• Most Latin American states have generated some drone capabilities for military or security purposes, as well as scientific and environmental purposes, but their approaches have varied widely. This is also the case in terms of the policy aims that they seek to achieve. These vary between acute counterinsurgency or counter-narcotics problems and more diffuse longer-term foreign policy aims.

• The defence industrial approaches of the different countries range from the utilisation of already existing capacities to elaborate international co-development and co-production schemes. The deployment of drones, however, has contributed to the long-term process of blurring the lines between state activities (counter-narcotics, counterinsurgency, and border patrol).

• Drones have permitted governments in the region to expand their surveillance and ‘remote’ control over populations in both urban centres and (more) marginalised rural communities.

• Despite a few voices calling for weaponisation, drones remain unarmed and no Latin American government has carried out a kinetic operation. Drones, however, have participated in more indirect forms of violence (e.g. crop spraying) and the intelligence provided by drones has aided governments in kill/capture operations against drug traffickers, guerrilla members, and (illegal) border crossers.

Scanning the horizon: Drones and counter-narcotics in Latin America

In this report, IDPC and the Global Drug Policy Observatory take a critical look at the narratives that the UN drug control system constructs to justify its own existence, and to create an appearance of success.

2021 marked the 60th anniversary of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the founding document of the UN drug control regime. The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) marked this occasion by including an assessment of the global drug control regime’s performance in its Annual Report 2020.

In line with its recent shift towards human rights, the INCB acknowledges some shortfalls in the functioning of the regime, particularly in relation to availability of internationally controlled substances and efforts to deal with various facets of illegal drug markets, as well as with regards to the widespread rights violations associated to drug control.

However, in a determined effort to deflect attention away from the problematic aspects of the regime itself, the INCB sets out to shift all responsibility for failures away from the treaty framework and its institutions, and on to states themselves.

The new IDPC/GDPO analysis argues that such an approach ignores the powerful normative expectations generated by the regime, and it points out that the INCB continues to promote the erroneous view that the drug control conventions and human rights instruments are mutually reinforcing. Ultimately, an intellectually honest analysis of the regime’s performance is necessary for meaningful progress.

The INCB on human rights: A critique of the report for 201

The INCB on cannabis: A critique of the report for 2018

IDPC response to the 2017 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2016 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2015 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2014 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2013 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2012 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2011 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2010 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2009 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2008 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2007 INCB Annual Report

Publications

Scanning the horizon: Drones and counter-narcotics in Latin America

(Re)framing regime performance: A critique of the INCB report for 2020