Pubdate: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 Source: International Herald-Tribune (France) Copyright: International Herald Tribune 2000 Contact: 181, Avenue Charles de Gaulle, 92521 Neuilly Cedex, France Fax: (33) 1 41 43 93 38 Website: http://www.iht.com/ Author: Brian Knowlton POLITICS AND THE DRUG WAR U.S. Election Called Key Factor in Colombian Aid WASHINGTON - Latin American specialists, narcotics experts and political analysts agree on many of the factors behind President Bill Clinton's $1.3 billion aid package for Colombia: serious concern over the persistent U.S. drug problem, an effective sales job by President Andres Pastrana and real worries about one of the most-troubled Latin democracies, and by extension, its neighbors. But several analysts said they also suspected that another factor played a major role: election-year U.S. politics. "This is very driven by electoral politics," said Carol Wise, a political economy professor at Johns Hopkins University who specializes in the Western Hemisphere and who visited Colombia recently. She bluntly attributed congressional approval to "all these incumbents up on the Hill that don't want to look like wimps on drugs" and to Mr. Clinton's desire for "half-baked" bipartisanship in his final months in office. Congress approved the new package with bipartisan support. But the debate brought sharp questions: Were the chances of stemming the flow of illicit drugs more than a pipe dream? Was the threat to regional stability so grave? Or was the United States simply pouring serious money into a complex situation in a chaotic country where violence is as deeply rooted as the coca plants that flourish there? "It's no coincidence that this package was adopted in an election year," agreed Mathea Falco, a former assistant U.S. secretary of state for international narcotics matters. "If you go back and look, a major drug package has passed in the campaign period leading up to every major election period," said Ms. Falco, who now heads a nonprofit organization called Drug Strategies, which seeks ways to deal with the drug problem. The Clinton administration has portrayed the Colombian stakes in dramatic terms. General Charles Wilhelm, who as head of the U.S. Southern Command oversees anti-drug military operations in Latin America, has warned that the drug trade is "a corrosive force without precedent, relentlessly eroding the foundations of democracy in the region, corrupting public institutions, poisoning youth, ruining economies and disrupting the social order." "Colombia," he added, "is the key to the region's stability." U.S. officials estimate that 90 percent of the cocaine consumed in the United States originates in or passes through Colombia. They say the new aid, including military helicopters for aerial eradication of coca plants, is desperately needed. Facing such arguments, said Ms. Falco, "very few members of the House or Senate are willing to say, 'This package doesn't make sense.' Politicians feel they need to look tough on drugs." While still in the government, she supported the notion that attacking the sources of illicit narcotics was the best approach. Now, she said, "We have accumulated overwhelming evidence that it doesn't work." Instead, she favors greater spending on drug prevention and treatment. A few American politicians have advocated drug legalization as a means to taking the profit out of trafficking, but they, noted Anthony Pereira, a political scientist at Tulane University in New Orleans, "have been pretty much marginalized." Spending more money to fight drug production, he added, "is a very popular position, one that neither of the major presidential candidates is questioning, one that conveys a sense of toughness about the problem." Ms. Wise also denounced what she called "this mushy throwing of money at a very old problem that has not been resolved by throwing money at it." Despite some progress in such countries as Peru and Bolivia, she said, "The fact is that use is still buoyant, demand is still buoyant, the problem is still the same or even getting worse." Mr. Pereira said some officials in Washington viewed the Colombian problem through a faulty historical lens, believing that "the successful way wars in El Salvador and Guatemala were negotiated and ended" could be "replicated in Colombia." In El Salvador and Guatemala, he said, strong, well-organized and centrally directed guerrilla movements sought to seize control of the nation; when they lost the support of Cold War patrons, a negotiated peace became a relatively simple matter. In Colombia, various factions are profiting from the status quo, with no real desire to seize control of the nation, he said. "They have quite a bit of territory and they're making money through drugs and kidnapping. "You've got several decentralized actors, and it's not clear whom you can really make a deal with," he said. Other analysts called the U.S. approach in Colombia flawed but added that it was preferable to doing nothing. "We certainly had fears in the previous Colombian administration that this extra-powerful collection of people running the drug trade were making major strides in terms of taking over the whole country," said Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "There's a sense that's not happening with this administration, and we ought to do what we can to make sure it doesn't happen." He added that there was a "legitimate fear" in Washington that "you could end up with people in Colombia who have mind-boggling resources working their way through the political system and the police system with a combination of bribes, threats and murders, and actually taking over a state. "That would be horrific in its consequences." Mark Chernik, a political scientist at Georgetown University who specializes in Colombia, called U.S. drug policy "obviously flawed" but said he saw "a lot of good things" in the aid package for Colombia, including assistance to protect human rights, to support alternative crops and promote economic development and to reform the justice system. "Those are new and interesting ideas," widely supported in Europe and by nongovernmental organizations, he said. Spain and Norway have offered to help Mr. Pastrana's plan, as have the United Nations and the Inter-American Development Bank. U.S. military aid, said Mr. Chernik, who recently spent two months in Colombia, "is not going to have an effect on the flow of drugs to the U.S. But it can push the drug flow out of Colombia, and can change the balance on the ground in Colombia. "Will it stimulate more violence or will it stimulate negotiations to go forward? That we don't know." Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, offered a candid verdict on aid for Colombia: "We support it because we are at a loss for viable alternatives." - ---