Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

abuse and licit and illicit production. In its report, the Board noted that while there had been some encouraging developments, the worldwide drug abuse situation remained grave. Traffickers were expanding their operations into new countries and territories. The cost of human suffering had been magnified by the spread of HIV infection through intravenous drug use. A major positive development was the increase in the number of parties to the 1961, 1971 and 1988 conventions. The Board proposed to send missions to some countries whose laws do not appear to conform to articles of these conventions.

The Board again stressed that the response of the international community to the worldwide threat had to be even stronger, more comprehensive and more innovative. The INCB suggested that special emphasis be given to measures which would reduce demand, stop all illegal activities of drug traffickers, allow for environmentally safe destruction of narcotic drugs, provide rural development assistance for cultivators of illicit crops to make a living through licit means, and expand market possibilities and establish fair export prices for alternative economic activities.

The INCB welcomed establishment of the International Drug Abuse Assessment System (IDAAS), and said such a central source of information was vital to stopping drug abuse and trafficking. The Board again emphatically rejected the views of those who urged legalization of illicit drugs for nonmedical purposes, saying such an approach would undoubtedly lead to an increase in abuse, drug-related deaths, soaring health care costs, destruction of families and the erosion of basic values.

Commission on Narcotic Drugs

The 34th session of the 40-member Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) took place in Vienna from April 29 to May 9. The CND approved 10 draft resolutions forwarded for ECOSOC consideration, as well as 7 resolutions and 4 decisions that did not require ECOSOC action.

An ongoing responsibility of the CND is to place narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances under the international control provisions of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. In 1991 the CND voted to transfer delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (also referred to as delta-9-THC) and its stereochemical variants from Schedule I to Schedule II of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971, and to delete N, dimethylcyclohexaneethylamine (also

referred to as propylhexedrine) from Schedule IV of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971. In addition, the CND decided to terminate the exemption by the Government of the United States of 55 preparations containing butalbital from certain control measures provided in the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971.

At the 1991 session of the CND, attention was focused on enhancing the role of the Commission in relation to the new UNDCP. In its resolution 45/179, the General Assembly requested the CND to consider ways to improve the functioning of the Commission as a policy-making body. The Executive Director of UNDCP was asked to ensure coordination, complementarity and nonduplication of effort in drug control activities across the UN system. He also was asked to increase cooperation with international financial institutions and intergovernmental organizations. All governments were urged to provide the fullest possible support to UNDCP, and the UN Secretary General was asked to provide appropriate financial resources to enable UNDCP to perform its functions effectively.

ECOSOC Consideration

At the resumed spring session of ECOSOC in early May, 12 draft resolutions and 2 draft decisions concerning drug control were approved. Resolutions were adopted that called for control of precursor chemicals, prevention of illicit substances from diversion into the illicit market and implementation of the IDAAS, increased attention to demand reduction and to drug law enforcement in the Near and Middle East.

ECOSOC also decided to increase membership of the CND from 40 to 53. The 13 new seats were allocated to geographic regions in proportion to their membership in the United Nations. The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) received one seat, Asia three, Latin America (GRULAC) three, Africa four, Eastern Europe one, and Asia and Latin America one seat to rotate between them. Elections for these 13 seats were to be held at the ECOSOC's organizational session in early 1992.

Statements during the debate emphasized UN achievements in the area of international narcotics control. The U.S. Representative stressed the priority the United States placed on this issue and the importance of the UN role. She said that the United States was undertaking a full range of drug control activities, as outlined in President Bush's National Drug Control Strategy.

General Assembly Action

Discussion of international narcotics control issues at the 46th General Assembly focused on completing the structure of UNDCP. Both the Third and Fifth Committees developed resolutions on the subject. Five UN General Assembly resolutions were adopted, all by consensus:

• Resolution 46/101 urged respect for principles enshrined in the UN Charter and international law in the fight against drug abuse and trafficking.

• Resolution 46/102, cosponsored by the United States, called on states to continue to implement the broad range of drug control activities outlined in the Global Program of Action approved by the 44th General Assembly, and asked the United Nations and its relevant bodies to cooperate with and assist member states in this work.

• Resolution 46/103 called upon the United Nations and the international community to take various actions to stop drug abuse, and it requested the CND to consider recommendations of an Intergovernmental Expert Group to Study the Economic and Social Consequences of Illicit Traffic in Drugs, with a view to recommending appropriate follow-up activity.

• Resolution 46/104, also cosponsored by the United States, welcomed the integration of the three Vienna-based drug bodies into a single drug control program and requested the restructuring process be completed as soon as possible so that UNDCP could fulfill its mandates. The resolution emphasized the need for the Executive Director of UNDCP to have managerial flexibility so that he could effectively and expeditiously discharge the functions of the Program. It also asked the CND to give policy guidance to UNDCP and to monitor its activities.

• Resolution 46/185 (C) (XVI) formally established many of the budgetary and administrative tools needed by UNDCP to carry out day-to-day operations. This measure established the fund of the UNDCP as a fund for financing operational activities, authorized the CND to continue its role as the policy-making body on drug control issues within the UN system, empowered the CND to approve the budget of the UNDCP, noted the Secretary General's intention to establish financial rules with which to govern the program, and placed the financial accounts under the direction of UNDCP's Executive Director. Decisions on personnel arrangements were postponed to

1992.

Speaking in support of the UN's restructuring efforts, the U.S. Representative told the Assembly that:

Our goal in creating a new drug structure for the United Nations is to strengthen the UN international narcotics control programs. In addition, we hope that the new organization will energize the entire UN system to work more effectively against the threats posed by narcotics. What we seek is a dynamic organization that can be a focal point for coordinating and providing effective leadership for UN drug control activities. I have been very pleased with the progress that the UNDCP's Executive Director has made in this direction.

The U.S. Representative noted that the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances was a good example of the UN accomplishments in the drug field. He encouraged states that had not yet done so to quickly ratify and provisionally implement this important law enforcement instrument. At the end of 1991, 54 states had ratified the treaty.

Office of the UN Disaster Relief
Coordinator

The UN Disaster Relief Office (UNDRO), subsequently renamed the Office of the UN Disaster Relief Coordinator, was established in 1972 to mobilize relief more rapidly; coordinate it more systematically among existing agencies and voluntary organizations; and reduce waste, duplication and failure in the supply of essential items. UNDRO was also given responsibility for improving contingency planning and disaster preparedness worldwide and for harnessing modern scientific and technological knowledge to prevent and mitigate disasters.

UNDRO's mandate is threefold: to mobilize, direct and coordinate relief activities among organizations of the UN system; assist governments of stricken countries to assess relief needs, disseminate that information, and coordinate the donor responses; and promote disaster prevention and preparedness activities. Disaster relief coordination is the core of UNDRO's activity and receives the highest priority in allocation of

resources.

The Geneva-based organization is headed by the UN Disaster Relief Coordinator. The Coordinator's term normally is coterminous with that of the UN Secretary General; the current UNDRO coordinator is M'hamed Essaafi (Tunisia). UNDRO also maintains a liaison office in New York. UNDRO does not have its own separate governing body.

UNDRO matters are discussed biennially in ECOSOC. They were discussed at the 1991 ECOSOC summer session, and at the 46th General Assembly. UNDRO conducts biennial meetings of national emergency relief services (NERS), which consist mostly of technical discussions, but also touch on UNDRO's role and performance. Its budget is set biennially by the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, in the context of the overall UN budget, and for the 1992-1993 biennium it was allocated approximately $8 million. In addition to the regular budget, UNDRO maintains four extrabudgetary trust funds—for Disaster Relief, Disaster Mitigation, Strengthening of UNDRO and Program Support-supported by voluntary contributions from donor

countries.

The United States did not contribute to the Disaster Relief Fund in 1991, although it contributed to disaster relief through other UN agencies and through bilateral disaster assistance. U.S. contributions to the trust fund to "strengthen" UNDRO were discontinued in the 1980s. The United States was concerned that additional U.S. contributions would not be effectively used since, at that time, UNDRO was experiencing problems that had resulted in a serious decline in its performance.

Reform Effort

In response to years of criticism and assessments that UNDRO was not fulfilling its primary mission of coordinating UN assistance in disaster relief operations, a donor study in 1986 recommended the UN Development Program (UNDP) take over UNDRO functions. The UN Secretary General, electing instead to retain UNDRO as a separate entity, established a joint UNDP/UNDRO task force to make recommendations for closer cooperation. The task force submitted its report, which the United States supported, to the General Assembly in 1988.

UNDRO has worked with UNDP to implement recommendations of the task force both at headquarters and field levels. At the headquarters level, work was completed in 1990 on a joint UNDRO/UNDP disaster management manual, which was being reviewed by field missions prior to adoption in 1992. In addition, a Disaster Management Training Project was being jointly implemented by UNDRO and UNDP. The first group of UN trainees participated in a workshop held at the University of Wisconsin in January. At the field level, UNDP resident representatives have had long-standing responsibility for disasterrelated activities concerned with relief operations, prevention

« ÎnapoiContinuă »