Pubdate: Mon, 15 May 2000 Source: Duluth News-Tribune (MN) Copyright: 2000 Duluth News-Tribune Contact: 424 W. First St., Duluth, MN 55802 Website: http://www.duluthnews.com/ Forum: http://krwebx.infi.net/webxmulti/cgi-bin/WebX?duluth Authors: PRO - Barry McCaffrey is the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Thomas Pickering is undersecretary of state for political affairs. CON - Morgan Reynolds is the director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis and a professor of economics at Texas A&M University. Note: This was posted as one page. One OPED following another, pro & con. SHOULD CONGRESS OK $1.6 BILLION TO AID COLOMBIAN DRUG WAR? YES: This Is A Strategic Opportunity Barry McCaffrey and Thomas R. Pickering The House recently passed an emergency supplemental appropriations request that included funding to support the administration's Colombia initiative. The 263-146 vote March 30 was a welcome endorsement of a policy designed to get illegal drugs off America's streets and to strengthen democracy and human rights in Colombia. As the Senate considers the proposal, we want to point out why this package is critical. There is a drug emergency going on in Colombia that has serious implications for the safety and well-being of our communities. Ninety percent of the cocaine on our streets and two-thirds of the heroin seized in the United States either originates in, or transits, Colombia. Each year, drugs kill 52,000 Americans, almost as many as died in Vietnam or in Korea, and costs more than $100 billion in accidents, lost productivity and property damage. Democracy in Latin America needs to be strengthened, not undermined, even as we protect our own citizens from drugs. Prompt action is imperative. Peru and Bolivia have achieved dramatic reductions of 66 percent and 55 percent respectively or more in their coca cultivation in the past five years, and overall cocaine production in the region has fallen 18 percent. But this progress is threatened because cocaine production in Colombia has risen 126 percent. We have a strategic opportunity to change that. Leaders in all three countries are strongly committed to attacking the drug trade on all fronts. Offering our help now could lead to lasting progress against the supply of drugs. This plan is not "another Vietnam" as some critics allege. Vietnam was a full-blown civil war. In Colombia, public support for the guerrillas and the paramilitary forces is running at about 5 percent for each. The fighting drags on despite pubic opposition because the drug trade is fueling these illegal armed groups. Nor is this just a military program. Indeed, the Colombian government's plan addresses the full range of challenges facing that country, including the peace process, the drug trade, democracy and human rights, the judiciary, and the economy. Colombia's plan also draws on the contributions, advice and experiences of many other countries. Most of the plan's $7.5 billion outlay will be for non-military programs. Colombia will supply $4 billion, International Financial Institutions already have provided more than $1 billion, the U.S. is proposing $1.6 billion, and Colombia is approaching Europeans and others for further help. We are at a rare moment. Although problems in Colombia have escalated, a government is in office that has a comprehensive plan to address the situation in a process that enjoys serious support from its citizens. This is the best chance we have had to inflict major damage on the drug supply flowing to our shores. It is also our best chance to help Colombia strengthen its democracy, find peace, and repair its economy. Our proposed package will be an important complement to the $6 billion the U.S. government will spend on demand reduction in the United States and the $1.9 billion we spend on interdicting drugs. As longstanding friends and neighbors of a democratic Colombia, we owe it to our children and theirs to invest in Colombia's future. It's an investment in our own. McCaffrey is the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Pickering is undersecretary of state for political affairs. NO: The Money Would Be Wasted Morgan Reynolds Government can fix the drug problem. Do you believe that? Probably not. Polls show four out of five Americans consider our current drug policy a failure. OK, how about this proposition? The government can fix the drug problem down in South America. Now there's a real stretch. The job has been badly botched so far. The more the U.S. government "invests" in Colombia, the worse it gets. Colombia is already the third largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, after Israel and Egypt. Colombia has the highest rate of violence in the world, and assassinations are commonplace. Corruption is out of control. It's a mess. Now Congress and the drug bureaucracy want to pour another $1.6 billion down Colombia's military throat, a rich $10,000 per soldier annually. Suppose Gen. Barry McCaffrey got his dream result: 100 percent success in eradicating coca and opium poppy production down in Colombia next year. Wouldn't that end the drug problem as we know it? Nope. Coca and opium poppy are cultivated worldwide, and production would be easily shifted elsewhere. Gen. McCaffrey admits that coca production has tripled over the past few years in Peru. Domestic production of methamphetamine, a central nervous stimulant similar to cocaine, can be quickly expanded too. Lots of "meth" can be cooked up in a motel room. The entrepreneurs of the drug trade usually keep a few steps ahead of the gumshoes. Traffickers have it pretty easy. The United States has a shoreline of nearly 90,000 miles, 7,500 miles of border with Mexico and Canada and 300 ports of entry. A mere 13 truckloads of cocaine can meet today's demand at current prices. Law enforcement admits that if it could intercept 5 percent of supply, it would be phenomenal. A 1997 study by the General Accounting Office concluded that the governmental efforts both here and abroad "have not materially reduced the availability of drugs in the United States." The report should have added, "nor can they." So much for the logic of interdiction. Meanwhile, the federal government spends two-thirds of its annual $18 billion anti-drug budget on interdiction and one-third on treatment. Drug prices keep falling and quality keeps rising. But results don't matter much in drug politics. Like most government programs, it's all about "doing something" and feeling good. The fundamental truth is that government has lost its drug war. Time and again drug crusaders urge drastic measures to change a "no-win" policy. We must redouble our efforts, they say -- translation: the problem is complex, give us more funding and authority. The $1.6 billion in new money taken from taxpayers to waste on Colombia fits the pattern. It doesn't matter that the military down there has been condemned repeatedly for human rights abuses and uses anti-drug funding to fight guerillas in a civil war that has cost an estimated 35,000 lives. The military always wants resource "dominance" to defeat an enemy with minimal or no casualties. But the war on drugs cannot be won like a conventional war. If McCaffrey can repeal the laws of supply and demand, maybe he'll have a fighting chance. Until then, he might work on a simpler problem, say, repealing the law of gravity. Reynolds is the director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis and a professor of economics at Texas A&M University. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek Rea