icon caret Arrow Down Arrow Left Arrow Right Arrow Up Line Camera icon set icon set Ellipsis icon set Facebook Favorite Globe Hamburger List Mail Map Marker Map Microphone Minus PDF Play Print RSS Search Share Trash Crisiswatch Alerts and Trends Box - 1080/761 Copy Twitter Video Camera  copyview Youtube
UNGASS – A Very Modest Drug Policy Review
UNGASS – A Very Modest Drug Policy Review

Latin American Drugs I: Losing the Fight

Coca leaf and cocaine production in the Andean region appear to have set new records in 2007. Cocaine trafficking and use are expanding across the Americas and Europe.

  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Download PDF Full Report

Executive Summary

Coca leaf and cocaine production in the Andean region appear to have set new records in 2007. Cocaine trafficking and use are expanding across the Americas and Europe. Despite the expenditure of great effort and resources, the counter-drug policies of the U.S., the European Union (EU) and its member states and Latin American governments have proved ineffective and, in part, counterproductive, severely jeopardising democracy and stability in Latin America. The international community must rigorously assess its errors and adopt new approaches, starting with reduced reliance on the measures of aerial spraying and military-type forced eradication on the supply side and greater priority for alternative development and effective law enforcement that expands the positive presence of the state. On the demand reduction side, it should aim to incarcerate traffickers and use best treatment and harm reduction methods to avoid revolving and costly jail sentences for chronic users.

Well-armed, well-financed transnational trafficking and criminal networks are flourishing on both sides of the Atlantic and extending their tentacles into West Africa, now an important way station on the cocaine route to Europe. They undermine state institutions, threaten democratic processes, fuel armed and social conflicts in the countryside and foment insecurity and violence in the large cities across the Americas and Europe. In Colombia, armed groups derive large incomes from drug trafficking, enabling them to keep up the decades-long civil conflict. Across South and Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean, traffickers partner with political instability.

Insufficient international cooperation and coordination – in particular between the U.S. and Europe but also between them and Latin America – has worked to the advantage of the drug networks. Displaying great resourcefulness, the narco-organisations exploit the policy divide between the U.S. and the EU and some member states over how best to define and conduct counter-drug strategies and which aspects of cocaine supply and demand reduction efforts should be given priority. Since there is no shared vision of the problem and how to address it, there is no concerted response, which is a necessary condition for success in dealing with transnational crime.  

Non-ideological policy rethinking is urgently required on key aspects of supply reduction. Law enforcement and interdiction would benefit from closer coordination and information sharing throughout the Americas and with Europe, but much greater recognition is also needed of the pressures produced by extreme poverty, lack of economic opportunities and basic infrastructure, and government abandonment of indigenous populations in the Andean countryside. National and international policies must include much larger investments to address the structural factors that make it easier for traffickers (in Colombia, illegal armed groups), to attract or compel rural families to cultivate coca. Aerial eradication, with impact on nearby food crops, and forced eradication by security forces, nearly always accompanied by charges of human rights abuses, engender anti-government and anti-U.S. reactions.

Cocaine demand is the driving force behind production and trafficking. That demand is largely stable in the U.S. and rising in some European and Latin American countries. Unless it can be significantly reduced around the globe, there is virtually no possibility of overcoming the threat to security in much of Latin America. The “one size fits all” criminal incarceration policies prevalent in the U.S. ignore the potential in greater attention to treatment of chronic users and stigmatising recreational users. At the same time, the prevention, treatment and harm reduction measures more prominent in Europe, where too few resources are dedicated to breaking up trafficking rings, have not stemmed increasing drug use. In 2008, ten years after the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the world drugs problem, the international community needs urgently to acknowledge mistakes and adopt fundamental policy improvements or transnational criminals will be the winners.

Crisis Group’s detailed study is divided into two complementary reports published simultaneously. This report principally examines the scope of the problem, including a detailed examination of cultivation and trafficking. The second, Latin American Drugs II: Improving Policy and Reducing Harm, analyses policies and their political and social ramifications and presents policy recommendations.

Bogotá/Brussels, 14 March 2008

A woman places a Mexican flag next to shoes belonging to a few of the scores of thousands of victims of the country’s drug wars since 2006. Monterrey, 15 January 2012. REUTERS/Daniel Becerril

UNGASS – A Very Modest Drug Policy Review

Today’s tough international regime to deal with narcotic and other dangerous drugs, Colombia’s Justice Minister Yesid Reyes said in the lead up to the latest UN policy review, is like the famous definition of insanity usually attributed to Albert Einstein: doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting different results.

Soon afterwards, President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia spoke of the international community’s inability to acknowledge the drug issue as primarily a human rights and health, not security problem. Instead, he suggested, punitive policies in the name of better security have not only failed to eliminate illicit drug flows or significantly reduce demand, but have also contributed to what appears to be ever more violence and human suffering.

Both the minister and president of the country plagued by one of the world’s biggest cocaine-production problems expressed hope the special high-level session of the UN General Assembly (UNGASS) in New York on 19-21 April would identify reforms. Many others, including International Crisis Group, also saw a rare opportunity for change. Unfortunately, that hope was misplaced: the UNGASS largely missed its chance to usher in much-needed new global drug policies.

UNGASS sparked considerable optimism in 2012, when the presidents of Colombia, Mexico and Guatemala proposed that it be held this year. They asserted that the unintended consequences of the war on drugs included too many victims and too much violence and corruption.

Latin America has suffered the most from dysfunctional drug policies dictated by the international community.

They spoke from their domestic experience. Latin America has suffered the most from dysfunctional drug policies dictated by the international community. In Mexico, scores of thousands have died in drugs-related violence since 2006; 6.5 million have been displaced in Colombia’s decades-old internal conflict fuelled in part by the drug business; and Guatemala, which transships over 80 per cent of the cocaine ultimately consumed in the U.S. on to Mexico, ranks among the world’s most violent countries. In several parts of Latin America, drug cartels and criminal groups benefit from and contribute to widespread corruption and coercion of public officials.

The presidents envisaged a gathering that would mark the historical moment when the international approach to dangerous drugs would acquire a more humanitarian cast, allowing countries hitherto bound by legal commitments undertaken in 1961 greater flexibility in dealing with their national drug issues. It was not to be.

The UNGASS final document did record some accomplishments. States agreed that the drug issue is above all a health issue and thus users should be treated with respect and given opportunities for social reintegration. They recognised that cooperation among specialised UN bodies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and UN Women, is essential in order to include drug policy in human rights and development agendas. And they agreed that the proportionality principle should be applied in criminal offences for first-time drug users and those involved at the lowest links of trafficking chains.

Reformers at the UNGASS session were disappointed.

There were however disappointments for reformers. One great frustration was hardly a surprise: despite mounting pressure from many member states, global leaders, civil society and UN agencies, a number of countries, led by Indonesia and supported among others by China, Singapore, Egypt, Pakistan and Iran, blocked agreement on a proposal to call for abolishment of the death penalty for drug offences. They then ruled out compromise wording that would urge a moratorium on such executions until a consensus could be achieved.

A second disappointment revolved around the decision to drop from the final document the widely-used term “harm reduction”, referring to measures that are alternatives to automatic criminalisation and could avoid needless spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis and tuberculosis. Governments like Uruguay, Switzerland and the Czech Republic said this amounted to a failure to recognise the value and effectiveness of the public health-oriented policies they are pursuing.

The final document’s undifferentiated placement of human rights in the same section with women, youth and communities was a third disappointment to the many states that argued for acknowledgement that human rights are a crosscutting issue. These states believe UNGASS should have emphasised the need for greater efforts to collect and analyse evidence of how drug policies differently affect women, children, youth and disadvantaged communities.

The most worrying failure of UNGASS was that it produced no real commitment for member states to conduct a critical review of their policies.

The most worrying failure of UNGASS, however, was that it produced no real commitment for member states to conduct a critical review of their policies. None of the proposals for creation of a panel of experts or an experts working group that were on the table were adopted. Missing this opportunity to bring more evidence and expertise into the contentious policy debate means that reformers may face even tougher going in 2019, when the UN is scheduled to set its drug policy agenda for the next decade.

The immediate challenge for like-minded countries, civil society and UN agencies is thus to devise alternative proposals for continuing in a more systematic manner over the next three years the immense research and evidence-collection that is under way on existing drug policies, even without the blessing and momentum that should have come from UNGASS.

If 2019 is to produce action that better reflects that achievement, however, the reformers in civil society, UN agencies and the countries that pushed for a more innovative UNGASS will need to encourage the debate’s continuation in countries that are sticking to the old rules, including the U.S.

UNGASS at least conducted an open global debate about what has gone wrong with the international control regime, breaking some long-held articles of faith. It showed that there are ways to address the threat of criminal drug cartels and illicit drug trafficking at the same time as protecting human rights, reducing violence and using proven public health methods to deal with illicit drug use.

So despite the disappointments, the Colombian minister may have material to disprove Einstein’s supposed dictum: repeated criticism of the old drugs policy may yet bring a new result. The three UNGASS days in New York, an optimist can say, did show that meaningful policy change may be closer than ever.