When I set out to do my GIST four months ago, I knew I did not want to look into the production side of the drugs issue. For one, following the supply chain would pose plenty of personal safety concerns. Accessing the drug supply chain would also prove tricky. Truth be told, I have always had the assumption that anyone who play a part in making harmful, illicit drugs available to the public are complicit in destroying lives, and should be dealt with directly by law enforcement bodies. Thus, when I first heard of the Myanmar Opium Farmers Forum (MOFF), I was skeptical. The lawyer in me was thinking, “how is it possible for a group engaged in cultivating opium, a knowingly illegal act, to represent themselves before the public and government policy makers?” The MOFF is a platform for small scale opium farmers and representatives of opium farming communities to come together and discuss the drug policies that may affect their lives. For the third year now, MOFF have come up with policy recommendations on reforming drug laws both nationally and internationally. Conversations with representatives of MOFF and local development workers as well as field visits gave me a different perspective and in-depth comprehension of the matter. The lawyer in me took a back seat, and the advocate took reign. Opium Cultivation and Armed Conflict Next to Afghanistan, Myanmar is the second largest opium producer in the world. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime(UNODC) estimates that the total area under opium poppy cultivation in Myanmar in 2015 was 55,000 hectares. Most of these farms are in remote, impoverished and conflict-ridden areas, concentrated in the northern states of Shan and Kachin States In my conversations with a MOFF representative, we discussed how the ongoing armed conflict in these areas and opium farming are so intricately linked to each other. Put simply, the communities become mobile and flee when clashes occur between government troops and ethnic armed in the area. Given this context, opium is the perfect crop to grow – compared to other crops as it is easy to grow; can be harvested in 100 days, crop is very compact and light to carry as they move locations; and can be stored for a long period of time. Adding to this the fact that the opium farmers do not have to worry about the market, given that the buyers typically seek them out. Even assuming that there is a viable alternative crop for the farmers to grow, the lack of infrastructure poses a big problem. As commonly seen in conflict areas, infrastructure is very poor, making farmers’ access to the market extremely difficult. Not only is infrastructure weak in conflict areas, there is also very little, if at all, access to government services like health care services. Opium is thus typically grown not only for traditional, but also for medical purposes. Giving a Voice to the Opium Farmers
The principle “nothing about us without us” comes to mind, which means that no policy should be decided without any direct participation by and meaningful engagement with those who will be affected by it. In this case, the opium farmers are well-placed to identify their needs and challenges, and propose strategies that are appropriate and conflict-sensitive. When the communities do not have a voice in policy making, government intervention can become counterproductive and can open up to even bigger problems. In Kachin, for instance, forced eradication activities were focused at immediately reducing or eliminating cultivation of opium but lost sight of the bigger problem – lack of alternative income sources for the communities. As a result, the farmers are forced to go deeper into the mountains and expand or transfer their cultivation areas, since there are no other available means of livelihood. One local development worker in Kachin told me that after eradication activities, some of the affected families even resort to sending their children to join the ethnic armed groups, as that would mean less mouths to feed in the household. Making Sense of Opium Farming So, where does this all bring me? From my initial aversion to anyone who plays a part in the production side of drugs and skepticism about opium farmers having a voice in the policy making process, three things are very clear to me now. First, opium cultivation is not simply a matter of choice for the small scale farming communities in Shan and Kachin States. For many, it is actually a matter of necessity – to bring food to the table, and to have access to essential medicines. Assuming that the farmers involved in opium cultivation are complicit to the drug problem and are therefore criminals is not only discriminatory, but also marginalizes them further. Second, if government seeks to bring an end to opium poppy cultivation in these communities, taking steps towards peace and settlement of conflict is essential and fundamental. Interventions that aim to reduce opium cultivation necessarily have to address the problem of conflict and vice versa. This was underscored by the MOFF in their latest statement calling for an inclusion of a discussion of the drugs issues in the peace process and political dialogues. Finally, it is but prudent to listen to the voice of the opium farming community and involve them in the process of shaping drug policies, they being among the primary stakeholders who will be directly affected.
0 Comments
I hear church bells toll from afar, and the city wakes slowly. The first thing I see as I looked out of my hotel room window is the Irrawaddy River, still and calm. It seems to tell me that in this town, all is well and one can live a quiet, peaceful life. Except that this is not the case. I am in Myitkyina, the capital of Kachin State, Myanmar. Kachin is the northernmost state of Myanmar, bordering China and India. It has a long history of armed conflict and violence, which escalated again in 2011 after a 17-year ceasefire between the government and ethnic armed groups. Apart from the armed conflict, Kachin is also beset with the crisis of heroin use, or what the locals refer to as heroin epidemic. Some would say that in Kachin’s history of conflict with the government, drugs is one of the major political tools that was used. In the many conversations I had while visiting Myitkyina, one commonality is that nearly every family in Kachin has a member who is afflicted with drugs. Heroin use is so common that there are even marked trash bins for disposal of used drug paraphernalia in Myitkyina University. In Myitkyina, I visited two local non-governmental organizations (NGO) that implements the Needle and Syringe Program (NSP) as a harm reduction initiative in Kachin State. One component of the NSP is the distribution of sterile needles and syringes to people who inject drugs (PWIDs) with the objective of reducing risks of infection with blood-borne diseases such as HIV and Hepatitis-C caused by sharing needles and syringes. As early as 2004, the World Health Organization has established that there is compelling evidence that increasing the availability and utilization of sterile injecting equipment by PWIDs reduces HIV infection substantially. In the last five years, the Substance Abuse Research Association (SARA) has served almost 5,000 PWIDs in their Myitkyina drop-in center. Other than providing clean syringes, SARA administers HIV testing and conducts peer counselling sessions to encourage PWIDs to accept treatment. Once a PWID voluntarily indicates willingness to undergo treatment, SARA facilitates referral to appropriate treatment centers and assists PWID in managing withdrawal symptoms. Metta Development Foundation, an NGO founded to assist communities recover from devastating effects of conflict, also implements NSP as part of its community-led harm reduction program. Outreach officers from their Myitkyina office leave early in the morning to visit villages to distribute packets of syringes and to carefully collect used syringes that have been improperly disposed. They also distribute health education materials to raise awareness and pay home visits to PWIDs for counselling and emergency support. Despite evidence and literature showing the effectiveness of NSP as an intervention to reduce risks of infection from HIV and other blood-borne diseases, there remains strong resistance in grassroots communities against the program. Sut Nau, Metta’s program coordinator for harm reduction, says that communities find it hard to accept NSPs thinking that it encourages people to use more drugs. He said that it took them persistent and consistent advocacy work with the communities before they saw a shift in attitude towards harm reduction activities, especially NSP. The NSP has been implemented as a harm reduction strategy in various jurisdictions for decades, but it remains controversial and subject of debate. This difficulty in accepting NSPs is understandable and is a very basic human reaction. How does one accept the idea that making drug paraphernalia readily available to injecting drug users actually saves lives? On a moral and ethical level, how does one accept giving out needles and syringes to injecting drug users as the right thing to do? Isn’t this like giving a gun to a person with suicidal tendencies?
Perhaps, the first step is to understand and accept that drug addiction is akin to a chronic disease. Some drug users may be willing to but are unable to stop using drugs. People who have become drug dependents do not need “encouragement” – they will use drugs regardless of whether they have sterile needles or not. What the NSP does is to reduce the PWID’s exposure to harms associated with injecting drugs. It also protects the community from the spread of infectious diseases because of unsafe needle disposal practices by the PWID, as NSPs typically involves education sessions on safe handling and disposal of injecting equipment. In Myanmar where the heroin is the drug of choice for PWIDs, there is an urgency to address the rising number of HIV infections. The Myanmar Global AIDS Response Progress Report 2015 showed an 18% increase in HIV prevalence. Amidst this context, NSP becomes an important prevention strategy for Myanmar. Close to the summit of the Mae Salong mountain, in Mae Fah Luang District of Chiang Rai, Thailand, lies the quiet, rural village of Santikhiri. It is about 50kms from the town of Mae Chan, where the closest hospital is located, and 80kms from Chiang Rai. It is home to many hill tribes and has a history of being a center of opium and heroin production in the 70’s. In one of the smaller alleys in Santikhi, there is a non-decrepit structure where you can see a flurry of people going in and out every morning. It is the drop in center of O-zone Foundation, a civil society organization that is working on providing harm reduction services to the community. Every morning, about 80 clients go there to receive their daily dose of Methadone. Methadone is a synthetic opioid that mimics the action of heroin and other opiate drugs, and when taken by an opiate dependent person, reduces opioid cravings and relieves withdrawal symptoms. The use of methadone has been recognized by Thailand as part of its harm reduction approach to drug use. It is included in the country’s Thai Essential Drug List in 2008 and is part of the Universal Health Coverage package for Thai citizens. The Santikhiri Drop-In Center operated by O-zone started in 2012, and since then has helped 300 clients. Methadone Maintenance Treatment (MMT) is an opium-substitution program that involves the long-term prescribing of methadone, usually taken orally, as an alternative to the opioid on which the patient is dependent. MMT also involves the provision of counselling, case management and other medical and psychosocial services for the PWUD. As a harm reduction approach to drug use, MMT has been proven by evidence-based studies to be an effective strategy to the drug use problem. During my visit to Santikhiri, one of O-zone’s clients, Mi, talked about how being on MMT helped him recover, and how he is now able to keep his job at a tea plantation. He started using heroin during his teenage year, and now has three sons. He has been on MMT for eight months. For Mi, one of the hardest challenge in their locality is finding a stable job, more so for someone who is known in the community as a drug user. He says that being on methadone has reduced his craving for heroin, and helped him function well at work. Despite studies supporting the effectiveness of MMT, there are still views opposing this strategy. One of the main arguments against it is that it encourages further drug use and does not cure the drug dependency problem. Some say that it only substitutes the substance upon which the person using drugs is dependent. This reflects a zero-tolerance view to drug use, which is contradictory to the basic premise of harm reduction. Harm reduction refers to policies, programs and practices that aim primarily to reduce the adverse health, social and economic consequences of the use of legal and illegal psychoactive drugs without necessarily reducing drug consumption. This is considered a more humane and pragmatic approach to addressing drug use as it does not treat people who cannot quit cold turkey with judgment. Rather, it recognizes that for many drug users, completely abstaining from drugs is not easy, and is still a distant goal. Thus, in the interim, harm reduction seeks to lessen the problems associated with drug use. It is therefore non-coercive and non-judgmental. The simplest analogy is drinking alcohol – too much alcohol poses health problems, so we regulate its sale to minors and give public reminders to drink alcohol in moderation. Simpler still is the analogy of driving – we know that it can cause accidents and injuries, and so we use seatbelts to reduce the possibility of harm.
Thailand has adopted a public health approach to the drug problem by institutionalizing a harm reduction policy in 2014. However, from the grassroots level, the gaps in implementation is apparent. There are only 147 operational opium substitution programs across the country, with 40,300 people who inject drugs (PWID). It is apparent that access to this health care service is problematic. There is also the capacity of the health care workers. For instance, in Mae Chan Sub-District Health Promotional Hospital, the hospital closest to Santikhiri, there are only 5 full-time health care workers and 6 part-time staff. There is no permanent doctor assigned to the hospital. Thus, while the national policy is in place, there is a lot more to be done in terms of implementation at the ground level in terms of building up capacity to provide appropriate health care services. Another big problem that is faced by the PWUD/ PWID is stigma. Sang, a volunteer worker at O-zone who is also under MMT talked about the difficulty of dealing with the publics’ negative perception. It is virtually impossible to get a job as they are viewed as criminals. He is hopeful though that the present shift of the national government policy towards public health in dealing with drug use will contribute a lot to shifting the public’s mindset against them. This perception is affirmed by the chief of the Mae Chan Health Promotional Hospital. He said that it is common to find health workers who refuse to deal with PWUDs, since they fear them as violent criminals. This negative mindset hampers proper health care delivery to PWUDs, which is ironic given the public health policy approach now being implemented in Thailand. Several studies have also shown that this negative attitude towards PWUDs from health care professionals is pervasive. This huge disconnect between national policy and the prevailing attitude and mindset of health workers in the grassroots level needs to be addressed. Sang hopes that the national government does a massive information campaign about its harm reduction policy, in order to educate and help shape the mindset of the people. At the community level, he contributes what he can as a volunteer for O-zone as he engages the community in pocket conversations and in his own way, educate others in their community. Even from the perspective of policing practices, there is an obvious inconsistency between the national policy and its implementation on the ground. A police official in one of the sub-stations in Chiang Rai (name withheld upon request) disclosed that the performance indicator for police stations and sub-stations in each district includes “at least 30 drug-related offense arrests/month”. This, he points out, negates the harm reduction strategy of the government, given that the police are forced to comply with the required number of arrests. Should they not meet this set target, they would either not be entitled to incentives, demoted or transferred to another posting. Correlatively, an Ozone staff attested that they have had clients who, knowing that they will be passing a police checkpoint, decides to turn back for fear of being apprehended at the checkpoint. Indeed, institutionalizing a national policy in place for harm reduction is a necessary and important first step towards shifting the public’s mindset against a PWUD/ PWID. However, it is very apparent that more work needs to be done, and it needs to be started immediately if we are to gradually see a change in delivery of health care services to and in public perception of the PWUD/ PWID. Now is the time for Thailand to consider expanding its provision of harm reduction services, so that it reaches all of the population needing the same. This should be coupled with a holistic training program for both health workers and law enforcement officials on the effectiveness of harm reduction measures. Once there is a shift in the mindset of health workers and the police, the PWUDs will be able to access harm reduction services without fear of arrest or degrading treatment. Community-level efforts by organizations such as O-zone should also be supported by a government-driven information campaign. Performance indicators should be reviewed to reflect the current policies of the government. At the end of the day, policy makers of the country should ask themselves, what is the more humane way of approaching the problem of drug use and substance abuse? Do they measure success of anti-drug programs quantitatively (e.g. number of days a PWUD abstained from drug use, number of drug related arrests) or qualitatively (e.g. quality of life of PWUD and community – access to health care services, provision of livelihood support). While there are policies in place that call for treatment of PWUDs as patients, the country still has a long way to go in addressing implementation gaps as well as in reforming repressive law enforcement practices. Khuen Pak Sub-district in Phrao, Chiang Mai Provice, Thailand has 10 villages with about 1,200 households comprising a population of 5,000. The area borders many other districts in Chiang Mai and is used to be known as a busy drug trafficking route. It was not uncommon to find teenagers being tried in court for committing theft to get some drug money. It was apparent though that even after these kids go through the penal process or finish “recovery camps”, there is no change in behavior and mindset of the youth offender. Moreover, the criminal record negatively affects the chances of the youth to get a good job in the future. In 2010, together with the officials of the sub-district, village leaders came together to try a different approach to the drug problem. The strategy they decided to pursue is anchored on the relationships of people within the community and integrates traditional, local and religious beliefs of the community. Their objective is bigger than addressing drug use – the desire to improve the quality of life of everyone within the community. The 3 important layers of the strategy are: (1) the family; (2) the community leaders; and (3) the sub-district officials. The first two are instrumental in terms of giving a holistic support to the recovering user and to reducing the stigma against the person using drugs (PWUD). The third group, meanwhile, gives the necessary support from government leadership. Hence, complete participation of all three was an important component of the program. A series of consultations and capacity building trainings were held between the sub-district officials, village leaders and volunteers from the community. Thus started the community-based intervention to drug use program in Khuen Pak, Phrao, Chiang Mai. Some of the activities under the program include counselling sessions with parents and children, follow up checks conducted by community volunteers to check on the progress of the PWUD, medical check ups at the District Health Promotional Center, career guidance counselling for the youth offender, youth camps that integrate drug prevention education campaign in the curriculum, and various skills training for the youth. The program leverages a lot on the relationships among the community members. They provide the necessary psycho-social support for the recovering PWUD. They understand that trying to stop substance abuse does not solely depend on the PWUD’s decision, but also on the provision of necessary moral, economic and social support from his or her community. Sharing his experience, a village leader said that there were even instances when they had to convince the monks not to expel someone from the monastery because he was found positive of drug use. In the seven years that this strategy has been implemented in Khuen Pak, 124 PWUD underwent the process, out of which 99 has completely stopped drug use, with 25 still undergoing the process. They say it takes a village to raise a child, and the Phrao model shows us how true this adage can be. It makes simple sense to involve the community in addressing the drug problem, it being a behavior problem that adversely affects the entire community in so many ways. But will the community-based intervention implemented successfully in Phrao work in all contexts or situations? Two necessary elements came into play that made Phrao successful: (1) how empowered the local community is; and (2) adaptive leadership and good governance by the local leaders. 1. Empowerment of the Local Community For a community-based intervention program to work, empowering the the local communities to be self-reliant is a necessary ingredient. A first step to this is making a survey of what resources and capacity the community already has, and work from there. Local communities should slowly build upon on existing strengths, and need not start from scratch. Khuen Pak Sub-District in Phrao, for instance, is a very remote and mountainous area, hence difficult for the authorities to reach. As they took deliberate steps to empower the local communities i.e. build up their network of volunteers, contributed own resources such as vehicles to be used for home visits, they did not have to wait for government authorities to intervene in a lot of instances where they have the capacity to already deal with the situation at hand. They were, in most instances, prepared to give the needed intervention both in prevention campaigns and reintegration programs. Only when they find that they have more than what their hands can handle do they turn to law enforcement authorities for assistance, such as when they run across big-time drug traffickers in their area. Other than local empowerment in terms of capacity and resources, the members of the community have something that outside intervention does not have – they can leverage on the relationships they have with each other. Especially in smaller communities, it is usually that case that one person is related to another, be it by affinity or consanguinity. And as one village leader quipped, people from within the community can and will take better care of each other, rather than have someone from the outside intervene. The community leaders, including the religious leaders and teachers, have a moral ascendancy that they can make good use of in helping and counselling not only the PWUD, but also his or her family as they go through the process of recovering from drug use problem. 2. Adaptive Leadership and Good Governance The indigenous and institutional knowledge that the local leaders possess give them an advantage and enable them to understand how to better approach the members of the community and engage them in open conversations. They know how to best leverage on the close-knit relationships among the community members and the moral ascendancy they have in the village. Their knowledge of the geographical area also comes as an advantage. A good leader will certainly be able to use all these unique know-hows to his or her advantage. Adaptive leadership comes into play here, as demonstrated by the Phraow experience. The community leaders took a step back and understood that drugs itself is not the root cause of the problem. They looked at the bigger picture, and saw that the usual (technical) solutions such as arrests and compulsory treatment would not work. They started to implement intervention strategies that are not solely focused on drugs but on empowering the community. They took stock of their existing strengths and resources, put it to good use and adopted a more holistic and developmental approach. All of these demonstrate the strong adaptive leadership skills of the local leaders. Local leaders also had the foresight to document what worked and what did not work in the past seven years, and build on those factors to improve capacity. Today, they have developed various curricula and training modules both for PWUDs and for community volunteers. They have also put in place an evaluation system for their volunteers and are formulating strategies to encourage developed human resource to stay in the community and contribute something good for the community. I had the fortunate opportunity to visit Phrao together with village leaders and officials from other sub-districts of Chiang Mai. The village leaders of Khuen Pak shared their stories, challenges and learnings over the past seven years. It is very encouraging to see that the leaders and officials from neighboring sub-districts have taken the necessary first step in adopting the community-based intervention to the drug problem – learning from good practices of the Khuen Pak, Phrao. Whether they can successfully do the same in their own communities remains to be seen. It will certainly be a long process and will take time, perseverance, and will depend a lot on the community itself. Initiatives such as this need to be approached bottom-up, as there is no set formula that will work in all settings. As the core of this approach is the community, there will be differing factors in each community, whether it is in how tight-knit the relationships are, or in the willingness of the leadership to implement this, or in the existing resources of the local community or in how well established their networks are within the community and with other neighboring communities. Seeing a good outcome will surely take time, but the openness of the sub-district officials and village leaders to try this approach is a positive first step.
The World Bank defines civil society as “the wide array of non-governmental and not-for-profit organizations that have a presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations.” The critical role of Civil Society Organizations (CSO) networks in advocacy campaigns can be inferred from this formal definition. Called society’s “third sector,” civil society is vital to setting the agenda for public discourse and shaping policy directions of the government.
In the Human Rights and drug policy reform movement in Southeast Asia, CSO Networks play an important role in advocating a public health approach to the drug use problem. Presently, there is growing concern and anxiety in Southeast Asia caused by the increasing threat of scale-up in punishment of people who use drugs (PWUDs). Arrests of PWUDs in Cambodia, for example, averages 3,000 arrests per month. Other than the rising number of extra-judicial killings in the country, the Philippines has been taking a regressive direction on drug policy reform – there are pending legislations proposing the reinstatement of the death penalty and allowing wire tapping of phones of suspected drug offenders, and plans to construct drug rehabilitation centers inside military camps. While Thailand has adopted a harm reduction approach as a national policy in 2014, most of the country’s policymakers remain skeptical and believe a public health approach to the drug problem should not mean being less punitive.* Thus, now more than ever, CSO Networks advocating a human rights and public health approach to the issue of drug use should not be fragmented: advocates in the drug policy reform network should work together to prevent governments from regressing even further and adopting punitive approaches to the drug problem. Coordinated Advocacy Efforts CSO Networks have to be strategic in advocating Human Rights and drug policy reform. Different organizations will have different views on how to best advocate. But central messaging is key. Reform groups and stakeholders have to come together to craft and agree on advocacy priorities. For instance, in the drug policy reform movement, will the priority be pushing for a shift to voluntary treatment from compulsory treatment, or will it be addressing congestion in prison? A coordinated and united message will enable CSOs to effectively wage an information war against regressive drug use policies. As soon as the various CSO groups come together and decide on core messaging, they can differ in strategies to push these message forward. It does not matter if a CSO uses active and open conversation as a strategy, or prefers to be heard in public demonstrations – as long as there is a single coordinated message. The “good cop-bad cop” routine also works in the field of advocacy! Constructive and Critical Engagement There is a need to ensure that dialogues with legislators and policymakers are open and continuous. Civil society can be a key influencer in shaping new laws, policies, or strategies at both the national and local level. They play a critical role by identifying policies that are not only antiquated but also stigmatize PWUDs, and by educating lawmakers about the reforms needed to institutionalize a more progressive approach to drug demand reduction. The CSO network in Malaysia, for example, acknowledges that the Dangerous Drugs Act of Malaysia has outdated provisions, and plans to increase its efforts to push for proportional sentences for drug offences and for a voluntary, community-based rehabilitation treatment. By making optimal use of the democratic space to engage government policymakers, CSOs can call for laws that provide harm reduction services and address the issue of drug use from a human rights and public health perspective. This intervention and participation by CSOs in drug policy reform efforts should be consistent and persistent, and should not end with lobbying. Constructive and critical engagement of CSOs can also include holding governments to account on their commitments and ensuring that enforcement practices of national policies always take into account the human rights of the PWUDs. Educating Stakeholders A public health and human rights approach to the issue of drug use can only work if the stakeholders understand the depth and complexity of the problem. The UNGASS has defined drug dependency as a complex, multifactorial health disorder characterized by a chronic and relapsing nature with social causes and consequences that can be prevented and treated through effective scientific evidence-based drug treatment and care and rehabilitation programs. However, society does not see drug dependency as a health problem. Governments’ pervasive use of draconian measures to address the drug problem is an indicator that drug use is perceived as a social ill that must be eradicated. There is continued stigmatization against PWUDs who are seen and treated as criminals. Changing the community mindset will take time, but educating stakeholders is an important step. This includes not only policymakers of the government, but also community leaders, religious leaders and members of the community themselves. Several CSOs in Myanmar have been conducting harm reduction education activities for community leaders, religious leaders, and law enforcement officers who play an important role in influencing community perceptions of PWUDs. In Indonesia, CSOs have been conducting capacity and competency building for drug treatment professionals to equip them to properly treat PWUDs. Gathering current, accurate, and qualitative data on the impact of harm reduction services and documentation of human rights violations will also be a powerful tool in stakeholder education, which is the intention of the CSO network in Cambodia. Challenges for CSOs in the Philippines In the Philippine context, CSOs are facing a protracted struggle in advocating for progressive drug policies and strategies. CSOs will play a critical role in mobilizing stakeholder support and sustaining public outrage against abusive enforcement practices and the seemingly state-sanctioned extrajudicial killings. Breaking the myth propagated by the Philippine government that the country is on the brink of a narco-emergency is another place where CSOs networks can play a crucial role. There needs to be a sustained effort at educating the public against the false information the government uses to justify its brutal drug policy. Hard as the road ahead may seem in terms of shaping legislation, CSOs should also continue to engage Congress and push for a public health approach to the drug issue. Finally, at the forefront of their advocacy work should be a strong demand from national bodies such as the Commission on Human Rights as well as by international watchdogs for an impartial third party investigation on the killings resulting from this “drug war.” CSO networks have a critical role to play in leading the much-needed paradigm shift in the fight against drugs. This requires deliberate and collective actions not only from like-minded people in the network, but from various stakeholders, including advocates in government, the media, and citizens. *Harm reduction is a public health intervention that seeks to reduce the negative consequences associated with drug use, while a punitive approach to the drug problem is shaped around the belief that reducing drug use is accomplished by penalizing drug-related behavior. [Inputs from this piece include learnings from the Regional Civil Society Consultation on Drug Policy Advocacy Strategy organized by IDPC, PITCH and International HIV/AIDS Alliance. To provide a safe space for the exchange of views, the conference applied Chatham House rules, whereby reports generated from the consultation will not be attributed to any individual. Hence, no direct citation was made to any resource person or organization in this article.] As noted by the UN Office on Drug and Crime in its World Drug Report 2016, the world drug problem is intertwined with all aspects of sustainable development – from social and economic development, to environmental sustainability, creating partnerships and having a peaceful, just and inclusive society. However, there seems to be a vacuum in terms of country policies on drug use and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It is not uncommon, for example, for countries to recognize the social ills that drug use and abuse brings and as a result of doing so, often take a hardline approach taken by to counter the drug problem. More often than not, this leads to punitive enforcement-led strategies and unintended (?) human rights abuses. This is clearly dissonant to SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable institutions at all levels. Among the targets associated with SDG 16, those related to the rule of law and access to justice and reducing violence, economic crime (corruption and bribery), organized crime and illicit financial flows all have significant links with the world drug problem and with the response to it.
These militarized enforcement practices and punitive drug policy strategies have significant negative impact to achieving sustainable development. Sustainable development, rule of law and human rights are closely intertwined, and it is a critical first step not only for government policy makers, but also for civil society, to recognize that. Clearly, there has to be a consistency between drug use and prevention policy and enforcement, and development targets if we seek to achieve significant progress in meeting the SDGs. This would mean, among others, institutionalizing drug use policies that protect human rights and promote humane approaches to drug control, strengthening state institutions to deter corruption and abusive law enforcement practices, and providing sustainable livelihood opportunities for the poor and marginalized sector. If policy makers and shapers truly desire to make significant headway in achieving the SDGS, crafting of policies and laws addressing drug use should always be made taking into consideration its human development context. [i] Singapore, Malaysia, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brunei Darussalam, Maldives, Indonesia [Aceh], Nigeria [northern states], Libya and UAE In the September 2016 ASEAN Summit, leaders of the 10-member ASEAN block reaffirmed their joint commitment to a zero-tolerance approach in realizing the regional vision of a drug-free ASEAN. Following this, a 10-year ASEAN Workplan on Securing Communities Against Illicit Drugs was adopted during the 5th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Drug Matters last October 2016. While laudable, given that the problem of illicit drugs remains a menace to society, it is also undeniable that in pursuing this vision, there has been a high cost to human rights in the enforcement of anti-drug strategies of the different ASEAN countries. All too often, human rights become a casualty of a country’s “war on drugs” as enforcement practices of anti-illegal drugs policies lead to human rights violations of varying degrees – from denial of health care to disproportionate punishment and illegal arrests, and sometimes even extrajudicial killings.
Myanmar, for example, enforces very strict drug laws that oftentimes lead to situations undermining human rights of persons who use drugs (PWUDs). In a report, the Trans-National Institute (TNI) found that PWUDs in Myanmar are sentenced with excessively long jail terms and are overcrowding prisons and labor camps, which are known for its harsh conditions. Meanwhile, the Philippine death toll as a result of its “all-out war on drugs” has reached more than 7,000 to date. Almost seven months after this campaign was launched by the Philippine President, 2,527 suspected drug users and dealers were killed in police operations and 4,525 victims were killed by “unidentified gunmen” extra-judicially. This approach is similar to the war against drugs enforced by Thailand in 2003, which saw 2,500 people killed in the first three months, of which over half had no links to drug trade. Thailand is presently in the process of reforming its drug laws and policies, drawing from lessons on the country’s failed drug war. Worth noting is the fact that the ASEAN States unanimously adopted the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration in 2012, and in doing so, reaffirmed their commitment to the adherence to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It is thus imperative that national programs designed to counter drug use should be framed and enforced in a manner that is consistent with international human rights standards. This becomes even more important as the UNODC points out in the 2016 World Drug Report that the drug problem is closely intertwined with all aspects of the sustainable development goals. It is in this context that I intend to explore, from a human rights perspective, the country strategies on drug use prevention and recovery of Thailand and Myanmar – both part of the Golden Triangle, one of the region’s busiest drug producing area. Would love to hear your thoughts, comments and suggestions on my GIST Proposal! |
Maia Unicois a lawyer by profession and a human rights activist by heart. Her GIST journey will allow her to look at whether different country approaches to drug use prevention and recovery are at par with international human rights standards. She believes that a hot cup of freshly brewed coffee can solve just about anything. Archives
April 2017
Categories |