Role of Insurgent Groups and Guerrilla Organizations in the World Drug Trade - Essay Example

? Guerrilla Organization, Military and Drugs Teacher               Guerrilla Organization, Military and Drugs The Role of InsurgentGroups and Guerrilla Organizations in the World Drug Trade In Colombia, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, is the country’s “most powerful present-day guerilla group” and is the one responsible for helping to control many drug operations in the country. According to former FARC commander Simon Trinidad, the FARC are not narcotraffickers, which means that they are not involved in trafficking drugs although the United States government suspects them to be so. According to Trinidad, the ones who are guilty of selling and trafficking drugs are the rich businessmen, the bankers, the foreign companies who make the drugs, and the government and the police who overlook things. However, since the poor campesinos, who the FARC is protecting, are the ones planting marijuana and coca leaves, then it is true that the FARC is “the state’s enemy” as Trinidad said. Nevertheless, the guerrillas are actually not the “narcoguerrillas” as they are believed to be. They do not control nor desire the production of drugs in Colombia but only carry out the gramaje, a coca-based tax, as a way of tolerating coca production for this is the only way that the FARC’s peasant supporters can make money (Molano, 2000). The situation is actually slightly different in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces use the opium trade in the country as a “lucrative source of revenue” probably to finance their terrorist activities (Carpenter, 2004). In fact, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency of Afghanistan, the Taliban derives $40 million a year in estimated revenue from drugs. However, the eradication of the problem is difficult not only because of the armed protection of the insurgent groups that perpetuate the drug business but because of the 264,000 impoverished families in Afghanistan who are involved in the growing of opium poppies as their only source of income (Carpenter, 2004). In Bolivia and other South American countries, certain criminal groups become “low level operators, couriers, and intermediaries” in heroin and other drug rings (Marcy, 2010). Moreover, in Peru, Chile and Bolivia, insurgent groups and criminal groups were mainly drug smugglers (Gootenberg, 2008). Other guerrilla groups like the Contras would rather play it safe by conniving with strong governments like those of the United States in order o further their evil ends. The Contras had secret dealings with the United States through the CIA in order to sell their drugs. They capitalized on the need of the United States to prevent the Soviet Union to dominate Central America (The Reagan Administration’s War on Drugs, ????). Cuban Mafia exiles in the United States, on the other hand, helped to find a way for drugs from Cuba to enter the country through secret ports. This eventually led to the cultural revival of the cocaine culture in the United States in the 1920s. Popular white rock singers as well as older people consumed the drugs and adopted the new drug culture (Gootenberg, 2008). The rest of the guerrilla groups were probably mostly supported by their own national governments or by some corrupt high officials. The blame is not only on the irresponsibility of some government officials, but also to compromises and to laxity in laws. The Role of the Military in the War on Drugs The military should be used to fight the war on drugs. This is based on the positive results of military war on drugs based on recent history. Firstly, military operations against drug dealers have been successful in Mexico. The “growing national security role” that the Mexican armed forces play definitely involves the eradication of drug trafficking (Camp, ????). In fact, even as early as the 1930s, then Mexican President Lazaro Cardenas ordered the destruction of marijuana and poppy crops by the army. There were also many other successful anti-narcotic military operations in Mexico like the Plan Condor in 1977, thus in 1985 twenty percent of the Mexican army was actively engaged in anti-drug missions. Moreover, the major strategy is an aggressive one and involves deployment of a large number of troops in an area where the problem is considered “most intense” especially in rural areas as well as in major metropolitan centers (Camp, ????). The mission was to capture cartel leaders including their lieutenants. There was also the involvement and cooperation of civilian agencies of the government. Moreover, there was also intensive collaboration with the United States government, particularly due to the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in providing training and extensive intelligence courses to selected leaders of Mexican armed forces. Additionally, funding and weapon supplies from the United States were also provided, as well as deployment of troops, as approved by the Mexican citizens. In fact, the success of the military in carrying out its anti-narcotic operations has become the reason for the general support and respect that the Mexican people have for their country’s armed forces. Although the role of the Mexican military in the war on drugs in their country has been criticized by several Human Rights groups, several military operations have been successful not only due to efficient operations and intensive training but also because of general public support and trust (Camp, ????). Moreover, although “the State Department saw the military’s increasing abuse of human rights as a ‘critical problem,’” it is believed that this is totally a separate issue from the successful performance of the military troops against the real drug lords (Marcy, 2010). In the United States, during the Reagan administration, through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the same strategy was imposed with overall positive results. Despite the question on whether the military operations violated the Weinberger Doctrine or not, the operations went on and it did so successfully. This is because Congress itself was pressing the President on using the military to enforce anti-narcotic measures in Latin American countries. There were then successful operations in countries like Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua. The ultimate purpose was therefore the prevention of the drugs from gaining entry into the United States (Using the Military to Fight the War on Drugs, ????). Moreover, despite claims that the Reagan Administration and its military strategies were futile as cocaine even became cheaper after that, the popularity and availability of cocaine may have been a separate issue and may have been independent of the operations. The Reagan Administration also successfully arrested 452,000 African Americans suspected of involvement with drugs, which is double the number of arrest a decade before (The Reagan Administration’s War on Drugs, ????). Such arrests somehow indicate a more comprehensive and more intensive crackdown of the government on drug dealers. Although the Bush Administration maximized financial expenditure when it came to military operations, the Clinton Administration tried to cut down expenses yet still tried supporting the Plan Colombia against the FARC guerrillas, thus proving to the world that drug businesses can be efficiently stopped through military force (Using the Military to Fight the War on Drugs, ????). The Nixon and Reagan Administrations on Drugs The Nixon Administration was rather dualistic in its efforts at eradicating drugs in the society. On one hand, it made efforts to counter drug production. This was done through the establishment of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse in 1970, and both the Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, or ODALE, and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, or BNDD the following year. There was also an enforced collaboration between federal and local governments on the war against drugs not only in the country but also outside the United States (The Nixon Administration, ????). Nevertheless, the efforts of Nixon against drug trafficking in the United States and its neighboring countries were somehow different in Southeast Asia, where the Nixon Administration tolerated the sale of drugs in countries that opposed Communism, thus indirectly leading to the sale and purchase of heroin by Vietnam War soldiers (The Nixon Administration, ????). The Nixon Administration’s drug policy also seemed like a failure in some ways. Between 1970 and 1975, despite the institution of the aforementioned drug agencies in the United States, the number of first-time users of cocaine in the United States soared from 301,000 to 652,000, mostly because of the illegal production and entry of drugs from South American countries (Marcy, 2010). Nevertheless, this may only have been due to the fact that the anti-drug government agencies instituted by Nixon were only still in their teething years. Moreover, the drug business was obviously already in operation long before Nixon became President. On the other hand, except for a few problems, the Reagan Administration carried out a rather consistent series of efforts towards the eradication of drugs. The first step that Reagan took in his drug eradication policy was the doubling of funding for drug law enforcement from $800 million to $1.9 billion. Moreover, the President himself made it clear that drug enforcement had a purpose and that purpose is “to create a drug free generation of children” (The Reagan Administration’s War on Drugs, ????). During the Reagan Administration, the number of African Americans arrested for involvement with drugs has doubled from 210,000 to 452,000. Nevertheless, there were a few problems that also challenged the Reagan Administration and somehow made its efforts seem futile. One of these was the decrease in the price of cocaine from $60,000 per kilogram in 1981 to $12,000 the following year, although this decrease could have been independent of the efforts of the Reagan Administration (The Reagan Administration’s War on Drugs, ????). Another problem that the Reagan Administration faced during its time was its involvement with the Contras, which was a right-wing guerrilla organization in Nicaragua, and which the United States provided with money and weapons in the hope of the organization opposing the Soviet Union and Marxist ideologies in Central America, especially in Nicaragua. Despite the Boland Amendment issued by the Congress against the Reagan Administration’s involvement with the Contras, the government continued financing the guerrilla group’s efforts through the CIA. The biggest problem with this was that the Contras were involved in drug production. Nevertheless, the Reagan Administration rather had no choice in doing this for this was somehow done in order to preserve the lives of the prisoners held by the Lebanese Hezbollah group (The Reagan Administration’s War on Drugs, ????). On Whether the War on Drugs was a Success or a Failure The war on drugs, anywhere else in the world, was not successful. The proof is that there are still drugs sold even until now. Perhaps, efforts of some local governments have been successful but definitely not on a grand scale. In fact, according to Gootenberg (2008), “The aim of American drug policy since 1914, which has been to cut drugs off at the source, has produced a paradox,” which means that the American drug policy was not totally successful as it produced mixed results. One of the problems of the perpetuation of the drug business in the world is the fact that the drug trade is actually “giving livelihood to some of the poorest and most marginal farmers in the world” (Gootenberg, 2008). These poor farmers may also be protected by certain guerrilla and armed groups from government troops, like the FARC of Colombia protecting the poor peasants or campesinos who plant coca leaves and marijuana, thus making it difficult for the government to stop the operations of these small-scale farmers (Molano, 2000). Another problem is the idea of compromises. The Reagan Administration is guilty of this when it established illegal ties with the drug-dealing Contras for the purpose of preventing the Soviet Union from using Central America especially Nicaragua as its stronghold, and to protect the lives of the hostages held by the Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Reagan Administration knew fully well what ties with the Contras would entail but they did not have much choice (The Reagan Administration’s War on Drugs, ????). One other problem is the failure of the government programs in terms of practical value and as shown by statistics. During the Nixon Administration, it has been found out that the number of first time cocaine users in America surged from 301,000 to 652,000 despite the institution of Nixon’s anti-drug enforcement agencies (Marcy, 2010). Nixon also tolerated drug sale and use in Southeast Asian countries, thus allowing drugs to flourish in this region of the world (The Nixon Administration, ????). Moreover, during Reagan’s administration, in a matter of a year, from 1981 to 1982, the price of cocaine even jumped up from $60,000 per kilo to $12,000 (The Reagan Administration’s War on Drugs, ????). Furthermore, the administration of George Bush used too much financial support for the military’s efforts to fight drugs but it also failed to impress the United States and the world with results (Using the Military to Fight the War on Drugs, ????). One more problem with the war on drugs is the occurrence of several guerrilla and insurgent groups who carry out their tasks with little or no effort for they are either supported or allowed by their governments to do so. Aside from the FARC and the Contras, there are Cuban exiles who can freely smuggle drugs into the United States and sell them (Gootenberg, 2008). Others would be parts of organized and strongly established terrorist groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda (Carpenter, 2004). Still, others would merely be “low-level operators” or those who operate quietly at a minor scale, and that is why they are hard to catch (Marcy, 2010). Most, however, would encourage political connivance with their countries’ own governments like the Japanese Yakuza, the Sicilian Mafia and Chinese Triads (Sullivan & Bunker, ????). lastly, others would have their own established power base aside from government and political support (Sung, 2004). References Camp, R. A. (????). Armed Forces and Drugs: Public Perceptions and Institutional Challenges. Carpenter, T. G. (2004). How the Drug War in Afghanistan Undermines America’s War on Terror. Gootenberg, P. (2008). Andean Cocaine: The Making of a Global Drug. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Marcy, W. L. (2010). The Politics of Cocaine: How U.S. Foreign Policy has Created a Thriving Drug Industry in Central and South America. Chicago, Illinois: Lawrence Hill Books. Molano, A. (2000). The Evolution of the FARC: A Guerrilla Group’s Long History. NACLA Report on the Americas, 34 (2), 23-48. Sullivan, J. P. & Bunker, R. J. (????). Drug Cartels, Street Gangs, and Warlords. Sung, H. (2004). State Failure, Economic Failure, and Predatory Organized Crime: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41 (2), 111-129. The Nixon Administration. (????). Drug Cartels and the Narcotics Threat Lecture. The Reagan Administration’s War on Drugs. (????).Drug Cartels and the Narcotics Threat Lecture. Using the Military to Fight the War on Drugs. (????). Drug Cartels and the Narcotics Threat Lecture. Read More