WASHINGTON -- President Andres Pastrana of Colombia began campaigning here today for Congress to approve more than a billion dollars in emergency aid to his embattled government, but argued against tying the aid to his military's actions on human rights.
Mr. Pastrana, who met with President Clinton today, said in an interview later that while his government was committed to improving its human rights record, its efforts would not be helped by further pressure from Washington.
"We are not going to respect human rights because the United States Congress imposes conditions on the aid," he said. "We are going to do it because it is the policy of my government."
Mr. Pastrana's comments laid down the lines of what may yet be a considerable battle with Congressional Democrats over the terms of $1.3 billion in assistance that the Clinton administration wants to provide over the next two years.
The aid, almost 80 percent of which would go to the Colombian military and security forces, is intended to help Colombia fight both drug traffickers and the leftist insurgents who sometimes protect their operations. It would be the largest such package for a Latin American ally since the end of the cold war.
The plan also includes increases in funds to help farmers develop new crops, protect human rights workers and support other programs backed by Congressional liberals. But as outlined by administration officials, it has done little to reassure critics who fear that the United States will be drawn more deeply into Colombia's long-running civil war.
In comments before his meeting with Mr. Pastrana, Mr. Clinton said an increased American commitment to Colombia would entail risks, but added, "I think we're going into this with our eyes wide open."
Mr. Clinton did not directly address concerns that American support for Colombia's antidrug campaign could spill over further into its counterinsurgency effort. But he said: "In the intersection of the narco-traffickers and the political rebels, you see a picture of what you might see much more of in the 21st-century world."
Senior Congressional Republicans have been making similar arguments about Colombia for years, pressing the administration for a greater commitment to its stability. But some Republicans have suggested recently that they, too, have some qualms about the White House plan.
An administration official said such concerns would be addressed when the administration presented the plan in detail early next month.
"There will still be some controversies before this is over," the official said. But he added, "If people are saying we need to do more, it's because we haven't rolled out the whole dog-and-pony show."
Some influential Democrats, however, may not be satisfied so easily. Senators Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts are among those seeking to have the aid hinge on the Colombian military's willingness to cut ties to right-wing paramilitary groups and accept the civilian authority in cases of military involvement in crimes against humanity.
Senator Leahy, who was the first member of Congress to speak with Mr. Pastrana today, said in an interview later that he would continue to press for such conditions.
"I don't want us to make the mistake in the drug war that we made in the cold war, where we gave money to people regardless of their human rights records as long as they were anti-Communist," he said. "I am concerned that we could end up supporting people involved in human rights violations-this time for what is considered the greater good of fighting drugs."
In recent weeks, human rights groups have cited a series of cases suggesting that Mr. Pastrana's government has not taken the problem seriously. Today, however, Mr. Pastrana emphasized to Mr. Clinton that there has been a steady, significant drop in reported human rights violations by the Colombian military, a White House official said.
Mr. Pastrana made the same point in the interview, arguing that under a three-year-old law sponsored by Senator Leahy, the Colombian military understands that American aid could be cut if their forces are found to be involved in significant abuses."There has been a big change," Mr. Pastrana said. "We know that we still have a lot of problems." But he added, "I don't think it will be good for the aid to try to put all kinds of conditions on it."
Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company