Press conference on Narcotics control board report

 

Presenting the annual report of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) today at headquarters in New York, Board member Melvyn Levitsky said the report this year had explored alternative ways for growers of illegal drug crops, such as the coca bush and the opium poppy, to supplant their livelihoods, resulting in probably the most authoritative document ever done on the subject.

Mr. Levitsky has been a member of the INCB since 2003.  A 35-year veteran of the United States foreign service, he is a retired United States Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Matters.  Currently, he is a Professor of International Relations and Public Administration, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.

The INCB, established in 1968 in accordance with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, is independent of the United Nations, but it is serviced by a United Nations-funded secretariat.  It consists of 13 members, 10 of which are nominated by Governments, and three of which are nominated by the World Health Organization (WHO).  They serve in their personal, and not national, capacities.  The Board’s role is to monitor and promote compliance with the three main drug conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988.

Explaining that the Board convened three lengthy meetings a year to assess compliance, Mr. Levitsky said that another of its responsibilities was to ensure the availability of drugs for medical and scientific purposes.  It took a very close interest in the illicit cultivation of drugs and the production of drugs and chemical precursors, which was a special duty levied on it by the anti-trafficking convention of 1988.  It took its work rather confidentially and quietly, and it took missions to both developing and developed countries throughout the year.

Turning to the report itself, he said that the idea for the special topic -– alternative development and livelihoods -– was to look at the concept in a broader way.  The result went beyond what was generally thought of as alternative development, or crop substitution, which was faulty because there was no crop substitution, no real replacement in value for what opium or marijuana growers could earn through their illegal cultivation of those substances.  So, the idea was to take a broad integrated approach to the issue, both on the demand and supply side, and to take into account the socio-economic conditions, geographical factors, marketing, trade, Government services, and the way law and order was invoked in certain parts of the world.

In every case, the drugs illegally cultivated were done so in ungoverned areas -– such as in Afghanistan, Colombia, the China-Burma border -– where Government sovereignty did not pervade, he said.  Those areas were controlled by warlords or rebel and guerrilla groups, so security was a factor for the Governments and influenced whether or not the Governments’ reach extended there or not.  The report noted that there had not been very much success in that regard.  It raised the question of how to entice those growers into moving toward legitimate activities, how to provide services and education for their children, given the prospect of losing their income in the face of successful law enforcement.  The report offered a number of recommendations for Governments.

He said that among the Board’s general concerns in 2005 was the rise in both the trafficking and use of methamphetamines.  There had been a great controversy about that in the United States, particularly in the rural areas, but the rise in use had occurred almost worldwide.  In terms of manufacture, a quirk of the treaty system had helped the drug manufacturers produce the raw material.  In other words, traffickers were diverting large bulk quantities of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, found in Sudafed for example, which were not controlled substances under the treaty system, and then diverting those key precursors for methamphetamine from licit distribution channels into illicit channels.

Some places, particularly in the United States, were passing laws that put cough syrups made from those substances behind the counter, he said.  The Board now recommends that, because it believed that methamphetamine was a kind of “medical crack” -– cheap and easy to produce.  There might be a kind of movement emerging towards methamphetamine use among the regular drug users.

He said that a second trend was the increasing Internet use to produce both illegal and legal drugs.  With the ability to purchase those via a fake consultation with a doctor, the use of various amphetamine-type substances had grown, owing to Internet use combined with mail smuggling.  In Thailand, for example, a huge mail shipment had been caught.  Thus, closer attention should be paid to the mail and a dialogue should be opened with private mail carriers, such as FedEx and UPS.

Another area of concern was the so-called medical marijuana issue, he said.  The Board was concerned because various jurisdictions and states in the United States had declared that marijuana was a kind of medicine, but there was no scientific basis for that.  In fact, it was exactly the opposite.  Marijuana was the “gateway drug”.  The Board was concerned, therefore, that guards were being let down on the part of Governments and other jurisdictions on marijuana, because it had been postulated that the drug was helpful -- which it was not.

The Board, he noted, was similarly concerned about so-called injection rooms in countries experimenting with injecting illegal drugs in Government-sponsored or sanctioned injection rooms, which normalized the use of illegal drugs and made it appear that those drugs, if administered properly, were not harmful.  That practice was going on in countries such as Canada, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, and Switzerland.  The Board called on them to discontinue that practice, because it was in contravention with their obligation under the treaties.

In Africa, marijuana use was of primary concern, he went on.  A recent trend in West Africa was the subregion’s use as a kind of “trampoline” for cocaine from Latin America into Europe and an emerging abuse of methamphetamine from Southern Africa.  The trend of using West Africa, if not alleviated, could also mean slippage in the supply line, and cheap cocaine could begin to be sold to developing countries in Africa and Western Africa.  In the United States and Canada and Mexico, the Board was seeing an increasing abuse of prescription drugs.

He said that programmes were continuing to reduce cultivation in Colombia, but some production was moving back into Peru and Bolivia, and the Board was concerned about that.  Central America and Mexico now seemed to be the main trampoline; Central America was a point of jump-off for cocaine going into the United States.  And, the situation was becoming more intense in terms of methamphetamine production.

In Asia, he said, methamphetamine had been a matter of concern for several years, but the main problem related to Afghanistan, about which there was a long section in the report.  That country now produced a large amount of the world’s illegal heroin.  Afghanistan had gone from a basic raw-material-producing country to a heroin-producing country.  Labs had now been set up there, and heroin was being exported to Russia through Iran and into Europe, where abuse was quite high.  In fact, Iran last year had accounted for 73 per cent of the heroin seizures.  By all accounts, Iran also had the largest number of opium and heroin addicts in the world, largely owing to the fact that the drug was being pushed through there and there was a lot of slippage in that area.

A lot of success had been registered in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Myanmar, but much of that had been supplanted by the methamphetamine production, he said.  Cocaine was supplanting opium throughout Europe.  He warned Europeans in the 1990s that cocaine would eventually become a big problem, and now that seemed to be happening, and the European countries were concerned about it.

Asked about the Board’s mission to Saudi Arabia last year, he said the Saudis had invited the Board in and the cooperation level had been good, but the correspondent would have to wait until next year’s report for the details, since information remained confidential between it and the Governments until publication.

As to whether the Board was working with the Palestinian and Israeli drug control authorities and how the Hamas Government would affect that, he said it was easier to work with the Israeli Government because that was an official, independent Government that had signed all the treaties.  It had a problem of abuse internally and with trafficking, however.  The Board had worked with the Government on the trafficking question.  As the Palestinian Government was forming, he wished to make sure that the authorities paid proper attention to the need to establish controls, both in terms of legal and illegal drugs, and ensure that the area did not become a springboard.  He had no idea what the Hamas position would be in that regard, but there was nothing to preclude the board from seeking to provide technical assistance to “less than Government entities”.

To a question about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, he said there had been several reports that that country had officially undertaken drug smuggling as a way of raising money.  That was not something that the Board could confirm, but if a country was not living up to its responsibility under the conventions, there was a procedure under the 1961 treaty calling it before the Board and invoking sanctions.  That had never been done, but there was a procedure in place.  The Board had been in touch with that country, but no official mission had gone there.  Given the reports, the Board would probably want to visit, however.

Asked whether the opium production in Afghanistan had risen since the United States’ invasion, he said that, “oh, yes, it has,” adding that the Karzai Government had brought its legislation more in line with the drug conventions and established a narcotics police.  The problem was that the board had never sent a mission to Afghanistan or invoked the article that could eventually lead to sanctions in the case of a lack of cooperation.  Unless that Government had control over all areas, unless it could establish such control, the warlords would continue to control the drug supply.  There was sufficient proof to indicate that some ex-Taliban and terrorists were benefiting from the drug production, and that the production had increased.  If that area remained ungovernable or ungoverned -– “a black spot” –- then the Government was not going to be able to do anything about it.

So, the Board’s position was for the international community to induce the growers to do that with development aid, education, and so forth, or that situation would not improve, he said.  The cultivation area had been diminished somewhat, which showed that the Government had exerted a bit of control, but there had been an increase in the amount of opium available to make heroin last year.  So, the Board had urged those countries and international organizations working with Afghanistan to take that into account.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record