Did the United States exclude Colombia from the priority list in resource allocation due to differences with Gustavo Petro?

This Wednesday, US Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart announced, in a press conference from Miami, that Colombia had stopped being part of “a select group of 8 countries” that the United States considers special allies and that, therefore, are treated annually as a priority in the resource allocation process..

Diaz-Balart, who is part of the Republican Party and one of the harshest critics of President Gustavo Petro, said, in turn, that Aid to the country had been reduced by 10 percent compared to the previous year and a series of strict conditions had been included.

All this, according to the representative, as a direct consequence of the actions of President Gustavo Petro.

According to Diaz-Balart, one of the most severe critics of the Colombian president and member of the Republican Party, Petro, with his “actions and deeds” has shown that he does not want to maintain that special status and hence the “punishment”.

To give context to these worrying announcements, EL TIEMPO spoke with various sources in the legislature and experts in the US appropriations process.

Diaz-Balart, it is worth clarifying, is currently the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for Foreign Operations of the House of Representatives, and therefore the person in charge of writing and directing the budget project for United States expenses in other countries throughout its passage through the lower house.

Since the Republicans regained control of this Legislative body in January of last year, and Diaz-Balart was named president of the Committee, the legislator has been speaking harshly against Petro, whom he calls a socialist and criticizes him for his alliances with countries hostile to the United States such as Cuba and Venezuela (Diaz-Balart is Cuban-American).

His reservations against Petro are so great that In the version of the project that the Chamber approved, Diaz-Balart did not include any aid for Colombia. Something that had never happened in at least 25 years.

The Senate, currently controlled by Democrats, produced its own budget for foreign operations where funds for the country did appear. 15 days ago, and after a long negotiation between both branches of the legislature, Republicans and Democrats agreed and approved a law to finance the operations of the Government until the close of this fiscal year in October, which included resources for operations abroad and about 410 million dollars for Colombia, a figure that represents a reduction of 46 million dollars compared to the resources approved for 2023, which were 456 million dollars.

Diaz-Balart, in his press conference this Wednesday, made a kind of budget reckoning that he helped negotiate, highlighting what was most relevant from his perspective.

And it was there that the comments about Petro appeared, as well as others directed at other nations in the Hemisphere, such as Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Was Colombia excluded from any list or priority status?

Various legislative sources consulted by this newspaper assure that In the law that was approved – or no previous law – there is a list of countries that are privileged in the United States allocation process.

What is common is that Congress, when drafting the text, includes language that denotes some priority for the executors of the spending, which in this case is primarily the State Department.

In principle, the amounts awarded to each country are a kind of “suggestion” to this depending on what the Legislature expects to be done with the funds and that responds to the spending request presented by the administration at the beginning of the fiscal period. This suggestion can be highlighted with the use of some terms that are more decisive.

For example, include the word “must be spent in X country or program”, instead of “should”, or introduce the term “no less than

That to prevent the executor diverts allocated funds to other priorities. Something that in theory should not happen but sometimes ends up happening in the process.

In the case of Colombia, previous tax laws – not all – made this type of reservations. On some occasions to “protect” specific programs such as those aimed at Afro-descendants, human rights, the environment or the fight against narcotics and on other occasions on the entire aid or some of its central components. And the same happens with other countries like Israel, considered a close ally.

There is no list of privileged countries in US law. Simply an expenditure instruction that may vary from country to country or from program to program, where emphasis is placed on the obligatory nature of the expenditure.

But this time, according to sources close to Diaz-Balart's office, It was decided to exclude this type of mention from the central body of the law although the intention of Congress is specific that those 410 million dollars should be invested in the country.

Although the change is semantic, and perhaps even cosmetic, Diaz-Balart's intention was to send a signal that Congress, or at least its community, is not happy with Petro.

“There is no list of privileged countries in United States law. Simply a spending instruction that can vary from country to country or from program to program, where emphasis is placed on the obligatory nature of the spending. In the case of Colombia, the “The current law recommends that the State Department spend $410 million. That
is what there is and those are the funds that must be available in 2024,” says a senior legislative source who has been working on budget issues for many years.

Was aid for Colombia cut 10 percent?

This assertion by Diaz-Balart is partially true but with a nuance. Firstly, the reduction in aid for the country was 9 percent and not 10 percent as the legislator claims.

Additionally, during a difficult appropriations process where Republicans demanded sharp cuts in US spending, both parties agreed that spending for foreign operations would be reduced by a total of 6 percent.

In other words, the vast majority of programs – and countries – suffered cuts. That said, Colombia's was higher than stipulated. It is worth noting, in passing, that if Congress had wanted to protect the country's funds from this cut, it could have done so by withdrawing more from other accounts or countries.

Although a 9 percent reduction is not fatal – especially in a year with so many fiscal challenges – it could indicate that The country has fallen down the ladder of priorities. Or, as Diaz-Balart said, that it is a message addressed to the Colombian president.

Are the conditions that were included this year for Colombia tougher?

Diaz-Balart also suggested that The new law includes strong new conditions that must be met for aid to flow and that would also be a consequence of President Petro's actions.

There, again, there are things that are true and others that are not so true.

Since the United States approved the first funds to finance Plan Colombia in 2000, aid for the country has always included a list of conditions that have varied year after year and from government to government. Several of them have been in force for more than a decade. For example, 20 percent of anti-drug aid can only be spent until the State Department certifies that the government is complying in this matter, and Something similar happens with respect for human rights and funds directed to the armed forces..

The conditioning language included in the fiscal year 2023 budget, when Díaz-Balart was not chairman of the Committee and Democrats were in charge, is very similar to what was approved this time except for one exception.

The legislator included a new clause that requires the State Department to submit a report before being able to disburse a dollar of approved resources, where it must evaluate whether the Petro government is respecting the rule of law and whether its policies align with the National Security interests of the United States.

Although, it must be said, The language only stipulates that the report must be delivered no later than 90 days and does not restrict the delivery of aid to its content.. But, without a doubt, it is another message addressed to the current Colombian government, that of Gustavo Petro, to indicate that the United States observes its actions and that aid could be affected depending on them.

SERGIO GÓMEZ MASERI – EL TIEMPO Correspondent – Washington