Chair: Welcome back to the Reconvened 67th Session. We will continue the consideration on Item 4 on strategic management, budgetary and administrative questions. At our joint meeting with the CCPCJ yesterday, we considered under Agenda Item 4 the implementation of the consolidated for the biennium 2024-2025 for the UNODC. And the drugs proposed program plan for 2026 and program performance for 2024 is contained in…[links]. The Commission is now to take action on the drugs resolution of the implementation of the budget for the biennium 2024-2025 for the fund of the UN International Drug Control Program. I understand that there have been two rounds of informal consultations during which the drugs resolution was amended. The amended text of the drug resolution after informal consultation was circulated via special message on 29th of October. In agreed by silence, procedural…on November 24th. The document is contained [link]. May I invite the Commission to adopt the resolution as amended? I see no objections, it is so decided. I would like to recall that the Commission is expected to endorse at the time of the 67th reconvened session, the members of the FINGOV Bureau for 2025 following the joint nomination of the bureaus CND and CCPCJ in accordance with ECOSOC decision 2022/316E. I am pleased to recall that the Secretariat has formally received the following nominations which have in the meantime been before the bureaus of CND and CCPCJ- Eastern European Group Chair: Ambassador Germeni- Permanent Representative of Albania, Latin American and Caribbean Group 1st Vice Chair- Laura Gil -Permanent Representative of Colombia, Western European and other States Group Vice-Chair: Ambassador Makovich- Permanent Representative of Sweden. May I ask the Commission whether it wishes to endorse these three nominated candidates as members of FINGOV for 2025? I see no objections. It is so decided. I also want to mention that the Secretariat has received the nomination of the following persons: Africa Group Vice-Chair: Ambassador [x] Permanent Representative of Sudan, Asia-Pacific Group Vice-Chair: Mr. Mustafah Shafizadeh second secretary of the permanent mission of Iran. As explained yesterday morning, in accordance with ECOSOC decision 2022/316, these two nominations will be submitted to the Extended Bureau of CND and CCPCJ for subsequent endorsement at the time of the regular 68th session in March. We now move to Agenda Item 5 entitled “Implementation of the International Drug Control Treaties.”
I am told that Argentina would like to speak on strategic, budget, and administrative questions.
Argentina: Thank you Chair. We are speaking in regards to Agenda Items 4 and 9 of the reconvened session of the CND and CCPCJ. Argentina would like to state that with regard to word “gender” we understand that as underlined to the international treaties, when “gender” refers to two sex- masculine and feminine. In general terms, there are no exceptions to what I have mentioned. With regard to gender- Argentina’s commitment to the rights of women has been sustained over time and is in its legislation and its effort which go beyond international efforts. For Argentina, the 2030 Agenda is composed of nonbinding goals, which each state has the freedom to pursue as it wishes and when it comes to the Pact to the Future, there is no restriction to the individual’s rights. With regard, to what’s been said, the delegation of Argentina that in the future we use a wording that is acceptable to all delegations and we also would like to request that this intervention be reflected in the records of the meeting.
Chair: We will now move to Agenda Item 6 entitled “Follow up to the Implementation of National, Regional, International Levels of All Commitments as Reflected in Ministerial Declaration 2019 to Address and Counter the World Drug Problem.” Yesterday afternoon, we had an introduction presentation by the Secretariat, which was followed by interventions on the floor. May I take it that the item can be closed down? I thank you. We now continue on Agenda Item 9, entitled Contributions by the Commission to the work of the ECOSOC Council in line with General Assembly resolution 75290 A and resolution 75290B, including follow up to and review, and implementation of the 2020 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Yesterday morning, we had an introductory presentation by the Secretariat, which was followed by interventions on the floor. May I take it that the item can be closed down?
Argentina: Argentina would like to state that with regard to the word “gender” we understand that as international law does, and international treaties that the word “gender” refers to the two sexes- masculine and feminine in the context of society. In general terms, we would have no exceptions.. (repeat of previous statement). SDG’s are non binding and Argentina disassociates with the Pact of the Future because it does not recognize the rights of individuals..
Chair: The next item on our agenda is a continuation of the provisional agenda for the 68th session for the Commission, which was also open yesterday. Dates of the 68th session [x] organizational arrangement. The extended bureau recommended the following dates: Regular session: 10-14 March, 2025; Session Consultations 7th March; Reconvened Sessions 4-5 December 2025. Are there any comments on the dates? I see no objections. It is so decided. I now tend to the pre-session consultation to maximize the efficiency of our use of interpretation resources and in line with [x]. The extended bureau has recommended [x] 11th meeting on 25th November that we conduct the pre-session informal consultations scheduled for 7 March 2025 in English only. Any comments? I see none. It is so decided. Deadline for the submissions of drug resolutions. In accordance with CND decision 55/1, the firm deadline for the submission of drugs resolutions is normally one month prior to the commencement of the session. Drug resolutions for the session with us have to be submitted by Monday, 10 February 2025. Do you have any comments on this? It is so decided. Provisional agenda for the 68th session- the drug provisional agenda for the 68th session as contained in the report of the CND on its 67th session was approved by the ECOSOC Council in its decision 2024/321 entitled report of the CND on its 67th session and provisional agenda of its 68th session. Regarding the bureau for the 68th session, I would like to recall that elections will take place once this session is closed at the opening of the 68th session. Integration of the main theme of the ECOSOC and the High Level Political Forum to 2025. As you would recall, in General Assembly Resolution 75/2 908, as subsidiary bodies of ECOSOC, I encourage you have [x] discussions aligned with the main theme of the ECOSOC Council. As recommended by the extended bureau on its 11th meeting on 25 of November, I encourage delegations to link their statements at the 68th session to the main team of the council and the high level political forum for 2025, which is Advancing Sustainable, Inclusive, Science and Evidence-based Solutions for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals for leaving no one behind. Side events and its visions: the guidelines for side events and its visions were shared with all member states. In the special message of 28th of November. The application period for side events and its vision will be from 13-24 January, 2025. Delegations are encouraged to apply as soon as the application period starts and well in advance of the deadline. We now move onto Agenda Item 11. We had yesterday an introductory presentation of the drug decision entitled, “participation of the EU in the work of the Commission” which was tabled by Poland on behalf of the state, members of the UN that are members of the EU, and which is contained in document [x]. I have asked last night that the sponsors of the drug decision and the representatives of the Russian Federation, which had submitted written amendments document [x], would try to sit together and try to come to a joint understanding of a way forward. Since yesterday, we’ve all been working very hard to reach consensus on this matter and I am pleased to make some proposals for the consideration of the Commission. We have at the penultimate paragraph of the decision, a slight amendment and we have added a new OP-1 and added a new OP-2. For OP-1 reaffirms the existing practice where by the representatives of the EU may continue to participate without the right to vote in the work of the CND and continue to be inscribed on the list of speakers in order to make interventions on behalf of the EU, including for opening remarks reserved for groups that are members of the extended bureau. OP-2 Recognizing that the same practice will apply upon their requests to regional, intergovernmental organizations that have observer status in the General Assembly and whose member states have agreed arrangements that allow the organizations’ representatives to speak on behalf of the organization and its member states, including for opening remarks. At this moment, I would like to ask Poland if Poland is in agreement with the proposals I have submitted.
Poland: Yes indeed, this is the consensus we’ve reached with Russian delegation during the discussion this morning and yesterday evening. I would like to underline that bearing in mind the consensus that we managed, the Russian delegation also accepted the withdrawal of the amendment from yesterday.
Chair: I thank Poland. I now give the floor to the Russian delegation.
Russia: Thank you chair-person. The text on the screen is acceptable to us and I would like confirm that. We withdraw our amendment from yesterday. Thank you.
Egypt: Since it’s the first time to promote ourselves formally regarding the draft decision introduced by Poland on behalf of the EU, Egypt would like to reiterate its high appreciation for the EU and the EU member states for their full engagement in the deliberations of the Commission as per the existing practices. Egypt further reiterates its strong preference to refer the matter under consideration in this draft decision to the ECOSOC as the governing body of all functional Commissions. Moreover, Egypt is of the view that the healthy and constructive deliberations during the informal consultations have shown that there is an agreement on the existing practice in line with rule 74 of the rules of procedure of the functional commissions of the ECOSOC. Therefore there is no need for such a draft decision and if the commission wants to pronounce itself on the matter, this can be addressed in the report of the reconvened session, based on the operative paragraphs in the draft decision. Furthermore, Egypt would like to express its appreciation to the constructive approach by the EU and the Russian Federation in taking on board some concerns raised during the informal consultations. Having said that, Egypt would like to express its concerns regarding the first Operative Paragraph in the second revised version: Egypt stresses the importance of highlighting in the OP that the existing practice will not set a precedent for the EU participation in other functional commissions of ECOSOC. Egypt insists of using the agreed language in Rule 74 of the Rules of Procedure of the functional commissions of the ECOSOC and proposes changing the word “work” with “deliberations” as in the preambular paragraph 3 of the draft decision. Egypt proposes changing “reaffirms” to “acknowledges” at the beginning of the paragraph. Egypt further proposes to delete the term “representatives of” from the first line of the operative paragraph. Egypt proposes the deletion accordingly. Egypt proposes the following paragraph, “acknowledges, without setting a precedent for other functional commissions of the ECOSOC Council. The existing practice in the Commission, whereby the EU may continue to practice, without the right to vote, in the deliberations of the Commission.” Thank you.
Colombia: Colombia as chair of the G77 and China would like guarantees that this decision will not affect the right of the G77 and China to intervene as an existing practice. We understand that the clause including for opening groups reserved for groups that are members of the extended bureau will include the G77 but I would like to ask on record guarantees from the Secretariat and the parties involved that this is their understanding too.
Pakistan: We wish to express our concerns regarding the matter over how these decisions were conducted. The discussions were held in closed groups, without adequately involving all member states, which undermines the principles of inclusivity and transparency that should guide our collective decision making process. Additionally, we remain unable to fully comprehend the rationale behind this decision. The current text merely reaffirms the existing practice of the participation of the EU and other intergovernmental organizations in the work of the Commission. This raises the question of whether the extensive time and effort spent on this procedural matter were truly warranted, especially given that the Commission’s mandate are to address the world drug problem and issues related to crime prevention and criminal justice. We also seek clarification from the Secretariat on two critical points. 1. Does the adoption of this decision set the precedent that could affect the work of other ECOSOC Commissions and would it have not been more appropriate to address this issue at ECOSOC. 2. Could the Secretariat provide clarity on the distinction between deliberations and the word of the Commission as referred in the decision? We insist on clear response from the Secretariat to ensure that member states here have a proper understanding of the implications of this decision. In conclusion, Pakistan re[x] its principled position that procedural decisions of this nature should be addressed at the appropriate forum, which is ECOSOC, given their broader implications. Let us refocus our energies on the substantive challenges that the international community expects us to address.
United States: There does seem to be broad consensus in the room that the practice we have adopted, stemming from an ECOSOC decision that applied to our sister Commission, that we enjoy this practice and we want to see it continue so the proposal that was offered previously to have an entry into the report is something that’s interesting. If we had more time, we would want to consider that. But we understand that for the EU, they need to have some assurance. We are quite happy with the first paragraph and could support that but we have some misgivings about the second. Like others, we are concerned with the breadth of the new proposal and the fact that we don’t have a clear understanding on what the impact may be. We know that there are some 200 organizations that have observer status so we have some concern whether we’re opening the doors and adding to the work of our commission, without adding substance to the work that we do. We also need some time to consult with the capital. We’ve just gotten this. And to the extent that this may have broader implications for the broader UN practice. We need some time to consult and we understand that we don’t really have time in this reconvened session. We do think perhaps some of our concerns could be addressed by a slight tweak to the second paragraph, where we say “intergovernmental organizations that have observer status” if we could say “intergovernmental organizations that currently have observer status” that way we’re limiting it to a known pool of entities that might quality. And again we need more time but with that amendment, we’ll be on the right path.
Iran: We believe that the beauty of making decisions by consensus lies in respecting the views, comments, and perspectives of all member states. While thanking the parties for their constructive approach, we would like to emphasize that some legal issues were not adequately addressed in this process. These principles are as follows: this delegation firmly believes that the current decision falls outside the decision of the CND. Second- furthermore introducing this decision during the reconvened decision is not in accordance with the procedural rules governing the agenda for side sessions. According to the ECOSOC rules of procedure, new items cannot be added unless they are part of the approved agenda. This decision was not introduced during the CCPCJ session in May nor during the CND session in March. The current reconvened sessions are limited to addressing administrative and budgetary matters that remain unresolved in the main sessions. Despite these concerns, we will not stand against this decision, with the understanding that such decisions shall not make any precedent for the future.
Sudan: Thank you Mr. Chair. This delegation joins the statement given by our colleagues from Egypt. The previous speakers who suggest that it would be more appropriate that this issue be addressed by ECOSOC. However if this Commission is wishing to adopt this draft decision, we would support the amendments made by our distinguished colleague from Egypt made to the text. We have a question in relation to the last line of the OP, OP2. In relation with the last line of the second OP, we recognize that there’s a chance to have us or intergovernmental organizations to practice the same rights as the EU as an intergovernmental organization. The last line of the first OP is contradicting the second operating paragraph. So if the room is okay with the second paragraph, there is no need. Because this new intergovernmental organization that we will have in the picture are not part of the extended bureau of course so limiting the speakers to the extended bureau is clearly deleting the second paragraph. So either the last line of the first paragraph or the second paragraph. If we want to add the second paragraph, we should remove the last line in the first paragraph because its really contradicting. We are seeking clarification.
Singapore: My delegation has expressed our views in the draft decisions in the informal consultations. I want to thank the EU for taking on our concerns on board. I feel obliged to speak for the record : Our delegation does not believe this decision is not necessary. We believe the existing practice is sufficient to address the concerns of the EU but we understand that they feel the need to bring it. We don’t think this kind of decision should be decided in this body. We echo our other colleagues- this decision should be decided in the ECOSOC Council to decide on. It should be the principle organ that decides on the participation of such entities in the work of the functional Commissions. We have just seen this proposal. We’re concerned about the process that has taken place to allow the EU and Russian Federation to reach consensus. We’re very glad they reached agreement. We’re just concerned that no one else’s views were though or considered. I would like to hear the Secretariat’s responses to the questions posed by Pakistan but Chair, at a minimum my delegation needs time to review this proposal that we have just seen. We need to consider what it means and we think it’s a fair request and this actually has implications for our regional organization and the functioning of the Commission in terms of the participation of the now many intergovernmental organizations that we are seeming to include. I would take some time to look at this.
Thailand: We have another statement. We express our displeasure at the process. We are here to solve the issue of one delegation which is not a member of the Commission not being able to participate in informal consultations and COW and yet most of the members of the Commission were excluded from consultations on this current yellow text on the screen. In the same way a number of delegations have expressed, we need time to consider this morning. We are here to support and to help but we need to be heard as well. We are a member to both Commissions. We have a number of questions to this draft. The text from my angle is hard to see. The text saying “representative of organizations” I’m not sure if the one who proposed this can clarify whether this means member of the Secretariat, or Secretariat General of the Organization, or Chair of the organization. It sounds a bit clear to me and I think I’ve heard a the delegate of Egypt proposal to delete that word. Another question I have is on the order of speaking. I think the representative of the United States have also asked about this earlier on the fact that whether these organizations will be speaking before our ministers of the member states of UN because there are many of them. If it’s the case only section of an organization representing of countries will be speaking before a head of state or minister, that is an issue we will take account into our consideration. These are the two questions we have on the text because it sounds unclear to me. In the first paragraph it says “reserved for members of the extended bureau” but it does not say this again in the second paragraph. We should clarify this before we decide on the matter. I’m wondering if we will also be considering the proposal by Egypt. If we are, I would also humbly request we have it in writing on the screen so we can see it while we consider this draft.
Chair: I just want to make something clear. As you know in trying to reach consensus, you enter into smaller groups to bring about proposals for the larger group to consider. This current discussion on this topic is to ensure inclusivity. And the proposal brought before us- no decision can be taken on that proposal without member state. What we’re doing at this very moment is making sure that all members of the CND exercise their views and opinions and preferences on what is before us. There is no attempt to exclude anyone from the process. This is what we are doing now.
UK: Chair- the UK has practical concerns about the second paragraph of this text. It’s difficult for us to understand what it adds. We join with others in asking the Secretariat for review on what it changes. We have serious concerns about the breadth in the wording and the unintended consequences it creates, as some delegations have pointed out. We’re also confused about the motivations behind the addition of the second paragraph. During the [x] talk, we heard lots of objections about changing the rules of procedure. Yet this paragraph clearly introduces a new rule. In fact at [x] talk, we all agreed that we didn’t want to change rules of procedure and yet this paragraph introduces a new rule and without consultation on why this is necessary. This stands as stark contrast to the paragraph from the EU which is well considered and is being full explained during consultations. We propose today to continue with OP1 and to leave OP2, which raises a whole host of issues for further and future discussion.
India: We are glad that EU and RF could come up with a common draft. We would like to reiterate that this forum is not the right place for this area on this issue. It needs to be tabled with the principal body, which is ECOSOC. However, this new draft we have just received so we also need time to consider the [x] on this draft and come back. I have one question in regard to OP 2, in addition to the questions already raised by other colleagues. It mentions that member states who have agreed arrangements that allows the organizations representatives to speak on behalf of the the organizations and its member states. How will this be verified by the Secretariat- whether a particular organization has a mandate to speak on behalf of all the member states? Will it be a [x] from each of the member states of the international organization? How will the sanctity of this agreement be verified? If there is an ambiguity, will the Extended Bureau decide on it? Say one member state of a particular organization is not willing to be part of the statement? How will it be decided- will it be extended bureau or will it be referred to the Commission?
Morocco: Mr. Chair I would like to echo the concerns of previous delegations, particularly the representative of Thailand, that some delegations were excluded from consultations on the second operative paragraph. However, because of the position of my delegation as a constructive, on this matter, I would like to add the following wording on the first sentence of the OP 2 so it will read the following: “it recognizes that the same practice will apply upon the request and without prejudice to the respective mandates.” We think that this is very important to reflect “ without prejudice to the respective mandates” when we are referring to the regional and intergovernmental organizations. We can only accept this if this amendment is reflected in this OP2.
Chair: You’ve just contributed to this text so you have not been excluded. No one has been left behind in taking a decision on this matter.
China: First, we appreciate Russia and EU effort to seek a solution. Second, we are not against the intergovernmental organizations in compliance with the function of the Committee Rules of Procedure of ECOSOC to participate in the work of CND and CCPCJ. But the conditions should be that they should comply with the rules of procedure. In rules of procedure, if some parties have different views in the rules or its interpretations, solutions should be found through friendly negotiations and consultations. However if no solution can be reached, joint efforts should be made to seek joint interpretations from authoritative organizations or organs which designed such kind of rules. Fourthly, we have noted that some delegations have raised technical issues. In the spirit of consultations, we would like to engage in consultations with relevant parties and we will support the agreement reached at the conference.
Russia: I’ll try to respond to some questions. The initiative to include the second paragraph of this resolution came from our side and we’ll clarify what that has to do. We believe in a democratic world, there should be equal rights for all. This pertains to national states and corresponding international organizations. Having agreed to accept the second paragraph, the EU underscored that it was not seeking to have any exclusive status, recognizing that other intergovernmental organizations have a right to the same status as the EU in our two Commissions. That is a positive point and I welcome it. Turning to the second paragraph, it proposes that all the international organizations should actively work with our commission. What we’re talking here is that those who wish to do so and make the corresponding request. We heard concerns about the United States delegate…about having 200 organizations who have observer status. The language used in the second paragraph does significant extent, removes these concerns. Incidentally, this wording is based on Resolution 65/276 of the UN General Assembly. So this is language which already exists and here there are certain number of filters which allow us to be sure that there won’t be a mass influx of intergovernmental organizations into the work of the commissions- it’s talking about regional intergovernmental organizations. And when it comes to these organizations, which have observer status to the GA, there aren’t many of them. There’s a second filter- those who have the corresponding internal procedures allowing their representatives to speak on behalf of these organizations and their member states. Not only all regional intergovernmental organizations have such procedures. And they cannot participate in this work until they’ve agreed on such procedures. The representative of Thailand requested some clarification on who was meant by “representatives of the organization” and I would like to reply that the members of the organization should decide on that for themselves. If Thailand is a member of Asia, then together with their colleagues in this group, they should decide who speaks on behalf of Asia. It does not have to be Secretary General or representative of the Secretariat. It could be chair or any member of the organization. The main thing is that they are authorized to do so by their colleagues in that organization, to speak on behalf of their groupong through a fully democratic procedure. I’d like to respond to the representative of the UK. No this isn’t a new procedure, absolutely not. If we look at the text carefully, the first and the second paragraph, in the first paragraph what is being mentioned is existing practice. And in the second paragraph, it underscores that this existing practice is available to other regional organizations. This is not a new procedure and it underscores that our world is set up on democratic principles- nobody has exclusivity and other intergovernmental regions may participate, within certain conditions, in the work of these Commissions. And to respond to the question of the representative of Colombia in regards to G77, of course this draft decision does not affect the current status of the G77 plus China, which will continue to be as before G77 plus China and will have every reason and basis to speak at the beginning of both Commissions. This is clearly indicated in the last line of OP 1. Here it says “groups that are members of the extended bureau.” The G77 is such a member so this should not be a concern.
Canada: We also really appreciate all the efforts undertaken last night and this morning to seek consensus on this decision. We are definitely supportive of the efforts of the EU to affirm the existing practice. Given that this new text has just been presented, and the questions that have been raised in the room on how it applies, questions that we would also like to better understand, I noted that there was a footnote included and given our short time for our consideration, I’m wondering if that could also be displayed in case that helps to clarify. Thank you.
Venezuela: Thank you to the delegations concerned for seeking a solution. The delegation of Venezuela believes that the issue should be addressed in New York, within the ECOSOC, not here in Vienna in line with the practice that has already been created, without creating negative procedural precedence for other functional Commissions of ECOSOC. Along another line on a different issue but which I must speak on, the delegation of Venezuela would like to inform you that today is the last day, formal day for the participation of a colleague, a minister and council Daniela Alandez. On behalf of the team of the Venezuelan delegation, we would like to express our gratitude for the commitment to multilateralism, for commitment and dedication, which we’re all aware of us in this room. We wish him health and all the best in his future.
Ukraine: I want to pose a question. While it’s not clear why this [x] should be made now to long term practice and long term long standing rules, what we suggest is that hardly…in regard to democratic principle and criteria..her place while in introducing these rules. We have serious doubt in that. And questions on some background of how this rule was made. What were the important reasons or criteria on why this rule was made and why other regional intergovernmental organizations were not included in the list of speakers?
Chair: I would want to close the list of speakers and then take some decisions on this matters. If there’s any delegation that wants to speak, aside from Belarus, let us know.
Belarus: Belarus would also prefer that this decision be taken to New York and dealt with by ECOSOC. The thing that has always distinguished Vienna is that we’ve always tried to work in the spirit of Vienna and find the golden medium. I think that this text we have on the screen, which was agreed on by Russia and EU is such golden medium and is a text that we can work on further. We’ve heard of some valuable proposals by from several delegations- the United States, Egypt, Morocco. I think that perhaps [x] to reflect those proposals on the screen would make it easier for us to come to some agreement.
Chair: I will take Egypt and Senegal. I will request Poland to speak after I aks the Commission to break for some time. This is the process that I would like to adopt. I will give the floor first to Senegal.
Senegal: The purpose is to come to a greater degree of democracy. I think we can simplify. These organizations are observers so I think we should limit their intervention to the opening remarks and if it doesn’t already exist, we can have concluding remarks. That would allow the participating member states to lead the deliberations and then observer bodies could express their concerns at the beginning of the session, and then having followed the deliberations and after having the possibility to meet with members of the body- they could during the closing session making concluding remarks so this could allow us to have a greater degree of democracy and would lighten our workload.
Egypt: I would like to echo what our colleague from Belarus had mentioned pertaining to the importance of reflecting various proposals. We see from our point of view that there is merit in also the proposal introduced by the delegate of Morocco and we would like to see for consideration. I would like to echo and align myself with the request of Signature regarding to the reply from the Secretariat to the question raised by Pakistan on where we should consider this issue? In our view it has to be considered in the ECOSOC and we hope we can get an answer from the Secretariat before adjourning for a break.
Secretariat: We have a question from the G77 as to whether they would continue to be considered a group that would speak at the opening remarks I think the anticipation is that the practice will not change. That members of group, as explained by the delegate from the Russian Federation, the groups that are members of the extended bureau will continue to speak at the opening remarks but this anticipates that others may have the opportunity to speak at that point. There was a question from Pakistan, “Does this create precedent for other Commissions?” The answer is no because it’s a decision of this Commission and there will also be a decision in the CCPCJ and those would then apply to our bodies. They would not have a precedent to other ECOSOC bodies. If they wanted to be detailing with us on a broader level, then indeed NY would be the place to bring this kind of consideration, where they would consider in context of the rules in applying it more functionally to all the commissions of ECOSOC. There was another question by Pakistan on distinction between deliberations and work. The term deliberations is a term on the rules of procedure and the terms of work. The term deliberations is a term used in the rules of procedure so it has some legal force. I can’t tell you exactly what that means because I don’t have the information of those rules. Those roles under the purview because they are rules of the functional commissions of ECOSOC of broader rules that are really governed in NY to all the functional bodies. They don’t just apply to this body or CCPCJ so OLA is the office of legal affairs is the office that offers interpretations of those rules. We would need to go to them and ask them what that means. My understanding is that the use the term “Work” was viewed more broadly because we were talking about practice of the EU, a practice that which under the understanding of the Secretariat is generally three things applied in that practice- a recognizing for the EU in our bodies here in Vienna- that they can speak at the opening remarks with other bodies of the extended bureau such as the G77 and the five regional groups of the UN. They also have been speaking, and this is the practice consistent with rules or non consistent with the rules, its up to the body- but they have been speaking in informals and they have been speaking on behalf of their member states at times in the plenary amongst member states. Those are the three areas that we would consider the work of the Commission where there has been some practice on behalf of the EU. There are questions on how this would be applied. For example, how would we know if organizations have procedures in place, if they have agreements from their member states to represent them and who would design on who are the right organizations. Would it be the bureau, would it be others? We’re getting language real time and we don’t have procedures set up that we can share with you at this point but if the commission moves forward we will do our best with managing it.
Chair: We will take a 10 minute break now.
Chair: Before we continue the session, I would like to give the floor to Nigeria.
Nigeria: I just want to present updates on our pledge for action. We are pleased to inform that we have taken comprehensive action to fulfill our promises as follows: two new forensic laboratories have been constructed in Abuja and Lagos, refurbished and equipped. This puts an end through over 25 years of conducting forensic analysis in a single laboratory. The laboratories have been designed and constructed to meet all relevant regulatory requirements. While the laboratory in Lagos is fully operational, the one in Abuja [x] after the successful completion of procurements of procuring the necessary equipments. 2. Rehabilitation centers- the rehabilitation centers have been constructed in Abuja, [x], and Lagos. It is expected that the centers will be furnished and equipped with state of the art facilities to ensure the comfort of patients with substance use disorders when operational. 3. Alternative development unit. An alternative development unit has been created in the office of the chairman [x] while the AD project has commenced within one week, full funded by the global partnership on drug policies and development Berlin, Germany…Workshops for alternative development took place in Nigeria in Abuja in August 2024. Nigeria will continue to mainstream these pledges in additional to a national drug master plan in addressing the challenges of additional cultivation, production of narcotic drugs psychotropic substances, as well as illicit trafficking of those substances.
Chair: Now let’s go back to Agenda Item 12. A report on matters we have discussed this morning will be compiled and finalized by myself as Chair with the assistance of the Rapporteur Mr. Fabian Esteban Duraza Torres of Colombia. Any comments on this? It is so decided. Before we proceed with the adoption, I would request delegations to abstain from taking the floor if they have comments related to editorial or translation matters and to provide those comments in writing to the Secretariat. I first invite the Commission to turn its attention to document [x], the parts of the report on organization of the session and administrative session. Are there any comments? Can I invite the commission to adopt this part of the report? I see no comments. It is so decided. Let us now turn to the portion to the document dealing with our discussion on item 4 of the Agenda entitled “Strategic Management, Budgetary, and Administrative Questions” contained in [link]. Are there any comments? Can I invite the Commission to adopt this part of the report? I see no comments. It is so decided.
Argentina: Unfortunately, the intervention by my country is not reflected in the report.
Secretariat: Thank you very much. This will be reflected afterwards. This is the part of the report in terms of the deliberations as it was before the Commission yesterday so any additions will be included in line of what the Chair has announced at the beginning of this.
Chair: Last but not least, there is a portion of the document dealing with our discussion on Item 9 of the Agenda entitled “Contribution by the Commission to the work of ECOSOC Council.” In line with General Assembly resolution 75/290A and 75/290B including follow up to and the review and implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development contained in [link]. Are there any comments? Can I invite the Commission to adopt this part of the report? It is so decided. Now we get back to any other business- Agenda Item 11. We have on the screen OP1 and OP2 with the comments and inputs made by members of the Commission. I will now ask delegations to have a careful look at the two paragraphs on the screen and I will now take about 3-4 comments by delegations where this is acceptable to us all. I give the floor to Canada.
Canada: Just a kind request to please see the text of the footnotes.
Poland: The proposal that you can see on the screen is now our final proposal. We believe it that it missed your expectation but unfortunately if we cannot reach the agreement, we would like to call for a vote on our initial proposal.
Egypt: Thanks to all those who have engaged constructively for trying to reach a compromise pertaining to a draft decision. Allow me first to reiterate a general strong preference to not having a resolution. Having said that, we will not be against reaching a consensus and upholding the Vienna spirit regarding this and we can go along with the proposal as amendment and introduced on the screen.
Pakistan: I’ve been directed to specifically seek clarity about the participation let’s say organization of Islamic countries to come forward and make negotiating participation interventions during the future meetings after the adoption of this decision. So we would like to have specific clarity on behalf of countries of the Islamic organization.
Chair: Can I now invite the Commission to now adopt the decision? I recognize United States for the floor.
United States: The question just asked by the Pakistani delegate is actually quite pertinent and we would appreciate an answer on that before we make an adoption.
Chair: Would you prefer that we adopt or that we answer that question before the adoption?
United States: We need an answer to the question before we determine our position on the adoption.
Chair: Can I ask the Secretariat to answer the question.
Secretariat: I’m afraid I don’t have an answer to your question right now because we have not looked at the organizations listed that have been accepted or credited to the General Assembly and we would have to determine which ones are on that list and which ones are considered regional organizations. We will try to come up with a process for this if the Commission adopts these procedures. Sorry I can’t say anything more than that so we don’t know.
Chair: I would like to give the floor to the Russian Federation.
Russia: I think that the organization of the Islamic Conference, if it is interested in working with our two Commissions, that it could submit a request as is provided for in paragraph 2. The Commission would then consider that and make a decision so that is indeed possible.
United States: If the Secretariat has not even analyzed these texts to understand what their impact would be, I’m at a loss on how we can make an informed decision.
Chair: I would like the United States to rehash- I’m not a native speaker. Could you say in other words what you meant?
United States: What I’m saying is I think repeating what many other delegations have said in the room today that this is not a text that we’ve had a chance to evaluate extensively, discuss with capitals, or have the advice of the experts on the Secretariat as to the impact of this and I think that makes it challenging for us to understand what we are accepting, what the implications of the language could be for significantly expanding the participation of groups or a whole range of other things. So I think its fair to have an authoritative judgement about how this would change what happens in our room.
Chair: So is it that the United States is not ready to join consensus if there should be in adopting the decision?
United States: We were comfortable with the decision as tabled by the EU because we had enough time to understand it. This is not ready.
Chair: I now understand what you mean.
Poland: I would like to ask…if you could ask the distinguished delegate to if could today adopt the text today, if we can see the text on screen. Unless we have to move to the closure of the debate.
Russia: I’d like to recall, and I’ve already mention that this is not some kind of new invention. This is wording taken from Resolution 65/276 of the UN GA so there isn’t anything new in the document in the text.
Chair: So I would like to post the question again. Can I invite the Commission to adopt the decision as seen on the screen?
Pakistan: We’ve been saying that it needs more time. It needs the appropriate forum to discuss this issue in more detail before adopting and we second the opinion shared by the Ambassador of the United States that once the Secretariat has not also assessed the implications of the decision, do you think we need more time to discuss the implications of the decision instead of adopting it in a haste.
Chair: It’s question to members of the Commission. It’s not a question that the Chair can answer because the chair cannot decide for the Commission. I think I’m not going to accept anymore comments. I’m not going to accept because generally- we’ve had two objecting to the adoption and Poland has indicated that it is reverting to the original text. So we put it to a vote. By procedure, if I allow delegations to speak, it’s out of courtesy that I am allowing but I do not intend to drag this matter any further.
Venezuela: All countries should be allowed the right to speak in this matter out of rights, sovereign rights. I was going to make a proposal, made on the common understanding that everybody seems to be working strongly to try to have a consensus agreement before passing into vote, otherwise this is going to be an imposition and not a decision really. I would like to understand on the one hand the urgency for the text when the Secretariat has no correct answers to certain valid questions raised by the countries, my delegation proposal would be- unless the EU and Poland has a very clear explanation on why it’s so urgent to take this decision today, our delegation would like to propose to pass this debate for the regular session in March or in May to allow the countries to have more time and together with the Secretariat to evaluate all the issues at standing and to then to have proper discussions during at this time and then to take a decision by consensus and not by forcing voting.
Chair: I understand Rule 50 of the rules of procedure. Just for us to reflect carefully on what we are doing, I would like to ask Poland if you stand by what you’ve asked me to do.
Poland: Yes I reiterate my previous opinion that we would like to call for a vote now, based on rule 50.
Chair: The representative of Poland…I think by the rules- it’s clear when a delegation calls for a vote, we proceed immediately with that, unless someone would tell me there’s another rule contrary to what the rules are.
Egypt: We seek clarification on what we are going to vote on exactly. Are we going to vote or those who are entitled to vote are going to vote on what is on the screen or another version of the text?Singapore: My question was a similar one. Is Poland calling a vote on the Chair’s proposal or is Poland calling a vote on revision 2?
Chair: I understand what Poland is that we should close the debate and we are voting on whether we are closing the debate and we are voting on whether we should close the debate or not. And after we vote on the closure of the debate, then we vote on their original text that they brought before us.
Russia: Naturally, we could move to a vote but here, its established practice that we base ourselves in consensus. I think it would be premature to move to a vote now. With respect to the concerns that were expressed by the United States, I’d like to cite resolution 65/276 of the UN GA. As I understand, the United States voted in favor of that resolution and it considers this very situation that we are faced with here, that is described in the second operative paragraph. Paragraph 3 of that resolution states “following a request on behalf of a regional organization as it has observer status in the general assembly and whose members have agreed arrangements that allow that organizations’ representatives to speak on behalf of the organization and its member states, the Assembly may adopt modalities for the participation of the regional organizations representatives, such as those set out in the annexed for the present resolution.” In our case, there is no annex but we have existing practice. I think that this resolution was adopted in consensus, there should be no need for a vote. I think we should avoid a vote.
Chair: A delegation has made a motion to close the debate according to rule 50. That is what we now have before us. I intend to proceed according to the rules at this stage.
Poland: Since the compromised proposal hasn’t been officially tabled, we would like to call for a vote for REV-2.
Chair: The representative of Poland has moved within rule 50 of the rules of procedure of the functional Commissions of ECOSOC council, for the closure of debate on decision entitled L9REV2. [reads rule 50]. A simple majority of the Commission members present and voting is required. According to rules of procedure, present and voting means members casting an affirmative or negative vote. The Commission will now proceed to vote to close the debate on L9REV2. I now call only on members of the Commission in favor of the motion to close the debate to raise their country signs and keep them raised until their country name is called out.
Secretariat: Those that are voting in favor: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ghana, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay
Chair: I now call on only members of the commission not in favor of the motion to close the debate to raise their signs.
Secretariat: Singapore, Algeria, India, Indonesia, Russian Federation, China, and Tunisia
Chair: I now request the members of the Commission who are abstaining to raise their country signs.
Secretariat: Thailand and South Africa.
Chair: In respect to closure of the debate on L9REV2 – we had 33 in favor, 7 against, and 2 abstentions. Therefore, the decision is for us to close deliberations on L9REV2.
Russia: I would like to suggest that we invoke rule 64- there was an amendment proposed. We withdrew an amendment from the initial text but then there was a new text that appeared, which was discussed at length today so this new text- I would like to request that it should be ptaced to a vote first and foremost and then we can vote to the resolution as a whole. So let’s really adhere to the rules of procedure.
Chair: The clarification that we would want to have here is whether you are talking about the amended text that was showed on the screen or your amendments.
Russia: No no no I mean the text that was there five minutes ago for the second operative paragraph. That text replaced the initial amendment. We only withdrew it because there was new language of similar content. That is our amendment. I would suggest that we put it to a vote first, please.
Chair: I would need some legal guidance on the rules from the secretariat.
Secretariat: Thank you Mr. Chair. So our understanding is that since we voted to close the debate, there can be no amendments at the moment. However, that amendment was proposed before the motion to the closure and its an oral amendment and if the Commission decides, it can vote because amendments do have precedent to be voted on before the actual proposal. If the Commission agrees, they can vote on the oral amendments as amended. If not- the Russian delegation had proposed amendments. You’re asking for a vote on what was on the screen?
Russia: Yes that’s it. That is our amendment. Nobody has withdrawn it. We withdrew the original text because new language was introduced that we were agreeable to. So we would like to have it on the screen- the text of operative paragraph 2, together with the additional comments or amendments that we had from delegations present in the room. Respective mandates. So please bring that text back onto the screen. We need to vote on that first, it hasn’t evaporated. Then we can vote on the resolution as a whole, without that paragraph.
Chair: I would ask the Commission to give us rules on the guidance after we listen to the United States.
United States: I think our director of Treaty Affairs did in fact read out mind. It’s a procedural issue. It’s a procedural question which was an amendment tabled with this body. There was an amendment to the prior version but our understanding is that that particular amendment was withdrawn. What we were considering earlier today was the Chair’s proposal. It was not formally tabled. We were considering it as a consensus document so in terms of our rules of procedure, the closure of debate limited the opportunity to make further amendments and so now the appropriate thing for us is to conder the REV2 proposed by Poland and no further amendments to that text.
Chair: I will give the floor to the Russian Federation.
Russia: I would like to remind the United States that we are present here at an official session at the Commission. And anything that had been submitted for consideration has been submitted officially. The second paragraph was introduced officially for consideration as an amendment so it needs to be voted on first, or the second option would be to restore the second paragraph and vote on the text as a whole.
Chair: I now give the floor to the Secretariat to give us guidance on the rules.
Secretariat: Of course the Commission may consider amendments and again we closed the debate. The vote was to close the debate so those amendments would have to be provided before the motion to close. Rule 52 does say that amendments will be discussed and put to the vote no earlier than 24 hours after copies have been circulated to all members. I think that’s what the United States has been citing. If the Commission wants to move forward an consider those amendments, they may but we seem to have an objection to that. The United States can clarify. And if we have an object, since those amendments were not provided within 24 hrs and made available to the Commission, we would go immediately to the vote on REV 2.
Chair: My question to the United States I’m not a Native English speaker but I understand English quite a bit. Are you objecting to a vote on the amendments, which we just saw on the screen not too long ago?
U.S.: Chair, our concern is that there was no formal amendment tabled consistent with the rules of procedure. We do have to follow the rules. We have to be specific here and these rules they serve a purpose. They have us a regular process. The amendment that the Russian Federation most recently proposed, could be brought to the Commission in March when we meet, where we would have time to consider it. Presumably we would meet the 24 hour rule and we would have versions in all languages circulated and everybody would have a chance to review it. We don’t need to race or do damage to our rules of procedure. There’s no urgency here. We’ve all recognized that. Let’s all take a deep breath. Let’s deal with the issue in front of us- which is the precise question of the participation of the EU and we can deal with the other issue at another time. And we will follow the regular process that’s set out in our rules of procedure. And Chair, if I can ask for clarification- Did you as the Chair submit this as a formal amendment. That would help us. If we could get clarity on that.
Chair: I think you heard the Russian Federation clearly and that is what I heard as well- that the recommended proposals that were made even though orally deemed to be formal submissions but I would like to proceed with a vote as requested at this time. Any delegation that would like to challenge the process?
Russia: Our amendment was made 24 hours before and the Secretariat can confirm that. In the essence of the thing- OP 2, which we discussed, includes our initial amendment made 24 hours before with the proposed amendments, which appeared during the consultations and discussions, including at this meeting. But that does not change that the amendment was made 10:15 yesterday. Now it is 1 o’clock. The rule of 24 hours has been completely complied with and I would like to request that we put to the vote first and foremost our amendment in the form in which it was just shown on the screen ten minutes ago. I’d like to repeat this amendment was made at 10:15 in the morning yesterday officially. And it was circulated to all members of the Commission, and the Secretariat and the Chair received it. I would like this amendment to be voted on right now in accordance with the rules of procedure.
Chair: I thank the Russian Federation. I would want to understand how you want us to proceed. You want us to vote on REVL10 first. Is that the case?
Russia: Yes. We would like to vote on the text we almost agreed on until the moment fifteen minutes ago when one delegation called it into question.
Mexico: Just for the benefit for everyone to understand- I would like to share what I understand about the situation we’re in. We had a draft decision-resolution submitted by the EU-by Poland. An amendment to that was submitted by the Russian Federation. Thats how we and those two documents complied with the 24 hour rule. You Mr. Chair made an effort to find a solution between to the differences between the amendment and the original draft text. We all witnessed what happened today this morning and in this session. My understanding is that that effort failed. Poland asked for the closure of the debate on that proposal by the Chair- it was voted in favor. The debate on that is closed. So Poland says, “Let’s get back to our original draft text, which is the one we have on the screen.” And the Russian Federation, I think rightly so, “If that is what we’re discussing now, then our amendment is also valid and we can resort to that as well because that is not affected to the closure of the debate that was asked by Poland. That is the way as I understand and I think that if everybody shares that we agree on. Then we should, as the rules establish, vote on the original amendment submitted in writing by the Russian Federation, see what happens with that and then we vote for the rule for resolution. But we are in your hands Mr Chair.
Chair: We will now proceed with a vote on the proposal REVL10. And we will now move onto voting..the Secretariat will read it out for the sake clarity.
Secretariat: So as these written amendments were, as was just confirmed by the ambassador of Mexico, REVL10 were submitted yesterday morning, before the 24hours. The Chair is now calling for a vote first on what is contained in document L10, namely the written amendment to in the OP REV 2, delete the following wording “reserved for extended members of the extended bureau” from the end of the paragraph and after “including for opening marks” add the following “and affirms this practice should apply on an equal basis to other intergovernmental organizations referred to in rule 74 of the rules of procedure of the functional commissions of the economic and social council upon their request, including with regard to opening remarks.”
Chair: We will now proceed to the vote. In accordance with rule 61 of the rules of procedure with the functional commission of ECOSOC, no representative may interrupt the voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process of voting. Let me remind the commission that in accordance with rule 58 of the rules of procedure, of the functional commission of ECOSOC, a simple majority of the commission members present and voting is required. According to rules of procedure, present and voting means members casting an affirmative or negative vote. Members abstaining from voting are considered as not voting. Rule 58 of the rules of procedure of the functional commissions of ECOSOC.
Chair: Members in favor of the amendments to raise their country sign and keep them raised until your name is called out.
Secretary: Russian Federation
Chair: I now call on members of the Commission not in favor of the proposal by raising their signs.
Secretariat: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.
Chair: Of the Commission abstaining, please indicate so by raising up your country sign.
Secretariat: Algeria, Brazil, China, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Qatar, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Tunia, United Republic of Tanzania, and Uruguay.
Chair: There is a total vote of 42 votes: in favor 1 votes against 27 abstentions 14. So it means the Commission has decided not to adopt the amendments. Italy do you want to make an explanation of vote?
Italy: My reading of rule 60 is that the explanation of vote can be made before or after the voting procedure has commenced. We made it very clear from the very beginning that the only and simple reason for the EU and its member states to table this text was to reaffirm the existing practice for the participation of the EU representatives in the two Commissions and the EU ambassador said yesterday- nothing less nothing more. Another very important point for us was to work on reaching consensus. This is why we discussed the draft during informals and we took onboard many views of member states and we came up with REV2. In the final attempt to reach this consensus, the proponent of the decisions- Czechia, Poland and the RF worked on the language and we did it; first of all because we tried to get to common ground with one delegation whose objection last year gave rise to this matter and because the delegation the Russian Federation presented this amendment so we were trying to work on the amendment that we just rejected. Most importantly, we worked on that proposal because we heard the requests from the Russian delegation to give a legal framework but more importantly a political message of equality. Unfortunately today we saw this compromise on these final attempts were not reached but the original proposal from the Russian Federation was not mature in our view and that’s why in our view we voted against this text we have in front of us. I just want to conclude that if the legal framework we wanted to put out there, is not there, at least we wanted to underline and stress and put on the record the political message for the EU, its member states and and Italy most importantly- there no animals more important than others.
South Africa: Thank you Chair I will explain our vote after our vote on the next decision. I skip this one.
Chair: A vote has been requested on draft proposal L9REV2. I will propose that any statements made by members of the commission in explanation of vote as well as general statements will be made after voting. In accordance with rules 61, of the roles of procedure of the functional commission of ECOSOC, no representative may disrupt voting except on a point of order in connection with the actual process of voting. Let me remind the Commission that accordance with rule 58 of the rules of procedure of the functional commission of ECOSOC, a simple majority of the commission members present and voting is required. According to rules of procedure, present and voting means members casting an affirmative or negative vote. Members abstaining from voting are considered as not voting. I now call on only the members of the commission in favor of the adoption of the proposal contained in L9REV2 to raise their country sign and keep them raised until their name is called up.
Secretariat: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Guatemala, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.
Chair: I call on member states not in favor:
Secretariat: Russian Federation
Chair: Abstentions
Secretariat: Algeria, China, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Qatar, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, and United Republic of Tanzania.
Chair: We have a total vote of 44. 31 votes in favor, 1 vote against, 12 abstention. Therefore, I declare that the Commission has decided to adopt the proposal as an L9REV2. Does any member of the Commission wish to make an explanation of vote or statement?
Russia: As the United States has just proved that for Washington, some animals are more equal. No surprise. The United States is famous for [x]. As the same time, we note that the EU has no courage to defend equality in international relations. They are not against but they cannot allow themselves to take a principled position. I must tell you that in accordance with this decision, the EU will have the right to make statements as the opening part of sessions. I agree with it. It must be maintained. But in [x] the existing practice will continue to imply that the EU has no right to be engaged in the drafting process, neither in informal groups, neither in COW and the Russian Federation will continue to demand that the participation of the EU in the Commissions should be limited to oral statements and presentation of proposals on behalf of EU.
South Africa: First of all, we would like to thank the participating countries for tabling this decision and allowing a little bit of a process to make some changes to their draft decision. The process that has been followed. Though in effect and seemingly discriminately, should have been allowed to continue. To give member states enought time to consult further in the interest of ensuring that we revive the spirit of Vienna, the spirit that seems to have evaporated of consensus. We think there’s been bad faith in imposing a decision that could have been postponed to allow further consultations. The amendments made by several counties are genuine and were meant to ensure that we have something that covers the majority of the countries. Already, this practice where the EU is allowed to participate exists and taking this decision in this hasty manner does not really bode well for reviving this Vienna spirit. So chair, we abstain because we think we should have given enough time and space for us to continue to discuss rather than impose such an imperfect decision.
Thailand: Allow me to recognize the contribution the EU and its member states have made in addressing the world drug problem, as well as the great role played by the EU and its member states in the deliberations within the framework of this commission. However, we also believe that the rules of procedures of the ECOSOC functional commissions have already stated clearly, the ways intergovernmental organizations can participate in the work of this Commission. In any attempt to clarify these rules in writing should happen through a careful, open, inclusive, and transparent deliberations as it could set a precedent on how all intergovernmental organizations- not just the EU- to be treated in other ECOSOC subsidiary bodies. To avoid confusion or inconsistency, we see that the best venue for this discussion is the parent of these commissions, which is ECOSOC. I want to thank the sponsors of this decision for having attempted to address various concerns, including some of ours, which arose from the informal consultations. Nonetheless since we believe that this decision should not be taken in a rushed manner, and that more time could be needed for discussion, more [x], and also including in NY, we decided to abstain in the consideration of this decision. We reaffirm our readiness to continue working closely with the EU within this Commission and beyond and expressing our hope that other similar, regional, intergovernmental organizations would be accorded with similar rights should a question regarding their participation ever arise in the future.
India: India fully supports the established practice concerning the participation of the EU in meetings of CND. However here our concern lies in the process and not in the substance of the matter. We believe that the appropriate forum for addressing this issue and making this decision is ECOSOC- the principal body as was the case for the GA and subsidiary body resolved through the GA resolution 65/276 in 2011. With multiple functional commissions in ECOSOC, adopting such decisions separately in functional commissions would set a wrong precedent of conflicting decisions on the decisions of participation of intergovernmental organizations. It is essential to adhere to the rules both in letter and spirit to uphold confidence in the rules in the international order.
Mexico: I want to sit the position of Mexico regarding these two previous votes and there are three considerations. The first one- As many delegations have already expressed, we would have preferred this to have been a decision that was taken in ECOSOC in NY and all-encompassing to all the Commissions, not just the current one and the one meeting in the afternoon. Second is that we also feel that the amendment proposed by Russia was in a certain way legislating and establishing new conditions to the current practice, which is valid but again our position is that this would need to be all encompassing and fairly done within ECOSOC. We voted in favor of the EU’s resolution because we also voted in favor of resolution 65/276 and we didn’t see any inconsistencies between the two documents.
Singapore: Chair- Singapore has no objection to the existing practice with the EU in its capacity as observer…however we remain unconvinced that the decision to reaffirm existing practice should have been brought to the Commission for action. Singapore firmly believes that the ECOSOC council as the principle organ parent of this commission is the appropriate body to consider and decide on the important issue of according rights and privileges to a non state observer entity in the work of ECOSOC and its functional commissions. This is a matter of principle and procedure and of upholding the ECOSOC’s authority and oversight of its functional commissions. As well as respect for the established UN framework and structure. It is for these reasons that Singapore abstained this decision.
China: First of all, we would like to appreciate the Chair in trying to seek the compromise…It’s a pity this issue was put into vote in a matter of haste with so many opinions and views existing and this could have been better addressed if the consultations could continue. So considering these elements, we abstained in vote and we hope that this vote will not constitute another negative precedent in will not [x] to the Vienna spirit of consensus.
Pakistan: Despite the questions and concerns raised by many delegations, the Commission decided to proceed with its adoption. Some questions posed to the Secretariat remained unanswered and it was particularly surprising to hear that the procedure to operationalize the decision would be considered after this adoption. This approach reflects a hasty decision making process that has left ambiguities unresolved. Pakistan reiterates that the formalization of such practice should be addressed in the appropriate forum, mainly the ECOSOC council. This approach ensures consistency across all commissions under ECOSOC and [x] setting precedent and broader implications for the participation of other intergovernmental organizations and regional groups. Pakistan reiterates that this decision, while adopted remains subject review and oversight by ECOSOC, given its nature and its potential implications.
EU: I would like to thank all delegations for their engagement and cooperation. We regret that it was not possible to reach consensus. We thank all delegations for the strong support. We do not seek exclusivity. In our view, other regional organizations in the same positions as us should be able to participate on equal terms. We have shown that we are ready to accept this and we remain ready to do so. As Italy said very eloquently, “All animals are and should be equal.”
Chair: The last time I checked, I’m still a human being and I don’t belong to the animal kingdom. That was a joke. Let us resume agenda item 12. As mentioned earlier, the report will be compiled by myself and the Rapporteur. Furthermore, the reconvened session of the commission will transmit that decision to bring to the attention to the ECOSOC Council. The report will contain a draft decision to this effect for adoption by the ECOSOC Council. Any comments or questions? I see none. It is so decided. Closure of the 67th session of the Commission. Ladies and gentlemen, we have concluded work program for the 67th session of the Commission. Today I have encountered triumph because I come to the end of my tenure as ambassador in Vienna- disaster! Because I have not had my wish. I believe in the Vienna spirit but as Kipling would say- I treat these two imposters triumph and disaster just the same. 7 in the role as Chair in several UN bodies, including the CND, has been an honor. This experience has deepened my belief in the power of multilateralism and the enduring spirit of collaboration that defines this Commission. Together we have succeeded in our efforts in very difficult international political environment. I leave Vienna with memories of our true collective efforts, hard efforts and resilience will triumph over hard times. As I leave Vienna, I urge you to continue fostering the Vienna spirit- a spirit of unity and consensus that has been our greatest strength. It is through this shared commitment that the Commission will remain a beacon of hope and progress to future generations and current generations, ensuring peace, security, and sustainable development for all. Thank you for your trust, collaboration and inspiration. It has been a privilege to serve with you. I thank you.
Russia: Wish you all the best on future endeavors.
South Africa: Wish you all the best on future endeavors.
Chair: I declare the session of the 67th session closed. We now proceed with the opening of the 68th session for the purpose of electing the chair person and bureau of that session. As you may recall, in line with ECOSOC resolution 1999/30 the rules of procedure of the functional commission, the commission should elect at the end of its reconvened session. Today a chair person, three vice chair persons, and a rapporteur for its 68th session. In view of rotation of officers based on regional distribution, the Chairperson of the Commission was to be nominated from amongst members of the commission belonging to the group of Asia and Pacific States. I have the honor to inform the Commission that the Asia-Pacific group has nominated Ambassador Shambru Kumaran of India for the position of chairperson of the 68th session of the Commission. If there are no objections, I propose that the Commission elect Ambassador Kumaran as Chair of the 68th Commission by acclamation. [applause] it is so decided. I was informed that Ambassador Kumaran could not be here in person. I give the floor to the India delegation.
India: It is both a profound honor and responsibility for India to assume the Chair of the CND at its 68th session. We express sincere gratitude to all member states for placing their trust in India to lead this Commission at a time when the global community continues to face complex and evolving challenges in addressing the world drug problem. We approach this responsibility with an unwavering commitment to uphold the spirit of Vienna and spirit rooted in dialogue, multilateralism and shared accountability. This has guided our collective efforts to address the many dimensions of countering the world drug problem…ensuring that policies are firmly grounded in human rights, health, and sustainable development. We pledge to work inclusively, transparently, and in close partnerships with all member states, UN agencies, and other stakeholders to ensure that the Commission remains a platform for consensus building and meaningful progress. As we embark on this journey together, our approach must be guided by a holistic and balanced approach in line with the three international drug control conventions. We should strive to strengthen international cooperation to combat trafficking, abuse of illicit drugs, while addressing emerging challenges, such as proliferation of synthetic drugs, misuse of technology, and evolving trafficking routes. We should promote health center approaches that prioritize prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and reintegration. We must have whole human rights and equity in all aspects of drug control, recognizing the need for tailored responses for vulnerable populations including women, youth, and marginalized communities. We should advance science based solutions to ensure evidence guides our policies, including harnessing new technologies and research. We must remain steadfast in our shared vision of a world free from illicit drugs and its harmful effect while recognizing the sovereignty of each member state and respecting their unique parts in reaching these goal. As shared, India is committed to fostering an environment where every voice is heard and every perspective valued. Let us be reminded that our collective strength lies in our diversity and unity through open dialogue and participation, we can ensure that the commission reflects the aspiration and priorities of all member states and all stakeholders.
Chair: We will now proceed with the other elections. 1st Vice-Chair-position still vacant. 2nd Vice Chair Ambassador Peter Portman of the Netherlands. 3rd Vice Chair Ambassador Permanent Representative of Chile. Rapporteur Mohammed Amin of Morocco. May i propose that if there are no objections that the commission elects the officers by acclamation? [applause] So it is so decided.