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

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

E/CN.7/2017/L.13 Enhancing law enforcement capacity to counter illicit drug trafficking through training

Russia: Held three informals. Thank for flexibility. Every paragraph is agreed on the text. Hope we can proceed smoothly in the CoW.

Chair. Title? No comments. The title is agreed in the CoW. Let’s move to preambular. PP1? No comments from the floor. Agreed in the CoW. PP2? No comments from the floor. Agreed. PP3? No comments. Agreed in CoW. PP4? No comments. Approved in CoW. PP5? No comments. Agreed in CoW. PP6?

Mexico. Little amendment in this paragraph. First recognize the efforts by the Russian Federation. Proposal is “Recalling also the outcome document.. and in particular the operational recommendation.”

Chair. Is Russia ok with it? Thank you Russia. Any comments? I see no comments. It is agreed in CoW. PP6bis? I see no comments. Approved. PP6ter? I see no comments. Approved. PP6quarter? I see no comments. Approved. PP7? I see no comments. Approved. PP7bis?

Law Enforcement Rep from UNODC: Third line should be “portals” or “platforms”?

Russia: This is language from the UNGASS document.

Ecuador: I have not participated in informals.  In sixth line, after “regional” add “subregional.”

Chair: This is agreed language from UNGASS, but we can type it and see.

Ecuador: Doesn’t seem exactly a copy and paste.

Russia: Starting from “promote and strengthen” this is exact language from OP3f of the UNGASS document. We can be flexible in making this addition if all other member states are okay with that.

Ecuador: We are not in the position to reopen agreed language.

Secretariat: If it is a quotation, editors will put it back the way it was.

Chair: Can we agree?

Pakistan: After what my colleague from Russia said, we are fine. Do not want to spend time on agreed language. If we introduce more words, we have some additional words. We will not do so if not.

Switzerland: Should add “outcome document of the” before “Thirtieth.”

France: Would like to add an element of maritime control. Since this is agreed language, we will not add this aspect here.

Chair: Agreed. Next preambular.

Brazil: Is this a complete quotation? If not, delete the “Especially amphetamine-type stimulants.”

Russia: In the informals, we made the paragraph broader to encompass other CND resolutions. We can accept amendments since not a direct quote.

Brazil: Then, please delete.

Chair: Comments? No comments. Agreed. PP8bis, Russia you have the floor.

Russia: Give clarification, discussed that would provide law enforcement training in general, add certain specific programs, but some countries were not represented, propose to include programs that had not been agreed previously.

Brazil: Could not participate in informals, do not see rationale in including last 4 lines, could have come up with initiatives

Ecuador: Delegation is reluctant to elaborate a shopping list, should be very fair, for the sake of this paragraph it would be better to have it very general.

France: We are flexible, to give example with regional initiative could enrich and could give a good example, we are flexible but if we had to add initiatives we would add Paris Pact and WACAP.

Belgium: During meeting what was discussed to which extent possible relevant mechanisms which relate to training capacity, specific initiatives, from national viewpoint, clear commitment not present to this paragraph by the Belgian government, colleagues from Brazil, France and Ecuador said what we think, risk of having a shopping list in this paragraph, excluding the four last phrases is meant to welcome all initiatives and all steps.

Argentina: Echo sentiment of Ecuador, Brazil, suggest we keep it general.

El Salvador: Apologize couldn’t attend informal, only one attending, echo previous statements prefer to have it general, do not have shopping list.

Mexico: Would like to make proposal, that it said “and member states in this regard, including through related regional efforts”, could be repetitive but it is good to address the issue the efforts that we are making regionally.

Nigeria: Unable to participate at informal consultation, no need for us to list all initiatives, cause controversial issue. Proposal of Mexico, see no need, the text starts with all relevant commitments, suggest not even mentioning any initiatives.

India: Thank Russia for this important resolution on capacity building. On the word “reduce” in line 3, we prefer “prevent.” Reduce means we have accepted defeat by trafficking, and we accept it will happen and only want to reduce it. “Capacity” should be “capacities.”

Uruguay: Support Mexican proposal. Don’t want to point out any conference in particular.

Yemen: Join the others in keeping the general reference. If it is specific, add regional program for Arab states.

Iran: Regret not to participate in last night’s informals. Mentioning the recent regional initiatives would be helpful here, but we can remove all components in spirit of flexibility. Regarding Mexico’s proposal, seems repetitive and don’t think we need it. On India’s proposal, we think we should have “prevent and reduce.”

Venezuela: Don’t see added value in listing regional initiatives. In the forth line, add “narcotics” before “drugs.”

Russia: Ask colleagues to show flexibility. Appreciate position of Iran. India’s proposal is valid. Suggest “prevent and counter” so it is in alignment with recent language.

Chair: I see not comments. This paragraph is approved. OP1?

Brazil: Highlight topic brazil has been highlighting since UNGASS, law enforcement and law enforcement training, after human rights “and racial perspective”, we submit to the commission, including a racial aspect to the problem of drugs is very important, appropriate moment to introduce in the resolution

France: Have difficulty with this concept, constitutional difficulty, recognize that other countries have other constitutions, afraid that it will not be possible to agree on that concept.

Ecuador: Thank you to Russian delegation for including elements from my delegation, for a better sense in this paragraph, include perspective after gender and human rights and racial and ethnical groups approach. Rationale is, my country officials in charge of control in some areas of the country are representatives of some ethnical groups, this perspective very important in our perspective, I hope this is acceptable for the room.

Switzerland: We think the amendments proposed by Ecuador are an improvement, we have concerns with the language they propose, say human rights and non-discrimination approach?

USA: For reasons expressed by France, we also have difficulty incorporating racial or ethnic identification. Could include Swiss non-discrimination approach, but that is covered by human rights language. Prefer original version.

Pakistan: In second line, after “illicit” add “cultivation.” After “drug production” add “manufacturing.”

India: Suggest redrafting of this paragraph. Add “officials of drug” before “law enforcement.” Change “officials” to “agencies.” Move “inter alia” to before “include.” Change “on prevention” to “for prevention.”

Netherlands: Echo Switzerland’s comment. Prefer language on non-discriminatory.

China: Voice support. Two treaties on discrimination. Reasonable to mention them. Also flexible.

Uruguay: Prefer ethnical group, but non-discriminatory approach could also work for us. Delete “drug” before “production.”

Chair: Not getting anywhere on this one. Propose to have bilateral consultations.

Brazil: It would be really important for us to keep racial perspective, perhaps make mention to convention against racial discrimination.

Estonia: Make same change for the listing of methodologies, support OP as it stands now.

Costa Rica: Like to mention appreciation to Russian delegation. Resolution as it was presented was a balance, support wholeheartedly the proposal of the Russian delegation, recognise benefits of modification, I don’t see any need to postpone the consideration of the resolution, we can certainly move along with the rest of the document.

Chair: Not postponing, but think you should have consultations.

Canada: Thank Brazilian delegation for contribution of race or non-discrimination, fine with non-discrimination, perhaps try non-racially discriminatory?

Chair: Are there any comments at this point? Iran.

Iran: Just to remind at the beginning of the second line it should be “officials”

Russia: Thank you for all valuable suggestions, different countries have different priorities, CND is not a proper place to discuss priorities in this field, hope our resolution doesn’t become hostage, training in human rights is not the mandate of the commission, regarding non-discriminatory, can go along Swiss proposition, Declaration of human rights includes, non-discrimination is a core element of the human rights body, no need to have exhaustive list on this, key element of human rights is core.

USA: Echo what colleagues from Russia have said. Don’t have respect for rule of law on here. If we could get rid of “racial,” we could go along with “discriminatory.”

Brazil: We can align ourselves with Canada’s proposal. Understand USA comment. When we are talking about law enforcement on drugs, cannot ignore the racial perspective. Insist on keeping “non-racially discriminatory.”

Australia: Non-racially discriminatory is negative language. Perhaps positive language used before is “and within the principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion” after “a gender perspective and.”

Kenya: Prefer a general formulation. Human rights law has non-discrimination as a pillar. Singling out racial not preferred. Different understanding of this point among delegations. More general is preferred.

Chair: Call on Russia to meet with colleagues and find a resolution on this.

El Salvador: Support Kenya. Prefer general language.

Chair: Put this in brackets for now. OP1bis?

Ecuador: Suggest in first line, before “recommends,” add “strongly.” This paragraph is very important.

USA: Prefer to stay with original language.

Russia: Language comes from GA resolution. Like to stick to this language.

Chair: Can we approve?

Canada. Probably work with Indian proposal, go with name of officials,

Canada. Should return to instruct, regarding the provisions.

USA. We like the formulation offered by India, could we instead use the standards, we have own training materials, we would use our training materials.

India. Support paragraph as it is now.

USA. I believe its set forth in the code of conduct.

Ecuador. Thank you for finally recognising me, suggestion is to include and disseminate after instruct.

Chair. Can we approve the paragraph as it stands. Reads as if we are disseminating the officials, perhaps move it to instruct and disseminate , perhaps remove disseminate.

Switzerland. Have before us the guidelines for law enforcement officials, dissemination refers to the code, not in this resolution speaking to the general public, perhaps instead of saying disseminate, add at the end and “make the Code available to all law enforcement official sand competent authorities in their own language”.

Iran. Addition made by Swiss colleague, understanding that code is in own language of the member state, “instruct member states in their own language”, in their own language is redundant, stop after authorities.

Guatemala. Fully agree, instruct their law enforcement, each country under their own law.

Switzerland. Comment on the last proposal, member states invite law enforcement officials to their own countries, should keep all.

Guatemala. Training is another thing, but then it shouldn’t say instruct.

Russia. Have to improve language further, come at 1330 for informal consultations.

Leave a Reply

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