Pubdate: Mon, 10 Apr 2000
Source: Tri-City Herald (WA)
Copyright: 2000 Tri-City Herald
Contact:  http://www.tri-cityherald.com/

U.S. ANTI-DRUG AID TO COLOMBIA WOULD RAISE STAKES IN EFFORTS

By a wide margin, the House of Representatives approved $1.7 billion to aid
Colombia in its fight against drug traffickers who supply the bulk of the
cocaine and heroin to the United States. The aim is laudable, but the
chances of success seem slight. Before the Senate takes up the measure,
which the Clinton administration strongly supports, there must be an
intensive national debate.

The legislation bans the use of U.S. combat troops but allows that U.S.
advisers be sent to train Colombian forces in the use of U.S. helicopters
and other equipment and to ensure American aid is used properly - in
particular, that human rights are respected by specially trained Colombian
anti-narcotics battalions. Such constraint is important.

But staying within those limits will be difficult, given the immense terrain
involved, the history of human rights abuses in Colombia and the legislative
mandate that aid can be used only against drug traffickers and not against
leftist guerrillas who often collaborate with them. And if right-wing death
squads that have been closely linked to elements of the Colombian military
continue to operate, some of the blame inevitably will accrue to the U.S.
program, fairly or not. Add to that Colombia's endemic corruption, deadly
political intimidation and the ease with which drug crops can be shifted
from areas eradicated, and the task seems overwhelming.

Undaunted, U.S. officials want funding to be expedited. Senate Majority
Leader Trent Lott objects not to aid for Colombia but to folding it into a
$12.7 billion supplemental appropriations bill that includes other military
aid, domestic flood relief and various pork-barrel projects. He's right; the
Colombian program is too critical to be obscured by typical election year
log-rolling.

Opponents fear, reasonably, the United States could become ensnared in a
foreign civil war that is not a vital U.S. interest and that probably is
unwinnable without far more intervention than most Americans would support.
Backers say Colombia's plight is a vital U.S. interest because of the effect
on drug-addicted Americans. But every study and common sense tell us the
solution lies mostly at home - in prevention, treatment and rehabilitation
programs that badly need more funds.

In short, the onus is on the administration to convince Americans that this
program is not the beginning of an open-ended commitment. U.S. aid to
Colombia may be justified, but only if it is carefully defined and
performance-based in terms of military success and democratic reform.
Otherwise, it could turn out to be another nightmare that might have been
avoided had we paid closer attention going in.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Don Beck