Home » Committee of the Whole – Resolution L.13 Enhancing law enforcement capacity to counter illicit drug trafficking through training (Thursday afternoon)

Committee of the Whole – Resolution L.13 Enhancing law enforcement capacity to counter illicit drug trafficking through training (Thursday afternoon)

Draft resolution submitted prior to session. 

Comments on OP.3

Turkey: Have we passed OP.2?

Russia: I’d like to clarify how we reached a compromise on OP.2. Let’s go through the rest and then come back to OP.2.

Chair: OP.3 is agreed in the COW.

Comments on OP.10

Russia: We’d like to clarify something with secretary of UNODC – is it better to use the standard language to refer to executive director? Or should we use secretariat?

UNODC: Sometimes requests are made to secretariat and sometimes to the director, it is up to delegation to decide.


Switzerland: We’d like to reserve agreement of this for after we see whole resolution.


Russia: We convened delegations to find compromised language. There are alternatives – we could split this into two. This is why we have alt op1 and alt op1bis. Can the delegation say whether this is ok as compromised language?

France: As we said during the informals, we’ve consulted our competent authorities and we would like to have OP.1bis deleted.

Brazil: Let me thank the Russian delegation for their flexibility, we really appreciate it. OP.1bis is very important to my delegation. We would pledge them to show the flexibility that they always show. We cannot support this resolution without that paragraph.

Ecuador: We cannot support this paragraph. We cannot go on with it being deleted, we can only go along with it having these concepts in it.

Uruguay: Our delegation would support this proposed language – there is descrimination faced by some officials. The text seeks to rule our descrimination – we want this.

Egypt: We would like to delete OP1.bis. We believe the alternative OP.1 already includes these ideas.

Peru: I wish to endorse what my colleagues in Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay have said – this is not a superfluous paragraph. Please can those wishing to delete display flexibility of others.

France: We understand what people have said. We want to explain our fundamental difficulty. We have a constitution in France and ours has not yet allowed us to accept this language. If we could show this is agreed on language then fine, but we will not be able to justify this in Paris. Perhaps we could replace OP.1bis with paragraph 13 from 2009 Political Declaration? It refers to vulnerable populations. We’ve tried to find solutions for everybody, and we’ve been flexible, but we must find a compromise for this.

Chair: I need to see that compromise then.

Brazil: France’s proposal will not work for us.

Turkey: We are in line with what France and Egypt say. We would like to delete ‘in any ground’ from OP1.bis.

India: Can we just stop after ‘any ground’?

France: Our instructions are to make a success of this CND because we think the three conventions we’ve adopted are very good texts. We have no problem with amending OP.1bis. We have two problems with this though. We will accept Turkey’s amendment. We have a problem with ‘facing the communities’.

Brazil: I can accept France’s idea of getting rid of ‘challenges facing their communities’ but can we keep ‘respecting the rights of all persons’.

Egypt: Can we say ‘with regard to’ instead of ‘regarding the rights of all persons’?

Canada: I hope this is just a simple change. I believe ‘right’ should be ‘rights’.

Chair: Can we approve OP1.bis?

Comments on OP.

Russia: I apologise for the misnumbering, but we are keeping both paragraphs. One would be OP.1 and one would be OP.1bis.

India: I think ‘curriculum’ more appropriate than ‘curricula’.

Iran: A minor amendment – from our perspective, ‘prevention of precursors’ does not make sense. ‘Control of precursors’ is better.

Canada: It should be ‘prevention of diversion of precursors’.

Switzerland: Curricula is better as it is the plural of curriculum.

Turkey: Our magical caveat might work here. After ‘drug law enforcement’ in first line, perhaps we can insert ‘with their domestic legislation’.

Brazil: I’m not sure why we need that here since how can this go against any national legislation?

Turkey: This is just a caveat to prevent it being confusing, looking like we’re endorsing competing rules.

Egypt: We believe this addition from Turkey just sinks in from rest of paragraph. Within national programmes and national plans, of course we need to adapt the code of conduct.

Switzerland: We came to a compromise on this in the informals. We weakened the language considerably there. We inserted ‘where feasible’ to show this. We propose deleting ‘in line with domestic legislation’ as it is too broad. Maybe we could elsewhere include idea of

Pakistan: I believe there is no harm in accomodating Turkey’s concern.

Spain: We feel code of conduct is not binding, not a law. If a member state does not agree they will just not implement it. It is redundant to say in line with domestic law. If they have precepts to the contrary, they won’t enact it.

Colombia: We should say request if we want to keep Turkey’s addition.

Mexico: My delegation participated in informals and we can accompany original suggestion of the authors. I wonder whether a possible solution may be to move ‘where feasible’ to beginning of paragraph.

Italy: In view of all the time invested in the informals, in trying to find agreement on this, I would really recommend not to touch this paragraph.

UK: This is already a weak paragraph. It is just a recommendation. There is no risk of this going into conflict with domestic legislation.

Turkey: As I said, we are flexible. I would like to say that the way out proposed by the Mexican delegation is fine and encompasses any concern with this issue.

China: We believe Mexico’s proposal is valuable and has merits. We believe that this can address concern of all parties.

Switzerland: In the former version, it was meant to cover concerns of delegations that the code being in many different languages could be a resource problem but we understand Turkey’s point. Can we leave ‘where feasible’ where it was and say ‘to make the Code or the domestic legislation reflecting the Code available’? 

Egypt: We’d prefer to go back to Mexican proposal. We appreciate these efforts from Switzerland but we already provide our legislation to our officials. In this paragraph we are talking about providing all the instructions.

USA: We support prior version which was proposed by Mexico.

France: We had no issues with previous paragraph and were at the informals. I think we should use excellent Mexican proposal which will allow everyone to accept the paragraph we hope.

Switzerland: We have really shown a lot of flexibility. In the code is says the countries ‘shall adopt the necessary measures’. We have given explanation for why we want it to read like this. We agreed on this 30 years ago. The elements contained in this paragraph are as important of other paragraphs.

Australia: Perhaps stronger wording might be ‘recommends member states unless there is conflicting legislation’. It’s stronger wording, not as easy to get out of I guess.

Iran: We have a suggestion. We’d like to put ‘within the national context’ at the beginning.

Egypt: Perhaps we can take two minutes to reflect on this.

Chair. Let me go back to OP2. We can work until 7:30. From 7:30 to 10:30 we will have interpretation again.

Brazil. In this OP we would like to end at ‘drug-related offences’ and call on the flexibility of others.

Guatemala. We support Brazil.

Ecuador. Similarly, we don’t see the logic of adding the last section on ‘trafficking in persons, trafficking in firearms, etc.’.

Yemen. We want to keep references to this para.

Italy. We support Brazil. Otherwise, if we do a listing, there is always a danger of losing some, or adding more.

Egypt. We would like to stress that this para is of the utmost importance for us. We are trying to stick to an agreed language and we ask for the flexibility of all the delegations here.

France. We believe also that it’s a very important element. We are speaking about agreed language here but we can also go further. And we’re not happy with the inclusion of ‘in some cases’ as it relates to ‘terrorism, including money laundering in connection with the financing of terrorism’. So we want to keep this section and remove ‘in some cases’.

Venezuela. We support Brazil.

Norway. I want to keep this but make a connection to the UNGASS outcome document. So after ‘drug-related offences’, we want to add ‘as mentioned in the UNGASS outcome document’, since it’s just been approved last year.

Turkey. We thank our distinguished colleagues from GRULAC for providing valuable insights and inputs. We are now living a deja vue – we face similar issues year after year. We each have different priorities. When we formulate such paras, we must take into consideration the specificities and priorities of each country. Even if we dislike the caveat of ‘in some cases’, we still accept those. As long as they are relevant with the current developments from the ground, we should move ahead. We shouldn’t look at the detailed text as if we were in high school. Taking these issues into consideration, I want to emphasise the fact that countering terrorism is critical for us. We have been very affected by terrorism this year, and we know how they are financed. So if we take this out, the entire resolution will be useless for us. We are ready to negotiate on a constructive proposal for language but let’s see the positive way and considerations of our delegation.

Nigeria. We fully subscribe to the inclusion of this particular text. There is a doubt that some countries are facing these difficulties. We understand the sensitivities of this para and we don’t want to politicise this issue. We welcome flexibility from GRULAC and ask them to be flexible on this issue too. This also relates to 3k of the outcome document – it has therefore already been agreed. We don’t really subscribe to the use of ‘in some cases’, but we have been providing flexibility and we hope GRULAC can do to, we are all friends. This is not language acceptable to all delegations but we already accepted some flexibility. If you look at this particular para in totality, we are talking about training here. Then you know that most law enforcement officers should be trained on these issues, and UNODC has done a lot on this issue. It is connected and has to be reflected as was highlighted by Turkey. If not, it means we have not done enough. We are ready for dialogue with GRULAC as we know it’s a sensitive issue.

Algeria. We express our support to Turkey and other colleagues on this important para. It’s important for a lot of countries because it reflects the reality of a lot of countries on the links between terrorism and drug trafficking. So we want to keep this para as it is.

Uruguay. We are one of those who don’t feel comfortable with the last working. We believe that Norway’s proposal is a good way out so I suggest we keep this and remove this last part of the text.

Chair. I want to see comments around the proposal from Norway.

Belgium. I am more than happy to come back to the Norwegian proposal in a minute. But for us, I also want to say that we were fine with these sentences, because we address and recognised the links between trafficking and terrorism. My delegation is flexible. The Norwegian delegation may offer a way out but we must be flexible. Most of what we are talking about is agreed language.

Tunisia. Thanks to Norway but we are not in a position to accept Norway’s proposal. We insist to keep the listing as proposed before. Our delegations, while flexible, accept deletions in some cases, we cannot here as it’s agreed language coming from the outcome document. So we call on GRULAC to be flexible.

Pakistan. I do see the last part of this para as relevant for many countries. We are flexible to retain this language provided we use the exact language from the outcome document.

China. We are very flexible about the language but after the comments from Turkey, we see why they attach importance to the end of the paragraph. If so many countries attach the importance to this from G77, I’d like to support this para.

Peru. I have to ask all my colleagues not to refer the deletion as a GRULAC position, it is from several GRULAC countries. We can live with or without the end of the para.

Venezuela. We are not discussing if we acknowledge or not the links between trafficking and terrorism. The core issue here is training. If we go to the title of the resolution, we focus on training. I would like to have eliminated these last 2-3 sentences. It does not go to the core of the resolution.

Pakistan. We support the delegation of Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey on this issue. We are facing a war with terrorist attacks. I want to seek the flexibility of some delegations to retain this sentence.

Azerbadjan. The Norwegian proposal is not the best way out. On the listing of the para, if some countries from GRULAC don’t find this important, while others feel that they should retain those lines, then we should retain them.

Brazil. As Peru says, we have never spoken in the name of GRULAC and we don’t want these discussions to go that way. Secondly, we cannot live with the end of this para, it is different from the one agreed at UNGASS. The context is different and the balance of the resolution is different. We can be flexible with the proposal made by Norway and it is the extent of our flexibility.

Australia. We also want to be flexible, but we observe that in a number of informals there has been a commitment to avoid creating lists because of anxiety of excluding priorities for other areas and ensure a clear and succinct OP. So this is an observation that for many informals, we have seen a number of delegations suggesting we avoid including a long list and go for the more succinct. We don’t say we stand in favour or not on this specific issue, we just highlight a trend of agreement in informals. This is not to ignore the importance of specific issues related to links between terrorism and trafficking. 

Norway. If I understand my colleague from Russia, this is the exact same working from the UNGASS outcome document (3k). So we could be more precise by citing the outcome document and caveat 3k.

USA. We understand both positions here and could support language that enumerates a number of crimes. But as Australia said, you omit crimes, including kidnaping and extortion. So we would be hesitant to do that. And we cannot use the agreed language as this was discussing links. The links between terrorism and drug trafficking appear in some cases, but not always. If they are not drug related, we wouldn’t provide training for it. Using agreed language does not work. The solution of a general ref to the UNGASS outcome document is good, perhaps using ‘including as mentioned in the UNGASS outcome document’.

Turkey. I want to prevent any misunderstanding. I was wrong to define a set of countries and regions – I want to apologise for any misunderstanding, this is because of language issues and because we are tired. In my first statement, I wanted to also change Russia for their professionalism throughout the negotiations. Our intention is not to escalate anything but to replicate the already reached consensus in this text. IN night sessions of the past years, we already had similar positions and we don’t want to repeat ourselves. We can skip a single forest by focusing on a single tree. But here, the clause calls on member states to conduct or continue law enforcement training programmes, if it is applicable or appropriate. If some regions in our poor world think it is unnecessary or irrelevant, they might not – but for others it is important and we must keep the gate open. We want to keep the gate open for those countries who want to cooperate bilaterally with law enforcement officials. Maybe in some sets of countries there is a will to continue this kind of cooperation. Perhaps we can add an inclusion of the outcome document, add a comma and then keep the rest of the text.

Italy. In my previous statement I made an appeal of the danger of having listings. And this is the mainly the reason from Italy not to have this segment of the para here. We have always made the link and recognised it between terrorism/trafficking.

Chair. The best solution I see is the proposal of Norway. I have listened to all of you but at this time it is the best solution.

Indonesia. I want to add my voice to Egypt’s proposal. If we accept Norway, people will have to look at the list of 26 pages of outcome document. So we believe it’s necessary for us to retain this section. We can add to the list if necessary to retain the language.

Yemen. In our country, when we have trainings, we ask them to see all the dimensions of drug trafficking, and this is why we want to retain the proposal.

Guatemala. To be clear, this is a CCPCJ discussion. I agree with others and we will have this discussion then perhaps. But here we cannot accept that terrorism is not always linked to drugs, in our region it is very different. This para is very specific talking about training programmes around drugs. So for us it is complicated to include this, even though it is agreed language. We don’t like the Norwegian proposal but we could go along those lines.

France. We tried to propose some things. It is now time to move forward. The CND is divided by two groups of countries which is unacceptable. We must work together here. We know there are clear links between terrorism and drug trafficking. We are ready to conduct consultations all night but we want to retain this.

Canada. We have a great deal if sympathy for delegations who want to include language around terrorism and financing of terrorism. I don’t agree that this list is out of context in the outcome document in the para in which this list appears. States were asked to respond to trafficking and these kinds of crime. This is a legitimate and effective way to respond. I would propose, after ‘drug related offences’, to add: ‘including, as identified in paragraph 3k of the outcome document of the 30th Special Session of the General Assembly…’. I wish we can use the list there. I would also point out that ‘in some cases’ equally applies to trafficking, money laundering, etc.

Chair. This sounds like a sensitive approach.

Russia. I want to make an intervention as a cosponsor. We understand the positions of countries on links between trafficking and terrorism. We want the resolution to be helpful to other member states to improve the capacity building of law enforcement in countries. We provide support to many countries present in this room and we hope that the resolution will help us achieve good results. We never wanted to politicise the issue in this particular resolution. So I ask for indulgence of all delegations so that we can find a compromise on that and continue the discussion in some other forums.

Canada. A minor amendment: ‘including those identified in paragraph 3k of the outcome document…’

Chair. Can we improve the paragraph as you read it?

Nigeria. I thank Canada but it won’t work. If we say ‘as identified in the document’, how will people know what we are talking about? I agree with the sentiment from our colleagues in Russia. If you give us time to talk among ourselves, we can meet up and solve the issue. I thank Norway and Canada, but their proposals are not enough. It could be a link between the two issues. Give us a little time and discuss so that we can resolve the issue and come back to you.

Chair. Yes, let’s stop here for 10 minutes. But I want to listen to Egypt, Brazil, Tunisia and Australia.

Egypt. We echo our colleague from Nigeria. It’s important that we keep the reference to this issue. Some countries that have all across the past few days insisted on keeping the mentions of UNAGSS language in most resolutions are against using UNGASS language in this resolution. So I don’t know. If the are more comfortable with removing UNGASS language from most resolutions, we can discuss that as well. But I support what was suggested by Nigeria.

Brazil. We are not comfortable with Canada’s proposal. We are willing to go along with it to avoid continuing the discussions. We understand the proposal to break, we are open to stay here the whole night if necessary but we will come back to this language so we appeal again to finish this.

Tunisia. We agree with Egypt.

Morocco. We want to include mention of para 3k and the listing.

France. We need a couple of minutes or hours on this issue. I want to be very clear that this is a major issue.

Chair. We will take a 20 mins pause and we’ll come back at 8:45.

Comments on OP.2

France. We should try to find a solution which will allow us out of this situation. We could, as you know, copy and paste agreed language – adapting the beginning of the text. I think everybody would find some kind of comfort in this draft. Let’s take paragraph 13 from the UNGASS outcome document and use that.

Ecuador. In the CCPCJ there will be something on terrorism, this just isn’t acceptable to get distracted by terrorism here when the resolution is about training.

Pakistan. It is so sad that we are disagreeing again after we agreed on this stuff just months ago. There is no better time to use agreed language from the UNGASS. We use agreed language when we disagree – that is what we do and the best thing to do.

Venezuela – we allign we mexico. It’s not a question of asking others to be flexible, because we’re asking language to fit into a different context. It’s not a question of winners and losers, it’s a question of finding common ground where we’re all happy. We are willing to be here until consensus.

Algeria. We congratulate yourself on your patience, chair. We’re optimistic. We realise we’re all making a big effort. I think we can copy and paste UNGASS language.

Brazil. We don’t like to be called inflexible, but we still want what we want.

France. what we’re not happy about is that we talk about terrorism being a problem to mention now when we mentioned it in the UNGASS. We have to understand each other’s difficulties, but based on Brazil’s excellent proposal (‘including activities, in some cases terrorism) – that’s what we’re proposing too.

Turkey. we are in line with France. Heads of state met last year and endorsed this language. We see the link between drugs and terrorism, and we are against this. What are we doing? We should just repeat what we said in the UNGASS document since that was endorsed by our heads of state.

Brazil. Wants to take out reference to negative impact of security of states if we keep in reference to drugs and terrorism.

Nigeria. Not happy with way things are functioning at the moment. The fact is, Turkey is right. My regret is, why are we ignoring what we have already agreed to? 

Uraguay. Can we change it to ‘illicit production of and trafficking in drugs’? Not refer to ‘illicit drugs’.

Indonesia. Like to see people being supportive of the UNGASS language.

Norway. In some regions there is a different challenge. Can we keep in the bit about terrorism but can we say in some ‘regions’ instead of in some ‘cases’?

Brazil. I think we’re all being as flexible as we can be. I think we should strongly consider Russia’s new PP and close the resolution. A break will not help.

Belgium. Maybe the idea now, of the PP, which refers to 53rd session of CND is a good one.

USA. This paragraph adds little and wasn’t an original one, maybe we should delete it.

Brazil. We can copy and paste entire paragraph from UNGASS outcome document with a reference. And if people don’t want to then we can send this to the plenary, that’s fine.

Russia. Reads paragraph from UNGASS outcome document.

Chair. Can we agree with this?

OP.2 finishes at ‘offences’. ‘Offences’ is changed to ‘criminal activities’ and ‘as identified in the UNGASS document’ is added to the end. 

Chair. Resolution 13 is finalised and we will send this to the plenary.

Leave a Reply

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