Pubdate: Sun, 03 Mar 2002
Source: New York Times (NY)
Section: International
Copyright: 2002 The New York Times Company
Contact:  http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Christopher Marquis

U.S. TO EXPLORE AID TO COLOMBIA, CITING THREAT OF TERRORISM

WASHINGTON, March 2 -- The Bush administration hopes to use concern over 
terrorism to build support in Congress for direct aid to the Colombian 
government to fight leftist rebels, officials say.

American policy makers have not decided how deeply they want to plunge into 
Colombia's fight against the country's main rebel group, the Revolutionary 
Armed Forces of Colombia, known by its Spanish acronym FARC. So far the 
American commitment has been to share intelligence and to rush spare parts 
to Colombia.

President Bush said this week that the United States would continue to 
comply with laws restricting American military involvement in Colombia to 
the war on drugs. "We do have legal constraints," he said. "We are 
providing advice to the Colombian government as to drug eradication and we 
will keep it that way. The law is very clear."

But the officials are beginning to portray the Colombian government's 
struggle as part of the broader, worldwide fight against terrorists, and 
they say it deserves a military support program.

Congress had specifically barred support for helping the Colombian 
government put down the rebels when it approved more than $1 billion in 
mostly military aid to Colombia as part of an antidrug program. Lawmakers 
have contended that the guerrilla war is unwinnable and the Colombian 
military is a weak and corrupt ally.

But opposition may be softening, and some critics of the Colombian Army now 
say it is time to consider counterinsurgency support.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who has long pressured the 
Colombian military to curb abuses, called for a "top-to-bottom review" of a 
drug-focused policy, which he said had failed.

As part of that review, Mr. Leahy said Congress should consider sending in 
American combat troops. Currently, fewer than 400 American military 
trainers are involved in Colombian antidrug operations.

One senior official who has spoken with other officials about the subject 
said last week: "People are interested in considering a move from 
counternarcotics to counterterrorism, rather than counterinsurgency. What 
people are thinking is Colombia is under threat from terrorism."

The official conceded that the distinction was largely "just a change in 
words," but he said it could have an important role in public perceptions 
as the United States considered its options.

"I don't think anyone in Congress is going to stand up and say, 'Hey, let's 
do some counterinsurgency,' " the official said. But he said few members 
from either party had raised objections as the administration has started 
to help Colombia fight the rebels. "They supported what we were doing," he 
said.

On the possibility of sending in combat troops, Mr. Leahy said: "It's not 
risk free. It may well involve Americans on the front lines against the 
insurgency in helping the Colombian Army enter the 21st century. And it's 
not going to solve our drug problem."

Senator Bob Graham, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said it was 
time to view Colombia's instability as a regional security threat and 
consider giving direct support for the counterinsurgency.

"It is time for that consideration, because I believe that we're at a 
critical decision point for Colombia," said Mr. Graham, a Florida Democrat. 
If Colombia is unable to make substantial military progress against the 
rebels, he added, "it could lead to a downward spiral."

Mr. Graham said the administration was sending conflicting signals on 
Colombia. "The administration has got to decide what it's going to do," he 
said.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Condoleezza Rice, the national security 
adviser, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld met last Tuesday to 
discuss a request by President Andres Pastrana for military help. Secretary 
Powell and Ms. Rice urged a cautious approach, aides said.

Officials and analysts said the administration would probably not undertake 
a major policy change on Colombia until after its presidential elections on 
May 26. But some see signs of an incremental shift with President Bush's 
request for $98 million to help the Colombian Army protect a vital oil 
pipeline against repeated sabotage.

In the meantime, officials are trying to influence how Americans view the 
Colombian rebels. The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, repeatedly 
salted his comments about Colombia last week with references to the FARC as 
terrorists.

The United States first listed the group as a terrorist organization in 
1998, along with the second rebel movement, the National Liberation Army. A 
right-wing paramilitary organization, the United Self-Defense Forces of 
Colombia, was so designated last year.

The main rebel group's recent kidnappings and hijackings leading up to the 
collapse of three-year peace talks has, for some, confirmed its terrorist 
credentials.

While it has some ties to the Irish Republican Army, it has no known links 
to Al Qaeda. It has been locked for decades in a domestic, political 
struggle that is not distinctly aimed at the United States, though it has 
attacked Americans and American business interests in Colombia.

In many ways, it is a traditional Latin American insurgency -- the kind 
that disappeared across the hemisphere with the cold war; it is sustained 
today by drug profits, not ideological support.

Michael Shifter, a specialist on Colombia at the Inter-American Dialogue, 
said the group deserved a terrorist designation. But the administration's 
insistence on that point might eliminate any hope of someday reaching a 
peace settlement, which has been at the core of American and Colombian 
strategy, he said.

"The real risk is that in the war against terrorism, there's no room for 
political negotiations," Mr. Shifter said.

Before the United States wades deeper into Colombia, he added, American 
policy makers should ask themselves: "How far do we go? What are the costs? 
What is the endgame here?"
- ---
MAP posted-by: Ariel