top of page
Search

The Lao PDR - The Compulsory Drug Detention Centres (CDDCs) - 3/4 UNODC involvement

  • Benjamin-Alexandre Jeanroy
  • Jun 10, 2016
  • 7 min read

  • Involvement of foreign donors and UNODC

There is a commonly made misinterpretation of the U.N. system which often leads public perception to see U.N. agencies as entities with a mind of their own. Although this is accurate to a certain extent in regard to operational activities, it is really the member states agreed policies and compromise which govern the core activities of organizations notably in regard to funding. This is of significance in regard to the relationship in between UNODC, major donors and the CDDCs.

The 2012 U.N. Joint Statement on “Compulsory drug detention and rehabilitation centres" declared that: “Large numbers of people who use and inject drugs are held in compulsory drug detention centres without their informed consent, often without proper judicial process, facing treatment interventions that are not evidence based, and in contradiction with medical ethics and human rights.” (UNAIDS, 2012) This common position, impulsed by UNAIDS and other health-oriented U.N. agencies such as the OMS, has for some years now lead to the denunciation of the centers. Almost all U.N. agencies have been publicly vocal against such facilities. While UNODC has now join the ranks, this has not always been the case.

between 2001 and 2012, donors, including the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the US State Department's International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) office, the German Development Agency, the Singaporean Embassy and Singapore International Foundation, provided financial support to the center, including for the construction of a health clinic, vocational training programs, and building renovations but also expanding the number of people the facility could detain, creation of women facilities and build walls and fences.(1)blindly acceptedseem happy to claim that conditions have improved.Several observers have noted that “. As the HRW Director of the health and human rights division Joe Amon declared, foreign donors have “” (HRW, 2012)” (Amon & al., 2014) Additionally, the 2012 HRW report points out the role of international donors, in the construction and renovation of the centers which have fail to react upon the various human rights abuses committed within the facilities ” the official story regarding the voluntary basis on which inmates are supposed to be accepted in the centre and “

In March 2012 - the same month the joint U.N. statement calling for the closure of detention centers was released (UNAIDS, 2012) - “UNODC co-sponsored a fashion show to raise funds for the Somsanga drug detention center in Lao PDR.” (2) (Amon & al., 2014) In June 2012, a month before the release of the HWR report on the centers, the U.S. Embassy announced in a press release further funding to be provided “to upgrade the treatment of drug addicts at the Somsanga Treatment Center and at other centers.” (U.S., 2012) HRW reported then that “no mention was made of ensuring respect for due process or the human rights of those detained or monitoring to ensure that US funding did not further rights abuses.” (HRW, 2012)

According to the UNODC Lao PDR office website, the U.N. agency also provided technical support to the Somsanga centre in the past, notably under the Sub-Project LAO/F13 to “provide a suitable basic setting for drug detoxification and rehabilitation and to implement vocational training activities” (UNODC, 2011) in order to increase the “chances of rehabilitation of former drug users.” (Ibid.) Attached to a larger UNODC Alternative Development project, the vocational training program revealed itself to be quite unsuccessful due to local and cultural specificities (3) and was subsequently terminated when the LAO/F13 project came to term in 2011 (4).

Although the U.S. still engages in this kind of support, UNODC, notably through the pressure of of other significant donors such as Australia and the E.U., has slowly started to back down from the projects. Ultimately making of the CDDCs a new “redline” for potential future drug control-related foreign aid. To justify involvement, as well as subsequent direct and indirect responsibilities of UNODC - and by extension of foreign donors - often amounts to put forward the necessity to ameliorate the conditions of detention of the 'patients'. But allocating funds to such centers, without verification processes nor specific human rights mentions, cannot be easily disregarded.

  • How UNODC evolved on the matter

UNODC claimed not to have been aware of the abuses committed in Somsanga prior to the release of the HRW Report. The agency expressed its “concerns” in 2012 through the voice of Bangkok based UNODC regional representative Gary Lewis: “The UN’s position on the issue of compulsory centers is clear. The UN does not support the compulsory center approach for addressing illicit drug use in the society because the approach provides neither effective drug treatment nor rehabilitation.” (HRW, 2012) In May, 2012, UNODC released its policy guidance addressing human rights risks of engagement in CDDCs, expressing its preoccupation in relation to human rights violations in the detention centers: “Direct UNODC support to any institution in which the above violations [lack of due process, lack of evidence-based treatment, lack of harm reduction, mistreatment] are present places UNODC at an unacceptably high risk of providing aid or assistance to human rights abuses. UNODC must in such cases either work with these institutions to improve the human rights situation, or to consider withdrawal of support.” (UNODC, 2012a, p. 13)

Since then, officially, the agency has not been involved in any way with the centre, but no investigation was launched by the U.N. to review the implication of the agency in the matter. Funding withdrawal from the agency was expected and highly desirable, but was never publicly acknowledged. Furthermore, this public denunciation from the agency has proven to be the cause of a small inconvenience when researchers from UNODC wished to visit the place. Several demands were sent to the MoPS, but UNODC was always denied access to the Somsanga center (5).

During the 2015 CND 58th Session, UNODC stated that it “works with Member States to implement treatment, care and rehabilitation interventions which are integrated into a public health approach and offer the population affected the highest standards of medical care available for persons with a chronic health condition.” (CND 58th Session, Item 8, 2015) The agency further insisted during the meeting that it “works towards the availability of good quality drug dependence treatment and towards rehabilitation services that are voluntary and based on scientific evidence and medical standards and provides advice on alternatives to conviction or punishment, in conformity with the International Drug Control Conventions.” (Ibid.)

In this regard, UNODC has clearly stated that “where treatment is necessary, it should be provided by a multi-professional team of practitioners under the auspice of the health-care system” (6) (Ibid.), adding that “appropriate coordination of the criminal justice system and treatment system should be in place, with due consideration for medical confidentiality, and criminal justice personnel should be trained in the specificities of drug use and the needs of drug dependent offenders.” (CND 58th Session, Item 8, 2015) Today, the topic of the CDDC is becoming highly problematic for foreign donors and several of them - including the E.U and Australia -, have started to threaten to pull out entirely of drug control funding in the country if these centers were not closed as soon as possible.

In respect to the relative evolution of the agency on the matter, UNODC recognized in 2015 that “some national drug control systems still rely to a large extend on sanctions and imprisonment, instead of health care” and that “compulsory treatment and punitive measures in the name of treatment are still common practice in some countries.” (CND 58th Session, Item 8, 2015) Although, the recognition and denunciation of such practice is critical, it could explain how the U.N. agency continues to work with countries, which still run CDDCs, officially in order to help speed up the transition from compulsory centers to community based treatment for example. in this regard, the case of the Lao PDR is interesting to observe.

(1) As HRW points out, “the US Embassy in Vientiane has been one of the main international supporters of the Somsanga center in Lao PDR over the last decade, and among the uses of US funds has been the construction of detention blocks and fences.” (HRW, 2012)

(2) See: Spot On Laos, 2012.

(3) Theoretically, specific training included handcrafting, wood and clothes confection. All of which happened to be some of the most developed small scale industries in the country, with decades and sometimes generation of knowledge and expertise. Against whom, the newly formed reformed substance users could hardly compete. (Interview with UNODC Consultant, 09/10/15).

(4) Interview conducted on the 24/10/15 with UNODC personnel

(5) The author ended up visiting the Somsanga through an official visit made by the Australian Embassy (a significant drug-control donor in the country). We went to the LCDCS office and got picked up by black SUVs and headed towards the out-realm of the town. Fifteen minutes later an imposing structure of concrete, surrounded by barbed wire and high walls appeared, the sun reflecting upon the Somsanga detention centers sign which bears the UNODC and US Embassy logos. The visit was short and mostly insipid as what we were shown seemed to be “model” inmates/patients and very clean facilities which still smelled of the detergent used in the morning in order to clean the cells up for the visit.

(6) See also: UNODC, 2009c, p. 5.


Коментарі

 

UPEACE

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