A blow to anti-drug policy

In a recent interview in the Argentinean magazine "Debate", Gabriel Guerra Mondragon, an advisor to Hillary Clinton on Hispanic and Latin American affairs and a former US Ambassador to Chile shockingly pointed out that "all anti-American statements we hear from (Bolivian President) Evo Morales and (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez are not against the US properly speaking but against Bush. This (anti-Americanism) can be reverted if a democrat is elected President"

Without taking a political stand for or against Hillary Clinton, what is highly distressing is the lack of awareness, and the ignorance displayed by senior advisors to American presidential candidates. I have reasons to believe that this type of ignorance and naiveté transcends an obscure political advisor and is far more widespread among American political operatives and public officials (probably on both sides of aisle) than one may think. As we repeatedly pointed out at the Center for Security Policy, the Chavez phenomenon is not a political regime that limits itself to Venezuela. Chavez sees himself as a revolutionary and internationalist like any other previous revolution be it the French, the Russian or the Islamic revolution. Chavez’s first international front is his own region, namely Latin America. In this region the Chavez agenda is enjoying one of the most successful times. The election of Evo Morales as President of Bolivia late in 2005 and the election of Rafael Correa as President of Ecuador late last year have accelerated the formation of a new Latin American axis which might have serious repercussions for the region in general and also for the United States.

After their respective election victories both Morales and Correa rushed to visit Hugo Chavez, the new Pope of Latin America’s neo-populism. They both ran on Chavista ideology which among other things included criticism of existing representative institutions, hostility to neo-liberal and free trade policies, a harsh anti-Americanism, and, a bitter opposition to US drug polices in the Andes region. After being elected, Chavez seems to be their natural mentor. For example, both Correa and Morales rushed to call for a constituent assembly which basically means to dismantle the current legislative power in favor of a popularly elected assembly which would elect a new legislature which will end up being nothing but an extension of the executive power.

Chavez’s activism extends to foreign policy, as well. Early in 2006, Evo Morales, after a long weekend meeting with Chavez, decided to nationalize the country’s natural resources by ordering troops to occupy more than 50 gas and oil installations. This enraged the Brazilian and Spanish energy companies operating in Bolivia.

During Christmas week, the president-elect of Ecuador, Rafael Correa (he is taking the oath of office on January 15, 2007) visited Chavez and upon his return tensions between Ecuador and Colombia increased as Ecuador demanded that Colombia stop fumigations on the coca fields that border with Ecuador.

Indeed, the problem of contamination on the Ecuadorian side of the border, resulting from this fumigation has been an ongoing one which will require some sort of solution. However, Correa’s tone, which was echoed by the outgoing Ecuadorian government and enthusiastically supported by Chavez, sounded particularly threatening. Ecuador withdrew its ambassador from Colombia, and under Chavez’s influence Correa cancelled a meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, despite Uribe’s begging call to meet with him. Uribe offered to travel to Quito to meet with Correa and was refused, as well. The hard exchange of words between the two left a bitter taste, despite Uribe’s offer to consider changing the fumigation method from aerial to manual so as to minimize the contamination.

What is the deeper meaning of this incident?

Alvaro Uribe is the first Colombian President that has succeeded in fulfilling the goals of the program called "Plan Colombia", a Colombian-American-designed and American-funded plan originating in 1998 and aimed at eradicating drug trafficking in the country. As political scientist Eduardo Gamarra correctly points out, until Uribe took the reins of the government the drug industry succeeded in surviving like a chameleon, by transforming itself and readjusting. Uribe’s efforts have been focused on combating all the armed groups that control all facets of illicit drug production in Colombia, particularly the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). According to Gamarra, Uribe’s democratic security policy is a success as it managed to restore a state presence in areas once controlled by the guerillas or by Para-military forces. These policies also increased Uribe’s popularity as Colombians feel safer today than in the past several decades.

In other words, I would say, whether Correa’s claims regarding fumigations are legitimate or not, they reflect, in my opinion, more than anything an important element of anti-Colombian hostility. This hostility is part of an anti-American hostility as the anti-drug policy is seen by Chavez and his populist associates like Correa, as a violation of their national sovereignty by the Americans.

But there is more to it. Most recently the US Ambassador to Caracas, William Brownfield, asserted that the amount of cocaine traffic through Venezuela has increased particularly since the cooperation between the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and Venezuela was suspended five years ago.

According to Carlos Espinoza Fernandez, Chairman of International Relations at San Francisco University in Quito, Ecuador, despite not having huge coca cultivation fields, plays a tremendous role in enabling the passage of drugs from Colombian territory. According to Espinoza the influx of drugs to Ecuador from Colombia reaches 80 tons. It generates income in Ecuador as mixed Colombian and Ecuadorian mobs charge huge amounts for drug re-exportation to their final markets. Espinoza points out that the money made in Ecuador for such mediation is higher than the money made by the cultivation and the processing of the drug. Ecuadorian territory has played an important role in drug trafficking since Uribe’s aggressive interdiction managed to strangle drug trafficking in Colombia. The Ecuadorian Government has not been nearly as efficient as the Colombian one. Yet, Ecuador has managed to better control such trafficking in last several years.

Two things are important in this context concerning Ecuador. First it is likely that under Correa, the Ecuadorian state, like Venezuela now, will no longer exercise control on drug trafficking as the country becomes an area of drug smuggling. It could be worse. Correa may even look at drug trafficking as a source of revenue for the Ecuadorian state (perhaps to himself as well), as drug control is seen as an American interest to the detriment of Ecuadorian national sovereignty. Correa’s repeated insistence to dismantle the American base at Manta which is used to combat drug trafficking, throws even more suspicion on Correa’s intentions. In other words, Chavez and Correa probably see drug trafficking as another source of revenue to be administered by the state, which will enable them to increase their power.

The second important point in this equation is the relation of Rafael Correa to the FARC. Chavez has been a FARC supporter for along time. During his campaign, Correa refused to declare the group a terrorist organization. In their last conversation Uribe urged Correa to acknowledge that FARC is a terrorist group. Correa refused. This is no doubt a very important point. As Correa, like Chavez, embraces the FARC, which is a bloody terrorist organization with connections to Radical Islamic groups, there is a danger that Ecuador, like Venezuela, may become a territory where these guerillas operate uncontrolled; and are being used as para-military instruments to further the Chavez led revolutionary populism. This could help de-stabilize other countries, particularly those perceived as being pro-American. It is easy to speculate that Correa may also follow Chavez’s closeness with Middle East rogue states such as Iran and Islamic terrorist groups.

In other words, the developments in the Andean region should be of great concern to actual and potential American decision makers. Thinking about the worst case scenario is always realistic when Hugo Chavez has such dominance in the region.

Dr. Luis Fleischman is an advisor to the Menges Hemispheric Security Project at the Center for Security Policy in Washington Dc. He is also an adjunct professor of Political Science and Sociology at Wilkes Honor College at Florida Atlantic University.