CONCLUDING MAIN PART OF SESSION, GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS $4.17 BILLION BUDGET EARLY SATURDAY, IN WAKE OF FIFTH COMMITTEE’S DIPLOMATIC BREAKTHROUGH

22 December 2007
GA/10684

CONCLUDING MAIN PART OF SESSION, GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS $4.17 BILLION BUDGET EARLY SATURDAY, IN WAKE OF FIFTH COMMITTEE’S DIPLOMATIC BREAKTHROUGH

21 December 2007
General Assembly
GA/10684
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-second General Assembly

Plenary

79th Meeting (PM & Night)

CONCLUDING MAIN PART OF SESSION, GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS $4.17 BILLION BUDGET

EARLY SATURDAY, IN WAKE OF FIFTH COMMITTEE’S DIPLOMATIC BREAKTHROUGH

Several More Texts Adopted, Including Financing for Darfur Hybrid Operation;

Assembly President Thanks Members for Enhancing Organization’s Relevance, Vitality

The United Nations General Assembly Saturday morning adopted a $4.17 billion two-year budget for the Organization, capping what its President described as a “busy, dynamic and constructive” session thus far.

Working through the night to break a diplomatic deadlock that threatened to leave the world body without a financial blueprint for the 2008-2009 biennium, the Assembly adopted the budget by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions.  (For details of the vote, see annex X.)

The Assembly also took action on several other resolutions, including additional drafts recommended by its Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary), as well as by other Main Committees and the plenary itself.

Assembly President Srgjan Kerim hailed the adoption of the budget and praised delegations’ resolve during the main part of the sixty-second session.  Summing up the Assembly’s activities, he said the plenary had met 79 times, held 9 informal consultations and adopted over 250 resolutions.  For those and other accomplishments, he thanked the Member States for working together in a spirit of collective responsibility and for “enhancing the relevance and vitality of this house”.

“How well this Assembly performs depends on the Member States!” he declared, adding: “And, when you are active and engaged, it allows any President of the Assembly to show leadership.”  He stressed that the Assembly President and Member States could only live up to their mandates if they addressed contemporary issues and emerging trends.  That was the best way to bolster the Assembly’s authority and international standing.

With that in mind, he returned to the five priorities he had set for the session and outlined the road ahead.  On climate change, what he had called “the flagship issue of the sixty-second session”, Mr. Kerim said the Assembly would hold a high-level panel and debate on 11 and 12 February 2008, focusing on partnerships with the private sector and civil society.

That event would also be an opportunity to assess the work of the United Nations in light of the Bali agreement, he added, referring to recently concluded thirteenth Conference of State Parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change, held in Indonesia, where world leaders agreed to an agenda for the key issues to be negotiated up to 2009, including action for adapting to the negative consequences of climate change, ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and financing both adaptation and mitigation measures.

On development financing, he said the Assembly had successfully agreed on a comprehensive preparatory process, including several multi-stakeholder review sessions.  To ensure an optimum outcome in Doha next December, he would like to see all Member States and stakeholders at the lead in organizing the substance of the sessions.  Turning to the Millennium Development Goals, he said the Assembly would hold a thematic debate on 1 and 2 April 2008 to consider where priority action could be taken to accelerate progress in the poverty, health and education targets.

The Assembly would also press ahead with efforts to renew the management and effectiveness of the Organization, including in the mandate review process to streamline its work.  Towards that goal, it would hold a plenary on 8 April 2008 to consider the way forward on management reform and begin consultations on system-wide coherence.  Finally, on counter-terrorism, the Assembly would continue to take stock and identify gaps in implementation ahead of the full review next September.

“On those and other issues, we have together created a basis for action next year by setting in motion agreed processes and defining the parameters for concrete next steps,” he said.  For example, the Assembly had adopted a resolution to hold a comprehensive review of the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS on 10 and 11 June 2008.  “I see in all the developments I have outlined encouraging signs of improved cooperation, understanding and trust,” he said, stressing that the Assembly’s work was becoming more compelling and relevant to the “everyday lives of the public we serve”.

It was the combined will of Member States that created that vital driving force behind the Assembly. “I therefore encourage you to take the initiative and strive for results,” he said, urging delegations to return form the Holidays ready to continue their joint venture. “We have a busy schedule ahead and there are many important issues that require our close attention and consideration,” he said.

In other action, the Assembly adopted a resolution approving $1.28 billion for the launch of the long-gestating African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) for the period 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008.  The Security Council had authorized the 26,000-strong peacekeeping force some five months ago to take over from a 7,000-man African Union team that had been unable to quell the violence there.  The Assembly also appropriated $182.44 million for the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT), inclusive of the $45.83 million previously authorized by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).

By two other resolutions, the Assembly set the 2008-2009 budgets for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at $267.36 million and $347.57 million, respectively.

The Assembly also adopted a resolution on questions related to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund by a vote of 140 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Canada) (annex XIII).  The Fund has $41.2 billion in assets and over 155,000 active participants and beneficiaries all over the world.

The Pension Board’s proposal for making an ad hoc, one-time, ex gratis exceptional payment of approximately $500,000 to 79 retirees who had been adversely affected by the “dollarization” policy of Ecuador was adopted by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 1 against ( United States) with 45 abstentions.  In that regard, the Assembly emphasized that the arrangement would not set a precedent for any future action by the Board (annex XII).

The Assembly also adopted several remaining texts from its Third Committee, including resolutions on global efforts for the elimination of racism, a convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and a report of Human Rights Council.  The latter passed by a recorded vote if 150 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 1 abstention (Nauru) (annex VII).

The United States delegate, explaining that his delegation was “compelled” to vote against that text -– by which the Assembly endorsed the Council’s institution-building package -- said he had hoped the Assembly session would have addressed the deficiencies that had politicized the Council and had prevented it from acting as a serious and effective human rights institution.  But the Council’s record had failed to fulfil those hopes, instead, falling short of even his delegation’s limited expectations.

In other matters, the Assembly unanimously adopted the United Nations Comprehensive Strategy on Assistance and Support to Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by United Nations Staff and Related Personnel, by which it expressed deep concern for and strongly condemned all acts of sexual exploitation and abuse committed by United Nations staff and related personnel.  It further reiterated its support for the Secretary-General’s zero-tolerance policy on sexual abuse and set out a framework for “assistance and support”.

The representatives of Iran, United States, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Pakistan, Turkey and Japan spoke in explanation of position on the plenary-generated texts.

The representative of the United States spoke in explanation of position on the Fourth Committee draft.

Speaking in explanation of position on the Third Committee drafts were the representatives of Egypt, Syria, Colombia, United States, Australia, Cuba, Sudan and Myanmar.

The representatives of Singapore, Syria, Lebanon, United States, Japan, Ecuador and Portugal spoke in explanation of position on Fifth Committee drafts.

The Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee introduced that body’s reports.

The General Assembly will reconvene at time and date to be announced.

Background

The General Assembly met today to take up the reports of the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary).  For summaries of the draft resolutions and decisions contained therein, please see Press Release GA/AB/3835.  It was also expected to consider remaining plenary texts and draft resolutions contained in the reports of the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) and Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization).

Plenary Text

The Assembly had before it a 22-part resolution on oceans and the Convention on the Law of the Sea (document A/62/L.27), by which it would call on States to harmonize, as a matter of priority, national legislation with the provisions of the Convention and, where applicable, relevant agreements and provisions.

The text covers the following items: implementation of the Convention and related agreements and instruments; capacity-building; Meeting of States Parties; peaceful settlement of disputes; The Area; effective functioning of the Authority and the Tribunal; the continental shelf and the work of the Commission; maritime safety and security, and flag State implementation; marine environment and marine resources; marine biodiversity; marine science; activities of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea; and the sixty-third session of the General Assembly.

First Committee Text

Also before the Assembly was a report of the First Committee on the review and implementation of the concluding document of the twelfth special session of the General Assembly (document A/62/392), containing a draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament by which the Assembly would decide to establish three posts (one Professional at the P-3 level and two General Service) to be added to the structure of the Centre, and funded from the regular budget, as recommended by the Consultative Mechanism for the Reorganization of the Centre.

It would further recommend that the operating costs of the Centre be funded from the regular budget and urge all States, as well as international governmental and non-governmental organizations and foundations, to make voluntary contributions, in order to strengthen the programmes and activities of the Regional Centre and facilitate their implementation.  It would ask the Secretary-General to facilitate close cooperation between the Centre and the African Union, in particular in the areas of peace, security and development, and to continue to provide assistance towards stabilizing the Centre’s financial situation.

Third Committee Texts

The Assembly also had before it draft resolution VI on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women contained in the Third Committee’s report on the Advancement of women (document A/62/433).  By that text, it would urge States parties to comply fully with their obligations under the Convention and its Optional Protocol, and to take into consideration the concluding comments and general recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.  It would also strongly urge States parties to the Convention to take appropriate measures so that acceptance of the amendment to article 20, paragraph 1, of the Convention by a two-thirds majority of States parties can be reached as soon as possible, and the amendment can enter force.

The Third Committee’s report of the Human Rights Council (document A/62/434) contained a draft of the same name, by which the Assembly would endorse the Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1, entitled “Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council”, and 5/2, entitled “Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate-Holders of the Human Rights Council”, of 18 June, including their annexes and appendices.

The Third Committee’s report on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination (document A/62/437), containing draft resolution II on Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, would have the Assembly express its “profound concern and unequivocal condemnation” at all forms of racism and racial discrimination.  The misuse of the media and the Internet to incite violence motivated by racial hatred would be condemned and the Assembly would call upon States to combat that form of racism.  It would reaffirm the central role of the Human Rights Council in monitoring the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

The Assembly also had before it addendum 2 to the Third Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.2) containing draft resolution X on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa, by which the Assembly would welcome the activities of the Centre, note with satisfaction the support provided for its establishment by its host country, Cameroon, and take note of the adoption of its new three-year strategy.

It would also reiterate its request to the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for additional funds and human resources to be provided to the Centre to enable it to meet growing needs in the promotion and protection of human rights, and in developing a culture of democracy and the rule of law in the Central African subregion.

The Assembly also had before it draft resolution II on the situation of human rights in Myanmar contained in addendum 3 to the Third Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.3).

By that text, it would strongly condemn the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators who was exercising their rights to freedom of opinion and expression.  It would express grave concern about ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, arbitrary detentions, repeated violations of international humanitarian law, discrimination suffered by persons of ethnic nationalities, the absence of genuine participation by representatives of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and other political parties, and the continuous deterioration of living conditions, as well as increasing poverty.

The Assembly would strongly call on the Government to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to give serious consideration to recommendations and proposals put forward by the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General during his visit in October 2007.  It would also strongly call on the Government to desist from further arrests and violence against peaceful protesters, and to release all political prisoners without conditions, including the leaders of the NLD, Aung San Suu Kyi and Tin Oo.  It would also call on the Government to lift all restraints on peaceful political activity, to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and to immediately ensure safe and unhindered access to all parts of Myanmar for the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations.

Fourth Committee Text

The Assembly also had before it a report on International cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space (document A/62/403), containing a draft resolution by the same name, by which the Assembly would urge all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the goal of preventing an arms race in outer space.  It would decide that Bolivia and Switzerland would become members of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and it would endorse the Committee’s Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines.

Action on Plenary Draft

The Assembly took up the 22-part resolution on oceans and the Convention on Law of the Sea (document A/62/L.27).

Speaking before the vote, Venezuela’s representative reiterated her Government’s position on coordination, regardless of any convention or decision, on matters related to oceans and the law of the sea.  Her delegation believed that the text before the Assembly did not reflect consensus.  Venezuela’s position remained unchanged; it could not support the decision about to be taken.  It did not belong to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and it was not bound by its tenets, other than by those that it would adopt in its national legislation.  Venezuela would abstain in the vote.

The Assembly then adopted the resolution by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 2 against ( Benin, Turkey), with 3 abstentions ( Colombia, Libya, Venezuela).  (For details of the vote, please see annex I.)

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Pakistan, on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said the Group had made a concrete proposal on the resolution’s sections X and XIV, which related to the issue of marine biodiversity and the Informal Consultative Process.  The Group’s position had been carefully reflected in the proposal, although an agreement had not been reached on it.

Thus, for the sake of compromise, he said the Group had accepted the joint proposal made by Pakistan and the United States, which, for the first time, acknowledged problems related to the legal regime beyond the exclusive economic zone and addressed issues related to capacity-building and goods and services derived from marine genetic resources.  It also left the door open for future consultations on those issues.  Because of the need to ensure better reflection on those issues and others related to intellectual property rights, the Group of 77 remained committed to efforts to elaborate its position in the future.

The representative of Turkey said her delegation had voted against the text.  The reason that had kept Turkey from joining the Convention remained valid.  Turkey supported international efforts to establish a regime of the sea that was based on a principle of equity and was acceptable to all States; however, the Convention did not make adequate provisions for special geographical situations and, as a consequence, was not able to establish an acceptable balance between conflicting interests.  Although Turkey agreed with the general thrust of the Convention, it was unable to become a party to it, owing to its serious shortcomings.  Turkey, therefore, could not support the resolution.

Japan’s representative said his delegation had supported the text.  However, while Japan agreed with other States parties on the need to strengthen the function of the Secretariat of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, it believed that such efforts should be made within overall existing budget levels, as well as within the limit approved in accordance with the established request process.  It was regrettable that budgetary implications had been attached to some paragraphs of the resolution, which had been intended to go around the established budget process.

The representative of Benin took the floor saying his delegation had been in favour of the resolution.

Action on First Committee Draft

Taking up the First Committee’s report on the review and implementation of the concluding document of the twelfth special session of the General Assembly (A/62/392), the Assembly adopted draft IV on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, United States) (annex II). 

Action on Fourth Committee Draft

The Assembly then took up draft resolution II on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space, contained in the Fourth Committee’s report of the same name (document A/62/403).

Speaking before the vote, the representative of the United States said he regretted that his delegation was unable to join consensus, but the budgetary implications of the resolution were unacceptable to the United States Government.

Prior to acting on the draft as a whole, the Assembly took a separate recorded vote on operative paragraph 42, which called for the endorsement of the work plan for 2007 of the United Nations Platform for Space-Based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER), along with its platform programme for the biennium 2007-2009 and plan of work for the period 2008-2009.  It retained that provision by a vote of 129 in favour to 6 against ( Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, United Kingdom, United States), with 13 abstentions (annex III).

Acting without a vote, the Assembly then adopted the resolution as a whole.

Action on Third Committee Drafts

The Assembly then took up draft resolution VI on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women contained in the Third Committee’s report on the advancement of women (document A/62/433).

The representative of Egypt said that because his delegation believed in the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the tenets of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, it would vote in favour of the resolution as a whole.  At the same time, it had voted against operative paragraph 15 in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural), because it would have a negative impact on the work of the Women’s Committee, but Egypt, meanwhile, supported the rest of the text.  Thus, it would therefore abstain in the vote on paragraph 15.

Prior to adopting the resolution as a whole, two separate recorded votes were taken.  By a vote of 143 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 6 abstentions ( Brunei Darussalam, China, Lichtenstein, Malaysia, Niger, Singapore), the Assembly first voted to retain operative paragraph 14 of the text (annex IV).

By a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 2 against ( Syria, United States), with 15 abstentions, it voted to retain operative paragraph 15 of the text (annex V).

The Assembly then adopted draft resolution VI by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (annex VI).

Syria ’s representative said his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution because it believed in the need to eliminate all violence against women.  It attached great importance to the work of the Women’s Committee, as well.  For that reason, it had voted against paragraph 15, because it called for, among other things, the holding of parallel meetings of the Committee.  It believed that the provision would obstruct the work of the Women’s Committee and impact its transparency.

The representative of Colombia said his delegation supported the adoption of the text.

The Assembly then turned to the Third Committee’s report of the Human Rights Council (document A/62/434) and the draft text contained therein.

Speaking before the vote and stressing that his delegation was compelled to vote against the institution-building package, the representative of the United States said he had hoped the session would address the deficiencies that had politicized the Council and had prevented it from acting as a serious and effective human rights institution.  But the Council’s record had failed to fulfil those hopes, instead falling short of even his delegation’s limited expectations.

First, the Council had relentlessly focused on Israel, while failing to address serious human rights violations taking place in other countries, such as Zimbabwe, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Belarus and Cuba, he said.  Key provisions of the institution-building package appeared likely to compound the Council’s institutional weaknesses, particularly its premature termination of the mandates of the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on human rights violations in Cuba and Belarus.  The Council’s permanent agenda also contained only one item focused on a specific country -– and that country was Israel.  That raised serious questions about the Council’s institutional priorities, its ability to make unbiased assessments of human right situations and whether it would shoulder its responsibility to protect and promote human rights around the world.

Deeply unfair and un-transparent procedures had been employed to deny Council members the opportunity to vote on the package, he continued.  If a tactic like that –- announcing an election, but then telling voters who showed up that the vote had actually been held at midnight -- had been used in a national election in any country in the world, it would be seen as unfree and unfair.  The proceedings of all United Nations bodies should be models of fairness and transparency, and that was particularly true of the Human Rights Council.

He said the Council would never be the world’s most important human rights mechanism until it consistently focused on the worst human rights violations in the world -– including extrajudicial killing, the use of rape for military and political purposes and imprisonment of people for their political and religious opinions –- and called them by their right names.  His delegation, therefore, hoped the Human Rights Council would stand in solidarity with the victims of human rights violations around the world, and not with the perpetrators.

The representative of Australia said the new Australian Government was committed to the protection of human rights and wanted the Human Rights Council to continue its good work.   Australia also believed that the institution-building package contained a potentially useful set of tools and working practices, including the Universal Periodic Review.  That said, Australia believed the package was unbalanced.  Her delegation had been deeply disappointed that the Review had created a separate standing item focusing exclusively on the human rights situation in Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories.  That item contradicted its mandate to maintain its objectivity, and Australia, therefore, would oppose the resolution.

The Assembly then adopted the draft resolution on the report of the Human Rights Council by a recorded vote if 150 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 1 abstention (Nauru) (annex VII).

Cuba’s representative said his delegation knew why the United States continued to target Cuba with invectives: it needed a reason to continue its hostile policies and blockade against Cuba.  The United States preferred the discredited Commission on Human Rights, where, with pressure and blackmail, it had been able to continue its unjustified pressure against Third World countries.  Its activities in Guantanamo Bay had also managed to escape scrutiny.  The United States attacked the new Council because of its own questionable human rights record.   Cuba would continue to work to protect and promote the human rights of all people, including those of the South, who had been marginalized.

The representative of the Sudan said his delegation had voted in favour of the text because it believed that the institution-building package was a consensus decision.  Those who had voted against the resolution had done so for political purposes.  They had wanted the Human Rights Council to be an extension of the “infamous” Commission on Human Rights.  Among those had been Australia, which did not have a very good human rights record.  That country had a record of continually trying to degrade and marginalize its Aboriginal population.

The Assembly next took up draft resolution II on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, contained in the Third Committee’s report on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination (document A/62/437).

Speaking before the vote and highlighting his country’s opposition to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the representative of the United States said his country’s record of domestic legislation and policies to vigorously combat such activities demonstrated its commitment to the objectives behind the resolution.  The United States had long been party to the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and while it continued to support the stated objectives of the 2001 World Conference in Durban, the Conference had been deeply flawed and divisive.  Because it reflected those flaws, the resolution at hand was deeply problematic.

He said his delegation further believed that the Preparatory Committee following up Durban was, as an organ of the Human Rights Council, duplicating the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, as well as that of the Human Rights Committee for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions addressing workers’ rights. When resources were so limited and needs so great, his delegation could not support duplicative work.

Thus, it believed that spending United Nations resources to prepare for a Durban Review Conference were not appropriate, he said.  Also, the Human Rights Council should remind itself of the role for which it had been created, namely, addressing human rights situations around the world, particularly emerging situations.  Also, the Secretary-General should not be asked to fund regional preparatory meetings that duplicated work already being done.  Similarly, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights should provide more substantial programming and cooperative assistance in countries around the world to combat racism, instead of devoting resources to conferences.

He said each country should have a legal framework to protect individuals from discrimination, and States should focus on implementing existing commitments rather than following up on a flawed process.  The essential elements of a multilateral effort to combat contemporary forms of racism were universal ratification and effective implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.  Thus, the United States would vote against the resolution.

The Assembly then adopted draft resolution II by a recorded vote of 105 in favour to 46 against, with 6 abstentions ( Armenia, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland) (annex VIII).

The Assembly then turned to addendum 2 to the Third Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.2), adopting draft resolution X on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa, without a vote.

By a recorded vote of 83 in favour to 22 against, with 47 abstentions, the Assembly adopted draft resolution II on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, contained in addendum 3 to the Third Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.3) (annex IX).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Myanmar said his delegation had asked for a recorded vote and had voted against the resolution.  Myanmar had made significant strides with the completion of its national convention process and had been on track to a smooth transition to democracy.  Towards that goal, it was proceeding with its seven-step process.  The resolution was unacceptable, since it delved into a national issue.  Thus, the Government of Myanmar rejected it and would not be bound by it.

Action on Fifth Committee Drafts

STEVEN SSENABULYA NKAYIVU ( Uganda), Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee, introduced the reports.

First, the Assembly adopted, without a vote, a draft resolution on the Board of Auditors reports (document A/62/534).

The Assembly then took up a draft resolution on programme planning (document A/62/564), adopting it without a vote.

The Assembly then adopted a five-part draft resolution on the pattern of conferences (document A/62/535).

It also adopted, without a vote, a draft resolution on the Joint Inspection Unit (document A/62/536), and another on the United Nations common system (document A/62/565).

Also acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted a draft resolution on the administration of justice within the United Nations (document A/62/597).

It then adopted without a vote a draft resolution on financing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (document A/62/598) and financing the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (document A/62/599).

Also without a vote, it adopted a draft resolution on the transfer of buildings to the United Nations Logistics Base at Brindisi, Italy, contained in the Fifth Committee’s report on administrative and budgetary aspects of United Nations peacekeeping operations (document A/62/600).

Acting without a vote, it adopted a draft resolution on the financing of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) (document A/C.5/62/L.15), contained in the Fifth Committee’s relevant report (document A/62/601), as well as a draft resolution on financing of United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT) (document A/C.5/62/L.16), contained in the relevant report of the Fifth Committee (document A/62/602).

It also adopted a draft resolution on the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)/financing of the Procurement Task Force (document A/C.5/62/L.26), contained in the relevant report (document A/62/605), without a vote. 

Speaking after action, the representative of Singapore welcomed the adoption of that resolution, especially by consensus.  With the action, the Assembly had again emphasized the importance of strong oversight of the United Nations.  It had shown that, while the oversight bodies themselves had been beset by allegations, the Assembly had not been misled.  The text affirmed that the Assembly was working towards ensuring that the Organization was more transparent and accountable.

The Assembly then adopted, without a vote, a draft resolution on questions deferred for future consideration (A/C.5/62/L.24), contained in the Fifth Committee report on a review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations (document A/62/604).

Taking up of the Organization’s programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007 (document A/C.5/62/L.10), which was contained in the relevant Fifth Committee report (document A/62/603), the Assembly adopted the text without a vote.

It then took up the five draft resolutions contained in its reports on the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009 (documents A/62/563/Add.1 and Add.2).  Turning to the first report, it considered five resolutions (documents A/C.5/62/L.18, L.19, L.20, L.21 and L.18).

The representative of Syria said that, since the adoption of the budget for the Organization’s special political missions last year, his delegation had sought information on the relevant legislative mandates of the Special Envoys of the Secretary-General.   Syria had tried again and again to explain its views to the Secretariat and other delegations.  Its concerns had been appreciated because they concerned serious legal and political errors and discrepancies in the mandate of the Special Envoy charged with the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559 (2004) and of the Special Coordinator for Lebanon.

Syria’s speaker stressed that the “logical framework” called for had flagrantly gone beyond the reading of resolution 1559 and linked the budget of the relevant envoy to issues that had occurred after the resolution had been adopted.  The framework under consideration had totally ignored the daily violations by Israel of Syria’s sovereignty.  The text would not serve the interests of Lebanon nor of resolution 1559.  Rather, it was an attempt to hold Lebanon’s interest hostage to political agendas.   Syria would follow negotiations on the text in the future, and hoped that its concerns would be taken into account.

The representative of Lebanon said –- and repeated -- that Syria was a sisterly and friendly country.  It was a dear neighbour, with which it had a shared a history and future.  He said it wished to have diplomatic relations and exchange representatives, which had been agreed by the Lebanese population by consensus.  The Lebanese had been unanimous on issues that would affect the sisterly relations.  The continued occupation by Israel of its land fell within the work of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General established by resolution 1559 (2004).  He also clarified that there was confusion among certain delegations; operative paragraph 9, which had been a point of argument during informal consultations, was no longer in the draft text.  Thus, he hoped that all delegations would vote in favour of section 5 of the draft.

When the Assembly turned to action, the representative of Syria said there was confusion because the draft resolution under consideration was different from the one he had just spoken about.

The representative of the United States said his delegation would agree that the board did not reflect the draft that was being discussed.  He agreed with Syria and was confused about what the Assembly was voting on.

After the Assembly President clarified the matter, the Assembly adopted draft resolution I on questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2008-2009, by recorded vote of 142 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions (annex X).

It next adopted draft resolution II on the programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009 without a vote.

It then took a recorded vote on part V of draft resolution III on special subjects relating to the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009, adopting the text by 127 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Iran, Syria) (annex XI).

Draft resolution III as a whole was adopted without a vote.

Also acting without a vote, it adopted draft resolution IV, on unforeseen and extraordinary expenses of the biennium 2008-2009, as well as draft resolution V on working capital fund for the biennium 2008-2009.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Japan welcomed the adoption of the biennial budget for 2008-2009, noting that it was the result of the dedicated and painstaking efforts of Member States and the Secretariat.  He warmly congratulated the Secretary-General on the approval of his first programme budget.  Stressing that the budget’s timely approval was essential for ensuring the Organization’s financial stability, he noted that the initial appropriations were contained at the level of the revised budget of the current biennium.

The adopted budget, he said, was only the initial step for financing United Nations activities for the coming years.  Some deferred items and additional requirements, including special political missions, had to be considered next year.  His delegation had been advocating for the Secretary-General to present, as early as possible, the vision and totality of necessary requirements for the next two years, so as to enhance the predictability of the Member States’ total fiscal responsibility.  He also reiterated the need to exercise restraint in requesting additional requirements and to meet those requirements through cost effectiveness and redeployment from low-priority activities to the extent possible.

The Assembly then took up a draft resolution on the questions related to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (document A/C.5/62/L.25), contained in the report A/62/563/Add.2.

It first took a separate recorded vote on operative paragraph 10, retaining that provision by a vote of 95 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 45 abstentions (annex XII).

It adopted the text as a whole by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Canada) (annex XIII).

After action, Ecuador’s representative said the adoption of the text had been the fruit of long and difficult negotiations, with the tenets of the United Nations Charter at the heart.  Member States had now resolved problems with the Pension Fund without establishing any new precedents.  At the same time, her delegation deeply regretted that, despite having supported the text during informal consultations, some States had now abstained in the vote.  She had also been troubled by the over-politicized and legalistic tone of the discussions.  The resolution did not involve tremendous economic consequences, nor did it set new precedents.  It merely corrected the situation of retirees from the Organization living in Ecuador.

The representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that his delegation had abstained in the vote on operative paragraph 10 because that provision could be interpreted as setting a precedent.  The Union had hoped that a vote would not have to be taken on that matter, in the tradition of the Committee.

Action on Plenary Texts

Earlier on Friday, the Assembly unanimously adopted the United Nations Comprehensive Strategy on Assistance and Support to Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by United Nations Staff and Related Personnel, and decided by an accompanying resolution that it would, in two years, examine progress made in implementing the programme.  The Strategy was annexed to the report of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group working on the matter (document A/62/595).

By the resolution that accompanied the report, the Assembly expressed its deep concern for and strongly condemned all acts of sexual exploitation and abuse committed by United Nations Staff and related personnel.  It reiterated its support for the Secretary-General’s zero-tolerance policy on sexual abuse.  The purposes and scope of the Strategy are annexed to the Working Group’s report, and sets out the parameters for “assistance and support”.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said his delegation was happy that the General Assembly had taken action on the important “pillar” of responding to sexual exploitation and abuse. Those who had been affected by such reprehensible acts would now receive the assistance they needed.  In adopting the text, the international community had condemned all acts of sexual exploitation and abuse, and he reiterated his delegation’s support for the Secretary-General’s zero-tolerance policy.  The United States called on countries to change the “culture of impunity” that allowed such horrific acts to take place.

The representative of Costa Rica thanked all States for their commitment, which had made it possible to adopt the text by consensus.  After years of debate, thanks to the commitment and creativity of those involved, it had been possible to reach an agreement that represented a true “Christmas gift”.  He added that Costa Rica was the Chair of the working group.

In other action, the Assembly took note of the report of the Credentials Committee (document A/62/596), with the adoption of a resolution on the matter.  Prior to adoption, the Chair of the Committee, Vanu Gopala Menon ( Singapore) informed the Assembly that, in addition to the Member States listed in paragraph 5 of the report of the Credentials Committee, credentials had been submitted under rule 27 of the General Assembly’s rules of procedure by Côte d’Ivoire.

Also, he said, in addition to the Member States mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Committee’s report, Cape Verde and Timor-Leste had communicated to the Secretary-General information concerning the appointment of their representatives to the sixty-second session of the General Assembly.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Iran said his delegation had joined the consensus on the resolution; however, he had reservations on the parts of the report that might be construed as recognition of the Israeli regime.

The Assembly also adopted a resolution on the United Nations role in promoting a new global human order (document A/62/L.35/Rev.1).

Closing Statement

Wrapping up the session, Assembly President SRGJAN KERIM said it had been an honour for him to preside over this “busy, dynamic and constructive” period of work.  The Assembly had held three substantive high-level meetings on contemporary global challenges: to promote interreligious and intercultural understanding and cooperation for peace; to assess the consensus on financing for development; to follow-up on commitments made at the 2002 Children’s Summit; and a thematic debate to monitor implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.

In addition, the plenary had met 79 times, held 9 informal consultations and adopted over 250 resolutions.  For those and other accomplishments, he thanked the Member States for working together in a spirit of collective responsibility and “thereby enhancing the relevance and vitality of this house”.  His complementary relationship with the Secretary-General had delivered results, especially on climate change, the Millennium Development Goals and the Capital Master Plan.  The two would continue working together in the best interests of the Organization on other priority issues during the session, in particular on management reform and counter-terrorism.

Highlighting some of the encouraging developments that illustrated how he and the Assembly had been changing the way the Organization did business, he commended the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) for its efforts to adopt the 2008-2009 budget, adding only that he wished that more flexibility had been shown in reaching consensus.  The manner in which Member States had approached the elections to the Security Council and the adoption of a resolution on agricultural technology and development had demonstrated a more responsible attitude.  A more responsive approach to contemporary events had been evident in the adoption of several resolutions on Palestine and climate change, “which demonstrated that we are attuned to changing contemporary events”.

“Together, we have strengthened and coordinated working relationships with the Secretariat and other principle organs to better accomplish the common goals of this Organization,” he said, adding that he had also met with the Presidents of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council to spread better practices and improve coherence.  There had also been broader engagement with civil society, parliamentarians, academia and the private sector.  Outreach to those important constituencies must continue to develop.  “All these indicate that the General Assembly is performing: that it is more responsive, more action-oriented and more concerned with results,” he asserted, suggesting that the agenda item on “GA revitalization” should be replaced with the notion of the Assembly’s role in “strengthening the United Nations system”.

“How well this Assembly performs depends on the Member States!  And, when you are active and engaged, it allows any President of the Assembly to show leadership,” he said, stressing that the Assembly President and Member States could only live up to their mandates if they addressed contemporary issues and emerging trends.  That was the best way to bolster the authority and international standing of the Assembly.

He went on to highlight the five priorities he had set for the session, and outlined the road ahead.  On climate change, he said the Assembly would hold a high-level panel and debate on 11 and 12 February 2008, focusing on partnerships with the private sector and civil society.  That would also be an opportunity to assess the work of the United Nations in light of the Bali agreement.  On development financing, he said the Assembly had successfully agreed on a comprehensive preparatory process, including several multi-stakeholder review sessions.  To ensure an optimum outcome in Doha next December, he would like to see all Member States and stakeholders at the lead in organizing the substance of the sessions.

Turning to the Millennium Development Goals, he said the Assembly would hold a thematic debate on 1 and 2 April 2008 to consider where priority action could be taken to accelerate progress in the poverty, health and education targets.  The Assembly would also press ahead with efforts to renew the management and effectiveness of the Organization, including in the mandate review process to streamline its work.  Towards that goal, it would hold a plenary on 8 April 2008 to consider the way forward on management reform, and begin consultations on system-wide coherence.  Finally, on counter-terrorism, the Assembly would continue to take stock and identify gaps in implementation ahead of the full review next September.

“On those and other issues, we have together created a basis for action next year by setting in motion agreed processes and defining the parameters for concrete next steps,” he said.  For example, the Assembly had adopted a resolution to hold a comprehensive review of the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS on 10 and 11 June 2008.  On Security Council reform, Member States had also decided to move forward on the basis of a principled framework, and working with the Task Force, had begun to identify elements that could form the basis of intergovernmental negotiations.  Following requests from Member States, he planned to convene interactive thematic debates on human security and human trafficking to further demonstrate global leadership on those issues.

“I see in all the developments I have outlined encouraging signs of improved cooperation, understanding and trust,” he said, stressing that the Assembly’s work was becoming more compelling and relevant to the “everyday lives of the public we serve”.  It was the combined will of Member States that created that vital driving force behind the Assembly.  “I therefore encourage you to take the initiative and strive for results,” he said, urging delegations to return form the holidays ready to continue their joint venture.  “We have a busy schedule ahead and there are many important issues that require our close attention and consideration,” he said.

ANNEX I

Vote on Oceans and Law of Sea

The draft resolution on oceans and the Law of the Sea (document A/62/L.27) was adopted by a recorded vote of 146 in favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Benin, Turkey.

Abstain:  Colombia, Libya, Venezuela.

Absent:  Albania, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kiribati, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Regional Centre in Africa

The draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa (document A/62/392) was adopted by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Australia, Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent:  Albania, Bhutan, Bolivia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Israel, Kiribati, Liberia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

Operational paragraph 42 of the draft resolution on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space (document A/62/403) was approved by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 6 against, with 13 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Montenegro, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Absent:  Albania, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Bolivia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Vanuatu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Women’s Anti-Discrimination Convention Draft

Operative paragraph 14 of draft resolution VI on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (document A/62/433) was adopted by a recorded vote of 143 in favour to 1 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Brunei Darussalam, China, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Niger, Singapore.

Absent:  Albania, Bhutan, Bolivia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Israel, Kiribati, Liberia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Women’s Anti-Discrimination Convention Draft

Operative paragraph 15 of draft resolution VI on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (document A/62/433) was adopted by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 2 against, with 15 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Syria, United States.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Egypt, Malaysia, Mexico, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent:  Albania, Bhutan, Bolivia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Israel, Kiribati, Liberia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Women’s Anti-Discrimination Convention Draft

The draft resolution as a whole on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (document A/62/433) was adopted by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, 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, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Albania, Bhutan, Bolivia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Israel, Kiribati, Liberia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Human Rights Council

The draft resolution on the Human Rights Council (document A/62/434) was adopted by a recorded vote of 150 in favour to 7 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, 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, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Nauru.

Absent:  Albania, Bhutan, Bolivia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Follow-up to Durban Declaration

The draft resolution on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, (document A/62/437) was adopted by a recorded vote of 105 in favour to 46 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, 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, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  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, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Armenia, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland.

Absent:  Albania, Bhutan, Bolivia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Liberia, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Human Rights in Myanmar

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document 62/439/Add.3) was adopted by a recorded vote of 83 in favour to 22 against, with 47 abstentions, as follows:

In favourAfghanistan, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.

AgainstAlgeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

AbstainAntigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.

AbsentAlbania, Angola, Bhutan, Bolivia, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Liberia, Maldives, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX X

Vote on Questions Relating to Proposed Programme Budget

The draft resolution on questions relating to the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009 (document A/C.5/62/L.18) was adopted by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, 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, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, 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, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

AbstainNone.

Absent:  Albania, Azerbaijan, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX XI

Vote on Special Subjects Relating to Proposed Programme Budget

The draft resolution on special subjects relating to the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009 (document A/C.5/62/L.20) was adopted by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Iran, Syria.

Absent:  Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zambia.

ANNEX XII

Vote on Joint Staff Pension Fund

Operative paragraph 10 of the draft resolution on questions related to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (document A/C.5/62/L.25) was retained by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 1 against, with 45 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Albania, Azerbaijan, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX XIII

Vote on Joint Staff Pension Fund

The draft resolution on questions related to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (document A/C.5/62/L.25) was approved by a recorded vote of 140 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, 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, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Canada.

Absent:  Albania, Azerbaijan, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record
For information media. Not an official record.