BUDGET COMMITTEE APPROVES MANAGEMENT REFORM TEXT BY VOTE OF 108 IN FAVOUR TO 50 AGAINST, WITH 3 ABSTAINING
BUDGET COMMITTEE APPROVES MANAGEMENT REFORM TEXT BY VOTE OF 108 IN FAVOUR TO 50 AGAINST, WITH 3 ABSTAINING
|Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York|
Sixtieth General Assembly
50th Meeting (PM)
BUDGET COMMITTEE APPROVES MANAGEMENT REFORM TEXT BY VOTE OF 108 IN FAVOUR
TO 50 AGAINST, WITH 3 ABSTAINING
In Voting on Draft Resolution Sponsored by Developing
Countries, Committee Breaks Long Tradition of Consensus Decision-Making
In a move many delegations called polarizing, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) tonight broke a decades-long tradition of consensus decision-making by resorting to a vote on a draft resolution that would define how Secretary-General Kofi Annan can carry out his wide-ranging proposals to reinvigorate the United Nations management structure.
The text, approved by a vote of 108 in favour to 50 against with 3 abstentions (Armenia, Norway and Uganda) (see Annex), would have the General Assembly reaffirm its determination to further strengthen the Organization’s role to more effectively respond to existing and new global challenges in the twenty-first century.
A week-long battle over Mr. Annan’s vision for a fundamental overhaul of the United Nations Secretariat ended tonight when last minute negotiations between the European Union and the “Group of 77” developing countries and China failed to produce a consensus decision. The Committee had extended its resumed session to allot more time for developed and developing countries searching for common ground on the 23 proposals put forward by the Secretary-General in his report, “Investing in the United Nations: for a stronger Organization worldwide”.
The Committee met formally several times this week attempting to take action on the Group of 77-sponsored draft, but discussions ended in deadlock and a request for a recorded vote. This prompted the Secretary-General to set aside two of his proposals so that a divisive vote could be avoided. Last evening, when no clear agreement emerged, several delegations cautioned that serious implications would flow if the Committee stepped away from its traditional practice and voted on the text. Action came after closed-door negotiations last night and further consultation today.
By the terms of the text, the Assembly would stress that setting the United Nations priorities was the prerogative of Member States and reaffirm the Assembly’s role in carrying out a thorough analysis and approval of the human and financial resources and policies, with a view to ensuring full, effective and efficient implementation of all mandated programmes and activities.
Explaining his position, South Africa’s representative, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said the Group believed in the reform of the United Nations and had tried its best to reach out to all its negotiating partners to arrive at an acceptable decision. The Group strongly believed in the right of each Member State to have an equal say in the Organization’s decision-making that was not dependent on financial contributions to the budget. That was why the Group had been vocal in wanting to protect the nature of the Organization, particularly the oversight role of the Assembly. The reform required the collective agenda and engagement of all, and the Group was ready to support the Secretary-General in his efforts to better the Organization.
Cautioning that the decision would further polarize the Organization’s membership on the important question of management reform, Austria’s representative, on behalf of the European Union, said the action represented a serious violation of the Committee’s long-standing working methods and consensus practice. As the Secretary-General’s proposals were interrelated, the Union could not agree to a “cherry-picking” process, where proposals were selectively rejected, amended and convoluted with conditions, while their detailed elaboration was still pending. On the issue of governance, he said the Union did not endorse any proposal to vest decision-making in small exclusive groups of Member States. However, the Fifth Committee’s current method of doing business needed improvement as was clearly demonstrated by the situation in which it found itself today.
By other terms of the text, the Assembly would stress the importance of strengthened accountability in the Organization and of ensuring greater accountability of the Secretary-General to Member States, including for the effective and efficient implementation of legislative mandates and the use of human and financial resources.
The Assembly would also request the Secretary-General to specifically define accountability, as well as clear accountability mechanisms, in the context of reports requested in the resolution, and propose clear parameters for its applications and instruments for its rigorous enforcement -– without exception -– at all levels. The Assembly would also emphasize the need for strengthening oversight in the Organization.
In other action tonight, the Committee decided to defer several items to its sixty-first session.
Before adjourning the meeting, the Committee’s Chairman, John Ashe ( Antigua and Barbuda), said the Committee would meet in its second resumed session from 22 May to 30 June 2006.
Also speaking in explanation of vote on the management resolution were the representatives of the United States, Japan, New Zealand (on behalf of Australia and Canada), United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, Belgium, Slovakia, Netherlands, Russian Federation, France, Republic of Korea, Greece, Spain, Finland, Mexico, Egypt, Norway, Brazil and Uganda.
The representatives of Japan, Nigeria, Russian Federation, China, Austria (on behalf of the European Union), United States and South Africa (on behalf of the Group of 77) took the floor after that action to explain their position on the scale of budgetary assessments and the decision to defer questions to the Committee’s next session.
The Committee will meet again at a time to be announced in the Journal.
The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this afternoon to conclude the work of the first part of its resumed session. It was expected to take action on a draft resolution entitled, “Investing in the United Nations: for a stronger Organization worldwide” (document A/C.5/60/L.27/Rev.1), which was first introduced on Monday, 24 April, by South Africa’s representative on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing nations and China. [For a detailed summary of the draft resolution, see Press Release GA/AB/3731 of 27 April 2006.]
Also before the Committee was a draft decision on questions deferred for future consideration (document A/C.5/60/L.39), by which the Assembly would decide to defer, to its sixty-first session, a series of documents under agenda items on the 2006-2007 programme budget, the scale of assessment for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations, the United Nations common system, and the administration of justice at the United Nations.
Action on Draft
The representative of South Africa, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said a number of ambassadors in the Group had asked that he meet this morning with the Austrian Ambassador, on behalf of the European Union, to compare notes based on the positions of the two groups and see whether there was common ground. Indeed, he had spent several hours with the Austrian Ambassador, not negotiating, but comparing notes on their respective positions. He asked the Chair to suspend the meeting so that he could brief the Group on his discussion. He understood that e-mails were circulating that purported to summarize the discussion. But in fairness to the members of his Group, he wished to brief them using his own notes.
Austria’s representative, on behalf of the European Union, confirmed what the representative of South Africa said. On the request of European Union, the Group of 77 and the Secretary-General, he had met with the South African representative to compare notes in the search for a consensus on outstanding issues. It was no more than comparing notes, as both had to inform their groups and partners.
When the meeting resumed, South Africa’s representative, on behalf of the Group of 77, expressed the wish of the draft’s co-sponsors that it be adopted without a vote and in accordance with the rules and procedures of the General Assembly. The text he had read out yesterday on section 8, proposals 20 and 21, should not be incorporated in the text of the draft. The text remained as is.
He expressed his sincere thanks to his counterpart, the Ambassador of Austria, noting that the Groups had tried at the last minute to bridge the gap. He thanked him for the time he had taken to do so. They had come up with proposals that the Group, after long discussion, had been able to accept. Unfortunately, however, the deal had not stayed. The Group had been ready to accept the proposals by the European Union and regretted that they did not stand. Hence, the Group was reverting to the original text and requested that it be adopted without a vote and in accordance with the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, as orally amended on 27 April.
Committee Chairman JOHN ASHE ( Antigua and Barbuda) said the Group of 77 had requested action on the text as orally amended and that it be adopted without a vote. A recorded vote had been requested.
South Africa’s representative said it would be helpful to know who had requested the vote.
The Committee Secretary, MOVSES ABELIAN, read out the list of countries he had read out yesterday.
Statements before Vote
Austria’s representative, on behalf of the European Union, speaking in explanation of position before the vote, reciprocated the high appreciation for South Africa’s Ambassador and the meeting they had had. That meeting had been an effort to find a last minute consensus. Since the issues involved were very difficult and complex, and of a political nature, it seemed that consensus had escaped the Committee.
The Union firmly believed that management reform was central to achieving a more effective United Nations, he said, welcoming the Secretary-General’s far-reaching report as a good basis for transforming the United Nations into a more accountable Organization. He reiterated the Union’s full support to the Secretary-General in successfully carrying out management reform. He endorsed the Secretary-General’s observations and the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), and requested the Secretary-General to provide further detail for his proposals. The proposals were too general in nature to enable the Committee to take well informed decisions at the current stage. The Union was not yet ready to either endorse or reject the proposals, but wished to reserve its opinions for a later stage when more information was available.
He said the Union saw merit in many of the proposals, including the budgetary planning and implementation, the financial management, strengthened leadership, improved working conditions and improvement of technology, and stood ready to take decisions on them once the follow-up reports had been presented and discussed.
On the issue of governance, he said the Union did not endorse any proposal to vest decision-making in small exclusive groups of Member States. However, the current method of doing business in the Fifth Committee needed improvement. That was clearly demonstrated by the situation in which the Committee was today. The Union was open to looking at more detailed proposals from the Secretary-General and its negotiating partners in seeking a way forward on the issue which respected the rights of all Member States. The draft resolution was not based on the consensus of the membership and had not been developed in accordance with the Committee’s long-standing working methods. The proposals were interrelated, and he could not agree to a “cherry-picking” process, where proposals were selectively rejected, amended and convoluted with conditions, while their detailed elaboration was still pending.
He said the Assembly must be allowed to take a well informed decision in May based on all relevant information. The report contained the Secretary-General’s best judgement on how to strengthen the United Nations management. The Union could not agree to the adoption of the proposal, but it had made very effort to work out a consensus outcome until the last minute. On 25 April, the Union had put forward a text to provide the basis for continued consultations in a spirit of compromise with a view to finding an acceptable solution to all partners. The Union, therefore, expressed deep concern about the tabling of a resolution that was not based on consensus but reflected only the position of one group of Member States. The Union was not in favour of taking action as it violated the Committee’s long-standing working methods and the consensus principle. It would further polarize the United Nations membership on the important question of management reform and could not be in the interest of any Member States.
The United States representative said that even though his delegation disagreed with the draft resolution, it respected the position taken by the Group of 77, the tenacity with which they had argued their position, and the good faith in which they had conducted negotiations in an effort to reach consensus. He also respected the fact that the Group had stuck to its position. During the course of discussion this week, a number of countries had drafted a letter to the General Assembly President. He then read out that letter, dated 27 April, including the list of signatories.
He said that, without reform, the United Nations would continue to be ill-equipped to meet the demands it faced. The United States was committed to management reform so as to ensure that the United Nations remained an efficient organization. As such, the United States had joined with many other countries in voting against the resolution.
Japan’s representative said he supported the Secretary-General’s commitment to reform the Organization so that it could better respond to current and future needs. To that end, Japan had participated in the discussion and had tried to be as constructive as possible in efforts to reach consensus. Japan would be engaged in future discussion on the subject. In the meantime, many of the proposals in the Secretary-General’s report did not require legislative action at the current juncture. He urged the Secretary-General to implement those measures that he could start implementing. His delegation had made a plea, as had others, not to breach the Committee’s long-standing practice. The Secretary-General had made great effort to preserve the consensus practice, and he appreciated that effort. While he appreciated the last minute effort by the Group of 77 and the European Union, he was disappointed at the predicament in which the Committee found itself.
He said it was clear that the draft did not enjoy consensus. It would be preferable for the Committee to report back to the plenary areas of agreement and disagreement faithfully and accurately so that it could consider the way forward. He regretted that was not the case. Voting at the current juncture breached the Committee’s consensus practice, and he would have no choice but to cast a no-vote. The outcome would send a strong message, more negative than positive. There would be no winners, and if there was a loser, it was the reform of the Organization. If the resolution carried, it would likely to be interpreted at rejection or deferral of the necessary reforms at best. He appealed to others to vote no or to abstain.
The representative of New Zealand, speaking on behalf of Canada and Australia (CANZ), said her delegation would vote against the text because it had not achieved consensus and did not do the United Nations justice. Her delegation regretted having to vote “no” on a matter in which a vote did not have to be taken. The delegation had also supported the proposal to set aside contentious proposals temporarily to achieve consensus. The action about to be taken could seriously imperil the Committee’s procedure, as well as the overall reform effort. The Summit outcome had requested the Secretary-General to submit proposals he needed to manage effectively, but the draft under consideration did not provide that opportunity. She urged delegation to consider the message the adoption of the draft would send
The representative of the United Kingdom said his delegation would vote against the text, even though it supported the Secretary-General’s vision to respond quickly to modern realities. Today’s events were a setback for the reform efforts following the historic decisions taken at the 2005 World Summit. The United Kingdom appreciated the last ditch efforts by both the European Union and the Group of 77. But it was also dismayed by having to be forced to take a decision on a draft that had not achieved consensus. Indeed, it was a destructive move and all nations would need to redouble their efforts to achieve consensus.
The representative of Germany said the draft under consideration, as he understood it, made it more difficult for the Secretary-General to carry out his vision of United Nations reform, as requested by world leaders at the 2005 Summit. Germany would stay committed to reforming the Organization with a view to making it more effective and legitimate. The reform effort would go on. But his delegation would nevertheless vote against the text.
The representative of Israel added his delegation’s name to those requesting a recorded vote.
The representative of Belgium said his delegation found it very difficult to vote in favour of the text, chiefly because it had not met consensus and it ran counter to the Secretary-General’s vision for Organizational reform. Belgium would vote against the text.
The representative of Slovakia said that, pending all the details, the Committee should not shy away from any proposals. At this stage, the Secretary-general should be allowed to provide more information on his report so that all delegations could take an informed decision. His delegation was disturbed that one group had tabled a one-sided resolution and then called for action. It would be unwise to adopt such a text and his delegation would vote against it.
The representative of the Netherlands said that normally his delegation would abstain from its right to speak, but the decision that would be taken today had forced it to take the floor because of the likely consequences it would have on the work of the Fifth Committee. It was disturbing that the Committee was about to take a vote, when until now it had been able to reach consensus on all important matters before it. The Netherlands had welcomed the vision laid out in his report. It had believed that the Secretary-General had not only the right, but the responsibility to present his views. But the draft before the Committee precluded certain management activities that could be undertaken by the Secretary-General. It was unfortunate that the Netherlands would be forced to vote against the text.
The representative the Russian Federation said his delegation regretted that the Committee had been unable to agree on a consensuses text. Russia believed that delegations had had the opportunity to reach consensus, and it was unfortunate that they had not taken that opportunity. His delegation would vote for the text as it expressed a willingness of Member States to work towards improving the Organization. He trusted that the Secretary-General would immediately begin organizing subsequent proposals as outlined in the current draft.
The representative of France said that his delegation was surprised that the Committee was proceeding to a vote. If everyone looked closely at the last minute proposals that had been tabled, they would see that the Committee had been very close to consensus. A lesson should be learned about the Committee’s working methods. France would vote against the text.
The representative of the Republic of Korea said his delegation supported the Secretary-General’s vision for management reform, as well as the Committee’s practice of consensus. For those reasons, it would vote against the text.
The representative of Greece said that everyone in the room agreed that management reform would make the United Nations more efficient, more effective and better able to address the challenges of the twenty-first century. In that regard, Greece would like to see the Committee consider a draft that reflected the views of all Member States -- not just a few. Greece could not support the draft under consideration today and regretted that the Committee could not rally to consensus as it had for the past 20 years. He hoped that consensus could be achieved in the plenary.
The representative of Spain regretted that a vote was about to be taken. The text did not enjoy consensus, and Spain would, regrettably, vote against it. Spain also regretted that, despite the best efforts of the European Union and the Group of 77, a consensus decision could not be taken on matters of profound interest to the functioning of the Organization.
The representative of Finland said that her delegation attached great importance to the proposals set out in the Secretary-General’s report. Her delegation had supported all efforts to reach consensus and would vote against the text. She hoped the vote would not have unforeseen and regrettable consequences for the future work of the Committee and the Organization.
The representative of Mexico said his delegation was firmly committed to reform of the Organization. It regretted that a vote had to be taken and that the Committee had not continued with its debate on the matters before it. Mexico deplored that a vote was necessary, but would vote for the text as it believed that was the best way forward.
The draft resolution was adopted, as orally amended, by a recorded vote of 108 in favour to 50 against, with 3 abstentions ( Armenia, Norway, Uganda). (See Annex.)
Speaking in explanation of position after the vote, Norway’s representative regretted that the Committee had been forced to vote today and that all attempts to reach consensus had failed. He thanked the Chairs of the groups and the active involvement of the Secretary-General. Norway had chosen to abstain, as the draft had to be assessed on the merits of its content. Norway wanted a more positive signal to the management reform proposal, in particular in the areas of human resources management, strengthening the authority of the Secretary-General, budget and finance. However, the resolution would allow the reform process to go forward as the membership would receive more detailed reports. The discussion of the proposal on governance had four political issues.
Norway’s position had been clear from the beginning, he said. The multilateral character of the United Nations made it what it was. He shared the concerns of the Group of 77 regarding the governance proposals. He cautioned against the establishment of new governance structures consisting of small groups of Member States. He reiterated his delegation’s strong commitment to ongoing management reform efforts to strengthen the Organization’s role and capacity. The United Nations could only work on the basis of accommodation, and not be dictated to by a few. To behave otherwise was to reject the reform agenda so many had been pursuing.
South Africa’s representative, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, said he wished to remind the Committee that the Group believed in the reform of the United Nations. The Group had tried its best to reach out as much as possible to all negotiating partners to come up with an acceptable decision. The fact that it had not succeed was not because of a lack of trying. The Group believed in the right of every Member State to have an equal say in the Organization’s decision-making that was not dependent on financial contributions to the budget. That was why the Group had been vocal in wanting to protect the nature of the Organization, particularly the oversight role of the Assembly. The work of the reform required the collective agenda and engagement of all. The Group remained ready to support the Secretary-General in his efforts and to engage with all delegations to better the Organization.
Brazil’s representative, also speaking in explanation of vote, said he was determined to further strengthen the role and efficiency of the United Nations. Brazil remained committed to management reform that would improve the Organization’s performance in areas including development, peace, security and human rights. The members were investing in an inclusive United Nations, and management reform was in the interest of all.
Stressing the importance of strengthened accountability for the efficient implementation of legislative mandates, he said accountability was a fundamental part of management reform. He encouraged the Secretary-General to propose clear parameters for its application. The proposals on governance presented by the Secretary-General contained considerable problems for his delegation. The proposal of transforming the Fifth Committee by dividing up its work into working groups was hardly acceptable. Such an arrangement would operate against the Assembly’s universal nature and accentuate the misperception that United Nations management problems derived from its universal character. He was deeply convinced that tonight’s vote was a procedure of last resort in the face of obdurate opposition.
Uganda’s representative, speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, said his delegation had abstained because it felt that the vote was premature and that chance for reaching consensus possible, especially in view of the Secretary-General’s efforts to move the process forward. To force a vote would poison the atmosphere for subsequent negotiations. A vote, which had the implication of preventing the Assembly in plenary from pronouncing itself on the matter, would also have a negative effect. While his delegation had hoped for a negotiated settlement, that had not been the case. Thus, Uganda had abstained in the vote.
The representative of Egypt said his delegation agreed with other that had urged the Committee to redouble its effort to achieve consensus, not only in the area of management reform, but in all areas of Organizational reform. The goal should be to create a more credible, efficient and effective United Nations. All delegations should remember that they needed to work constructively and in cooperation with others, towards agreed conclusions, regardless of their level of development and regardless of how much they contributed to the Organization.
The Committee then adopted, without a vote, a draft decision on questions deferred for future consideration (document A/C.5/60/L.39).
Scale of Assessments -- Discussion
Following that action, the representative of Japan spoke in explanation of position, on the elements of the text dealing with the scale of assessments. He extended high tribute to the coordinator of the discussions on the item. It was regrettable that Member States had failed to adopt a resolution on the scale of assessments. The text that had been under consideration was merely of a procedural nature. There had been two precedents for reaching a decision, General Assembly resolutions adopted notwithstanding the fact that Member States were not necessarily in agreement with regard to the methodology to be used for the next scale period.
On those two occasions, the Fifth Committee, fully recognizing the importance of the issue and the need to provide clear guidance to the Committee on Contributions, had decided to send all proposals submitted to both Committees, without prejudice, to the General assembly on the scale of assessments for the next scale period. That would be done with the understanding that Member States would engage in full-fledged negotiations in the autumn with a view to agreeing on a single set of elements as the methodology to be employed in the next scale period. He said it was, therefore, unreasonable that the aversion of a few Member States to acknowledge those precedents had prevented the Committee from adopting a resolution which would have served the wider interests of the Organization’s membership.
The failure to adopt such a resolution would be a loss for all Member States, since they would not know how the Committee on Contributions would be deliberating on that important issue. By neglecting well founded practices and depriving the Contributions Committee of the guidance it deserved, those few Member States should be held responsible for “seriously undermining our established system to decide the next scale of assessments”, he said. Japan believed the Fifth Committee should continue to make efforts to save the negotiation process and put it back on the right track for the sake of the entire United Nations.
The representative of Nigeria said delegations had shown that great strides could be achieved when the Committee worked together. Her delegation had participated with a spirit of cooperation during the negotiations on the text and would continue to do so on all matters regarding United Nations reform. Nigeria had never shied away from the Secretary-General’s efforts to strengthen the United Nations and appreciated his effort towards the successful completion of the exercise. Under his able leadership, there was no doubt that more would be achieved. Nigeria also noted the participation of the Government of Cameroon on the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission.
The representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation agreed with the decision and believed that it fully reflected the outcome of the negotiations on the matter during the first session of the Committee. On the scale of assessments, his delegation believed that everything had been said on the matter, but the fact remained that the Committee had not been able to reach consensus. Russia had not proposed that relevant discussions be concluded during this resumed session. That proposal had been made by a delegation now talking about the lack of consensus. His own delegation had been surprised by the statement of the representative of Japan, in which he had made accusations Russia believed were untoward. Russia did not like to get into polemical discussions about “who was responsible for doing what”. Russia believed that the decision should be adopted as it had been submitted, and that the Committee could return to discussion on the scale of assessments at the sixty-first session.
The representative of Chinasupported the decision to set aside the discussion on scale of assessments until the sixty-first session of the Assembly. He stressed that his delegation had been surprised by Japan’s statement, which had referred to “customary law” or “case law” of the United Nations, the existence of which China was unaware. China had participated in the discussions on the matter until the very last moment. But because one delegation had requested that discussions be suspended, consensus had not been reached. China expected to see discussions on the matter taken up again during the sixty-first session.
The representative of Austria, speaking on behalf of the European Union, deeply regretted that the Committee had not taken a decision on matters related to the scale of assessments. The decision just taken was merely procedural.
The representative of the Unite States regretted that no consensus had been reached on the scale of assessments. The United States position had been made clear during the March session.
The representative of South Africa, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77, summed up the Committee’s work during the resumed session, highlighting drafts and achievements of particular interest to the work of the Committee and the United Nations reform effort. She said that her delegation looked forwards to working with all delegations on matters remaining before the Committee.
Vote on Investing in UN
The draft resolution on investing in the United Nations for a stronger organization worldwide (document A/C.5/60/L.37/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 108 in favour to 50 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
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, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: Armenia, Norway, Uganda.
Absent: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Grenada, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.
* *** *