32. Even though Peru had some limited legal production of cocaine hydrochloride for domestic consumption, there is evidence that, as in Bolivia, manufactured cocaine was in fact exported from Europe and the United States to Peru. Julian Greenup, Commercial Attaché, US Embassy Lima to Secretary of State, May 19, 1944; Folder 2, 1942–1944; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554, DEA; RG 170; NACP.
33. “Narcotic Drugs—Supplies, Stocks and Requirements,” Report to Secretary General, January 20, 1944; UN Box R5031; RG 8, 749; Folder 12/41702/41702 “Post-War Drug Control in Territories of the US of A in Berne under the Jurisdiction of the Authorities of the United Nations”; Registry Files: 1933–1946; LNA.
34. “Continental Trade in Narcotic Drugs: General Observations,” 1943; UN Box R5031; RG 8, 749; Folder 12/41702/41702 “Post-War Drug Control in Territories of the US of A in Berne under the Jurisdiction of the Authorities of the United Nations”; Registry Files: 1933–1946; LNA.
35. “Excerpt from Report, Dated April 27, 1938, from the American Consulate General at Callao-Lima, Peru”; Folder 1, 1926–1941; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554; DEA; RG 170; NACP; “Continental Trade in Narcotic Drugs: General Observations,” 1943; UN Box R5031; RG 8, 749; Folder 12/41702/41702 “Post-War Drug Control in Territories of the US of A in Berne under the Jurisdiction of the Authorities of the United Nations”; Registry Files: 1933–1946; LNA; Julian Greenup, Commercial Attaché, US Embassy Lima to Secretary of State, May 19, 1944; Folder 2, 1942–1944; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554; DEA; RG 170; NACP.
36. T.W. Delahanty, “Drugs,” Domestic Commerce (January 1944), 17.
37. Julian Greenup, Commercial Attaché, US Embassy Lima to Secretary of State, December 18, 1941; Folder 1, 1926–1941; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554; DEA; RG 170; NACP.
38. McAllister, Drug Diplomacy, 98.
39. Anslinger to Treasury Department, Memo, November 19, 1940; Folder 2, 1942–1944; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554; DEA; RG 170; NACP. For another reference to the “destruction of several thousand coca leaf plants on the island of Puerto Rico which were being grown for experimental purposes to determine whether the plant would thrive on this island and to supply the United States with its coca leaf quota, if this were found possible,” see Anslinger to McClintock, Director, Division of Commodities and National Resources, Council of National Defense, February 27, 1941; Folder 1, 1926–1941; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554; DEA; RG 170; NACP.
40. “Joint Report of Messrs Ravndal, Nitze and Mann,” Lima, January 3, 1942; File 459693; A1/Entry 500B; BEW; DEA; RG 169; NACP.
41. Memo, “Narcotics in Peru,” Department of State, Division of the American Republics; Folder 2, 1942–1944; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554, DEA; RG 170; NACP.
42. Mr. White, Department of Monetary Research, Treasury Department, to Mr. H J Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics, May 23, 1942; Folder 2, 1942–1944; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554; DEA; RG 170; NACP.
43. State Department to the Bureau of Narcotics, September 4, 1941; Peru; Folder 1, 1926–1941; File 0660, 71-A-3554; DEA; RG 170; NACP.
44. Andrés A. Soberón, Huanuco, Peru, to BEW, Miscellaneous Commodity Division, October 26, 1942; Folder 2, 1942–1944; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554, DEA; RG 170; NACP.
45. Mr. White, Department of Monetary Research, Treasury Department, to Mr. H J Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics, May 23, 1942; Folder 2, 1942–1944; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554; DEA; RG 170; NACP.
46. Anslinger to Morlock, March 18, 1942; File 0480–11, Drugs: Coca Leaves (1933–1953); 170–74–4; DEA; RG 170; NACP. Note: There were in fact substitutes for cocaine, although apparently none of them had been integrated into medical practice on any significant scale. See for instance Yvan A. Reutsch, “From Cocaine to Ropivacaine: The History of Local Anesthetic Drugs,” Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry 1, no. 3 (August 2001): 175–82.
47. Mr. White, Department of Monetary Research, Treasury Department, to Mr. H J Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics, May 23, 1942; Folder 2, 1942–1944; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554; DEA; RG 170; NACP. Lend-lease funds were also used to gain diplomatic leverage; as one reporter explained, “It is no secret that these funds have been used to bring sometimes reluctant nations to our side and to break Axis ties which were rather strongly laid in some South American countries.” O.K. Armstrong, “Lend-Lease in War and Peace,” Nation’s Business, August 1942, 25.
48. US House, Appropriations Bill for 1945, 539.
49. Ralph Hayes, Coca-Cola Company to Colonel Harry Anslinger, Commissioner, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, March 22, 1944; Folder 2, 1942–1944; 71-A-3554; DEA; RG 170; NACP.
50. Mark Pendergrast, For God, Country and Coca-Cola: The Definitive History of the Great American Soft Drink and the Company that Makes It (New York: Basic Books, 2000), 195–200.
51. Graham D. Taylor, “The Axis Replacement Program: Economic Warfare and the Chemical Industry in Latin America, 1942–44,” Diplomatic History 8, no. 2 (April 1, 1984): 147.
52. “Continental Trade in Narcotic Drugs: General Observations,” 1943; UN Box R5031; RG 8, 749; Folder 12/41702/41702 “Post-War Drug Control in Territories of the US of A in Berne under the Jurisdiction of the Authorities of the United Nations”; Registry Files: 1933–1946; LNA.
53. Cortez F. Enloe, MD, “German Pharmacy Kaput!” American Druggist (June 1946): 82–83, 174, 178, 180.
54. Charles Morrow Wilson, Ambassadors in White: The Story of American Tropical Medicine (New York: Kenikat Press, 1942): 41.
55. Stevens, “Organizing for Economic Defense,” 1130; Bidwell, “Self-Containment and Hemispheric Defense,” 178.
56. Ambassador Pierre de L. Boal, US Embassy La Paz to Secretary of State, February 13, 1943; File 21324; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
57. US Military Academy, Raw Materials, 99, 101, 108.
58. “By 1940, the United States was consuming 60 percent of the world’s rubber, 45 percent of its chromium, 40 percent of its tin, and 36 percent of its manganese, mostly or entirely purchased from foreign supplies.” For an overview of US dependence on Asian raw materials and how this shaped economic warfare policy, see Marshall, To Have and Have Not, 2.
59. Charles Morrow Wilson, “New Crops for the New World,” Nation’s Business, August 1943, 96 [emphasis in the original].
60. Julius B. Wood, “War Remakes South America,” Nation’s Business, April 1945, 23.
61. Bidwell, “Self-Containment and Hemispheric Defense,” 185.
62. United Nations, Economic and Social Council, “Foreign Investments in Peru,” Economic Commission for Latin America, 4th Session, 7 May 1951. E/CN.12/166/Add.11.
63. US Military Academy, Raw Materials, 79.
64. James F. Siekmeier, “Trailblazer Diplomat: Bolivian Ambassador Víctor Andrade Uzquiano’s Efforts to Influence U.S. Policy, 1944–1962,” Diplomatic History 28, no. 3 (June 2004): 389.
65. US Military Academy, Raw Materials, 95.
66. Kenneth D. Lehman, Bolivia and the United States: A Limited Partnership (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1999), 78.
67. Victor Andrade, My Missions for Revolutionary Bolivia, 1944–1962 (London: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1976): 24. By 1952 tin mining “provided around 95 percent of the Andean nation’s foreign exchange”; see Siekmeier, “Trailblazer Diplomat,” 389.
68. Lehman, Bolivia and the United States, 75–76, 79. Other major Bolivian exports included chinchona bark for making quinine, tungsten, zinc, and lead.
69. John Hillman, “Bolivia and British Tin Policy, 1939–1945,” Journal of Latin American Studies 22, no. 2 (May 1990): 289–315.
70. Laurence Whitehead, “Bolivia,” in Latin America between the Second World War and the Cold War, ed. Leslie Bethel et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 131–32. For an overview of Bolivian foreign policy during the time period, see Emmett James Holland, “A Historical Study of Bolivian Foreign Relations 1935–1946” (PhD diss., American University, 1967).
71. “Joint Report of Messrs Ravndal, Nitze and Mann,” La Paz, D
ecember 29, 1941; File 450423; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
72. Andrade, My Missions, 29.
73. Victor Andrade, “Boliva—Past and Future: Economic Diversification Necessary to Avoid Chaos,” Speeches of the Day 23, no. 2 (November 1, 1956): 62. See also Glenn J. Dorn, Truman Administration and Bolivia: Making the World Safe for Liberal Constitutional Oligarchy (State College: Pennsylvania State University, 2011), 15.
74. Whitehead, “Bolivia,” 132.
75. Papers of Calvert Magruder, 1920–1965. Dean Acheson, Assistant Secretary of State to the Honorable Calvert Magruder, Telegram, January 20, 1943; Speeches and Other Professional Activities; Folder 40–6; HUA.
76. Papers of Calvert Magruder, 1920–1965. Labour Problems in Bolivia, Report of the Joint Bolivia–United States Labour Commission (Montreal: International Labor Office, 1943), 39–40; Speeches and Other Professional Activities; Folder 40–4; HUA.
77. UN, “Foreign Investments in Bolivia,” 7 May 1951.
78. “Difficulty in Obtaining Drug Shipments from the US,” US Embassy La Paz to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 1605, January 22, 1942; File 450424; BEW; A1/Entry500B; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
79. Martin Williams, “Foreign Economic Administration Activities in the Chemicals Field,” Chemical and Engineering News 23, no. 24 (December 25, 1945): 2323.
80. David Green, The Containment of Latin America: A History of the Myths and Realities of the Good Neighbor Policy (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1971), 87.
81. “Joint Report . . .,” December 29, 1941.
82. George M. Lauderbaugh, “Bolivarian Nations: Securing the Northern Frontier,” in Latin America During World War II, ed. Thomas M. Leonard and John F. Bratzel (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 113; Percy W. Bidwell, “Our Economic Warfare,” 427.
83. “Joint Report . . .,” January 3, 1942.
84. US Embassy, Lima to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 3321, April 9, 1942; File 21147; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
85. Richard Turner, US Embassy Lima, to Dewey Anderson, BEW, State Department, February 1, 1943; File 453737; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
86. US Embassy La Paz to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 1158, January 19, 1943; File 20027; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
87. “Six Firms Taken Over,” New York Times, March 14, 1942, 7.
88. US Embassy La Paz to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 1158, January 19, 1943; File 20027; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
89. Richard Turner, US Embassy Lima, to Dewey Anderson, BEW, State Department, February 1, 1943; File 453737; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
90. Henry C Ramsey, US Embassy La Paz to Theodore Tannenwald Jr., Department of State, April 6, 1943; File 27096; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
91. Despite the focus here, it is worth noting that BEW initiatives encompassed more than pharmaceuticals. Both countries were reluctant to crack down on German drugs, but they did give general support to US economic warfare efforts. Bolivia was initially more reluctant than Peru to embrace US economic warfare policy. “Unfortunately,” BEW officials declared in December 1941, “the realization that an economic war is being fought has not yet reached Bolivia.” In contrast, “The cooperation which we have received from the Peruvian Government in the matter of economic warfare is eminently satisfactory.” Yet in both countries steps had been taken—at least formally—to enact some of the economic warfare policies promoted by the United States. Although Peru did not officially recognize the Proclaimed List, after January 1942 it took “no steps to prohibit or hinder its publication.” Monitoring the situation, the BEW reported that while some firms “are feeling the pinch . . . none as yet are in desperate circumstances,” and “no serious unemployment or disruption of manufacturing seems to have resulted yet.” In Bolivia, meanwhile, a Supreme Decree on December 11, 1941, froze German, Japanese, and Italian assets and made “their enterprises subject to control.” The decree identified those who fell under its purview as: “Japanese, German and Italian individuals and firms included in the black lists adopted by American countries.” Even while these moves were significant, both countries resisted enforcing the Proclaimed List in relation to the pharmaceutical industry on the grounds of public health. “Economic Background Report,” December 1, 1941; File 450421; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP; “Joint Report . . .,” December 29, 1941; “Joint Report . . .,” January 3, 1942; “Foreign Investments in Bolivia,” 7 May 1951, United Nations.
92. Taylor, “Axis Replacement Program,” 155.
93. Walter Wood, “Quinine Supply Sufficient for Bare Needs,” Washington Post, November 10, 1943, 9.
94. Taylor, “Axis Replacement Program,” 161.
95. In the archives it became apparent there were many obstacles to this task, as staff complained they needed better lists because certain “chemical items” on a US list of anticipated essential requirements were not found in “pharmacopeia and are untranslatable in Spanish.” See, for example, “Joint Report . . .,” January 3, 1942. In both Peru and Bolivia this was a problem. People at Legation in Bolivia requested “clearer definitions of the commodities on which estimates are requested to be furnished to the mission. Some of the chemical items are not found in the dictionary or pharmacopoeia and are not translatable into Spanish. It is not clear what is to be included in some of the more important items.” As an early example of the confusion arising from this pairing of commodity distribution with politics, this shows how it was not even clear to many what the parameters of essential requirements in fact were. See, for example, “Joint Report . . .,” December 29, 1941.
96. “Joint Report . . .,” January 3, 1942.
97. “Joint Report . . .,” January 3, 1942.
98. US Embassy Lima to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 131, March 27, 1943; File 86068; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
99. “Importations into Peru of Schering Products for the Years 1937 to 1942, Inclusive,” US Embassy Lima to Department of State, Dispatch No. 8383, November 22, 1943; File 72591; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
100. “Importations into Peru of Bayer Products During the Years 1937–1942, Inclusive,” US Embassy Lima to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 8464, December 1943; File 75322; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
101. “Joint Report . . .,” December 29, 1941.
102. Richard Turner, US Embassy Lima, to Dewey Anderson, BEW, State Department, January 30, 1943; File 451399; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
103. Henry C. Ramsey, US Embassy La Paz to Theodore Tannenwald Jr., Department of State, April 6, 1943; File 27096; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
104. “Importations into Peru,” Dispatch No. 8383.
105. US Embassy, Lima to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 3321, April 9, 1942; File 21147; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
106. “Importations into Peru,” Dispatch No. 8383.
107. US Embassy La Paz to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 1158, January 19, 1943; File 20027: A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
108. “Difficulty in Obtaining Drug Shipments from the US,” US Embassy La Paz to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 1605, January 22, 1942; File 450424; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
109. Boal, US Embassy La Paz to Secretary of State, Telegram, December 31, 1942; File 420498; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
110. For just two of many examples, see “Difficulty in Obtaining Drug Shipments from the US,” US Embassy La Paz to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 1605, January 22, 1942; File 450424; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP; and “Drug Situation in Bolivia,” US Embassy La Paz to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 531, September 10, 1942; File 497452; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
111. Richard Turner, US Embassy Lima, to Dewey Anderson, BEW, State Department, February 1, 1943; File 453737; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP. It was apparently harder to encourage US companies to move into the Bolivian market than elsewhere because, as the US
Embassy in Bolivia acknowledged, for US drug firms the “Bolivian market . . . [was] admittedly small and economically weak by comparative standards, [but it] is of vital importance and concern to Bolivians.” US Embassy La Paz to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 1951, July 6, 1943; File 41575; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
112. “Joint Report . . .,” January 3, 1942.
113. Turner to Anderson, February 1, 1943
114. “List of Peruvian Firms, Organizations and Individuals Interested in Importing Drugs and Pharmaceuticals from the United States,” File 62096; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
115. US Embassy La Paz to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 1951, July 6, 1943; File 41575; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP.
116. Henry C. Ramsey, US Embassy La Paz to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 2052, August 5, 1943; File 49109; A1/Entry500B; BEW; FEA; RG 169; NACP. This is an interesting example that again shows how the drug industry was integrated into the larger national economy and how this economy was very much connected to US and German warring for imperial access and technological advantage. WR Grace was transporting “high octane gasoline from Cochabamba to Santa Cruz to service Panagra planes.” Panagra was Pan American Grace Airways, a US airline, which during World War II replaced the services of German-controlled SEDTA in Ecuador and Lufthansa in Peru and Bolivia.
117. Henry C. Ramsey to Secretary of State, Dispatch No. 2052, August 5, 1943.
118. Leslie B. Rout and John F. Bratzel, The Shadow War: German Espionage and United States Counterespionage in Latin America during World War II (Frederick, MD: University Publications of America, 1986); see also Martha H. Huggins, Political Policing: The United States and Latin America (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998), 60–66.
119. M.J. Hartung, Vice President, Maywood Chemical Works to Mr. E.C. Brokmeyer, Attorney, National Press Building (forwarded to Anslinger at the FBN), April 15, 1940; Folder 1, 1926–1941; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554; DEA; RG 170; NACP.
120. Hartung, Maywood to Anslinger, FBN, May 12, 1942; Folder 2, 1942–1944; File 0660, Peru; 71-A-3554, DEA; RG 170; NACP.
We Sell Drugs: The Alchemy of US Empire Page 32