Chair. This is the first CoW consultation on L4. Russia has had extensive consultation on this resolution in informals.

Russia. My preference is on discussing the title now, otherwise we can return to it at a later stage.

Preliminary paragraph 1

Pakistan. I want to read the title for the Vienna declaration so that it is corrected here. We should stick to the original mandate and keep the title as we usually have it.

Afghanistan. I thank Russia for tabling this important resolution. We had prolonged discussions on the paras and the title and clearly explained our position on opiates in Afghanistan. Given the new threats and challenges in our region, using such a phrase in the context of the Paris Pact would not be fair if we don’t also mention the root causes of opiate cultivation in Afghanistan (which are of a regional and international nature). I propose that we reflect the most appropriate language within the Paris Pact initiative. We cannot go long with any para that includes “opiates originating from Afghanistan”. After a 3 day discussion most delegations are supportive of proposed language, but we are happy to continue talking.

Russia. I just want to make a clarification. When we drafted this paragraph we wanted to avoid any confrontation, which is why we wanted to stick to original language in the Paris Pact. We are sticking to the original mandate so we are surprised by the Afghanistan position.

Afghanistan. Our argument was that if we insist on using this phrase, then we need paras on a broader context and have a longer resolution around cultivation and production in Afghanistan. The agreement in Afghanistan was to agree with this scope. To clarify, what we have proposed is totally in line with the Paris Pact initiative on international production, cultivation and trafficking of opiates.

Iran. We are then changing the aim of the Paris Pact here. We are not against having a para on the root causes of the problem. Here we focus on cooperating on tackling the issue. It is not to judge Afghanistan or other country, it is to discuss what we want to do. With this phrase, it means we concentrate on how to work and what to do. We understand the situation in Afghanistan and know they are doing what they can. This resolution aims to help Afghanistan and other countries suffering from opiates originating from Afghanistan.

Pakistan. We see this resolution – and we are thankful for Russia – as an opportunity to deal with the various aspects of the drug problem according to the principle of shared responsibility. We can help each other when we stick to the mandate of the Paris Pact Initiative. We shouldn’t change that mandate, that would undermine our efforts to assist Afghanistan and other countries.

China. We support the comments made by Pakistan and Iran. We now already have the agreement that the drug originates from Afghanistan. This is accepted by all so I hope everybody can accept this wording.

Chair. Yes, this is very much the hope of the chair too. We may want to discuss the opportunity to add a new PP here on root causes. We now move to PP2.

Preliminary paragraph 2

Chair. This was agreed in informals and is now agreed in CoW.

Preliminary paragraph 3 (bracketed language)

Afghanistan. Again with the same clear argument, we cannot support the mention of the title of the report by the Executive Director. In total 4 reports were presented so far. Again, the title includes the contentious phrase we rejected earlier. We must judge every singly phenomenon in terms of its root causes. We can clearly say that the continued production of opium in Afghanistan is due to insecurity regionally. The evolving circumstances, new threats and challenges in counternarcotics efforts mean we cannot accept this. I want to kindly suggest that we can continue this resolution while we find a way forward on this core element of the resolution.

Iran. If we are not talking about opium cultivation in Afghanistan, then most of the para should be deleted. Why should we support the government of Afghanistan, or why should we take note of a report for which we cannot mention the title? Then we should remove the whole paragraph. We don’t blame the government of Afghanistan, we support it. We know that Afghanistan need support to fight about what? About the opiates originating from Afghanistan. It is not about terrorism or any other things. If they don’t want this, then we are wasting our time. This changes completely the mandate of the Paris Pact.

Chair. Thank you. Many of us have met with the Afghan government to deal with this specific problem.

Russia. The original idea is to extend the support to the Afghan government regarding opiates originating from this country. We are not here to point our finger at the country, but to do support the country, we need to draw attention to the problem. Here we are also mentioning a report adopted here at the CND and we are not in a position to change the language already agreed.

Pakistan. We are not interested in entering a blame game or assessing the root causes – although we know what these are. We refer here to specific UN reports and resolutions and usually mention the titles of these. So this is a matter of consistency here. We therefore want to see the full title to be reflected here.

Preliminary paragraph 4

Chair. No comment.

Preliminary paragraph 5

Chair. No comment.

Preliminary paragraph 5bis

Afghanistan. We have a comment on the “successful efforts made” in the beginning of the para. It would be better to use an alternative word here: “remarkable efforts” or “considerable efforts” here.

Pakistan. I would prefer “remarkable efforts” here.

Afghanistan. We are ok with this.

Preliminary paragraph 6

Chair. No comment.

Preliminary paragraph 6bis

Chair. No comment.

Preliminary paragraph 6ter

Cuba. In this para it is important to remember that links with the Security Council are difficult for us and other delegations. We would prefer to use another language from CCPCJ resolutions. We would propose: “Taking note of the aims of relevant Security Council resolutions related to the Paris Pact Initiative”, this is consistent with last year’s CCPCJ resolution on security and terrorism, as well as CND resolutions. We can add a footnote.

Ecuador.  We want to support the proposal from Cuba. For us as well it is sensitive to establish this type of link to Security Council resolutions.

France. My delegation was part of those adding the para. In the spirit of consensus we agree with Cuba and Ecuador which would be an indirect reference to resolutions of the Security Council. We think it is appropriate to refer to the Security Council resolutions related to the Paris Pact. The resolution is much broader than the Paris Pact though. If the wording is appropriate, we are happy to go ahead with this language.

Russia. In this context it is important to refer to the resolutions, but in the spirit of time and cooperation we accept the proposals from Ecuador and Cuba.

Chair. We will then amend para 6ter.

France. I just wanted to be sure that the text is modified differently – there should be the word “mentioning” for the reasons I sated earlier.

Preliminary paragraph 7

Chair. This has previously been agreed in informals. This is agreed.

Preliminary paragraph 8 (bracketed)

Russia. During informals, we agreed to consider PP8 in the light of PP10 which contained a pretty long list of organisations and institutions involved in combatting drugs in Afghanistan. We must reach broader consensus on these two paras.

??. We’ve just had informals on these paras. We can now agree to these paras, but would amend PP10 slightly, adding “and the achievements made…”.

Iran. I need to discuss this part with my capital. Please keep this in brackets and I will consult with my capital.

Australia. On PP10, we have a quick grammatical issue here – just remove “including” and add “such as”.

United States. I wanted to give background for my colleagues who were not in informal consultations on whether we could give a list of the various Pact initiatives, and we believed that if we couldn’t mention all of them, then we should delete reference to them. We therefore propose deleting them.

Russia. We are now back to the discussions held in informal consultations. The agreement was to either keep PP8 and 10 or delete both. We would like to close off the discussions on that.

Iran. On the Triangular Initiative, it is an initiative of the Paris Pact itself. It is not for others to cooperate with the Paris Pact. So PP8 is exactly part of the Paris Pact. Those organisations mentioned here are not working with the Paris Pact. We insist on keeping PP8 and PP10 in general.

Russia. I want to reiterate that we appreciate the effects of the Triangular initiative but it would also be appropriate to mention other institutions. We need proper balance in PP8 and PP10.

Pakistan. I want to add one word, “relevant” before “regional institutions”.

Turkey. We can also go along without naming the institutions. But we should also take into account that the Vienna Declaration mentions the Heart of Asia Initiative so we want to have this included too.

Chair. Would it be helpful to reduce the number of initiatives/organisations listed here and only focus on those mentioned in the Paris Pact? I leave that with you now, and we will move to PP9.

Preliminary paragraph 9

Pakistan. Because of some mis-communications our concerns were not reflected. Before “trafficking”, include “illicit cultivation of crops, production, manufacturing and trafficking of drugs”.

Afghanistan. We are flexible and can accept this amendment. But when it comes to the issue of financial flows the Paris Pact has focused on the issue of drug trafficking. This relies also on last year’s CND resolution. I can support changes but the agreed language adequately addresses the Paris Initiative wording.

Pakistan. Usually we address all drug related crimes.

Afghanistan. Maybe we could ask the Secretariat to give us their advice. But we could have “trafficking of precursors” too mentioned here to complete the chain.

Pakistan. If Afghanistan can give us evidence of links between financial flows and trafficking of precursors then we would be happy with this addition. My proposal is based on solid evidence.

Secretariat. There is no already agreed wording on this paras. We take act of what is being agreed – it is your decision.

Afghanistan. We just want to suggest that trafficking of precursors be added.

Pakistan. I will try to be constructive. I want to quote one reference. The language was taken from resolution 58/6 and this was not taken from the Paris Pact initiative. The language agreed then was from a different context. If my colleague cannot agree to this proposal, then we should delete the para in its entirety.

Ecuador. We understand concerns by Pakistan. However, in an effort to avoid political debate, we should retain agreed language. It may be agreed language in a different context but it would suit everyone.

Pakistan. My delegation is not ready to accept language from this delegate. I have pointed to agreed language and research. My original proposal was different than what is there now, we should delete “precursors” which is irrelevant in this context.

Afghanistan. I would like to add my colleague to have a look at the Joint Ministerial Statement. When you look at the chain of activities there, precursors are mentioned there. So trafficking of precursors should be there. But we can also go along with the agreed language.

Iran. I think trafficking itself has the diversion of precursors in it, so it is not necessary to explicitly mention it. So I understand my colleague from Afghanistan’s concerns, but this seems to be covered here.

Pakistan. I want to flag again that I still didn’t have a specific response to my question – where is the evidence? I hope that after the meeting my Afghan colleague will respond to me.

France. I just wanted to echo my colleague from Pakistan where he said that there is no evidence that trafficking in precursors is linked to terrorism or its financing. I would therefore like to support my Pakistani colleague.

Afghanistan. In our region, terrorist networks are involved in drug trafficking. In this context, there is a link to financing terrorism.

Preliminary paragraph 11

Chair. No comment.

Preliminary paragraph 12 (bracketed)

Afghanistan. This para is not that relevant here for the Paris Pact.

United States. My proposal would be to move the fragment on eradication and illicit cultivation should be moved close to alternative development.

Germany. Our position on AD is known and mentioning eradication is too restrictive. We propose to retain the text as before as it is in line with the Joint Ministerial Statement.

Pakistan. We have been consistent in making the argument that we must focus more on the source of the problem which is illicit cultivation. We are fine with the proposals from the USA or Germany.

Afghanistan. We want to keep this para in brackets.

Preliminary paragraph 13

Pakistan. I would suggest a discussion on the overarching objectives of the 2030 development agenda – we want to just delete “overarching” as it is unclear what we are talking about here.

Chair. I see no objections so this is agreed.

Operative paragraph 1

Chair. This was agreed in informals.

Pakistan. I suggest that we replace “competent” with “relevant international organisations”.

Operative paragraph 2 (text in brackets)

Russia. The idea of this paragraph was to bring forward some of the more concrete steps under the principle of the four pillars of the Paris Pact regarding the bounds between efforts made by Pakistan and Afghanistan and how these efforts should be assessed “in line with” the Paris Pact. I hope we can reach consensus here.

Afghanistan.  There are a lot of elements within the new drug action plan of Afghanistan. So if we use “in line with”, we can only support the national action plan in the context of the 4 pillars. If we use the phrase “taking due consideration of”, it would be more adequate here.

Chair. Could we use “reflecting” here?

Pakistan. I share the concerns expressed by Russia. If you have a political commitment like the Paris Pact, you can’t just take due consideration, it needs to “be in line with” it.

Afghanistan. Maybe as a way out, we could use “including in line with”? The action plan includes additional elements. This could somehow accommodate the requests from several member states.

Chair. Can we now close this OP? I see no objections so we move to OP3.

Operative paragraph 3

Chair. This was agreed in informals.

Pakistan. I suggest adding “relevant programmes” in the third line.

Operative paragraph 4

Pakistan. This was a one day event to take note of the new national action plan. There was no negotiated doc or outcome, so there is no need to retain this reference, we can just delete it.

Afghanistan. We do believe there was an outcome document, conclusions from the chairs. There was a lot of resources put into this one day event to present the regional priorities. The action plan was one component of the whole discussions. The outcome doc was released at the meeting.

Russia. It was an important political event, it should find a proper place in the draft.

Pakistan. I don’t know what outcome we are referring to. I remember there was a conclusion from the chair, but that’s it. Secondly, what kind of contribution has this meeting had in terms of the UNGASS deliberations? We could simply take note that the meeting was held and express support for Afghanistan’s ongoing efforts to address the world drug problem, in a separate para OP4bis.

Afghanistan. We could put this in a separate para, this isn’t a problem.

Iraq. I am with the countries supporting a reference to the outcome of the meeting. It is talking so many issues in the region – we should refer to it, even in a very generic way.

Pakistan. Thank you for your flexibility. But then we would need to move this to the preambular part.  

Afghanistan. We support the inclusion of the proposal in the preambular part, but we need to add something on the main aim of the conference. I can give you some wording.

Operative paragraph 5

Afghanistan. We need stronger language around the Paris Pact partners. Speaking of considering the possibility of providing appropriate assistance should be strengthened. We also talk about specific groups again. We should not mention any particular group, or say “support Afghanistan and all other Paris Pact partners”.

Iran. We agree with Afghanistan. This language is too weak. We cannot agree with other suggestions, however. If we look at activities of the Paris Pact, there are regional initiatives and programmes from UNODC, most of which are in transit countries, most affected, and don’t need money or help. This only targets those most affected.

Pakistan. I align myself with my colleague from Iran. Transit states are targeted here. This is also in the Vienna Declaration. This is not something we are bringing in for the first time.

Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the most affected by this drug business. For the sake of compromise we can use the language from the Vienna Declaration but remove the ref to “neighbouring countries to Afghanistan” as some are affected but not neighbouring countries.

Pakistan. I don’t see what was behind this recent amendment. We are not excluding any country, we used “including”.

Iran. It’s not only Iran but also neightbouring countries of Afghanistan that need support. I don’t think we can ignore others. Does Afghanistan not want neighbouring countries to receive technical assistance? Why insist on the diversion of precursors too? The reality is completely different from this. we are ready to help, and a lot of this help is in agreement with UNODC, and is being spent in the border with Afghanistan. We want to have the original language reinserted covering Afghanistan, neighbouring countries and other transit countries.

Afghanistan. We insist on this.

Kenya. We would prefer a ref to the most affected transit states as only referring to Afghanistan is too restrictive.

Russia.  We would add “including those neighbouring countries”.

Chair. We will need to move on to OP4.

Iran. I don’t see why we can’t use “including”, maybe we can just say “including Paris Pact partners” and delete Afghanistan?

Operative paragraph 6

Pakistan. What we need is sustained political will to have concrete steps on the ground. We need to focus on existing objectives.

Russia. I want to clarify – during our informals we decided to concentrate on alt 6 para and delete existing para 6.

Alternative operative paragraph 6

Afghanistan. When we talk about the future of the initiative, any assessment of the initiative should be in the light of the evolving circumstances and new threats and challenges, otherwise there would be no need for a new Paris Pact Initiative. We already have support from the Executive Director and we still need time to implement the Vienna Declaration.

Pakistan. We really need to implement the Vienna Declaration – so I suggest amendments in the second line between “update” and “situation”: “Giving due consideration to the needs of…”

Afghanistan. The whole idea here is to evaluate. So if we want to do that, it should be based on an assessment of the evolving situation, new threats, challenges and trends. Otherwise it is better to delete the whole paragraph.

Pakistan. Opiates continue to create multiple challenges for us. I can live with the deletion of this paragraph. No strong feelings.

Operative paragraph 7

Chair. No comment.

Operative paragraph 8

Chair. No comment. There is still quite a lot of work that needs to be done on this resolution. It might be necessary to delete parts of the resolution to move forward. I encourage all of you to remember that we are dealing with the realities. I look forward to having a new round on this tomorrow morning.