The road to #UNGASS2016: an insider account (by Steve Rolles, Transform)

There are only a few weeks to go before the Special Session of the UN General Assembly dedicated to drug policies kicks off. Expectations are high, but what can we really expect from #UNGASS2016? We asked Steve Rolles, Senior Policy Analyst at Transform, a charitable UK think thank campaigning for an end to the drug war.

Let’s start from the beginning: what has led to the organization of a Special Session of the UN General Assembly dedicated to the issues of drugs policies and who have been the key actors promoting UNGASS?

The UNGASS was called by Colombia, Mexico and Guatemala. These are countries for whom the ‘war on drugs’ isnt just rhetorical — they have carried a terrible human cost, and for them it was a case of enough is enough. They called the summit with a specific reform agenda — to consider the failings of the drug war and to “conduct deep reflection to analyze all available options, including regulatory or market measures” — which is code forlegalisation. Its the first time world leaders have gathered to discuss the drugs issue on this basis, and the first such meeting since countries, including Uruguay, the US and Canada started legalising cannabis.
There are countries where people are still being executed for doing what is completely legal in a number of countries now. The consensus around global prohibition and the whole punitive enforcement model is broken — the UNGASS is a critical moment for the world to consider a different way forward, for policy to catch up with reality. There’s is obviously also a key roll for civil society organisations and the UN agencies.

Who will take part to UNGASS and who is instead curating the preparatory works by drafting the official outcome document?

The UNGAS itself in NYC will involve all member states in the UN who have missions there and choose to participate– which is basically all of them. Unfortunately it has been negotiated exclusively in Vienna –under the control of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs which only represents 54 member states. Other countries can participate if they choose but generally do not. Also many countries from the global South have no permanent mission in Vienna so are effectively excluded — this is notably the case for most of Africa and the Caribbean. Civil society can theoretically participate in intersessionals — but few have the resources to attend these. Most of the negotiations have now moved into informals — from which civil society is excluded completely.

The actual drafting has been led by the UNGASS board led by a very conservative Ambassador Shamaa from Egypt — and it has never been clear how key decisions around the shape and content of the initial draft document have were made. They certainly were not a balanced representation of the submissions from member states, civil society and UN agencies — with most of the more reform oriented, or progressive language stripped out early on. The drafting process has been undemocratic and lacked transparency – a long way from the open and inclusive process we were promised.

Having had the opportunity to closely monitor the preparatory works, how would you describe the different stances adopted by the governments and the non-governmental organizations involved in the negotiations?

There is some polarization amongst member states between the progressive reformers, and the larger group of status quo advocates, dominated by Russia — who have really become the villains of global drug policy from a reform perspective. They seem to become more obstructionist and sinister with each passing year. Amongst NGOs the reverse is true; reform voices have dominated with the status quo defenders remarkably muted and ineffectual — it is ironic therefore that their position will likely win the day, at least as far as the outcome document.

Are there countries which are dominating the discussion and will thus be able to influence its outputs? If that is the case, are these states in support or against drug policies reform?

Russia has been very dominant. In the negotiations they can often represent more than half the interventions. Few countries seem to have the appetite to fight them and they always have their group of client states that blindly support every proposition they make — including so they tend to prevail. Its very depressing.

What is the European Union’s stance? We know the official document presented by the EU has been pretty much ignored and has not been included in the outcome document to be discussed at UNGASS. What did such document say and why was it not considered?

The EU is also bound by consensus so many of the more progressive views in the EU were not represented in its official submission. However it was a decent document on issues like human rights, proportionality of sentencing, alternatives to incarceration, the death penalty and development issues — although disappointing on decriminalization, and nothing at all on legalization or treaty reform (perhaps unsurprisingly given these are minority positions).
However, the level of engagement from the EU has been low in negotiations and the UNGASS process generally. They have not been willing to invest much political capital in defending their positions — so very few are now represented in the current draft. The Latin countries pushing for a more ambitious and forward looking document have been very disappointed by the lack of solidarity from the EU.

Looking more closely at that outcome document, how have negotiations been going?

I would say badly. The need for consensus has meant conservative voices have effectively vetoed any progressive language or substantive calls. Dialogue is dominated by a small group of powerful conservative voices, most obviously Russia and its client states, but also China and a few others. The US, so long the drug warriors on the international stage, has actually seemed quite progressive by comparison to these states. The only possibility now is that more progressive states will issue dissenting statements on some key issues — like harm reduction and the death penalty, at the UNGASS itself. There is some precedent for this.

Are there any significant news with respect to current policies?

Little to report but it looks unlikely we will see anything on the death penalty, and key language on human rights and harm reduction will be weak — probably representing a step backwards from previously agreed language. There may be something on proportionality that is OK, and essential meds — but no huge progress.