WESTERN HEMISPHERE

COLOMBIA: "Under The Watch Of The U.S."

An editorial in the leading national daily El Tiempo discussing Gen. McCaffrey's declaration of Colombia's national emergency reported (8/4): "In the United States, concern over the Colombian crisis has reached the point at which McCaffrey has requested that President Clinton urgently convene a high-level...summit to review the situation (in Colombia). And for the second time in less than a month, (McCaffrey) has advocated...substantial increase in military, economic, and intelligence assistance to confront the growing military and economic power of the guerillas and the paramilitaries. Few people can question the need for this aid, nor the fact that financing for these armed outlaws comes largely from narcotrafficking.... It's an inescapable reality which cannot be sublimated just for the sake of holding a dialogue with the insurgents.... In the United States there is an intense debate about the form in which that country can help resolve the Colombian conflict, which certainly cannot be reduced to the drug problem. The military intervention which some have proposed would be absurd. Washington should continue supporting the peace initiative and a negotiated solution....

"More intensive cooperation in training the military forces, in intelligence activities and the provision of arms are the keys of the program which has been proposed at the highest level in Washington and which surely will find the support of the Clinton administration. This is a reasonable solution, and...a doable one. Therefore, we hope it succeeds. For just as we reject any attempt at unilateral intervention in our country, we support anything which will help Colombia--to paraphrase McCaffrey--stop moving in the wrong direction."

"Changing Policy Toward Colombia"

The lead editorial in Bogota's second national daily El Espectador (8/4) gave an assessment of Gen. McCaffrey's visit to Colombia and his reported recommendation for a "change in attitude" in Washington and separation of illegal groups--guerrillas and paramilitaries--from their sources of finance, essentially narcotrafficking which stressed: "The policy change, according to McCaffrey, is an urgent necessity. The accumulation of mistakes by different U.S. administrations has been one of the factors which has made it impossible to correct the nation's (Colombia's) direction, with dangerous consequences for the stability of democracy (in Colombia). The proposal is welcome.... For many years, many influential and powerful sectors in the United States have persisted in maintaining the fallacy that you can stop the import of illegal drugs--more than you can reduce demand--and that therefore, planning emphasis should be on repressive measures in the source countries. Many years have passed which should be enough to demonstrate the failure of this approach.... The strategy, unjust and inefficient, has not worked because it has lacked measures against domestic activities in the United States which make (drug trafficking) viable: consumption, money-laundering, and trade in chemical precursors.... The factors mentioned by General McCaffrey are also very relevant....

"The critics are concentrated in Congress, whereas there is sympathy for the negotiations in the White House. The first objective of the correction proposed by McCaffrey would be a common set of standards (among U.S. policy-makers). The U.S. attitude towards Colombia has been affected by politicization of the issue, a phenomenon which has also created ambiguity. Under current circumstances, a non-partisan, multi-institutional agreement would be the most advantageous....

As a result of the conclusions reached by McCaffrey after his visit, conclusions which were corroborated by General Wilhelm, who is currently in Bogota, a great opportunity has been provided: that of permitting rectifications of past injustices, imbalances, and lack of focus (by the United States.)"

"Supersam And The War"

Weekly Semana (8/2) ran this op-ed by Alejandro Santos Rubino, son of the director of Colombia's leading newspaper, El Tiempo: "It's a plane? No! It's a bird? No! Is it Uncle Sam? Well, 66 percent of Colombians would hope it is, according to a recent poll. How times change! Only a few years ago, U.S. military intervention in our country (would have been) viewed as an act of imperial aggression; now it would be a humanitarian act by the superpower to end the war. It's Supersam, with his double 'S' on his chest. In a matter of minutes we have exchanged the slogan 'Yankee go home' to the desperate 'Yankee come home.' Such...is a collective resigned feeling that war produces. To bow your head to foreign military intervention--particularly to the United States--shows the mood of a frustrated, demoralized and vulnerable country, but above all, a battered one. Not so much on the military field, where the army's strategy has shown a slight recovery, but rather on the psychological level, which is the aim of long lasting armed conflicts.... The United States is no longer willing to send marines to its backyard. Not even if the majority of the Colombians clamor for it. Not because Clinton told Pastrana (that he wouldn't intervene) in a letter (a typical presidential lie), but because of the domestic policy and international geopolitical reasons of the colossus of the north. A White House decision to intervene in a foreign country must be supported by the public. For (most) Americans, including several high ranking officials in Washington, 'Tirofijo' is not Milosevic, nor Bin Laden, nor Pablo Escobar.... So, Supersam's red and blue suit will remain hanging in a closet in Arkansas, at least for some time."

"The Feared U.S. Intervention"

Regional El Pais (8/2) offered this view by Alvaro Valencia Tovar, former minister of defense: "I have always said that the United States will not intervene militarily in Colombia. [But] due to the attitude of the insurgency and its links with drug trafficking, U.S. intervention seems more likely each day. Military resources, not a military presence, are necessary. Military resources to strengthen the army's offensive capability, and economic resources to empower the peasant working force and rescue them from the traps of illicit crop growing."

"No Plan 'B' Or Any Plan"

The editor of second leading, liberal El Espectator said (7/29): "Perhaps we will not get to see marines coming ashore on...the beaches of the Carribean in Colombia, though you never know what can happen with the United States U.S. intervention in our conflict started a long time ago.... Let's not lie to ourselves. Without U.S. intervention, along with its technology and its experts gathering information from the sky, the (Colombian) army couldn't have hit the FARC the way it did in Puerto Lleras and Puerto Rico. There's no doubt that Washington not only has a Plan B, but it also alternates it with a Plan A. This (Plan A) is to support the peace process at the political level, to send the FARC messages to behave, and to turn Grannobles & Co. in while its experts monitor their steps."

"Cooperation, Intervention, Or Invasion?"

Second leading, liberal El Espectador had this op-ed by Ivan Nicholls (7/28): "Our establishment always tried to understand Washington's feelings, more for its personal benefit than for the benefit of the country. In return it has received (U.S.) assistance in times of crisis.

This time 'assistance' may include unsuspected intentions which may cause the opposite effect. In order to avoid committing another historical error, (assistance) should be understood as a prelude to becoming a virtual star or stars of the U.S. flag in the 21st century."

"Here Comes The Boogie Man"

Leading El Tiempo editorialized (7/26): "Disregarding history, ignoring international law, or not knowing about our traditional democracy are facts that explain why light and feverish minds, which tend to think based on their desires, have been talking here and abroad about a possible foreign intervention to solve the Colombian armed conflict.... Nothing is further from logic or reality. Forget reasons of sovereignty. Experience has proven that internal conflicts may only be resolved by the citizens of the country and that they deteriorate when foreign nations intervene.... It is a different story when friendly countries help Colombia face the drug trafficking and insurgency challenges--as the United States is doing through economic, logistical and technological assistance to our armed forces and police--or when it shows its support by promoting the government's reconciliation efforts in which it is engaged."

"Assistance, Instead Of Intervention"

Second leading, liberal El Espectador penned this lead editorial (7/26): "There won't be military intervention in Colombia. President Pastrana spoke up emphatically against widespread speculation over a military invasion.... The truth is that this hypothesis is crazy.... What is going on is something else: U.S. participation in (the Colombian) internal conflict increases day by day.... It's a fact that cannot be hidden. On the contrary, it's evidence of good bilateral relations.... This impressive level of cooperation is thanks to a slow correction of opinion in the United States which in the past blocked U.S. assistance towards Colombia.... A greater U.S. role in Colombian matters is also due to political will on the part of both governments based on mutual interest.... Recent polls show public opinion is not against a U.S. military presence (in Colombia) as it was before.... However it is appropriate to avoid contaminating bilateral assistance with undesired elements. The first step, as a prevention measure, would be to show total transparency in the way the United States or any other nation operates in the military arena in Colombia."

ARGENTINA: "Colombia And Foreign Intervention"

Daily-of-record La Nacion carried this by Juan Gabriel Tokatlian, an Argentine sociologist who returned after a long residence in Colombia (8/3): "The ghost of (foreign) intervention harasses Colombian public opinion and disturbs Latin American political and military sectors.... After the Cold War, diplomacy has attempted to justify foreign intervention and politics has tried to clarify the link between an intervention and the world power balance in a scenario marked by U.S. hegemony.... What war image is most adequate for Colombia today--Kosovo or Vietnam? What is the extent of repeated references to plans of U.S. intervention.... Are they a threat or deterrence to avoid direct involvement and getting ready for collective missions of intervention.... It is unlikely that Colombian guerrillas and Clinton administration...will openly speak on the subject.... Colombia needs understanding, peace and help, no more war, intervention and arrogance."

"Colobo And Kosombia" (SIC)

Claudio Uriarte, leftist Pagina 12's international analyst wrote (8/2): "By fate or by chance, the United States is deploying two parallel diplomacies in Colombia. The official one, supported by Bill Clinton and most of his advisors, is against (a military) intervention.... The other one, not so official--but equally explicit--is the one publicly expressed by anti-drug czar General Barry McCaffrey.... Let's compare the situation with another conflict in which the United States took part: Kosovo.

"On that occasion, NATO's supreme commander U.S. General Wesley Clark went as far as the military rules allowed him, regarding the claims which Bill Clinton refused to satisfy.... Is General McCaffrey willing to become Colombia's Wesley Clark? Not exactly, because the dismantling of Panama's SouthCom has already forced the installation of new bases against drug-trafficking in Puerto Rico, Aruba, Curacao and Ecuador's island of Manta, and behind McCaffrey there is at least a sector in the Pentagon which believes that the Colombian situation is a clear and direct threat to U.S. national security, which was far from being the case in Kosovo. The intervention is a fact, though the lack of political capital to commit land troops and Brazil's opposition to an intervention are strong limits to it. But, while FARC redoubles its bet and President Pastrana's peace dialogue is more unlikely, there will be more calls for limited actions and ad hoc counter-measures aimed at preventing the conflict from spreading to the Panama Canal, Peru and Venezuela, the other three fronts where hemispheric stability appears more jeopardized."

"Washington's Critical Enclave"

Oscar Raul Cardoso, leading Clarin's international analyst wrote: (7/31): "A geopolitical mess of huge proportions is cooking in...(South and Central America) and the fate of the Panama Canal is still the key problem.... In the original commitment, the United States had accepted to withdraw its military personnel.... Since then not much has changed in the region and in the small Central American state.... There is the suspicion that Panama is unable to guarantee the operation and even the safety of what at the end of the year will be 'its' canal. As the date of the commitment approaches, the political and economic right-wing in the United States increases its hysterical declarations on Panama's incapability.... And it is barely a secret that the contingent of 2,000 U.S. troops will keep their eyes open on the canal as much as on the drug routes. But even this presence is insufficient for those who are most critical of Panama's capabilities. After all, the canal area is a critical enclave for Washington's military ability in the hemisphere.... This is the status of the situation, which is similar to the ripples caused by a stone when it hits the water. Its consequences will reflect on the debate regarding the possibility of a foreign military intervention in Colombia...on pompous declarations regarding a rebirth of drug-trafficking, on the incipient threat of the guerrillas in Ecuador, which shows signs of social division, and even on the future of Brazil's valuable Amazon region. All this--and more--is at stake regarding the future of the Panama Canal."

"Colombia: Pastrana, Center Of Great Controversy"

Pablo Biffi, on special assignment in Bogota for leading Clarin commented (7/30): "President Pastrana's statement...that rebel FARC are not 'drug-guerrillas' caused great debate in Colombia.... The head of state disagreed on this point with U.S. anti-drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, who--during his visit to Colombia--assured that the FARC have clear links with drug traffickers, that's why he called them 'drug-guerrillas.' The first one to disagree with Pastrana was the commander of Colombian military forces, General Fernando Tapias, who pointed out that 'what McCaffrey said is not new.'... Tapias also added that...'the FARC use the demilitarized area... to get military training and to trade with drugs.' The commander of the armed forces' position is not new. It has been the military's historical position and it helped them to get greater military aid from Washington to fight drug trafficking and to aspire to deviate those funds towards the fight against guerrillas, which has not been foreseen in the U.S. aid. One of the FARC's first demands when contacts with Pastrana's government started last January was that security institutions lowered the tone of their accusations regarding the alleged links between guerrillas and drug trafficking."

"Line Between Anti-Drug Aid And Counter Insurgence Help Is faded"

Guillermo Ortiz, international columnist of business-financial El Cronista, opined (7/28): "The U.S. anti-drug czar in Bogota did not clear up the Andean problem....

"The (Colombian) government's inability to exercise sovereignty in the 'clearance area' granted to the FARC, a possible partition...the globalization of the conflict, and the increasing U.S. help are items to be taken into account. In this context, the intervention issue would adopt multiple forms. From a direct U.S. action--the least likely--to the concourse of all countries in the world, although there are differences regarding the nature of that intervention. In principle, Washington would limit its action to providing intelligence and logistics to a Latin American intervention.... The border militarization of neighboring countries is under way and everything leads one to think that once the 'drug-guerrilla' concept is established, the U.S. will not have any other choice but act. Many avoid speaking of drug-guerrillas. But the alliance--pragmatic or not--is a fact.... The drug business flourished from a situation of technical tie among guerrillas, paramilitary and the (Colombian) government, in which the guerrillas' victory seems as unthinkable of as the government's. In that vacuum the cartels settled and Washington will tend to act. The picture is clear--Colombia is the third beneficiary of the U.S. help and would receive additional military aid, the United States shares intelligence information with the Colombian Armed Forces, the aircraft which fell in the Colombian jungle with DEA agents had modern wide spectrum tracing and espionage systems and a battalion of elite Colombian forces has just been trained by U.S. experts. At this point, to discuss what is aid for fighting drug trafficking and fighting counter insurgence is a useless task."

"Populism And Democracy In Venezuela"

An editorial in daily-of-record La Nacion read (7/28): "Venezuelan President Chavez' personalized political style has caused some concern.... There is the impression that certain attitudes of Chavez could contradict the traditional republican formality of his country and of the other Latin American countries. Chavez has a strong appeal on (Venezuelan) electorate, appeal that has been typical of types of leadership which in the past led to dead-end crossroads for Latin American peoples.... In the recent elections of a constitutional assembly, Chavez's candidates have been elected by ample majority. This opens to Chavez the legal prospect of widening his power and indefinitely prolonging his term of office or (the possibility) of dismissing the legislative branch...and judges' control.... One can only expect the natural balance contributed by all political forces in a pluralistic and democratic context."

"Disturbing Colombian Situation"

An editorial in daily-of-record La Nacion stated (7/27): "Suddenly, everyone realized that Colombia is on the brink. Diplomatic circles have started to talk about a possible military intervention.... A 'Kosovo II' is anticipated with a high degree of lightness, despite the poor results of the Balkan expedition [with its ] yet unpredictable ending, and forgetting that the problem over there is exactly the opposite: In Europe they wanted to destroy a state and in America they are trying to save one, a task for which foreign troops are dubiously prepared.... An intervention by other countries into Colombian territory could only take place if there is a specific request from Pastrana's government, which has emphatically denied such possibility.... Meanwhile, we must continue to rely on President Pastrana's capacity--and that of Colombia's entire political community--aimed at finding a way to rebuild state structures and, above all, their coercive power on the various irregular groups. At this point, dialogue with the guerrillas appears to be over."

"Hot Borders In Latin America"

An editorial in leading Clarin stated (7/26): "The domestic conflict in Colombia is spreading to its five neighbors and has also provided the basis for a possible foreign military intervention.... While borders have become porous, the governments of Peru and Ecuador have started to openly talk about an inter-American military force to intervene in Colombia. Panama expects the Canal's devolution by the end of the year and the withdrawal of U.S. troops, but the regional scenario could delay that withdrawal.

"Finally, the Brazilian government is concerned about a foreign intervention which could worsen the Colombian conflict... In other times these crises could give rise to military prevalence. Nowadays, democracy and the diplomacy of regional integration lead us to consider the territorial issue in different terms in order to avoid that certain border areas become no one's land, under the control of clandestine powers and forces, or in land destroyed by new wars."

"Clinton Sent An Envoy To Colombia"

Commenting on Gen. McCaffrey's visit to Colombia, Ana Baron, Washington, D.C.-based correspondent for leading Clarin, argued (7/24): "It is General Barry McCaffrey, the 'anti-drug czar' in Washington and one of the first officers who warned that the Colombian situation is a U.S. 'national security' issue.... So far the U.S. military help...has officially been addressed to the anti-drug struggle. But, according to McCaffrey, there is a link between drug traffickers and leftist guerrillas operating in Colombia. That means that the fight against drug traffickers implies a fight against guerrillas and the other way round.... Another objective of the trip is deepening the anti-drug cooperation between the United States and Latin American countries.... This does not mean that McCaffrey will request an intervention of Latin American countries in Colombia."

BRAZIL: "The U.S. In Colombia"

In the view of an editorial in liberal Folha de S. Paulo (8/4): "While commenting on the accidental death of U.S. soldiers in Colombia, President Clinton said they died on behalf of [U.S.] national security. Such a statement gives the measure of how the United States is viewing its mission in Colombia. Speaking about a worsening of the Colombian situation, Gen. McCaffrey prepares himself for a South American tour aimed at articulating a 'regional' policy to resolve the problem. But some fear that he means a veiled strategy of foreign intervention in Colombia.... Under the justification that the guerrillas that dominate a great portion of Colombia are allied with drug traffickers, the United States intends to enlarge its already questionable way of acting. How will it do that?... The Americans immediately remove the prospects of direct military intervention. Maybe they imagine that South American nations will do the job. In any case, South American diplomacy must act firmly so as not permit any disrespect to Colombia's sovereignty."

"Brazil Wants To Act In Colombian Crisis"

Liberal Folha de S. Paulo's former Washington, D.C. correspondent Carlos Eduardo Lins da Silva, stressed (8/4): "The Brazilian government is getting prepared to assume a position of greater influence in the resolution of Colombia's political and military crisis, in response to the United States and other nations' growing participation in the process.... The reasoning is that Brazil must be in the forefront of any collective effort to help Colombia, otherwise it runs the risk of losing prestige and leadership in South America. Although there is a consensus in the Brazilian government regarding the notion that it is premature and inconvenient to speak about military action now, Brazil is willing to contribute with troops if this alternative becomes the last way out and Colombia asks for military assistance. Before that, however, Brazil hopes to contribute to a political solution through its participation in international fact-finding committees and by pressuring the conflicting parties and providing logistical support to the Colombian government.... The communism-drugs combination is a nightmare for the United States, and it is capable of justifying almost any type of U.S. initiative to dissipate it. Three hundred U.S. military are already training their local colleagues in Colombia to fight drug trafficking....

"Since Brazil wants to insist on its traditional line of maintaining the United States outside South America in security matters, it will need to assume a more influential role in such issues, even though it is diluted into regional actions.... What is clear for the government of Brazil is that it does not want to be challenged by third nations in the resolution of the Colombian crisis.... Nothing will be done before Colombia requests help....

"But signs have already been given that in case the situation worsens, [Colombian] President Andres Pastrana will resort to Brazil."

"Colombia Is Strategic For Brazil"

Carlos Eduardo Lins da Silva said in liberal Folha de S. Paulo (8/4): "Colombia is strategic for Brazil because the Amazon border unites the two countries. Besides that, as the major world producers of coffee, common interests have made them agree in international fora.... In the present crisis, Colombia has already had informal consultations with Brazil on its possible participation in the fact-finding committee which is being studied."

"Understand The U.S. Anti-Drug Action In Latin America"

Liberal Folha de S. Paulo's Washington, D.C. correspondent commented (8/3): "So far, the U.S. anti-drug policy in Latin America has been based on financial aid to eradicate crops, destroy producing laboratories and fight trafficking to the United States from drug producing nations.... However, the United States has avoided the involvement of U.S. troops in actions against drug trafficking. The U.S. anti-drug programs in the region are bilateral and have never involved regional negotiations. These programs have always been viewed with certain suspicion by nations such as Brazil and Venezuela because they have an interventionist content.... An aircraft with five Americans and two Colombian military crashed in July in a guerrilla-controlled area in Colombia.... Developments following the incident and official statements have shown the spirit and the character of the U.S. presence in the region, which are similar to those of a war."

"The Risk Of Colombia"

With commentary about the fear of an American military intervention in the region and Gen. Mccaffrey's statement during his visit, Brasilia's center-left Correio Braziliense (8/2) argued: "Violence in Colombia has reached the dimension of a conflict over which President Andres Pastrana has almost no control. The intensity of the chaos is so broad that it is no longer possible to discern the borders among narco-traffickers, the revolutionary armed forces [FARC], the army of national liberation [ELN] and rightist paramilitary groups. The guerrillas who range over the spectrum of ideological thought seem to find in the drug mafia financial support for their operations.... After Israel and Egypt, Colombia is the country that receives the most support from the United States in terms of money, equipment and technical support. The difference is that in Colombia these funds are destined to support the anti-drug fight.... Nevertheless, Latin America analyzes the situation, worried that the risk goes far beyond the Colombian convulsion....

"We should keep in mind that the new doctrine used in the Balkans by NATO, under the Pentagon's leadership, does not recognize the principle of the sovereignty of nations. When supposed human rights are violated and democracy is at risk, intervention becomes a humanitarian obligation. President Carlos Menem from Argentina has admitted...the possibility of putting Argentinian forces at Washington's disposal for an eventual interventionist action in Colombia. It is up to Brazil...to prevent via diplomacy any solution that violates Colombia's sovereignty. It would be a disaster to the stability of the continent to have a repetition here of the tragedy in the Balkans."

CHILE: "The United States In Colombia"

Leading-circulation, popular, independent La Tercera (8/3) ran this editorial: "Colombia is facing one of its most difficult moments in the last decades...and perhaps in its history. President Pastrana's peace plan...is failing....

"In addition, the United States is studying the possibility of a military intervention...against the guerrillas. If this were to happen, Colombia would crumble and the local war would turn into a patriotic issue of enormous consequences.... White House officials have secretly and informally met with South American governments. Clinton wants the support of the (South American) leaders to form a joint force to fight the Colombian guerrillas.... Over 300 U.S. military advisors, according to Newsweek, are coordinating the anti-guerrilla effort throughout Colombia right now.... A recent poll in Bogota shows that 66.1 percent of Colombians support the intervention. A few days ago, Pastrana's government...asked Washington for 500 million dollars in military aid to fight drug trafficking during the next five years. But, to go from this to a military intervention is...a long and dangerous road.... Colombia is today on the border of total collapse.... In this regard, U.S. financial aid is essential. However...a military intervention would mean renouncing self-determination and legitimizing direct intervention as a state policy."

BOLIVIA: "The Crisis In Colombia"

Centrist La Prensa remarked (7/25): "The peace proposal presented by the government to the guerrillas has not led to a healthy solution, but instead has further worsened the crisis. This hostility has brought once more to the center of debate the diagnosis of American military experts who claim that the guerrillas with 17 thousand men control 50 percent of the country and will be in a position to take power in five more years. Be it real or not, the fact is that the irregular groups have enough force to turn Colombia into an unlivable country. However, paradoxically the government's only option is to convince the rebels that their war does not have any possibility of success, nor does the repression against them. If this discourse fails, the future of that republic will be catastrophic, with a serious risk for the rest of the countries of the region."

ECUADOR: "To Protect, Not To Attack"

Center-left, influential Hoy (8/4) had this editorial: "We continue to listen to increasingly worrisome reports about the U.S. presence in the northern border. There has been no official confirmation. However, it is possible to think that there is an intention to suffocate the FARC guerrillas from the borders. If that is true, they must use prudence and set one limit: the protection of the border. Otherwise, if the Ecuadorian detachments become the launching points for an armed attack against the guerrillas, the consequences would be unpredictable and tragic. For years the Ecuadorian armed forces have succeeded in neutralizing the danger. On various occasions the guerrilla incursions have been confirmed, the majority of the cases due to tactical needs instead of an attempt to spread insurrection into our country. Why not continue with this strategy based on our own defensive capacity? For the United States, a war in the center of Latin America, despite its seriousness, is still a conflict away from their territory. Therefore, we cannot measure the consequences of an intervention in Colombia's internal conflict based on the same criteria used by the United States, that is, on its own crusade to fight drug trafficking."

"America For The Americans"

Angel F. Rohas wrote in leading, centrist El Comercio (8/3): "The yellow press in our country has lately featured a fair amount of blood. In the roads, in the unprotected fields, in the big and small cities, in the banks and even in the temples blood has flowed freely. This is why the statement by a high-ranking U.S. official during a recent visit, noting that our country is an island of peace, seems weird. It certainly was an island of peace, but life has turned sad watching our northern neighbor as well as our southern neighbor bleed with guerrillas, drug trafficking and terrorism. Especially in Colombia, where kidnapping has become one of the most profitable industries. As a result of all this, the permit issued for the U.S. Air Force to use the Manta airport has caused uneasiness.

"We still remember that a few years ago a platoon of Americans conducted military practices in our forest and that they did not stay because of the resistance they found. We are still worried about the Monroe Doctrine of 'America for the Americans.' Is it because without them, we are not 'Americans?'"

"The Danger Posed By Guerrillas"

Leading, centrist El Comercio's Jaime Bejarano opined (8/3): "Recent statements given by the Minister of Defense, Gen. Jose Gallardo, and by U.S. Ambassador Leslie Alexander confirm that Colombian guerrillas are indeed attempting to infiltrate Ecuadorian territory. If we go over the history of guerrillas in Colombia and why it still persists after fifty three years, the revelations are a significant warning. While drug trafficking finances the Colombian guerrillas and while the Ecuadorian government contributes to the international control of this traffic on national soil, it is very possible that Colombian subversives will attempt to infiltrate Ecuador for strategic reasons or moved by barbaric and bloody motives. While the guerrilla danger lurks over Ecuador, certain elite leaders foster regionalism, various political leaders foster the economic ruin of Ecuador and other anarchic groups stir antagonistic passions between the inhabitants of the same country."

"U.S. Commandos Would Operate In Ecuador"

Guayaquil's (and Ecuador's) leading center-right El Universo reported (8/3): "The escalation of violence in Colombia has caused an alert in the neighboring countries. Special forces from the United States have deployed trainers and specialized technicians in the anti- drug fight to Ecuadorian and Peruvian bases, with the objective to also fight against guerrilla groups such as FARC, the Colombian daily El Espectador revealed yesterday. Americans are not allowed to participate in combat, but they have noticed the movements of drug traffickers similar to the FARC guerrillas. Venezuela and Brazil don't have U.S. special forces trainers yet."

"And Now The Northern Border?"

Quito's leading, centrist El Comercio ran this analysis (7/29): "Barry McCaffrey's visit was the opportunity to highlight, among other things, that the Colombian domestic crisis hits very close to Ecuador. Until now, that reality seemed a bit distant. However, the security of the northern border and the fight against drug trafficking (one of the sources of the guerrillas) have become evident in few words: the Manta base.

"The country will slowly start to discover that the guerrilla presence in the Colombian Amazon region has affected for a long time the economic situation of the towns in the Oriente-Sucumbios in particular. Nothing irreversible for now. Nothing, except the armed forces' conviction that the issue requires more than only the military presence. Thanks to those problems in the north (something similar had happened in the south) the country discovers that the border towns have been neglected and that 'live borders' are only electoral campaign slogans. The guerrilla threats pose another challenge for the country: conquer again the Oriente and develop it. Ecuador does not process drugs, but the Colombian authorities have assured--and the Ecuadorian ones have admitted--that precursor chemicals and weapons transit freely through its territory. This fact, and the need to create a protection rim on the northern border are the reasons to include Ecuador in a strategy directly related with the United States and Colombia. It has been reported that Ecuador will not participate in any form in an alleged intervention in the neighboring country, which has also been denied by Presidents Clinton and Pastrana. The Manta base comes within this context. Despite the little information provided, we understand that the base will remain under the control and management of the Ecuadorian Air Force. Aircraft carrying any kind of weapons will not be allowed to land there, only those carrying electronic surveillance equipment. However, there are points on which the presidency should inform the country.

"McCaffrey's visit is evidence that integration will not only involve trade but also the goodness and problems of the neighbors."

"Colombian Peace Difficulties"

Center-left, influential Hoy said (7/30): "There is talk about the fact that if peace conversations fail, the conflict might internationalize. For the neighboring countries, Colombia with its government at the mercy of violence, drug trafficking, kidnappings and crime in general, could become a threat to regional peace. The United States itself might come to the conclusion that the Colombian situation is too dangerous and consider stronger measures to stop it from destabilizing the whole region. Nobody wants another Vietnam in Latin America. Considering the experience in southern Asia, in Somalia, in Bosnia and in Kosovo, President Clinton would think twice. But FARC should also think it over. They won't access power with weapons.... The Colombian people are fed up with this orgy of violence. Marxist-Leninism does not have any future. To follow them is equivalent to closing eyes to reality. As a political force, FARC should enter the democratic process and fight from there for economic and social changes. There is no other rational alternative."

"A Very Risky Bet"

Francisco Borja Cevallos commented in center-left, influential Hoy (7/30): "Rightist ABC in Madrid has caused uproar in the Andean region reporting that the United States is preparing to launch a joint military operation against the Colombian guerrillas, involving Ecuador and Peru among others. The idea would be to launch an extermination attack against FARC and ELN, the guerrilla groups that disrupt the Colombian state and maintain control over more than half of its territory. The 'anti-drug czar' Gen. McCaffrey, has denied such a plan, but there are signals that suggest it. The prestigious Colombian magazine Semana talks about a 'new Vietnam.' "The 'czar' stated that two thirds of the drug trafficking business ends up with FARC and, immediately after, announced that his presence is aimed at organizing a war against drug trafficking. Things are very clear: If the guerrillas are fueled by drug trafficking and if the United States is to fight against them, then the United States will have to face the guerrillas. How can we separate one thing from the other? It is better to eliminate both at the same time. Not doing so would be an unforgivable ingenuity of the 'anti drug czar.'"

"Manta Base"

Guayaquil's leading center-right El Universo informed readers (7/30): "Former president Leon Febres Cordero considered that every effort made to fight drug trafficking and drug consumption is worthwhile. 'I don't think there is a problem of sovereignty,' he added, and reminded everyone that during World War II, Ecuador ceded the military base of Salinas to the United States and that it brought along important benefits such as the construction of a concrete aerial landing strip instead of problems."

"The Colombian Crisis, A Regional Crisis?"

Joaquin Hernandez opined in center-left, influential Hoy (7/29): "It is unlikely that the United States would spearhead a multinational intervention force in Colombia in the near future. Despite the fact that the crisis seems to have arrived at its worst moment due to the failed peace conversations between the government and the FARC guerrilla movement, there are important signals that such an intervention is halted for the moment. The problem continues, for the moment, in the Colombian government's hands. And of course, in the FARC hands. But should the situation deteriorate further, everything is possible. President Pastrana is fighting against the clock; he is threatened not only by the escalation of the war with its share of casualties, destruction, migration and losses, but also by another unprecedented crisis--the economic one.

"Despite all that, it is not easy to conduct an invasion, not even headed by the United States and with the support of the countries of the region. The comparison of the Colombian case to the one of Kosovo, heard lately, is not applicable. Will the United States, because of Colombia, defeat the Vietnam ghost that ended up victorious in the Gulf War and in Kosovo? In other words: Are they willing to risk American lives in countries their own citizens don't know anything about or do not care at all about? Will it be only a virtual war with 'collateral effects' over one portion of the Colombian territory? It is not the same to attack Yugoslavia as Colombia. If a war takes place, the only similarity will be that the neighboring countries will suffer as much as Albania and the other Balkan states did which, in the end, could cause another crisis and destabilize Europe."

"Drugs: Challenges And Dangers"

Commenting on General McCaffrey's visit to Ecuador, leading Quito's centrist El Comercio stressed (7/28): "The presence of the U.S. anti-drug 'czar,' General Barry McCaffrey, in various countries of South America...highlights both the serious drug trafficking problems and the challenges the region is facing. McCaffrey's visit had special reverberations in Colombia for obvious reasons related to the extent of the drug business in that country and its exports to the United States, besides its apparent links with the guerrillas. Within this framework, various statements of the visitor caused an uproar because they coincided with the announcements about a possible U.S. intervention--denied until now--and the repeated suspicion that drugs and subversion are linked, especially in the economic field. Those issues are on the rise in Colombia and become explosive. Besides, there is international concern about the dimension of the guerrilla attacks and the difficulties the (Colombian) peace process is encountering.

"In the Ecuadorian case, the statements by top military officials in reference to the United States use of the Manta base weigh in. It is emphasized--and it should be--that it will only be used for anti-drug purposes. That is the spirit of the agreement and we have to highlight it. There is expectation in the country over the events in Colombia because of their consequences in Ecuador. We wish President Pastrana success in achieving peace and we expect the guerrilla's contribution by stopping their armed incursions. In reference to drugs, there is a binational agreement, explainable because of the international extent of this business. Ecuador is not free of those implications and has contributed its share, although it is always expected that the United States may be able to reduce its internal demand which is the most important cause of the drug trafficking activities in the Latin American zone."

MEXICO: "The War The U.S. Has Been Preparing To Fight"

Jeanette Becerra Acosta wrote in nationalist, pro-government Excelsior (8/6): "It has taken time and heavy investment, but the scenario for the Vietnam of the 21st century is ready for the war that the United States has been preparing to fight. The presence of U.S. troops in Colombia, denied for a long time by Washington and Bogota, is a confirmed fact. Of course, drugs are a pretext to help President Pastrana to eliminate the FARC once and for all. Washington announced it will send a diplomatic mission headed by Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering so that the President of the free and sovereign Republic of Colombia can explain his strategy in view of the growing power of the guerrillas and his failed fight against drugs. All this explains many things, such as the lack of sympathy the [United States] has for Hugo Chavez. If he is not careful, he could end the same way that Salvador Allende did, since he does not allow the United States to carry out hot pursuits on Venezuela's air space and that has already bothered Barry MaCaffrey.

PANAMA: "Clear And Present Danger"

Independent El Universal carried this editorial (7/23): "President Clinton labels the Colombian situation as an issue of 'national security' to the United States.

"That same day Pastrana advises the guerrillas that 'patience has its limits' and the top guerrilla chief reminds him that those who have taken up arms have 'no vocation for martyrdom.' And we already know that when the United States uses the 'national security' argument we can expect any action true to a Tom Clancy plot, one set in a Colombian scenario: 'Clear and Present Danger'."

VENEZUELA: "McCaffrey's Overflight"

Leading El Nacional asserted (8/2): "Drug trafficking into the United States is only possible because in that country there exists large numbers of people ready to take them and because within American society, conditions exist that encourage thousands of young people to consume them.... To pretend that the high consumption of drugs in the United States is caused solely by the existence of countries that produce and distribute drugs...is an oversimplification that diverts attention from the urgent and more serious problems.... The broad participation of important members of the American political and economic community in the trafficking and distribution of drugs in the United States has not received the same emphasis as that usually given to producing countries.... Is it possible to think that the power of [Latin American] traffickers is so great that they can place drugs on the streets of New York without the FBI or CIA being able to stop them?"

EUROPE

FRANCE: "The Narco-Guevarist Terror"

In a story on Colombia published a year after the election of President Pastrana, right-of-center Le Figaro remarked (8/3): "On August 7, 1998, Andres Pastrana was taking up his duties as President of Colombia in an enthusiastic atmosphere. Highly regarded in Washington, supported by business circles, Colombians considered him the providential man, the one who would bring peace back.... A year later, Colombians are disappointed by the fact that the opening of negotiations for peace is always postponed. Illusions have faded as fast as the economy has collapsed.... The United States is disappointed by President Pastrana. In a statement in mid-July, Bill Clinton declared that U.S. aid was aimed to 'contribute to find a solution to conflicts' in Colombia. And, as a consequence, it would have 'favored U.S. investments.' We are far from that."

SPAIN: "Crisis In Colombia"

Conservative ABC commented (8/4): "The disclosure by Peruvian military sources of a planned American intervention in Colombia, whether such a plan actually existed or not, demonstrates the difficulties faced by Pastrana's government in its negotiations with the guerrillas and the seriousness of the country's crisis. The idea may have been broached as an alternative course of action should the peace talks fail. It is hardly a secret that the FARC obtains financing from the drug trade and that it has created a kind of illegitimate state within a state, while sowing pain and misery throughout the country."

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Information Agency

Office of Public Liaison

Telephone: (202) 619-4355

8/6/99

# # #