Haider Rizvi
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 27 (IPS) - "Water is life. Water is humanity. How could it be part of the private business?" asked Bolivian President Evo Morales Wednesday, stressing the social and economic consequences of the growing trend of private ownership over water supply and delivery systems in many parts of the world.
Morales, the first-ever indigenous president of Bolivia and an outspoken advocate of the rights of "Mother Earth", also criticised capitalist countries of the North for failing to adopt a rights-based approach towards the problems of global warming and the rapid loss of plant and animal species.
"If we don't respect the rights of Mother Earth, we cannot respect human rights," he told a news conference at U.N. headquarters before heading to the U.N. General Assembly where he addressed a meeting on water and sanitation.
More than two billion people across the world have no access to sanitation facilities and clean water. Numerous U.N. studies have shown a strong link between deadly diseases and the lack of access to clean water in many countries of the South.
Research shows that inadequate access to clean and safe drinking water remains a major obstacle for the success of international initiatives on sustainable economic and social development in financially impoverished regions of the world.
The international community has pledged to reduce by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation by 2015, a target that is unlikely to be met on time.
"Progress is on track," said U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015, but warned diplomats at the General Assembly gathering that the world "will miss the water and sanitation target".
"It is not acceptable that poor slum-dwellers pay five or even 10 times as much for their water as wealthy residents of the same areas of the same cities," he said. However, in the same breath, Ban added: "Let us be clear: a right to water and sanitation does not mean that water should be free."
Morales's stance on this issue reflected a completely different worldview.
"Without water, there can be no food, no life," he said, challenging the notion that water management by private corporations will accelerate the process of development. "Competition of any sort cannot resolve the issue of poverty."
The first-ever indigenous president of Bolivia, who is well-known for his outspokenness and socialist views, said his government had already expelled some multinational companies that were seeking privatisation of water in his country.
"Water is a basic public need that must not be managed by private interests, and that it should be available to all the people," he said, a view endorsed by a number of diplomats from the developing countries who spoke at the General Assembly meeting.
"Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a pre-condition to eradicate poverty," said Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, the Brazilian envoy to the U.N. "The right to safe water and sanitation [is] intrinsically connected to the right to life, to physical integrity, to health, to food, and adequate housing."
The U.S. delegate also supported the view that access to water is a universal human right, but shied away from discussing the role of the private sector in the supply and distribution of drinking water. "The U.S. is committed to solving the world's water problems," he said.
According to Food and water Watch, a non-governmental organisation- based in Washington, many women and children in rural areas in developing countries spend hours each day walking kilometres to collect water from unprotected sources such as open wells, muddy dugouts or streams.
In urban areas, they collect it from polluted waterways or pay high prices to buy it from vendors who obtain it from dubious sources. The water is often dirty and unsafe, but they have no alternative.
Carrying the heavy water containers back home is an exhausting task, which takes up valuable time and energy, according to the group. It often prevents women from doing vital domestic or income-generating work and stops children from going to school.
"Water is a human right. We believe that corporations cannot provide better service to consumers," said Kate Fried of the Water and Food Watch in support of Morales's views. "Water service can be provided more effectively by public-public partnership."
Water Aid, another non-profit organization, says the total global investments in water and sanitation would need to double for the Millennium Development Goals' target of halving the proportion of people living without water and sanitation by 2015 to be met.
Asked by IPS if his views on the right to water are getting support from the richest countries, Morales said that Spain was the only country from the European Union that was in alliance with Bolivia on this subject.
"There should be no one without access to water," he quoted Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister, as saying.
Republished from IPSNews
Bolivia: Media conglomerates may come to an end
Fortunato Esquivel
In 1997 the Law on Telecomunications was approved, a law which is presently in force and which may now be in its death agony as the Parliament begins this week (1) to debate new norms which will replace the 1997 legislation, to the great benefit of the people of Bolivia, and which will probably bring to an end the rule of the media conglomerates, which can only be compared to the great landed estates of other times.
The law currently in force, enacted by the neoliberal government in office at the time, reorganized the radio spectrum, although in truth this was a genial device to get rid of radio stations run by unions, which were the only media in opposition to the neoliberal establishment. From that time, all were given a licence for twenty years, the period established for the use of frequencies.
The twenty years would end in 2017, but by then new regulations will be in force in accord with legislation to be debated this week. The authorities have indicated that the concession of frequencies will be to the order of 33% for the private sector, 33% for the public (government, administrations, cities and public universities) and 34% for community radios and those controlled by first nations and groups of small landholders (campesinos).
At the present time, 98% of the frequencies are in the hands of the private sector whose privileges allow them to establish true "media conglomerates" that guarantee political power to manipulate public opinion.
The norm currently under debate refers to the concession of frequencies in radio and television, but the announcement alone mobilized the owners of these media conglomerates to "denounce" this legislative proposal as an attack on their interests. The leader of the station owners is a former employee of the U.S. Embassy and a competent producer of programs in the Voice of America. He affirmed that the new legislation intends to divide the frequencies into sectarian groups.
The new Telecommunications Law will ensure an adequate distribution of frequencies. It should prevent bankers and powerful economic interests from monopolizing frequencies, and using them to maintain their power, since the media are strategic elements that should also not be in the hands of foreigners.
In these times of change, the media should be at the service of and benefit all Bolivians through a free, equitable and participative communication, which would support the aspirations of peoples whose struggles for real change have been building up for some time now.
If we look carefully at the present situation, one can only conclude that the media are at the service of oligarchs. They are their instruments of domination and subjection in support of their own interests, which is sufficient reason to hope that the legislation now under consideration in Parliament will put an end to the patrimony of the oligarchy and transform it into the property of all Bolivians.
The monopolies are coming to an end
The Telecomunications Law will replace existing legislation and regulate the technical functioning of audiovisual media. It is possible that some time in the future, some thought will be given to another Media Legislation which could regulate the content and legal exercise of communicators, beginning with the owners, who at the present time, for the most part, have nothing to do with journalism. We hope for an auspicious labour on the part of legislators who must be able, without fear, to continue with consultations and technical advice as necessary.
On being approved promptly, the Telecomunications Legislation will put an end to the neoliberal control that has been in force for fourteen years, as well as to the chaotic disorder among frequencies assigned and in the content of radio stations that are more than a thousand in number and television stations that number some five hundred channels.
Media oligarchs
Three television networks have accumulated an enormous power to manipulate public opinion, at the service of sectarian political interests and in fierce opposition to real change towards inclusion which may be seen for the first time in Bolivia. Who are the proprietors and what interests do they represent? Here they are:
Red Uno
Its proprietor is the businessman and politician of Croat origin, Ivo Kuljis Füchner. He forms part of a society with Gonzalo Sáchez de Lozada (MNR – Nationalist Revolutionary Movement), Carlos Palenque (CONDEPA – Patriot Awareness), Johnny Fernández (UCS – Solidarity Civic Union) and Manfred Reyes Villa (NFR – New Republican Force). As a politician he was a failure, but he obtained significant benefits for his enterprises.
In the business world, he is involved in successful operations in banking, the supermarket chain Hipermaxi, the meat-processing operation Fridosa, Kupel industries, cattle raising on a large scale, exportation of soya, real estate and educational institutions, among others.
Red PAT
This begin as an effort on the part of journalists who hoped that from their professional competence, they would be able to offer television programming that would be less alienating. At the time they were unique in their national programming.
However, impartiality does not appear to have much of a future in this country and this network moved towards neoliberalism, sliding in that direction until it ended up in the hands of an Arab businessman Abdalá Daher, whose interests, among others, are the importation of electronic equipment. Daher is not involved in political activity and the only scandal in which he was involved was having been subjected to pressure to contribute to Eduardo Rosza Flores to head up the separatist movement in Santa Cruz.
Red UNITEL
This network is the most radical of the media conglomerates, related to CNN in the US and under the proprietorship of the Monasterios family, whose principal representative is Osvaldo Monasterios Añez, an active militant in the MNR and a member of Parliament on two occasions.
His media network has much to defend, since the Monastarios are tied to large banking enterprises, producers of soft drinks, ice cream, alcohol and its derivatives, large cattle estates (including the Nelore cattle), importation of furniture, administration of the duty-free zone Zoframaq (Puerto Suárez), among other interests.
The interests are there, this is clear
Such an enormous economic power is defended by a large band of journalists through programmes carefully structured to mount a tenacious opposition to the present process of change, based on surveys and investigations that are clearly manipulated, and quite obviously discard their hardly credible pretensions of impartiality and objectivity.
The members of Parliament who will consider the new Telecomunications Legislation are obliged to consider whether the media should be in the hands of powerful businessmen whose interests may twist public opinion, if they can ensure the collaboration of chosen manipulators who work for them, if they can be found.
ALAI AMLATINA, 12/07/2011. (Translation: Jordan Bishop).
(1) NDLR: On the day this article was published (July 12) the Chamber of Deputies approved the project of the Telecomunications Legislation which will guarantee an equitable distribution of frequencies, and the projected legislation is to be sent to the upper chamber (the Senate) for revision and approval.
Statement by Bolivia during the Security Council Debate: The impact of climate change
Statement by Ambassador Rafael Archondo, Permanent Representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to the United Nations, in the Debate of the Security Council on Maintenance of international peace and security: The impact of climate change
New York, July 20, 2011
Thank you Mr. President.
Bolivia joins the statements made by the Group 77 and China, represented by Argentina and the Non-Aligned Movement, whose voice has been expressed by Egypt.
Mr. President:
Climate change is a real threat to the existence of mankind, other living creatures and Mother Earth, and given its systemic nature, can be analyzed from multiple dimensions such as social, economic, cultural or environmental. We also know that climate change has a security dimension, because temperature change can cause states to disappear and will cause new conflicts to arise. It is a global threat for which few are responsible yet millions are affected by. Among those affected are small island states with which we would like to extend our solidarity to, especially to President of Nauru, who was with us today.
However, although we recognize the security dimensions of climate change, we disagree with the notion of having this issue be addressed by the Security Council because its permanent members that hold the right to veto are also precisely the states that are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Under this circumstance, is it conceivable that the Security Council would effectively adopt resolutions that sanction or mandate reparations from their own countries for the damage they are causing?
Mr. President:
The security dimension of climate change must be treated in an organ where the guilty do not have the right to veto or permanent membership. This issue should be discussed in setting where the victims-at-risk are adequately represented; the threat of disappearing island states, countries that have glaciers, Africa and all developing countries that have to pay the cost of damage that they have not caused. Today, the only instance in which there is this degree of participation is within General Assembly and thus all dimensions of climate change must be addressed comprehensively in its midst.
Mr. President:
Furthermore, we note that the fundamental concern in the process of climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC, is the guarantee of a real and effective reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases through the adoption of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Only then can we bridge the gap that currently exists, and the stabilization of the temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius. Developed countries must increase their current reduction commitments as we are pushing for a temperature increase of up to 5 degrees Celsius, before a disastrous scenario breaks out. This morning this Mr. Akim Steiner, UNEP Executive Director has warned of such a catastrophe.
According to the Global Humanitarian Forum (chaired by former Secretary General Kofi Annan) 350,000 people die each year due to natural disasters caused by climate change. It is a figure that is rising and exceeds the number of deaths of many armed conflicts and wars that occur in the world. Therefore, it is necessary that we create a protocol to judge and punish those who violate their commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, because what they are doing is causing genocide and ecocide against Mother Earth. For this reason, the State of Bolivia promotes the creation of an International Court of Climate and Environmental Justice to implement effective measures to guarantee human rights, the rights of nature, and every living thing affected by the irresponsibility of those dedicated only to their interests of profit and promote the survival of mankind and Mother Earth.
Mr. President:
Globally each year, more than 1500 billion dollars is allocated to military spending. The vast majority of these costs are concentrated in developed countries and particularly the countries holding the 5 permanent seats of the Security Council. In contrast, to address the issue of climate change issues developed countries have only offered $30 billion in 3 years; 10 billion per year, which to less than 1% of what they spend on defense and security. A positive initiative would significantly reduce military spending and allocate monies to a fund that addresses the impacts of climate change in developing countries particularly island states, Africa, the mountain ranges and all regions of the world in which poor are being affected.
Mr. President:
Please allow me to finish these remarks with a question: is it possible for the Security Council to adopt a resolution establishing a reduction, let’s say, start with 10 or 20% in defense spending and security, to be allocated to address the impacts of climate change?
Thank you very much.
Republished from PWCCC website
BOLIVIA: New Food Policy to Boost Small-Scale Farms
Franz Chávez
LA PAZ, Jul 19, 2011 (IPS) - In the midst of heated debate with agribusiness, the Bolivian government has launched an agricultural production model aimed at boosting food sovereignty by supporting small farmers, in order to generate surpluses to cushion the swings in international food prices.
A new "law on a productive community-based agricultural revolution" combines modern scientific farming standards and techniques with ancestral indigenous traditions aimed at producing and storing food during periods of climate adversity.
The law is focused on bolstering food production in rural indigenous communities in South America's poorest country, where native people make up 60 percent of the population.
The law, signed this month by leftwing President Evo Morales, has unleashed fears in the export-oriented agribusiness sector. But it has also drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and indigenous leaders because it allows the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in parts of the food production chain.
The head of Agriculture and Livestock Production and Food Sovereignty, Germán Gallardo, one of the sponsors of the law, told IPS it embodies an "inclusive policy that recognises private, mixed, individual and collective farm producers."
Early this year, persistent drought, repeated frosts, contraband and government policies restricting exports discouraged investment by large companies, and food production went down and the government was forced to import food in order to avoid shortages.
Gallardo said there was no deficit in food production in Bolivia. However, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) classifies Bolivia among those countries with "serious" nutrition problems and assigned it 10.9 points on its scale of 0 (no hunger) to 100 (most hunger) on the Global Hunger Index (scores between 10 and 19.9 indicate a "serious" problem).
A report by the Technical Committee of the National Council for Food and Nutrition (CONAN), presented in 2010 at the First National Food Sovereignty Forum, says that 26.8 percent of Bolivians suffer from chronic malnutrition, the highest level in the region, followed by Ecuador (26.4 percent), Peru (25.4), Colombia (15.5) and Paraguay (14).
According to the report, people affected by malnutrition in the country face problems like anaemia, deficiencies of micronutrients such as vitamin A, zinc and iodine, obesity, and chronic non-communicable diseases.
The full results of the new food policy will be seen in five years' time, said Gallardo, who emphasised the role that will be played by communities, a sector which deserves recognition as the producers of 80 percent of domestically consumed food, he said.
"We are not harming agribusiness; we are strengthening small farmers, but not to the detriment of large producers," Gallardo said, adding that equal opportunities for access to bank credits, technology and seeds will transform Bolivia into a country with reserves of surplus food.
One popular type of bread in Bolivia is made with imported flour. In 2010, national production of wheat was only 271,330 tonnes, while consumption was 631,000 tonnes, according to the Rural Development Ministry.
"The revolutionary law was drawn up by farmers and intellectuals working for the state," said Gallardo, stressing that the proposed model of food production does not follow formulas imposed from abroad.
"The international agencies were pointing us in the direction of food policies that would not be under our control," he complained, while highlighting the law's national identity and break with external dependence, quipping that while it was being drafted, "we paid for everyone's lunches ourselves."
But the strategy for ensuring food security for Bolivia's population of 10.4 million must be translated into a system of bank loans for farmers, who are no longer allowed by law to use their small plots of land as collateral.
Once these barriers have been overcome, the Morales administration has announced plans to introduce technology into small-scale farming, and then build a food storage network, based on the traditional indigenous "pirwa", food storage structures made from the local materials in each region that are capable of preserving food in its natural state for long periods of time.
Morales, Bolivia's first-ever indigenous president, is very popular among the country's peasant communities.
But one aspect of the new law has drawn the wrath of the influential National Council of Ayllus and Markas of Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ), a confederation of traditional governing bodies of highland indigenous communities in Bolivia, which has called for the elimination of the use of GMOs in food production.
"Transgenics will have a social impact on health, because they cause health problems like cancer," said CONAMAQ leader Rafael Quispe, an outspoken opponent of importing GM seeds.
The scientific community has not yet reached a consensus on the potential health effects of transgenic crops.
Quispe argues that using transgenic seeds generates dependency on the transnational companies that produce them.
Edwin Alvarado, a spokesman for the Environmental Defence League (LIDEMA), told IPS that article 15 of the law is aimed at protecting the genetic heritage of native Bolivian crops like potatoes and quinoa, a grain-like food crop that was also first domesticated in the Andes.
But it is being interpreted as allowing other species, like sugarcane and cotton, to enter the country. Alvarado, who explained that LIDEMA is opposed to GMOs, called for specific legislation to protect local varieties of food crops that can adapt to climate change and could make Bolivia a model of agricultural biodiversity.
Pointing out that 85 percent of soy produced in Bolivia is genetically modified, he acknowledged that this is an irreversible trend, but insisted the rest of the country's food crops must be preserved in their natural state.
Gallardo agreed with Alvarado that specific legislation must be adopted, and declared that eradicating transgenic soy is impossible, because of a "multi-ministerial" resolution approved during the administration of former president Carlos Mesa (2003-2005).
Republished from IPSNews
LA PAZ, Jul 19, 2011 (IPS) - In the midst of heated debate with agribusiness, the Bolivian government has launched an agricultural production model aimed at boosting food sovereignty by supporting small farmers, in order to generate surpluses to cushion the swings in international food prices.
A new "law on a productive community-based agricultural revolution" combines modern scientific farming standards and techniques with ancestral indigenous traditions aimed at producing and storing food during periods of climate adversity.
The law is focused on bolstering food production in rural indigenous communities in South America's poorest country, where native people make up 60 percent of the population.
The law, signed this month by leftwing President Evo Morales, has unleashed fears in the export-oriented agribusiness sector. But it has also drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and indigenous leaders because it allows the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in parts of the food production chain.
The head of Agriculture and Livestock Production and Food Sovereignty, Germán Gallardo, one of the sponsors of the law, told IPS it embodies an "inclusive policy that recognises private, mixed, individual and collective farm producers."
Early this year, persistent drought, repeated frosts, contraband and government policies restricting exports discouraged investment by large companies, and food production went down and the government was forced to import food in order to avoid shortages.
Gallardo said there was no deficit in food production in Bolivia. However, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) classifies Bolivia among those countries with "serious" nutrition problems and assigned it 10.9 points on its scale of 0 (no hunger) to 100 (most hunger) on the Global Hunger Index (scores between 10 and 19.9 indicate a "serious" problem).
A report by the Technical Committee of the National Council for Food and Nutrition (CONAN), presented in 2010 at the First National Food Sovereignty Forum, says that 26.8 percent of Bolivians suffer from chronic malnutrition, the highest level in the region, followed by Ecuador (26.4 percent), Peru (25.4), Colombia (15.5) and Paraguay (14).
According to the report, people affected by malnutrition in the country face problems like anaemia, deficiencies of micronutrients such as vitamin A, zinc and iodine, obesity, and chronic non-communicable diseases.
The full results of the new food policy will be seen in five years' time, said Gallardo, who emphasised the role that will be played by communities, a sector which deserves recognition as the producers of 80 percent of domestically consumed food, he said.
"We are not harming agribusiness; we are strengthening small farmers, but not to the detriment of large producers," Gallardo said, adding that equal opportunities for access to bank credits, technology and seeds will transform Bolivia into a country with reserves of surplus food.
One popular type of bread in Bolivia is made with imported flour. In 2010, national production of wheat was only 271,330 tonnes, while consumption was 631,000 tonnes, according to the Rural Development Ministry.
"The revolutionary law was drawn up by farmers and intellectuals working for the state," said Gallardo, stressing that the proposed model of food production does not follow formulas imposed from abroad.
"The international agencies were pointing us in the direction of food policies that would not be under our control," he complained, while highlighting the law's national identity and break with external dependence, quipping that while it was being drafted, "we paid for everyone's lunches ourselves."
But the strategy for ensuring food security for Bolivia's population of 10.4 million must be translated into a system of bank loans for farmers, who are no longer allowed by law to use their small plots of land as collateral.
Once these barriers have been overcome, the Morales administration has announced plans to introduce technology into small-scale farming, and then build a food storage network, based on the traditional indigenous "pirwa", food storage structures made from the local materials in each region that are capable of preserving food in its natural state for long periods of time.
Morales, Bolivia's first-ever indigenous president, is very popular among the country's peasant communities.
But one aspect of the new law has drawn the wrath of the influential National Council of Ayllus and Markas of Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ), a confederation of traditional governing bodies of highland indigenous communities in Bolivia, which has called for the elimination of the use of GMOs in food production.
"Transgenics will have a social impact on health, because they cause health problems like cancer," said CONAMAQ leader Rafael Quispe, an outspoken opponent of importing GM seeds.
The scientific community has not yet reached a consensus on the potential health effects of transgenic crops.
Quispe argues that using transgenic seeds generates dependency on the transnational companies that produce them.
Edwin Alvarado, a spokesman for the Environmental Defence League (LIDEMA), told IPS that article 15 of the law is aimed at protecting the genetic heritage of native Bolivian crops like potatoes and quinoa, a grain-like food crop that was also first domesticated in the Andes.
But it is being interpreted as allowing other species, like sugarcane and cotton, to enter the country. Alvarado, who explained that LIDEMA is opposed to GMOs, called for specific legislation to protect local varieties of food crops that can adapt to climate change and could make Bolivia a model of agricultural biodiversity.
Pointing out that 85 percent of soy produced in Bolivia is genetically modified, he acknowledged that this is an irreversible trend, but insisted the rest of the country's food crops must be preserved in their natural state.
Gallardo agreed with Alvarado that specific legislation must be adopted, and declared that eradicating transgenic soy is impossible, because of a "multi-ministerial" resolution approved during the administration of former president Carlos Mesa (2003-2005).
Republished from IPSNews
Treaty guardians in distress: The inquisitorial nature of the INCB response to Bolivia
Monday, July 11, 2011
Just when you start to see glimmers of hope that the troubled UN drug control system is opening up for a change process, its principal guardian the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) does it again… In a press release on July 5, the INCB secretariat condemned Bolivia’s decision to denounce the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and re-accede with a reservation on the coca leaf.
“The international community should not accept any approach whereby Governments use the mechanism of denunciation and re-accession with reservation, in order to free themselves from the obligation to implement certain treaty provisions. Such approach would undermine the integrity of the global drug control system” according to the INCB, warning Bolivia “to consider very seriously all the implications of its actions in this regard”.
Past years have brought about some positive steps forward in the way the UN system struggles with drug policy dilemmas. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) took up a more pro-active role in the policy debate with papers such as “fit for purpose” and its World Drug Report has started to become more evidence-based. The tension between human rights and drug control has appeared – with difficulty – on the agenda, and other UN agencies and Special Rapporteurs have started to pay more attention to what is going on within the secluded drug control corner of the UN system dominated by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), UNODC and INCB. Last but not least, the UN Department of Political Affairs (DPA) initiated talks to improve the consistency of the system-wide approach to drug trafficking and organized crime, an initiative recently approved and formalized by the Secretary General in the form of a task force jointly coordinated with UNODC and in collaboration with a range of other agencies.
The INCB have also showed positive signs of responding to mounting criticism about its performance being out of step with basic UN principles on transparency and civil society involvement. The chair of the Board agreed to incidental moments of dialogue in Vienna with NGOs and an INCB newsletter was launched to improve communication about its activities. The tone in the INCB Annual Report also seemed to be more balanced, with this year being the first where direct criticism of decriminalization and harm reduction policies was almost absent from the report. The INCB has often been criticized for its narrow-minded interpretation of the treaties on these issues and its opinion was contested by many governments and by the Legal Affairs Section of UNODC.
On the coca issue, the Board has frequently revealed itself to be biased, inflexible and out of touch. The Board pointed out this year that Bolivia “addresses the coca-chewing issue in a manner that is not in line with that country’s obligations under the international drug control treaties” and similarly Peru and Argentina were urged to ban all non-medical uses of coca leaf. At least this year it was not made a ‘special topic’ of concern like in 2006 and the issue did not appear in the list of INCB recommendations where the key worries of the Board are summarised. The 2007 report called on countries to “consider amending their national legislation so as to abolish or prohibit activities that are contrary to the 1961 Convention, such as coca leaf chewing and the manufacture of mate de coca (coca tea)” and – under key recommendations – “to initiate action without delay with a view to eliminating uses of coca leaf, including coca leaf chewing, that are contrary to the 1961 Convention”. This is a clear example of a UN treaty organ instigating a member state to directly violate other UN treaties and declarations that provide protections for cultural and indigenous rights.
The Board is factually correct to state that the domestic legislation of Bolivia, Peru, Argentina and – though not mentioned – Colombia, where coca use is allowed in indigenous territories, is not in accordance with the requirement of the 1961 Convention to abolish traditional uses of coca leaf. Openly acknowledging that contradiction, one might expect that the Board would applaud Bolivia’s efforts to devote so much time, energy and resources in trying to find a solution and reconcile its international treaty obligations with the millennia-old coca tradition.
The damage done to Andean culture by the inclusion of the coca leaf in the control schedule of the Single Convention and its obligation to abolish traditional uses of coca, and the various attempts to repair it, is a long story that is well recorded in other writings. In short, it was already contested at the time of negotiating the 1961 Convention and a partially successful attempt was undertaken by Bolivia and Peru to correct it with the 1988 Convention but that was effectively neutralized by US manoeuvres, as Bolivia was subtly reminded of in the INCB report on 2007. The Board spelled out that the reference in the 1988 Convention that any measures “shall respect fundamental human rights and shall take due account of traditional licit uses” or the reservation that Bolivia submitted in 1988, offered no escape because the “provisions of the 1988 Convention, including reservations made under that Convention, do not absolve a party of its rights and obligations under the other international drug control treaties”. Thereby practically forcing Bolivia to do exactly as it has now done and add a similar reservation for the 1961 Convention.
The WHO tried to clarify the coca issue with an extensive study in the early 1990s that was buried under US political pressure because of its conclusion that coca leaf consumption had no negative health effects. The INCB itself tried to put it on the policy agenda in 1994 pointing out treaty inconsistencies with regard to coca leaf, but never came back to it afterwards. And Bolivia proposed to amend the Single Convention to resolve it in an attempt that was blocked earlier this year by the G8 countries, again under US leadership. All that frustrating history has led Bolivia to opt for the path of denunciation and re-accession with reservation, a perfectly understandable and legitimate response given the earlier thwarted attempts to rectify this situaton. The unexpectedly harsh INCB response raises many questions seen in the context of this history and of recent developments within the wider UN system.
Firstly, it displays the infinite arrogance that has characterized the INCB for so many years. The treaty-based organ operates under a completely misplaced and self-inflated sense of papal infallibility that supposedly relieves them of any requirement to base their judgements on arguments rooted in a rational analysis of different opinions on the matter. They do not feel obliged to at least make an effort to contest the explanations put forward by those they condemn, or to call on existing scientific and international law literature to substantiate their opinions. The Board undertakes no responsibility in offering other options towards solving the complex policy choices governments are faced with. Towards that end, this ‘INCB’ statement is nothing more than an inquisitorial judgement calling on the international community to punish Bolivia for sins committed against the sacred convention without any explanation, argumentation or solution offered. Its primary purpose is not for the correction and good of the country punished, but for the public good to terrify others and wean them away from the evils they might commit to further undermine the integrity of the global drug control system.
Secondly, it demonstrates once again the lack of transparency surrounding the Board’s functioning. In whose name is this ‘INCB’ statement exactly? It was released by its secretariat and not signed by the President, although it’s hard to image that the secretariat can release such a controversial statement without his agreement. But who asked the secretariat to take the initiative, who drafted it and who agreed to the text? Was it approved by the Board itself, have the thirteen supposedly independent members been consulted? Or was it just a solo-action of President Hamid Ghodse? Minutes of Board meetings are shrouded in utmost secrecy, considered more security sensitive and confidential than the Security Council. There is no compliance whatsoever with generally accepted norms for how a UN agency is supposed to operate and there is no mechanism to appeal, to hold them accountable or a freedom of information act to get access to documents.
Thirdly, it raises fundamental questions again about the precise nature of the Board’s mandate. The INCB justifies its warning to the international community about Bolivia by referring to its mandate to alert state parties to developments that it considers to be a “threat to the international drug control system”. The 1961 Single Convention and its 1972 amendment protocol describe the Board’s mandate and the “restrictions imposed upon its authority” in quite some detail. The main guideline given is that the Board must always operate in a “spirit of dialogue” and “in particular not recommend remedial measures to an individual government without its agreement”. The exceptional case the Board refers to in order to justify its press release, according to the Commentary on the 1972 protocol, only applies to a situation where “the Board has objective reasons to believe that the aims of this Convention are being seriously endangered”. The Commentary explains that “including the word ‘objective’ was introduced in order to reassure some delegates … that the Board would have to base its actions on objective facts and not on purely subjective considerations” and that the “conclusion that a serious situation of this kind exists will be justified if lack of control or defective control in one country or territory appears to endanger the effectiveness of control in another country or territory”. This “serious and delicate matter”, according to the Commentary, “requires the Board to apply the provisions of that article with particular prudence”.
So, where are the “objective reasons to believe that the aims of this Convention are being seriously endangered” in this case of Bolivia denouncing and re-acceding the Single Convention with a reservation similar to the one they already have under the 1988 Convention? The Andean-Amazon culture of coca chewing has continued regardless and no amount of INCB pressure can force countries to abolish it, even less so now that the tradition has a firm legal basis in international law with the progress made in acceptance of cultural and indigenous rights. And how would it “endanger the effectiveness of control in another country” if Bolivia resolves the legal contradiction between a ridiculous 50-year old obligation to ban coca leaf chewing and its new Constitution and now internationally recognized indigenous rights, by submitting a reservation that will only apply to Bolivia itself? There are good reasons why the INCB doesn’t even try to bring forward any arguments, because there are none. The only substantial point they try to make is to question the procedure of denouncing and re-acceding with a new reservation. It is true that this process is a contested mechanism and it is the first instance within the drug control treaties, but it is considered to be legitimate procedure in exceptional cases. Sweden, for example, did exactly the same in 2002 with another Convention and international legal experts recognize the usefulness of the procedure under specific circumstances. It is clear that this mechanism is appropriate in Bolivia’s case, given the long history of controversy around the coca leaf and the deadlock situation Bolivia is confronted with after their failed attempt to first try to amend the treaty.
In conclusion, this is not about the legitimacy of the procedure Bolivia has chosen, it is not even really about coca chewing because everybody knows that the practice will continue whatever is said in Vienna. What this really is about is the fear of acknowledging that the current treaty framework is out-of-date and needs reform. The truth that the system has errors and inconsistencies is simply unacceptable. Allowing any doubt or hesitation would undermine unreserved commitment to a noble and inflexible goal. In the bigger picture the INCB response is a clear sign that the UN drug control regime is under mortal strain, that the cracks in the Vienna consensus are approaching a breaking point and its principal guardians are in distress and no longer capable to respond to the challenges and pressures in a rational manner. Historians later on will interpret it that way, no doubt about it.
This may still be exposed to have been an ill-advised solitary action not sanctioned by the Board itself, but otherwise we may have to give up all hope that the INCB can play a useful role in the overdue reform process of the UN drug control system. Until the Board members demonstrate their capacity to contribute in a useful way to a more sophisticated analysis of the complex drug policy dilemmas of today, this will be my advice: ignore them and find a way to restrict their mandate to an administrative function. Until proven otherwise, the Board’s mandate should better be limited to its principal –and important- administrative task of monitoring the estimates and requirements system to assure adequate availability for medical purposes of drugs controlled under the 1961 and 1971 Conventions. Any mandate in terms of monitoring compliance of the treaties beyond that should be taken away from them. For good reasons the Board’s authority was placed under clearly defined restrictions, and for the 1988 Convention their mandate was confined to a regulatory role only to prevent the diversion of precursors. With this blunt response to Bolivia, once again the INCB has shown that it is not capable of performing the broader role given to them under the Single Convention, respecting the imposed restrictions and acting with the required responsibility, discretion, prudence and wisdom.
The INCB have also showed positive signs of responding to mounting criticism about its performance being out of step with basic UN principles on transparency and civil society involvement. The chair of the Board agreed to incidental moments of dialogue in Vienna with NGOs and an INCB newsletter was launched to improve communication about its activities. The tone in the INCB Annual Report also seemed to be more balanced, with this year being the first where direct criticism of decriminalization and harm reduction policies was almost absent from the report. The INCB has often been criticized for its narrow-minded interpretation of the treaties on these issues and its opinion was contested by many governments and by the Legal Affairs Section of UNODC.
On the coca issue, the Board has frequently revealed itself to be biased, inflexible and out of touch. The Board pointed out this year that Bolivia “addresses the coca-chewing issue in a manner that is not in line with that country’s obligations under the international drug control treaties” and similarly Peru and Argentina were urged to ban all non-medical uses of coca leaf. At least this year it was not made a ‘special topic’ of concern like in 2006 and the issue did not appear in the list of INCB recommendations where the key worries of the Board are summarised. The 2007 report called on countries to “consider amending their national legislation so as to abolish or prohibit activities that are contrary to the 1961 Convention, such as coca leaf chewing and the manufacture of mate de coca (coca tea)” and – under key recommendations – “to initiate action without delay with a view to eliminating uses of coca leaf, including coca leaf chewing, that are contrary to the 1961 Convention”. This is a clear example of a UN treaty organ instigating a member state to directly violate other UN treaties and declarations that provide protections for cultural and indigenous rights.
The Board is factually correct to state that the domestic legislation of Bolivia, Peru, Argentina and – though not mentioned – Colombia, where coca use is allowed in indigenous territories, is not in accordance with the requirement of the 1961 Convention to abolish traditional uses of coca leaf. Openly acknowledging that contradiction, one might expect that the Board would applaud Bolivia’s efforts to devote so much time, energy and resources in trying to find a solution and reconcile its international treaty obligations with the millennia-old coca tradition.
The damage done to Andean culture by the inclusion of the coca leaf in the control schedule of the Single Convention and its obligation to abolish traditional uses of coca, and the various attempts to repair it, is a long story that is well recorded in other writings. In short, it was already contested at the time of negotiating the 1961 Convention and a partially successful attempt was undertaken by Bolivia and Peru to correct it with the 1988 Convention but that was effectively neutralized by US manoeuvres, as Bolivia was subtly reminded of in the INCB report on 2007. The Board spelled out that the reference in the 1988 Convention that any measures “shall respect fundamental human rights and shall take due account of traditional licit uses” or the reservation that Bolivia submitted in 1988, offered no escape because the “provisions of the 1988 Convention, including reservations made under that Convention, do not absolve a party of its rights and obligations under the other international drug control treaties”. Thereby practically forcing Bolivia to do exactly as it has now done and add a similar reservation for the 1961 Convention.
The WHO tried to clarify the coca issue with an extensive study in the early 1990s that was buried under US political pressure because of its conclusion that coca leaf consumption had no negative health effects. The INCB itself tried to put it on the policy agenda in 1994 pointing out treaty inconsistencies with regard to coca leaf, but never came back to it afterwards. And Bolivia proposed to amend the Single Convention to resolve it in an attempt that was blocked earlier this year by the G8 countries, again under US leadership. All that frustrating history has led Bolivia to opt for the path of denunciation and re-accession with reservation, a perfectly understandable and legitimate response given the earlier thwarted attempts to rectify this situaton. The unexpectedly harsh INCB response raises many questions seen in the context of this history and of recent developments within the wider UN system.
Firstly, it displays the infinite arrogance that has characterized the INCB for so many years. The treaty-based organ operates under a completely misplaced and self-inflated sense of papal infallibility that supposedly relieves them of any requirement to base their judgements on arguments rooted in a rational analysis of different opinions on the matter. They do not feel obliged to at least make an effort to contest the explanations put forward by those they condemn, or to call on existing scientific and international law literature to substantiate their opinions. The Board undertakes no responsibility in offering other options towards solving the complex policy choices governments are faced with. Towards that end, this ‘INCB’ statement is nothing more than an inquisitorial judgement calling on the international community to punish Bolivia for sins committed against the sacred convention without any explanation, argumentation or solution offered. Its primary purpose is not for the correction and good of the country punished, but for the public good to terrify others and wean them away from the evils they might commit to further undermine the integrity of the global drug control system.
Secondly, it demonstrates once again the lack of transparency surrounding the Board’s functioning. In whose name is this ‘INCB’ statement exactly? It was released by its secretariat and not signed by the President, although it’s hard to image that the secretariat can release such a controversial statement without his agreement. But who asked the secretariat to take the initiative, who drafted it and who agreed to the text? Was it approved by the Board itself, have the thirteen supposedly independent members been consulted? Or was it just a solo-action of President Hamid Ghodse? Minutes of Board meetings are shrouded in utmost secrecy, considered more security sensitive and confidential than the Security Council. There is no compliance whatsoever with generally accepted norms for how a UN agency is supposed to operate and there is no mechanism to appeal, to hold them accountable or a freedom of information act to get access to documents.
Thirdly, it raises fundamental questions again about the precise nature of the Board’s mandate. The INCB justifies its warning to the international community about Bolivia by referring to its mandate to alert state parties to developments that it considers to be a “threat to the international drug control system”. The 1961 Single Convention and its 1972 amendment protocol describe the Board’s mandate and the “restrictions imposed upon its authority” in quite some detail. The main guideline given is that the Board must always operate in a “spirit of dialogue” and “in particular not recommend remedial measures to an individual government without its agreement”. The exceptional case the Board refers to in order to justify its press release, according to the Commentary on the 1972 protocol, only applies to a situation where “the Board has objective reasons to believe that the aims of this Convention are being seriously endangered”. The Commentary explains that “including the word ‘objective’ was introduced in order to reassure some delegates … that the Board would have to base its actions on objective facts and not on purely subjective considerations” and that the “conclusion that a serious situation of this kind exists will be justified if lack of control or defective control in one country or territory appears to endanger the effectiveness of control in another country or territory”. This “serious and delicate matter”, according to the Commentary, “requires the Board to apply the provisions of that article with particular prudence”.
So, where are the “objective reasons to believe that the aims of this Convention are being seriously endangered” in this case of Bolivia denouncing and re-acceding the Single Convention with a reservation similar to the one they already have under the 1988 Convention? The Andean-Amazon culture of coca chewing has continued regardless and no amount of INCB pressure can force countries to abolish it, even less so now that the tradition has a firm legal basis in international law with the progress made in acceptance of cultural and indigenous rights. And how would it “endanger the effectiveness of control in another country” if Bolivia resolves the legal contradiction between a ridiculous 50-year old obligation to ban coca leaf chewing and its new Constitution and now internationally recognized indigenous rights, by submitting a reservation that will only apply to Bolivia itself? There are good reasons why the INCB doesn’t even try to bring forward any arguments, because there are none. The only substantial point they try to make is to question the procedure of denouncing and re-acceding with a new reservation. It is true that this process is a contested mechanism and it is the first instance within the drug control treaties, but it is considered to be legitimate procedure in exceptional cases. Sweden, for example, did exactly the same in 2002 with another Convention and international legal experts recognize the usefulness of the procedure under specific circumstances. It is clear that this mechanism is appropriate in Bolivia’s case, given the long history of controversy around the coca leaf and the deadlock situation Bolivia is confronted with after their failed attempt to first try to amend the treaty.
In conclusion, this is not about the legitimacy of the procedure Bolivia has chosen, it is not even really about coca chewing because everybody knows that the practice will continue whatever is said in Vienna. What this really is about is the fear of acknowledging that the current treaty framework is out-of-date and needs reform. The truth that the system has errors and inconsistencies is simply unacceptable. Allowing any doubt or hesitation would undermine unreserved commitment to a noble and inflexible goal. In the bigger picture the INCB response is a clear sign that the UN drug control regime is under mortal strain, that the cracks in the Vienna consensus are approaching a breaking point and its principal guardians are in distress and no longer capable to respond to the challenges and pressures in a rational manner. Historians later on will interpret it that way, no doubt about it.
This may still be exposed to have been an ill-advised solitary action not sanctioned by the Board itself, but otherwise we may have to give up all hope that the INCB can play a useful role in the overdue reform process of the UN drug control system. Until the Board members demonstrate their capacity to contribute in a useful way to a more sophisticated analysis of the complex drug policy dilemmas of today, this will be my advice: ignore them and find a way to restrict their mandate to an administrative function. Until proven otherwise, the Board’s mandate should better be limited to its principal –and important- administrative task of monitoring the estimates and requirements system to assure adequate availability for medical purposes of drugs controlled under the 1961 and 1971 Conventions. Any mandate in terms of monitoring compliance of the treaties beyond that should be taken away from them. For good reasons the Board’s authority was placed under clearly defined restrictions, and for the 1988 Convention their mandate was confined to a regulatory role only to prevent the diversion of precursors. With this blunt response to Bolivia, once again the INCB has shown that it is not capable of performing the broader role given to them under the Single Convention, respecting the imposed restrictions and acting with the required responsibility, discretion, prudence and wisdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
