Just as the original edition of this book was going to press, fresh intelligence surfaced that North Korean officials had directed farmers in a central province to grow marijuana [in the summer of 1989]13. North Korean intelligence, with its strong links to Soviet intelli- gence as set forth in Chapter 10, is certainly involved. But even more interestingly, the arrest of the former East German Communist leader, Erich Honecker, has led to information concerning vast amounts of 'illegal' money earned through bribes, gun-running and drugs. East German State Security, well known to have been directly controlled from Moscow, was implicated. The few details that have leaked out have simply identified cocaine transshipments from Latin America through Rostock Harbour in East Germany
OVERT COMMUNIST WORLD REVOLUTIONARY STATEMENTS ON THE SUBVERSIVE VALUE OF THE GLOBAL NARCOTICS OFFENSIVE
Opium should be regarded as a powerful weapon. It has been employed by imperialists against us, and now we should use it against them. Such warfare can be called chemical warfare by indigenous methods. MAO TSE-TUNG, 1935.
We will disarm the capitalists with the things they like to taste. CHOU EN-LAI, 1958. Anything that speeds the destruction of capitalism is moral. NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV,
Deception and drugs are our first two strategic echelons in the war with capitalism. NIKITA KHRUSHCHEV, 1963.
The United States is the main target because they are our worst enemy; it is simple to move drugs into the United States; and, there is an unlimited supply of money there. TODOR ZHIVKOV, First Secretary, Communist Party of Bulgaria, 7964
We are growing the very best poppies for the US servicemen. CHOU EN-LAI ,1965
Drugs will be a decisive weapon in disrupting the fabric of Western democracies.
RAUL CASTRO, Late 1960s
The goal is to hurt the United States full with drugs.
FERNANDO RAVELO-RENEDO, Cuban Ambassador to Colombia 1978.
I was ordered to load up the United States with drugs. MARIO ESTEVE2 GONZALEZ, Cuban intelligence agent 1981.
Drugs were used as political weapons.
The target was the youth of the United States. ANTONIO FARACH, High-level Nicaraguan official 1984.
Drugs are the best way to destroy the United States. GENERAL BARREIRO, Chief of
Cuban Intelligence 1987.
The trafficking is a way of waging war on the United States. It also provides a profit.
HUMBERTO ORTEGA, Nicaraguan Minister of Defence 1987.
Drugs are considered to be the best way to destroy the United States... by undermining the will of American youth, the enemy is destroyed without firing one bullet. MAJOR JUAN RODRIGUEZ, Cuban intelligence officer 1988.
Figure 6: Representative statements by top overt Communists on narcotics trafficking.
CHAPTER 11: Fixing the Responsibility 139
to East Berlin and thence by courier to West Germany14. Earlier data had linked East Ger- many to a heroin smuggling operation that ran through Mexico into the United States15. How much of the East German operation will have surfaced as a result of ongoing debriefings of former high-ranking officials believed to have been involved, remains to be seen. But the politics of reunification took precedence over all other matters, including exposing the details on another Moscow-directed drug-trafficking operation.
But what direct evidence is there? People continue to ask. Are the Soviets still involved today? Perhaps the critical question is: what amount of 'evidence' is adequate? What volume of 'evidence' would it take to change the behaviour and attitudes of US Government officials towards the drug offensive and its sponsors?
What is happening is best described by resorting to a fictional scenario. Suppose, for example, that tomorrow the Soviet General Secretary appeared before the Supreme Soviet in a special open session. He states with obvious displeasure that he has just learned about Soviet intelligence involvement in international drug-trafficking. The operation, he
explains, was a carryover from the days of Khrushchev and Brezhnev which continued on
its own momentum. Then, after severe criticism of both Khrushchev and Brezhnev, he states that as soon as he had become aware of this operation, he had ordered the activity to be halted and everyone responsible to be identified and disciplined.
What would be the American response? While many variants are possible, 1 submit that the most likely response of the US leadership would be to breathe a sigh of relief and praise the Soviet leadership for their courage in bringing this matter to the attention of all the peoples of the world and for Moscow's rapid response in curtailing such activities. The news media would probably use the announcement to further bolster the General Secretary's image as a statesman. A new round of articles on the significant changes taking place in the Soviet Union would follow.
Now, this is precisely what did happen in 1956 following Khrushchev's famous
February denouncement of the crimes of Stalin. That partial public confession was part of a
larger deception the purpose of which was to convince the West that the Soviets were changing their ways. Through a controlled revelation of Stalin's crimes, the blame for the past could be left on Stalin's shoulders. Of special relevance here was the fact that the information on Stalin's crimes was nothing new. Indeed, a book which had presented even more detail on Stalin's crimes than revealed by Khrushchev, who of course had participated in them, had been published in the United States two years earlier; but no-one in the news media or in the US Government had paid the slightest attention to this anti-Stalin slander until Khrushchev proclaimed it from the pulpit. Then, all of a sudden, the attention of the press was directed towards the new, reformed Soviet Union - exactly as planned.
Or, to suggest a further possibility, suppose another defector with detailed knowledge of Soviet and Chinese drug-trafficking operations were to seek political asylum in the
United States. What would happen?
It is unlikely that the defector would ever be debriefed on Soviet and Chinese drug- trafficking, at least not for several months. If and when such debriefing did take place, what would happen to the data? More likely than not it would end up in one of the thou- sands of classified IRs (intelligence reports) and never see the light of day. Should the information somehow emerge, the most likely response of US officials would be to ask the Communist leaders for an explanation. Naturally, they would be told that the information was false - a provocation by an unreliable defector who could not be trusted - and they would be reassured that no such activities had ever been sanctioned.
To the extent there was any such activity, the Soviets or Chinese would probably indicate that rogue intelligence activities were always possible, as the United States learned during the Vietnam period (when a veiled threat had emerged concerning reported CIA drug-trafficking activities), and that they would check to make certain that no such independent endeavours were in place. US officials would then explain, in response to questions raised about the defector's testimony, that they had queried the heads of the accused countries and had been reassured that there were no such activities as described by the defector. Again, this is not completely hypothetical. That was exactly what took place following reports on the involvement of such countries as Cuba, Nicaragua, China and Bulgaria16.
Also relevant here is the situation prevailing 1968. A source of the highest credibility, Jan Sejna, has described in detail the major involvement of the Soviets and Chinese in drug-trafficking, right up until the day he left Czechoslovakia in February 1968. Yet we had no 'evidence' of the Soviet operation at that time, or of the involvement of Moscow's East European satellites, aside from Bulgaria. That is, the absence of information, which is the current US Government response to questions about Soviet or Chinese involvement, only
indicates that Chinese or Soviet operational security is very good, or that US intelligence is
deficient, or that data are not being examined, or are being suppressed, or some combination of the foregoing.
While Sejna is an especially unique source, it is clear that he is not the only source. During the five years to 1990, for instance, data and other source testimony were forth- coming linking almost every Communist country to drug-trafficking. These data generally indicate official involvement of governments, rather than the independent dealings of a few corrupt public officials. In the case of Cuba, for example, it is not just one or two officials. Ten or more high-level officials have been identified, and there is the active assistance of military units of all three services, the involvement of the Cuban intelligence service, and the involvement of Cuban counter-intelligence. To suggest that Cuba merely
'facilitates' the trafficking or 'condones' it, is blatantly to close one's eyes to what is happening. To accept Cuba's arrest, trial and execution on July 14, 1989 of General Arnaldo Ochoa Sanchez [see page 1], Colonel Antonio de la Guardia Font, Major Amado Pardon Trujillo and Captain Jorge Martinez Valdes - and the jailing of other Cuban officials for drug-trafficking17 - as indicative of Cuba's non-involvement with drug-trafficking, or interest in curtailing drug operations, is the height of gullibility.
By contrast, in the case of the non-Communist countries that play host to various drug-trafficking activities - for example, the Bahamas, Colombia, Bolivia and Peru - the data generally indicate official corruption, but drug-trafficking organisations that are non- governmental. The one country that seems to be 'in between' is Mexico, which is so cor- rupt that it is difficult to imagine that the Government is not involved. Recall Senator Alfonse D'Amato's (R-NY) observation: 'That country is seething with revolution and has been really totally captured, whether we want to admit it or not, totally by the drug forces'18. In the past year or two, there has been an increase in Mexican anti-drug-traffick- ing activities. However, given the continuing lack of cooperation19 and continuing produc- tion20 in, and flow of drugs through, Mexico, it would seem that certain highly publicised activities may well be just another example of efforts undertaken and publicised mainly for the 'benefit' of the United States: To conclude that there is any real effort by Mexican officials to curtail the illegal drug trade is, at the time of writing, at best premature.
Soviet, Marxist and Maoist terrorist revolutionaries are involved in drug-trafficking in all regions of the globe.