Terrorism and drug trafficking

Bangladesh's geographic location puts it in the midst of major drug producing and exporting countries, making the country a transit point for trafficking organisations. The U.S. State Department in its 2002 assessment of global drug trafficking concluded that "while unconfirmed reports of opium cultivation along the border with Burma exist, no evidence exists that the Bangladesh is a significant producer or exporter of narcotics."

Globally, drug trafficking's toll on society has been enormous. Each year, thousands of unfortunate people of all races, colours, ages and classes die or have their lives wrecked or derailed because of internal drug trafficking. The United Nations Drug Control Programme estimates that the U.S. population of more than 260 million consumes about 45 percent of the total amount of illicit drugs trafficked. Illicit drugs, moreover, claim an estimated 40,000 lives in the United States and the country's public health system spends $75 billion annually in dealing with drug-related health problems.

Government and media reports in Bangladesh indicate that the country has a growing drug problem. Facts and figures are hard to find, but according to the U.S. State Department's assessment, Bangladesh experienced a quadrupling of the number of addicts in the past few years. Bangladesh may be a transit point for the movement of illegal drugs, but the traffickers still like to dump some of their product on the local market. The fact that the heroin being consumed n Bangladesh is of low quality has helped keep the price low, which means more people in the poor country can be potential consumers. The U.S. State Department noted that the "Bangladesh authorities lack training, equipment and other resources to detect and interdict the flow of drugs in and through the country."

The power and wealth of drug traffickers pose a threat to the stability and social fabric of Bangladesh and other countries all over the world, but it has only been with the end of the Cold War that international drug trafficking has become a national security concern. The Soviet Union's threat to the West ended, so today there is considerably less concern about and focus on such issues as nuclear deterrence, strategic arms control, European security and the importance of NATO and super power competition in the Third World.

International drug trafficking was one of the national security issues that existed for years, but it was relegated to second tier status in light of the balance of power concerns relating to the Cold War. In those days, the world was bi-polar: democracy and capitalism versus communism and state control of the economy, and issues like internal drug trafficking were multi polar, transnational and complex in nature. So at the time, governments concluded that it was a practical impossibility of dealing with them on global scale.

With the Cold War's end, however, the U.S. and other industrialised countries has broadened the definition of national security from the narrow military-strategic focused realm to encompass the protection of vital economic and political interests that affect the fundamental state values and are vital to its well being. This change has been in tune with the relentless advance of the most dynamic trend of the 21st century -- globalisation, a trend that has become increasingly evident in travel, economics, communications and the mass media. In today's free trade world where the borders are porous and the volume of goods moved so great, it has been difficult to stem the flow of illegal products such as illegal drugs. Reports in U.S. and Europe of huge drug busts are regular features on the TV news programs, but the authorities concede that only 10 to 15 percent of illegal drugs are ever confiscated.

International drug trafficking has been a topic of diplomacy and international law at least since the Opium Wars between China and Great Britain in 1839 and 1858. Historically, drug trafficking has been a controversial issue because governments of certain countries have used drug trafficking to further their foreign policy and national security agendas.

For instance, the colonial government of India under Great Britain in the 19th century, the French government in Indo China during the same period and the Japanese in Manchuria in the 1930s all supported the drug trade.

The CIA has been linked to drug trafficking in Vietnam in the 1950s and 1960s, Afghanistan in the late 1970s and Nicaragua in the 1980s.

I believe the link connection between drug trafficking and national security will continue to be controversial, as the U.S. and its allies wage war on international terrorism. But if national security is defined as not only encompassing the matter of dealing with external threats to the state but also with threats to the basic functioning and health of the state, then international drug trafficking is an important national security issue. It poses a threat not only to individual states, but also to the

international network of states because of its transnational character.

Today, international drug trafficking can no doubt threaten the military strength of the state. That's why some countries-- Colombia, Mexico, Malaysia and those in the West Indies, for example--have responded to the national security implications of the international drug trade by incorporating the issue into their national security doctrines. Meanwhile, some groups in the U.S. are now trying to broaden the U.S's War on Terrorism to include the War on Drugs.

So how does international drug trafficking threaten national security? Plenty of examples can be given to show that the threat is political, economic and social in nature. Indeed, drug traffickers in some countries have become so powerful that they have been able to take over democratically elected governments. The term used to describe this development is known as "narco democracy."

History has plenty of examples, but let me cite two. In 1980, Bolivia's drug traffickers were so concerned by the impending election of a candidate who threatened to get tough on drug trafficking that they paid a general to stage a coup, which fortunately, lasted only until 1981.

In 1995 the Cali Cartel gave $ 6.2 million to Ernesto Samper's financially-strapped presidential campaign. Samper did become president, but the payment was exposed and he was forced to get tough on the Cali Cartel.

Some drug source counties may not have become narco democracies, but drug money and the traffickers' powerful influence has helped to damage their political institutions, which in turn has threatened their stability.

For instance, drug traffickers are believed to hold office in Uzbekistan, while alleged drug traffickers have sat in Pakistan's cabinet and National Assembly. In 1985 top Pakistani officials had to resign because of drug corruption charges. In the late 1990s in Lebanon, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt charged that three-fourths of the Lebanese cabinet were involved in drug trafficking.

Many examples from Haiti, Mexico, Nigeria, Nepal, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago and other countries illustrate how international drug trafficking can corrupt military and security forces. It can be tough for military and law enforcement personnel to avoid being seduced by drug money. In researching The Bullet or the Bribe, Takiing Down Colombia's Cali Drug Cartel, I uncovered one DEA intelligence report that indicated a Colombian captain and a general on the Cali Cartel payroll were earning as much as $5,000 and $15,000 a month respectively.

Colombia is the known example of a state being established within a state but an example closer to home are the remote border regiona of Southeast Asia's Golden Triangle (Myanmar, Thailand and China) and Southeast Asia's Golden Crescent (Iran, Pakistan and Iraq). Drug traffickers operate in the remote mountain regions of Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province, where the Pakistani government has been fearful of challenging the local leaders who work with drug traffickers for fear of pushing them into open rebellion.

Today, the warlords of Afghanistan are still relying on the money that heroin brings to strengthen their power bases, making the central government powerless to regain control over large parts of the country.

In addition to its political effects, international drug trafficking can also profoundly impact on a country's economic system. Indeed, source countries can get addicted to drug money because the export earnings and foreign currency it generates is often in excess of what can be obtained from legitimate sources. That's why we still have countries that don't have laws against money laundering. No profit in killing the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

In addition, to the economic and political threats that drug trafficking poses to national security, there can also be consequences for the country's social fabric and security. For instance transit countries can suffer an increase in drug addiction, as has been the case in Bangladesh.

When Belize became a major cocaine trans shipment point in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it experienced a boom in crack houses. African transit countries, such as Ghana, Niger and Malaysia have experienced an increase in addiction. With addiction, moreover, comes a host of social problems, such as crime, violence, family dysfunction and diseases such as AIDS.

The effort to combat drug trafficking, moreover, can lead to a regional security problem. For instance, there is concern that the pressure put on the Colombian guerrillas is having a spill over effect on neighboring countries. Colombian guerrillas are known to come to Panama for rest and recreation. Venezuela border guards have clashed with both Colombian guerrillas and paramilitaries. Brazil and Ecuador have called up troops to their common border with Colombia for fear of guerrilla intrusion.

Lastly, participation in the drug trade can become an integral part of the strategy of insurgent groups, particularly those in source countries. The war between drug traffickers and the state in Colombia coined new term in the political lexicon: "narco terrorism", that is terrorism designed to instill fear and committed to furthering the aims of drug traffickers. It can include assassination, extortion, high jacking, kidnapping directed against judges, prosecutors, elected officials, even heads of state, and military and law enforcement officers in an attempt to destabilise the state and divert attention from the illegal activities of drug traffickers..

After the mega events of September 11, 2001, 9-11, the definition of "narco terrorist" has been broadened to include not only drug traffickers, but also insurgents, guerrillas and terrorists who are believed involved in the drug trade. The Federal Court of Canada has even ruled that "narco terrorism" is a crime against humanity and those who engage in it can be deported to their homelands.

The ruling involved the case of a Sri Lankan drug dealer named Veluppilai Pushpanathan who was convinced of selling heroin in Toronto, ostensibly to raise money for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam organisation ( the so-called LTTE). The dealer was actually arrested in 1987, convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison. Then upon his release in 1991, Pushpanathan applied for refugee status in a bid to block his extradition to Sri Lanka. Federal immigration authorities built an unprecedented narco terrorism case against him, and in October 2002, the Federal Court agreed, ruling that Pushpanathan could be deported.

In the U.S., authorities have been quick to seize on drug busts that have connections to groups labeled as "terrorist" In January 2002, for instance, several men of Middle East descent were arrested and indicted on drug trafficking charges. Officials said the men were smuggling large quantities of the chemical pseudoephedrine, which is used in making the illegal drug methamphetamine, from Canada into the Midwest U.S.

"There is increasing intelligence information from the investigation that for the first time alleged drug sales in the United States are going in part to support terrorist organisations in the Middle East,' DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson told the press.

As the War on Terrorism continues, the Bush administration has made a concerted effort to establish a strong link between drugs and terrorism, a move that is blurring the distinction between the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism. Beginning in December 2001, the U.S. government ran for several months a controversial campaign suggesting that if American consumers use drugs, they were supporting terrorism. " Where do terrorists get their money? One ad asked. The answer: "If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you."

Critics rightly point out that drug laws and drug interdiction have been more effective in putting the profit into the drug trade than law enforcement has been in taking it out. Drug prohibition has been the cause of, not the cure for the flourishing international drug trade. Why smuggle a legal profit to get the small profits legal sellers do when you can go into an illegal trade and traffic a product for which there is tremendous demand and garners huge profits?"

That's why, despite the U.S.'s best drug interdiction efforts, the price of illegal drugs such as cocaine and heroin has fallen, not risen, during the past few decades. The supply of illegal drugs has gone up, not down, in kind and quantity in the past few decades. So one can ask: Is the move to bolster the drug trafficking-terrorist link more to do with bolstering an unpopular war and the huge drug fighting bureaucracy that it does with the War on Terrorism?

Still the momentum to cement the link continues in the U.S. In May 2002 the National Federation of Women Legislators kicked off a national campaign to expand the War on Terrorism to include the illegal drug trade. The Federation said doing so is vital to protect homeland security. Alvaro Uribe, Colombia's president, has said that narco terrorism in his country posed a bigger threat than that of Iraq and suggested a response similar to what the U.S. and its allies was making against Saddam should be made in his country. Uribe was echoing what the U.S. had been saying and thinking. One month after 9-11, Francis Taylor, the State Department anti-terrorism coordinator, said that "the U.S. would fight Colombian terrorism with the all the resources in our power, (including) where appropriate, as we had in Afghanistan, the use of military force."

The big question, of course, is whether making the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs one big battle can be effective in curbing drug trafficking on one hand and deterring the reach and bad intentions of terrorists on the other.

I say, no, because all that linking the War on Drugs and War on Terrorism will do is to repeat the failures of the past, put money down the drain and in the pockets of drug traffickers, bloat government bureaucracies, curtail more civil liberties and deflect our attention from the real war against terrorism.

Yes, international drug trafficking poses a threat to national and international security, but let's work to take the profit out of the drug trade and out of the pockets of terrorists by de-emphasising our prohibition approach to illegal drugs. That's the best way to ensure state security. We can't afford to have our anti-terrorist efforts fail as they have in the War on Drugs.

Ron Chepesiuk, a Rock Hill, South Carolina based journalist, is a Visiting Professor of Journalism at Chittagong University, a former Fulbright Scholar to Bangladesh and a Research Associate with the National Defence College.