Remarks on the Statement of Ambassador Anne Patterson on June 19th, 2003 in Bogotá, Colombia

Remarks on the Statement of Ambassador Anne Patterson on June 19^th, 2003 in Bogotá, Colombia

By David N. Weinreb, CIP Intern

A June 19 speech by outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Anne Patterson sought to outline potential changes in United States policy towards Colombia. Whether these changes occur and whether or not they will significantly affect the situation in Colombia remains to be seen.

The first important statement in Ambassador Patterson’s speech is her claim that the goals of Plan Colombia have been achieved. Recent reports do indicate that aerial fumigation has cut the amount of coca grown in Colombia, though it is far from clear whether reductions registered in 2002 are sustainable, or will avoid being negated by increases in coca cultivation in Peru and Bolivia. Coca growers continue to replant in new areas, even within Colombia, where UNDCP statistics show that the department of Guaviare – a zone considered the “laboratory” of coca fumigation in 1996-1998 – saw a significant increase in coca plantings in 2002. Meanwhile, Colombia’s conflict continues to rage as kidnappings, murder and extortion run nearly unchecked. It is far too early, and the evidence is nowhere near compelling enough, to call Plan Colombia a success.

A second and very startling declaration made by Ambassador Patterson is that complaints about environmental damage as a result of the aforementioned aerial fumigation are unfounded and have almost entirely disappeared. This is untrue – complaints and charges continue as fumigation spreads. An independent review of scientists investigating the effects of spraying found in September 2002 that the spraying was NOT realized in accordance with US or Colombian laws nor did it comply with EPA regulations [1] even though these were conditions for funding set out in the FY 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill (Public Law 107-115) [2] . That same report states that spraying can cause secondary effects to plant life and aquatic or terrestrial animal species, as well as cause, among other things, acute eye toxicity. [3] Ambassador Patterson argues that no claims have been proven. The reason for this is quite simply that the conditions for scientific verification do not exist in the conflictive areas where spraying takes place. There are no baseline data in Colombia on the effects of spraying [4] and scientific data on the effects of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the spray, in ecosystems like southern Colombia’s are sketchy at best, as reported by the Defensoria (the Colombian government’s ombudsman office) [5] . The burden of proof is on the sprayers to prove they are not responsible for the health and environmental complaints repeatedly heard after fumigation campaigns pass through an area.

Ambassador Patterson also mentioned a process called “Colombianization”: a reduction in U.S. presence and aid as responsibilities for drug-fighting and war-fighting are turned over to the Colombian security forces. The process is set to begin with the turning over of helicopters to Colombian forces as well as training their pilots and mechanics. Ambassador Patterson says, “the feeling in Washington is that we’re not here forever”. Indeed, seeds of doubt as to the validity of Plan Colombia are already beginning to creep into the minds of many members of the U.S. Congress. [6] This may be the precursor to change in economic and/or military assistance to Colombia in the future.

Ms. Patterson also speaks briefly about human rights issues. She mentions the problem of displaced people as well as allegations of human rights violations in the ongoing conflict. “We all recognize that the vast majority of these human rights violations are committed by illegal armed groups...nevertheless there is still worry about the relation between certain elements of the public force with the paramilitaries,” says Patterson. She makes no policy statements on the future of human rights protections or what the United States will do to investigate these ties between the government and the paramilitaries, only that it will continue to be reflected in U.S. legislation and will be a point of critical importance between the two nations.

In what could be considered the most important part of this document, Ambassador Patterson admits that the United States has funded “activities associated with the peace process” with the AUC paramilitary group, and would be willing to provide the “enormous resources” required for a full-fledged demobilization of the AUC. This is important because the U.S. State Department has expressed its willingness to support negotiations with an organization that it has labeled as terrorist. Ambassador Patterson conditions support for the talks on proof that the paramilitaries are abandoning drug trafficking, and has made clear that Washington will not lift its extradition requests for paramilitary leaders on drug-trafficking charges.

As Anne Patterson ends her nearly three-year tenure in Bogota, it is unclear what the future of U.S. involvement in Colombia will be. The changes mentioned in her June 19 statement might mark serious, long term shifts in U.S. policy. Or, a few years from now, they could be remembered as an episode of wishful thinking on the part of U.S. policymakers.

[1] “Findings from Independent Reviews of the State Department Report on Aerial Spraying in Colombia Regarding Compliance with Requirements in the FY2002 Foreign Appropriations Act” http://www.amazonalliance.org/scientific/summary.pdf, pp. 1-2

[2] http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/foreign%20policy/107-115-colombia.html

[3] http://www.amazonalliance.org/scientific/summary.pdf, p.2

[4] 10 April, 2002, “Memo from four non-governmental organizations: Compliance with Fumigation Conditions in the Andean Counterdrug Initiative” http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/02041004.htm

[5] “Executive Summary: Position of the Colombian Ombudsman Office on the Eradication of Illicit Crops Through Aerial Application of Chemicals” http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/02070001.pdf, pp.3-4

[6] 26 June, 2003 by Gerardo Reyes “El Congreso norteamericano duda del Plan Colombia” El Nuevo Herald http://www.miami.com/mld/elnuevo/news/world/americas/6170964.htm