Essay, Research Paper: Us Drug Traffickers Policy On Colombia Is It Effective

Is the United States current policy on drug traffickers taking any valuable effect? Is the price of spending all of the money and aid to Colombia benefiting the United States or is it only hurting our country? With the current policy I do not believe that much is being prevented in the way of narcotics being smuggled in from Colombia.
Three-quarters of the world's cocaine is produced in Colombia from locally-grown coca and from coca products imported primarily from Peru and, to a lesser extent, from Bolivia. Current estimates indicate that cocaine from Colombian leaf is about 15 percent of the world's total potential. However, recent photography shows that different varieties are also under cultivation. Although Colombia has surpassed Bolivia in coca cultivation since 1995, DEA (Drug Inforcement Agentcy)estimates that Bolivian coca produces more cocaine from an equal amount of leaf . Colombia is also an important source of marijuana, opium poppy and processed heroin. According to USG (United States Government) estimates, Colombian produces 6.5 mt of heroin per year, and about 600-700 mt of cocaine.
Colombia is the center of the international cocaine trade, with drugs flowing out of the country at a stable and constant rate, according to US law enforcement estimates. Colombian traffickers import cocaine base primarily from Peru and some from Bolivia, convert it as well as locally-produced base into cocaine at clandestine laboratories, and smuggle the finished product abroad (Political Evironment). Imported cocaine raw materials are transported by air and increasingly by water routes. Cocaine shipments out of Colombia are by sea (multi-ton shipments), or general aviation aircraft (400-800 kgs shipments) to Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, or concealed in legitimate air and sea cargo destined for the U.S. and European ports. Most heroin shipped to the US from Colombia is believed to be carried by couriers on commercial flights.
The United States formed hostile strategy toward the former president of Colombia, Ernesto Samper. The U.S. government was more hostile toward his government than almost any other in the world, even those that posed far greater threats to U.S. national security or were more deeply involved in criminal activities. The central flaw in the U.S. government's strategy is the faulty assumption that our anti-drug aims can be pursued in tandem with our anti-guerrilla aims. I think a we need to pursue a strategy that goes after both of them simultaneously and, go after the drugs because that will take away their money and then they can't buy weapons.
The U.S. decisionmakers are hoping if we throw enough money and military assistance at Colombia, somehow Pastrana, who took office August 7, 1998, will get on top of the situation. They realize that they are looking at a very serious situation in Colombia, as economic and political problems continue to worsen. I doubt here would be much support in the United States for sending troops to fight and die there. So the current rhetoric and strategy focus on the drug aspects of the threat, and the aid package is justified primarily on those grounds. And like with Vietnam, those who argue that most of the aid should be for economic assistance rather than military hardware generally are outvoted by those with a knee-jerk preference for military assistance and military solutions.
Narcotics will continue to affect nearly all aspects of Colombia's political and economic environment. Narcotrafficking has had a negative effect on Colombia society.