RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT, GIRL CHILD, PROTECTION OF MIGRANTS AMONG ISSUES ADDRESSED, AS THIRD COMMITTEE ADOPTS SIX TEXTS, CONCLUDES CURRENT SESSION

28 November 2007
GA/SHC/3912

RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT, GIRL CHILD, PROTECTION OF MIGRANTS AMONG ISSUES ADDRESSED, AS THIRD COMMITTEE ADOPTS SIX TEXTS, CONCLUDES CURRENT SESSION

28 November 2007
General Assembly
GA/SHC/3912
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-second General Assembly

Third Committee

54th Meeting (PM)*

RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT, GIRL CHILD, PROTECTION OF MIGRANTS AMONG ISSUES ADDRESSED,

AS THIRD COMMITTEE ADOPTS SIX TEXTS, CONCLUDES CURRENT SESSION

Other Drafts Concern Implementation of Durban Declaration; Centre

For Human Rights, Democracy in Central Africa; Sixty-Third session Work Programme

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) completed its work for the sixty-second session of the General Assembly today with the approval of six draft resolutions, bringing to 60 the number of drafts that it will be sending on to the Assembly’s plenary for adoption.

Two of the drafts were approved by recorded votes:  one on the right to development (121 in favour to 52 against, with Vanuatu abstaining), and another on global efforts to eliminate racism (191 in favour to 45 against, with Armenia, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland abstaining).  For details, see annexes I and II.

Approved by consensus were draft resolutions on the protection of migrants, the girl child, and the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa, as well as the tentative programme of work for the Committee for the sixty-third session of the Assembly.

As explained by its main sponsor, Cuba, the draft resolution on the right to development aims at putting that right on a par with all other human rights and fundamental freedoms, with the Assembly to call upon the Human Rights Council, based in Geneva, to agree on a programme of work towards that objective.  While primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of all human rights would lie with States, the need for an international environment conducive to the right to development would be reaffirmed.

Among those delegations that voted against the draft were Japan, the United States and the member States of the European Union.  They shared a concern that it might open a door towards an international legally-binding instrument on the right to development, with the representative of Japan saying that such an instrument would make it hard for States to discharge their obligation to promote the right of each individual to pursue the full development of his or her potential.

The United States and the member States of the European Union also voted against the revised draft resolution on the elimination of racism and preparations for a follow-up conference in 2009 on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance that took place in Durban, South Africa in August and September 2001.  The main sponsor, Pakistan, said the text had undergone considerable change since the draft’s introduction before the Committee, but concern was expressed about its request to the Secretary-General to provide funding for a series of regional preparatory meetings, as well as the review conference itself.  The representative of Israel, meanwhile, recounted his country’s displeasure with the Durban conference, recalling that some countries and non-governmental organizations had used the occasion to demonize his country.

Among draft resolutions adopted without a vote, the draft on the rights of migrants –- sponsored by Mexico -– aimed at ensuring that States effectively protect the human rights of migrants, whatever their status.  The draft on the girl child, sponsored by Zambia, highlighted development issues, in contrast to previous resolutions on the topic that had been more rights-based.  The draft on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa would have the Assembly welcome the activities of that Centre, based in Yaoundé, Cameroon, and ask the Secretary-General to provide it with additional funding and staff.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to take action on the draft resolution entitled from rhetoric to reality:  a global call for concrete action against 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/C.3/62/L.65/Rev.1, with programme budget implications contained in document A/C.3/62/L.90).  (For background, please see press release GA/SHC/3909 of 20 November.)

It was also to take action on draft resolutions entitled the girl child (document A/C.3/62/L.23/Rev.1), protection of migrants (document A/C.3/62/L.40/Rev.1), Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa (document A/C.3/62/L.44, with programme budget implications contained in A/C.3/62/L.91), the right to development (document A/C.3/62/L.49), and tentative programme of work of the Third Committee for the sixty-third session of the General Assembly, submitted by the Chairman of the Committee (document A/C.3/62/L.86).  (For background, please see press release GA/SHC/3911 of 27 November.)

Action on Draft Resolutions

The Committee first took up the draft resolution on the girl child (document A/C.3/62/L.23/Rev.1), presented by the representative of Zambia, who spoke on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

She noted that past drafts had taken a rights-based approach, while the present draft highlighted development issues -- reflecting the view of its co-sponsors that rights and development went hand in hand.  The text stressed the importance of international cooperation, education, health and poverty eradication in realizing international development goals, as well as poverty eradication goals, with respect to the girl child.

She then made some oral revisions to the text, thanked fellow sponsors, and invited other States to join the list of co-sponsors.

The text was approved by the Committee as orally revised and without a vote.

The representative of the United States said he had joined the consensus, but added that it was his understanding that references to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and their five and ten year reviews did not create any rights and, in particular, did not create or recognize a right to abortion.  They could not be interpreted to constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion.  It was also his understanding that the consensus term "sexual and reproductive health" did not include abortion or constitute support, endorsement, or promotion of abortion or the use of abortifacients.

He said that, while the wording of operative paragraph 1 was acceptable, he would have preferred that it read “human rights law” rather than “human rights instruments”.  The reason was that “instruments” was not restricted to legally binding documents.  In operative paragraph 3 bis, he noted that the characterization of the right to education was not consistent with how that right was usually articulated, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.

The representative of Iran said he had joined the consensus, but noted that the draft contained wording that would allow different interpretations to be applied to certain provisions.  In addition, he said his Government’s support for the text did not bind it to those instruments it was not party to.  All Member States reserved the right to join any instruments it wished, or conversely, not to do so.

The Committee then took note of reports of the Secretary-General on the girl child (document A/62/297) and the follow-up to the special session of the General Assembly on children (document A/62/259).

Before concluding its consideration of the agenda item on “promotion and protection of the rights of children”, the representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, returned to the draft resolutions taken up yesterday on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/62/L.24/Rev.1).  She drew attention to an oral statement delivered by the Secretary on behalf of the Secretary-General regarding that text, saying it had caused some “surprise”.  Operative paragraph 54, as agreed by Member States, had clearly established the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children, and she did not understand why the Secretary-General had chosen to make its own interpretation of the text. 

While she held the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in high esteem, she reminded the Secretary that Member States had not mandated UNICEF as the entity with the primary responsibility to follow up on the issue of violence against children.  Organizations such as the World Health Organization, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Labour Organization should also be involved in promoting that cause.  She reiterated the fact that the primary responsibility for following up on the issue of violence against children would now lie with the future Special Representative on violence against children. 

She requested that her present statement be included in the official records.

The Committee then took action on the draft resolution on protection of migrants (document A/C.3/62/L.40/Rev.1).

The Secretary, recalling the oral statement on programme budget implications that he had made at the previous meeting, said that the revised text did not change the figures he had given in that statement.

The representative of the main sponsor, Mexico, made oral corrections to the text.  He said draft resolution emphasized the need for the protection of the human rights of migrants.  It called on all Member States to effectively protect the human rights of migrants, regardless of their migratory status, and to ensure that laws and policies in such areas as anti-terrorism and transnational organized crime did not impinge on the human rights of migrants.  The draft resolution also condemned racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance directed at migrants.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution, as orally revised, without a vote.

The representative of the United States regretted that, during negotiations on the draft resolution, a number of proposed revisions that would have improved the text had not been reflected in revised texts distributed for consideration.  There had also not been adequate opportunity for discussion or negotiation.  It lacked a paragraph that would have reaffirmed the sovereign right of States to enforce national migration legislation, and to control migration to their territory in a manner consistent with their obligations under international law.  The United States believed that effective migration management would allow all States, and individual migrants, to harness the benefits of migration and reduce its challenges.  For that reason, all Member States had to aim to develop sound migration policies, including those that protected the human rights of migrants.  The United States expected its more than 1 million citizens living outside its borders to observe all local laws, and it expected citizens of other countries within its borders to do the same, beginning with its immigration laws.

The Committee then turned to the draft resolution on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa (document A/C.3/62/L.44), upon which Committee Chairman RAYMOND WOLFE drew attention to its associated programme implications as contained in document A/C.3/62/L.91.

[Should the General Assembly adopt the resolution, additional resources totalling $573,600 would be required in the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009,to be offset by an equivalent amount from income from staff assessment.  This would represent a charge against the contingency fund, and as such would require additional appropriations under the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009 to be approved by the General Assembly at its sixty-second session.]

The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said the Centre was a key institution in the subregion.  Its objectives were to contribute to the training of officials involved in managing activities in the human rights sphere, to support national institutions in the region, to help disseminate information regarding instruments that promoted democracy, to prevent conflict and ensure lasting peace in the region, and to work towards a culture of democracy and respect for the rule of law.  As such, it was viewed with great importance by central African States and all those that favoured the protection of human rights.

Before taking action on the draft, the representative of the United States announced that he planned to join the consensus.  However, he noted that resources available to the United Nations and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) were finite.  When it came to the issue of funding, States must be prepared to take difficult decisions about their priorities.  He would join the consensus with the understanding that the additional resources required by the resolution would be funded within existing resources.

The Committee then adopted the draft without a vote

Speaking after action, the representative of Cuba voiced full support for the request for more resources for the Centre.  However, he made clear that elements within the text were relevant exclusively to those countries involved with the work of the Centre.

The representative of Japan voiced support for the Centre, and said he expected to discuss its programme budget implications in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary).  He noted that limits to the United Nations financial resources meant that every proposal must be discussed with due consideration of its budget implications, and that enough time must be given to those discussions.

The representative of Cameroon said the Centre was established at the request of the leaders of the subregion, in the spirit of the World Conference on Human Rights.  Its importance in promoting and protecting human rights and defending nascent democracies in the subregion could not be overemphasized.  That double objective was highlighted in the Centre’s 3-year strategy for 2007-2009.  Those activities would cover all States in the subregion and engage State and non-State actors.  On behalf of its co-sponsors, he expressed appreciation to those Members who had chosen to support the consensus.  A special thanks went to those that had participated in informal consultations, which permitted a strengthening of the text.

The Committee then turned its attention to the draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/62/L.49).

The Secretary made an oral statement on programme budget implications.

The representative of Cuba, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said the draft resolution was a high priority for States that belonged to that organization.  It was fundamental that further progress be made, so that the right to development was considered a basic human right.  The need for an international legally-binding instrument on the right to development was underlined in the draft.  Unfortunately, concerns expressed by the European Union regarding operative paragraph 10 (d) could not be allayed, despite proposals that had been submitted to address those concerns.  The representative then made oral corrections to the text.

The Chairman said a recorded vote had been requested.  The representative of Cuba asked which delegation had asked for the vote.  The Chairman replied the United States.

The representative of the United States said his delegation opposed the draft resolution.  His country recognized the right to development to mean that each individual should enjoy the right to develop his or her intellectual or other capabilities to the maximum extent possible through the exercise of the full range of civil and political rights.  The draft resolution also contained initiatives that the United States found objectionable in years past, such as discussion of a possible legally binding instrument on the right to development.

The representative of Portugal, on behalf of the European Union, said that the right to development was of great importance to the European Union.  It was the primary responsibility of States to create the conditions for the realization of the right to development.  The right to development had been discussed earlier this year at the Human Rights Council in Geneva; the European Union had joined consensus there on a resolution regarding the right to development, on the understanding that it would not necessarily lead to an international legally-binding instrument.  Not all the concerns of the European Union had been accommodated in the text before the Committee; it could, therefore, not support it.

The draft resolution was then approved, as orally amended, by a vote of 121 in favour to 52 against, with 1 abstention (Vanuatu) (Annex I).

In an explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Colombia said he had voted in favour of the text, but wished to stress his understanding that the main substance of operative paragraph 32 referred to a commitment to help indigenous peoples realize their right to development.  The second part of the paragraph, pertaining to their right to education, employment, housing and so on, was an allusion to provisions in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The representative of Japan said his Government was committed to the “right to development”, and had contributed to the formulation of the concept.  Furthermore, it was actively contributing to the realization of that right through its work in development cooperation.  It was his understanding that it was up to each individual to pursue the full development of his or her potential, and that it was the obligation of individual States to promote that right among its citizens.  A convention on the right to development would make it hard for States to discharge that obligation.  There was no doubt that international cooperation among States was important to the achievement of that right, but it was not appropriate to make it a legal requirement.  For that reason, he had voted against the resolution.

The Committee then took note of various reports and notes falling under agenda item 70:  Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/62/36); Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery (document A/62/180); Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (document A/62/189); Report of the Secretary-General on the Status of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (document A/62/273); Report of the Secretary-General on the protection of migrants (document A/62/299); Note by the Secretary-General submitting the report of the chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies on their nineteenth meeting (A/62/224); Report of the Secretary-General on the right to development (A/62/183); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the independent expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights (A/62/212); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (A/62/214); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants (A/62/218); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/62/265); Report of the Secretary-General on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (A/62/287); Report of the Secretary-General on the Khmer Rouge trials (A/62/304); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (A/62/207); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi (A/62/213); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967(A/62/275); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (A/62/313); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (A/62/354); and Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto (A/62/230).

Turning the Committee’s attention to the agenda item titled “programme planning,” he recalled that that agenda item had been allocated to all Main Committees, but that in the case of the Third Committee, no action was required on its part.  The Committee thus concluded its consideration of that agenda item.

The meeting adjourned for a few minutes, after the Secretary said he was awaiting an oral statement regarding program budget implications on a revised version of the draft resolution entitled from rhetoric to reality:  a global call for concrete action against 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/C.3/62/L.65/Rev.1, with programme budget implications contained in document A/C.3/62/L.90).

The representative of Pakistan, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that, following consultations, the text had been almost entirely changed; the title of the revised text had become 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.  A number of oral revisions had been made.  Once the General Assembly had acted on the draft resolution, it was the joint responsibility of States to ensure that the Durban Review Conference and the preparatory process were facilitated.  The action taken by the Committee today would reveal whether the gap between rhetoric and reality vis-à-vis eliminating racism and discrimination had been bridged.

The Secretary said that the programme budget implications contained in “L.90” still applied, even in view of the revisions that had just been made by the representative of Pakistan.  He then placed on the record an oral statement from the Secretary-General regarding allocation of resources.

The representative of Israel said her country was deeply alarmed by racially motivated violence, and it supported international efforts to address the problem.  But, at times, such efforts had been derailed by political interests of some Member States.  At the Durban conference, slanderous, racist and harmful rhetoric had been directed at one State, calling into question the value of such international conferences.  One single country had been demonized; Israel and the United States, therefore, had withdrawn from the conference and opposed follow-up resolutions that ignored what had happened there.  Durban had been a sad display of racism and intolerance.  Israel was compelled to call for a vote, and it would vote against.  It was hoped that, in due time, the blunders of Durban would be rectified.

The representative of the United States said the draft resolution endorsed the flawed outcome of the World Conference held in Durban in 2001 and was, therefore, itself seriously problematic.  Durban follow-up activities duplicated work being undertaken by other bodies.  The Human Rights Council should not act as a preparatory committee for the Durban Review Conference, but rather dedicate itself to addressing emerging human rights situations.  The Secretary-General should, meanwhile, not be asked to fund regional preparatory meetings that duplicated work already underway.  States should focus on implementing existing commitments regarding racism, rather than follow-up to a flawed instrument.

The representative of Colombia made an editorial comment regarding a footnote to operative paragraph 25.  The Chairman said the error would be duly corrected.

The representative of Portugal, on behalf of the European Union, recalled that, at the sixty-first session of the General Assembly, the Union had supported the convening in 2009 of a Durban Review Conference, on the understanding that it would be conducted at a high-level meeting in the framework of the General Assembly; that it would focus on implementation of the Durban outcome document without reopening any part of that document; and that its preparation by the Human Rights Council would not entail the creation of new mechanisms.  It was disappointing, however, that two draft resolutions had been put before the Human Rights Council that contradicted the letter and spirit of the resolution adopted by the sixty-first session.  The Union had been forced to vote against those resolutions, and thus consensus was broken. 

The European Union, nevertheless, participated actively at the meeting of the Preparatory Committee of the Review Conference, where 15 decisions had been adopted without a vote.  Those decisions were subsequently endorsed by the Third Committee, but now it was taking action on a draft resolution that, in some instances, contained language that contradicted those decisions.  The draft resolution changed the Preparatory Committee’s agreement regarding the holding of international, regional and national meetings in preparation for the Durban Review Conference, and it contained language that could be construed as prejudging the special procedures review process under way at the Human Rights Council. 

In addition, paragraphs dealing with budgetary arrangements for the World Review Conference and its preparatory process contradicted the decisions taken by the Preparatory Committee.  The Union also regretted that negotiations on the draft text had been initiated only about a week ago, allowing little time for consultations.  The Union was asking itself if it was worth making efforts to reach compromises that would be easily broken.  It also doubted whether some of the main players were interested in keeping the Durban follow-up process on a consensus basis that included all regions.   The Union would vote against the draft resolution.

The representative of Armenia said his delegation had participated actively at Durban and attached importance to the full implementation of the Durban Declaration and its Programme of Action.  He also supported the idea of a review conference.  However, the only way for the process to succeed was through consensus action based on inclusiveness.  Though he was encouraged by the flexibility and openness demonstrated by participants, parties had not come to mutually acceptable conclusions.  For that reason, he was unable to support the current resolution and would abstain from the vote.

The representative of Pakistan raised a point of order, saying that the intervention by the delegate from Portugal had related to draft resolution L.65.  The Committee was presently taking action on Revision 1 of the text, which was substantially different from the one tabled previously.

The Committee then approved the draft by a vote of 119 in favour to 45 against, with 6 abstentions ( Armenia, Japan, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland) (Annex II).

The representative of Japan said he had abstained from the vote, because, in the interest of maintaining the financial health of the United Nations and to promote sound financial management practices, States should have enough time to consider programme budget implications associated with various texts.

The Committee took note of the report of the Secretary-General on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive 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 (A/62/480).

The Secretary said that, in view of “L.65/Rev.1”, “L.86” would have to be revised.  That would be done in due course.

The representative of Egypt said he believed that “L.86” did not include any elements regarding the report of the Human Rights Council.  The Secretary had said that a number of agenda items had been missing from the Arabic version; the official version would be corrected in due course. 

The representative of Sudan said his delegation had brought to attention of the Secretariat that five agenda items had been missing from the Arabic version, but that a revised version now reflected the English version. 

The representative of Benin said “L.86” had no reference to commemorations of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The Secretary said that it could have been the case that the anniversary would have elapsed before the sixty-third session; therefore there would have been no need for its entry. 

Regarding the report of the Human Rights Council, the representative of Uruguay recalled that the General Committee’s decision to convey that report to the Third Committee applied to the current session only, and a new decision would be taken at the next session.  The Secretary concurred with the recollection of the representative of Uruguay.

The Committee then adopted the programme of work for the sixty-third session of the General Assembly, as contained in “L.86”.

Miscellaneous

Offering thanks to the Chair and the Bureau were the representatives of Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Angola (on behalf of the African Group), Côte d’Ivoire, Bahamas (on behalf of the Caribbean Community [CARICOM]), China (on behalf of the Asian Group), Slovenia (on behalf of the Eastern European States), Germany (on behalf of the Western European Group), Benin, Mexico (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States), Uruguay, Kuwait (on behalf of the Arab Group) and the United States.

In concluding remarks, Committee Chairman Mr. WOLFE ( Jamaica) said his tenure as chair of the Committee had been the most difficult experience in his 20 years of involvement in multilateral diplomacy, but also the most rewarding.  He thanked his colleagues from the CARICOM and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States for having endorsed his bid for the chairmanship.  Success would not have possible without support from members of the Non-Aligned Movement and its chair, Cuba; the delegation of Pakistan, who on behalf of the Group of 77 and China had also afforded him the same level of support; and the Ambassador of Portugal, with whom he had had numerous bilateral meetings in the pursuit of balance and fairness.

He paid special tribute to countries involved in “country-specific configurations”, who had had to speak in defense of their countries.  Equally important, a sense of balance and fairness could not have been achieved had they not been given ample opportunities to make their positions known -- and for that, he thanked the delegations that allowed such opportunities to take place, even when they were under pressure to do otherwise.

He also thanked the members of his own delegation for their support, as well as the Secretary of the Committee and his staff, and the members of the Bureau.  The Chairman expressed sincere thanks and appreciation to all the interpreters for “their splendid work and patience”.  Lastly, thanks were also extended to the conference officers, press officers, précis writers, security officers, sound technicians and document officers. 

ANNEX I

Vote on Right to Development

The draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/62/L.49) was approved by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 52 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, 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, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Vanuatu.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Durban Declaration

The draft resolution on the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and programme of action (document A/C.3/62/L.65/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 119 in favour to 45 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, 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, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, 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:  Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

* *** *

__________

*     Press Release GA/SHC/3912 issued on 27 November 2007 should have been 53rd Meeting (AM) only.

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