Search  About Salon  Table Talk  Newsletters  Advertise in Salon  Investor Relations

Salon.com


[Arts & Entertainment][ Books ][ Business ][ Comics ][ Health & Body ][ Mothers Who Think ][ News ][ People ][ Politics ][ Sex ][ Technology ]

Article Finder
Politics


 


An eerie campaign silence
Bush and Gore should tell us where they stand on the ugly $1.3 billion drug war offensive in Colombia that the next president will have to face.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Arianna Huffington

Sep. 1, 2000 | There is something unsettling about the press coverage of the presidential race. Last week, President Clinton signed a waiver of the human rights provisions imposed by Congress on the $1.3 billion drug war aid package to Colombia, and not a single reporter bothered to ask the candidates -- one of whom, after all, will have to deal with the consequences -- what they thought of it.

Do George W. Bush and Al Gore support our becoming embroiled in a three-way civil war? We know where they stand on "family" (they're for it), but not whether they are in favor of more than a billion dollars' being spent to fight a drug war abroad while 3.5 million addicts at home can't get the treatment they need -- or whether they endorse the cavalier abandonment of the congressionally mandated human rights benchmarks.




Print story


E-mail story


Backflip This Story  Backflip this story to find it again


We'd like to know. But since no one in the media is asking, maybe each of the candidates should, on a daily basis, hold a press conference to tell the people they're asking to vote for them how they would deal with the key events of the day.

On Wednesday, when the president and his drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, arrived in Colombia for a five-hour visit to symbolically hand a gigantic check to President Andres Pastrana, it would have been really useful for Gore and Bush to tell us how their drug war policies would differ from this administration's.

How much of his own man is Gore really? And how much will Bush be influenced by Enron, his 10th-biggest backer, which has major oil interests in Colombia? It's time for the candidates to be pulled back from pontificating on military preparedness in general and forced to address specifically their own preparedness to engage our military in the Colombian army's counterinsurgency campaign.

Sandy Berger, the president's history-impaired national security advisor, dismissed the parallels being drawn between Colombia and Vietnam -- the latter of which also began with the deployment of a few military advisors and more than a few million dollars in military aid. "I think you can get paralyzed by the foreign policy of analogy," he said. Berger, who seems paralyzed by the prospect of any ratiocination, would do well to keep in mind that, as Santayana put it, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Nor is Vietnam the only part of our past that should be remembered. As recently as March 1999, Clinton apologized to the people of Guatemala for America's involvement in that country's civil war: "Support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression was wrong ... The United States must not repeat that mistake."

He now proceeds to repeat that mistake. The evidence amassed by human rights groups overwhelmingly shows that the Colombian military continues to allow its paramilitary allies to massacre hundreds of unarmed civilians each year. And only two weeks ago, the army itself was responsible for an attack that killed six elementary-school children on a hiking trip.

"I don't know if President Clinton enjoyed apologizing to the people of Guatemala," Carlos Salinas of Amnesty International USA told me, "but he's all but guaranteeing that some future U.S. president will have to apologize to the Colombian people for the dirty little war we're about to escalate."

Just as that apology will sound familiar, so does the policy that will lead to it. Of course, administration officials continue to deny it. "There is no plan, and there is no proposal, and there is no idea of committing American forces in Colombia to do anything but ... provide training," said Thomas Pickering, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs. There may be no "plan," but there are already five -- albeit very underpublicized -- American casualties.

Last July, U.S. Army pilot Jennifer Odom, copilot Capt. Jose Santiago and crew members Thomas Moore, T. Bruce Cluff and Ray Krueger were killed when their plane crashed -- or, as Odom's family believes, was shot down -- while on a top-secret reconnaissance mission in southern Colombia.

If you haven't heard about these military casualties of our drug war in Colombia, that was the intention. The flag-draped coffins arrived in the dead of night, in a ceremony that was closed to the press and unattended by any senior White House officials. Ironically, around the same time the administration was trumpeting the lack of body bags from Kosovo, five were quietly arriving from Colombia.

But if we can't get a true picture of what the future holds from our own leaders, we can at least look to the leader of the Colombian armed forces, Gen. Fernando Tapias. "There will be peace," he said in a recent interview, "but first there will be war. With or without Plan Colombia, things are going to get worse."

And with more than $1 billion worth of gasoline poured on the fire, does anyone doubt that they are going to get a whole lot worse?

I, for one, would like to know if our next president has given it a thought.


salon.com | September 1, 2000

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Arianna Huffington is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of eight books. Her latest, "How to Overthrow the Government," was published in February by Regan Books (HarperCollins).

Sound Off
Send us a Letter to the Editor

Related stories
War on drugs 1, human rights 0
On the eve of President Clinton's trip to Colombia, critics say Washington cares more about its war on drugs than human rights.
By Ana Arana
08/28/00

The corruption of Col. James Hiett
When the commander of U.S. anti-drug efforts in Colombia got involved in drug running, Congress should have rethought its massive military aid bill -- but it didn't.
By Bruce Shapiro
07/05/00

The elephant in the room
Presidential candidates are silent on the failure of the U.S. war on drugs.
By Michael Massing
02/22/00

The war on drugs
Salon's full coverage of the anti-drug offensive.
 
 

Salon.com >> Politics
 




 



Don't get sunburned! Cover up with a Salon T-shirt this summer.




More great offers in
Salon Plus

____
 
   
 
____
 


 

 
 
  Current Stories
  • A presidential aura With the crowds growing, the campaign money flowing and the media swarming, John Kerry is looking more and more like the front-runner.
    By Tim Grieve
  • Among the Democrats On a big night for the sitting president, his Democratic challengers gather together to rally the faithful -- and crack Bush jokes.
    By Jake Tapper
  • Drunken sailor economics Bush's bloated budget will likely put the U.S. over $1 trillion in debt. But criticize it, and the White House calls you soft on terror.
    By Jake Tapper
  • Poisoned fairways Among the big winners in Bush's proposed rollback of pesticide restrictions? The politically untouchable golf industry, where dangerous chemicals are par for the course.
    By Jake Tapper
  •  

    Salon News A Salon-eye view of the day's news, with investigative reports, analysis and interviews with newsmakers.



    Salon  Search  About Salon  Table Talk  Newsletters  Advertise in Salon  Investor Relations


    Arts & Entertainment | Books | Business | Comics | Health | Mothers Who Think | News
    People | Politics | Sex | Technology and The Free Software Project
    Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus | Salon Shop


    Reproduction of material from any Salon pages without written permission is strictly prohibited
    Copyright 2005 Salon.com


    Salon, 22 4th Street, 16th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103
    Telephone 415 645-9200 | Fax 415 645-9204
    E-mail | Salon.com Privacy Policy