From: The Progressive Response 1 May 2001 Vol. 5, No. 14

Editor: Tom Barry

The Progressive Response (PR) is a weekly service of Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF)--a "Think Tank Without Walls."
A joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies, FPIF is an international network of analysts and activists dedicated to "making the U.S. a more responsible global leader and partner by advancing citizen movements and agendas.

" We encourage responses to the opinions expressed in the PR and may print them in the "Letters and Comments" section. For more information on FPIF and joining our network, please consider visiting the FPIF website at http://www.fpif.org/.

I. Updates and Out-Takes

DRUG WAR KILLS AMERICANS IN PERU
 REICH CONFIRMATION PROCESS: LET THE DEBATE BEGIN

U.S. DRUG POLICY: FAILURE AT HOME By Eric Sterling, Criminal Justice Policy Foundation

II. Outside the U.S.

LOOKING FROM INDIA AT THE SPY PLANE By Ninan Koshy

III. Letters and Comments

SELLING ARMS IS THE BEST WAY

CHINA: "VERY RESTRAINED"?

I. Updates and Out-Takes

 DRUG WAR KILLS AMERICANS IN PERU

President George W. Bush has suspended the controversial shoot-down policy of suspected drug smuggling planes in the wake of the killing of an American missionary and her infant daughter in Peru. But the CIA's policy, a centerpiece of the U.S. war on drugs in the Andean countries, raises a number of troubling questions about what the U.S. is really doing. Coletta Youngers, an FPIF expert on drug policy and on Peru, observed: "This was an accident waiting to happen. It is a poorly designed and dangerous policy orchestrated by Washington and only reluctantly carried out by Peru and other Andean governments.

There are a lot of unanswered questions about how many U.S. intelligence agents and contract personnel are on the ground, about U.S. intelligence gathering and sharing, and the nature of the U.S. drug war." Sanho Tree, director of the Drug Policy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, told FPIF: "This 'liberal shoot-down policy' has been one of the most outrageous aspects of our militarized drug war. It is a policy by which we finger a plane and the Peruvians shoot it down. There is no judge, no jury--only executioner. In 1994, our government temporarily suspended this policy for fear of violating United States criminal law and Congress held hearings on this matter. They knew then that innocent civilians could be killed by our aerial interdiction program." Similarly, Cynthia McClintock, an expert on Peru, said: "This policy of intercepting suspected drug planes has been controversial from the start. Many officials in the U.S. and Peru have been concerned. Now, unfortunately, there is a tragedy. The Bush administration should reexamine not only these interceptions--its so-called 'air bridge' policy--but its entire U.S. war against drugs strategy."

For related FPIF analysis on the drug war and the Andean nations, see our special webpage on the Drug War: http://www.fpif.org/colombia/index.html.
 

REICH CONFIRMATION PROCESS: LET THE DEBATE BEGIN

(Editor's Note: As part of its commitment to monitor and critique the foreign policy of the Bush administration and this new period of Republican Rule, FPIF is closely following the nomination process of Otto Reich and encouraging others to do the same. Reich is a foreign policy establishment cowboy who takes an aggressive and ideological posture in international affairs. See our Republican Rule webpage: http://www.fpif.org/republicanrule/index.html.)

On March 22, the Bush administration nominated Otto Reich, an inside player in the 1980s Iran-contra conspiracy, to the post of assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs. This is the highest ranking U.S. administration official overseeing North and South America. Currently, Otto Reich is a well-connected corporate lobbyist representing liquor, tobacco, arms and other industries. He's also a vice chairman of an apparel industry-created sweatshop "monitoring" group, called Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production (WRAP), widely viewed as an obstruction to the anti-sweatshop movement. However, Reich is being nominated for the post not because he's another unsavory lobbyist, but rather because he's a friend of the Bush family and, more importantly, because he's a high profile, conservative Cuban American. The nomination of Reich is regarded as a political payoff to the rightwing Cuban faction, which has held U.S.-Cuba policy hostage for decades, and which was an important factor in George Bush's Florida strategy last fall.

Confirmation is a two-part procedure. First, Reich must pass the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The committee, like the Senate itself, is divided 50/50 along party lines. There are nine Republicans and nine Democrats. It is chaired, however, by the notoriously reactionary Jesse Helms of North Carolina, who has a long personal relationship with Otto Reich and who will be trying to assure his confirmation.

For more FPIF analysis on Reich and our related Policy Alert, see:
Reich Policy Alert http://www.fpif.org/action/0104reich-action.html

"Otto Reich's Dirty Laundry," by Alec Dubro, FPIF Media Officer
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0104reich.html

FPIF Reich Profile http://www.fpif.org/republicanrule/officials.html#reich

Ideology Triumphs--The Otto Reich Nomination http://www.ciponline.org/reich/index.htm

U.S. DRUG POLICY: FAILURE AT HOME
By Eric Sterling, Criminal Justice Policy Foundation

(Editor's Note: Recent news--death of American missionaries in Peru, deepening U.S. involvement in Colombia, revelations about widespread use of private U.S. military contractors--has highlighted the failures, mistakes, and crimes of the U.S. drug war overseas. The missteps of U.S. foreign drug control policy reflect a fundamentally wrong--and effectively racist--drug policy at home. In a new FPIF policy brief, Eric Sterling focuses on what's wrong at home and what can be done. His analysis reflects a growing international consensus that a comprehensive control structure, including the licensing, taxing, and regulating of the drug trade and drug use should be considered--and the criminalization of drug use should be terminated. His policy brief, excerpted below, is posted in its entirely at: http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n16drugfail.html

A more enlightened U.S. foreign policy on drug control will necessarily mean major changes in U.S. domestic drug policy. Current consideration of alternative drug strategies is dominated by political cowardice and hot-button rhetoric. When Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NM) bravely suggested drug legalization, no politicians publicly joined him. Instead, President Clinton's drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, led a political attack, calling Johnson "irresponsible." And Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) suggested that global philanthropist George Soros be investigated for racketeering offenses, just because he funded criticism of national drug policy.

The public, however, has lost faith in the U.S. drug strategy. According to a March 2001 survey by the Pew Research Center, 74% of the public agrees that America is losing the war on drugs. Public dissatisfaction with the antidrug strategy will not disappear by suppressing discussion of alternative strategies. Independent blue-ribbon commissions, faith communities, civic organizations, professional societies, and service clubs must undertake rational, cost-benefit, top-to-bottom reviews of drug strategies.

In the short term, increasing the availability of drug treatment on request would be the most important and effective policy initiative. Drug treatment is not perfect--many addicts relapse. But relapse rates are comparable to the rates of those who fail to change their behavior in dealing with chronic diseases such as diabetes or hypertension. Over time, many addicts are successful in quitting. A leading California study found treatment to be seven times more cost-effective than imprisonment. A RAND Corporation analysis suggested that cocaine consumption could be reduced by 1% by spending either $783 million in source countries, or $366 million on international interdiction, or $246 million on domestic enforcement, or just $34 million on treatment.

About 2.1 million addicts were treated in 1998, but 2.9 million were unable to get treatment. The percentage of prisoners receiving drug treatment in prison decreased during the 1990s. For the poor and uninsured, publicly funded treatment is scarce.

Evaluations have found current youth drug-prevention-through-abstinence programs to be almost totally ineffective. Given that 50% of U.S. youth end up experimenting with drugs, a safety-first message needs to be adopted instead of focusing on total abstinence. Promoting responsible use is the current policy with alcohol, i.e., promoting the use of designated drivers. A responsible-use approach to drugs would be honest, acknowledging that most youths stop with drug experimentation and never become addicts. Often programs that have nothing to do with drugs directly, such as Head Start and Big Brother/Big Sister, have dramatic effects in reducing youth drug use.

Drug abuse by women has been increasing more rapidly in the U.S. than has male drug abuse. Further research regarding female drug abusers and more treatment programs for women are vitally needed. In addition, discriminatory policies toward women should be stopped. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court (Ferguson v. City of Charleston) struck down warrantless South Carolina Police drug searches of poor, black, pregnant women at Charleston's principal hospital for indigent persons. Women should not be forced to give up their children to enter drug treatment programs.

Ninety percent of new AIDS cases among children under 13 are due to the sharing of used injection equipment by their mothers or fathers. All of these cases could be prevented if the federal government approved and funded syringe exchange, the nearly universal recommendation of public health authorities.

Drug offense sentences need to be reduced dramatically. Sixty percent of federal prisoners are drug offenders, and federal drug sentences are longer than those imposed for many violent crimes. Drug offenders should not be singled out for additional penalties, such as eviction from housing or denial of aid for higher education--especially when persons convicted of violent crimes are not subject to such penalties.

Physicians should be permitted to prescribe marijuana and other appropriate pain relief. Studies show that doctors undertreat pain for 40-80% of their terminally ill patients.

It is likely that licensed and taxed drug distribution systems would be substantially less violent, less expensive, and more effective in reducing total harms than prohibition. Drug users would not need to be imprisoned, thus liberating substantial resources to pay for treatment. And a regulated drug industry would generate tens of billions of dollars in taxes.

An enlightened drug policy would recognize that drug use and drug abuse are two different matters, and it would focus on reducing drug abuse. America has a genius for regulation, but that genius has not yet been applied to the trade in and use of drugs.

(Eric E. Sterling is president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation.)

Sources for More Information

Organizations
Common Sense for Drug Policy
Email: info@csdp.org
Website: http://www.csdp.org/

The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation
Email: info@cjpf.org
Website: http://www.cjpf.org/

The Lindesmith Center--Drug Policy Foundation
Email: nyc@drugpolicy.org
Website: http://www.drugpolicy.org/

Marijuana Policy Project
Email: info@mpp.org
Website: http://www.mpp.org/

National Advocates for Pregnant Women
Email: napw1@aol.com
Website: http://www.scapw.org/page3.html

Websites Drug Reform Coordination Network http://www.drcnet.org/

DrugSense
http://www.drugsense.org/

Frontline: Drug Wars
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/

Join Together Online
http://www.jointogether.org/

The Media Awareness Project
http://www.mapinc.org/

Narco News
http://www.narconews.com/

National Drug Strategy Network
http://www.ndsn.org/

Office of National Drug Control Policy
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/

The Stanton Peele Addiction Website
http://www.peele.net/

II. Outside the U.S.

(FPIF has a new component called "Outside the U.S.," which aims to bring non-U.S. voices into the U.S. policy debate and to foster dialog between Northern and Southern actors in global affairs issues. See FPIF's Outside the U.S. webpage for an array of news commentaries from non-U.S. analysts about prominent U.S. foreign policy issues. In the U.S., the debate has focused on being hard or soft on the Chinese, but this contribution looking at the incident from inside the foreign policy perspective in India illustrates the importance of viewing international affairs from outside the U.S.-centric focus. Excerpted below, the entire essay is posted at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0105india.html. Please visit our Outside the U.S. page for other non-U.S. perspectives on global affairs: http://www.fpif.org/outside/index.html.)

 
LOOKING FROM INDIA AT THE SPY PLANE
By Ninan Koshy

It's difficult for the foreign policy establishment in New Delhi to see the events related to the U.S. spy plane incident in proper perspective. India's declared perception of China as a potential enemy and its self-delusion of having got a seat (with nuclear arms) at the high table of great powers distort its international vision. This incident came at a time of rising indications of an Indian tilt toward the U.S. (even if not always from the U.S. toward India) and a growing subservience of India's foreign policy to warped notions of national security.

The negotiations between the Chinese and the Americans ended with vague commitments to keep talking, but not much else. While China continued to resist U.S. demands for the return of the damaged U.S. surveillance plane held at a military base on Hainan island, Washington showed no willingness to accommodate Beijing's call for an end to U.S. reconnaissance flights along the Chinese coast. The sharp differences about what exactly happened plagued the negotiations.

 Competitors, Adversaries, Partners

Under President George W. Bush, the U.S. government perceives China now more as a strategic competitor than as a strategic partner. India continues to view China as a strategic adversary. This perspective explains why India is keenly interested in knowing about increased threats from China on all fronts, especially on the naval front. There may be some mandarins in New Delhi who hope that the U.S. may share some intelligence on China with India.

There was a time when India might have supported, if not applauded, China in the stand-off against America. In a way, China was using the incident to question the balance of power, hoping such a challenge to American military omnipotence would be beneficial. That was an expression of a desire for multipolarity. Traditionally, India was against superpower muscle flexing in the region. Today it does not feel it useful or tactical to support the Chinese position or to criticize Washington.

The new developments in U.S.-China relations have taken place at a time when China appears to be feeling uneasy about the apparent emergence of a new strategic triangular relationship among India, the U.S., and Japan that is intended to strategically contain China. In February 2001, an Indian news agency reported from Beijing that the official Chinese stand is that the development of India's relations with the U.S. and other countries is a matter between the countries themselves. At the same time, however, Chinese officials are anxious to know what is happening behind the scenes--especially since the new U.S. president seems to have taken a tougher stand against China on such sensitive questions as human rights abuses.

On human rights, China can take consolation from the fact that India opposed the U.S. move to censure China at the recent meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. This, however, is just the standard practice of India at the Commission--generally to oppose action against any country on human rights violations, lest at some point India itself may be on the docket.

An article in the Beijing Review earlier this year pointed out that former U.S. President Bill Clinton "adjusted" Washington's policy toward India to "make use of that country to guard against China." When looking at South Asia, the Chinese believe that the U.S. policy of befriending India at the expense of Pakistan has a very clear aim: targeting the focus of its South Asia policy at China. China has noticed the shift in India's nuclear doctrine from "regional limited deterrent" to that of "regional overall deterrent." A leading pro-Beijing Hong Kong newspaper, commenting on India's expansion of its naval might and show of strength, wrote: "While stepping up navy building or enhancing its ability to control the ocean, it has especially raised the need to prevent the development of Sino-Burmese relations in an effort to hinder China, the Indian navy will enter the South China Sea to conduct military exercises with the Philippine military."

India's apparent "accommodation" with Washington's National (Ballistic) Missile Defense (NMD) plans in response to growing U.S. "accommodation" to India's nuclear weapons is also a matter of serious concern to China. India's reluctance to criticize Washington's arrogant inauguration of a new nuclear era is the reflection of a policy crisis and the politics of self-delusion. In the blurred vision of New Delhi, the spy plane looks beautiful.

(Ninan Koshy, former director of International Affairs, World Council of Churches and Visiting Fellow, Human Rights Program, Harvard Law School,.)
 

III. Letters and Comments

SELLING ARMS IS THE BEST WAY

Some comments to your article "Assessing New U.S. Arms Sales to Taiwan" by Jim Nolt:

1. Republic of China on Taiwan has denounced its sovereign claim over mainland in 1987. Its major concern for getting new weapons is solely for self-defense. If there's any tension caused by this arms sales it will be Chinese Communists' decision.

2. President George W. Bush's decision to sell weapons to Taiwan is a direct response to mainland China's continuing missile build-up across from the Taiwan coast and Chinese communist government's constant verbal threat to attack Taiwan. In my opinion, helping Taiwan to defend itself is the best way for the United States to avoid any conflict with China over Taiwan.

- Robert Chen
 

 CHINA: "VERY RESTRAINED"?

I was interested in the recent article by Jim Nolt (http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0104taiwanarms.html) in which he said that "China has been very restrained in its own arms procurement." Obviously phrases like "very restrained" are subjective, but I am curious about the basis for this. It can also be argued (and is argued much more commonly, I have found) that China is undergoing an unprecedented modernization, and that its military and procurement budgets are increasing at a fairly high rate, especially as the official budget is not the whole budget.

A recent article in the Japan Times (which was obviously coming from a completely different, pro-proliferation point of view) compared the types of hardware that China had purchased from Russia to the hardware that Bush recently agreed to sell Taiwan. F-16s and Kidds are pretty serious stuff, but you shouldn't scoff at SU-30s and Sovremenny destroyers, either.

I feel that, like all arms spirals, the China-Taiwan situation has gone well beyond the point that one side can be called the actor and the other side can be called the reactor; they are both reacting to the perceived actions of the other. In that sense, the call for Aegis can be seen as a justified reaction to China's buildup of missiles along its coast.

I'm not writing to criticize the article, but Mr. Nolt is the first person I've ever heard who described China's procurement in this way, and I am very interested to find out why. My first thought on hearing about the sale is that Bush had, surprisingly, made a reasonable decision. Hopefully the possibility of Aegis being sold in the future will persuade the Chinese to exercise restraint of their own, and I really, as a disarmament specialist, hope that it serves as a permanent reminder to Bush that arms exports do elicit reactions.

- Daryl Bockett Masters Candidate International University of Japan

The Progressive Response aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about U.S. foreign policy issues. The content does not necessarily reflect the institutional positions of either the Interhemispheric Resource Center or the Institute for Policy Studies.

We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so let us know how we're doing, via email to . Please put "Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies you may receive.

To subscribe or unsubscribe to the Progressive Response, go to:
http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/progresp/index.html and follow the instructions.

To subscribe directly, send a blank message to:
newusfp-subscribe@lists.zianet.com

To unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
newusfp-unsubscribe@lists.zianet.com