AMERICAN WEAPONS, WAR ARE THE WRONG ANSWERS TO COLOMBIA'S PROBLEMS

The Friday editorial, "This nation cannot abandon Colombia," expresses the
concern that plans to increase military aid to Colombia will involve the
United States in another longstanding civil war abroad.

This is a valid concern, the editorial notes, but not helping Colombia fight
drug lords would be worse; therefore, the United States should give military
aid to Colombia with precautions regarding human rights abuses and the
participation of U.S. military advisers.

However, other alternatives are more likely to reduce drug problems in the
United States and halt the war in Colombia.

In April, a fact-finding delegation went to Colombia and found that church
and human rights workers are vehemently opposed to the military assistance
in the Colombia plan proposed by President Clinton and President Andres
Pastrana.

The plan (which was never debated, let alone passed by the Colombian
Congress) proposes heavy attacks on coca fields in southern Colombia, where
guerillas with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia — or FARC, the
largest of several powerful, entrenched guerrilla groups — earn $500 million
a year by taxing narcotics traffic. But some experts say the FARC will
simply clear more jungle and move coca production farther into the Amazon
region. Also, the plan does nothing to address areas where other guerrilla
forces and right-wing paramilitary groups are implicated in the drug trade.

Also, the poverty, corruption, lack of opportunity and human rights abuses
that predated the war have gotten worse, and stopping the drug trade will
not do much to correct these problems.

The U.S. package allocates $15 million to assist an estimated 10,000 small
farmers likely to be displaced by these military operations. However, the
people with whom we spoke say such relief measures will be woefully
inadequate as the real number of people who will be uprooted will exceed
100,000.

Colombia already has nearly 2 million displaced people. Much more aid should
be addressed to housing, food, education and employment.

Apart from the human costs of this campaign, the environmental damage will
be devastating.

Most groups support crop-substitution programs for the coca-growing regions.
But if defoliants are sprayed over large areas, the land will be infertile
for a long time and people will suffer health problems. Additionally, the
infrastructure — roads and markets — doesn't exist in many parts of the
country to make substitute crops profitable.

Finally, will this package help overcome the U.S. drug problem? Colombians
blame U.S. demand for expanded drug trafficking in their country. This is
expressed in graffiti on the streets of Bogota: "Fuera Yanky Junky! (Yankee
Junkie Go Home!)"

A decorated veteran, retired Navy Lt. Cmdr. Sylvester Saucedo recently
returned his Navy achievement medal for military service in the drug war to
President Clinton in protest of the Colombia plan. He asserts that the drug
war is a failure, and that military aid is the wrong tool to fight a
Colombian problem that is fundamentally political and economic.

Instead, he proposes programs proven effective in reducing the demand for
illicit drugs — including treatment for drug addicts and after-school
programs.

In an April 10 comment in the Baltimore Sun, he wrote:

"As a first step, Congress should say no to more aid for the Colombian
military. Instead, we should take that $1.7 billion and invest it to support
the peace plan in Colombia and to provide treatment and prevention programs
here at home.

"Weapons and war are not the answer. Americans and Colombians both need
peace for their families and communities."