DEALING WITH DRUGS

There is a healthy realism in US President Bill Clinton's statement that
the debate between drug-consuming and drug-supplying nations has not
advanced the fight against narcotics. "It does not dismantle a single
cartel, help a single addict, prevent a single child from trying and
perhaps dying from heroin," he lamented at the recently concluded UN
General Assembly special session on drugs. The US has always chosen to
blame countries from where drugs originate rather than address the issue in
a more holistic fashion and examine the problem of demand as well. The US
is one of the world's biggest consumers of drugs, its stringent anti-drug
laws notwithstanding. Over 13 million Americans are addicted to dangerous
narcotics like cocaine and heroin and, contrary to popular belief, three
quarters of them are white. With these and other drugs being marketed as
exotic and trendy lifestyle accessories, demand is increasing across the
social spectrum. The US experience shows that the highly sophisticated
cartels which control the
international drug trade are invariably one step ahead of even the most
vigilant law enforcement agencies. In such a situation, President Clinton's
offer of $2 billion to spread the anti-drug message among youth is a
positive development. The proliferation of the drug culture is of
particular worry to India which was represented at the conference, though
the use of hard drugs is still a limited urban phenomenon here. At the same
time, India is today a major transit point for drugs from the Golden
Triangle, judging from the regularity with which large caches are seized at
various entry and exit points in the country.

In addition, we have the problem of narco-terrorism from across our
borders. It is fairly common knowledge now that many of the mercenary
groups operating in sensitive border states receive funds from drug
operations abroad. If unchecked, this has the potential to destabilise the
entire region further. India has repeatedly raised apprehensions in various
international fora, including the recent UN summit, at the dangers to human
rights from terrorism coupled with the illegal traffic of arms and drugs.
Indeed, even the most sincere efforts of the international community to
control drug trafficking cannot succeed if states and governments
themselves are involved in the trade. Various international conventions
exist to fight this menace and unless all states fulfil their obligations
- -- something we are yet to see among some of our neighbours -- there can be
no end to this problem. Drug cartels do not respect boundaries and Mr
Clinton's call to the international community to come together in the
battle against them is a somewhat belated recognition of this. The US,
while sermonising on the responsibilities of drug-supplying countries,
should also realise that poverty in the developing world is a major cause
and consequence of trafficking. In many parts of Myanmar, for example,
poppy cultivation is the only source of subsistence for local farmers and
they must be given viable alternatives before their crop is destroyed.
Therefore, the overall problem of drug-related issues should be viewed
within a socio-economic framework and efforts be made to assist rather than
blame developing countries to fight it. The UN summit, unfortunately,
confined itself merely to discussing the difficulties in countering the
narcotics trade and did little to formulate solutions.