| La Embajada | Temas bilaterales | Prensa | Recursos electrónicos | Preguntas frecuentes | Sobre EE.UU. | Consular | Contáctenos |
|
| ||||
|
|
Actualizada: 03/VII/03 Restricciones ayuda militar estadounidense tendrán mínimo impacto en Colombia
English version
En una sesión informativa el 1º de julio, Boucher dijo a los reporteros que "gran parte de nuestra ayuda a Colombia (el grueso de nuestra ayuda Colombia) es, de hecho, dinero antinarcóticos y, por lo tanto, no lo afecta" esta decisión. Colombia, sede de la mayor industria de la cocaína en el mundo, recibe más ayuda militar estadounidense que cualquier otro país del Hemisferio Occidental. Durante varios años, Estados Unidos ha venido ayudando a Colombia en su lucha de varias décadas contra guerrilleros y paramilitares, financiados en gran medida por el narcotráfico, quienes amenazan el régimen democrático y la prosperidad del país andino. El hecho de que esta ayuda se dirija sustancialmente hacia iniciativas antinarcóticos, es considerado por el gobierno de Estados Unidos una distinción importante que la separa de otras formas de ayuda militar. La decisión del Presidente afecta a 35 países que no han firmado con Estados Unidos un acuerdo, tal como lo requiere la nueva ley conocida como Ley de Protección a los Miembros de los Servicios Armados Estadounidenses, la cual garantizaría que el personal militar estadounidense no quede bajo la jurisdicción de la Corte Penal Internacional. Esta exención es necesaria, dice la Casa Blanca, para prevenir juicios motivados políticamente contra soldados estadounidenses. Colombia es uno de los países que no ha firmado el llamado acuerdo del Artículo 98 que otorgaría a los soldados estadounidenses inmunidad contra los enjuiciamientos de la Corte Penal Internacional. Sin embargo, indicó Boucher, Estados Unidos continuará urgiendo a esos países que reconsideren. Entre tanto, de los aproximadamente US$100 millones en ayuda estadounidense a Colombia presupuestados para este año fiscal, "Todo, excepto US$5 millones, ha sido gastado" ya, dijo Boucher. Esos US$5 millones, explicó, representan el total de la financiación a Colombia que ha sido suspendida de acuerdo con la decisión del Presidente. Dado que la mayoría de la ayuda de Estados Unidos a Colombia se asigna para luchar contra los narcóticos, no se ve afectada por la nueva legislación. Aun así, a Estados Unidos le gustaría resolver este asunto amistosamente con Colombia y con otros socios internacionales, sugirió Boucher. "Nuestra esperanza es seguir trabajando con los gobiernos para asegurar y ratificar los acuerdos del Artículo 98, los cuales protegen a los miembros de las fuerzas armadas estadounidenses del enjuiciamiento arbitrario o político en la Corte Penal Internacional", reiteró. Agregó que el Secretario de Estado Colin Powell le ha planteado la cuestión a la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores colombiana Carolina Barco, y que funcionarios estadounidenses "seguirán discutiendo (esto) con el gobierno de Colombia para tratar de arreglar las cosas". En respuesta a una pregunta acerca de si un tratado de 1962 entre Colombia y Estados Unidos no ofrece ya protección al personal militar estadounidense, dijo Boucher: "Los colombianos y Estados Unidos tenemos un acuerdo existente que tiene alguna relación con esto, pero necesitamos el tipo de exención que proporcionaría un acuerdo del Artículo 98". El Servicio de Noticias Reuters informó el 1º de julio que un vocero de la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Bogotá confirmó que "la suspensión de la ayuda militar estadounidense no afectaría a los millones de dólares en ayuda destinada a aplastar el comercio de cocaína o ayudar a las fuerzas colombianas" en sus esfuerzos por restablecer el imperio de la ley. El presidente colombiano Alvaro Uribe se ha ganado el fuerte apoyo de Washington por su posición decidida contra la guerrilla y la violencia paramilitar, y por su compromiso con una campaña de erradicación aérea en su país, la cual ha tenido éxito en reducir los cultivos ilícitos de coca, de la cual se deriva la cocaína.
President Bush's decision to suspend military aid to
countries that have not agreed to exempt U.S. soldiers from
prosecution by the International Criminal Court will not affect the
bulk of U.S. aid to Colombia, according to State Department spokesman
Richard Boucher.
At a July 1 press briefing, Boucher told reporters that "much of our
assistance to Colombia (the great bulk of our assistance to Colombia)
is, indeed, counter-drug money, and therefore not affected" by the
decision. Colombia, home to the world's largest cocaine industry,
receives more U.S. military aid than any other country in the Western
Hemisphere. For several years, the United States has been assisting
Colombia in its decades-old struggle against narco-terrorists (armed
insurgents largely funded by drug traffickers) who imperil the
Andean country's democratic rule and prosperity. The fact that this
assistance is substantially channeled towards counter-drug initiatives
is regarded by the U.S. government as an important distinction that
separates it from other forms of military aid.
The president's decision on military aid applies to 35 countries that
have not signed an agreement with the United States, as specified by
the new law known as the American Service Members Protection Act,
which would ensure that U.S. military personnel are not subject to the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. This exemption is
necessary, the White House says, in order to prevent politically
motivated prosecutions of U.S. soldiers.
Colombia is one of the countries that has not signed the so-called
Article 98 agreement that would grant U.S. soldiers immunity from
trial by the International Criminal Court. Boucher indicated, however,
that the United States will continue to urge these countries to
reconsider. Meanwhile, of the approximately $100 million in U.S. aid
to Colombia that was budgeted for the current fiscal year, "all but
about $5 million has been expended" already, Boucher said. The
remaining $5 million, he explained, represents the total amount of
funding for Colombia that has been suspended in accordance with the
president's decision. Since most U.S. aid to Colombia is allocated to
fight the illegal drug trade, that will not be threatened by the new
legislation.
Even so, the United States would like to settle the entire matter
amicably with Colombia and other international partners, Boucher
suggested. "Our hope is to continue to work with governments to secure
and ratify Article 98 agreements that protect American service members
from arbitrary or political prosecution by the International Court,"
he reiterated. He added that Secretary of State Colin Powell has
raised the issue with Colombian Foreign Minister Carolina Barco, and
U.S. officials "will continue to discuss [this] with the government of
Colombia to try to work things out."
In response to a question about whether a 1962 treaty between Colombia
and the United States already offers protection to U.S. military
personnel, Boucher said: "The Colombians and the United States do have
an existing agreement that has some relationship to this, but we need
to provide the kind of exemption that an Article 98 agreement would
provide."
The Reuters News Service reported on July 1 that a U.S. Embassy
spokesman in Bogota confirmed that "the suspension of U.S. military
aid would not affect hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance to
crush the cocaine trade or the activities of hundreds of U.S.
personnel training or assisting Colombian forces" in their efforts to
restore the rule of law. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has won
strong support in Washington for his aggressive stance against
guerrilla and paramilitary violence, and for his commitment to an
aerial spraying campaign in his country that has succeeded in reducing
the illicit coca crops from which cocaine is derived.
President Bush has issued waivers allowing continuing military aid to
22 countries that signed the Rome Statute establishing the
International Criminal Court (ICC), and subsequently signed Article 98
agreements exempting U.S. personnel from war crimes prosecution.
Bush released a memorandum for the Secretary of State on July 1
waiving the prohibition on military assistance to ICC signatories that
is called for in the American Service Members' Protection Act of 2002.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush wants to ensure through
the Article 98 agreements that American military personnel stationed
abroad would not be subject to being put on trial before an entity
that the United States does not recognize.
At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said some of the
waivers signed by the president are for countries that have signed
such agreements but have not yet ratified them. "There is a four-month waiver for countries who signed before May 1 and haven't yet ratified, a six-month waiver for countries who signed
after May 1 and haven't yet ratified," he said. "In many cases, ratification means working things through parliament, which takes some time in some places."
Boucher said there are some 35 countries that have not signed
agreements and therefore do not qualify for a waiver. Those countries
subject to restrictions, he added, "are recipients of U.S. military
assistance, they are parties to the ICC, and they have not been
exempted as a NATO member or major non-NATO ally, or signed an Article
98 agreement."
The White House
Consistent with the authority vested in me by section 2007 of the
American Service members Protection Act of 2002, title II of Public
Law 107-206 (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.), I hereby determine that:
(2) it is important to the national interest of the United States to
waive, until November 1, 2003, the prohibition of section 2007(a) with
respect to Afghanistan, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of Congo, East
Timor, Ghana, Honduras, and Romania, and waive that prohibition with
respect to these countries until that date; and
(3) it is important to the national interest of the United States to
waive, until January 1, 2004, the prohibition of section 2007(a) with
respect to Albania, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Botswana, Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Panama, and
Uganda, and waive that prohibition with respect to these countries
until that date.
You are authorized and directed to report this determination to the
Congress, and to arrange for its publication in the Federal Register.
GEORGE W. BUSH
QUESTION: Is the U.S. going to suspend the military aid to Colombia
due to the fact that they didn't sign the immunity?
BOUCHER: The President made his decisions yesterday, signed the
package for transmission to Capitol Hill, on the American
Servicemembers' Protection Act, and that includes some waivers for
countries that have signed Article 98 agreements with us but not
ratified them. There is a four-month waiver for countries who signed
before May 1st and haven't yet ratified, a six-month waiver for
countries who signed after May 1st and haven't yet ratified. In many
cases, ratification means working things through parliament, which
takes some time in some places.
There are other countries, some 35 of them, that have not signed
Article 98 agreements and therefore don't qualify for a waiver, and so
Colombia is one of those countries. But as I think I said yesterday,
this is an ongoing issue that we're going to have to deal with, and
we're going to keep pressing countries to sign Article 98 agreements
with us.
Much of our assistance to Colombia, the great bulk of our assistance
to Colombia, is, indeed, counter-drug money and therefore not
affected. It's not military assistance, among the military assistance
programs that are affected by this law.
In addition, I think of some over $100 million, a $100 million
or more, in military financing that we have for Colombia, I think all
but about $5 million has been expended. So there is probably about $5
million of our assistance to Colombia that's been suspended because of
the Act right now.
But as we proceed with this, we'll look at individual programs, as
well, and decide whether they need waivers. But our hope is to
continue to work with governments to secure and ratify Article 98
agreements that protect American servicemembers from arbitrary or
political prosecution by the International Court.
BOUCHER: It's in the package. I don't have it here right now. I'll
see if I can get that for you.
QUESTION: And is it exactly 35? You said "some 35." Is it exactly?
BOUCHER: I counted, I got 36. But three other counted and got 35,
so...
QUESTION: When I counted, I got 31. But that was, of course, because
we didn't have this package that you guys obviously did. And we had to
actually go through and compare the number of countries getting; the
exact countries getting U.S. military assistance with the number of
countries who have signed Article 98 agreements, and then the number
of countries who have actually ratified the Rome Treaty, which was
extremely time-consuming, I'm sure, as you can imagine.
BOUCHER: I can't give you the package before the President signs
it. Now that the President has signed it and it has been transmitted
to Congress, I will be glad to try to provide it to you. But I'm not
going to give it to you before the Congress gets it.
QUESTION: All right, okay. That's fine.
BOUCHER: Okay. We have calculated that a total of 35 states would
be subject to these restrictions; that is, there are recipients of
U.S. military assistance, they are parties to the International
Criminal Court, and they have not been exempted as a NATO member or
major non-NATO ally, or signed an Article 98 agreement.
QUESTION: Now, what about countries that do receive U.S. assistance,
are parties that had signed and ratified the Rome Treaty, and have
signed Article 98 agreements and still don't get an exemption? I mean,
what does poor old Cambodia have to do here to get back in the good
graces of the United States?
BOUCHER: Cambodia doesn't have any military assistance from us
this year.
QUESTION: Yes, it does. Well, it was requested. It was in the budget.
BOUCHER: No, it was requested. And if you read the budget
documents carefully, you'll see that it said that we would provide
this program if the political conditions allowed and other
restrictions were removed. Because that situation hasn't occurred,
they have...there is no money in a program this year.
QUESTION: Okay, but...
BOUCHER: There is actual program of military assistance to
Cambodia this year, is the bottom line, so it doesn't need a waiver.
QUESTION: And is that , can you say that that's the only country that
meets all of the criteria that has not received a waiver?
BOUCHER: It doesn't meet all of the criteria because there is no
military assistance program.
QUESTION: All right. Can you say it's the only country that has signed
an Article 98 agreement that has also signed and ratified the ICC that...
BOUCHER: I don't know how many countries there are who are members
of the Court and have signed Article 98 agreements, but don't have a
military assistance program from the United States. I don't, I just didn't try to calculate that.
QUESTION: Richard, for the six countries that are supposed to be joining
NATO next year, you said yesterday that for this fiscal year there are no consequences. Right?
BOUCHER: No, I didn't say that.
QUESTION: No, I mean, the programs that have already been started,
that they'll go on before today. Right?
BOUCHER: I said that money that has been spent, money that's been
allocated, remains allocated. Money that has not been allocated is not
going to be allocated. So it depends on the individual country and how
much of the money has been expended. We were asked a moment ago about
Colombia, and out of $100 million or more in military financing for
Colombia, there's $5 million left this year that's not been allocated. That money is caught. Each government, each country will be, may be slightly different. There may be different percentages or amounts that have been spent already and different amounts left that have not.
QUESTION: Well, my question was, if these six countries, as it is
expected, become NATO members next year, they will be automatically
getting the waiver. Is that correct?
BOUCHER: Yes.
QUESTION: So, basically, the impact on them will be minimal. Is that
safe to...
BOUCHER: Again, it depends on the country. There may be places
where, you know, most of the money has been spent. There may be places
where most of the money has not been spent.
QUESTION: I walked in a little late. Did you address the question of
which countries are being penalized?
BOUCHER: I said there were 35 of them that are subject to some
restrictions under this Act, that the list was in the documents that
have been sent up to the Hill, and one of your colleagues asked me and
I promised I would try to get the...make the documents available to you.
QUESTION: In that document it also explains how much money is affected
here for the rest of this fiscal year?
BOUCHER: No, it doesn't. But I will be glad to do that now.
QUESTION: Okay.
BOUCHER: In terms of Fiscal Year 2003 dollar amounts in various military programs subject to assistance, subject to restrictions, in the Foreign Military Financing program there's approximately $47
million that's not been allocated and in the International Military Education and Training program there's approximately $613,000. I think we had larger numbers yesterday, but since those numbers were compiled several countries have signed Article 98 agreements. So what you'll find is these numbers are subject to change, hopefully in the downward direction as we sign agreements.
QUESTION: Well, following up on (I think what Nicholas is trying to
ask) the NATO aspirants basically don't really have to do much of
anything, do they? I mean, they lose a little bit this year, but as
long as they join on schedule, they'll be given an automatic
exemption, correct? Unless you guys are going to make signing an
Article 98 with them a requirement for them to get into NATO, which
you've always said in the past...
QUESTION: The Congress ratified already.
BOUCHER: The Congress has ratified the members.
I think the point, the point of all this, is not the technicalities of
it. It's the effort that's underway by the United States to secure
these agreements. It's not a matter of today, tomorrow, this program,
that program. This is merely one of the tools that Congress has given
us, has asked us to implement, in order to secure these kinds of agreements.
It remains an important part of national policy. It's something...the
Article 98 agreements, I would say, is something that comes up in
virtually every meeting the Secretary has with countries that it's
relevant for. And in not just the last week or two or the last month
or two, but consistently for months and months and months we have made
this an issue. It's an important issue to the United States, will
continue to be an important issue.
So as we work with other governments, whether they're NATO aspirants
or friends or coalition friends, people we've worked with in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it's an issue that we consistently raise and it's an area
where we are going to implement the law, and that's what we're doing.
QUESTION: Since the EU-U.S. summit that you guys had last week, which
this was the former EU president said this was an issue on which you
had agreed to disagree, have the Europeans changed their tune at all
or are they still being obstructionist?
BOUCHER: I think you'd have to ask them if they've changed their
tune. I mean, from our point of view, we have made very, very clear
that we're not attempting to undermine the Rome statute, we're not
attempting to infringe upon the rights of countries that have decided
to sign and implement the treaty involving the International Criminal
Court; and we ask that our right and our decision, our sovereignty in
deciding not to be a party to that treaty, is similarly respected. We
think it's important that we have the ability to choose not to become
a party and that we not be subject to jurisdiction by a treaty for
which we have not become a party.
QUESTION: Yeah, that's... I know that. But...
BOUCHER: I know. But have they changed their -- have they begun to
agree with us on that? I don't know that there is any particular
progress to report at this point. We have had discussions, legal
discussions in particular, in the past with the European Union. We've
had a lot of discussions with individual governments of European Union
members or countries that are seeking to get in. But at this point I
don't think they've changed their tune that I have seen, but you can
ask them if they have.
QUESTION: Yes, I'm still confused about Colombia, first of all,
because, you know, it receives lots of help from the United States. So
you're saying that for this fiscal year, there are still $5
million that they won't receive? What's going to happen for next
year? Then the Colombian president is saying that they have already a
treaty of 1962 which is kind of the same thing that the United States
wants, so that that should work. Does that work?
BOUCHER: It's an issue that we have been discussing with the
Government of Colombia. The Secretary has talked to Foreign Minister
Barco about it very recently; in Santiago, Chile, which was not
even a month ago now. So it's something that we have discussed
repeatedly and will continue to discuss with the Government of
Colombia to try to work things out. The Colombians and the United
States do have an existing agreement that has some relationship to
this, but we need to provide the kind of exemption that an Article 98
agreement would provide. That's our view.
But what's going to happen next year, that depends on the state of
affairs, whether we can conclude agreements with Colombia and other
governments. It depends on the kind of assistance programs we might be
contemplating. As always, much of the U.S. assistance for Colombia has
been in the form of anti-narcotics efforts, and those are not covered
by these restrictions. So it will depend on the kind of program that
we design for Colombia next year, as well as where we are in terms of
Article 98 agreements.
QUESTION: But they would have to sign that if they want to receive
military help? I mean, there's no other option? There's no getting away from it?
BOUCHER: There are limited possibilities for waivers in the law,
but how the President should decide to exercise those I just can't tell you at this point.
QUESTION: Richard, may I see if I understand it? Because I also don't
understand what would happen next year. Does the President's act today
mean it is impossible for Colombia to receive additional military
assistance from the United States, point blank? In other words, if Congress...
BOUCHER: Unless...well...
QUESTION: Unless?
BOUCHER: Unless...again, there are still some
authorities in this law to exercise specific waivers for specific
programs. So, you know, speculating on what kind of program we'll have
next year, how much of that money might be affected, if there are
aspects of the program we might want to waive, I think it's a little
too early to do that now, particularly given that we continue to
pursue with Colombia and others agreements under Article 98.
So if we succeed in getting the non-surrender agreements with various
governments, we may not face that question come October 1st. If we do
get to October 1st, it will depend on the kind of program that we're implementing in that year.
QUESTION: But I'm trying to understand it. It may be that I am just
confused about this. Is it conceivable that Congress could appropriate
additional military assistance for Colombia, and that that would go
forward absent, you know, an Article 98 agreement, or absent a waiver?
Or, no, that's simply impossible?
BOUCHER: It's not simply impossible but the authority, because
there is some additional waiver authority, it could be applied to a
particular program. But that hasn't been done at this point.
QUESTION: The 1st of October, what is that deadline? Could you explain
that?
BOUCHER: That's the start of our new fiscal year. So there is
another pot of money that has to be analyzed according to these criteria.
QUESTION: Oh, okay.
QUESTION: I just want to ask about one country that did get a waiver,
Botswana. What's the date that they signed their Article 98?
BOUCHER: I don't know. I have to check.
QUESTION: Can you explain why it doesn't appear on the list that the
Press Office put out last night? Are they perhaps one of these countries that has signed an Article 98 in secret?
BOUCHER: Perhaps. It's not so secret. We said they had
just not publicly advertised it. We weren't going to do that either.
But I don't know if Botswana was one of those are not.
QUESTION: Yeah, what just happened in Croatia, what was U.S. military
assistance?
BOUCHER: Again, I'll have to get the documents for you, and you
can check there exactly where Croatia stands on that list. |
|
|