Vienna after consensus: Report of the 68th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs

Make sure to also check out our post-CND webinar: CND68 and drug policy reform: Unpacking key implications

Executive summary

The 68th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) was marked by two parallel and overlapping crises that exacerbated each other. First, the ongoing breakdown of the ‘Vienna spirit’ – the set of practices that created for decades an appearance of universal support for the global drug control regime. Second, the emergence of the new Trump administration, which came to power just before the CND. The USA immediately halted almost all funding to the United Nations (UN), which was already ensnared in a serious liquidity crisis, whilst challenging many of its norms and institutions. Both are historical developments whose impacts will unfold over the years. However, several tentative lessons can be drawn.

The end of consensus may transform the CND into a vibrant policy making body – if Member States are willing to seize this opportunity.
For decades, adherence to consensus kept the CND locked in a stagnant policy space, repeating old language and ignoring the failures of the existing system. But after a historical vote in 2024 on harm reduction, consensus finally collapsed in 2025, with all six resolutions adopted by a vote. Delegations that want to move the global conversation forward can now bring resolutions on topics that were previously blocked by a few Member States. Negotiations are likely to be more time-consuming, and resolutions may become fewer. But this may yet turn the CND into a vibrant multilateral body, with more diplomacy, debate, and evidence-based policy making.

No ‘safe’ or ‘technical’ topics will offer protection from polarisation.
This year, resolutions on conventional themes such as the prevention of drug use or the protection of law enforcement officers were hotly debated until the last moment and brought to a vote. There is no refuge from polarisation at the CND. In view of that, Member States may want to use their time and resources to address topics and language that move the international discussion forward, rather than vainly attempting to play it safe.

The independent review panel presents a historical opportunity, but some countries may attempt to challenge its legitimacy.
In a historical development, the CND agreed to establish an independent expert panel to review the UN drug control machinery, with 30 votes in favour, 18 abstentions, and only 3 votes against. Colombia’s sustained diplomacy reassured other countries that it was not trying to impose its own policy views, but to address through the multilateral system a problem that has threatened its stability for decades. However, many countries would have preferred a weaker review mechanism, and will look at the process with circumspection. If they cannot control the process, repressive countries may play to these fears by portraying the panel as an attempt to usurp the role of the CND.

Colombia and its allies will have to work hard to preserve a global majority for reform.
The Colombian resolution was backed by a new global majority, with support from countries across all regions. Only Argentina, Russia, and the USA voted against. Such a coalition would have been unthinkable just a few months before. However, positions are likely to continue realigning in the coming years, often influenced by dynamics beyond the CND and drug policy debates. In this unstable landscape, Colombia and its allies will struggle to maintain the unity of the 60 country-strong coalition that called for a revision of the international drug control framework in 2024.

The second Trump administration will keep bringing to Vienna its reactionary culture wars. The origin of this reactionary agenda must be found in US domestic politics and in the preferred tropes of the global far right. So far, the main targets have been the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, transgender persons, and the World Health Organization (WHO). As it is fitting with this ideology, the USA displayed an overall disrespectful tone, shamed its historical allies, was inflexible in negotiations. Threats, tariffs, and mockery left the USA isolated this time around, with Argentina as its only partner. But the Trump administration is unlikely to stop pushing this agenda across the UN.

It remains to be seen whether the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) and the CND will resist the temptation to accommodate the demands of the Trump administration. The USA still holds huge political influence and budgetary leverage. At this CND session, it made clear that it would only fund UN activities that align with ‘America first’ principles. Statements by the UNODC and INCB on border control and interdiction seemed designed to appeal to Washington D.C. Furthermore, this year the USA still managed to water down resolutions, although it was always going to vote against them. Other Member States may want to reconsider their openness to negotiate with a country that is unwilling to make a deal.

Positions on harm reduction and human rights are evolving, but the UNODC remains biased towards the conservative end.
There are countries from different regions on both sides of each of these debates, and barriers are more porous than they used to be. However, the UNODC continues to be rigidly isolated from other UN entities in refusing to express support for harm reduction and to acknowledge the human rights costs of drug control. At the same time, the UNODC has skirted the necessary neutrality by calling for a return to consensus – a hotly debated political issue in Vienna on which a UN entity should stay impartial.

As environment and Indigenous rights grow in importance, Vienna needs to break the silo with UN bodies on these matters.
This year featured the first-ever CND resolution on the environment, which included a specific recognition that drug policies themselves can have a harmful impact – also a first. Greater attention to Indigenous Peoples is also welcome, but this brings the risk of a lack of alignment between drug policy texts and already existing standards on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. To resolve this tension, there needs to be better engagement between the CND and already existing UN bodies integrating Indigenous peoples, as well as increased Indigenous participation in Vienna.

Civil society and community participation has been greatly impacted by funding cuts; this threatens the value of the CND as a global drug policy conference.
The reduction of international aid by the USA and other countries has had a devastating impact on harm reduction services across the world, putting at risk the life and health of people who use drugs. They have also decimated the presence of representatives of civil society and affected communities at this year’s CND, particularly those coming from the Global South. This weakens the role of the CND as a global conference on drug policy.

Vienna after consensus: Report of the 68th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs

Executive summary

Previous reports in this series:

Downloads

Topics

Regions

Translations