When Hugo is Boss

The is absolutely no doubt but that demand for illegal narcotics in the United States is the driving force that finances most of the drug cartels and drug traffic in the Western Hemisphere. As I have recently blogged, the use of these drugs is at the root of the vast majorities of felonies committed in the United States. De facto civil wars – in countries like Mexico and Columbia, for example – threaten to topple democratically-elected governments in a sea of drug-trade-financed violence between governments and well-supplied and well-trained cartel militia, leaving a wake of maimed or killed innocents in its trail. Narcotics-fueled corruption has destroyed the notion of fairness and justice across the hemisphere. All this without the slightest reference to the narco-trade in Afghanistan and throughout the Golden Triangle; this is in our backyard.

Prominent leaders – from California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to former Mexican President, Vicente Fox – are questioning whether or not the use of certain currently-illegal drugs might not be legalized and taxed, mirroring the results on organized crime that followed the end of Prohibition. Wikipedia: “In the history of the United States, Prohibition, also known as The Noble Experiment, is the period from 1919 to 1933, during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption were banned nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution…

“The ‘Volstead Act,’ the popular name for the National Prohibition Act, passed through Congress over President Woodrow Wilson's veto on October 28, 1919 and established the legal definition of intoxicating liquor. Though the Volstead Act prohibited the sale of alcohol, it did little to enforce the law. The illegal production and distribution of liquor, or bootlegging, became rampant, and the national government did not have the means or desire to enforce every border, lake, river, and speakeasy in America. In fact, by 1925 in New York City alone there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs.” Sound fami liar? In 1933 Prohibition was repealed, and alcohol flowed (and was taxed) again.

The U.S. government has funneled billions of dollars, lent military and intelligence aid, sent enforcement officers and even military personnel, to Latin American governments over the years to battle the narco-trade. And yet, even in the middle of the biggest economic meltdown since The Great Depression, the drug trade prospers. And Venezuela, a nation with a common border with Colombia (the capital of the South American cocaine trade) and wide access to the Caribbean, remains a pivotal nation in the war on the illicit drug trade.

The July 19^th Washington Post: “[T]he amount of cocaine flowing into Venezuela from Colombia, Venezuela's neighbor and the world's top producer of the drug, has skyrocketed, going from an estimated 60 metric tons in 2004 to 260 metric tons in 2007. That amounted to 17 percent of all the cocaine produced in the Andes in 2007.” The Los Angeles Times (July 20^th) amplifies: “The volume of drugs passing through Venezuela more than quadrupled from 66 tons in 2004 to 287 tons in 2007, the GAO said. U.S.-Venezuelan counter-narcotics cooperation ended in 2005, as friction intensified between the Bush administration and leftist President Hugo Chavez.”

Chávez has long-maintained that the United States and its operatives were themselves the corrupt forces in the region and, as a part of his strong anti-American stances, denied any semblance of cooperation to the U.S. in the drug war. The Post: “‘The United States is the first narco-trafficking country,’ Chávez said, adding that Venezuela's geography -- particularly its rugged 1,300-mile border with Colombia -- makes it vulnerable to traffickers. He also asserted that Venezuela had made important gains in the drug war since expelling U.S. counter-drug agents in 2005, a measure the [U.S. Government Accounting Office] says made Venezuela more attractive to Colombian traffickers.”

But reports from both the U.S. government and European journalists suggest otherwise. Spain’s El Pais (newspaper), cited by the Post, believes that “Venezuela has extended a ‘lifeline’ to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which the United States estimates has a hand in the trafficking of 60 percent of the cocaine produced in Colombia.” The Post adds: “A report for the U.S. Congress on drug smuggling through Venezuela concludes that corruption at high levels of President Hugo Chávez’s government and state aid to Colombia’s drug-trafficking guerrillas have made Venezuela a major launching pad for cocaine bound for the United States and Europe.” A Latin American anti-American populist government with its hands in the narco-trade till? How novel?!

While the drug plague is a global problem, it is equally clear that there are governments that represent a huge barrier to controlling narco-trafficking, through corruption (like Venezuela or Mexico) or direct government production (like North Korea). We can’t fight this war alone, and clearly the U.S. appears powerless to engage in joint anti-drug enforcement with many reluctant nations. Better relations – at least open dialog with those hostile to us – are necessary, but at a minimum, we have to start looking at local options available to us here in the United States. The focus on supply must carry a parallel and perhaps greater effort on demand (and legalization issues).

I’m Peter Dekom, and I approve this message.