WAGING CHEMICAL WARFARE IN COLOMBIA

In the name of the war on drugs, the United States is spraying
hundreds of square miles in Colombia with tons of herbicide in a
grotesque magnification of a crop-eradication program that no prudent
backyard gardeners would use on their suburban quarter-acre.

Glyphosate -- the main active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup --
is what is being used in the escalated fumigation effort against coca
plants in southern Columbia. Since the program began Dec. 19, planes
loaded with herbicide have sprayed an estimated 70,000 acres,
beginning in Putumayo, where the campaign was waged over the
objections of the governor and other elected officials. They raised a
cry of concern in July about the hazards of planes blanketing the
region, its people, livestock and fish with the herbicide, calling it
"an attack against human life, the community and the
environment."

Roundup carries warnings on the container: "Caution: causes eye irritation.
Avoid contact with eyes or clothing. Wash thoroughly with soap and water
after handling." Under environmental hazards, the label says, "Do not apply
directly to water."

A Roundup Web site warns that the herbicide can be harmful to certain
aquatic organisms. People and pets should stay out of a treated area
until it is thoroughly dry. The manufacturer recommends that grazing
animals, including cattle and fowl, remain out of the treated area for
two weeks.

The United States has supported spraying opium poppy, marijuana and
coca for 20 years. As coca production increased in Colombia in the
mid-1990s, so did the spraying. But a major escalation of spraying has
now occurred as part of a $1.3 billion U.S. aid package called Plan
Colombia. Hundreds of millions are going to be spent to buy U.S.
military aircraft and to train Colombian security forces in anti-drug
tactics. Colombia is now the third-largest recipient of U.S. aid.

Part of the "aid" package is supposed to support efforts to develop
other crops and other employment opportunities for the coca farmers.
Initially, they were promised $4,000 each if they destroyed the coca
plants and agreed to plant something else. That figure is now $1,000.
In return, the government pledged not to fumigate their land.

This package was sold to the American people as the way to reduce U.S.
consumption of cocaine. Schemes that can be wrapped up in "I'm hard on
drugs" packaging are much easier to promote than getting Americans
involved in another civil war. But a civil war has been going on in
Colombia for several decades, and guerrillas now dominate the
countryside where coca production is concentrated. In recent years,
the rebels have been taxing coca farmers to finance their
insurrection.

Under the drug war plan, some 500 U.S. military advisers will be
deployed to train the Colombian military in how to seize coca farms,
destroy crops and shut down drug labs. In effect, they will be helping
Colombia's weak central government wage its war against the
guerrillas. This raises echoes of Vietnam, where we sent in advisers
and lost 55,000 American lives.

This week, four governors from southern Colombia came to Washington to
ask policymakers to stop the fumigation, which they say has harmed
humans, livestock and destroyed legal crops that are essential to the
farmers' subsistence. Further, they said the social aid has been slow
in getting to farmers.

The governors say they are against illegal crops. They want to involve
their communities in manual crop destruction and in development
programs that will give farmers alternatives.

Winifred Tate, a senior fellow at the Washington Office on Latin
America, a public policy and advocacy organization, spent 10 days in
Colombia in January. Fumigation, she says, is a "completely
ineffective way of reducing drug production and trafficking. Drug
production in the Andes has remained constant. The programs have just
moved it into other areas. The major area now is the Colombian Amazon.
What we're doing now is spraying tons of pesticides into the Colombian
Amazon," its soil and its watershed. People, too, are being fumigated,
Tate said.

"So you have health problems, primarily respiratory and skin problems,
particularly in children. The destruction of food crops is leading to
. . . concern about having enough to eat," she said, adding that
people are being displaced because they've lost their food and livelihood.

Linda Farley, the American Birds Conservancy science officer, warned
shortly before the program began that glyphosate's "long-term
ecological effects are severe," especially for fish. Much of the coca
cultivation occurs along waterways in the Colombian Amazon,
threatening aquatic life there and downstream in Ecuador and Brazil.
Furthermore, as farmers move deeper into the forest, they cause
deforestation that threatens the habitat of most of the endangered
birds in Colombia.

It is remarkable that the United States, which sprayed Vietnam with
Agent Orange, could proceed with a widespread, intensive fumigation
program in another country without knowing the long-term effects on
humans, vegetation, livestock, birds and fish. It is cruel and
inhumane for us to try to solve our drug problem -- which is one of
demand -- by attacking the livelihoods and environment of peasant
farmers without providing them with other ways to make a living. But
that's exactly what we're doing.

In 1998, Congress allocated $15 million over three years for
alternative development in Colombia. Only a half-million had been
spent by late 1999, according to a report written by Tate. Meanwhile,
aid to the military came close to $300 million in that year alone. It
is typical of the heavy-handed way we conduct much of our foreign
policy: We turn to the military first and drag our feet on the social
and economic development programs that could get to the heart of the
conflict.