BUSH, DEMOCRATS MAY CLASH OVER EXTENT OF ANTI-DRUG WAR

A hallmark of the Clinton administration's military commitment to Colombia
has been to help Colombian officials curb narcotraffickers while staying
out of the country's long-running civil war.

President-elect George W. Bush may not be as fussy about drawing such
distinctions. He could face a collision with Democrats over Colombia policy.

Under President Clinton's rules of engagement, leftist guerrillas are fair
game if they are part of the drug-trafficking infrastructure, but U.S.
helicopters and other assistance should not otherwise be used against the
rebels.

As Mr. Clinton sees it, drug trafficking poses a threat to the United
States, but Colombia's 35-year civil war doesn't.

The Bush team seems to think the current policy is too confining, a point
made by Robert Zoellick, a top foreign policy adviser to Mr. Bush, in a
no-press-allowed speech in late October.

"We cannot continue to make a false distinction between counterinsurgency
and counternarcotics efforts," said Mr. Zoellick, a State Department aide
in the first Bush administration a decade ago.

"The narcotraffickers and guerrillas compose one dangerous network," he said.

A copy of Mr. Zoellick's prepared remarks was made available by his office.
His speech was delivered to a gathering of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Colombian rebels are believed to earn hundreds of millions of dollars
through their links to drug traffickers. The State Department recently
cited evidence that Colombia's leading rebel group supplied cocaine to a
major Mexican cartel in exchange for cash and possibly weapons.

Mr. Zoellick suggested that future U.S. support for Colombia would depend
on Colombian willingness to confront enemies of all stripes.

"If the legitimately elected leaders of Colombia demonstrate the political
will to take their country back from killers and drug lords, and if the
Colombian people are willing to fight for their own country, then the U.S.
should offer serious, sustained and timely financial, material and
intelligence support," Mr. Zoellick said.

But if the incoming Bush administration tries to alter the ground rules
along the lines suggested by Mr. Zoellick, it would almost certainly
produce Democratic opposition, particularly from Sens. Paul Wellstone of
Minnesota, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont.

Many Democrats believe the Clinton administration already is too deeply
involved in Colombia, citing shortcomings in the human rights record of the
Colombian military and its continuing links with rightist paramilitary
groups that also have a reputation for brutality.

Mr. Zoellick sees the problem differently.

He said in October that the "forces of democracy" must join hands to combat
"new threats to security," such as that which exists in Colombia. His
comments made no reference to human rights problems that Democrats find
troubling.

The tougher line on Colombia was foreshadowed in an Aug. 25 speech by
then-candidate Mr. Bush who said U.S. assistance "will help the Colombian
government protect its people, fight the drug trade, halt the momentum of
the guerrillas and bring about a sensible and peaceful resolution to this
conflict."

Mr. Clinton angered many Democrats in August by waiving a legislative
provision that requires that Colombia meet certain human rights criteria
before further U.S. assistance can be dispensed. A $1.3 billion U.S.
anti-drug package was approved for Colombia last summer.

Mr. Wellstone, in an opinion piece in yesterday's New York Times, delivered
an appeal for no more human rights waivers.

"Next month," he wrote, "the U.S. government must once again certify that
Colombia's military satisfies the conditions so that delivery of anti-drug
aid can continue in 2001.