RETHINKING DRUG CONTROL

LAST SATURDAY, Bolivian President Evo Morales gave Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice a guitar decorated with leaves from the coca plant.
This gift, at a time when the United States is considering restoring
military aid to the country, is a not-so-subtle message that Bolivia
will continue to produce and export coca products regardless of U.S.
efforts to prevent it. Messages such as this can only be taken one
way, and require that the United States shift its focus in the fight
against illegal narcotics and take a hard line against uncooperative "allies."

Bolivia's actions are setting a confusing double-standard -- and for
good reason from their perspective. On one hand, Morales has agreed
to let U.S. anti-drug personnel stay in Bolivia. On the other hand,
according to The New York Times, Morales' actions "Show how growing
the plant that is made into cocaine is a part of his nation's
culture." Morales has made it clear that although his government will
oppose the manufacture of cocaine, at the same time he will not take
action to curb the production of coca, the plant used to make cocaine.

This is a smart move by the Bolivian president, because tacit
agreement to fight drugs might ensure the continued flow of American
dollars into his country.

From a U.S. perspective, however, such a position is disastrous as
American officials may remain in Bolivia and in other Latin American
countries, but they will be able to do very little to combat the
manufacture and flow of drugs to the U.S. without the cooperation of
local governments. As importantly, the continued flow of U.S. money
and manpower to the region will be wasted fighting a losing battle if
the sources of cocaine and other drugs are not destroyed.

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, in 2004 the
United States. spent approximately $1.08 billion combating drugs
internationally -- about 9.2 percent of the total drug abuse control
budget. Critics of the war on drugs point to the large amount of
money being spent and argue that it should be reallocated elsewhere.

For once these critics are right, though not at all in the way they meant it.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy lists three priorities in
stopping the use of illegal drugs: First, stopping drug use before it
starts; second, healing America's drug users; and third,disrupting
the market. What needs to be addressed is not taking funds from the
program, but instead rethinking how those funds are used within those
priorities. Destroying the source of illegal drugs is part of the
"disrupting the market" section, and although that section receives
the most funding it primarily involves disrupting the internal U.S.
market. An important parallel is that this increases U.S. border
security overall, but nonetheless it fails to address the heart of the problem.

Fighting drugs cannot begin in the United States, because the chain
of drug shipments and manufacture does not begin here. Taking
stringent measures to ensure border security is of the utmost
importance, but with a border nearly 7,500 miles long -- not to
mention over 12,400 miles of coastline and hundreds of ports and
airports -- such prevention measures are doomed to failure.

Instead, the United States must focus the fight against illegal drugs
outside its borders.

Though direct military or other action is not really feasible, there
are nonetheless many other avenues open to us. Congress in fact took
the first step by cutting off aid to countries that refuse to prevent
American citizens from being extradited to the International Criminal
Court. This in fact was at the core of Secretary of State Rice's
visit to Bolivia, because the U.S. is considering renewing aid
despite Bolivia's refusal to play ball about the international court.

What we must look at, however, is how this aid will be used. Morales
has made it very clear that he will not try to stop the production of
coca, thus ultimately his promise to combat the production and sale
of cocaine is an empty one and our efforts and money will be wasted.
American aid can and should be used to prevent the growth of the coca
plant, and to help Bolivian farmers find a new crop, but it can only
be effective if local governments are also committed to the change.
Cutting off wasted efforts is only the first step if we truly want to
stop the production of illegal drugs.

Further sanctions or the loss of trade benefits would quickly make
Bolivia and other drug-producing countries open to more effective reforms.

Stopping the flow of illegal drugs into the United States ultimately
requires that we look beyond our own borders and stop drugs at their
source. To do this, the United States must make it very clear to our
erstwhile allies that they must either join us in combating drugs or
face the loss of U.S. dollars and political good will.