John D. Negroponte
Good afternoon, everybody.
I thought, both in the interest of time and also I sensed this morning that there were a few occasions when we did not get to everybody's questions and did not have a chance to discuss some of the issues as thoroughly as we might have wanted to, that perhaps brevity is what is called for at the moment, and hopefully we can have a good discussion afterwards.
I thought Peter Hakim's discussion this morning of key trends was really important in setting the stage for our meeting today. Just to recapitulate some of the points he made, but also to add a thought of my own with respect to major global trends, let me mention a couple of the ideas that he discussed. One was, of course, the trend toward democratization, and that is not only a Latin American trend, it is a worldwide one. The globalization of the world's economies is obviously another key trend. I would put the empowerment of individuals as certainly an important global trend that's every bit as applicable to Latin America as it is to other parts of the world. The internet, modern technology, educational opportunities, all of these things, I think, are working to empower individual citizens around the world much more than they used to.
I think another important trend we have got to talk about in the context of our meetings here today is the significant reduction of defense budgets around the world. We are not talking about the kind of defense budgets that existed during the Cold War. One of the most staggering set of numbers to look at is the information about the size of the current Russian economy, not the Russian defense budget, the Russian economy, which is something on the order of 400 or $500 billion. And when you think that at the height of our defense expenditures during the Reagan administration, we had a $300 billion defense budget. That was probably, in the terms of the dollars at that time, not that different than the size of the whole Russian economy today. So you have got to think about that and what the implications are in terms of reduced spending for military activities and operations around the world.
Another point I would like to make, just in terms of the political changes we were talking about in the second panel this morning, is crucial and that is that political change has come principally from within the various countries around the world which have experienced that trend towards democracy. It has not been because we were there as the agent for the change. Surely, we played a role in encouraging it, and we certainly applauded it when it happened. But let's not forget that the principal stimulus for the political change towards democratization, whether it was in Eastern Europe or in the former Soviet Union or in Latin America, came from within these countries themselves. And if you look at the dates when they occurred, these pressures for change and this movement towards democratization started before the end of the Cold War. Perhaps it was accelerated by the end of the Cold War, but it started earlier and was attributable to a whole number of factors.
Now, against this very hasty background and with the benefit of all the discussion that occurred this morning, what is the best role for the military in such matters as drug enforcement? I would like to submit, first of all, that there really are some philosophical problems with unduly involving the military in such matters as counternarcotics.
First of all, I would raise the issue of whether it really is or should be a core competence of the military, whether we're talking about the military in the United States or the military in other countries. I have in mind the questions of what is the mission of the military, and do counternarcotics activities really fit within that mandate?
The second issue I would raise on a philosophical plane is whether or not the involvement of the military in counter-narcotics activity, however justified by the immediacy of a specific situation, runs the risk corrupting the military institution and, as a result, exacerbating the situation. I think there are a number of countries that we can cite as examples of this problem or at least where the question has arisen.
Panama, I think, would be a good one, where, in fact, ultimately the Panamanian Defense Force became basically a racketeering organization rather than an institution that was fighting narcotics trafficking.
Clearly, in Mexico, that's a philosophical issue that has been raised in the past and, I suspect, continues to be raised today. I certainly remember in my conversations with the Mexican Minister of Defense that he had grave apprehen-sions about involving the Mexican military in the counternarcotics struggle, other than the rather limited role of destroying marijuana crops.
You will remember that the Mexican Army had the mission of going out about 25,000 strong every year during the appropriate times to destroy the marijuana crops. But other than that, they had an extremely limited role. And that, of course, has changed since that time.
But perhaps the most important philosophical operation, to my way of thinking is, does entrusting the military with a counternarcotics role delay the development of a genuinely effective law enforcement institution? Say you involve the military in your counternarcotics activity. Does that become a pretext for the body politic of that particular society to delay, postpone, and otherwise disregard what I think is the really difficult problem, which is to develop an effective law enforcement institution in a country concerned? So let's go back to the fundamental question: What is the most appropriate role?
I guess at the risk of seeming a little bit imprecise, I would just say the appropriate role for the military is to do the minimum necessary. On the other hand, one has to recognize the practicalities of certain situations. That brings us now from the philosophical to the pragmatic. And it seems to me that there are certain types of practical situations which call for the limited utilization of military forces in the counternarcotics struggle. Clearly, one of them is in situations where the traffickers are using blatantly military means. I mean, how can you argue that if the traffickers are basically a military force, that we cannot use military force to counter them? You have to fight fire with fire. I suppose in today's context, perhaps, the country of Colombia would perhaps be one of the best examples.
Another one would be to deal with specific issues that are beyond the capability of law enforcement agencies. I'm thinking particularly of air and sea detection and surveillance. When you are talking about a narcotics problem that extends well beyond the national borders of any given country, but which is nonetheless a vital component of the situation, such as illicit flights or illicit vessel traffic that are carrying drugs, it seems to me there is a very good case that can be made and has been made for using air and naval assets for detection and surveillance.
And certainly during my time in Mexico, from 1989-93, I think we saw some very successful applications of that model. We set up a so-called Northern Border Response mechanism within the country of Mexico, that depended heavily on intelligence information that came on a real-time basis from our air and naval assets that were working in and over international waters and air space.
But still, even under these circumstances, I think there must be constraints. I do not think that counternarcotics should be the core military mission. I think that such missions as are undertaken should be viewed as temporary or transitional.
Now, when we're talking about the use of our armed forces in the 21st century, you might ask, "Well, how long is temporary or transitional?" I don't know; several years; 10 years. But I don't see that kind of a mission necessarily being something that military forces should be undertaking well into the next century.
Another point I would make is that, to the extent possible, that interdiction should be as close to the source as possible.
I recall when these flights that we were tracking would come into Mexico, if you did not catch them where they landed, forget it. Once they had gotten onto the ground and were able to unload their cargo to trucks, taxis, whatever other conveyance they used to then move up north and get the narcotics across our land border, you were really looking for a needle in a haystack. I think whatever activities we undertake should be undertaken in the context of strong funding for the development of law enforcement agencies and building up their capabilities to the maximum extent possible.
Finally, let me suggest that, as we try to draw some conclusions in this discussion, we be careful not to forget the overall policy context in which we are operating. I do not think that we can talk in terms of our assisting the Latin American military, supporting or assisting them in the counternarcotics struggle in isolation from overall policies.
I think that President Bush, in mentioning the Free Trade Initiative that occurred during his administration, the overall effort to develop a sense of community in this hemisphere, these are the key policy initiatives, it seems to me, that need to be encouraged. And a counternarcotic strategy in and of itself is not a substitute for this broader policy context. And I would submit that if all you have is assisting Latin American military in combating drugs, and you neglect these other aspects, such as the free trade arrangement for the Americas, sooner or later that policy is bound to founder.
 |
 |
 |