Pubdate: Sat, 04 May 2002
Source: Rutland Herald (VT)
Copyright: 2002 Rutland Herald
Contact:  http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/892
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ashcroft.htm (Ashcroft, John)

YET ANOTHER WAR

When Attorney General John Ashcroft announced last week that the war on 
drugs in Colombia must now be seen as a war on terrorism, he was promoting 
a dangerously expansive vision of America's mission abroad.

The 40-year insurgency has been a disaster for the people of Colombia. 
Leftist groups control large sections of the country, and the Colombian 
government has been unable to bring the conflict to an end.

Part of the problem is that the Colombian military has a poor record with 
regard to human rights, and the military's links to right-wing paramilitary 
groups have made the Colombian government complicit in wide-ranging atrocities.

The war on drugs has brought the United States into the middle of the 
conflict. The United States has provided significant aid to the Colombian 
military in order to bolster its war against drugs. At the same time, Sen. 
Patrick Leahy has been among those who have insisted that American aid be 
conditioned on improved behavior by the Colombian military.

The United States has a sorry history in Latin America of supporting 
murderous military campaigns, including the depredations of right-wing 
death squads, in order to oppose the advance of communism. In El Salvador 
and Nicaragua, past U.S. administrations have winked at or made excuses for 
hideous human rights violations.

The enemy is Colombia is not communism, though the left-wing insurgency 
that has persisted in the mountainous regions there might resemble the kind 
of leftist movements the United States at one time felt compelled to 
oppose. Until now, the enemy has been the drug cartels. In recent years, 
however, the war on drugs has grown more complex as the leftists themselves 
draw profits from the drug trade.

Certainly, both sides in Colombia employ the methods of terrorism. 
Civilians are targeted. Bombs are planted. Assassinations and kidnappings 
occur. But President Bush launched America's war on terrorism as a way to 
combat terrorist organizations of "global reach." That phrase was a 
significant qualifier, a way to forestall American involvement in every 
nasty fight around the globe.

Ashcroft's extension of the war on terrorism to Colombia appears to be a 
political tactic designed to overcome reservations by Leahy and others 
about proposals to increase aid to Colombia. But Leahy is not convinced 
that the Colombian military and its paramilitary allies have abandoned 
their own terrorist activities, and he is reluctant to write a blank check 
until he is convinced that human rights will be respected in Colombia.

By making the Colombian fight a new battlefield on the war on terrorism, 
Ashcroft seeks to make his bid for increased money hard to resist. The 
danger is that America will abet the kind of right-wing terrorism that only 
makes matters worse.

Assisting Colombia in the war on drugs is important, particularly since it 
is American hunger for drugs that creates the drug problem in the first place.

Involving the United States in an open-ended military adventure in the 
mountains of Colombia is another matter altogether and is not automatically 
justified by bringing the campaign under the banner of the war on terrorism.

Leahy's skepticism about Ashcroft's effort to expand involvement in 
Colombia is well justified, and his attention to the question of human 
rights more relevant than ever.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager