Chair CND: Yesterday we considered the consolidated budget for 2026-2027. I understand that there have been informal consultations during which the draft resolution was amended. The amended text of the draft resolution after these informal consultations was circulated via special message on 22nd November and agreed upon by silence procedure on 25th November. May I invite the Commission to adopt the resolution? I see no objection. It is so decided.
Chair CND: Now we move to the FinGov bureau. As already mentioned yesterday, the Commission is expected to endorse this morning the FinGov Bureau for 2026 following the joint nomination by the Bureau of CND and the CCPCJ. I am pleased to recall that the Secretariat has formally received the following nominations, respectively, from the Latin America and Caribbean group for Chair, Permanent Representative of Mexico. From the African group for the post of Vice Chair,, Counselor of the permanent mission of Morocco, who’s done a stellar job as Rapporteur for this session and for the Asia Pacific Group as Vice Chair, second secretary of the permanent mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I now ask the Commission whether it wishes to endorse these nominated candidates as members of the FinGov Bureau for 2026.
United States: As previously stated, the United States objects to the nomination of the second secretary of the permanent mission of Iran for the position of Vice Chair of FinGov. And we therefore call for a vote on his candidacy. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Quds force, both terrorist organizations, enable terror attacks and narcotics trafficking through a network of militant proxies such as Hezbollah, this conduct is fundamentally incompatible with the service on any UNODC body. The Commission must not normalize these destabilizing transgressions by taking actions that could suggest it recognizes Iran as a responsible actor entitled to such leadership roles. Iran’s nomination to FinGov would undermine that body’s very integrity. The United States urges all Commission members to refrain from supporting the Iranian candidate. We ask that our statement be reflected in the report for this meeting.
Chair CND: I understand the United States has reservations on the Asia Pacific candidate. I propose ..
Iran: There is a very well established procedure and practice. I could not understand how a delegation from other region could intervene and decide for a regional group which has more than 40 member states. I know that you have discussed this in the extended Bureau. If I was there, I certainly would have objected to such a decision by the extended Bureau, because we should not set a precedent here. It will put in danger and at stake future practices if you open the gate for this issue. In the future, every country could come to say, I could not accept the decision of a regional group. So putting into question the authority and credibility of the established practice for so many years. Here we are following the rule of law. We are not following the rule of the jungle. So we should be very careful if you decide on that, and I urge all distinguished members to reject that, and if it goes for the secret ballot to vote in favor of the Iranian nomination.
CND Chair: As Iran noted, we have had the occasion to discuss this within the bureau. It is practice that the nominations as forwarded by the regional groups are considered by the Bureau and thereafter forwarded for a final approval, and at this stage, since not all states are present in the bureau, there is no limitation on any country raising issues. In this case, the United States delegation has expressed its disagreement. I intend to proceed as follows. We will first endorse by acclamation the officers whose nomination enjoys support from all members of the Commission, and subsequently hold, in line with the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, a Secret ballot on the candidate that does not enjoy full support.
CND Chair: Chair and First Vice Chair confirmed by acclamation. It is so decided.
Mexico: My delegation would like to request the Secretariat to register Mexico as present, but we will ask not to be given a ballot as we will not be casting a vote. We are clear that the responsibility of this commission is to elect all officials, whether by acclamation or by a vote, we are not losing prerogative, not relinquishing our own responsibilities as a member of this commission. We’re taking this decision solely to respect a decision taken by another regional group, the Asia Pacific Group. Should there be any competition, we would then be choosing the candidate for taste among the different nominees.
Colombia: Colombia asks the same methodology to apply to us.
Chile: We would ask for the same.
Chair: In the interest of time, now, close the floor for the interventions, and we’ll move ahead with the ballot. I ask the Secretariat to inform about the process.
Secretariat: Each of the 53 members of the Commission will be called in the English alphabetical order to come in front where the ballot box is. Itis a plastic box, so please make sure that you fold your paper in four parts so that we cannot see what you have actually put in your ballot. Please, please, please make sure, and then after the last member state has come to cast the vote, the Chair will announce that the ballot is closed, and will announce that the ballot papers are to be counted. Then the tellers and the secretariat will leave the conference room and go to a separate room to conduct the counting. The tellers will open the box and count the number of ballots. Shall verify the number of ballots and then do the counting. And then, once the process is finalized, the secretariat will bring the results back to the chair. The tellers will remain in the counting room until the chair effectively starts with reading out the results, and then you, Mr. Chair, will announce the results and the decision taken from the ballot. This is how the ballot paper looks like once more. This is really in line with what was done for previous occasions where we were in a situation like this and the following guidance from New York.
United Kingdom: I understand that we only have one name, and usually in a vote you have two choices so that you can register which you would prefer. In this case, there is no second choice, and it’s really to ask, given that there’s no additional choice, in order to win this vote, you just need, I guess, one vote in favor. So it seems to me that it’s not really a ballot. So the point of order is, can we through you ask if there’s any Asia Pacific Group member willing to join the ballot so that we may be able to vote for them and have a choice?
CND Chair: That is resolved.
……
….
CND Chair: I think we can close agenda item 5. Now we can move to resume Item 6. Follow-up to the implementation at the national, regional and international levels of all commitments, as reflected in the Ministerial Declaration of 2019, to address and counter the world drug problem.
Thailand: … intend to table a resolution at the 69th session, building on existing guiding principles. …
Morocco: …. Morocco has chosen to respond to the challenges of drug consumption and drug use, integrating prevention, treatment and harm reduction into our national mental health plans. In 2008 we launched a harm reduction plan of action for intravenous drug abuse, including a methadone substitution program. ….
Peru: A pleasure too inform you of developments following the 10th meeting of experts on alternative development that took place in Lima in November this year, organized by the governments of Peru, the Kingdom of Thailand, and the Republic of Germany. This meeting brought together governmental experts, representatives of international organizations, activity, academia, the private sector, as well as representatives of indigenous communities. Thus, consult consolidating its presence as a technical forum with serving as a global benchmark. During the plenary meetings and the thematic workshops, participants were able to examine emerging challenges in the sphere of alternative development. We discussed proposals in order to uphold the guiding principles of the United Nations of 2013 on alternative development, taking into account new environmental, economic and social and criminal realities, the working groups, in turn addressed six priority areas, food security, sustainability, the climate and environment, territorial approaches and non traditional scenarios, innovation and market access, inclusion of women, indigenous communities and vulnerable populations, as well as monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. This encounter included a session for indigenous communities as well as representatives of Peru and Colombia to participate and to speak up, underscoring the importance of ensuring fair access to markets. The expert group reached substantive consensus regarding the need for more inclusive alternative development, respectful of the environment, climate resilient, territorially differentiated and based on the annual long term financing. The conclusions of the encounter are now being subsequently implemented and will be ready for presentation in 2026 to the CND. They will be presented in the form of a conference room paper as well as in a resolution for adoption by members at the 6960 CND, including the proposal for additional guiding principles, these documents will be shared in a timely fashion among Member States.
Germany: We would like to thank the Government of Peru for their hospitality during the 10th expert group meeting on alternative development that took place in Lima, Peru from the fifth to the seventh of November, as just mentioned by our colleague from Peru. We would also like to thank our other long standing partners from the Kingdom of Thailand and UNODC for their continued support in this initiative. Germany is grateful for the growing interest of member states in the topic of alternative development and their contributions to the discussions. We trust that the recommendations as a result of the intense expert group meeting on alternative development will contribute to enrich the United Nations guiding principles on alternative development as a key instrument for the formulation and implementation of and implementation of sustainable development oriented strategies to address drug related challenges.
….
OHCHR: Excellencies, In October this year, the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 60/26 on the human rights implications of drug policy. In the resolution, the Council reaffirms the commitment made by the General Assembly to respecting, protecting and promoting all human rights, fundamental freedoms and the inherent dignity of all individuals and the rule of law in the development and implementation of drug policies. These commitments were also made in the 2019 Ministerial Declaration and the 2024 High Level Declaration. With regard to human rights implications in drug policy, OHCHR remains deeply concerned by the continued application of the death penalty for drug-related offenses. The 2025 annual report of the Secretary General on the question of death penalty, submitted to the Human Rights Council in September this year, a global trend was identified, reflecting a steady increase in known executions for drug offences. In 2024, 615 people were confirmed to have been executed for drug-related offences, amounting around 40 per cent of the global total execution. Unfortunately, this trend continues in 2025. OHCHR recalls that according to the international human rights jurisprudence, the term “most serious crimes” must be read restrictively and applies only to crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing. In this context, OHCHR also would like to refer to the recommendations in the INCB annual reports which encourages all States that retain the death penalty for drug-related offenses to consider abolishing it and commuting death sentences already handed down. OHCHR urges all States that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium with a view to its complete abolition, and at minimum, restrict its application to only the “most serious crimes”, which can never include drug-related offenses as defined under international law. The right to life is the supreme right from which no derogation is permitted, even in situations of armed conflict and other public emergencies that threaten the life of the nation. States should take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people in all circumstances- including in the context of countering drug problem, and whatever the criminal conduct alleged against them. Under international human rights law, the intentional use of lethal force is only permissible as a last resort against individuals who pose an imminent threat to life. While recognising the challenges involved in combating the drug problem, OHCHR urges States to adhere to international law.
Ghana:
Venezuela:
United States:
CND Chair: With that we came to the end of consideration of Item 6. I suggest we put the tellers out of their misery and announce the results of the ballot. Total number: 44. Invalid: 1. Valid: 21. Abstentions: 22. Members present and voting: 21. Majority required was 11. Results: Iran received 21 votes. Candidate obtained necessary majority and elected as vice chair of FinGov. I now request ballot papers be destroyed in the presence of tellers. We will continue with Item 9. Contributions by the Commission to the work of the Economic and Social Council, including follow-up to and review and implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. We considered this yesterday, intend to close. Now move to Item 10. Provisional agenda of 69th session. This was also opened yesterday afternoon. We will first move to dates, format and organizational arrangements. 9-13th March 2026, pre-session on the 7th of March. Reconvened 3-4th December 2026. Any comments? No objections, it is so decided.
To maximize the efficiency with our limited interpretation resources, and in line with this year’s practice, the extended Bureau has recommended during its 10th meeting on 17th November that we conduct the pre session informal consultations in English only. Are there any comments? Thank you. It is so decided. We now move to the deadline for submission of draft resolutions in accordance with the CND decision 55/1, the deadline for submission of draft resolutions is normally one month prior to the commencement of the session. Draft resolutions for the session would thus have to be submitted by Monday 9th, February 2026. I invite all delegations to kindly take note of that. I see no comments. Thank you. It is so decided. Now we move to the provisional agenda.
United States: The United States objects to the language under CND provisional agenda item 9, and urges deletion of the words “including follow up to and review and implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development“. This agenda item should instead reaffirm the CND’s core mandates and priorities. We ask that the Secretary reflect the US objections in the report for this meeting.
Argentina: We want to raise the same objection.
Chair: Thank you to the United States and Argentina. These will be reflected in the report of the meeting. Now we move to Agenda Item 11: other business. This is our last substantive agenda item.
Venezuela: The Delegation of Venezuela wishes to indicate that yesterday, on the 4th of December, following a mandate of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Day Against unilateral coercive measures was commemorated, pursuant to resolution 79/293, adopted on the 16th of June, 2025 with a vote in support of 116 member states in New York. Every fourth of December, the United Nations system will commemorate this important international date in order to raise global awareness regarding the adverse impact of unilateral coercive measures so that states refrain from adopting, enacting or implementing such measures as these are incompatible with international humanitarian law, the Charter of the United Nations, as well as the norms and principles that govern peaceful relations among states. Fourth of December is equally the anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development. There is an intrinsic link between both of these commemorative events, given that unilateral coercive measures are arms of an economic war that can be just as lethal as conventional weapons. There is no political, ideological or any type of justification that can legitimize such actions. My delegation expresses acknowledgement of the courage of the peoples of those countries that are currently the victims suffering as a result of more than 37,000 unilateral coercive measures, which impact the human rights of 28% of the global population, who are affected by the consequences of these illegal and criminal measures. By blocking access to international funding, to technology, to medication and to foods, these illegal measures are placing the productive potential of the countries that are affected, blocking supply chains and strangling investment. We call for the complete, immediate and unconditional lifting of all unilateral coercive measures, and at the same time call upon all member states of the United Nations to refrain from recognizing or implementing such illegal practices, including over compliance. The so called spirit of Vienna, rather than being understood as a practice that is limited to seeking consensus for the purpose of adopting resolutions, political declarations or appointments without a voting process taking place, should rather focus on the fact that at this United Nations Headquarters, this duty station where the Convention on Diplomatic Relations saw the light in 1961, we abide by the mandates of the multilateral bodies that function here in this jurisdiction, in keeping with international law and the aims and principles of The Charter of the United Nations.
Russian Federation: Yesterday, we, for the first time, marked the International Day Against unilateral coercive measures. the position of the Russian Federation on the inadmissibility of the use of unilateral conversive measures remains unchanged. In June of this year, in New York, we adopted GA resolution, 79 293, and this confirmed that the majority of member states reject the practice of imposing unilateral coercive measures. Attempts to distort the world economy using interlateral coercive measures are the result of colonial thinking, which no longer functions in the context of the global market and a multi-polar world order. Additionally, unilateral coercive measures also contradict the spirit of Agenda 2030 whereby no country should be left behind. That slogan is particularly important when it comes to finding collective responses to challenges such as transnational organized crime, the world drug problem, corruption and criminal justice.
United States: I just want to verify that we’re in the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, because we’ve heard a lot of talk of unilateral coercive measures, but also the spirit of Vienna and the need to leave things in New York that are discussed in New York. Sanctions are not typically discussed in the Commission on narcotics drugs, I feel like I need to respond to what our colleagues have just stated. I want to underscore that economic sanctions can be a lawful, legitimate, important, appropriate and effective tool for responding to malign activity and addressing serious threats to peace and security. The United States is not alone in that view or in that practice. Sanctions target behaviors that threaten our national security, global stability and undermine human dignity. Sanctions are not punitive. They are a tool to change behavior. They can be and regularly are removed if the damaging behavior stops. We recently did this in the case of Syria. US sanctions programs are focused on constraining the ability of bad actors to take advantage of our financial system or threaten the United States, our allies and partners or citizens, not on preventing bona fide humanitarian related trade assistance or activities.
Canada: We affirm that our Autonomous Sanctions are legitimate, lawful and sometimes necessary tools of foreign policy. The Autonomous Sanctions we adopt are implemented judiciously and transparently, in full compliance with international law and our respective domestic legal systems. They are not imposed lightly. Rather, they are a part of a broader policy framework that includes diplomacy, political dialogue and cooperation. Autonomous sanctions are a tool used to curb and address serious breaches of the international rules based order, including in cases of systemic corruption, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and widespread human rights violations, they signal that violations of international norms will not be ignored. Impose reputational and financial costs on those responsible and exert pressure to change behavior. Sanctions are not punitive measures for their own sake, but are intended to promote accountability, deter further harm and help restore peace, stability and respect for fundamental rights when other avenues of redress are unavailable or ineffective.
Iran: Chair, fourth of December was identified as the International Day, and we are of the view that international cooperation is a cornerstone of all relevant international conventions. Accordingly, we emphasize the crucial role of UNODC in strengthening and facilitating such cooperation. In this context, we reiterate the importance of addressing the challenges and removing the obstacles that hinders the country’s ability to meet their international obligations in combating illicit driven crime. Among the primary obstacles are unilateral coercive measures which contravene international law and the UN Charter. These measures are further compounded by the politically motivated approach of certain donor countries that channel financial support to select projects and programs. This has resulted in systemic discrimination against several developing countries.
Australia: Australia would just like to reject the description of our Autonomous Sanctions frameworks and those being imposed by a range of other nations as being inconsistent with international law or the UN Charter. Rather, they support the UN mandate to uphold global peace and security. Sanctions are rarely Australia’s first choice, and they are not imposed lightly. They are one of many foreign and economic policy tools available to governments to respond effectively to situations of international concern and support the UN’s mandate on peace and security. They limit access to finance and materials such as weapons and impose financial and reputational costs on targeted individuals, entities, countries or regimes that contravene international laws and norms. Australia’s Autonomous Sanctions are used judiciously to target egregious conduct contrary to widely accepted international standards such as serious human rights violations and nuclear weapons proliferation, they play a vital role in seeking to protect vulnerable populations, prevent further harm and promote accountability by restricting the resources of those who seriously violate international legal norms. Sanctions help deter future abuses and contribute to international security. Our autonomous sanctions do not undermine the UN Charter. They reinforce international law, including the charter’s universal principles, particularly where obstructionism within the UN Security Council means it is increasingly unable to act.
China: Unilateral coercive measures run seriously against the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, severely undermine the fundamental principles of international law, severely breach the basic human rights, such as the right to development and survival and seriously hinders the implementation of The 2030 agenda, and also bring hard impact upon the international order, as well as the global governance system. At present, this issue is yet to be effectively curtailed. Many of the developing countries, as well as peoples in those countries, are impacted seriously by these measures. To oppose these unilateral coercive measures, the United Nations General Assembly adopted dozens of resolutions. We call on a handful of countries to hear the call of the international community to immediately, unconditionally lift all those unilateral coercive measures. As an important member of the Global South, as well as a victim of these unilateral coercive measures, China will be guided by the Global Governance Initiative and work together with all the relevant countries to firmly oppose all those measures, as well as all the hegemonic practices that safeguard the international system, with the United Nations as a core, as well as the international order and to advance to make the system more just and equitable.
United Kingdom: The UK, like Australia and others, reject the false narrative on autonomous sanctions brought today, both in terms of the questions of legality and the questions of impact UK Autonomous Sanctions are lawful, transparent and allow for due process protections and legal challenges. They apply to UK persons and interactions with the UK economy. There is no inconsistency or conflict with the UN Charter UK Autonomous Sanctions are targeted and focused on deterring and disrupting
Cuba: As a number of colleagues have pointed out, yesterday was the commemoration of the International Day Against unilateral coercive measures, an event to uphold international law, the sovereign equality and respect for the charge of the United Nations. Unilateral coercive measures are one of the key obstacles to sustainable development and to the full exercise of human rights, they’re instruments of economic and political repression, intimately punishing entire populations, affecting the well being of millions of people, and undermining international cooperation. There is no legal justification or moral justification for these measures. Cuba fully understands the devastating impact of these policies. More than six decades, the Cuban people have been affected by a trade, financial and economic blockade.
France: I would like to begin by expressing my regret that this discussion is taking place within CND, not the right place for it. But since this discussion has been brought to the table, we would like to also respond that sanctions are an essential tool that’s explicitly provided for by the UN Charter for maintaining international peace and security. They are for the use of the UN Security Council, first and foremost. As a permanent member, France supports their effectiveness. Countries must refrain from putting in place any unilateral measures that are not in conformity with international law, which is not the case of the restricted measures that have been put in place by the EU, which are proportional and balanced. They are balanced in order to ensure that they don’t have undue consequences, and they do not target civilian populations, medical goods and so forth. They are not extraterritorial, and they target European actors. First and foremost, they are in line with international law, and they can be contested within the justice system, I think, all be rapidly reversed, in addition to being in line with The UN Charter, EU restrictive measures are used when the members violate the charter. We regret the instrumentalization by some countries of the concept of unilateral coercive measures. These countries are conflating illicit measures and measures that are in line with the UN Charter, they are seeking to distract from the reasons why these measures are undertaken, in order to mask their own violations of international law. These are the same countries that claim to defend the charter, and which, at the same time, violate international law. We call upon all member states to reject this double language and to uphold the charter.
CND Chair: As you recall, in the opening of the 68th session I proposed we consider to try and prepare a compendium of national experiences, highlighting successful measures. We requested the contributions from the member states to also include contact points, so that if they wish to follow up directly and personally with these practitioners in other countries, they would have an opportunity to do so. I’m therefore very delighted to note that this initiative, as the Chair’s initiative for the 68th session, met with a very positive response. I’m happy to present the Chair’s Initiative – Policy to Practice.
CND Chair: I suggest we move to Item 12, adoption of the report. It is so decided.
….
Chair: Thank you, it is so decided. That was not intended. There is no mood lighting at CND.
Any request for the floor? Perfection does not need any comment. With this, I declare the 68th session closed.
We now proceed with the opening of 69th session and electing the chairperson and bureau. Permanent Representative of Armenia to the United Nations (Vienna), Andranik Hovhannisyan has been nominated as Chair of the 69th session of CND. I suggest we approve by acclamation. I see no objection, it is so decided. Congratulations your excellency. Having seen him in action this year, in sessions of the CoW, I have no doubt he is the right man to guide the Commission. Come to the podium and take your seat.
CND Chair: Well, that was a long handshake. Thank you for the patience and the trust you placed in me.
…