COLOMBIA REJECTS U.S.?

A number of analysts have suggested that the results of Colombia's
parliamentary election this past weekend indicate a firm rejection of the
two major parties and of U.S. involvement in that country's civil war. A
closer look suggests dissatisfaction and disillusionment among voters, but
not a clear policy signal one way or the other.

Nevertheless, the United States should be alert to the changing sentiments
of Colombians -- and reconsider the ambitious Plan Colombia initiated by
the Clinton administration and continued under President Bush. Plan
Colombia calls for certain kinds of U.S. military support and other aid to
the Colombian government with the aim of reducing illegal drug traffic. We
have opposed the plan.

The most one can draw from last weekend's election result is an indication
of growing frustration with current conditions, which include an
intensified civil war in the wake of recently collapsed peace efforts. The
leftist rebel group FARC had called for an election boycott and only about
44 percent of Colombian voters showed up at the polls. They reduced the
Conservative Party of President Andres Pastrana Arango to 13 seats from 17
seats in the 100-member Senate. The establishment opposition Liberal Party
lost 19 Senate seats, reducing its representation to 29 seats from 48 seats.

In both the 100-member Senate and the 175-member House of Representatives
small independent parties now hold majorities. But they are split.
Supporters of independent presidential candidate Alvaro Uribe Velez,
generally described as a hard-liner who would intensify the war against
FARC, did best. But followers of Antonio Navarro Wolf, a former guerrilla
from the demobilized M-19 group, came in second.

Thus the voters seem impatient with the two parties that have dominated
Colombian politics since the 1950s, but split between what could be called
far-right and far-left alternatives. This suggests that the instability
that has characterized Colombian politics for some time is poised to become
even more unstable.

The U.S. mission, consisting mostly of military aid and military advisers,
was sold to Americans as a battle in the drug war, but it was recently
expanded to include guarding a pipeline owned by Occidental Petroleum. It
has not stemmed the flow of cocaine out of Colombia and it has not brought
stability to that country.

In fact, a case can be made that U.S. intervention subsidizes violence on
both sides. U.S. taxpayers' money flows to the Colombian military, and
active drug war measures make cocaine more profitable for guerrillas and
narcoterrorists.

The best bet would be to end U.S. intervention and end the war on drugs so
the United States can concentrate on the struggle against terrorism.

The Colombian civil war would probably continue, but neither side would
have as many resources for killing.