Pakistan: This is about enhancing cooperations and building capacity in states that need it most especially transit states.
Chair: We will go through paragraph by paragraph. Can we approve the title?
India: We are most affected by transit of drugs. will always be confession to judge who is the ‘most’ affected state. remove ‘move’
Pakistan: Not the first time we have used ‘most’, and have discussed this during informals. Not going into crafting a new policy document. Thank you.
Malta: We should return on the agreed language and improve on it and include ‘illicit drugs’
Chair: Let’s change on the screen. Comments?
Canada: Add ‘ the states’, purely editorial.
India: How to define ‘the most’? Why not include all the affected transit countries?
Pakistan: The intention is not to bring any policy change. it is well known how we can identity who is most affected. We have used these words in that past, and nothing has changed since then. No need to start a policy debate.
Guatemala: We support Pakistan in saying these are agreed terms. no countries are mentioned, so any country who feels most affected would be included. We’re not defining who is most affected here, but it includes everyone who feels most affected.
Ecuador: Not a problem of terms, but a problem of concept. Article 10 of the 88 convention defines who transit countries are, and here we are only highlighting problems that these countries face.
Venezuela: My delegation agrees with the language. we should refer to states most affected, otherwise the text of the 1988 Convention would be diluted.
Italy: We support the text as it stands currently, and this has been used in several resolutions before this one, and is more respectful for the states and more appropriate than the previous one. We kindly ask India to take this point and to agree on this formulation.
Cuba: We should keep ‘most’ and it should be clarified that is it about strengthen those most affected.
Iran: Concerning the point raised by India, I refer to resolutions already adopted as it is establish terminology.
Indonesia: The language has been used before, so we should keep it, inducing the UNGASS outcome document.
Chair: We have enough support for the title, so India can comment later. Let’s move onto the preamble part
Venezuela: We have said that it’s about the activities relating to illicit drugs.
Chair: We will come to that.
Venezuela: Illicit drugs being trafficked should change to “drugs being illicitly trafficked”
Chair: We will change it
Spain: These are products, it’s the actions that matter. This edit just improves it – the 2009 document is not written very well.
Iran: We have not digested these changes – it should be illicit drugs. the focus is the drugs itself, not the action of trafficking. we should keep “illicit drug”
Chair: It will remain in brackets and will come back to it.
Venezuela: trafficking in illicit drugs appears, and should be changed to “trafficking in drugs” or ” illicit trafficking in drugs”
Iran: We prefer the original language:
Brazil: I agree with Venezuela on the language and it is adequate according to the conventions.
Iran: Our reading is different. Heroin is a illicit drug in my country. Legally they are illicit.
Venezuela: We do not want to dwell on this. In other texts it is never mentioned that these substances are illicit, but it does mention illicit trafficking. The conventions do not qualify any substances as illicit, so they are not qualified as illicit as such. The ‘activities’ are directly mentioned as illicit, not the substances.
Mexico: My country also feels it is the activity, not the substances that is illicit.
Chair: I would propose that countries with observations on terms that you agree on the side, and we move on to the next paragraph. Any more comments?
US: On the last phrase, referring to the “diversion of domestic distribution”. I would suggest changing it to “trafficked domestically within transit countries”
Pakistan: We can go back to the original language and would be helpful.
US: The drugs are mostly illegal. They remain illegal, and are not diverted. Or rather trafficked. so the issue remains in the last sentence.
Pakistan: We will speak with the US
Venezuela: In the penultimate line we can address the same text we have used the same text as before.
Pakistan: The idea to recognise the ongoing cooperation came from Belgium and was accepted. This to acknowledge that cooperation is going on, and kept it in brackets.
Belgium: We are happy that the draft took this note on board.
Chair: may we remove the acknowledgement? (it’s removed).
Pakistan: During informal we thought it best to not identify specific countries. If Italy would like these to be deleted then we would not object.
Italy: We would like this part removed.
Malta: The text recognises that international cooperations is taking place.
France: There is one element missing: related to a reference to paragraph 6A of the UNGASS document. this paragraph would be closer to the language used previously.
Pakistan: The only issue was to reference to specific countries, which has been dealt with. I can discuss with France, but he needs to be more specific what he wants added. Perhaps he can discuss this separately?
France: No difficulty in continuing discussions, but if we agree on terminology then we can take this back to our capital.
Brazil: What is the reason we are changing? We doubt the need for this, as it is too vague. “Urges” would be more appropriate
Chair: We will put this in brackets,
Norway: When we introduced this OP it was to strengthen the project. Norway are major donors and thought it would be good to have this perspective. it should be compliant in human rights and international law. we have been in contact with the sponsor and informal show that there is not full support of this proposal. So far we have not been able to find a solution, but will continue dialogue with sponsors.
Pakistan: We want to address our concerns and Norway’s. May we skip, while we try to resolve?
Chair: If no comments, then we continue to OP2
Pakistan: Through bilateral consultations we have agreed language, if all delegations agree then it should be passed.
Mexico: We can go along with this wording. We wanted to show the various aspects of the world drug problem. One of these has been removed and should be added in as Human Rights.
US: We would like “continue to” to be added to the fourth line.
Canada: Before “Drug law enforcement” we should say “their” to make it clear it’s a member state.
Ecuador: To make headway we should use compromise text as suggested by Mexico, and delete Norway’s proposed text. This might be a compromise and display flexibility.
Norway: Human right is only one element in our proposals, so we need to take care of other proposals. We would not go along with Ecuador’s proposals.
Pakistan: Urge Norway to agree with Ecuador’s suggestion to show flexibility.
Iran: Human rights has already been accommodated in PP2. OP1 & OP2 is a package, so we suggest not to finalise any paragraphs here.
Chair: We will leave OP2 in brackets for further discussion.
France: We agree. Where we refer to human rights, we shouldn’t forget about gender. I can discuss with Pakistan to find a solution.
Venezuela: In the penultimate it should also say “illicit trafficking”. It is important for my delegation to insist on this point – there is no benefit in pursuing a historical mistake.
Chair: This is a recurrent issue, so please delegations agree under further discussions as soon as possible. I will move onto OP4
Pakistan: If something was historically done wrong, why don’t we try to correct it? We discussed this last year at UNGASS
France: On P3 we should thank Pakistan for introducing cross-border cooperation. And mention maritime cooperation and control. If there’s any difficulty we are flexible and can discuss with Pakistan.
Russia: Two comments: first on phrase “illicit drugs’ or “illicit trafficking”, we should say “illicit drug trafficking” as a compromise. Secondly, on maritime cooperation our delegation would not like to include this here as it would entail a discussion on legal issues, which is being addressed elsewhere.
Pakistan: Why is France reopening informal discussions here. If France wants to engage in policy debate then I am prepared. This is not the resolution to discuss policy, rather the focus is capacity building. But if France insists on discussing policy, then fine but it would complete matters even further.
France: We are flexible, but we do have instructions to include maritime cooperation. 2009 & 2014 declarations refer to maritime cooperation, but if there are still difficulties then we would at least like “maritime cooperation” to be bracketed.
Chair: I would like to move forward to OP4. Any comments?
US: We would like to insert “with evidence based practices aimed at prevention” added
Chair: Any comments on US suggestion?
Australia: Should we insert drug prevention treatment and rehabilitation. Unless a focus on treatment?
Pakistan: No strong feeling on not having prevention, but happy to add it here.
Venezuela: Thank you to Russia for the suggestion. We are happy to include it here, and shows our flexibility.
Iran: It could accommodate our concerns and we can accept this proposal, but will come back if we have instruction from the capital.
Chair: We will change to “illicit drug transit”
Pakistan: This is already covered in the existing paragraph. Can Venezuela take another look to decided if we really need it.
Venezuela: I would like to keep it. Very important to strengthen measures in borders with forests, and not just airports. For Venezuela we have a problem with drugs coming in as well as out, so the focus must be on both directions.
Pakistan: We can keep this in brackets.
Chair: No comments.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017 (Afternoon)
Chair: I invite the delegation of Pakistan to explain the progress made, not by paragraph to paragraph, but simply those that were the subject of informal debate.
Pakistan: We have held consultations with the interested delegations. As we move forward, we will inform you.
Iran: Yesterday we had an exchange with Venezuela on the topic of illicit drugs. We consulted and came to the conclusion that Russia’s proposal to use “illicit drug trafficking” could be applied.
Chair: I propose we go to the paragraphs where this appears.
Malta: I will have to consult with other member states of the European Union.
Iran: Change applies to the text, not the title.
Pakistan: The change is applied in paragraph 3.
Venezuela: Draw your attention to the fact that the solution is “illicit drug trafficking” in the singular.
Pakistan: This change has to be applied in the second preambular paragraph.
Chair: I do not see comments. Title is approved. The preambular paragraph is approved.
Russia: In the third line, would have to say “illicit drug trafficking.”
Chair: I do not see comments. It is approved.
Pakistan: Start OP1 with the word “Invites” and added the words “upon request” and the words “where appropriate” before “relevant.”
Venezuela: In the last line, “the flow of illicit drugs” should be just “the illicit flow of drugs” for consistency.
Chair: OP1 is approved. On to OP2.
Pakistan: Delete 1bis. Add “human rights” to OP2.
Iran: For the time being this is fine.
Chair: OP3? Can we approve?
Pakistan: Agreed to retain “and cross-border coordination and cooperation” and delete the rest.
Chair: Can we approve? No comments, so approved.
Uruguay: “Trafficking in illicit drugs” should be “illicit drug trafficking” in alignment with previous changes.
Chair: Can we approve? No comments, so approved. OP4 agreed already. Same with OP5.
Pakistan: Go back to second last PP. Discussed bilaterally with USA that we would end this paragraph after “markets.”
Chair: Can we approve? No comments, so approved. On to OP6.
Pakistan: Only problem yesterday was same debate on “illicit drugs,” which we can resolve by saying “illicit drug trafficking,” as we have done elsewhere.
Chair: Can we approve? No comments, so approved. On to OP7.
Venezuela: We should say here, “illicit drug transit” as this links to the title.
Pakistan: Why are we using “illicit drug transit” here when we used “illicit drug trafficking” elsewhere? This paragraph was already closed.
Chair: Can we go back to “trafficking”?
Venezuela: We can be flexible, but want to point out that the title refers to “transit.”
USA: There is a distinction between “transit” and “trafficking.” Agree with Venezuela here.
Ecuador: Agree with Venezuela and USA.
El Salvador: We agree with Venezuela, USA, and Ecuador.
Pakistan: Concerned that we are reopening closed paragraphs.
Peru: Concerned that we are reopening closed paragraphs.
Colombia: This would limit the technical assistance to things that affect transit only, whereas trafficking is broader.
Pakistan: Concerned that we are reopening closed paragraphs. Prefer to keep it as agreed yesterday.
Chair: Can we accept the original version?
Venezuela: We can be flexible, but doesn’t mean that it is correct.
Chair: Can we approve? No comments, so approved. On to OP7.bis.
Pakistan: Happy with it as is.
Iran: Go back to OP7. Flexible to use language in title, or use “trafficking” in both line 3 and 6.
Venezuela: My delegation has shown great flexibility. We will appeal to same flexibility from other delegations. This was agreed yesterday. We would like to retain the previous wording.
Chair: Iran, can we go along with that?
Iran: Yes, we are flexible.
Chair: Back to OP7.bis.
Russia: Line 3, add “drug” before “trafficking.”
Egypt: Add two words in the second line, “upon their request” after “assist them.”
Canada: In third line, could we say “into their territory” rather than “into the territory of such States.”
Chair: Can we approve? No comments, so approved. On to OP7.ter.
Pakistan: Use alternative 7.ter. Urge Norway to show flexibility.
Norway: Major concern as donor country is that we should be able to assess the impact. That is addressed in 7.ter, the alternative is too narrow. We cannot compromise more.
Chair: Ask for flexibility of the sponsors of this resolution.
Iran: For each cent that donors pay, it for evaluation and assessment. That is why we are saying “continue to assess.” Delete “against illicit trafficking” at the end.
Chair: I want to see more flexibility.
Pakistan: To show further flexibility, we can go along with Iran’s suggestion. We all know well that any UNODC program is evaluated.
Chair: Can we agree with that?
Norway: No, unfortunately. We would like to stick to compromised text.
Canada: Laws in our country require evaluation of capacity building. “At national level” is problematic. Not an accurate reflection of what is happening. Propose that we delete that. Then we could like with alternative to 7.ter.
India: Have difficulties with both versions. More difficult to go with 7.ter. Can accept the alternative with some changes. Delete “subject to provision of international financial assistance.”
Kenya: Assessing is ongoing. Implies that assessment is just beginning in 7.ter. Prefer alternative to 7.ter. Assistance must be based on national needs and alternatives. Assessment is not just for the donor, but also for the member states that is being assisted. If we are going to have this paragraph, prefer “continue assessing.”
Malta: Support Norway. Paragraph is a diluter version of 1.bis, and product of significant flexibility. Ask others to be flexible.
Norway: Happy with Egypt’s request. We help with more than capacity building, which is why we would like this to be broader.
Kenya: Add “drug” before “trafficking.”
South Africa: Encourage Norway to understand that this must be limited to the relevant topic. Only focus on this resolution. Support Kenya’s proposal.
Iran: Can add “technical assistance” after “capacity building activities” to address Norway’s concern.
Chair: We need to solve this bilaterally. Important that Norway and resolution sponsors get together.
Pakistan: Can delete OP7.ter. Work on alternative paragraph. After “assistance,” add “to continue to assess, as appropriate, the impact of technical assistance and capacity-building activities on strengthening measures against drug problem and emphasizes the importance of such assessment.”
Russia: Put “to address and counter the world drug problem” instead of “against drug problem.”
Chair: I see no comments. OP7.ter is approved.
Pakistan: OP2 is also now agreed by Iran.
Iran: We are comfortable with OP2.
Chair: I see no comments. It is approved.
Financial Resources Management Services: There are financial implications from this resolution. For OP2, OP3, and OP5, UNODC already engaged with a number of transit countries. To continue the relevant technical programs beyond their periods or expand them would require additional budgetary resources. Specific funding required must be determined.
Chair: Can we send this to the plenary for adoption? I see no objections. Resolution is closed.