CND68: Historic vote initiates overdue review of UN drug control “machinery”

UN Member States initiate an overdue review of the UN drug control “machinery” with a newly emerging political alliance

Against a backdrop of global turmoil and multilateral rupture, the 68th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs ended on Friday 14th March with a turning point in the history of global drug policy. With a striking majority of 30 votes in favour, 18 abstentions, and 3 votes against - Argentina, Russia, and the United States - the United Nations’ main drug policy-making body decided to create a panel of independent experts to rethink the global drug control regime.

The Commission also offered a glimpse of a different multilateral order, led by an emerging new alliance of Global South and Global North countries united in defence of the principle of common and shared responsibility against a belligerent and uncompromising United States. Led by Colombia, this nascent group has the potential to find a cross-regional vision for a new approach to a failed drug control system that wreaks worldwide devastation on health and human rights.

Digesting the true implications of this session will require more time to reflect. Here we offer some initial food for thought in relation to Colombia’s successful initiative.

1. The United States is not all-powerful. At the start of the week, the US delegation shook the CND with a breathtakingly arrogant opening statement that broke the basic premise of the so-called Vienna spirit by disrespecting other Member States in directly naming and blaming Canada, China and Mexico for the US domestic toxic drug crisis that has caused hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths. This was followed with inflexible positions and a general unwillingness to negotiate throughout the week. By Friday arrogance had turned into isolation. At the closing of the session, the United States went on to lose all substantive policy votes, accompanied only by new bedfellows Argentina and Russia.

2. The voting genie is out of the bottle. In 2024, the historical vote on the term ‘harm reduction’ broke the long-standing adherence to finding consensus as the only possible decision-making process in global drug policy. This year the CND witnessed no less than 10 votes, including voting on all six resolutions.

The new reality - resisted by Member States for so long - that the CND can in fact operate through voting is starting to sink in, and given the fraught state of geopolitics this is unlikely to change anytime soon. Voting frees the CND from pointless negotiations resulting in disappointing and meaningless texts in the name of consensus. Voting may also mean that more progressive resolutions can be passed as it becomes harder for one Member State or a small group of States to hold language hostage. The negotiation tactics at the CND will need to adjust in line with this new climate and Colombia demonstrated excellent diplomatic talent last week towards this end.

3. Vienna is likely to get even more politicised - but reactionary politics have few supporters. The long revered ‘Vienna spirit’ and a prohibitionist consensus at the CND has papered over very real frictions in approaches to drug policy - and to world affairs in general. This is no longer the case. The United States chose to put the reactionary culture wars of the Trump administration at the forefront of every intervention. This was particularly notable in the push against the concept of gender, and in the attempt to erase the Sustainable Development Goals from the standing agenda of the CND itself. Crucially, the other States did not cave in just to preserve the Vienna consensus, but stood up to protect these values even if that meant risking a vote.

4. This vote is only the beginning. The landmark resolution led by Colombia, that noted that the CND has a mandate ‘to consider what changes may be required in the existing machinery for the international control of narcotic drugs’, establishes a:

‘multidisciplinary panel of 19 independent experts, acting in their personal capacity, to prepare a clear, specific, and actionable set of recommendations aimed at enhancing the implementation of the three drug conventions, as well as the obligation of all relevant international instruments, and the achievement of all international drug policy commitments’.

Ten members of the panel will be appointed by the CND, five by the UN Secretary General, three by the International Narcotics Control Board; and one by the World Health Organisation. Members will be required to reflect a diversity of expertise, regions, and policy approaches.

The panel will have two years to prepare its recommendations, which will feed into the next high-level review of international drug policy commitments in 2029.

This panel constitutes an extraordinary opportunity to propose serious changes to the drug policy regime to truly serve the ultimate aim of the conventions - the protection of the health and welfare of humankind.

The review should integrate expertise that is usually excluded from drug policy-making in Vienna - bringing in the long-standing contributions of UN experts and agencies in the fields of health and human rights. A mandate that includes ‘all relevant international instruments’ is a clear reference to international human rights law, which must play a central role in this assessment.

But make no mistake - political opposition will be fierce at every stage of the process. The liquidity crisis at the UN may be used - by the very same country that caused it - to stall the review. One of several concessions that was made to garner support for the proposal was to make UNODC the secretariat of the panel - which could compromise its effectiveness and objectivity.

Immediately after the adoption of the resolution, Ambassador Laura Gil of Colombia made clear that this process seeks to integrate the needs and concerns of all Member States, even if their approach to the world drug situation diverges from that of Colombia. However, she reminded delegates of the extraordinary high price that her country has paid to fight the drug trade and that urgent change is necessary:

“...every and each Colombian understands and feels that the global drugs problem casts a shadow over all of us, and this panel is an invitation under the aegis of the conventions to rethink, to revisit the principle of common and shared responsibility today, now. And my country has sacrificed more lives than any other in the war on drugs that was imposed on us… Our best men and women, and the lion’s share of our national budget has been devoted to tackling illicit trafficking. We need new and more effective means to implement a global system. Continuing the same will not lead anywhere fruitful.”

With her tireless, inclusive and considerate diplomatic efforts, Ambassador Gil achieved incredible cross regional support for this resolution with Member States that would not traditionally be seen as ‘like-minded’ voting in favour including South Korea, Japan and Zimbabwe among others. Strong supportive words from the Ambassador of Côte d’Ivoire (who also voted in favour) followed her intervention, illustrating clearly the potential of working in a genuinely multilateral spirit. This was also echoed in the coordination of the European Union and other like-minded countries in the Global North, even if that meant going against their closest historical ally - the United States.

Civil society and affected communities, including people who use drugs, Indigenous Peoples and farmers of crops deemed illicit must play a prominent role in the review process.

We have said for years that the consensus-paralysed CND was at risk of losing relevance in global drug policy making. The consensus thawed in 2024 and has now been comprehensively torn apart. The expert panel brings a historical opportunity for change. This opportunity must not be wasted.