On May 16, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush announced details of its proposal for a new "aid" package that would provide $882 million to seven countries in Latin America, including Colombia and its neighbors. Under the "Andean Regional Initiative," Colombia would still be the largest recipient of U.S. aid, receiving $399 million, or 45 percent of the total. Of the Colombia aid, $146.5 million would go for economic and social programs and $252.5 million for counternarcotics and security programs. Bolivia is set to get a total of $143.5 million; Peru is to get $163.7 million for social programs and $77 million in security aid; Ecuador, $76.5 million total; Venezuela, $10 million in security aid; Brazil, $26.1 million total; and Panama, $20.5 million.

State Department officials touted the new proposal as a "more balanced" approach to the region than in the past. "Look at the figures and the fine print a little closer, though, and you will find less of a change than meets the eye," wrote the Chicago Tribune in a May 18 editorial. The $1.3 billion aid package approved last year under President Bill Clinton consisted mostly of military aid for Colombia. But an analysis by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for International Policy (CIP)-cited in the Tribune-shows that the decrease in weapons aid to Colombia in the new package is offset almost dollar-for-dollar by increases in military aid to the other nations.

William Brownfield, deputy assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, acknowledged that the U.S. was able to shift the focus of the aid largely because it had already financed the "big ticket" items for Colombia. Brownfield said the Bush administration remained committed to Plan Colombia and its military objective to force drug-financed rebels into peace negotiations.

"While Plan Colombia was a two-year supplemental appropriation, Bush's funding proposals are neatly folded into the regular annual appropriation process," the Tribune also notes in its editorial. "Does that signal the beginning of a prolonged U.S. military involvement in the region?" (New York Times 5/17/01; AP 5/16/01; UPI 5/16/01; CT 5/18/01)