WASHINGTON,
D.C. – U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) today challenged the Bush
Administration to alter its flawed drug interdiction policy in Colombia
and to uphold U.S. law. The current policy is drawing the United
States deeper into Colombia’s civil war, rewarding human right abuses by
the Colombian military, and is weighted heavily toward a supply-side reduction,
a strategy that has not decreased substance abuse in the United States.
During
today’s hearing in the Government Reform Committee, Schakowsky also underscored
the failure of U.S. officials posted in Colombia in dealing with the growing
human rights crisis in that country. Below is Schakowsky’s
full statement from today’s hearing:
Statement
of the Honorable Jan Schakowsky
Government
Reform Hearing on
“America’s
Heroin Crisis, Colombian Heroin, and How We Can Improve Plan Colombia”
December
12, 2002
Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your making time in the last month
of your tenure as head of this Committee to focus attention on the growing
Heroin crisis in America, as well as our country’s severely flawed policy
in Colombia. The Heroin crisis in America does need urgent attention.
This problem is unlike other substance abuse cases. Heroin is more addictive,
more lethal in small doses, and at times easier to obtain by teenagers
than any other form of intoxicant. I welcome our law enforcement
witnesses and look forward to hearing their views on how we can best address
this subject.
However,
as will be clearly evident during today’s hearing, there is not agreement
among members on how the Heroin problem in America can be best addressed.
I strongly oppose much of the policies put into place by Plan Colombia
and the Andean Region Initiative because they have been too heavily weighted
toward a supply-side reduction, a strategy that has not decreased substance
abuse in the United States. The policy so far has largely disregarded
concerns about several important issues including: human rights abuses
committed by corrupt forces within the Colombian military; the plight of
Colombia’s internally displaced population; alternative development; human
and environmental health concerns related to the campaign of aerial fumigation
of coca—a campaign that has failed to achieve its goals; corruption within
Colombia; mismanagement of U.S. taxpayer dollars; and failure by our embassy
and State Department officials to enforce U.S. law, and a failure of the
Colombian Government—its Attorney General in particular—to pursue cases
against known human rights offenders.
New
concerns have been raised by many human rights advocates and members of
Congress about the changing nature of our mission in Colombia. Congress
this year authorized funds previously appropriated for counter-narcotics
operations in Colombia to be used for counter-insurgency. The Administration
has a plan to provide to Colombia and to Occidental petroleum, for starters,
over $100 million from U.S. taxpayers to protect a portion of the Cano-Limon
oil pipeline. I oppose our mission shift in Colombia and I oppose
the Administration’s pipeline protection program. This mission shift
will put U.S. personnel directly into Colombia’s decades-old civil war.
The pipeline program is a giveaway from the U.S. government to an incredibly
wealthy corporation and we have no guarantee of a return on our investment,
not even a deal for a discount on Occidental oil.
I
want to move on and discuss what I believe to be the best way we can improve
our Colombia policy, and that is to uphold U.S. principles and laws.
And I want to use an example to underscore the failure of our officials
posted in Colombia to demonstrate leadership on this subject.
On
December 13, 1998, in the Colombian village called Santo Domingo seventeen
civilians, including six children, were killed when Colombian military
helicopters, provided to Colombia by the U.S., dropped, what the FBI later
certified was U.S.-made bombs on the community. This appeared to
many of us, including Senator Leahy, to be a clear violation of the Leahy
law, which requires that U.S. aid be cut off to Colombian military units
“credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights,”
until perpetrators are brought to justice.
While
some actions were taken, investigations were opened and closed and reopened,
the United States failed to show a commitment to the law over the course
of this case. Meanwhile, troubling information came out in the testimony
of witnesses and in the press. Colombian personnel directly involved in
the operation over Santo Domingo have testified that they were given the
coordinates to drop the bombs on Santo Domingo by a U.S. contractor called
Air Scan. Air Scan was under contract to provide security to Occidental
oil.
Over
two years after the bombing and almost two years ago, I met with U.S. Ambassador
to Colombia Anne Patterson. I raised the case of Santo Domingo. Ambassador
Patterson urged me to be patient. She acknowledged that she was on
“thin ice on this one” and that very soon she hoped there would be major
progress on the case. That was in February of 2001. Ambassador
Patterson waited 1 year and 9 months from then and almost four years from
the time of the attack on Santo Domingo to recommend to the State Department
that the Leahy law be invoked and aid to the Colombian Air Force unit implicated
in the case be suspended. We still do not know the response of the
recommendation. Granted, even if she wanted to do so sooner, she
may have been prevented from taking action because of the Bush Administration’s
disinterest in this case.
I
challenge any member and any representative of the State Department to
say that this is an example of leadership and a commitment to human rights
and upholding U.S. laws. We are rewarding an oil company that hired
a contractor to work with a corrupt military by providing that same company
with over $100 million in security aid. And, according to the Secretary
of State, we are rewarding the military involved in this case, and countless
other massacres of innocent civilians, with additional U.S. aid.
This
case is an embarrassing and shameful blemish on the United States.
To me it symbolizes all that is wrong with our policy and our priorities
in Colombia. It is too bad that Ambassador Patterson, for whom I
have a great deal of respect, is not here to answer questions on this important
case.
Mr.
Chairman, these are just some of the important issues today’s hearing should
be considering. I intend to use my time for questions on these issues.
I welcome our witnesses and I look forward to their testimony. |