=========================================
All of which leads to the question: Does
the U.S. government - which has no
problem slamming the door on immigrants
and welfare mothers in the name of saving
money - really wish to continue funding
armed thuggery in the hopes of making
progress in an unwinnable war?
=========================================
 PRESS JOURNAL (Vero Beach, FL)

Tuesday, 5 May 1998

***********
* OPINION *
***********

TAXES WASTED ON COLOMBIA
------------------------

By Jack Anderson, United Features Syndicate 


On Feb. 27, Jesus Maria Valle Jaramillo was shot dead in his office by 
unidentified gunmen. The human-rights activist had worked for years to 
protect his fellow Colombian citizens from the epidemic of violence that 
plagues his country: tortures and massacres, often committed by the 
political factions, including the current regime, that are struggling for 
control.

According to Amnesty International, one gunman told Jaramillo just before 
opening fire on him: "You are very important to us, but that doesn't stop you 
from being a problem."

Many other "problematic" human-rights activists, left-wing politicos and 
innocent citizens have been taken out in a similar fashion. According to the 
State Department, evidence is mounting that at least some of these murders 
can be tied to the current regime of President Ernesto Samper. 

But don't try telling that to the see-no-evil U.S. Congress. Earlier this 
spring, lawmakers approved a "supplemental" appropriation of $ 27 million 
to help this same government fight its prospering drug trade. That's on top 
of the $ 100 million a year America has been sending south for almost a 
decade.

Nevertheless, an estimated 80 percent of the world's cocaine - and a 
growing share of its heroin - continue to be produced in the lush and 
dangerous hills of that South American country. 

When it comes to spending on high-tech weaponry and manpower, no amount 
is enough for congressional drug warriors. And if the war isn't being won, 
don't worry. We'll just spend more. Call it the Vietnamization of America's 
drug policy.

Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., taking a break from investigating the campaign-
finance imbroglio, pressured h would make up the difference.

Unfortunately, in Colombia it is difficult to pinpoint the real enemy. 

There are four major political elements in Colombia, none above reproach: 
the official government in Bogota, the paramilitary groups, the insurgency 
or guerrilla groups and the narcotraffickers. American troops are there as 
well, but only in an anti-drug capacity. 

The drug cartels infiltrate every element of political Colombia. Samper 
personally sought and accepted $ 6 million in campaign contributions from 
the cartels.

The guerrilla groups, acting as a government in waiting and numbering about 
20,000, tax the drug bosses and use the revenue to purchase sophisticated 
weaponry.

The most nebulous group is composed of the paramilitary armies; they 
attack and perform offensives, but it is often unclear under whose command 
they are operating. Reports from Colombia indicate that these government-
affiliated troops are responsible for some chilling crimes. 

According to a 1997 State Department report, the Colombian security 
forces - financed by U.S. taxpayers - teamed up with paramilitary groups to 
"commit numerous, serious violations of human rights," including torture, 
arbitrary prison sentences, forced disappearances and "social-cleansing 
murders." In a nation where the leading cause of death is homicide, an 
estimated 70 percent of politically motivated killings were committed by 
paramilitary groups.

Yet the Colombian government has taken "no significant action," according 
to the State Department. In fact, paramilitary killings are starkly 
increasing due to "complicity of individual soldiers or military units, or 
with the knowledge and tacit approval of senior military officials." 

The aid flowing to Colombia is doing so despite that country receiving the 
political kiss of death: "Decertification" for its non-cooperation in fighting 
the drug wars. Not even Mexico has managed to get itself decertified, and 
its government's top anti-drug fighter was recently busted for colluding 
with the traffickers. 

All of which leads to the question: Does the U.S. government - which has no 
problem slamming the door on immigrants and welfare mothers in the name 
of saving money - really wish to continue funding armed thuggery in the 
hopes of making progress in an unwinnable war? 

You can contact Anderson by sending e-mail to (muckinc@aol.com) or by 
writing 1200 Eton Court N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20007. 

Copyright 1998 Scripps Howard Newspapers