Globalization and narcostates - The war on drugs is becoming part of the extinction wars
From:"pompeyo andrade" <email@example.com
Only a few years ago there was a great controversy about whether drugs should be legalized or not. There were many voices exposing with all sorts of arguments the inconveniences of a drug prohibition. The most common argument was that as with alcohol, prohibition would only result in the creation of mafia-type organizations that would criminalize the trafficing of narcotics. Country after country eventually issued the same type of restrictive laws that put in prison for lengthy periods of time anyone caught exporting of, or dealing in drugs. In a small, backward country, Ecuador, there are five thousand prisoners for this crime, which is half of the total number of prisoners. In Chile, out of a number of 23 thousand prisoners, there are a good proportion of them under drug charges. In Argentina there is a similar situation- but there are nearly 100.000 prisoners. Most of South America is like that. The US has imprisoned millions of people since the inception of the "War on Drugs". At any one year nearly a million people are incarcerated on drug charges, mostly black and Latino. Present prison population in the US is reported at 2.5 million, a large proportion again on drug charges. Appalling pages like www.november.org or www.h95.org expose the personal stories of people in the US convicted to incredible long sentences, even life sentences on phony drug charges. Young women that were deceived by their lovers appear accused as conspirators in drug crimes. Cases of young men that had been caught in dragnets, which missed the big dealers (often because of them have been given amnesty as state witnesses), are the stuff of painful stories full of deception and trickery. A female teacher who had a "brother" that was accused of drug charges and of whose whereabouts she did not know or refused to give, ends up being accused as a sinister accomplice. A Colombian prisoner, a simple man, plainly accuses that he was induced into a FBI conspiracy to transport cocaine to Mexico, etc. etc.
What is the sense of putting these poor people behind bars, in painful conditions, for decades and even lifetimes? Could it be that this is a way of using terror as a means of controlling people? President Bush has stated that the war on drugs is a continuation of the war on terror(?) Only the creators of the drug laws know their true motives. Some of the prisoners, themselves, think that this is not a war on drugs but a war against the people, the poor people. In fact, a monstrous drug monopoly has been growing, in the past decades, that is promoting narcostates and a global dominion.
"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing". (Ralph Peters. US Army War College Quarterly (p. 4-14, Summer 1997)
One has to refer to the theory of conflict advocated by Lt. Col Ralph Peters - among others - for destabilizing "enemies". According to this Navy Intelligence strategist, the US has the duty of controlling the resentment and hate that its dominant position engenders in all the poor, third world countries. In order to keep them at bay, it is necessary to create the eternal conflict, the civil strife, the religious wars, and, (why not) the "war on drugs". This way, strife and civil disturbances may keep these people underdeveloped and depending of US military supplies and aid. In order to do, the US has to maintain power stations all over the world keeping an eye and generating all possible disturbances. The same method was described by Julius Cesar who, with a relatively small army, took control and dominated the Gallic people. His motto: divide and conquer. Cesar fomented the acrimonies and disputes of the opposing Gallic tribes, made alliances with different tribes and managed to conquer and enslave them all. Francisco Pizarro - like other conquistadores - applied similar methods in their campaign for taking over the Inca Empire. Although he was an uncultured man and probably had not read Cesar's book "On the Gallic War", he was accompanied by educated priests as advisers that surely had the same approach.
All in all, the method is not new, and that would explain why the US government launched a war of drugs against its own people. For decades drugs have been carried from South America by "intelligent" cartels conducted by the intelligence agencies in order to induce drug addiction in the poor black neighborhoods. This has been denounced by several insiders and investigators. The whole campaign in Viet Nam has been explained by some investigators as a way of creating a heroin cartel that boosted money laundering operations of US banks. Only recently, CBS reporter ( 60 Minutes) Steve Kroft, states that the production of heroin in Afghanistan has grown 32 times since the US occupied this country. When run by the hideous Taliban, the poppy fields had been reduced to a minimum. As reported by Kroft (Oct.16/05 ), since 2001, the US and allied troops, about twenty thousand of them, have not been able to prevent that the crops of opium grow extraordinarily - to 4.000 tons, for a production of 400 tons of pure heroin. Afghanistan under the US regime produces more heroin than Colombia. This country under the "Plan Colombia" ostensively tries to control the drug production. Although a reduction has reportedly been obtained, the fact is that the paramilitary forces control 40% of the cocaine plantations. These private troops sustained by the Colombian government dedicate themselves to committing hideous massacres of peasants in order to take over their fields. The Para operate in similar ways as the American DynCorp or MPRI, with former military men very efficiently doing their job. Peters explains in his general theory that present wars can be won by controlling information. The "War of Drugs" is a curious sham that is beimg fought globally - in which the dupes are not only third world, poor countries, but also the rich European nations.
It has been reported that whatever crops of cocaine have been reduced in Colombia, have been added in Peru, where former military leader Wladimiro Montesinos, had a similar job as the present warlords in Afghanistan. He was chief of intelligence and security and at the same time the main exporter of drugs from Peru, for near 10 years. Incredibly as it may sound, this perfect spy was a CIA asset and remained undetected until some video films showed how he paid corruption money to all concerned and so became known to the public. The Fujimori regime fell, but the drug traffic from Peru continues unabated. Over-production of cocaine and an even more zealous initiative is being implemented in Latin American countries. Police and other armed groups in different countries receive drugs from Colombia or Peru and distribute them in their own countries at very low prices. Cases have been reported from Brazil, Argentine, Peru, Ecuador and even Chile. We witness an offensive of the drug monopoly to generate addiction in the poor quarters and slums of Latin American cities. The CBS reporter tells the same story about Afghanistan. People are being induced to becoming addicts as part of the "democratization" of this nation.
Drugs are being pushed everywhere, from Europe to Asia. A powerful monopoly assures an incredible amount of laundered money that has been estimated to exceed 2 trillion US dollars. The drug money has helped in maintaining growth in several US states. The money-laundering states are reportedly those with the highest contributions to the US presidential campaigns.
These actions would be in accordance with the strategies advocated by Col. Peters and political leaders. Drugs can be used to dominate a country by corruption. You can actually own political parties, judicial systems, media and whatever is necessary to hold power or to create havoc. Addicted youths are useless as revolutionaries and the whole society becomes sick, as it can be seen in the poor black neighborhoods of the US cities, where the process was first introduced on a large scale. Since the war of drugs is part of the war on terror, one can only conclude that both are not only necessary to secure oil, as in the case of Iraq, or to secure dominion, as in Afghanistan and Latin America, but more subtly, to create "Gallic" conditions, tribal wars, conflict and disarray that may bring the reduction of numbers of those peoples affected so as to assure the dominance of the empire. In the case of Rome, success was achieved by Julius Cesar, and it took several centuries before the Gauls could renew a country of their own.
The "Extinction Wars" of the present may not give anyone much of a chance either. The globalization of drugs is part of a general theory of obtaining "necessary" and sustained control of the world under the dominance of the US and its close allies. Narcostates are now part of globalization. Through organized corruption, participation of bank networks for money laundering, inclusion of more institutions of the nations involved, the co-opting of fully operating narco states is possible. A dozen countries may belong to this category in different degrees of hatching. Haiti, Colombia, Ecuador, Afghanistan, Peru are well-developed narcostates, where narcocratization has been completed, with full cooperation of most political parties and elites. Other countries present some difficulties: Venezuela has totally gone awry and ousted the DEA; Bolivia is waging a "coca war" for getting off their backs the corrupt control and pressure of the Government and Army Forces that would like to conserve all the privileges, including operating the drug traffic; Mexico may be in a state of anacracy, ( Anacracia, a state where it seems there is an elected government, but the decisions are made elsewhere) where the government institutions rule only by the influence of a third party (the cartels): Colombia is still a divided country in which all factions are somehow attempting to control the trafficing of drugs. In other states this is less obvious and it may be said that only certain sections of the society or government, such as state police and wealthy elites, are participating. This is so in the cases of Argentina or Brazil. But what can be seen at large is that the same methods of producing narcostates are being implemented rapidly with sound entrepreneurial systems: governments obtain more power to fight "terrorism", "aid" for fighting drugs goes to the police or armed forces; paramilitary forces are created and permitted to operate, private companies participate in drug control. Armed forces are conducting regional maneuvers - they no longer defend their own peoples, but help organize the narco-traffic -, a very complex sham system is organized through which great numbers of people are framed and condemned by drug crimes - making it necessary to have campaigns against drugs, while the drug monopoly wins country after country. In short, the war on drugs is part of a globalization process that has been reducing barriers and financial restrictions to facilitate the drug trade.
In 1999, Ecuador went so far as to exchange its own currency for the US currency and most Andean countries are being "convinced" of the benefits of signing a Free Trade Agreement with the US. All this will help the drug trade that is a major reason for creation and maintaining financial imbalances and the disorder in competing countries. It will come to the point that a country that does not cooperate fully may be labeled a "rogue state" and will become non-competitive with regard to its neighbors, especially if the usual penalties follow suit. This will then be followed by the "failed state" scenario, "nation building" and "democratization". The US cuts foreign aid or sales of arms or imposes commercial restrictions on countries that do not collaborate. Afghanistan, for instance, has a net income of 3 billion dollars a year on account of its poppy cultures. Surely, this country is not willing to reduce this money- rendering crop. Also Afghanistan is considered to be a country that is not only producing narcotics, but also consuming them and so forcing addiction on its own people. All the while local food production will be neglected and the "income" from the drug industry will go towards purchases of "fast food" produced by transnational corporations. This was unthinkable at the time of the Taliban. But the Taliban also forced women to wear veils - that could not be tolerated. Iraq may be heading in the same direction. Most countries in Latin America are being subjected to this same pressure and their young are falling victims to drug addiction, which was a rarity a few decades ago. To really understand the politics of the 21st century and the possibilities of survival in a world that is being subjected to ever growing threats, it is necessary to include the assumption that the war on drugs is part of an all-encompassing, clever policy of deceit and domination.
A general rule for understanding human systems is that since they are originated in a biological device -the human brain - they tend to complicate, become absurd and, finally, malignant. The "war on drugs" has followed exactly this same course.
Pompeyo Andrade Nov.3/2005
isn't free! To insure the
continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in
these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683
"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."
contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all
Remember: Your donation = our survival!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *