Drug Trafficking in the United States - Essay Example

War against Drug Cartels and Drug Trafficking: The U.S. International Drug Control Policy Essay Submission Introduction Drug trafficking in the United States and elsewhere has become a major issue. The creation of international drug policies that are socially just can be very challenging, as other nations express different national interests, objectives, and policies. This essay talks about the growing epidemic of drug cartels and drug trafficking, and the effectiveness of current governmental policies. Attempts to obstruct the flow of illegal drugs from foreign countries into the U.S. have thus far failed. Furthermore, in recent times, global production of illegal drugs, particularly coca, marijuana, and opium, has increased considerably. Prices of heroin and cocaine have decreased substantially in the past two decades, indicating greater availability (Lyman, 2010). The efficacy of international narcotics control policies remains a major issue. Millions of Americans purchase illegal drugs, spending roughly $60 billion yearly in multiple illegal markets (Barton, 2007, 18). These drugs are damaging to the user’s overall wellbeing, productivity, decision-making capacity, and health. Furthermore, the U.S. illegal drug market makes massive profits. These profits generate resources needed by global drug trafficking organizations to successfully dodge and fight with law enforcers, to break through legal economic sectors, and, in certain cases, to defy the power of the state (Erlen & Spillane, 2004). Computed in terms of dollar value, four-fifths of the total illegal drugs purchased in the U.S. come from foreign countries, as well as majority of the marijuana, heroin, and cocaine, as reported by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 2002 (Barton, 2007, 19). According to Hinojosa (2007), the methamphetamine market, as stated by the DEA, is supplied mostly from Mexican and U.S. laboratories while majority of ‘designer’ drugs, unlawfully traded psychotherapeutic drugs, and hallucinogens comes from the U.S. The drug industry is highly profitable and a major source of international criminal operations. As stated in a 2002 report by the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), more or less 930 tons of cocaine may have been manufactured in South America in 2001 (Barton, 2007, 19). A 2002 investigation by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime calculated the total profit of the illegal drug market in the Caribbean at $3.3 billion (Barton, 2007, 19). Not much is known about the circulation of profits from illegal drug trade, but foreign drug cartels hold substantial power over general distribution in the U.S. and illegal revenues are usually distributed and channeled through financial agencies. The federal anti-drug program has two primary components, namely, demand reduction and supply reduction. Demand reduction is pursued through steps to raise prices and risks to consumers, through treatment to reduce or prevent substance abuse, and through public awareness to discourage dependence (Marcy, 2010). Supply reduction is pursued by operations seeking to undermine the activities of illegal drug cartels and cut their connections to political authority, and by confiscating their financial assets and products. As majority of illegal drugs is of foreign origins, a large-scale ban operation is being carried out on the borders of the United States, on the high seas, at entry ports, at production sites, and along primary foreign transshipment lines (Erlen & Spillane, 2004). A global initiative of source crop elimination is being sought as well. The major objective of U.S. international narcotics policy is to cut down the availability of illegal drugs entering the country. A second and supplementary objective is to trim down the quantity of illegal drugs produced, processed, and purchased all over the world (Barton, 2007, 20). U.S. international narcotics control policy is executed by a comprehensive approach that involves the following components (Barton, 2007, 20): (1) eradication of narcotic crops, (2) interdiction and law enforcement activities in drug-producing and drug-transiting countries, (3) international cooperation, (4) sanctions/economic assistance, and (5) institution development. According to Lyman (2010), the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) of the U.S. State Department have been assigned to the primary task of organizing and bringing together U.S. global drug control and intervention operations. Literature Review Three peer-reviewed journal articles are used as major references for this essay. The first article is Change and Continuity in U.S.-Colombian Relations and the War against Drugs by Alexandra Guaqueta. The author uses a historical paradigm to identify and explain how the fight on drug trafficking has influenced the relationship between the United States and Colombia and how drug policy has become enmeshed with the Colombian incident. The article addresses the gap in policy-based and academic literature on illicit drugs in the U.S. and Colombia. The author focuses on the development and current features of U.S. policy toward Colombia. She also explores the geographic dislocation of the illegal drug market as a by-product of U.S. foreign policy. To cut down the availability of heroin and cocaine from foreign countries, the United States has depended on intimidation and force, but this has only aggravated the global drug problems. Moreover, this article presents a historical account of the development and execution of U.S.-Colombian drug policies and emphasizes the cumulative changes in the involvement of the United States. The author finds out that the establishment of anti-drug collaboration, derived from the assumption that drug trafficking represents major threats to security, became a means to change the conditions of the relationship between the United States and Colombia. The author is able to accurately show that the most important issue about drug policy is whether ban operations will be effective or not in Colombia and elsewhere given the focus on the fight against terrorist activities and the contribution of drug profits to the intensification of civil strife and terrorism. Basically, the findings of the article show that the United States has been helping Colombia reduce the production of illicit drugs and drug trafficking. However, in spite of this support from the U.S., Colombia is still one of the major producers of cocaine in the world and has become a primary source of heroin being consumed in the U.S. today. This article accurately identifies how the drug problem has evolved recently, what difficulties the United States has had in helping Colombia, and what opportunities and challenges Colombia and the United States confront in fighting unlawful drug operations. The second article is Drug Policy Reform and It Detractors: The United States as the Elephant in the Closet by Bruce Bullington. This article comprehensively discusses the newest strategies being used in Europe to prevent or reduce some of the ills related to drug trafficking, including those brought about by drug policy. Even though there have been infrequent mentions of the United States and its involvement and stake in these issues, these have not been the focus of the author. However, any useful account of current international drug policy should also take into consideration the United States and its favored model of drug intervention and control. Thus, the United States is the ‘elephant in the closet’ because the world constantly feels its existence, and it consistently wields significant power and influence, although not at the core of the discourse. But the U.S. has served a very important function in the development of drug control policies outside its boundaries that should be taken into account. The author still considers the role of the U.S. in international drug legislation, before and now. Bullington argues that the prohibitionist approach that currently governs practically all international and national drug policies was originally formulated and afterward successfully endorsed by the U.S. During the past decades, the United States vigorously sought the institutionalization and consequent expansion of a global drug control system that is currently implemented by the UN, an entity that has generally took on the prohibition strategy introduced by the U.S. However, what is clear in the findings of the author is that in spite of some deceitful contradiction, the United States has been a dynamic force facilitating containment of drug control advances all over the world. The author’s account of international drug policy can only be understood in reference to the demands and tensions raised by American prohibitionists. The findings clearly predict that prohibition will persist to dominate as the type of drug control into the foreseeable future. The third article is International Narcotics Law Enforcement: A Study in Irrationality by Frank Madsen. This article analyzes how the global prohibition system led to drug trafficking. The consequent role of rejected demand is the unavoidable groundwork for the formation and expansion of organized criminal activities. The author also evaluates the system’s costs, including law enforcement’s institutional costs and of the imprisonment of those involved in drug trafficking. However, the author is not able to provide an accurate analysis of the indirect costs because of the difficulty of quantifying them. These indirect costs comprise the severe misery and problems brought about by drug trafficking, and the weakening of public service delivery because of chronic corruption. And finally, the author succinctly examined political factors, specifically the establishment of narcotics agencies in foreign territories and the binding of trade rights and foreign assistant to an official recognition of the compliance of trade partners to U.S. anti-narcotic drug control programs. In essence, the author tries to determine whether the supply-reduction program had any success. However, as demonstrated in the article, it is hard to establish any real outcomes—prices went down, production went up, and supply has stretched from exclusive groups to everywhere in the world. A frequently mentioned argument of the author is the false assumption that the absence of enforcement would have had worse outcomes. It is possibly useless to try to assess false assumptions. Critical Analysis of Current Policies A traditional U.S. policy concerning global drug control is to cut down production of illegal drugs through elimination. The U.S. backs up initiatives to eliminate marijuana, opium, and coca in several nations. These attempts are carried out by several U.S. government units overseeing various kinds of initiatives (Madsen, 2012). The U.S. endorses elimination by offering producing nations spray equipment, sophisticated technologies, technical support, and chemical herbicides. The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) financially supports initiatives intended to encourage economic progress and to create alternative sources of jobs for those presently cultivating, producing, or processing illegal narcotics. The agency also offers balance of payments assistance to help counteract the collapse of foreign exchange brought about by the anti-drug initiatives supported by the United States (Barton, 2007, 26). This elimination policy is supported by the State Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs which exposes the threats of drug cartels and drug trafficking. Furthermore, AID supports drug awareness and educational projects in East European, Asian, and Latin American countries (Barton, 2007, 26). A second component of U.S. international drug control policy is to assist host countries in confiscating illegal drugs before they arrive at U.S. borders. A complementary initiative is to arrest major groups of criminal operations, to reprimand their leaders and to cut the ties of drug traffickers to the political and economic system (Bewley-Taylor, 2002). Foreign law enforcement training comprises an important aspect of these initiatives. U.S. attempts to build competent law enforcement against drug trafficking also involve proposals to countries on ways to reinforce their judicial and legal institutions. Ultimately, a vital judicial instrument against drug traffickers is expatriation (Lyman, 2010). A third component of U.S. international drug control policy includes the intimidation of, or exercise of, punishments against drug manufacturers and traffickers. These vary from postponement of U.S. foreign aid to restriction of air transport. Contemporary policy on International Drug Control Certification Procedures obliges the president to present to Congress a statement naming each nation resolved to be a leading drug manufacturing nation or source of narcotics (Marcy, 2010). In the statement the president should specify each nation that has ‘failed demonstrably’ to fulfill its anti-drug duties. Specified nations would be disqualified for foreign aid unless the president established that the aid was integral to the national interest of the U.S. or that the nation had initiated considerable efforts to enhance its anti-drug measures (Marcy, 2010). A fourth component of U.S. international drug control policy includes institution expansion, like reinforcing law enforcement and judicial agencies, enhancing administrative capabilities, and helping in the improvement of the administrative systems of host countries favorable to the fight against illegal drug activities. Institution expansion involves such initiatives as training to strengthen just processes, prevention of corruption, and support for crime reduction and prevention (Hinojosa, 2007). The main objective of U.S. international drug control program is to sever the transport of foreign narcotics into the U.S. Several strategies have been recommended to reconstruct U.S. international drug control program and execute it more successfully. Whatever recommendations are finally chosen will have to take into account the magnitude of the drug trafficking problem. Legislators confront the challenge of choosing the proper level of financial support for the country’s international drug control initiatives within the framework of opposing budgetary concerns. Another issue confronting the U.S. international drug control initiatives relates to how to execute policy most successfully. It is apparent that the current U.S. policy is disjointed and too bilateral. Hence, in order to become effective, policy alternatives should be sought within the framework of an inclusive scheme with a multilateral focus on execution. For instance, a number of studies show that prohibition can in fact raise the economic incentives to drug traffickers by increasing prices for the goods they trade. Nevertheless, prohibition as a component of an integrated scheme can have a major destabilizing and dismantling impact on trafficker activities (Guaqueta, 2005). It seems that unilateral or bilateral U.S. policies are not suitable for resolving an apparently multilateral issue. There is a need to improve UN’s capacity to tackle successfully the drug problem and for stronger regional and global collaboration and discussion on international drug problems. Supporters of bilateral policy do not essentially discard a multilateral strategy (Madsen, 2012). Nevertheless, they emphasize that these global efforts are inherently difficult to mobilize, organize, and execute effectively. As regards social justice, without responsible and competent law enforcement that is responsive to the demands, needs, and plight of the people and are supported by an accountable, fair, and capable justice system, the government cannot deal successfully with illegal drug trafficking. Preventing or curtailing harms related to drug trafficking must be the uppermost concern of the police. States that successfully mitigate the violence characterizing illegal markets usually may not be capable of freeing their nations from organized crime activities; nevertheless, the can weaken its hold on society, thus cultivating public confidence and trust in government, motivating public partnership with law enforcement, and contributing to public safety. That is possible, and numerous nations have been successful. A suitable anti-drug policy is a complex state-building endeavor that tries to toughen the ties between the government and marginalized populations reliant on or exposed to illegal drug industries. Initiatives have to place emphasis on guaranteeing that the people will follow policies, by raising the possibility that unlawful activities and corruption will be reprimanded through strong law enforcement, but also by building a political, economic, and social context where in the policies are compatible to the needs and demands of the people. Summary of Findings and Alternative Policies In spite of obvious national political determination to tackle the drug trafficking problem, intrinsic conflicts often emerge between U.S. anti-drug initiative and other national policy objectives and interests. The quest for effective drug control initiatives can at times influence foreign policy motives and generate economic disorder and political insecurity in nations where drug cultivation and production has become embedded socially, politically, and economically. Prohibitionist policies and U.S. initiatives to enable the global flow of resources, people, and products are generally in conflict. U.S. international drug control policy demands collaborative actions by numerous countries which could have foreign and domestic policy objectives that oppose the provisions of drug control. The combination of opposing global and national priorities and demands has generated a continuous chain of conflicts between and within the executive and legislature regarding U.S. international narcotics initiative. A particularly disputed matter has been the process of certification, a mechanism intended to persuade designated drug manufacturing and drug trading nations to focus on the war against drug trafficking and other drug industries. Contemporary law mandates the president to specify and hold back aid from nations that have been unable to fulfill their anti-drug responsibilities. Drug control strategies discussed in this essay are: strengthening of initiatives to curtail drug cultivation and production; strengthening of prohibition and enforcement operations; and strengthening of economic hindrances for global drug traffickers. Reinforced attempts to end drug production and to reduce drug supplies from foreign countries are an effective way to discourage drug consumption in the U.S. Supply reduction is a practically feasible alternative. Moreover, herbicidal crop elimination is the most affordable and capable ways of eradicating drug production. Alongside strengthened law enforcement, these initiatives will be successfully because it is simpler to find and demolish crops than to find processed narcotics on the streets or smuggling channels. Another policy alternative is positive inducements. Drug-producing nations should be encouraged either to abstain from cultivating illegal crops, or to allow the acquisition or eradication of these crops by the state. Many believe that because temporary economic security of countries producing illicit narcotics may rely on the manufacturing and trading of illegal drugs, it is impractical to anticipate such countries to restrict their drug-oriented operations significantly without another potential income source. A comprehensive foreign assistance initiative is the only effective way of encouraging developing countries to limit their drug production. This scheme would require a multilateral program in collaborating with other developed countries like Japan and the UK. The objective of such a scheme would be to boost economic progress, supplanting illegal cash crops with alternative sources of income. These alternative policies would require firm national law enforcement and sanctions for non-cooperation. Hence, it may demand a U.S. investment in enforcement to be exercised against cultivators and traffickers, and it may demand strong U.S. military participation. Considerable force may be needed because drug crops normally generate more profit than legal crops. However, positive inducement should be handled with care. Some scholars claim that usual features of drug crop territories, like infertile soils, geographical isolation and, in some nations, severe instability, have a tendency to restrict opportunities for cultivation of legal crops. The social justice framework may be appropriate in relation to this. Anti-drug policy in marginalized countries—physically and economically- should take into account the needs of the people and the alternatives available to them. References Barton, L. (2007). Illegal Drugs and Governmental Policies. New York: Nova Publishers. Bewley-Taylor, D. (2002). United States and International Drug Control, 1909-1997. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Bullington, B. (2004). Drug Policy Reform and Its Detractors: The United States as the Elephant in the Closet. Journal of Drug Issues, 34(3), 697+ Erlen, J. & Spillane, J. (2004). Federal Drug Control: The Evolution of Policy and Practice. New York: Routledge. Guaqueta, A. (2005). Change and Continuity in U.S.-Columbian Relations and the War against Drugs. Journal of Drug Issues, 35(1), 27+ Hinojosa, V. (2007). Domestic Politics and International Narcotics Control: U.S. Relations with Mexico and Colombia, 1989-2000. New York: Routledge. Lyman, M. (2010). Drugs in Society: Causes, Concepts and Control. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Madsen, F. (2012). International Narcotics Law Enforcement: A Study in Irrationality. Journal of International Affairs, 66(1), 123+ Marcy, W. (2010). The Politics of Cocaine: How U.S. Foreign Policy has Created a Thriving Drug Industry in Central and South America. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Review Press. Read More