Trump Administration’s War with International Drug Cartels

0:00Today on State of the World, the Trump administration's war with international drug cartels. You're listening to State of the World from NPR. We bring you the day's most vital international stories, up close, where they're happening. It's Friday, September 5th. I'm Greg Dixon. International drug smugglers are an imminent threat to the United States. That's what U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this week on a visit to Mexico. The comment came after the United States military attacked a Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean, killing 11 people on board. The U.S. said the vessel was carrying drugs.

0:39In a few minutes, was that strike legal? First, that attack was part of the Trump administration's effort to combat drug cartels. As NPR's Michelle Kellerman tells us, some countries in Central and South America are expressing unease, while others are willing to partner in the effort. Since he took office, Secretary Rubio has added a dozen drug cartels and gangs to the foreign terrorist organization list. They are narco-terrorist organizations. These are not stockbrokers. These are not real estate agents who on the side deal a few drugs. These are organized, corporate-structured organizations who specialize in the trafficking of deadly drugs into the United States of America.

1:21While the U.S. has relied on interdictions, Rubio says the cartels can factor in those losses. And the best way to deter the business, he argues, is by blowing up boats. And he used his stops in Mexico and Ecuador to put countries in the region on notice. For cooperative governments, there's no need because those governments are going to help us identify them. They're going to help us find these people and blow them up if that's what it takes. They're going to help us with it. But the Trump administration is on shaky legal grounds with that strike on a fast boat from Venezuela. And there have been mixed reactions in the region, says Brian Nichols, a former career diplomat who was assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere under the Biden administration.

2:03And there's concern that this could be the precursor to a wider conflict. Already, Venezuelan fighter jets have buzzed a Navy destroyer in the Caribbean. and Nichols says he hopes Venezuelan leaders won't try to, quote, poke the bear. He predicts, though, that the Trump administration will find this new approach to be costly and unsustainable. The former diplomat does agree with Secretary Rubio on one point, that cartels can price in the loss of any drugs that are confiscated by law enforcement at sea. But they can also price in, you know, the people who get caught will now get killed. So yeah, the price for being one of those crew members on a go-fast boat is going to go up, maybe go up tremendously.

2:49And cartels can absorb that cost too. So these organizations adjust, and if you're not going after the networks, but only those who are transporting them in a visible way, it's impossible to take down the organization. Fighting cartels requires intelligence-sharing, law enforcement, and the cooperation of governments in the region. Rubio's aides say they made progress on that in Mexico and in Ecuador, where they found President Daniel Noboya to be all in on the fight against drug cartels. Rubio labeled two groups there as narco-terrorists and says he may soon designate more. Michelle Kellerman, NPR News, the State Department.

3:30So was that U.S. military strike on a boat of so-called narco-terrorists legal? Was it consistent with international and maritime law? We're going to hear now from Brian Finucane. He's a national security lawyer with the International Crisis Group, and he spoke with Michelle Martin. First, I'd just like to ask broadly when a president has legal authority to use this kind of military force, as briefly as you can. Well, in this situation, Congress, which has the bulk of the war powers in the Constitution, did not authorize the operation. The White House would have to therefore rely solely on Article 2 of the Constitution, but it has not explained how the Constitution authorizes this attack earlier this week.

4:12What legal issues does this raise for you as a person with expertise in this area? Well, when you see the premeditated killing of another person outside of an armed conflict, there's a term for that, and that term is murder. The administration has not established that the United States is in an armed conflict with the Trende Aragua or any other criminal entity in Latin America has not established that this operation is governed by the law of war and has not established that the targets of this operation, whether the passengers in the boat or the cargo of the boat, were lawful targets under the law of war.

4:45So you mentioned Trende Aragua. You said that because the president has labeled the Trende Aragua gang as a foreign terrorist organization. He says that they were behind this boat and whatever it was doing. Let's just say for the sake of argument that that's true. Does that give him latitude to use force on a boat like this? No. Designating an entity as a foreign terrorist organization neither confirms authority under U.S. law to use military force, nor does it magically transfer or transform that entity into a lawful military target. So let's say that for the sake of argument that this group, this boat was transporting substances that would be illegal in the United States, let's say an illegal drug.

5:28So illegal for consumer use or whatever it was. So is the trafficking of an illegal consumer product a capital offense? Would that justify military force? No. That's why we have law enforcement, and that's why we have well-established procedures for the Coast Guard and the Navy to conduct maritime interdiction operations, take people into custody, and prosecute them through the criminal justice system as appropriate. This is not an appropriate use of lethal military force in the first instance. The administration is trying to frame its confrontation with criminal entities in Latin America as a new war on terror, but that is a completely inappropriate use of that both rhetorical framework and, more importantly, the legal frameworks.

6:10used for lethal force. So the administration argues that the people on this boat were endangering American lives by bringing this substance here or possibly engaging in some other activities. Does that, in your view, justify this action? Just to reiterate, they have made allegations, but they have not provided any information to substantiate these claims. But even if they did, it would not provide a decision basis for the use of lethal force in the first instance. That is Brian Finucane. He's a senior advisor at the International Crisis Group, He's a national security lawyer. Mr. Finucan, thanks so much for sharing these insights with us.

6:42Thank you.

6:50That's the State of the World from NPR. Thanks for listening.