Mexico: Last Monday, I mentioned we had advanced a lot in the understandings. Thanks to the contributions and engagement of delegations, we made good substantive progress over the last two days. There are a number of paragraphs which have already been agreed in informals. Should proceed with those paragraphs then will have time to move further. Otherwise, I will need to request an additional informal. We will notify delegations in due time.
Chair: Take the matter of the title at the end. Start with PP1 and PP2.
PP1 and PP2:
Chair: agreed in CoW
PP3 and PP4
Chair: Agreed in CoW
Mexico: The content of the paragraph has been agreed. Only pending decision is about the placement that was requested by Russian Federation and supported by other delegations. From that point of view, we invite Russia to consult if they could agree. I believe we will solve it quickly under your guidance.
Chair: Any strong view regarding the placement of this paragraph? Can we agree to move to PP1 or do we keep here?
Japan: We strongly wish to retain the paragraph here.
USA: The paragraph that outlines the international framework regarding combatting the illicit trade in drugs, and fire arms. Is so important that this paragraph stays where it is and sets the overarching framework so it is important in this resolution about international cooperation with illicit trafficking and firearms.
Chair: Iran do you continue request to move paragraph?
Iran: International cooperation has been recognized, for my delegation so it is very important this resolution to be started by the convention on drugs which is the legal basis of the mandate of the CND, so for our perspective it is important to highlight this convention, so for us it is important to move this paragraph to PP1. I was astonished why colleagues insist to keep this here.
Chair: let’s agree on the merits on the paragraph and leave the placement to later.
PP6 and PP7
Chair: Agreed in CoW pending decision on placement of PP6.
Russia: We have a technical amendment in second line. Should be ‘in which it reaffirmed’ to be consistent with our standard language.
Chair: Agreed in CoW
Mexico: The paragraph is straightforward and making reference to latest resolution adopted by states against transnational and organized crime. Our intention is to address links between illicit trafficking and firearms. It is important to “reflect on what are the tools that we have on drug trafficking and illicit trafficking and firearms”. My delegation careful not to elaborate to other parties. That is why since the original direction of this paragraph, there are two positions. Some delegations are in favour of deleting it, some in factor of retaining it. Contrary to resolution 51/11 where there was no reference to UNTOC and has to do with the development of events during this time. In 2008, UNTOC established a working group in 2009, so there were no resolutions that would be of benefit to resolution 51/11 compared to what we have now. There are precedents including in our commissions so this is why there is a difference of opinions. That discussion is not yet solved unless we have indications from delegations to remove the brackets.
Chair: Iran and Turkey do you agree to remove brackets?
Iran: This resolution is coming from a different legal regime. It has been approved in the UNTOC conference on the firearms protocol which is completely different to this resolution. I remember that when we negotiated, there was discussions on mentioning the conventions and the reference to CND because it is a different with CCPCJ. So in accordance with this practice, we cannot go along with bringing up some resolution from other bodies which we are not member of , and we engaged in the discussions of this resolutions. It is my clear instruction that we cannot go along with this paragraph. They have references to the conventions on arm treaties arrangements mechanisms so we cannot go along with that. So this is our clear position and will not be changed.
Turkey: We checked the resolution and couldn’t find any mentioning of relation between drug trafficking and illicit firearms and this resolution is beyond the scope of the CND and this is why we cannot go along with this.
Egypt: Agree with Turkey. We would like to delete PP9.
Brazil: Add our names wishing to retain PP9.
Chair: We´re moving to PP10…
Canada: Rather retain it PP9. Entire intention is to address links between two forms of crime. When combined together they are worse than sum of individual parts. Other resolution seeks to integrate efforts in countering crime. If we close eyes and say that it is a separate mandate then won’t get anywhere whit firearms traffickers are not just firearms traffickers, but operate across different crimes. For delegations who negotiate, we ask for more consistency.
UK: Agree with Canada. We would like to add name to retain PP9.
Turkey: Clarify position. Not shocked with resolution at beginning but during informals, some delegations refrained from mentioning that not only criminals who do drugs and crime but also terrorist organizations. There is some hesitancy with delegations and our positions changed a lot. There must be a consistency to cover all crimes together so terrorism cannot be an exception to this. This means that all concerns of delegations should be reflected on the text.
EU: we want to put links with terrorist organizations but some delegations didn’t want to do this. If we have other resolutions, can put link, but we were very flexible not to mention this. Deleting this paragraph will not do anything and we would have to try to put links to terrorism on the whole text and we go back to ground zero.
Dominican Republic: want to retain PP9.
Sweden: retain to pp9 and agree with Canada
Chair: agreed in CoW
Chair: I hesitate to start this discussion. Let´s go to all agreed paragraphs first then go back to those not in agreement.
PP12, 13, 14
Russia: With PP13, this standard language is ‘taking note of’ not ‘noticing’. We would like to check it whether ‘taking note’ could also work with others. In PP14, would like to propose to delete ‘all aspects of’ because this is the agreed language from the UNGASS outcome doc and ministerial declaration which doesn’t refer to any aspects.
Mexico: Will leave it in the Chair’s hands whether to change what came from informals. Have to underline, appreciation of flexibility of delegations. Re PP14, the original language ‘inviting members’ states. What looking at on screen was the results of lengthy discussions with delegations. Goal 16 Sustainable development 2030 agenda lenghty discussions
Chair: could you accept ‘all aspects of’
Mexico: will not take that question myself, but will be for the room to react.
Chair: room, can we agree on PP13 and PP14 as it appears on the screen?
Chair: Agreed in CoW PP13 and PP14
Chair: agreed in Cow
Chair: Agreed in CoW
OP5 and OP6
Chair: Agreed in CoW
Chair: Agreed in CoW
OP9 and OP10
USA: re OP9 have technical edits. In third line change ‘raising’ to ‘raise’ awareness and delete comma.
Chair: Agreed In CoW
Chair: Agreed in CoW
OP14 and 15
Chair: Agreed in CoW
Chair: Mexico, do you want to go back to the title or should we consider the paragraphs not in agreement?
MEXICO: you will recall Mr. Chairman that we had a discussion here even here at the cow on PP1 regarding the world drug problem versus situation of possible ways to agree upon. Indeed we found that solution to PP1 and of course it’s not a matter of going back. We also have an agreement on PP 14 as was expressed by Russia, who made a request, and Switzerland showed its flexibility understanding, what I mentioned at the time that it’s a discussion that it’s worth having and we are going to continue having it in several locations. And my personal belief is that the best solution in each occasion will be different and not necessary a universal formula to be applied everywhere. Going back to your question again I believe that it’s not for me to answer but to the delegations that I requested at the end. Since I got that request and I agreed upon it, and I believe that because we are not done yet with the whole corpus of the draft that perhaps or let you get an indication from those allegations perhaps we could address the title at the end as they requested, thank you
Chair: Let’s continue with the consideration of which one is the first paragraph that still needs some work. PP9? No, too difficult. It is better to continue that in informals because it is very controversial. 11 is the same thing.
At this time, if you don’t mind delegates of Mexico, I would consider to take this text back to informal consultations and work on that. Switzerland asked for the floor.
Switzerland: Thank you very much Mr. Chair. I see that there is controversies around PP11 and PP11 bis, and I was wondering whether we couldn’t find a solution saying in PP11 “bearing in mind the relevant international and regional instruments, programs adopted to prevent and combat illicit firearms trafficking”, this will then I think include also the program of action that is mentioned in PP11 bis and perhaps might be agreeable to those delegations which have some difficulty, thank you Mr. Chair
CHAIR: thank you very much to the delegation of Switzerland let’s see if there is any comments on this proposal. The ones that wanted to retain with this addition, I will continue wishing that. Colombia.
COLOMBIA: We want to thank Mexico for leading this process. We also want to thank Switzerland for their proposal, but the problem that we have with this is that for us it is important to have a clear reference to the program of action, and particularly because if it is not included then it will be obscured, and this is one, if not the most important document adopted by consensus. By everybody, to address one of the main elements that this resolution is dealing with, so in that regard we consider that we can still working on these elements that we have in P11 and P11 bis but without just living outside one of the most important internationally documents to address the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons. So ready to continue to discuss this matter in consultations but we would prefer to keep it for the moment, thank you very much.
CHAIR: Thank you to the delegation of Colombia. I would like the delegates of Mexico to take this text back and continue consulting on it. It seems to me that there is still some work to do and I don’t thunk it is helpful to have it here in the discussion. Switzerland is requesting the floor.
SWITZERLAND: Just trying to be creative here. What about looking at programs and then having a footnote where the program of action is explicitly mentioned as asked by the distinguished delegate from Colombia?
CHAIR: Iran has asked for the floor.
IRAN: Two paragraphs: PP11 and PP11 bis. I would appreciate it if you could put it in the screen. For the same reason I mentioned, here I look at the program of action to prevent and combat, and all treaties were mentioned and words of disarmament and also when we say some programs, for example NSG groups or Australian groups, are included or not? The arms are part of those mandates and they are informal groups or groups of some countries, if here we put for example programs, we must consider these arrangements will be included. So Mr. Chair, here again we are strongly against to bring up the disarmament or arms regime to the CND and there is no room for flexibilities. Here, I will say that, it’s difficult for my country to go along with that. We have strong objection to mention those two paragraphs in this resolution and it is the first resolutions in CND which make linkages between firearms and drugs and it’s better to remove these controversial paragraphs which for my delegation is difficult to go along with that, so for here or informal consultations my advice is to remove those paragraphs from the text or we cannot go along with it.
CHAIR: I would like to say something personal if you allow me, but first, the USA
USA: I think it’s important to note that in this section and in particular this part of the preamble, we are establishing what is the problem what mechanisms exist and in fact the program of action does identify an explicit link between the illicit trade and drugs, and the illicit trade in firearm. The text that was agreed in 2001 says just that and that is the point that has been reaffirmed as recently as last year in the ongoing process of the program of action, so I think this is a very important point to consider and thank you for allowing me to take the floor
Chair: Thank you. As a personal note, I was a member of the Colombian delegation to that conference in 2001 that was presided over by a Colombian diplomat, ambassador Reyes, and I was part of the of the delegation that was negotiating that program of action, and I remember that many of the countries that are now opposing to have a reference to that program of action were one of the most important negotiators in that process. It seems to me little bit ironical that someone that were really 20 and something years ago asking for something and and now they’re asking for the deletion of that specific instrument. This was the first multi lateral agreement to prevent, combat and eradicate illicit trade in small arms and just as remembered by the distinguished delegates from USA, It has in its drafting the clear indication between the links of the trafficking of small arms and weapons and the trafficking of drugs. Only a little history there. Look, it’s clear that we want a advance much here in this in this the meeting of the cow is almost 6:00 PM so I will ask the distinguished delegate of Mexico to go back to informal with this with this text and we will continue working on the CoW uh and looking at the advance that he i am sure he will get soon in time
Mexico: Mr ambassador let me finish my intervention at this CoW by mentioning a couple of issues. Firstly I would state that our expectation was that we could advance in COW as much as constructively as we did in the informal and so we did, but of course that expectation also included the fact that we would need it to go back to informals and to continue the dialogue among delegations and of course we’re planning to do that. I will, with your permission, ask Dorothy we can already schedule that informal maybe for the same slot at this morning from 10 to noon. I would finish my intervention with two comments, firstly with all the respect to my distinguished delegates, it will not be the first resolution of this Commission is at least a second one and they have been others before The basis is resolution 1551/11 so it’s not the first and it’s relevant to remember that because these two paragraphs, as they appear originally, were coming verbatim from that resolution and that will take me to my second comment. Which is something that we have discussed. We will need to continue discussing the difficulty of using references from other places because when we approach those other places in the same manner that is to say, no drugs doesn’t belong here so we cannot address it, so in particularly in the case of the program of action, as one delegation already noted, is one of those two places in which we have an explicit mentioning, and having an explicit mentioning of course doesn’t mean that that those linkages doesn’t exist and most importantly that we shouldn’t be addressing them, something that we have been doing very constructively, yes we have some paragraphs pending but I trust, and I put in myself from the hand of my colleagues as I have been doing, we are going to be able to reach to a successful conclusion. Thank you very much
CHAIR: Now, I have the request from Egypt
EGYPT: Thank you for your explanation of pp11 bis. I would like to put only my reservation, and not to delete it, and see what we can do with this pp11 bis, and thank ypu for the explanation and we will try to be very flexible and move forward
CHAIR: Let’s move to the next resolution. Thank you very much to all of the of you who work on this resolution so hard I wish you a very successful continuation of negotiations and let’s move to the resolution L3