We have two questions. PP6, is it correct that the term “people living with or effected by HIV or drug user” also include individuals who are members of a family of IDU’s? We think it applies to families of individuals. Also, we want to propose that before PP10, or an option between PP 10-PP11, we want to insert “recalling the general assembly resolution 64/182 in which it reiterates commitment to promote, develop, review or strengthen and integrate, … including primary prevention. Aimed at promoting health and well-being …. and society as a whole, and in accordance with national legislation , including detention facilities…
PP5, we think the interest of this commission is in Drug dependent individuals who have HIV/AIDS, so promoting the involvement of people with HIV aids is central
In response to Russia’s points, it does include the families of people affected by drug use. The second proposal to include the paragraph, we oppose it as it is too long and it is not necessary to include it at this very late stage. It doesn’t need amending.
PP1, 2nd line. We want to use the language from last year’s resolution.
We believe that the addition made by Russia is very relevant.
Russia’s inclusion aims at effectively reducing the risks of getting HIV and thus we support
We share UK’s position and we also we share the concern of the length of Russia’s inclusion
Supports the Salvador’s proposal and hopes that the text will be adopted as closely as possible according to the discussions we have already had. We are prepared to look at Russia’s proposal.
We find that this resolution pertains to the reduction of transmission of HIV among IDUs. The quote from Russia pertains to reducing the demand for drugs. This is equally important, but it does not fit in this resolution and we do not feel that it should be included here.
If we were to follow that logic, we would also need to remove all wording that has to do with AIDS, etc. taken out of the context in which it was adopted. Drug demand reduction issues are fundamental for the point of view of effectiveness of measures to stop HIV/AIDS. Our reference is therefore justified and necessary to ensure a balanced text. For now, the text is sketchy in the way it should be applied by the CND. This addition is necessary for us to adopt the resolution.
We should try to keep this resolution short and focused, and the title is to achieving 0 new HIV infections among IDUs. We shouldn’t talk about the whole range of measures. I support Argentina’s proposal and I suggest we stick to the text.
We did not take part in the informals. But we wish to endorse Russia’s proposals. It would be surprising to have a reference to the Political Declaration and Plan of Action, especially since we are talking about drugs here. 0 new HIV infections can only be done through preventing drug use. It should therefore be part of the resolution.
We did not resist any suggestion to reiterate commitments made by member states. We had a long discussion about that and agreed to it in the informals. As far as we see, the quote was from a General Assembly resolution which we endorse. What we have a problem with is pulling out a specific element related to reducing the demand for drugs. This is referred to in many other documents adopted during the CND. We plead for flexibility in retaining the agreed line requested in the informals.
We want to underscore that many issues in this draft demonstrated our flexibility. Our delegation is not only working with other delegations, but also with our capital. We want to know that the text we propose is in no way changing the spirit of the resolution. We just want to see a reference to the agreed text adopted by the General Assembly to get a balanced approach and enable us to adopt this draft.
We can strike the right balance by including: ‘as well as those contained in resolution GA64/182, including paragraph 4’.
We agree to go along the proposal from Argentina.
China: We also agree with Argentina’s proposal. But we are not authorised to discuss the AIDS problem. This is a matter for our health ministry. Therefore, the addition by the Russian Delegation is pertinent because it gives us some background. We want to maintain the consensus.
Paragraph 4 and 5 assures the perfect balance.
My original suggestion was to add a UN magic word, “inter-alia”. We suggest take the consensus we have reached now.
We would like to support UK here.
We would like to avoid a situation where our text becomes filled with brackets. Can the UK be flexible.
We suggest a compromise being to neither refer to para 4 or 5.
The would support China’s proposal with “inter-alia”.
OP2, we would like to propose the word change from “urges“ to “invites”.
That grammar doesn’t work everyone agrees