Pubdate: Thu, 12 Sep 2002
Source: Financial Times (UK)
Copyright: The Financial Times Limited 2002
Contact:  http://www.ft.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/154
Author: Lydia Adetunji
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ashcroft.htm (Ashcroft, John)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/campaign.htm (ONDCP Media Campaign)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/walters.htm (Walters, John)

EXHIBITION LINKS DRUG AND TERROR WARS

A pile of twisted metal girders, scattered shoes and a child's toy taken 
from the World Trade Center rubble sits alongside bloody images of Basque 
separatist car bombings, a hooded Hamas suicide bomber - and a snapshot of 
some gaunt-looking addicts "getting high".

They are part of an emotive exhibition opening this week at the Virginia 
headquarters of the US Drug Enforcement Administration that examines links 
between terrorist groups and drug cartels through the prism of September 11.

The display highlights a growing debate in government and drug enforcement 
circles over how to prosecute the "war on drugs" at a time when the fight 
against terrorism has taken precedence over narcotics traffickers.

"We should have the same approach to drugs as we do to terrorism," said 
Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, at the exhibition last week. 
"They are both intended to break the spirit of the American nation."

The DEA is conveying the same thought as it fights to maintain funding for 
anti-drug efforts. With the steady redeployment of US resources and 
manpower to the war on terrorism, the drug agency and other anti-drug 
campaigners are cranking up a public relations campaign that aims to 
piggyback on the terrorism fight. Should they play their cards right, the 
drugs warriors could end up in a stronger position than before.

The impact of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the drugs war was felt 
at all levels, from street programmes urging children to "just say no" to 
high-tech interception operations in international waters. The FBI moved 
some 400 agents out of counter-narcotics operations to counter-terrorism 
taskforces.

The result has left underfunded local law enforcement outfits trying to 
take up the slack, at a time when they were burdened with additional tasks 
such as patrolling airport security checkpoints. Centrepiece programmes 
such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education, which sends police officers into 
schools to teach children to reject drugs, lost out.

Further up the "food chain", the US Coast Guard, which helps intercept 
illegal drug shipments, moved many of its cutters from the Caribbean to 
defend ports along the eastern seaboard against terrorists. It plans to 
drop the proportion of its budget spent countering drugs from 18 to 13 per 
cent.

The DEA, the White House drugs czar and John Ashcroft, the 
attorney-general, have been quick to play up the long-recognised links 
between drugs and terrorism. Rand Beers, former counter-narcotics chief at 
the State Department, even declared under oath last November that Colombian 
narcotics traffickers and leftwing Farc rebels had trained at al-Qaeda 
camps in Afghanistan.

Mr Beers, now deputy head of counter-terrorism at the White House, has 
since retracted the claim, filed as part of an ongoing court battle 
involving the spraying of defoliants in Ecuador by a US government 
contractor. The government's first public relations strike to link the 
anti-drugs effort with terrorism after September 11 was to launch a $10m 
advertising campaign - $3.5m of which was spent on just two television 
airtime slots during the Super Bowl football game in February. In the 
adverts, listless-looking US teenagers admit their drug use helps 
terrorists. "I helped a bomber get a fake passport," said one. "I helped 
blow up buildings," said another.

Highlighting the campaign, President George W. Bush said the commercials 
stressed personal responsibility and morals. But critics of his 
administration's drug policy were furious, arguing the commercials amounted 
to blaming marijuana-smoking teenagers for global terrorism.

They say the focus on terrorism encourages questionable goals and 
operations in a $20bn-a-year drug war to which the public is largely 
indifferent, and argue instead for more attention on treatment programmes.

For different reasons, some drug war advocates are also dubious about the 
terror slant. "All federal agencies go where the money is," says one 
congressional staff member who is pushing for increased DEA funding. 
"[Terrorism] is important but it's not the only message. It's important to 
keep a distinction because the anti-drug effort is focused on other issues 
as well. There are other good reasons not to be doing drugs."

The two "wars" do bear certain similarities - not least an open-ended time 
frame - and many argue that melding them is a sound idea. Security experts 
note that increased security at borders and airports has had benefits for 
drugs interception.

But what of the Afghan heroin trade, the most obvious drugs link to the 
September 11 attacks? The country's poppy producers saw a bumper crop this 
year, according to the UN. Ironically, it is the one aspect of the trade 
the drugs warriors can do little about - the US military has more immediate 
objectives in Afghanistan than poppy eradication.

As one source put it: "If they alienate large segments of the population, 
the ill-will created towards the US would complicate the political picture."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom