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