Guatemala leader to propose legalizing drugs

[Peace Patriot]

5. This is the 2nd rightwing LatAm leader to propose legalizing drugs...

... (that I'm aware of), plus a recent commission of former presidents of Mexico recommended legalizing marijuana and re-thinking the entire "war on drugs." I'm not sure of those commissioners' political persuasion but I got the impression that it was a non-partisan recommendation, i.e., consensus of the Mexican political establishment.

But it is the rightwing speaking up that is so jaw-dropping. Generally, the U.S. "war on drugs" bolsters the fascist elements in LatAm society--the military, the police, "conservative" hard-liners. Why would they be biting the hand that feeds them? Indeed, Molina in particular has campaigned with a "hard fist" symbol and "anti-crime" rhetoric (--the kind of rhetoric that I generally dismiss as utterly hypocritical, with good reason). HE wants to legalize drugs?!

But the one that floored me was Manuel Santos, the new rightwing president of Colombia, who recently (prior to Molina's statement) said that, while he "would be crucified" if he proposed legalizing drugs, he could support somebody else in the region taking the initiative. This, in a country that has been ravaged by the U.S. "war on drugs" for two decades and is still the cocaine capitol of the world--which I suspect was the U.S. intent under the Bush Junta (not to end the drug trade but to profit from it).

There appears to be a fierce power struggle going on within the rightwing party in Colombia, between Santos and former president of Colombia and Bush Junior crony, Alvaro Uribe, and I suspect that the struggle may, at bottom, be about 'mafia' control of the country, with Uribe being a "made man" (who ran the country during the Bush Junta as a criminal cartel) and Santos representing a cleaner element in Colombia's establishment, including, for instance, the prosecutors and judges who are going after Uribe for his many crimes and possibly including business interests that are either legit or now want to go legit to benefit from U.S. "free trade for the rich."

A couple of the leftist leaders in the region have done more than talk. Bolivia threw the DEA out of the country and legalized the coca leaf as a sacred Indigenous medicine (didn't legalize cocaine, though). Ecuador shut down one of the main U.S. "war on drugs" military bases in the region and kicked one U.S. embassy operative out of the country (who was trying to directly control Ecuador's anti-drug forces). Venezuela long ago severed ties to the U.S. "war on drugs." Both Venezuela and Bolivia have been much more successful at busting big drug lords and criminal networks since they got rid of U.S. "war on drugs" operatives. Also, it should be noted that the "Black Eagles"--a rightwing criminal organization involved in murder, blackmail, drug trafficking and other crimes, and with ties to Uribe--has been busted inside Venezuela and may well have been working with the CIA to infiltrate and destabilize Venezuela.

However, none of the many new leftist leaders in LatAm openly support outright legalization of drugs (that I know of)--although all of them, I believe, understand very well that the U.S. "war on drugs" is an important WEAPON in the U.S. war against leftist democracies.

I find it fascinating that two rightwing leaders are proposing legalization. What's going on here?

The Mexican presidents commission indicates the prevalence of the pro-legalization view. It is the common wisdom among LatAm leaders and peoples, and it has broad implications, for instance, as to LatAm countries' sovereignty. LatAm sentiment is overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. domination and expansion of the Pentagon's footprint in the region. But it is still notable that it is rightwing leaders who have "come out of the closet" on legalization of drugs.

It's often hard to see behind the utter bullshit that comes out of our own government--for instance, on the "war on drugs" or, say, on 'human rights' in LatAm--to what is really going on among the powers that control us. For instance, the war between the CIA and the Pentagon (that Rumsfeld and Cheney started) and that came to a head during Katrina (2005) and was resolved when Rumsfeld was ousted (2006)-- probably by intervention of Bush Sr (and his "Iraq Study Group" which included Leon Panetta)--was very hard to see. The Cheney/Rumsfeld outings of the CIA anti-WMD project was just the 'tip of the iceberg' of those events, in my opinion.

So, what is going on now, with this apparent struggle between the political and criminal factions on the right in Colombia and these two rightwing presidents (Colombia, Guatemala) wanting drug legalization?

We gotta figure Panetta's hand is behind it. I think he personally yanked Uribe from the stage as one of his first acts as CIA Director. I suspect that that action was part of an effort to cover up Bush Jr's criminal trail in Colombia (which is threatening to come out, as Colombia's prosecutors go after Uribe). But apart from preventing 'embarrassing' revelations and trying to keep Bush Junta principles out of various potential courtrooms, is Panetta (and are Obama/Clinton) trying to construct an entirely new U.S. strategy in LatAm, one that is less expensive (no more billions of taxpayer dollars for the failed "war on drugs&quot , and less militaristic, murderous and outright lawless but that still serves U.S. transglobal corporate interests?

Another question that arises is: Why, if Panetta is a Bush Cartel operative (and how can he not be, as a member of Bush Sr's inner circle*), and if the Bush Cartel (during Jr's junta) was using the "war on drugs" to consolidate and control the trillion+ dollar cocaine trade (lots of evidence pointing to this), do they now want drugs legalized?

Common wisdom is that legalization will dramatically drop the price of recreational and addictive drugs, so the motive is not obvious--though it may be a strategy that allows for a temporary loss of revenue to be followed by monopoly control of these substances and consequent jacking back up of prices, once legalization is in place.

Another factor in this discussion is that the U.S. "war on drugs" combined with its other wars have bankrupted the U.S. U.S. "war machine" economies have to come from somewhere. The total cost of the U.S. "war on drugs" alone is astronomical. We see figures like the $7 BILLION in U.S. tax dollars larded on the murderous, corrupt Colombian military, but that is just part of the cost. Add in more billions to other fascist militaries and police forces in LatAm, U.S. military bases in LatAm, related covert ops, related diplomatic/propaganda/bribery ops, and the huge costs here at home of the "prison-industrial complex" (one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world--about 75% of it for NON-VIOLENT crimes, mostly drug crimes) and the costs of numerous militant "anti-drug" agencies, federal and local (DEA, FBI, ATF, DoJ, local police, sheriffs, DA's, courts, etc.), and I'd guestimate that the cost of outlawing recreational and addictive drugs is in the trillions--comparable to Iraq/Afghanistan--all serving the PRETENSE, under the Bush Junta anyway, that the U.S. government wants to stop the drug trade.

That's a VERY costly hypocrisy. But with all that money already down the drainhole--with not even a dent in the cocaine trade--what now?

The U.S. government is run by transglobal corporations, banksters and war profiteers. So what would those powermongers want with legalization? Obviously, to monopolize and control recreational and addictive drugs. Is that what is happening here? First, massive and murderous repression to eliminate all the small players (for instance, the FIVE MILLION peasant farmers who were brutally displaced from their lands in Colombia), while drug use and addiction rates soar? Then, transglobal corporations enter the picture, with legalization, and profit from all that addiction and from the U.S. "war on drugs"-engineered monopolies (of suitable land, R&D, trade routes, etc.)?

There have been collateral benefits for U.S. "free trade for the rich" from the U.S. "war on drugs"--for instance, the murder of hundreds of trade union leaders in Colombia by the Colombian military and its "Black Eagle"-type paramilitaries. But that may have been only a side benefit of the "war on drugs." Oil is certainly one candidate for main benefit (particularly control of Venezuela's vast reserves). (Uribe was clearly spoiling for a war on Venezuela, paid for by you and me--for the benefit of Exxon Mobil & brethren.) Is control of recreational and addictive drugs the main, or an additional main, benefit to our corporate rulers, of the U.S. "war on drugs"? The "war" consolidates the trade and gains control of the revenue stream? The "peace" (legalization) will work like Big Pharma's control of antibiotics, statin drugs, vaccines, contraceptives, strong painkillers, "anti-depressants" and all the rest--jacked up prices protected by big government bureaucracy and massive looting of Medicare funds?

Legalization here would certainly NOT mean non-prescription access to cocaine, heroine and other drugs, nor even to marijuana or coca leaves (mere medicinal herbs). It will all be highly regulated. It will profit the rich, big time.

Panetta, having done his best to wipe Bush Jr's trail clean in Colombia (as Bush Sr's direct operative or ally), has now moved on to a subtler strategy for control of LatAm resources? Legalization of drugs is one plank of this strategy? That's what a rightwing proposal of legalization tells me. This is not coming out of nowhere. There is something behind this that we can't see. And who is the most likely candidate for backroom control of the right in LatAm? The CIA, of course--ever in the past, now and likely till kingdom come.

Pro-legalization is not an unusual opinion in LatAm--and sovereignty concerns cross almost all political lines (with the Left being more sincere on this issue--sovereignty--than the Right). Have Left and Right leaders found common ground--opposition to the "war on drugs"--and devised a common strategy to end it, with the Right being an agreed upon avantgarde? That is not so outlandish an idea. Right and left have come together, regionally, to form CELAC--as the South American countries did to form UNASUR--specifically to fight U.S. domination and promote regional independence. Could legalization be something that the Right has presented TO Panetta, as a better plan to serve transglobal interests and get rich, than the vastly antagonizing "war on drugs"? Perhaps the Right sees the necessity of cleaning up their image, and working in more harmony with Leftist governments (which now dominate the region).

OR--another possibility: The Left continues to concern itself with busting big, destabilizing drug cartels (some of which are obviously U.S.-tied). They have not called for legalization. But now that the trade has been consolidated and its revenue stream better directed to certain beneficiaries (U.S. banksters, the CIA, the Bush Cartel), the Right--which is enmeshed in this criminal activity--wants to STOP the busting of ITS networks in Leftist countries. Legalization is a ploy. The big profits will keep flowing but in another guise.

The Santos vs Uribe fight, on the right in Colombia, could be a cartel fight, meaning that Santos is NOT clean. He puts on a good show but it's possible that what's going on there is a struggle between TWO criminal organizations, with cocaine funding on both sides; or, Santos/CIA ending Uribe's "godfather'-like control, to be replaced with HIGHER control of the drug trade--and perhaps LEGAL control of it. There is obviously something that Santos doesn't like about Uribe's operations. But is this just a mafia don pissing contest, with Bush Sr as the top don? Bush Sr, like his pal Panetta, is a smooth operator. Perhaps he now has it all set up for Big Pharma profit and needs to jettison his very tainted operative, Uribe (who, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, put his boy in peril).

Molina has ties to rightwing death squads and military massacres in Guatemala. Santos--though he has created a smooth image--was Uribe's Defense Minister for several years during the height of Uribe's crimes and the Colombian military's crimes. He did resign that office and now seems more allied with Colombia's prosecutors, and maybe he was keeping an eye on Uribe the whole time. But it is difficult to entirely buy his image now. He is a hard man to get a "read" on. His first act in office was to make peace with Venezuela. He has proposed universal free medical care for all Colombians, and return of stolen peasant lands. He also seems to be working on a peace treaty with the FARC in Colombia's 70 year internal war and--as I said above--has approved the notion of legalizing drugs. But Colombia is, without question, a U.S. "client state." Its rulers are vetted and approved in Washington DC. So who is he serving, among those who run things here?

The upshot of the U.S. "war on drugs" in Colombia was to remove the smaller and the very tiny (peasant farmer) coca leaf growers from their lands, and to facilitate huge land acquisition by big drug lords, rich fascist politicos and transglobal corporations. NOW they want to legalize drugs. Right.

That's my reaction to this. Uh-huh.

OF COURSE I am tormented with hope that the corrupt, murderous, failed U.S. "war on drugs" will end its long, bloody reign over us and over Latin America. Do I expect LatAm's rightwing--Molina, Santos--the CIA, the MIC, Bush Sr, or Obama/Clinton, for that matter, to be our "liberators" from this horror?

Not without some truly perverse twist, further enslavement of the poor and who knows what kind of blowback. (I'm thinking of the 50,000-body bloodbath in Mexico.) Molina wants "good government"? Wants to end the very, very profitable mayhem of the "war on drugs"? Santos? (--big political beneficiary of the mayhem, even if he seems to oppose it NOW)? Obama, busy busting medical marijuana clinics in California? Clinton, whose husband greatly accelerated this horror? Panetta and his bud, Bush Sr?

I'm just shaking my head. Maybe I haven't penetrated the Darkness. But there is something hidden there.

---------

*(Possibly my first assumption--that Panetta represents the Bush Sr Bush Cartel--is wrong, and Panetta represents some other force that is sometimes in alliance with Bush Sr and sometimes not. Could Panetta have been a member of Bush Sr's ISG and NOT be "old CIA"? Since all this is guess work, I guess it's possible. He may represent the military brass--and the MIC in general--which opposed Rumsfeld/Cheney's plan to nuke Iran--and that is what got him membership on Bush Sr's ISG. He's hopped from the CIA to the Pentagon, I think brokering a peace treaty between the two. It makes sense that he had the blessing of the "old CIA"/Bush Cartel--which is why he was rumored to have been welcomed at CIA headquarters with champagne corks popping--a big celebration)--but is more closely tied to the military brass. As I said, very hard to see. Our government and our true rulers are so secretive that we are forced to guess--and we have no choice but to do so, if we don't want to be naive stupids.)