version), the application of which is confined to exports only with some of the worst bureaucratic trappings (eg triplication of documents) removed. While welcoming these changes, the UK delegation felt obliged to reserve our position and similar reservations were entered by Japan and Australia. My impression is, however, that we could eventually find ourselves in a rather isolated position were led to understand by the Australian delegation that they will recommend to Camberra that the new formulation be considered sympathetically with a view to the removal of their reservation. did not form a clear view of Japanese intentions.
•
we
We
We ought to have reviewed our position on Article 8 before the CND meets in February. Amongst the points we shall have to consider are (a) the amount of work which the export declaration system for List A substances would be likely to create, (b) the extent to which it might antagonise the manufacturers and suppliers whose cooperation we need for our voluntary monitoring arrangements of suspicious consignments of these and other substances, and (c) whether there is any chance of satisfying Convention requirements without recourse to legislation by obtaining voluntarily the information required by paragraph (10). We accept DTI's view (Mr Butcher's letter of 14 September) that the question of fresh controls is primarily a matter for the Home Office. It may well be that we shall want to convene a further interdepartmental meeting in January to discuss these points.
First, I would welcome any comments.
6.
One matter on which the UK delegation will need a clear line before the Expert Group meeting is that of the use of proceeds from drug traffickers' assets to support drug-related projects in developing countries. This proposal from some African and South American countries came up at the October meeting and is sure to re-surface in January. What the proposers appear to have in mind is that, where one or more Parties to the Convention cooperate in the confiscation, the assets realised should, after deduction of their expenses, be channelled to the UN Fund for Drug Abuse Control to finance projects to combat drug trafficking and abuse. This would cause difficulties for a number of countries but only FRG, the United States and ourselves were prepared in October to voice any criticism of the proposal. The US delegation made the point that the impact on UNFDAC's finances could be counter-productive; governments faced with no choice as to whether assets they had helped seize went to the Fund, might well feel moved to reduce their voluntary contributions accordingly.
7. This seems a matter which should best be left to bilateral and multilateral agreements rather than enshrined in the Convention. If it proved impossible to resist the inclusion of some provision of this kind in Article 3, the next best thing would be to have a voluntary rather than a mandatory provision. I note that the question of applying drug trafficking proceeds to anti-drugs work has arisen recently in the context of the proposed US payment to the Metropolitan Police and I shall keep in touch with Jonathan Potts here to ensure that the line we take in Vienna is consistent with any decisions taken by Ministers about the fate of this payment or the disposal of proceeds in general.
2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.