[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 44 (Wednesday, April 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
NARCOTICS TRAFFICKING, THE KGB--AND CASTRO
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, most Americans are understandably outraged
by reports that Aldrich Ames--a former high-ranking CIA official--sold
vital national security information to Russia and the former Soviet
Union. Such treasonous activities may very well have cost the lives of
many courageous people who helped the United States in the struggle to
win the cold war.
We may never know the full extent of the damage to U.S. national
security interests Aldrich Ames may have caused. But we can safely
assume that one of the vital interests harmed by the Ames espionage is
the U.S. ability to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United
States.
Bear in mind: Not only did Ames have access to the most sensitive CIA
information concerning Russia and the former Soviet Union--he also had
access to some of the most sensitive information concerning the war on
drugs. At the time of his arrest, Ames was a top official in the CIA's
office of narcotics intelligence.
The possibility that Ames passed sensitive information to the KGB
concerning the war on drugs prompted the Wall Street Journal to publish
on March 10 an interesting article headed, ``The KGB and America's War
on Drugs.'' The article stated what many of us have contended for
years--that the KGB used moles like Aldrich Ames to sabotage the U.S.
battle against the international narcotics trade.
It will surprise no one that the KGB sought to undermine the U.S. war
on drugs. The KGB was institutionally dedicated to the destruction of
the United States of America; therefore, the KGB's involvement in
narcotics trafficking makes perfectly good sense. Drugs have been an
increasingly destructive force in our society for decades, poisoning
our youth and fanning the flames of violence in our cities.
Yet, for some reason, Mr. President, the State Department has been
less than aggressive in addressing the role that the KGB--and Soviet
allies such as Cuba--have played in the tidal wave of illegal narcotics
pouring into the United States.
This, I submit, has been a bipartisan folly. As long ago as January
1987, I pleaded with the administration to investigate this matter. Two
years later--on July 26, 1989--the Foreign Relations Committee held
hearings on Cuba's involvement in narcotics trafficking. To my
knowledge, however, a serious investigation was never undertaken
despite the pleadings by me and others.
The pattern of ignoring clear evidence that the KGB and Cuba were
linked to illegal drugs is reminiscent of the way the bureaucrats
stonewalled congressional investigations into Manuel Noriega's
activities. Only after pressure from Congress and an indictment by a
Miami prosecutor did the State Department address the serious
allegations against Manuel Antonio Noriega. Sadly, the bureaucrats have
been not one bit more interested in probing the KGB and the Cuban
connection with narcotics trafficking. The Wall Street Journal sensibly
put it this way: ``Rumors in the 1980s about KGB or Cuban involvement
in the drug trade were routinely pooh-poohed by State Department and
CIA types.''
Well, Mr. President, the bureaucrats were forced to face the facts
about Manuel Noriega, but I see no evidence that they learned anything
regarding KGB and Cuban involvement in drug trafficking.
I confess that I do not know the extent of the KGB's involvement in
narcotics trafficking under Boris Yeltsin. I like President Yeltsin;
I've met with him every time he has visited Washington. But, the fact
remains, as the Aldrich Ames case shows, that Boris Yeltsin has not
stopped the KGB from spending untold millions to spy on the United
States. This may or may not be entirely his fault. I'm not sure anyone
knows how much control President Yeltsin has over the KGB.
But the question begs to be asked, Mr. President: Where is Russia now
getting the money to finance its KGB operations--which are as vigorous
as ever? The Soviet Union financed some KGB operations with hard
currency earned from narcotics trafficking in years past. Russia--with
its devastated economy--seems more likely than the Soviets to rely upon
narcotics trafficking to pay some intelligence bills. It is certainly
to be hoped that the Russians are not siphoning off U.S. foreign aid to
pay its KGB bills.
It is well known that the KGB and Cuba did work hand in glove with
Colombian drug traffickers, and Fidel Castro and the Soviets got quite
a return on their ``investments.'' They helped poison America's youth
while raking in millions in profits--some of which, without doubt--went
to finance intelligence operations aimed at the United States and our
allies.
The established fact that Aldrich Ames was on the KGB's payroll while
a top official in the CIA's narcotics intelligence unit--combined with
the fact that the KGB has a history of involvement with international
narcotics trafficking--underscores the conclusion that there is a
serious need to look into the KGB's connection with narcotics
trafficking.
But incredibly, Mr. President, the United States Government actually
shares narcotics intelligence with Russian allies involved in the drug
trade--and, yes, that includes Cuba. The U.S. State Department's
``International Narcotics Control Strategy Report'' for fiscal year
1993 confirms that the United States Government exchanged law
enforcement information with the Cubans. That report does grudgingly
admit that Cuba plays a role in the illicit drug trade. And the fiscal
year 1994 report--just delivered to Congress--gives a glowing account
of Cuba's efforts to combat the drug trade, but admitting that there is
little evidence to support or refute Cuba's claim that it neither
produces nor consumes illicit drugs.
Mr. President, let us not forget that Cuba is the country that
Presidential candidate Clinton called an ``island of tyranny.'' He
described Fidel Castro as one of the world's ``most ruthless
dictators.'' The State Department routinely certifies Cuba as a state
sponsor of terrorism; and it is no secret that Castro has been
profiting from the drug trade for decades.
Notwithstanding the tough campaign rhetoric, the Clinton
administration has turned a blind eye to Cuba's continued links with
narcotics trafficking. At a November 4, 1993 Foreign Relations
Committee hearing, I asked Secretary Christopher whether the United
States shares intelligence or law enforcement information with Cuba,
and the Secretary said ``we do share [drug] enforcement information
with the Cubans * * *. Cuba occupies a strategic location astride drug
routes into the United States.'' He went on to say that ``such
exchanges are clearly in the national interests of the United States.''
That may be, Mr. President, but the Secretary of State needs to
ponder the serious allegations that Fidel Castro has been involved in
narcotics trafficking for more than 20 years, charges which must be
taken just as seriously as those against Manuel Noriega. It is
inexcusable for the administration to ignore allegations against Castro
just as past administrations ignored allegations against Noriega.
President Clinton did Fidel Castro a favor by not including Cuba in
the list of major illicit narcotics producing and transit countries
submitted to Congress on April 1 of this year. The President identified
26 countries as being major narcotics-producing and transit countries.
Western Hemisphere nations on that list include: Brazil, the Bahamas,
Belize, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Paraguay,
Venezuela, Bolivia, Panama, and Peru.
Mr. President, this is deja vu all over again. The Secretary of State
told Congress with a straight face that sharing intelligence with
Manual Noriega is in the U.S. national interests. Exchanging narcotics
trafficking intelligence with Fidel Castro makes no more sense than
sharing intelligence with Noriega. The administration might as well
share drug enforcement information with the Colombian drug cartels.
The simple truth is that all of this is not in the best interest of
the United States. More likely, Castro uses U.S. intelligence to tip
off his business partners and to knock off his competitors. If Castro
were serious about the international drug problem--and of course he is
not--he is serious about raking in the countless millions in blood
money.
If Fidel Castro really wants to be helpful, the first thing he could
do would be to hand over to U.S. authorities all of those Cubans who
have been indicted for narcotics trafficking. He could shout down the
air corridors over Cuba that continue to be used extensively by
drug smugglers. He could order the Cuban Navy to seize boats
trafficking drugs through Cuban waters. He could crack down on his
closest advisors--including his brother--who are profiting from drug
trafficking.
But, Mr. President, don't hold your breath until Castro does any of
the above. He and his cronies are into the drug trade up to their ears,
and the administration knows it. Even the Washington Post reported in
February that files and a videotape belonging to slain drug lord Pablo
Escobar implicated Raul Castro in narcotics trafficking--Raul Castro,
Fidel's brother, and his Minister of Defense. There was plenty of
evidence prior to this discovery to indict Raul Castro, but he has yet
to be indicted.
Castro's Chief of Staff of the Cuban Navy, Admiral Aldo Santa-Maria
has been indicted in the United States. The Cuban Ambassador to
Nicaragua has also been indicted. By the way, this criminal also stole
a house in Nicaragua from an American citizen with the Sandinista's
blessings. Many other top Cuban officials have been indicted in the
United States for drug trafficking in the past 10 or 15 years.
And yet, Mr. President, some at the Organization of American States
want to welcome Cuba into the club. I cannot imagine that the President
will agree to allow this. Cuba was kicked out for good reason, and no
thought should be given to allowing Cuba back into the OAS before Cuba
is rid of Fidel Castro. Castro and his gang should know that the United
States Ambassador to the OAS, Harriet Babbitt, told the Foreign
Relations Committee that the United States ``strongly opposes Cuba's
reinstatement into the OAS.''
Despite billions of dollars in foreign aid that the United States is
giving Russia, Russia is still spying on us, and still aiding Fidel
Castro. On April 1, Secretary Christopher certified that Russia was not
giving assistance to Cuba, as required by the Cuban Democracy Act. The
Secretary's justification for the certification said that Russia did
not make available to Cuba concessional credit. But then the Secretary
contradicted himself in the same report by saying that Russia made
available to Cuba $380 million in low interest rate loans in 1993.
Russia refuses to rein in her Cuban ally, Mr. President. Russia
stands by Fidel Castro, and the reason is simple: Cuba is an important
intelligence asset to Russia. The KGB continues to operate an important
intelligence listening post in Cuba which allows it to eavesdrop on
much of the eastern seaboard of the United States. It wouldn't be
surprising if this listening post is funded, at least in part, by drug
money. Perhaps Aldrich Ames can shed some light on all of this.
Sharing any kind of intelligence with Fidel Castro is absurd on its
face. Castro must be laughing at the State Department all the way to
the bank.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the March
10, 1994, Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 10, 1994]
The KGB and America's War on Drugs
(By Mark Almond)
In all the fuss following the arrest of top CIA agent and
alleged Moscow mole Aldrich Ames, some key questions have
gone unasked. Media attention has focused on Mr. Ames's
activities as CIA head of Soviet counterintelligence, where
he allegedly betrayed to their deaths some 10 Soviets working
for America. But what Mr. Ames was doing after he left this
post has been largely ignored.
Aldrich Ames was a key figure in the new American effort to
thwart the inflow of narcotics into the U.S. and impede the
corrupting influence of the drug barons. If his work in the
CIA's operations against drug trafficking was as controlled
by KGB agents as his earlier service, then the explosive
power of the Ames case doubles its force.
During the late 1980s, the U.S. intelligence community
increasingly shifted its emphasis from classic espionage
against the Cold War rival to a new role in the war againt
drugs and organized crime. (Western European intelligence
agencies redeployed their resource, too.) In the happy dawn
of the New World Order, George Bush thought the CIA should
cooperate with its ex-rivals against common foes: organized
crime, terrorism and drug trafficking. Mr. Ames became head
of the CIA's narcotics intelligence department for the Black
Sea countries in 1990 after his service as
counterintelligence chief for Eastern Europe and the Soviet
Union.
Yet all the while Mr. Ames was allegedly working for is old
KGB handlers.
Could one explanation for America's sorry record in the war
on drugs be that its key intelligence was going to the other
side? Rumors in the 1980s about KGB or Cuban Involvement in
the drug trade were routinely pooh-poohed by State Department
and CIA types who could not imagine that their rivals were
anything other than sincere champions of another cause. Now
that the routine cynicism and corruption of the former Soviet
Union is widely acknowledged, it is time to ask whether some
of the cash to fund expensive KGB operations might come from
the world's most lucrative milk cow--the narco-business.
Espionage experts have expressed surprise at the amount of
cash the KGB is alleged to have paid Mr. Ames, far more than
in most treason-for-money cases, in which the amounts are
often amazingly trivial. Fewer questions seem to have been
asked about whether the KGB was the only source of Mr. Ames's
affluence. It seems reasonable to ask whether his visits to
his second wife Maria's native Columbia might have given him
access to another source of income in return for information
about the CIA's antinarcotics drive.
Another question suggests itself: Did Mr. Ames betray
anyone to the KGB in his new posting, as he allegedly did
while counterintelligence chief?
Last August, in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, the
CIA's Fred Woodruff was shot dead while riding in the car of
the chief of the Georgian security service. A terrible
accident was the improbable verdict. But a week earlier, Mr.
Ames had been in Georgia. In addition to his mission to
provide U.S. training to Georgian security forces, Mr.
Woodruff was allegedly investigating Georgia's role as a
conduit of heroin from other ex-Soviet republics to the West.
Some informed Georgians think that Mr. Woodruff had come to
believe that the men Washington had sent him to cooperate
with were in fact involved in the heroin shipments. Had Mr.
Woodruff reported this, Mr. Ames would have been the first
man in the CIA to receive his report.
It is public knowledge in Georgia that the security forces
of Edward Shevardnadze's regime are involved in the
republic's rampant drug business. So severe has the problem
become that even Mr. Shevardnadze recently felt obliged to
undergo a heroin test to prove his credibility.
As an ex-KGB general-turned-reformer who returned to his
native Georgia, Mr. Shevardnadze ought to be able to help the
Clinton administration clear up any connection between Mr.
Ames's visit to Georgia last year and the murder of CIA
station chief Woodruff. If Mr. Ames was betraying America's
war on drugs to the KGB, then the Clinton administration and
the West are starting into a deep and dark abyss.
The venality of Aldrich Ames contrasts sharply with the
intense, if twisted, ideological treason of a Kim Philby. How
many other unhappily salaried Western intelligence officials
cooperating with the ex-KGB in the war on drugs have also
been tempted by the rich pickings of betrayal in the
postideological age?
____________________