"The war on drugs has failed"

There is a global model for the fight against drug trafficking, each country must find its own answer, says the Peruvian sociologist, international affairs analyst and drug safety. In this interview, is in favor of a "progressive process" to change the paradigms of the penalty.

Ricardo Soberón Garrido is a recognized international affairs analyst and drug safety. Professor at the University of Lima, the Peruvian expert in regional drug geopolitics explains in detail why he is convinced that the current repressive policy against illegal trade in drugs is a failure. "Our democracy and our institutions also have deteriorated as a result of this repressive policy. The question is what will happen when we begin to affect those who live in cities and observe that these drug-related sectors are beginning to take over public spaces in an uncontrolled way, "he says in an interview with Página/12 during a visit to Buenos Aires. "There is no world drug problem: there are national problems which must be addressed in national terms because one of the tricks which has drawn the international system has been to make us think that the problem is global, the response is global, and that no one can question the international paradigm, "the specialist. Asked about the showdown between drug traffickers from Peru in Bajo Flores, Soberón Garrido does not hesitate: "It is obvious and efficient outcomes of free trade in goods and services promoted by Washington Consensus and the neoliberal model. In this case it was used by my fellow countrymen who have seen a window of opportunity to enter into a highly profitable market like Argentina. (Have found) in this city there are many people with ability to develop addictive behavior around one or another substance. "

Soberón Garrido came to Argentina invited by the Civil Exchange, an NGO working for 12 years for the study and care of drug-related problems.

- Why is she holding that failed repressive policies to combat drug trafficking?

-The fact of reality is more evident than in the case of cocaine in the world's largest consumer country that is America, not increased the price, which was the primary objective. On the contrary, it has become increasingly accessible to the public. A kilo of cocaine is maintained in a range of about $ 50,000 in the state of Florida: the sooner a gram of cocaine could be found 40 or $ 50, you can now get a 20 or 30 dollars. This is a first indication that an 20-year ban failed to affect the price but it fell. Secondly, according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse U.S. quality of cocaine has increased. That is, far to convince users that they must leave because its quality is harmful to health, showed that the purity levels are higher. And third, despite the great expense, cocaine is more available to people in terms of quantity, today the risks to a person to get their gram of cocaine are lower than before.

- In the United States or anywhere?

-We talked about the major consumer, but what happens in generic terms in the U.S. also occurs in any of our cities. I can speak of Lima, where a gram of cocaine cost 25 to 30 suns and now costs 10 to 15 soles. And I'm sure we'll find the same situation in other cities. Therefore, the main performance indicator shows that the repressive policy against drugs has failed. If that took him to the issue of collateral damage that the policies have had, let's see what our democracies and our institutions have deteriorated as a result of this repressive policy. Think of the corruption involved. In addition, the drug war as we thought Mr. Nixon at the time in the years '72 and '73 and as Mr. Bush thinks it is still quite functional to those interests from the State Department or the Department of Defense United States have to continue the war against drugs in the Andean Amazon. Some examples: very specific tools such as Plan Colombia I, II Plan Colombia, Plan Puebla Panama, Plan Mexico, Andean Regional Initiative and other international policy instruments. None of them has reduced the quality, availability and amount of drug, and increase the price of cocaine. Point out that agencies considered legitimate to talk about it. Twenty years of implementation of these instruments and have managed to do other things. For example, have been able to achieve the formation of a league of military security around Colombia with regard to the armed conflict in that country have succeeded in reconstructing the issue of hemispheric security threats to move from the concrete problem that meant timely and FARC Sendero Luminoso or irregular movement, subversive or terrorist, whatever you want to call it, to incorporate new threats that go beyond drug trafficking: nationalism, indigenous movements, radical movements are incorporated into the new visions and programs for strengthening hemispheric security particularly many of our military and security agencies working with these schemes, and in that sense the war on drugs has been highly uncertain. The problem is that policy makers intended us to think that the money we raised is necessarily liberalization or legalization of drugs.

- And where should the money go?

-To allow countries to make their own priorities. Where should increase prices, increase prices, where should suppress selectively repress selectively where should liberalize consumption and penalize any drugs, do so. There is no world drug problem: there are national problems which must be addressed in national terms because one of the tricks which has drawn the international system has been to make us think that the problem is global, the response is global and that no one can question the international paradigm.

- Why from international organizations do not recognize that this policy has failed or at least has not yielded the expected results?

-The language of diplomacy is very subtle things to say and obviously United Nations and many of their instances depend on international cooperation, particularly the United States. This applies to the WHO, UNESCO, several organizations. If your staff do not reproduce that speech are in serious danger of seeing their budgets cut.

- Who is interested in maintaining this repressive scheme?

-Primarily sectors of business and military apparatus of the United States. In the business arena obviously international pharmaceutical companies seeking to continue to maintain monopoly control of the situations of neurosis, psychosis, different types of diseases from their own medications and not letting people have more natural outputs. In the military we are witnessing a process of privatization of war, particularly in Latin America. Organizations and security agencies and law enforcement apparatus of U.S. military technology are interested in feeding the police and armed forces of our countries, and their intelligence services to entrust new missions, among others, control of drug trafficking, tracking and monitoring of suspicious flights of suspect vessels, the return of migrants, etc.. There are other actors ideologically concerned, in some cases we speak of sectors of the Catholic Church, very conservative, who are unable to accept individual formulas very impaired consciousness. Also from the American Conservative movement and support for those positions that are lobbying in Congress.

- How do you analyze the links between drug trafficking and terrorism in Latin America?

-By sharing enemies, geographic settings, social target, both of which make decisions mutually shared usufruct to certain benefits. This happened in Peru, Colombia, the Balkans and the Middle East. But it can lead to terrible confusion of two phenomena that resemble causalities are completely different: a, drug trafficking, land strictly capitalist supply and demand, another terrorism, due to different criteria of understanding the world. That is a terrible mistake of distortion. It is certainly another factor that has been functional from this war on drugs is that first international consensus was reached to bring the equation: drug equal to terrorism. Because that is not new nor is it only after September 11, 2001. Attempts to try to link drugs to terrorism coming from the 70's, and yet there was much resistance from academic, political, operational, to make this balance. Today, drugs equals terrorism at all levels. Imagine the highest office of the United Nations was the United Nations Programme for International Drug "(UNDCP, for its acronym in English) and is now the Office on Drugs and Crime United Nations, where the word" crime "refers primarily to drug offenses and crimes of terrorism. And beyond that, on the streets today are beginning to criminalize social behaviors that are related to critical reactions against the policies of drugs. At least in my country, adopted a project for which any social opposition to compulsory eradication measures of coca leaf are criminalizables sentences of between 8 and 12. Obviously we can not be naive to say that there is no alliance situations and relationships. And indeed, for that matter, have the ability as leaders to enact sensible policies to address this convergence between drug trafficking and terrorism that apply. The fundamental point of view is to point out two phenomena which are socially and economically quite different. Drug trafficking is a phenomenon that responds to business logic as any other local, regional, hemispheric, global. The drug dealer is going to make the best possible way integration mechanisms, free zones, hidroviales networks, and any other instrument that is designed to promote regional trade. Moreover, the Andean Community may fail, Mercosur may fail, the relationship between both institutional frameworks may fail, but the drug has responded as best as possible in that scenario. Because if not which explains, among other factors, since 2000 the boom of the appearance and presence of cocaine base and cocaine hydrochloride in cities like Buenos Aires, Rio and Sao Paulo, from Bolivia or Peru. Drug trafficking, in this context has responded commercially. I was just in the triple border between Brazil, Peru and Colombia. The Amazon River is a river axis central to the output of cocaine to Manaus and Belem do Para. And in return, those same boats bring weapons and precursors for the FARC and drug trafficking groups, and this is supported by people of the Brazilian federal police.

- Have the structures of the drug cartels?

Yes, we see a change in the criminal structures that had not been seen before. Before we were accustomed to the Colombian cartels, Medellin, Cali, the Mexican cartels, Gulf, Juárez, Sonora, and so on., The yacuzas, triads, ie compounds hidden pyramid clearly identified and once identified, clearly removed. The changes we are observing now clearly indicate that the drug meets the logic of repression of organized crime: segmentation, outsourcing. One who is closer to drug money, is further from the drugs, so that the evidentiary material which a judge or a policeman or a prosecutor may have to prosecute a person of high flying, it is much more difficult. Then, it is clear that drug trafficking in these ten years has been mimicked, respond to these new strategies, and therefore, what we are showing is that national law enforcement systems are pointing wrong, they are spending money and are generating social problems so far are almost exclusively detectable in prison or in some neighborhoods in some of our cities. The question is what will happen in our cities when it starts to really affect those who make policy, or those who really want to live in democracy, have certain habits, certain uses, and note that these sectors are beginning to take over the spaces public an uncontrolled manner. Curiously, in the case of Colombia and Peru, we had the opportunity to demonstrate the link between drug trafficking, corruption and political power, to the highest levels of power, we saw that any State action is absolutely useless to address the problems that are behind the drug trade.

- What impact on public space can bring this kind of repressive policies in the field of illegal drugs?

-A, the reduction of social spaces and exercise of rights. Every time you think more about the setting of standards for wiretapping, the increase in cases of flagrante delicto to arrest people without warrant, to increase the customs and immigration administrative controls to prevent the free movement of people, in intrusively penetrating into the spaces of free personal privacy, for example, in the workplace to determine if a person has consumed a substance. If one takes into consideration all these various mechanisms that exist, we find that the individual, the man in the street, ever going to find spaces under exercise of rights, more likely to be threatened by Big Bro-ther this is the State, which incidentally is reduced in certain areas but increases their ability to act also fueled by technological tools that let you know now what does or does not make a person up in your personal privacy. That's a very specific and concrete results.

- The answer must be the same for different types of drugs?

-To be realistic, any change must be incremental and gradual. There will be total paradigm shifts. I support a gradual process of dismantling the criminal program is based on the separation of legal and illegal because it is a distortion, it is a mistake. We must rethink the concept to talk rather than substance-use. There will be possible uses, acceptable uses, problematic uses, uses not socially acceptable, potentially dangerous uses. That strikes me as a new criterion to start working.

- Should start with the decriminalization of marijuana possession for personal use?

-Is the most immediate. What should offer less resistance in the light of statistical evidence. But ultimately I just I can not stay with a plant. You can not criminalize the repressive system plants. Not applicable.

- How does the war unleashed in Bajo Flores from the sale of drugs, which involves a Peruvian band led by?

-Are obvious and efficient outcomes of free trade in goods and services promoted by Washington Consensus and the neoliberal model. In this case it was used by my fellow countrymen who have seen a window of opportunity to enter into a highly profitable market as the Argentinean, but it certainly should not lead to the mistake of thinking ergo, every Peruvian trafficker may be a potential or any dealer is Peruvian. But that niche and that window of opportunity of this chain can be used by anyone at the time determine and find that in this city there are many people with ability to develop addictive behavior around one or another substance.

- Why do you think spreads exponentially paco consumption or crack cocaine?

I think that is inversely proportional to the shortcomings with which young people face the most excluded sectors of our society. I refer not only to that of Argentina. The company has found drug paco the cheapest drug available and accessible to out of this world is frustrating to hook young people in a very functional entrepreneurially. It is known that the second week of use I will get hooked and irrevocably to that person, therefore it greatly simplifies the tasks of marketing and advertising for the drug: I can give some dope to kids who play football finish football, so they can celebrate, I know that last ten or twelve who have played at least two will return later to engage with the pack. That's a huge advantage and serious this type of derivatives of coca leaves. That have realized the business of drug trafficking.

- What think you should answer to Argentina's illegal drug problem?

-I find a window of opportunity for the various positive responses I've found at local, provincial and federal levels. Readiness and willingness to revise his steps and to generate new paradigms. I come from a country where a different debate is not possible, I avoid the media in Peru I am not able to publish articles of what we are talking about. It is a "non issue". In Peru, the paradigm is this: Keep doing the same because the same thing that works. For them management indicators are "drug kidnapped," "gangs dismantled." But they do not realize the problems of consumption, marginalization, exclusion and violence generated by the repressive policies on drugs. In that sense I am fairly optimistic about the level of debate I see in Argentina. I'm honest.

- How do you analyze the Latin American region?

Politically, I find a very interesting chess board: a white piece, one black, "one white, one black," that's what we see in the thirteen countries in the region. In the field of drug folder note that the largest and progressive alternative discourses that there exist in the Southern Cone, to the detriment of what happens outside of Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina, where the pattern is still insisting on rules the same. That seems symptomatic because they are two different maps: the political and the drug, and show different results.

- You mean that Cuba and Venezuela agree with the paradigm of the U.S.?

-Absolutely. The most curious and contradictory is that the two countries formally charged politically to break the Washington Consensus, Cuba and Venezuela in the drug field remain highly repressive discourses. And the capabilities to rethink the problem about reducing to a minimum. I remember once talking to a political adviser of the Embassy of Cuba in Peru and raised the urgent need to adapt the anti-imperialist discourse, to vindicate the Latin American and put it in the drug superhighway to rethink the problem. He said: "Without having done that we have the embargo for 40 years, what do you think will happen if the rulers of my country pose a new paradigm of drug. Practically put us in the wall. " And something similar has happened in my last trip to Caracas: trying to incorporate the issue of drugs in the XXI century socialism, it is practically impossible or is absent from the debate. There's a huge challenge.

By Mariana Carbajal to Page 12