Trading democracy for security? The effects of the international drug war on the quality of democracy in the Dominican Republic, 1996–2008

The purpose of the research is to study the relationship between international drug interdiction policies and domestic politics in fragile democracies, and to demonstrate how international drug control policies and the use of force fit the rhetoric of war, are legitimized by the principles of a just war, but may also cause collateral damage and negative unintended consequences. The method used is a case study of the Dominican Republic. The research has found that international drug control regimes, primarily led by the U.S. and narrowly focused on interdiction, have influenced an increasingly militarized approach to domestic law enforcement in the Dominican Republic. The collateral damage caused by militarized enforcement comes in the form of negative perceptions of citizen security, loss of respect for the rule of law and due process, and low levels of civil society development. The drug war has exposed the need for significant reform of the institutions charged with carrying out enforcement, the police force and the judicial system in particular. The dissertation concludes that the extent of drug trafficking in the Dominican Republic is beyond the scope of domestic reform efforts alone, but that the programs implemented do show some potential for future success. The dissertation also concludes that the framework of warfare is not the most appropriate for the international problems of drug traffic and abuse. A broader, multipronged approach should be considered by world policy makers in order to address all conditions that allow drugs to flourish without infringing upon democratic and civil rights in the process.

Making and Evaluating Strategy: Learning from the Military

Use of military analogy is rampant and considered an acceptable part of business vernacular. However, analogies only illustrate, and bad analogies make bad strategy. There are important lessons to be learned from military strategy, though. This article identifies "the ten principles of strategy" that corporate strategists could utilize in testing their strategic theories, concepts, and plans.

Covalent protein adduction of nitrogen mustards and related compounds

Chemical warfare agents continue to pose a global threat despite the efforts of the international community to prohibit their use in warfare. For this reason, improvement in the detection of these compounds remains of forensic interest. Protein adducts formed by the covalent modification of an electrophilic xenobiotic and a nucleophilic amino acid may provide a biomarker of exposure that is stable and specific to compounds of interest (such as chemical warfare agents), and have the capability to extend the window of detection further than the parent compound or circulating metabolites. This research investigated the formation of protein adducts of the nitrogen mustard chemical warfare agents mechlorethamine (HN-2) and tris(2-chloroethyl)amine (HN-3) to lysine and histidine residues found on the blood proteins hemoglobin and human serum albumin. Identified adducts were assessed for reproducibility and stability both in model peptide and whole protein assays. Specificity of these identified adducts was assessed using in vitro assays to metabolize common therapeutic drugs containing nitrogen mustard moieties. Results of the model peptide assays demonstrated that HN-2 and HN-3 were able to form stable adducts with lysine and histidine residues under physiological conditions. Results for whole protein assays identified three histidine adducts on hemoglobin, and three adducts (two lysine residues and one histidine residue) on human serum albumin that were previously unknown. These protein adducts were determined to be reproducible and stable at physiological conditions over a three-week analysis period. Results from the in vitro metabolic assays revealed that adducts formed by HN-2 and HN-3 are specific to these agents, as metabolized therapeutic drugs (chlorambucil, cyclophosphamide, and melphalan) did not form the same adducts on lysine or histidine residues as the previously identified adducts formed by HN-2 and HN-3. Results obtained from the model peptide and full protein work were enhanced by comparing experimental data to theoretical calculations for adduct formation, providing further confirmatory data. This project was successful in identifying and characterizing biomarkers of exposure to HN-2 and HN-3 that are specific and stable and which have the potential to be used for the forensic determination of exposure to these dangerous agents.

Trading Democracy for Security? The Effects of the International Drug War on the Quality of Democracy in the Dominican Republic, 1996 -2008

The purpose of the research is to study the relationship between international drug interdiction policies and domestic politics in fragile democracies, and to demonstrate how international drug control policies and the use of force fit the rhetoric of war, are legitimized by the principles of a just war, but may also cause collateral damage and negative unintended consequences. The method used is a case study of the Dominican Republic. The research has found that international drug control regimes, primarily led by the U.S. and narrowly focused on interdiction, have influenced an increasingly militarized approach to domestic law enforcement in the Dominican Republic. The collateral damage caused by militarized enforcement comes in the form of negative perceptions of citizen security, loss of respect for the rule of law and due process, and low levels of civil society development. The drug war has exposed the need for significant reform of the institutions charged with carrying out enforcement, the police force and the judicial system in particular. The dissertation concludes that the extent of drug trafficking in the Dominican Republic is beyond the scope of domestic reform efforts alone, but that the programs implemented do show some potential for future success. The dissertation also concludes that the framework of warfare is not the most appropriate for the international problems of drug traffic and abuse. A broader, multipronged approach should be considered by world policy makers in order to address all conditions that allow drugs to flourish without infringing upon democratic and civil rights in the process.