International relations are becoming increasingly strained due to the drugs problem. The Dutch parliamentary inquiry Commission(van Traa) into misuse of police power in drug investigations even states "that international relations must not be allowed to stand in the way of the fight against organised crime."

The question, however, is rather, 'how much damage does the 'War on Drugs' have to cause before the international community recognises that the war is untenable and causes more damage than it solves problems?'.

Serious accusations are made between states. For example, France calls the Netherlands a "Narco-State", and the Netherlands reproaches the French for carrying out an irrational and moralistic policy. (The French-Dutch drug relations, CEDRO, Dutch only) The relationship between Surinam and the Netherlands are being poisoned by drugs and the Americans let their trade relations with their backyard South America to be reigned by anti-drugs 'certification'. Each year the American president awards countries in the Caribbean a certificate for good behaviour in fighting the "War on Drugs", to which favourable trade conditions are coupled. This policy has had consequences that could not have been imagined.

The Colombian government recently placed an advertisement in the New York Times as part of its yearly certification campaign to display its own anti-drug activities. An appeal with a sacrifice of 20.000 deaths which the drug war had cost in the past year. A macabre 'bodycount'. Nevertheless president Clinton firmly gives the thumbs down. Will the president give the thumbs up with a bodycount of 100.000?

Just before the certification decision Mexico's biggest money launderer bought his way out of prison. The Mexican government decided to keep it a secret until after a positive decision. Seldom looked a president so really foolish.

But that is not all. Just after president Clinton praised the Mexican anti-drugs general Guttièrez , the general was exposed as an accomplice of a drug cartel. He fought mainly against rival cartels. The Mexican anti-drug squad appeared to be so corrupt that the Mexican president Salinas, who himself is accused of links with drug circles, felt compelled under American pressure to dissolve the squad. The American DEA can now set up a new organisation in Mexico. You couldn't imagine a greater Trojan horse. Drugs were, together with NAFTA, the most important subjects of talks during a recent visit by the American president to Mexico.

The enormous flow of black market money. According to a UN estemate about $ 400 billion or 8% of all international trade.(Parliamentary inquiry van Traa report IV.2.1.) which is generated from the drugs trade is the cause of these corruption practices. Black market money seeks an official route and can only find it in large scale corruption. In this way criminals penetrate into regular economic and political life, although this phenomenon is still limited in the Netherlands (van Traa report IV.2.2.). In most European countries no systematic analysis on criminal enterprises has been done. The Parliamentarian inquiry mentions about Italy that the entanglement of criminal enterprises in regular economic and political life is no theory anymore, but a real threat. (van Traa report VIII.1.) It is no wonder that EU Commission member for Italy, Emma Bonino is openly for legalization.

It is the large cities, in particular, that suffer from the illegality of drugs, from the 'War on Drugs'. In the United States the crime that stems from drugs trade leads to 'no go areas'. Violence is seen as the normal way of solving conflicts. This culture of violence spreads into middle class neighbourhoods nearby. In effect, the consequences of the prohibition of drugs turns against society. The unintentional effects of the present drug policy become more and more serious.
Gabriel Garciá Márquez describes the cause of the Colombian misery in his latest semi- novel 'News of a kidnapping' as follows:
"A drug that is more damaging than the worst dope was introduced into the national culture: easy money. The idea that the law forms the biggest obstacle to happiness, that it is not worthwhile learning to read and write, that it is better and safer to live as a criminal than as a respectable person became more and more popular. In short: the situation of social decay which is characteristic of any latent war." (Chapter 6)

In New York, big city above all else, the call for policy reform from the scientific and judicial circles is becoming louder and louder. The New York County Lawyers' Association formed the Drug Policy Task Force to review the current drug policy. The New York State Supreme Court is represented in the Task Force with five judges. In it's report they conclude that the powerful prohibition policy turns against that what it is trying to protect.

In Amsterdam a liberal drugs policy has been carried out by trial and error since back in the seventies. Because of this policy the extremes that are found in New York and Colombia have been kept at bay. The large addiction epidemics have been overcome. Only new large raids could cause renewed problems in Amsterdam.

In 1990 a few large cities in Europe put their heads together and put up the Frankfurt Resolution. The cities declared that the reigning drug policy leads to a dead end. It had not succeeded in keeping drugs out of society. Therefore, it is more sensible to concentrate on damage control for society and public health.

European Union policy, however, threatens to go the other way. At the summit of December 13-14 in Dublin the government leaders declared in the Final Resolution that the fight against crime has priority. The powers of Europol would have to be extended, police services would have to cooperate more and drugs tourism would have to be prevented. Nothing indicates that the government leaders take the route as laid out in the Frankfurt Resolution. In fact this means an escalation in the 'War on Drugs' on a European scale.

Signs of a U-turn in the Netherlands are beginning to show too. In 1994 the Dutch Minister of Justice, Sorgdrager, preferred to speak about far reaching 'liberalisation' rather than of legalisation. There finally seemed to be some common sense entering into drug policy. However under pressure from French president Chirac Sorgdrager threatens, just like Robert S. McNamara, to be turning into a genius architect of war. Or will that all change now with the Jospin victory in France?
[On June 23 1997, just after the European Summit and the conclusion of the Treaty of Amsterdam, minister Sorgdrager declared in the lower house that she hoped legalising soft drugs would be a future option. It all depends on the international debate.]Added 7/7//97

In order to play down the meaning of their own words in advance, several politicians recently quoted Luther with approval,
"Jede Konsequenz führt zum Teufel."
Every act or thought has consequences. If they all lead to the devil we may as well quit politics. Will Thorbecke (a 19th century Dutch liberal statesman) have meant to design a devilish constitution when he defended his proposals for a liberal constitutional state in the lower house? Or does the struggle for the good inevitably lead to the bad, or is this only a possibility? Or is the quote only a thoughtless silencer for unwelcome reasoning?

The two lower house members, Korthals and van der Camp (respectively VVD, Conservative liberals and CDA, Christian Democrats) for example, in January of this year advocated prohibiting the tolerance of cultivating five dope plants at home Therewith turning all of Dutch drug policy upside down. To put this policy proposal into effect, it would have serious consequences, for example for Amsterdam. Coffee houses would have to be closed, the police power would have to be greatly increased and the police would have to comb the city inch by inch.
If their intention was to please the French it is pretty transparent. If they thought their statements wouldn't have any consequences at home then it's pretty stupid. Radicalisation through reaction and counteraction will become quickly visible.

In any case, these kind of politicians refuse to listen to the 'generals' who have to carry out the 'War on Drugs'. The Hague chief commissioner J. Brand declared in June 1995 on behalf of all police chiefs:"The intensifying of the hunt against drugs simply leads to criminals getting richer." The American policeman Michael Hennessy wrote recently: "We have, after Vietnam, committed ourselves once more to an extremely expensive and unwinnable war which tears to pieces the structures that hold our society together."

But Brussels is going to try anyway. The fact that all the collective police forces in the United States have not been able to do anything, really nothing, to the availability of drugs on the street is apparently irrelevant for the cynical power politicians who frequent Brussels and its vicinity. Even when it is explicitly stated in the parliamentary inquiry like that of the van Traa commission. (VII.3.) "The American authorities have greatly intensified the struggle, but in the arms race which has developed, where smugglers even use undetectable submarines and jet planes, the Americans can not possibly win."

The new wave of oppression which has now been started forces the question what happens next. We are approaching a cross-roads, a point of no return. We have to choose. There are three possibilities.

The first scenario is called 'muddling through'. The current paradoxical drugs policy is continued. A mixture of oppression of criminal groups, tolerance of use and protecting public health. With as a consequence in the words of the van Traa commission: "That does not alter the fact that the whole commission is aware of the paradox in the fight against drugs: a ban creates, as long as there is demand, illegal trade and thus forms a breeding ground for organised crime."
And demand will remain. Only the world-wide intensification of the 'War on Drugs' can bring the big criminals to there knees. Or at least that is the illusion. Without attention scenario one runs over into scenario two.

Scenario two. Half-hearted oppression will get the prosecution machine stuck in the mud. This strengthens the 'moral' call from the prosecution services and its followers for an eradication of all drugs. The 'War on Drugs' becomes a total war. Police departments will get absolute priority and new prosecution laws which infringe on civil rights will be passed.
[The call for Total War is actually been heard. In the US senators are trying to get elected with a hard line approach. On July 2 two US senators Dodd and McCain asked the US president to form a high-level task force and to draw up a ``comprehensive strategy'' for dealing with the supply and demand sides of the drug problem. They want an international summit within a year to draft a ``multilateral battle plan to engage the drug trade on every front.'']Added 7/7//97

Infringements on civil rights are no longer a nightmare scenario of the future. In the Netherlands, the upper house member and professor of constitutional law, E.C.M. Jurgens, stubbornly opposed a law for the closure of premises where drugs are dealt. In spite of agreeing to the aims of the governments policy. Jurgens claims that the law is in conflict with constitutional and international judicial directives concerning the protection of privacy.
In the United States there are increasing warnings against Society of Suspects" (Steven Wisotsky, see also NYCLA report). Should this tendency continue then we could soon be living in an anti-narco police state. This we must oppose.

In the third scenario criminalisation will gradually be broken down, which will eventually lead to legalization. This means the liberalisation and regulation of cannabis. The state taking the trade in hard drugs into its own hands and out of the hands of criminals, combined with a regulated system for buyers, rationing of supply and strict measures against any remaining illegal trade. Such a plan has been put forward by the Dufour Commission.

The essence is that society has to learn how to deal with drugs. At the moment this happens chaotic, by trial and lots of errors in an environment of oppression and with disastrous consequences for the social fabric. In a legalised situation this could be dealt with sensibly. Big criminals could be banished without the threat of infringing on constitutional rights. Flanked with a responsible social policy to fight poverty in countries where drugs are produced.

It is essentially a question of how to manage state power. Is it managed with the best of intentions, but eventually will become destructive? Or do you take into account the actual existing reality and manage it responsibly.

The Americans enact in their drug policy according to this first option. Europe is man enough to take the other option and form its own opinion.