55th Session of the CND – not quite déjà vu

Citation

Fordham, A. (2012), "55th Session of the CND – not quite déjà vu", Drugs and Alcohol Today, Vol. 12 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/dat.2012.54412caa.009

55th Session of the CND – not quite déjà vu

Article Type: Conference report From: Drugs and Alcohol Today, Volume 12, Issue 3

From 12 to 16 March 2012, representatives from over 100 governments gathered for the 55th Session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, Austria to review progress against international drug control objectives and agree new resolutions that direct the work of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and guides international drug policies and programmes. The CND is an annual event that represents a key opportunity for government officials and civil society representations to engage in discussion and debate around international drug control.

Yet, the CND has never been a friendly space for civil society observers despite the important role they play, to report on, monitor and analyse the tone and direction of the debate, as well as make the most of the limited opportunities to formally address the government officials present. Representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are also an important source of expertise on drug-related issues and relied upon by some government delegations for advice and guidance, particularly in the phrasing of resolutions. In the stifled, conservative environment of the CND meetings, civil society voices provide a crucial balancing perspective to remind those governments that are present of the failings of “zero-tolerance” approaches and the need to consider serious reforms.

In anticipating this year’s session, a colleague and CND meeting veteran, referred wearily to the event as “ground hog day”[1] – a comment that perfectly captures the feeling that the same dynamics play out year after year with the same laboured discussions taking place over contentious issues (in particular, protecting public health versus stringent law enforcement), while in reality very little actually changes.

This feeling of weariness dominated among many NGO observers as the CND meeting drew near.

However, it is fair to say that this year’s CND was far more interesting and eventful than had been anticipated. 2012 marks 100 years since the “birth” of the international drug control regime, with the adoption of the Hague Opium Convention (the first international treaty on drug control) in 1912. This anniversary presented an opportune moment to reflect on the successes and failures of the international drug control system and in particular to discuss whether or not the current trio of UN drug control conventions remain fit-for-purpose. These discussions starkly illustrated the different positions of the key actors within the realm of international drug control and therefore the increasing lack of consensus regarding both the efficacy and the immutable nature of the regime. As expected, many governments firmly reiterated their support for the current regime, including Russia and the USA. But this year, an increasing number of countries questioned the present regime and called for reforms and alternatives. This latter group of countries was led by Bolivia, a member state that has now denounced the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (the first country to ever to have done so) with a request to re-accede with a reservation on traditional use of the coca leaf. Bolivia previously attempted to seek an amendment to the 1961 Convention to remove the ban on coca leaf chewing but this was blocked by other member state signatories, including the USA and the UK. This year, Bolivia’s President, Evo Morales, attended the opening plenary of the CND and gave a careful but impassioned speech on Bolivia’s continuing commitment to reducing drug supply and combating trafficking, but he made it clear that, in Bolivia, the coca leaf would continue to be used for traditional purposes. As he said, “coca is not cocaine”. The other countries that made clear calls for regime change were Argentina and Guatemala, reflecting the spirit of reform that is gaining momentum in Latin America.

Unsurprisingly, Bolivia’s actions have been heavily criticised by the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), the supervisory body that oversees the implementation of the drug control conventions. The INCB is notorious for rigidly defending the “spirit” of the treaties, condemning any member states that deviate from a strong law enforcement and punitive approach and being staunchly resistant to modernisation. It was in this spirit, that the INCB, together with UNODC, held a special session to commemorate 100 years of international drug control. The “celebration” although muted was farcical in the sense that there was very little acknowledgement of the health, social, development and security problems caused by the current system, and no discussion whatsoever of the need for reforms. The past century, since the adoption of the Hague Opium Convention in 1912, was hailed as a success in terms of drug control – it was claimed that a global health crisis in terms of drug use has been averted. In reality, the evidence for this is flimsy at best, while the costs of the “war on drugs” are well documented – an explosion of HIV prevalence among people who use drugs, the creation of a huge and lucrative black market, an increase in the reach and power of organised crime, and the marginalisation and stigmatisation of people who use drugs, to name a few.

This celebratory event contrasted with the side event hosted by the Global Commission on Drug Policy and the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), during which two of the Commissioners, Ruth Dreifuss (former President of Switzerland) and Michel Kazatchkine (former Executive Director of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria) spoke of the need to break the taboo on drug policy reforms. Both Commissioners spoke of their dismay at the closed nature of the debate at the CND and the lack of priority accorded to public health imperatives. Another side event that explored the question of reform – specifically that of the UN drug control conventions – was organised by the Transnational Institute (TNI) and IDPC. This event emphasised that, after 100 years of the treaty system, it is time for serious review and modernisation. This event was well attended by government representatives – which was particularly positive when compared to their lack of interest in civil society events in previous years – again this appears to be a sign that the need for change is being recognised and policy makers are craving pragmatic, honest and open discussion about how to make change possible.

IDPC partnered with TNI and the Washington Office on Latin America in a third side event to highlight key reform initiatives currently taking place across Latin America. This was a timely event that saw presentations from Colombia, Mexico, Argentina and Uruguay. The speakers, a mix of civil society and government representatives, reflected on the current state of play within the region in terms of multiple calls for reforms and in particular flagged up the important issue of proportionality within drug sentences, given the massively high incarceration rates of low-level drug offenders across much of Latin America.

As reflected in this journal exactly one year ago, meaningful civil society engagement at the CND meeting is still something that has to be fought for, although there is an increasing – but cautious – acceptance of civil society actors within the proceedings. Further to the resolution passed at last year’s CND meeting on civil society participation, this year an informal civil society hearing was organised for the first time and gave an opportunity for NGOs to express their views to senior officials from UN bodies and governments. The diverse range of NGOs who attend the CND meeting was represented at the hearing – from those who advocate that we must redouble our efforts towards ridding the world of all drugs, such as World Forum Against Drugs, to more moderate groups who call for an honest and open debate on reform, like IDPC, TNI and Harm Reduction International (HRI). Although the “informal” nature of the hearing means that there will be no official record of the discussion, this was an important first step towards the recognition that civil society voices must be heard. The hearing itself mainly involved discussions around the role of civil society within the context of the CND, but also how to build in stronger mechanisms to ensure ongoing meaningful engagement both at national and international level.

Unfortunately, the positive steps taken by the CND secretariat to create the space for the informal hearing were severely undermined by attempts to censor civil society statements made in the plenary session. Civil society representatives are allowed to request speaking slots during the plenary sessions, although it is often the case that the Chair runs out of time and NGOs do not get the chance to make their statements to the floor. This year, however, a couple of statements from NGOs submitted in writing in advance (ostensibly for the benefit of the interpreters) were censored by the CND secretariat. The officials advised that the statements must be revised because they breached protocol by singling out and criticising UN offices, such as the INCB and UNODC. This was a disturbing chain of events that led to the NGOs in question (HRI, IDPC and International Network of People who Use Drugs) revising their statements in order to be able to speak to the floor. The original statements were critical but were by no means disrespectful and the censorship by the CND secretariat was unwarranted. Russia also questioned the status of HRI in the closing plenary and asked if protocol had been followed when such organisations were allowed to take the floor. These events reflect both the mistrust of NGOs by some senior UN officials and member states but also the reticence within this forum to engage in genuine debate.

NGO representatives also clashed with UN officials at the informal dialogue with the President of the INCB, Hamid Ghodse. While the INCB is keenly critical of governments that make progressive changes to their national drug control legislation (Portugal was notably a victim of this after decriminalising drug use in 2001), on the issue of the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences, the Board has been noticeably reluctant to comment. In direct contradiction of its own actions in the past, Mr Ghodse’s response to questioning on this issue at the dialogue was that such matters fall within state sovereignty and therefore the INCB has no mandate to interfere. Mr Ghodse was then asked if there was no atrocity large enough for him to step outside of his mandate to condemn – his response was that there was not. NGO representatives left the dialogue feeling extremely perturbed by Mr Ghodse’s responses and the INCB’s role in general. The INCB emerged from the 55th Session of the CND as obstructionist and out of touch, exposing itself – and the system it blindly defends at all costs – as in dire need of modernisation.

Overall, the developments at this year’s meeting can be viewed as significant in terms of looking at the general trends within international drug policy debates. While it is clear the taboo on putting reform firmly on the agenda at the CND has not yet been broken, this year’s events do point to some positive movement towards that end. Latin American countries were out front in terms calling for modernisation of drug control efforts, with the Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) asking, in the final plenary, for greater impartiality from the INCB and their understanding for the varied reality between countries. In terms of resolutions, although there was nothing ground-breaking, a resolution on overdose prevention led by the Czech Republic was very well received, as well as a resolution on how to deal with the challenging issue of legal highs, led by Australia. The USA, despite continuing to be a stalwart protector of the regime, made some promising statements including the explicit acknowledgement that there had been an over-reliance on incarceration as part of its drug control strategy.

The treatment of civil society actors clearly still leaves something to be desired. We still do not have a place at the table but one could read this year’s efforts by the CND secretariat to censor NGO voices as an indication that civil society groups within drug policy are growing in stature and influence. It is our responsibility to provide a different and balancing perspective to our governments, who should welcome it rather than try to stifle critical analysis. The road to reform for more humane, balanced and effective drug policies is still long and winding but the CND does provide a helpful measure of whether those pushing for reforms are making any real “chinks” in a system that is increasingly harder to defend.

Ann FordhamIDPC

Note

1. He was referring to the 1993 US film Groundhog Day, in which Bill Murray plays a man forced to relive the same day over and over again.