Questioning Costa’s Answer

Costa vs. Polak -
where is the discussion paper?
Guess the riddle!

On March 12, the second day of the High Level Meeting of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Mr. Antonio Maria Costa, the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime met with NGO delegates. The meeting was initiated and organized by the Vienna NGO Committee, the same organization responsible for the Beyond 2008 global NGO forum in July 2008 (watch our video!).

First the organizers did not allow any cameras in the room but after they discovered that the UNODC also planned to record the event they decided to let us film as well. However, the press was exluded. We found this step quite unnecessary if we consider that the meeting was called “an open dialouge”: why is it closed to the media than? It’s not surprising that one day prior to this meeting NGO delegates were also excluded from the official UNODC press conference.


Transparency is not a strength of the UN anyway. It was not allowed to film the plenary session or the round table discussions, what is more, we were even banned from making interviews in the corridors with people who gave their consent. They said we can only film with media accreditation – but I really don’t see any reasons why NGOs cannot make their own movies. One security guard said it's because the government delegates don't want to find themselves on YouTube - at least he was honest. This also shows how big is the gap between the UN drug control system and the very principles of the UN – that is, to promote human rights.

The high level security at the NGO meeting was also quite unnecessary: are NGO delegates so dangerous that a dozen security guards – some of them armed with teasers - have to escort and protect Mr. Costa at the meeting? He himself claimed this has nothing to do with him: this is a rule set by the New York based UN security department.

Anyway, I felt some tension in the air even before the meeting set to begin. If not the security guards, the presence of Dr. Polak made us sure of even more tensions. He asked Mr. Costa about the discussion paper on the Dutch coffee shop system he promised to publish “very soon” last May in Barcelona, at the international harm reduction conference. Mr. Costa said there are some discussion papers produced by his agency that “were eventually quashed” and “remained an internal document never published”. He claimed he gave an elaborate answer to this question in his blog (Costa’s Corner) and at the UNODC press conference as well – where a Dutch journalist, Derick Bergmann posed the same question to him. But as Dr. Polak did not attend this press conference, we gave him the opportunity to address the issues raised by Mr. Costa there.

Watch our video and find out more!

Read Transform's blog on the issue!

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE PLEASE GO TO THE MIRROR PAGE ON OUR SITE DEDICATED TO DRUG POLICY BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK!

Megosztás

Kapcsolódó hírek

Harm Reduction 2013 - Our Conference Video

The Drugreporter's video report from the international harm reduction conference - remorseful politicians, skeptical researchers and activists without borders

If there’s money, the baby will be born – if there’s no money, the baby won’t be born

While childbirth at home is accepted and legally regulated in most developed countries – In Hungary, the entire obstetrician-gynecologist profession is against childbirth outside of the institutional maternity ward. Why is this?

HCLU and ERRC have contacted the ombudsman regarding evictions

HCLU (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union) and ERRC (European Roma Rights Center) have called into account Máté Szabó, Parliamentary Commissioner of Civil Rights in Hungary, with a corporate submission in order to conduct an investigation, and gain an explanation as to why people living in abject poverty are being evicted from local governments’ tenements- the equivalent of making them homeless. Specialists of HCLU Roma Programme, doing fieldwork in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplém county (Hungary), have received numerous annunciations from Roma families who had been evicted or were on the verge of being evicted by the local governments.