[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 39 (Thursday, March 25, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3168-S3169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
A STEW POT OF TROUBLE
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I think we have a bubbling stew pot of
trouble brewing in Afghanistan, and we need to take stronger action
action requested by President Karzai, by the way--soon, or much of our
effort to root out lawlessness in Afghanistan may be undercut.
What am I talking about? Narcotics--particularly about the
significant increase in opium production and trafficking in
Afghanistan. I am not challenging the significant progress which has
been made in the past 2 years. Removing the Taliban and preparing the
groundwork for a democratically elected government is no small feat.
Working with our allies, we have gathered all of the right ingredients
together to build a new Afghanistan that will benefit everyone--
particularly the people of Afghanistan. But the outcome is far from
certain, and it doesn't seem as if we are paying enough attention to
the danger signs.
According to the latest International Narcotics Control Strategy
Report, released by the State Department at the beginning of this
month, Afghanistan had the potential to produce 2,865 metric tons of
opium in 2003. This represents almost two-thirds of the total potential
opium production in the world. We know the havoc that drug use creates
in a society. We know the corruption that drug trafficking encourages
whereever it occurs. Experience has shown us that ignoring drug
production and trafficking has only made things worse. These factors
alone should be a reason for concern.
We should also be concerned about who is profiting from this
resurgence. The difference between what the Afghan farmer is getting
and what an eightball of heroin is worth on the streets of Paris is
astronomical. And I am certain those reaping this enormous profit are
not the same individuals who support the Karzai government, or who are
happy to see coalition troops there.
The profits and instability that follow drug production wherever it
occurs should be raising alarms for everyone involved. What is most
worrisome, however, is we have seen these ingredients thrown together
before, in Colombia. We can go down that same road, or we can take
action now, before events boil over into chaos.
Earlier this week I spoke on this floor about the connections between
drug trafficking and terrorism. The clearest nexus between drug
trafficking and terrorism is in Colombia, where there are three major
terrorist organizations using drugs to fund their efforts to overthrow
the government.
The State Department has designated these three groups, the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC, the National Liberation
Army, ELN, and the United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia, AUC, as
Foreign Terrorist Organizations. But these terrorist organizations
began with more ideological roots, and more localized objectives.
Together, these three terrorist organizations have killed thousands
of innocents. Three American civilians are currently being held hostage
by the FARC, and have not been allowed any contact with the outside
world for over a year.
For nearly 40 years the FARC have been pressing a pro-Marxist
ideology. Similarly, the ELN held a more Maoist philosophy, but also
strove for the same revolutionary objective. Initially these efforts
were supported by donations from both the Soviet Union and Cuba. But
that support ended with the fall of the Soviet Union.
While not as old, the AUC began as a series of para-military groups
initially funded by the wealthy landlords in Colombia. These groups,
initially endorsed by the government, were created because the
government was unable to protect these rural landlords from attacks by
the guerrillas.
But the end of the cold war did not mean an end to the guerrilla
activities in Colombia. Instead, all three of these organizations were
able to turn to the narcotics trade for funding. Because of this, their
membership and the violence associated with each of these organizations
has increased dramatically. It is now estimated that these groups
receive a significant portion of their operating revenues from
narcotics.
With that move, much of the ideology and even the pretense of being a
guerrilla group disappeared as well. At first, they just provided
security and other support to the drug lords and were paid for their
services. But that was not enough.
Today we know that both the AUC and the FARC fight each other for
access to the best smuggling routes into and out of Colombia. They
fight the government to protect their drug production and
transportation networks. They have also begun reaching out to foreign
terrorist organizations as well, using narcotics as currency in
exchange for guns and training.
Until recently, these terrorist organizations were able to move
freely throughout a significant portion of rural Colombia, forcing the
displacement of millions of Colombians as they battled the government
and each other over drugs and politics. Only after coming to the
conclusion that both drug trafficking and terrorism must be addressed
equally has there been progress in restoring the control of Colombia to
the legitimate government.
Fast forward to Afghanistan. Like the FARC, there are groups within
Afghanistan, primarily operating in the remote areas of the country,
who for ideological reasons would like to overthrow the government. The
Taliban is perhaps the best known, but there are others as well.
Numerous warlords also operate throughout the countryside, some whom
have even had the blessing of the government.
The Taliban, like the FARC after the fall of the Soviet Union, need
to secure an alternative means of financing their operations if they
are to survive. Our success in choking off their traditional funding
sources has created this necessity. Opium--like coca for the FARC--is
an easy, local, and available opportunity to do exactly that, and will
not be a new source of revenue for the Taliban. While the Taliban
banned opium production for a period of time when they controlled
Afghanistan, they also taxed the trafficking and resulting profits from
the sale of stored opium after the ban.
Add to this equation some of the many warlords that control various
areas of Afghanistan. Some of these warlords even worked with coalition
forces to oust the Taliban. But most have no intention of surrendering
any
[[Page S3169]]
of their power or authority to the central government in Kabul,
preferring to fight for their own fiefdoms.
They have no interest in enforcing edicts from Kabul, or in taking
any action that might give the central government additional
legitimacy. Profits from opium production and trafficking are a key
method for continuing to fund their war clan.
These efforts are not as blatant or as well organized as what we have
in Colombia today, but the ingredients are there. It is time we start
connecting the dots.
Today, several thousand U.S. and coalition soldiers are hunting down
terrorists. These terrorists are receiving physical and financial
support from somewhere. Meanwhile, the Karzai government is working
furiously to establish the police, judicial, and military systems
necessary to ensure that the people of Afghanistan can equitably govern
themselves. But they must overcome the chaos created by 20 years of
occupation and civil war. The last thing that they need is a well
funded rebellion in their backyard.
The Karzai government recognizes the dangers posed by bumper crops of
opium. They know the profits being generated by this drug production go
not to the Afghani people, but to the few powerful enough to move the
opium out of Afghanistan. These drug traffickers flourish in the same
kind of lawless environment where terrorists train.
We need to start connecting the dots. We cannot continue to separate
terrorism and narco-trafficking. I fear that if the United States
narcotics policy in Afghanistan does not catch up to that of the Karzai
government, we will be facing the same mess that we are working to
clean up in Colombia. We have watched this pot before. We need to begin
looking at our options now, before it boils over and we have a real
mess.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________