Perez, Central America and Washington
Published in El Universo
(Ecuador ) on 28 February 2012
by Julio Ligorría Carballido (link to
original)
The Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina, in power since Jan. 14, declared before the press that he would propose a discussion and analysis about the decriminalization of drugs in his country. In the second week of February, without giving many details, the Guatemalan president warned that this proposal could be successful and that it could become part of a comprehensive strategy that would incorporate other actions, provided that it is well-defined.
Shortly after Perez Molina’s statement, the American ambassador to Guatemala, Arnold Chacon, and a State Department spokesperson indicated that their government is against decriminalization but that this initiative would not impact relations between the two countries. This was also expressed by Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes, who initially supported Pérez’s idea during a visit to the Guatemalan capital but changed his mind after returning to his country where he declared his opposition to the proposal. When asked, Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla agreed with the possibility of initiating a discussion on the topic. Joining her are the director of the Pan American Health Organization, the secretary general of UNASUR and former Colombian Foreign Secretary María Emma Mejía and journalists Carlos Alberto Montaner and Andrés Oppenheimer.
Pérez Molina has emphasized the need to search for a new way of combating drug activity. A great deal of this initiative is derived from the poor results of government initiatives and strong advances by drug traffickers. As the power of drug cartels increases and gains ground, the Guatemalan newspaper El Periodico reported on Feb. 19 that the U.S. State Department webpage announced a significant reduction in assistance for counter-narcotics operations in Central America: for 2013, Guatemala will receive $2 million, Haiti will receive $5 million, Bolivia $17.5 million and Mexico $199 million.
The reduction in American assistance for the war on drugs seems questionable given the reports by Guatemalan security forces, who reported seizures in drug trafficking and production material in 2011 worth $3 billion. This analysis is particularly important because the majority of the investment in the war against this criminal activity comes from the budgets of each nation, where education, health and other aspects of development have been ignored when it comes to deciding between investing in the welfare of citizens or in the fight against the cartels. This phenomenon is well understood in Washington.
The drug traffickers seem conscious of this and have easily converted the zone into a feud that will be difficult to end if anti-drug policy does not change. They have easily gotten close to the communities where they operate by supporting public works projects and have succeeded in permeating political institutions and society in general. Better armed and financed, drug activity has permeated institutional structures. It is rumored that their operations reach the financial and judicial systems, a serious allegation given their political participation. Drug traders are now also winning the battle that has been waged in accordance with Washington’s drug policy.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein, it is obvious that on the issue of drug trafficking, insisting on the same strategy and expecting different results is a symptom of insanity. Perez Molina understands this and proposes initiating a debate that includes the possibility of decriminalization in search of a proposed alternative to control the problem that drugs present in the region.
It is risky to believe that drug trafficking would end as a result of decriminalization. The measure could have devastating consequences if it is not part of a comprehensive proposal that confronts the problem from a variety of angles, as President Perez has emphasized recently. It is clear that in discussing decriminalization, the discussion has grabbed the attention of governments who feel bound to the subject and has returned arguments from across the continent to the fore.
I conclude by indicating that the issue of drug activity is so sensitive that a statement like the one made by President Perez has obligated an exercise of reflection on multiple levels. Hence, the problem exists and easily calls for meditation and the planning of a response in the future. Meanwhile, the proposal for discussion by President Otto Perez has traveled the globe and has the thinktanks of the world thinking.
Shortly after Perez Molina’s statement, the American ambassador to Guatemala, Arnold Chacon, and a State Department spokesperson indicated that their government is against decriminalization but that this initiative would not impact relations between the two countries. This was also expressed by Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes, who initially supported Pérez’s idea during a visit to the Guatemalan capital but changed his mind after returning to his country where he declared his opposition to the proposal. When asked, Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla agreed with the possibility of initiating a discussion on the topic. Joining her are the director of the Pan American Health Organization, the secretary general of UNASUR and former Colombian Foreign Secretary María Emma Mejía and journalists Carlos Alberto Montaner and Andrés Oppenheimer.
Pérez Molina has emphasized the need to search for a new way of combating drug activity. A great deal of this initiative is derived from the poor results of government initiatives and strong advances by drug traffickers. As the power of drug cartels increases and gains ground, the Guatemalan newspaper El Periodico reported on Feb. 19 that the U.S. State Department webpage announced a significant reduction in assistance for counter-narcotics operations in Central America: for 2013, Guatemala will receive $2 million, Haiti will receive $5 million, Bolivia $17.5 million and Mexico $199 million.
The reduction in American assistance for the war on drugs seems questionable given the reports by Guatemalan security forces, who reported seizures in drug trafficking and production material in 2011 worth $3 billion. This analysis is particularly important because the majority of the investment in the war against this criminal activity comes from the budgets of each nation, where education, health and other aspects of development have been ignored when it comes to deciding between investing in the welfare of citizens or in the fight against the cartels. This phenomenon is well understood in Washington.
The drug traffickers seem conscious of this and have easily converted the zone into a feud that will be difficult to end if anti-drug policy does not change. They have easily gotten close to the communities where they operate by supporting public works projects and have succeeded in permeating political institutions and society in general. Better armed and financed, drug activity has permeated institutional structures. It is rumored that their operations reach the financial and judicial systems, a serious allegation given their political participation. Drug traders are now also winning the battle that has been waged in accordance with Washington’s drug policy.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein, it is obvious that on the issue of drug trafficking, insisting on the same strategy and expecting different results is a symptom of insanity. Perez Molina understands this and proposes initiating a debate that includes the possibility of decriminalization in search of a proposed alternative to control the problem that drugs present in the region.
It is risky to believe that drug trafficking would end as a result of decriminalization. The measure could have devastating consequences if it is not part of a comprehensive proposal that confronts the problem from a variety of angles, as President Perez has emphasized recently. It is clear that in discussing decriminalization, the discussion has grabbed the attention of governments who feel bound to the subject and has returned arguments from across the continent to the fore.
I conclude by indicating that the issue of drug activity is so sensitive that a statement like the one made by President Perez has obligated an exercise of reflection on multiple levels. Hence, the problem exists and easily calls for meditation and the planning of a response in the future. Meanwhile, the proposal for discussion by President Otto Perez has traveled the globe and has the thinktanks of the world thinking.