U.S. Military Aid

     What to do in Colombia is a burning issue which divides both Colombians and Americans. David Crow presents what may be called the liberal viewpoint:
     The House will vote on the appropriations bill for aid to Colombia on Thursday, March 9. The assistance will total about 1.6 billion dollars over the next two years (including already existing funds), of which approximately 60% will be allocated to the Colombian military. It seems evident that there is no effective means of ensuring that this money will be used for its intended purpose of the war on drugs instead of for low-intensity, counter-insurgency warfare. Thus, the aid will exacerbate an already extremely violent situation and make conversion of guerrillas into legitimate political forces almost impossible --a goal that has eluded all Colombian presidents (most notably, Belisario Betancur) and now, apparently, Andrés Pastrana. In my opinion, this is the only viable solution to the problem, since the other option --militarily crushing the rebel groups-- would incur an unacceptably high cost in terms of lives and human rights violations.
     It is no accident that the country's main guerrilla forces (ELN, FARC, M-19) surged forth during the National Front era (1958-1972), when the Liberal and Conservatives Parties reached an exclusive power-sharing agreement. Denied participation by legitimate means, those frustrated with the abuses of the Colombian oligarchy turned to arms. It is difficult to gauge popular support for the rebels. Certainly, tactics such as kidnappings, hijackings and ties to drug cartels have alienated many. On the other hand, the rebels control a significant part of national territory, mostly in the south, and successfully levy taxes on those that inhabit their territory. This would be impossible without some rural base of support.
     U.S. policy toward Colombia is unwise, in my opinion, and should switch its emphasis to humanitarian assistance (especially for those displaced by paramilitary groups and "self-defense forces"), crop substitution programs, linkage of financial aid to human rights, and encourage resumption of peace talks.


     My comment: Many responsible people think this will not work, although it is roughly the position of The Economist. They argue that military force is the only solution. I tend to agree with them, although it is a terrible dilemma.

Ronald Hilton - 3/7/00