VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0579/01 3051018
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 311018Z OCT 08
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8616
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1379
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC
RULSJGA/COMDT COGARD WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0848
RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ OCT MOSCOW 0781
RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 0099
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO 0179
RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA 0042
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM 0132
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO 0200
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0876
RHEHOND/DIR ONDCP WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000579 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SNAR KCOR PGOV AORC UNCND
SUBJECT: UNGASS WORKING GROUPS DEMAND REDUCTION ANND CONTROL OF 
PRECURSORS AND AMPHETAMINE-TYPE STIMULANTS. 
 
SUMMARY: 
 
¶1.  The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) convened the last two 
of five Intergovernmental Working Groups (WG) to review progress 
achieved since the 1998 UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) 
on Drugs.  These two most recent working groups approved 
recommendations in the areas of (1) Demand Reduction (September 
15-17),  and  control of precursor and of amphetamine-type 
stimulants (September 17-19).   The recommendations included 
proposals put forth by the U.S. delegation to advance drug control 
objectives and reaffirmed the 3 UN Drug Control Conventions and the 
commitments contained within the 1998 UNGASS Political Declaration 
and accompanying Action Plans. 
 
¶2. Chaired by Swiss Counselor David Best, the Working Group on 
Demand Reduction,  reviewed successes, limitations and the "way 
forward" on implementing the 1998 UNGASS commitments on demand 
reduction.  The USDEL prevented direct endorsement of so-called 
"harm reduction" policies and practices.  Mexico chaired the final 
working group on precursor chemicals and amphetamine type stimulants 
and their precursors.  This meeting was the most technical of the 
five working groups and most of the issues were discussed by experts 
with little politicization.  Most delegates spoke about the need to 
further implement the 1988 Convention and the UNGASS action plan, 
with particular emphasis on the challenges of substitute chemicals 
and increasing communication and data exchange on precursor chemical 
flows and seizure trends.  The final documents will be the basis for 
the 2009 Political Declaration to be adopted by the High-Level 
Segment of the March 2009 UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND). 
 
 
Working Group on Demand Reduction 
-------------------- --------------------------- 
 
¶3. During the UNODC-hosted intergovernmental Working Group on Demand 
Reduction (September 15-17), USDEL gained support for advancing 
effective demand reduction policies and programs.  The final 
conclusions included an endorsement of comprehensive and sustainable 
evidence-based programs and support for treatment programs that 
work, key USG objectives. 
¶4.  The WG conclusions include a key USG objective to ensure a 
greater understanding of substance abuse, dependence and addiction 
through awareness programs, and mainstreaming use of screening 
approaches.  This language further advanced a US initiative on 
screening and brief intervention treatment (SBRT) that was included 
in a resolution adopted at last year's Commission on Narcotic Drugs 
(CND).   USDEL also advanced the importance of data collection 
systems that provide current, comprehensive drug use and 
epidemiologic data, as well as the provision of effective drug 
treatment programs in jails and prisons for individuals with drug 
dependence treatment.  The Working Group endorsed both of these 
concepts in the session's final conclusions.  USDEL also inserted 
reference in the Working Group's final Report on the concept of drug 
courts as alternatives to incarceration of drug-related offenses. 
(The USDEL also submitted a conference room paper on all USG 
objectives.) 
 
¶5.  A number of delegates sought to include the term "harm 
reduction" in the final conclusions.  Specifically, the United 
Kingdom (UK), the Netherlands, Romania and New Zealand strongly 
advocated "harm reduction" as a new "third pillar" to the 
counter-drug paradigm of supply and demand reduction.  Saudi Arabia, 
Russia, Japan and Indonesia joined USDEL in blocking any references 
to harm reduction.  Sweden proved to be a key ally in this regard. 
Despite constraints by an EU Counter-drug Action Plan that endorses 
"harm reduction," Sweden spoke out strongly against its reference as 
a "third pillar" and mentioned privately its similarities with the 
U.S. position on demand reduction.    Tunisia, Algeria, Iran, Saudi 
Arabia, Egypt and Cuba were vocal in their opposition of this issue. 
 
 
¶6.  Instead, USDEL emphasized the need for comprehensive and 
sustainable evidence-based demand reduction programs.  There was 
strong support that such programs should be integrated into local 
communities and aimed to prevent the use of drugs and reduce the 
adverse consequences of drug abuse, including HIV/AIDS. 
 
¶7.  A number of European delegates sought to highlight the "rights" 
of drug users to further define the "harm reduction" agenda. 
Russia, and Algeria, Egypt, and others again expressed concerns 
about the broad issue of harm reduction.  Many of the delegates who 
sought to block USG initiatives in the other five groups supported 
our efforts to oppose this language.  Specifically, Cuba and Egypt, 
as well as Japan, Algeria, Tunisia, and others supported USDEL 
efforts to deflect EU language on the human rights of drug users, as 
well as efforts to endorse a "right to health" and address issues 
(such as alcohol and tobacco) within the purview of the World Health 
Organization (WHO).  USDEL further removed language from the 
conclusions document that promoted the idea of a new legal 
instrument for demand reduction.  It remains unclear whether this 
proposal emanated from a Member State or rather was pushed by a 
non-governmental organization (NGO). 
 
¶8.  Efforts by the United Kingdom and other European Union Member 
States were well organized and, several countries included NGOs on 
their delegation.   The UK, in particular, allowed the NGO 
representatives to speak on behalf of their government and to 
advocate for increased NGO involvement in the UN-context, the need 
to take into account human rights for drug users and to support drug 
user advocate groups (COMMENT: We expect that the UK will seek to 
re-introduce its language on "harm reduction" and access to opioid 
substances during the negotiations for the Political Declaration to 
be adopted at the high-level segment of the UN Commission on 
Narcotic Drugs. END COMMENT). 
¶9.  USDEL ensured that references to the availability of opioid 
substances for medical pain management remained in the context of 
drug demand reduction and recognized the importance of proper 
controls, in line with the international drug control treaties.  In 
contrast, the UK sought explicit reference to increased access to 
opiates for medical use in pain relief and for mental disorders. 
USDEL, supported by Egypt, successfully argued that the UK language 
fell outside the scope of the Working Group's mandate. 
Bolivia and the Conventions 
¶10.  Working Group Chairman David Best's efficient, fair-minded 
approach was helpful in a meeting that was fraught with divisions 
regarding demand reduction approaches.  Moreover, the Bolivian 
delegation made a statement--similar to past interventions in 
previous UN settings--regarding the need to remove coca from the 
list of substances controlled by the UN drug control treaties. 
Bolivia also called for an INCB study on the discrepancies to the 
schedules of the conventions and on the licit uses of coca. 
However, the chair shut down Bolivia's attempt to hijack the agenda 
of the meeting each time, and indicated that these issues were not 
the purview of the meeting.    Several other delegates including 
Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Egypt also voiced opposition to the 
Bolivian interventions and highlighted that state parties to the 
conventions did not have the option to decide whether to implement 
their provisions. 
Precursor and Amphetamine-Type Stimulants and their Precursors 
-------------------------------  ----------------------- 
---------------------- 
¶11.  The last UNGASS UNODC-hosted intergovernmental Working Group on 
precursor and ATS (September 17-19) was chaired by the Vienna-based 
Mexican DCM Ulises Canchola Gutierrez (Mexico).  The final 
conclusions adopted by the WG included all of the five USG 
objectives, and with minimum controversy.  These key points included 
promoting greater compliance with CND Resolution 49/3 that invites 
States to share legitimate commercial requirements for the most 
common methamphetamine precursor chemicals; targeting use of 
substitute chemicals in the production of (ATS); promoting control 
of machines and equipment necessary for production of amphetamine 
Type Stimulants (ATS) production-as recommended in Article 13 of the 
1988 UN Convention; increasing cooperation between industry and 
governments through promotion of international best practices, and 
development of an international code of conduct for industry-as 
called for in the 1998 UNGASS commitments; and highlighting the role 
of the INCB in facilitating multinational law enforcement 
cooperation targeting precursor chemicals. The USG submitted an 
interagency-agreed paper as a conference room paper. 
 
The Players: 
¶12.  The precursor chemical/ATS WG focused on the technical subject 
matter and there was little attempt to politicize the discussions, 
as in the previous WG meetings.  Member States that had previously 
 
sought to emphasize differences, such as Bolivia, Honduras, and 
Algeria, instead emphasized the need for increased cooperation to 
prevent diversion of precursor chemicals.  The key players in this 
meeting were also different than the previous four WGs.  Sub-Sahara 
African countries sent technical experts who were surprisingly 
candid about their challenges. These African delegations focused on 
the need for funding and equipment, as well as training and capacity 
building.  The Brazilian delegate requested assistance from the INCB 
in encouraging governments (including their own) to develop 
interagency coordination mechanisms between administrative and law 
enforcement authorities.  The European Commission (EC) delegation, 
as the competent authority for EU member States, supported many of 
the USG positions and coordinated closely with the United States 
prior to the meeting.  Notably absent for most of the meeting were 
the delegates from Egypt, Cuba, and Iran-although they did show for 
the adoption of the conclusions. 
 
UNODC versus INCB 
 
¶13.  Rivalry between UNODC and the INCB for leadership in 
coordinating chemical control was one theme that emerged during the 
review of the UNODC documents.  The UNODC paper prepared for the 
Working Group omitted any references to the current prominent role 
of INCB in collecting data, promoting coordination and sharing of 
data in support of operational activities.  The first draft of the 
conclusions (drafted by UNODC) called for the establishment of a new 
"coordinating donor mechanism" for precursor control without mention 
of the current efforts of INCB in collecting data, establishing a 
clearing house, setting up a special surveillance list for 
non-controlled substances and/or support to operations.  In 
contrast, most Member States emphasized these issues and implored 
others to increase support to INCB.  INCB received strong support in 
the final draft and the references to the creation of new mechanisms 
were also watered down to ask Member States to step up efforts to 
advance existing efforts.  Member States also voiced strong support 
for INCB's role in facilitating international law enforcement 
cooperation to prevent precursor chemical smuggling, and urged the 
INCB to continue to serve this vital role. 
 
ATS: 
¶14.   Mexico outlined its national successes in controlling 
methamphetamine production through the banning of ephedrine or 
pseudoephedrine.  While many praised Mexico and other Central 
American states for their bold action to limit the diversion of 
these chemicals, there was no consensus to pursue a blanket ban due 
to the legitimate commercial requirements for these substances. 
Russia raised the issue of non-scheduled chemicals as new precursor 
for the production of ATS and the need to update schedule I and II 
in article to include substitute chemicals.  In response, the USDEL 
also noted that the problem of substitute chemicals required 
frequent updating of the "limited special surveillance list," to 
target substitute chemicals.   The USDEL also recognized that the 
1988 UN Convention already includes a process to include new or 
change the scheduling of precursor chemicals as necessary.  The 
final conclusions included recommendations to target the problem of 
substitute chemicals, as well as other emerging trends, through 
analysis, data sharing, increased domestic legislation and support 
to UNODC and the INCB. 
 
¶15. The Russian delegate also suggested that some chemicals used in 
the production of heroin and cocaine could be "marked" at the point 
of manufacture (by adding identifiable agents to enable tracing) in 
order to assist in backtracking investigations.  Several Member 
States including the USDEL and the EC opposed it.  The final 
conclusions only notes that the practice of "marking" certain 
chemical shipments merits possible consideration, but also notes 
that any possible use of markers must also take into account the 
potential burden posed to authorities and industry. 
 
¶16. France underscored the need for increased cooperation with the 
pharmaceutical industry.  The EU noted that the INCB plans to 
develop a code of conduct for use by industries involved in the 
production, transport and storage of precursor chemicals to increase 
cooperation-as called for by the UNGASS commitments.  Russia 
underscored the importance of this "code of conduct," as did the 
USDEL.  Other delegations joined in supporting USDEL language 
encouraging the development and implementation of the code of 
 
conduct. 
 
Side Meeting on Drug Use and HIV 
 
¶17.  On the morning  of Thursday, September 18, UNODC hosted a 
meeting for leading bilateral and multilateral donors to discuss 
interest in holding a regular donor meeting on Drug Use and HIV. 
Participants included representation from UNODC, UNAIDS, WHO, INCB, 
World Bank, Global Fund, Netherlands, United Kingdom (chair for the 
meeting), Germany, Australia, Italy, Canada and United States.  The 
participating parties  agreed to meet regularly to discuss best 
practices and coordinate activities around Drug Use and HIV, and 
larger, private donors would be invited to participate as well 
(e.g., Clinton Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). 
Plans were made to meet in February 2009 around the margins of a 
Dutch-led HIV donor meeting.  The purpose of this gathering would be 
to finalize plans for this group and to develop an action agenda. 
Dutch representation would chair and host the meeting. 
SCHULTE