DOUBT ABOUT US ANTIDRUG EFFORT IN COLOMBIA

Questions arise as America prepares to send $1.3 billion to Colombia to
redouble efforts to crimp drug supply.

While lawmakers in Washington have locked up funding to help fight drug
trafficking in Colombia, questions persist about whether a military-type
operation will work on one of the Western Hemisphere's most vexing problems.

The US plans to give $1.3 billion in aid so the Colombian military can
launch a refreshed attack on the country's booming cocaine and heroin
operations. Colombia will spend the money on 60 Blackhawk and Huey
helicopters, training for special antinarcotics battalions, and new
intelligence-gathering projects.

The measure, part of a $11.2 billion emergency-spending bill, was passed by
Congress last week, and President Clinton is expected to sign it into law.

Yet recent events in Colombia have cast doubt on the plan.

Colombian President Andres Pastrana has been struggling with allegations of
corruption, and the country's economy has hit rock bottom. Mr. Pastrana's
trustworthy reputation had been a key to winning Washington's support for
the aid package.

But if Mr. Pastrana were to lose power, "we don't know who we're giving this
money to," says Adam Isacson of the Center for International Policy in
Washington.

Even a Colombian drug-enforcement official who helped to push the "Plan
Colombia" through Congress has recently played down the potential results of
interdiction - now that he is leaving his post.

"We'd rather see drug consumption [in the US] drop than get any of this
aid," said Colombia's outgoing national police chief, Gen. Rosso Jose
Serrano, in an interview with the Associated Press. "If consumption were
seriously reduced, this country could go back to what it once was - a place
that grew coffee, where people worked hard and sweated for a paycheck."

His point - that antidrug efforts need to concentrate on curbing US demand -
echoes a view that has been persistently voiced in the US.

Some analysts here argue that a crackdown on drug farmers in Colombia is
just the continuation of the White House's failed 20-year war on drugs.

"They're escalating a failed policy," says Winifred Tate of the Washington
Office on Latin American. "We're urging the US to support the civilian
effort [to stop the drugs], but not fund the Colombian military."

When similar tactics, including massive crop eradication, were used in Peru
and Bolivia, harvesting slowed and prices for illegal drugs spiked in the
US. But it later became evident that the business had moved to Colombia.

Today, US officials estimate that Colombia is responsible for 90 percent of
the cocaine in the US and more than half of the heroin.

A 1994 study by the Rand Corp. cast doubt on the effectiveness of "source
interdiction" - the cutting off of supply in the hope that it will lead to
less availability and higher prices on the street.

"History has shown that our source-country efforts have not accomplished
anything noticeable in the long term," says Jonathan Caulkins, a drug-policy
researcher at Rand.

The European Union countries have also been critical of the US approach.
Some EU delegates, in Colombia last week meeting with rebel forces who
control much of the narcotics business, voiced concern that the US would pay
for a quick strike on farm fields, and then leave the long-term humanitarian
problems - such as helping farmers find new ways to make a living - to EU
nations.

Advocates of the US-Colombia approach, however, argue that interdiction
techniques and technology have improved in the past decade, and that the
latest efforts will prove that. They also emphasize that part of the funding
will go toward nonmilitary aspects of the program.

Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell of Georgia last week hailed the package
because it would "[strike] the drug war at ground zero - Colombia."

The new package is considered more aggressive than past efforts, and it will
be primarily executed by the Colombian military, with training from US
soldiers. Previously, US backing had gone to the Colombian police.

"With this funding, we will be able to support the courageous antidrug
efforts of Colombia, which can, in turn, help curb the flow of drugs in our
nation," President Clinton said in a statement after the House approved the
bill.

In addition to concerns about whether the campaign will be able to stop the
drug flow to America, some analysts worry that the US could be getting
involved in another Vietnam.

The US commitment to Colombia will be open ended, which bears some semblance
to Congress's approval in 1964 of the ill-fated 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

The effort is likely to intensify fighting between Colombian government
forces and rebels in the south of the country, where much of the crops used
for drugs are grown. With more firepower coming into the region, some
analysts see additional conflict as almost unavoidable.

According to Ms. Tate from the Washington Office on Latin America, the
Colombia package was driven in the US at least partially by political
concerns. The funding got a hefty push by US defense contractors and
representatives from Texas and Connecticut, who benefit from the sale of the
helicopters.

Plus, she says, "It's an election year and it's a good sound bite for any
politician who wants to prove that he's tough on drugs."