18 April 2003
Counter-Drug Policies Produce Results, U.N. Official Says
(More than 145 nations meet to assess progress in counter narcotics plan) (2160) Five years after nations of the world joined in a new coordinated counter-narcotics strategy, the head of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime says "sound drug policies produce substantially positive results." Antonio Maria Costa spoke April 16 at the Vienna meeting of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the U.N.'s policymaking body on drug issues, is hosting more than 145 delegations in Vienna to discuss international progress in meeting the goals of the Ten-Year Action Plan Against Illicit Drugs, approved in 1998 by the U.N. General Assembly. One of the key changes in international drug policies to emerge from the 1998 agreements was the concept that enforcement had to be integrated with demand reduction, giving new attention to drug abuse prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. Costa said the last five years have shown that "demand reduction works and presents opportunity costs much lower than enforcement and interdiction." The following term is used in the text: ATS Amphetamine type substance Following is the text of Costa's prepared remarks: (begin text) Commission on Narcotic Drugs 46th Session Ministerial-level Segment 16 April 2003 Statement by the Executive Director Mr. Antonio Maria Costa Madame Chairperson, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Five years ago, the Heads of Governments of the United Nations met at the General Assembly in New York (the so-called UNGASS, 1998) and called for significant progress towards reducing illicit drug production, trafficking and abuse - worldwide, within ten years. It is a pleasure to welcome you all to this first Ministerial meeting of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) to examine whether the international community is on track in reaching these goals. UNGASS in 1998: balanced, integrated and long-term The 1998 General Assembly session was a milestone on the long road towards a more effective drug control policy, for three reasons: a) First, UNGASS 1998 brought a fresh breath of air as, unanimously, governments reiterated the importance of a balanced approach. The international Conventions (of 1961, 1971 and 1988) had focused on cultivation, production and trafficking, namely on the supply side of the drug equation. The 1998 meeting gave more prominence to prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, revaluing therefore the demand side of the matter. b) Second, in 1998 Governments recast drug policies into a broader mold. This integrated approach was designed to capitalize on the inter-sectoral nature of the issues at stake (for example, linking drug flows to money flows, thus enhancing counter-money laundering activities), and on their inter-temporal dimensions (which called for long term solutions, for example providing licit income alternatives to peasants chained to drug cultivation), in a true spirit of inter-national cooperation (thus recognizing the positive-sum outcome for participants in world counter-narcotic efforts). c) UNGASS 1998 also called for improving our knowledge about drug matters. The uneven quality and quantity of drug-related data, especially epidemiological information needed for demand reduction policy, have always been a major impediment to monitoring trends and deciding on issues. The third accomplishment of UNGASS was to promote more determined international efforts to collect and systematize information for more accurate mapping of the illicit drug problem. Meetings, resolutions and actions plans are fine. But, "does drug control policy work?" Ordinary taxpayers ask this question obviously anxious that their money is well spent, yet perplexed by media attention to drug-related deaths, massive illicit revenues, crime and corruption. During the next two days, I would like to have confirmation that this question can be answered in the affirmative, and unanimously. Namely, Ministers should be able to prove that, when conditions are right, drug control policy does work, reducing illicit cultivation, interdicting narco-traffic, preventing abuse and enhancing treatment. Some of the evidence is there, for all honest people to consider. For example and most importantly, drug control has contained drug-related deaths worldwide to a few thousands per year. Although this number is still horrendously high, collective efforts on drug control have spared humanity the pain and the cost of tobacco consumption. Yet, the moral high ground acquired after one century of drug control needs to be maintained by further achievements, fulfilling the objectives of the drug control conventions, as supplemented by UNGASS 1998. In 2003: encouraging progress towards still distant goals In a brief report submitted to the attention of Ministers, my Office has provided evidence of progress that a few years back would have been considered unattainable. We summarize the good, and not-so-good news in this way: (i) There has been a strong reduction of opium and coca cultivation in Southeast Asia and the Andean countries. If sustained, especially in the Golden Triangle area, this tremendous achievement would close a 100-year chapter in the history of drug control. Opium output in Afghanistan is still increasing, but let us get it right: Afghanistan's twin problems are insecurity and instability, the two well-known foundations of illicit activity anywhere in the world. Opium-crops in Afghanistan, limited to less than 1% of the arable land and to a few thousand families are the consequence, not the cause, of a collapsed state. The government of President Karzai is strongly committed to eliminating the drug economy and we salute and support his efforts. (ii) Statistics show reduction in cocaine and heroin abuse in some of the major markets in North America and Western Europe. This shows that when policy commitment is firm, results follow. However, new markets have emerged in Eastern Europe, Russia, in other CIS states and in China. Furthermore, from the European Union's eastern borders to the far Pacific, drug abuse by injection threatens to create a public health disaster of global proportions if HIV/AIDS and other blood - borne diseases spread from the small (but growing) circle of drug abusers to the general public. Cocaine and heroin abuse are also growing along the narco-trafficking routes in Central Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean where countries, already short of resources, are forced to fight unprecedented urban violence and the infestation of criminal money. (iii) ATS abuse is evolving into "Public Enemy Number 1" for two converging reasons. First, because synthetic drugs, are resistant to supply reduction methods successful for the organic drugs. My Office's forthcoming global survey on ATS will show that that the stuff is produced everywhere in the world, in hard to detect "mom-and-pop" shops, and also in mafia-run undertakings capable of producing millions of doses. The second difficulty stems from the popular misconception that ATS are harmless. In effect, it does even more lethal damage to the brain than nicotine does to the lungs. All considered, we are facing new threats at both ends of the drug chain. (i) synthetic drugs are a new form of illicit drug production that may put an end to farmers toiling in narco-fields from the Andeans to the Golden Triangle. It is also (ii) a new form of addiction, driven by the evil mind of drug designers -- always eager to engineer, and cater to, new drug fashions. It has taken decades to develop an adequate policy for organic-based drugs. With determination, with proper communication and acting together, we shall tame this beast as well - though it will take time. (iv) Cannabis is the most widely produced, trafficked and consumed illicit drug. The health damage cannabis produces is one problem. The other problem is the spreading misperception that cannabis is a soft narcotic, and therefore that compliance with international agreements should also be soft. The latter point raises serious questions. Many developing countries, in Africa especially, are paying the consequences for other nations' soft compliance with the drug Conventions and keep reminding other contracting parties that "pacta sunt servanda", namely international agreements have to be respected, or otherwise renounced. At the moment, we see no evidence of any country intending to propose modification to, or renunciation of, existing drug conventions. As the drug situation evolves, policy is adapted What about the future? Today's presence of 146 delegations and more than 75 Ministers reaffirms the fact that the international drug control system enjoys strong political endorsement. The basic principle of shared responsibility -- in a context that is integrated, balanced and based on full knowledge -- remains the blueprint for collective action. Of course, since 1998 the drug scene has changed, calling for even greater understanding, imagination and flexibility. Policy is being adjusted accordingly, building on the foundations provided by the United Nations Conventions and the UNGASS 1998 goals. Here are three examples. (a) The world drug situation can no longer be viewed in isolation. The opening of frontiers has also led to the free movement of un-civil behaviour. Public opinion, alarmed, has become much more aware of, and involved in, appraising the risks and the consequences of drug abuse, urging Governments to place the nexus of drugs, crime and terrorism high on the policy agenda. This pressure has helped Governments decide in favor of more forceful actions to reduce and treat drug abuse. Yet, as with everything else, today the public expects quick results. Unless this evidence of results is provided -- and my Office is working hard at establishing it -- a growing number of taxpayers, individually quite opposed to drug abuse, will join the cohorts of those critical of the UN Conventions. (b) Since 1998, the notion of harm reduction has become a battleground of recrimination. In effect, every drug control measure practices harm reduction, for example when they limit the harmful consequences of drug production (by offering alternatives to farmers), of trafficking (by interdicting organized crime), or of abuse (by prevention and treatment means). There may be different opinions about the relative policy weight and resource support given to measures in the final stage of the drug chain, namely in regard to demand side. Yet the system of checks and balances of the United Nations provides a proper mechanism to ascertain whether a certain law is meant to reduce harm, or just to please some voters. The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is the body established precisely to pronounce on whether particular measures are consistent with the conventions and with the policy decided by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which is our parliamentary assembly. The Office on Drugs and Crime is the executive arm. (c) Last but not least, governments must pursue rigorously the scientific review of the possible medical uses of cannabis. Cannabis-derived medicaments are currently available under the controls applied to all medically prescribed substances. If and when more of such medicines are available, that would be a helpful development. Yet, at present we do not have adequate evidence for cannabis itself to enter the pharmacopoeia as a registered medicine, while the long-term harmful effects of its abuse are well documented. Quite disheartening is the fact that venture capitalists are getting involved in supporting medical and other market research on cannabis in the far-fetched gamble that one day, it will be legal to waste oneself by consuming it. Conclusions Madam Chairperson, The Office on Drugs and Crime has accumulated a body of evidence showing that (a) sound drug policies produce substantially positive results, when the hand at the helm remains steady; (b) demand reduction works and presents opportunity costs much lower than enforcement and interdiction; (c) alternative development succeeds if, for example, farmers' risk/reward balance is right; (d) international law enforcement, mutual legal assistance and money-laundering bring positive results. The most important conclusion, however, is that we need to accompany reduction of drug supply by equal reduction of drug demand. Otherwise, narco-prices will go up and the game never ends. Jointly, we need to work harder with those more at risk, especially through NGOs. I was gratified a fortnight ago when half a dozen of Young Civic (teenage) Ambassadors delivered to us in Vienna a check for US $ 168,000, money gathered at street corners and subway stations throughout Japan. This amount, like the previous $3.5 million Japanese youth already collected in the past ten years, will be distributed to NGOs in Asia and Africa to promote drug treatment. Just a couple of days ago, a group of European students delivered to me over 1.200.000 signatures as evidence of support, organized in Sweden, of the UN drug Conventions. Of course not everybody agrees. A few of those opposing the UN Conventions, have been invited to, and are attending this Ministerial event. We welcome their presence as we are always happy to help them understand that laissez faire in self-destruction is not a solution. For our part, the Office on Drugs and Crime will strive to work in the most effective way to fulfill its public responsibility. To paraphrase an illustrious politician: "give us the trust, and we will do the job." Thank you for your attention. (end text) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
