16/12/2005
General Assembly
GA/EF/3140

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixtieth General Assembly

Second Committee

38th Meeting (PM)


second committee approves text recommending holding of high-level dialogue


on international migration, development in new york next september


The General Assembly would decide to hold the High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development in New York on 14 and 15 September, according to one of two draft resolutions that the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) approved this afternoon.


By other terms of that draft, on international migration and development, the Assembly would decide that the Dialogue would consist of four plenary meetings and four interactive round tables focusing on the impacts of international migration on economic and social development; measures to protect the human rights of migrants and prevent the trafficking of persons; remittances; as well as capacity-building and the sharing of best practices at the bilateral and regional levels.


In a separate prior action on that draft, the Committee approved operative paragraph 7 by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 2 against ( Japan, United States), with 1 abstention ( Israel).  (For voting details, see Annex IV.)


Taking action on a second draft, on the International Year of Deserts and Desertification, 2006, the Committee approved it by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 1 against ( Syria), with 42 abstentions.  By that text, the Assembly would reiterate its call to Member States and international organizations to support desertification-related activities to be organized by affected countries, including on land degradation.  By other terms, the Assembly would reiterate its call to countries to contribute towards the Convention to Combat Desertification and undertake special initiatives in observance of the Year.  (Annex III)


In a separate prior action, the Committee approved an amendment to that text by a recorded vote of 83 in favour to 34 against, with 30 abstentions.  That amendment would have the General Assemblywelcome the decision by the Government of Israel to host an international conference on “Deserts and Desertification:  Challenges and Opportunities” at Be’er Sheva in November 2006.  (Annex I)


By a recorded 48 votes in favour to 29 against, with 74 abstentions, the Committee approved a second amendment to the desertification text, by which the Assembly would express deep concern over Israel’s destruction of agricultural lands and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  (Annex II).


The Second Committee will meet again at a date and time to be announced, when it is expected to take action on outstanding draft resolutions.


Background


The Second Committee (Economic and Financial) met today to take action on draft resolutions relating to the international financial system, sustainable development,globalization and interdependence, and poverty eradication.


Draft Resolutions


Before the Committee was a draft on follow-up to and implementation of the outcome of the International Conference on Financing for Development (document A/C.2/60/L.72), by which the Assembly would underline the importance of implementing the Monterrey commitment to sound policies, good governance at all levels and the rule of law.  It would further underline the importance of implementing the commitment to create an enabling environment for mobilizing domestic resources, as well as the importance of sound economic policies, solid democratic institutions responsive to the needs of the people, and improved infrastructure as a basis for sustained economic growth, poverty eradication and employment creation; and the importance of implementing the commitment to enhance the coherence and consistency of the international monetary, financial and trading systems.


Further by the text, the Assembly would stress the importance of a universal, rule-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system, as well as meaningful trade liberalization that can substantially stimulate development worldwide, and emphasize the importance of fulfilling the development dimension of the Doha work programme, and the successful completion of the Doha round as soon as possible.  Also by the draft, it would call on developed countries to continue to devise source-country measures to encourage and facilitate the flow of foreign direct investment (FDI), including through provision of export credits and other lending instruments, risk guarantees and business development services, and call upon developing countries and countries with economies in transition to continue their efforts to create a conducive domestic environment for attracting investments, including through achievement of a transparent, stable and predictable investment climate with proper contract enforcement and respect for property rights.


The Assembly would, by other terms, urge developed countries to make concrete timetables to achieve, or exceed, the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP) for official development assistance (ODA) by 2015, and to reach at least 0.5 per cent of GNP for ODA by 2010, as well as 0.15 per cent to 0.20 per cent for the least developed countries by no later than 2010.  Also by the text, it would emphasize the importance of microcredit and microfinance in the eradication of poverty, highlight that observance of the International Year of Microcredit 2005 has provided a significant opportunity to raise awareness, share best practices and further enhance financial sectors that support sustainable pro-poor financial services in all countries, and urge Member countries to put best practices into action.


Further by the draft, the Assembly would stress the importance of investments in basic economic and social infrastructure, and call for continued deepening and scaling up of support for infrastructure service delivery and removal of impediments to respond to the needs of developing countries.  By other terms, the Assembly would stress the importance of pursuing appropriate national policy and regulatory frameworks to foster a dynamic and well-functioning business sector to increase economic growth and reduce poverty, while recognizing that the appropriate role of government in market-oriented economies will vary from country to country.


Further by the text, the Assembly would decide to hold a follow-up international conference on Financing for Development to review implementation of the Monterrey Consensus, at a time between 2008 and 2009, and welcome the offer of the Government of Qatar to host this conference.  Also by the text, it would decide that the review conference should assess progress made, reaffirm goals and commitments, share best practices and lessons learned, identify obstacles and constraints encountered, actions and initiatives to overcome them, and important measures for further implementation, as well as new challenges and emerging issues.  It would further decide to commence the preparatory process, including a decision on the exact date of that conference at the sixty-first session of the General Assembly.


Also before the Committee was a draft resolution on the International Year of Deserts and Desertification, 2006 (document A/C.2/60/L.34), by which the General Assembly would reiterate its call to Member States and international organizations to support activities related to desertification, including land degradation, to be organized by affected countries, in particular African and least developed countries.


By other terms, the Assembly would also reiterate its call to countries to contribute to the Convention to Combat Desertification, and to undertake special initiatives in observance of the Year.  Further, it would call upon Member States to make voluntary contributions to the Convention’s Special Fund.  Also by the text, the Assembly would request the Executive Secretary of the Convention to Combat Desertification to make available to the Parties to the Convention and to observers, a consolidated list of all activities reported, including lessons learned and best practices, in order to coordinate information and avoid overlapping of activities.


A draft on the International Year of Deserts and Desertification, 2006 (document A/C.2/60/L.65) amends the related draft (document A/C.2/60/L.34) with a new preambular paragraph, welcoming the decision of the Government of Israel to host an international conference on “Deserts and Desertification:  Challenges and Opportunities”, at Be’er Sheva in November 2006.


Another draft, on the International Year of Deserts and Desertification, 2006 (document A/C.2/60/L.74), would have the Assembly add a new preambular paragraph after the third preambular paragraph, reading:  “Deeply concerned also at the extensive destruction by Israel, the occupying Power, of agricultural land and orchards in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the uprooting of a vast number of fruit-bearing trees.”


By a draft on international migration and development (A/C.2/60/L.62), the Assembly would decide to hold the High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development in New York on 14 and 15 December.  Further by the draft, it would decide that the Dialogue consist of four plenary meetings and four interactive round tables, focusing on the impacts of international migration on economic and social development; measures to protect the human rights of migrants and prevent the trafficking of persons; remittances; and building capacity and sharing best-practices at bilateral and regional levels for the benefit of countries and migrants. 


Also by the text, the Assembly would decide to hold one-day informal interactive hearings in 2006 with representatives of non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations and the private sector, to be presided over by the President of the General Assembly, and request the President to prepare a summary of the hearings prior to the High-level Dialogue in September 2006. 


Further by the text, the Assembly would request the President to organize two panel discussions prior to the High-level Dialogue with a focus on its overall theme, and invite the Commission on Population and Development, the Commission on Social Development, and the Commission on the Status of Women to consider the issue of international migration within their respective mandates, and invite them to submit their inputs through the Economic and Social Council.


Another draft, on women in development (document A/C.2/60/L.64), would have the Assembly call on Governments, the United Nations system, international and regional organizations, and civil society to commit fully to implementing the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly.  Also by that text, it would urge Governments to develop strategies to mainstream a gender perspective in economic and development policies, and in monitoring and evaluating related programmes of action.  The Assembly would, by other terms, call on all Governments and other stakeholders to address gender wage gaps and labour market segmentation, and improve the conditions and security of women’s employment.


Also by the text, the Assembly would call on Governments to incorporate a gender perspective in their policies on international migration, including for the protection of women migrants from violence, discrimination, trafficking, exploitation and labour abuse.  It would, by other terms, stress the importance of developing national strategies to promote entrepreneurial activities that would generate income among disadvantaged women and those living in poverty.  By other terms, it would urge Governments to ensure women’s equal rights with men and their full access -- particularly for rural women and those in the informal sector -- to education, training, employment, technology and economic and financial resources, including credit.


Further by the text, the Assembly would urge Governments to take measures to eliminate discrimination against women with regard to access to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of financial credit, giving special attention to poor, uneducated women, and to support women’s access to legal assistance.  Also by the draft, it would urge States to design and revise laws that ensure that women are accorded full and equal rights to own land and other property, including through inheritance.  By further terms, the Assembly would urge Governments to create and maintain a non-discriminatory and gender-sensitive legal environment by reviewing legislation, with a view to eliminating legislative gaps that leave women and girls without protection of their rights and without effective recourse against gender-based discrimination.


The Assembly would, by other terms, stress the importance of collecting and exchanging all relevant information needed on the role of women in development, including data on international migration, as well as the need to develop statistics disaggregated by sex.  It would, further, decide that the survey’s next theme would be “Women’s control over economic resources and access to financial resources, including through microfinance”.


Action on Draft Resolutions


The Committee first took up the draft on the International Year of Deserts and Desertification, 2006 (document A/C.2/60/L.34), deciding to hold a recorded vote on a proposed amendment to the text (document A/C.2/60/L.65).


Introducing the amendment, the representative of Israel said it had become clear in consultations on the desertification draft that it would not be possible to incorporate in it his country’s proposal to hold an international conference on the topic.  Negotiations on what should have been a straightforward resolution about a matter of great interest had been brought to a grinding halt.  Obvious discrimination had compelled Israel to introduce the amendment to the text -– discrimination that was pernicious and insulting in view of contributions that Israel had made in the fight against desertification.


The representative of Mauritania, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said the amendment did not contain sufficient legal and political commitment.  If Israel was seeking international endorsement of its effort to fight desertification, why had it refused to take responsibility for its own desertification-producing policies, which included the detrimental effects of its unlawful wall, and the uprooting of thousands of fruit trees?  Those practices had been well documented in various reports, and given those facts, the Arab Group had difficulties in accepting the amendment.


The amendment was then approved by a recorded vote of 83 in favour to 34 against, with 30 abstentions.  (See Annex I.)


Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, supported the inclusion of the paragraph on the conference in the draft resolution, saying that including mention of any government-sponsored international meeting focusing on the International Year of Deserts and Desertification was fair and justifiable.


The representative of South Africa said he had voted in favour of the amendment, viewing it as a technical process that would contribute to knowledge needed to combat desertification.  Hopefully, those who wished to attend the conference would be allowed to do so.


The representative of Indonesia said an international conference had real meaning only with the participation of countries affected by desertification, which did not seem possible if it was held in Israel.  In view of the fact that many developing countries would not be able to attend, due to technical and financial difficulties, Indonesia had voted against the amendment.


The representative of Nigeria said his country had condemned Israel’s action in occupied Arab territories, but viewed the amendment as a technical matter, and had voted in its favour.


Following that action, the Committee took up a second amendment to the draft, International Year of Deserts and Desertification, 2006 (document A/C.2/60/L.74).  


The representative of Mauritania, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, introduced the draft, saying that the wording came from a resolution overwhelmingly adopted by the Committee earlier in the month, when 151 Member States had expressed concern over the destruction of agricultural land in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the uprooting of fruit-bearing trees by Israel, with the only difference being the use of the word “deeply” instead of the phrase “expresses concerns”. 


He said the amendment was linked in both substance and implication to the draft as a whole, and that it addressed issues that contributed gravely to the desertification of areas in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, as detailed in United Nations reports, and including a report containing satellite pictures illustrating an instance where a town that had been the food basket of the region became fruitless after the uprooting of 10,000 fruit trees.  It was of the utmost importance that the amendment be adopted, so as to bring balance to the text and to contribute to stopping the policies of bulldozing agricultural fields and uprooting trees that had the effect of turning those lands into arid deserts, leading to food deprivation rather than bringing economic opportunity to the area.


The representative of Israel said he was surprised at the introduction of the text, which had never been brought up during the lengthy deliberations on the draft as a whole.  The language contained in the amendment had been transplanted from a resolution on an entirely different matter and there were other appropriate forums for the discussion of such matters.  The amendment amounted to duplication and went against efforts to reinvigorate the work of the General Assembly.  The text’s originators should reconsider its introduction.


The representative of Norway said she would vote against the proposed amendment, adding that it was important to focus, in a united manner, on the grave challenges faced by many countries with regard to desertification.  Any action to advance the fight against desertification should be welcomed.  It was also important, as matter of principle, to help make the General Assembly more relevant, and Norway supported those resolutions that were succinct and dealt closely with the issue at hand. 


She said that even though Norway had voted in favour of the resolution on the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the proposed amendment would be out of context if it was included in the draft, altering its meaning despite any intended balancing effect.  In addition, its inclusion would prove counterproductive in the desire to make the International Year a platform for a united effort to deal with desertification.


The representative of the United States said he would vote “no” to the amendment because it was inconsistent with the overall message of the text as a whole, whose topic was a technical one focusing on positive, cooperative efforts made in the context of the International Year.  The amendment repeated the wording of a resolution already dealt with by the Committee, and the United States delegation saw the attempt to include it in the current draft as a way to politicize a subject that was apolitical.


The representative of the United Kingdom said she would vote against the amendment because it was inappropriate and unnecessary.  It had been raised at the last moment and had only been circulated today.


The representative of Kuwait said the resolution was indeed relevant and concerned the development of the Palestinian people.  For that reason, it was appropriate to include it in the text.  It was difficult to miss an opportunity to promote the right of the Palestinian people to development, which, in its simplest form, was to promote their right to agriculture.


The representative of Canada said that the amendment, in the specific case of the current resolution, was superfluous.  Canada was troubled that it was proposed at the last minute and not officially circulated to Member States.  For that reason, Canada would vote against it.


The representative of Denmark said she would vote against the amendment and that the draft resolution, which was technical in nature, should not be burdened with political, unbalanced amendments.  The amendment should be addressed under a more relevant item.


The representative of the Netherlands said he would vote against the amendment because it was inappropriate and unnecessary in relation to the agenda item, having been drawn from the text on the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, adopted by the Committee on 2 December.  Although the Netherlands had voted in favour of that text, portions of it should not be isolated from the whole.  The Netherlands delegation was also dismayed that the topic of the amendment had been raised at the last minute.


The Committee then decided to hold a recorded vote on the draft.


The observer for Palestine, stating that he wished to make a general statement and not an explanation of vote, said it was unfortunate that each time an issue touching on Palestine had been advanced, it had had accusations of politicization thrown in its lap.  It was quite clear from the language used in the amendment -- which discussed the uprooting of trees, which, in turn, was a clear cause of desertification -- did indeed fit into the context of the draft as a whole.  Also, the International Year called for the issue to be addressed in a comprehensive manner, and for that reason, it was unproductive to exclude a discussion of Israel’s policy-driven actions that directly and indirectly contributed to land degradation in the Middle East.


In an explanation of vote, the representative of Israel expressed disappointment at attempts to politicize the text, but said he was not surprised that it was happening since there had been attempts to hold back consensus on the draft resolution all along.  The fact that the amendment had been introduced at such a late stage left no doubt as to the sole purpose of its originators, which was to try to neutralize the positive mention of Israel in the draft.  Such a “drive to discriminate” could cause damage to the International Year and to the issue itself.  In the interest of the entire continent, Israel would vote “no”, and called upon all to do the same.


The Committee then approved the amendment by a recorded vote of 48 in favour to 29 against, with 74 abstentions.  (See Annex II.)


Following the vote, the representative of India expressed disappointment that political elements had been introduced into an otherwise straightforward sustainable development resolution, and said he had abstained.


The representative of Uruguay said she had abstained from voting because the amendment was out of context and failed to retain the substance of the draft resolution on the International Year.


The representative of Papua New Guinea said he had mistakenly voted “yes” instead of “no”.


The Committee, deciding to hold a recorded vote on the desertification text as a whole, then approved, without a vote, a series of amendments read out by the representative of Italy.


Speaking before the vote, the representative of Kuwait said he would vote in favour of the draft because it concerned an important development issue, despite the amendments made.


The representative of Italy she would vote in favour, reaffirming her country’s role as the main sponsor of the Year of Deserts and Desertification.  Hopefully, unnecessary divisions in the Committee over approval of the text would not affect the Year’s success.


The representative of Israel expressed gratitude to those delegations that had supported his country’s proposal for an international conference for recognizing Israel’s efforts in the field of desertification.  Countries that believed Israel should be discriminated against, and that had stopped at nothing to force the proposal out of the draft, would nonetheless be welcome at the conference.  When their efforts to oppose Israel’s proposal had failed, they had opted to introduce language from an unrelated resolution into the draft, which had caused it considerable damage.  What should have been a straightforward consensus resolution had been thrown into disarray and the concerns of an entire continent had been trampled upon.  If it was still possible to hold a Committee hostage in a year of revival and reform at the United Nations, something was definitely wrong.  In light of that, Israel would abstain from voting.


The representative of Syria said he would vote against the draft because of Israel’s amendment.  That country had failed to combat desertification in occupied Arab territories, where it had uprooted thousands of trees, transformed agricultural lands, destroyed wells, and diverted water sources.  Israel had also dumped nuclear and toxic waste on Arab lands, which could lead to an ecological disaster.  The Committee had called on Israel, in a previous resolution, to refrain from exploiting natural resources in occupied Arab territories and from dumping any kind of waste there.


The representative of Saudi Arabia said that, legally speaking, he could not support the new amendments.


The representative of Qatar said he would vote in favour of the draft because it was committed to supporting development and combating desertification.


The Committee then approved the draft in a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 1 against ( Syria), with 42 abstentions.  (See Annex III.)


Speaking after the vote, the representative of the Sudan said he had abstained due to Israel’s amendment.  That country’s actions, which included uprooting trees to build its illegal wall, and dumping nuclear waster, were contrary to the principles of the draft resolution.


The representative of Mexico said he had had abstained from voting because the second amendment had introduced something totally foreign to the spirit of the text.  Mexico also objected to the amendments introduced by Italy.  The politicization that had emerged in negotiating the resolution was regrettable, as was the lack of transparency on the part of several delegations.


The representative of Libya said he supported certain elements of the draft, including Algeria’s proposal to hold an international conference on desertification in 2006, but he had abstained because his delegation could not be party to a campaign propagated by the occupying authority, knowing that it had levelled so much agricultural land and uprooted thousands of fruit trees.


The representative of Venezuela, noting the importance of the International Year, said he had voted “yes” in accordance with the original intention of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China to promote their development interests.


The representative of Canada said his country had been active in preparing the International Year, both domestically and with partner countries, and had worked with other delegations to reach compromise on difficult issues contained in the text just approved.  However, Canada had abstained from the vote out of concern that the process had been politicized, believing that the process should not have been used to achieve any ends beyond combating desertification.


The representative of Pakistan said his delegation had voted in favour because the issues of desertification and land degradation deserved the unanimous support of the international community.  Pakistan regretted the inability to reach consensus.


The representative of Georgia said her delegation had not been present during the action and wished to note that Georgia would have abstained.


The representative of Algeria thanked those who had supported the draft resolution, and expressed confidence that the World Summit in Algeria would help to raise awareness of the challenges of desertification.


The representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic said that, in terms of the vote on the first amendment to the draft (document A/C.2/60/L.65), his delegation “did not mean to register any vote” and hoped that meeting records would be corrected accordingly.


Following those remarks, the Committee turned to the draft on international migration and development (document A/C.2/60/L.62), deciding to hold a vote on operative paragraph 7 of that text.


Before the action, the representative of the United States said that although his delegation was generally supportive of the planned dialogue mentioned in the text, it had called for a vote on operative paragraph 7 because the cost of the four round tables mentioned in the paragraph extended beyond the absorptive capacity of the proposed budget for 2006-2007.  The United States delegation would vote against the paragraph, believing that the cost of such activities should be accommodated within existing resources.


The representative of Japan said his delegation would vote against operative paragraph 7 because it contained programme budget implications, and reserved the right to comment and seek clarification on those implications during the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) debate on the subject.  The United Nations was facing a severe financial crisis and such budgetary implications threatened the credibility of reform.  Disappointed that programme budget implications could not be avoided, Japan hoped the Secretariat would resolve the matter by eliminating any redundancies.


The Committee then approved the operative paragraph by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 2 against ( Japan, United States), with 1 abstention ( Israel).  (Annex IV.)


Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, expressed concern that Member States had been informed of budgetary implications at a very late stage prior to the draft’s approval and said those concerns would be taken up at the relevant meeting of the Fifth Committee.


The representative of Canada aligned herself with the European Union.


The Committee then adopted the draft as a whole, without a vote, as orally amended, and withdrew an earlier version (document A/C.2/60/L.16).


(annexes follow)


ANNEX I


Vote on Amendment to Draft on International Year of Deserts


The amendment to the draft resolution on the International Year of Deserts and Desertification (document A/C.2/60/L.65) was approved by a recorded vote of
83 in favour to 34 against, with 30 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.


Against:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Abstain:  Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Mali, Nicaragua, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela.


Absent:  Albania, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.


(END OF ANNEX I)


ANNEX II


Vote on Amendment to Draft on International Year of Deserts


The amendment to the draft resolution on the International Year of Deserts and Desertification (document A/C.2/60/L.74) was approved by a recorded vote of
48 in favour to 29 against, with 74 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Suriname, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.


Abstain:  Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela.


Absent:  Albania, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Chad, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.


(END OF ANNEX II)


ANNEX III


Vote on International Year of Deserts


The draft resolution on the International Year of Deserts and Desertification (document A/C.2/60/L.34) was approved by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 1 against, with 42 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Iraq, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Syria.


Abstain:  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, United States.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Honduras, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.


(END OF ANNEX III)


ANNEX IV


Vote on Operative Paragraph 7 of Migration and Development Draft


Operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution on International Migration and Development (document A/C.2/60/L.62) was adopted by a recorded vote of 159 in favour to 2 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:


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


Against:  Japan, United States.


Abstain:  Israel.


Absent:  Albania, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Honduras, Kiribati, Liberation, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.


* *** *



For information media • not an official record