US embassy cable - 04BOGOTA5068

UNCLAS BOGOTA 005068 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
 
DEPT FOR INL/RM, INL/LP 
 
DEPT FOR WHA/AND 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SNAR, EFIN, KCRM, PTER, CO, UN 
SUBJECT: Bogota Mini Dublin Group Meeting 
 
 
1. (SBU) Summary:  The Bogota Mini Dublin Group held a biannual 
meeting on May 11 to discuss the ten recommendations for Colombia 
agreed upon in November, 2003. This session acknowledged the USG's 
leadership in counter-narcotics cooperation with the GOC. Several 
examples of bilateral programs were reviewed by other group 
members, including a presentation of United Nations Office on 
Drugs and Crime (UNODC) programs that highlighted several 
important points of divergence between that group's objectives and 
those of the USG.  End summary. 
 
2.  (U) The Bogota Mini Dublin Group convened May 11 with the 
participation of Embassy's Political and Narcotics Affairs 
Sections, the UNODC, and representatives of the embassies of Spain 
(current Mini Dublin chair), UK, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, 
and Canada.   On the agenda was discussion of the ten 
recommendations from the previous Central Dublin Group meeting at 
the end of 2003. 
 
3.  (SBU) The ten recommendations discussed were: 
 
-- to continue to maintain incentives for alternative products and 
market access through generalized trade preferences and similar 
systems; 
-- to encourage the GOC to continue voluntary crop eradication 
programs by increasing the presence of the state via social 
programs to facilitate development; 
-- to increase control of terrestrial and fluvial trafficking 
routes to neighboring countries, particularly towards the 
Venezuelan border; 
-- to increase passenger and baggage control in airports; 
-- to study the creation of an airport control system for cargo 
freight similar to the port security program already in place; 
-- to facilitate the development of monitored/controlled delivery 
and undercover agents; 
-- to increase coordination between the GOC interagency community 
involved in anti-narcotics programs; 
-- to increase the presence of GOC counter-narcotics attaches in 
drug consuming countries; 
-- to encourage Colombian cooperation with neighboring countries, 
especially Venezuela, Brazil, and Ecuador; 
-- to reduce demand and consumption in Colombia as well as the 
production and trafficking of illegal narcotics; 
 
4. (SBU) Despite agreement on the importance of the above action 
recommendations, participating members had few contributions to 
offer in terms of practical programs either underway or planned. 
Discussion of ongoing programs and activities was led by Embassy 
officers. 
 
5.  (SBU) By way of underscoring policy disagreement with the 
USG's priorities, UNODC explained that it does not agree with the 
GOC (and the US Country Team) that manual, voluntary eradication 
should be a prerequisite to attaining alternative development 
assistance.  The UNODC also explained its philosophy that 
alternative development, rather than law enforcement, should be 
the first response in many areas where illicit crops are grown. 
 
6.  (SBU) The UNODC also noted that it was actively inviting GOC 
agencies to participate in its Integrated System for the 
Monitoring of Illicit Crops (SIMCI), ostensibly to promote 
interagency input and analysis. However, GOC participation appears 
to be composed entirely of GOC entities that are outspoken 
opponents of aerial eradication (Ministry of Environment, National 
Parks, etc.).  The influence of these groups may help explain 
SIMCI's insistence that illicit crop cultivation in national parks 
and indigenous reserves declined substantially in 2003, despite 
the absence of spraying, significant law enforcement dete