1/9 Post UNGASS 2016 - What’s in it for me ?

We now have heard about UNGASS 2016, what it means and who will take part in it; which is already much more than most around the world, despite the significance of the topic at hand. Indeed, despite heavy consequences for most of us, at different scales and reach, very few people actually know what the potential outcomes of this high-level U.N. meeting could mean. The nature of these observations is not necessarily to point fingers or play the ‘international blame and shame game’. However, one cannot deny that despite vast concerned populations, these meetings are usually by tradition - some would say by nature - happening much more smoothly for the stakeholders, when escaping the eyes of the public. For these reasons, one could arguably think that the question that comes to mind when presented with such an event would be: what’s in it for me? Why does it matter? What are the potential consequences that this gathering of people could have on me, my life, my family, my work, or my community? Well, probably much more than what we might assume in the first place.

As noted by Martin Jelsma (2011), one of the limiting factors in regards to the development of alternative drug control policies continues to be the deeply rooted prohibition views that have inhabited the U.S., as well as other member states’ public discourse for more than a century. This discourse still remains present today in many state policies, both foreign and domestic. Which in turns heavily influence the population of these countries. Furthermore, it is linked to the secrecy with which these policies have been enacted and drafted throughout the years. Consequently, difficulties in regard to drug policy reform will certainly prevail and progress, however this progress will arguably only occur gradually. As stated by the IDPC ED Ann Hasse, most actors engaged in drug policy reform believe that “to be effective, reform efforts must be made at every level – locally, nationally, and globally.” (Hasse, 2014) UNGASS and its potential “inclusive conversation among all 193 of its members” (Ibid.) needs to be able to publicly deliver on this. As such, even if the need is present, the will from the most powerful stakeholders may be questionably lacking.

Several things will be discussed during this last set of articles on UNGASS 2016. First, we will attempt to predict what should be happening at the upcoming Special Session; that is to say what solutions should be enacted and how they could be taken if this topic was not to be so politically and ideologically charged. These prospective solutions are not necessarily new ideas, nor will there be a surprisingly new demand for them. However, there is very little chance that most of them, or arguably any of them, could make it to the final UNGASS 2016 documents, and by that, translated into domestic application worldwide. Therefore, our further predictions will lie in the potentially more probably outcomes that could arise from the Special Session, as-well as the potential implications for worldwide populations in the U.N. event post-years.

1) Prospects

So what does a “good deal” look like for the world and its political leaders which promote drug control reforms? As explained by former Deputy Prime Minister of the UK Nick Clegg, and current Prime Minister of Czech Republic Bohuslav Sobotka, “The best scenario is one in which the agreement published at the end of the summit eschews talk of the total eradication of drugs or punishing users and instead calls for measures that promote public health, human rights, harm reduction and support and treatment for people who use drugs, while creating space for countries seeking alternative approaches to really explore them.” (The Guardian, 2016b) Above all, both public officials concede, “governments need to base their policies on the best available evidence, rather than political posturing.” (Ibid.) In this regard, “far-fetched and unrealistic goals” (Felbab-Brown & Trinkunas, 2015), such as the reoccurrence of the proclaimed desire to rid humanity from the scourge of illegal drugs in the next 10 years, or the objective to eradicate organized crime, should be avoided. Injecting realism into the Special Session stated goals represents a decisive step towards making and executing more efficient policies.

However, while in regard to UNGASS 2016, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated that he “urge[d] Member States to use these opportunities to conduct a wide-ranging and open debate that considers all options” (UN SG, 2013)— one could wonder to which extent this could effectively happen. If “ideally, hopefully, the long slow process of experimentation, tolerance for mistakes and failures, and possibly even treaty revision, will begin” (Hasse, 2014), we have arguably already understood that prospects for the results of the meeting should not be placed too high as they have been severely limited in their reach and scope by the debate preparations. If systemic changes, such as a treaty reform are not to be discussed by the stakeholders, what could be realistically demanded of them to deliver? What should be the prospect of the meeting?

Perhaps, equally important is the need to expand “the lens through which drug policy considerations and evaluations are viewed.” (Felbab-Brown & Trinkunas, 2015) Indeed, we could argue that policy making and review should be grounded “on a wide-ranging scope of perspectives and effects, including considerations of national security, public safety, corruption and the integrity of political systems, economic development, public health, and human rights.” (Ibid.) Disagreements on the way to aggregate these differing perspectives is inevitable; but countries should pay great attention to policy evolution and to new evidence coming out of these newer policy experiments. As indicated by the UNDP (2015) in its contribution to the Session, countries should focus on other forms of metrics, in order to measure the success of their policies, including:

• “Goals that address root causes that contribute to supply and demand for drugs including poverty, food insecurity, lack of access to markets, health and education, lack of land tenure, lack of security, presence of armed conflict”;

• The decrease in the number of deaths by overdose, disease infection rate, and the number of people receiving harm reduction services;

• The “number of victims of drug related violence; levels of social and economic development in communities where drug production, consumption, or sale is concentrated; and underlying conditions of poverty, inequality, and insecurity that sustain cultivation of drug crops and exacerbate vulnerability to trafficking and organized crime”;

• And the potential decrease in budget linked to law enforcement, incarceration, and overall judicial system.

In this respect, we will evaluate the potential for like-minded coalition groups to be able to achieve such results, as well as the other solutions that should (and could) potentially be considered.

• (Felbab-Brown & Trinkunas, 2015) V. Felbab-Brown & H. Trinkunas, "UNGASS 2016 in Comparative Perspective: Improving the Prospects for Success", Foreign Policy at Brookings, 2015, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/FelbabBrown-TrinkunasUNGASS-2016-final-2.pdf?la=en, Accessed: 04/12/15.

• (Hasse, 2014) H. Hasse, “The 2016 Drugs UNGASS: What Does It Mean For Reform?”, Talking Drugs, September 24, 2014, http://www.talkingdrugs.org/the-2016-drugs-ungass-what-does-it-mean-for-reform, Accessed: 11/12/15.

• (Jelsma, 2011) M. Jelsma, “The Development of International Drug Control: Lessons Learned and Strategic Challenges for the Future.” Working paper prepared for the First Meeting of the Commission, Global Commission on Drug Policy, Geneva, January 24–25. http://www. globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/themes/gcdp_v1/pdf/Global_Com_Martin_Jelsma.pdf, Accessed: 17/12/15.

• (The Guardian, 2016b) N. Clegg & B. Sobotka, “A new deal on drugs is as vital as a climate change accord”, The Guardian, January 31, 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/31/new-deal-on-drugs-vital-as-climate-change-deal?CMP=share_btn_tw, Accessed: 24/02/16.

• (UN SG, 2013) United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Statement, Secretary-General’s remarks at special event on the International Day against Drug Abuse and illicit Trafficking, New York, 26 June 2013, http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=6935, Accessed: 17/12/15.

• (UNDP, 2015) United Nations Development Programme, Perspectives on the Development Dimensions of Drug Control Policy, United Nations, New York, March 2015, https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/UN/UNDP/UNDP_paper_for_CND_March_2015.pdf, Accessed: 06/07/15.