Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published February 27, 2002
WASHINGTON -- The U.S.-backed drug war in Colombia is looking bleak, partly because officials are having trouble getting impoverished farmers to stop planting illegal crops in territory controlled by Marxist rebels, a government report says.
As a result, Congress should stop future funding for alternative development programs in Colombia until U.S. officials can show that they're working, says the report by the General Accounting Office, or GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.
Last year, Congress asked the GAO to examine previous alternative development programs in Bolivia and Peru to see what lessons, if any, they held for Colombia. Released Monday, the 51-page report seemed to offer its conclusion in the title: "Drug Control: Efforts to Develop Alternatives to Cultivating Illicit Crops in Colombia Have Made Little Progress and Face Serious Obstacles."
The report said Colombia's first hurdle is that the rebels, and not the government, control large swaths of territory in the south where the bulk of the coca is grown. According to the report, the poor quality of the soil and infrastructure are further obstacles.
Under Plan Colombia, a $7.5-billion internationally funded aid package to help bring peace to the war-ravaged country, the idea for alternative development is to wean farmers away from coca and poppy, used in the manufacture of cocaine and heroin, respectively. Under the $1.3-billion U.S. contribution to Plan Colombia, mostly for the purchase of military hardware, the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, is implementing $52.5-million in programs for alternative development.
As of Sept. 30, 2001, however, USAID had spent only $5.6-million. The agriculture projects are expected to begin in earnest this year.
"USAID faces serious obstacles to achieving progress in Colombia, and the experiences in Bolivia and Peru strongly suggest that alternative development in Colombia will not succeed unless the obstacles are overcome," the report said. "Among them, the Colombian government does not control many coca-growing areas, it has limited capacity to carry out sustained interdiction operations, and its ability to effectively coordinate eradication and alternative development activities remains uncertain."
The GAO recommended that the USAID administrator update its plans in Colombia "to take into account extreme difficulty in gaining access to the coca-growing regions."
"We also suggest that the Congress consider requiring that USAID demonstrate measurable progress in its current efforts to reduce coca cultivation in Colombia before any additional funding is provided for alternative development."
USAID officials were not immediately available for comment. A letter included in the report from John Marshall, assistant administrator in the Bureau for Management at USAID, however, defended the program.
"As we learned over many years in Bolivia and Peru, success depends on determination, long-term commitment and the ability to learn and adjust to changing circumstances," Marshall said.
He noted that in Colombia USAID covers three broad areas: strengthening democratic institutions and human rights protection, providing temporary assistance to Colombian citizens who have been displaced by conflict and working with farmers to develop alternatives to coca and poppy cultivation.
U.S. counterdrug policy in Colombia has come under harsh criticism both here and abroad, largely because of the large military component under Plan Colombia. Critics have charged Washington with becoming embroiled in a rebel war. Environmentalists say that a U.S.-funded aerial spraying program in Colombia has proved harmful to people.
In recent days, the situation in Colombia has deteriorated.
Peace talks between the rebels and the administration of President Andres Pastrana have crumbled, prompting the Colombian military to force the rebels out of a demilitarized zone and helping to intensify the war.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, was one of three senators who requested the GAO investigation.
"Alternative development is and will remain an important component of U.S. assistance to Colombia," he said.
"But it's important that we're sure the funnel we are pouring this assistance through is pointed in the right direction and can handle the amount we're pouring into it. Otherwise," he said, "we're going to have a mess."