BUSH FACES DEAD END OVER COLOMBIA'S WAR ON COCAINE

There Are Few Clues As To What Anti-Narcotics Policy The President Will
Follow Regarding Latin America, Says James Wilson

On taking office, George W. Bush declared Latin America to be one of the
priorities of his presidency.

Seven months later there are still few clues as to how his administration
will handle one of the biggest challenges it has inherited in the region:
anti-narcotics policy and in particular the problems of Colombia, the
world's biggest exporter of cocaine.

Colombia, also a significant heroin source, is struggling with economic
decline and the growing power of its armed factions, to the extent that
more alarmist voices think there is a serious risk of its democracy being
completely undermined. That could further destabilise the Andean region and
stimulate drug production - creating a serious challenge to the US.

The current US response was defined by Bill Clinton, who last year won
congressional approval for a Dollars 1.3bn (Pounds 600m) anti-drug package,
mainly for Colombia. This "Plan Colombia" aid mixed military hardware, to
help the Colombian army wipe out drug fields, with funds to "strengthen
democracy" and coax drug-growing peasants to plant other crops. Herbicide
spraying is being used to attack large coca plantations, with the aim of
reducing drug supply to the US.

This year Mr Bush asked Congress for a further Dollars 731m of aid for
Colombia and its neighbours in a plan called the Andean Counter Drug
Initiative. It softens the edges of the Clinton plan, giving more funds to
Colombia's neighbours to help buttress them against problems "spilling
over", but does not substantially change the policy's anti-drug thrust.

Yet there is growing unease in the US Congress and elsewhere that the
existing approach will not work. Critics say Mr Bush's government will soon
have to confront the reality that a change of focus is required. A
high-level State Department delegation is scheduled to travel to Colombia
at the end of next week to meet President Andres Pastrana. But there is no
consensus over which direction policy should take. A recent report by the
Rand Corporation, sponsored by the US Air Force, argued Washington should
end its exclusively counter-narcotics focus in Colombia and be prepared to
give more aid to counter-insurgency efforts.

Others warn of becoming embroiled in Colombia's messy civil conflict and
argue for a less militarily-led approach.

"What you are seeing is frustration and profound questions about what we
are doing and whether we know what we are getting into," says Michael
Shifter, a senior fellow with the Inter-American Dialogue policy centre in
Washington.

Mr Shifter says Colombia is a challenge for a Bush team characterised by
two contradictory traits. "It sees things in terms of a threat. But at the
same time there is a reluctance to get involved: the reflex is to pull back."

In July the House of Representatives approved Mr Bush's Andean aid request
but cut it by Dollars 55m. A Senate committee then cut funding further to
Dollars 567m.

Some House members advocated a redirection of funds into global health
programmes - believing the militarisation of the drugs war in Colombia is
fuelling a human rights crisis.

"The purely military solution is a dead-end solution," says John Olver, a
Democrat representative who recently visited Colombia.

But supporters want to give Plan Colombia more time to work. Luis Alberto
Moreno, Colombia's ambassador to the US, says: "Everyone knows it is for
the long run. No one expects a quick fix here."

Vast areas of Colombia's drug crops have been sprayed with herbicide this
year, even though most of the military equipment has yet to arrive. The
rate of growth of the coca fields - estimated to cover 163,000 hectares in
Colombia - is said to be slowing.

The US-backed aerial spraying is generating opposition within Colombia and
internationally for being badly targeted. Klaus Nyholm, representative in
Colombia and Ecuador for the UN's Drug Control Programme, says spraying of
subsistence farmers' crops has occurred. This, he says, is "inhumane" and
does not work; "peasants will retreat into the jungle and keep growing
drugs." Environmental damage is another worry. The UNDCP has not been told
what chemicals are being used in the spraying and is calling for
international monitoring.

Coca fields are appearing across the Colombian border in Ecuador,
suggesting growers are moving to avoid the spraying. "It is a worrying
sign," says Mr Nyholm.

Regional governors in Colombia's main drug areas may also step up action
against the spraying, which could spark more unrest.

Gina Amatangelo, Colombia fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America,
says: "Both Democrats and Republicans are emphasising the importance of
alternative development. The message has got across that we cannot fumigate
without adequate development programmes in place."

Mr Bush has sent conflicting signals about his own feelings on the drugs
war. He has pleased his Colombian allies by recognising the need to curb US
demand for drugs.

Mr Moreno says: "(Mr Bush) has been in front saying, 'This is a US problem,
we are creating it, we have a responsibility'. They really feel and believe
it. I don't think they will go back to saying 'It's your fault'."

Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, has also talked of drugs as a demand
problem.

"I don't think anyone is coming close to the real issue," says William
Ratliff, a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University. He favours decriminalisation of narcotics, saying: "We have to
take the money out of it."