Breaking the Impasse

Polarisation & Paralysis in UN Drug Control
Virgina Montañés, David Bewley-Taylor
July 2002
Breaking the Impasse

This issue of Drugs & Conflict attempts to outline the possibilities for a breakthrough in the current impasse of the current international drug control regime.

The past decade has seen an increasing olarisation between divergent trends in global drug policies. On the one hand, there has been an escalation in the US driven War on Drugs, which has created a drug gulag domestically and increased and militarised forced eradication abroad. On the other hand, in Euroe and several like-minded countries, a more flexible and pragmatic approach has gained ground in domestic drug policy-making, taking distance from indiscriminate repression and the zero-tolerance approach. In these countries, the trend towards greater leniency has become irreversible and rational thinking is gradually replacing the dogmas of the past. Such tolerant approaches have reached their legal limits within the framework of the current UN Drug Conventions.

The result of the polarisation between the two main trends is paralysis at the UN level.

The 1998 United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on Drugs was originally called to evaluate the effectiveness of the current repressive drug control regime, but early in the preparatory phase the UNGASS was reoriented towards an affirmation of prohibitionism. Now, four years on, the unrealistic targets and deadlines set for 2008 at the UNGASS have proven, yet again, to be a failure. A new opportunity for evaluation could open up when the mid-term review of UNGASS takes place in April 2003.

This issue of Drugs & Conflict attempts to outline the possibilities for a breakthrough in the current impasse, which clearly lie only with some sort of change to – or defection from – the current regime. The US is anticipated to be the major obstacle but its capacity to enforce the status quo is likely to be undermined by the growing tension between its multilateral responsibilities as hegemon and the extent to which it has been demonstrating its desire and material capability to act unilaterally.

Pages: 
16pages
Edition: 
Transnational Institute
Series: 
Drugs & Conflict Debate Papers 5

Assistant researcher with focus on Colombia

Amira Armenta (Colombia/Netherlands) has a degree in Latin American history from the Université de Jussieu (Paris).

TNI Drugs and Democracy Programme Coordinator

Martin Jelsma is a political scientist who has specialised in Latin America and international drugs policy.  In 2005, he received the Alfred R. Lindesmith Award for Achievement in the Field of Scholarship, which stated that Jelsma "is increasingly recognized as one of, if not the, outstanding strategists in terms of how international institutions deal with drugs and drug policy."

In 1995 he initiated and has since co-oordinated TNI's Drugs & Democracy Programme which focuses on drugs and conflict studies with a focus on the Andean/Amazon region, Burma/Myanmar and Afghanistan, and on the analysis and dialogues around international drug policy making processes (with a special focus on the UN drug control system). Martin is a regular speaker at international policy conferences and advises various NGOs and government officials on developments in the drugs field. He is co-editor of the TNI Drugs & Conflict debate papers and the Drug Policy Briefing series.

Researcher, Drugs and Democracy Programme

Tom Blickman (1957) is an independant researcher and journalist, based in Amsterdam. Before coming to TNI he was active in the squatters and solidarity movements in Amsterdam. He worked for Bureau Jansen & Janssen, a research institute on intelligence and police matters. Now he specialises in International Drug Control Policy and Organised Crime as a researcher at TNI's Drugs & Democracy Programme.