Committee of the Whole – Resolution L13 (continued)

OP 4
Switzerland: Clarification: ‘in particular the States affected by drug abuse’? Venezuela: The principle of shared responsibility is one that affects countries that are most touched by drug abuse, and they need to make efforts to decrease demand and production. Everybody needs to make efforts, in order to get a chain of responsibility.

Netherlands: We feel that OP4 is worded too strong; supported by Germany.

Venezuela: clarification: the resolution cited is 53/5, first operative paragraph.

Colombia: We want to support Venezuela. We need to get back to the substantive parts of the fight against drug trafficking. Some countries are in a better position than others to fight against that.

USA: Proposition: We could use some language from the Political Declaration.

Argentina: We should not move away from the approved language. Obviously, transit states have a role to play. We are dealing with a very specific area here and this is a text that has already been approved by the Commission.

Venezuela: we agree with ‘request’ but we would like to keep the wording ‘in particular the States most affected by drug abuse’.

Iran: We are talking about the transit countries. Most affected countries should be the transit countries.

UK: I think we no longer have only transit or only producing states, etc. Technical assistance here covers it all.

Pakistan: We appreciate Switerland’s flexibility but we need to retain ‘countries most affected by transit countries’. ‘Technical assistance’ includes the provision of technical equipment, but we need to put more emphasis on this particular element.

Venezuela: sorry for the confusion. our proposal corresponds with OP1. We would like substitute “countries of destination” with “states most affected by drug abuse”.

Mexico: We want to support n principle the overall meaning of the paragraph. We want to replace the “countries most affected by drug abuse” and use “countires of destination”

OP5
UK: We propose stopping the paragraph earlier, and delete the mention of technical assistane section.

US: we could also delete.. “urges to invite”

Pakistan : we believe this last section is crucial and don’t want it deleted.

Egypt: we can’t delete the last past, it is crucial

Iran: We agree with Pakistan

Venezuela: we want to point out that the language is approved UN language.

Argentina: the next c of w will have to study previous approved resolutions and have the approved language before it. We are not sure though about the deletion of “illicit” drugs

Canada: What is meant by donors?

Chair: refers to states

Uruguay: we endorse the text as proposed by Venezuela

UK: We need not to confuse older resolution texts with new ones. “technical assistance” is too broad and seems to be asking too much?

Venezuela: help for transit countries is referring to all transit countries not just Afghanistan as UK seems to imply in its last statement

US amendment = “invites financial institutions and requests relevant international organisations concerned to provide technical and financial assistance to provide assistance to Afghanistan an all transit states…”

Pakistan: We still believe that para 5 as it is more comprehensive and we request delegates to reconsider and adopt it.

Iran: we think that we should keep the language as it is in resolution 52/2. Let’s just move forward and urge and insist the international community to assist with the most affected countries.

Germany: we support US proposal

UK: we support US proposal

Chair, we must move on… and please find a solution n the lunch break.

Argentina: makes a new suggestion “Requests financial institutions and relevant international orgs, as well as all countries concerned, to provide technical and financial assistance, inter alia relevant technical equipment and facilities, and promoting human resource capacity available in those states, thus enabling such states to combat illicit drug trafficking more effectively”

Egypt: Argentina’s suggestion is very good and we support

Pakistan: we support Argentina’s suggestion, however when we say “facilities” we would add to..” states most affected by the transit of drugs”

Germany: we propose that we keep the “necessary” financial assistance.

Final attempt “Requests financial institutions and relevant international orgs, as well as all countries concerned, to provide THE NECESSARY technical and financial assistance, inter alia relevant technical equipment and facilities, to assist the state most affected by the transit o drugs and promoting human resource capacity available in those states, thus enabling such states to combat illicit drug trafficking more effectively”

OP6:

UK, Argentina, Sweden and Venezuela agreement on: ‘Requests also the UNODC, when developing relevant regional and thematic programmes, to consider the needs of, and consult with, States most affected by the transit of drugs, including through specific programme activities that meet their needs for technical and financial assistance’.

Iran: what about national programmes? Would UNODC support national programmes? Could we add ‘programmes [and initiatives – ADDED]’?

USA: Trouble about this. If OP6 and OP5bis were interchanged, the text would flow better.

Uruguay: If we do so, we might lose the meaning of these paragraphs if we add all of these modifications.

OP6 agreed, as well as OP7.

TEXT APPROVED!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.