Pubdate: Sun, 13 Jan 2002
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2002 The Washington Post Company
Contact:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: Dennis Jett

REMEMBER THE DRUG WAR?

A Casualty of Terrorism You Haven't Heard Much About

When the Bush administration tires of patting itself on the back for 
the successful war in Afghanistan it might consider the war it is 
losing -- the one on drugs.

Following the terrorism of Sept. 11, Washington's attention -- and 
much of our military and other assets -- were shifted to address the 
threat posed by terrorism.

More than half the Coast Guard's anti-drug efforts were redirected to 
guard harbors and oil refineries. While this improved our defenses 
against new acts of terrorism, it lowered them when it comes to drugs.

Cocaine seizures by the Coast Guard are down 66 percent from a year 
ago. The war on terrorism is like the war on drugs in at least two 
ways. In neither struggle will there ever be a final victory.

Yet in both cases, the damage that would result from failing to 
combat the problem would be far worse than the cost of waging a 
struggle without end. Whatever qualms people have about the drug war, 
we must strive for effective, not random, enforcement. And unless we 
decide to legalize drugs, we cannot abandon that enforcement effort.

Clearly efforts against terrorism must be given top priority for the 
time being. There is, however, at least one measure againstillegal 
drug trafficking that can be taken immediately, that has worked in 
the past and that does not require many resources: the resumption of 
our support of drug interdiction flights in Peru and Colombia.

These flights were suspended last April after a Peruvian Air Force 
fighter jet shot down a civilian floatplane with five Americans 
onboard. The incident resulted in the wounding of the pilot, and the 
death of a missionary and her infant daughter.

A CIA aircraft had tracked the missionary plane, thought it might be 
a drug flight, and guided the Peruvian fighter to it. Procedure 
should have been followed to identify the aircraft, determine its 
purpose and, if it appeared to be carrying narcotics, to force it to 
land.

The incident exposed a hidden part of the U.S. war on drugs.

In the past when warnings were ignored, planes were fired upon. In 
the past seven years, 38 trafficking aircraft were shot or forced 
down (many of those while I was serving as U.S. ambassador to Peru) 
and a dozen more seized on the ground.

The CIA aircraft were necessary to help the fighter intercept the 
suspect planes.

The State Department conducted an assessment of the tragedy and 
issued its report last August. It revealed that the CIA aircraft was 
late and ineffective in alerting the Peruvian fighter that this could 
be an innocent flight.

It also noted that the Peruvian commander, who was ultimately 
responsible, had rushed and fired on a plane that did not fit the 
usual profile of a drug flight.

Should such mistakes, however tragic, be allowed to end efforts to 
interdict drug flights?

When noncombatants are killed in Afghanistan, no one suggests halting 
the war until our military operations can be made foolproof. When 
police confrontations with young black men result in unarmed, and at 
times completely innocent, individuals being killed, there are 
protests and sometimes charges brought.

But no one recommends yanking all cops off their beats until the 
verdict is in. The Bush administration has been dallying over whether 
to resume the drug interdiction flights.

Asked more than two months ago whether the flights would be 
restarted, a State Department spokesman said the findings of the 
August report were still being reviewed.

While obviously distracted by events on other war front, the 
administration also seems paralyzed by fear of new congressional 
criticism.

Our elected representatives can indignantly castigate ever-unpopular 
State Department and CIA bureaucrats, and know they have not lost a 
vote. And for most Americans, the threat posed by drugs is no more 
urgent than the threat of terrorism before Sept. 11.

The administration's procrastination may also stem from the fact that 
most of the drugs from Peru are going to Brazil and Europe. But even 
if the drugs go elsewhere, that does not mean they should cease to be 
an American concern.

Cocaine consumption in Brazil has reached such proportions that the 
country has become the world's second-largest market for the drug. 
Local attempts to deal with the situation have not been particularly 
vigorous or effective.

And what about the stability of Peru and the struggle against the 
narco-terrorists in Colombia? In a recent interview, the drug czar 
for Peru, Ricardo Vega Llona, said Peru was no longer winning its war 
on drugs. This would be a setback for U.S. policy.

When I was ambassador to Peru from 1996 to 1999, about half of the 
500 people atour embassy devoted all or most of their time to helping 
Peru combat drug trafficking. I flew many times over the Andes to 
coca-growing areas to look at the situationthere.

To understand the consequences of Peru losing its struggle, one only 
has to look as far as Colombia. There the government withdrew its 
forces from a chunk of territory the size of Switzerland and handed 
the area over to narco-terrorists. Through this and other gestures, 
the Colombian government hoped it could negotiate with the 
narco-terrorists and persuade them to give up the hundreds of 
millions of dollars they make each year from drugs, extortion and 
kidnapping. In return the government offered the guerrillas the 
opportunity to vote and run in an election they would lose. Given the 
weakness of his military, his police and his society, Colombian 
President Andres Pastrana had little choice but to hope such a 
hopeless strategy would work. It didn't. Last week Pastrana gave the 
drug-trafficking guerrillas 48 hours to get out of the area. It's not 
clear what he can do if they don't.

A policy of no stick and small carrots will not deter the drug 
traffickers. From my experience in Peru, it was clear that incentives 
for growing legal crops were important, but that strong enforcement 
measures were also required.

Peru's disgraced former president, Alberto Fujimori, who has found 
asylum in Japan, understood this. While he did much to undermine 
Peru's democracy, he also kept the drug lords and the terrorists from 
connecting and taking over large parts of his country.

A key element of his strategy was the interdiction of flights.

As a result, the area under coca cultivation in Peru fell from 115,00 
hectares in 1995 to 34,000 in 2000. Since the suspension of the 
interdiction flights, however, prices paid by drug lords to coca 
farmers and production has undoubtedly risen in response. It would be 
ironic if Peru won its struggle to return to democracy only to lose 
the struggle against drugs.

The loss of innocent lives is always a tragedy, whether it is a 
missionary in Peru or a family in Afghanistan. But where there is a 
need for military action or aggressive law enforcement, there are 
guns and there will be victims of friendly fire. That may be 
unfortunate, but it does not mean the war is not worth fighting.

Dennis Jett, former U.S. ambassador to Peru and Mozambique, is dean 
of the International Center at the University of Florida.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh