Secretariat: (housekeeping announcements)
Mexico: Had successful informal. Advanced great deal. My suggestion to continue the text in the CoW. Move to paras which have been agreed then go back to other issues.
Chair: Agreed in CoW.
Chair: Agreed in CoW.
Iran: Thank Mexico for their efforts. We are not happy with this para, but for sake of compromise especially with the reference with some instruments which are not relevant to UNODC and especially CND but for sake of compromise, if we can reach a consensus in PP, we could show flexibility here, but right now not willing to accept it unless we reach consensus on PP.
Mexico: We seem to agree an agreement in principle pending reservation of Iran. Would like to invite delegation if they can give their reservation.
Iran: We believe that as repeatedly mentioned that we are not against agenda perspective in the right place. Here we believe that this phrase is not relevant to this resolution. For flexibility, if the room goes along with proposal to put at end ‘in accordance with domestic law’ then will go along with OP8.
Mexico: We had an agreement in principle, but it will be for the room to decide. I personally don’t like caveats but we can go along with it.
Egypt: ‘in accordance with domestic legislation’ is better. We are flexible with OP8
Sweden: Can we have a moment as need to check with capital.
Placement of PP6
Mexico: content of para been agreed, it was matter of placement. Keeping it as PP6 and not moving as PP1. I will leave it in hands of chair. Confirmation of Russian of leaving it as PP6.
Chair: What is the preference re the placement for PP6? One country Iran asking to move to PP1. There are some others who would like to retain as PP6. Can the room take a decision?
Iran: One country wishes to withdraw doesn’t mean that other countries should withdraw. So here it is not a big deal to fight on placement, our argument that when we are at CND, in resolution of CND, it is better for the resolution to be started by the right conventions of this body which is one of the legal basis and mandate of the CND but not a big deal if colleagues do not want to move. We can show flexibility.
Chair: Agreed in CoW.
Mexico: During informals, there was a request to delete this proposal from the EU. My problem is that given EU not in the room, I could not decide for them.
EU: This para not taken with OP13 in the room. It is viewed as a package so this conversation has to be a whole discussion between OP11 and OP13 about the expert group. On EU side, we are keen to put the reference in.
Chair: who is asking for the deletion of the para?
Mexico: Iran, Egypt and Turkey.
Iran: we requested that this para depends on the results of the discussions on OP13. Right now, prefer to discuss this after OP13. So my proposal is if you agree, better to go to OP13 then go back to OP11.
Turkey: during negotiations, we were open and could only accept this addition…there is zero possibility for turkey to accept this addition.
Egypt: Would like to consult with capital re the position of 11 and 13. Would like to delete ‘the global study on firearms and trafficking’.
Mexico: During negotiations, was clear that in our view as original sponsor, we couldn’t link OP11 with OP13 for reasons that I gave that one is a proposal from Mexico and one is proposal from EU so couldn’t execute a trade off between two issues. Following the approach that we have to this resolution, we always favour to address each proposal on its own merits. Have indication from turkey on merits on the proposal. Contrary to Egypt and Iran has referred to merits of the proposals where Egypt and Iran want a trade off. The only linkage between OP11 and OP13, is that speaking of issues may and can happen so what is the point for us if I express my views on their behalf on their proposal. The global study of 2020 was not requested but it came up based on the responses to the global programme. If we don’t have the mention, it is the political message that we want to send? Do we want to send that the commission doesn’t want to promote exchanges and conversations? Doesn’t want to improve knowledge and understanding of global challenges? Whether it is mentioned, we already have a discussion among experts on Tuesday on behalf of Mexico at a side event. I would invite all delegations that from outset, the language it is in its nature and informal conversation and that’s why it doesn’t provide budgetary implication. The issue is not OP13 or the resolution but we should be thinking of what we want for the future of the commission. In terms of the implications, we are speaking of nothing more than a clear political message from the commission that we should have exchanged among experts on issues to learn and know better. In OP11, I put it back to EU on the proposal. I can only address OP13. I am insisting on this point, possible trade off is not on the table without indication of the EU.
Russia: Our delegation not part of package presented here. OP11- the proposal to conduct follow up study on firearms trafficking is not acceptable. From which point of time the CND start to deal with firearms trafficking and why does the CND ask UNODC request to conduct this study. Should be the CCPJ, confusing mandate of 2 commissions. It could be similar if CCPCJ requested CND to conduct study on cocaine trafficking. We shouldn’t mix them and this is not acceptable for CND to request UNODC to conduct study on mandate of CCPCJ.
Mexico: there is no package not on our part. We want to be clear about that. CND according to its original mandate is governing body of united nations of drugs and crime whole office. Yes we have the CCPCJ which came more than 45 years later also in charge in running of UNODC. So the CND has the mandate and possibility to send instructions to UNODC. Here is not about arms per se it is about the links and we have been clear about this. Question since when? Answer is since 2008. We looking for solutions. Suggest amendment to OP13. I will wait to provide proposal to OP13 which will help with OP11.
Colombia: Can work on something. ‘and to deepen its already existing research activities on these links, subject to the availability of extrabudgetary resources’
EU: something we could accept.
Brazil: If think about drug trafficking, several crimes around it. How firearms trafficking helps feed drug trafficking. So support para and suggestion by Colombia.
Guatemala: if this is the way forward, then ready to seek consensus on this.
Venezuela: if we leave outside the question the proposal in second part of para, then doing some more analysis and looking at linkages between 2 types of crime but that is also in OP13. If we do approve this, and before we do, can we clearly decide what the difference is between OP11 and OP13 as without the second part then no difference with 13.
Iran: In both paras, in previous informals my delegation proposed to merge OP11 and 13 as essence is the same. Because of that, we proposed it as a package. Doesn’t matter if colleagues want only 11. Right now, would like to put it in brackets and come back to 13 as cannot go along with 13. We cant go along with research which we had asked to make futher research with this issues. Cannot go along with expert discussion.
Chair: please be more flexible, this is not the beginning of the process. Need to withdraw brackets not to put new brackets in paragraph. Need to solve issues. Will ask all to focus on each para that we are discussing. Think have a lot of discussion about this para11. Lets solve this and continue with other para. I presume we can solve this matter.
GUATEMALA: I differ from my previous two speakers. The reason why, is because on paragraph 11, chair, you have mentioned we’re talking about data collection to continue providing assistance to member states so, on data collection research intelligence and analysis of links between illicit drug trafficking and illicit firearms trafficking for member States. And by convening discussions among experts I believe that we have had plenty of examples on how convening an expert group has increased the capability of countries to investigate, to analyze, to better understand a certain problem. So by this chair, what I’m trying to say, as well as there’s no package here, we’re no packaging anything we’re stating in two different paragraphs, two different ideas, one to continue researching about data collection and providing assistance to member states, and the other one we are asking to conduct expert discussions so they cannot be packaged, they’re two different topics that’s why we see eleven as 11, 13 as 13, with one paragraph in between. So again, for paragraph 11 chair it could be as I said before, and as the very good proposal made by our distinguished colleague from Colombia, and 13 I will leave it there chair. And we’re up to those allegations that putting brackets, just like you mentioned, at a very late stage of the cow, at a very late stage of the of the session of the CND, is unacceptable. And I really call upon delegations to have more flexibility, because this won’t harm anyone. We’re just increasing knowledge of UN, so, ourselves thank you chair.
USA: On the sidelines throughout the discussions on this particular paragraph but I I would like to point out a few elements here. First of all, thanks to the Colombian delegation for their very constructive suggestion in recalling discussions on other paragraphs in the informals. We have managed to carry the day to find consensus on other paragraphs and I would note that this paragraph refers to the work of UNODC upon request, and also subject to the availability of extra budgetary resources, so I completely agree with the comments made by my distinguished colleague from Guatemala on the nature of this particular paragraph. So I just wanted to indicate that to the room that we consider the merits of this paragraph on its own. Thank you very
Chair: Now, I will ask to the room if we can approve it as it is on the screen. Comments? Iran
IRAN: I am not trying to prolong the discussions. My proposal is to move the line in blue to 13 and remove “convening discussions among experts “so we can go along with 11 and 13. If there is no agreement as I mentioned and I requested please put 11 to to break it we we cannot go along with both 11 and 13 with this language so our positions from the first day is firm on this issue and there is a consensus consistent to our positions when we say there is a reason behind of that. So right now, there is no room to resolve this deep differences between delegations, including my delegation. I didn’t have intention to try to paragraph but I thought there is a linkage between them and we with some modifications we could have both, but if there is no consensus please put both in the brackets. Thank you
Chair: other comments?
Taking into account we only have 10 min left for this resolution, lets move to OP13. México, can you explain this paragraph?
Mexico: I can and I will already present an amendment. Just to be clear, there was not a package. There has never been a package. There was not a possible trade off, but evidently, as our distinguished delegate from Iran has mentioned there’s a linkage not put by us, but there’s a linkage, and we need to recognize it, so I would suggest the following amendment that perhaps will take care of the concerns of that delegation and others. So the proposal would read as follows: decides to further discuss, instead of “analyze” and then, after traffic, in the second one “firearms illicit trafficking” that’s the difference, and not a minor one, but a fundamental one between 11 and OP 13. OP 11 is the work that we entrust to undertake OP 13 is what we as member states of the Commission are willing to do, so I would invite my colleagues my distinguished colleagues to join us in sending this message on behalf of the Commission, at the discussion that have taken place in the past, not only resolution 51 / 11 I will bring to their attention all the political commitments that we have on these linkages I will bring to their attention at the panel discussion that we have last October on the CND, related to the implementation of the political commitments I will bring to their attention that discussions on this issue that we have been having at this session so it’s factual and it takes care of whatever concern was on the ensuing or the original formulation so, hopefully again, by agreeing on this paragraph as amended by myself we will be able to go back to OP 11 and agree on the paragraph. Thank you very much.
Chair: I will ask to the room for comments on this OP13 as it is amended, as it appears on the screen. Comments? I see no comments. I will ask you if you agree with this amendment. Approved in CoW
Lets go back to number 11. Oh, Iran, I have no time, go ahead, yea
At one time my friend yes I I have no time go ahead yeah I know you don’t have time and also we don’t have time we need to to to have confirmation of capital on this issue it is our right to that and also tomorrow we have time. I’d like to be finalized soon in this meeting which I don’t think. So, for that, please put it in the bracket there is no flexibility on that OK? thank you very much.
Chair: Are there any other comments? Are there any other issue we can discuss?
Chair: any comments?
There were something pending for the distinguished delegate of Sweden. Can we ask for the intervention of the delegation of Sweden for the paragraph? (Paragraph 8)
Sweden: With this particular caveat we would suggest instead another proposal here, and that is to replace “in accordance with domestic legislation”, with “as appropriate” we think that would be broadly and widely enough in order to understand this paragraph applies across the board also with regards to delay distillation at hand in different countries should also say that this first solution in its entirety obviously is in line with domestic and national legislation so we don’t see it relevant in this particular paragraph thank you hope that can fix up thank very (paragraph 8)
IRAN: Paragraph 11 does not make sense for me. If we have time I would like to propose to change “deepen” for “to further research” because it does it is the same but it is more I think articulated, on this issue but if there is no consensus on it I’m afraid we cannot go along with that part, we can go with the red part (paragraph 8), thank you
Chair: Ok, lets go to paragraph 11, please, as requested
UK: Can we go back to OP8? Im sorry, we seem to be bouncing around. In addition to the distinguished delegate from Sweden I think it’s just grammatically correct if we add “in accordance with domestic legislation” at the end. Then what we’re actually talking about the subject becomes mixed up with the means with which we’re trying to change or alter domestic legislation. In fact, I think it’s probably worse for the distinguished delegate from Iran than having as appropriate. I would really ask him to look back and just read over this language because if we had been saying that you should take a mainstream approach, or a gender perspective, in combating and preventing these crimes “in accordance with domestic legislation”, it would put an emphasis on the domestic legislation itself to be altered. That’s our understanding. So, I think “as appropriate” is actually wider than what was suggested by in accordance with domestic legislation, and actually we support that, so I think it’s probably much more appropriate to use, as appropriate in this case, and i hope that the distinguished delegate from Iran can see that we’re trying to find constructive ways to accommodate his concerns on this paragraph. Thank you very thing
USA: Thank you very much Mr. Chair for allowing me to take the floor once again. In a similar vein to the comments made by the distinguished colleague from the UK with the caveat of “as appropriate” we think it is quite reasonable here when we speak about the negative impact and indeed, earlier in the resolution, we call it “multifaceted” that means there are different elements to the problem that we need to address, in some cases, it may be appropriate to take certain means and others so one if as appropriate all we’re seeing is where it is appropriate to take a gender perspective my delegation would actually argue that there are many if not all situations in which you would consider this, but we feel that this isn’t an exceedingly reasonable caveat.
Chair: We thank the delegation of Sweden for their efforts to bring us closer to the resolution and the United states would support as appropriate thank you
Egypt: Maybe this can help OK? to mainstream this. Maybe we can say “calls on member states in accordance with their domestic legislation” and then we move forward OK? and then we drop as appropriate at the end if this can go along i think this is a good also solution but anyways i’m just trying to help in this issue thank you
IRAN: Regarding the proposal of Egypt, I wanted to propose to put it after “preventing but the proposal of the police, which proposed by the things delegation of Egypt is more appropriate so we can go along with that but again without this I cannot go around with I’m sorry, I want to save the time and to express our key oppositions on this issue we don’t believe that this part is belongs to this resolution but I have shown flexibility to move forward so with that caveat I have I couldn’t convince Tehran why I should I accepted this, so it’s in your hands, it depends on the room but this is the huge flexibility I can show thank you thank you very much.
Chair: I will ask if there is the possibility to agree on this paragraph as it is on the screen?
SWEDEN: Thanks to Egypt for the proposal. this for us would read better. I would also say that we have been extremely flexible when it comes to this paragraph from the very start. I think we’ve amended a couple of times already stretching our limits but for the sake of getting to a consensus on this, and then closing this paragraph, my delegation would be able to make this concession and accept this proposal as it’s stands
Chair: thank you for the flexibility. Approved in CoW (OP8)
Chair: let’s try OP11 again. We were trying to change the word “deepen” for maybe something really straightforward. It could be, let’s say, to “continue”.
Guatemala you have the floor
Guatemala: thank you so much chair and I thank you as well. Also Philippines they wrote something on the chat. If this continues chair we were thinking about adding, “and to further research activities on these links” but we’re willing to go along with “continued”, as you suggested chair. thank you very much.
IRAN: We were also planning to include “to make further research” but we can go along with your proposal. Continue is already existing research, on this list yes. Thank you
Chair: any comments on these amendments? I see none. Let me ask to the room if we can agree on this paragraph? Approved in CoW op11.
Let’s move to paragraph 13. Any comments? I see none. Let’s consider this one also approved in CoW. (13)
IRAN: I would like to because of good, and also “Diego” looked at me, so I have to show flexibility on this issue without checking with theran, so only for the sake of compromise, and because of Diego I will accept that, but if any issue from Tehran, Diego will respond. Thank you.
Mexico: Just to make sure we have op4bis also ready for the approval of Iran?
IRAN: Thank you Mr. Chair. It isn’t really very sensitive and I should have permission of theran on this issue right now. I’m not in a position to accept this so, my instruction was to remove from the text, as I mentioned, the rest. I have not any instruction to accept that paragraph and lines, and those mentioning the treaties on arms thank you thank you very much
Chair: It seems this is the only pending issue is this.
I suggest Mexico to speak with Iran and present tomorrow morning the solution on this.