UN SPECIAL SESSION ON DRUGS: HOPE TEMPERED WITH PESSIMISM

EUROPE

GERMANY: "Dream Of A World Without Drugs"

Heidrun Graupner wrote in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (6/9):
"Eleven years ago, at the anti-drug conference of the UN in Vienna, the UN
secretary general spoke of the 'power of evil' that shook up the
foundations of society and the security of nations. This drug summit was
supposed to signal a turning point for international cooperation in the
fight against drugs.... Everybody dreamed of a world without drugs, but
this dream burst like a bubble. Today, the 'power of evil' is bigger than
ever. But times seems to have stopped at the current UN drug conference
which will hold deliberations until Wednesday in New York. The UN is
discussing a plan of action for the coming 10 years which hardly differs
from the old Vienna paper.... It is true that cooperation in the fight
against drugs has resulted in some successes, but an ever-increasing amount
of drugs is flooding the markets.... Demand is controlling supply. As long
as the United Nations continues to dream of a 'world without drugs,' and
closes their eyes to reality, the mafia will continue to keep all trump
cards in its hands. A restrictive policy on drugs, and the past 11 years
are evidence of this, creates more and more addicts."

FRANCE: "The United States On The Anti-Narco Front"

Jean Jacques Mevel, Washington correspondent for right-of-center Le Figaro
wrote (6/10): "The United States reasserted it at the UN Assembly in New
York: They will not give a cent to assist Burma and Afghanistan to get rid
of their poppy fields. Yet, in the Latin American backyard, they are about
to close their eyes: Colombia is getting aid from Washington again."

"Drug Planet"

Right-of-center Les Echos argued in its editorial (6/9): "The UN program
seems to be a very close imitation of the repressive approach adopted by
the United States, which is also shared in part by Jacques Chirac.
Therefore one may wonder about the supposed results of such a plan in view
of the limited results achieved to date. All the more so that the United
States is not ready to contribute financially to the program."

"Ambitous Plan For The UN"

Jean-Jacques Mevel wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (6/8): "The summit is
a good public relations operation for the UN. The international
organization, which is often accused of being too slow and too expensive,
is trying to uplift its image by addressing more mundane issues.... Last
year it was the environment, this year, drugs.... No one will openly
criticize the initiative.... But there is much skepticism, particularly
from the West.... Despite its hesitations, the United States will open the
summit...even if Clinton is probably not ready to let the UN take over an
issue which is sensitive and important in domestic policy."

ITALY: "Between Anti-Prohibitionists And Talibans"

An editorial in provocative, classical liberal Il Foglio held (6/10): "The
anti-drug summit which is underway at the United Nations is bringing to
light...a basic disagreement not only between drug producing nations and
consuming nations, but also between merely repressive strategies and
approaches more aimed at understanding and preventing the spreading of drug
abuse. The therapy suggested by Italian sociologist Pino Arlacchi,
criticized by many as being illiberal, unbalanced, repressive, risks being
as ineffective as those which preceded it.... The appeal issued
simultaneously with the UN conference and signed by top-level supporters of
more liberal drug policies...is surrounded by doubts and legitimate
concerns, which divide even the most permissive circles. But if the only
alternative is an Arlacchi-style repression, then anti-prohibitionism is
destined to make new proselytes."

"Concerted Effort"

Washington correspondent Andrea di Robilant commented in centrist,
influential La Stampa (6/9): "This is not the first time that an
international 'crusade' against narcotraffickers has been announced.... But
the impression of many observers is that for the first time a concerted
effort by the international community may produce concrete results. And
that the strategy proposed by Italian sociologist Pino Arlacchi...is the
right one.... But the most significant new element which justifies the
optimism on the anti-drugs front after decades of useless efforts against
the growing power of narcotraffickers is the gradual fall of the 'wall'
between producing nations and consuming nations, between North and South.
For years, the international fight on drugs has been jeopardized by the
exchange of hostilities between the two sides. But the reality is that
several consuming nations have now become producers as well, and vice
versa. And Clinton acknowledged this new reality."

"How To Curb Demand"

In centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (6/9), Washington
correspondent Ennio Caretto noted: "According to the indications coming
from the UN, everyone agrees on how to curb the production and the supply
of drugs--i.e., on how to intervene in poor nations--but not on how to curb
demand, i.e., on how to move in rich nations..... There was considerable
expectation for President Clinton's speech.... Clinton insisted on
repressive means, from interdiction of narcotrafficking to more severe
legislation. The word 'rehabilitation' was conspicuously absent from his
speech.... Italian Prime Minister Prodi was the third leader to speak, and
his tone seemed much different from Clinton's. Prodi proposed 'a strategy
of preventive response that would go beyond a purely punitive strategy.'"

"Important Result"

New York correspondent Arturo Zampaglione opined in left-leaning,
influential La Repubblica (6/9): "Beyond the unanimous agreement, the New
York summit has explicitly revealed for the first time the disputes between
narcoproducers and narcoconsumers.... Producing nations have come to the
summit not only to reiterate their commitment in the fight on drugs, but,
most of all, to request from consuming nations, mainly the United States,
more intellectual honesty, more legal and economic collaboration, more
efforts in reducing demand. Clinton responded only indirectly to the
anxieties and the criticism voiced by producing nations.... The UN special
session will nonetheless conclude on Wednesday with an important result:
For the first time, more than 100 nations will reach a written agreement on
a common plan of action that will go beyond generic promises and verbal
disputes."

"Clinton's Double Meanings"

Massimo Cavallini wrote from Los Angeles in PDS (leading government party)
L'Unita' (6/9): "The speech given by Clinton lends itself to a double
reading, beginning with the figures on the dramatic drop of drug abuse in
the United States. One year ago, the same figures were termed by the
General Accounting Office, a government agency, as 'based on unreliable
calculations.'... And Clinton's edifying appeal to other nations to
collaborate also contains 'double meanings.' Especially if one considers
that, through the paternalistic, offensive and counterproductive method of
'certification,' i.e., the annual reports given out to other
nations...which was so emphatically condemned by Clinton. It should also be
noted that, due to America's failure to pay its UN arrears, any UN activity
risks an impasse due to the lack of appropriate funding, notwithstanding
all 'globalist' rhetoric."

RUSSIA: "Liberalization Is Not Answer"

Dmitry Zharnikov mused in reformist Noviye Izvestia (6/10): "Full
liberalization is not an answer to the problem. With farmers switching to
'peaceful' crops as a result of a 'conversion' policy and their well-being
improving, drug cartels will hike purchasing prices, given the enormous
profits they make on selling the stuff, and thereby lure them back to 'the
bad business.' A worthy solution would be to combine punitive Yankee-style
action with socio-economic incentives for poverty-high farmers."

BELGIUM: "Ambitious, Unrealistic"

New York correspondent Tom Ronse wrote in independent De Morgen (6/11):
"The UN summit on drugs concluded on Wednesday with the approval of
resolutions in which the member states commit themselves 'to eliminate or
substantially reduce' the culture of coca, cannabis and opium poppies and
the production of illegal synthetic drugs by 2008. Virtually all experts,
however, believe that this goal is unrealistic.... The least one can say is
that the resolutions adopted by the UNSC are ambitious. Except for the
10-year plan regarding the elimination of coca, cannabis and opium poppies,
the member states also committed themselves to introduce laws by 2003 to
fight the production and trade of amphetamine drugs and the laundering of
drug profits....

"Pino Arlacchi, director of the UN's anti-drug program, hopes that things
will change. To date, the fight against drugs was fought mainly with
military means--often with disastrous ecological and social consequences.
Arlacchi wants to move the accent to economic aid to help drug producing
areas transfer to legal products.... There is no mention of the financing
in the UN resolutions. In Arlacchi's plan, the drug producing nations
should pay half of the cost which seems, given the poverty in the Third
World, quite unrealistic. It is also doubtful whether the rich countries
will contribute enough to give the plan credibility. The coordinator of the
U.S. policy against drugs, General Barry McCaffrey, criticized the plan and
refused to say whether the United States would support it.... As if to
confirm how wide the gap remains, the U.S. Senate approved on Tuesday a law
which makes money available for repressive measures, which denies
scholarships to students who were ever convicted for drug possession and
which prohibits USG support of projects which fight the spreading of AIDS
through the exchange of syringes."

CANADA: "War On Drugs A Losing Battle"

The business-oriented Financial Post (6/10) commented: "The U.S. government
is determined to escalate its misguided war on drugs--and it's using a
United Nations drug summit to find new allies.... [U.S. President Bill
Clinton remarked that] finger-pointing between countries must stop....
Clinton is right, finger-pointing is counter-productive. But so, too, has
been the United States' strategy to eradicate the drug scourge by clamping
down on the supply side of the problem. The only winner in the United
States' war on drugs has been the illegal drug trade.... The drug-supplying
countries are right to argue that demand for illegal drugs makes the market
possible in the first place, and it's this side of the equation that
deserves increased global attention. Those who advocate a more open
dialogue about global drug control policies--including looking at
legalization, clean needle programs, addiction prevention and
treatment--aren't soft on drugs as some would contend. They're just
concerned the war on drugs has proved too costly."

"UN Wages Harmful War On Drugs"

Columnist Terence Corcoran commented in leading Globe and Mail (6/9):
"Instead of ending the war which is causing more grief and havoc than the
drugs themselves, Mr. Clinton renewed the campaign.... It was classic
anti-drugism....

"A few hundred signatures won't change the UN, but the growing number of
enlightened opponents of the war on drugs...must be taken as a sign that
momentum is building for a change in attitude and policy.... The greater
the UN effort to create a mythical drug-free society, the more oppressive
its methods will become. It's time to start looking at alternatives."

"War On Reason"

The conservative Ottawa Citizen held (6/8): "Today in New York City an act
of almost

indescribable stupidity will be committed.... The 'war on drugs' will be
declared once again. This time the UN will play the fool, with an
announcement of the most ambitious international anti-drug program ever....
The cornerstone of the UN plan will be a program to get farmers in the nine
major drug-producing nations...to switch from growing plants that produce
illegal drugs to other crops.... Bonne chance, nos amis. The nations being
targeted range from merely corrupt to tyrannical to anarchic.... Cutting
the supply of drugs does nothing to reduce the demand for them.... For all
its futility, the UN quixotic quest will not come cheaply.... The UN will
not, however, discuss alternatives to the war on drugs.... Non-governmental
organizations that asked to hold a short, small seminar to discuss
alternatives to the war on drugs were refused permission.... Sense and
experience are ignored, folly is repeated, and the war on drugs becomes a
war on reason itself."

SPAIN: "Drugs: 'Let's Get Serious'"

Independent El Mundo remarked (6/9): "'We need to be bolder and more
creative than the drug traffickers,' was the message conveyed by Spanish
Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to the heads of state and government
gathered at UN headquarters yesterday. Conferences such as these 'cannot
result in a display of impotency,' he urged [although this has been the
result in the past].... Yesterday, [for example], it was learned that
between 1990 and 1992 former Mexican president Carlos Salinas was taking
bribes from the Cali cartel.... Although he was not alone--senators,
governors, and police officials were also corrupted--the coming to light of
this information during such a conference makes it clear that one of the
principal obstacles to the elimination of drug trafficking is the hypocrisy
of certain national leaders."

EAST ASIA

CHINA: "Anti-Drug UN General Assembly Held In New York"

Lin Shaowen said in the official Central Legal and Political Commission
(Fazhi Ribao, 6/9): "At the special UN General Assembly on Drugs, all
developing countries will emphasize the principles of respecting national
sovereignty and noninterference in other countries' internal affairs when
international anti-narcotics strategies are brought up. Differences are
predictable between developing countries and developed countries on an
array of problems to be discussed at the meeting. Despite possible
disparity, people have reason to hope for a final elimination of drugs in
this world."

"International Action Against Drugs"

Zhou Xisheng wrote in the official Beijing Municipal Beijing Daily (Beijing
Ribao, 6/9): "The large-scale special UN General Assembly on Drugs fully
demonstrates the determination of the international community to cooperate
in eliminating drugs."

THAILAND: "Drug Menace An International Problem"

The independent, English-language Nation opined (6/11): "Certainly, the
adoption of the UN declaration on drugs will herald a new phase of
international drug control cooperation.

"But without the highest level of political will and the unwavering
commitment of rich industrialized countries to combat poverty in
drug-producing countries, the war against drugs could be lost even before
it begins."

SOUTH ASIA

BANGLADESH: "Working Out Ways To Deal With The Scourge"

The English-language, independent Bangladesh Observer said (6/9): "A
three-day special UNGA session on narcotics opened on Monday in New York
with leaders from both producing and consuming countries trying to work out
the most effective means of dealing with the scourge. Dubbed as the world's
largest anti-drug conference it no doubt will go through the familiean
arguments of where the focus should fall.... If we are thinking of
eradicating the scourge altogether, Eastern wisdom says, family figures
must play a consistently positive role in the rearing of children.... Such
upbringing should result in healthy attitudes and meaningful lives.

"The conference hopes to set target dates for governments to enact
legislation against money laundering, decide on ways of curbing demand,
combating trafficking, and inducing drug-crop growers to go for assisted
alternative livelihood. In this context, we hope Bangladesh's cannabis
cultivators, who were displaced in the mid-80S by President Reagan's
anti-cannabis advice to General Ershad, finally get the support they
deserve."

Checked-by: Richard Lake