Gaddafi’s Last Stand And The Future Of Libya.

Celebration In Green Square As Gaddafi Falls? Courtesy of NewsTalk.com

The rebels are closing in. The heirs to the regime have either been arrested or killed. The compound is all that is left of a dictatorship that has spanned four decades.

With only 20% of the capital, according to current reports, still in his possession and night long celebrations in the capital’s Green Square it looks like the jig is up for Colonel Gaddafi.

His time in power, lubricated by sitting on top of an oil reserve that the Western powers don’t want to lose, has been marked by suspicion, mystery and worldwide condemnation. It is hard to believe this is the end of the saga that has been going on since the airstrike began back in March.

Back when NATO sanctioned the air attack the government tried to suggest that it would be quick and painless as Gaddafi was already on his last legs. However the past 5 months have proved that was as naive as most commentators and members of the public thought at the time.
Continue reading Gaddafi’s Last Stand And The Future Of Libya.

Advertisements

Have We Lost The War on Drugs?

Courtesy of BBC News Online/Reuters

A ‘peace caravan’ that has been winding through Mexico cross over the border last week to attend a rally in El Paso, Texas to criticise the United States’ Drug Policy and its effect on Central America.

The USA’s ‘War on Drugs’ has a long history, its first use was by President Nixon in 1971 as a hardline reaction to a report on Vietnam War which suggested that 10-15% of troops were addicted to heroin. It has undergone many different guises through harsh punishment of convicted drug users to the patronising ‘Just Say No’ campaign launched by Nancy Reagan in the late eighties and early nineties. However, the current ‘Merida Initiative’ launched in 2007 and led by the US along with Mexico, Central America, Haiti and the Dominican Republic is fiercely condemned by critics as it has led to an exponential rise in the level of violent crime and instability across Central America.

The aim of the $400m scheme is to eradicate the illegal smuggling of drugs such as cannabis and cocaine through Mexico with the agreement and support of Mexican President, Felipe Calderón. So far it seems however, all the scheme has done is push the trade southward into the harder to govern countries like El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala as well as cost the lives of thousands of people (an estimated 35,000 have died since Calderón deployed the army to the streets in 2006).

The caravan, led by poet Javier Sicilia whose grandson was killed in the violence, crisscrossed Mexico in a 1550 mile journey with a retinue of 20 coaches arriving at the border city of Ciudad Juarez, which has become the frontline of the drugs war with 3100 deaths alone in 2010, on Friday 10th June before crossing the border into Texas on Saturday.

At the rally in El Paso, Mr Sicilia claimed that the US government had ‘a grave responsibility for failing to tackle the drugs crisis’ and partially blamed American drug takers.

Stephen Muller's Graph Comparing The Death Rate in the Iraq War to the Drugs War

He said ‘Americans have to realise that behind every puff of pot, every line of coke, there is death, there are shattered families’.

This month, a UN Global Commission on Drugs Policy published a report declaring that the ‘The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.’

The War on Drugs is designed as a relentless battering of the drugs cartels that operate across Mexico and its southern neighbours. In some ways it has been successful as it drove the drug smugglers out of Florida and the Caribbean ten or so years ago but instead of eradicating them completely, they have simply moved base to Mexico.

The Commission called for a more complex drugs policy based on education, prevention and understanding instead of the current battering ram approach. The USA’s policy on tackling drug abuse within their borders is no more sophisticated than an IT technician whose idea of fixing a computer is repeatedly kicking the hardrive.

Parallels between the current drug prohibition policies and the 18th Amendment passed against alcohol in 1919 have not gone unnoticed by the world’s media. The Act was inspired by the efforts of the Temperance Movements that sprang up at the end of the nineteenth century to cure what they thought was a moral depravity throughout America. However despite widespread seizures of liquor and an initial decline in the level of alcohol consumption, by 1929 there were more ‘speakeasies’ than there had been saloons in 1918. In New York City alone, they had between 30,000 and 100,000 speakeasies by 1925. It also led to an almost uncontrollable rise in gang control, particularly in Chicago. Breweries in Mexico and Canada and the other border countries flourished as gang leaders like Al Capone controlled thousands of speakeasies and a bootleg operation from Canada to Florida.

This is why their current approach will never work. It’s a guerrilla war that cannot be won by bloodletting. Similarly the ‘Just Say No’ campaign would never work either. True, the figures of teenagers taking soft drugs did fall but was this due to greater education rather than teenagers suddenly blindly following what the First Lady says. You cannot tell a person what to do, especially with something that is fundamentally their choice, without explaining why they should do it.

The answer to solving the drugs crisis coming from solving the problems within America rather than hammering the supply routes on its borders. Instead of exacerbating the problems of other countries it should face up to its own. There has been a lot of argument about legalising the use of drugs in America and whether this would lead to more or less dependency. An argument for legalisation of ‘softer drugs’ would be the downgrading of Cannabis from a class B to a class C drug in Britain in 2004 led to a fall in consumption despite the reclassification in 2009. On the other hand, against it is the legalisation of personal drug use in Portugal which has no led to any decline in consumption.

However, this is perhaps because the legislation does not go far enough; economists like Milton Friedman, George Akerlof and Vernon L.Smith suggest that the supply of marijuana without reducing the demand causes the price, and hence the profits of marijuana. Therefore it does nothing to stem the flow of narcotics across the border. Legalising the drugs trade is a controversial one even amongst the most liberal groups in America and it is not going to solve the problems of drug dependency over night but it should alleviate the suffering of Central America which doesn’t deserve to take all the backlash of American domestic policy.

Furthermore, Jeffrey A. Miron estimated in a 2008 study that legalising drugs would inject $76.8 billion in America’s indebted economy; $44.1 billion from law enforcement savings and $32.7 billion in tax revenue. Now these figures do seem a little generous but it is worth noting the bankrupt California’s illegal marijuana trade generates $1 billion a year.

Maybe, its time America admitted defeat. It cannot control the domestic habits of its citizens so instead of laying down the harsh hand of the law they should educate and inform their citizens to take better care of themselves.

The Problem with Politics

Is this sort of violence an exception or will our frustrations always boil over?

It’s human nature to never be satisfied. In a way that’s why I almost feel sorry for politicians because even when they do what is actually in the best interests of the majority (which does happen very occasionally) the hysterical minorities come out in force.

We always want what we can’t have, take the figures released by Research Globe Scan, a polling firm and published in the Economist last week. In 2002, 80% of Americans, the land of the ‘American Dream’, believed that free market economics was the best financial system for their country but eight years and one massive recession later only 59% still agreed in 2010. Amongst Americans earning less than $20,000 it fell from 76% to 44%. You can say this is the impact of the financial crisis and the blame heaped on unregulated banking system for the loss of faith but Germany’s approval of capitalism has remained steady at 69% even if admittedly they’re still the strongest performing economy in the Euro zone. Only Spain managed to buck the trend with its approval growing from 37% to 51% and it is widely tipped to be the next country to receive a bailout from the European Union and the IMF.

In contrast, Communist China’s rating of capitalism keeps going up and up, at 68% it is higher than the USA for the first time ever.

There is a pretty clear correlation between the relative opinions of capitalism and the growth figures of each individual countries but does this play into a wider trend?

People have documented the increasing desire in the nominally communist states for prosperity and individuality with barely suppressed glee over the past few decades as evidence for the Western way being best but do these latest figures show that the grass will always be greener  no matter what side of the wall you’re on?

I’m withholding judgement on the merits or otherwise of free market capitalism (for now) but simply making the point that nothing will ever be perfect. There are always winners and losers and people will always see themselves as the loser because its human nature to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

If you don’t give people what they want they grumble (and in North Africa at the moment they rebel), if you do, they demand more or poke holes in what you’ve done. It’s a fun thing; there will never be a right way of doing things, only a few things the uninformed and slightly hysterical masses presume won’t damage them too much.

That’s why government’s normally veer from left to right depending on how dissatisfied the population are. If the recession hadn’t happen, Gordon Brown had been more charismatic and we hadn’t been dragged into two overseas conflicts, Labour probably would have still lost the next election because Cameron’s happy, shiny unrealistic plans looked so much more exciting.

You can promise anything when you’re not in power (ask the Lib Dems) if you make it seem different enough from what the government is doing.

(This post really has no point, it’s just late and it’s been a really long day. It’s mainly just my musings over the past week rather than any really cohesive polemic that’ll happen again when I’ve had more than five hours sleep).