« The wild, wild west | Main | Plan Patriota: don't ask, don't tell »

May 13, 2005

Notes on the 5/11 House Hearing

Wednesday’s hearing of the House International Relations Committee didn’t leave very much to write about. The witnesses, all from the Bush Administration, and the Reps from the Republican majority stayed close to their script of unqualified praise for Plan Colombia. The several Democrats who attended offered polite criticism in the few minutes available to them, though they did offer several tough questions (i.e. why are there no fewer U.S. cocaine and heroin addicts today than there were when Plan Colombia began?). Let’s hope they follow up on plans to submit much more in writing.

From my notes, here are a few things that were new, or at least noteworthy:

Posted by isacson at May 13, 2005 07:03 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://ciponline.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/86

Comments

Those are certainly interesting tidbits.

Perhaps the red tape about the issue of ex-terrorists may also stem from situations outside the Colombia context, that are not specifically relevant to the discussion.

Apparently, one could speculate that Plan Patriota wasn't on the table because either it's not seen as relevant enough to the already heavy subject that constitutes U.S.-Colombia drug policy/Plan Colombia.

Btw, on the subject of mycoherbicides...wasn't that the specific fungi responsible for contributing to a major reduction of Peruvian coca fields around the early 1990s?

Posted by: jcg at May 14, 2005 12:04 AM

If you want to have more informations about the "Fusarium Oxysporum" make a Google search: Dr David Sands- fusarium oxysporum EN-4.
You will find that the researches on that fungus has nothing to do with coca eradication in Peru in 1990.
And even, the US shouln't use that biological weapon...
Lies, lies and more lies from the US Government.

Posted by: Paquita at May 14, 2005 10:16 AM

Actually, now that I've managed to search for the information, while Dr. Sands may have isolated the EN4 strain, it seems to be confirmed that such a fungus was indeed present in a epidemic in Peru around that period, which did affect drug fields (and apparently also part of the ecosystem as well).

http://listas.ecuanex.net.ec/pipermail/novedades/2000-July/000139.html
http://arbyo.com/macc/fungus.html
http://www.buenasalud.com/lib/emailorprint.cfm?id=3391&type=lib
http://mojo.calyx.net/~olsen/HEMP/IHA/jiha6101.html

Of course, there appears to be some controversy as to the occurrence of the plague, whether it was naturally or artificially produced, but in any event such an outbreak did occur.

Posted by: jcg at May 14, 2005 01:20 PM

A few points to follow up on this posting.

First, there was an outbreak of Fusarium that killed a lot of coca in Peru during the mid-90s. (Campesinos there reportedly called it the "Clinton fungus," though the US government has emphatically denied having anything to do with it.)

Second, I want to share excerpts from an observation about spraying in parks shared with me by a colleague who just finished a Fulbright in Colombia that involved work with Colombia's national parks system.

Do you really think the govt. can maintain control over its national parks long enough to do anything or were you being facetious? Even if it wanted to, manual eradication would still be extremely difficult. Short of a full-on military operation to manually eradicate the crops, which would cost a fortune due the expenses associated with accessing these areas, I don`t see how it would be possible. And, as I think you mentioned, recruiting local campesinos to do it has also proven ineffective as most campesinos are afraid of being shot. So lets just say the army helicopters in a bunch of troops to manually eradicate the crops, or cover the local campesinos as they do so, how long before the crops are re-planted?

It seems to me that a better way to do this would be to give the National Parks Unit a halfway decent budget- supplemented in part by Plan Colombia. Perhaps a manual eradication and illicit crops monitoring brigade or something along those lines. This way they could actually maintain some kind of presence in the areas. Some of these Parks, like Macarena, which are about the size of Connecticut, literally have 3 funcionarios.

What really stinks about this fumigation in parks is that it makes countries like Holland (who almost single handedly ensure the survival of the parks service) want to withold their aid.

I agree with most of his critique (exception: I actually do think that the government can control specific zones - if not an entire park - long enough to eradicate manually) and endorse his recommendations. We should have included the recommendation to fund the park service in the "Blueprint for a New Colombia Policy" published 2 months ago [PDF format].

Third, the 5/11 hearing is now viewable in streaming video on the committee's website. Here, as a result, is an exact transcript of Roger Noriega's non-denial in response to Rep. McCollum's question about possible U.S. support for paramilitaries. As her question begins with a long, convoluted introduction, Noriega's failure to state clearly that the United States doesn't support paramilitaries may owe simply to confusion. I hope.

http://boss.streamos.com/real/hir/34_fc051105.smi
Beginning at 1:56:44
Rep. Mccollum: Mr. Noriega, … It’s my understanding that there are two servicemen now in U.S. custody. My question for each one of the departments and agencies, because in reading newspaper articles, this is not the first time that we have had either someone in uniform, or someone that is attached with diplomatic credentials involved in breaking the law of Colombia as well as working in contrary to what we are trying to do. So, my question is, can you categorically deny that there’s no U.S. government personnel – Department of Defense, State, drug enforcement officials, contractors that are paid with U.S. funds – or through the Colombian military, can you deny that there has been no official contact, or support, or assistance, with the Colombian paramilitary organizations, which would lead to this type of exposure for them then to become corrupted?
Assistant Secretary Noriega: We take very seriously the allegations against these American servicemen. Noting of course that of the hundreds of people who risk their lives in uniform helping the Colombian people, this is a relatively small number of people who have been alleged to have crossed the line into illegality. I would have to say that the investigation is still underway in this case, as it is underway in the case of about two or three or four who were implicated in cocaine smuggling, allegedly again. These investigations are underway. What I can assert, quite categorically, is a commitment on the part of the U.S. executive branch – as well as, in particular, the military – in holding people accountable for any violations of U.S. law.

Posted by: Adam Isacson [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 17, 2005 02:18 AM

Sorry JCQ, you where right about Peru.
In 1990 was the fusarium oxysporum EN-4 already mixed with the same chemicals as they do now?

Posted by: Paquita at May 18, 2005 03:56 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?