Latin American Unity at its Best, or Worst?

One of the most interesting historical agreements in the last few years among most Latin American states was signed last month, albeit without the signatures of the Americas partners of the US and Canada, and with a strong point being made by Latin America towards Falklands oil and the UK. Recently Latin American leaders, especially those on the left, have taken to supporting Argentina’s claim over the Falkland Island, namely their oil deposits. Possible oil deposits in the region 60km north of the island are in the first stages of drilling by a UK oil company. Support for Argentina comes from most other countries in the region, not due to support for leftist policies, but in supporting the new Latin America that is one that is not solely dependent on foreign direct investment, but is one that invests abroad and has some leverage in its relations with the developed world.

While this new agreement might make those in the OAS nervous, or produce a hallowing out of the organisation and produce stronger barriers in dealing with the US and Canada, the main issues in the Americas are not ones which would produce another Falklands War or ones where investment from the US or Canada is a negative outcome. What needs to be addresses are the narcotics issues between North and South America and the reality that it is not trade that is the issue in the region, it is the evolution and proliferation of narcotics from Buenos Aires to Vancouver.

Recently the realisation of the effect of narco-violence has been apparent in places like Mexico and even returning to some degree in Colombia. In Mexico the death toll from the narcotics war is competing with the rates in Iraq in its worst years post 2004 and Afghanistan currently, in many cases beating both region soundly for the amount of deaths in the same period. In a Guardian article last month on the resurgence of narco-violence in Colombia, Latin American correspondent Rory Carroll points out that studies by USAID and Human Rights Watch show that gains against the FARC might be temporary and that drug related murders in Colombia could be again on the rise.

The BBC World Service issued a TV report on Feb. 19th on the victimisation of Brazilian women in Brazil’s growing narcotics trade, where many are used as what many call “mules” to pass narcotics through airports in Brazil and abroad through their luggage, on their bodies and in many cases inside their bodies as well. Many end up in prison, often times not knowing they have been used by an acquaintance for passing narcotics, but still paying the harsh dues to the justice system in Brazil.

What is often an unpopular policy decision, and one that is mentioned in the Guardian article above, is the legalisation of narcotics in regions where it has become too costly to fight narco-trafficking. The theory is that funds would be better used to treat addiction and create social policies and to pull possible addiction candidates away from using drugs, as opposed to fighting the source of the narcotics that simply drive up the demand. The idea of turning the fight on drugs from a war into a treatment has taken place to some degree in the city of Vancouver, where a centre has been set up to allow for safe use of needles with nurses on duty to help prevent the spread of disease in the community. While it is not a full plan to attack the addiction in its early stages, it does take part of the alternative approach to drug addiction and is heavily debated as a source of help by some, or simply a source for first time users to get a legal try of illegal drugs by others. In an interview on “The Agenda with Steve Paikin”, a policy show on the Ontario based channel TVO.org, a Feb.19th interview with Bruce Bagley of the University of Miami discussed the pros and cons of legalising drugs in an effort to pull funds towards treatment and drop the value of narcotics. The demand for drugs produces a war for the funds, as the value and the profits from the high value of the drugs creates the source of the conflict. Bagley suggests that if there is a lack of funds in many developing countries, then it might be best to legalise the trade, as the funds to stop it often run out before the war ends. The funds could then be used to attack addiction by pushing those funds into treatment and removing the economic equation from the war on drugs in the process. Bagley suggests this as the best option as he sees the war on drugs as one that will never come to an end and that legalising drugs will become the best of the worst options in the end. Video of the TVO Bagley interview can be seen here.

What seems to be left out of the debate and is a growing problem in developed countries is the addiction to over the counter drugs; some with are as potent and produce a more consistent effect than their illegal cousins. Addictions to prescription drugs are on a sharp rise over the last few years and might be a contributing factor to the debate on narcotics trafficking. The result may come from the fact that legal drugs are not part of the drug war in Latin America, but is still a threat, and that only treatment and regulation can help quell the problem, and not Plan Colombia, Plan Merida or a Blackhawk helicopter. In the end Latin American nations might have to reform their legal system and legalise the trade, not because they want to legitimise it, but just because they do not want to have the same future as an Iraq or Afghanistan in the long run. Debate over the best unpopular option might be the only option for many developing countries, leaving addiction counselling in the developed world to deal with the results.