Pubdate: Sun, 26 May 2002
Source: New York Times (NY)
Section: Week in Review
Copyright: 2002 The New York Times Company
Contact:  http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Christopher Marquis

THE U.S. STRUGGLE TO BATTLE DRUGS, JUST DRUGS, IN COLOMBIA

IN the late 1980's, Washington decided to make a priority of shutting off 
the pipeline of cocaine from Colombia, which provided 80 percent of the 
United States' supply. But Colombia - with a history of bloody conflict 
pitting a small population of rich against a huge population of poor - was 
mired in a decades-old civil war.

American officials offered counternarcotics aid to the Colombian national 
police, but, worried about being sucked into "another Vietnam," stipulated 
that it not go to fighting guerrillas. There were always suspicions, 
however, that the line between the two wars was blurring, especially as 
both rebels and paramilimitary groups - created by landowners to protect 
their holdings - cut deals with drug traffickers.

Now, the Bush administration is urging Congress to let Colombia openly use 
the equipment and training from the United States against the rebels. 
Colombia has received about $1.8 billion worth of American aid since 2000, 
mostly for the police and military. And as Colombians go to the polls to 
elect a new president today, the strong front-runner is Alvaro Uribe, an 
ultraconservative who wants to double the size of the army's combat force 
to fight the guerrillas.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National 
Security Archive, a nongovernmental, nonprofit research center in 
Washington, offer a timely look at the hidden aspects of past American 
involvement.

. The United States and officials in Colombia were at cross-purposes from 
the start. A July 1992 memo by the Central Intelligence Agency reveals what 
the American government was unwilling to admit in public.

Andean governments are likely to continue to stress the links between local 
insurgencies and the drug trade . . . [to persuade] the U.S. that funding 
counterinsurgency operations with counternarcotics aid would lead to major 
gains against traffickers.

However, we do not believe that the drug industry would be substantially 
disrupted in the short term by attacks against guerrillas. Indeed, many 
traffickers would probably welcome, and even assist, increased operations 
against insurgents. Moreover, we believe officials in Lima and Bogota, if 
given antidrug aid for counterinsurgency purposes, would turn it to pure 
antiguerrilla operations with little payoff against trafficking.

The right-wing paramilitaries grew throughout the 1990's. Because some 
Colombian Army units gave them intelligence and logistical help, Congress 
placed human rights conditions on aid. A 1997 American intelligence report, 
"Paramilitaries Gaining Strength," suggests the government of President 
Ernesto Samper, weakened by charges that his presidential campaign had 
accepted drug money, was not confronting paramilitaries - contrary to its 
public stance.

Possible military links to these groups are of particular concern because 
of the upsurge in human rights violations attributed to paramilitary groups 
in recent years. Victims of paramilitary violence are most commonly unarmed 
civilians who are murdered for suspected ties to guerrillas.

. . . President Samper and other top officials have said that the 
government is prepared to take firm action against the paramilitaries, but 
so far they have not matched their words with deeds.

Prosecutors have investigated only a fraction of the many serious incidents 
that have taken place in recent years, and . . . some outstanding warrants 
have not been enforced. We see scant indications that the military is 
making an effort to directly confront the paramilitary groups or to devote 
additional men or resources against them. . . .

The growth of paramilitary violence is likely to complicate U.S. interests 
in Colombia in the areas of human rights and counternarcotics. . . . Many 
military officers have been embarrassed by several high profile, 
rebel-inflicted setbacks over the past year, and some . . . may see 
tolerance or support for the paramilitaries as one avenue for striking 
back. These officers tend to blame the military's shortcomings on the 
government's failure to adequately support the armed forces.

Colombia's police have had staunch allies among the House Republicans 
managing drug policy. In 1997, Representative J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois 
and other House Republicans sought to lift the human rights restrictions on 
aid to Colombia. The existing law barred the State Department's 
counternarcotics funds from being used to buy weapons for foreign military 
and police units whose personnel were credibly accused of serious human 
rights violations, unless those men were prosecuted. A May 1997 cable from 
the American ambassador, describing Mr. Hastert's breakfast meeting with 
Colombian officials, reveals how the United States was speaking with two 
voices. In fact, Mr. Hastert's office said, the reference to the people 
"living outside of the U.S." refered to State Department officials in 
Clinton administration.

Congressman Hastert . . . said that he and the committee would work to 
remove conditions on assistance. He said he and like-minded members of 
Congress are "sick and tired of people who spend most of their lives living 
outside of the U.S. inhibiting the process by placing conditions on 
military aid when the lives of U.S. children and youth are being destroyed 
by drugs."

He decried "leftist-dominated" U.S. Congresses of years past who "used 
human rights as an excuse to aid the left in other countries," and vowed 
that he was committed to "correcting" that situation and expediting aid to 
U.S. allies in the war on drugs. He closed by telling the military and 
police that they already knew they could bypass the U.S. executive branch 
and communicate directly with the Congress; he encouraged them to continue 
to do so.

One way to get around Congressional restrictions was to redefine them. In 
1997, the United States and Colombia signed an agreement that was intended 
to guarantee that the counternarcotics aid be used only in drug-producing 
areas and exclusively for fighting drugs, a zone referred to as "the box." 
But three years later, the two nations expanded the definition of the box, 
a change little noted at the time.

Key change . . . is the dissolution of the previously designated "box" 
outside of which [U.S. government] material aid [or related training] for 
counternarcotics operations could not be used. . . .The government of the 
Republic of Colombia and the government of the United States hereby 
designate the following areas as the "designated areas" . . . : the entire 
national territory of the Republic of Colombia, including its territorial 
waters recognized by the international law, and its airspace.

The Clinton administration, which approved a major increase in aid under 
Plan Colombia, a counternarcotics and development strategy, struggled to 
identify antidrug units that were not tainted by suspected human rights 
violations. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright asked the American 
ambassador, Curtis W. Kamman, to look into reports that an 
American-supported battalion (including Bravo company) was dependent on the 
Colombian Army's 24th Brigade, which was under scrutiny for suspected 
atrocities. In a July 2000 memo, Mr. Kamman acknowledged the difficulty 
Washington faced in separating allies from suspects.

When not conducting operations in the field, Bravo company is bedding down 
at the headquarters of the 24 Brigade's 31st battalion (which has been 
tasked to provide Bravo Company with logistical support). . . . The 24th 
Brigade would provide any quick reaction force needed to reinforce Bravo 
company should the need arise.

Post views this deployment as wholly consistent with the purposes for which 
the battalion was vetted, but, given the questioned vetting status of the 
24th Brigade, wished to note this deployment for the record.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth