International War on Drugs - Research Paper Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: University: What have we seen benefit from the International War on Drugs? War on Drugs is a vital campaign that tends to both define and reduce the rate at which illegal trade in illicit drugs is being carried out throughout the world through prohibition and foreign military aid as well as through military interventions by the United States government in conjunction with the participating countries. The initiative includes various drug policies put in place by the United States that have the intention of discouraging the production, distribution as well as the consumption of illegal psychoactive drugs. “War on Drugs” was pioneered in 1971 by President Richard Nixon of the United States. The international war on drugs is a noble exercise that has been very controversial. However, the exercise has received mixed reactions and criticisms from various quotas, with some experts on one hand advocating that the exercise continues since it has attained tremendous objectives, while on the other hand, others argue that it has not been successful in reducing the illegal drug production, distribution and consumption, but has only been successful in breaking ties between participating nations. In this regard, this research paper will unearth the benefits of the international war on drugs. Additionally, the paper will highlight the negative impacts of the war as well as whether the whole exercise has had adverse effects on international relationships between governments. In this paper I ask; is the international war on drugs been beneficial? Have there been economic benefits from both the illegal trade on drugs as well as the conflict generated between participating nations? History of the War on Drugs The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 was the first law in the United States that restricted the distribution and usage of certain drugs. Moreover, the United States implemented the National Prohibition Act together with the 18th Amendment in 1920. These laws prohibited the trade, manufacture and transportation of alcoholic drinks for national level consumption. Consequently, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was established in the Department of the Treasury in 1930. In 1933, the U.S saw the federal repeal the alcohol prohibition Act. Although President Nixon coined the term War on Drugs in 1971, the United States government, still under President Nixon, had implemented drug policies under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, a continuation of drug prohibition policies that had started in 1914 in the U.S (Payan, 23). A big fraction of the criminal attention is geared towards the ready market in the United States, where, according to experts, the country’s largest source of illegally earned cash is from drug trafficking. This has made drug trafficking number one national enemy, especially since the 1970s when president Nixon used the term War on Drugs”, and in the 1980s when president Ronald Reagan decided to face the vice. Immediately Reagan left the White House in 1989, two of his successors, President George Bush and Bill Clinton have continued with the pledge on war on drugs and have spent billions of dollars in fighting the war on drug trafficking (Chepsiuk). Literature Review Drug trafficking is regarded as the second most profitable illicit trade in the world, after arms trafficking. International drug trafficking accounts for about 8% of the total global trade and, according to the United Nations Drugs Control Program, it absorbs $400-$500 billion annually (Chepsiuk, 2). Chepsiuk continues to assert that heroin is regarded to account for $200 billion of the total, cocaine accounts for $100 billion, while the remaining amount is sub-divided among Marijuana, Hashish and other psychotropic drugs. The United Nations contends that approximately 104 countries are involved in drug trafficking either directly or indirectly through production, distribution and consumption as well as laundering of illicit profits, and thousand of entrepreneurial criminals from all over the world are more than willing to face death and/or jail so long as they get part of the lucrative cake (Chepsiuk). Profitable gains are so huge that it is apparent that the drug traffickers find it hard to hide, let alone spend their money. Every year, many unfortunate people of different colours, ages and classes either die or their lives are wrecked and derailed because of international drug trafficking. The National Drug Controlling Illegal Drug Use office claims that about 40,000 lives are affected in the U.S on an annual basis, while in Europe, between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people are addicted to heroin. This implies that drug addiction, encompassed with the criminality linked with the illegal trade makes drug trafficking the world’s leading problem (Chepsiuk, xix). For over a century, Americans have always perceived other countries as the primary source of their drug problem. However, this may be true to some extent since U.S does not produce all drugs, either by plants or by synthetic means. Currently, the connection between foreign countries and the illicit trade on drugs continues to have a great influence on the United State’s international drug policy. America fully supports efforts by any government to de-link itself from foreign drug supplies. Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press conducted a poll in 1997 and reported that more than two-thirds of the respondents claimed that drug control was a top priority objective of the U.S foreign Policy. Additionally, a poll conducted by Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in 1995 reported that 86% of the Americans consider stopping the drugs flow a number one priority on the most important foreign policy goals (McVeigh and Wolfer, 65). Historically, American drug habits have always been sourced from foreign nations. For instance, Cocaine and Marijuana come from Latin America and the Caribbean, heroine from the Southeast Asia’s Golden Triangle (Burma, Laos and Thailand) and South Asia’s Golden Crescent (Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran), (McVeigh and Wolfer, 65). Benefits of International War on Drugs Initially, the international war on drugs majorly focused on supplies and suppliers. It was perceived that once the drugs are controlled at the source, then the war on drugs would be won. For instance, such acts as the destruction of Coca and Marijuana plants in the South America, substitution programs and aid to enforcement of law agencies in Columbia, Peru, Bolivia and Mexico were common. Another significant strategy was aimed at improving efficient of border searches and destruction of drug shipments that evaded control at production source. It is imperative to ascertain that by 1991, there was a rise in the amount of cocaine seized by federal authorities to 134 metric tons. Moreover, an additional outstanding amount of between 263 and 443 tons escaped and entered into the United States market each year (McVeigh and Wolfer). Federal drug seizures have reported that from 1990 through to 1996, there has been very minimal success in countering the flow of drugs. An estimated 737,318 pounds of illegal drugs were impounded in 1990, compared with 1,720,500 pounds that were seized in 1996 while approximately 3 million drugs were impounded in 2001. Though there are clear indications that necessary actions have been taken to control drugs in an international arena, many critics argue that the War on Drugs efforts have failed to control drugs flow or increase the price of drugs due to shortages (McVeigh and Wolfer, 65). However, remarkable and impressive seizures of drugs at entry points have been reached, while in some countries, foreign drugs are cheaper and are readily available currently than two decades ago. This therefore implies that nations should shift their fight from a fundamental focus on drug reduction at supplies stage to reducing the high demand for drugs through preventive, educative, curative as well as advocating for community anti-drug measures. How War on Drugs has Affected International Relationships The effort of controlling production of drugs overseas has generally been perceived as ineffective and in other instances as counterproductive, both for the producing nations and for the diplomacy of the United States. There is no doubt that diplomacy takes a centre stage in the federal government’s war on drugs overseas. For instance, in 1986, the congress put in stiff measures on the executive branch, the process of Certification and Decertification of foreign nations taking part in drug trade. In this regard, there is a global reflection that classifies nations into producer, consumer or truant categories. The congress had an intention of giving United States power to compel cooperation of foreign nations as well as holding the president accountable for ensuring that a vigorous international drug policy is enforced. Therefore, the certification law mandated the president to identify the countries that are significant direct or indirect sources of illicit drugs that significantly affect the United States population and that of other countries in the world(McVeigh and Wolfer, 66). In 1996, desertification had come up as a major source of tension between the United States and its Latin American neighbours. Allegedly, the president of Columbia was connected with the drug cartels, leading to the decertification. The involvement of the United States in Columbia proves that the war on drugs has been unsuccessful. For over a decade, the U.S has been supplying military and economic support to the government of Columbia aimed at suppressing the rebellion by the drug kingpins. Even though there have been assassination reports of the Columbian government leaders, ground fighting, cease-fires as well as negotiations, drugs are still grown and smuggled into the U.S. Other nations such as Panama, Haiti and Mexico have been taking part in the smuggling. Apparently, these countries have not been successful in their endeavours in war on drugs, neither alone nor with the help of the military potential of the United States. Accordingly, experts suggest that the high demand for illegal drugs in the United States has to be reduced in order to gain meaningful success in the war on drugs. In this regard, the U.S. administration must strive to significantly address both supply and demand if the world wants to win the war on drugs (Kellogg, 482). Smith echoes such sentiments by arguing that the United States war on drugs has parroted the script of fear mongering of cold wars, thus interfering with the sovereignty, security, and authority as well as family values. Smith continues to assert that the war on drugs has been overtly militarist in both its imagery and language (Smith, 164). This implies that besides have minimal success, the war on drugs has negatively affected international relationships between participating countries. In addition, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which included former heads of states of Brazil, Columbia, Mexico and Switzerland all came to conclude that a noble exercise that was started decades ago that intended to outlaw drugs and jail drug users while fighting cartels in the illicit trade had not worked. They continued to assert that war on drugs was a more intelligent way of fighting other nations in disguise. These sentiments were made by the former Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who also doubled as the chair of the commission. He contended that in order for the drug menace to be reduced, it was imperative to be more constructive in striving to reduce consumption. In essence, the commission recommended that nations should focus in experimenting with legally regulating drug use, particularly on such drugs as cannabis. They argued that such an exercise had been successful in other countries such as Portugal, Switzerland and the Netherlands which successfully reduced the drug use. Portugal decriminalized consumption of all drugs in 2001, and passed a law stating that drug users will face fines and treatment rather than being jailed. On the other hand, in Holland, heroin can be prescribed medically while in Switzerland, drug addicts are given free methadone and sterilized needles. However, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy refuted such proposals, arguing that when drugs are made more available, it would be hard to have a healthy and safe community, since the U.S. is the biggest market for illicit drugs (Nicholes). Impact of International War on Drugs The primary objective of the United States’ International War on Drugs Policy is to minimize the global supply of drugs. Theoretically, this will increase the price and reduce the demand as fewer people will not find it logistical to buy expensive drugs. However, research show that the supply-side policy has had minimal impact on the price and availability of drugs. There has been a decline in the price of drugs since 1980 though the supply has been on the increase. There has been a significant gap between the United States administration’s drug policy objectives and what has been gained since the first inception of the drug war in 1970s (Youngers and Rosin, 339). Individuals advocating for the supply-side approach to drug control assert that the problems associated with the production and consumption of illegal drug would worsen without the international war on drugs. If the policies regarding the international war on drugs were abandoned, then the situation would deteriorate and illegal drugs would be more readily available in the market. Collectively, different studies point that the collateral damage of U.S policy is extensive, and its negative impact on individuals and nations where the war on drugs is being fought is felt across the globe. Imperatively, drug trafficking cause a lot of harm to the trade itself, the violence associated with it are aslo so severe. Trafficking of drugs breeds criminality, it exacerbates criminal as well as political violence, besides fueling armed groups. Drug trafficking also increases insecurity, disrupts public order and eventually enforcement of law. Regionally, corruption associated with drug trafficking has adversely weakened central and local governments’ democracies and police forces (Youngers and Rosin, 339). Several research have been carried out to study the impact of United States’ international war on drugs policy on democratic and human rights aspects in the Carribean and the Latin America. Even though the impact of international war on drugs vary by nation and by region, research are geared towards common conclusions: United States drug policies have led to the confusion of military and functions of law enforcers, police forces have been militarized and the military have been domesticated. Moreover, war on drugs have given strength to military forces at the expense of the civilians. The policies have also generated social conflict as well as political instability. The war on drugs have also resulted in adopting harsh legislation against the production and consumption of drugs, that in many instances have failed to comply with the minimum due process requirements (Youngers and Rosin, 340). McVeigh and Wolfer (2004) report that in an article titled “The Unwinnable Drug War” by Bertam and Kenneth Sharpe, it is stated that “there is no evidence of a decline in the amount of drugs crossing United States borders. Cocaine and Heroine are still widely available and in fact less expensive than in 1981. More important problems of abuse and addiction are more serious today than 15 years ago” (McVeigh and Wolfer, 65). It is worth noting that President Nixon spent a lot of money on war on drugs, but many scholars argue that the war on drugs during his early years was lost. For instance, it is estimated that U.S. has spent slightly over $1 trillion in fighting the “unwinnable battle” (Nicholes). This is because at the end of 80s, drugs were still readily available at lower costs than in 1982, and at the same time, use of drugs continued to go higher dramatically (Hagen, 5). Perhaps one of the major reasons attributed unto this was weak action initiative by the United States government, despite its tough anti-drug rhetoric. The war on drugs met stiff opposition from certain class of politicians who lamented that the drug prevention policies were not properly organized and that lack of enough effort had been accorded unto the program. Many individual experts complained that stiff mechanisms were not imposed on the war on drugs other than the big and tough speeches (Hagen, 6). Conclusion United States plays an integral role in the war on drugs through implementation of various drug policies with an intention of discouraging the production, distribution and consumption of illegal drugs. Several literature point towards minimum success in the international war on drugs, though experts reckon that the war on drugs is a vital exercise that has to continue. Drugs, as mentioned earlier in this paper, cause a lot of havoc and negative impact to individuals, society and the nations involved. The international war on drugs must be carried without interfering with sovereignty of other participating countries, so that international relationships are not negatively affected.Therefore, international war on drugs must be fought with utmost care, since it is the second most profitable illicit trade in the world, and all participating countries must fully cooperate in order to eliminate the vice from the society. Stiff measures tough legislation should be implemented in order to fight this otherwise real menace in all the participating nations. Though it is argued that this is a recurring problem, in the long-term, the international war on drugs will be successful, since drug trafficking will be reduced. Annotated Bibliography Chepsiuk, Ron. The War on Drugs. Library of Congress, 1999. The book describes the drug trade, singling out adverse effects of drug trafficking by highlighting the huge profits gained by drug traffickers and therefore the war on drugs is a necessary exercise. Hagen, Benhard. "The War on Drugs." Seminar Paper. 2003. The paper talks about the weak actions taken by the american government in its efforts of fighting illicit drugs. The paper asserts that the war on drugs is a failure since besides the tough speeches, minimal efforts have been geared towards war on drugs. Kellogg, William O. American History: The Easy Way. 3rd Edition. New York: Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 2003. This book shows the effect of War on Drugs, that it has attained very minimal success, besides interfering with sovereignty of other nations such as Columbia. It also goes on to further explain the reason why drugs are still being smuggled into nations including Panama, Haiti and Mexico despite the raging war on drugs by the United States. McVeigh, Frank J. and Loreen Wolfer. Brief History of Social Problems: A Critical Thinking Approach. University Press of America, Inc, 2004. The book portrays America s perceiving other countries as the primary source of their drug problem. The book also points out how the War on Drugs should be fought, by not only focusing on the supply side, but should also reduce the market demand. The book also highlights how the international war on drugs has not achieved its intended objectives. Nicholes, Michelle. "Global War on Drugs a Failure, High Level Panel says." Reuters (2011). This article reports that the war on drugs has failed, and recommends certain fundamental proposals that have to be taken by the U.S. and other participating nations in order to win the international war on drugs. Payan, Tony. The Three United States-Mexico Border Wars. Praeger Security International, 2006. This book highlights major causes of rifts and war between nations, Drugs being one of them. It continues to assert that War on Drugs has broken ties between different nations. Smith, Thomas W. History and International Relations. 2nd Edition. Routledge, 1999. This book highlights that the U.S. administration has fueled the usage of drugs in its endeavors to fight the raging war on drugs. Furthermore, the book also covers some of the negative impact of international war on drugs. Youngers, Coletta A. and Eileen Rosin. Drugs and Democracy in Latin America: The Impact of U.S Policy. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc, 2005. This book talks about the impact of war on drugs. It also points out at negative impact caused by drug trafficking both to the individuals and to the governments. The book shows extensive collateral damage caused by the U.S policy on drugs, and the negative impact caused by the U.S policies on drugs on people and countries where U.S war on drugs is being waged, which is also felt across the hemisphere. Read More