Juxtaposition: Two Snapshots of Global Drug Policy

A group of distinguished figures – among them three former Latin American presidents who in 2009 co-authored a high commission report aimed at rethinking global drug policy – launched a new initiative to end the “war on drugs” paradigm Tuesday. “There is a growing perception that the ‘war on drugs’ approach has failed,” the new Global Commission on Drug Policies said in its first statement, which followed two days of preliminary meetings in Geneva, Switzerland this week.

AFP reports that among the participants in the new, private initiative are former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria, one-time EU foreign affairs minister Javier Solana, and two of Latin America’s most well-known literary figures, Nobel Prize winner Mario Vargas Llosa of Peru and Mexico’s Carlos Fuentes. Also reported to be participating on the commission is Virgin CEO Richard Branson.

The major objective of the new commission will be one of education it seems, seeking to break down further what it calls the “fear and misinformation” that continues to restrict public discussion about alternatives to current drug policies. Those policies, with their focus on the “eradication of production and criminalization of consumption,” have neither reduced drug trafficking nor drug use, the commission says.

On its site, the Drug Policy Alliance says that, “with the launch the Global Commission on Drug Policy, leading figures from around the world are coming together to figure out how to move forward from the failed war on drugs.”

See also a new report authored by former Inter-American Dialogue president Peter Hakim entitled “Rethinking Drug Policy.” As with the new commission, a primary goal of the report, writes Hakim, is to help breakdown one of the “central roadblocks” to drug policy reform: “the silent tolerance of ineffective, even socially damaging, laws and policies because no specific alternative strategy has yet gathered public or political support.”

From the specter of a paradigm shift to the frustration of stasis.

The International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), an international network of NGOs and professional organizations that specializes in issues related to illicit drug production and use, has issued a new statement demanding those countries who may consider joining the US in issuing a formal objection to a proposed Bolivian amendment of the UN’s 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs rethink such a move. The Bolivian amendment, as reported last week, would remove an international ban on coca leaf chewing while, in the words of the IDPC, “maintaining the strict global control system for coca cultivation and cocaine. The IDPC:

“Protecting the indigenous and cultural right of Andean-Amazon peoples to chew coca does not undermine the international efforts to address the significant problems related to the illicit cocaine market. The amendment’s defeat would demonstrate that the international community continues to prioritise a punitive zero-tolerant approach to drug control over the rights of indigenous peoples. Objecting to the requested amendment would perpetuate an obvious violation of these liberties. Furthermore, reasonable and technically sound amendments to the drug control Conventions should be seen as a normal part of the modernisation process to make them fit for purpose in the 21st century.”

The European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies (ENCOD), meanwhile, says the Horizontal Drug Group, formed by EU member states to coordinate drug policies, meets today to decide whether or not it will file a complaint against the Bolivian amendment before the Jan. 31 deadline. So too does ENCOD call on the EU to abstain from filing a complaint, Moreover, the coalition says it is prepared to initiate a “legal procedure to lodge a complaint for racism,” under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, against any EU government which formally objects to the Bolivia’s proposed modifications to the 1961 Convention.

To other stories:

· From debates about drug policy to the violence of the ‘war on drugs’ in Mexico – host to US Sec. of State Hillary Clinton earlier this week. In a Just the Facts podcast, WOLA’s Maureen Meyer has more on the Clinton visit and its significance for US-Mexico relations. Hillary Clinton herself took time to talk with Mexico’s Televisa while in-country Monday. She spends the first part of the interview clarifying her remarks from a few months back, which suggested cartel violence was commensurate with “an insurgency,” reminiscent of Colombia some 20 years ago. [Clinton also mentions issues of the need for judicial reform in Mexico, which the CS Monitor talks about in detail yesterday.] The second-half of the short interview focuses on the US’s responsibility for Mexico’s drug violence, namely US drug consumption and US guns. The latter issue makes headlines today as a network of gun buyers and smugglers was busted in Arizona as they prepared to ship some 700 guns across the border to Mexico. The Wall Street Journal says 17 individuals are named in a 53-count indictment unsealed Tuesday. Arizona US Attorney Denis Burke says guns being shipped to cartels are today one of his state’s “top exports.”

· Al-Jazeera with a short report on one of the latest tragedy in Ciudad Juarez: the murder of seven individuals at a park that had ironically been constructed as part of new anti-violence measure. The AP with a report on another notable murder: the killing of a municipal policeman serving as a bodyguard for Juarez mayor Hector Murguia. The major issue here is the fact that the police officer was shot and killed by federal police. There are conflicting accounts of what occurred but the shooting, which occurred outside a house where Murguia was holding a meeting, seems to have stemmed from either an altercation or misunderstanding between the two groups of security officials. And finally, the Mexican government’s security spokesman has ruled out any talk of a truce with La Familia, the Michoacan-based cartel which many analysts say is on the retreat. The government’s statements follow the unfurling of new banners in Michoacan Monday, claiming the drug gang had “dissolved completely.”

· In Haiti, a possible exit to the electoral crisis, but analysts ask, at what cost? The BBC and Reuters are reporting that government-backed presidential candidate Jude Celestin is prepared to withdraw from his country’s disputed election, amidst OAS, UN, and US pressure. “The candidate for our party INITE, Jude Celestin, will withdraw from the presidential race to facilitate a solution to the electoral crisis,” Senator Franky Exius, a member of the ruling coalition, told Reuters Wednesday. (The AP has yet to confirm saying INITE had not made a final decision on the matter as of Tuesday evening). One of the most outspoken critics of the OAS and US pressure on Haiti – and of what his organization has called an “arbitrary” and “flawed” OAS report that recommended Michel Martelly replace Jude Celestin in a second round run-off – CEPR’s Mark Weisbrot called Washington’s pressure on Haiti to change its election results a “sad day for Haitian democracy.” The Center for Economic and Policy Research, among other advocacy groups, has been calling for a complete re-run of Nov. 28 elections for weeks.

· In Nicaragua, EFE on growing political debate in Nicaragua over elections and election observers. Two weeks ago, President Daniel Ortega, in somewhat vague terms, suggested there could be restrictions on international observers and their ability to monitor a parliamentary and presidential vote scheduled for this November.

· Mentioned last week were a group of unsavory additions to Keiko Fujimori’s “Fuerza 2011” political coalition in Peru. From La Republica, more this week on one of those individuals, congressional candidate Sergio Tapia Tapia, who has apparently been representing the ultra-right Neo-Nazi group Perú de Fasta since 2001.

· In Venezuela, state media reports on the third use of special decree powers by President Hugo Chavez. The measures seem quite uncontroversial: forgiving the debt of small-time producers who were negatively affected by last December’s floods. El Universal, meanwhile, with more on Chavez’s plans for rapid construction of popular housing which, according to Chavez, will include cooperation with the Chinese (who met with the Venezuelan president yesterday at Miraflores), Russia, Brazil, and Iran.

· Also from El Universal, more on what may be accomplished during upcoming meetings about joint security and counter-narcotics issues between Venezuelan Interior Minister Tareck El-Aissami and Colombian Defense Minister Rodrigo Rivera.

· As Juan Manuel Santos visits France, El Tiempo reports that the Colombian president has reached out to Spanish jurist Baltasar Garzón to advise the Colombian government on how best to combat impunity. According to Santos, the idea is to have Garzón – famous for his defense of “universal jurisdiction” and his efforts to prosecute Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet – come to Colombia to work on a team that will put together the Ley de Victimas.

· Human Rights Watch with a letter to Colombian VP Angelino Garzón ahead of his visit to Washington next week. Among his other agenda items, Garzón plans to discuss human rights issues with HRW during the visit.

· And finally, five Latin American countries enter President Obama’s State of the Union Address. Somewhat unsurprisingly, Colombia and Panama were early mentions in the domestic portion of the president’s speech. Obama suggested passage of pending free trade pacts with both countries would be part of his “export promotion” plan – one plank in Obama’s larger attempt at economic recovery. [A critique of that plan from Tufts Professor Timothy Wise]. A bigger surprise was passing mention of an upcoming visit to three Latin American countries in March. Brazil, Chile, and El Salvador are all expected to receive the US president on that trip, which Obama said will “forge new alliances across the Americas.” (Note: EFE, in its reporting, misquotes the president as saying “new alliances for progress” which, while keeping with the JFK theme of last night, would have had a quite specific and distinct historical meaning).