Link to the Initial draft version of the resolution can be found here.
Chair: Good morning. Where we stand on different resolutions, it is clear a lot of good work has happened last night and this morning. It is my intention to start with L2. Let me say at first, that everything that has been agreed in COW will not be reopened. It is up to sponsors and delegates to do this in informals.
Netherlands: Pleased to announce we had fruitful informals last night and this morning. I think we can work smoothly now on this resolution. Thanks to delegates for willingness to go forward and flexilblity. Text in ‘blue’ is not apart of the agreed language
Chair: blue language has to be bracketed.
Netherlands: That is all I wanted to say, thank you.
Chair: lets continue.
Netherlands: Let’s start with PP on page 2 that beings ‘recognizing that the 1988 convention”
Chair: I can see no objection. Lets move on.
Netherlands: “Taking note” … not agreed.
Vietnam: I would suggest we keep this open and leave this paragraph out.
Chair: I am chairing this meeting.
Vietnam: Yes, OK thank you. PP beginning “Noting that… with the addition of “include the concept of proportionate sentencing, and “provides that the severity”
(???) reference to criminal law is missing.
Netherlands: The concept of proportionate sentencing is apart of criminal law.
Chair: is what is on the screen now, reflect what you were negotiating?
Netherlands: “Noting that, the three international drug control conventions include the proportionate that criminal law”
Chair: this does not make sense.
Vietnam: “That provides that the severity”
Chair: Thank you. With this, can we now move forward to the next?
Netherlands: “Recalling the relevant united nationals standards and norm on crime prevention and criminal justice”
Vietnam: we remember having “as appropriate” at the end of this sentence.
Chair: OK, can we move forward?
Italy: Reject this addition.
Vietnam: Now we are recalling a lot of United Nations standards and norms. Wanted it to be as flexible as possible.
Australia: Can we replace “appropriate” with “relevant”
Chair: Let’s us move on. Paragraph starting “recalling”. No objections, let’s move on another paragraph “recalling the principle” . Agreed.
Netherlands: “Noting that for some member states” should be deleted.
Chair: OK, very good agreed.
Netherlands: “bearing in mind” agreed.
Chair: move on.
Netherlands: op. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , all agreed.
Vietnam: We would like to make amendments to op.2. The title needs amending.
Chair: the title and op. 2 have been agreed in the COW. I am not in the business of opening agreed language.
Venezuela: I was absent from informals as I was attending outcome document negotiations. We hope our changes will be agreeable. op. 3. “reintegration” & “to or additional measures”
Netherlands: This has not been bought up in the informals. I plead for flexibility. Please do not bring up new language.
Chair: this is the last meeting of the COW. I do not support opening these paragraphs.
USA: the additions suggested by Venezuela. Just make the text more precise. We could support them.
China: We would like to propose a minor amendment, but we will not, for the purposes of flexlbiilty.
Egypt: I think we can support Ven. Language, and accommodate it.
United Kingdom: at the stage we are at, we are happy with the amendment, it is not changing the meaning, we would like to close this.
Netherlands: seeing as there is not opposition in the room. Let’s accept this change.
Chair: Could Venezuela. Please read again the text so we have it absolutely clear.
Venezuela: IN addition to conviction or punishment for drug related offenses in full compliance with approparaite provisions of article three of the 1988 convention
Netherlands: the next one is op. 5. Instead of the word “requests” we have the word “appropriate”, with the rest deleted.
USA: We as MS provide financial resources to UNODC, we also decide how these funds are spent. “encourage” is not forceful enough – how is UNODC to function without this direction provided by member states.
Secretariat: The UNODC would not draft a report, but would find another means of sharing this language.
Vietnam: Let’s us take out proportionate sentencing. Take out “in the context of this resolution” and put.
Russian Federation: We want to make a change to pp3, to ask about one slight amendment. It is a technical adjustment.
Chair: let’s look at it if it is purely technical. I will only allow this if it does not lead to problems.
Russian Federation: Could we substitute “include” … two principles for “pre-suppose” two principles.
Netherlands: that was my proposal yesterday. But Vietnam would not accept.
China: This is also a change that we could support.
Vietnam: we could show flexibility.
Chair: If we are all flexible on this, I will rule for this small change. That OP is closed. The paragraph starting “taking note of CND resolution” was agreed in informals .
Vietnam: we have a package of changes to implement.
Chair: What changes? I was just ready to close this resolution.
Vietnam: the package that we had yesterday is to do with this PP and the titles/ They come together.
Chair: these are closed.
Vietnam: Thankyou madame chair. I believe that we are working in the CoW with the common understanding that nothing is agreed until all is agreed. We hope that these changes can be agreed.
Netherlands: we would ask for the Vietnamese indulgence. We have given them a lot of language that is not to our liking.
Italy: what we have been doing during these informals negotiations. I don’t understand why Vietnam cannot accept. A compromise would be “to take note of the CND resolution” in the previous PP.
Chair: We have has many rounds and informals.
USA: as I look at the title of the document, I believe it may have taken into consideration the concerns that Vietnam has. Can I propose a quick change to pp. that beings with PP
“With due regard, inter alia…”
Chair: Five minutes break to close this so we can engage with other resolutions.
[Countries resume negotiations at the back of the room]
Chair: This session is resumed. We will close this resolution today.
Netherlands: we have found a compromise. in op.2 we add the caveat found in op.1, so we start with “invites members states, subject to their constitutional principles and basic concepts”.
Chair: I congratulate everyone.
USA: Have we got a decision on Inter Alia?
Chair: yes that, is agreed. With this ,we have finalized the consideration of L2. Ad a result I kindly
Secretariat: The UNODC would like to inform, with regards to op. 5, extra resources of $102,000 will be needed to conduct three advisory meetings.
Chair: resolution submitted to the Plenary.
[round of applause]
I would like now to consider L.13. Is this one ripe for discussion?