3/9 Post-UNGASS 2016 - The case for like-minded groups

Since the beginning of contemporary drug control policy in the 1960’s, coalitions of like-minded groups has been a core component of the history of the current regime. As noted by Robert Keohane (1967, p. 223), although it is true that “while the operation of the UN system is based ostensibly upon the engagement of individual member states”, the latter often “realize that their power is multiplied when they form common negotiating groups.” Acting as such, the countries respective influences can be demultiplexed, and the interests they intend to protect may be better safeguarded. An example of such alliance can be found in the work of David Bewley-Taylor (2012a, pp.269-270), which describes a “group of friends” formed to discuss and intend to shape the operation of the INCB in 2007. Additionally, it is worth remembering that “the first binding multilateral treaty on drugs signed at The Hague in 1912 was the final product of the endeavours of a relatively small group of (only) twelve states.” (Bewley-Taylor, 2013)

Especially if not lead by a “powerful” country, a group of like-minded member states “operating in concert is more likely to succeed in achieving reform than unilateral action.” (TNI & IDPC, 2012; Bewley-Taylor, 2012b) Consequently, in regard to prospect for UNGAS 2016, many argue that strength can be found in numbers, and an alternative consensus pushed by a group of countries could help shape policy reforms in U.N. forum, outside of the CND. Aside from already presented potential groups, the TNI and IDPC Expert Seminar Paper (TNI & IDPC, 2012), presented several groupings that could be considered:

• A locally anchored and traditional perspective group which could revolve around the religious and traditional use of certain plants such as the leaves from the coca and the khat. Grouping countries such as; Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala, Somalia, Yemen, Jamaica, Tanzania, Madagascar, India, Laos, Myanmar, and so on;

• A Latin American Group, with a wider perspective than the sole traditional use of illicit substances, notably revolving around human security, sustainability, corruption and internal conflict; and which could bring together every country of the cultural area except for Brazil;

• A cannabis regulation interest group, which could potentially allow for a broad alliance with countries from the Global South and North; from the U.S. to Jamaica, Australia, Canada, Uruguay, Colombia, Spain, The Netherlands, and Czech Republic;

• A technical issues group which would focus on regime inconsistencies and potential reform (scheduling mostly); and group mostly European countries and some Latin American ones;

• A system wide coherence group, principally concerned with drug control obligations and other conventions commitments, notably in the case of human rights, access to essential medicine, and harm reduction practices; composed more or less of the same actors;

• Finally a potential treaty reform group, which would include “countries that have recognised that drug control conventions violate their constitutions, specifically regarding possession for personal use" (TNI & IDPC, 2012); this group probably has the least potential but could actually bring together countries such as; Iran, Uruguay, Ecuador, Venezuela, U.S., U.K., and New Zealand.

Again, these groupings are not necessarily exclusive and could also somehow be parallel to one another. Some are more realistic than others, but in theory each of these angles should be potentially considered.

The need for this kind of regroupment is notably due to several challenges that are being faced by member states, including the need to shed light on the ways the current drug control regime “adversely affect various civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, in particular the needs of affected persons and those in vulnerable situations.” (IDPC, 2015g) To explore different policy options available to them in order to more clearly apprehend “the relations between the current drug control regime and human rights violations, including trends, patterns and challenges” (Ibid.) remain arguably dearly needed. If it remains an error to think that changes can happen overnight, they do need to actually start at some point.

As noted by Daniel Wolfe and Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch (2015) U.N. member states “must commit to incorporating human rights, public health, sustainable development, and harm reduction principles firmly in their drug policies.” The message from countless experts, advocates, community leaders, and drug users all over the world is quite clear: we can switch from the current, harmful set of policies with more humane, compassionate, and sensible drug regulation policies, emphasized on health and scientific evidences. But it is also true that the current fragmentation of the apparent drug control consensus “seems unlikely to be addressed with the necessary realism and candour at the forthcoming UNGASS” (IDPC, 2014a), as such, several other outcomes, which we will describe in the next article, are arguably more likely to happen.

• (Bewley-Taylor, 2012a) D.R. Bewley-Taylor, International drug control: Consensus fractured, Cambridge University Press, 2012.

• (Bewley-Taylor, 2012b) D. R. Bewley-Taylor, "Towards revision of the UN drug control conventions The logic and dilemmas of Like- Minded Groups", Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 19, March 2012, http://www.undrugcontrol.info/en/publications/legislative-reform-series-/item/3251-towards-revision-of-the-un-drug-control-conventions, Accessed: 15/12/15.

• (Bewley-Taylor, 2013) D. R. Bewley-Taylor, “Towards revision of the UN drug control conventions: Harnessing like-mindedness”, International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 60–68, January 2013.

• (IDPC, 2014a) International Drug Policy Consortium, IDPC Response to the INCB Annual Report for 2014, https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64663568/library/IDPC-response-to-the-2014-INCB-annual-report.pdf, Accessed: 12/02/15.

• (IDPC, 2015g) International Drug Policy Consortium, Panel discussion on the impact of the world drug problem on the enjoyment of human rights, 15:00-18:00, Geneva, Switzerland, September 28, 2015, http://idpc.net/events/2015/09/30th-regular-session-of-the-human-rights-council, Accessed: 11/12/15.

• (Keohane, 1967) R.O. Keohane, “The study of political influence in the general assembly”, International Organization, 21 (2), 1967.

• (TNI & IDPC, 2012) Transnational Institute & International Drug policy Consortium, Report TNI / IDPC Expert Seminar , “The Future of the UN drug conventions” Prague, January 25-26, 2012, http://www.undrugcontrol.info/images/stories/documents/Prague-Expert-seminar-report.pdf, Accessed: 11/12/15.

• (Wolfe & Malinowska-Sempruch, 2015) D. Wolfe & K. Malinowska-Sempruch, “Seventeen Years After Setting the Wrong Goal, the UN Aims to Get Drug Policy Right”, Open Society Foundations, December 17, 2015, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/seventeen-years-after-setting-wrong-goal-un-aims-get-drug-policy-right, Accessed: 22/01/16.