February 17, 2000

General Barry R. McCaffrey
Director
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Attn. Tom Umberg
VIA FACSIMILE: (202) 395-6708

Re: Drug War in Chiapas

Dear General McCaffrey,

I spent one week in Chiapas before you arrived, and I'm writing to express widespread concerns. I heard that our government's war against drugs is designed broadly enough to include covert or dual-use forms of support for the low-intensity warfare in Chiapas supported by the Pentagon.

Of the three states you visited- Quintana Roo, Guerrero, and Chiapas -I am curious to know why Chiapas was prioritized. Is it an identified pass-through state for narco-traffickers? Relative to other states, how important is Chiapas? Was your visit confined to observing the X-ray machines (Mundo, Feb.6, 2000)? Are there U.S. personnel in Chiapas involved in the war against drugs? If so, in what capacity?

Just days before your trip, the Mexican Secretary of National Defense was received with military honors at the Pentagon, although La Jornada noted a climate of "total hermetismo" surrounding the visit (January 31, 2000). The occasion involved a discussion of the war on drugs and exchanges of information marking a collaboration that has "intensified in the last five years", a time span that coincides with the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas (see La Jornada, ibid.).

The same story states that the U.S. Department of Defense provided $76 million in equipment to the Mexican army in 1996 alone, subsidizing 73 Huey helicopters and several C-26s for anti-drug efforts "and to fortify the airborne capacity of the troops".

Harvard University historian John Womack, in his history of Chiapas, writes that "for the last few years the U.S. government, in particular the Defense Department, has wanted "low-intensity warfare in Mexico", "has prudently fortified its bonds with Mexico's Defense Ministry", and Womack continues, the budget and mission of the "ever more Pentagon-trained" Mexican army has "grossly expanded" (Rebellion in Chiapas. A Historical Reader, The New Press 1999, pp 328-29).

The American public is beginning to question why the foreign military interdiction side of the Administration's drug policy receives almost twice as much as drug treatment. As the drug war expands, it appears to merge with efforts to support corrupt or unstable states threatened by popular grievances and guerrilla war. The drug war will at some point soon provoke an anti-war movement if it begins to intersect with, or appear to be a cover for, military efforts to suppress rebellions as in Chiapas.

Your trip to Chiapas, following so closely to the meetings of the Mexican Defense Minister at the Pentagon, has sent an inevitable message that the U.S. is protecting its military power in Chiapas. The prevention of violence would be achieved if the U.S. supported the 1996 San Andres Accords and meshed its protections for indigenous people with the world trade provisions of NAFTA.

I look forward to clarification and dialogue with you on this matter.

Sincerely,

Senator Tom Hayden

cc. Hon. Xavier Becerra
Hon. Maxine Walters
Hon. Barbara Lee
Hon. Sam Farr
Hon. Henry Waxman
Hon. Howard Berman
Hon. Diane Feinstein
Hon. Barbara Boxer