Drugs in the Andes: The Sausage Effect

fruitfly

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
8,071
Drugs in the Andes: The Sausage Effect
COMMENTARY: As the US squeezes at one end (Colombia), the other end (Peru and Bolivia) expands.
By Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Mother Jones
September 2, 2005


The Bush Administration continues to have complete faith in the current war on drugs, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the latest U.S. officials to visit the Andean region. President Bush has authorized the State Department to provide more interdiction assistance to Colombia as part of the multi-billion dollar anti-drug program that started in 2001, as well as elicit more appropriations for the program from the current Congress.

This is too bad. The latest statistics, as well as the latest political developments in the region, unequivocally signal the strategy is backfiring. While cultivation and production have diminished in Colombia, they have substantially increased in Peru and Bolivia. There is no evidence yet that the flow of cocaine into the U.S. has been reduced, as U.S. drug Czar John Walters admitted when I asked him about it this week. Radical anti-U.S. indigenous movements born in the coca-growing areas are gaining substantial ground and at least one is on the brink of winning the Presidency. This all amounts to what Joseph McNamara, former police chief of Kansas City and San Jose, likes to call the “sausage effect” of the war on drugs: you squeeze at one end and the other end expands.

According to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, aerial spraying and other similar tactics have reduced coca cultivation in Colombia from 144,800 hectares to 80,000 hectares in the last 3 years. Yet, at the same time cultivation has increased steadily in Peru during that period (including a 14 percent spike in the last year). The same is true of Bolivia, where coca cultivation has gone from 19,900 hectares in 2001 to 27,700 hectares this year.

This is not surprising. The sausage has blown out of the authorities’ hands many times before. Between 1995 and 1999, eradication efforts focused on Peru and Bolivia rather than Colombia. Coca cultivation dropped by two thirds in Peru and by 51 percent in Bolivia, but that herbicidal feat was offset by a spectacular spike in Colombia, where cultivation more than tripled!

When I asked drug Czar about these figures, he responded that the U.S. government’s figures tend to be more reliable than those of the U.N. However, the U.N actually gives the U.S. government’s anti-drug policy in Colombia more credit than the U.S. drug Czar does. According to the U.N., cultivation has dropped by 45 percent since 2002 whereas Mr. Walters’ figures point to a 33 percent reduction. Why would U.N figures be right in Colombia, where cultivation has dropped, and wrong in Peru and Bolivia, where it has expanded?

Cocaine production also shows the sausage effect. In the last four years cocaine has almost doubled in Bolivia and risen by 25 percent in Peru, while decreasing by 60 percent in Colombia. Billions of dollars worth of U.S. training, military equipment, surveillance, and alternative development programs have produced zero progress in the overall war against cocaine-related market forces in the Andes. Consider the tens of thousands of hectares of fertile land sprayed with poison from the air, the thousands of Latin Americans imprisoned on drug charges (and dozens extradited to the U.S.), and the 11,500 drug laboratories seized between 2002 and 2004. It’s the Sisyphus effect: futile labor.

Sadly, the policy is being ratcheted up. Now U.S. officials are suggesting Colombian authorities start to use Eloria Noyesi—a moth whose larva feeds on coca leaves!

Another effect of all this has been to turn coca-growers into mass anti-U.S. political movements in Bolivia and Peru.

In Bolivia, U.S. nemesis Evo Morales, a classic antediluvian demagogue who has toppled two democratically—elected governments, is now tied for first place in the polls (elections will take place at the end of the year). He has transformed his coca-growing power base into a rural movement that places obstacles in the way of anything that sounds vaguely modern in his country, including foreign investors seeking to develop the vast reserves of natural gas (a source of energy the U.S. could import in more amenable circumstances, lessening its dependence on Hugo Chávez).

In Peru, President Carlos Cuaresma of the Cuzco region (where 25 percent of the country’s coca is grown) has suddenly legalized cultivation. This is a clever ploy to tap the growing peasant movement’s reaction against official policies before the Presidential elections. Seeking to team up with other “outcasts”, the coca-growers have allied themselves with Marxist extremists who are waging a campaign of violence against mining concerns—Peru’s main source of exports. In another development related to the anti-drug war, the Etnocacerista party made up of former military reservists who recently attempted a coup d’Etat, has jumped to fourth place in the polls.

Government officials in the U.S. have not recognized the failure of this repressive approach. They are confusing Colombian President Alvaro Uribe’s considerable success in other fronts with success on the drug front and losing sight of the whole Andean picture. If the U.S. does not want to encourage more Chávez and Morales types, it needs to urgently rethink this 21st century remake of the Prohibition fiasco.

Link
 
Pretty lame shit. I don't recall anywhere in the U.S. Constitution saying we should be spending billions in other countries to help with their domestic problems. Which would be fine if the American people had voted to do this...

But I don't recall a vote about spending billions to cut cocaine production in South America....

Fuck the U.N. They have failed at everything they've done. They were supposed to create world peace. We still have wars. They were supposed to support freedom. Yet nations like Syria and Lebanon are head of peacekeeping duties.

I distinctly remember the failure of the League of Nations. Yet we trust the U.N. so much?
 
The Bush Administration continues to have complete faith in the current war on drugs, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

:|
 
Originally posted by CreativeRandom
I distinctly remember the failure of the League of Nations. Yet we trust the U.N. so much?
Personally? :b
 
CreativeRandom said:
Pretty lame shit. I don't recall anywhere in the U.S. Constitution saying we should be spending billions in other countries to help with their domestic problems. Which would be fine if the American people had voted to do this...


No man is an island, and neither is any nation. Except... well... the island nations, but you know what I mean ;)

But I don't recall a vote about spending billions to cut cocaine production in South America....

Fuck the U.N. They have failed at everything they've done. They were supposed to create world peace. We still have wars. They were supposed to support freedom. Yet nations like Syria and Lebanon are head of peacekeeping duties.

I distinctly remember the failure of the League of Nations. Yet we trust the U.N. so much?

The U.N. is very misunderstood, it's not an independent entity but a reflection of the anarchic relations between modern nation states.

I'm taking a course on international relations and let me tell you, it's fucking anarchy out there. No one does anything that's not in their direct interests, and the reason the U.N. doesn't work is because it's absolutely NOTHING except what the member states contribute to it.

The U.N. has zero soldiers and guns, they can't send anyone anywhere. The member nations have to contribute the soldiers and money and most of the equipment (the rest being bought with their money, anyway). They are totally impotent as long as the member states choose not to act, look at Rwanda.

Might makes right, and the U.N. has none.

--- G.
 
Skyline_GTR said:
The Bush Administration continues to have complete faith in the current war on drugs, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
:|


Well, since faith doesn't require proof.....
 
Last edited:
To Morrison's Lament, in response to you, in order of your comments first to last:

Your right about the whole island thing. But since when was Columbia our trusted ally? I don't see them helping us out against terrorists who want to destroy America, or helping America in any way.

The U.N. is misunderstood, as well as fucked up in every way. It is not only a reflection of great nations such as Japan, America, Britain, and Spain, but also of terrible powers such as Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and previously, Iraq and the Taliban.

Of course everyone does what is in their interest. It is fucking nusto to think that America is, or should, be doing anything in the interest of anyone else! America and it's political leaders should only be looking for the interests of Americans at heart. To look at our own interests would also include our true allies interests, as we cooperate with other nations such as Britain to get by in this world.

The U.N. is fucking disgusting. It makes me puke that America should take orders, or even listen to, people who lead the regimes that despotically rule nations such as Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and previously, Iraq and the Taliban. It is a joke that Fidel Castro and Hamas sit at the same table as Bush and Blaire, and have to work together on the "worldly good".

Here is my suggestion. Make a League of Free Nations, a United Free Nations (U.F.N.), which is made up of only free and democratic nations who have democratically elected their leaders. Spain, America, Japan, "New" Iraq, "New" Afghanistan, Israel, Britain, Czechoslyvokia, and Canada are all welcome to join.

Nations like Mexico, China, France, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, North Korea, and other such disgusting and tyrannical nations who hold their citizens down under an iron fist, would not be allowed to join.
 
why yes... we all know of mexico, france, venezuela and colombias "disgusting" dictatorships...
and of course, iraq was only bad when saddam was in power... oh wait... when saddam TURNED agains usa, becouse before that, everything was ok... same with iran... teheran used to be amongst usa's finest till they got out of their hands and got nuclear... so now they MUST be tyrannic and evil...
same with mexico and their murderous and treacherous president Fox...
not to mention France, which is a governed by a power junkie that wants to go back to his napoleonic empire...

you REALLY need to stop buying everything bush spits your way dude...
but hey, i guess that countries with DIRECT president elections must be dictatorships, unlike usa when you have your mighty electoral college to "do things right" for you

Americans leaders ALREADY only care for america´s intrest... do you think they would spend one fucking dollar helping the colombians if their drugs STAYED there???

or go "free iraq" if their oil intrests hadnt got fscked??

you say the "new" iraq, the "new" afghanistan... take a look at them NOW... its still the same poor countries, with their killings and crimes, the only difference is that now there are USA´s companies proifiting too...

all america WANTS AND DOES is take a cut of the cake all around the world...

AND YOU STAND UP AND COMPLAIN ABOUT IT??
 
You totally missed my entire point. You're not listening to them, they're listening to you. In return you are doing them the courtesy of allowing them to run a totally impotent talking club in New York - one which you can override at any time with a veto.

--- G.
 
Top