The U.S. delegation at the 68th Commission on Narcotic Drugs, represented by Chargé d’Affaires ad interim Howard Solomon, provided explanations for its votes on several resolutions. The delegation expressed concerns primarily related to references to Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as well as language issues concerning gender.
Regarding the resolution L.2 from Chile, titled "Promoting comprehensive, scientific, evidence-based and multi-sectoral national systems of prevention for Children," the U.S. voted against it due to its reaffirmation of Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. The U.S. views these as promoting a form of global governance that conflicts with American sovereignty and interests. Additionally, there was criticism about the lack of precise language regarding biological sex.
For resolution L3 from Thailand/Norway on "Promoting research on evidence-based interventions for the treatment and care of stimulant use disorders," similar objections were raised about gender terminology and references to Agenda 2030 and SDGs. Consequently, the U.S. voted no.
Resolution L4 from Peru/Germany/Thailand focused on "Complementing the United Nations Guiding Principles on Alternative Development." The U.S. objected to its alignment with sustainable development goals and what it considered imprecise language regarding biological sex, resulting in another negative vote.
The resolution L5 from Poland addressed "Safety of officers in dismantling illicit synthetic drug laboratories." Here too, concerns over Agenda 2030 led to a decision not to support it.
In discussing resolution L6 from Colombia titled "Strengthening the Global Drug Control Framework: A Path to Effective Implementation," the U.S. questioned various logistical aspects related to implementation and potential costs amidst UNODC's financial constraints. It opposed this resolution due to unresolved questions about how it would be executed effectively within existing frameworks.
Finally, for resolution L7 from France/Brazil/Morocco addressing environmental impacts of illicit drug activities, the U.S. opposed it because of its alignment with SDGs and contentious gender-related terms like “gender disaggregated data.” There were also reservations about continued support for UNODC activities mentioned in this context.
Overall, while acknowledging certain issues' importance, such as drug control improvements or environmental protection from drug-related activities, the U.S. emphasized maintaining discussions within appropriate forums without political influences undermining technical approaches.