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