COLOMBIA JUST SAYS NO?

Election Shows Frustration With 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.

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 - a
war the United States should avoid being drawn into. 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 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, 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.