President Bush's proposal this spring came in the midst of an energetic public relations campaign by the U.S. State Department and the Colombian government, in which both administrations tried to paint the current policy as an assured success. Evidence to the contrary was swept under the rug: the U.S. government's Office of National Drug Control Policy and other sources have found a stable presence of cocaine on the U.S. market over the last three years, and the State Department's 2003 Human Rights Report, issued in February of this year, documented continued evidence of ties between some members of the Colombian military and right-wing paramilitary groups, who are on the U.S. terrorist list.

House and Senate Democrats Take Up the Challenge

Republican leaders in the House responded to the administration request by going one step further, eliminating the cap completely when they drafted the first version of the 2005 Defense Authorization Bill. This terrifying move opened the door for virtually unchecked U.S. military involvement in Colombia. Democrats countered by backing an amendment offered by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) when the bill reached the House Armed Services Committee, keeping the number of troops capped at 500 and contractors at 400. On May 12th, the Committee voted by a show of hands to approve the Taylor amendment, voicing concerns that the United States was getting too deeply involved in Colombia's internal conflict, and calling for a shift in policy away from a purely military approach. Among the Republicans who supported Taylor's amendment were Reps. Miller (FL), Kline (MN), Hefley (CO), Simmons (CT), and Turner (OH).

The Senate Armed Services Committee passed a version of the bill that granted the administration's request and raised the cap to 800 troops and 600 contractors. Senator Byrd (D-WV) responded by offering an amendment when the bill reached the Senate floor which would have set the cap at 500 troops and 500 contractors. Despite strong statements by Senators Byrd and Levin during the debate, the amendment lost by a vote of 40-58. Nine Democrats voted against the amendment - Bayh (IN), Clinton (NY), Dodd (CT), Feinstein (CA), Graham (FL), Lieberman (CT), Miller (GA), Nelson (FL), and Nelson (NE). The two versions of the cap will have to be reconciled when the bill goes into the joint House/Senate conference committee, which may begin the week of July 5th. See below for ways you can take action on this vote.

A Policy Out of Control

The troop increase is just one of many ways in which the Bush Administration has dramatically expanded the U.S. role in Colombia over the last four years, pouring billions of dollars into a harmful military policy. After the passage of the $1.3 billion Plan Colombia in the summer of 2000, administration officials argued in 2002 that U.S. aid should be used to help Colombia fight a "unified campaign against narcotics trafficking, terrorist activities, and other threats to its national security." Congress narrowly approved the administration's request and expanded the mission in Colombia beyond anti-drug efforts in the spring of 2002, devoting some $600 million to the cause. The year 2003 saw more than a half-billion dollars in new aid for Colombia, including funds to guard a privately-owned oil pipeline in the northeastern part of the country. Colombia is slated to receive over $500 million - the majority of it military and police assistance-this year. And in a recent visit to Washington, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe proposed what he termed "Plan Colombia II," a second phase of U.S. assistance that could last another five years. Bush Administration officials applauded the idea.

The administration's ongoing support for a military approach to combating drugs and violence and safeguarding U.S. oil interests sends a strong message that Colombia's internal conflict can be solved by force-and effectively squelches the initiatives of Colombian civil society and the United Nations to engage in a negotiated peace process with armed groups. As the war accelerates, Colombian civilians-thousands of whom have lost their lives since the conflict began-will continue to be caught in the crossfire. Many more U.S. troops and funds may be requested should the Colombian and U.S. militaries fail to conquer the guerilla groups militarily. Support and training for the Colombian armed forces also puts the United States firmly on the side of a military with a brutal history and a proven reluctance to reform.

The result has been grave for many Colombian civilians, particularly Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities, trade union leaders, and human rights defenders. Those who speak out against abuses by the military or discuss collaboration between the Colombian armed forces and paramilitaries are labeled guerilla or terrorist sympathizers, and targeted with threats and attacks.

Colombia's conflict is a long and complicated one, and solutions ultimately lie with Colombians themselves. While the United States may never be able to provide a cure-all remedy, a first and crucial step will be to stop aggravating an already grave situation. Rather than back a military approach to the conflict, the United States should support peace negotiations and aid those Colombian institutions that are working to support human rights and address the roots of the armed conflict.

Take Action

Help support our friends and colleagues working for peace in Colombia by taking two small steps today. If your Member of Congress is on the Armed Services Committee in either the House or the Senate, he or she will likely sit on the joint conference committee to decide the final version of the 2005 Defense Authorization Bill. Please call your Members of Congress if they sit on the committee (see www.house.gov or www.senate.gov and click on "committees" for a list) and ask them to accept the House version of the Colombia troop cap when the Defense Authorization Bill goes to conference. Then, help send a strong message to Congress and presidential hopeful John Kerry during this election year in favor of a new, more humane policy by signing the National Colombia Petition. Signatures are stored in a secure database and will be delivered to Congress during the foreign aid debate over the summer, and to Kerry in the fall. It's crucial that we show constituent support for a change in policy-every name helps. Sign on and send the link to friends, family, and colleagues!

General Assembly

Efforts to stamp out Colombian drug operations by destroying coca crops are ineffective. Colombian Christian sources report that in 1999, 16,000 hectares of coca were destroyed by herbicides — but the estimated area of total plantings increased to 22,000 hectares in 2000. This statistic illustrates a cruel irony of the Colombian "war on drugs" — that crop destruction does not reduce the coca supply, but merely disperses coca growing into increasingly remote areas. In addition to the war's human rights abuses, this raises concerns about rainforest destruction and spread of the problem to neighboring countries. Furthermore, military aid does nothing to alleviate the problems of poverty and social injustice that encourage peasants to resort to coca growing in the first place.

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has a history of speaking out in favor of peace and justice in Colombia. In 1998, Overture 98-20 encouraged all Presbyterians to pray for the people of Colombia, to become aware of the issues in greater depth than the standard "war on drugs" rhetoric, to support the ministry of the Presbyterian Church of Colombia, to engage in advocacy with the U.S. government by "insisting" that members of Congress demand that the Colombian government abide by human rights requirements, and to support ecumenical efforts to work for peace and justice in that troubled nation.

The 205th General Assembly (1993) called for the demilitarization of U.S. drug war policies in foreign countries and an emphasis on drug prevention and treatment at home. The General Assembly has also called on the U.S. government to provide strong support for human rights through its international economic policies, especially foreign assistance and trade policies ("Hope for a Global Future: Toward Just and Sustainable Human Development," Minutes, 1996, Part I, p. 102). (Minutes, 2001, Part I, pp. 471-472.)

Written by Elanor Starmer
Program Associate, Latin America Working Group