The 2009 Commission on Narcotic Drugs and its High Level Segment: more cracks in the Vienna consensus

Abstract

many member states as well as some parts of the UN control apparatus. Indeed, despite the severe and increasingly obvious limitations of the current law enforcement-dominated international strategy, the final texts are remarkably similar to those originating from the 1998 meeting. And it was such an apparent disconnect between some aspects of the UN drug control system and the reality of the current global situation that ensured the emerging divisions among a growing number member states would gain such prominence at this year’s CND. To be sure, over the course of the UNGASS decade, it has become increasingly clear that what has been described as the global drug control regime (Andreas & Nadelmann, 2006) has been undergoing a twin process of transformation and weakening. (For an earlier discussion of this process see Bewley-Taylor, 2006.) It is true, as both Mr Costa and the President of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Professor Hamid Ghodse, were keen to point out at the HLS that the drug control treaties retain an extremely high level of adherence; more than 180 states are currently parties to all three conventions. Yet, such impressive levels of adherence do much to obscure a more textured and revealing analysis of the regime’s true health. Indeed, the concept of regime adherence, or robustness, should be regarded as only one rather blunt indicator of its stability. Other more telling indicators involve an examination of regime effectiveness; a variable that The High Level (political) Segment (HLS) of the 52nd session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) took place on 11-12 March at the UN Office in Vienna. Here, political representatives from more than 130 countries gathered to conclude a two-year review of progress achieved by the international drug control system against the goals set by the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS) in 1998. At that session, in New York, states had committed themselves to work towards eliminating or reducing significantly the illicit production of cocaine, cannabis and opium, and the illicit manufacture and trafficking of psychotropic substances, as well as achieving significant and measurable results in the field of demand reduction by the then planned review in 2008. After six gruelling months of inter-state negotiation, the HLS was also the venue for the announcement of a new political declaration and accompanying plan of action. These, like their predecessors 11 years earlier, would set the framework for international drug control for the next decade or so. However, while containing some positive elements, for example references to fundamental human rights, the documents are in the main disappointing. For instance, although the Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Antonio Maria Costa, insisted that health should be the priority of the drug control system, both texts remained noticeably silent on the issue. In many ways, they represent the status quo, ‘more of the same’ mindset of David Bewley-Taylor David Bewley-Taylor is a senior lecturer in the School of Humanities, Swansea University. He is currently completing a monograph on the UNGASS decade funded by the J Paul Getty Jr Charitable Trust.