You are in the MOST Phase I website (1994-2003). The MOST Phase II website is available at: www.unesco.org/shs/most.

Introduction a) The historical background At the beginning of the century, the international control of narcotics ceased to be the exclusive territory of sovereign states, and followed the path of international co-operation. The twentieth Special Session of the UN General Assembly was devoted to the fight against the illegal production, sale, demand, traffic and distribution of narcotics and psychotropic substances as well as related activities; this event was baptized "the Drug Summit", and is the latest illustration of this international co-operation process. It took place in New York from the 8th to the 10th of June 1988, and is the object of this report. The Drugs Summits can be understood within a historical process that began nearly one hundred years ago which now allows the UN to be one of the central actors in the international control of narcotics and psychotropic substances (1). Following the initiative of the US, the Opium Commission in Shanghai in 1909 adopted the first international co-operation agreement for the control of narcotics. In 1912, numerous countries (including the superpowers of the time, numerous Latin American countries and China) signed the Convention on opium control in the Hague (the "Convention of The Hague"). The States that signed the Versailles Treaty (1919) that put an end to the 1914-1918 war adhered simultaneously to the Hague Convention. As of the beginning of the twentieth century, the international control of narcotics (which amounted to opium in those days) becomes related to major historical events and deserves all the attention of world States. As of 1925, that is 6 years only after the creation of the League of Nations (LoN), it penetrates the realm of the international society’s mandates with the Second International Convention on Opium, signed in Geneva in 1925 (which was binding as of 1928). This Convention sets up a statistical control system of the production and export of opium and an international surveillance body located within the LoN, i.e. the Permanent Central Opium Board (1929-1967). During the thirties, other measures were adopted, other substances (including cocaine and derivatives of cannabis) were set under international control and a new organ was created: the Drug Supervisory Body (1933-1967). The functions and responsibilities of the LoN concerning narcotics were handled by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the UN as of its creation in 1946. The 1961 Convention creates the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) which merges with the two pre-cited existing bodies, and becomes the major organ of control in the UN system; in fact, it still is the main control body today. The 1961 Convention also represents a starting point for the effort of simplification of the nine agreements that had monitored international control until then. The outcome of this effort, which began with the signature of the 1971 Convention on psychotropic substances (that is, more or less, the medicine manufactured mainly in Northern and Eastern countries), is the Vienna Convention of 1988, which defines the current system of international control of psychoactive substances. More than 145 countries adhere to these three conventions nowadays. In the meanwhile, following the American initiative, the UN Fund for Drug Abuse Control (UNFDAC) is established by the ECOSOC in order to set up economic programs seeking to eliminate Opium production in the world. The success of the UNFDAC was very limited, and the UN International Drug Control Program (UNDCP) replaced it in 1990. The UNDCP is therefore in charge of the co-ordination of all UN activities regarding drugs. It directs its efforts of drug control at the international level, monitors trends in terms of production, traffic and consumption of as many as 37 substances placed under international control (summary in 1995) and encourages the application of the three international Conventions mentioned above (2). b) The political background In spite of these efforts, and of the actions of the UN member States, the global situation of drugs has not stopped worsening ever since the middle of the seventies, when there was a significant increase in the production, traffic and consumption of substances that had been placed under control. At the end of the 1980s, far from improving, the situation continues to worsen, particularly with the boom of synthetic drugs (hallucinatory substances and derivatives of amphetamines such as "ecstasy") and the "black hole" created by money laundering in the international financial system. Global powers are getting more and more involved. Therefore, upon the initiative of the Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León, the UNDCP decided to be the main organizer of this 20th Special Session of the UN General Assembly. However, the worry caused by drugs to world political leaders is not only a question of social order or public health. At the end of the 20th century, production, traffic, consumption and laundering have become major economic, political and diplomatic issues. In a sense, given the economic importance for the North of the legal production (though sometimes "diverted") of their pharmaceutical industries, and for the Southern countries, of the illegal production of controlled substances that are derived from agricultural productions (derivatives of cannabis, cocaine and heroin mainly) - and for all, increasingly, the importance of synthetic drugs and money laundering -, the international control of drugs has always been a diplomatic problem: the diversity of State interests leads international actors to the adoption of diverging, if not opposed standpoints. A great deal of these different viewpoints was long dictated by cold war imperatives. Today, the main opposition that persists is that between the States of the North, particularly the US, which favors a drug control based on the decrease of supply, and the developing countries, particularly the Latin-American ones (headed by Mexico and Colombia), which insist upon the need to decrease demand. Another cause for dissent is the conflict between countries such as the Netherlands which prefers a tolerant approach in order, according to them, to better control the negative effects of drug abuse by not pushing addicts into illegality, and those such as France and the US who believe that a repressive approach based on aggressive prohibition is the best means of containing the development of the drug phenomenon. The UN Conventions are therefore to a large extent the result of a compromise between these antagonistic viewpoints, which do not allow the current international drug control system of international control to function at the required level of efficiency. Furthermore, that which the eighties will have devoted to the name of "narco-diplomacy", that is the inter-State drugs relations, often takes the appearance of mutual accusations of laxity and corruption, even of violation of national sovereignty, and is practically always characterized by a significant measure of hypocrisy. The numerous and diverging bureaucratic interests that are involved both in the UN and inside the States, complicate matters even further. This rather confused situation becomes even more intricate with the presence of the world civil society, that is unequally well represented by NGOs which are specialized in diverse facets of the drug problem. They themselves have their own interests and their standpoints can oppose them to other NGOs, States or UN bodies. It is against this complex background, which is heavy with emotional electricity, that the Drug Summit took place on the tenth anniversary of the Vienna Convention of 1988. It is mainly with this conflict of interests in mind that this report was written. Indeed, we believe that the UNESCO/MOST project on drugs, which is aimed precisely at the production of knowledge in the area of drug-related social transformations, should be informed by the current state of this battle, that is of major trends that have emerged at the New York Summit, which was a privileged locus of observation of the standpoints of the different participants. The standpoints of States, the policies that they do or do not implement, add up to each other and have a major influence on the development of the "drug phenomenon", and therefore the social impact of the latter.   I. The Special Session of the General Assembly a) Organization and aims of the Summit The Drug Summit was placed under the sign of unity. Its motto was "all united to end with drugs in the 21st century". Given the situation described in the previous paragraphs, one understands what considerable challenge this is. Furthermore, the Summit proposed not only to have the General Assembly adopt a new international plan of action against drugs (see below), which its UNDCP promoters presented as a great improvement relative to the past, but also to gather a great number of actors, including NGOs, the press and the police, customs, public health officers, to give them the opportunity to express themselves. Six forums, officially termed "Round tables", were therefore organized parallel to the General Assembly in order to favor the expression of the problems raised by drugs and their control. Finally, besides the summit, in the buildings of the Church Center located beside the official buildings of the UN, and in these buildings themselves, a group of NGOs, including the Geopolitical Drug Watch (known as OGD after its acronym in French), organized debates on the national and international problems raised by drugs and their control (cf. below 3. The NGOs). b) The General Assembly The General Assembly was the most official moment of the Summit; its main objective was the adoption of measures attempting to "promote the effective implementation of international treaties on drugs and the strengthening of international co-operation" in all the aspects of drug control, "including corruption", and the examination of "proposals for new strategies, methods and practical activities" in order to face the problems of illegal abuse and traffic of drugs, taking into account gender issues". In particular, the General Assembly had to ratify the political Declaration (known under the administrative name of A/S-20/4) which was drafted during a preparatory meeting in March 1998 in Vienna, and to devise a drug control program following the debates of this very preparatory reunion, whose main aim was "a drastic and immediate reduction in the supply and demand of illegal drugs by the year 2008". At this point, one can note that drug control for the 21st century does not present any fundamental change relative to that which has been carried out, without much success, since the 1970s: "the war against drugs" still has as its aim the total eradication of the drug-enemy. "Drugs" are still considered to be a "disease", just as the plague or slavery (3), whose only possible treatment is eradication. There is therefore no point in trying to live with drugs in order to reduce their destructive potential. The latter approach of "risk reduction", as it is called, is the guiding principle of the Netherlands’ policy (see above), and it was the object of many criticisms in New York (4), as well as the big loser of the Summit. While the aim remains the same, the means to achieve it do not present much variation either, relative to those, which were used in the past. Indeed, the "new strategies" proposed at the adoption of the General Assembly attempted to: 1) "Promote judiciary co-operation and strengthen national legislations (by harmonizing them and setting an agenda to measure progress); 2) "Prevent the diversion of chemical precursors and strengthen international co-operation for the control of illegal production, sale, demand, traffic and distribution of narcotics and psychotropic substances, and adopt measures to reinforce the control of the manufacture and traffic of stimulants and their precursors; 3) "Achieve a reduction in the illegal demand for drugs, including through the project of declaration on the guiding principles of demand reduction and its implementation; 4) "Prevent, sanction and act against money laundering (harmonization and reinforcement of national legislations and establishment of a calendar); 5) "Promote international co-operation for the eradication of illegal crops and alternative development (SCOPE program (5)); 6) "Co-ordinate, at the heart of the UN, the control of the drug traffic and of the organized crime which is linked to it, against terrorist groups that are involved in the drug traffic and against the illegal arms trade; 7) "Strengthen the UN system of drug control (6)." There again, one notes no innovation, but rather a will to intensify control on the bases set up since the 1970s. However, one will remember from the Summit the adoption of the first international agreement attempting to reduce drug demand, which will satisfy the nations of the South (in particular Latin American ones), and the simultaneous commitment to "reduce significantly", even "eliminate" (7), illegal cultivations until 2008, that is a promise attempting to satisfy countries from the North (in particular the US). As noted precisely by the UN documents that were publicly released at the Conference, one must see in this double commitment the official acknowledgment, at the highest global level, that drug control is addressed by a simultaneous attack against supply and demand. The "war" between the suppliers and demanders (see above) therefore ends, so to speak, in a "draw", with both parties apparently admitting the other’s point as valid. However, one will have to wait to verify whether this commitment is effectively going to be followed through in State policies, and in particular in that of the most powerful, i.e. the US. Indeed, President Clinton announced at the General Assembly that Washington would invest more than 17 billion dollars in American drug control in 1999... and that the latter would once again be oriented in priority towards the reduction of supply (which is allocated 11 billion dollars, while only 6 billion dollars go to demand reduction) (8). Besides, with respect to "narco-diplomacy", the Summit - and in particular the first day of the General Assembly, where most of the Latin American Presidents and the US President addressed the assembly- will have shown that criticisms are always on the agenda of official speeches, which does not suggest an optimistic future in terms of co-operation and of the harmonization that was required in the 7 proposals (see above), in particular between North and South countries (9), and between the Netherlands and the rest of the world. In particular, no public mention was made of the financial means of meeting these 7 objectives, while the needed budget for only one of these objective, i.e. the "substantial reduction" in illegal cultivations will obviously have to be huge... But most of the speakers did not venture into mentioning concrete financial commitments, and when they did, like Bill Clinton, they were referring to their national budgets. Primarily meant for the inhabitants of the speakers’ countries more than for the General Assembly itself, the speeches multiplied promises of toughness and "intolerance" against drugs, which came close to demagogy, and therefore greatly damaged their credibility (10). One understands therefore that it will be difficult for the New York Summit to keep all its promises and to be the historical turning point in drug control that the UNDCP had called for. Although we need to be careful on the whole with respect to the real effects of the Summit, some less official aspects could be harbingers of positive developments, in the short and medium term, for drug control, but also for the MOST-drug program, certain aspects of which are already in tune with these potential positive developments. It is not in the pompous solemnity of the General Assembly that these developments occurred but in the more informal atmosphere of the Round tables. We will therefore analyze them in the following section (see below 2. The round tables).   II. The Round tables a) Finely chosen themes The UN representatives, who opened the round tables, as well as the session chairpersons (11), went through the trouble of insisting every time that the participants be honest and free themselves of the likely inhibitions that could be caused by the solemnity of the event. That requirement was certainly satisfied on the whole, at least in the debates the author of this report was able to attend. The seven Round tables had the following titles: * " Children, youth and drug abuse"(organized by UNICEF, UNESCO, UNFPA and the UNDCP); * "Drugs and productivity" (OIT); * "Drugs and development" (UNDCP); * "Drug abuse and HIV/AIDS" (UNAIDS and WHO); * "Attacking the profits of crime: Drugs, money and laundering" (UNDCP); * "Cutting the supply lines" (UNDCP with OIPC-Interpol and WDO); * "Telling and selling the drug story in the new multi-media environment) (UNDCP with UNDP and RAI) (12). This author was able to attend three of these seven round tables, that is: "Laundering"; "Cutting supply lines"; and "Telling the drug story" (i.e. the only round table that took place throughout an entire day, to which we were invited to participate by the UNDCP). The busy program of the Summit, the simultaneity of debates and my contribution to the debate organized by the OGD in the context of the "NGO village", in the afternoon of Monday 8 June, did not allow for more (13). Before turning to an analysis of the debates that this author participated in, it can already be noted that the themes of the round tables were finely chosen by the UNDCP, because they are precisely at the heart of the current drug problem and are faced by most of the world’s States. In many Southern countries, the agro-industry of drugs is often the only economic alternative that is on offer for large social sectors. The "Drugs and productivity" roundtable touches upon an issue that is not only completely topical but is also at the heart of the socio-economic transformations that the world has gone through ever since the industrial revolution. Indeed, we too often forget that the industrial revolution was also a chemical revolution, which gave birth to numerous medicines, to numerous drugs. Had these substances not been invented at the same time as, for instance, fordism, one could think that it would have been much more difficult to carry out the incredible transformations (higher work loads, urbanization, etc.) that were the reality of industrial societies as of the end of the 19th century. The wave of "opiomania" that affected the high classes of Anglo-Saxon countries (and contributed to the birth of the romantic current) at the end of last century, displays surprising similarities with the addiction that is spreading at the present time (including in the workplace), which is also plunged into deep social transformations. It is precisely these links between drugs and society models that the MOST-drugs project analizes. Only one theme was missing from those tackled at the round tables: the problems raised by narco-diplomacy and the use of drugs or their control towards a political end. These are central aspects in the search for a sustainable solution to the problems raised by drugs. b) The point of view of law-enforcement authorities The round table on supply reduction, under the influence of questions raised by the audience, actually turned into a forum allowing the police and customs forces to express without much restraint the problems they are faced with in their work against drugs. After presentations of a somewhat limited interest, in which the speakers (14) exposed the major principles of their job (which most of the audience was already familiar with), the debate allowed Robert Kendall, the Executive Secretary of Interpol, to say that he preferred for the police forces not to be obliged to chase drug consumers, so as to invest their resources, which they view as insufficient anyway, to the persecution of traffickers and launderers. Unfortunately, the legislation of various countries (including France and the US) forces them to do the former. He then declared that as far as he was concerned, drug control was in fact a problem of states choosing their priorities. In an ironical twist, he reminded the audience of the numerous and diverse promises made by Heads of State to the General assembly (see above d- The General assembly), and asserted that States had to choose between, for instance, acquiring a new fleet of fighting planes, and investing more resources in drug control... If one wants results, he said, one must first invest in the means that allow for their achievement. However, a question this author asked on this problem of "results" in drug control allowed for a contradiction to come through in the reasoning of the British policeman. How does one measure the success or failure of drug control? Kendall and the other participants answered that to their knowledge there was no universal measuring rod... It is precisely the absence of a consensual evaluative model that causes the current drug control debate to look too often like a purposeless battle of figures that allows for the justification of antagonistic but necessarily ideological standpoints (see supra b- The political context). That is so because there is no "scientific truth" accepted by all. Therein we are touching upon a fundamental problem, but one that is extremely difficult to solve in the present context, and to which university research should try to propose an answer. The researcher who will be able to invent an evaluation model of "success" or "failure" of drug control that cannot be refuted (and that is universally recognized as such) will do a significant favor to 21st century humanity! c) Absence of research, priority to the press Therefore, it is all the sadder, that research, and in particular university research, was not the object of specific debates, unlike the press, which was allocated a whole day (and not half a day, like the other subjects). The absence of a round table on research is a very regrettable flaw, that shows that an extra effort towards communication is necessary for an understanding and an explicit acknowledgement of the importance of this aspect, if one really wants to understand the very diverse and complex aspects of the drug phenomenon. Such an understanding should, theoretically, come prior to the adoption of any measure. However, it is true that it was highly important for the media to become aware of their numerous deficiencies when it comes to drugs. In his opening speech, the Executive Director of UNDCP, a researcher who is well known for his excellent work on the Sicilian mafia, presented a good summary of the situation without failing to outline for the numerous journalists that were present the main problems raised by their work on drugs (15). But it seems like the journalists, except for Aidan White, the Secretary General of the International Federation of Journalists, did not give much attention to the words of Pino Arlacchi. The debates were mainly marked by the self-satisfaction of the participants (in particular in the afternoon), even the use of their speaking time for the promotion of the private interests they work for, even manipulating figures (see below d- Laundering) and violently denouncing their ideological enemies. We should note that the speakers of the afternoon devoted to "communicating on drugs issues" (16) (session within which these practices were the most common) did not include a defender of the "Dutch" approach, and attacked it particularly vigorously; alas, the Dutch were not given the opportunity to make their point properly. Therefore, the round table was disappointing on the whole, and only was of interest from a research point of view to sociologists that were interested in contemporary "moral entrepreneurs", who were numerous amongst the speakers and the audience (17). d) Laundering: will the challenge be taken up ? However, this flaw was partly well compensated by the fact that research was implicitly present in all the debates, as much in the General Assembly as in the round tables. Even if it was sometimes used to justify ideological standpoints (18), the outline of various pieces of research was allowed for by the organized forums. Without exercising any prejudice against the round tables that the author did not attend, the most insightful piece of research whose presentation I was able to listen to in New York, is that which was ordered by the UNDCP on money laundering. It was carried out by four reputed Anglo-Saxon researchers (19), "Financial havens, banking secrecy and money laundering", and is presented in extenso as an annex to this report (20). It is a major innovative work. Indeed, in order to control money laundering efficiently, this report proposes the adoption by the international community of a series of concrete measures going against the current deregulation of the international financial system. Amongst other measures, the authors suggest to impede the maintenance of banking secrecy by all national authorities for an investigation on somebody suspected to be a money launder; they call for the impossibility of total anonymity for shareholders, in particular in firms based in financial havens, and above all for the treatment of fiscal fraud and public resource theft as forms of criminality submitted to the same laws, and requiring the same punishment, as drug money laundering. In that perspective, the authors ask that the countries, which rent out their sovereignty to allow foreigners to violate their own countries’ laws, be outlawed by the international community. Finally, the authors assert that these measures, which they deem respectful of people’s right to private life, are absolutely necessary to be able to target the traffickers’ wallets efficiently. To sum up, this revolutionary report proposes nothing less than the liquidation of one of the most debatable legacies of the cold war (the corruption infrastructure that the Eastern and Western blocks allowed to emerge) and the entrance into a new economic world with more transparency. One also notes that the authors consider drug money launderers and corrupt civil servants who steal international aid, as well as the dictators that steal from their State’s coffers (Marcos, Mobutu, etc.) as equals. This is a theme that both academic and non-university specialists are familiar with; it is related to the politico-economic aspects of the drug phenomenon. Finally, let us note that during a conversation in New York, one of the authors of the report asserted that he had received from the relevant authorities the assurance that France, the UK, the US and even Russia had resolved to pressure the countries where they have the most influence so that transparency measures in agreement with the main guidelines of the report be carried out. We will however wait carefully and see how these promises will be followed up. Indeed, it seems difficult to provoke both in the North and the South such a change away from the "bad habits" taken during the cold war and reinforced during the neoliberal wave of the 1980s and 1990s (particularly the " electronification" of financial transfers and structural adjustment programs in the Third World) without endangering the stability of the current international financial system and the geopolitical balance. If such measures were actually undertaken, many spheres of activity including the most lucrative ones and the most powerful ones of the planet, like the oil industry and the arms trade (without even mentioning the narcotraffic), would have to incur huge and costly adaptation efforts, which are unlikely to be undertaken voluntarily... However, after the declarations made during the round table by the IMF and the World Bank representatives and the "corridor discussions" with national representatives, it seems as though there is currently, at the highest level, a sudden awareness of the fact that the future of globalization lies in a new regulation of the financial system. Even if it was not expressed explicitly at the summit, it is actually a question of legitimacy and therefore, in a democratic system, of the continuation and deepening of the politico-economic system of democracy and free trade, that international financial institutions and States have been attempting to set up since the end of the cold war. This system was heavily criticized, rightly so I believe, for favoring the growth, nearly everywhere in the world, of mafia- type powers. In fact, in this instance, the UNDCP has played a role that one wishes the UN agencies took up more often: that of initiator, by presenting a challenge to the countries which claim they want to control drugs and showing them the way. In our opinion, in the current context of the meta-power of the economy, and in particular of the financial sphere, it is by far the most important contribution of the New York Summit, not simply to drug control, but above all to the establishment of an international system that is better regulated and more subject to the law. Apparently, money laundering will therefore be one of the priorities of drug control in the future. In any case, this is clearly one of UNDCP’s priorities; and this allows one to hope that in the future, funds will be allocated to research in this domain.   III. The NGOs a) Completing the debate NGOs were also represented at the New York Summit. Many of their members were invited by the UNDCP to participate in the round tables, and, furthermore, an "NGO village" was organized outside the summit. Besides, rooms in the UN buildings were allocated to the NGOs for them to organize debates. The merit of NGOs will have been to allow for the expression of problems that were sidelined during the official discussions organized in the context of the Summit proper. In general, the Summit will have allowed us to note that the world of NGOs that specialize in drugs is about as divided as that of States, and along similar lines. Indeed, on the one hand we have an NGO like the Lindesmith Center, which belongs to the Open Society Institute of the billionaire finance tycoon George Soros. Soros is well-known for his lobbying in favor of legalization; thus, a less repressive approach to the drugs problem. Indeed, the Lindersmith Center was very involved in the Summit (as much inside as outside the buildings) (21). On the other hand, we have other associations, such as the Dutch chapter of the protestant Victory Outreach Ministries International group. This NGO defended the opposite point of view and was noted for its tough attacks against the drug policy of The Hague’s government. There again, this author was not able to see everything, but amongst the discussions I attended, two of them stood out for the quality of the presentations and the debates they raised. The debate organized Monday 8 June by the Geopolitical Drug Watch (OGD) at the Church Center on "low-intensity conflicts and drugs", and the one which was jointly organized by the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) and the Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR) on 9 June on "the war against drugs in the Andean countries" both allowed the participants to address the question of use of the drug traffic and its control towards political ends, a theme which was absent from the official debates (as I already have noted). The public was aware of this lack, and the presentations attracted a large audience that attended the debates (including the presentation, which was very much noted, of a Colombian representative of the Bolivian, Colombian and Peruvian coca growers) and took part in the discussion.   Conclusion As the outcome of a long historical process for setting up an international drug control system, the New York Summit was not able to fulfill all its promises, particularly due to the excessive politicization of the drug problem. Considered as a big event destined to start off an ambitious, but hardly innovative program, which seems to have few chances of receiving the financing needed for its implementation, the Summit was nevertheless an immense three-day forum where sometimes conflicting but always diverse opinions were able to be freely expressed through the multitude of international official and civil actors that are involved in drug control. It is the first time, to our knowledge, that such a "global debate" takes place, and the UNDCP, which has worked intensely towards its achievement, can be congratulated and praised. It seems that rather than the unsurprising promises of the numerous Heads of State that were present, it is this " window of expression " that can as of now allow us to assess the New York summit as a success. A good illustration of this great planetary "brain-storming" was the presentation of a revolutionary report on money laundering ordered by the UNDCP. However, one awaits with skepticism for the concrete impact of this report on the decisions taken by States, because what it calls for is nothing less than a radical transformation of the current international system, and the entrance into a new era. With respect to research, let us however remind our readers that although it was not the main focus of the meeting, it was present, partly through the presentations at the many round tables organized by the UNDCP and the NGOs. As expected, there was not, as could have been expected, any real opening of research areas in the social sciences during the Summit. However, we will remember that the research on money laundering has more chances of attracting funds and that the official actors involved in drug control are expecting an evaluation method of the results of their initiatives. Notes 1. The drug control legislations currently in force in most of the countries of the world are based on (or in conformity with) the three " founding " documents of the United Nations : The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 (the " Single Convention "), the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 and the Convention on the Illicit Drug Traffic and psychotropic substances of 1988 (the " Vienna Convention ") which have been signed and ratified by most world nations. Mozambique is one of the last country to have signed the Vienna Convention, see Journal des Nations Unies, June 10, 1998 (Annex 1A of this report). 2. For further details and a critical review on the history of the international drug control under the League of Nations and the UN, it would be interesting to consult two very complete documents : BROUET, O. Drogues et relatiosn internationales, Editions Complexe, Bruxelles, 1991 ; and BRUUN,K.,PAN, L. &REXED,I. : The Genbtlemen’s Club : International Control of Drugs and Alcohol, University of Chicago Press, Chiacago and London, 1975. 3. Statement of Sandro Tucci, spokesman of the UNDCP, during an interview on CNN Channel on 10 in June 1998. 4. An example of such attacks coming from an NGO is presented in Annex 3. 5. A detailed review of these new strategies and particularly the SCOPE Program is presented in CIIR : Caught in the Crossfire : Developing countries, the UNDCP, and the war on drugs, London, 1998, annex 3. 6. United Nations to Host " Global Summit ", UNIS/NAR/635,12 May 1998, Vienna, presented in Annex 1A. 7. There is a huge difference between the " total eradication " of illicit crops and their " substantial reduction ". It seems that initially, during April and May 1998, the UNDCP executive director announced " total eradication within ten years ", and then expressed the much vaguer position of " substantial reduction " after several member states -- including various rich countries -- expressed their reluctance at making such a promise ; see the article by SMITH, J. & FARRAH, D. : " U.N. to Seek Support for Anti-Drug Campaign as U.S., Others Balk ", in The Washington Post, June 3, 1998, p. A12 (see Annex 2). During the Summit, at least during the official debates (but not always during interviews with the press), the official position expressed by UNDCP has been " substantial reduction ". 8. See the speech of the American President William Clinton before the General Assembly on 8 June 1998 (Annex 2a), and the American strategy against the drug prevention 1998 of which a summary is presented in annex 2B). 9. See, for example, the speech of the Mexican president, insisting on the fact that drugs are a "global problem" requiring a " global response ", " without discrimination ", and also saying that "  a large part of the demand comes from the rich countries and at that time, the countries where drugs are produced and trafficked pay the major part of the human, social and institutional costs to satisfy this demand. Our men and women are the first ones to die in the fight against drug trafficking ", etc. President Zedillo, like all his Latin-American peers, has also insisted on the necessity to treat the demand side of the problem, and mainly the respect to the national sovereignty, a clear mention to the American policy often qualified as "interventionist in Latin America". See also the speech of the Brazilian President, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, annex 2A. 10. Especially since the promises were sometimes made by people or representatives of states notoriously involved in drug production, trafficking and/or money laundering, as a member of OGD could not fail to note. 11. Among the UN representatives we could remember Dr. Pino Arlachi, executive director of UNDCP, see Annex 1B and 1C. 12. UNDCP: United Nations General Assembly Special session, Panel Discussion and Workshop (Annex 1b). 13. Besides, I could also take part in "International Youth Journey for a XXI century free of drugs" organized in Paris in February 1998 by UNESCO (MOST) and the UNDCP; the themes discusses were similar to the one of the Round Table of the Summit on "Youth and Drugs". 14. Among speakers we can recall Raymond Kendall, secretary general of Interpol and James Shaver, secretary general of the World Customs Organization. 15. See the opening speech of the Round Table " Telling and Selling the Drug Story, etc " by Pino Arlacchi, executive director of UNDCP, Tuesday 9 June 1998, morning (Annex 1Bb). 16. See the UNDCP document : " Telling and Selling the Drug Story in the New Multi-media Environment " in Annex 1Bb. 17. The American " moral makers " have been defined for the first time as such by Howard Becker in BECKER, H.S. : Outsiders, Editions A.M. Métailié, Paris, 1985 (1963). The research which it is reported in this basic document on sociology of the Chicago School (participatory observation) has been accomplished at the end of the 1950s, but the Round Table dedicated to the press will have shown that it is still a hot reality today and in particular in the United States. 18. As remarked earlier, this was the case at the Summit every time a discussion started between supporters of a " tolerant " approach and those favoring a " repressive " approach, each side calling on research " proving " the benefits of its own approach and the absence of foundation of their adversaries’ approach. Such a fight of figures and statitics, most of which were already known to the audience, was sterile. 19. Two Americans, one British and a Canadian fellow. 20. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE FOR DRUG CONTROL AND CRIME PREVENTION : Financial Havens, Banking Secrecy and Money Laundering, Global Programme Against Money Laundering, 98-15494, see Annex 1Ba. 21. See the petition, organized by the Lindersmith Center, published in the form of a three-page inset in the New York Tmes in Annex 3. Moreover, a group of NGOs linked to Lindersmith Center organized a demonstration, June 8th in front of the United States Buildings, to require a less repressive approach of of the drugs problems.

To MOST Clearing House Homepage