Resolution L10 – Promoting the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development

A copy of the initial draft resolution can be found here.

Chair: So dear colleagues, we are ready to move on to L.10. The ambition of the chair is to close by 8pm, when the translators finish. Lets disseminate the merged version, read, and then discuss on Monday. This is because I am a strong believer in family time, something we have discussed a lot during these proceedings. The title has been agreed by COW. Lets leave PP1, Lets looks at PP2. I see no comments. It has been agreed. Let’s consider  PP.3,4,5,6,7. No comments? All agreed. Let us look at PP.8. Does the Thai delegation have anything to say on this?

PP.8

Thailand: the Thai delegation has agreed.

Chair: Let us agree on PP.9.

PP.9

Russia: If I may, I’d like to see this fourth line, without breaks.

Germany: There is no consensus on including this language. This resolution has nothing to do with drug abuse, but does address drug supply. The Canadian delegation agreed to delete it. We ask the Russian delegation to accept this change.

Peru: It is an important item in this resolution. There was a compromise reached in the informal contributions. And on that basis we agreed to show flexibility to get this resolution approved.

Chair: Good. I think we can move to pp10.

PP10

Ecuador: in this paragraph we wanted to change one term. In the third line: “addressing and countering”.

Morocco: My delegation is opposed to this change. This has been agreed by the COW. We will not accept any changes to agreed language.

Egypt: We will not go along with this proposal, this is agreed language.

(???): We concur.

Germany: I would also kindly ask them to withdraw this change. Please do not touch agreed-upon paragraphs.

Colombia: Conversely, we support Ecuador. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

PP.11

Chair: OK, we move on. PP.11, which is agreed. Let me remind you, we don’t want parallel negotiations in this room. So please do not refer to anything that has to await a decision at UNGASS. Let’s refer back to PP.1

PP.1

Ecuador: We appreciate that PP.1 has been agreed, but we would like to [suggests change] to “welcomes”

Chair: I would like to move this forward. We are not

Germany: We had the same debate in the last meeting. We had agreements over the word “welcomes”.

Peru: We can second your words, and the words of Germany. We should move forward.

Morocco: this is not appropriate. This is no a way to negotiate. We have already agreed this language. Please move forward.

Thailand: We would like to echo this.

OP.2,3,4,5.

Chair: OP.2,3,4, all agreed.

PP.5

Colombia: Important to point out that some countries have smaller delegations than others. Sometimes we simply cannot make sure our representatives are in the room on occasions. Can I explain that 5, not 5.dis, is one we would like to comment on, like Ecuador. We would prefer the word “tackling” not to be there.

Morocco: Same as before. We are a small delegation too. This paragraph five has been agreed, let’s not waste time.

Egypt: can we just go to the paragraphs that were not agreed, Madame Chair?

Ecuador: We too, are a small delegation, and we could not be present at all the meetings. We have a legitimate right to ask about issues that are a concern to us. This is not about imposing our position. Our delegation appeals to your good sense. We ask that we go back to the paragraph, where are minimal concerns were not met. Let us go back to

PP.1

Pakistan: If we keep opening up these paragraphs, we will not move forward.

Colombia: I thank Pakistan for their input. I would like to clarify, that when we say nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, we mean it. With all due respect, we must consider everything.

Chair: I am not going to continue like this. Can we have a discussion at the front, now.

IMG_3527
Chair and member delegations begin heated discussion at front of the room.

Chair: I thank you. We have all noted the concerns.

Uruguay: We have requested the floor, because we did not understand all of this discussion. My understanding is that Ecuador and Colombia wants to open PP.1 to include human rights references, among other additions. Another problem, is what has been agreed on in the COW can not be reopened.

OP. 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12

Chair: I am not reopening OPs that have been agreed.  OP. 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, are all agreed without interjection or comment. I take it that this paragraph has bee agreed by COW. This takes us to PP.14. I see no one asking for the floor.

PP.14

Argentina: This PP was also the negotiation in the informals, to try and have work that is supported by more coordinated work between UN entities and UNODC. So what we have done is try and get a consensus paragraph.

Chair: I see no objections. pp.14 has been adopted by the COW. 14bis […] has been agreed in informals, but not in COW. I see now objection, it is agreed in COW.

OP. 15,16,17,18,19,20

Chair: All agreed.

This leaves us with PP.1

PP.1

Germany: Thank you, Madame chair. As discussed in the COW this PP, is still subject to negotiation. The wording “must be addressed in accordance with” the conventions has created differences. That is why we bought it before the COW.

Russia: I think we should try and get this agreed.

Morroco: We will try and venture to address this challenge. We do not have to link this with the UNGASS outcome document. We know that everyone agrees with the conventions. I appeal to member states, knowing their position, to accept this paragraph as it is.

Ecuador: Thank you Madame chair, we have just approved a paragraph in Gender resolution, that referred to the conventions. Perhaps we could use the same text, without linking to UNGASS?

Canada: Might we want to say which “constitutes  the framework of the international drug control system” – this could be a way to solve this.

Peru: we cannot make concessions. This is a very important paragraph for us. Could we please go back to original language that was on the screen.

Ecuador: Can we put the paragraph from the Gender resolution on the screen?

Russia: It is a little strange to hear delegates voicing against the conventions. No delegation declared its will to change the conventions. So why are they protesting? Opposition could be interpreted as an ambiguous and dangerous sign.

Chair: Can we adopt [conventions that] “form the cornerstone of drug control?”

Ecuador: There is a specific request to show the gender resolution.

Colombia: it would be important to have the human right declaration, which would be included alongside other relevant human rights resolutions.

Germany: Look at the reference to human rights. No resistance to cornerstone wording? I’ve not heard opposition.

Ecuador: Yes my delegation said twice it is not possible for us to accompany this text, twice, but we can accept something similar to the gender resolution.

Peru: we cannot accompany the proposal made by Colombia. Human rights is already in the conventions. That is sufficient reference and inclusion.

(shows L8 on screen – gender resolution)

Egypt: we whole heatedly support the language in black – the conventions will always be the cornerstone.

Cuba: This paragraph, as Egypt said, is the chicken in the rice. I’m sorry it’s so colloquial. I would like to support what Egypt said, there must be consensus on the conventions, otherwise no negotiation is possible.

Russia: The topic of alternative development is much broader than the language suggests.

Chair: I suggested “legal cornerstone”. Ecuador, can you agree to that?

Ecuador: We do not support the text, as it stands in black. We could support it if we include the declaration of human rights, and human rights law.

Chair: You do recall that human rights language is on PP2?

Ecuador: My problem is with PP1. Not PP2.

Uruguay: I do not want to interrupt the break. I want to express my position. I don’t think 5 minutes is enough to agree on everything. This pp. should not be like this. I do not think the three conventions are the cornerstone of anything, this is not what the resolution is about. The conventions are not a cornerstone, in Uruguay’s understanding, no convention can be the cornerstone. The other cornerstone, are the human rights instruments . If we mention one, we must mention the other. The reference to human rights in PP2 and the conventions, is sufficient. Let’s delete pp1.

Paraguay: We are very grateful to Uruguay for this analysis. Having understood the prevailing atmosphere in the room, we have understood that this paragraph should be revised or deleted, but you are insisting that we proceed.

Chair: I am the chair. I don’t insist on anything. I just want us to move on.

[ session resumed beyond working hours ]

One comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.