Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-mqgyvy").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-mqgyvy").fadeIn(1000);});});

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres told an IPI audience that as millions of refugees flee war and persecution, the multilateral system has failed to mobilize the resources necessary to move them to safety in a dignified and efficient way.

“The humanitarian response system is today financially broke,” the High Commissioner said. “We are no longer able to provide the minimum needed for both core protection and lifesaving assistance.”

The uncoordinated responses of development and humanitarian actors are inadequate for a crisis of this magnitude, he emphasized. The “business model is to a certain extent exhausted,” he said. “We have been essentially on a care and maintenance model, with solutions dwindling, and with the possibility to ensure the suffering of refugees severely limited,” he said.

Humanitarians and development agencies not only need more funding, but also have to engage with one another from the outset of a crisis.

“For me, what is absolutely crucial is to understand that it no longer makes sense to talk about the gap between humanitarian aid and development cooperation, with this idea that first humanitarians address the crisis, and then the development actors come, to guarantee the sustainability of the solutions,” he said. “Now we came to a situation in which humanitarians and development actors need to be acting together since the very beginning of a crisis.”

The November 20th event, “Leadership and Global Partnerships in the Face of Today’s Refugee Crisis,” aimed to contribute to the development of proposals to more effectively help refugees through multilateral cooperation.

IPI Vice President Walter Kemp, the conversation’s moderator, noted concrete steps to help save refugees which had been suggested in the Salzburg Declaration on the Refugee Crisis, drafted by high-level participants at an IPI seminar.

Olof Skoog, Permanent Representative of Sweden to the UN, made opening remarks in which he highlighted his country’s commitment to welcoming refugees. Together with Germany, Sweden has born the brunt of resettlement in the EU. Sweden received the most asylum-seekers per capita in the EU, equal to 2% of the country’s population, he said.

Of Sweden’s priorities for the future, he said, “We strive to ensure that every one of those people receive a dignified [treatment,], and have rights fulfilled and implemented on arrival in Sweden,” he said. “But it is also true that the system has put a lot of strain on our capacity, so another priority is to ensure there is a genuine partnership within the EU and globally to jointly handle migration flows, while safeguarding of course the right to asylum.”

Sweden has been a model in this regard, but many other refugee-hosting countries struggle to provide services for the new arrivals, given the nature of their economies. New kinds of partnerships will be necessary to improve refugee lives in middle-income countries, as well as offer benefits for these states, Mr. Guterres said.

He proposed offering economic support to neighboring countries that have received a total of more than 3 million Syrians—Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey—in exchange for policy changes that could make refugees more self-reliant, such as allowing them to participate in the labor market, and access educational and other public services. These changes are necessary “in order to avoid this current maintenance model that is not only unsustainable from the financial point of view,” but also militates against “the dignity and hope for the future of the refugee community,” he said.

He praised one such agreement between Jordan, the United Kingdom, and the World Bank, which will create industrial zones inside Jordan that will be a source of employment for both Syrians and Jordanians. “This is the kind of formula that is necessary—humanitarian actors, development actors, and the countries—acting together in order to create this kind of win-win situation to ensure that refugees can have a dignified life in the countries of first asylum,” he said.

Many of the top refugee-hosting countries, like Lebanon, Jordan, Kenya, Ethiopia, Niger, and Chad, are important to their regions, Mr. Guterres said. It is essential to ensure these nations have the resources to remain bulwarks against global terrorism. “Unfortunately many of these countries are not a priority in development cooperation, and so, a fundamental review is required,” he emphasized.

The lofty goals of the just agreed to UN Sustainable Development Agenda cannot be achieved without basic security first, he said. “A large part of the poor in today’s world are in conflict areas, and that number is growing, and we cannot have a development strategy at the global level if we do not take seriously into account the problems of global security, and the multiplication of conflicts we are witnessing in today’s world,” he said.

Since 2011, 3.9 million people have fled the Syrian civil war, and 7.6 million have been internally displaced. The High Commissioner described the situation as “the most dramatic of the crises we face.”

In July 2015, as hundreds of thousands risked their lives to leave their war-torn and poverty-stricken countries for Europe, a new crisis emerged. A number of factors influenced this mass migration wave, but “the trigger in my opinion was the reduction of international assistance in 2015,” which had devastating results for the quality of life in Syria and for refugees in neighboring countries, Mr. Guterres said.

He offered three suggestions on Syria, moving forward. Firstly, he said it was essential to establish humanitarian aid at adequate levels inside Syria. Secondly, living conditions would need to improve in neighboring Middle Eastern states serving as countries of first asylum. Finally, illicit smuggling and trafficking networks, operating largely in the open, must be shut down. “This will require cooperation between the EU and Turkey, and this cooperation, I hope, will be established in the near future,” he said.

Mr. Guterres also noted that the journey of refugees to resettlement in Europe would only become more trying as temperatures drop. “I’m afraid that we will have difficult moments on the western Balkan route this winter,” he said.

The High Commissioner said the failure of European institutions to manage this migration flow in an organized way has fostered xenophobia on the continent. He emphasized the power of images in raising fear for host country populations. “The perception from looking at the television day after day after day was that Europe was being invaded by a flow of people, and all of a sudden my village is going to be completely overwhelmed, and government was not in control.”

To manage the influx properly, Europe needs to receive and screen people at the point of entry, he said.

Mr. Guterres refuted any connection between the arrival of refugees and the coming of terrorism to Europe. “Those fleeing the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts, or the Afghan conflict, are overwhelmingly victims of terror, so to say that this flow of refugees is responsible for terrorist acts is absurd, ” he said.

“For Daesh, it is very important to stimulate in Europe anti-Muslim sentiments, because anti-Muslim European societies are the best instrument they have for their propaganda and recruitment,” he said. “So, I think that a simplistic approach in trying to link refugees and terrorism need to be clearly denounced, because the security problems Europe faces at the moment are more complex and need a much more effective and comprehensive response.”

Summarizing his wide-ranging recommendations, the High Commissioner said it would be essential to redesign development cooperation around crisis prevention, and to invest in the improvement of refugee living conditions so that they “are more in line with the normal aspirations of anyone, anywhere—and that is the right to work, the right to property, for children at school, access to health systems.”

He suggested that the May 2016 World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul would offer a prime opportunity to bring the development and humanitarian communities closer. “If we could establish in the World Humanitarian Summit a new plan of action to bring together the development actors, and the development money, to humanitarian actors, I think the World Humanitarian Summit would do a fantastic thing,” he said. “Another important aspect will be to make the humanitarian system universal. The system is still very much Western conceived, to bring other actors into the system and give it a clear universal approach, that will increase its capacity to respond.”

The event was held as part of IPI’s “Global Leaders Series,” and was co-hosted with the Permanent Mission of Sweden to the UN.

Walter Kemp, IPI Vice President, moderated the conversation.

Watch event:

 

Opinión - 19/11/2015
Federico Steinberg
El comercio internacional nunca había levantado tantas pasiones como ahora. Las negociaciones del Acuerdo Transatlántico de Comercio e Inversiones (TTIP) han generado un interés inusitado y sus detractores parecen estar ganando la batalla de la opinión pública.

Die Folgen der Umerziehung in der Händigkeit war Thema einer Expertendiskussion, zu der am 19. November 2015 die Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung in Kooperation mit dem Initiativkreis Kultur, Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft, Politik e.V. und der Ersten deutschen Beratungsstelle für Linkshänder und umgeschulte Linkshänder e.V. Experten eingeladen hatte.

Derzeit sieht sich Europa mit etlichen, in ihrer Genese und Natur unterschiedlichen Konflikten konfrontiert – Russlands Annexion der Krim, die Krisenherde im Mittleren Osten oder die Vielzahl an Flüchtlingen, die täglich Europa erreicht. Um diese diffusen Herausforderungen zu erörtern, lud die Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung zur Expertendiskussion.

„Jedes (menschliche) Leben ist wertvoll. Zwar kann ein Leben vor dem anderen entstehen, aber dieses Leben ist deswegen nicht "älter", nicht wertvoller als das nachfolgende. Kein Leben steht höher als ein anderes.”

ARI 68/2015 - 19/11/2015
David Márquez Martín de la Leona

La aceleración tecnológica de los últimos años necesita de una rápida respuesta institucional que cambie el marco normativo en el que los europeos nos relacionamos y comerciamos digitalmente.

The most comprehensive assessment of UN peace operations since the Brahimi Report of 2000 was completed this year, when the High-Level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations (HIPPO) issued more than 100 recommendations to make UN peace operations “fit for purpose.” It was followed by the UN secretary-general’s report, outlining key actions to move the panel’s recommendations forward between now and the end of 2016. To support this agenda, how can the UN Secretariat and member states build and sustain the political momentum for the implementation of the recommendations of the UN secretary-general and HIPPO, as well as build on synergies with other global reviews—on the peacebuilding architecture, and on women, peace, and security?

This meeting note outlines key aspects of the agenda for improving UN peace operations and sketches a way forward for maintaining the political momentum for implementation. Focusing on political settlements, the protection of civilians, tailored and context-sensitive responses, and global-regional partnerships, it offers ideas to support ongoing initiatives to build and sustain momentum for change in UN peace operations.

The report stems from an expert meeting in Seoul on October 22, 2015, organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea and the International Peace Institute (IPI).

The following are among the recommendations that emerged from the meeting’s discussions:

• Learn from past reform efforts: Manage expectations on reform; have a clearly articulated strategic vision from the secretary-general and buy-in from the UN Secretariat to overcome the challenge of bureaucratic resistance within the UN; use concrete proposals that can be more easily championed by member states; and have longer-term five-to-ten-year plans aligned with General Assembly budget cycles.
• Build a compelling narrative: Motivate support for change by the collective sense of urgency around the growing disconnect between current UN responses and the increasing complexity of conflicts with various layers connecting with transnational aspects of organized crime and violent extremism.
• Create consensus and support of member states: The High-Level Thematic Debate on UN, Peace, and Security announced by the president of the General Assembly for May 10-11, 2016, could usefully help identify synergies among the different reviews, generate such a vision, and build member-state support for it.
• Avoid cherry-picking: Overcome the appetite to cherry-pick recommendations from the secretary-general and HIPPO reports; ensure the promotion of a holistic and coordinated approach needed for comprehensive reform; and come up with a more detailed implementation plan, thus breaking down challenging issues into more manageable bundles of proposals.
• Generate public support: Link the findings of the HIPPO report to the current crises that UN peace operations are facing from South Sudan to Libya, and as new ones emerge. Clearer and more independent monitoring and evaluation is needed.
• Move forward using long-term sight: Increase understanding of common themes across the pillars of the HIPPO report and also of synergies with the Peacebuilding Architecture Review and the Report of the Secretary-General on Women, Peace, and Security.

Download

On November 18th, The Independent Commission on Multilateralism hosted its third Public Consultation on its Discussion Paper on “Terrorism including issues related to Ideology, Identity Politics, and Organized Crime.”

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

Threats posed by terrorism and violent extremism continue to metastasize, stemming from a constellation of fault lines and imbalances caused by exclusionary, unaccountable, and ideologically based governance; identity politics; inequitable distribution of resources; and new and emerging forms of geopolitical power rivalries. While the nexus of terrorism and organized crime has posed various challenges, the latter constitutes its own threat to global peace and security. Given that these challenges are increasingly multifaceted with global, national, and local dimensions, it is essential to synergize strategies at all levels and bolster the United Nations’ role as a convener and mobilizer.

This Public Consultation focused on the findings and recommendations of the Discussion Paper. We are seeking additional feedback from you – members of civil society organizations, academics, member states, and the private sector. A link to the full ICM paper, its executive summary, and the comments section can be found by clicking here.

Discussants:
Dr. James Cockayne, Head, United Nations University, New York
H.E Raimonda Murmokaitė, Chair, United Nations Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee, and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Lithuania to the United Nations

Moderator:
H.E. Hardeep Singh Puri, Secretary-General, Independent Commission on Multilateralism

On November 18th, the Independent Commission on Multilateralism hosted its second Public Consultation on its Discussion Paper on “Social Inclusion, Political Participation, and Effective Governance in Challenging Environments.”

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

Governance systems globally are facing a growing crisis of legitimacy vis-à-vis their constituents at state and multilateral levels. Local challenges confronting national leaders have become transnational in origin and effect. The multilateral system cannot be reformed if the foundation upon which it rests—the state—remains under such stress. States have a responsibility to promote inclusive societies; the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Goal 16 make this clear.

In moving towards a holistic definition of governance, participation, and inclusion, this ICM Discussion Paper addresses the crisis of legitimacy and offers a series of four frameworks: Leadership, Inclusivity, Efficiency and Effectiveness, and Partnerships.

A link to the full ICM paper, executive summary, and comments section can be found by clicking here.

Discussants:
Mr. Andrew Tomlinson, Director and Representative, Quaker United Nations Office
Dr. Ilze Brands Kehris, Director, Office of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities
Mr. Omar El Okdah, Senior Policy Analyst, International Peace Institute

Moderator:
H.E. Mr. Hardeep Singh Puri, Secretary-General, Independent Commission on Multilateralism

Sechs Jahre lang wurde unter der Klimarahmenkonvention UNFCCC verhandelt, nachdem 2009 in Kopenhagen der erste Anlauf zu einem langfristigen Klimaregime jenseits des Kyoto-Protokolls gescheitert war. Auf dem Pariser Klimagipfel 2015 sollen nun die 195 UNFCCC-Vertragsstaaten die Weichen für ein neues Regime stellen, indem sie sich darüber einigen, wie sie ab 2020 mit dem Klimaschutz, der Anpassung an den Klimawandel, möglichen Verlusten und Schäden, dem Technologietransfer und der Klimafinanzierung verfahren wollen.

Für einen Erfolg in Paris sind zwei Bausteine wichtig.
Erstens muss es gelingen, die gemeldeten Klimaziele (INDCs – Intended Nationally Determined Contributions) in einer verbindlichen Form zu fixieren und regelmäßig zu überprüfen. Damit würde die „firewall“ zwischen den Industrie- und den Entwicklungsländern unter der UNFCCC aufgehoben, die bislang dafür gesorgt hat, dass sich die Schwellenländer für den Klimaschutz nicht zuständig fühlten. Zweitens muss das neue Regime Staaten zu einem umfassenden und nachhaltigen Klimarisikomanagement befähigen. Dazu gehören mehr Anstrengungen bei der Anpassung an den Klimawandel und die entsprechende finanzielle Unterstützung auch nach 2020. Nur wenn das Pariser Abkommen eine Balance zwischen diesen Bausteinen herstellt, wird ein Konsens möglich sein, auf dessen Basis 2016 weitere Details geklärt werden können.

Die Studie zeigt auf, warum trotz der hohen Ansprüche die Chance groß ist, dass bei der 21. Vertragsstaatenkonferenz (COP21, Conference of the Parties) in der französischen Hauptstadt ein Abkommen verabschiedet wird, welche Rolle die großen Player USA, China, Indien und die EU dabei spielen und wie Deutschland 2016 weiterhin dazu beitragen kann, dass das neue Regime ab 2020 funktioniert.

Bonn, 18.11.2015. So verständlich – wie voraussehbar – die Ausweitung der französischen Bombardements auf den Islamischen „Staat“ (IS) als Reaktion auf die Attentate von Paris am 13.11. auch sein mögen, so spielen diese doch vor allem den Islamisten in die Hände. Europa und der Westen insgesamt müssen sich auf eine wertebasierte, nachhaltige und umfassende Sicherheitspolitik für den Mittleren Osten und den Arabischen Raum besinnen. Westliche Regierungen könnten einem gefährlichen Irrtum aufsitzen, wenn sie glauben, die IS-Jihadisten durch eine Intensivierung der Bombenkampagne von weiteren Terroranschlägen abhalten zu können. Umgekehrt täuschen sich auch die Extremisten, wenn sie meinen, den Westen mit hinterhältigen Attacken auf Zivilisten zum Aufgeben der Interventionen in Nahost bringen zu können. Darüber hinaus ist klar, dass wir angesichts der Perfidie und Feigheit solcher Anschläge Einigkeit und Entschlossenheit signalisieren wollen und müssen – alles andere wäre fatal. Die Eskalation der Gewalt jedoch nützt den islamischen Terroristen und fügt sich nahtlos in die Logik ihres Nullsummenspiels, die weitere Akteure in einen blutigen Konflikt verstricken will, der, einigen Verblendeten zufolge, in einem Armageddon mit dem Untergang der Welt enden soll. Der Westen kann hier nur verlieren, denn eine Beendigung des Syrienkrieges – und damit der akuten Flüchtlingskrise – ist nur auf dem Verhandlungsweg zu erzielen. Nach der letzten Runde der internationalen Gespräche zur Syrienkrise in Wien darf man vorsichtig optimistisch sein. Europäische Globalstrategie – für einen Abwehrkampf? Dringender denn je benötigen wir eine europäische Strategie, die nicht nur auf kurzfristige, defensive, sondern auf eine umfassende und nachhaltige Sicherheitspolitik setzt. Diese muss auch Aspekte der langfristigen, regionalen Entwicklung als Bedingung für Stabilität, soziale Gerechtigkeit und Demokratie anerkennen. Der von der EU-Außenbeauftragten Mogherini im Juni 2015 angestoßene Strategieprozess droht zu einer von Angst, Ressentiment und engem Sicherheitsdenken getriebenen Abwehr- und Abgrenzungsdebatte zu verkümmern. Am 18.11. stellte die EU-Kommission auch das Weißbuch zur Reform der Europäischen Nachbarschaftspolitik vor. Es ist zu befürchten, dass das, was als „pragmatischerer Zugang“ angepriesen wird, den Misserfolgen der Vergangenheit lediglich mit einer Abschwächung der Ambitionen und Ziele begegnen wird. Große Aufwendungen werden dagegen in Kauf genommen, um die aktuellen Flucht- und Migrationsbewegungen zu unterbinden und zurückzudrängen. Schon nach dem Gipfel von Valletta mussten sich die EU-Staats- und Regierungschefs den Vorwurf gefallen lassen, die Türkei für die Aufnahme von Flüchtlingen mit 3 Mrd. € zu „bestechen“, während für den neuen Afrika-Fonds zur strukturellen Armuts- und Fluchtursachenbekämpfung gerade mal 1,9 Mrd. € übrig waren. Im Bereich der Europäischen Globalpolitik droht eine Beschränkung auf die verteidigungspolitischen Instrumente. Verknüpft mit verstärkter Überwachung durch Geheimdienste, Polizeiapparate, Justiz- und Grenzschutz-Behörden wird ein Trugbild der Sicherheit erzeugt, wo diese Maßnahmenbündel zunächst auch eine nicht unerhebliche Gefahr für die Bürger- und Freiheitsrechte darstellen. Die Rüstungsindustrie hat auf diese goldene Chance sicherlich gewartet: nachdem zuerst mit Waffenexporten an die Konfliktparteien gut verdient wurde, ist jetzt auch noch die Dividende (oder der Jackpot) in Form verstärkter innereuropäischer Beschaffungsmaßnahmen und aufgestockter Verteidigungsbudgets fällig. Unter den Waffendeals leidet unsere Glaubwürdigkeit, denn europäische Werte werden anderswo schwer vermittelbar, wenn wir sie selbst nicht ernst nehmen und den Extremisten mit einer solchen Doppelmoral Argumentationshilfe leisten. Was der IS allerdings am meisten fürchtet, waren nach Aussagen von Insidern genau solche Szenen, in denen abertausende Flüchtlinge von Europäern willkommen geheißen wurden. Letztlich stellt die Verengung unseres Horizonts auf Bewachung und Bestrafung eine doppelte Niederlage dar, gegenüber den äußeren wie den inneren Feinden der Europäischen Idee, wobei der Nutzen im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus zweifelhaft ist. Sicherheit und Recht und Freiheit Wenn wir zulassen, dass Furcht und Festungsmentalität unser politisches Handeln bestimmen, haben die Islamisten mehr als nur eine Schlacht gewonnen und sich unbefugten Zutritt zu Europas Innerstem verschafft, seinen Werten und seinem Selbstverständnis. Dies wäre ähnlich katastrophal – und gleichermaßen inakzeptabel – als wenn wir es Rechtsradikalen überließen, zentrale gesellschaftspolitische Entscheidungen, etwa in der Asylfrage, für uns zu treffen. Dieser Umstand ist im Übrigen der einzige, den das Flüchtlings- und das Terrorthema gemeinsam haben: es ist in beiden Fällen unverantwortlich, das Feld den Hasspredigern und Angstmachern zu überlassen. Jede andere Art der Vermengung der Diskussionen muss als fahrlässig gelten – wenn nicht als bösartig. Wir benötigen eine holistische Sichtweise auf Frieden, die Sicherheit und Entwicklung zu gleichen Teilen berücksichtigt. Dies bedeutet profunde Analyse und das Bestreben, auf die eigentlichen, tiefer- und dahinterliegenden Probleme, wie das Verzagen an Armut, Ungleichheit und Unterdrückung, einzugehen. Andernfalls werden wir Europa, wie wir es uns wünschen, in einer immer engmaschiger vernetzen Welt nicht nachhaltig beschützen und bewahren können.

ARI 67/2015 - 18/11/2015
Carmen González Enríquez
La crisis de los refugiados está poniendo en peligro uno de los principales logros de la UE, el espacio Schengen, y enfrentando a los Estados entre sí. Para atajarla es necesario fortalecer los controles externos, restaurar la confianza entre los Estados y avanzar en el Sistema Europeo de Asilo unificando los criterios de concesión y los apoyos que se ofrecen a los refugiados.

On November 17th, IPI together with the Folke Bernadotte Academy, SecDev Foundation and ZIF cohosted a global gathering of leading academics, experts, and policy makers focused on the next generation of peace and security challenges.

Click here to view the event video on YouTube>>

The background note, agenda, and list of speakers are available here.

This seminar aims to assess the state of the art in knowledge and practice at the crossroads of governance and peacebuilding, and unpack the state-society relationship in a way that can help inform stronger policymaking in consolidating peace and building inclusive and ultimately more resilient societies.

Kenneth W. Abbott,

Deutschland, Israel, Europa war der Titel einer Konferenz, zu der die Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung in Brüssel am 9. und 10. November 2015 mit der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung und dem American Jewish Committee einlud.

Obwohl der westafrikanische Wüstenstaat fast dreimal so groß wie Deutschland ist, besitzt er nur ca. 3 Millionen Einwohner und gilt als eines der ärmsten Länder der Welt.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-bhuwjl").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-bhuwjl").fadeIn(1000);});});

A panel of experts in drug control policy examined the interactions between sustainable development and the world drug problem at an IPI panel, “Debating the Intersection between the Sustainable Development Agenda (SDGs) and United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) 2016” on November 16th, 2015.

The meeting, co-organized with the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum (CPPF), was held to prepare for UNGASS, which will take place in April 2016.

Jürg Lauber, Permanent Representative of Switzerland to the UN, opened the discussion by stating that the comprehensiveness of the Sustainable Development Agenda would require members to rethink their approach to drug policy.

“When you look at the agenda, we talk about a paradigm shift,” he said. “It really, really is. When you look at the ambition of the agenda, but also the universality, the approach, the reach, and we need to recalibrate the discussion we have on the world drug problem, or at least it gives us the opportunity to recalibrate the discussion.”

Ambassador Lauber listed six aspects of the development and drug policy agendas in need of improvement over the next fifteen years – peace, governance, human rights, public health, gender equality, and environmental impact.

The last UNGASS on the world’s drug control priorities was held in 1998. Since then, the session’s stated objective for the total elimination of drugs from the world has clearly not been achieved. The 2016 UNGASS, however, offers an opportunity for member states to shift their strategy from being entirely focused on eliminating volumes of drugs, to analyzing the impacts of drug control policies on people.

There are growing calls to take a broader view of the related health, human rights, and safety concerns related to drug control, Mr. Lauber said. He called for “a sincere analysis of what has worked, and what has not worked.”

UNGASS 2016 must consider “the full range of links between the world drug problem and sustainable development in areas affected by illicit drug cultivation, trafficking, or use, and be particularly candid of situations in which the side effect of the cure have been far worse than the disease itself,” he said.

Julia Buxton of Hungary’s School of Public Policy, Central European University, asked whether the SDGs most closely linked to drug policy, such as eradicating poverty and HIV, would be possible to achieve if member states continued with their present militarized counter-narcotics strategy. “Absolutely not,” she answered, “not so long as we have this astonishing contradiction in policy and coherence between the securitization of drugs and pressing development issues.”

Ms. Buxton criticized “alternative development” programs aimed at encouraging peasants to switch from growing illicit drugs-related crops. Alternative development programs have been central to UN drug control strategies, but she warned they have had a negative impact.

“Rather than being a solution to these rather catastrophic global security and development problems we have, this is, as I like to say, a sticking plaster on a gangrenous leg that requires amputation,” she said. “It is a wholly inadequate response to the scale of the problems that we face.”

Ms. Buxton quantified alternative development programs’ mixed record. Despite significant alternative development aid from the United Kingdom, Afghanistan’s Helmand province saw an increase in opium cultivation in the past two years—34% in 2012-13, and 23% in 2013-14. Of Britain’s failure with this program, Ms. Buxton said, “this record is a travesty of why alternative development cannot work, and it cannot work because it is part of a counter-narcotic strategy.”

Ms. Buxton summarized her critique of alternative development by highlighting why it is not a way to promote development. “It’s driven by security concerns, and not development concerns and it re-enforces structural and national inequalities,” she said. “For those reasons, besides the fact that China, Russia, and US can’t even agree on what constitutes development, there’s no consensus, there’s no agreement, and these projects do more harm than good.”

Tenu Avafia, Team Leader of the HIV, Health and Development Group at the UN Development Programme (UNDP), brought the perspective of the United Nations to the panel’s discussion. He reminded the audience that “many people incarcerated for drugs are indigenous and ethnic minorities.” Further, he said, children of those incarcerated in many countries may be locked up with their parents, or “left to fend for themselves on the street, or in the no less ideal setting of institutionalized or foster care.”

A central part of the SDGs are the 179 targets to be met. “We’re all familiar with the term, whether we like it or not, ‘what gets measured gets done,’” Mr. Avafia said. Traditional measures of the success of drug policies focused on statistics such as the number of drug-related arrests made or the volumes of drugs seized. UNDP reported this has been problematic, because such measures say little about “the impacts of drug policies on people’s lives,” he said.

Bearing this disproportionate influence that past measures have had on the most vulnerable, Mr. Avafia stated it is his hope that the UN will “join the growing number of actors who call for a rethink of metrics that measure the impact of drug policies on human rights, on human development, and on public health, and we support these calls.”

Summer Walker, Drug Policy Project Manager for the United Nations University think-tank, said that a complementary set of metrics specific to drug policy were needed in conjunction with the SDGs. The SDGs have catalyzed a new conversation about indicators, and UNGASS can build upon that energy. This is why UNU’s report recommends, “that member states use UNGASS to measure the human development impacts of drug policies and drugs.”

Developing this particular set of targets and measures for drug policy, she said, “would help the drug policy/development action plan better align with both the SDGs and human development more broadly.”

Adam Lupel, IPI Director of Research and Publications, moderated the conversation.

Related Event:
IPI Panel: Focus on Prevention, Not Repression, Needed in Response to Drug Problem

Watch event: