Home » CND Intersessional – Thursday 4th December, afternoon session

CND Intersessional – Thursday 4th December, afternoon session

Discussions on draft decision L.17 Rev. 1 continue

(See draft of 2 December 2014 here)

(Mexico and EU going toe to toe on whether the extended bureau should stay on parallel with a new chair and bureau.)

Mexico: We were not invited in the latest round of informal negotiations and they know we are not in a position to reach consensus. This is not going to lead to a good result. The CND plays a significant role for the UNGASS but we have set a deplorable example in the manner we have been conducting ourselves over this issue. Transparent open consultations need to take place.

Austria: We have wasted too much time – a precious time — on the issue of procedure.

NL: It has been two days with experts from capitals waiting and the message they will return home with, is that Vienna is incapable of organizing themselves. We suggest a few interested member states do the drafting while the Chair continues with the meeting.

Italy: To add to the EU statement we made yesterday, we made all efforts to achieve consensus and commend everyone in this process. The CND has the duty to safeguard the international drug conventions and it is our duty to work in the most effective way. The proposal by Austria and Thailand is good and its adoption is best way to ensure the concrete implementation. We call on Mexico for more flexibility.

Uruguay: For all of those countries engaged on this from Latin America, procedural issues are substantive and as Latin American countries we continue to support Mexico.  To clarify, all delegations here have made efforts – all countries are showing flexibility. We are being flexible and pragmatic – this committee is not divided by those who are flexible and those who are not. The proposal of Mexico and NL is a good one – let the interested parties keep discussing and we can carry on the meeting. This issue is important for the next few years.

(Chair calls another recess. They come back after several hours)

Afghanistan.  The challenges needs to form main pillar, and we need to increase the operational capacity of all affected countries. This should include the operational capacity to address trafficking.  There are growing link between narcotics and terrorism and growing reliance of traffickers on sea routes. There is also increasing effectiveness of alternative livelihood programs, which has to have infrastructure development and farmer access to markets. There is also increasing treatment capacity, and despite of this there is an alarming increase in number of addicts. There is also an increase effectiveness of technical cooperation, which needs to be discussed as a crosscutting issue. The delegation look forward to an action oriented outcome of the special session.

Iran. We need to root cause of drug problem, and don’t deal with side effects of disease.  We can’t prolong the implementation of Joint Ministerial Statement and the Plan of Action.

Switzerland:  The country attaches a great important to the involvement of other UN agencies – all of these address different aspects of the drug problem. We have to encourage those bodies to engage as fully and as swiftly as possible. A high level participation of UN agencies must be ensured, also at the upcoming CND. The involvement of civil society and scientific community is also critical and they should have the floor at the opening of the UNGASS and also at the workshops.

Topics for general debate and workshops should be brief and straightforward and a broad range of topics must be covered.

Korea: – we are looking forward to 2016 special session…

Norway: –  The World drug problem still causes several problems of great concern at several levels, despite our efforts, we still face big challenges on national, regional and international levels. The UNGASS is of great importance to sum up what has worked and what has not – the outcome greatly relies on our preparations. The World drug problem causes a wide range of problems and needs targeted answers. The preparations must take note of this. We strongly support involvement of all actors, UN bodies, civil society and scientific community. Good analysis is very important. 2016 is around the corner and there is not much time. We welcome decision in New York last week to organize high level thematic debate, and welcome the launch of the CSTF. The WDP shows different faces. There are challenges to find answers to the problems within an acceptable framework, and a hope for an open-minded dialogue. We need to strive for to be in the forefront and the negotiations outcome must show that health and wellbeing are the overarching goals of drug policy. Within a public health framework, we strongly emphasise on the need of prevention and harm reduction programs to save lives. We want that drug policy is based on human rights – including abolition of the death penalty. Respect for civil society and drug users themselves (self-representation- nothing about us without us). We want to ensure the availability of controlled medicines where it is needed. To summarise, health, human rights, development and security and engagement from Vienna, Geneva and New York are our petitions. The omnibus resolution was constructive in this regard… We should attempt to limit these contributions, reflected in the way we organize the proposals.

We welcome the UNGASS. We align with G77 and China statement. The process adopted must be inclusive and transparent. Process should take stock of the past, and reflect on the present, how to tackle scourge of illicit drugs both on demand and supply as well as victims. We need to focus on drugs that are not under international control, as well as in poly drug use – we need to address these phenomenon holistically… Drug abuse needs to be dealt with in comprehensive manner. The importance of drug abuse prevention cannot be overemphasized. We need to support efforts in low and middle income countries for evidence-based drug prevention programmes. We need to put more control of precursors and we are concerned about the abuse of tramadol and are calling for international scheduling of tramadol… Nigeria subscribes to the outcome of the African Union ministers meeting.

The 3 conventions remain the framework for drug control. The preparations of UNGASS should be based on inclusivity.  CND should lead and other UN agencies should be involved. We want to make comments on the non-paper on the proposals to UNGASS 2016. The first version was a very good starting point – the new version is close to a final version. A plenary format will allow UNGASS to achieve the objectives.

Aligns with EU statement, UNGASS is a unique opportunity for frank open discussion of what works and what doesn’t work. We need a modern, balanced approach within the three conventions – focused prevention and treatment and targeted efforts to reduce supply, as well as a detailed discussion on NPS – dangerous substances and to enhance information sharing on these substances – supporting the Expert Committee on Drug Dependence and enhance cooperation to bring these dangerous substances under international control. We must increase access to controlled medicines and we support the new formed Civil Society Task Force (CSTF.)

The country welcomes serious consultations on this issue and note non-paper as a good basis for discussion. We must identify the main causes of the failure of the efforts and identify gaps in international cooperation. UNGASS is an opportunity to encourage member states to become more involved. We recommend an action-orientated approach and we call implementation of art 14 of 1988 convention. The World Drug Problem continues to be common and shared responsibility – requires comprehensive approach.

Colombia is of the view that UNGASS is unique opportunity to identify new goals. There has been a high human and political cost in Colombia regarding the drugs reports and we are deeply committed to promoting the UNGASS as a forum for debate. We are still far from objectives set in 2009. We need to adopt evidence-based measures that are people-centered.  We aspire to a new public policy with territorial specificities – this is a global problem we cannot act in isolation, Colombia will not act unilaterally, but a number of policies have to change. As there are new realities upraising, we need to promote the UNGASS on drugs to contemplate to new realities – but we are committed to the conventions. We need a comprehensive strategy to strengthen existing global commitments. We need a broad debate that contemplates all new trends that have taken place in recent history. We need to harmonise and ensure synergy in preparation for UNGASS. CND must devote its full capacity on this and there is a need to set aside time for substantive decisions. In 2015 we should have a technical segment to analyze information from agencies – conclusions and recommendations for 2016. We support a high-level event in 2015 and other meetings should be utilized such as the Human Rights Council. Plenary sessions should be organised as roundtables with an additional segment to discuss current realities and emerging trends. The political declaration that will be outcome will not replace existing documents but reinforce current documents – new realities and possibility of adopting new approaches must be taken into account.

The UNGASS should give an effective and comprehensive response on the 3 conventions.

The delegation welcomes UNGASS and the chair’s non-paper serves useful discussion. The UNGASS discussions must be based on three pillars of 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action. Stronger measures for traffickers and treatment and prevention for drug users. International cooperation is crucial. We want to discuss efforts for providing technical assistance.. UNGASS is timely to assess our progress.

We are happy to assist in preparations –and have a special focus on AD. Good cooperation with UNODC on this. We welcome Thailand as next CND chair.

El Salvador:
It is our conviction that UNGASS 2016 is a unique moment and dialogue must lead to the implementation of actions. Respect for human rights is important. Organised crime has taken on new facets and the rupture and lives of people are at stake. We must double our efforts for technical and financial assistance for national level institutions. UNGASS should take place at the highest possible levels – and we welcome format proposed by the Chair and support establishment of a bureau.

United States:
CND is critical and happy that we are now discussing substance. For US – our hope is to produce a multi-lateral consensus based on health, reduce influence of transnational organized crime and seek to reduce drug abuse and its consequences. We need to ensure availability of medicines but prevent diversion in line with the conventions. We should build on the Joint Ministerial Statement to develop a very operational outcome emanating from 2009 documents and targets. New challenges such as NPS have emerged. We should draw on best practices to develop operational initiatives as there is so much experience here in CND. We have specific goals from 2009 – health side, demand reduction, money laundering and judicial cooperation. Human rights, youth, women, children and communities and issue of sustainable development need to be considered. We must come away with specific list and schedule the calendar developed for the UNGASS. We support the inclusion of civil society and recommend that one segment of the meetings be devoted to civil society input and its role to support implementation of the conventions. The non-paper is good.

We are one of the three countries that submitted the proposal for the UNGASS – we are very satisfied the progress that has been made and the general preparatory work as outlined in the non-paper. We express concern that the preparatory events should take place at highest possible level with the highest visibility – It is the mandate of this commission – to promote and propose events and to enrich the preparatory work. We want a high level event of an inclusive nature. Regarding ‘inclusive’, we want the greatest possible ‘inclusiveness’ and this needs to provide for civil society based on practices of the GA which is far more inclusive than those of this commission (CND). So far it seems that NGOs cannot participate until a late stage – in fact, there has been no participation today and no interaction – so we need to move to practices similar to those of the GA. The non-paper could serve as basis for consensus. We call to change the title of high-level segment and end after ‘global levels’ so taking out reference to the 2009 PD and AP. We are concerned about why it is workshops rather than roundtables – what are the implications? Roundtables should involve civil society – and not only civil society but also members of parliament and representatives of interest groups. If workshops would restrict participation we would have difficulties with these. We should work towards a short action-orientated manner as the outcome will be the purview of the GA and decided at that level, not the level of the CND.

The Joint Ministerial Statement called on all countries to act in manner of shared responsibility – demand and supply reduction and a comprehensive approach. The CND and 3rd Committee has adopted these resolutions. The discussion must be held within 3 conventions and the framework of other international instruments. The Chinese delegation reiterates that the 3 conventions are the cornerstone and their potential should be fully utilized. The Chinese delegation is of the view that capital punishment is a very controversial issue and there is no international consensus, the three conventions allow for sentencing for drug crimes to be matter of state sovereignty – UNGASS debate should avoid controversial issues so progress can be made.

UNGASS is just a continuation and should not lead to any new ideas – we must remain within confines of these elements and should not compromise on the 3 conventions. We must refer to existing policy docs only. The UNGASS should be about what works and what further work is required (not what works and what doesn’t work as in the Chair’s non-paper).

Austria then returned with the decision L.17 which was adopted by the floor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *