Committee of the Whole – Final Debate on UNGASS Resolution Article 6bis

Alt 6 bis. Further decides that the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, as the central policymaking body of the UN system, dealing with drug related matters shall lead this process, by addressing all organizational and substantive matters in open ended manner and in this regard invites the president of the General Assembly in this regard to support, guide, and stay involved in this process. 

—Everyone claps, Chair throws off his headphones.

The final version of the resolution is available here: https://www.unodc.org/documents/commissions/CND/Drug_Resolutions/2010-2019/2014/CND_Res_57_5.pdf
Explanation: This para is a sub-para of para 14 of Resolution L-10. On the Special Session of the General Assembly on the world drug problem to be held in 2016.  Para 14 “Decides to recommend to the Economic and Social Council the approval of the following draft resolution for adoption by the General Assembly.”  So it is actually a General Assembly (GA) resolution that the CND is drafting for GA adoption.  The paragraph has been under intense debate and scrutiny all week.  

The session started with something like the text below, proposed by Mexico.  It has gone though so many iterations that there is no point in reproducing them all here. 

Alt 6 bis. Further decides that the CND, as the central policymaking body of the UN system, dealing with drug related matters and the preparatory body for the above special session (PAK), shall lead this process, including by addressing all organizational and substantive matters, in open ended manner and request the president of the GA for his contribution (ECU) updated in this regard for his guidance and advice. (India) invites the president of the GA in consultation with MS, and with the assistance of the UNODC (CAN) CND (PAK) Secretariat, to support this process on the basis of the proposals by the CND. (PAK) promote consultations in support of this process) for his support and guidance, including on the need for any further consultations (Chair, building on Afghanistan) guidance support, and continued involvement (Chair).

Pakistan.  Add to the second para.  

South Africa. In the same manner, we are having difficulties in accepting this particular proposal. Support referring to CND as preparatory body.  In first para – which rules of procedures? Of the GA and Special Sessions. In the main, we are very comfortable to go back to agreed language.

Mexico.  Cannot accept Pakistan amendments.

Netherlands. Invite UN Sec. Gen.  Losing sight of the fact that it is UNGASS, not a special session of the CND. But to deny that the fact that the president of the GA has something to say.  Don’t accept changes.

Algeria. Which secretariat?  What will be the format of these consultations? Answer will determine our specific proposals.

Ecuador. My delegation does not accept Pakistan amendment.

Venezuela.  Support the Pakistan change.

South Africa. Supports Japan amendment.

China.  Supports Japan amendment   Supports Pakistan amendment.

Mexico. It would be worthwhile giving some clarifications for the benefit of delegations.  The secretariat should confirm what I understood…when we talk about the treaty department it is one thing, but it is the Secy General that makes decisions about that.  Will support work of CND and all preparatory work of GA.  Terrible translation.  President of GA can raise additional resources.  We shouldn’t limit GA … Secretariat not a subordinate body of CND.  No such thing.  Will report to Secretary general in terms of support needed.  Sometimes substantive, logistical, etc.  Has to be clear, there is no formula to define the process.  It will be the Pres. Of the GA conducting consultations with MS with support of secretariat.  Only question is Invites rather than Requests.  Invites is more elegant.  Nothing different than what has been used on previous occasions.

India. Not clear to us that we have full faith in working of CND, so why do we need the president of GA to get involved in the consultation process?  We should not bother him with consultations.  Have a suggestion to this para.

Zimbabwe Likes India amendment.
 
Guatemala. Matter addressed in negotiations.  My delegation cannot accept this term “preparatory body.” And also “when recommended by CND.”  Would mean CND is placed above UNGASS.

Colombia.  Share concerns expressed by other delegations and couldn’t be involved in informals.  First part of para we can’t accept and second part…as to how the GA and Pres can be involved, went one way but India’s proposal changes the direction.  Japan proposal more compromised.  Has to be balane between president of CND and GA.  Original proposal different.  Pakistan proposal “when recommended by the CND” – not in line with what we expect.  CND has important role, but GA through President will also get involved and have consultations.  This is about a special session.  Should be a political dialogue.  Modification proposed by Pakistan not acceptable to us.

Guatemala. Our delegation did participate extensively in discussions, and majority of delegations have come up with a clear cut scenario.  My delegation believes that proposal made by India makes it clear what role will be played by CND in leading this preparatory process.  In re Japan’s proposal, we need to take into account what other delegations have submitted here.  UNODC  cannot be Proposal made by India is fine.

Canada.  Text as originally proposed most likely to lead to consensus.  Japan proposal adds clarity.  We have certainly heard of UNODC acting as secretary for treaty bodies, but if there are other formulations..not so much the logistics expertise, but substantive or technical expertise should come from Vienna. 

Pakistan.  Can work with proposal of Indian delegate.  Support proposal made by Canada and Japan. 

Venezuela.  My delegation would like to thank the efforts to make decision.  And although we haven’t had enough time to analyse these new paras in depth, we would like to have some explanations or clarifications because we have some doubts about the procedure.  Referring to the fact that we are asking the Commission to lead the process, but also the SG to undertake consultations.  What would the result of the consultations be?  How would the results be conveyed to the CND?  As well as any other proposals?  In the first para we hear about inclusive process with substantive matters, etc. with listing of stakeholders, all encompassing consultations, we are asking president of GA to undertake parallel consultations.  How will this process actually take place?  And how will CND actually be able to analyse all the results?

Algeria.  Have some concerns regarding second para.  Leading role of CND and then give a mandate to president of GA with assistance of secretariat.  Still don’t understand what is the balance between role of CND and president of GA.  Will president of GA be reporting to CND ?  Illogical in the current structure.  Asks Mexico to clarify.

Netherlands. Briefly react to confusion.  When we speak of an inclusive preparatory process, they are not two different things.  One is included in the other.  Say “including” rather than with, then delete the other Pakistani amendment.  Never any confusion for me, but would also like to draw attention to para 10 of original resolution.  Agreed language.  Relationship and process spelled out.  Why is this such a problem?  Are we now going to turn this into a drafting session?  Some of us love spending the night here at the UN, but how do you intend to proceed? 

Chair. We will turn it into whatever delegations wish.  I freed my schedule for the night and the weekend so I am all yours.

Mexico.  Algeria has already been addressed.  Netherlands answered.  Para 6 should be read jointly with para 10.  Not an isolated process what president of GA does.  Intent of para 10 makes it clear. 

South Africa.  Supports latest Pakistan amendments.

India.  Tried to take into account that there are various bodies involved in this consultation process and CND has the lead role to play, and to invite the president may not be in line with exalted role of President.  Keep the president informed, then other controversy related to secretariat can be taken care of.  Gives president of GA the right role in a dignified manner.

Netherlands.  I have problems with CND trying to limit movement of President of GA.  Don’t accept Pakistan amendment.

Chair proposal.  Chair proposal.  Further deides that the CND as the central policy making body within the UN system dealing with drug related matters should lead this pracoss by addressing all organizational and substantive manners in an openended manner and keep the president of the GA updated in this regard for his guidance and advice.

South Africa.  Likes this.

Mexico. Will not support.  Balance will be compromised.  GA either through president etc. can always guide.  What we are talking about here is supporting the work that the CND is doing.  Expanding the scope of the work we are doing in CND.  Adding a political vision to the exercise.  If it is just to keep within CND and brief the GA we are not expanding the scope.  We do not need the CND to limit itself to whatever it can do here.  The Commission will get stronger by having the active support of the GA.  Can only be reached by having its own president involved.  The para misses that balance and we will not able to accept it.

Chair.  Instead of “advise” – support for his guidance and support.

Colombia.  Apologise for taking the floor again.  Would like to thank you for your proposal, however, there is one element we believe to be very important.  You have tried to keep it at the end of the proposal, replacing advice with support.  The pres of the GA should be involved in the preparatory process.  Not just the CND that receives the input and prepares proposals, but president of GA and other relevant partners.  That is what we were endeavouring to do in the original para.  Result of frank meeting an dhte most interested delegations expressed this opinion.  Don’t want to ignore or minimize role of CND.  We would like GA to have a role through its president so we can make the most of political capital of GA and the work of the president of the GA.  Lacking in this proposal.

Chair.  Add at the end of the para.  “for his guidance, support, and continued involvement.”

Afghanistan.  Support India proposal.  Since it is also included in yours, support yours.  With minor change, add  in the last line “in this regard for his support and guidance including on further needed consultations in support of the process.

Pakistan.  We fully support and can go along with your proposal.  On Afghanistan proposal,  we would prefer your proposal. 

France. Your proposal seems to be a good compromise.

Cuba.  Your proposal is going in the direction of reaching consensus among the various opinions.  We don’t want to have too many consultations and dual consultations, but the president of the GA needs to be able to help and encourage consultations that will help and contribute to preparatory process. 

Ecuador.  In the first part of the para we very much agree.  Would like to make some very small amendments.

Alt 6 bis. Further decides that the CND, as the central policymaking body of the UN system, dealing with drug related matters shall lead this process, in open ended manner. “invite the president of the GA to support, guide, and stay involved in this process.” Invites the Pesident of the GA in this regard to support guide, and stay involved in the process.  and request /keep (ECU) the president of the GA for his contribution (ECU) updated in this regard for further consultations (ECU) his guidance and advice. (India) invites the president of the GA in consultation with MS, and with the assistance of the UNODC (CAN) CND (PAK) Secretariat, to support this process on the basis of the proposals by the CND. (PAK) promote consultations in support of this process) for his support and guidance, including on the need for any further consultations (Chair, building on Afghanistan) guidance support, and continued active (IND) involvement (Chair)

India.  Add “active” before involvement.

Venezuela.  Our preference was for your first proposal.  End after

Mexico.  Not a question of keeping the GA updated.  He should be invited to contribute to this process.  This is a resolution of the GA not of CND.  So should be careful.  GA doesn’t act on its own.  Formula we have always used is to do it “in consultation with MS” – in in NY, with the support of the secretariat.  That is the practice.  No need to insist on it.  Idea of keeping him updated is not the intention but it is inappropriate by a resolution drafted by the GA itself.

Yemen.  Support Chair proposal.

Zimbabwe. Also wish to support your proposal.

Colombia. The other delegations have helped understand the message that is really important concerning president of GA.  Wants to propose it…Won’t be against active President of GA.  Divide the para so we keep the reference to requesting CND keep GA informed.  At the end of this resolution anyway.  We can also keep it in this para.  Invite the proposal of the GA to have an active participation.

To be actively involved in this preparatory process and support the commission by having consultations.  I am trying to come up a solution that will cover everything and not mix up the two elements.  All delegations have said very valid things, and I am trying to keep the president of the GA having an active role throughout Special Session.

Morocco. Element of compromise.  Balance element is missing in proposal.  Revert to the para and after “open ended manner” and I”nvites the president of the GA to support this process including by stating the need for any further consultation.”

Uruguay.  Your proposal was so good that it led to a number of comments and opinions.  When we asked for the floor we thought that we would make a suggestion.  That is not the case now, and we support Colombia’s proposal and would just like to stress that the para is starting to be balanced but we really need to convey what the work of the GA will be. 

Austria.  We all want consensus.  We have heard many valid proposals and in a way they can work with some tweaks.  But let me try to recap.  This is a resolution of the GA.  Free to accept it, reject it, change it, or whatever it wants to do.  We recommend in this resolution many things, but at the core the role of the CND will be only natural for the GA to say something on its own involvement in the process, through its president.  So I try to capture both notions, of having the president involved but wihout being too prescriptive.  Might have her own agenda, take care of Special Session. What the GA can do   is “invite the president of the GA to support, guide, and stay involved in this process.” Leaves enough room

Alt 6 bis. Further decides that the CND, as the central policymaking body of the UN system, dealing with drug related matters shall lead this process, by addressing all organizational and substantive matters in open ended manner and in this regard invites the president of the GA in this regard to support, guide, and stay involved in this process. (AUT, PAK)  (AGREED)—Everyone claps, chair throws off his headphones.

…(PAK). Invites the president of the GA in this regard to support, guide, and stay involved in this process. (AUT)

Pakistan.  Supports the Austrian proposal with slight change. 

Russia.  Totally agree with Austrian and your proposal. 
If there is  agreement on this, additional para in this resolution. 67-193.  Will reaffirm that ??
Raffirms its decision in resolution 67/193 of 20 December 2010 to conduct the SS and its preparatory process from within existing regular budget resources. Also (CUB) invites MS and other donors to provid extrabudgetary resources for the purposes of this resolution. In accordance with rules and procedure of UN.  (CAN) (placement at the end).

UK. Standard budget language. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.