CRACKDOWN ON COLOMBIA

The drug pusher on a street corner in New York City's Greenwich Village had
apparently been sampling his own merchandise. A well-dressed young man with
a jittery air and wild theories, he was openly peddling little packets to
drive-by customers.

"All the drugs coming into this country today are flown in on Air Force
One," he insisted, blaming the US government for America's drug plague.
There are others who blame the government for the drug problem - but their
criticisms, coming from the right and the left of the political spectrum,
are about misguided spending and mistaken policies.

One of Washington's most controversial anti-drug efforts is a new $1.3bn
package of military and humanitarian assistance for Colombia, the world's
largest producer and distributor of cocaine and a "significant supplier" of
heroin, according to the US government. The aid package has received strong
support from many business interests with stakes either in Colombia or in
supplying equipment to fight the drug war.

Ivan Eland of the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington and Adam Isacson
of the liberal Center for International Policy have studied US assistance
for Colombia's anti-drug effort. They say Washington's policies are
inadvertently fuelling corruption in Latin America and insurgency in Colombia.

Mr Eland says that as long as drugs remain illegal and the US crackdown
stringent, the prices and profits of the trade remain high. This provides
cash to buy off police, prosecutors, judges and customs officers, creating
an environment of corruption which further encourages insurgencies.

Mr Isacson says increasing aid to the military risks radicalising
hardliners in the Colombian army and among the guerrillas, escalating the
conflict and delaying a settlement.

The military push, they warn, could be futile. "Here in the US we haven't
been very successful with our own policies," said Mr Isacson. "But we're
trying to impose them on other countries whose societies are very complex
and diverse."

US anti-trafficking aid to Colombia has steadily expanded - from $65m in
1996 to $300m in 2000. With US funding and technical assistance, Colombia
last year aerially sprayed 42,000 hectares of coca and more than 8,000
hectares of opium poppies. Even so, coca output rose in southern Colombia
after eradication programmes in Bolivia and Peru depressed production there.

In the US as well as Colombia, addiction to heroin and cocaine and their
proceeds has fed violence and despair. While 50,000 Americans die each year
in drug-related incidents, many more Colombians are injured, killed or
forced to flee the country because of the trade.

The centerpiece of the US contribution to "Plan Colombia", as the
administration of Andres Pastrana, the Colombian president, calls its
anti-drugs drive, is the creation of three 950-man "counter-narcotics
battalions" within the Colombian Army. The battalions would push into the
new coca-growing areas of southern Colombia and destroy the crop and
factories. US aid is also intended to intensify drug eradication, prevent
shipments and provide crucial helicopter support.

"If we are ever to have a chance to succeed, this is it," said a US State
Department official.

The new US aid package came after Colombian officials convinced both the
administration and Congress that drug production would escalate and
Colombia's economy and democracy would founder without international help.
That message was shaped and amplified by business lobbyists. Defence
contractors and oil companies provided most of the push for the aid
package, backed by companies with stakes in Colombia.

United Technologies, with a factory coincidentally in the home state of
Senator Christopher Dodd, who pushed for the aid package, will reap $234m
from the sale of 18 Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopters used to combat drugs.
Textron of Texas will get $2m each for the upgrade of 42 old Huey choppers.

Lockheed Martin, according to published reports, helped convince the
administration to back the package by sponsoring a poll which showed that
Democrats lagged behind Republicans in public perception in being "tough on
drugs". The defence manufacturer is to gain a $68m contract for
early-warning radar systems.

Drug addiction, guerilla war and kidnappings are bad for business,
particularly the oil business. Colombia's oil reserves are a key strategic
concern for the US, as well as an investment companies cannot easily
abandon. The 480-mile Limon Covenas pipeline was bombed by guerillas 79
times in 1999.

The US Colombia Business Partnership, which includes Occidental Petroleum,
Texaco and BP as well as Caterpillar, Bechtel and Pfizer, has told
Washington that "important existing and future business opportunities for
US firms" are threatened by narcotics trafficking, a spokesman said.

"The oil companies have been the leading proponents of Plan Colombia and
the lead funders of the US Colombia Business Partnership," said Carwil
James, a researcher for Project Underground, a human rights and natural
resources group. "There's a tight relationship between the military and the
oil companies in the south."

The partnership said Colombia badly needed investment in oil exploration or
it would become a net importer by 2005. The US also needs Colombia, its
seventh-largest supplier of oil.

Other companies that stand to benefit from Washington's anti-drug drive in
Colombia include Military Professional Resources Inc and Dyncorp in
Virginia, which essentially provide mercenaries - many of them former
soldiers - to assess and train the Colombian military and police, help
maintain aircraft and spray coca.

For all the US preaching about transparency in business, the State
Department has not released the list of contracts given to private
companies in connection with Plan Colombia. However, a senior US official
acknowledged paying Dyncorps $35m last year for various related services.

US companies will also gain from $331m in funds to develop democratic
institutions, non-narcotics farming and aid for displaced people. Although
Latin American non-governmental organisations will get funding, US
companies will get most of the money, an aid official said. "Our preference
is to buy American."