20/11/2002
Press Release
GA/SHC/3728



Fifty-seventh General Assembly -

Third Committee

55th and 56th Meetings (AM & PM)


THIRD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS CONTINUATION OF OFFICE OF HIGH


COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES THROUGH END OF 2008


Approves 12 Other Draft Resolutions on Human Rights, Refugee

Issues, Including Texts on Cambodia, Sudan, Right to Food, Children’s Rights


The General Assembly would decide to continue the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for a further period of five years from 1 January 2004, under the terms of a resolution approved unanimously today by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural).


That text, one of 13 resolutions approved by the Committee over two meetings today, notes with deep appreciation the effective manner in which the High Commissioner's Office has been dealing with the essential humanitarian tasks entrusted to it.  The resolution would have the Assembly decide to review, not later than its sixty-second session (2007), the arrangements for the High Commissioner's Office with a view to determining whether the Office should be continued beyond 2008.


Under the terms of a related text approved today, the Assembly would decide to increase the number of members of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 61 to 64 States.


Desiring that the international community continue to respond positively in assisting efforts to investigate the tragic history of Cambodia, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to resume negotiations, without delay, to conclude an agreement with Cambodia's Government to establish Extraordinary Chambers for the prosecution of crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge, under the terms of a text approved by a vote of 123 in favour, with 37 abstentions (See Annex VII).


Delegations concerned that the language of the resolution did not adequately define the mandate of the Secretary-General called for a 24 hour postponement, in order to hear the views of the Legal Counsel, but that motion was defeated by vote of 15 in favour to 90 against, with 59 abstentions (Annex VI).  A host of delegations from the East Asian region supported moving forward, stressing that the aim of the text was clear, and that as soon as it was adopted, the groundwork would be laid for the Secretary-General to begin important negotiations with the Government of Cambodia.


By a vote of 74 in favour to 53 against, with 29 abstentions (Annex VIII), a resolution on the human rights situation in the Sudan was approved, after a debate between delegations on whether country-specific texts encouraged positive developments or highlighted human rights violations.  The text would have the Assembly express its deep concern at the impact of the ongoing conflict on the situation of human rights and its adverse effects on the civilian population, as

well as at the occurrence of torture and other ill treatment of civilians.  The Assembly would also urge all parties to the conflict to seize the prospect of peace to ensure continued progress in the fields of human rights, democratization and the rule of law.


A text on the right to food was approved by a vote of 160 in favour, to two against (Marshall Islands, United States), with four abstentions (Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Israel) (Annex V).  (Following that action, the representative of Bangladesh said his delegation had voted in favour of the text and had not abstained, as indicated in the recorded vote.)  Its terms would have the Assembly welcome the decision of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Council adopted at its 123rd Session to establish an Intergovernmental Working Group as subsidiary body of the Committee on World Food Security to elaborate, in a period of two years, a set of voluntary guidelines to support Member States’ efforts to achieve the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security.


Prior to that action, the Committee rejected -- by a vote of 15 in favour to 118 against, with 28 abstentions (Annex IV)-- a United States sponsored amendment to the resolution, which would have had the Assembly encourage all States to take steps with a view to achieving the progressive realization of the right to adequate food, including steps to promote the conditions for everyone to be free from hunger and, as soon as possible, to enjoy fully the right to food, and to elaborate and adopt national plans to combat hunger.


An omnibus resolution on the rights of the child -- approved by a vote of 164 in favour, with the United States against (Annex I) -- would have the Assembly express its profound concern that the situation of girls and boys in many parts of the world remains critical as a result of the persistence of, among other things, poverty, social inequality, pandemics and disease, armed conflict and exploitation, and its conviction that urgent and effective national and international action is called for.  That seven-part text would have the Assembly once again urge States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify or accede to the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a matter of priority. 


The Assembly would urge all actors on the international scene to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity and the promotion of respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights, and to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance, under the terms of a text on promotion of a democratic and equitable international order.  The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 98 in favour to 52 against, with 8 abstentions (Argentina, Fiji, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Mexico, Panama, Peru and South Africa) (Annex III).


(page 1b follows)


A resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights was approved with a vote of 105 in favour to 49 against, with

8 abstentions (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Singapore, Turkey, Guatemala and Honduras) (Annex II).  Its terms would have the Assembly call upon Member States, relevant United Nations agencies, intergovernmental organizations and civil society to promote equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth for managing globalization, so that poverty was systematically reduced and the international development targets met.


During the two meetings, the Committee also approved, without votes, resolutions on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa; the UNHCR; indigenous people and issues; the situation of human rights in Cambodia; and the human rights situation in Afghanistan.


The Committee took note of two documents under the rights of the child.  These were the Report of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (document A/57/41 and Corr.1) and the Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (document A/57/295).  The Committee also decided to recommend to the General Assembly that it take note of the report of the Secretary-General on the status of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations (document A/57/29).


The Committee also approved a draft decision submitted by the Chairman on the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the World Conference on Human Rights in 2003, which would have the Assembly decide that the plenary meeting on

10 December 2003 would be devoted to the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.


The Committee will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. to act on remaining draft resolutions before the Committee.


Background


The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural) met to take action on draft resolutions on items related to human rights questions, the promotion and protection of children, and refugees and internally displaced persons.


Before the Committee, there will be an omnibus draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/57/L.25/Rev.1) where once again, the Assembly would urge States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify or accede to the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a matter of priority with a view to reaching the goal of universal adherence as soon as possible.  A section on protection and promotion of the rights of children would have the Assembly call upon States to take all appropriate measures to prevent and protect children from all forms of violence, including physical mental and sexual violence, torture, child abuse, abuse by police and officials in detention centres or welfare institutions.


A section of the draft on the rights of children in particularly vulnerable situations includes the plight of children working and/or living on the streets, refugee and internally displaced children, children with disabilities, and migrant children.  By the terms of the text, the Assembly would call upon all States and parties to conflict to give urgent attention to the fact that refugee and internally displaced children were particularly exposed to risks in connection with armed conflict.


In a section on the prevention and eradication of the sale of children and of their sexual exploitation and abuse, including child prostitution and child pornography, the Assembly would call upon States to take action to protect children from and to eliminate all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, including commercial sexual exploitation, taking into account problems related to the Internet.


The attention of the Assembly is drawn to the protection of children affected by armed conflict, through provisions which would have it condemn the abduction of children in situations of armed conflict and into armed conflict, and call upon all parties to armed conflict to ensure that children affected by armed conflict receive timely, effective and unhindered humanitarian assistance.


Further to a section on the progressive elimination of child labour, the Assembly would call upon States to strengthen cooperation and coordination at the national and international levels to address effectively the problem of child labour.  Finally, the Assembly would decide to request the Secretary-General to prepare a report on progress achieved in realizing the commitments set out in the twenty-seventh special session of the Assembly, entitled “A World Fit for Children”.


The Committee will also have before it a draft resolution on the human rights situation in Iraq (document A/C.3/57/L.49), and would have the Assembly call upon the Government to end all human rights violations and to put a moratorium on all executions.  The text also calls upon the Government to cooperate further with international agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide humanitarian assistance and monitoring in the northern and southern areas of the country.


A draft resolution on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/57/L.50) would have the Assembly encourage the Congolese parties to promote an all inclusive conclusion to the inter-Congolese dialogue.  The draft would also have the Assembly express its concern regarding breaches of freedom of expressions and other violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and international humanitarian law, primarily in the eastern part of the country.  It urges all parties to the conflict to cease military activities in the country in order to re-establish the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.


There will also be a draft text on protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/57/L.61), which would have the Assembly reaffirm its unequivocal condemnation of all the acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever and by whomever they were committed.  The text would also have the Assembly call on States to take into account relevant resolutions and decisions on protecting human rights while countering terrorism, and encourage them to consider the recommendations of the special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights.


On Khmer Rouge trials (document A/C.3/57/L.70), there is a draft resolution through which the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to resume negotiations, without delay, to conclude an agreement with the Government of Cambodia, based on previous negotiations on the establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers to try those suspected of being responsible for the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge.  It would further request the Secretary-General to include in his report recommendations for the efficient and cost-effective operation of the Extraordinary Chambers, including the amount of voluntary contributions of funds, equipment and services to the Extraordinary Chambers through the offer of expert personnel that might be needed from States, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs.


Before the Committee, there is also a draft resolution on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/C.3/57/L.73), through which the Assembly would call upon States and other parties to armed conflict to observe scrupulously the letter and the spirit of international humanitarian law, bearing in mind that armed conflict was one of the principal causes of forced displacement in Africa.  It would also appeal to the international community to respond positively to the third country resettlement requests of African refugees.


There was also a draft resolution on a new international humanitarian order (document A/C.3/57/L.74), through which the Assembly would invite governments to provide the expertise and resources to identity the building blocks of such an order, to strengthen the early warning system at the national and international levels, to ensure the adequate preparedness for the prevention or containment of humanitarian crises and to take the necessary measures in addition to ongoing measures, to address them.


On the enlargement of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/57/L.77) there will be a draft resolution through which the Assembly would decide to increase the number of members of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 61 to 64 States, and would request the Economic and Social Council to elect the additional members at its resumed organizational session for 2003.


There will be a draft on the continuation of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/57/L.78), the text of which would have the Assembly recognize the need for concerted international action and would decide to continue the Office for a further period of five years, from 1 January 2004.  It would also have the Assembly decide, no later than its sixty-second session, the arrangements for the Office with a view to determining whether the Office should be continued beyond 31 December 2008.


Finally, there will be an omnibus resolution on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/57/L.79), which welcomes the important work undertaken by the Office.  The draft would have the Assembly strongly urge States and relevant NGOs, in conjunction with the Office, to cooperate and to mobilize resources with a view towards enhancing the capacity of countries, and reducing the heavy burden borne by those that have received large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers.


The Committee will also take up a draft resolution on indigenous people and issues (document A/C.3/57/L.29/Rev.1) through which the Assembly would invite the Secretary-General to establish, within the framework of the secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the post of Special Adviser, in order to provide independent advice and substantive assistance to the secretariat in carrying out its mandate in a successful manner.


Before the Committee is a draft resolution on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (document A/C.3/57/L.37) which would have the Assembly call upon Member States that have not yet ratified the Convention to consider urgently signing and ratifying or acceding to it.  The text would also have the Assembly request the Secretary-General to make all necessary provisions for the timely establishment of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, as soon as the Convention enters into force.


A draft resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/57/L.44) would have the Assembly call upon Member States, relevant United Nations agencies, intergovernmental organizations and civil society to promote equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth for managing globalization, so that poverty was systematically reduced and the international development targets met.  The Assembly would also express its deep concern that the widening gap between developed and developing countries has contributed to, among other things, deepening poverty and has adversely affected the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly in developing countries.


A draft resolution on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (document A/C.3/57/L.55) would have the Assembly urge all actors on the international scene to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity, mutual understanding and promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights, and reject doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia.


Also before the Committee will be a draft on the right to development (document A/C.3/57/L.65), which is based on the agreed conclusions of the last session of the Working Group on the Right to Development, held last April in Geneva.  The Group had highlighted key issues that should be addressed by governments, at national and international levels, in order to ensure the right to development for everyone, in line with the Millennium Development Goals.


The text would have the Assembly endorse the conclusions of the Working Group and recognize that the realization of the right to development is critical to achieving the objectives, goals and targets of major United Nations conferences, summits and special sessions and those undertaken at the Millennium Assembly.


The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Cambodia (document A/C.3/57/L.67) would have the Assembly recognize that the tragic history of Cambodia required special measures to ensure protection of the human rights of all the people of the country and the non-return to policies and practices of the past.  It would urge the Government of Cambodia to expedite the adoption of laws and codes that were essential components of the basic legal framework, including a penal code, a criminal code and a new civil code, and to enhance the training of judges and lawyers.


Delegations will also consider a draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/57/L.68) by which the Assembly, considering it intolerable that there were around 840 million undernourished people in the world, would urge States to give adequate priority in their development strategies and expenditures to the realization of the right to food.


The Committee has before it the Secretary-General’s note transmitting the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities (document A/57/357).  The report highlights the work undertaken by the Ad Hoc Committee at its first meeting, held from 29 July to 9 August 2002 at Headquarters.  It details the agenda and organization of work of the meeting and lists the Committee’s officers and documentation.


Also included in the report is a draft resolution on the Ad Hoc Committee on a comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, recommended for adoption by the Assembly.  That draft would have the Assembly decide that the Ad Hoc Committee should hold, within existing resources, at least one meeting in 2003 of a duration of ten working days, prior to the Assembly’s fifty-eighth session.


Another draft will be on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (document A/C.3/57/L.43/Rev.1), by which the Assembly would urge all parties to the conflict to seize the prospect of peace to ensure continued progress in the fields of human rights, democratization and the rule of law.


By the text, the Assembly would express its deep concern at the impact of the ongoing conflict on the situation of human rights and its adverse effects on the civilian population, particularly women, children and internally displaced persons, as well as at the occurrence of torture and other ill-treatment of civilians, detention without trial and the cruellest forms of corporal punishment, in particular, amputations.  By the terms of the text, the Assembly would also call upon the Government of Sudan to comply fully with its obligations under international law, to end impunity for human rights violations and to try perpetrators in accordance with the rule of law.

The Committee will also consider a draft decision submitted by the Chairman on the basis of informal consultations on the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the World Conference on Human Rights in 2003 (document A/C.3/57/L.84) which states that the Assembly, considering that 2003 would mark the tenth anniversary of the World Conference, would decide that the plenary meeting on 10 December 2003 would be devoted to the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, with contributions by governments, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and relevant organs, funds and agencies of the United Nations system within their respective mandates.


The Committee will also have before it a draft resolution on the question of human rights in Afghanistan (A/C.3/57/L.71).


Also before the Committee will be a draft on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly express its dismay that, in a number of countries, impunity continues to prevail and often remains the main cause of continuing occurrences of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.  The Assembly would, therefore, demand that all governments ensure that those practices be brought to an end and that they take effective action to combat and eliminate the phenomenon in all forms.  The text's main sponsor said that the right to life was a right to be protected, promoted and preserved for all people.


Action on Draft Resolutions


The Committee began its work by taking up draft resolutions on refugees.


First, the Committee approved an orally revised draft resolution without a vote on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/C.3/57/L.73).


A resolution on the enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/57/L.77) was approved by the Committee, without a vote.


The representative of Turkey spoke after the adoption of the resolution and said that Turkey’s non-obstruction to the consensus must not be construed as recognition of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey.


The representative of Cyprus said she regretted that the delegate of Turkey had politicized the issue, and welcomed the adoption of the resolution.


Another resolution on the continuation of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/57/L.78) was approved without a vote by the Committee, as well as a resolution on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner (document A/C.3/57/L.79).


The Committee next took up a draft resolution on an item related to the promotion and protection of the rights of the child.


That omnibus text, on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/57/L.25/Rev.1), also contained an amendment to subparagraph (d) of section VII of the draft (document A/C.3/57/L.72), which would request the Special representative of the Secretary-General on children in armed conflict to submit to the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights reports containing relevant information on the situation of children affected by armed conflict, taking into account the outcome of the Assembly’s special session on children.


The representative of Uruguay introduced several other technical amendments to the text.

The observer of Palestine withdrew the amendment contained in document A/C.3/57/L.25/Rev.1.


      A recorded vote was requested.


In a general statement before the vote, the representative of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said support for the resolution before the Committee was a prime commitment for the European Union, and it had made great efforts to ensure consensus on the draft.  It further believed that the co-sponsors had made some painful sacrifices in order to achieve consensus.  The European Union was therefore disappointed that one delegation had requested a vote on the draft, which would break the Committee's usual consensus on the text.  The Union was also disappointed that that delegation had showed little flexibility during negotiations.


The representative of Canada said her delegation would support the resolution but would register its dissatisfaction with the spirit and tenor of the negotiations on the text, particularly discussions surrounding rights-based language and on the Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court (ICC).  If there was one issue on which there should be agreement among all members of the international community, it should be on the promotion and protection of the rights of the child.  To that end, Canada believed that all initiatives on behalf of children should be based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the essential benchmark in that regard.


The representative of the United States said that with respect to draft resolution L.25, he had hoped that this year, the United States would have been able to support a consensus resolution.  However, the principal sponsors of the resolution were not willing to address its legitimate concerns.  The United States also voted against this resolution because of their profound disagreement on the following points.  The resolution contained formulations concerning the Convention on the Rights of the Child to which the United States did not agree.  The United States was not a party to the Convention and did not agree that there was a need for universal ratification of the Convention nor did it accept an obligation to implement its provisions. 


Second, the resolution insisted that all countries recognize the contribution that the establishment of the ICC had made to the protection of children.  The United States was not a party and did not agree with the statement made about the ICC, at this time, in a resolution on the rights of children.  For these reasons, the United States had decided to vote against the draft resolution on the rights of the child. 


The resolution was approved by a vote of 164 in favour and 1 against (United States).  (See Annex I.)


After the vote, the representative of Singapore said the Convention on the Rights of the Child was subject to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.  The Vienna Convention drew a distinction between permissible and impermissible reservations.  The purpose of reservations was to allow as many countries as possible to become party to international treaties at the earliest opportunity, while providing flexibility to States Parties in their compliance with the obligations of the treaty or convention.  He was therefore concerned at the apparent trend by some delegations to discourage reservations, a practice, which he believed to be counter-productive since it would discourage countries from becoming parties to international treaties.   


The observer of Palestine said the result of the vote sent a message to every child of the world -- that the United Nations was committed to their rights and their safety.  Her understanding of the amendment introduced was that paragraph D about children in armed conflict, included children under occupation. 


The representative of Israel said that Israel's understanding of the amendment was that the reference to children in armed conflict also included children under the threat of terrorism. 


The Committee then took note of the relevant reports that had been before it during this session:  Report of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (document A/57/41 and Corr.1), and the Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (document A/57/295).


The Committee then began consideration of a draft text on indigenous people and issues (document A/C.3/57/L.29/Rev.1).


The Committee Secretary read out several technical corrections, and the representative of Suriname, the draft's main sponsor, updated the Committee on the negotiations process that had resulted in the agreed text under consideration.


The representative of Dominica joined the statement made by Suriname, saying his delegation had always been convinced of the vital importance of the draft to the world's indigenous people.  Still, Dominica would express its concern that there had been very few positive outcomes during the Decade, and he hoped the draft would provide new impetus for action as the Decade came to a close.


The draft was adopted without a vote.


The Committee then took note of the report of the Secretary-General on the status of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations (document A/57/29).


The Committee then took up a series of drafts on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.


Delegations considered first the text on globalization and its impacts on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/57/L.44).


A recorded vote was requested.


Before the vote, the representative of Denmark, on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union was not convinced that globalization had an impact on all human rights, such as the freedom from torture and the freedom of speech.  The European Union did not neglect that globalization could have both positive and negative impacts on human rights.  However, the European Union was disappointed that the draft resolution did not reflect any of the positive aspects or the complex causal links.  The European Union believed that the resolution could be integrated within existing mechanisms of the United Nations.  For these reasons, the European Union would vote against this draft resolution.


The representative of Canada, on behalf of United States, New Zealand, and Australia, said they remained convinced that the benefits of globalization should be shared more equally.  Governments had a key role to play in this regard, including the responsibility to respect and promote human rights.  The current draft resolution did not deal with the complexities involved in globalization, and for these reasons they would vote against it.


The resolution was approved by a vote of 105 in favour, 49 against, with

8 abstentions (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Singapore, Turkey, Guatemala, Honduras). (See Annex II)


After the vote, the representative of Egypt thanked all delegations who had voted in favour of the resolution and said that he hoped that next year there would be a consensus on the resolution.  Some countries believed that globalization was good, others believed that it was bad.  Egypt believed that globalization involved both positive and negative impacts, and the resolution aimed to remind the international community of developing countries in the midst of the momentum of globalization. 


The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (document A/C.3/57/L.55).


A recorded vote was requested.


The representative of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated countries, said her delegation fully supported efforts to achieve a democratic equitable order, but believed that the text was an attempt to have the Third Committee examine issues under consideration by other United Nations forums.  Bearing in mind the nature and context of the draft, the Union would reiterate that the Third Committee was not the appropriate forum to address those issues.


The resolution was approved by a vote of 98 in favour to 52 against, with

8 abstentions (Argentina, Fiji, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Mexico, Panama, Peru, South Africa. (See Annex III)


The Committee then approved a draft resolution as orally revised on the human rights situation in Cambodia (document A/C.3/57/L.67) without a vote.


Before the adoption, the representative of Yemen -said there was no transparency in tackling certain human rights issues.  Certain countries were singled out in the interests of some countries.  He would not participate in the vote on any human rights situations for this reason. 


After the adoption, the representative of Cambodia said she had already expressed her position on the human rights situation in her country.  Cambodia had joined the consensus this year in the spirit of cooperation.  As an ongoing process, the protection and promotion of human rights was one of the top priorities of her Government.  She expressed her appreciation to the delegation of Japan as the main sponsor of the resolution. 


The Committee then turned to a revised resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/57/L.68).  The revision concerned operative paragraph 14 which would now read as follows:  “welcomes the decision of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Council adopted at its 123rd Session to establish an intergovernmental Working Group as subsidiary body of the Committee on World Food Security, with the participation of stakeholders, in the context of the Declaration of the World Food Summit:  five years later, to elaborate in a period of two years, a set of voluntary guidelines to support Member States’ efforts to achieve the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security; and in this regard stresses that FAO will work closely with relevant United Nations bodies, in particular the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, as well as the two Rome-based food agencies, International Fund for Agricultural Development and World Food Programme, noting also the invitation of FAO to other relevant institutions of the United Nations system treaty bodies and the World Trade Organization to collaborate in assisting the Working Group, on the basis of their respective mandates”.


The representative of the United States said the United States wanted to follow up on the amendment above.  It was no secret that the United States had a more conservative view on the right to food and economic and social rights in general.  However, it was vitally important that this resolution be consistent with agreements made between Heads of State in Rome.  Therefore he proposed two small amendments.  The United States wanted operative paragraph 5 to read “encourages all States to take steps with a view to achieving the progressive realization of the right to adequate food, including steps to promote the conditions for everyone to be free from hunger and, as soon as possible, to enjoy fully the right to food, and to elaborate and adopt national plans to combat hunger”.  The United States wanted operative paragraph 8 to read “urges States to give adequate priority in their development strategies and expenditures to the progressive realization of the right to adequate food”.  Only then would the resolution correspond to the agreements made in Rome.


The representative of Cuba thanked the United States for these proposals; however they were not acceptable.  Cuba had appreciated that the United States had showed more cooperation on this resolution than on others, however, these proposed revisions strayed from the purpose of the draft resolution.  These amendments would change the essence of the draft -- the guaranteeing of the right to food.  He added that substantive amendments should be given at least 24 hours before action on draft resolutions.  These tardy amendments did not give the co-sponsors enough time for consideration.  He therefore suggested a motion of no-action on the amendments brought up by the United States.


The representative of Denmark, on behalf of the European Union, asked the meeting to be suspended for 10 minutes.  She had not been able to become familiar with the United States’ amendment.  Furthermore, a motion of no-action was a serious motion and should be avoided.


The representative of Egypt said that he did not want to repeat what had happened a few days ago.  The process had started and the situation must be recognized.


The meeting was suspended.


When the meeting reconvened, the representative of Cuba pointed out that the resolution had three new co-sponsors -- France, Comoros and Paraguay.  This morning, Cuba had proposed a motion for no action on the amendments of the United States, which were neither pertinent nor relevant to the work of the Committee.  However, co-sponsors had requested the withdrawal of the motion of no action, and in order to be flexible, Cuba would do so.  If the Committee approved the United States amendments, the work on the right to food would regress about ten years.  The right to food must be ensured, he said.  If the amendments of the United States remained intact and were not withdrawn, he would call for a vote on them and vote against them.


The Committee rejected the amendments proposed by the United States in a vote of 15 in favour of the amendments and 118 against, with 28 abstentions.  (See Annex IV).


The representative of the United States said his country regretted that it could not join the consensus, since the United States was deeply committed to food security and was the largest emergency food supplier in the world.  It had even supported, with some reservations, the establishment of an intergovernmental working group.  The United States believed that the attainment of the right to food was a goal to be reached progressively that did not involve any national responsibilities on the part of the Government.  The United States therefore called for a vote on the resolution.


The Committee approved the resolution as a whole vote of 160 in favour,

2 against (Marshall Island and United States), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Bangladesh, Canada and Israel).  (See Annex V)


(Following that action, the representative of Bangladesh said his delegation had voted in favour of the text and had not abstained as indicated in the recorded vote.)


After the vote, the representative of the Czech Republic said she welcomed the adoption of the resolution.  However, she believed that the amendments were not minor and would appreciate it in the future if amendments were given with enough time for consideration.


In explaining its vote, the representation of Canada said that Canada believed in the progressive realization of the right to food as well as the need to have realistic resolutions in the General Assembly.  Canada continued to have reservations about the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.  Since several positive references had been made to the Special Rapporteur in the resolution, Canada had not been able to support it.


The representative of Cuba thanked delegations that had voted in favour of the resolution.  This showed that hunger was truly an outrage to the United Nations.  All human rights needed to be dealt with on a par, including hunger.


The representative of Australia said Australia had fully supported the amendments to the resolution since it would make it more consistent to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  These amendments would not have diluted the text or taken it ten years backwards.


After the adoption of the resolution, the representative of New Zealand raised concerns about the report of the Special Rapporteur, which explained its inability to support the resolution.


When the Committee took up the text on Khmer Rouge trials (document A/C.3/57/L.70), the Chairman informed delegations that he had received a request to defer action on the draft until tomorrow.


The representative of Japan was concerned about the request for postponement on the text and asked the Bureau which delegations had requested the deferral and why.


The representative of Canada said that her delegation was among those that had requested postponement because of several serious outstanding issues, namely the particulars of the mandate that the text would give the Secretary-General to negotiate with the Cambodian Government on the establishment of a tribunal to prosecute crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge.  Canada would like to have the views of the Secretary-General and the Legal Counsel on the matter.


The representative of the Philippines supported Japan, and recalled that negotiations on the text had been underway for more than two months.  His delegation felt that the language was the best that could be hoped for under the circumstances and therefore believed that deferral of action on it would only complicate matters further.  He proposed that the Committee take action today.


The representatives of the Netherlands agreed with Canada that a short postponement in order to better inform the Committee and the wider Assembly was to the benefit of all.


The representative of Switzerland supported the proposal to postpone action on the draft and commended the delegations leading the negotiations, Japan and France.  He said, however, that the draft was not quite ready.  It represented some ambiguities; the Committee should seek the opinion of the Secretary-General; and thus far the text did not enjoy consensus.  Addressing those issue was critically important to ensuring the international community's involvement in such a vital issue. 


The representative of Sweden supported postponement in order to give the Secretary-General his opinion on the draft.


The representative of Thailand supported the statement of Japan.


The representative of Japan said his delegation had not been not been persuaded by the arguments of the delegations which had called for setting the draft aside.  Japan would insist that the vote take place today as scheduled.  He stressed that the draft had been prepared in response to the Secretary-General's call to receive a sufficient and explicit mandate -- either from the Security Council or the General Assembly -- under which he could resume negotiations with the Cambodian Government for the establishment of an extraordinary tribunal.  Overall, he said the most important goal was implementing the will of the Member States, not satisfying those looking to shore up national self-interests.


The representative of Germany said his delegation had also requested a postponement.  The draft was a very positive step in the right direction, but certain uncertainties remained.


The representative of China said his delegation did not understand the request for postponement of action on a text that had been under consideration for such a long time.  How much would a deferral of a mere twenty-four hours help?  The text was clear, and as soon as it was adopted, it would lay the groundwork for the Secretary-General to begin important negotiations with the Government of Cambodia.


The representative of Ireland said that like other delegations he continued to have certain concerns on the ambiguity in some parts of the draft.  He also felt it was wise to allow the Secretariat to share their views.


The representative of Cuba said that Cuba did not support the postponement on the draft resolution.


The representative of France said he joined delegations that did not favour the postponement of action on the draft resolution.  He questioned whether the postponement was even relevant or necessary.  The General Assembly was there to provide the Secretary-General with his mandate.  The draft resolution was a text that had been negotiated over a number of months.  Those who favoured postponement had been involved in the elaboration of the draft from the very beginning.


The representative of Cambodia said a postponement would jeopardize the resumption of negotiations with the Secretary-General and the bringing about of justice to the people who had suffered at the hands of the Khmer Rouge.  He appealed to delegations to act on the draft without delay.


The representative of Sudan supported acting on the draft resolution immediately.


The representative of India supported the position taken by the delegation of Japan.  He added that the delegations that had supported the postponement and had been aware of the situation since the beginning.  No new events had been brought up which would warrant the postponement.  By waiting for the opinion of the Secretariat, there might be a tilting of the carefully elaborated balance in the resolution.  This must be kept in mind, he said.  He suggested that action be taken today.


The representative of Indonesia said the negotiations had ended because one of the criticisms of the Government of Cambodia had been that it had tried to delay the process.  His delegation stressed that this was no time for the Third Committee to delay the process further.


The representative of the United Kingdom added his voice to the people who had asked for a short postponement of the action.  A number of delegations had expressed the wish to have the opinion of the Secretariat -- it would be wise to take this into consideration.


The representative of the United States said that Winston Churchill used to say “action this day”.  Therefore, the United States wanted to act today.  He reminded the Committee that the Cambodian Government supported this resolution.  This gave the Secretary-General a wonderful opportunity to step forward towards peace and reconciliation and end impunity.


The representative of Suriname said resolutions were in general not presented to be postponed.  If the main sponsors were in favour of action -- why wait?  Suriname was therefore in favour of action without any delay.


The Chairman called for a vote on the request for postponement of action on the draft.  The request was defeated by a vote of 14 in favour to 90 against, with 59 abstentions.  (See Annex VI).


When the Committee took up the draft as a whole, the representative of Japan said that if the text was adopted, it would open the way for credible Khmer Rouge trials, but if it was not, the opportunity for such trials, with the active participation of the United Nations, might be perhaps lost forever.


A recorded vote was the requested.


The representative of Netherlands, speaking on behalf of Germany and Ireland, said the three delegations would abstain.  They seriously regretted having to do so in view of their strong resolve to address the crimes of the Khmer Rouge.  With that in mind, the extremely serious nature of the acts the draft sought to address required an equally serious consideration by the international community.  His delegation seriously regretted that the full membership had been unable to hear the views of the Legal Counsel on the matter.


The representative of Canada, speaking on behalf of New Zealand said it was with great regret that her delegation would abstain from the vote on the draft.  Nevertheless, Canada was concerned that any tribunal mandated or endorsed by the Assembly was a credible body capable of living up to that mandate and forwarding a genuine process that would achieve results.  The United Nations must be given the strong mandate to ensure an independent and comprehensive process.  Canada had sought postponement to hear the views of the Secretary-General or Legal Counsel on the matter.


The representative of Germany said his delegation would abstain over some of the wording and the text, as well as other ambiguities.  Germany had always sought to adequately address the issue of impunity.  Unfortunately, the text was unclear on the standards of justice under which the proposed tribunal would operate.  Germany also had concerns that Cambodia was not a co-sponsor of the draft.  What were the reasons, he asked?


The representative of Ireland said the text left “excessive room for unhelpful ambiguities”.  Ireland was particularly concerned that the draft might not meet the needs of those that would be tasked with its execution.  His delegation would have hoped for the opportunity to hear from a representative of the Legal Counsel on the matter.


The resolution was approved by a vote of 123 in favour and 37 abstentions (See Annex VII).


The representative of Switzerland said he regretted that a postponement had not been possible.  He would have wished to have the Secretary-General’s input on the resolution and deeply regretted the outcome of the discussion.  Now, a text had been adopted that was ambiguous and which left the Committee divided.  Nevertheless, he hoped the negotiations would be a success.


The representative of Sweden said she had not voted in favour of the postponement of the resolution, even though Sweden was a strong supporter of the establishment of the Khmer Rouge tribunal.  However, to require the Secretary-General to resume negotiations based on a text which did not address the failings of the last negotiations risked leaving the perpetrators of crimes during the Khmer Rouge period with impunity and did not guarantee international legal standards.


The representative of the United States thanked all those who had worked so hard on this resolutions.  The United States remained a strong supporter of a credible tribunal for the Khmer Rouge; however, he regretted that the delegation of Cambodia had not co-sponsored the resolution. 


The representative of Belgium said the fight against impunity was a top priority, which was why he regretted their need to abstain due to certain ambiguities.


The representative of the United Kingdom said he had abstained even though the United Kingdom also wanted to bring the Secretary-General back to the negotiations with Cambodia.  Cambodia’s failure to co-sponsor the resolution was a sign of lack of commitment. 


The representative of Austria said he had voted in favour of the resolution so that the Khmer Rouge tribunal could end impunity.  However, Austria remained concerned about the tribunal not living up to international legal standards.


The representative of Liechtenstein said that his country was a long supporter of international justice and tribunals.  Such support was essential to strengthen rule of law internationally and to bring justice to the people of Cambodia.  The Government of Cambodia needed to be committed; this would have been most appropriately confirmed if they had been a co-sponsor of the resolution.  It was also regrettable that the Committee had not heard the Secretary-General’s view on the draft.


The representative of Australia was committed to try Khmer Rouge leaders and had been disappointed that negotiations had broken down between the Government of Cambodia and Secretary-General earlier this year.  While he had hoped that the text would give the Secretary-General a more robust mandate, now, that it had been adopted, he urged the Government of Cambodia to cooperate to establish a credible tribunal. 


The Committee then took up several drafts on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives.


The representative of Denmark introduced two amendments in order to update the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Sudan (document A/C.3/57/L.43/Rev.1).


A recorded vote was requested.


In a general statement, the representative of the Sudan said his delegation had engaged in frank and transparent negotiations with the European Union on the text and would thank that delegation for its efforts.  The Sudan's cooperation with the European Union was based on its conviction that positive dialogue was the best way to achieve positive results.  The Sudan sought consensus and despite its efforts to correct imbalances in the text, its concerns had not been included.  The draft totally ignored the positive developments during the peace process and the spirit of the reconciliation process under way in the country.  It had been the Sudan's hope that the draft would be a message of encouragement of hope and solidarity, but the text was still plagued by vestiges of the past.


He said elements of the draft infringed on the Sudan's sovereignty, particularly in the suggestions that the country's constitution and form of Government be completely changed.  The draft was based on contradictions that would not stand up to closer scrutiny and moreover had been based, in several sections on what had been considered “rumors” reported to the Special Rapporteur.  Among the other clear contradictions, his delegation noted that the resolution asked the Government to take certain measures to address specific issues, which had already been elaborated in legislation.  He had hoped that consensus would have been reached, but it appeared that that would not be the case.  The Sudan would vote against the text and would call on others to do so as well.


The representative of Suriname said it was a widely held belief that the human rights of peoples and countries should be considered in a balanced way, not as a political weapon.  If Special Rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights who had been designated to visit specific countries were doing their jobs, how could the Committee set itself up as a judge of human rights situations in specific countries?


Suriname had decided it would not support resolutions on country-specific human rights situations and therefore hoped that soon, such texts would be drawn up by the Committee Chairperson, in close consultation with the relevant Rapporteur and the concerned Government.  But in light of all the positive endeavours underway in the Sudan, Suriname would do more than abstain, and would vote against the draft.


The representative of Egypt said that country-specific human rights reports should not be used as tools to interfere in the integrity of States.  The purpose of such texts should be for the promotion and protection of human rights and not to level baseless and damaging accusations.  Egypt would vote against the draft.


The representative of the United States said that although the Government of the Sudan had made very limited progress since last year, the United States believed that the Sudan continued to implement policies that undermined and denied basic human rights to its citizens.  For this reason, his Government had continued to encourage Khartoum on its serious human rights misdeeds in every appropriate venue, including the United Nations.  The United States was pleased that the resolution highlighted the Sudan’s continued abrogation of religious freedom, deliberate attacks against civilians, support for civilian-abducted militias and repeated denial of humanitarian access to its citizens in need.  However, the United States was deeply concerned that the resolution omitted stronger references to slavery and religious persecution. 


The United States felt that the international community had lost a valuable opportunity to more explicitly expose Khartoum’s support for these shameful practices, said the representative.  The United States would continue to work to shine a spotlight on the human rights abuses committed by the Sudanese Government and to bring them to an end.  He welcomed the substantial progress made in the Sudan Peace Talks and said that the United States was working to ensure that the final agreement included provisions to protect fundamental freedoms and human rights.  Faced with the possibility that the resolution might have failed to pass without United States support, his Government had decided to vote in favour of this resolution.  Doing so helped maintain international attention on the Sudan’s human rights misdeeds.  


The representative of China said the Sudan had made significant efforts toward improvement of the human rights situation in the country.  Regrettably, the draft failed to recognize that progress, and instead leveled unfair accusations against the country and ignored the situation on the ground.  China would vote against the draft.


The representative of Pakistan said that Pakistan valued the work of the United Nations human rights system.  The thematic resolutions were a manifestation of resolve of the international community to promote and protect human rights.  However, country-specific resolutions gave the impression that some countries had the right to judge others.  No country had a perfect human rights system, he said, adding that developing countries faced much greater challenges.  Country-specific resolutions were selective, picking on some and leaving others out, for example, a situation concerning the massacres of thousands of Muslims.  The conspicuous absence of developed countries in resolutions was telling.  Another telling fact was that for the exception of Japan, no country from South America, Asia or Africa had co-sponsored the resolutions.  The draft resolution did not fully take into account the initiatives taken by the Sudan.  Pakistan would therefore vote against the resolution.   


The Committee approved the resolution in a vote of 74 in favour and

53 against, with 29 abstentions (See Annex VIII). 


The representative of the Bahamas explained that she had voted in favour of the resolution, but stressed that the death penalty was a matter of the jurisdiction of each State.


The representative of Bangladesh said his country avoided finger pointing as a point of principle.  He acknowledged the complexity of the particular situation as well as the positive development in the country.  He hoped that his vote would be seen as a manifestation of encouragement to the Government of the Sudan.


The representative of Chad said he had voted against the resolution since it was difficult to dissociate human rights issues in the Sudan from the armed conflict.  Yet, the Sudan had made strides to promote human rights having created a climate for national reconciliation.  It was therefore regrettable to note that the resolutions contained condemnations, as if nothing had changed.


In a general comment, the representative of Japan said that Japan’s approach to human rights was based on cooperation.  He welcomed the efforts made towards a consensus on this resolution.  It was added that human rights dialogue between the Governments of Japan and Sudan had taken place in 2002.  Japan hoped that this effort would lead to an improvement of the human rights situation in the Sudan.  


The Committee also approved the Chairman's text on the human rights situation in Afghanistan (document A/C.3/57/L.71), through which the Committee would have the Assembly affirm the primary responsibility of the Afghan Transitional Authority, supported by the United Nations, to establish an environment of good governance, democracy and the rule of law.  The text would have the Assembly urge the Transitional Authority, the international community and

the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, to provide the Commissions established under the Bonn Agreement.  The text would also have the Assembly urge the Transitional Authority to continue its efforts to reestablish the rule of law, including by ensuring that law enforcement agencies respect and uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms.  Further to the text, the Assembly would also express grave concern about the recent reports of ethnically motivated violence, as well as about recent cases of arbitrary arrest and detention and of summary trials in some areas of the country. 


The Committee approved the draft decision on the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the World conference on Human Rights in 2003 (document A/C.3/57/L.84).


(annexes follow)


ANNEX I


Vote on Rights of Child


The draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/57/L.25/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.


Against:  United States.

.


Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Zimbabwe.


(END OF ANNEX I)


ANNEX II


Vote on Globalization's Impact on Human Rights


The draft resolution on the impact of globalization on human rights (document A/C.3/57/L.44) was approved by a recorded vote of 105 in favour to 49 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.


Abstaining:  Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Singapore, Turkey.


Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guinea, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.


(END OF ANNEX II)


ANNEX III


Vote on Promotion of Democratic International Order


The draft resolution on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (document A/C.3/57/L.55) was approved by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 52 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.


Abstaining:  Argentina, Fiji, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Mexico, Panama, Peru, South Africa.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guinea, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.


(END OF ANNEX III)


ANNEX IV


Vote on Amendments on Right to Food


The oral amendments proposed by the United States to the draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/57/L.68) were defeated by a recorded vote of

15 in favour to 118 against, with 28 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Armenia, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Israel, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan.


Against:  Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Abstaining:  Albania, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Estonia, Guyana, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Senegal, Slovakia, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Maldives, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu.


(END OF ANNEX IV)


ANNEX V


Vote on Right to Food


The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/57/L.68) was approved by a recorded vote of 160 in favour to 2 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Marshall Islands, United States.


Abstaining:  Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Israel.


Absent:  Central African Republic, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Guinea, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.


(END OF ANNEX V)


ANNEX VI


Vote to Postpone Action on Khmer Rouge Trials


The motion to postpone action on the draft resolution on Khmer Rouge trials (document A/C.3/57/L.70) was defeated by a recorded vote of 14 in favour to 90 against, with 59 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Belgium, Canada, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom.


Against:  Afghanistan, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Abstaining:  Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Jamaica, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Morocco, Pakistan, Panama, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.


Absent:  Bahrain, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen.


(END OF ANNEX VI)


ANNEX VII


Vote on Khmer Rouge Trials


The draft resolution on Khmer Rouge Trials (document A/C.3/57/L.70) was approved by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to none against, with 37 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Against:  None.


Abstaining:  Albania, Angola, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Samoa, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Bahrain, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guinea, Iraq, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen.


(END OF ANNEX VII)


ANNEX VIII


Vote on Human Rights in the Sudan


The draft resolution on human rights in the Sudan (document A/C.3/57/L.43/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 74 in favour to

53 against, with 29 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.


Against:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam.


Abstaining:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Dominica, Eritrea, Ghana, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mongolia, Mozambique, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Absent:  Armenia, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen.


* *** *