Pubdate: Fri, 06 Oct 2006
Source: Extra! The Magazine of FAIR (US)
Copyright: 2006 Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Contact:  http://www.fair.org/extra/index.html
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/146
Author: Tiffany Isaacs
Note: This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate

COHA OPINION: DRUG WARS: BUSH LAUNCHES ATTACK ON VENEZUELAN ANTI-DRUG EFFORTS

Scandalous Absence Of Any Evidence Justifying U.S.Charge

While many in Washington were still choking on the sulfurous fog 
seeping down from New York, the White House's extraordinarily 
inappropriate report condemning Venezuela for failing "demonstrably" 
to meet international counter-narcotics agreements quietly slipped 
past the attention of the media, as well as the general public.The 
drug report, an alarmingly tendentious document relying on misleading 
evidence and innuendo, is little more than a deeply politicized 
anti-Hugo Chavez treatise than a professional inventory of Venezuelan 
drug policy.In other words, it is little better than a bogus 
indictment of a country where anti-drug performance falls well within 
the middle range of Latin American nations.

The Presidential Determination on Major Drug Transit or Major Illicit 
Drug Producing Countries, released September 15, purports to show 
that Venezuela and Burma stand out amongst the 23 nations identified 
as problem countries, and merit their own unique category of being 
"demonstrated" failures.Venezuela, in particular, has displayed a 
"continued lack of action against drug trafficking within and through 
its borders," according to the presidential statement.The question 
that this report poses is whether a compelling case that reflects the 
integrity of the anti-drug process in fact exists, or whether the 
White House issuance is nothing more than a manufactured rant meant 
to defend a previously decided thesis with spurious data.

When asked to provide evidence for their charges, the State 
Department's Office of the Americas Program, Bureau of International 
Narcotics & Law Enforcement Affairs sent a newspaper article which 
cites a handful of corrupt Venezuelan officials who have helped 
rather than hindered drug flow from the South. The report 
irresponsibly points to an example taken from the right-wing and 
virulently anti-Chavez daily /2001/, a Caracas newspaper noted for 
its highly controversial inside /reportage /on the 2002 coup. The 
July /2001 /article notes that several policemen in Guacara, 
Carabobo, seized and re-sold nearly 8,000 kilograms of cocaine. The 
Bush document also fails to note that 1,500 kilos of the seizure were 
incinerated.

TEXAS: THE DRUG CAPITOL OF NORTH AMERICA?

The Bush administration's drug researchers found in their scarcely 
more than one page of analysis - in a truly /dicto secundum quid ad 
dictum simpliciter fashion/ - that this one specific example can be 
extrapolated to establish a general rule of corruption throughout the 
Venezuelan anti-drug enforcement network Had the Bush researchers 
applied such bizarre reasoning to a strikingly similar case here in 
the U.S., they would have been surprised to find that the president's 
own home state too "fails demonstrably" in international 
counter-narcotics efforts. On September 21, a former police officer 
also facing drug charges managed to escape from the East Hidalgo 
Detention Center in La Villa, Texas. But of course no one would 
seriously suggest that this single corrupt man, and perhaps a few bad 
seeds in the facility who may have conspired with him, could possibly 
reflect the status of the prevailing drug policy for the entire 
nation. And neither does the Guacara scandal, nor any other of the 
highly exiguous evidence cited here, justify condemnation of the 
Venezuelan government.

FACT CHECK: CORRUPT OFFICIALS ALREADY CAUGHT

Setting aside the fact that this form of reasoning is an absurd 
fallacy of converse accident, White House researchers failed to 
follow up with what actually happened in their Carabobo example, 
which was apparently the major piece of evidence used in the case 
against Venezuela. A quick fact check would have proved that 
Venezuelan officials have in fact followed up on this case. Since 
July, two police officers have been detained for their alleged 
involvement. The Attorney General of the State of Carabobo, Delia 
Pacheco, is actively leading an investigation into whether anyone 
else is implicated in the crime. For a nation supposedly "enabling 
and exploiting" drug traffic, this highly publicized crackdown by 
Venezuelan authorities seems an odd choice.

POLITICAL SMOKESCREEN

Rather than offer additional statistics to bolster this thin gruel of 
condemnation, the Bush report then changes topic, with the 
administration's drug researchers attempting to support their claim 
by raising questions of the state of Venezuelan democracy.

The Bush researchers now move on to ideological grandstanding. They 
write: "The United States is very concerned about the continued 
deterioration of democratic institutions in Venezuela as reflected in 
the increased executive control over the other branches of 
government, threats to judicial independence and human rights, and 
attacks on press freedoms and freedoms of expression."

There are many responses to such a statement. One could argue from a 
factual standpoint that the situation in Venezuela is far better than 
the White House's bleak assessment. Chavez was, in fact, elected 
democratically and is, by a massive margin, quite likely to be 
reelected in December. The Venezuelan media, which chronically 
complains of a lack of freedom in the country are largely run by 
Chavez's political opposition, and the mere fact that they can 
grumble loudly says something of their freedom. While executive 
control has indeed increased over the Venezuelan courts - although no 
more so than in Washington-allied Colombia - few can point to 
concrete evidence of any presidential wrong-doing.

IRRELEVANT POLITICAL TACTIC

A discussion of democracy in a report supposedly proving that 
Chavez's government has "failed" in the war on drugs is an utterly 
irrelevant political tactic focused more on fabricating a case 
against the Venezuelan president than generating authentic proof that 
Caracas sanctions narcotics trafficking. And in fact, that is what 
this document essentially does. It was released at the zenith of 
Caracas-Washington tensions over the upcoming UN General Assembly 
vote on the non-permanent Latin American seat on the Security 
Council. In its own way, the Bush report seeks retribution for 
Chavez's over-the-top, "Mr. Danger," sulfurous fumes, "ruler of the 
world" rhetoric that has long characterized the Manichaean 
relationship between the two leaders.

BEHIND THE HYPE

Behind the name-calling and the apocryphal report lurks a strained 
relationship between Washington and Caracas. Cooperation between the 
U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and its Venezuelan counterpart has 
dramatically deteriorated over the past two years, due less to acts 
of violation by the DEA than to the White House's determination to 
defame Chavez's rule in Venezuela. Starting back in 2005, Chavez 
began to oust DEA inspectors from his country, accusing them of using 
their privileged position to spy on his government. Bush responded by 
labeling Venezuela as "failing demonstrably" in its anti-drug war in 
the 2006 fiscal year report. The Venezuelan Embassy in Washington has 
released a statement that its government was willing to renegotiate 
an agreement with the DEA: that is, before the 2007 fiscal year 
report defaming Presidential Determination came out on September 15.

It is worth noting that the White House's assessment is not shared 
elsewhere in Washington. The State Department's 2006 International 
Narcotics Control Strategy Report, released in March, suggests that 
Venezuela's drug seizures have improved since 2004. The same agency 
also released a favorable report in 2005, which stated that between 
1998 and 2004 - the period in which, coincidentally, Chavez was in 
office - Venezuelan drug seizures actually rose from 8.6 tons to 
19.07 tons. This year alone, Venezuela has confiscated 35.6 tons of 
illicit drugs. Based on numbers rather than Bush administration hype, 
Venezuela is quite clearly doing better than Bush's political report suggests.

WHAT ABOUT MEXICO AND COLOMBIA?

In the contest for the worst drug trafficking country in the South, 
two top contenders were conveniently left out of the Bush 
administration's report. Neither Mexico nor Colombia even came close 
to being rewarded with the apogee of condemnation that was poured on 
Venezuela. Considering the standards applied to Venezuela, Mexico 
should receive the most damning indictment. Over the years, Mexico's 
lame anti-drug war has repeatedly provided fertile grounds for 
criticism -- the head of their DEA equivalent was arrested for drug 
trafficking and, in one infamous incident, the Mexican police fought 
a pitched battle against the military over the possession of drugs. 
Under the pressure of serving as a logical layover between Colombia, 
the world's largest cocaine producer, and the U.S., the world's 
largest drug consumer, Venezuela is playing a relatively praiseworthy 
role in its counter-narcotics efforts.

The Bush administration would be factually more accurate in 
condemning Colombia and Mexico in not doing their part in fully 
cooperating in the war against drugs. But a largely baseless report 
stemming from scandalously scant evidence and driven more by ideology 
than fact, would have been better left unwritten.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Elaine