GLOBAL TRENDS
LESSONS FROM VIENNA
|
Three
months ago, in April, a special meeting took place of the UN Commission on
Narcotic Drugs to evaluate global drug policies. Ministers gathered in
in over
a decade aggregate coca cultivation in the Andean region, the main pro ducer in
the world, declined to 173,000 hectares. This is a major achievement in the
international against illicit drugs and related crime,” said Mr. Antonio Maria
Costa.
Similar
things happened over the years in
Apart
from the dubious claims of successes, the mid-term evaluation at the UN in
Such smokescreens
are not convincing. A mid-term review restricted to descriptions of local or
temporary fluctuations in the illicit market and to a process-oriented
evaluation of implemented measures leads to a distorted picture of virtual
progress. To argue –as has been the pattern for the past 40 years– that the
answer should be to simply increase law enforcement, judicial cooperation and
eradication efforts, are no longer credible. If evaluation is meant for
learning lessons and improving policy effectiveness, it cannot escape an
assessment of the impact on global drug trends and of the costs and collateral
damage inflicted by the control measures. Genuine evaluation can lead to
inconvenient conclusions and therefore presupposes a political willingness to
question the validity of existing policies. As the chairman of the UK Home
Affairs Select Committee on drugs, Chris Mullin, concluded last year:
"Attempts
to combat illegal drugs by means of law enforcement have proved so manifestly
unsuccessful that it is difficult to argue for the status quo."
On
supply reduction side, there is an astonishing lack of sound argumentation
about the consequences and impact of policy interventions on the illicit
market. The general assumption seems to be that eradication and interdiction
operations contribute to achieving the aim of supply reduction simply because
they are meant to do so. Market responses, displacement of production and
counter-measures by criminal groups involved are well known phenomena, but
rarely taken into account when judging the impact of policy interventions. Very
basic questions are rarely posed. For example, if price developments are a
useful indicator of drug availability, there are no data on the basis of which
one could argue that eradication efforts and the many seizures of shipments
have ever reduced the availability on the consumption markets. Wholesale and
retail prices show a downward trend while purity is rising, which means there
is no shortage on the market.
UN drug
policy making is a consensus-driven machinery. The declarations are not the
result of a rational analysis of facts, but based on political compromises.
Behind the apparent unanimity of the outcomes of the Vienna meeting, lies a
longstanding conflict between nations desperately trying to maintain the
status quo of a prohibition regime rooted in ‘zero tolerance’, and those
recognising its failure, illusion and hollow rhetoric who are opting for a more
rational, pragmatic and humane approach, the trend with its centre of gravity
in Europe, Canada and Australia. It is evident that there is a growing
divergence, a polarisation. At the UN level this has led to an impasse which
can only be broken by means of a genuine evaluation of the adopted strategies,
goals and targets with an open mind towards future policy directions.
There
are four priority issues where the impasse at the UN level urgently needs to be
broken: the introduction of harm reduction in the UN drugs debate, an
accommodation of the cannabis decriminalisation trend, the opening up of room
for manoeuvre on supply side, and an initiative aiming to revise the UN drug
control conventions.
1. Harm
reduction in the UN drugs debate
The
moment has arrived for a breakthrough for the harm reduction or risk reduction
concept. At the very least it should become a normal and accepted part of the
debate on the UN level. In the Action Plan adopted in 1999 to implement the
UNGASS Guiding Principles on Demand Reduction, countries committed themselves
to offer “the full spectrum of services, including reducing the adverse health
and social consequences of drug abuse”. The Declaration of Commitment on
HIV/AIDS adopted at the UNGASS of June 2001, specifically calls on nations to
ensure, by 2005, expanded access to clean needles and to promote “harm
reduction efforts related to drug use”.
In spite
of considerable national differences, there is an irreversible trend across
2. Cannabis decriminalisation
There is
also a growing recognition of the need to distinguish between recreational use
and problematic use and a shift in policy focus accordingly, concentrating
policy efforts on the relatively small group of problematic users. Only a minor
percentage of recreational users develop problematic patterns of consumption.
Especially for massively consumed substances like cannabis and XTC those
percentages are so low that the world should stop fooling itself by putting
them in the same category as heroin.
The
inclusion of cannabis in the 1961 Convention was a mistake from the very start
and including it again in the elimination target for 2008 is simply absurd.
Cultivation takes place everywhere, no-one has a clue about global production
and consumption figures anyway, more than a hundred million people use it
regularly for recreational purposes without creating major problems. There’s a
clear policy trend towards decriminalisation across
These
policy developments of Harm Reduction and cannabis decriminalisation taken
together should lead to a change in climate at the level of UNODC, CND and
INCB, the core triangle of the UN drug control machinery that so far has
consistently rejected the use of these terms in the policy debate. This is in
contrast to agencies like WHO, UNAIDS and UNDP that are already using the
harm/risk reduction concept as a matter of course. Thus, the issue of UN
system-wide consistency is also at stake here.
3. Room for manoeuvre on supply side
On the
demand side, the tendency towards more pragmatic drug policies is gaining
ground. On the production side, however, there has been an escalation in
repressive approaches over the last decade. Desperate attempts to show
results in terms of counting hectares. Supply reduction efforts have created
great harms to individuals and to society at large, filling up prisons,
intensifying internal conflicts, increasing corruption, human rights
violations, destruction of livelihoods and environmental degradation. The
ongoing intensification of chemical spraying of crops in
All this
takes place without producing convincing evidence that these harmful measures
are in any way successful in what they are intended to do: to reduce the
availability of drugs for consumption. All combined supply reduction efforts
thus far – eradication, Alternative Development, interdiction – have failed in
terms of global impact.
We need
to open space for pragmatic policies towards illicit cultivation. More
flexibility in the negotiations with coca farmer unions in
The
absence of latitude also hinders attempts in Alternative Development
strategies, to justify more realistic gradual reduction schemes, adjusted to
the slow pace of demand reduction and appropriate to the slow pace of securing
alternative livelihoods. In the Alternative Development debate now in the
context of the reconstruction in Afghanistan, the drugs issue is increasingly
regarded as a cross-cutting issue, for which balanced responses have to be
designed that take into account policy considerations in the areas of
development, human rights, conflict resolution and prevention, etc. To enable
balanced decision-making, however, there has to be room for manoeuvre. The
mandatory character of the UN conventions leave no such room for manoeuvre regarding
the cultivation of drug-linked crops.
The
thematic evaluation of Alternative Development called for last year by the CND,
could serve to explore options in the direction of pragmatic policies. The
Resolution (CND 45/14) calls for "a rigorous and comprehensive thematic
evaluation, for determining best practices in alternative development by
assessing the impact of alternative development on both human development
indicators and drug control objectives and by addressing the key development
issues of poverty reduction, gender, environmental sustainability and conflict
resolution". The same resolution by the way already recognised that "despite
great efforts undertaken by many Member States to implement the Action Plan and
despite the measures taken to reduce or eliminate illicit drug crops, the world
supply of and demand for illicit drugs have remained at almost the same
levels".
4. A
revision of the drug control conventions
Greek
Foreign Minister Papandreou has proposed to undertake "a thorough evaluation
of the international drug treaties. We must verify their effectiveness, shortcomings
must be brought into the open and proposals must be tabled to find new ways for
formulating and applying drug policies". Countries need to have more
leeway for experimentation and pragmatic approaches than the conventions now
allow for. There is a growing tension between practice and theory, which should
be addressed by adjusting the conventions to the requirements of practical
policy, not the other way around.
Consensus
on new approaches will not be found easily on the UN level. But European
countries have sound reasons to be assertive about their achievements with
pragmatic approaches, and to demand adjustments to the global legal framework
that enable them to continue on the path they've democratically chosen
for. The limits of latitude allowed
under the conventions are being reached, as the INCB again points out in a
rather nasty way in its report released last week. But, as the 1997 UN World
Drug Report said: “Laws – and even the international Conventions – are not
written in stone; they can be changed when the democratic will of nations so
wishes it.”
In
conclusion
To break the current impasse
political alliances have to be constructed. No country can withstand the
The main
point always brought forward at the multilateral level from Latin American
side, is ‘co-responsibility’ interpreted as more money for Alternative
Development from the developed countries, critique on the US unilateral
certification mechanism, demanding more attention to the demand side, money
laundering, chemical precursors and synthetic drugs. In principle these are all
valid points, since the drug control system has long been biased placing the
burden on cultivation in Southern countries. And clearly the lobby on these
issues from countries like
The
difficulty is how this North-South divide has affected the other divide,
between tolerance and pragmatism. The Southern voice is rooted in a plea for
funding combined with the accusation of hypocrisy. Basically arguing that
Northern countries should not only compensate them for the income losses –for
farmers and the national economy- but also should apply similar levels of
repression to the part of the problem they are responsible for (demand, money
laundering, precursors). Since the South feels indeed unduly pressured to not
only extradite major traffickers, but also send their military to fight farmers
and destroy livelihoods, they request the North not only to put controls on
banks and chemical industry, but also to put their consumers in prison. In
fact, Southern countries have aligned themselves at the UN level largely on the
side of ‘zero tolerance’. Any leniency in terms of Harm Reduction or cannabis
decriminalisation in European countries or Canada, is fiercely attacked from
the side of African, Asian and also Latin American countries.
This
perverted interpretation of so called ‘co-responsibility’ and ‘balanced
approach’ has to be overcome. Alliances have to be constructed rooted in
pragmatic approaches and in solidarity with the victims of this War on Drugs on
both sides of the spectrum, be they in the North or in the South, consumers or
producers. The concepts of ‘co-responsibility’ and a ‘balanced approach’
between demand and supply sides have to be redefined. If countries here in
Latin America want to challenge the War on Drugs forced upon them, if they want
more leeway to negotiate with farmers, if they want to end forced eradication,
they will need to build a bridge with those countries in the North
experimenting with less repressive approaches, countries like Canada, the
Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, etc. Only if such a coalition of
like-minded countries could be brought together, and act in a coordinated
manner to explore more pragmatica drug policies for both the demand and the
supply sides, the UN level might become a useful forum. Only then, a stronger
political alliance can enforce a more open-minded debate about current
anti-drug strategies and challenge the
The
inclusion of the drugs issue in the agenda of the World Social Forum process
can play an important role in redefining the concept of co-responsibility, and
defining a common agenda for such a like-minded coalition. By bringing together
people from around the world and from the different ends of the spectrum, and
by making linkages between drug policies and other social issues, like human,
social and cultural rights, marginalisation and exclusion, the importance of
survival economies, the impacts of neoliberal globalisation, conflict
resolution and prevention, etc. Finally, an worldwide alliance of this nature
can help to build pressure to push for the mentioned priority issues at the UN
level, call for an an independent global evaluation of the current drug control
system and put forward recommendations for a more just, more effective and more
humane drug policy.
Martin
Jelsma –
mjelsma@tni.org
www.tni.org/drugs
Home
Initiatives
Conferences
Documents
Mama Coca
©2003 Mama Coca.
Please share this information and help us to
circulate it quoting Mama Coca.