02 Mar The Congressionally-Mandated War on Drugs
Overshadowed by the war on terrorism, the U.S. war on illegal narcotics continues apace. This war is not just metaphorical. It involves substantial deployment of military and diplomatic assets throughout the world, as the State Department’s annual International Narcotics Control Strategy report indicates. The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into narcotics interdiction or eradication overseas. Drugs dominates the U.S. relationship with many Latin American countries.
The Foreign Assistance Act (22 U.S.C. § 2291) requires the State Department to issue a report each year designating certain countries as illicit drug producing or drug transit countries. Interestingly, the statute requires the State Department to use a treaty, the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, as a yardstick for compliance. (the report’s introduction is here ).
It looks like lots of countries are failing. The current list is comprised of: Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela.
Amusingly, the statute also requires the State Department to identify major money laundering countries. This appears to be pretty much every country in the world that has an international banking system. In a rare example of self-criticism, the State Department has cited the U.S. itself as a major money laundering country. How is it that the U.S. didn’t make the list, though, as a major drug transit country escapes me.
I am not a huge fan of the war on drugs, either at home or abroad. And I am very dubious of claims that the U.S. is “winning” this war. Interestingly, the war on drugs is largely impervious to politics. Congress has mandated, essentially, a continuing limited war on drugs and has essentially mandated that the U.S. government continue to push countries to stop the flow of illegal narcotics. This means it is likely U.S. troops will continue to wander around the world trying to burn coca leaves and opium fields for the rest of our lifetimes.
As a veteran of several Navy deployments in support of the so-called “war on drugs,” I have to disagree with Julian’s assertion that the war is not metaphorical. While it is true that there has been a reasonable commitment of military forces to the counterdrug effort, this participation is very much in a non-combat support role. The military is largely constrained to detecting and monitoring operations, not direct action. Even on the high seas, the Navy is denied any legal authority to query, stop, board, or search suspect vessels — these functions are all performed by US Coast Guard personnel embarked on naval vessels, and the ship must formally shift operational control to a Coast Guard commander and hoist a USCG ensign before anything beyond routine radio inquiries takes place. A Navy boat crew can deliver the Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET) boarding team to a suspect vessel, but does not actually go onboard. If drugs are seized or personnel arrested, LEDET personnel do the actual work and maintain custody of the evidence and any arrestees. Essentially Posse Comitatus restrictions are fully applied, even though that law applies neither to the Department of the Navy, which does a substantial… Read more »