WOLA and Amnesty International are hosting a conversation on U.S. military action in the Caribbean.

The Trump administration has conducted lethal strikes against civilian vessels in the Caribbean, killing 61 people as of late October, claiming it’s engaged in a “non-international armed conflict” with narco-terrorist organizations. What are the legal, human rights, and geopolitical implications? Join experts on international law, drug policy, Venezuela, and civil liberties for a dynamic discussion.

Hybrid Event | 1666 Connecticut Avenue NW or online

Uncharted waters: U.S. Military action in the Caribbean

The global war on drugs as authoritarian statecraft and its human rights costs

Two of Zimbabwe’s leading drug rehabilitation hubs, Matrix Rehabilitation Centre and Angel of Hope Foundation, are among a plethora of sprouting correctional centres that are increasingly taking the limelight for human rights abuses and corruption. .

This emerged during an investigation supported by Information for Development Trust, a non-profit outfit promoting accountability journalism in Zimbabwe and Southern Africa.

The investigation established that some of the victims at such detention centres who are being arbitrarily rounded up are as young as nine.



Human rights abuses, corruption rampant at Zimbabwe’s shady drug rehabilitation centres

Asean governments recently met in Singapore for a regional meeting about drugs, where the host nation urged renewed commitment to a "drug-free region". The problem isn't simply the recycling of an outdated mantra first declared in 1998, nor the fact that the region's drug markets have only expanded since then, but that this approach ignores how government policies themselves shape those markets -- and the devastating harms that follow.

In his opening speech to the regional meeting, the Singaporean Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam began by chronicling deaths related to drugs in different parts of the world. He lumps together deaths caused by overdoses in the USA with those caused by violence related to drug markets in places like Mexico and Ecuador. The statistics are indeed devastating, but the citing of these deaths without any acknowledgement of the harms driven by policies or the complex problems driven by political, structural and socioeconomic factors seeks to absolve the responsibility of governments to do better to protect life and uphold human rights. The international drug control conventions state that the priority goals of national drug policies are to improve the health and welfare of all people. Singapore's continued justification of the death penalty is not only at odds with international human rights law but also with the principle that drug policies should be to protect lives -- not take them away.

In 2016, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) governments adopted a work plan on drug issues that ends this year. The Philippines led the review of the work plan's implementation, but following the regional meeting hosted by Singapore, the results of the review do not appear to be publicly shared. Ahead of the meeting, the International Drug Policy Consortium sent a submission of civil society perspectives to Asean drug policy agencies on the impacts of the regional drug strategy since 2016, with recommendations for the way forward. For the most part, it has been a harrowing decade: about 30,000 people killed in a "war on drugs" in the Philippines, prisons overcrowded with people held for drug offences (Thailand has the world's second highest rate of women's incarceration, mostly for drug offences), abusive drug rehabilitation systems and continued executions of people for drug offences.

An Asean free from 'wars on drugs'

Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte has been charged with crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The 80-year-old is accused of being criminally responsible for dozens of murders that allegedly took place as part of his so-called war on drugs, during which thousands of small-time drug dealers, users and others were killed without trial.

The ICC's charge sheet, which includes several redactions, dates from July but was only made public on Monday.

ICC deputy prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang said Duterte was an "indirect co-perpetrator" in the killings, which the court alleges were carried out by others, including police.

The first count laid against Mr Duterte concerns his alleged involvement in the killings of 19 people in Davao City between 2013 and 2016 while he was mayor there.

The other two charges relate to times when he was serving as president of the Philippines, between 2016 and 2022, and launched his so-called war on drugs.

ICC charges Rodrigo Duterte with crimes against humanity

In October 2023, I was awarded the “Drug Laws and Access to Justice Fellowship” by the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) as part of the REFORM project, which is a regional partnership supporting people who use drugs, media, legal and civil society allies to end punitive drug laws, abusive enforcement, and stigma. The Programme supports fellows in boosting their capacity to bring about change in a region characterised by some of the most punitive policies against people who use drugs in the world — applying their legal and paralegal skills and knowledge.

But long before the fellowship, my collective — 

 has been practising care beyond the remit of the state. In Cavite, we have been running mutual aid efforts for years through survivor support, food, medical care, and accompaniment — modest but necessary acts of care and survival. In August 2023, Temple Street Los Area Locos, a local gang, reached out to us when one of their members was stabbed by a police asset for refusing to “snitch” on their peers. Later that year, that same young person was arrested on alleged drug charges, abandoned by the legal system, with no support to navigate court proceedings. Faced with this crisis, we asked ourselves: “

What would it look like if we built our own systems of care, rooted in community accountability, instead of waiting for justice from institutions that only criminalise us?”

Weaving Resistances: Building safer communities by and for young people impacted by drug use and allies

 was born. It was neither a non-profit nor a “civil society” organisation, nor a program signed off by a formal agency. It was something else — something 

adrienne maree brown describes emergent strategy as 

“fractal — small patterns that scale into the whole.”

 Our own small patterns took the shape of community meals, neighbourhood conversations, and music events. From these small acts of connection, we were trying to rebuild relationships within our community and scale safety. In doing so, we reclaimed and embodied the harm reduction mantra: 

 For us, this wasn’t just a slogan — it traverses our lives and survival.

Street-based youth like us are often seen as 

. As it happens with other scapegoated groups, narratives of essentialised ‘risk’ are weaponised against us, denying us the very possibility of ‘innocence’. Against this backdrop, sitting together over food became a transformative practice for us, a way to challenge stigma while rebuilding bonds with our neighbours, who had previously written us off. As Ruth Wilson Gilmore says, 

“Abolition is about presence, not absence. It’s about building life-affirming institutions.”

 Sharing food in community meals became one such institution — informal and fragile, but very real.

“Community accountability is not a checklist, it’s a practice of showing up for each other when harm happens and when it doesn’t.”

 Our meals and events were exactly that: showing up even outside of crisis, building relationships that would hold when harm inevitably occurs.

From November 2023 to March 2025, we organised community meals, music shows, film screenings, and open dialogues about drug use and sexual and reproductive health. We amplified the 

 campaign, and started prisoner support networks for our friends behind bars. These weren’t just events — they were abolitionist rehearsals of a different future.

“Transforming harm is not about pretending harm doesn’t exist. It’s about building the skills, practices, and conditions we need so that when harm happens, we don’t turn to police or prisons—we turn to each other.”

 That was the heart of our work: not escaping harm, but transforming how we respond to it.

Our work rippled outward. In 2024, we founded the Philippines chapter of 

, joining a global network of young organisers fighting for humane drug policies. To launch, we mobilised two actions during the 

2024 Support. Don’t Punish Global Day of Action

Starting SSDP Philippines was about giving young people a range of places to belong — that we’re part of a global fight for justice. This is an emergent strategy in motion: starting small, moving at the speed of trust, and letting relationships guide our organising.

 By paying attention to each other, even through small acts of care, we were growing a movement.

Solidarity across movements: Toward transformative and healing justice

As we grew, we realised our struggle couldn’t be isolated from others. In 2024 and 2025, we joined events organised by the 

Philippine Safe Abortion Network (PINSAN)

Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR)

. Their fight for reproductive justice mirrored ours — both criminalised by the state, both demanding autonomy and dignity.

This wasn’t just coalition-building. It was 

— understanding that the same systems policing drugs are policing bodies, gender, and sexuality. If we want liberation, we have to dismantle all of it together. 

Informality as access to justice and care

What began as “informal” acts of care has become the foundation for a broader political demand. Informality itself became a form of justice: a refusal to wait for permission to care for each other. The state has offered us violence and neglect, so we built our own systems. That’s how we survived. Now those same systems — our networks of care, our ways of looking out for each other — are shaping our fight and practice towards new, liberatory worlds.

Abolition isn’t only about ending prisons — it is about building life. As Ruth Wilson Gilmore reminds us, “Where life is precious, life is precious.” And as Andrea Ritchie writes, “Practicing new worlds is not abstract — it’s in how we cook for each other, how we respond to harm, how we create safety without punishment, every single day.” These everyday gestures are more than survival — they are blueprints for the futures we want to live in.

The fight is far from over. But the streets show us that resistance doesn’t always look like court battles or legislation. Sometimes, it looks like a meal shared among those who have targeted and criminalised identities, a network of care among the abandoned — our refusal to disappear and let others be disappeared. It is in these quiet, persistent practices of care that we reclaim life and dignity.

We carry this commitment both in our daily acts and within formal spaces of advocacy like drug policy reform in the Philippines. On 

Cavite Side Suldados – Temple St. MBPLS

Regional Dialogue on the ASEAN Work Plan on Securing Communities against Illicit Drugs 2016–2025

 in Manila. Facilitated by IDPC, the dialogue brought government, civil society, and directly impacted communities into conversation about the implementation and impacts of the ASEAN Work Plan. Our presence in that space — coming from the streets, from communities often left out of regional and international policy tables — was itself an act of care and resistance, ensuring that those most affected by drug policies are never excluded from shaping them.

consultation focused on developing the ACCEPT Drug Education Modules

. Guided by a community-centred, human rights-based, and health-oriented approach, the modules aim to promote understanding, compassion, and informed conversations about substance use within the community.

We will continue building these worlds, both through our small acts of care and in our collective engagement within drug policy reform spaces in the Philippines. Our survival has always been political, and our care has always been resistance – our refusal to disappear.

Practising liberatory harm reduction: From street-level care to policy reform advocacy

Amnesty International and the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network condemn in the strongest terms the execution in Singapore of Malaysian national Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah on 25 September 2025 and are alarmed at the continued violations of international human rights law and standards associated with the use of the death penalty in the country. We renew our call on the government of Singapore to urgently establish a moratorium on executions as a first step towards full abolition of this cruel punishment.

Cruel anguish as execution temporarily stayed

Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah was set to be executed at 6am on 25 September 2025, following a shortened notice period that started on 21 September. According to information received by our organizations, just over five hours before it was due to be carried out, the execution was temporarily stayed to allow the President of Singapore, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, to consider his clemency request. The family was later notified that the execution would proceed at approximately 1.40pm, after the appeal was rejected.

The last-minute stay of execution left Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah and his relatives in excruciating anguish for approximately seven hours.

We oppose the death penalty unconditionally as the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. We strongly condemn the treatment of Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah and his family, which amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in line with international standards on the death penalty. Torture and other ill-treatment or punishment are absolutely prohibited under international human rights law, and this is also a rule of customary international law binding on all states, whether or not they are parties to particular treaties which include this prohibition. This continued pursuit of executions by the Singapore government at all costs, including with shortened notice periods, must immediately stop.

Death sentence unlawful under international human rights law and standards

Datchinamurthy a/l Kataiah was convicted and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty after he was found in possession of 44.96 grams of diamorphine (heroin), presumed to have knowledge of the drug and to possess it for the purpose of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act and convicted.

We reiterate that the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences violates international human rights law and standards, which restrict its use to the “most serious crimes”, most recently interpreted as referring to “crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing”. Several UN bodies, including the International Narcotics Control Board, have repeatedly clarified that drug-related offences do not meet this threshold.

We also remain alarmed by the continued resort to the mandatory death penalty, which removes judges’ power to consider the particular circumstances of the offence and the background of the convicted person, also in violation of international law and standards; and the reliance on the legal presumption of trafficking under the Misuse of Drugs Act, based on the amount of drugs a person is found with. When these legal presumptions are invoked, the burden of proof is shifted onto the defendant to be rebutted to the reversed – and therefore higher – legal standard of “on balance of probabilities”. Legal presumptions of guilt violate the right to be presumed innocent – a peremptory norm of customary international law – and other fair trial guarantees under international human rights law that mandate that the burden of proving all charges rests on the prosecution. In addition, presumptions of guilt have also had the effect of lowering the threshold of evidence needed to secure a conviction in capital cases.

Urgent need for moratorium on executions as critical first step

So far in 2025, Singapore has executed 11 men, including nine for drug-related offences. In recent years, only two countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) were known to have carried out executions – Singapore and Viet Nam. With the recent abolition of the death penalty for transporting drugs in Viet Nam on 25 June 2025, Singapore is due to be the last ASEAN country to carry out executions for this offence.

Several others remain at imminent risk of execution in Singapore, including Malaysian nationals Pannir Selvam Pranthaman, Saminathan Selvaraju, Lingkesvaran Rajendaren and Singapore national Jumaat bin Mohamed Sayed. We renew our call on the Government of Singapore to immediately establish a moratorium on all executions; commute all death sentences; and review national legislation to bring it in line with international human rights law and standards, pending full abolition of the death penalty.

Singapore: Cruel and unlawful drug-related execution of Malaysian man renews urgency for moratorium on executions

 – UN experts* today condemned the extrajudicial execution by the United States of 11 people when it sank a civilian vessel in the Caribbean Sea on 2 September 2025, and three people on another vessel on 15 September.

“International law does not allow governments to simply murder alleged drug traffickers,” the experts said. “Criminal activities should be disrupted, investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rule of law, including through international cooperation.”

On 2 September 2025, the President of the United States announced a “kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narco-terrorists” aboard a vessel in international waters, allegedly transporting illegal narcotics to the U.S., killing 11 people. The Secretary of State of the United States indicated the U.S. could have intercepted the vessel but chose to destroy it to deter traffickers. The U.S. had previously designated Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organisation.

“Under international law, all countries must respect the right to life, including when acting on the high seas or in foreign territory. The use of potentially lethal force is only permitted in personal self-defence or defence of others against an imminent threat to life,” the experts said.

“The United States’ attack also violates the international law of the sea, which does not authorise unprovoked attacks on ships, requires criteria to be met to intercept ships, and insists on a law enforcement, not military approach to using force,” they said.

The United States has previously accused Tren de Aragua of mounting an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” of the U.S., at the behest of the Venezuelan Government. “There is no evidence that this group is committing an armed attack against the U.S. that would allow the U.S. to use military force against it in national self-defence,” the experts said.

The strike follows a classified order reportedly signed by the U.S. President in August 2025 authorising military force, in foreign territory or international waters, against Latin American drug cartels that the U.S. Government recently designated as terrorist organisations. These include groups based in Latin America, including in Mexico and Venezuela.

“International law does not permit the unilateral use of force abroad to fight terrorism or drug trafficking. Attacks on organised crime groups in foreign territory would violate the other country’s sovereignty and could amount to an illegal use of force under the United Nations Charter and customary international law,” the experts said.

The United States has reportedly deployed substantial naval, air and land forces in the region for the purpose of deterring drug trafficking and “narco-terrorism”.

On 25 July 2025, the U.S. designated Cartel de los Soles as a terrorist group and alleged that the Venezuelan President is its leader, raising the prospect that the U.S. may use military force directly against a foreign government.

We urge the United States to retreat from its lawless “war on narco-terrorism”. Under international law, the U.S. must independently investigate those who ordered and carried out these murders, prosecute perpetrators, no matter how senior in government, provide reparation to the victims’ families, and guarantee that such acts will never occur again,” the experts said.

The experts have been in contact with the Governments concerned regarding these matters.

Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism

Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions

Independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order

US war on 'narco-terrorists' violates the right to life, warn UN experts after deadly vessel strike

In public drug policy conversations, decriminalization has too often been framed as a catch-all solution to drug-related issues, from overdose and stigma to health care access and public drug use. It’s easy to see why—especially in the heat of campaigns pushing for long-overdue reform—but overpromising can be dangerous.

While decriminalization is rightly celebrated as a progressive improvement to punitive drug laws, the global reality is messy: a patchwork of partial reforms, mixed results and models being measured against goals they were never designed to meet.

“We’ve developed this idea that decriminalization is some kind of magic bullet,” Professor Alison Ritter, AO, director of the Drug Policy Modelling Program at the University of New South Wales, told 

 “It will reduce arrests—we can be confident about that. There is evidence to support it. But will it reduce overdose rates? Honestly, I don’t think it would.”

At the International Conference on Health and Hepatitis in Substance Users (INHSU) in October 2024, Ritter presented data from various decriminalization models, evaluating their impact across four areas: arrests, overdose, stigma and health care access.

Her conclusion: Decriminalization consistently reduces arrests and incarceration for people who use drugs, but its impact on other harms is less clear. Ritter’s message? It’s time to get real about what decrim can and can’t do.

“We now have drug decriminalization in 59 jurisdictions in 39 countries, and the momentum towards this approach is growing,” Jamie Bridge, deputy director of the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), told 

. “But the actual policies themselves vary a lot, with some much less effective and less fair than others.”

How can drug decriminalisation be built to last?

The harms of the Indian drug war are particularly harsh in Punjab, the western state bordering Pakistan, as state authorities have struggled for years to deal with uncontrolled drug demand, supply, and inadequate treatment. A Parliamentary Panel Report from 2023 unveiled the reality of the drug market. They estimated there were 6,600,000 people using drugs in Punjab, with 697,000 children aged 10-17 years identified with some form of substance use disorders (SUD). Drug-related deaths in Punjab are also one of the highest in the country, a total of 266 deaths reported from April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2023. As reported by the State Assembly, nearly 6.2 lakh addicts were currently in government-run treatment centres, with around 6.12 lakh in private treatment facilities. Punjab clearly is a state in crisis.

There is nothing remotely new in calls for a drug-free Punjab, or cracking down on drug use or selling – these are repeated rhetorics across drug policies in the state and nationwide, often failing to achieve its lofty goals. It is high time to engage in a serious re-evaluation of the strategy or can we look for a different approach altogether.

What has dominated Punjab’s efforts at drug control for the past decade has been increasingly a ‘securitised’, enforcement-led approach. Although drug control efforts have included treatment, rehabilitation and preventive education with focus on compassion, care and circumvention, they have not transformed the punitive intent of all the past drug strategies.

However, the dismal outcomes of Punjab’s illicit drug policy are all too evident. A serious evaluation of the systemic failures is needed, as enforcement has been unable to curtail rising use and harms around problematic use and addiction, or the human rights violations at de-addiction treatment centres and jails, and unimpressive demand reduction initiatives which have not prevented soaring rates of addiction and drug-related fatalities.

Drug markets in the post-pandemic period have changed significantly, and a fresh approach to reducing harms is needed. The appearance of synthetic opioids like fentanyl adulterating in the heroin supply led to a spike in overdose deaths; the lack of an early warning drug system prevents any analysis of changing product dynamics. Drones are increasingly used by drugs sellers to send substances from Pakistan to India, with over 200 drones seized in 2024 alone – double the previous year’s results. Participation in the illegal drug economy is also expanding, with a rising number of women involved in it: an Indian Express 2023 investigation highlighted how some of the most deprived areas of Punjab saw spikes in rates of female involvement in the drug trade, particularly in areas with low numbers of legal jobs.

Punjab needs healing: Drug policy struggles in India

For over a century, U.S. drug policy has prioritized punitive approaches under the guise of stopping drug use and production. The results have been drugs becoming cheaper, more available, and potent, record-high overdose deaths, and increasing violence from drug trafficking organizations. The drug war is a failed strategy, one that has come with high human and financial costs after over a trillion dollars in spending. To save lives and promote healthy communities across the globe, it is urgent that the U.S. government shift its drug policy and funding towards health-focused strategies.

The U.S. has exported and sustained prohibitionist drug policies abroad.

U.S. drug policy has sought to stigmatize and punish those involved with illicit substances. This approach has extended abroad, where the U.S. has used its political muscle and leverage to create an international framework firmly rooted in prohibition and punishment. This approach demonizes drugs and the people who use them and aims to disrupt the supply of drugs. Despite record-high levels of funding for this approach, evidence today shows it has been a failure. Drugs are more available and potent than ever, and the U.S. continues to navigate an overdose crisis.

The three international drug control conventions championed by the U.S. are premised on:

eliminating the cultivation of marijuana, poppy, and coca (used to produce heroin and cocaine respectively); and,

preventing the transit of drugs to countries where people use them.

The centrality of drug control in U.S. foreign policy was solidified during the Nixon administration when the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was established to wage an “all-out, global war on the drug menace.” The U.S. sought to deal with issues related to drug use at home by blaming countries where cocaine, heroin, and other drugs originated. They also adopted efforts to halt the flow of drugs deemed to be illicit into the United States. This approach was further entrenched during the Reagan administration, when drugs were declared a national security threat and U.S. foreign policy committed to the eradication of illegal drugs.

Legislative measures like the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, calling for a “drug free America,” codified drug control as a priority in foreign policy and beefed up overseas drug control efforts. In 1988, Congress made the Pentagon the “single lead agency” for detecting and monitoring illegal drugs coming into the United States. They leveraged foreign aid to enforce compliance with U.S. drug policies, mandating cooperation and adherence to UN conventions. Non-compliant countries faced the loss of U.S. aid and significant barriers to international financial assistance, extending the country’s punitive drug policy influence globally.

The consequences of prohibitionist drug policies have increased poverty, human rights violations, organized crime, and more potent drugs.

Violence, policing & punishment

Uncharted waters: U.S. Military action in the Caribbean

The global war on drugs as authoritarian statecraft and its human rights costs

Human rights abuses, corruption rampant at Zimbabwe’s shady drug rehabilitation centres

An Asean free from 'wars on drugs'

ICC charges Rodrigo Duterte with crimes against humanity

Practising liberatory harm reduction: From street-level care to policy reform advocacy

Singapore: Cruel and unlawful drug-related execution of Malaysian man renews urgency for moratorium on executions

US war on 'narco-terrorists' violates the right to life, warn UN experts after deadly vessel strike

How can drug decriminalisation be built to last?

How can drug decriminalisation be built to last?

Punjab needs healing: Drug policy struggles in India

Beyond the drug war: A health-first approach to global drug policy