de
Antonio Polito (Barcelona: Crítica, 2000), 22-25.
[23] Before the Bogotazo, at the end of 1947, there had already been 14,000 deaths caused
by political violence. James D.
Henderson, La modernización en Colombia.
Los años de Laureano Gómez, 1889-1965 (Medellín: Editorial Universidad de
Antioquia, 2006), 443.
[24] An necessary
text to frame this period in Colombia is the work by Guzmán,
Fals Borda and Umaña Luna, which even today continues to be relevent. Germán Guzmán Campos, Orlando Fals Borda and
Eduardo Umaña Luna, La Violencia en
Colombia: estudio de un proceso social (Bogotá: Editorial Iqueima, 1962).
[25] This period saw the birth of the guerrillas of the left in opposition to
the conservative governments that dominated the panorama of the armed resistance
in Colombia throughout the second half of the twentieth century, a clear
example of this is the guerrillas of the plains or those of Sumapaz.
[26] Historiography has approached the theme
of the bogotazo
with the international context as a central axis. Gonzalo Sánchez says:
"The episode of the alleged links between the Soviet Union and the events
of April 9 is of no material importance today, but it does say a lot about
diplomatic behavior in crucial issues, and above all it says much about the resources
used in the rivalry between powers, and how following the Truman Doctrine,
enunciated on March 12, 1947 and inspiring the post-war years, produced the alignments
that took place in the international arena.” Gonzalo Sánchez, Grandes potencias,
el 9 de abril y la Violencia (Bogotá: Planeta, 2000), 182.
[27] Daniel Pecaut, Orden y Violencia (Bogotá: CEREC y Siglo
XXI Editores, 1987), 3.
[28] Daniel Pecaut, Orden y Violencia…19.
[29] It cannot be ignored that the decade of 1945 to 1955 saw growth in the
economy, with an increase of 5% of the GDP, although evidently this does not
justify nor support the military actions and the President also did not see it
thus. See: David Bushnell, Colombia una nación a pesar de sí misma: De
los tiempos precolombinos a nuestros días (Bogotá: Editorial Planeta,
1994), 282-285.
[30] Eduardo Sáenz, Colombia años 50. Industriales, política y diplomacia (Bogotá:
Universidad Nacional, 2002), 79-111.
[31] Atehortúa would suggest that: “The United States sought the broadest Latin American participation, as it would show the interest of the West and the free world in facing communism”. Adolfo Atehortúa, “Colombia en la Guerra…64.
[32] After the triumph of Laureano Gómez,
"Colombian politics acquired a clearly defined profile, characterized by
the conservative monopoly of all public spheres. In this sense, political
action lost all the dynamics of the period 1946-1949, insofar as the weakened
liberal party was displaced from the main political stages.” Gonzalo Sánchez, “Grandes potencias…276.
[33] Bárbara Skladowska, “Los nombres de...65.
[34] Sáenz noted that: The Liberal Party announced that it would assume "an attitude of radical opposition ", and with the exception of a Cali newspaper, the liberal press did not circulate on days 7 and 8 in protest against Gómez.” Eduardo Sáenz, “Colombia años 50…45..
[35] David Bushnell, “Colombia una nación…288.
[36] It is important to separate this European trend of totalitarian ideas,
which Gómez did not practice in Colombia, as he did with his marked
authoritarianism based on Catholic nationalism, which should not be confused
with this support for the regimes of the old continent in the period of World
War II (fascism and Nazism), which led him to be totally against the policies
of the United States. See: Hésper Eduardo Pérez Rivera, “Acerca del
Nacionalismo Católico de Laureano Gómez. 1930-1946”, Revista Colombiana de Sociología N° 20 (2003): 31-40.
[37] James D. Henderson, Las Ideas de Laureano Gómez (Bogotá: Tercer Mundo, 1985), 255.
[38] Stephen J. Randall, Alfonso López Michelsen: Su vida, su época (Bogotá: Villegas
Editores, 2007), 121.
[39] “(…) while the Brazilian government turned its
cooperation into a strategic political tool to obtain resources for development
and industrialization, Laureano Gomez's government
used Colombian military participation in Korea to solicit more weaponry from
the Americans.” Cesar Torres del Río, Colombia siglo XX:
Desde la guerra de los Mil Días hasta la elección de Álvaro Uribe (Bogotá:
Norma. 2010), 215.
[40] El Siglo, October 22, 1949.
[41] In an official meeting in the United States, with
the help already accepted, Colombian Ambassador Restrepo Jaramillo said:
"Colombia will spare no effort in the fight against international
Communism”, El Siglo, May
27, 1951.
[42] Álvaro Valencia, “Colombia en la Guerra…225.
[43] David Bushnell, “Colombia una nación…289.
[44] Eduardo Sáenz,
“Colombia años
50…47.
[45] Philip Abrams, “Notes on the difficulty
of studying the state”, Journal of
Historical Sociology Vol. 1, N° 1
(March, 1988): 59.
[46] Adolfo Atehortúa, “Colombia en la Guerra…65.
[47] Adolfo Atehortúa, “Colombia en la Guerra…65.
[48] Max Weber, Estructuras de Poder (México D.F: Ediciones Coyoacán, 2004), 8.
[49] Max Weber, Estructuras de Poder…17.
[50] James Henderson, Las ideas de…187.
[51] Eduardo Sáenz,
“Colombia años
50…44.
[52] Letter of the Colombian
offer of an infantry battalion. from the Colombian
ambassador to the United States, Eduardo Zuleta Ángel, to US Secretary of State Dean Acheson”, November 14, 1950.
[53] With the headline "Colombia receives the UN flag," El Espectador
reports on its front page about a symbolic act in New York where the United
Nations flag was handed over by Secretary General Trygve
Lie to the Colombian minister of war Roberto Urdaneta
to be delivered to the Colombia Battalion, thus confirming the official
acceptance of the offer. El Espectador, May 21, 1951.
[54] Rafael Martínez Pereira, Los tres regímenes: fuego, arrasamiento, desolación y lágrimas: doctor
Mariano Ospina P., Doctor Laureano Gómez C., Doctor Gustavo Rojas P (Barranquilla: Clavería,
1974).
[55] “(…) the solution was always the same: if the Colombians
wanted to save their nation from chaos they had to remain faithful to the philosophia perennis of
Catholicism and fight against the evils that the speaker pointed out with
evangelical zeal.” James Henderson, Las ideas de…130.
[56] Adolfo Atehortúa, Colombia en la Guerra…69.
[57] See: David Halberstam, La guerra olvidada: historia de la
guerra de Corea (Barcelona:
Crítica, 2009).
[58] For a complete reconstruction of what the
participation of the Colombia Battalion in Korea was and the most significant
battles, see: Álvaro
Valencia Tovar and Jairo Sandoval,
Colombia en la Guerra de Corea:
la historia secreta
(Bogotá: Planeta, 2001).
[59] Gabriel Puyana G, Por
la libertad... en tierra extraña! crónicas y
reminiscencias de la guerra de Corea (Bogotá:
Banco de la República, 1993).
[60] Gabriel Puyana and
Álvaro Valencia Tovar, En Corea por la libertad y por la gloria:
participación colombiana en la guerra 1951-1953 (Bogotá: Imprenta y Publicaciones de las Fuerzas Militares, 2003).
[61] The Colombia Battalion immediately arrived in Korean territory and was
put under orders of the United States Army, more precisely to the 21 Regiment
of the 24 Infantry Division.
[62] El Espectador, September 2, 1951.
[63] This figure is so variable that there is no certainty about the final number of casualties, almost 700 is spoken of.
[64] Taken from the unedited
text of the interview: “Viaje sin itinerario”
of Carolina Alfonso Álvarez. Social Communication student. Universidad de Boyacá. 2014.
[65] Bárbara Skladowska, “Los nombres de...100.
[66] The veteran José Álvarez affirms that: “(…) many did not know where Korea was or why we were going to fight, but we did and there we arrived, with Infantry Battalion Number 1 Colombia”, Carolina Alfonso, “Viaje sin itinerario”, 1.
[67] Álvaro Valencia, “Colombia en la Guerra...228.
[68] Álvaro Valencia, “Colombia en la Guerra...228.
[69] “Some of the
officers and most of the non-commissioned officers and soldiers were assigned
to Korea for partisan reasons, by region of origin, or simply, as Gabriel Puyana points out, to get out of various problems. All this
allows us to think that the internal situation of the country and the army had
much to do with the decision to go and with the same process of recruitment." Bárbara Skladowska,
“Los nombres
de...54.
[70] Celmira Figueroa (interviewer), Me fui
para la Guerra de Corea sin permiso de mis padres [online].
Diario La Opinión, July 03, 2010. http//:www.laopinion.com.co (21 November, 2013. 09.30h).
[71] Some data from Bárbara Skladowska: 4,314 men. Four battalions (relief). 428 wounded. 69 missing. 28 prisoners
exchanged. 139 dead. Source: www.fac.mil.co/2001/marzo/batacolom.htm
[72] Notice titled: “The frigate ‘Almirante Padilla’ participated in a daring landing operation in Communist Korea”. El Espectador, June 12, 1951.
[73] See: Carter Malkasian, Essential Histories: The Korean War
1950-1953 (Osprey Publishing, 2001).
[74] Nigel Thomas, Peter Abbott and Mike Chappell, Men at Arms series n° 174. The Korean War 1950 – 53 (Osprey Publishing, 1986).
[75] In the heat of the war, the world was asking about the cessation of
hostilities and the search for peace. The United Press correspondent, Leroy
Pope, in a note of El Espectador
titled "The world waiting to know when and how peace in Korea will be
achieved," analyzed the conflict in Korea and questioned the continuity of
the same on the part of the United Nations. Analogously, the journalist
compared the Korean War with a judicial case in which the jury would define the
future of the conflict according to their vision of each of the major events
and the implications of permanence for Europe, for example. El Espectador, May 18, 1951.
[76] Testimony of what Raúl Tibaduiza saw. Carolina Alfonso, “Viaje sin itinerario”,1.
[77] This is what a veteran of war says about what the participation of the Colombia Battalion in the War left behind. Celmira Figueroa (interviewer), "I went to the Korean War without permission from my parents” [online], Diario La Opinión, July 03, 2010. http//:www.laopinion.com.co (November 21, 2013. 09.30h).
[78] Gabriel Puyana García, Vivencias de un ideal: Relatos que
pueden ser historia (Bogotá: Editorial Guadalupe, 2001), 122.
[79] Adolfo Atehortúa, Colombia en la Guerra…71.
[80] Álvaro Valencia, Colombia en la Guerra...312.