February 28–March 7, 2002

slant

Which War?

by Martin Austermuhle

"Where do terrorists get their money?" The response: "If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you." Sponsored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), this 30-second TV spot introduced a massive advertising blitz that included three Super Bowl spots, ads in 293 newspapers and on numerous radio stations, teaching materials for middle school and high school students, and a hyped-up, hacker-proof website. Total cost: $10 million. Suddenly, the debate on the drug war has been shifted from reason and rationale to patriotic fervor, a clever way to mask the continuing failure of America’s jihad against the production, trafficking and consumption of illicit drugs.

Central to the ads is the contention that the use of drugs can be easily equated to the support of terrorism — you very well might be helping murder a judge, kidnap a prominent business person or blow up a building. Notably featured was Colombia, which, as exporter of 80 percent of the world’s cocaine, has come under the watchful eye of American policymakers. Colombia, contrary to what the ads imply, cannot be divided into the "good" camp and the "bad" camp in such an elementary fashion, for this denies the harsh realities and complexities of its political situation. The ONDCP’s website notes that the "Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) receives about $300 million from drug sales annually. The United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) relies on the illegal drug trade for 40 percent to 70 percent of its income." And in a Feb. 6 press release, Human Rights Watch, the Washington Office on Latin America and Amnesty International stated that the Colombian government "has failed to suspend members of the Colombian Armed Forces [who are] credibly alleged to have committed gross violations of human rights or to have helped paramilitary groups…. [The military continues] to organize, coordinate with, share information with, support and tolerate paramilitary groups."

Considering that U.S. aid and expertise fuels the Colombian military, and that the links between the military and the paramilitary groups are clear, it seems just as logical to say that paying your taxes is abetting terrorism.

Relating the use of drugs to terrorism demands a much more thorough and critical explanation, and limiting the debate to sound bites that compare recreational drug users to international terrorists is both unfair and intellectually contemptuous. Such shortsighted logic demands a response. Borrowing from the original language of one of the newspaper ads, "Last weekend, I washed my car, hung out with a few friends and helped a Colombian coca farmer support his wife and children." Colombia is forced, under neoliberal economic models, to concentrate on the export of coffee, one of its primary commodities. Being that the international price for coffee is often extremely low, around 44 cents a pound, growing coffee does not often allow poor farmers to meet their most basic needs. Jerónimo Bollen, director of the coffee cooperative Manos Campesinas, noted that, with world market prices as low as they are right now, "we see that a lot of farmers cannot maintain their families and their land anymore." Reverting to the cultivation of coca is a decision made by simple economic necessity, not criminal or terroristic intent. One could even argue that using drugs allows for economic development. Even though these links can be made, I think you would hear a volley of complaints and stern reprimands from the ONDCP.

Since this new policy is equating recreational drug use with the support of terrorism, will countries with a more liberal drug approach be subject to American military might? When President Bush claims that "if you quit drugs, you join the fight against terror in America," he is turning an important debate away from reasoned discussion, and instead phrasing it in emotional language that narrowly divides the nation into "drug users/terrorists" and "patriots." What this country needs is a new discussion on drug use, one based on analyzing and understanding all the different perspectives on the matter, and not one that calls on shallow emotions or threats to try to frighten adolescents into drug abstention. At the annual International Conference on Drugs and Young People last April, Rodney Skager, professor emeritus at UCLA’s education and information studies graduate school, stated that prevention "must be honest, lest it be dismissed by young people as more propaganda."

He continued, "This means that teachers do not exaggerate dangers. They present both sides of the story. Failing to do so is to take the low road of indoctrination. And indoctrination ‘works’ only when the learners do not have access to contradictory information."

But in a free country they do, something the ONDCP may have forgotten.

Martin Austermuhle writes for The Nation. If you would like to respond to this Slant or have one of your own (850 words), contact Howard Altman, City Paper interim editor, 123 Chestnut St., third floor, Phila., PA 19106 or e-mail altman@citypaper.net.