THE FECKLESS DRUG WAR SERVES DEATH, NOT VICTORY

U.S. policy encourages the militarization of life in countries that have
had more than their share of military rule

Except at the height of the dry season when overland travel is possible, I
can only reach my ranch in tropical Bolivia by avioneta, the single-piston
engine light aircraft that are the only practical form of transport in much
of the Amazon basin.

Forced landings with or without injuries are not that infrequent because of
old aircraft, sketchy maintenance, poor navigation aids and the lack of
timely weather warnings. But since 1995 a new and more lethal danger has
emerged: Aerial intercepts by local air forces, such as the one that just
killed an American missionary and her infant daughter in Peru.

No aircraft in which I flew was ever shot at, but in one case I did
experience the next worst thing: A drug enforcement helicopter came so
close to look us over that the thrust of our 140-horsepower engine was
overwhelmed by the downdraft of rotor blades. It was by pure luck that we
did not crash.

The so-called "war on drugs" is mostly metaphorical combat, but not in the
Andean countries of Latin America. As in wartime air defense, U.S. airborne
radars and U.S.-funded ground radars monitor avioneta flights, with U.S.
airborne controllers ready to direct combat aircraft to intercept them for
visual identification, followed by shooting if it comes to that.

The death of two Americans and the crippling of a third has finally drawn
attention to this deadly practice started by the Clinton administration in
a feckless attempt to show how aggressive it was in fighting the drug
trade. At least 30 aircraft have been shot down so far with all aboard
killed in most cases, and many more aircraft have been compelled to land in
emergency conditions, causing further deaths and injuries. Given that
low-bidding CIA contractors do the air traffic controlling (their skills do
not extend to such heights of accomplishment as a knowledge of Spanish)
while local pilots of varying standards bravely perform the interceptions
of these unarmed light aircraft, it is extremely unlikely that 100 percent
of the aircraft destroyed or forced down had something to do with the drug
trade. For one thing, in the Amazon, flight plans are usually "filed" over
the radio to "control towers" that are often shacks with a single operator
who may not be attentive.

The U.S. officials who have been claiming that the Peru shoot-down was an
isolated mistake in a flawless program should explain why is it that drugs
are hardly ever found in forced-down and shot-down aircraft. One possible
explanation that may have eluded our decision-makers is that the drug trade
has been aware of the publicly announced U.S. intercept program ever since
it started in 1995, and while the average avioneta owner cannot afford
night-flying instruments, the drug fliers certainly can -- virtually
ensuring a safe journey because local air forces do not have
night/all-weather fighters.

On the ground too, the United States sponsors, funds and indeed demands
warlike procedures, carried out by local drug police in combat uniforms,
sometimes under the direct supervision of Drug Enforcement Administration
agents. Innocent civilians are routinely confronted by guns at checkpoints,
and forced to interrupt their journeys for roadside searches and
interrogations.

Thus the funds of U.S. taxpayers and the efforts of U.S. policy officials
from the president down are encouraging the militarization of life in
countries that have had more than their share of military rule. They also
are legitimizing high-handed police behavior in countries where the police
need taming not instigation, and are adding deadly danger to innocent
flying that is already perilous enough.

Every war inflicts its casualties as well as massive doses of
inconvenience, but wars are fought in the hope of victory. Not so the
Andean war on drugs, which has now gone on longer than the two world wars
combined and which at best displaces the trade from one country to another
and back again.

It is no surprise that the DEA obdurately pursues its bureaucratic aims,
seeking more money for more programs while utterly indifferent to the lack
of useful results. But one wonders why the U.S. Congress continues to fund
the futility of it all, year after year, without serious question. The
deaths of an altruistic American woman and a baby should in all decency
evoke an honest reappraisal of the practices that killed them.