Committee of the Whole – Friday afternoon (L2 – Protecting children from illicit drug threat)

Chair: We are going to take on L2, then go back to L11

Russia: We are ready to go and wish to be flexible.

Chair: Comments on the title?

Russia: We’re running out of time; we are happy to reframe the title: ‘Protecting children from the illicit drug challenge’

Chair: Title approved.

Russia: These are all agreed in informals. Start at ‘Recalling also its resolution 60/8…’ We propose to restore original text in OP10 to accept this paragraph.

USA: What paragraph are we talking about?

Russia: We recall the whole resolution 60/8 in the paragraph, and delete the ‘noting that the Guidance…’ paragraph is deleted; in exchange for restoring original language in OP10 about the internet.

Netherlands: We don’t like the look of this – we’d rather look at alternative language for OP10. If we delete anything we’d like it to be the ‘recalling’ paragraph

Russia: We’re just trying to restore the wheel – our ambition here is to recognise the UNGASS doc.

Netherlands: We had this discussion in informals in length with the UK also. The internet is very important here. We prefer alternative preambular paragraph.

Chair: Proposal by Russia hasn’t met consensus. We need to move quickly. Can we adopt ‘resolution 60/8’ paragraph.

Russia: No that was part of the package. The internet is very delicate.

Chair: We have to move on. Let’s move chronologically.

Netherlands: We do not accept the package.

Chair: Can we accept?

Russia: No no no no no

Belgium: We don’t like package deals

Chair: There is no consensus. We will come back to it if we have time. Next outstanding paragraph ‘Noting the INCB Guidelines…’. Can we adopt it US?

USA: We don’t think this is necessary. This text needs to remain bracketed until conversations have concluded on relevance of the internet.

UK: I support USA. We think these are very generic paragraphs, why’s the internet included here?

Russia: The answer is self-evident. We need to recognise the protection of children and that is why we need the internet in here.

Belgium: Any tool of communication can be abused – we’re worried about having this in without more content. I don’t think we can blame the internet.

Iran: We want to highlight the importance of the internet.

If we don’t have OP10 we don’t need the preambular paragraph – can we have a look at OP10.

Chair: Bracketing is not really an option at this point. So, OP10

UK: We retain the position that there hasn’t been enough discussion here and such concepts are very new and need to be developed further. This paragraph highlights discussions for future sessions. This is far from integral in this great resolution. OP10 should be deleted.

USA: We agree that the concept merits more consideration – we’ve already discussed this in informals – but think we need to discuss it in a later session. We agree with UK.

Russia: Our commission has already focused on this problem – this is not a new proposal, it has been referenced in former resolutions. We just want it to be consistent.

Chair: Can we move forward? Please don’t present the same arguments as before.

France: Thanks to UK and US for proposal of deletion, we support this.

Austria: We also support UK

Australia: We also support UK and can accept other text if this paragraph is deleted

Bulgaria: We support UK and US

Norway: We can also delete this one

Belgium: We’re still not convinced

Switzerland: We support the deletion of this paragraph.

Chair: We need to stop there and find a way forward. Russia?

Russia: I’m not persuaded by these arguments. Maybe we can think about more compromised language, you know my delegation is very flexible. Without this paragraph we’re not adequately working to protect the children.

USA: We don’t think we’ll find agreed language. Would Russia consider withdrawing this resolution and bring it up at a later forum.

Norway: We have a suggestion: after ‘internet’ (line 3, altOP10) include ‘as a tool for information

? I would suggest ‘internet challenges’ with a direct link to purchasing illicit drugs

Iraq: can we refer to internet as a general threat and skip the ‘use of illicit drugs’ part

Chair: It’s time to hit the nail on the head.

UK: The resolution is quite generic, 10 delegations have called for its deletion, as it’s so specific. We can compromise on other parts of the resolution

Russia: We tried to find compromise with UK. I don’t understand why other delegations have changed their minds. We need to protect the children. We had intensive language on the Darknet in UNGASS doc.

USA: Minds have not changed; we’ve been discussing this since Monday. We ask for removal of paragraph

Chair: There is no consensus here; can we go back to the other paragraphs? Please look at the bracketed ones.

USA: can we delete ‘increasing financing’ in ‘resolution 60/8’ paragraph

Chair: Let’s adopt this – adopted.

USA: We propose deletion of this paragraph (‘INCB’) as with OP10.

Russia: Can we keep it for a while and bracket it?

Chair: Yes, but we are running out of time to bracket. Next para: OP3

Iran: OP3 – can we delete ‘the UNODC< the UNICEF, CRC and the other relevant international organisations’

Germany: This is not what we discussed last night – we at least want ‘relevant UN organisations’ in there. And add ‘relevant Human Rights Commission’. We’re happy for it to be general.

South Africa: We support Iran.

Canada: To echo Germany, UN coherence is very important here, we’d like it retained.

Chair: I think we can find consensus language here. Netherlands can you propose?

Netherlands: The central element here is ‘serving the best interest of the child’ – we don’t think the INCB does this specifically.I’d like to make sure UNICEF is listed here.

UK: We can be flexible – we agree with Netherlands

Iran: Singling out one organisation is not useful. We will go along with the recommendation of Germany. We’re not happy about listing just one. I think we need to delete any reference to specific convention.

Chair: OK can the German proposal get consensus here?

Germany: Could we use ‘relevant UN entities within their respective mandates’. Could we drop specific conventions

Canada: We need to keep in the Conventions here

Iran: ‘the best interest of the child’ is already in there – we think this is enough.

Canada: We can live with mentioning CRC specifically

Iran: We could go on with this. Please delete ‘the bests interests of the child’ and keep ‘as appropriate relevant Human Rights Conventions’

USA: After ‘as appropriate’ can we add ‘for States parties’

UK: We could have it, but just don’t think the paragraph makes sense

Chair: Can we approve it? Can the UK fix the grammatical issue to save time?

UK: You could just remove one of the strikeouts and put ‘efficiently’ back in

Chair: OP approved. Next paragraph – back to OP10 – ok this monster is back.

UK: Again, could we please delete this paragraph?

Russia: My goodness, back to this subject – for the sake of time and spirit of consensus, we propose to work on the language of AltOP10 and Alt10bis. At the same time, as the internet frightens some delegations we can strike the work ‘internet’ and use ‘information and communication technologies’

UK: Unfortunately the issue is conceptual and not with the language, so this does not suit us, we’d like the paragraph struck out

Iraq: Ok here’s some language: here are two proposals, from UNGASS doc. Can we put ‘the internet’ in brackets. First – ‘increase the provision of technical assistance and capacity-building to member states upon request, to prevent and counter the use of technologies by drug trafficking networks, to facilitate drug-related activities.’ Second – ‘encourages the use of guidelines for Governments on preventing the illegal sale of internationally controlled substances through the use of technologies’.

USA: Our belief has been the same the whole time – changing the word is not enough here. We support the UK and believe OP10 should be deleted.

Germany: There was a great side event on Tuesday on the internet. The internet can be positive or negative. However we don’t think this is relevant in the draft. We support the UK.

Russia: I do think the internet can be positive – I can give you a new proposal in a few minutes.

USA: We’ve had so many discussions on this and don’t think we’ll find consensus. We remain firm in our proposal.

UK: Again, it’s not about the language. We don’t think it is relevant in this resolution. We want to keep going on this, we think this is a really good resolution.

Russia: Alt OP10 – this was language proposed by the UK.

UK: This is not our language. It’s important to note that this is the last issue in the text.

Uruguay: We agree with UK. We need to delete, and then approve this resolution.

Chair: OK we’ve exhausted discussion here. We will delete OP10/AltOP10. OP12 – can we adopt it – OP12 adopted. Is there anything still left?

UK: Back to ‘noting the INCB Guidelines’ – can we delete this.

Chair: Any comments? No – deleted. So it’s all done? Let’s check through.

Secretariat: OP5 – budget required here to conduct a survey in 3 countries. OP6 – $30000USD required for technical assistance on this. OP12 – would be covered by existing budget.

Russia: Thank you for your brilliant leadership on our resolution.

Chair: Can this resolution be submitted to the plenary – yes!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.