Guatemala's Perez lowers expectations for drug legalization

Regional disagreement means a decriminalization plan won't happen soon. But Guatemala's Otto Perez Molina maintains military response isn't the answer to drug trafficking.

Carlos Jasso/REUTERS
Guatemala's President Otto Perez (L) and his Panamanian counterpart Ricardo Martinelli chat during the 30th Expocomer International Trade Fair opening ceremony at the Atlapa Convention Center in Panama City March 21.

• A version of this post ran on the author's blog, www.bloggingsbyboz.com. The views expressed are the author's own.

Some analysts got excited when President Otto Perez Molina announced several weeks ago that the Central American presidents would meet in Guatemala to agree to a decriminalization proposal prior to the Summit of the Americas. It was never going to be that easy.
 
 Several of the region's leaders, most recently Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, have rejected Perez's proposal outright. Others, like Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes, were initially receptive but have backed away after seeing the political and public opinion reaction at home.

Perez is now pushing for this Saturday's meeting to be about a coordinated strategy on drug policy and security issues, but does not believe that the region will agree on a decriminalization proposal given the differences. The expectations are lowered to something a bit less radical and a bit more realistic. Hopefully the region's presidents can deliver on that agenda and not disappoint.
 
 That said, Guatemala's president continues to push for other alternatives. He met with the business community in his country yesterday and asked them to think of alternatives because a pure military strategy doesn't bring the necessary results. Again, it's good to hear the former military leader acknowledge that the military isn't the solution.
 
 Perez still isn't even 100 days into his term in office. Once the "shock and awe" of his decriminalization suggestion wears off, it will be important to see whether he can sustain the dialogue for some policy changes over the coming years and accept realistic compromises that still move the ball forward.

– James Bosworth is a freelance writer and consultant who runs Bloggings by Boz.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.