Pubdate: Fri, 27 Apr 2001
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.uniontrib.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/386
Author: Stephen Seplow, Knight Ridder News Service
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?172 (Peruvian Aircraft Shooting)

AGENCY CLASHES REPORTED OVER DRUG INTERDICTION IN PERU

PHILADELPHIA -- Right from the beginning, back in 1994 when U.S. officials 
were debating the idea of helping Peru interdict drug-smuggling planes -- 
and possibly shoot them down -- loud voices were warning that the chances 
of an accident were just too great.

"There was intense agency fighting," said one former State Department 
official. "The hawks were in State, the doves in Defense."

For the Defense Department, according to this source, it was Brian 
Sheridan, the assistant secretary in charge of counternarcotics policy, who 
expressed fears about just the kind of incident that occurred last Friday 
when a missionary aircraft mistaken for a drug-smuggling plane was shot 
down, killing an American woman and her infant daughter.

On the other side of the debate was Robert Gelbard, then assistant 
secretary of state in charge of narcotics and now the ambassador to 
Indonesia. He argued that Washington should do everything possible to 
prevent such accidents -- and that if it was not actively engaged in the 
interdiction process, "more accidents could result."

"We were giving them equipment that could result in something like what 
happened, so we better be engaged," said the former State Department 
official of Gelbard's position.

Contemporary accounts in the Washington Post said State Department 
officials were telling members of Congress that the Pentagon wanted out of 
the war on drugs.

At one point in 1994, before the United States decided to participate in 
interdictions, the Clinton administration stopped intelligence-gathering 
flights over Colombia and Peru precisely because those countries shot down 
drug-carrying planes.

The administration feared government officials or military personnel could 
be liable if a civilian craft were accidentally brought down. It later took 
legal steps to ensure that liability would be waived if an accident occurred.

This did not satisfy all critics. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association, representing 370,000 civil aviation plane owners and pilots, 
said in a letter to Gelbard that "condoning the use of deadly force against 
civilian aircraft is irresponsible and fundamentally wrong."

The letter, written by organization president Phil Boyer, recalled two 
previous instances in which civilian craft were mistaken for military 
planes and shot down. "How can anyone feel assured that a twin-engine 
Cessna carrying members of Congress on an overseas fact-finding mission 
will never be mistaken for an identical twin-engine Cessna full of drug 
smugglers?" Boyer wrote.

The organization was quick to reiterate its view last week that nothing 
justified destroying civilian aircraft.

In a typical interdiction, a U.S. surveillance plane carrying CIA contract 
personnel and one Peruvian will detect and track a suspect craft. The 
Peruvian will alert his authorities, at which point it is up to the 
Peruvians to act; the United States is out of the chain of command.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D