UN.Warns US Attacks on Cartel Drug Boats ‘Unacceptable’
U.S. military strikes against cartel drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean journeying from South America are “unacceptable” and must stop, the U.N. human rights chief Volker Türk warned Friday.
Türk, an Austrian-born career U.N. bureaucrat, called for an immediate investigation into the strikes against narco terrorists in what is the first such condemnation of its kind from the globalist organization.
The problem is that the previous strategy for stopping drug traffic via sea routes has been clearly identified, and although supported by existing law, completely ineffective. According to a September article at the US Naval Institute,
For decades, the United States has relied on the Coast Guard’s unique legal authorities, backed by Navy support, to interdict drug shipments on the high seas. Those operations follow a predictable pattern: warning shots, disabling fire, boarding, seizure of evidence, and arrest. A patchwork of bilateral agreements ensures suspects face extradition and trial in U.S. federal courts.
This strike marks a sharp departure from that process. Instead of a law enforcement interdiction, the U.S. military conducted an operation that could be perceived as executing suspected criminals without trial or even due process. There are several pressing legal questions: Was the strike legal? Was this an extrajudicial killing in violation of the Geneva Convention? Does the executive branch have the authority to carry out this type of strike without congressional oversight, even at the risk of embroiling the United States in armed conflict?
However, according to a February report by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General,
The United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) was not able to consistently interdict non-commercial vessels smuggling drugs into the United States. From fiscal years 2021 through 2023, the Coast Guard interdicted an estimated 421.9 metric tons of cocaine but fell short of its total cocaine removal goal of 690 metric tons. This occurred, in part, because the Coast Guard did not always have cutters available to perform the counterdrug mission and did not have a contingency plan to address the cutters’ unavailability. We found Coast Guard cutters were unavailable for 2,058 cumulative days over a 3-year period. Using the Coast Guard’s formula, we calculated that the Coast Guard could have interdicted an additional 57 to 89.1 metric tons of cocaine had these cutters been performing the counterdrug mission.
However, the same report says that for the years 2021-2023, the average amount of cocaine flowing into the US via non-commercial vessels was about 2500 metric tons each year. This means that even the most optimistic Coast Guard goal, which it's been unable to reach, 690 metric tons, would interdict only 20-25% of the cocaine coming in by sea. Despite this, the Coast Guard has consistently claimed a 90% success rate with interdictions.The US Naval Institute link repeats this claim without skepticism:
In the late 1990s, the Coast Guard created the Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron (HITRON) to improve its ability to stop high-speed vessels. HITRON employs armed MH-65C Dolphin helicopters that apply graduated force against suspect vessels. Aircrews begin with sirens, loudspeakers, and hand signals to compel compliance. If ignored, they escalate to warning bursts across the bow from mounted machine guns. Should the vessel continue flight, precision rifle fire—typically from a .50-caliber sniper rifle—is directed at the outboard engines to disable propulsion.3 The approach works: By the early 2000s, HITRON boasted interdiction success rates of more than 90 percent.
But if the Coast Guard has a 90% interdiction rate, than the only conclusion we can draw is that at least 75-80% of the cocaine coming into the US completely escapes the notice of the Coast Guard -- in other words, the Coast Guard only tries to interdict 20-25% of the smuggling attempts. That in turn means that the cocaine that's successfully interdicted amounts to just an overhead expense to the traffickers. So why are we doing this? The USNI link continues,
This model reflects a deliberate policy choice to preserve life and capture suspects for prosecution rather than destroy vessels and kill crews. The approach lends itself to building criminal cases against organizations and their leaders, rather than taking out low-level operatives. It also allows careful management of relationships with countries known or believed to support narcotics trafficking. The model historically has resulted in high rates of efficient and successful criminal prosecutions.
Great! Every few years, we put another cartel head in jail! We finally caught El Chapo! And El Mayo too! El Nini! Los Quinis! But the drugs keep coming in, by the inspector general's estimate, a consistent 2500 metric tons a year by sea, no visible decline at all. The USNI link continues,
It is precisely this longstanding framework that makes the 2 September strike so remarkable. The operation bypassed the Coast Guard’s established procedures of warning, disabling, and boarding in favor of immediate lethal force, foregoing any notion of protecting the due process rights of the individuals involved.
But the Coast Guard's established procedures amount to nothing but rounding up the usual suspects. The link continues,
Earlier this year, the State Department designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization, citing its involvement in human trafficking, extortion, and drug smuggling across South America and the Caribbean. By designating the gang as terrorists, the administration created a bridge from law enforcement to military action: Narcotics smugglers are criminals, but terrorists are legitimate military targets. However, the legal authority for conducting a strike under these circumstances is questionable, despite the target being designated a terrorist.
But it isn't that simple. The Trump administration is moving toward the position that the various cartels and gangs that import the drugs operate either under the direct control, or with the tacit consent, of governments, including Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico. For instance,
[I]n a roundtable promoting his aggressive anti-drug campaign, US President Donald Trump took aim at Mexico, implying that Sheinbaum is not in control of her country.
“Mexico is run by the cartels,” Trump told reporters. “I have great respect for the president, a woman that I think is a tremendous woman. She’s a very brave woman. But Mexico is run by the cartels, and we have to defend ourselves from that.”
If the cartels are effectively enabled by their governments, even if it's only via under-the-table payments or even just threats, we're entering the arena of international policy, which in turn can ultimately involve military force. This is clearly the direction Trump is moving -- but if the threats are big enough, this may be the only effective solution.