Presidential hopeful John Kerry's congressional voting
record on the drug prohibition issue is a matter of record. He has voted
for mandatory minimum sentences, asset forfeiture, and just about every pro-
drug war bill that came before him. He is periodically quoted as issuing some
statement or other that could be interpreted as pro-reform but when pressed, he
retracts them. If there is any doubt as to his support of reform on this key
issue, Kerry's choosing Rand Beers as his chief foreign policy advisor
calls into serious question his attempts to portray himself as friendly to drug
policy reform.
When Rand Beers quit his
job as counter-terrorism advisor to President Bush, and signed up with John
Kerry's presidential campaign, he quickly became a hero to Democratic Party
loyalists and the "Anybody but Bush" crowd. But Beers, who has become
Kerry's top national security advisor and would likely serve as National
Security Advisor or Secretary of State in a Kerry administration, has a dark
history.
Under Presidents Clinton and Bush, he served as Assistant
Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs,
and was one of the chief architects of and apologists for the United States'
cruel policies in Colombia.
Beers was most closely associated with
the disastrous aerial crop fumigation program the U.S. introduced in
southern Colombia. The State Department hired DynCorp, a private military
contractor, to fly crop dusters at high altitudes over the rainforests of
southern Colombia, spraying a chemical cocktail that includes a stronger
version of Monsanto's popular and controversial herbicide, Round-Up, over
suspected coca fields. Beers was the public face of the fumigation program,
defending and advocating for it in Congressional hearings and in the
media.
Touted as a way of stopping cocaine from entering the U.S., the
fumigation program targets the poorest people with the least involvement in
international drug trafficking--the coca growers--while leaving the cocaine
processors and exporters, who make the real profits in the drug trade,
completely untouched. In a good year, a farmer planting 5 acres of coca can
bring in $4,000. Once that coca is processed into cocaine and brought to
the U.S. it has a street value of close to $800,000. During a visit to
Putumayo, the main coca growing area in southern Colombia in 2001, a parish
priest told me "We look on in great pain when we see how the farmers are
trampled on like cockroaches while the big traffickers walk the streets of
New York and L.A."
The processing and export of cocaine are largely
controlled by wealthy landowners and the right-wing paramilitaries that
support them, while coca growers are "taxed" by the Marxist rebels of the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC.) The paramilitaries are
technically considered terrorists by the U.S., but play a significant role
in protecting U.S. economic interests by using massacres to clear off land
for oil development, logging, hydro-electric dams, and cattle ranching, and
by assassinating union organizers, indigenous leaders, and other critics of
the political and economic order in Colombia, while the FARC keeps
attacking oil pipelines and kidnapping wealthy people--and so the FARC is
defined as a "narco-terrorist group," and U.S. policy is focused on
weakening the FARC. Fumigating coca crops indirectly cuts into FARC
revenues, and so the program is sold to the public as part of both the war
on drugs and the war on terrorism. Beers played a central role in creating
the myth of the "narco-terrorist" which has been used to justify both the
fumigations and continued U.S. military aid to Colombia.
The program
has had no measurable impact on the availability, price, or purity of
cocaine in the U.S., let alone the rate of cocaine addiction in this
country.
Historically, whenever coca has been eradicated in one area of
the Andes, production has spiked in other areas. The truly difficult
materials for cocaine producers to procure are the chemicals used to process
coca into cocaine. But the U.S. has made only minimal efforts to regulate
the export of these chemicals.
The farmers who grow coca in southern
Colombia are growing it not by choice, but out of necessity. Over 60% of
Colombians live on less than $2 a day. As a result of economic
globalization, the bottom has dropped out of markets for coffee, bananas,
wheat, and other legal crops. The soil in Putumayo is poor, anyway, and
won't support repeated plantings of most cash crops. And farmers growing
legal crops have to transport them over dangerous, poorly maintained dirt
roads, while coca buyers are willing to go into remote villages to buy coca
leaves and coca paste. None of this means much to Rand Beers, who told ABC's
John Stossel that:
"An illegal activity is an illegal activity. And one
doesn't get a special pass for being poor. They have to recognize that every
effort to grow coca will be challenged by the government. Every work effort,
every dollar, every pound of sweat that goes in to growing that coca may be
lost."
Besides being cruel, Beers' attitude ignores the fact that farmers
who don't grow coca have been hurt just as badly by the fumigations as
farmers who do grow coca.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the
chemical cocktail used in the fumigation program, is a broad-spectrum
herbicide that kills any and all green plants. The crop fumigation planes
fly at high altitudes, and so their spraying is at best imprecise. As a
result, many farmers growing only legal crops have lost
everything.
In January of 2001, I visited a government-funded yucca
cooperative that was intended to help farmers find an alternative to growing
coca. The cooperative had been fumigated and the entire yucca crop had been
destroyed. I met one woman who had invested everything she had in the co-op
and now had no way to feed her children. She wanted to go to the city to
beg, but couldn't leave town because the paramilitaries who had killed her
brothers had a roadblock on the only road out of La Hormiga. Corn and
plantain crops on surrounding farms had been destroyed as well. Many
people were complaining of rashes, respiratory problems, and temporary
blindness caused by the fumigations.
When confronted with these
problem's, Beers' Colombian counterpart, Gonzalo de Francisco, National
Security Advisor to Colombia's President, replied that "Fumigation is like
chemotherapy, sometimes you end up killing the patient." Beers, for his
part, consistently denied that there was any evidence that there was any
evidence that the fumigations were causing health problems. The U.S.
State Department and the Colombian government both claim that farmers whose
legal crops are fumigated are compensated for their losses, but community
organizers in Putumayo report that few if any farmers have actually been
compensated, and the U.S. Embassy has been unable to provide any
concrete evidence that the compensation program is working.
Beers
went even further in defending the fumigation program when giving a sworn
deposition in a lawsuit filed against DynCorp in a U.S. Federal District
Court by indigenous tribes in Ecuador who claimed that their health and
their crops had been damaged when herbicides sprayed in Colombia drifted
over the border on the wind.
Desperate to keep the suit from proceeding
to trial, he argued that the fumigation program was vital to U.S. national
security because it was an essential part of the war against terrorism in
Colombia. He then went a step further, stating, under oath, that "It is
believed that FARC terrorists have received training in Al Qaida terrorist
caps in Afghanistan."
Beers' claim was, of course, absurd and unfounded.
The idea that Islamic fundamentalists would align themselves with hardline
Marxists halfway around the world doesn't meet the laugh test. An Associated
Press story on Beers' testimony quoted three baffled Washington
insiders:
"'There doesn't seem to be any evidence of FARC going to
Afghanistan to train,' a U.S. intelligence official said. 'We have never
briefed anyone on that and frankly, I doubt anyone has ever alleged that in
a briefing to the State Department or anyone else.' [...] 'That statement is
totally from left field,' said a top federal law enforcement official, who
reviewed the proffer. 'I don't know where (Beers) is getting that. We have
never had any indication that FARC guys have ever gone to Afghanistan.'
[...] 'My first reaction was that Rand must have misspoke,' said a veteran
congressional staffer with extensive experience in the Colombian drug war.
'But when I saw it was a proffer signed under oath, I couldn't believe he
would do that. I have no idea why he would say that.'"
Beers later
recanted his testimony, claiming that he had been misinformed. But his
bizarre allegation reflects his fundamental belief that the war on terrorism
and the war on drugs are inextricably linked, and that the coca farmers who
are forced to make payments to the FARC are legitimate military targets, and
their neighbors' legal crops are acceptable collateral damage. Rural
Colombians pick up clearly on the message coming from the U.S.--last June a
community organizer in Cauca told me:
"Often we are mislabeled as drug
traffickers or terrorists. Nowadays with Bush, we are all terrorists. It is
not just those who plant bombs or fly planes into the Twin Towers. It is
those of us who cultivate our land and believe in the dignity of our lives
and of our country."
If John Kerry lets Rand Beers continue to guide his
foreign policy, a Kerry administration will be no better for rural
Colombians than a Bush administration.
Democrats who believe that
Senator Kerry offers a humane alternative to Bush should think long and hard
about what Rand Beers would set loose on the world if he were allowed to run
the State Department.
Sean Donahue directs the
Corporations and Militarism Project of the Massachusetts Anti-Corporate
Clearinghouse. He has traveled to Colombia three times on human rights
delegations sponsored by Witness for Peace and the Colombia Support Network.
He is available for interviews and talks and can be reached at
info@stopcorporatecontrol.org.
Hope you are enjoying your Tidbits. If you're not a member of ReconsiDer and
would like to join, please fill out our membership application. And be sure to visit our
website.
This site contains copyrighted material
the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on
this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for
purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from
the copyright owner.