Excerpts from transcript, hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies, March 6, 2002

Excerpts from transcript, hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies, March 6, 2002

SEC. POWELL: ....With respect to Colombia, I understand perfectly your point, but there's a new situation now, with President Pastrana deciding that he could no longer allow these safe zones to exist. We have to help Colombia save its democracy from narcotraffickers and from terrorists. And we will have to readjust our policies, take a hard look at what we're doing, and see if there are not other ways we can help Colombia protect itself short of the United States armed forces going in to do it. But there are other things we can do, and that is the subject of intense discussion within the administration now.

And of course, Mr. Serrano, we take very much to heart your concerns, the concerns of all of us, that in an effort to protect ourselves from terrorism, we can't do away with the civil liberties and civil rights that are a hallmark of the American tradition and the American spirit. And we have to find the right balance and make sure we are protecting our people, because they expect that of their government, but at the same time, they expect not to have their civil liberties trampled. And so I'm sure as we go forward, we will find that right balance.

In addition, we must never take for granted but rather should continue to devote careful attention to our relationships with countries in this part of the world.

REP. SERRANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want to just spend some more time with you on this issue of Colombia, which troubles so many people.

Last year when you came before the committee, I expressed to you my concern. And after correcting me on calling it Plan Colombia and changing it to its new name, you assured us -- and I believe that you meant that -- that this would be for counternarcotics, trafficking and growing issues, and for democracy-building or strengthening this law enforcement and judiciary.

Backing up a second, prior to you coming before me, the transcript of the hearing shows that I expressed the same concern to Secretary Albright about Plan Colombia. She went on to say that that administration was involved with President Pastrana in trying to help him deal with the needs -- the real needs of the FARC and ELN and other groups. And as she and that administration were trying to make President Pastrana understand that the biggest problem in Colombia was how to change the society that certain people didn't feel left out.

Now, let me -- I should have prefaced my comments by saying we are all fans of President Pastrana, and we are hopeful that he is successful. But I think that those of us who feared a military involvement may not have been totally wrong, because what we are hearing now, what we are reading now, is that we are not going to go and get involved in protecting oil fields or oil pipelines, and that we basically have declared again the narco-folks, the FARC, terrorists. Now, I am not suggesting that they are or they are not. I am only suggesting that after September 11th we Americans shiver at the word "terrorist," and identify with a group of people that we want to get rid of. Not a single American says we should not get rid of every terrorist.

But now it seems to some that the word "terrorist" could be at times loosely used to allow us involvement that we should be analyzing in different ways. This is a civil war. You and I grew up with a situation militarily where there was a civil war that we got involved in, and we honor all the folks that are there, but we spend so much time now wondering, you know, what was the involvement and what the involvement should have been.

All that to say, Mr. Secretary, that we have to be careful to get involved in Colombia in a civil war that we can't get out of. Secondly, if we accomplish one things it's that people who usually oppose some involvement in Latin America have been kind of quiet for the last X amount of years, because we haven't been behaving that way. We may wake a lot of folks up in Latin America who now feel that, Here they come again using their military force. I don't know who the good guys are in Colombia -- maybe that's where I open myself up to getting hit over the head by you -- you do that in a very diplomatic way, I know. I don't know who they are. I know there is a government -- a government that still can't get rid of its involvement with the paramilitary groups. I know there's narco-traffickers on all sides of the issues. I know there's an insurgency group that brings pain to the people in the name of trying to bring a change of government. I know governments who traditionally bring pain to the people also. So I can't figure it out, and I try to read it every day in English and in Spanish. I am wondering how some folks are figuring it out somewhere else.

So could you tell us how close are we to military involvement? And could you tell us what would be the reason for allowing our troops to be used in Colombia?

SEC. POWELL: There are no plans that I am aware of -- and I think I am aware of all plans -- that involve the possible sending or use of American military units to Colombia to deal with the problem they have.

Colombia is a friend to the United States. President Pastrana we all admire. There will be a new president by late summer. Colombia is fighting for its democracy. It is fighting for its right to have a legitimate democratic form of government. It is under assault by narco-traffickers, and it's also under assault by organizations such as the FARC and the ELN -- especially the FARC that's been after Colombian leadership for many, many years.

President Pastrana boldly tried to resolve this with the creation of the safe havens, and the hope that this would encourage the FARC and the ELN to negotiate seriously. There was doubt that this would be successful. And President Pastrana, after giving it his all, came to the conclusion that they would not negotiate in good faith, that this would not be a solution to the problem, and he ended the safe havens.

He is now faced with having to deal with these organizations which we have designated as terrorist organizations. Our policy to this point, as I said to you last year -- we have been faithful to that -- has been to use Plan Colombia and the Andean Regional Initiative, or ACI as it is called, for counternarcotics purposes. And we have stayed within the letter of the law with respect to that. This year we continue to stay within the letter of the law, but we introduced a new element to protect the pipeline, because this was a pipeline that was being shut down on a regular basis, and it was affecting the basic economy of Colombia. It was reasonable for a democratic government to be able to protect the pipeline. So we didn't think that this did violence to anything we have said to the Congress previously, and it was a smart thing to do. But the safe havens are now gone, and President Pastrana, and I believe whoever will replace President Pastrana, is in a conflict with the FARC. The ELN -- still some things we might be able to do with the ELN. And I believe it is reasonable for us to take a look at our policies in light of this changed circumstance -- and that is what we are doing. And it may be necessary -- and the president has made no decision, has received no recommendations -- but it may be necessary for us to give the government of Colombia additional support that is outside of the counternarcotics basket, in order that they are able to deal with this threat to their survival as a nation -- this threat to their economic well-being. And once we have completed this review, we will come up to the Congress and ask for whatever we believe is necessary. Right now we are staying within the limit of the law. But it is clear that the kinds of things that we are being asked to provide to assist the Colombian government -- such as more intelligence information, things of that nature -- we'll quickly run into the wall, the legislative wall that is there. And that is what we are examining. What more is it appropriate to give them so that they can defend their nation?

We also have made it clear to President Pastrana -- and we will make it clear to the future president of Colombia -- that if paramilitaries are given a free hand, this is destructive of our efforts to help you, and we particularly mean that with respect to AUC as it is called, the umbrella organization. We made it clear to them, and they have assured us that they understand it. And they are not going to give the paramilitaries a free hand, because that's also destructive of their democracy.

So this is what we are looking at now. We are reviewing our policies to see what it would be appropriate to do in order to assist this nation in its war.

REP. SERRANO: Well, I would hope, Mr. Secretary, as you have stated here today, that if there is a move to involve us in any other way, that there is consultation with Congress, so that at least the American people can hear a full debate on this issue.

Lastly, I understand -- we all do, especially representing an area like I do in New York -- that the issue of drug trafficking has always been a problem. But nowhere in our history, recent history that I can remember, have we said that that merited getting involved in a civil war. So when I hear the word "terrorist," I think of the World Trade Center, I think of bin Laden, the al Qaeda, so on. Can you tell us when the administration now says -- and, incidentally, so we understand something, I voted against this when it came up in appropriations when President Clinton had his administration. I told President Clinton at that time that time that I felt we would get to this point, and that he was making a mistake in that administration. So I want to make clear that I have been -- I disagree with both administrations on this. When this administration now says these folks are terrorists, should the American people assume that what the administration is saying is that they are terrorists in the same way those other folks are terrorists, that they present a physical threat to us? The drug threat we know about. But that they are thinking of bombing us in some way, and that's why we are calling them terrorists, or attacking us physically?

SEC. POWELL: I don't know that they are going to attack us physically. But with respect to their being terrorists, there is no doubt in my mind when an organization such as the FARC, that says it is interested in negotiations, but at the same time is hijacking airplanes to take elected representatives off the airplane; or they take a female senator of Colombia, an elected representative who is trying to help people, and they murder her -- that's terrorism. And it's terrorism that threatens stability in Colombia. And if it threatens stability in Colombia, it threatens stability in our part of the world, in our neighborhood, in our backyard. And I think that's something that should be of concern to us, and that's why I think we have an obligation to review our policies, and to see what else we might have to do that changes the line that is currently there in order to help the Colombian government. (Off mike.)

REP. KENNEDY: I hear you. Let me also say finally in my congressional district we had a priest, Father Paul Gutierrez Corales (ph), who was assassinated in Colombia recently. He was a priest in my district. And obviously the tumultuous war in Colombia is affecting our international policy to a great extent. And I just would like to make a point of saying that this is a case that I am watching, and I would like you to comment maybe to the committee -- I know you may have already -- about what the State Department is doing to address these issues.

SEC. POWELL: I have commented to the committee earlier, Mr. Kennedy, with respect to the fact that we are reviewing our policy in light of the changed situation in Colombia with the end of the safe havens, and whether it is necessary for us to assist the Colombians with counterterrorist efforts in addition to the counternarcotics efforts that we are assisting them with. And that review is taking place within the department now.

To assist them as they move more aggressively against these counterterrorists, or insurgents some might call them -- we will run up against the limits of the current authorities that we have under the kinds of counternarcotics programs that we are running.