U.S. Drug War Endangers Latin America Democracy

by Daniel Gatti

A new book published in Montevideo argues that democratic systems in Latin America are in danger of being caught in the crossfire between drug traffickers and those involved in the war on drugs.

The book, "Democracies Under Fire: Drugs and Power in Latin America" contains research and analyses of a team of professionals and journalists from nine Latin American countries and the United States. The authors explore the risks faced by democratic regimes in the region in relation to the drug traffic.

These involve the big part played by the illegal drug trade in the economy of many countries, the accompanying corruption and impunity, and the militarization promoted by the United States in the context of the war on drugs.

"If two decades ago the destruction of democracies in Latin America was carried out through violent defacto regimes, it appears that today it is being accomplished by the emptying out of democratic institutions that has taken place as a result of the emergence of illegal economic interests within spheres of power," Rossi says.

"Criminal networks that facilitate illicit activities within police forces and military institutions, a complacent judicial system that accommodates to those in power, and a Congress dominated by government supporters all point toward the existence of a parallel state with its own laws and modes of operation which is replacing the state itself."

Carlos Fazio, a Uruguayan-born journalist nationalized in Mexico, asks whether Mexico is not in fact a "narcodemocracy," and states that "Salinismo" (a reference to former President Carlos Salinas, who ruled from 1988 to 1994) was a "cornucopia for narcos, bureaucrats and businessmen" who took the country as booty.

Using the hypothesis of Mexican sociologist Luis Astorga, Fazio concluded that there is a structural interdependence between particular institutions, social actors and traffickers, yet it is the latter which appear as the primary culprits.

According to Roncken, Washington has imposed on Bolivia not only a repressive anti-narcotics policy, but also the legal framework for the administration of justice in relation to the drug trade in that country. This influence "intensifies the criminalization of broad sectors of the population and international demands have pushed the Bolivian state towards an increasingly authoritarian model," he said.

For his part, Colombian sociologist Ricardo Vargas Meza stated that in his country, the involvement of the military in the war on drugs had acquired a political character, because it set as its targets "those regions with a strong guerrilla presence."

Moreover, paramilitary forces -- which have massacred hundreds of peasants -- emerged from the multi-million dollar land investments made by Colombia's drug barons in southern Amazonia. Their actions have been tolerated by the government because they are considered part of the counterinsurgency effort, Vargas Meza said.

"As a matter of fact, these interests are helping to polarize the conflict, justifying their actions by claiming to be neutralizing the social base of the guerrilla. Yet it is coca growing peasants who are hardest hit by paramilitary violence," he declared.

"In Colombia, Washington lights one candle for God and another one for the devil," because while the U.S. denounces human rights violations, it increases military aid, accepting the fact that their weapons are not only used against the drug barons, but also against the guerrilla.

"This in fact favors a dirty war in the coca and poppy-growing regions of the country," Vargas Meza said.

While some of Latin American's armed forces have accepted U.S. demands to become an anti-narcotics force, other have resisted this role in an attempt to defend their sovereignty. This is the case in the four Mercosur countries -- Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

According to Uruguayan journalist and writer Samuel Blixen, "the elaboration of regional security objectives as opposed to ones informed by a continental perspective is complementary to the logic which opposes regional economic integration to continental integration," in the context of the U.S. proposal for a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas.

Blixen examined the conclusions of the 10th Symposium of Strategic Studies of State Defense in Mercosur, held last June, in which the military institutions of the four Mercosur countries and Chile, which is also associated with the bloc, participated.

He said the hypothesis on conflict advanced by the military institutions of those countries pointed to "the armies of other regional trading blocs (like NAFTA and the Andean Community) as well as other those of other areas of the world (like the European Union and Japan)," as a result of "conflicting economic interests."

For "military Mercosur," he added, other possible conflicts were with the United States and "with the countries that support its initiatives in the context of a military offensive against the drug trade, where borders and sovereignties could be transgressed."

Release of "Democracies Under Fire" in the United States is planned to coincide with an extraordinary session of the United Nations on the drug issue, scheduled for June 9.