Home » Committee of the Whole (Friday Morning and Afternoon) – Resolution L11. Removing stigma as a barrier to the availability and delivery of health, case and social services for people who use drugs

Committee of the Whole (Friday Morning and Afternoon) – Resolution L11. Removing stigma as a barrier to the availability and delivery of health, case and social services for people who use drugs

Canada: it’s not the first time I’ve seen this text. We’ve done a thorough analysis and we think this is worthy of showing the COW?

‘Alt PP13bis Acknowledging that removing stigmatising attitudes includes long term comprehensive multidisciplinary and balanced efforts by member states, in full conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, Full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States, all human rights, fundamental freedoms, the inherent dignity of all individuals and the principles of equal rights and mutual respect among States. Consistent with any legitimate and necessary measures for crime prevention and protecting public interest’

It’s lengthy but directly quotes UNGASS document.

Japan: we propose a footnote explaining the explanation of stigmatisation. We criminal drug trafficking and drug abuse. Regarding the new proposal we can support the new text, but like to propose a small amendment after the last line after measures ‘including judicial measures’

Iran: We suggest that on the condition that the last part. We believe this paragraph needs hours of discussion, could we come back to it.

UK: I welcome Canada’s proposal – the paragraph above introduces new concepts to this forum. I think that Alt PP13bis would take less time that PP13bis

Brazil: We’re concerned here – in the case of PP3bis we were worried about the inclusion of the second part of the paragraph. We support PP3bis as it is now – on altpp13bis there are too many things to consider.

Yemen: We support PP13bis as it stands. We don’t want to go to the alt paragraph.

New Zealand: altpp13bis – New Zealand can go along with this.

China: I appreciate the efforts made by the Canadian delegation. The proposed text seems lengthy and controversial. However we’d like to look at it. We suggest using current pp13bis and keeping the content inside it, including ‘cultural traditions’ and the rest of the 3 lines. They are very important to us. Second option – use alt text – however we need to do some editing. Near bottom ‘consistent with’ – this should be moved to the front part, after ‘by member states’. After, ‘in full conformity with’ we should add ‘3 international drug conventions’ then we could go with Canada.

Netherlands: We think we should use PP13bis.

Chair: Next hour – no interpretation.

Switzerland: We voice our support for altpp13bis.

Uruguay: The support altpp13bis are happy to keep working in these directions.

Czech: We also support Canada’s new paragraph.

Palestine: we delegation supports much of PP13bis because altpp13bis bringing about intermingled questions.

Norway: We support AltPP13bis

Japan: We’d like to make a small amendment for AltPP13bis – ‘judicial measures’ to be moved to after ‘crime prevention’

Chair: Please be patient – I want to propose we focus on AltPP13bis and try to build consensus around it.

Iran: We can go with AltPP13bis but one thing is missing – (line 4), ‘in full conformity of the proposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations’

Uruguay: I think were about to meet compromise. Small amendment ‘judicial procedures’ just take out ‘and’

China: If we base yourself on new text we still want to improve it (line 1 change ‘includes’ to ‘requires’ (line 3) I understand Japan, but such a change has excluded the other measures. Maybe we should return text to previous one. Just remove ‘judicial procedures’ here. Add ‘and protecting public interest, improving judicial procedures’. After ‘in full conformity with’ we should add the 3 drug conventions. They should be moved to the fifth line. Now we have covered so many documents. After line 6, after ‘cultural diversity’ we should delete the rest of the paragraph.

USA: We’re consulting with our colleagues, need to keep this bracketed right now.

Canada: Is approval by the COW pending the USA OK here?

Iran: If we agree, then the possibility to come back is open to all member states

Japan: ‘judicial procedures’ should be here. We’d like to make clear that our policy is not stigmatising.

USA: Yes, when we get to that point, the committee can approve this pending your confirmation.

Azerbaijan: (line 5) after conventions, delete the rest.

New Zealand: We’ve tried to reach something satisfactory. I ask Azerbaijan for flexibility here.

Uruguay: Can’t accept Azerbaijan’s proposal.

Switzerland: We’d like mention of all 3 drugs convention

Egypt: We can’t accept this paragraph, there’s no clear definition, we support Azerbaijan’s proposal then we can have the paragraph.

USA: We can’t support the reference to ‘Cultural Diversity’ and ask it to be removed.

Egypt: Please put our proposals on screen

Chair: Please reiteration

Egypt: Strike out ‘long term comprehensive multidisciplinary and balanced efforts’’ also charter of UN

Japan: The longer version doesn’t look like they’ll be accepted. We think Canada’s proposal was balanced – we can’t accept the paragraph if you take out Cultural Diversity. Can we go back to Chinas proposal. Why don’t we just go back to our previous text – after ‘crime prevention’ we put ‘including judicial procedures’. And keep ‘including cultural traditions as appropriate’.

Canada: It’s important that we were close to consensus. I think if we continue the proposal, we want AltPP13bis and PP13bis on the screen. One possible step – replace the word ‘requires’ with ‘includes’. We’ll continue to reflect on this.

China: Instead of using ‘includes’ why don’t we use ‘needs’ then (line 5) after ‘appropriate’ ‘with relevant national circumstances and cultural traditions’

Chair: The future is now. This resolution is very long. I think its time to try to find a consensus, we’re running out of time

Egypt: Can we say after attitudes (line 2) put ‘in order to achieve treatment and recovery’? Instead of ‘needs’ we can say ‘may include’. We not fine with ‘long term multidisciplinary (…) efforts’– can we just have one adjective for this.

Canada: Egypt should speak to China – this is the original text from China. Although it’s long, it’s agreed language. It’s in the UNGASS doc. Also, we’re very near a breakthrough once we advance through PP13bis.

Egypt: We expressed strong objection here – please take out ‘long term … efforts’

UK: Our preference is second paragraph – but we’ll give comments on the first one – we suggest ‘’while respecting cultural diversity’

Chair: There is renewed interest in PP13bis.

Netherlands: Ok let’s move on. We support the UK’s proposal but remove ‘in order to achieve treatment and recovery’.

Egypt: We submitted a proposal but it’s being rejected. Removing ‘stigmatising (…) recovery’ is the purpose of the resolution. Otherwise we can’t accept the whole resolution. This is something e can’t leave out of the text. We can work on the rest of the text

China: The Egyptian concerns are important – I offer (line 2) after attitudes ‘for the purpose of this resolution needs’

Egypt: Please put ‘in line with this resolution’. We’re fine with any proposal for one adjective.

Chair: We need to put this in the bag.

Iran: we could be in line with China but we haven’t; finalised the title of the resolution. After ‘efforts’ please delete the rest.

Canada: We feel strongly on ‘may’ instead of ‘needs to’

Egypt: To try to be flexible – we can go along with ‘comprehensive efforts’ (delete ‘multidisciplinary and balanced’)

China: I appreciate the flexibility her – last attempt: (line 2); delete ‘may’, keep ‘needs’. We can keep ‘balanced’ – then the text will be balanced

USA: Could we ask for the paragraph to be cleared up?

Canada: grammatical thing ‘purposes of this resolution, may require’

USA: If we keep ‘respecting cultural diversity’ I don’t think we need ‘national and regional contexts’

Egypt: I believe you’ve offered this for adoption. We’re happy to go along with it, but we’d like the opportunity to keep open for amendments.

Chair: I’d like to ask that the text be adopted now. PP13bis is now approved.

Japan: Please delete the footnote proposed by Japan – it’s not necessary anymore.

Chair: PP15?

Canada: This paragraph includes a really important study in Canada, but I want to be consistent. If delegations agree to the deletion of PP5bis, then we will delete PP15. We prose deletion of all PP’s in brackets. All of that can be removed.

Iran: This proposal is not clear.

Canada: PP1 and PP2 remain. Anything ‘agreed in COW’ or ‘agreed in informals’ please keep. PP3bis, PP3ter, ‘recalling’ would be removed. Please keep from PP5ter onwards.

Iran: It’s still not clear to me. It’s not a fair package.

Chair: We’re about to run out of translation time.

Belgium: We also have attachment to PP15, but in the spirit of compromise we support the proposal.

UK: In the spirit of compromise we agreement.

Austria: We also support this.

Sweden: We also support.

Chair: Iran?

Iran: We can simply note the report of the UNHCHR. We need to make the point that these are not negotiated documents. Please come back to PP5 then consider PP15.

Canada: I will try to negotiate – we’re considering removing a paragraph very important to us. The amendment is not acceptable.

Chair: Interpretation is over now. But we need to go further. Thank you interpreters. Very soon time itself will be over. We will soon be expected to leave this room. How do we move on, are we stuck here? Shall we leave this text, and go to L2?

Iraq: I propose a compromise. Whenever we refer to human rights we always refer to drug conventions, but with the UNGASS doc we refer to Universal Declaration.

Chair: I want to propose a short break, how will we proceed after?

Canada: We don’t share the pessimistic assumption of our colleagues. I think we should move to OPs.

Chair: Canada, what do we have to show from all of this work today? This should be all of our concern.

Iran: We agree with your suggestion.

Canada: We haven’t looked at OPs that we approved in informals last night.

Chair: With all consideration Canada, we need to move on. I propose we move to L2 after the break, at 2pm.

Chair: We will convene at 4pm sharp – then we only have half an hour til we need to stop the CoW.

Leave a Reply

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