“It is unacceptable, dangerous and must be reversed as soon as possible,” Mario Díaz-Balart assured this newspaper.one of the most influential legislators within the Republican party in the United States, when asked about the decision made by the Joe Biden administration to suspend the monitoring of illicit crops in the country.
(In context: US suspends monitoring of coca crops in Colombia: these are the reasons)
In an interview with EL TIEMPOthe also president of the Subcommittee on Appropriations for Foreign Operations of the US Congress. assured that he has already started an investigation in this regard and said that they will not stop insisting until the decision, revealed exclusively by this newspaper, is reversed.
(See also: The cases of fraud in Miami against Colombians seeking to migrate to the United States)
The legislator, who chairs the Committee that annually allocates resources for Colombia, also confirmed to this medium that in the current budget -approved last week by this agency-, there are no funds for the country and that these will only be approved when the government of Gustavo Petro “corrects its current course.”
For Díaz-Balart, “the measures taken by President Petro are returning the country to the 90s”when it was “almost a failed state” and reiterated his concerns about the relationship of the Colombian president with dictators, narcoterrorists and anti-democratic regimes in the world.
What is your reading on the decision of the US Executive to suspend the monitoring of illicit crops in Colombia?
It is highly concerning and totally unacceptable. There is no reason to do that. There is no justification of any kind. The Biden administration has said informally that this is temporary, but they did not inform anyone.
I think this is possibly another of the concessions that they have given to President Petro. But we are talking about a concession that is unsustainable, unacceptable and highly dangerous. And, I repeat, I see it as a really difficult decision to understand given the level of irresponsibility that it entails.
What do you plan to do in Congress to get to the bottom of this issue?
We were not consulted and it is a tremendous scandal. We have already written a letter to the Administration asking for detailed explanations. We are waiting for an answer, but we are going to insist, not only on reasons, but that the decision be reversed.
Do you believe, like some of your colleagues, that this is doing the Petro government a “favour” and that it was done to avoid having to certify the behavior of your government in the fight against drugs, despite the large increase in illicit crops?
We have seen an increase in illicit crops in Colombia since the presidency of Mr. Petro. I don’t know why the president (Biden) decided to do this so absurd and dangerous. But it is very possible that it is to try to hide the reality of what is happening with coca in Colombia. I don’t know what the reason could be, but what I can tell you is that it is highly irresponsible to suspend the monitoring of illicit crops in Colombia.
(You may be interested in: The controversial US Court decisions that promise to increase polarization)
One of the reasons cited for making this decision is that the UN is already monitoring it and that, in a certain sense, what the United States does is redundant. What do you think of that?
Thinking that the UN is an institution that can be depended on demonstrates the lack of seriousness of that decision. The UN is an institution with many problems and, obviously, the United States government, with the cooperation of Colombia, has done a truly exemplary job for decades in parallel with the UN data.
The measures taken by President Petro are taking the country back to the 90s”, when it was “almost a failed state
The appropriations commission approved last week the bill for foreign operations and, once again, you asked that aid for Colombia be deferred. Because?
Due to the uncertainty that is occurring within Colombia under the administration of President Petro. We are concerned about the degradation of the Rule of Law internally in Colombia, we are concerned about the way to carry out the fight against drug trafficking, the rates of coca production, relations with terrorist regimes such as those of Iran and Cuba. We are concerned about the relations that Petro is having with other dictators, be it Russia or Venezuela.
I am deeply outraged by reports that the United States has paused satellite monitoring of coca production in Colombia, and that the Petro Administration is no longer aggressively eradicating coca plantations or taking other proactive measures…
— Mario Diaz-Balart (@MarioDB) July 13, 2023
Why is the option to stop aid to the country?
There are many reasons to be concerned and, obviously, the purpose of these funds has been, for approximately two decades, to help Colombia, which in the 1990s was on the brink of being a failed state, has become a wonderful country, an example country for the world. But, we are highly concerned because we see that Colombia seems to be going back to the 90s when the internal situation was really dangerous.
What message do you give President Petro?
That this is a decision you have in your hands. If Petro wants to maintain relations with the United States, which involves a lot of funds and billions of dollars, he can do it. But, if he decides to move away from our country and destroy the rule of law within Colombia, associating himself with undemocratic factors in the world, there will be consequences.
In this context, if President Petro does not make the decisions you are waiting for, would you be inclined because there are no funds for Colombia in the 2024 budget?
Today there are no funds in the House of Representatives appropriation budget. President Petro can change that, but he has to change it with actions, not with words. The words are very nice, but that does not interest me much. What we are monitoring is the situation within Colombia and President Petro’s relations with the world’s narcoterrorists. That worries us a lot. I repeat, the decision belongs to President Petro. If he wants to keep the relationship positive, that he has helped Colombia so much, he can do it and then the funds will be for Colombia. But, if he insists on seceding and joining the terrorist countries or the dictatorships of the Hemisphere and the world, he obviously should not expect US taxpayer funds.
There are those who say that President Juan Manuel Santos also negotiated with terrorist groups, that he was close to Hugo Chávez and that he was the one who suspended the fumigation of illicit crops. However, he did not lose Washington’s support. Does Petro have a different standard?
No, what it shows is the extent to which the concern in the United States with the Petro administration is reaching. The United States does not want to get involved in the internal situation of Colombia. But, we are seeing a situation that we have not seen in the past.
In other words, for you it is not a matter of political ideologies but of actions?
It is not words but actions. He worries us a lot that Mr. Petro is wanting to change Colombia and reverse the situation in the country. The good news is that it is in the hands of President Petro. But let no one think that they can have relations with the worst actors in the world, with dictatorships, with narcoterrorists, destroy the rule of law within Colombia and that there will be no economic consequences, even more so, for the US.
SERGIO GOMEZ MASERI
TIME CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON
@sergom68
#Petro #Colombia #1990s #congressman