VZCZCXRO9782
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN
RUEHLZ RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHUNV #0001/01 0051335
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 051335Z JAN 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8875
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1434
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE 0165

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 UNVIE VIENNA 000001 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958 
TAGS: SNAR UNODC UN
SUBJECT:EU ON "HARM REDUCTION": THROW US A BONE 
 
REF: A) UNVIE 00666, B) UNVIE 00660 
------- 
Summary 
------- 
¶1.  In negotiations leading to the March 2009 meeting of the 
Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the European Union has insisted that 
any review of the 1998 UNGASS Political Declaration Addressing the 
World's Drug Problem include the ever-controversial term "harm 
reduction."  Thanks in part to recent senior-level engagement by A/S 
Johnson and others, we believe the EU is starting to soften is 
hard-line stance although it will insist on language beyond what has 
previously been used in UN resolutions.  In order to capitalize on 
this development, it would be helpful to: 1) engage the EU and 
clarify the parameters within which it is willing to negotiate "harm 
reduction" 2) work with allies on this issue to determine their 
tolerance for flexibility as well as assess their preferred manner 
of future engagement and 3) craft alternative language that will 
satisfy our concerns and provide the EU with a chance to resolve 
this thorny issue.  By following this three-step approach, the U.S. 
will more likely appear as a proactive, constructive, and able 
leader to the other delegations, a role that we hope will produce a 
successful  conclusion of the 10-Year Review of the 1998 UNGA 
Special Session (UNGASS) resolution to fight drugs.  END SUMMARY. 
 
---------- 
Background 
---------- 
¶2.  Some European Union members include in their drug demand 
reduction strategies the concept of "harm reduction," an ill-defined 
term which could encompass everything from counseling to medically 
prescribed heroin injected in clinics.  Although "harm reduction" is 
a secondary issue in the overall efforts to reduce the demand for 
illicit drugs, it plays no role in reducing the world's drug supply 
or the control of chemical precursors. However, the EU has 
increasingly placed primary importance on "harm reduction" in their 
approach to the UNGASS review exercise, referring to it in opening 
remarks to this fall's UNGASS working groups, as well as insisting 
on referring to the term throughout the text of the draft action 
plan that has emerged from these working group negotiations. 
 
¶3.  The U.S. and its allies have consistently pressed the point that 
the primary goal is to reduce demand of drugs, not the harm 
associated with drug use.  In the past the U.S. and like-minded 
countries have kept the term out of UN drugs-related resolutions, 
including the 1998 Declaration on the Guiding Principles of Drug 
Demand Reduction, and the November 2008 UNGA drug resolution. 
Nevertheless, recognizing that some countries identify "harm 
reduction" measures as part of their national comprehensive 
strategies to reduce demand, delegations in the 1998 UNGASS were 
able to reach compromise language that reads, "Demand reduction 
programmes should cover all areas of prevention, from discouraging 
initial use to reducing the negative health and social consequences 
of drug abuse..."  The 1998 language has proven to be quite durable, 
consistently being used as a substitute for any explicit "harm 
reduction" reference, as happened in resolutions at the annual UN 
Commissions on Narcotic Drugs (CND) after 1998, and in the UN 
General Assembly in November 2008. (Note: in 2006 a UNGA Political 
Declaration on HIV/AIDS included the term in relation to drug use 
and when reaffirming that prevention of HIV must be the mainstay of 
any response to the pandemic.  End note.) 
 
----------------------- 
EU: Softening but also 
Insisting on "Progress" 
----------------------- 
¶4.  Over the past few weeks UNVIE has engaged in "harm reduction" 
discussions with EU members in a variety of fora complimenting the 
strong message that A/S David Johnson delivered here in early 
December. (reftel A)  We have detected an EU willingness to soften 
its hard-line stance on the issue of "harm reduction."  At a dinner 
Ambassador hosted in honor of INL Assistant Secretary Johnson, UK 
Ambassador told DCM and missionoff that the EU's main goal was to 
"move the ball forward, however incrementally."  His main concern, 
he stated, was that whatever comes out of the March 2009 CND, the EU 
cannot afford to "go backwards."  In subsequent conversations, our 
UK interlocutor told missionoffs that the EU needs "something more" 
than the 1998 Political Declaration language, or the November 2008 
UNGA omnibus drug resolution language.  An EC representative and a 
Czech Health Ministry official acknowledged to missionoff that 
getting the term "harm reduction" into the 2009 CND documents would 
be difficult, but insisted that they needed "something that would 
show the increasing realization that harm reduction measures are a 
part of many nation's drug demand reduction strategies."  In short, 
they insisted that any agreement show an "evolution" of past 
language. 
 
¶5.  Germany has been carrying the "harm reduction" ball for the EU 
in the UNGASS discussions in Vienna.  UNA Counselor urged her German 
counterpart to be politically realistic about this issue, noting 
that at the recent G-8 Lyons-Roma meeting in Kyoto, Russia, Japan, 
and Canada, in addition to the U.S., opposed the EU's position on 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000001  002 OF 002 
 
 
"harm reduction" language.  In addition, she pointed out, a number 
of G-77 (e.g., Pakistan) and GRULAC (e.g., Colombia) countries are 
also opposed.  On the margins of the annual Paris Pact Policy 
Consultative Group meeting in Vienna December 15-16, UNA Counselor 
made the same points to Axel Kuechle, a senior MOFA official from 
Berlin, who also represented Germany at the Kyoto G-8 meeting. 
Kuechle acknowledged the political realities and expressed a 
willingness to find compromise language.  However, he also made the 
point that the 2009 documents should indicate some progress beyond 
the 1998 language. 
 
¶6.  At the December 15 coordination meeting Ambassador hosted with 
the incoming Czech presidency, UNA Counselor raised similar points 
to the Czech ambassador and his colleagues (reftel B).  Czech 
counselor Petr Havlik gave the same response, noting the need to 
show "progress" on this issue in the political declaration to be 
negotiated for the high-level segment of the 2009 CND.  The Czech 
officials expressed willingness to work with the U.S. and asked us 
to propose alternative language. 
 
------------------------------ 
Continue to engage with the EU 
------------------------------ 
¶7.  From our perspective, the EU has been negotiating for some time 
in "bad faith" on this issue  When the UNGASS review process they 
created failed to yield favorable results on "harm reduction," they 
switched tactics and are now trying to undermine that very same 
process.  Their rather dogmatic stance on this issue -- which local 
Ambassadors attribute to the Commission in Brussels -- seems to have 
prevented constructive communication.  Nevertheless, we need to 
continue to engage with the EU and to offer alternatives, keeping in 
mind their premise that the 1998 language needs to evolve "however 
incrementally." 
 
------------------------------- 
Build Alliance with Like-Minded 
------------------------------- 
¶8.  Since the U.S. is not the only country opposing "harm 
reduction," UNVIE will continue to reach out to like-minded 
delegations to gauge their tolerance for flexibility.  Such efforts 
could lead to a coordinated common position and/or agreed 
alternatives.  On the other hand, if some of the other states we 
prepared to weather a confrontation with the EU, we may want to take 
a harder stand and reject any proposal that does not hew exactly to 
the 1998 or the 2008 UNGA language. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
¶9.  The EU seems to be softening its insistence on "harm reduction," 
apparently realizing that negotiations on the term itself have been 
and will continue to be fruitless.  And certainly at the 
Ambassadorial level, there are a few in Vienna who are prepared to 
see this issue scuttle the Commission on Narcotic Drugs meeting or 
occupy much more diplomatic band width.  Although they have made no 
specific offer of alternative language, our European allies have 
laid down a marker that the 2009 documents would have to show 
"evolution" from 1998 and 2008 language.  Their willingness to 
compromise will depend not only on the strength of our (and our 
allies') opposition, but also on our willingness to find a 
constructive compromise.  If we take the pen proactively, i.e., 
offer alternative language, we would more likely control the 
process, demonstrate leadership to the like-minded, and secure 
cooperation with all.  A U.S. delegation seen as a leader who is 
proactive, constructive and engaged is vital to the successful 
outcome of the UNGASS Review at the March, 2009 CND. 
 
 
SCHULTE