Jose Miguel Insulza HARDtalk

cities are among the most violent on earth. Crime is often fuelled by

drug use and trafficking. So why are many leaders in the region softening

their position on drugs? The OAS has just published a report revealing

drug policy. It marks a radical departure from the war on drugs

pushed by the United States and sets America moving closer to the

decriminalisation of drugs? It is hard to say Latin America in this

case. Some cities have a very high rate of crime. Some countries are

among the most violent in the world. But some are like European cities or

American cities. Like Chile.Or Montevideo. You are talking about

Uruguay. There are different ways of looking at the problem of drugs in

different countries. In some countries, the violence is the

problem, in some countries the use is the problem. In countries in

which there is the most violence, it is not the countries in which people

use the most drugs, but the countries in which the drugs are

moved from one place to another. OAS, which includes Canada, the

United States, Latin America, you did not make policy recommendations,

but the decriminalisation of illicit drugs is one of the options. Tell us

what you said. We talk about decriminalisation of the use of

drugs. If we agree that drug addiction is a disease, then you do

not treat sick people as if they were criminals. You say you have to

treat them. Sometimes you intern them. What did you decide? No policy

recommendations. There has been a lot of debate. Is Latin America

moving closer to decriminalisation? Let me tell you why I'm asking you

that. The president of Guatemala has said that we should consider the

decriminalisation of drugs. A new approach to try to take away the

violent profit that comes with drugs trafficking, if the world thinks

that is legalisation, I will welcome it. Nobody has really spoken very

consistently about legalising drugs, except in some cases marijuana,

which is already legal in some states of the United States. But not

a federal government policy. But in California they sell medical

marijuana. They will give you a dose very easily. In Latin America, there

is no legalisation of marijuana anywhere. Before we go to the heart

of drugs, is that about the legalisation? Nobody is proposing

the legalisation of any drugs. president of Uruguay has proposed a

law to allow people to buy marijuana. I agree marijuana is an

issue. But not cocaine or heroin or any other drug. But I am asking

about marijuana. Some countries may be moving towards legalising

marijuana. Uruguay is a country with very low crime and has high usage of

marijuana. They want to regulate it in a better way. And they feel that

control of the sale and production is one way. Some countries may do

it. What did your reports say about it? Just that. You must have a view

on this. Should there be a decriminalisation of drugs,

including the hard ones, in Latin America? In my country, private use

of drugs is not penalised. You should not meddle with what a person

does in his own life. Unless as an addict he is putting in danger other

people or participating in criminal activities. You said you wanted to

set up a debate in publishing this report about drug policy and that

some people might call the aggressive war on drugs,

particularly pushed by the United States. He said this was not the

only way of dealing with this. What is the key recommendation? The key

to this, for example, you spoke about the most violent countries. In

Central America, drug consumption is very low but violence is very high

because that is where the routes of drugs to the north are based.

Central American countries should work together to reduce the

violence. We should find ways of reducing the violence. I think that

is a fair request because they are not big drug users. But they are big

parts of the drug trade. Getting together with who? With all of the

Americas. Share responsibilities, reduce demand, help us reduce the

violence, help us keep up with the problems we're having. Let us not

talk about the legalisation of drugs. Decriminalisation, which is

different. That means not to penalise the people who use drugs.

If they are sick people, you treat them as sick people, not as

criminals. The perception is that the United States remains implacable

to any kind of decriminalisation of drugs, whereas some leaders in Latin

America have been discussing this. Pope Francis said a reduction in the

spread and influence of drug addiction will not he achieved by a

liberalisation of drug use as it is currently being proposed in parts of

Latin America. Is the pope wrong? Nothing in that report speaks about

liberalisation. You're saying Pope Francis is wrong? Liberalisation

means everybody doing whatever they want. All of the proposals that

exist have to do with regulation. The proposal is to regulate

marijuana in a different way, never to liberalise it. Nobody is

liberalising anything. Most of the Latin Americans are fully against

legalisation of drugs. The government said they will not go

against the will of the people. We are talking about some very simple

measures. One is not to punish people who consume drugs, let's

treat them. Even the United States has very sophisticated drug

rehabilitation programmes. Much more now than before. War on drugs is not

used any more. The people in charge of drugs in the US say they are not

to say any more the war on drugs. there a perception of the softening

of opposition, of liberalisation of drugs, that even Pope Francis said

what he did, and then the US assistant Secretary of State saying

that no international entity is going to dictate legalisation and

certainly not to the United States? These comments are not emerging from

nowhere. That is a debate that is open. The debate is open because we

have been following a certain policy for 40 years now. Drugs continue to

flow and people continue to fall into addiction and violence is ever

more present. When you do something that does not work for 40 years, you

have to find alternatives. We are not proposing the alternatives, we

are telling people that these are the alternatives that exist and that

I would be against that. Everybody would accept that something has gone

wrong and you have put a lot of time and effort into looking into this

problem and yet you are not really giving us a very clear or coherent

response of the steps that you recommend states should take. We

recommend that in countries in which violence exists, we should

strengthen the institutions. Most of the violence takes place in

countries where there are no legal institutions and impunity is very

high and where violence can be committed without any fear of

punishment or rule of law. We recommend to strengthen the systems

of drug treatment in most of the countries. Only 18 of the 34

republics of the Americas that are part of the OAS have systems with

which to deal with drug addiction. We are recommending to deal with the

flow of money of drugs, which is $151 billion a year in the Americas.

This is a continent, you mentioned violence, this is a continent in

which 47% of the cocaine that is consumed in the world is consumed in

the Americas. That is a big amount and we have to try to reduce that

and find better ways to do it. have discussed the drug situation

and how perhaps America does seem to have a clear position that it does

not want any kind of softening. Another example that a lot of people

talk about between the growing divide in the American states is

when you look at the anti-US statements that some leaders make,

particularly in the Edward Snowden case, would you say anti-American

sentiment is growing? I would not say so. In general, whether it is

because Latin America has grown and there is less poverty or more

democracy, it is true that many people in the Americas feel that

they are not in the priorities of the United States. It is true that

many people are not in the priorities of the United States.

you have got to people like Evo Morales, president of Bolivia,

saying the US still has a mentality of domination and suppression.

problem with you people from developed countries, you need to

speak about other countries. What about Argentina? President Cristina

Fernandez de Kirchner .doc. It is a perfectly normal relationship. The

President of Argentina said she complained about the US and other

new forms of colonialism. That was in an arbitrary framework. What did

that have to do with the United States, though? This was because of

other requests? Did you assume that? I'm not in a position to assume

anything. You were quoted as saying in a press conference that it is

clear this is an event that goes beyond the explanations given.

incident leaves a wound and the best way to heal that is to know what

really happened and took pace. It sounds like you are being

suspicious. I quoted the Supreme Court. Wounds heal in the sunlight.

Sure. But I am asking you whether you thought... Have you ever heard

that the President's plane is not allowed to pass through certain

countries or land in countries? All the countries that were involved in

this have asked for an excuse. The President has accepted those... You

simply don't do that to a head of state of a democratic country

crossing over your airspace. would you say that when Edward

Snowden left the US, the countries that have offered him asylum are

three Latin American ones. Venezuela says they will give humanitarian

asylum, Nicaragua will provide a permit and Bolivia says he has been

persecuted by the US. I will explain. Some countries don't accept

the petition. But we have an institution in Latin America called

the dramatic asylum, a very open form of asylum. Not practised in any

other region in the world. That is derived from a time when political

asylum was common. Then, it was obvious that anyone would ask Latin

American countries for asylum because everybody knows they have a

very open system of asylum. But they say Edward Snowden has been

persecuted by the US in the case of Bolivia. And not all countries in

the Organisation of American States accept that diplomatic principle you

have just given. Julian Assange, for example, the WikiLeaks founder in

the embassy in Ecuador in London, some Caribbean states and Canada

said they don't accept this principle. Canada is not a Latin

American country. This is the situation that exists in Latin

America for at least a century. The other countries, no, it doesn't

exist. It doesn't exist in Europe. All I am saying is, when you want

something, you go to a country... For example, if you are running away

from someone and you are afraid that you'll face extradition, you will go

to a country that has no institution of extradition. When you want to

request asylum to a country, your lawyers will tell you to look for a

country in which asylum laws are very open. That is what this

gentleman has done but it has nothing to do with a decision of

Latin America to go against somebody. When that information was

leaked by Edward Snowden, he alleged the US had been engaged in the

monitoring of communications within Latin America. Not just because of

drug trafficking but beyond that for commercial information, particularly

on the oil industry. What did you make of those revelations? The big

problem, different from the case of WikiLeaks, is not that there were

some specific things that happened but rather that he put forward a

revelation of a system to spy or find information that goes beyond

what anybody in the world knows. I think that's it. That's an important

thing to discuss. I know several countries, mainly countries in

Europe, have requested from the US information. Only a couple of

countries have asked that and I don't think... I don't imagine that

there are vast problems of espionage for Latin America. We don't have any

information on that. Brazil was very cross. Brazil is one of the

countries asking for an explanation from the US. That whole incident

about Edward Snowden, in particular the claims and the reaction it

provoked in States... It proves intelligence is not that good.

has been criticism of you that you, as secretary general, made a fuss

about the Morales plane. But it was said that the OAS fails to uphold

democratic principles. It was said you were quick to issue a press

release about Morales' plane. But it was said to be a waste. That you

don't hold accountable any despotic regimes that oppresses millions of

people within our hemisphere. Whether you agree that there are

despotic regimes or not, it was said there is a difference between... The

OAS is an independent body which brings a lot of resolutions on and

very strong resolutions, which has the full support of the secretary

general. I don't... Maybe they can go into other matters but human

rights, except for the European institutions on human rights, the

commission and the court of human rights is one of the more

prestigious bodies in the world on this matter. How effective is the

OAS? You have been the secretary general since 2005. This is your

second term. But the OAS has been criticised as an unburied corpse.

Are you head of an unburied corpse? I don't think so. I wouldn't be here

if I was. Everybody talks about us... Why do the Venezuelan... It's

a lively institution. We have limitations. We are not a

supranational organisation. We are a multilateral organisation.

Therefore, we are ruled by member countries. For me, the member

countries are equal. When I do something about one country, I

should be willing to say it for another one. Some people want me to

go against the elections in Venezuela. But they don't want me to

go to elections in other countries. I have obligations to treat every

country in the region in the same way. Some countries would like to

have Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, out of the organisation. The people