News (Media Awareness Project) - US: US Accused Leaders Of Being Soft On Drug War |
| Title: | US: US Accused Leaders Of Being Soft On Drug War |
| Published On: | 2001-01-02 |
| Source: | Canberra Times (Australia) |
| Fetched On: | 2008-09-02 06:58:02 |
US ACCUSED LEADERS OF BEING SOFT ON DRUG WAR
LONDON, Monday: United States diplomats privately accused world leaders of
being 'tepid' in their support for the so-called war against drugs,
according to a US presidential briefing paper obtained by the Guardian.
The internal document reveals how the US sought to rally leading governments
behind an audacious United Nations plan to halt drug abuse.
The long-running US-led "war against drugs" has often been criticised as a
mission doomed to fail.
The briefing paper was written by US diplomats in the run-up to a landmark
UN summit which adopted a huge, two-pronged plan -- to eradicate the
production of illegal drugs in the world by 2008 and to cut down
significantly the number of people who wanted to take drugs by 2003.
A key stepping stone towards that summit in June 1998 was another summit --
this time of the G8 leaders -- held in Britain three weeks beforehand.
In a briefing paper to aides of the US President, Bill Clinton, State
Department officials wrote that the crucial US goal was to "send a strong
message that the G8 will continue a vigorous fight against international
production, trafficking and abuse of illicit drugs."
The US was keen to secure international backing for the plans of Pino
Arlacchi, who had been appointed executive director of the UN drug-control
program (UNDCP).
But the officials noted in their paper that 'other G8 governments have given
only tepid and circumscribed support to the UNDCP'. They added, we
understand, the cautious reaction to Mr Arlacchi's ambitious plan for a
global attack on illicit drug cultivations.
The internal paper also gives an insight into the high-level politicking
which goes into the drafting of communiques issued at international summits.
The Americans were unhappy with the wording of the proposed communique to be
released after the G8 summit in Britain. They were worried that the draft
wording was not strong enough in its championing of the UN plans and
suggested new sentences. It appears their attempt was partly successful.
LONDON, Monday: United States diplomats privately accused world leaders of
being 'tepid' in their support for the so-called war against drugs,
according to a US presidential briefing paper obtained by the Guardian.
The internal document reveals how the US sought to rally leading governments
behind an audacious United Nations plan to halt drug abuse.
The long-running US-led "war against drugs" has often been criticised as a
mission doomed to fail.
The briefing paper was written by US diplomats in the run-up to a landmark
UN summit which adopted a huge, two-pronged plan -- to eradicate the
production of illegal drugs in the world by 2008 and to cut down
significantly the number of people who wanted to take drugs by 2003.
A key stepping stone towards that summit in June 1998 was another summit --
this time of the G8 leaders -- held in Britain three weeks beforehand.
In a briefing paper to aides of the US President, Bill Clinton, State
Department officials wrote that the crucial US goal was to "send a strong
message that the G8 will continue a vigorous fight against international
production, trafficking and abuse of illicit drugs."
The US was keen to secure international backing for the plans of Pino
Arlacchi, who had been appointed executive director of the UN drug-control
program (UNDCP).
But the officials noted in their paper that 'other G8 governments have given
only tepid and circumscribed support to the UNDCP'. They added, we
understand, the cautious reaction to Mr Arlacchi's ambitious plan for a
global attack on illicit drug cultivations.
The internal paper also gives an insight into the high-level politicking
which goes into the drafting of communiques issued at international summits.
The Americans were unhappy with the wording of the proposed communique to be
released after the G8 summit in Britain. They were worried that the draft
wording was not strong enough in its championing of the UN plans and
suggested new sentences. It appears their attempt was partly successful.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
