战略与国际研究中心-Policy-Papers-on-the-Americas_-The-Drug-Problem-in-US_36页_152kb

Summary of The Drug Problem in U.S.-Colombian Relations by Juan Gabriel Tokatlian

Core Content

This report evaluates the U.S.-Colombian drug diplomacy from the Colombian perspective, focusing on the period between the 1990 Cartagena Summit and the 1992 San Antonio Summit. It analyzes the evolution of the drug policy relationship, the effectiveness of anti-drug strategies, and the broader implications for bilateral and regional cooperation.

Main Points and Key Information

I. From Cartagena to San Antonio

1. Economic Support

   • The U.S. committed to providing economic assistance for anti-drug efforts in the Andean region.
   • Colombia implemented structural economic reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s, including privatization and opening up to global markets, but these did not yield the expected economic benefits.
   • The Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) was passed in 1991, offering preferential trade terms to Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, but its economic impact was limited.
   • U.S. aid to Colombia was largely directed toward security and law enforcement, with only 25% allocated to economic development.
   • There was a significant imbalance between drug suppression efforts and other development programs.

2. Control of Supply and Demand

   • The Declaration of Cartagena emphasized a dual approach to controlling both supply and demand.
   • Colombia made notable progress in interdicting drugs, with increased seizures and destruction of coca labs.
   • However, U.S. policy remained heavily focused on supply-side efforts, with little attention to domestic demand in the U.S.
   • Despite initial declines in cocaine use in the U.S., there was a resurgence by the early 1990s, accompanied by increased availability and purity of drugs, and a rise in drug-related crime.

3. Diplomatic Consultation

   • The U.S. and Colombia engaged in diplomatic consultation, but tensions remained due to differing approaches.
   • The U.S. increasingly militarized its drug policy, which led to friction with Colombia.
   • The militarization of the drug war in the Andean region raised concerns about human rights, democracy, and civilian-military relations.
   • The U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and subsequent maritime patrols near Colombia's coast were seen as overreactions, exacerbating bilateral tensions.

II. From Bush to Clinton

1. 1992 Presidential Campaign

   • Drug policy was not a major issue in the U.S. presidential campaign between Bush and Clinton.
   • Bush's "war on drugs" had generated more criticism than support, and Clinton emphasized domestic demand reduction and prevention.
   • Colombia felt uneasy with Clinton's shift in focus, as it had come to rely on U.S. support for its anti-drug efforts.
   • Despite some diplomatic improvements, the U.S. did not increase economic or trade cooperation with Colombia.

2. Clinton Administration

   • The Clinton administration initiated a review of U.S. anti-drug policy, signaling a potential shift in strategy.
   • The U.S. began to emphasize domestic demand reduction and prevention, which contrasted with the previous supply-side focus.
   • This shift raised concerns in Colombia, where the country had been a key partner in the anti-drug campaign.
   • The U.S. Congress began to criticize Colombia's human rights record, affecting bilateral relations.

Conclusions

• The regional drug strategy initiated at the Cartagena Summit was not fully realized due to a lack of coordination and symmetry between U.S. and Colombian approaches.
• The militarization of the drug war in the U.S. and Colombia led to increased tensions and had negative consequences for regional cooperation.
• Colombia's anti-drug efforts were not adequately supported by U.S. economic aid, and its domestic reforms did not translate into significant economic gains.
• The U.S. shift from a supply-focused to a demand-focused strategy under Clinton created uncertainty in the bilateral relationship.
• The report concludes that a purely military or supply-side approach to drug control is ineffective and unsustainable, as it fails to address the complex social and economic factors behind drug use and trafficking.

Key Questions Raised

• Is it feasible to control a cultural phenomenon like drug use through force?
• Can a commercial phenomenon like the narcotics trade be permanently suppressed?
• What are the long-term impacts of increased military involvement on democracy, human rights, and civilian-military relations?
• Who benefits and who suffers from the militarization of the drug war in the hemisphere?

About the Author

• Juan Gabriel Tokatlian is associated with the CSIS Americas Program and has contributed to the analysis of U.S.-Colombian relations and drug policy in the region.