The $1 trillion policy the U.S. won’t debate — but should
Why the war on drugs may lead to massive anti-American sentiment in the western hemisphere
The Summit of the Americas is meant for heads of state to “define a hemispheric agenda at the highest level to address urgent challenges and propel positive change.”
There is a one trillion dollar policy, however, that the U.S. only agreed to debate at one previous Summit, despite being among the most consequential policies for the region: the war on drugs.
Many leaders in Washington, D.C. seem to believe that reconsidering the war on drugs is not a strategic priority. But they may be taken by surprise: opposition to the war on drugs has all the necessary ingredients to awaken massive opposition in Latin America, multiplying anti-American sentiments and further complicating U.S. relations with its nearest neighbors.
As evidenced by the insistence of Latin American heads of state to debate the war on drugs at the 2012 Summit, this policy can unite many countries — leftist and rightist, U.S. allies and non-allies, in the north and south — against the U.S.
The war on drugs is increasingly affecting more countries in the region. It is a contagion. In the 1980s it transformed Colombia. As Colombian cartels were weakened, the market shifted towards Mexico and the Caribbean.
Pressure on Mexican cartels, in turn, pushed them to El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. The list of affected countries has now grown to include many others, from Costa Rica to Argentina.
When traffickers expand to a new country, they simply transform it. Violence rises to levels only comparable to those of civil wars.
In Colombia, the infamous drug cartels of the 1980s declared total war against the state when it threatened drug lords with extradition to the US, killing about 20,000 victims, including presidential candidates and ministers. Funded by the profits of the cocaine market, left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries have fought a war that has so far killed about 170,000 civilians.
In Mexico, after President Felipe Calderon launched a war against the drug cartels, violence skyrocketed. Drug-related killings between 2006 and 2012 have been estimated at around 60,000.
Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, which had been struggling with the activities of gangs for years, are now dealing with widespread cartel violence as well. According to the UN, Central America is now, with Southern Africa, the world’s most violent region.
The effects are increasingly being felt in the Southern Cone as well. Drug-related violence has been on the rise, especially in Argentina. What is more, in the border between Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil, drug traffickers have allegedly allied with terrorist groups, which may fuel other types of violence in the region later on.
In addition to the toll of human life, institutions are dying as well. It is extremely difficult for these countries to build their institutions and preserve the rule of law when outlaws have the capacity to offer exorbitant bribes as well as credible life threats.
In Mexico, the penetration of drug trafficking into the public sector has been so pervasive that it has created a crisis of governability. As had happened in Colombia, judges, policemen and politicians have been found to work with the cartels.
In some areas, drug trafficking groups perform key roles of the state: they provide public goods, maintain public order and settle disputes among neighbors. These practices often help cartels to consolidate their control over territories, while eroding the legitimacy of the state.
Because of the pervasiveness of drug-related violence, civil society as a whole is weakened. In Colombia, non-state armed organizations have systematically targeted journalists and civic leaders. Mexico has one of the top 10 highest impunity rates for crimes against journalists in the world. Social trust recedes and the rule of law loses ground.
Public health and the environment also suffer. Crops are eradicated by U.S. plains that fumigate the soil with an herbicide that is believed to cause cancer. Forests are being destroyed by growers and traffickers, as studies of deforestation in Central and South America show.
Clearly, the war on drugs is a human rights issue, a political issue, an economic issue, a social issue, and an environmental issue. It is among the most consequential policies for Central and South America.
The U.S. has responded to this catastrophe with a combination of aid, military training and intelligence. It first launched Plan Colombia; when traffickers turned to Mexico, the U.S. launched its Merida Initiative; now that Mexican cartels have made a mess in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, the Obama administration plans to respond with $1 billion in aid.
Which country will be next?
Expecting traffickers to give up their practices denies 45 years of evidence: they simply adapt and move on. What is more, the purity of illegal drugs in the streets of American cities has increased, while their price has dropped, suggesting that supply remains intact.
The size of the profits helps explain this persistence. In 2009 one gram of cocaine was sold for about $2.2 in Bolivia, Colombia and Peru. Its retail price in American cities was $237. In as far as the profits of the illegal drugs are so high, someone will be willing to create a private army and a bribing machine.
Latin American countries are realizing that they cannot sit and watch as their countries are devastated.
Several former presidents have spoken up, including Fernando Henrique Cardozo of Brazil, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico. What is more, sitting presidents have, for the very first time, raised the issue on repeated occasions, including Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia; Laura Chinchilla of Costa Rica; José Mujica of Uruguay and Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala.
Opposition to the war on drugs could become a strong movement in Latin America. It can easily attract the left, the right, human rights and environmental organizations, and masses of people whose countries either have been devastated by this tragedy, or at risk of being so.
Will the U.S. government pay attention when it is too late?
Ana Arjona is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Northwestern University, where she researches and teaches on the links between violence and politics. She is a fellow with The OpEd Project’s Public Voices at NU. In 2012 she was a fellow on the SSRC/Open Society Foundation’s Drugs, Security and Democracy in Latin America program.
Twitter: @anamarjona
