top of page
Search

2/4 UNGASS 2016 Preparations - “A comprehensive, integrated and balanced approach to addressing the

  • Benjamin-Alexandre Jeanroy
  • Apr 2, 2016
  • 7 min read

The upcoming 2016 Special Session - as we will see in the next article on UNGASS 1998 - is based on certain documents, but more specifically on certain phrasing that have been collectively pre-agreed on by U.N. member states. As defined by the INCB (2014, Para: 2), the principle of a “comprehensive, integrated and balanced approach to addressing the world drug problem” is said to provide “the strategic direction and vision for attaining the commonly agreed goal by taking into consideration and placing appropriate emphasis on all mutually inter-dependent aspects of the world drug problem.” This motto, repeated over and over by the U.N. member states since UNGASS 1998 was first developed in order to actually give more prominence to drug control demand policies within the global efforts. That is, highlighting the role of “consumer” countries, theoretically more concentrated in the Global North, whereas in the past ‘efforts’ and actions were directed towards “producer’ countries, mostly located in the Global South. The approach, “which may be viewed as the legislative inception of demand reduction” (IDPC, 2015c), was made explicit in the 1998 Political Declaration (UN General Assembly, 1998) and in the Declaration on the Guiding Principles of Demand Reduction (UN General Assembly, 2000). However, although the principle implies focusing equally on supply and demand, the majority of funds dedicated to resolve the “world drug problem” are still directed to the supply side (“with eradication, incarceration, and law enforcement eating up two thirds of the drug control budget.” (Leisher & Tree, 2011).

The concept is currently being “reviewed” by U.N. drug control agencies, including the International Narcotic Control Board (INCB) - as preparation for UNGASS 2016 - notably by further integrating the need for certain substances to be available for medical and scientific purposes (1). But as noted by researcher David Courtwright (2001), the Board seems to assume that all the necessary changes are to be found within a more rigorous application of the already existing drug control efforts, as-well as pre-existing multilateral drug control documents (2). For the IDPC, “this is arguably a naive and unhistorical assessment of the complex relationships that human beings have had with drugs throughout the modern period, a relationship that shows little sign of radically changing, or of becoming less intense.” (IDPC, 2015c)

Consider, for example, this INCB quote: “The principle of comprehensive, integrated and balanced approach to addressing the world drug problem requires Member States to ensure that controlled substances are available for medical and scientific purposes. Member States should place equal emphasis on supply and demand reduction strategies, as well as on issues related to formulating a joint response to the world drug problem through international cooperation in an integrated and mutually reinforcing manner, while taking into consideration and addressing all of its aspects in a comprehensive manner. Observing and fully implementing this principle will enhance the ability of Member States to respond in a consistent and efficient manner to present and emerging challenges, and to formulate policies and programmes that address the phenomenon in all its forms and manifestations.” (INCB, 2014, Para. 5) If you need to read it several times please feel free to do so, but the abstraction of the phrasing will not change. By making general demands and blandly claiming simple outcomes, the INCB drafters rendered their declaration more like a prayer than an analyzed strategy. It is almost as if by magically applying and repeating the past-mentioned principles “all the problems clustered around drugs and their control will be resolved.” (IDPC, 2015c)

Let’s focus on the “comprehensive, integrated and balanced approach to addressing the world drug problem” part of the paragraph. Many observers of the current regime see this approach as pious incantation, a reassuring mantra aimed at presenting a common view which has been dispossessed of all meaning. Indeed, often, “the measured elaboration of this ‘principle’ seems to lose all purchase on the complex, messy reality of the 21st century world.” (IDPC, 2015c) But what does this sentence mean? Notwithstanding the lack of a clear definition as to what is the “world drug problem” as we will see in a next article, the proposed approach can be negatively understood. If the world is in need of such “comprehensive, integrated and balance[d]” strategy, should we assume that the IDCR has not operated in such ways for the past half a century? And may potentially still not be? Furthermore, if such an approach was indeed desired, would it be wrong to demand a more equitable sharing of the burden of the “unintended consequences” (ECOSOC, 2008) of the current prohibitionist regime, notably in between Global North and South countries?

Similarly, the definition of what is “balanced” can be quite different depending on which actors mention the word. Pakistan for example during the October 15, 2015 CND Intersessional meeting stated on one side that it did “not think drug policy should be rebalanced. It is already well balanced.” (CND Blog, 2015a) The representative of Switzerland on the other side, during the CND Intersessional on September 24, 2015, mentioned that “almost two decades after the UNGASS called for a balanced approach, we do not see it in practice.” (CND Blog, 2015) Again, when Mexico wishes the discussions to “be open and inclusive” it also declares that “consensus is valued if it is of qualitative value, and not just a repetition that ignores the need for rebalancing the strategy. If we do not rebalance the strategy, we might not be able to continue talking about an international consensus on this issue.” (CND Blog, 2015a) Member states are not the only ones confused about the definition of words that are being used over and over by proponents of the current regime. Arguably, anyone can choose to understand the concept differently depending on their core interests.

Member states are not the only one which differ in the appreciation of the concept. For the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), “a health and human rights centered drug control system” is to promote “a society where illicit drug use is not accepted as a way of life and where those needing services receive them.” (CND 58th Session, Item 8, 2015) Conversely, the view on the matter for Marie-Paule Kieny, Assistant Director-General of the WHO, speaking during a high level UNAIDS meeting in October 2015, is quite different: “As we approach next year’s UNGASS, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebalance international policies on drugs and to increase the focus on public health, on prevention, on ensuring treatment, on care and on harm reduction.” (UNAIDS, 2015) Additionally, in an advocacy note, the IDPC explains that, “the importance of ensuring a balanced, open and inclusive debate necessitates that discussions take place in multiple locations of strategic importance to the UN.” (IDPC, 2015a) The NGO refers here to the fact that “the preparatory process has so far been centered in Vienna, where the UN drug control structures are based, and there have been some concerns around ensuring openness and inclusiveness in the UNGASS debates if all the preparations are based in there.” (IDPC, 2015a) The IDPC further adds that “there is great value in opening the debate by including other key UN forums based in New York and Geneva” (Ibid.)

We would argue here that the reason why such a vague approach is constantly used within U.N. documents is that depending on who is concerned, everyone can more or less decide what they wishes to see in it.

If the INCB (3) reminded us that the sentence, “comprehensive, integrated and balanced approach to addressing the world drug problem” was coined by the 1998 UNGASS Outcome document, it may have wanted to highlight the fact that the past UNGASS initially intended to ‘shift’ the way drug policies were enacted at the time, that is, with a profoundly disproportionate focus on supply reduction, which laid heavily upon the shoulder of Global South countries. Today, the Board declares that the best form of drug control is to be find at the equilibrium of both obligations, with a weight evenly distributed among U.N. member states. However, one could argue that even if the balance in between the two has slightly been repositioned since the last UNGASS, we ought to realize that it did not positively ameliorate the status quo in any sense. Moreover, if we can agree on the fact that the concept “is not an end in itself but rather a means to an end” (INCB, 2014, Para. 6) and that its final objective remains to achieve the overall goal of the U.N. drug conventions - “namely to ensure the mental and physical health and well-being of humankind” (INCB, 2014, Para. 6) - the goal to ensure the availability of drugs for medical and scientific purposes has not been strengthened on the ground. Indeed, the overall core idea remained to significantly reduce or eliminate global production and trafficking of illegal drugs, “despite the growing recognition of its failures over the past century.” (IDPC, 2015c)

(1) Article 9 of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs stipulates that States Parties are responsible for ensuring the availability of controlled medicines, and gives the INCB the mandate to monitor their availability.

(2) As stated by the INCB (2014), the 2016 UNGASS “process is based on the outcomes of the 2014 high-level review by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the implementation by Member States of the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action.”

(3) For the Board, the 1998 U.N. document “elevated the issue of implementing a comprehensive, integrated and balanced approach to the status of a fundamental principle in addressing the world drug problem.” (INCB, 2014, Para: 9)

Comments

 

UPEACE

  • Facebook - Black Circle
  • Twitter - Black Circle
  • LinkedIn - Black Circle
  • SoundCloud - Black Circle
bottom of page