Original subtitles

Downloaded from YTS.MX

Official YIFY movies site: YTS.MX

We have seen that the narcotics traffickers

hate aerial eradication.

And the enemy is saying they hate the spray.

They're avoiding it. They're moving away from it.

They shoot at the airplanes.

They do everything possible to prevent aerial eradication

because they know it's effective.

They know that it has hurt their bottom line.

It's a myth to think that all coca cultivators

in Colombia are poor campesinos

who have no other form of viable livelihood.

That's true for some,

but it doesn't paint the whole picture.

A lot of this is a very, very cynical,

intentional effort by organized crime

to find new areas

and to bring people in to do that work for them.

Enemy number one in the United States

is drug abuse.

Drugs are menacing our society.

And by next year, our spending for drug law enforcement

will have more than tripled from its 1981 levels.

Our 1990 drug budget

totals almost $8 billion,

the largest increase in history.

Our outrage against drugs unites us.

I think there are a couple of things that were at stake

from an American perspective

that came to bear at that time.

Narco trafficking.

You know, we were in a phase

were narcotics were flooding into the country.

I think the reason Colombia

with US support continues to engage

in aerial eradication is because it works.

I mean, the facts speak for themselves.

Again, if you could kind of abstract yourself

and pretend you're a Martian looking at this,

it's just kind of unimaginable.

I mean, the number of people in Colombia killed

by US tobacco is way beyond the number of Americans

killed by Colombian cocaine.

If you go to a country like China,

it's astronomically more.

Okay, do they have a right to come to the United States

and carry out chemical warfare in North Carolina

and Kentucky because they have a tobacco problem

and it's coming from here? No.

I mean, you can't even speak the words.

Eradicating coca using aircraft

is far safer, far more efficient,

and less costly and less dangerous

to personnel--

Colombian and US personnel than manual eradication.

I think they have to fly 50 met--

no more than 50 meters above the level of the ground.

Is that correct? 150? Okay, 150.

Woman: 150? I thought it was, like, 40...

Yeah, let's get back to you on that

'cause I think it's-- it's definitely less than 150.

I've been down to Southern Colombia and seen some of it.

It's chemical warfare which is driving huge numbers

of peasants off their land, destroying their crops.

Colombia has the second biggest

refugee problem in the world after Sudan.

And they're driven into urban slums,

and multinational corporations come in

and start mining and so on and so forth.

In 2007 there were about 140,000 hectares

under coca production, and now there's half of that.

And that matters a lot.

Less coca means less cocaine

means less drugs going anywhere else in the world.

And of the 70,000 hectares that remain in production,

more than half of them are in areas where we can't spray,

which tells you something.

That means the people who are producing the coca

are moving them into areas where spraying can't take place

because the spraying is effective.

They have been moving their coca cultivation

away from areas where we're allowed to spray aerially.

It's gotten to the point where now

51% of all coca being cultivated in Colombia

has moved to indigenous reserves,

national parks, or the border buffer zone with Ecuador,

all of those areas where we are not allowed to spray

by arrangement with the Colombian government.

There's some recent supposedly academic studies

that are out that are challenging

the cost effectiveness of aerial eradication

or the efficacy of the actual--

the destruction of coca plants.

Those studies are not yet tested

in a peer reviewed journal.

They-- we believe they lack...

a certain rigor and they haven't yet been

kind of examined.

There's a myth that glyphosate

causes human health issues or problems.

Glyphosate is one of the most heavily studied chemicals on the planet.

There's a raft of academic literature

in the US and here in Colombia

that demonstrates that glyphosate

has no appreciable impact on human health.

This study looked at the strength of scientific evidence

that glyphosate causes cancer.

The conclusion was that glyphosate probably causes cancer.

Guyton: We identify a working group of the world's best experts.

They look at studies in humans.

These are studies of people who were exposed

in their jobs or in their communities.

Based on this review process,

the working group of experts chose to classify

glyphosate as group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans.

Andrews: The idea that glyphosate

creates some kind of permanent economic--

environmental damage is actually not true.

In about 90 days the components of glyphosate break down

to chemicals that actually serve as fertilizers

that actually enhance plant growth.

In terms of our security assistance relationship with Colombia,

it's very much a mutual benefit for both countries.

Colombia has gained access to US expertise

and support in fortifying its own efforts

against organized crime and illegal armed groups

and narcotics trafficking.