In the Oscar-winning film "Traffic," about the drug war, one character discusses the North American Free Trade Agreement as a boon for narcotics traffickers. The film has been lauded for its realistic portrayal of drug trafficking, and in its acknowledgement of NAFTA these accolades are well-deserved. NAFTA has been largely beneficial to traffickers seeking access to the United States.

But the linkage between agreements like NAFTA and the narcotics trade runs deeper even than the film suggests. This linkage poses a problem for the Bush administration, as it did for the Clinton administration. While drug trafficking and economic liberalization are not often associated in contemporary politics, the two are intertwined.

While the major factors that influence drug trafficking are not related to trade liberalization, trade liberalization's impact has been largely ignored in the current debate. Over the long term, liberalization may decrease drug trafficking: Freer world trade may promote alternative exports in developing countries and should make those countries richer overall, reducing the willingness of their citizens to run the risks of trafficking. But over the short term, trade agreements like NAFTA facilitate trafficking. The same technological, economic and legal changes that have enhanced economic flows in the licit sectors of the global economy have enhanced these flows in the illicit sectors. Indeed, every step toward more open world markets creates some measure of collateral damage in the drug war.

Economic liberalization fuels the drug trade in at least four ways. First, by lowering tariffs on imported goods and constraining national measures that discriminate against these goods, institutions such as the World Trade Organization increase global commerce. That is, of course, the point. But because so much trafficking occurs through ordinary means - trucks, ships and planes engaged in licit commerce - general trade flows and illegal drug flows are intrinsically linked. Freer trade means more goods move across borders; since cocaine has been hidden in everything from jalapeno peppers to livestock, more goods simply mean more and more varied hiding spots for drugs.

Second, and more subtly, free trade agreements trigger infrastructure changes in the way licit trade is carried out, and these changes, in turn, help drug traffickers. Larger, more modern ports, lower airfares and more border-crossing stations all assist traffickers at the margin. And major innovations, like the use of standardized containers in international shipping, help even more. These changes don't flow directly from free trade agreements, but economic liberalization strengthens the incentives to upgrade and expand ports and other infrastructure.

Third, freer trade means cheaper goods generally, and that, in turn, means cheaper inputs to drug processing. While inputs like the chemicals used to make cocaine are not very expensive, again, at the margin, cheaper is better for traffickers.

Lastly, more open international capital and currency markets can make the critical laundering of drug profits easier. The bottom line is that there is a fundamental, though not necessarily irreconcilable, tension between two unwavering policies of the current administration: an open, freer global economy and a drug policy based on border interdiction and the eradication of supply. President Bush's decision this winter to abide by NAFTA rules and permit trucks from Mexico to operate throughout the United States illustrates this tension clearly.

There are no easy answers to this quandary, but denying its existence - as the Clinton administration did - is not a satisfactory solution. The Bush administration may ultimately conclude that some measure of increased drug trafficking is the price of a more open global economy. But it should instead reconsider the underlying bases of our drug policy. Critics have long pointed out flaws in U.S. policy. We must also recognize that the current approach to drug control, with its external, border-focused orientation, is increasingly at odds with a globalizing world economy.