MS Risk Blog

Hope for Global Drug Policy Reform Dashed at UN Assembly

The United Nations’ special assembly on drug policy ended without significant changes to existing drug conventions despite a push for reform from Latin American countries seeking a less prohibitionist regime. With the huge obstacles to a new international consensus made apparent, reformist countries around the region instead look set to continue national level experiments with drug policy.

This article was written by Michael Lohmuller for Insight Crime and republished with permission. See the original version here.

World leaders met at United Nations headquarters in New York City from April 19-21 to discuss global drug policy during the UN General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS). The event — held three years ahead of schedule after a 2012 request from Colombia, Mexico, and Guatemala — offered a forum to debate and rethink the UN’s existing drug policies.

Currently, global drug policy is governed by three international drug control conventions, but these have come under criticism for their punitive prohibitionist approach and their failure to bring drug trafficking and consumption under control.  Calls for their reform have been growing for several years.

However, the UNGASS revealed deep disagreements over international drug policy. The divide largely fell between countries in favor of shifting to a “humane approach” that deals with drug use as primarily a public health issue, versus those nations still favoring a strict law and order approach.

As expected, Latin American countries took the lead in advocating serious drug reform, reflecting frustration over the violence and corruption that the drug trade has caused wherever it has taken root in the region.

Latin America Leads the Charge

Numerous Latin America presidents addressed the assembly with urgent calls for reform, with the leaders of Mexico and Colombia, the two countries that have historically suffered the most from the drug trade, taking center stage.

In an April 19 speech, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto told delegates, “We should be flexible to change that which has not yielded results, the paradigm based essentially in prohibitionism, the so-called ‘War on Drugs’ … has not been able to limit production, trafficking or the global consumption of drugs.”

Peña Nieto also declared Mexico would be taking steps toward reform, telling the assembly: “I am giving voice to those who have expressed the necessity of changing the regulatory framework to authorize the use of marijuana for medical and scientific purposes.”

To that end, Peña Nieto introduced a 10-point proposal for classifying drug use as a public health issue and moving away from the criminalization of users. The following day he announced he would send to Mexico’s Congress a proposal to legalize marijuana-based medicines and increase the amount of marijuana decriminalized for personal use from 5 to 28 grams.

Peña Nieto’s sentiments were echoed by his Colombian counterpart Juan Manuel Santos, who also called for a move away from repressive and punitive drug policies to alternative approaches focused on human rights and public health.

“After so many lives that have been destroyed, after so much corruption and so much violence, after so many young people being marched off to jail, can we say that we have won the war (on drugs) or at least that we are winning it?” Santos said. “Unfortunately the answer is ‘no.'”

Support for drug policy reform also came from other leaders from around the region. Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales, for instance, called for a more humane approach to drug control based on public health, saying “people, not substances” should be at the center of global drug policy.

“In this so-called war on drugs, countries like Guatemala have carried the worst burden, having suffered the injustice of lost human life,” Morales said as he denounced the ill effects the drug trade has had for countries located along major trafficking routes.

Morales, however, did not go as far as his predecessor Otto Pérez Molina, who had surprised the international community by advocating the decriminalization of drugs after taking office in 2012.

Speaking on April 21, Bolivian President Evo Morales added to calls for more humanistic drug policies while lambasting the “failed” anti-drug strategies promoted by the United States. He even went as far as advocating the dismantling of the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), an agency Morales expelled from Bolivia in 2008.

Morales defended Bolivia‘s traditional use of the coca leaf, the main ingredient in cocaine, and criticized the militarized approach to coca eradication. However, he added that Bolivia has no intention of legalizing drugs.

Among Caribbean nations at the UNGASS, Jamaica questioned why international law still classifies marijuana as if it were as dangerous as heroin. Jamaica decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana in 2015, and created provisions for its medical, therapeutic, and religious use.

Consensus Sinks Outcome

Despite the impassioned pleas of Latin American leaders’ for a move away from the existing UN drug conventions’ emphasis on prohibition, those hoping for meaningful drug reform came away from the UNGASS frustrated.

On the special session’s opening day, member states adopted an “outcome document,” entitled “Our joint commitment to effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem” (pdf). The document, the result of months of advance negotiation in Vienna, Austria — home of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) — does not break with the framework of the UN’s current prohibitionist policies. Instead, it reaffirms a commitment to “promote a society free of drug abuse,” and recognized the three UN drug control treaties as “the cornerstone of the international drug control system.”

While the statement does acknowledge public health concerns and recognizes “alternative or additional measures with regard to conviction or punishment,” it does not discuss drug decriminalization or harm reduction, two central aspects of calls for reform. As a result, the “outcome document” has come under heavy criticism from drug policy advocates who say it amounts to little more than minor tweaks to the UN’s existing conventions.

A statement released by drug reform campaigners the Global Commission on Drug Policy (pdf) said: “The document does not acknowledge the comprehensive failure of the current drug control regime to reduce drug supply and demand. Nor does [it] account for the damaging effects of outdated policies on violence and corruption as well as on population health, human rights and well-being.”

Former presidents turned drug policy critics also condemned the results of the assembly. Ex-Colombian President César Gaviria Trujillo said the UN’s aim of a drug-free society is “unrealistic, totally naïve, almost stupid,” while ex-Swiss premier Ruth Dreifuss said “the world community is not ready, is not willing, to have the change of politic that is absolutely necessary,” reported the Guardian.

The reason for the outcome document’s boilerplate wording and lack of meaningful reform reflects how UN drug policies are formed: consensus.

Beyond Latin America, many nations continue to push for punitive, even draconian, anti-drug policies. Chief among these is Russia, which VICE News reports took an extremely intransigent stance during negotiations over the document’s text in Vienna. In addition to Russia, other drug hardliners include Indonesia, China, and Iran, all of which routinely execute drug offenders.

What Comes Next?

Ultimately, the UNGASS’ failure to make meaningful changes to existing international drug control conventions means it is likely nations will continue to diverge and experiment with drug policy at the national level, particularly with marijuana and particularly in the Americas.

This is most immediately apparent in the case of Mexico and Peña Nieto using the UNGASS to announce changes to marijuana laws. In this, Mexico is joining a host of countries around the region in liberalizing marijuana laws, not least Uruguay, which is set to soon begin implementing the state regulated legal sale of marijuana for recreational use, becoming the first nation worldwide to do so.

Further to the north, the United States looks set to maintain its role at the forefront of marijuana legalization, albeit despite, not because of the national government. Four US states, including Colorado and Washington, now allow the sale of marijuana for recreational use, while another 24 have legalized medical marijuana. Canada‘s health minister, meanwhile, announced during the UNGASS that legislation to legalize marijuana would be introduced in 2017. Canada‘s new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned on a promise to legalize and regulate recreational marijuana, saying it would fix a “failed system.”

In addition to marijuana laws, reformist states are also likely to explore further policies with a focus on public health rather than law and order, as has already been seen — with varying levels of success — in countries across the region.

Given the powerful defenders of the status quo and glacial pace of building international consensus, national experiments are likely to represent the future of drug policy reform for the foreseeable future. What remains to be seen is whether prohibitionist international conventions will continue to dominate in the face of this challenge, or whether their global influence will be eroded by localized attempts to change the paradigm.

This article was written by Michael Lohmuller for Insight Crime and republished with permission. See the original version here.

Belgian Suspect Charged in Paris Attacks

On 20 April, Belgian prosecutors announced that a suspect in the 22 March Brussels bombings has been charged with involvement in last year’s attacks in Paris, France. Osama Krayem, a 23-year-old Swedish national, was arrested in Brussels earlier this month. The Belgian judge responsible for the Paris attacks investigation has now charged him with terrorist murder and participating in a terrorist group. According to sources, he is suspected of purchasing the suitcases that were used to carry the Brussels bombs. Krayem was also caught on CCTV with metro bomber Khalid el-Bakraoui shortly before he blew himself up. He is already facing terrorism charges in relation to the Brussels attacks.

According to the Belgian federal prosecutor, Osama Krayem was picked up in Ulm in southern Germany by a hire car that was retuned by key Paris attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam and had travelled to Belgium. The prosecutor disclosed that ‘The investigation showed that (Krayem) could be placed in different safe houses used by the terrorist group,” including a location in Schaerbeek. Krayem grew up in Malmo in southwestern Sweden. According to a relative, her nephew “just disappeared” and later phoned his family to say that he had left to join the so-called Islamic State (IS) group. Last week, his lawyers disclosed that he was co-operating with the authorities.

In March, three suicide bombers killed 32 people at Zaventem airport and the Maelbeek metro station in Brussels, Belgium.   He attacks occurred just days after the arrest in Brussels of Salah Abdeslam, who had been on the run for four months. Officials believe that the attacks in Brussels may have been moved up over concerns that Abdeslam would give critical information about the terrorist cell to authorities.

Sino-Indian Relations: Between Tensions and Rivalry

In 1962, China and India were at war. The conflict was a territorial dispute about two portions of the border: the Askai Chin in the western part and the Arunachal Pradesh eastward. India considered these areas as part of its national territory due to the frontier legacy of the British Indian Empire. China, one its hand, rejects the legitimacy of these “colonial” plots and believes that the two areas are an extension of its regions of Tibet and Xinjiang. Winning the war, Beijing had imposed its sovereignty over Aksai Chin while withdrawing troops from Arunachal Pradesh, allowing New Delhi to re-establish its authority. Since then, the status quo prevails but the dispute keeps poisoning the bilateral relationship of the two asian giants.

Territorial tensions: towards a peaceful border?

In September 1993, China and India signed an agreement “to maintain peace and tranquillity” along their disputed Himalayan border. This agreement between the two Asian giants – which required both sides to respect the Line of Actual Control (LAC), that is to maintain the status quo pending a peaceful, final boundary settlement and to reduce military forces along the border in accordance with the principle of “mutual and equal security” – has been described as a “landmark agreement” and “a significant step forward” in their uneasy relations since the 1950s.

However, incidents might still occur within the border. In April 2013, in the border between the Chinese Tibet and the Indian Ladakh, an incident happened between the two. In April, around 50 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army entered in a territory the Indian considers their territory. Chinese militaries established a camp of about 5 tents whereas the Indian soldiers established their position about 300 meters away. The face to face lasted about 3 weeks and stopped in May, when an agreement has been signed by both parties, requiring each side to withdraw from the disputed area. Hence, this Himalayan region seems to remain a source of unsolved tension between India and China.

Maritime rivalry

In the South China Sea (SCS), the rivalry between India and China is also a current issue. Indeed, SCS is a multi-party maritime dispute involving China, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. Of the 3.5 million sq. km. area of the SCS, almost 70 per cent is disputed. Even though India does not claim any of the islands of this area, India, under Vietnam’s request, explores oil within the region. China opposes this oil exploration in the SCS) by calling the area of exploration a ‘disputed’ area and asserting ‘Chinese sovereignty’ over the SCS. It has been continuously expressing its reservation in this regard in the last few years. India has taken note of the Chinese reservation and has carefully gone ahead in signing a few agreements with Vietnam for oil exploration in the SCS.

These tensions over the SCS seem to be not only about oil but also about influence within the region of South East Asia. China is in conflict with all the other parties involved in the SCS and numerous incidents happen with ships and fishermen boats within this region. India, on the other hand, seems to use this conflict to enhance its influence by supporting China’s rivals in the SCS. In addition, India is able to send warships into the South China Sea and that can make China nervous.

Sino-Pakistani relations: a source of tension

The cooperation between China and Pakistan is another source of tension and of preoccupation for India. Indeed, Pakistan is the historical rival of India and the territorial dispute over the Kashmir region has been unresolved for the last half century.

Started in 1962, China and Pakistan got closer whereas Pakistan was the historical rival of India. In 1963, both countries signed a Border Agreement. The cooperation is deep and various: for example, the Pakistani army’s equipment is 60% Chinese. Also, China is currently engaged on a variety of investment projects and infrastructural building activities in the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), and these will be expanded under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project.

Hence, Chinese officials call their investment and activities in POK as ‘livelihood project’; not being ‘political’, they are just ‘commercial’ in nature. Until now, China has maintained a ‘neutral’ position on the Kashmir dispute in recent times, particularly after the Kargil conflict, terming it as a ‘bilateral historical dispute’ between India and Pakistan. China’s presence in PoK has emerged is an issue between India and China. China’s massive commercial presence in PoK through CPEC would render China’s formal neutrality over the Kashmir issue irrelevant.

Two giant’s partnerships

Even though tensions occur within the two countries, many partnerships and diplomatic gestures illustrate their relations. Several agreements have been signed between Shanghai and New Delhi such as the India-China Strategic and Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity in 2005. The May 2015’s agreements is another example: China and India signed in Shanghai 21 commercial and cooperation agreements for an amount of 22 billion of dollars. From an economic point of view, commercial trades have significantly increased: from 3 billion in 2000 to 61,7 billion in 2010. China became one of the first economic partners of India.

These agreements also shows the diplomatic relations between China and India with different agreements such as: “(…) with both sides showing mutual respect and sensitivity to each other’s concerns, interests and aspiration” or The two sides believed that enhanced military ties are conducive to building mutual trust and confidence”.

Moreover, the respective leaders have been welcomed in the other country several times in the last decades.

(The full Joint Statement here: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=121755)

Battle for spheres of influence

India and China do play a great game of sorts, competing for economic and military influence in Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka. But these places are generally within the Greater Indian subcontinent, so that China is taking the struggle to India’s backyard. The whole map of Asia now spreads out in front of defence planners in New Delhi and Beijing, as it becomes apparent that the two nations with the largest populations in the world are encroaching upon each other’s spheres of influence. And so, India and China are eyeing each other warily.

Impact on Boko Haram Remains Unclear After Leader of Splinter Group is Arrested

Nigeria’s security services have hailed the arrest of the leader of a Boko Haram splinter group Ansaru, Khalid al-Barnawi, stating that it will lead them to other senior Islamist commanders operating in the northern region of the country.

Barnawi, who has been designated a global terrorist by the United States since 2012, was detained on 1 April along with three others in Kogi state capital, Lokoja. During his arrest, he was found with four Thursday satellite phones, with a source indicating that the phones “provided several leads” to “high-profile Boko Haram and Ansaru elements” in the capital, Abuja, Lokoja and the central city of Jos. According to one security source, “the arrest of Barnawi is a huge success and will have a profound effect on counter-terrorism operations in Nigeria and beyond,” adding, “he is a known transnational terrorist and the backbone of all al-Qaeda affiliate groups in West Africa.” Another source further indicated that “this has been our biggest breakthrough against terrorism in Nigeria ever,” adding, “we still have other high-ranking terrorists on our radar based on the information gathered from the phones of Barnawi and his three comrades. We will rope them in at the right time.”

The capture of Barnawi is definitely a success for Nigerian intelligence, with the Department of State services (DSS) calling him “a trained terrorist commander” who also recruited for al-Qaeda affiliates. He is also accused of masterminding a string of kidnappings of Westerners between 2011 and 2013. In a statement released on 9 April, which accompanied a mug shot of Barnawi, the DSS disclosed that “this arrest is a major milestone in the counter-terrorism fight.”

While security analysts agree that he is the most high-profile capture since the start of the Islamist insurgency in 2009, it remains unclear what effect it will ultimately have on operations on the ground. Boko Haram has been severally affected by an aggressive fight back from the Nigerian military and since January, the militant group has lost territory and its capacity to mount conventional attacks. President Muhammadu Buhari has also gone so far as to say that the militants were “technically” defeated despite suicide and bomb attacks continuing in northeastern Nigeria and in neighbouring Cameroon and Niger. However Barnawi’s arrest, who trained in Sudan, Afghanistan and with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), is only part of a larger organization that continues to operate despite setbacks. Furthermore, Ansaru’s terrorist activities likely will not be affected by his capture.

There was also confusion last month when Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau indicated in a video that his time in charge of the group was running out. The video, however was following a week later but another one, which did not feature Shekau but which maintained that he was still in charge and dismissed any suggestion of surrender.

Memo warns of Possible Attacks in Ghana and Togo

According to a memo from Ghana’s Immigration Service, Ghana and Togo are the next targets for Islamist militants following high-profile attacks that occurred in Burkina Faso and Ivory Coast this year.

The memo calls for better border protection, in what is the latest sign of a heightened government response to the threat to West Africa by militants based in northern Mali, who in the last year have increased their campaign of violence. The memo also states that the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) has evidence from neighboring Ivory Coast from the interrogation of a man suspected of orchestrating an attack on 13 March in which 19 people were killed. The memo, which is dated 9 April and which was published by Ghanaian media, states that “intelligence gathered by the …NSCS indicates a possible terrorist attack on the country is real….The choice of Ghana according to the report is to take away the perception that only Francophone countries are the target.” The memo ordered immigration agents on the northern border with Burkina Faso to be extra vigilant and disclosed that patrols should be stepped up along informal routes between the two countries.

In an interview on state radio’s Sunrise FM on Thursday, President John Mahama asked for public vigilance and stated that Ghana was also at risk from home grown militants. He further noted that countries in the region share intelligence on militant threats. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) has claimed responsibility for attacks on a hotel in the capital of Mali last November, a restaurant and hotel in Burkina Faso’s capital in January and the Ivory Coast attack in March. In all, more than 65 people have died, many of them foreigners.