In the final hours of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) on March 14, we were on the edge of our seats, anxiously waiting. After a tense week of negotiations, Colombia was on the verge of a historic breakthrough—securing the approval of an unprecedented resolution in a space where consensus is the norm, and any attempt at change faces a wall of resistance. The outcome was uncertain, and the decision would be made in a matter of minutes.

The Resolution That Shook Vienna

Like the Conferences of the Parties (COP), the CND negotiates resolutions—documents that outline the commitments countries agree to uphold under international treaties. In this session, for the first time ever, Colombia was leading a resolution. And it wasn’t just any resolution: it called for an independent, external review of the implementation of drug treaties. In other words, it put prohibition itself under scrutiny to assess its real effectiveness.

Colombia pushed for this review knowing full well that, by its own measures, the drug control system has been a costly failure: today, there are more drugs, they are more potent, and the profits from illegality have only strengthened organized crime. Under the guise of eradicating drugs, brutal campaigns of extrajudicial executions have taken place, like those in the Philippines, where thousands were murdered by government-backed death squads aiming to “cleanse” cities of drugs and the people who use them. In fact, as the CND sessions unfolded, the International Criminal Court announced the arrest of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte for crimes against humanity committed in his country’s drug war.

A Debate Stuck in the Past

Colombia’s proposal was a direct challenge to the traditional structure of the CND. Every March, negotiations in these halls focus on maintaining the status quo. Resolutions passed year after year reaffirm commitment to international drug treaties while avoiding any mention of human rights or the harmful consequences of the system at both national and global levels. Additionally, these resolutions are adopted by consensus, following the so-called “Vienna spirit,” which has historically avoided voting altogether.

This tradition was dangerous: consensus always reduced progress to the lowest possible level, as it sought to reconcile extreme and opposing views on drug policy. In this context, Colombia’s resolution was not only a shake-up of the usual process but also set the stage for something unusual—an actual vote, with an uncertain outcome.

The U.S.: A Minority Voice

The week made it clear that passing the resolution would not be easy—not for Colombia, nor for any other proposal. From day one, the United States adopted a combative stance, determined to block any progress by objecting to references to “sustainable development,” “gender,” “LGBTI,” “biodiversity,” and more. Even seemingly uncontroversial resolutions, like Chile’s on drug use prevention or the one from Germany, Thailand, and Peru on alternative development for rural communities, faced strong resistance.

It was clear that we were in uncharted territory. While the U.S. had never pushed for a reform agenda, it had also never opposed the fundamental frameworks of the United Nations so aggressively—challenging even the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This was a stark contrast to the U.S. position under Biden just a year earlier when it had led efforts to incorporate harm reduction policies into global drug strategies, alongside Colombia. That initiative resulted in the first vote on a resolution in the CND in decades—a vote that passed with 38 in favor, 2 against, 6 abstentions, and 7 absences.

A Historic Vote

Fast forward to 2025. On Thursday night, after days of strong opposition to Colombia’s resolution, the U.S. introduced an amendment—promptly countered by one from Colombia. The Friday plenary session consumed valuable time just deciding the order in which the amendments would be voted on. By then, all other resolutions had already been adopted—none by consensus. In every case, it was the U.S. that had called for a vote, arguing:

“We have decided to call a vote because this resolution reaffirms the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. These promote a weak global governance model that is incompatible with U.S. sovereignty and citizens’ rights. We reject the SDGs and will not reaffirm them. The resolution also fails to acknowledge the reality that there are only two sexes: male and female.”

Despite leading the push for votes, the U.S. found itself isolated, joined only by Argentina and Russia.

When the vote on the Expert Panel finally took place, the pattern held. The resolution was adopted with 30 votes in favor and 3 against (United States, Russia, and Argentina).

The resolution, titled “Strengthening the international drug control system: a path to effective implementation”, is just the beginning of a process. What comes next? The establishment of an Independent Expert Panel tasked with developing a set of recommendations to enhance treaty implementation. The panel will consist of 19 members: ten appointed by the CND’s regional groups, five by the UN Secretary-General, three by the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), and one by the World Health Organization (WHO). Updates on this process will be presented at the CND’s 69th and 70th sessions, in 2026 and 2027.

In the words of Ambassador Laura Gil:

“Colombia supplies less than 5% of the illegal drug market. We are not proud of this reality, but why does every Colombian feel like the world’s drug problem rests on their shoulders? This panel is an invitation, within the framework of the conventions, to rethink our approach—to truly embrace the principle of shared responsibility. My country has sacrificed more lives than any other in the drug war imposed on us. We have postponed our development, dedicating our best men and women and a large share of our national budget to fighting illicit trafficking. We want new, more effective ways to implement the global regime. This should not be a confrontation among us, the CND members, but rather a reflection of our commitment to combat transnational crime.”

It is promising that the panel will include experts from outside Vienna. Much of the stagnation in the global drug policy debate stems from how closed-off this space is to insights from other UN agencies with expertise in public health, HIV, peace, security, sustainable development, and gender, among others. This process opens the door for an external review of the system—one where it is no longer both judge and jury.

However, concerns remain. The panel’s mandate is restricted to the framework of treaty obligations, yet the stated goal of “eliminating the drug supply” is not only unattainable but also undesirable.

What’s Next?

To ensure real progress, it will be crucial to secure diverse funding sources for the panel, with contributions from states that ensure a regional balance of perspectives and expertise. Additionally, the expert selection process must be transparent and allow for meaningful participation from civil society and affected communities.

After years of stagnation, in which the CND risked becoming an obsolete and irrelevant space due to its rigid consensus-driven approach, Colombia’s initiative breathes new life into the Commission. It opens a historic opportunity to forge real change.