FBIS3-57998 "drweu003__a94002"
FBIS-WEU-94-003-A Document Type:Daily Report 5 January 1994
ANNEX International Affairs

Interpol Chief on Fight Against Narcotics

BR0401153394 Paris LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR in French 30 Dec 93-5 Jan 94 pp 50-53--FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY BR0401153394 Paris LE NOUVEL OBSERVATEUR Language: French Article Type:BFN [Interview with Raymond Kendall, Interpol Secretary General, by Vincent Jauvert; place and date not given: "Drugs -- The Confession of Interpol Chief"] [Text] [Jauvert] You are very pessimistic at present.... [Kendall] Yes, the situation has deteriorated enormously. In the early 1970's, when I headed the Interpol's Narcotics Division, there was no real drug problem in Europe: Trafficking was essentially directed toward the United States. What is the situation now at the beginning of 1994? In Paris, London, Frankfurt or Rome, in all the great European cities, the drug market is booming, with an ever increasing number of drug addicts. This is why I am sounding the alarm, making an appeal to politicians, and saying: Beware, if we continue fighting against drug abuse in the way we have for the past 20 years, we will definitely lose the battle -- perhaps we have already lost it, for that matter.... [Jauvert] Can you suggest any solutions? [Kendall] There is only one possible solution: Doing everything in our power to reduce consumption. Our rulers must finally acknowledge this: Whatever efforts the law-enforcement agencies make, drug producers and dealers will continue to thrive as long as there are millions of consumers in our countries. The only way of breaking the market, is to make demand drop dramatically. [Jauvert] What about hitting the producing countries even harder? [Kendall] You can try to, of course.... Recently, a French politician even said that they should be attacked militarily, if necessary.... [Jauvert] It was Charles Pasqua [interior minister], am I right? [Kendall] You are saying so. [Jauvert] Was it not a good idea? [Kendall] Let us be realistic. Let us take, for example, the case of Medellin cartel's boss Pablo Escobar. Will the fact that he was eliminated change anything at all? No, it may perhaps have a psychological effect on other drug dealers but, as to the rest, we know for some considerable time that his cartel has been replaced by that of Cali. In other words, the economic and social conditions in the producing countries are such that it is nonsense to believe that people there are going to deprive themselves of the financial benefits derived from producing coca, opium, or cannabis. Of course, we must try to convince them, one way or the other. But we should not expect significant results in the short or even in the long term on that front. [Jauvert] What if we help those countries convert their production to coffee, wheat, rice.... [Kendall] We must do so, obviously. But, there again, let us be realistic and look at the results. In Thailand, for example, a conversion policy has now been implemeted for over 15 years, but this did not prevent a heroin production boom from taking place in the Golden Triangle. No, that is not how the problem will be solved. [Jauvert] Nor do you believe it will take us any further to concentrate our efforts on the drug trade itself and, therefore, on repressive measures. [Kendall] No. Every year we are seizing greater and greater quantities of drugs and arresting an ever increasing number of dealers. However, at the same time, the amount of narcotics available in our countries is increasing. Therefore, let us continue by all means to crack down on dealers but, there again, let us not hope for miracles. [Jauvert] Not even if the means of repression were considerably increased? [Kendall] Let us imagine that we double the financial resources available for the narcotics brigades. Will we thereby multiply by two the seizures? I do not think so. We will get to know the problem better; we will develop what is today called "criminal intelligence," that is to say, information techniques on organized crime. This is important, but how can it improve the root problem, namely consumption? A few years ago, the Ameriacans tried to determine the ratio between seizures and the amount of drugs actually available. Well then, according to this study, in certain countries the ratio is as low as 5 percent, and the maximum is 25 percent. Now, researchers have estimated that it would be necessary to seize 40 percent or even 50 percent, according to a recent investigation, in order to have a real impact on the market, that is, in order to reduce consumption. We are very far from these figures. The traffickers' stocks are gigantic. In other words, even by increasing the repressive means considerably, we would not achieve a significant impact on drug addiction. [Jauvert] It might also be possible to intensify the fight against the laundering of narco-dollars, which has become very topical over the past few months. [Kendall] It must be done, of course. But I am afraid that this new hobby-horse may lead us to lose sight of the real problem. Combating the laundering of money is not an end in itself, it is only a means for stopping drug dealers, and one which is not -- let us be frank about it -- particularly effective. Let us take, for example, the BCCI affair, the greatest laundering operation ever to be discovered. What did it come to? After four years' work, after mobilizing a huge number of police, only three people have been prosecuted for laundering 14 million dollars. Now, the annual turnover for drug dealing is estimated at 350 billion dollars, about 100 of which would appear to be invested in the international financial circuit. Fourteen million out of 350 billion: This is little more than drop of water in the sea! [Jauvert] Since then, special brigades have been set up to combat money-laundering. [Kendall] So much the better. But what resources do they have at their disposal? In France, for example, the team comprises some twenty people. Ask them how many cases they are able to crack in a year. You will be surprised at the ridiculously small figure they will quote. You will object that their personnel could be increased. This would of course be positive, but it would not change the root problem in the least. There is, in our countries, considerable demand for narcotics, and as long as this is the case -- you can rest assured -- people will continue to produce drugs, deal in them, and will continue to launder money. [Jauvert] In your view, then, this demand can be reduced? [Kendall] In any case, we should try to. Until now, there have been few efforts in this direction. Politicians speak of "war" on drug addiction, and they are right because the future of our democracies is at stake. Nevertheless, let us compare the defense budget to that available for special centers for drug addicts. Do the resources available, say in France or Britain, exceed the price of a single fighter plane? If this were so, I would be very surprised to learn it. The Swedes, however, have shown that, when a genuine political will is there, demand can be curtailed. For some years now, they have been spending considerable sums of money in information campaigns and aid programs aimed at drug addicts. As a result, consumption has dropped dramatically. I am not saying that the Swedish model can be transplanted anywhere, but it should be studied more closely. [Jauvert] Why are Western governments, in your opinion, being so inactive? [Kendall] I have often asked myself that question, and I have found three reasons. In the first place, developing an effective prevention and help program for drug addicts is unquestionably a difficult task. We know the motivations of drug dealers, but it is much more difficult to pinpoint the social and psychological reasons that lead a person to heroin. Even those who are supposedly specialists in the field do not agree on the most effective form of treatment. Secondly, such programs are extremely expensive and only lead to positive results after a number of years -- even as long as a decade. The third reason results from the first: If they have to invest resources in combating drug addiction, politicians prefer to concentrate their efforts on repression, the results of which are more readily perceived by public opinion. However, if we took our time, results would follow. Consider what happened in the case of tobacco: Following years of campaigning to sensitize public opinion, consumption finally dropped. Why should it be impossible to do the same in the case of drug addiction? [Jauvert] To curtail demand, you advocate "decriminalizing" drug abuse. Why? [Kendall] Because regarding consumers as offenders serves no useful purpose. In fact, it is even dangerous. A convicted person discovers a culture in prison which may make him become something he was not when he first came in, namely, a criminal. Note, however, that I am speaking of decriminalizing drug abuse, not of legalizing it. I believe drug addicts must not be put in jail, but rather, forced to undergo treatment in a specialized medical center. [Jauvert] Are you in favor, then, of "decriminalizing" the use of heroin and cocaine as well as cannabis? [Kendall] Yes, medical doctors have muddled the issue for a long time by trying to draw a difference between "soft" and "hard" drugs. As a matter of fact, we now know that both are toxic products. The substance contained in cannabis, THC, is hazardous for the brain, its negative effects last longer than those of alcohol, for example. So why should the two types of drug be treated differently? [Jauvert] You said that the police should be able to force drug addicts to undergo treatment. In fact, this is now almost the case in France, with the so-called therapeutic injunction, although few people are aware of this. Once arrested, drug users (as opposed to peddlers) can theoretically choose between treatment or prison. [Kendall] Yes, but this law is not being enforced through a lack of means. How many places are available in the specialized centers that can provide treatment for drug addicts? Ten, 20 times as many would be required in order to be effective. Throughout Europe, the state has so far relied too heavily on charity organizations. However, it is up to the state now to take the initiative. On the other hand, this choice between treatment or inprisonment seems to me to be inappropriate: Prison is in no case an effective solution. Drug addicts must be treated -- even forced to do so -- and doctors must be given the means to help them. [Jauvert] Forced? How? [Kendall] I do not know. It is the specialists who must decide. [Jauvert] Do you think doctors should be allowed to prescribe substitute products, such as methadone, or even heroin? [Kendall] Why not? If results can be achieved in this way...I have only one reservation: Substitute products should not replace one form of dependence with another for any great length of time. But, once again, this is a matter for specialists. [Jauvert] As a matter of fact, a few days ago, the highest medical authority in the United States announced it was favorable toward legalization, purely and simply.... [Kendall] I am totally opposed to such a view. [Jauvert] Why? [Kendall] Simply because legalizing drugs would automatically lead to an increase in consumption. Do you know why more and more people are in favor of legalization? Because, through laziness or ignorance, the phenomenon has been trivialized. When 400 kilos of canabis are seized in Calais, who cares? Nevertheless, if tomorrow a chemical plant dumps toxic products into a river and kills some fish, that will stir up a scandal. Drug dealers do that every day, by placing products that are highly toxic to humans on the market, and nobody says a word. [Jauvert] Yet, alcohol and cigarettes are sold freely.... [Kendall] So what? Two toxic products are already socially accepted. Is this a reason to add two more to the list? What else should be legalized next -- crack, LSD? At what age? [Jauvert] It is also argued that legalizing drug consumption would reduce the incidence of crime. [Kendall] For a while, perhaps. But did the end of prohibition cause the mafia or gangsters to disappear in the United States? Of course not. Dealers will find other sources of profit. [Jauvert] Nevertheless, this solution is being advocated by policemen in many countries. [Kendall] True. I have recently discussed the subject with some British colleagues. A few years ago they would have said an outright "no" to decriminalization, whereas today some Scotland Yard officials are publicly posing the question of legalization. I understand their viewpoint. A policeman is there to enforce the law. Now, the laws on drug abuse are flouted a thousand times a day. So they ask themselves: Why not abolish them? It is a legitimate feeling, even if I do not share it. [Jauvert] So you believe that the moment has come to start a major debate? [Kendall] Yes, let everyone clearly express their opinon. Today Europeans are very sensitive to ethical and individual responsibility issues. Let us take advantage of this, before it is too late....