Statement of Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin), hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "Challenges for U.S. Policy Toward Colombia:Is Plan Colombia Working?" October 29, 2003

Senator Russ D. Feingold
Statement for the Record for Colombia Hearing on "Challenges for U.S. Policy Toward Colombia: Is Plan Colombia Working?" for 10/29/03
Date: 10/29/03

I would like to thank Senators Lugar and Biden for convening this important hearing on "Challenges for U.S. Policy Toward Colombia: Is Plan Colombia Working?" I have long had concerns regarding Plan Colombia, and I am pleased that we are taking a hard look at the effectiveness of U.S. assistance and its impact on the Colombian people.

Since 2000, we have invested billions of dollars in foreign aid and defense assistance to Colombia, and yet it appears that violence continues to rage. The figures are startling. Amnesty International reports that the number of deaths due to political violence has increased from 14 per day in 2000 to 20 per day in 2003. The Center for International Policy estimates that 4,000-7,000 people, including combatants and civilians, died in the past year. Human Rights Watch reports that over 11,000 children are fighting in irregular armed forces, and in 2002 alone, approximately 400,000 people were displaced in 2002 and 130,000 in the first half of this year alone.

What I find most alarming is that while violence escalates in Colombia, and the United States continues to pour money into promoting the establishment of a secure democracy, my constituents and other organizations tell me that institutional safeguards to protect human rights are weakening. Over the last year, the Uribe government presented a series of legislative and constitutional reforms that grant police powers to the military to detain people, carry out searches and establish wiretaps without warrants or judicial oversight. President Uribe has also put a proposal before the Colombian congress granting near total amnesty to paramilitaries - those forces who have been most responsible for murder of civilians in Colombia.

In addition, Human Rights Watch claims that Colombia's Attorney General has blocked the most sensitive investigations of military officials accused of human rights violations and forced many prosecutors and investigators involved in these cases to resign. Many argue that President Uribe's comments in September of this year linking human rights groups and non-governmental organizations to terrorists only increased Colombia's environment of fear and the vulnerability of human rights organizations to violence throughout Colombia.

I believe that the United States and the international community must assist President Uribe in strengthening Colombia's institutions and the organizations dedicated to protecting human rights and supporting civil society. The State Department must start to weigh in strongly with the Colombian government against measures that limit democratic rights. The U.S. ambassador and other embassy personnel should regularly meet with Colombian human rights groups, visit their offices and host public events that include human rights groups, thus conveying their importance and their legitimacy. The United States should more strongly support the Ombudsman's Office in monitoring human rights violations in Colombia and continue support to other human rights organizations, including the Office of the United Nations' High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia.

I would also like to raise a second issue, one which I have consistently discussed - the flawed U.S. policy of eradication and alternative development. It is my understanding that in 2002 the Colombian government eradicated 303,000 acres of coca and 7,516 acres of poppy; for that same time period, USAID states that they supported the cultivation of approximately 25,000 acres of licit crops. This discrepancy appears to be a violation of congressional requirements, which state that U.S. funds may not be used to purchase herbicides for fumigation unless alternative development programs are being implemented that encourage small farmers to abandon illicit crops in exchange for government assistance for alternative crops. I know that the Administration defends itself by stating that if there is a single alternative development project in a given department or geographic province of Colombia than the provision is met, but I don't buy this argument. The Administration appears to be deliberately misinterpreting the law and not adhering to its spirit.

The Administration must prioritize alternative development to a greater extent in its counternarcotics campaign. Without alternative development, displaced communities may join the armed forces or the lucrative but illegal cultivation of coca. In Sunday's Washington Post, Jeffrey Sachs, from Columbia University wrote an interesting article about the toppling of Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada. He argued that the United States holds some responsibility for destabilization in Bolivia and throughout the Andes, particularly with its policy toward the coca crops. He wrote that the most destabilizing factor played by the United States was the "U.S. demand in recent years that Bolivia eradicate tens of thousands of hectares of coca, thereby robbing 50,000 or so peasant farmers (and perhaps five times as many dependents) of their livelihoods without offering any realistic alternatives."

I fear that we are engaged in a similar practice in Colombia. I believe that the United States government and particularly USAID must be much more involved in assisting the Colombian government in establishing a rural development strategy and in supporting alternative development, or we risk exacerbating an already tense and highly volatile situation.

A functioning democracy demands more than just security. The United States must not forget human rights and the rule of law while supporting the Colombian government's efforts to establish control of the country and to reduce the flow of drugs.