NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
| The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date. This site is not updated so external links may no longer function. Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
|
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, 1998
|
Introduction
Chemical diversion control is a straightforward counternarcotics strategy: regulate trade in the chemicals most necessary for drug manufacture to ensure that only transactions for which legitimate end-uses have been established are permitted to proceed, thereby preventing the diversion of required chemicals from licit trade to illicit drug manufacture.
Chemical control is complicated by the nature of the chemicals involved and the widespread international commerce in them. Most of the chemicals required for drug manufacture have extensive commercial applications and are available from alternative source countries. National control systems alone cannot prevent diversion.
Also, this is a strategy to prevent a crime. It requires the examination of proposed commercial transactions, the bulk of which are legitimate--an examination that requires chemical traders and manufacturers to provide commercial information to the exporting country authorities. And at least a portion of this information must be shared with other governments to ascertain the legitimacy of the proposed end-use, and to prevent traffickers from turning to alternative chemical source countries when transactions in one country are denied.
The challenge is to develop multilateral mechanisms for the exchange of the information necessary for the effective implementation of national chemical control regimes, taking into account the commercial interests involved and the varying commercial and law enforcement practices of the many governments that must cooperate.
The second challenge is to promote the establishment of effective national chemical control regimes that are consistent with and reinforce these multilateral cooperative mechanisms.
In 1998, concerns over the sharing of information required for international chemical control receded, but did not disappear, as experience demonstrated that the multilateral exchange of the information required for effective chemical control, properly done, does not jeopardize legitimate commercial interests. Improved procedures for information sharing have continued to be developed.
Implementation of chemical control regimes, however, remains a problem. While many governments have established the legal and regulatory structures required for national chemical control regimes, and accepted the need for information sharing, they lack the financial resources, the administrative infrastructure and the trained personnel required for effective implementation.
International Framework for Chemical Control
The need for chemical control has been internationally accepted. Article 12 of the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988 UN Convention) establishes the obligation for parties to the Convention to control their chemical commerce to prevent diversion to illicit drug manufacture. The two tables of the Annex to the Convention list 22 chemicals as those most necessary for drug manufacture and, therefore, subject to control.
In 1990, the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission of the Organization of American States (CICAD) approved model regulations for the control of drug-related chemicals which set a high standard for government action. The model regulations have been recently amended to cover all the chemicals included in the 1988 UN Convention.
In 1991, the Chemical Action Task Force (CATF), mandated by the Group of Seven Industrialized Nations and chaired by the USG, developed practical recommendations for governments to consider in enacting national laws and regulations to comply with the chemical control obligations of Article 12 of the 1988 UN Convention. The CATF noted that international cooperation between enforcement and regulatory agencies is essential to the effective implementation of national laws and regulations. Information exchange to verify the legitimate end-use of proposed transactions in regulated chemicals is the key element of this cooperation.
The United States and other governments use the annual meetings of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) to promote acceptance of chemical control and to highlight emerging chemical control concerns. As chair of the CATF, the USG sponsored resolutions endorsing and urging the universal adoption of the CATF recommendations. The CND is used to focus international attention on the use by traffickers of substitute chemicals in place of those controlled under international conventions, particularly in the manufacture of synthetic drugs, and to stress the need for extra efforts directed at key chemicals such as potassium permanganate, used in cocaine manufacture, and acetic anhydride, used in heroin manufacture.
Diversion Methods
Traffickers use the following methods, exploiting the noted legal and regulatory weaknesses, to circumvent national chemical control laws and regulations:
All these methods are embellished, or masked, by the use of front companies, false invoicing, mislabeling, multiple transshipments, bribery, use of free trade areas, and any other device that will conceal the nature of the product or the ultimate recipient, and facilitate the transaction. Also, as authorities implement measures to prevent diversion by one method or from one source, traffickers react by shifting among diversion methods and source countries.
Recycling of solvents is another tactic used by some traffickers to reduce the impact of international chemical controls. The process involves either distillation or a filtration/drying method to remove waste products from solvents. Recycling cannot be used for acids, alkaline materials or oxidizing agents, the other types of chemicals used in drug processing. The extent of solvent recycling is unknown, but it cannot be utilized until the solvents have been diverted using one of the methods noted above. The result of recycling is to "multiply" the impact of the initial diversion.
1998 Chemical Diversion Trends
The importance of chemical control as an essential element of a comprehensive counternarcotics strategy gained wider recognition in 1998. A driving factor continued to be growing concern over abuse of psychotropic drugs, particularly amphetamine-type-stimulants. Southeast Asia was added to the other regions - Europe, North America, and East Asia - suffering from widespread psychotropic drug abuse. This was a major topic of discussion for the 1998 meeting of the Heads of Narcotics Law Enforcement Agencies (HONLEA) for the Asia and Pacific region.
Controlled drugs such amphetamine, methamphetamine and ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine and analogues) remain the most abused psychotropic drugs, but traffickers are also manufacturing other psychotropic drugs (designer drugs) with similar physical or psychological effects using substitute chemicals for regulated chemicals, thereby complicating control and monitoring systems. Maintaining strict controls on the regulated chemicals used in the manufacture of controlled drugs and quickly recognizing and bringing under control substitute chemicals or drug products is central to attacking the problem.
Control of the essential chemicals required for cocaine manufacture is improving. In Bolivia, an effective chemical interdiction program has made many cocaine-essential chemicals difficult to obtain by traffickers or prohibitively expensive, forcing traffickers to use inferior substitutes and resulting in decreased quality of the final product.
Traffickers are reacting to regulatory and enforcement successes. The chemical phenylpropanolamine, which is regulated in the U.S. and some other countries, but is not regulated by international conventions, is being used to synthesize amphetamine in response to improved controls on the regulated amphetamine precursor chemicals ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.
1998 Chemical Control Developments
The June 8-10, 1998 "United Nations General Assembly Special Session Devoted to Countering the World's Drug Problem Together" (UNGASS) was the most important event of the year in focussing attention on chemical control as an essential element of a comprehensive counternarcotics strategy. The UNGASS adopted five action plans, two of these--one dealing with amphetamine-type-stimulants and the other on controlling precursor chemicals--are directly related to chemical control. (The other UNGASS action plans deal with judicial cooperation, money laundering and drug crop eradication/alternative development.)
The adoption of the chemical-related action plans during the UNGASS reflects the high profile given to chemical issues by the annual UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) meetings. The lengthy multilateral UNGASS preparatory process within the CND that drafted the action plans included both chemical source and drug manufacturing countries. Throughout, the obligations of each were made clear. Chemical source countries must cooperate with drug producing countries to assist them in denying chemicals to traffickers. Drug producing countries must make effective use of that assistance to make this denial a reality.
These obligations were most clearly spelled out in the UNGASS precursor chemical action plan and the debate that preceded agreement on it. The 1988 UN Convention requires pre-export notification, upon request, to the importing country for all shipments of Table I chemicals (primarily precursor chemicals used in the manufacture of synthetic drugs). The drug producing countries wanted the action plan to extend the pre-export notification requirement to all Table II chemicals (much more widely traded essential chemicals used in cocaine and heroin manufacture). Chemical source countries resisted this request because it exceeded the requirements of the 1988 Convention, and it imposed a considerable administrative burden. There was also some concern that the pre-export notification information chemical source countries were being asked to provide would not be effectively used by importing countries to prevent chemical diversion.
The compromise agreed for the action plan was that pre-export notification would be provided, upon request, for acetic anhydride and potassium permanganate, key essential chemicals for heroin and cocaine respectively, but that these notifications should be complements to tight domestic controls in all countries. In February 1999, DEA hosted a conference of the major source countries for potassium permanganate and the major cocaine manufacturing countries to agree on procedures for implementing the action plan language on potassium permanganate.
Nineteen ninety-eight was the first full year of implementation of the U.S.-initiated Multilateral Chemical Reporting Initiative. This voluntary program is designed to encourage governments to exchange chemical control information on a voluntary basis. It has the flexibility to react to changing diversion methods and the use of substitute chemicals. DEA is now sending to interested governments 280-300 notifications monthly of U.S. transactions in regulated chemicals, using a form distributed by the International Narcotics Control Board, to assist in identifying suspicious orders of regulated chemicals. Other governments are slowly adopting the same practice.
The second meeting of the Joint Follow-up Group established by the U.S./EU Chemical Control Agreement met in Washington in December 1998. The EU was represented by 17 officials from the European Commission and EU Member States. The U.S. delegation included officials from DEA, which hosted the meeting and chaired the U.S. delegation, and the Departments of Justice and State. The meeting was successful. A review of actual diversion cases demonstrated the value of the agreement in assisting parties in identifying and stopping shipments liable to diversion to third countries. Weaknesses in implementation were identified and corrective action agreed to.
In addition to implementation of the U.S./EU Chemical Control Agreement, there was a discussion of professional exchanges between implementing agencies and joint chemical control training and assistance programs for drug producing countries. DEA is now developing proposals, which will be discussed at a March 1999 U.S./EU meeting in Brussels.
Many countries are requesting chemical control training, particularly in Southeast Asia, which is facing a growing synthetic drug threat. The UN International Drug Control Program, as part of a regional project, conducted two chemical control training sessions in Laos and one in Thailand in 1998. DEA conducted two training seminars in China using U.S., German and Indian instructors to stress the multilateral nature of chemical control and to develop professional contacts among concerned officials.
The Road Ahead
Implementation and follow-up are now needed on the chemical control initiatives for which there is a multilateral consensus. The broadest consensus is that of the United Nations General Assembly with its adoption of the UNGASS action plans.
There is international recognition that multilateral follow-up to the UNGASS is required. While the UNGASS action plans provide strong guidance, they will lose their creditability if they are not acted upon and the validity of their recommendations demonstrated. The March 1999 UN Commission on Narcotics Drugs meeting will concentrate on UNGASS follow-up.
The USG is also moving forward unilaterally with the DEA conference on tighter controls on potassium permanganate as called for in the UNGASS precursor chemical action plan.
The proposal for joint U.S./EU chemical control training and technical assistance programs offers opportunities for the major Western chemical producing countries to broaden their dialogue with the chemical importing/drug manufacturing countries. The UNGASS stressed their equal responsibility for regulating chemical commerce as called for in the 1988 UN Convention to prevent diversion to illicit drug manufacture. The UNGASS also recognized that assistance is required to enable many countries to establish the infrastructures necessary for effective implementation of chemical control regimes.
Professional exchanges between European and U.S. chemical regulatory officials will be used to improve multilateral communication to better control both U.S./EU chemical trade and our trade with third countries, which presents a major challenge.
There needs to be more active worldwide participation in the Multilateral Chemical Reporting Initiative. The U.S. is leading by example with its 280-300 notifications monthly of chemical transactions. Similar contributions by other countries, particularly Asian and Latin American chemical source countries, are needed. Greater participation will require easing continuing concerns about the sharing between regulatory and law enforcement agencies of sensitive commercial information on proposed transactions in regulated chemicals. Enlightened international opinion, bolstered by growing experience, is increasingly recognizing that the information sharing necessary for law enforcement purposes need not materially compromise commercial confidentiality.
Country Reports
Country reports have been prepared on the major source countries for chemicals used in the manufacture of illicit narcotics. The countries in this section are those with large chemical manufacturing and trading industries that have significant trade with drug-producing regions, and those considered to be sources of chemicals diverted from domestic production or imports for local illicit drug manufacture or for smuggling into neighboring drug-manufacturing countries. Many other countries manufacture and trade in precursor chemicals, some of which are diverted to illicit drug manufacture, but they are not now considered major source countries. These designations are reviewed annually.
The 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988 UN Convention) is the major instrument for international cooperation in chemical diversion control. It includes provisions for maintaining records of transactions on the 22 precursor and essential chemicals listed in the Annex to the Convention.
Major Chemical Source Countries
Europe
Chemical diversion control within the European Union is regulated by two European Community (EC) regulations binding on all Member States. The first regulation, issued in 1990, meets the chemical control provisions of the 1988 UN Convention. The second regulation, issued in 1992, amended the first to incorporate the more comprehensive recommendations of the G-7 Chemical Action Task Force. The EC regulations include provisions for record keeping on transactions in the chemicals listed in the 1988 UN Convention, require a system of permits or declarations for exports and imports of regulated chemicals, and authorize governments to suspend chemical shipments. EU member states implement the regulations through national laws and regulations.
The EC regulations govern the regulatory aspects of chemical diversion control. Member States remain responsible for the criminal aspects, investigating and prosecuting violators of the national laws and regulations implementing the EC regulations.
The U.S./EU Chemical Control Agreement, signed May 28, 1997, provides the formal basis for U.S. and EU Member State cooperation in chemical control. Many EU Member States have also supported the Multilateral Chemical Reporting Initiative, which facilitates chemical control cooperation with a larger number of countries.
Germany and The Netherlands are the two European countries with the largest chemical manufacturing sectors and major chemical trade with many drug-producing areas. Other European countries have important chemical industries but the size of the industries and the level of chemical trade with drug producing areas are not as large as Germany and The Netherlands.
Germany
Germany's position as the world's largest producer of pharmaceuticals and one of the world's major chemical producers makes it a natural target for traffickers seeking to divert chemicals to illicit drug manufacture. In recognition of this, chemical control was made a key component of the government's 1990 national program on drug abuse control. The German chemical and pharmaceutical industry is subject to national chemical control regulations, ratified in 1993, which are based on the European Community regulations. Germany is a party to the 1988 UN Convention and German regulations meet its chemical control requirements.
The German Federal Police/Customs Joint Unit does an excellent job of vetting and verifying exports of controlled chemicals. Under the terms of the U.S./EU Chemical Control Agreement, and within the context of the informal Multilateral Chemical Reporting Initiative, DEA and German authorities share information and mutually support national efforts to prevent chemical diversion.
The Netherlands
The Netherlands has an important chemical industry, and it is a major chemical trading country with an excellent transportation and communications infrastructure, including the world's busiest seaport in Rotterdam. It is also a significant producer of illicit amphetamines, ecstasy and other synthetic drugs. Traffickers seek chemicals in The Netherlands for domestic illicit drug manufacture and for shipment to abroad to drug manufacturing countries.
The Government of the Netherlands has responded vigorously to this threat. The "Law on the Prevention of Chemical Abuse" came into force in July 1995. The law meets the requirements of the 1988 UN Convention and the EC chemical control regulations. A specially formed Dutch Synthetic Drug Unit of the Economic Control Service is making significant progress in combating synthetic drug manufacture and smuggling. During the first six months of 1998, 36 investigations took place relating to the manufacture and wholesaling of synthetic drugs or illegal transactions in precursors. In January 1999, the special unit dismantled a major trafficking organization engaged in the supply of illegal laboratories for the manufacture of synthetic drugs, the manufacture of these drugs, and the development of new synthetic drugs.
U.S. and Dutch cooperation in chemical control is close on a formal and informal basis. The Dutch actively participate in the implementation of the U.S./EC Chemical Control Agreement and information is exchanged formally under the agreement and informally in the course of on-going investigations. In 1996, two Economic Control Service investigators received clandestine laboratory investigation training in the U.S., and two officers from The Hague Police Department received similar training in 1998.
Latin America
Argentina
Argentina has a well-developed chemical industry which produces all but two of the chemicals commonly used for the manufacture of cocaine. The exceptions are potassium permanganate and chloroform.
Argentina is a party to the 1988 UN Convention, and a 1989 law meets the Convention's requirements for record keeping and reporting, import and export licensing, and the authority to suspend shipments. A 1991 Presidential Decree placed additional controls on precursor and essential chemicals. The decree required that all manufacture, import and export of regulated chemicals be registered with the Secretariat for the Prevention of Drug Addiction and Narcotics Trafficking (SEDRONAR). In 1996, another decree was signed to rectify problems with the earlier decree and to provide for registration of distributors and transporters.
Until very recently, there has been limited verification of the legitimacy of transactions in controlled chemicals; resource constraints and deficiencies in earlier relevant decrees have resulted in few investigations into suspicious chemical transactions. New Leadership in SEDRONAR has begun a thorough review to improve controls. The government has introduced new and more secure import and export certificates. In November 1998, SEDRONAR proposed modifications to the decrees to streamline procedures, and it is attempting to rebuild a database of producers and distributors.
The government has also proposed closer cooperation with neighboring countries to improve monitoring of chemical commerce in the region. This is important for neighboring Bolivia, which lacks a significant domestic chemical industry, and where smuggling is the major source of the chemicals used in coca base and cocaine hydrochloride manufacture.
U.S. and Argentine authorities cooperate on chemical control on a limited basis. Information is exchanged on an ad hoc basis.
Brazil
Brazil has South America's largest chemical industry. The country's remote western Amazon region shares borders with South America's three largest cocaine producing countries, Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. The coincidence of large quantities of available chemicals and the practical difficulties of controlling the long, sparsely populated western border make Brazil a prime potential source for the chemicals necessary for cocaine manufacture. There is also some domestic manufacture of illicit synthetic drugs.
Brazil is a party to the 1988 UN Convention. It has laws placing 11 chemicals under some controls including reporting and record keeping, and import and export licensing for transactions above the minimum threshold of half a liter or 400 grams. There are substantial administrative penalties, including seizure and fines, for non-compliance. Manufacturers, distributors, importers, exporters, recyclers, and pharmacies are subject to the law and pay a registration fee, 80 percent of which is destined for the National Drug Fund for use by police agencies for chemical control and drug law enforcement.
Legitimate registrants appear to comply generally with the chemical control law. A lack of resources, however, limits follow-up and verification by the Brazilian Federal Police (DPF) of the legitimate end-use of many shipments. In response to this problem, the United Nations International Drug Control Program began a nine million US dollar program in September 1998, to which Brazil will contribute eight million US dollars, to strengthen systems for verification of chemical registrations and controls over chemical shipments.
In addition, the DPF's Chemical Diversion Profile and its Chemical Intelligence Database, established in 1997 to register chemical companies authorized to handle controlled chemicals, are becoming more effective in monitoring transactions in regulated chemicals.
The U.S.-Brazilian Counternarcotics Agreement provides the context for bilateral cooperation in chemical control, including information sharing. This is supplemented by Brazil's participation in the Multilateral Chemical Reporting Initiative, which provides for informal information sharing.
Mexico
Mexico has major chemical manufacturing and trading industries that produce or import most of the chemicals necessary for illicit drug manufacture. Mexico has been a primary entry point and transit point for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine from Europe and Asia. These chemicals are precursors used in the manufacture of amphetamine and methamphetamine. Mexican criminal organizations are significant traffickers of methamphetamine and its precursors in the U.S.
In 1998, Mexico moved forward with the implementation of the comprehensive chemical control legislation adopted in 1997. The 1997 legislation meets the requirements of the 1988 UN Convention to which Mexico is a party. In December 1998, the Mexican Congress amended the federal penal code to simplify the proof requirements in cases of chemical trafficking.
The U.S. and Mexico cooperate in the area of chemical control through a Bilateral Chemical Control Working Group. The group met twice in 1998 and is the formal vehicle for information sharing between Mexican and U.S. authorities. In 1998, the group placed special emphasis on preventing diversion of chemicals in both directions across the U.S./Mexican border.
Asia
China
China has a major chemical industry and a 2,000-kilometer border with Burma, the world's largest heroin producer, a combination that makes it a target for traffickers seeking to divert chemicals from domestic commerce for smuggling across the border to Burmese heroin labs. Traffickers have also sought to obtain Chinese chemicals for illicit drug manufacture in other countries through fraudulent exports.
In response to this threat, the Chinese Government has become a vigilant monitor of domestic chemical commerce and of precursor chemical exports. One result in 1998 was the seizure in Yunnan Province--bordering on Burma--of more than 300 metric tons of illicit chemicals, equal to the entire amount seized nationwide in 1997.
China is a party to the 1988 UN Convention and has regulations for record keeping and import/export controls on the 22 chemicals listed in the Convention. China also participated in the preparatory meetings for the Multilateral Chemical Initiative and is participating in its implementation.
U.S. and Chinese cooperation in chemical control, including information sharing, is strong. China has agreed not to export certain methamphetamine precursor chemicals, including ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, unless the importing country issues a letter of no objection to their importation. DEA also routinely conducts chemical control training courses for Chinese officials. In 1998, two courses were held, attended by more than 70 officials from 15 provincial, municipal and central government law enforcement agencies.
India
India is a party to the 1988 UN Convention, but it does not have legislation meeting all the Convention's chemical control provisions or covering all 22 chemicals listed in its annex. The government chemical control efforts are concentrated on controlling those domestically produced chemicals most liable for diversion.
Located between the major heroin producing regions of Southeast and Southwest Asia, India is a natural magnet for traffickers seeking chemicals from its large chemical industry for illicit drug manufacture. The government has responded by placing strict controls on acetic anhydride, a key heroin essential chemical. The controls are most strict in the border areas with Pakistan and Burma to prevent the smuggling of acetic anhydride diverted from domestic commerce to the heroin producing areas of these countries. (In the case of Pakistan, the acetic anhydride is usually transshipped to heroin labs in Afghanistan.) The regulations covering acetic anhydride (and N-acetylanthranilic acid) have been further strengthened to require that sellers identify buyers. The Indian Narcotics Control Board notes that seizures of illegal precursor chemicals remained low in 1998, apparently due to the reduced availability of diverted chemicals, and that precursor chemical prices have risen.
India has been a source of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine used in illicit amphetamine and methamphetamine labs in Western countries and Burma. It has also been a source of potassium permanganate used in the manufacture of cocaine. The government has reacted decisively in response to these diversions. In 1998, in eight separate cases it seized over 700 kilograms of ephedrine apparently destined for smuggling into Burma. Indian authorities also cooperate with DEA in verifying the legitimate end-use of major export transactions of potassium permanganate, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, and will not authorize major exports until the importing country confirms that it has no adverse information on the buyer.
Cooperation with Indian authorities in other areas of chemical control has also been good. India has supported information sharing through the Multilateral Chemical Reporting Initiative. And the Indian delegation worked closely with the U.S. delegation in the preparatory meetings for the 1988 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Narcotics to gain acceptance of strong chemical control documents for adoption by that meeting.
Major Cocaine and Heroin Manufacturing Countries
Cocaine and heroin manufacture requires significant amounts of chemicals. The major manufacturing countries for these illicit drugs are normally not major source countries for the required chemicals, and traffickers must meet the majority of their chemical requirements from external sources. This section summarizes the sources of chemicals used in cocaine and heroin manufacturing countries and these countries' initiatives to control these chemicals.
Latin America
Bolivia
Most of the chemicals utilized in Bolivia for processing coca leaf into cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride are smuggled in from neighboring countries, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Peru. It is estimated that only a small amount is diverted from licensed importers.
Bolivia is a party to the 1988 UN Convention and has the legal framework for implementing its provisions. The Bolivian chemical police, GISUQ, have been very active in pursuing chemical investigations. There is a good working relationship with DEA.
These efforts have resulted in an increasingly effective chemical interdiction program which has made many contraband chemicals, such as potassium permanganate and ammonia, hard for traffickers to get or prohibitively expensive. In response, Bolivian laboratory operators are being forced to use inferior substitutes such as cement instead of lye, or sodium bicarbonate instead of ammonia, and are recycling some solvents such as ether. They have on occasion streamlined the coca refining process, eliminating the oxidation phase when chemicals are scarce. As a result of these changes, the quality of Bolivian cocaine hydrochloride has varied making it less desirable to traffickers from other countries. Reportedly, some Brazilian traffickers are purchasing only cocaine base from Bolivia to refine into cocaine hydrochloride in their own country.
DEA and GISUQ cooperate in chemical control. In 1998, the DEA country offices in Bolivia and Chile, and counterparts in both countries, coordinated a successful effort to dismantle two organizations responsible for approximately 80 percent of the chemicals smuggled from Chile to Bolivia.
Colombia
Colombia is the world's largest producer of cocaine and an important producer of heroin. Most of the chemicals for this production are imported into the country with valid import licenses and subsequently diverted. Lesser amounts are smuggled in from neighbor countries, Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela.
Colombia is a party to the 1988 UN Convention and the country's chemical control laws and regulations meet or exceed the provisions of the Convention. Implementation, however, is weak, particularly with regard to the system for issuing import permits for chemicals. DEA has encountered numerous cases of diversion in which the Colombian importer had a valid import permit. Thus, DEA now requires documentation identifying the ultimate user and the end use for the chemical for all U.S. exports, and transshipments through the U.S., of potassium permanganate and the solvents necessary for cocaine production destined for Colombia.
Recent changes in the Colombian Administration have resulted in significant steps being taken to improve implementation of the national chemical control laws and regulations. In 1998, the Colombian National Police, in conjunction with DEA, created a vetted chemical control unit. This unit conducts regulatory inspections of registered chemical companies and investigates specific cases of diversion. In its first year, the unit has uncovered many cases of diversion and has taken steps to monitor the quotas of certain key chemicals that a company is authorized to import to ensure that quotas are not exceeded.
The new Director of the Colombian National Drug Directorate has initiated major changes and chemical control efforts are steadily advancing. DEA and Colombian authorities have had serious and positive discussions with regard to chemical control, most recently in January 1999.
Peru
Peru produces most of the chemicals necessary for cocaine base production, its principal illicit drug export. The country has a strong program to stem diversion of the chemicals required for cocaine base production. It is a party to the 1988 UN Convention and has laws meeting the chemical control provisions of the Convention.
The Peruvian Government is proposing to strengthen its chemical control program with a national sampling program to determine the chemicals that are currently being used for cocaine manufacture. In 1998, the Peruvian National Police initiated a comprehensive program targeting potassium permanganate, a key cocaine essential chemical. The object of the program is to track the flow of the chemical to the final end-user. This is a pilot program which, if effective, will be applied to other cocaine essential chemicals.
DEA cooperates closely with the Peruvian National Police (PNP). Efficient USG-supported PNP special investigative units continued through 1998 to provide significant information leading to seizure of diverted controlled chemicals.
Asia
Afghanistan
Afghanistan is the major heroin supplier to the illicit markets of Eastern and Western Europe. Although a party to the 1988 UN Convention, the two warring factions (Taliban and Northern Alliance) do little or nothing to meet Afghanistan's obligations under the Convention.
Afghanistan's heroin production requires significant amounts of essential chemicals. The country appears to exercise no control over their importation. The major source areas are Europe, India and China, although it is quite likely that Afghanistan was not the declared destination for the exports from these areas. The principal routes to Afghanistan are believed to be through the Gulf States, Central Asia and from India through Pakistan. Many of the chemicals may be smuggled into Afghanistan after being imported and diverted in neighboring countries.
The United States works with other countries and international organizations to stop chemical shipments to Afghanistan, arguing that under present conditions there is no legitimate use for many of the chemicals the country imports. Afghan authorities generally do not cooperate in controlling chemicals. However, according to the UN International Drug Control Program, the Head of the Afghan High Commission for Drug Control in 1998 responded to a request from the International Narcotics Control Board to investigate the authenticity of consignees in Afghanistan for an acetic anhydride shipment that was seized in India. The official investigated and advised that the consignees were fictitious. This is believed to be the first instance in which the Taliban have cooperated on an international narcotics investigation.
Burma
The chemical control situation in Burma has changed little in the past few years. The country remains the world's largest heroin manufacturer and a significant amphetamine and methamphetamine manufacturer. To maintain this status requires significant quantities of chemicals controlled under the 1988 UN Convention. Although a party to the Convention and with laws and regulations implementing its key chemical control provisions, the continuing availability of chemicals demonstrates their poor implementation by the government.
The principal sources for chemicals are China, India and Thailand. China, through smuggling across the long, porous Sino/Burmese border, is the largest. The major efforts to deny chemicals to traffickers are being made in the source countries. Chinese officials in neighboring Yunnan province are directing special efforts against chemical diversion. Indian authorities, between July and December 1998, seized over 700 kilograms of ephedrine, a key amphetamine and methamphetamine precursor chemical, in eight different cases. The ephedrine was apparently destined for smuggling into Burma.
[end of document]
This is an official U.S.-Government source for information on the WWW. Inclusion of non--U.S. Government links does not imply endorsement of contents.