3 CentAm leaders reject legalization of drugs
3 CentAm leaders reject legalization of drugs
The Associated Press
Published: March 30th, 2012 08:04 PM
Last Modified: March 30th, 2012 08:13 PM
SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador - The presidents of El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua say they oppose the legalization of drugs and will continue to support regional efforts to fight drug trafficking.
Mauricio Funes of El Salvador, Porfirio Lobo of Honduras and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua issued a joint statement after meeting Friday saying they don't support Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina's proposal to legalize drugs.
The leaders say they want to present a united front against as Western Hemisphere leaders look for ways to fight drug trafficking at the Summit of the Americas in Colombia next month.
Guatemala's leader made his drug legalization proposal in February. It has received lukewarm response in the region and opposition from Washington.
More:
http://www.adn.com/2012/03/30/2399992/3-centam-leaders-reject-legalization.html#storylink=cpy
= new reply since forum marked as read
...but then I don't expect accuracy from this Puke 'news' service (they can't even write any more--I mean, what's this? "...they want to present a united front against as Western Hemisphere leaders look for ways to..."? Shilling for transglobal corporations and war profiteers scrambles your brains, in the end. Corporate 'journalists' beware!)
Anyway--IF this so-called 'news' article is accurate in its lede point (a big if)--the only oddity is Honduras. El Salvador has a leftist government (none other than the FMLN). And Nicaragua also has a leftist government (none other than the Sandanistas). Both are run by former leftist guerrilla political parties, and, although their countries are compromised by U.S. "free trade for the rich" agreements foisted on them by former rightwing governments, the current governments are aligned with the bigger leftist movement that has swept South America (with leftist governments elected in Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Paraguay and Peru), and the leaders of those governments have been utterly SILENT on drug legalization (except for Bolivia legalizing the coca leaf--the indigenous medicine, not cocaine--and various evictions of U.S. "war on drugs" perps (DEA, Dyncorp, U.S. military, etc.) by Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and others. But throwing the U.S. out has not been followed by legalization of drugs, and has, in fact, enhanced drug interdiction--especially of big drug lords and big drugs/weapons caches--in these countries.)
Drug legalization is a proposal that you would expect from the left, not the right--and it is so peculiar that it is rightwingers who are proposing it, that I've developed a theory as to why.
If my theory about why rightwing U.S. allies--Santos (Colombia) and Molina (Guatemala)--are advocating legalization is correct--that Big Pharma is behind it (ready to make their move into this market)--then I would expect this third U.S. client state--Honduras--to be on their side. There might be reasons for their not doing so (for Honduras siding with the Left) that are not easy to see. For instance, Honduras is in the early stage of destroying popular political movements with U.S. "war on drugs" funds, whereas Colombia and Guatemala are mature, bloodsoaked ground for U.S. "free trade for the rich." Honduran fascists may be desperate to keep the U.S. "war on drugs" billions rolling in, and to keep expanding the U.S. military presence, with more bases, etc., because their coup government is tottery.
Thus Porfirio Lobo, the rightwing coup's front man (and the U.S. State Dept.'s front man) ends up in bed with the FMLN and the Sandinistas, who are likely opposing the legalization of drugs for entirely different reasons. Don't know for sure. Nicaragua and El Salvador are semi-U.S. client states and their militaries/police forces may be dependent on U.S. "war on drugs" funds--and their leftist leaders may be under that pressure. But I think it's more likely that these countries' leftist leaders are suspicious of this rightwing proposal, as the rest of the Left in Latin America seems to be. (Rouseff, silent. Morales, silent. Correa, silent. Even Chavez--big peace treaty with Santos/Colombia--is not giving Santos any backing.)
My Big Pharma theory may be a bit frayed but I think it's still a good one. The part that is fraying a bit is that this rightwing proposal (to legalize drugs) is actually coming from the Obama administration, which could, at one fell swoop, eliminate the federal deficit by legalizing drugs AND serve Big Pharma (if this is Big Pharma's plan--to take over the illicit drug trade). They don't dare propose it openly. They would be attacking the biggest war profiteer/prison-industrial complex boondoggle in history.* But they might well secretly encourage rightwing clients to "run it up the flag pole." And if they did (re: Santos; Molina), why didn't Lobo (Honduras) join them? It could be some unique circumstances in Honduras, as I've said. One thing that it is NOT is Lobo being independent (he isn't).
Independence--or more likely, partial independence (letting his leash out a little)--could be true of Santos. He has some bargaining chips with the U.S., one of them being very probable Bush Junta crimes in Colombia (which the Obama administration feels obliged to cover up). So maybe he bargained for independence on a couple of matters (for instance, peace with Venezuela, and proposing drug legalization to shaft his chief rival for power in Colombia's rightwing party--Alvaro Uribe, who ran Colombia as a criminal organization in tight alliance with the Bushwhacks (death squads, drug trafficking, brutal displacement of FIVE MILLION peasant farmers, so the big drugs lords could move in, etc.)). I don't know about Molina (as to independence). Lobo is NOT independent in any way.
I still think it's Big Pharma--and that explains the odd alignment on this (the right for legalization, the left against or silent). The U.S. has officially said that it can be discussed. (So benignant of them!) They didn't boycott the Central America meeting (though they did send the Joint Chiefs Brigadier General to LatAm to beat the "war" drums). It's notable that it's not just obvious rightwingers proposing legalization (Santos; Molina) but also "centrists" and "neo-liberals" (pro-U.S. "free trade for the rich"
including a commission of former presidents of Mexico and other LatAm countries. (But I think that "neo-liberal" Chinchilla in Costa Rica said that she opposes legalization.)
Fascinating developments! Stay tuned!
----------------------
*(The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was down in LatAm this week, saying that the illicit drug operations were potential "terrorist" operations and thus we need more "war on drugs" to kill the "terrorists." The MIC has milked its two wars and its worldwide "war on terror" for all they are worth but it has had less success at "selling" these "wars" in Latin America than anywhere else in the world. Latin America was blessed with a highly successful, historic leftist democracy movement (esp. South America) near simultaneous with the Bush Junta and its wars--and the new leftist leadership is strongly committed to peace, as well as to LatAm independence from the U.S. and other good government policies (social justice, reducing poverty, workers rights, human rights, insuring that LatAm resources benefit the people who live there, et al). And, frankly, it is damn strange to find the Left aligned with the U.S. Joint Chiefs on this matter--against drug legalization (f they are).
(Drug legalization is, by far, the most important "good government" policy that could be proposed and implemented in the western hemisphere, bar none (in my opinion). There is nothing worse, as to brutality and social disruption, in this hemisphere, than the "war on drugs." Legalizing drugs is a "natural" for leftist governments, and an odd duck, indeed, for rightwing governments--although one other possibility (given the Venezuela/Colombia Chavez/Santos peace pact) is that the LatAm left and right agreed on legalization and their strategy is for the right to "carry the ball." If the left did so, there would be no end of slander and worse from Washington's war profiteer establishment. If this is the case--if right and left agreed on this and devised this strategy--it would blow my Big Pharma theory all to hell, but I don't think there is such an accord and strategy, and my reason is that Colombia has been prepped for a Big Pharma takeover by the removal of five million peasants from the land, by state terror. I think that the Bush Junta was using the "war on drugs" to consolidate the trillion+ dollar cocaine trade into fewer hands. The Bushwhacks prep the ground; the Democrats help the corporations to reap the profits.)
