340. Report of the U.S. Delegation to the Seventeenth Session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs1

[Here follow Section 1, Background of Conference; Section 2, Agenda for Conference; Section 3, Participation in Conference; Section 4, United States Delegation; and Section 5, Organization of the Conference.]

6. Work of the Committee on Illicit Traffic.

The Committee on Illicit Traffic reviewed the illicit narcotic traffic for the year 1961. In its work the Committee was guided by summaries of illicit transactions and seizures, by annual report documents, by discussion of international investigations, and by special documents prepared for study by the Committee. Among the Committee’s conclusions were the following:

Opium and the opiates, cannabis and cocaine continued to predominate in the illicit traffic. However, it was reported that in Thailand the major problem since shortly after opium was prohibited in 1959, was diacetylmorphine. There were also indications the traffic in cocaine was spreading through Latin America and thence to other parts of the world.

Canada, the United States, Hong Kong, Japan and Thailand continued to be targets for the illicit traffic in diacetylmorphine.

There was evidence that clandestine conversion of opium into white drugs was being carried out in closer proximity to producing areas.

Governments in the Near and Middle East, and in the Far East, were urged to make every effort to bring about closer working relationships for the implementation of control measures.

The Representative of the United States expressed his Government’s appreciation of the cooperation extended by Canada, France, Italy, Lebanon, Mexico, Spain, Syrian Arab Republic and Turkey.

The subject of acetic anhydride and acetyl chloride was discussed at the request of the United States. The Representative of the United [Page 747] States stated that experience over the past 30 years indicated that countries which had a problem of illicit manufacture of diacetylmorphine and which were not themselves producers of acetic anhydride could promptly bring the situation under control by placing import and internal restrictions on this chemical. He also called attention to the important contribution which manufacturers of acetic anhydride and acetyl chloride could make in maintaining surveillance over the distribution of their products.

7. Work of the Conference.

The Commission adopted three resolutions for submission to the Economic and Social Council, as follows:

A resolution, sponsored by Canada, India and the Netherlands, inviting governments to ratify the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961. The vote was 12 for (Brazil, Canada, Hungary, India, Japan, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, USSR, UK, Yugoslavia), 2 against (Mexico, US), with 5 abstentions (China, France, Iran, Turkey, UAR). The Mexican Representative voted against because he felt the resolution was premature, the United States because the Single Convention was unacceptable in its present form. Of those abstaining, several did so because their governments had not yet completed their study of the Single Convention.

A resolution requesting the Secretary General to prepare a legal commentary on, and to draft an administrative guide for the application of, the Single Convention. The vote was 10–0–8.

A resolution inviting the Government of Lebanon to cooperate more fully with the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in its work and, in particular, to be represented by an observer at the 18th session of the Commission and at the meetings of its Committee on Illicit Traffic.

In addition to the above, the Commission adopted the following:

A resolution noting the resolutions of the Inter-American Consultative Group which met at Rio de Janeiro in 1961, and drawing the attention of the ECOSOC to the desirability of stationing an officer of the Secretariat in Latin America with a view to facilitating regional cooperation in the field of narcotics control in that part of the world.

A resolution proposed by the United Arab Republic and co-sponsored by Brazil and the United States, requesting States Members of the United Nations or of the Specialized Agencies to encourage research into the socio-economic and medical aspects of drug addiction and illegal drug consumption, and to furnish the Secretary General with reports on the results and findings thereof.

A resolution requesting countries mentioned in paragraph 2 of resolution VII (XIII) and paragraph 3 of resolution 6 (XIV) to send to the [Page 748] United Nations Laboratory authenticated samples of seized opium, and if that is impossible, authenticated samples obtained from poppies cultivated under natural conditions and under control of the government.

The United States Delegation to the 16th Session of the Commission had been successful in having consideration of a resolution on Control of Barbiturates, reading as follows:

The Commission on Narcotic Drugs

Recalling resolutions VI and VII adopted by the Commission at its twelfth session,

Considering the social danger and the danger to public health arising from the abuse of barbiturates, as reported by the World Health Organization,

Recommends

1.
that governments should take appropriate measures to place the production, distribution and use of such drugs under strict control;
2.
that the competent organs of the United Nations and the World Health Organization should examine the necessity and the possibility of adopting adequate measures for the international control of such drugs.

postponed until the 17th Session. The resolution was taken up by paragraphs and then as a whole. The first paragraph was changed to read “resolution VI adopted by the”. Operative paragraph 1 was adopted by a vote of 17 for, none against, with 2 abstentions (Poland, US). Operative paragraph 2 was defeated by a vote of 8 for, 10 against (Canada, China, Hungary, Iran, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, US), with 1 abstention (Poland). The resolution was adopted in the following form:

The Commission on Narcotic Drugs

(a)
Recalling resolution VI adopted by the Commission at its twelfth session,
(b)
Considering the social danger and the danger to public health arising from the abuse of barbiturates, as reported by the World Health Organization,

Recommends that governments should take appropriate measures to place the production, distribution and use of such drugs under strict control.

by a vote of 16 for, none against, with 3 abstentions (Poland, Turkey, US). During the debate on the resolution the United States Representative stated that there was no illicit traffic in barbiturates and the establishment of international control would place an enormous additional administrative burden on governments. In his opinion, the problem could best be handled by educating the medical profession in [Page 749] the matter, and particularly to ensure that the medical profession did not issue prescriptions that could be filled more than once.

At the beginning of the discussion on Preparations for the Coming into Force of the 1961 Convention, the observer for Greece announced that his Government would ratify the 1953 Opium Protocol. The United States Representative and the Representative of the UAR expressed satisfaction with this announcement, but it was not met with any great enthusiasm by the majority of the Commission, and it was stated that the announcement could have the effect of accelerating ratification of the Single Convention. It was pointed out that when the 1953 Protocol enters into force, India will enjoy a monopoly on the licit production of opium for export to the parties to the 1953 Protocol. The Observer for Italy stated that the announcement had altered the situation and his Government would have to review the Single Convention in the light of the entry into force of the 1953 Protocol.

The United States Representative stated that for a number of reasons his Government could not ratify the Single Convention. It would encourage opium production, which would go completely out of control, and thus result in an increase in illicit production. He pointed out that in addition to permitting any country to produce up to 5 tons of opium for export, the Single Convention permitted the export of opium seized in the illicit traffic without limitation, and permitted any country to grow and stockpile as much opium as it wished. Also, under the Single Convention the effectiveness of the estimates and statistics systems of the 1931 Convention had been destroyed. Any party to the Single Convention could by reservation prevent examination of its statistics. He stated that under the Single Convention the powers of the International Narcotics Control Board, which would replace the present Permanent Central Opium Board and Drug Supervisory Body, would be seriously limited and weakened. The United States Government urged governments to consider carefully all provisions of the Single Convention before deciding to ratify it. It hoped that at some time in the future the Single Convention could be revised so as to retain and strengthen, rather than weaken, the control measures of the existing treaties, including the 1953 Protocol.

The majority of the Commission, however, spoke in favor of the Single Convention and urged its ratification. The Representative of the United Kingdom stated his Government intended to ratify as soon as the necessary domestic legislation to implement the provisions of the Single Convention could be enacted. The Representative of Canada pointed out that his Government had already ratified. The Representative of India stated that the provisions of the Single Convention were realistic and wider than those of the 1953 Protocol, [Page 750] and urged that the Single Convention be brought into force as quickly as possible. The Representative of the Netherlands stated it was essential that the Single Convention be brought into force at an early date. The Representative of Yugoslavia disagreed with the United States Representative and felt the Single Convention was a step forward. The Representative of Switzerland stated that his Government had the Single Convention under study and there appeared [to be] no objection to its ratification. The Representative of Morocco pointed out that while his Government was not a signatory to the Single Convention, it was one of the first to ratify it. The Representative of Poland said that his Government considered the Single Convention a progressive measure.

The Observer for Afghanistan stated that his Government considered the Single Convention a major United Nations achievement. He expressed the hope that the Single Convention would enter into force as soon as possible. The Observer for Burma stated that his Government had the Single Convention under examination and would not hesitate to ratify it if it were found that it would contribute to the effectiveness of the anti-narcotic campaign.

A resolution, addressed to the Economic and Social Council, inviting governments to ratify the Single Convention, was introduced and adopted.

A resolution, addressed to the Economic and Social Council, requesting the Secretary General to prepare a legal commentary on, and an administrative guide for the administration of, the Single Convention, was introduced and adopted.

In addition, the Commission decided to request the Secretariat to prepare, for consideration at the 18th session,

(a)
a draft document indicating the form, manner and dates of government communications containing the information required in respect of annual reports, seizure reports, laws and regulations, manufacture of drugs, and offices charged with authorizing international transactions;
(b)
a draft import certificate; and
(c)
a document, for submission to the Council, describing the procedure for the election of members of the new International Narcotics Control Board.

The Commission also decided to invite the WHO Expert Committee on Addiction-Producing Drugs to make recommendations regarding the necessary amendments to the Schedules to the Single Convention in preparation for its coming into force.

The Commission decided to request the Secretary General to take such Secretariat action as he deemed necessary in the event of the coming into force of the 1953 Protocol.

[Page 751]

8. Future Meetings.

The Commission decided to each year give special emphasis to a particular region of the world, beginning with the Far East, in documents prepared by the Secretary General reviewing the illicit traffic, and in the work of the Committee on Illicit Traffic.

It was also decided to recommend to the technical assistance authorities that they give favorable consideration to the Peruvian request for organization of a regional seminar on the problems of the coca leaf. The Commission felt that the Secretary General should explore the question of preparation of a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization on the possibility of replacing the licit and illicit cultivation of the coca leaf, cannabis or opium by other crops.

A provisional agenda for the Commission’s 18th session was adopted.

It was agreed to invite Afghanistan, Argentina, Bolivia, Burma, Cuba, Federation of Malaya, India, Israel, Italy, Laos, Lebanon, Pakistan, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Viet Nam, Spain and Thailand to send observers to the Commission meetings on the illicit traffic and to meetings of the Committee on Illicit Traffic.

It was agreed to invite the following countries to send observers: Italy and the Netherlands to the Commission’s meetings on opium and opiates; Argentina, Bolivia, and Colombia to the meetings on the coca leaf; Lebanon and Pakistan to the meetings on cannabis; Belgium, Israel, Italy and the Netherlands to the meetings on control of other substances, including barbiturates.

9. Conclusions.

Generally, Soviet Bloc action during the session was at a minimum. The question of Chinese representation was raised by the Representative of Poland, supported by the Representatives of Hungary and the USSR. The United States Representative regretted that the question had been raised and pointed out that technical commissions were not competent to consider the issue. The Representative of China stated that his was the only legal government of China.

The United States was able to maintain leadership and substantial support throughout the session except for the discussions on the Single Convention.

Mr. James P. Hendrick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, was assigned to assist the delegation during the last two weeks of the session. He and Mr. Cusack conferred with numerous delegations in relation to the Single Convention. They talked with those delegations who were known to be unfavorable to the Convention and also with [Page 752] those who indicated a considerable degree of doubt as to whether the instrument would result in stricter international controls in suppressing the abuse of narcotic drugs. They stressed the two major weaknesses; lack of limitation of opium production and the reservations which would destroy controls under the 1931 Convention. It was pointed out that many improvements found in the Single Convention could be maintained in case of revision of that document or through revision of the 1953 Opium Protocol after it goes into effect.

  1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1960–63, 341.9/8–1562. No classification marking. The session was held in Geneva May 14–June 1. Harry J. Anslinger of the Treasury Department led the U.S. Delegation. His signature on the report, which was submitted to the Secretary of State, appears on the title page. The position papers that the State Department provided to Anslinger are ibid., 341.9/5–462.