|Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York|
Sixty-fourth General Assembly
42nd Meeting (PM)
Second Committee Approves Text Expressing Deep Concern over Impact
of Global Economic Crisis on International Trade
Members Conclude 2009 Session by Passing 5 Draft Resolutions, 4 by Consensus
Concluding its sixty-fourth session today, the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) approved five draft resolutions on a range of agenda items, including a text by which the General Assembly would note with deep concern that the world financial and economic crisis had severely impacted international trade, with a particular effect on developing countries, resulting in lower fiscal revenues and balance-of-payment problems.
By other terms of that text –- which the Committee approved by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 47 against, with 6 abstentions (Mexico, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey) -- the Assembly would stress the importance of expediting the Doha Development Round, the need for World Trade Organization negotiations on non-agricultural market access and progress in services, rules and trade facilitation, as well as strengthening agriculture rules, with a view to satisfactorily concluding the Round by 2010. (See annex for details of voting)
Also by that draft, the Assembly would express deep concern over laws, unilateral sanctions against developing countries and other forms of coercive measures that undermined international law and World Trade Organization rules, and threatened free trade and investment. The Assembly would call for facilitating accession to the World Trade Organization for all countries seeking membership, particularly least developed countries, and for faithfully applying its guidelines on those countries’ accession. It would stress the urgent need to implement “aid for trade” commitments, particularly concerning funding, and urge development partners to increase their contribution, with a view to ensuring more non-conditional and predictable financing on a multi-year basis.
The Assembly would also, by further terms, call on bilateral and multilateral donors to redouble efforts to increase the availability and affordability of trade finance for developing countries, and urge donors to provide the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) with increased resources for necessary assistance to developing countries.
However, several delegates expressed disappointment with the text. The representative of the United States said it did not contribute to the goal of opening global markets, while Sweden’s representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said it was one-sided and out of touch with today’s realities as well as the many recent responses to the global crisis. He said it was regrettable that the “Group of 77” developing countries and China had decided, after much progress during informal discussions, to revert to the original language of the draft resolution, resulting in a one-sided text.
But Sudan’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, defended the Group as having submitted the draft in good faith and having engaged constructively with development partners. Regrettably, important elements of the text, notably its development component, had either been watered down or eroded, risking the integrity of the Group’s political message, she added.
By the terms of a related text, on the international financial system and development, the Assembly would express serious concern over the impact of the global crisis on all countries, particularly developing ones, and stress the need for adequately financed, internationally coordinated and prompt action commensurate with its scale, depth and urgency. The Assembly would urge international financial institutions and regulatory bodies to continue to mitigate the global economic impact of the crisis and provide sufficient financial resources to developing countries.
The Assembly would stress, by other terms, the need to help developing countries respond to the crisis without incurring the risk of relapsing into another debt crisis, and call for continued concessionary and grant-based financing to low-income countries. It would stress the need for greater transparency as well as better regulation and supervision of the international financial system, strengthening prudential oversight, improving risk management, and reinforcing international cooperation. It would call for streamlining conditionality to ensure it was timely, tailored and targeted, and supported developing countries in the face of financial, economic and development challenges.
Venezuela’s representative lauded the text, but said it should have gone further in light of the situation of the poorest countries by providing a more resounding statement on the important role of the United Nations as the most democratic, inclusive and universal organization, bringing all peoples together on an equal footing and with respect for their sovereignty. The text should also have made reference to the need to correct the imbalance in the governance structure of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as well as to the use of Special Drawing Rights for the purposes of development.
Other delegates disagreed with that assessment, particularly the representative of the United States, who said that decisions on Special Drawing Rights were within the sole purview of the IMF, not the United Nations. Meanwhile, the representatives of Canada -- speaking also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand -- and Mexico expressed regret at the text’s failure to acknowledge the good efforts of the G-20 as well as regional and subregional groups to create a collective response to current international challenges.
The Committee also approved two texts on sustainable development. The first, on the Implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, would have the Assembly decide to organize in 2012 the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development at the highest possible level and accept the Brazilian Government’s offer to host it. It would also decide that the Conference’s objective would be to secure renewed political commitment for sustainable development, and assess progress to date as well as remaining gaps in
implementing the outcomes of major sustainable development summit. The Assembly would decide to focus on a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication, and result in a focused political document.
Furthermore, the Assembly would have the Conference and its preparatory process take into account the decision at the eleventh session of the Commission on Sustainable Development to carry out an overall appraisal of the implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for its further implementation and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, ensuring balanced integration of economic development, social development and environmental protection.
The second text, on implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, would have the Assembly encourage actions to promote sustainable management of soil as one means of mitigating the effects of drought in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas.
Further by that draft, the Assembly would decide to include in the United Nations calendar of conferences and meetings for the biennium 2010-2011 the sessions of the Conference of the Parties and its subsidiary bodies envisaged for the biennium. It would also request the Secretary-General to make provisions for the sessions of the Conference of the Parties and its subsidiary bodies in his proposal for the programme budget for that biennium.
A draft on preventing and combating corrupt practices, consistent with the United Nations Convention against Corruption, would have the Assembly condemn corruption in all its forms, including bribery, and the laundering of proceeds from corruption and other forms of economic crime. The Assembly would express concern over the magnitude of all levels of corruption, including the scale of the transfer of assets of illicit origin, and urge Member States to combat and penalize corruption and money laundering to prevent the transfer of illicitly acquired assets, while working for their prompt return through asset recovery, consistent with the principles of the Convention.
The Assembly would, by other terms, welcome the conclusion in November of the third session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Convention and call upon States parties to support the work of the Implementation Review Group and the Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Prevention of Corruption –- both newly created –- as well as that of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Asset Recovery. It would also urge Member States to abide by the principles of proper management of public affairs and public property, fairness, responsibility and equality before the law and the need to safeguard integrity and foster a culture of transparency, accountability and rejection of corruption.
In other business this afternoon, the Committee approved the draft programme of work for its sixty-fifth session and an oral decision on the geographical rotation of its Rapporteur for future sessions.
In concluding remarks, the Committee’s Chairperson underlined its unique tradition of holding special events which had helped to jump-start consideration of key issues and emerging challenges by providing an opportunity for brainstorming and free thinking beyond conventionally held positions.
The Director of the Office for Economic and Social Council Support and Coordination of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) also summed up the Committee’s work.
Other speakers today were the representatives of Norway, Singapore, Japan, El Salvador, Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Nicaragua and Indonesia.
The Second Committee (Economic and Financial) met this afternoon to take action on outstanding draft resolutions relating to macroeconomic policy questions; follow-up to and implementation of the outcome of the 2002 International Conference on Financing for Development and the 2008 Review Conference; sustainable development; globalization and interdependence; and revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. It was also expected to consider its agenda item on programme planning.
Action on Draft Resolutions
PARK IN-KOOK ( Republic of Korea), Chairperson, opened the meeting by saying the Committee would take action on all outstanding draft resolutions.
The Committee then took up a draft on international trade and development (document A/C.2/64/L.40).
Speaking in explanation of position before action, the representative of the United States said that the opening of global markets to trade worldwide could help reduce poverty and hunger. Having hoped that the United Nations could send a unified message to Doha this year, the United States was deeply disappointed that the draft neither met that aim nor encouraged a constructive basis on which to build dialogue towards inclusive trade. Hopefully the United Nations would remain relevant and constructive on economic and development matters in the future.
The Committee then approved the text by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 47 against, with 6 abstentions ( Mexico, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey). (See annex for voting details)
Speaking in explanation of position after the vote, the representative of Sudan, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said she recognized the importance of reaching consensus on international trade and development, which could provide guidance to negotiators at the World Trade Organization in Geneva on. Expressing disappointment at the failure to achieve consensus on the text for five years in a row, she said the Group of 77 had submitted the draft in good faith and had engaged constructively with development partners. Although delegates had come close to agreement on several issues, important elements of the text, notably the development component, had either been watered down or eroded, risking the integrity of the Group’s political message. Partners had not shown flexibility to ensure a balanced text, she added.
The representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said he had voted against the text because it was a missed opportunity. The European Union was greatly disappointed that progress made during many informal consultations had been lost due to the reversion by the Group of 77 to its original text, which used the same language as last year’s resolution. That text was particularly out of touch with today’s realities, notably the fact that the World Trade Organization extended beyond the Doha Round.
Considering the evolution of the current global economic situation in response to the economic and financial crisis, the importance of opening trade flows and resisting protectionist pressures could not be overemphasized, he said. The draft resolution was one-sided and did not take into account that today’s trading partners were not the same as those of two years ago. Overall, the text was imbalanced and next year’s negotiators should start on a better footing, with a fresh text, to receive different, more constructive results in the end.
The representative of Canada, speaking also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand (CANZ), expressed disappointment that no consensus had emerged, especially at such an important juncture in the Doha Round. Among other things, the proposal by the Group of 77 and China did not reflect the constructive spirit or the individual efforts of several delegations during negotiations. Regrettably the Committee had been unable to contribute to the negotiations on the Doha Round by reaching consensus after coming so close. The draft resolution now unfortunately worked against those efforts and for that reason CANZ had voted against it. Still, CANZ remained committed to a successful conclusion to the Doha Round and urged all World Trade Organization members to show flexibility in securing a conclusion that worked for all.
The representative of Norway said his delegation had abstained as it had two years ago, adding that, as a former World Trade Organization negotiator, he had been well aware of the difficulties when he had taken on the task of facilitating the present text. Nevertheless, he had had a sincere hope that, with the world facing a situation that endangered growth and development for all, this year would be different. When negotiations had begun a month ago, the common goal had been for the United Nations to speak with unity on trade issues for the first time in years, thus giving the World Trade Organization negotiations a much-needed boost and allowing it to “reach the finish line”.
Recalling that the Committee had come very close to reaching a consensus, he said that, until the last informal negotiation, all delegations had shown flexibility. Yet, one fundamental question had remained: how should the United Nations deal with the fact that an increasing number of countries, including developing ones, were dominating trade? How could old-school rhetoric be bridged to mirror current reality? Until that question was answered, the United Nations would remain sidelined on the issue of international trade and development.
The representative of Singapore said that, while his delegation had voted in favour of the text, it wished to state a strong preference for a consensus text, which would have been timely and would have contributed to the conclusion of the Doha Round. Constructive attempts to engage during informal consultations should not be seen as a wasted effort, but as a point of departure for future negotiations, he added.
The representative of Japan, noting that his delegation had voted against the text, stressed that the deep contraction in global trade was taking a serious toll. Against that backdrop, Japan recognized the pressing need for a basic support infrastructure in developing countries. Moreover, in light of trade’s role as an engine for development, Japan had been engaged in “aid for trade” programmes and stood ready to contribute to trade in developing countries. It was important for the Committee to send a unified message, and Japan regretted deeply that consensus had not been reached. Hopefully, all parties would now renew their commitment to achieving consensus.
As the Committee took up the draft resolution on the international financial system and development, originally submitted as document A/C.2/64/L.19, but today contained in an informal paper in English only, the Chair said it did not entail any programme budget implications.
The representative of El Salvador said a consensus text had been agreed after endless meetings, and drew the Committee’s attention to minor corrections, including the addition of an eighth preambular paragraph.
The Committee then approved the text without a vote, as orally revised.
Speaking after that action, the representative of Venezuela extended thanks to Sudan whose leadership had resulted in unity and efficacy among the Group of 77 and China. Venezuela cared for unity in the Group as a “precious gem” and its message to all States and all peoples was that unity should extend to everyone on the basis of peace and justice. The text was a good one, but Venezuela would have wished to go further in light of the situation of the poorest. Among other things, it desired a more resounding statement on the important role of the United Nations as the most democratic, inclusive and universal organization, bringing all peoples together on an equal footing and with respect for the sovereignty of peoples. While Venezuela favoured the creation of regional groups, none should overtake the role of the United Nations.
Emphasizing the need for a firm identification of the roots of the interrelated systemic crises, he called for a review of the role of the Bretton Woods institutions in the crisis. There should also be a more equitable governance structure within the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Thus, the text should have included a reference to special drawing rights for the purposes of development as well as correcting the imbalance in the IMF’s governance structure. Venezuela had “signed on” to the statement of the Group of 24 on international monetary affairs and development finance, made at their eighty-sixth meeting on 3 October 2009, regarding the redistribution of quotas.
The representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that although agreement had been reached very late, he was pleased that it had been reached by consensus. However, the draft resolution should have acknowledged more clearly the efforts and progress made to date in resolving the financial crisis. Ongoing reforms of the international financial institutions towards that end should have been mentioned in a more positive manner.
The representative of the United States said the draft underscored the challenges posed by the global crisis and strongly supported closer consultation and coordination between the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions so as to advance the world body’s core development mandate. However, dialogue between them must respect their different mandates. From the perspective of the United States, the text did not endorse a formal United Nations role in reforming the Bretton Woods institutions or the international monetary system, and it failed to express the important work already being done in that regard. The United States did not condone the use of capital controls, which should only be used as a last resort and in accordance with existing bilateral and multilateral frameworks. Additionally, the United States understood that decisions on Special Drawings Rights were within the sole purview of the IMF.
The representative of Mexico said the serious global economic and financial crisis required a coordinated, collective response. The international and national financial systems must be duly regulated and supervised, and include adequate participation by emerging economies and developing countries. They should allow for an inclusive system that reflected changing realities. It was regrettable that the draft resolution had not been able to mention the work of the G-20 and other efforts on the regional and subregional levels that sought to create a collective response to current international challenges.
The representative of Canada, also speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand (CANZ), said the text provided a timely opportunity to discuss the issue at hand, but expressed regret that several paragraphs delved into the internal issues of international financial institutions and their ongoing reform processes, which were taking place independently and in accordance to the mandates of the respective institutions. She said she was disappointed that the draft did not acknowledge more concretely the G-20’s efforts in that context, adding that it was better for the United Nations to focus on its own specific expertise, rather than on the mandates of other institutions.
The representative of Cuba said it was regrettable that the Committee had not made greater progress on many issues in the text, and had had to resort to agreed language in order to reach a consensus. There was a lack of willingness to recognize the related work of regional and subregional organizations.
The Committee then took up the draft resolution on modalities for the fourth High-level Dialogue on Financing for Development (document A/C.2/64/L.28), facilitated by Mexico, whose representative said that for reasons outside the intergovernmental process, it was not possible to hold the Dialogue on the date that had been set. The General Assembly had thus postponed the Dialogue and mandated that new dates would be determined today, at the latest. However, due to the efforts required of delegations to conclude the Committee’s work, it had proven impossible to conclude negotiations. The delegation of Mexico intended to present the draft resolution in the plenary in order to allow a collective decision there on the best dates for the Dialogue.
Chairperson PARK said that, based on that information, the Committee would not take action on the text.
The Committee then took up the text on implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (document A/C.2/64/L.71).
The Committee Secretary read out a statement on programme budget implications, saying that approval of the text would not entail any additional requirements to the proposed programme budget for the 2010-2011 biennium on the understanding that the substantive Secretariat cover the incremental travel costs if meetings were held outside Bonn. Any additional meetings not included in the 2010-2011 calendar would be funded through extra-budgetary resources.
DENISE MCQUADE (Ireland), Committee Rapporteur, then read out a minor correction to the third preambular paragraph of the text, after which the Committee approved it without a vote, as orally corrected.
The Committee then approved, by consensus, a text on preventing and combating corrupt practices and transfer of assets of illicit origin and returning such assets, in particular to the countries of origin, consistent with the United Nations Convention against Corruption (document A/C.2/64/L.64) as well as a related statement of programme budget implications (document A/C.2/64/L.72).
Following that action, the representative of Mexico said that the 2003 Merida Convention was the multilateral anti-corruption mechanism that addressed matters in a comprehensive way. He noted the important decision of the recent conference in Doha to create a follow-up mechanism to ensure that States parties met their commitments and fostered good practices to combat corruption. However, many Member States had still not ratified or acceded to the Merida Convention, and he urged them to do so.
Acting again without a vote, the Committee then approved, as orally corrected, a draft on implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (document A/C.2/64/L.59).
The Rapporteur then read out an oral statement of programme budget implications on that text.
The representative of Brazil said that, by approving the draft resolution, the Committee had decided to hold a conference in 2012 in Brazil, adding that she stood ready to work with all members to ensure that the conference fulfilled its objectives. She warned that 2012 may indeed be the last opportunity to achieve ambitious environmental goals before climate change became irreversible.
The representative of Nicaragua said there was still no agreement on a definition for the concept of a “green economy”. Nicaragua supported the conference and Brazil’s offer to host it.
The representative of Indonesia said consensus on the text once again represented a collective desire to achieve sustainable development through its three pillars. The text would provide further direction in ensuring that the sustainable development agenda and today’s consensus would aid future negotiations.
The representative of Venezuela said the environmental crisis was not an isolated phenomenon, but part and parcel of the production and consumption system of capitalist society. The system’s thirst for accumulation destroyed the planet and undervalued the human being. That explained why, in the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate change Conference, there had been, among other things, efforts to block cuts in emissions.
He said that, as the world moved towards the Summit, his country endorsed the concept of a green economy on the understanding that it would be addressed within a framework of sustainability. Moreover, maximizing profits should not be the foundation for growth. Environmental management should be improved, and a new ethic generated to forge new production and consumption patterns. It was not enough for predatory economic activities to be simply “painted green”.
The representative of Sweden thanked Brazil for its initiative, saying much ground had been covered in terms of the preparatory process. The European Union recognized that the draft resolution set the stage for an important cycle of the Commission on Sustainable Development, and looked forward to renewing political commitment on the theme of a green economy, which provided an opportunity for poverty eradication, as well as for the multilateral system in that realm.
Ms. MCQUADE, (Ireland), Rapporteur, then read out a slight correction after which Committee then approved its draft programme of work for the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly (document A/C.2/64/L.73) without a vote, as orally corrected.
The Committee then approved a draft oral decision on the rotation of the Rapporteur of the Second Committee, by which the Assembly would decide that, to rationalize further its methods of work for its subsequent sessions, the Second Committee should endeavour to elect its Rapporteur on the basis of his/her experience and personal competence, and also on the basis of rotation among the regional groups as follows: African States, Asian States, Easter European States, Latin American and Caribbean States and Western European and Other States.
Finally, the Committee decided that no action was required under agenda item 33, entitled “programme planning”.
Committee Chairman PARK, in closing remarks at the end of the meeting, thanked delegations for their hard work and determination to conduct their work in a collaborative spirit. He especially thanked the Vice-chairpersons and facilitators as well as members of the Secretariat and other parts of the United Nations system.
He noted that, as a unique tradition of the Second Committee, special events had helped jump-start consideration of key issues and emerging challenges. They had provided opportunities for “brainstorming” and free thinking beyond conventionally held positions on issues such as climate change and other crises. He highlighted in that regard the creativity on and contribution of such themes as “Legal empowerment of the poor” and “Global social protection floor”. He said he was also pleased that the Committee’s message on climate change had been concluded in time to be delivered into the Copenhagen meeting.
Among other highlights, he noted the decision to organize the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development at the highest level in 2012, as well the draft resolution on the Second United Nations Decade for the Eradication of Poverty, which reaffirmed the General Assembly decision to contribute to that Decade by convening a meeting during its sixty-eighth session. The text on the Monterrey Consensus and the Outcome of the 2008 Review Conference, which reaffirmed the need for a strengthened and more effective inclusive intergovernmental process to follow-up on financing for development, recalled the decision to consider holding a follow-up conference on financing for development by 2013.
Suggesting that the Committee’s work methods needed improvements, he stressed that it should make better use of its time and consider, among other things, whether members should highlight certain issues in the general debate or the debate under individual agenda items. Members should consider applying a one-time deadline for the submission of all draft proposals. Once the Bureau was constituted, advance work should begin in June or early July.
The representative of Sudan, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, called for follow-up on the decisions taken during the International Conference on Financing for Development and the 2008 Review Conference, and expressed satisfaction that the Committee had sent a unified message on climate change. There was a need to break the stalemate on the World Trade Organization negotiations and to continue concerted efforts to conclude the Doha Trade Round. Outside global processes could not be a substitute for the United Nations on many important issues, and the Organization would continue to play a constructive role in enhancing global multilateralism. She lauded the consensus reached on many draft resolutions, noting that only five of them had required a recorded vote.
The representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said several important resolutions had been approved this year, including some new ones, but the session had been difficult. The Committee should review its working methods and consider ways to make its work better and more time-efficient.
Nikhil Seth, Director, Office for Economic and Social Council Support and Coordination, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), said the Committee should reflect on its draft resolutions under several categories. It looked at issues under the umbrella of operational activities for development. It looked at issues where the primary action could be elsewhere, such as on trade or climate change, where the Committee sent a powerful, important message about the need for relevant discussions. Some Committee texts set in motion processes and policies, such as those calling for follow-up to Monterrey and Doha, and for conferences and frameworks concerning least developed countries, small island developing States and desertification, among other issues.
The draft resolution on (document A/C.2/64/L.40) was approved by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 47 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, 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, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: Mexico, Norway, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Serbia, Turkey.
Absent: Azerbaijan, Botswana, Central African Republic, Chad, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, Honduras, Kenya, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Namibia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.
* *** *