Tuesday Morning Session
PP3
Russia: “in which it was recognised” – delete “the Commission” – It’s standard practice to quaote the name of the document. Otherwise we might send the wrong signal.
US: In compromise “in which Member States recognise”
Chair: PP3 Agreed
PP4
Chair: No comments? Agreed
PP5
Chair: Agreed
PP12
Chair: Agreed
PP13
Chair: Agreed, let’s look at the OPs
OP6
Chair: Agreed?
Russia: Key matter – the scope of this resolution. Each para that mentions precursors and synthetic drugs, we believe this para is on those drugs that are seized or confiscated. In OP6 [and OP11] there is also a ref to these substances – on that note we don’t object to the para, but comment that on the issue of scope, this is not yet resolved. We agree to this para being agreed on the understanding that the issue of drugs seized and confiscated, this will be discussed. We suggest “agreed in COW, pending resolution of the scope”
Chair: Procedure and scope are equally important, but before when I gavelled, you didn’t speak but we made eye contact. Once we agree, we shouldn’t go back – it creates problems and I wouldn’t like to chair the COW this way
Russia: We understand your approach, perhaps we are going through the text too quickly – perhaps it was my mistake that we agreed too quickly. Sometimes we need to go back to paragraphs. This is a fundamental mater for our delegation and we hope to resolve it
Chair: I don’t want to go back to what we’ve agreed to
Australia: I confirm that Russia’s position has sought these references through the document, I apologise to the Russian delegation that we haven’t captured this in this para.
Chair: Are we in agreement that OP6 should be as captured?
Russia: We would like this para to reflect the fact we’re dealing with confiscated/seized substances. We don’t wish to complicate. We consider this resolution as a whole, and therefore will have to return to this aspect when we agree to other key provisions of this resolution. Some aspects require further tweaking.
Chair: You are communicating that it is not agreed – whether it is or not, or whether it’s a single para or a whole package. You are telling me that this is agreed subject to other provisions of he resolution?
Russia: This para is not agreed. We don’t think it depends on resolving other issues in this document. It’s important that the main focus is on the substances that are confiscated or seized. We understand that there are other views. We hope we an find a compromise but we can’t agree to OP6 as it currently stands. However we agree with the concept of the para.
Chair: This is the platform to have constructive discussions. If there are constructive comments, I would prefer them.
Australia: This issue arises in multiple paras – it needs to be considered in multiple paras, we would like to do this in informals.
Chair: OP6 has not been agreed, move to OP11
Chair: Are there any other comments on OP1alt?
Mexico: Trying to impose a limitation on only seized and confiscated.. bearing in mind that the UNODC Synthetic Strategy doesn’t making reference to this, the strategy recognises the emerging threat of substances.
USA: I believe the Russian delegate had a reservation on “and other relevant personnel” – not a deletion. Please leave it for us for informals.
Russia: We will do our best to arrive at consensus -thank you Mexico for comment on UNODC Synthetic Drug Strategy. We don’t think we need to include this in this para, it is superfluous. Our proposal is to start with the text “bearing in mind”
France: For us, with Mexico, it’s very important to keep as broad a scope to the personnel relevant to this para. We must keep the test “and response” and “and other relevant personnel” which may belong to different national organisations.
Chair: Russia – why do you not want this to be expanded to cover other relevant personnel?
Russia: We’re not ruling out measure to protect other personnel, but we believe that as the commission we should be primarily protecting law enforcement. IF we delete the reference to the front line, I believe the para will lose it’s significance. We support the language from the sponsors and hope this could be captured here. We understand the views of other states. We believe there is a link between other paras, once we have a better undemanding of the package perhaps we will find agreement.
Chair: I refuse to move on here – this is a matter of language. If the emphasis is on frontline drug control personnel, the emphasis should be able to do that, but include a broader scrape.
Finland: We understand the US suggestion well – it’s also the lab and other personnel. In the para it already says, “in accordance with domestic law” – so it’s doesn’t force anyone to broaden the scope too much. We would like to keep the ref to the UNODC synthetic Drug Strategy. Since it is “bearing in mind”, it doesn’t need to be followed word for word.
Mexico: We could say “safety of all persons, starting with those on the front line…”. We also want to keep the mention of the strategy but won’t insist on this in every para
Australia: We included the ref to the UNODC Synthetic Drug Strategy as sphere 4 encourages the adoption of national chemical disposal plans, however the use of the term ‘practical procedures’ was suggested in informals, and to find consensus, we agreed with this.
Chair: Finland made some comments that should resonate in our thinking.
Russia: We’d like to propose “the safety of persons, paying special attention to those on the front line” – we have some issues with the addition by the EU and Netherlands regarding “and response”. Considering the importance based in this resolution, we will not object to the inclusion of the SDS in this para.
Chair: I want to understand why you have difficulties with including “other relevant personnel” – does this create discomfort?
Russia: We have no issue with mentioning other personnel, but we want to ensure particular attention should be paid to law enforcement. If this is acceptable to other delegations we can keep other relevant personnel in this para.
USA: We can be flexible and highlight those on the front line, perhaps “in particular” those on the frontline, but also retain “and response” and “other relevant personnel”
EU: “and response” was our suggestion – here we’re speaking to those on the frontline, and therefore we need to include “and response”. Russia are happy for us to keep this in other paras, we believe it should come in here, as first responders are also working on the frontline.
Chair: Is the UK here? Ordinarily in the Queen’s language, you say “in particular” following the thing you are putting a focus on. If you’re talking about all persons, you also have relevant personnel as your key focus, as those you want to be taken care of the most. Would that be okay for the Russian Federation?
Russia: Before we comment on the last proposal, I’d like to ask for confirmation from the main sponsor that if we agree to this para, we won’t move onto OP3alt?
Australia: No, that is not the case. The scope is dealt with in OP1alt, OP3alt – could we say – “as well as” other personnel
Russia: “As well as” is acceptable to us, we thank Australia for this proposal. We’d like to return to “especially” – we will cover other personnel in other paras. We think in this para, we should focus on law enforcement and their significance. IN relation to other paras, we can be more flexible.
Chair: Can the room agree on this para as it stands, with the acceptance of “seized and confiscated”? Agreed, pending this text
OP3alt
Chair: Any comments?
Russia: We can agree to this text if the issue of scope of seizure and confiscated can be discussed later.
Chair: Is there anything on scope in this para that gives you some allergy? We have already had this discussion, I am confused as to why this is relevant to this para.
Russia: We believe we should give states very precise instructions. We understand that this para is focused on law enforcement. We suggest we include: “especially during and after seizure or confiscation” to this para. Perhaps their work doesn’t relate to confiscation and seizure.
Chair: Do I understand that you agree to everything except what you added now?
Australia: We can agree to this para as it stands, including the addition of Russia, as this para is very specific to alw enforcement, but we still need to have this discussion for the rest of the resolution – this should not set a precedence
Chair: Thank you – is it “making the best use” or “utilising”
Australia: We prefer “making the best use”
USA: We prefer “making use of” – “best use” is subjective
Chair: Can the room agree to this? Agreed.
OP1alt
Chair: By agreeing to this, do we confirm we delete OP1? Yes, agreed.
OP3
Chair: Any comments?
Australia: I suggest we turn our attention to OP3alt bis, as this is paired with OP3
OP3alt bis
Australia: We suggest, as per the previous para, we use “making use of”
Chair: “other relevant personnel” or “personnel working in related public services”
Australia: We originally use “other relevant personnel” but the focus here is on personnel in public health, not law enforcement
[]
USA: Could we say, “relevant personnel, including” – as other paras are in reference to law enforcement
Russia: We think it is important to include the reference to public services. Our suggestion: “public services including health service providers…” we suggest deleting “others” as this is too vague. We are happy with the rest of the para.
Australia: We’re happy with this para now – noting the Netherlands intervention, public services can be provided by public servant, or private providers contracted to provide public services.
Chair: The language starts with “in accordance with domestic law”. Do we agree on the para as it is now? I understand we are in agreement. Are we taking out “other substances”
Australia: We propose you leave “other substances”. Perhaps we have “providing related public services” to include sub-contractors.
Russia: The last proposal by Australia – we can agree to this.
Chair: I see no other objections. Agreed.
Thursday Morning
Australia: We had two informals yesterday – the spirit of cooperation was there. We continued discussions on personnel in the first informal, and then spoke about limiting the scope to chemicals only. References to Interpol and the INCB. There are 7 paras that remain open as relevant countries were not able to be present.
NZ: It’s a beautiful day outside, but we’re happy to be here in the COW. NZ would like to cosponsor this res.
PP8
Chair: Agreed
PP8bis
Chair: Any comments? Agreed
PP8ter
Chair: Any objection? Agreed
PP11
Chair: Any objections? Agreed
PP12bis
Chair: Any comments/objections? Agreed
OP1
Chair: Any comments? Agreed
OP2
Chair: Any comments? Agreed
OP6
Chair: Any comments? Agreed
OP6bis
Chair: Any comments? Agreed
OP7
Chair: Any objections? Agreed
OP7bis
Chair: Any objections? Agreed
OP10
US: There should be a comma after drugs in the 5th line
OP12
Chair: Any objections? Agreed
PP10
Venezuela: Thank you Mr Chair and Colleagues. I would like to thank Australia for keeping our reservation here. I think we can now remove it and I agree with the text because it is already covered in another part of the paragraph. Thank you so much.
Chair: I thank Venezuela, any other comments? I see none, can we agree? PP10 agreed.
PP7
Chair: China you have changed position. I would have preferred you to be very close to me, but I can see you clearly.
China: We just changed our seats temporarily. We were hoping to add drugs which have been seized and confiscated – to add in this paragraph. Referring to the second line, so this is consistent with the rest of the para. The entire resolution is about substances which have been confiscated.
Iran: Thank you Chair, it’s a good PP but I prefer to note that, to delete ‘with concern’ because it’s a descriptive para that shows a fact that in some case that might have detrimental and long lasting effect on the environment – which is obvious, so there is no need to mention that it is with concern
Australia: Thank you Mr. Chair. With regard to the suggestion by the distinguished delegate from China. I just note that that is already included in the reference to those which are encountered in drug control efforts. And in this discussion that we had in the informal – we took a flexible approach on the wording and we adjusted it and use slightly different wording in each paragraph as to whether it needed to be really tight or could be a bit more flexible or a bit broader. So in this sense, we chose a slightly broader reference, than purely seized and confiscated. Thank you, Chair.
UK: Thank you Mr. Chair, this just repeats that it’s already been covered.
Chair: I thank the UK, i give the floor back to China. Are you comfortable with that explanation?
China: We will need a minute please to discuss
Chair: After the PP1 outcome, i will come back to China with some answers, thank you. PP1 any comments in the room? Do we keep that paragraph? Australia do you have any proposal on that paragraph?
Australia: Mr Chair, maybe you could consider the deletion of non medical use first? And then work from that upwards. Then we can work on the issue of the world drug problem after that
Chair: Any comments from the room on the proposal made by Australia? Do I give you some more time, do we accept that?
Iran: Thank you Chair, just PP1, the paragraph is good, but in case keeping the word drug problem in particular, because it has a message, because the term problem continues to consider the serious threat to public health and safety, not just the part of. But if you delete the word drug problem, the message would change. In previous documents the word drug problems has a serious threat to public health and safety.
USA: Thankyou Chair in this cleaned up text we would propose to leading the insertion of ‘for non medical use’ in the second and third line. The reality is that these substances these chemicals can be hazardous to health, regardless of their end use, whether it’s medical, scientific, which would be considered a non medical use, or anything else and so it’s not relevant to the purposes of this resolution, which is just asking that they be safely handled and disposed of, regardless of the use. Thank you
Brazil: The drug problem is a very important concept. And although we have been trying to, we have been defending the need to keep this dimension. We recognise the usefulness of having a focused resolution, and we would have no problem in deleting the world drug problem here in PP1, but we would need to keep the concept down in the PPs as it is in the resolution.
Chair: I give the floor to the Russian Federation. You no longer want the floor?
Russia: Mr Chair, would like to support the proposal to delete ‘for non medical use’.
EU: Thank you Mr Chairman, and good morning colleagues.We’re all aware that the ‘world drug problem’ text is a recurrent problem. And we think it’s absolutely not needed to refer to here and the proposal by the chair is an elegant solution, to simply delete it here so that we can move on. And so we think that this is the way forward here, and we won’t need to open the debate. At this point. and we do realise the concerns that were voiced by the distinguished colleague from Brazil. So obviously, in another instance this might make sense but here also the context does not warrant that mentioned it’s not something that is needed here. So please, I would ask you to, to delete or bracket these words again, thank you.
Venezuela: The opposite of what was said, in this paragraph it is important to keep the term world drug problem, because if we open up the resolution we refer to the harm, and the security and safety of humanity, that’s a very comprehensive concept. And perhaps we could evaluate that in other paragraphs but we would prefer to keep the world drug problem here and in other paragraphs, we can go into more detail about what we mean. But the damage to humanity is caused by the world drug problem. It’s not just a question of synthetic drugs, it’s a question of the world drug problem that can have an impact on the whole of humanity, and that’s why we would like to keep it thank you
Chair: I give the floor to Australia
Australia: Thank you Mr Chair. Firstly I was going to ask for retention of the significant dangers posed by I see no need to remove that reference. And I just want to explain my chairs proposal which was to drop the reference to the world drug problem here. There are three references in the document. There is a reference here in PP3 as part of the agreement. And there is also a reference in PP6 so I think we can drop it here. I see no need for a general reference because we go straight into the particular problem which is the significant dangers posed by illicit manufacturing trafficking. so it is redundant in a way to have this general reference and then a particular reference and it is politicised and this is it has been politicised in this meeting. Unfortunately, this is a technical resolution. Let’s keep it technical. Thank you.
Chair: I give the floor to Iran, to be followed Russia, China, Czech Republic and followed by Venezuela.
Iran: The term world drug problem is a package. Cultivation, production trafficking all pose a serious threat to public health. Not just that, that’s just a small part of it, it’s about trafficking synthetic drugs so keeping the broad term drug problem is very important and a key issue for us, so please keep it. Thank you.
Chair: I keep the floor to the Russia Federation.
Russian Federation: We cannot accept the argument to the effect that discussions on this matter have become politicised. We need to leave the mention of the world drug problem. Quite the contrary, we believe that we must adhere to the obligations that we assumed by agreeing on documents within the commission, including the 2019 ministerial declaration and within the framework of resolution. We should not be revising obligations. Furthermore, we would like to note this paragraph, and its initial wording. Wording copy of a paragraph from a previous resolution on a similar topic. It was agreed upon language, which was slightly modified or amended. By this stage we are not ready to delete the mention of the world drug problem. Thank you.
Chair: I give the floor to Czech republic
Czech Republic: Thank you for giving me the floor. Let me express our full support to the chair of the informal centre proponent of this resolution by Australia. With that we also think that the resolution is technical and it’s limited. It’s concentrated on safe handling of synthetic drugs and other chemical, so we don’t see that we should start with the first paragraph, as we think about the world rec programmes since we don’t need to start every resolution with this. Thankyou.
Chair: I give the floor to China.
China: Firstly I would like to read reiterate our position that we supported to return the term the world drug problem, because it is more comprehensive, And because I think the dangers posed by the illicit manufacturer and trafficking in synthetic drugs is only part of the world drug problem, therefore we support to keep this term. Secondly, we have checked the whole draft resolution and we find that around the world, the drug problem has been mentioned three times. In addition to PP1, the second time is PP3, which is the name of a political declaration and plan of action, not just the pure issue of the world drug problem. The next is in PP6, where it is in relation to the SDG. Therefore we dont believe that we should delete the world drug problem in PP1 because we have mention it in the other two.
Chair: I give the floor to Venezuela
Venezuela: I apologise for taking the floor again. I would just like to respond. It doesn’t matter how many times we refer to the world drug problem. It’s more important to have that link with the rest of the text in this specific case. We’re talking about the well-being of humanity. What does that mean, do we mean that the availability of chemical substances is harmful? So in this particular paragraph, we have to keep the term, the world drug problem. So I wanted to say that the number of times it appears is irrelevant to us; it has to be where it needs to be. And this is not a political issue, even if it would be our right to keep it in. This is a question of definitions. This is a global problem that has an impact on the whole of humanity, so therefore it is impossible to remove that term, that concept from this paragraph. Thank you.
Chair: I would like to advise that we find a way of solving the tension between whether or not to keep it. I’ve heard both sides and I do not think a repetition of the arguments on whether or not it should be there is necessary. What’s important is to navigate the problems before us and so I would ask that further speakers address how to navigate the issue.
Chair: I give the floor to Brazil, to be followed the Netherlands
Brazil: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I think it’s important to mention some context here. What we see is an attempt to lessen the world drug problem across the board in many solutions in different stances, and exactly because this is a technical resolution. We should not be discussing a term that has been used for a decade now and that is well understood. And we may come to discuss this when we get to a specific discussion so that this term is very important, and I would, as a suggestion to our colleagues say that we should not be discussing that the politicisation is to take out or to change this term, is not to keep the term. We also need to keep the record straight. So there are some attempts to it take out, and to change something that has been used for a long time without having the proper discussion on why it has changed from world drug problem, to something we don’t know. I will rest our colleagues to stick to a grid language until we have this discussion that we will be very willing to take.
Chair: I give the floor to the Netherlands:
Netherlands: I don’t want to repeat as you requested the arguments I, I want to say that we do agree to your proposal, Mr Chair, to delete it in this paragraph, as well as proposal by the sponsor of the resolution. So we’ve had great progress this morning. That’s good news. I think we are in a phase where we try to find compromises. So my proposal would be to continue discussing the other paragraphs, where this term is proposed and to try and find a solution. In conjunction with those paragraphs, and to keep it now, between brackets, maybe, to have it as a package. Thank you.
Chair: I give the floor to Finland:
Finland: Thank you, Chair and good morning to you all. Well, as the Chair said, we tried to find compromises here. And of course, like even the distinguished colleague from Russia said that this is modified text as it is already it’s not a reference to a certain document. So as we are here in the commission, usually we are improving our work and we are adapting to new realities as it’s very much in this resolution. Also, this is a new thing the dispose of all of the aspects of it. So I would like to go with the proposal of the sponsor of deleting it in this way, not to politicise this this very first first paragraph. On the other hand, of course we can I can go with the suggestion of the colleague from the Netherlands, but then also adding all aspects of the world drug problem, because it is very much on there, but I know that they won’t slide on this. But I would also suggest that we would keep this first as in the technical resolutio, and since this is already modified texts, we could go without mentioning the problem.
Chair: I give the floor to the USA
USA: Thank you chair. We’ve listened intently to the various positions that have been put forward. We agree that this is a technical resolution that is focused on a narrow aspect of the world drug problem, but we’re sympathetic to the concern that some delegations would like to start with a very broad reference and then narrow it down from there. In that regard, we have a proposal for a PP1alt, that we hope could garner consensus and it follows the goal of starting with something very broad, the broadest possible elements that we can in this commission and then narrowing down. I’ll read it at dictation speed, recognizing all aspects of the world drug problem. Continue to constitute serious threats to public health and safety and to the well being of humanity, and in particular, recognising the significant danger posed by the illicit manufacture of and trafficking in synthetic drugs including NPS, synthetic opioids and amphetamine type stimulants. Essentially what we’ve done here, just to be very transparent, is changed the order of the paragraph, as we’ve heard some delegations expressed that the whole world drug problem can constitute this serious threat. It’s not just this one aspect, so we’ve lifted that element up. We’ve used language that we have used in the past referring to all aspects of the world drug problem, again, starting as broadly as we possibly can recognising all aspects constituted, then narrowing down onto the piece, the elements of the world drug problem that is of particular relevance to this resolution. Thank you.
Chair: Are we comfortable with PP1 alt? For the second time I give the floor to the Russian Federation, to make it better for
Russia: Thank you Chair. We are grateful for this attempt to introduce a new proposal for this paragraph. However, firstly, we’d like to say that we will need a bit of time. Secondly, you wish to stress that we do not like all aspects of the drug problem . we do not think that this language however is appropriate here. And therefore, in closing, I’d like to say we will require a bit more time to study this paragraph on the understanding that the wording, all problem is not go along with
Chair: I ask that we freeze this issue now, i wouldn’t use going into discussions for that.
(…)
Chair: We are looking now at PP1alt, so striking put PP1.
Brazil: We support the US recommendation.
Chair: We have similar issues in PP6 so let us move to PP9.
PP7
China: In supporting your work we can be flexible.
Chair: No objections, so PP7 is agreed?
US: We can see this has changed from “noting with concern” to “noting”, in breach of usual UN policy on wording. More appropriate would be “bearing in mind”.
Iran: “Noting” is better for us, but in the interest of consensus we can accept this.
Chair: Are there any objections to the text as is on the screen?
Agreed
PP9
Iran: This intervention in relation to PP1, the new suggestion of PP1alt and can delete this all but need to otherwise consult capital.
Chair: Any comments on PP9?
US: We thank Mexico for offering additional language from the 2014 ministerial statement. Would like to see a full recollection of language as it continues after “critical partner” it reads “in preventing diversion of precursor chemicals and assisting in identification of suspicious transactions of non-scheduled substances” then continues as is on the screen.
Iran: We would propose making another paragraph to make this more concise but have no problem with the proposal from the US.
Russia: We would like to come back to this paragraph later to give us time to verify source of the proposed language
Chair: We have already verified that the source is authentic, since we have other things to do and time is limited, I plead with Russia to revert on this matter as we have to deal with PP6 and have other matters to handle. I will give you some time to verify this but let’s move on.
Russia: Everything that relates to the INCB is of utmost importance for us, so this is why we asked for time to cross-check.
Australia: We have no problem with the proposed addition but question the inclusion of “amongst others” as it does not make much sense and is redundant here.
Chair: We will continue to wait on Russia so that we can conclude issues on PP9
Russia: We propose to replace beginning of sentence-
Chair: My question is on PP9, your intervention is on PP9bis. I am asking if PP9 is okay with you.
Russia: We agree to PP9
Chair: Any objections to PP9?
Agreed
PP9bis
Russia: We want to replace “bearing in mind” with “recalling” and agree with deletion of “among others”.
China: We still need some time for internal consultation on PP9bis.
Chair: We have limited time but will pause to wait on China.
US: Small editorial correction, the comma in the third line is not in the source text and should not be on the screen.
Chair: To optimize the use of time we will move to OP9.
OP9
Canada: We can remove our reservation on OP9.
Chair: Are there any objections with the Russian proposal to include “in close consultation”?
Finland: We are not comfortable with this thinking, it is a bit restrictive of their work if they always have to consult us very closely.
France: We agree with Finland and can’t support the Russian proposal to condition UNODC’s interaction with UN member states.
EU: Likewise, we do not see any reason to limit UNODC in its research function. This would not be practical or desirable to only be able to do this in close consultation with member states.
Pakistan: We do support this addition by the Russian delegate and we would like for the phrase to be reinstated.
Venezuela: We too support the term proposed by Russia as it is a necessary practice and it is good to make this explicit.
Russia: Don’t believe this will limit the UNODC and often use this phrasing in research activities of the office. Consultations with states does not mean that states would approve the ultimate product of the UNODC, in fact the UNODC would be better able to send its request to all states in terms of collection of information. This would create a firm basis for research. We would be at risk of depriving the UNODC of such an opportunity and sources used by the UNODC might be contentious if the information is not provided by states, so states may take issues with some sources. The methodology for carrying out research is clear and in keeping with our addition.
Chair: I thank the Russian Federation. At this point as I’ve always said, we all know the position in the room, the two sides. I do not want to hear arguments for and against and certain and so one. you look at that in session, you will realise that in close consultation is the as appropriate the inputs of member states and so on… So I only need language now that would make us all comfortable. So if you have a language that would bring us close to reaching an agreement, speak, even though you have the right to speak and say anything. But then, the focus of deliberations at this current time is for us to reach consensus on the matter. And so I will give the floor to the USA.
USA: Thank you chair, we are very grateful to your efforts to move us forward and we are happy to propose a textual suggestion that may work. I would just like to note that we’ve looked through various resolutions and we’ve been unable to find any language and an operative paragraph that calls for UNODC to take action in close consultation with member states. So, if there is a precedent for that we’ve been unable to find it and we would appreciate being pointed in the right direction. That being said, we see there are two mentions of member states here and if I may recall the informals yesterday they were alternatives to one another, that it was either in close consultation with member states, or taking into consideration the inputs of member states. We understand that it’s important for some delegations to elevate the inputs from member states above the rest of the stakeholders that are in that list and we’re sensitive to that. So as our tax proposal would be, instead of in close consultation with member states, it is guided by information provided by member states, and taking into consideration as appropriate the inputs of other relevant UN agencies, etc.
Chair: I give the floor to Iran
Iran: Thank you chair just we believe. first of all, we support the addition made by a distinguished colleague from the Russian delegation, and we believe this is a complementary because it’s a technical process, and the UNODC, maybe both just with special but the government has a general view on the issue and so it can be complementary and approved to promote the process. please add at the end – to the relevant national authority – because it’s the relevant national authorities that promote the mechanisms.
Chair: I thank Iran, but have a couple of questions for you. The text has been modified a little by the USA, is that okay with you?
Iran: No, just the preferred edit made by the Russian delegation.
Russian Federation: The UNODC is not an independent research institute. It is part of the UN Secretariat, therefore must closely cooperate with member states in the preparation of reports. And in consultations we have the view that our addition is more than justified and reflects the objective reality of how you need to see carried out research. We’re not proposing anything new here, this is what is already happening. Furthermore, we understand that we have to advance and contribute constructively, but we are in a negotiation process. We need to understand the context in which this is happening. The context of our proposal is that initially we preferred to delete the list of all stakeholders referred to in the paragraph, that was our initial stance. We thought that this did not relate to the research activities carried out. Therefore, our proposal is already a compromise. We acknowledge that the office can approach other sources other than the official information provided by States in particular, wherever information needs to be supplemented for whatever reason. But at this stage, we would like to restate our opposition. We’re not offering anything novel here. Thank you.
Chair: I give the floor to Finland
Finland: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really understand your position here. And I was wondering whether we because we are in the other LPs we are already encouraging. I mean, we are giving tasks to the UNODC. So I was wondering whether it’s needed here at all. So could this op be on encouraging Member States until they’re as appropriate And then full stop and just delete the rest and then the other OPs we are already referring to, referring to things that the UNODC is doing and providing and of course I’m looking at the UNODC colleague there that will I then destroy something that is important to them. Of course I don’t want to do that. but I would just give this as a consideration that it could be only about the member states. And of course, also the sponsors of the resolution. Thank you.
Chair: I give the floor to Pakistan
Pakistan: I was just suggesting in place of “consultation”, the word “coordination” if that helps bring about the consensus. Thank you.
Chair: I give the floor to Australia
Australia: I wanted to comment about the Iranian addition at the end to relevant national authorities. That does not match with the start of the first line in the paragraph, where we’re encouraging member states, industry, and academia. Those actors should not be required to report to relevant national authorities. Thank you
Chair: Want us to move in coherent fashion and deal with issues one after the other. Do we shorten the paragraph and stop at “as appropriate” or do we maintain everything and use “coordination” rather than in consultation.
EU: Waiting for Australian intervention but if you are asking me now I would propose to shorten the paragraph.
Iran: We wanted to provide some logic, but we also support shortening the paragraph.
US: We would propose “close cooperation” as an alternative but room is moving towards shortening the paragraph.
Chair: We have two proposals – shorten the paragraph or say “in close cooperation”. I don’t want anyone to open up this matter further.
UK: We are prepared to accept shortening of the paragraph but would like to add “civil society” after “academia” in the shortened version.
Australia: We support deletion of the second half of the paragraph as it does not relate to the actual subject of the resolution.
Russia: We can accept the shortened version of the paragraph.
China: We support shortening the paragraph but we wish to return to the original text, we do not agree to add “and civil society”.
Chair: I would appeal that we have a compromise on this issue, we are almost reaching consensus.
UK: It is important for us that we hear views from a wide group of stakeholders otherwise we may miss some important information.
US: We would also prefer to keep civil society referenced here, perhaps moving the caveat of “as appropriate” to after civil society will provide flexibility to include or not include civil society here.
Chair: How can civil society help in this particular regard? Perhaps this would make it easy for us to reach an agreement.
China: Our preference would be to not mention civil society, in China academia can do some research- (Chair interrupted Chinese delegate)… we can show flexibility to go along with this.
Iran: We don’t understand the role of civil society in this issue so can’t agree with keeping civil society in the text.
Chair: Would you accept the caveat as a compromise?
Iran: I don’t see any logic to adding civil society, this issue is for academia, laboratories, but not civil society. We can’t agree with adding civil society in this paragraph.
Venezuela: We have the same question as you, and we haven’t heard any answers. We would prefer not to have it, we understood it elsewhere although it still caused issues, but in this paragraph we can’t understand.
UK: For us civil society is a broad term, not just sort of agitators or protesters but people who have a wide view on issues on the ground. Including science, including youth, it is important for us to hear their voices about illicit manufacturing and safe handling because there are situations where it is not just law enforcement dealing with this safe handling.
Pakistan: I would probably add “relevant stakeholders” after “member states”.
Mexico: Perhaps a solution could be, instead of civil society, to say “other relevant actors”. From our point of view this paragraph could attract funds from other relevant actors which we are not currently thinking about. We want more resources for research.
Netherlands: We would also suggest “relevant actors”.
Finland: Colleagues from the UK put the role of civil society actors very eloquently. We would like to include “including civil society”, as in Finland we have civil society undertaking research so we would want to help them improve the methods available to them and improve on best practices.
US: We can be flexible with the language.
Chair: Do we insert “other relevant actors” or “other relevant stakeholders”?
Germany: We would prefer “actors” as it includes all persons, societies, bodies etc.
Chair: Do we agree on “other relevant actors”.
Iran: We can only consider stakeholders without any addition.
Venezuela: We agree with Iran, with or without “as appropriate”. All relevant actors includes everyone needed.
China: Firstly, we support the comment that we can return to member states and relevant stakeholders without further specification. We prefer to keep “as appropriate”. In China, some stakeholders are unable to take on such research so we should keep as appropriate to keep in respect with domestic laws.
Chair: Do we agree with the text on screen?
Agreed.
Chair: China by now I believe the capital has reached you. Could you feed us information so we can proceed with the consideration of the outstanding paragraph? China PP9bis, we need your concurrence to reach agreement and before you speak i want to thank you
China: We hope to delete this PP9bis, because what is mentioned is not relevant to the theme of the safe disposal and handling of synthetic drugs, which is irrelevant, so we would like to delete it.
Chair: Do we agree to the proposal to delete and proceed, I give the floor to the USA.
USA: Thank you Chair we can’t agree to the proposal to delete this was previously attached to PP9 and it made sense in that context to keep it, having agreed to move it into a separate paragraph. We recognise that it does create a little bit of a distance, but it is still a very important paragraph that is highly relevant to the scope of this resolution and we feel it’s necessary to keep it.
Chair: Are there any comments from other delegations?
Mexico: For Mexico it is truly important to take into account the role of industry and for us to work with the private sector.
Chair: China can you be flexible as always?
China: According to the instructions we have received, we must not remove this paragraph, which must not be returned here.
Chair: China, can you go back to the capital to reconsider? I would like the flexibility of all of you to make progress. China, what is your discomfort with PP9bis?
China: That is such the prevention of diversion and trading or transactions which has nothing to do with the theme of this resolution. That is the reason.
Finland: I don’t feel so strongly about this para, but I understand our colleagues who do. I was just wondering if it would help our distinguished colleague from China that we actually talk about the INCB in the OPs and it’s actually customary to have some reference also to the INCB in the PP. And of course yet again, I understand the worry about certain words, but these are agreed language from 2014 and yet it’s customary to refer to the whole para not just if we are referring to the document, So therefore, it’s hard to delete some words out of it.
Chair: Any more comments? Is there any delegation that can be constructive in language and provide us with language that would make us kill this war? I give the floor to the USA.
USA: Thank you chair. In this paragraph our suggestion was to accurately reflect the commitment that has been made. We don’t feel that it’s appropriate for the commission to be modifying commitments when we’re recalling them but in this instance, what is important for this resolution is the concept of industry as a critical partner. And that’s what we want to retain and it’s highly relevant to this resolution. So we prefer to leave the commitments that we’ve all made to each other intact, but recognising that some delegations have discomfort with this language from 2014. We could display some flexibility in creating a shorter paragraph that maintains the concept of industry as a critical partner. but we just want to be aware that that does, in a way, misrepresent the commitment, and we’re very cautious of doing that. It’s important for us to retain this paragraph, and if what’s necessary is to maintain a little bit of ambiguity as to what the commitment actually was. We can do so, but we are not comfortable with it, but we can be flexible.
China: We accept of course what has been said in the 2014 statements, However, it is of little relevance to this resolution. Therefore, it is not necessary to place this para in this resolution, thank you.
Chair: I do understand that even with the modification you oppose to keep in that paragraph, the paragraph in the resolution, China?
China: Yes
Chair: I give the floor to the USA
USA: We are prepared to show additional flexibility here in actually deleting from “in order” to the end of the paragraph, that part is not particularly relevant to the safe handling and disposal. But the concept of industry as a critical partner is, and we need to retain that and we would, we would ask for the indulgence of the Chinese delegation to acknowledge the relevance of this and allow us to keep this paragraph in. Thank you.
Chair: China we are back seeking your views on this, the new flexibility and language. Do you agree that we keep the paragraph as further modified and shown on the screen?
China: We believe that the industry are not partners in this process. Therefore, we do not believe in this and we still insist on removing this.
Mexico: It is relevant to include private enterprise because it has been the private sector that has provided insight into the federal government on how to act and how to know when the waste products from these chemicals are being used for the wrong purposes and we do think it shouldn’t be included.
USA: Thank you in response to the most recent intervention that the industry is employed by and rather than a partner with governments we would just draw attention to the fact that the CoW has just agreed that industry can play a role in research and development. The CoW has agreed that industry can play a role in repurposing and legitimate use and these are expressions of partnership that are not necessarily an expression of solely employer employee type relationship. And this is something that the CoW has already agreed to, so we would put that out and for your consideration.
Chair: I would once again ask the Chinese delegation, what they think about this paragraph again.
China: We still hope this error can be removed´
Chair: At this point, i just don’t know what to do with this reservation… China…you know..
China: We still insist on our position just expressed.
Chair: I thank you, even though I wish you would have moved your position.
Pakistan: If the Chinese colleagues agree, perhaps, and others as well, perhaps we could suggest removing the word “critical”?
Chair: China will the removal of “critical” be accepted by your delegation. Do you have room for a different language?
China: Yes, our wish is to remove the entire paragraph.
Chair: But in the future if we give you a little time could you reconsider another language?
Netherlands: Maybe as a solution, the US said this paragraph comes from somewhere else. Maybe if China’s uncomfortable with the fact that there’s no standalone paragraph, maybe we can put it back where it originally came from.
Chair: Time is of the essence here, so I guess by the time we finish our deliberations for our session, China should be back to give us some information on a language that they are comfortable with.
Australia: Understanding that the concern seems to be about the word “partner”. I would suggest a simplification of the language and that is to have to work more closely with the INCB and industry focused.
Chair: China, you see how best all of us in this room are making efforts to make you comfortable And we would like your flexibility as a show of goodwill and good faith, does that give you some comfort?
China: I would also like to thank other colleagues for making joint efforts to resolve this issue. I can send the wording back to my capital for further consultation.. Can I come back to you later?
Chair: We would now give China some time. We would now move on to PP1 and PP6. I expect much flexibility in solving this matter. We had a long discussion on this issue when dealing with modalities, this matter has been resolved there and we must not repeat the experience in those negotiations if we want to make progress here. I don’t want statements or insistence on position or the other.
Iran: I can not go along with the paragraph because of “having all aspects of”, in the case of deleting this it would be okay.
PP6
Chair: We should freeze the part that deals with the world drug problem and look at the other issues in PP6. I want to hear from Russia whether they would still want to delete the part of the paragraph beginning with “recalling”.
Russia: We wish to delete mention made to specific targets of the SDGs as we think this has no added value for this paragraph and we believe the most important thing is to indicate that SDGs and measures to address the world drug problem are mutually reinforcing and interdependent. As experience has shown, we don’t usually refer to specific SDG targets and therefore we think it would be sensible to make this paragraph shorter without diluting its main purpose.
Mexico: I would ask Russia to explain why they are opposed as we are pursuing consistency in the system and hence we want to be specific.
Colombia: We consider it important to keep this specific reference.
France: It is very important for us to keep this reference as it adds something to the text.
Russia: We think that all of the SDGs and all efforts to address the world drug problem are interdependent and interconnected. If we were to indicate certain targets we would need to include all SDGs and this would become a very lengthy paragraph. There are many relevant aspects here and many delegations see it as being very important but we believe it to be consistent in our approach. We want to protect the environment, but as we are citing a specific target, if we refer to this target we would need to refer to other targets. We have an ending to this paragraph which many delegations are concerned with.
Chair: Do you simply not agree with having any reference to targets or could you make some concessions.
Russia: We will say directly that we don’t want to mention the specific target here, our policy is not to make such explicit reference to these targets.
Chair: Is there any delegation which can propose language for consideration?
US: I would propose an alt rather than dealing with the existing paragraph, and this is previously agreed language. “Reiterating developments to achieve the SDGs and to effectively address the world drug problem are complementary and mutually reinforcing, and more specifically the efforts to enhance capacity to safely dispose of synthetic drugs, their precursors and other chemicals used in the illicit manufacturing of drugs, including those which have been seized or confiscated. Contribute to the achievement of target 12.4 of the SDGs which is focussed on the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all waste”.
Chair: I would like the room to consider the proposal made by the US.
Mexico: Before the US proposal I was going to suggest deleting reference to Target 12.4 of the SDGs but keeping the rest. So instead of “recalling”, it would be “to achieve etc etc”.
Russia: We are considering this proposal and we thank them for this constructive approach. We can’t agree to specific mentions of SDG Targets. The reference to working to the achievement of this target is obsolete as we should have achieved this target by 2020.
Chair: If we take out the Target of the SDGs are you okay with this language?
Russia: Yes we can agree to this language.
Canada: I simply ask that the word “reduce” be changed to “reducing”
Chair: Are there any other objections? I see none so we have agreed to this part of the text. Can we agree to this pending the use of “all aspects of world drug problems”.
Iran: Thank you, Chair. I think, “contribute to the environment” is acceptable but to add and “other” is more clear, because the SDG covers many issues, just one of these is environmental issues, thank you.
Chair. Do we agree with the objection? For the first time. The second time, no objection. No objection, no objection. Agree. PP1. Now let’s look at PP1. Any comments in the room? Has any delegation been able to come up with an innovative way to deal with the problem.
Finland: Thank you Mr. Chair. I will suggest the same as I did before which is making this thing shorter and I would suggest deleting the whole part And starting referring to the convention. So then we would actually skip the all different problems that we have this para. I dont think it’s needed in this resolution, thank you.
Chair: I give the floor to the Netherlands
Netherlands: We would like to retain all aspects that we can also go along with the proposal of Finland
Chair: I give the floor to Pakistan
Pakistan: Thank you Chair, for giving me the floor we would like to retain para one PP1, because we consider that given the reference to the start of the resolution about the world of problem. It’s very important for us so we’d like to retain this
(…)
Venezuela: Thank you chair, you too can guess my position. I just waned to add that I hope the day will come when we can do things as Finland suggests and delete paragraph, when the world drug problem has disappeared. Thank you.
Chair: I give the floor to Algeria.
Algeria: My delegation would like to keep PP1 out. We do have a proposal in line 4, to include the illicit manufacture and trafficking in drugs we would like to delete the word “synthetic” and keep everything else.
Chair: Supporting deletion, and inclusion, retention does not help me. I want to ask the sponsors of the resolution, before I come to my good friend, Slovenia, who perhaps has the magic word, what comments do you have on this?
Slovenia: Firstly, I think that the synthetic reference is the focus of this resolution. My opinion, Chair, is that we do not need this reference to the world drug problem here, so I would support Finland’s recommendation to delete this paragraph and go straight into the mandates established in the conventions. Thank you.
Russian Federation: Even if we would agree to deleting this paragraph, this would not mean that the commission has changed its attitude to this concept. You suggest the following paragraph which could stand in the first introductory paragraph for this resolution. We could not do without a general framework, paragraph we cannot start straight away by talking about this specific article of the Convention which is in PP2, “reaffirming the obligations contained in the single convention with his full name the Convention on psychotropic substances, and the Convention Against illicit trafficking narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, in which states parties expressed concern for the health and welfare of humankind” . I trust that the secretariat will capture the convention’s name appropriately. Perhaps this paragraph, which is agreed upon language and which language which is used in a number of resolutions might help start with a framework to start the resolution.
Chair: At this point we’ve evolved a little. we’ve evolved a little. I would like to find out whether this new language is okay with us?
Pakistan: Thank you for your position. We appreciate the input made by our distinguished opposition to keep PP1bis. PP one or PP1bis
Iran: We agree on keeping PP1alt. But keeping PP1, the original language it’s critical for us and please keep the previous paragraph, and also keep the new paragraph made by distinguished colleagues from Russia.
Chair: Russia’s proposal was for us to replace that paragraph with the new paragraph that does not help me. I want delegates to help me. At this time for us to reach an agreement, you know, I need your help.
USA: Thank you, Chair. We cannot go along with the proposal of this paragraph from PP1, 2. We are of the opinion that the conventions actually do not contain any obligations related to safe handling and disposal of drugs and that our concern as a commission for the safe handling actually arises from the aims of achieving the goals and objectives of the convention. So we replace “obligations contained in” with the “aims of the single convention”.
Netherlands: We are not in favour of PP1 alt 2, we cannot reform obligations or aims in treaties, because they are hard law and we cannot reaffirm them in soft law. I would like to thank the Russian Federation for the constructive proposal and amended by the delegation of the United States. We do not agree with the proposals or some limitations to both.
Czech Republic: The proposal to replace obligations with aims does not sit well with us because we believe that some countries are not faithfully interpreting the conventions and therefore we would not want to allow the ambiguity to slip in here. Furthermore, the CND has already approved a paragraph with this very wording. Therefore we dont believe that this paragraph requires any modification. It was an attempt to assist in our negotiations but if necessary we would be ready to withdraw this proposal.
Chair: The Russian delegate, I like speaking to you when I look in your face. I give the floor to Finland.
Finland: I don’t know if it helps any of the Russian proposal that we could also go along with that would be the PP alt version, but would it help any if it could be reaffirming the obligations and aims would then help also the distinguished colleagues from the US.
Chair: Obligations and aims are in the conventions.
US: I have some agreed language that may be useful from last year. It says “reaffirming its commitment to achieving the goals and objectives of, and implementing recommendations arising from” from Resolution 65/4 from last year.
Chair: Does the room agree with this language?
Iran: We insist on having PP1, the initially proposed paragraph.
Chair: I note that you want to go back but I appreciate your flexibility in resolving this paragraph.
Turkey: Mr Chair, although we are flexible with regard to PPalt2, we would like to delete part of the paragraph between “commitment to the obligations” and say “reaffirming its obligations from the single convention”
Title
Chair: I would give you some time to ponder this and now move on to the title. Are we all in agreement to the Title? Title is agreed. I would like us to look at OP4 and OP8. So OP4, are there any comments?
OP4
Are the delegations ok with what is on the screen or the comments?
USA:Thank you Chair, just for context. This where appropriate and in accordance with domestic law was proposed as an alternative to the phrase within their means. So we would need to choose between one or the other. And noting that the language within their means was stricken from OP3 by the CoW and replaced with where appropriate and in accordance with domestic law. We would propose that we mirror that formulation here.
Venezuela: Thank you, Chair, and yes for the proposal which we can accept and delete ours. It is also below where it says “revert to original” . You can delete that, I can’t remember why I even said that, but we agree with the USA’s proposal.
Iran: We can also support, because there is no time to deal with this issue
Chair: Can we clean the text, and then…we are all in agreement with the language, as shown on the screen. Is there any delegation that is opposed to it?
USA: There appears to be a typographical error. We’d want to say what sort of relevant national agencies responsible for synthetic drugs in their precursors and delete that portion.
Chair: Agreed. OP8, any comments? China, Mexico, Germany, USA? Reservation by Iran?
OP8
Russian Federation: Thank you, we chose to keep the reference to the commission. Our wording would be including “through the commission”.
Chair: Are we OK with the amendments made? Are we comfortable with the paragraph as it stands now?
Australia: Just to add a comma after legislation on the first line, thank you.
Chair: Are we in agreement? I see no objection. Agreed. It’s almost a minute to one, and it will be such a pity if we are not able to deal with PP1. I want us to work with the Russian PP1alt2. I am appealing for flexibility… accordion flexibility, where you can stretch it the limit… you understand? I want to hear from you. From the USA, and Russian Federation, i want us to be a bit flexible with aims, objectives, goals, so forth and so on. And for Iran i am pleading that we bring this matter to closure. Going back to this issue PP1, so I give the floor to Brazil.
Brazil: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. just to make clear right now we don’t see PP1alt in PP2alt2. We now we are ready to accept PP1alt2.
(…)
Chair: At this stage i plead with you to finish this one thing
Brazil: Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am the only one thinking that we have not agreed yet to the whole PP6? OK yes, thank you Mr Chair.
Chair: Ok so, PP1alt2. My plea is that we look at this. And that I would want us to agree. To delete PP1alt, do we agree to delete PP1alt?
Russian Federation: Mr Chair, I’m compelled here to say that the proposal we made did not involve changing the language completely, we do not have flexibility on this paragraph. However, we do not have consensus regarding whether or not to delete the first paragraph, our attempt was to facilitate our work here. Our delegation is prepared to show flexibility here and to retain the two paragraphs. Thank you.
Chair: Let us agree on PP1alt2, before we delete others, is that okay with you? This is a compromised language that the Russian delegate gave. So, I’m suggesting that, let us agree on this before we delete. Is that okay with you?
Russian Federation: Yes that suits us.
UK: I was actually going to comment on PP1alt, i just wonder if there’s one way to get around this in PP1alt is to recognise that various aspects of the world drug problem, because then it gives a bit of flexibility, and maybe a way forward and means we can remove PP1 or 2, instead of just putting it out to the floor, just to see if we can help move this forward. Thank you.
Russian Federation: We’re not comfortable with this
Iran: No
Pakistan: No, were not comfortable
Venezuela: Not comfortable
USA: Thank you chair. We could accept various aspects of this. We could also reverse it slightly. perhaps saying “recognising that the world drug problem, in all aspects or in various aspects continues to constitute serious threats”. And Chair, I would just note that it was the 1998 UNGASS that adopted the term the world drug problem, and that resolution declaration also uses the term “all aspects of the world drug problem”. So conceptually, in our history, we have regarded these two things as the same so we still are really kind of confused why that terminology is not acceptable now.
Chair: Are you comfortable with the language as it is now, Russian Federation?
Russia: Chair, if we leave the world drug problem without referring to any aspects then we would be in agreement with this formulation. We honestly do not understand why within this resolution we should revise concepts which we utilise in all of our political documents and resolutions.Within the framework of this technical resolution, we should be having such a discussion.
Pakistan: I agree with the Russian Federation. I think the word “world” itself is quite all encompassing. And when we say aspects we’re trying to dilute and I’m not sure which aspects are being highlighted here. So I’d say if it could break the ice, we probably say the “world drug problem in all its entirety”
USA: Thankyou Chair, that last proposal from Pakistan would certainly be acceptable to us in all its entirety. Thank you.
China: We suggest deleting the last part in this paragraph which will then end with “synthetic drugs”.
Chair: Do we agree with the paragraph as shown on the screen?
Iran: It’s difficult for me to accept addition to the world drug problem, but i have a question. If we accept this one, will the others keep the proposal made by the distinguished colleagues from Russia?
Russian Federation: Thankyou chair, we sadly cannot agree to adding the wording proposed by the designated delegate of Pakistan. If we have all “in its entirety” do that mean in other documents where we just use the term world drug problem, we’ll be referring to just the matter in a piecemeal fashion? No, we’re referring to an overall concept, which of course includes and encompasses all of its aspects.
China: We suggest that the word could be revised as recording the commitment content in the joint statement of 2014 which encourages governments to work closely with INCB and the industry?
Chair: Are we in agreement? Agreed. Now back to the problem. There are a couple of delegations stating that they would rather prefer without all aspects in its eternity and so on.. And there are others claiming that it should be added.. I think we have to make progress. Does anyone have the magic word to make progress? This is what is standing in our way. The Netherlands, while the USA ponders.
Netherlands: It seems to me we’re not really progressing on PP1alt at this moment. (…) And I think we could, we could recall the reasons explained earlier by my colleague, that it’s not up to the CND to reaffirm a commitment made in a convention which is an obligation. But of course we could very well recall it. Hopefully that could take us forward a little bit.
Chair: If you are in agreement that we should continue, we should do so.
Russian Federation: Mr Chair, as I said, we are not able to have any amendments to the proposed text. If we continue that way we are withdrawing our proposal.
Chair: This is the only paragraph standing in our way. I would request a lot of flexibility in dealing with this.
El Salvador: (…)
USA: I’m sorry, but for the reasons previously explained, it is very important for us to focus on the aims of the obligations rather than the narrow view of the obligations and the reason this is grounded in the language of the treaty itself, which refers to the aims of the convention. Our convention is not one that focuses on specific provisions and says, you must adhere… you must enforce these particular provisions. The drafters of our conventions understood that they set out these aims and public aims and objectives that are focused on the health and welfare of mankind. That’s the important thing, that’s the object and purpose of our treaties. The object and purpose of our treaties is not achieved simply by focusing on the obligations of the treaties, and that in itself is part of the treaty itself and unfortunately, Chair, this is a discussion we have had for a number of years in many different forms, so we really have no flexibility on this. We would also note, as was previously stated, that with respect to this resolution, none of our treaties have an obligation that addresses this. They do have this general concept of the aims and objectives and that’s where our mission as set forth in this resolution would come into play. So I regret the chair but we cannot accept PP1alt2 as it was proposed, thank you.
Chair: I’d like to make a suggestion, is it possible we leave “aims and objectives” from that part of the paragraph? And for which of us to determine what we mean by “reaffirm” and leave it that way, is that OK with us?
USA: Chair, if you’re asking if it would be acceptable to remove both the goals and objectives, and the obligations and we just reaffirm the conventions that would be acceptable to us.
Iran: It’s not acceptable for my delegation at all
Chair: How do you make it acceptable to you?
Iran: Thank you, Chair. I think it is not acceptable to all, because it has no logic. This convention is ratified, all members of the UN except three states, so it’s not correct the CND has said, we want to reaffirm the convention, what does it mean? All members have their obligation before this convention so from a legal point of view, it is not correct.
Russian Federation: We are withdrawing our proposal. we cannot we could not go along with any changes. This is a difficult discussion, there is no possibility for us to allow any ambiguity. We are withdrawing this paragraph, please delete it from the screen.
Egypt: We should delete PPalt 1 or 2, and consider working on PP1.
Chair: Thank you, Egypt.
Germany: I would like to explain or to say two or three remarks. First, Germany would like to announce that we co-sponsored this resolution. Second, we could align PP1alt also with the proposal from the colleagues from Pakistan in its entirety, if not we could align the formulation with “the world drug problem”. Second, one that I think is important, is the last line around trafficking and drugs, including new psychoactive substances. Because the synthetic drugs do not include all new NPS, and therefore I would add NPS.
El Salvador: I want to announce that this corresponds with this resolution. Maybe if we can start with recognising the last three lines.
Egypt: We of course want to leave synthetic opioids. And I think we also share the view that it’s an important aspect that we want to leave. As it stands now we can support PP1alt.
China: As I mentioned before, we hope the words including “other” are used… This resolution is about synthetic drugs, and it’s true synthetics drugs pose a danger to human health in the world, and “synthetics drugs” is a very big concept. So we think only mentioning “synthetic drugs” covers all kinds of synthetic drugs. Mr. Chair, if I may. I have another small question. Since we have agreed to this title, this resolution is mainly focused only on synthetic drugs and their precursors, so shall we delete all the words, “plant based drugs”, although it has been agreed in the CoW.
Chair: (…)
Egypt: Thank you, Chair, we want to retain the last paragraph. We can be flexible. If we keep the first part of the paragraph as a district recognising the world drug problem continues to constitute and maybe we can be flexible with deleting”including”until the end.
Chair: Are we considering pp2 as proposed by El Slavador?
Iran: In PP1alt 3 we cannot go along with the new proposal.
Chair: PP1alt as it stands, do we agree to it? China
China: We do not agree with the last part of this paragraph
Chair: As it is now are we in agreement? PP1alt. Any objections? I see none. Czech Republic.
Czech Republic: We need more time to accept it as it is. Give us a few minutes:
USA: Can we do this as two paragraphs? I wonder if we could possibly do this as two paragraphs. The first one would be recognising that the world drug problem continues to constitute a serious threat to public health and safety and to the wellbeing of humanity. Full stop. And then the second would pick up from the recommendation of El Salvador. So it would be recognising also, the significant dangers posed by the illicit manufacture of in trafficking in synthetic drugs, including new psychoactive substances, synthetic opioids and amphetamine type stimulants.
Germany: I understand the arguments coming from China. But I think we titled it “synthetic drugs”, and here its only explained what’s meant by “synthetic drugs”. Therefore, I think this resolution is not only for one country, it’s for all countries.
Turkey: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. we would like to ask for clarification. What is the aim of having two paragraphs instead of one? You see that the voting did not change but we couldn’t understand why it is divided into two pieces, if I’m not mistaken, this was an agreed paragraph as a whole in last year’s resolution. We would like to ask this to the sponsor for confirmation. In this regard, we want to keep it as one paragraph is, which was agreed upon last year.
Australia: The USA noted that they would like advice on what the sponsor would be happy with. We would be willing to lose the detail and just stick with “synthetic drugs” in order to secure an agreement. Thank you.
USA: Chair, how we’ve put this whether it’s in one paragraph or two is formed not substance. It’s a substance we’re concerned with. And if, if it is agreeable with Australia to drop the phrase that we with reluctance will accept it.
Turkey: We object to dividing the paragraph, we want one paragraph.
Australia: It’s just removing “recognising” thank you.
Chair: Are we in agreement? Is there any objection? Agreed. We have a clean text of the resolution. As you are aware we have enjoyed the pain and flexibility, an experience which will form part of our memory. Now I want to ask the room, can we send it to the plenary? Are we all in agreement? Are we all in agreement? Agreed.
Singapore: We co-sponsor
Iran: We co-sponsor
Japan: We co-sponsor
Australia: We co-sponsor
Secretariat: Thank you to just to remind all delegations that if for the process of co sponsorship of a resolution, We would kindly ask delegations to confirm co sponsorship if you wish to be reflected in the text of the resolution upon adoption. The other the alternative ways to co sponsor are to by a show of offering the at the time of adoption, and the latest time for co sponsorship will be via note web all by close of business on the Monday after the, after the end of the commission
Chair: Our meeting is adjourned.