POLITICS AND POLICY

Effort to Merge Drug , Terror Wars In Colombia Hits Some Resistance

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's plan to merge the war on drugs in
Colombia with its war on terror already is running into flak on Capitol
Hill, even while most lawmakers are still away on their spring recess.

Just 11 days ago, the administration sent Congress a broad $27.1 billion
emergency spending bill; part of it would allow Colombia to expand its use
of American military training, intelligence and equipment beyond its fight
against drug traffickers. The idea is to free Colombia's government to use
some of its American aid to battle three rebel groups that the U.S. has
cited as terrorist organizations, and which it recently has made a point of
linking to the drug trade as well.

Drug Enforcement Administrator Asa Hutchinson, who traveled to Colombia
last week to discuss the initiative with law-enforcement officials and
President Andres Pastrana, says the administration is moving because it
increasingly sees links between terrorism and drug-trafficking money. The
U.S., he argues, merely is recognizing the groups' multiple roles and "the
multifaceted nature of the operations of the Colombian military, that they
are counternarcotics but also counterterrorists."

Others aren't so sure. Critics on Capitol Hill worry that lifting current
restrictions on aid might allow the Colombian military to ignore the drug
war and focus solely on fighting internal rebels. Some also worry that
without restrictions on the Colombian army's ties to paramilitary groups,
the proposal will invite human-rights violations. And there are fears that
the plan is too open-ended and lacking a clear mission.

Democratic Reps. James McGovern of Massachusetts and Ike Skelton of
Missouri have drafted a letter of concern to send to President Bush, and
are asking colleagues to sign by next week. Two influential senators have
raised caution flags as well: Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of
the appropriations subcommittee that handles foreign aid, and Iowa
Republican Charles Grassley, a leader of the Senate drug caucus, both say
they want to see more details.

"The administration has requested broad new authority to permit U.S. aid to
the Colombian military to be used for any purpose as long as it relates to
Colombia's security," says Sen. Leahy. "That is not the type of blank check
that Congress should sign."

In an interview Saturday in the daily newspaper Reforma, President Pastrana
said he had won the political battle against Marxist rebels since halting
peace talks more than a month ago, and he called on Congress to support his
government by approving the Bush administration's request.

Colombia and its role in the U.S. drug problem have long presented a
problem for U.S. presidents. The country is the oldest democracy in South
America. But it also is rife with corruption and drug factions, and is
responsible for producing the majority of the cocaine that is used in the
U.S. At the same time, it is mired in a 38-year-old civil war that now pits
the government against three insurgency groups: the Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia, the National Liberation Army and the United
Self-Defense Forces of Colombia. The FARC, created in 1964 as the military
wing of the Colombian Communist Party, is the oldest, largest and arguably
best equipped of the three.

Until now, U.S. policy has distinguished between the fight to stem
Colombia's drug traffickers, which the U.S. was prepared to assist, and
Colombia's civil war, which the U.S. has tried to avoid. Washington has
been providing equipment -- including dozens of helicopters -- and helping
to train Colombian soldiers in counternarcotics operations. Colombia
received $380.5 million in the current fiscal year for counterdrug initiatives.

Now, though, the Bush administration is trying to knock down that
distinction, arguing that there are links between the insurgent groups and
the drug trade, some of which date back to the 1970s.

Indeed, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S., the Bush
administration has been moving to strengthen the perception of a link
between terrorism and drug trafficking. The Office of National Drug Control
Policy began a stark ad campaign suggesting that the money spent to buy
drugs in the U.S. supports terrorists. The DEA's Mr. Hutchinson has spoken
repeatedly about drug proceeds funding terrorist groups.

All three of Colombia's insurgency groups are now on the State Department's
list of terrorist organizations, since the United Self-Defense Forces were
added in October. That's in part because of violent acts the groups have
committed in response to U.S. support of drug-eradication programs in Colombia.

In the past few weeks, the administration has been trying to draw the links
even more clearly. Mr. Hutchinson told a Senate panel recently: "While the
DEA does not specifically target terrorists, we will target and track down
drug traffickers and drug-trafficking organizations involved in terrorist
acts."

A few days later, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that three FARC
leaders had been indicted on conspiracy to import cocaine into the U.S.,
charges that asserted a direct link between the rebel group and drug
trafficking. The administration's supplemental-spending plan proposal went
to Congress three days after that indictment.

In that proposal, the administration asks Congress for $372.5 million in
emergency aid to help the militaries of 19 countries -- including Yemen,
Oman, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Turkey and Colombia -- fight terrorism. Colombia,
though, is singled out for a loosening of restrictions on the use of U.S. aid.

Clearly, some on Capitol Hill will strongly support the plan. Sen. Jeff
Sessions, an Alabama Republican on the Armed Services Committee, says he
began urging the administration to send up such a proposal more than a year
ago. Under current restrictions, he says, the Colombian military can't use
American helicopters unless it is on a mission that clearly fits the
counternarcotics description. "There's no way we can expect Colombia to
stop drug-dealing in their country if they don't control their own
territory, so to ask them to help us fight drugs in Colombia means we have
to help them," he says.

Sen. Grassley says that while he is happy to see the administration cite
the link between terrorism and drugs , he is doubtful that the Colombia
proposal will be addressed any time soon. It's likely to be stalled by a
concurrent dispute over the Bush administration's refusal to let its
director of homeland security, Thomas Ridge, testify before Congress.

In the letter they are circulating to colleagues, Reps. McGovern and
Skelton write that while they acknowledge Colombia needs U.S. help, they
are concerned that the potential changes are but a "tiny first step" that
focuses on a military solution without addressing broader economic problems
that produce dissent.

For his part, Mr. Hutchinson says the proposal simply opens the way to a
broader training and support role for the U.S., and doesn't represent a
move directly into the military conflict there. While the plan would remove
some of "the artificial restraints," he says, "we're going to have
restrictions and there will be a carefully defined support role" for U.S.
money and military advisers.

"What we're talking about is training and the use of the equipment we've
provided to them, that it can be used to do drug interdictions which, these
days, flows over into terrorism and guerrillas," he says.