Kelvin Teo
Poppy Plant
Capital punishment in the form of death penalty meted out to drug traffickers has always been a hot potato topic for human rights activists. The typical human rights argument against death penalty stems from the belief that everyone has the right to life, liberty and personal security, all of which are taken away as a result of the death penalty. Currently, 95 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, including drug-related offences, whilst retentionist countries for the death penalty applicable to drug-related offences include Singapore, Malaysia and China as examples. Proponents of the death penalty for drug offences claim that retaining the punishment acts as a deterrent against future offences. Hence, for countries that grapple with the problem of drug trafficking, it is the question of the most effective approach in dealing with it.
In Southeast Asia, the Golden Triangle is the region joining Burma, Thailand and Laos and is known for the production of narcotics. Opportunistic Chinese businessmen and various armed groups oversee the manufacture of opium and amphetamine. The United Wa State Army (UWSA) is a major player in the Golden Triangle, arising from the fact that it was granted immunity by the Burmese military government as part of ceasefire agreements with the latter. Amphetamine trafficking has particularly been the scourge for the Thai society. The Thai Development Research Institute estimated that the country has at least 257,000 amphetamine addicts. In 2001, the flow of amphetamine from Burma to Thailand was estimated to be approximately 700 to 800 million pills. Besides Thailand, UWSA exports the pills to some parts of Europe, Australia and other parts of Southeast Asia.
The problem of drug consumption and trafficking has not gone unnoticed at the regional level. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) organised the ASEAN Experts Group Meeting on the Prevention and Control of Drug Abuse in 1972 which preceded the signing of the Bali Accord in 1976 by Heads of Governments of ASEAN countries that seek to intensify collaboration among member states as well as with the relevant international bodies to prevent and eradicate the abuse of narcotics and trafficking of illicit drugs. The ASEAN Foreign Ministers also signed the Joint Declaration for a Drug-Free ASEAN which is an affirmation of its pledge towards eradication of production, processing, trafficking and use of illicit drugs in Southeast Asia by the year 2020. The Hanoi Plan of Action that contains a series of action plans was also adopted to realise the 2020 vision.
1.Training of Trainers in Interpersonal Skills and Peer Support Counselling in Drug Education .
2. Promoting Drug Abuse Prevention Activities Among Out-of-School Youth.
3. Promotion of Drug Control Activities in the Workplace.
4. Training on Effective Management in Prevention Drug Education Programmes
5. Enhancement of Community-Based Drug Prevention Activities
6. ASEAN Training Seminar for Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Counsellors
7. ASEAN Training on Financial Investigations
8. Training on Intelligence Operations Management and Supervision
9. ASEAN Seminar on Mutual Legal Assistance.
10. ASEAN Seminar on Precursor Chemicals.10 project proposals for the Hanoi Plan of Action in which 4, 6 and 9 have been implemented, ASEAN Secretariat
However, skeptics have questioned the effectiveness of ASEAN’s approach in tackling the drug issue. The first issue is that of the personal interests of the Burmese military junta. It has been reported that the regime created a legislation that enables it to launder proceeds from drugs sales, i.e. disguising the origins of illicitly or illegally gained money in ‘legitimate’ form, and such is achieved through levying a 40% tax on declared assets, which includes drugs ones, rather than real property. The other issue is the perceived ineffectiveness of ASEAN in dealing with a chronic regional issue, one of which is the war against drugs. ASEAN’s way of dealing with conflicts, which is ad hoc or event-based doesn’t help matters, especially when Thai-Burma tensions escalated with the northeastern part of Burma along the border with Thailand area seen as the potential theatre of conflict, in addition to newspapers from both sides lobbing criticisms at each other. As a result, Thailand has to turn to extra-regional assistance in the form of China to tackle the drug problem. China, being a non-ASEAN country has a hard-line approach in dealing with the drug problem through harsh punishments such as the death sentence.
Track 1 diplomacy, which is government to government diplomatic interactions has its limitations in tackling the drug issue. The ability of ASEAN to cajole the Burmese military junta into taking an anti-drug stance is likely to be met with resistance by the latter, given its personal intereest. Thus, as far as track 1 diplomacy goes, the best that can be achieved is increased anti-drug law enforcement agency collaboration between countries (i.e. between policing authorities), such as sharing of intelligence and working with partner countries to track the movement of drug syndicates and traffickers.
Track 2 diplomacy in the form of non-governmental actor to non-governmental actor diplomatic interaction, however also has a part to play in the war against the drug problem, since the root cause of involvement in drug production and trafficking can be attributed to poverty. Even ASEAN has acknowledged the role of non-governmental actors in this fight and will seek to enhance the role of Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in drug abuse prevention and control. NGOs provide an avenue for concerned citizens to be engaged in the fight against this chronic problem.
How does the track 2 diplomacy war against drugs take shape? It can come in the form of aid or charity organisations assisting families living in poverty, but can encompass schools or educational organisations that helps educate families about awareness of drug abuse and equip them with knowledge or skills to gain qualifications for respectable jobs so that they can earn a decent living. Improving social mobility will reduce tendency of the populace to be drawn into the drug trade, either as workers involved in production or as traffickers.
However, even track II diplomatic approaches have their limitations, given the military junta’s aversion to foreign aids. When Cyclone Nargis devastated the country in 2008, the regime initially turned away foreign aid workers. It however softened its stance, and as a limited concession, allowed aid workers from ASEAN nations to enter the country. Thus, it was left to ASEAN to establish a mechanism to allow aids from all over the world to flow into Burma. It took a subsequent negotiation between the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Than Shwe, which resulted in the opening of Burma to foreign aid workers regardless of nationality. However, the Burmese regime remained adverse to military units involved in the provision of foreign aids.
The diplomacy approach to the war on drugs remains a challenge, but ASEAN has a part to play in the war. Government to government diplomatic negotiations should pave the way for aid and educational organisations to perform their functions in Burma. Track I diplomacy should include renewed efforts in pressurising the Burmese military junta in clamping down on drug production, however pessimistic or on the brighter side, optimistic the outlook it may be. And also improved collaboration must be reinforced between policing authorities in the fight against drug trafficking activities. Track I diplomacy discussion should also aim at convincing the Burmese to allow non-government actors (track II diplomats) into the country to conduct programmes that help improve social mobility of its people so that it will make it less likely for them to be engaged in drug production and trafficking.
It is always heartbreaking to some, especially those whom are anti-death penalty activists to hear of unfortunate drug mules whose lives will be snuffed out in an execution for their crimes. Authorities responsible for meting out the punishment will maintain that such sentences are a deterrent. However, one must realise that the war against drugs takes place beyond the shores of our nations. Diplomacy, at the official and unofficial level addresses the problem head on by creating conditions in the country responsible for drug production and trafficking that discourage such activities, e.g. improved social mobility, and in a way can be seen as a preventive approach to keep the drug problem off our shores.
In a way, the drug problem is like cancer. Cancer becomes worse as cancer cells multiply, as more and more people get sucked into drug production and trafficking. And cancer kills by spreading, i.e. drug is trafficked to other countries and cause problems there. Poverty forces the populace into this line. Execute or throw drug mules in jail, but that will never solve the poverty problem. The family of the drug mule living in poverty will persist in poverty even as the latter is executed or jailed. Diplomatic approaches aimed at improving circumstances within the country to reduce likelihood of people engaging in such activities are like anti-cancer vaccines. The population is immunised against this cancer. And ultimately, this cancer is kept off the shores of other countries.
