Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (10198)	12/9/2002 4:22:52 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

Global terrorism and Colombia Published December 9, 2002 The Chicago Tribune chicagotribune.com While the rationale behind American involvement in Colombia's civil war keeps zigzagging, its cost to American taxpayers goes up steadily. In the past three years, the U.S. has pledged close to $2 billion in mostly military aid, making Colombia the third-largest aid recipient after Israel and Egypt, and roughly on par with Afghanistan. During his flash visit to Bogota Wednesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell recast the Colombian conflict once more--from anti-drugs to anti-terrorism--and announced a fattening of the aid package yet again, to $537 million from $411 million in the last fiscal year. What Powell didn't offer was a persuasive explanation of American interest in Colombia's 38-year-old civil war or a reason for ever-increasing aid. Indeed, as American commitments and resources are stretched all over the world to fight a real threat of terrorism--from India to Kenya to Indonesia and seemingly every place in between--a justification for deeper involvement in Colombia becomes ever more elusive. There is no question Colombia's civil war is a textbook case of domestic terrorism. Or that the army often has been as guilty of atrocities as the two guerrilla armies and the paramilitaries. Kidnappings and killings of officials are so common nowadays that many small-town mayors have fled to larger and more secure cities and conduct business by telephone. Newly elected President Alvaro Uribe also seems to be making some headway to restore order. He vows to raise taxes and increase military spending, a gutsy move given the wealthy's reluctance to pay for a better equipped army, much less send their own sons to the front. His get-tough approach is overwhelmingly popular and has even prompted the paramilitaries to offer a cease-fire as a prelude to peace negotiations. Although some of Uribe's aggressive tactics have raised concerns among human rights groups, so far he seems to be operating within Colombia's constitutional framework. Wish him well. But still, what do Colombia's internal torments have to do with the U.S.? The Clinton administration rationalized its initial $1.3 billion Plan Colombia as a war on drug trafficking. But despite increased spraying of coca crops and other measures, drug production, like an elusive oil slick, just moved elsewhere in Colombia or to neighboring countries. The Bush administration has sought to recast the conflict as a war against global terrorism, offering the arrest of a handful of Irish Republican Army thugs in Colombia as proof. Yet that still does not make the conflict a direct threat to either the American homeland or its citizens. Instead, by pushing the two Colombian guerrilla groups and the paramilitaries into the column of international terrorists, along with the likes of Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda, the Bush administration may be effectively hindering the ultimate solution to the conflict--negotiations. There can be no bringing of Al Qaeda to the negotiating table, but the only real hope to end Colombia's civil war--and Uribe has made some progress--is through negotiation. The U.S. ought to facilitate that process rather than lay the groundwork for continued conflict. Copyright © 2002, Chicago Tribune