Burma: Drug Control Progress and Possibilities Dawson, Jenna; Barlow, Daniel
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
www.ssoar.info Burma: Drug Control Progress and Possibilities Dawson, Jenna; Barlow, Daniel Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Dawson, J., & Barlow, D. (2006). Burma: Drug Control Progress and Possibilities. Südostasien aktuell : journal of current Southeast Asian affairs, 25(1), 7-16. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-337764 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC-ND Lizenz This document is made available under a CC BY-NC-ND Licence (Namensnennung-Nicht-kommerziell-Keine Bearbeitung) zur (Attribution-Non Comercial-NoDerivatives). For more Information Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.de “StudieDawson106” — 2006/1/23 — 11:02 — page 7 — #1 SÜDOSTASIEN aktuell 1/2006 7 Studie Burma: Drug Control Progress and Possibilities Jenna Dawson and Daniel Barlow Abstract Burma is the second largest opium producer in the world, and is quickly becoming a hotbed of methamphetamine production. Opium profits have helped to finance conflict within Burma for both the central government and the insurgent ethnic groups; however, with the 1989 ceasefire agreements with the insurgent ethnic groups the drug control context changed dramatically. In April 2002, the Kokang and Wa ethnic leaders, whose regions account for the vast majority of opium poppy cultivation, committed to making their territory opium-free by 2003 and July 2005 respectively. The combined drug control efforts of national and local leaders have shown promis- ing results, as both UN and US opium surveys have confirmed large declines in poppy cultivation. As Burma continues to reduce opium cultivation, it has struggled in recent years with an increase in the production of amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS). Com- bating the threats from opium and ATS will require different strategies. Stronger border controls, improved law enforcement and interdiction techniques must complement de- velopment strategies and alternative cropping policies. (manuscript received 31.5.2005, accepted 24.6.2005) Key Words: Burma, Drugs, Regional Security The Authors Daniel Barlow is a graduate student pursuing a Master of Arts in International Policy Stud- ies focusing on emerging security issues, at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. He worked as an intern last year at the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Myanmar. He received a Bachelor of Arts in political science from Hampden Sydney College. E-Mail: [email protected] Jenna Dawson received her Master of Arts in International Policy Studies from the Mon- terey Institute of International Studies. Her research focused on trade and security. She received a Bachelor of Arts in economics and international relations from the University of Western Ontario and worked at the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Dakar, Senegal. E-Mail: [email protected] “StudieDawson106” — 2006/1/23 — 11:02 — page 8 — #2 8 SÜDOSTASIEN aktuell 1/2006 Studie Myanmar: Strategien zur Drogenkontrolle Jenna Dawson und Daniel Barlow Abstract Myanmar ist der zweitgrößte Opiumproduzent der Welt und hat sich zu einer Hochburg der Methamphetaminproduktion entwickelt. Die Gewinne aus der Opiumproduktion halfen sowohl der Zentralregierung als auch den aufständischen ethnischen Gruppen, den Konflikt zu finanzieren. Seit den Waffenstillstandsvereinbarungen 1989 hat sich der Kontext der Drogenkontrolle dramatisch verändert. Im April 2002 versprachen die Führer der Kokang und der Wa, in deren Einflussbereich die überwältigende Mehrheit des Mohnanbaus und der Opiumproduktion stattfindet, ihre Gebiete bis 2003 bzw. 2005 opiumfrei zu bekommen. Die vereinten Anstrengungen nationaler und lokaler Führer bei der Bekämpfung der Drogenproduktion zeigt viel versprechende Ergebnisse; sowohl die Statistiken der UN als auch der USA bestätigten einen starken Rückgang des Opiumanbaus. Während Burma den Anbau von Opium reduziert, erlebte es in den vergangenen Jahren einen Anstieg der Produktion der Amphetamin-Derivate (ATS). Stärkere Grenzkontrollen, verbesserte Rechtsetzung und Untersuchungstechniken müssen die Entwicklung dieser Strategien komplementär ergänzen. (Eingang des Manuskripts 31.5.2005; angenommen 24.6.2005) Key Words: Burma, Drugs, Regional Security Die Autoren Daniel Barlow erhielt den Bachelor of Arts an der Hampden Sydney College. Er absolvierte im Jahre 2004 ein Praktikum im UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Yangon. E-Mail: [email protected] Jenna Dawson erhielt ihren Master of Arts in International Policy Studies vom Monterey Institute of International Studies. Ihre Forschungsschwerpunkte sind Handel und Sicherheit. E-Mail: [email protected] “StudieDawson106” — 2006/1/23 — 11:02 — page 9 — #3 Drug Control 9 Introduction The Union of Myanmar, as Burma1 is now known, is a study of an isolated country that is desperately seeking legitimacy in the eyes of the world. The ruling military junta has given autonomy to several of the ethnic groups that led insurgencies against the government, and together with these ethnic minorities has vowed to crack down on the drug production that runs rampant throughout the Union. Burma, the second largest opium producer in the world, is also quickly becoming a hotbed of methamphetamine production. However, in the last 15 years, mutually reinforcing international, regional and national goals have dramatically changed the drug control policies and possibilities in Burma. While it is commonly reported that political, social and economic conditions in Burma are only deteriorating, we would argue that there has been significant progress in the context of drug control. This issue brief details the background of drug control in Burma, both the opium and amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) situations, and will discuss how the face of drug production in Burma has changed over the last few years. Finally, several recommendations and a brief discussion of the alternative development projects in the country will be presented. 1 Background: The History of Drug Control in Burma The United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control (UNFDAC), the predecessor to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), began activities in Burma in 1976 (for further information see Lintner 1994). Over the next twelve years, UNFDAC, in collaboration with other UN agencies, initiated a national drug control program that included agriculture-related activities, preventative education, public information, treatment and rehabilitation of addicts. The main emphasis, however, was on law enforcement, narcotics suppression and eradication. Despite UN efforts and bilateral assistance from the US, the opium poppy eradication campaign was only moderately successful. The border areas in which opium cultivation was concentrated were highly contested, and experienced frequent incidents of armed violence as well as military operations. Opium profits financed the conflict for both the central government and the insurgent ethnic groups, and 1 Please note that the geographic names “Myanmar“, “Union of Myanmar“ and “Burma“ will be used interchangeably throughout this paper. “StudieDawson106” — 2006/1/23 — 11:02 — page 10 — #4 10 Jenna Dawson and Daniel Barlow allegiances could be bought and sold for the lucrative income from the sale of narcotics. The drug control context changed with the military hand-over in 1988. The new junta government sought to establish its legitimacy by bringing stability to the re-named “Union of Myanmar“, and to this end pursued ceasefire agreements with the insurgent ethnic groups. From 1988 to 1996, the junta signed 17 cease- fire agreements with the various insurgents, granting them differing degrees of autonomy and self-governance over certain areas of the country. Initially, the ceasefires led to an increase in opium cultivation in the autonomous regions as the newly autonomous groups sought drug profits to help administer their regions. As the ethnic minorities became more integrated into the Union, however, the government was able to assert some degree of control over a policy of phasing out opium production. The first tangible result of this turn of events was the surrender of notorious drug lord Khun Sa and his Mong Tai Army to government forces in 1996. In April 2002, the Kokang and Wa ethnic leaders, whose regions account for the vast majority of opium poppy cultivation, reiterated their commitment to making their territory opium-free by 2003 and July 2005 respectively. This commitment was made as part of a larger 15-year plan instituted by the junta in 1999 to make Myanmar opium-free by 2014. Thus far, the combined drug control efforts of national and local leaders have shown promising results, as both UN and US opium surveys have confirmed a spectacular decline in opium poppy cultivation since 1996. The opium challenge for the coming years will be to maintain the phase-out policy while ensuring its sustainability by providing poppy farmers with alternative sources of income and enhanced development opportunities. As Myanmar continues its encouraging progress on reducing opium culti- vation, it has struggled in recent years with an increase in the production of amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS). While ATS production bears some resem- blance to the opium trade by taking advantage