Press Releases

    GA/SHC/3799
    5 November 2004

    Third Committee Recommends Second Decade of World’s Indigenous People; Continues Discussion of Racism, Self-Determination

    Six Draft Resolutions Adopted on Youth, UN Crime Programme, Drug Control, Violence Against Women, Indigenous People, INSTRAW

    NEW YORK, 4 November (UN Headquarters) -- The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today recommended that the General Assembly proclaim a Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People beginning on 1 January 2005, as it took action on six draft resolutions on matters related to social development, international drug control, crime prevention and criminal justice, advancement of women and indigenous issues. Also today, the Committee continued its discussion of racism, and self-determination, hearing from 16 speakers.

    The terms of the draft, approved without a vote as orally amended, would also have the Assembly request the Secretary-General to appoint the Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs as the Second Decade’s Coordinator and to establish a voluntary fund for the Decade, as a successor to the already-existing Voluntary Fund. Making statements of positions on the draft were the representatives of Ecuador, on behalf of the ANDEAN Community Australia and the United States.

    A second text on “Policies and programmes involving youth”, approved as amended and without a vote, would have the General Assembly decide to convene, at its sixtieth session, two plenary meetings of the General Assembly devoted to evaluation of the progress made in implementation of the World Programme of Action for Youth to the Year 2000 and Beyond. Making a statement of position after the text’s adoption was the representative of China.

    Two texts related to advancement of women were also approved today. The draft resolution on “Future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW)”, approved by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to 10 against (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Latvia, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States), with 29 abstentions, would have the General Assembly request INSTRAW actively to participate and contribute to the review and appraisal of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, and the outcome document of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly in the context of the forty-ninth session of the Commission on the Status of Women.

    Making a general statement on the draft was the representative of the Dominican Republic.  Speaking in explanation before the vote were the representatives of Australia, on behalf of Canada, Denmark, Finland, United Kingdom, Sweden, United States and Japan, who all expressed opposition to funding the activities of INSTRAW through the United Nations regular budget. Instead, they favoured voluntary funding for INSTRAW activities. The representative of Portugal spoke after the vote.

    A draft on elimination of all forms of violence against women was approved without a vote and would have the General Assembly urge Member States to strengthen awareness and preventive measures for the elimination of all forms of violence against women, whether occurring in public or private life. Making a statement before the text’s adoption was the representative of Pakistan. The representatives of Canada (on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (CANZ)) and the Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union) spoke in explanation of position after the adoption.

    Also approved without a vote, and as amended, was a draft resolution related to Strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, approved without a vote, would have the General Assembly invite all States to support the operational activities of the Programme, as well as the activities of the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. Making a statement after the text’s adoption was the representative of Colombia.

    A revised draft resolution on ”International Cooperation against the world drug problem”, approved without a vote, would have the General Assembly reaffirm that countering the world drug problem is a common and shared responsibility that must be addressed in a multilateral setting and requires an integrated and balanced approach. In follow-up to the General Assembly’s twentieth special session on countering the world drug problem, the text would call upon all States to strengthen their efforts to achieve the objectives targeted for 2008.

    By the terms of the text, the Assembly would call upon the international community to enhance financial and technical support for Afghanistan in particular, to enable the Government successfully to implement its national drug control strategy. The representative of Colombia spoke in explanation of position after the text’s adoption.

    Draft resolutions on matters related to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa and globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights were introduced by the representatives of Denmark, Cameroon and Egypt, respectively.

    The Committee also took note of the Secretary-General’s notes on the Status of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations (document A/59/257), the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (document A/59/258), and the annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the implementation of the programme of activities for the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (document A/59/277).

    Also today, the Third Committee, continuing its joint discussion of racism and racial discrimination and the right to self-determination, heard statements by the representatives of Ukraine, Iran, Algeria, South Africa (on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC)), Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Indonesia, Pakistan, Republic of Moldova, Ghana, Lebanon, Eritrea and Burkina Faso.

    The Observer for Palestine, and the representative of the International Federation of Red Cross and the Red Crescent Societies also addressed the Committee today.

    Speaking in exercise of the right to reply were the representatives of Israel, Morocco, Algeria and Panama, as well as the Observer for Palestine.

    The Third Committee will next meet at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, 8 November, to continue its joint discussion of racism and racial discrimination and the right to self-determination.

    Background

    The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to continue its joint discussion of racism and racial discrimination and the right to self-determination. For additional background information, please see Press Release GA/SHC/3798 of 3 November.

    The Committee was also expected this afternoon to take action on a number of drafts on matters related to social development, international drug control, crime prevention and criminal justice, advancement of women and indigenous issues.

    Statements on Racism, Racial Discrimination and Self-Determination

    MARKIYAN KULYK (Ukraine) said the international community confronted a two-fold challenge: to combat and eradicate the phenomena of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to elaborate best practices to prevent their resurgence. Home to more than 130 ethnic minorities, which comprised more than 20 per cent of the population, Ukraine understood the complexity of that task. The objective of forming a pluralistic, multicultural society had been placed among the nation’s top priorities.

    To attain that goal, special attention had been focused on creation of a solid legal and administrative framework, he added, to secure the rights of national and religious minorities, as well as to combat discrimination in all its forms. The country’s Constitution, criminal code and law on national minorities had enshrined the principles of equality and non-discrimination, and had established a solid basis for legal action against persons and organizations fomenting inter-ethnic or religious hatred.

    Conscious that the delicate fabric of inter-ethnic and inter-confessional relations could be damaged by a single manifestation of intolerance that remained unmet by an adequate response from the Government, public institutions and civil society, he stressed the importance of periodic review of national legislation to meet new challenges. In addition to updating existing laws, the Ukrainian authorities had persistently promoted constructive dialogue with ethnic and religious minority organizations. A Council of Representatives of the Organizations of Ethnic Minorities had also been established to promote effective cooperation between the Government, civil society and national minorities. Among other initiatives, measures had been taken to provide educational opportunities in minority languages and to familiarize the general public with the culture, history, traditions and customs of ethnic minorities.

    He urged the United Nations to pay more attention to the collection and dissemination of best practices and lessons learned in the fight against racism. He also recalled his delegations proposal to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), to declare an International Decade for the Promotion of Tolerance 2006-2015.

    MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said that self-determination was fundamental to the realization of all other rights. Various resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, as well as resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights, had for decades consistently reaffirmed the rights of Palestinian people to self-determination. Regrettably, Israel continued to defy these rights. Israel had also persisted in the construction of a separation wall in defiance of the appeals of the international community.  Iran viewed the construction of the wall as illegal and in violation of principles of international law.

    He reiterated that the denial of the right to self-determination of people constituted a grave denial of fundamental human rights. Concrete measures were needed to respond to non-cooperation by the occupying power.

    ABDELOUAHAB OSMANE (Algeria) said that two and a half years after Durban, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance continued to exist in many regions of the world.  Paradoxically, it was often present in those countries in which democratic values and human rights had been well-enshrined. Racial, colour, religious, cultural, ethnic and national differences had often prompted intolerance against migrants, asylum-seekers, minorities and indigenous peoples. Moreover, the media had often been used to disseminate racist and xenophobic attitudes. These trends must be countered by governments primarily, but also by the international community, due to the threat they posed to international peace and security.

    In addition to elaborating legislative measures to sanction those promoting or committing racist acts, he urged national governments to undertake preventive activities in the education and training spheres. The international community should reaffirm its commitment to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

    One could not help but wonder at donors’ reluctance to give the necessary vitality to the anti-discrimination unit of the Secretariat, he added. Their active boycott, or only sporadic participation, did not advance the cause of working against racial discrimination.  Moreover, the emergence of new types of racism and intolerance should prompt a response and adaptation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Faced with the resurgence of racism and nationalism, maintaining and implementing the commitments undertaken at Durban must become an international priority, including combating the reverses that had confronted tolerance since the events of 11 September 2001.

    GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa), on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) said eradicating racism and its attendant evils remained the great challenge of the times. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action provided a framework within which the international community could begin to address racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. It was a global compact that imposed a collective responsibility on the international community to bring to a close the continued persistence of racism. However, she cautioned, the mechanisms established in pursuance of the Durban commitments could only be effective if backed up by practical measures at the country level.

    She said the SADC welcomed the quality of the interactive dialogue between the Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of action and all the relevant experts on issue of the complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).  The SADC was concerned that at the current pace, the universal ratification of the ICERD by 2005, in compliance with the consensus of the Durban Conference, was not likely to be achieved.

    The SADC welcomed the statement made by Louise Arbour, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, that she would make the struggle against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia a priority of her Office. This was not a short-term problem and required a transformation of hearts and minds through education and persuasion, she concluded.

    ABDELOUAHAB OSMANE (Algeria) said that the right to self-determination remained one of the basic principles of international law, as well as a foundation of the United Nations Charter, constituting a prerequisite for the enjoyment of all other human rights. People under colonial domination or foreign occupation had the right to pursue their own self-determination and to seek aid in that regard.

    The right to self-determination had been universally recognized, he noted, owing to the sacrifices of those living under colonial domination, who had thrown off their yoke and sought to regain their dignity, to resume their rightful place in the international community. Yet, in spite of the recent victory of the people of Timor-Leste, the application of the right to self-determination remained incomplete.  Several peoples in the world continued to appeal to the international community to be allowed to enjoy their inalienable right to self-determination and other freedoms.

    That remained the case in the Middle East, he stressed, where the Palestinians continued to struggle for their right to establish a national State with Al-Quds al-Sharif as the capital. Additionally, the people of Western Sahara had been seeking to exercise their right to self-determination for more than one-quarter of a century. His Government supported all peoples fighting for their freedom and dignity in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Algeria would continue to support the Saharawis right to self-determination, including through a free and impartial referendum in keeping with international legality and the peace plan for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, which the Security Council had unanimously supported by resolution 1495 (2003).

    CLAUDIA PEREZ (Cuba) said the exercise of the peoples’ right to self-determination was a preliminary condition for the full realization of all human rights. It was senseless to talk about respect for those rights as long as foreign domination and occupation persisted.  In that regard, Cuba demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from all occupied Arab territories, as well as full respect for the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to establish their own independent and sovereign State.  Likewise, she added, Cuba defended the right to self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico.

    She said Cuba was greatly concerned that mercenary activities had not only increased, but had also acquired new and dangerous forms, which threatened the observance of human rights and the full exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. Her Government was taking final steps to ratify the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and expected to do so in the short-term.  She highlighted the relevant work of investigation and follow-up that had been carried out by the Special Rapporteur on the question of the use of mercenaries and welcomed the election of the new Special Rapporteur, Ms. Shaista Shameen.

    The Cuban Government denounced the pardon granted by the ex-President of Panama to four mercenaries and terrorists of Cuban origin, and whose activities were supported by anti-Cuban terrorist groups based in the United States.  She said the pardon granted to those four mercenaries and terrorists was a disgraceful act and violated the national legislation of that country and the international instruments for the struggle against terrorism. The Cuban people had been a victim of the fiercest terrorism and of mercenaries for more than four decades.  Relatives of more than 3,000 people had died and thousands had been wounded as a result of terrorist acts.

    She said Cuba had faced more than 45 years of the most serious actions by the United States against the enjoyment of its right to self-determination, among them a military invasion and the threat of nuclear aggression, numerous plots to assassinate its main leaders, and the maintenance against the will of the Cuban people of a portion of their territory illegally occupied by the Naval Base in Guantanamo. It was being threatened once again by military aggression by the superpower, which aimed to destroy the political, social and economic system freely decided upon by Cubans themselves in the exercise of their right to self-determination. Her delegation wished to reaffirm that the Cuban people were willing to defend, by any means necessary, Cuba’s right to self-determination. Nor, she added, would they ever hesitate to lay down their lives for their nation’s independence and sovereignty.

    AHMED Y. Y. GZLLAL (Libya) noted that, in the closing decade of the twentieth century, the international community had witnessed both the closing chapter of racism and discrimination in South Africa and horrible acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, those problems continued to persist at the outset of the new millennium, as could be seen in the continued suffering of the Palestinian people. They suffered the worst crimes of racism at the hands of the occupying Israeli army.  In the years following Durban, the world had also witnessed acts of racism and racial discrimination due to acts of global hegemony, intellectual polarization, HIV/AIDS, poverty and illiteracy. All those problems were linked to contemporary forms of racism.

    Expressing appreciation for the work of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, he stressed his Government’s commitment to combat the scourges of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Libyan law drew upon the Koran and Sharia, and set great store upon the equal protection of all individuals living in the country. The principle of non-discrimination had been enshrined in the declaration of the Constitution, as well as the subsequent Law on Liberty. Moreover, the 1998 Green Paper on human rights stated that all members of Libyan society must reject discrimination of any kind.

    On the right to self-determination, he noted that it had been enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which had been backed up by a number of resolutions. The entire international community remained responsible for ensuring that the right to self-determination was universally implemented. Many peoples had been freed from occupation and had joined the United Nations in the years since its inception, but the Organization must continue to pursue the right to self-determination for all peoples, including for the people of Palestine. The Palestinians must be allowed to establish an independent, unified State on Palestinian territory.

    Finally, he condemned the use of mercenaries, particularly on the African continent. The international community must pay due attention to this problem.

    Mr. NAJIB (Iraq) said the positive elements that had emerged were embodied in the respect for freedom of expression and were in line with the people’s right to self-determination. Iraq welcomed the role of the United Nations and its efforts that led to the formation of Iraq’s interim Government. It also welcomed the United Nations’ participation in efforts to combat terrorism and to protect Iraq’s sovereignty, as well as the Security Council resolution that affirmed the right of the Iraqi people to freedom and sovereignty.

    He said the interim Government had formed a human rights ministry, which had established offices in some Iraqi prisons to monitor violations that might take place. Next January the Iraqi people would elect the National Assembly, which would form a constitutional council that would reflect the march of a new and free Iraq.  Iraq was forging firmly ahead to regain its status among civilized nations.

    In closing, he said the United Nations and the international community had a responsibility to assist Iraq in its reconstruction efforts. He called on donor States to uphold the pledges they had made toward the reconstruction of Iraq.

    NADYA RASHEED, Observer for Palestine, said the Palestinian people had suffered as victims of the most intricate and pervasive expression of persistent colonialism, apartheid, racism and racial discrimination for 37 years. Their suffering had not mitigated with the passage of time, but had only deepened and expanded as Israel, the occupying Power, continued to violate their human rights.  Many of the systematic and oppressive measures and actions taken against the Palestinian people could not have continued without an institutionalized racist mentality in the occupying Power. Over the past four years, Israel had perpetrated war crimes, State terrorism and systematic violations of human rights against the Palestinian people, which had resulted in the killing of 3,340 Palestinians, and the wounding of more than 50,000.

    Israel had transformed its occupation into a colonial phenomenon over those 37 years, she added.  About 400,000 illegal Israeli settlers had been transferred to lands forcibly confiscated from the Palestinian people. Palestinian land had also been confiscated for the construction of so-called bypass roads for the exclusive use of the illegal settlers. Israel’s construction of the wall must also be regarded in the context of Israel’s illegal settlement campaign, as recognized by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion. Settler colonialism, like any other form of colonialism, remained rooted in racism and racial discrimination. It negated the most basic rights of the indigenous population, their national rights, and the very essence of their existence.

    Israel also continued to prevent the return of more than 4 million Palestinian refugees, she noted, who had been uprooted from their homes and properties in 1948, in defiance of international law and United Nations resolutions. Those refugees continued to be deprived of their basic civil, human, political and national rights. Yet, while the Palestinians had continued to languish in refugee camps for more than 56 years, Israel had elaborated a law of return for Jewish people the world over, granting them automatic citizenship in the same land from which the indigenous Palestinian people had been dispossessed.

    The more than 1 million Israelis of Palestinian origin continued to suffer from xenophobia, incitement, racial discrimination, racial violence and hate speech, she added. Racism had become more explicit, blatant and vehement in all spheres of Israeli public life, and overtly racist and insulting remarks and pronouncements continued to be made by high-ranking government officials, army generals and religious leaders. Palestinians had been referred to as having genetic defects, or as insects, snakes; they had even been referred to as cancerous.  Some Israeli officials had called openly for the annihilation of the Palestinian people and for their “transfer” from their lands.

    The international community must exert all efforts to relieve the suffering of the Palestinian people living in the occupied territories, she concluded. Steps must be taken to end Israel’s occupation and its ongoing colonization of Palestinian land. The rights of Palestinians must be restored.

    Mr. NAJIB (Iraq) said the fight against racism and xenophobia was one of the basic goals of the United Nations. The international community should assume collective responsibility to eliminate that scourge. This question remained a central issue for the international community, which had adopted a number of instruments, the last being the Durban Declaration of 2001, which had led to a programme of action in favour of human rights. Iraq had accorded special attention to the articles relating to freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of association.

    The provisional Government of Iraq had laid the groundwork in its new Constitution for respect for minorities in the framework of Iraq’s unity and sovereignty. Iraq was a multi-ethnic country, and all its citizens were equal before the law, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. His country had experienced violations of human rights for decades and it was now guaranteeing the right of all citizens to participate in civil and political life. The new Government consisted of 35 ministers, and many new organizations had been formed. The new Government had as its basis the freedom and rights of the Iraqi people and would build its institutions in the framework of a free and democratic State for all Iraqis, pursuant to the values of the international community.

    REZLAN ISHAR JENIE (Indonesia), aligning himself with the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said his country was a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multilingual society with more than 350 ethnic groups. It had become a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Racial Discrimination in 1999, had amended its Constitution in 2000, and was reviewing all existing laws to ensure that they were enforced in a non-discriminatory fashion.

    His Government was greatly concerned that globally, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance seemed to be on the rise, he said. It was also concerned that the battle against terrorism might have imposed prejudices on certain groups or communities. Although terrorists must be brought to justice, it must be done with full protection of the rights of the innocent and without prejudice towards any religion, ethnic group or nation.

    Regarding the issue of self-determination, he drew particular attention to the issue of the Palestinian people, saying that their long suffering, which was in no small measure attributable to racism, should finally be brought to an end. Israel should implement all relevant United Nations resolutions, in particular the one concerning the wall. He urged Israel to honour its obligations under the Road Map.

    MALIK MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH TIWANA (Pakistan) said the right to self-determination had figured among United States President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points at the end of World War I, and had been enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Moreover, the historic 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples had established the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation as contrary to the Charter, and had reaffirmed the right of all peoples to self-determination.  The United Nations General Assembly had also remained seized of the right of peoples to self-determination.

    The history of the second half of the twentieth century bore witness to the expansion of the principle of self-determination, he added.  Yet, the process remained incomplete, as the people of Jammu and Kashmir had been denied the right given to scores of other people under British rule. In 1948, the Security Council had declared that the only way to settle the problem of Jammu and Kashmir peacefully was to demilitarize the State and to hold a plebiscite under United Nations supervision. However, difficulties arose over the demilitarization of the region, and a number of other proposals during the early 1950s had similarly foundered. The tragic history of the Kashmiri people had ensued -- over the last 15 years, more than 80,000 Kashmiris had died, and massive violations of human rights had occurred.

    Pakistan continued to extend its political, moral and diplomatic support to the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination, he affirmed. As the President had informed the General Assembly, Pakistan and India had initiated confidence-building measures and a composite dialogue to address all outstanding issues, including Kashmir. Pakistan pursued these dual channels with all sincerity. The final solution must be acceptable to all parties -- Pakistan, India and the people of Kashmir.

    In order to begin consideration of possible options, he added, the President had recently told the Pakistan media to initiate a debate on possible solutions to the Kashmir dispute.  He also held that the two countries -- India and Pakistan -- must address the issue head-on and with sincerity, or it would contribute to the long-term deterioration of the situation of peace and stability in South Asia.  Finally, he affirmed the United Nations’ special responsibility to support a just and peaceful settlement of the issue, in conformity with the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

    VSEVOLOD GRIGORE (Republic of Moldova) said the right of peoples to self-determination was a universally recognized principle of international law, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. At the same time, the Vienna Declaration expressly stipulated that self-determination should not be perceived as authorizing or encouraging any action that would dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.

    He said secessionist and extremist groups had claimed that independence was their only option, thus opposing the right of self-determination to the principle of territorial integrity and infringing on the sovereignty of Member States. That was the case in his own country, where a mafia-type clan, supported from outside, still controlled the eastern districts. The separatist regime there was attempting to speculate on self-determination to carry on and justify a referendum on independence. However, the people of Moldova had already decided on its future 13 years ago.

    The right to self-determination was a fundamental right involving those who suffered from colonialism and other forms of foreign dominations and should not be used to threaten the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political unity of independent States under legitimate governments, he said. It was intolerance and compromise, rather than secession and separatism that would enable ethnic, religious and political identities to be expressed within existing democratic States.

    MAVIS KUSORGBOR (Ghana) said that three years after the Durban conference the world was witnessing more disturbing manifestations of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. The upsurge of discrimination targeting non-citizens, refugees and immigrants was also very disturbing, as people who were already compelled to relocate for security or economic reasons were being confronted with yet another challenge.

    She said the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the fight against racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia, suggested that the issue of discrimination was fast transforming from a cultural-based problem, due to its current ideological context and scope. It was unsettling that the new ideological landscape was eroding the political and ethical will to combat racism and discrimination.  These trends required a strengthening of efforts and closer cooperation among all actors to combat this global scourge. These efforts should include measures to curtail the use of the Internet as a medium to disseminate racist ideas and propaganda.

    SAMI ZEIDAN (Lebanon) said the development of friendly relations among nations, based on respect for equality of States and the right of all people to self-determination, had been given pride of place in the United Nations Charter and other international legal instruments. Welcoming the work of the Special Rapporteurs on racism and self-determination, he noted that Lebanon’s civil war had been cited as an example of the tragic consequences of discrimination in a nation of minorities.

    Lebanon now recognized the equality of all its citizens, he affirmed, as well as the need for balanced development of the regions and the prohibition of population transfers from on region to another. The national penal code provided for punishment for all incitement or acts of religious hatred.  He wished to stress that his country had never adopted any doctrine related to superiority on a racial or ethnic basis, and Lebanon had been a State party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination since 1971.

    Condemning all forms of terrorism, including its highest form -- State terrorism -- he noted that the Special Rapporteur on racism had described the Palestinian people as suffering from discrimination.  Among other issues, the security wall had been recognized as constituting a jarring symbol of that discrimination. The wall’s construction had also been recognized as severely impeding the exercise to the right to self-determination by the Palestinian people. The General Assembly must continue to give special attention to the situation of the Palestinian people. His country would continue to insist on the right to return of all Palestinian refugees and categorically rejected all attempts to settle the Palestinian people on Lebanese territory.  Finally, he stressed that criticism of State policies must not be confused with anti-Semitism.

    AMARA TEKLE (Eritrea) said that the age of decolonization was not complete as long as there were people who continued to suffer under colonial subjugation or foreign occupation. Eritrea, which had fought a 30-year liberation struggle to exercise its right to self-determination, would always remain committed to the cause of these peoples.

    Any attempt by any State to impose, by a United Nations resolution or otherwise, any coercive measures, which would impinge on the control and use of its resources by another State, would be a violation of the provisions of the United Nations Charter. The road to peace and normalization of relations could not be achieved through impositions or brazen threats. It could be achieved only through the sincere commitment of those who were mandated to preserve international peace and security, the values and principles of the Charter, and the provisions of international law.

    He said the right to self-determination had acquired a new significance in recent times, in view of the intra-State conflicts that were plaguing many regions of the world. Some attempts were currently under way to adapt the principle of self-determination to solve problems emanating from ethnic conflicts by proposing some forms of self-administration. The agenda of those who would reorganize a State on the basis of ethnic federalism, and enshrine in the constitution of a State the right of any ethnic group to secede from the federation, was primarily to get as much land from neighbouring ethnic administrations and neighbouring States before they seceded from the State.

    The commitment of the Eritrean people to the principle of self-determination was self-evident. The Eritrean delegation wished to reaffirm that a new generation of Eritreans was ready to follow in the footsteps of their parents in the defence of every aspect of their right to self-determination. Self-determination was inviolable and non-abridgeable and could not be compromised for the sake of normalizing relations.  Eritreans would not be defrauded again of its right to self-determination and would fight to defend this right.

    BRIAN MAJEWSKI, of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), said that following the constructive work accomplished by the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement at its major 2003 statutory meetings, the Federation was now in position to advance considerably its global and local Action to Reduce Discrimination. The IFRC viewed work against racism and all forms of discrimination as having a clear place within the work that all must do together for achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The General Assembly should acknowledge current realities of racism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia and related intolerance as major threats to sustainable development, and to international peace and security.

    The IFRC had lodged a Pledge on Non-Discrimination and Respect for Diversity during the twenty-eighth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in December 2003, he added.  It had started work for the Pledge’s fulfilment, both with its members and other global and regional organizations. Among the key objectives in that process was helping to build an enabling environment in which governments could work with their national Red Cross and Red Crescent Society partners to achieve common objectives at the national level.

    All those concerned with promoting respect for diversity and fighting discrimination and intolerance must work together to be successful, he concluded. The IFRC, working together with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), had decided to convene a group of experts on all relevant aspects of the discrimination agenda in treaty bodies. In nearly all countries, the legal basis was already in place to fight racism and discrimination; what was missing was commitment to the concrete steps called for in the Durban Declaration. Members of the IFRC were reaching out to their national governments and seeking action to fulfil those commitments.

    MOUSSA NEBIE (Burkina Faso) said the United Nations had spent the last three decades combating racism. His Government urged the States that had not yet done so to accede to the Convention to eliminate all forms of racism, in order to render it universal and to strengthen its scope. Burkina Faso welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, but regretted the finding that racism showed no signs of dying out and that there was instead upsurge in new forms of racism.  It was disturbing that sports were being used for racist purposes and that religion and culture had become targets of racist acts and discrimination.

    His delegation would give full support to efforts of the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights to make the struggle against racism a priority. Racism and xenophobia were powder kegs waiting to explode.  In response to this threat, his Government had set aside an annual day of integration to bring together all foreign communities to participate in sports and leisure activities. He said foreigners in his country did not suffer from any discrimination and were always well-received. Noting there were more 60 ethnic groups coexisting in Burkina Faso, he said his Government recognized that discrimination and intolerance were a breeding ground for injustice. To reinforce a participatory community spirit, the Government had established an International Day of Tolerance. Racism and xenophobia undermined the right to freedom and diversity.  He urged the international community to adopt the necessary measures to eliminate the scourge of racism and xenophobia.

    Statements in Exercise of the Right of Reply

    Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Israel said that, rather than lecture this Committee about racism, the Observer for Palestine would have done well to urge the Palestinian authorities to work harder to eliminate the constant incitement to hatred in schools, textbooks and the media. She could also have urged the Palestinian leadership to live up to its obligations regarding the elimination of terrorist attacks.

    The security fence, he reiterated, was only a temporary measure that aimed to reduce Israel’s vulnerability to terrorism, which remained the primary obstacle to peace in the region. If the terror ended, there would be no need for the fence. If the Palestinian authorities lived up to their obligations to stop the incitement to hatred, it would do much to end the terrorist attacks.

    Moreover, he affirmed, Israel remained a multi-ethnic State in which all lived in freedom and equality. Israel continued to work hard to live peacefully with its neighbours, based on mutual recognition. It also hoped for a partner with whom to negotiate.

    The representative of Morocco, exercising the right to reply, said his delegation rejected everything that the representative of Algeria had said regarding the Western Sahara. The Moroccan Sahara had been decolonized during the 1970s along with all other parts of Morocco that were under Spanish rule.  Algeria had created an artificial dispute with Morocco. Security Council resolution 1570 had requested neighbouring States to get out of this dead end and to achieve a political solution.

    Also speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the Observer for Palestine said many questions had come to mind upon hearing the representative of Israel describe his country as a tolerant democracy, which upheld democratic ideals for all its population. The basic laws of that country stated that human dignity, freedom and liberty had been protected to establish Israel as a Jewish State.  By placing the interests of its Jewish population above all others -- especially given that 20 per cent of the population was not Jewish -- Israel had created the foundation for legal discrimination.  It had also been proven that special rights and privileges had been accorded to Jewish people worldwide who sought to live in Israel.  Among other practices, a candidate advocating the establishment of a secular, democratic and open Israel had been barred from holding public office.

    She also noted that Israel had recently passed a law preventing Palestinians from the occupied territories who married Israeli citizens from moving to Israel and obtaining citizenship. Thus, the Palestinians of the occupied territories would alone be excluded from obtaining Israeli citizenship and nationality upon marriage to an Israeli citizen. Moreover, Israelis of Palestinian origin who married Palestinians from the occupied territory would have to leave Israel or accept to live apart. This had affected thousands of Palestinians living in Israel, forcing them to separate or emigrate. The law had been publicly justified on grounds of security, in order to reduce the potential for attacks in Israel, but during the debate over it, the Palestinians had been referred to as a demographic threat and a threat to the Jewish character of the State. This was the latest in a long line of laws that discriminated against the Palestinians living in the occupied territories and in Israel.

    She also wished to underscore the blatantly undemocratic nature of the occupation, under which more than 3.8 million Palestinian people lived in the occupied territories. There were effectively two communities living in the occupied territories, with two separate residential areas, two separate blocks of rights and two separate road networks. Moreover, one of those communities was living on land forcibly confiscated from the other. Finally, in response to the accusation that Palestinian authorities had incited hatred, she reiterated that such public incitement had been practiced by Israeli officials.

    The representative of Algeria, exercising the right of reply, said the question of Western Sahara was a decolonization problem, which fell under the responsibility of the United Nations and resolutions adopted by United Nations bodies, as well as of the people of Western Sahara in exercise of their right to self-determination.

    Algeria was not a party to this conflict, he said.  Morocco and the POLISARIO were the parties to this conflict. Algeria had made it a basic element of its foreign policy to support the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, including the right to self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.

    In a second statement in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Morocco said the debates between Morocco and Algeria in this Committee had demonstrated once more that the parties to the conflict were clearly those two. The Moroccan Sahara had been decolonized in the 1960s and reintegrated to the motherland, like all other parts of Moroccan territory under Spanish colonial rule.  Moreover, Security Council resolution 1570 had referred to previous resolutions enshrining Moroccan sovereignty over the region, and had urged all countries to work for a political solution acceptable to all parties.

    The representative of Algeria, in response to the statement by the Moroccan delegation, said Algeria had already responded sufficiently and had nothing more to add.

    Introduction of Draft Resolutions

    The representative of Denmark, introducing a draft resolution entitled “Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (document A/C.3/59/L.33), said freedom from torture must be protected, and he called upon all governments to fully implement that prohibition to eliminate all practices of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.  He urged all States to become parties to United Nations convention against torture and its protocol.

    The representative of Cameroon, introduced a draft resolution on the “Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa” (document A/C.3/59/L.34), saying the mandate for the Centre supported the development of human rights and democracy in countries experiencing domestic conflict, and was aimed at providing training and supporting civil society work on human rights and democracy.  The Centre had organized various seminars and met with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Centre should be supported by the international community in its efforts to attain its noble goals.

    Introducing a draft resolution on “Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights” (document A/C.3/59/L.35), the representative of Egypt said the draft was an attempt to maximize the values of globalization within the field of human rights. Human rights were not confined to the realms of States.  Just as human rights were affected by States, they were also affected by global factors.  Since no hand existed to regulate globalization, resolutions such as this aimed to curb the negative impacts of globalization on human rights.

    Action on Drafts

    During its afternoon meeting, the Third Committee took action on a number of drafts on matters related to social development, international drug control, crime prevention and criminal justice, advancement of women and indigenous issues.

    The first text on which it acted, on Policies and programmes involving youth (document A/C.3/59/L.18/Rev.1), was adopted without a vote and as amended. It would have the General Assembly decide to convene, at its sixtieth session, two plenary meetings of the General Assembly devoted to evaluation of the progress made in implementation of the World Programme of Action for Youth to the Year 2000 and Beyond and urge Member States to consider being represented by youth representatives.  It would also decide to hold an informal, interactive round table discussion on the theme “Young people:  making commitments matter”, which would be open to the participation of Member States, observers, organizations of the United Nations system and non-governmental youth organizations. One youth representative from a MemberState would orally present a summary of the informal round table discussion to the General Assembly at the beginning of the plenary meeting.

    The text would also have the General Assembly request the Secretary-General to facilitate access to United Nations Headquarters by the non-governmental organizations that were accredited to the World Conference of Ministers Responsible for Youth in 1998 and to interested non-governmental organizations that were neither in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council nor were accredited to the World Conference, to participate in the informal round table and side events during the tenth anniversary of the World Programme of Action for Youth. Those arrangements would in no way create a precedent for other similar events.

    Speaking before the draft’s adoption, the representative of China offered his country’s support for convening a meeting to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the World Programme of Action for Youth.  However, he wished to underscore his understanding that any non-governmental organization participating in the round table and other side events would be obligated to comply with relevant regulations of the United Nations.

    After the text’s adoption, the representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines requested that her country’s co-sponsorship of the draft be recorded.

    The Committee then adopted without a vote a revised draft resolution on Strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, in particular its technical cooperation capacity (document A/C.3/59/L.22/Rev.1). The draft would have the General Assembly invite all States to support the operational activities of the Programme through voluntary contributions to the related Fund or in direct support of such activities, as well as the activities of the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. It would also urge States and relevant international organizations to develop national, regional and international strategies and other necessary measures, which complemented the work of the Programme and urge States and funding agencies to review, as appropriate, their funding policies for development assistance.

    The Assembly would invite relevant United Nations system bodies, including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank, and other international funding agencies to increase their interaction with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and urge all States and regional economic organizations to ratify or accede to the United Nations Conventions against Transnational Organized Crime and Corruption.

    Speaking after the draft’s adoption, the representative of Colombia said her delegation wished to reiterate that it was not in agreement with article 2 of the protocol on the production of illicit arms.

    The revised text on International Cooperation against the world drug problem (document A/C.3/59/L.19/Rev.1), approved without a vote, would have the General Assembly reaffirm that countering the world drug problem was a common and shared responsibility that must be addressed in a multilateral setting and required an integrated and balanced approach, carried out in full conformity with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and international law.

    In follow-up to the General Assembly’s twentieth special session on countering the world drug problem, the text would call upon all States to strengthen their efforts to achieve the objectives targeted for 2008, including by developing and implementing comprehensive demand reduction policies and programmes and making special efforts to counter the abuse and recreational use of amphetamine-type stimulants; by strengthening international cooperation among judicial and law enforcement authorities; by developing and strengthening comprehensive international regimes to combat money-laundering and the financing of terrorist acts; and by enhancing support for alternative development strategies and to prevent the emergence of illicit crop cultivation in other areas.

    In particular, it would call upon the international community to enhance financial and technical support for Afghanistan to enable the Government to successfully implement its national drug control strategy.

    Under action to be taken by the United Nations system, the Office on Drugs and Crime would be requested to strengthen its dialogue and cooperation with Member States and to increase assistance to countries implementing the outcome of the twentieth special session. The Office would also be requested to include an updated and comprehensive assessment of worldwide trends in illicit traffic and transit of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and to seek extra-budgetary resources to publish the World Drug Report in all the official languages.

    Making a statement after the draft’s adoption was the representative of Colombia, who reiterated that her country’s position did not agree with Article 4.2 of the Protocol on manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms. Moreover, the traffic in migrants did not have the desired standards of application.

    The Committee adopted without a vote a draft resolution on the Elimination of all forms of violence against women, including crimes identified in the outcome document of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly, entitled “Women 2000: gender equality, development peace for the twenty-first century” (document A/C.3/59/L.23), which would have the General Assembly urge Member States to strengthen awareness and preventive measures for the elimination of all forms of violence against women, whether occurring in public or private life.  It would call upon States to encourage and support the active participation of men and boys in the prevention and elimination of all forms of violence and to fulfil their obligations under the relevant human rights instruments, and to implement the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome document of the twenty-third session.

    The Assembly would also encourage States parties to include in their reports to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and other relevant treaty bodies, sex-disaggregated data and information on measures taken or initiated to eliminate all forms of violence against women.

    Speaking before the draft’s adoption, the representative of Pakistan, the main sponsor of the draft, said the draft covered all aspects of violence against women, and he thanked all delegations who had co-sponsored the draft.

    Following the adoption of the draft, the representative of Canada, speaking also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, said those delegations remained concerned that the resolution did not do justice to efforts undertaken by the international community to eliminate violence against women.  They looked forward to the forthcoming study on violence against women requested by Member States to inform future efforts in this area.

    Also speaking after the adoption of the draft, the representative of the Netherlands, on behalf of the European Union said that while the European Union had joined consensus on adoption of the draft, it believed the resolution lacked several crucial elements. It failed to address the obligations of States to exercise due diligence to punish violence against women. Also missing was the recognition that violence had an impact on the physical and mental health of women and had increased women’s vulnerability to HIV/AIDS. It had also not referred to the important work done by the Security Council nor to the efforts of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. The issue of impunity for acts of violence against women was also missing from the present draft. She noted that such elements had all been included in Resolution 2004/46 of the Commission on Human Rights and that this resolution was the authoritative text of United Nations on the issue of violence against women. She reiterated the European Union’s view that all relevant elements must be included in Committee deliberations on this issue.

    The text on a Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (document A/C.3/59/L.30), approved without a vote and as orally amended, would have the General Assembly proclaim the Second Decade, commencing on 1 January 2005 and decide that its goal should be the further strengthening of international cooperation for the solution of problems faced by indigenous people in such areas as culture, education, health, human rights, the environment and social and economic development, by means of action-oriented programmes and specific projects.

    In addition to requesting the Secretary-General to appoint the Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs as the Second Decade’s Coordinator, the Assembly would request him to establish a voluntary fund as a successor to the already-existing Voluntary Fund established for the present Decade.  Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations would be urged to contribute to the voluntary fund, as would indigenous organizations and private institutions and individuals. Moreover, the Assembly would decide to continue observing the International Day of Indigenous People during the Second Decade.

    Speaking in explanation before the draft’s adoption, the representative of Ecuador, speaking on behalf of the Andean Community, said the first Decade had represented a valuable opportunity to become more aware of the situation of indigenous people and to redress their pressing problems. The Andean Community felt it important to proclaim a second Decade in order to step up efforts and further consolidate the progress made in the first. Indigenous people required additional attention for their development and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals would be of benefit to them.

    Speaking in explanation after the adoption, the representative of Australia said he had joined the consensus consistent with his Government’s position that a second Decade should be coordinated so as to ensure that there was no duplication of efforts. However, Australia would have preferred that the language on the Working Group elaborating a draft declaration on indigenous rights, more clearly reflected that the Group’s mandate would end with the present decade. His joining the consensus should not be interpreted as approval to extend the Working Group’s mandate for the second Decade.

    Also speaking after adoption, the representative of the United States reaffirmed that indigenous people around the globe faced serious issues. In some places they continued to be denied the opportunity to vote and equal access to the justice system. Discrimination in terms of political and economic opportunities also remained an impediment to their development. The United States stood with indigenous people, who sought greater control over their destiny. The international community had worked for more than nine years to elaborate the draft declaration on indigenous rights, as it would advance the rights and interests of indigenous peoples. However, the draft must be completed; after a decade of negotiations all knew what was possible. It was not good to hold out the promise of benefits that could not be delivered. Thus, the United States did not favour extending the mandate of the Working Group, but felt it remained possible to conclude the negotiations on the draft before the next session of the Commission on Human Rights.

    The United States had joined the consensus to highlight the plight of the indigenous, she concluded, as well as the necessity of concluding the draft declaration this year. The United States also understood that the voluntary fund would provide the source of funding for activities in the second Decade. Moreover, the use of the phrase “indigenous people” in the draft resolution did not imply any obligations under international law; these issues were being addressed in the negotiations on the draft.

    The Committee then took note of the note by the Secretary-General on the Status of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations (document A/59/257), the note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (document A/59/258) and the note by the Secretary-General transmitting the annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the implementation of the programme of activities for the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (document A/59/277).

    The text on Future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) (document A/C.3/59/L.26) would have the General Assembly request INSTRAW actively to participate and contribute to the review and appraisal of the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, and the outcome document of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly in the context of the forty-ninth session of the Commission on the Status of Women. It would stress the critical importance of voluntary financial contributions to the INSTRAW Trust Fund and urge Member States to make such contributions. It would also decide to provide full support to the current efforts to revitalize the Institute.

    Making a general statement on the text, the representative of the Dominican Republic said her delegation wanted to reiterate its support for the Institute, which was working towards fulfilling its mandate. The composition of the executive board needed support to undertake its work and research. She urged Member States to continue supporting the Institute so it could continue its important research and its efforts to promote women’s lives.

    Making a statement in explanation before the vote, the representative of Australia, speaking on behalf of Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom, said these delegations reaffirmed their commitment to the advancement of women, promotion and protection of women’s rights worldwide and gender equality. Their Governments would remain committed to those issues, and would remain among the largest contributors to activities in that regard. They also acknowledged that the United Nations system had a vital role to play in the advancement of women and acknowledged the role played by Carmen Moreno in attempts to revitalize the Institute. However, they did not feel that repeated recourse to funding from the regular budget was appropriate; funding for the Institute should come from voluntary contributions. Therefore, the States could not support the draft.

    The representative of Sweden said her country remained a committed and outspoken advocate of advancement of women.  The aim of Sweden’s policy remained consistency and results.  This aim was to be achieved primarily through intergovernmental channels and the funding of projects through bilateral and multilateral channels.  The United Nations system should allocate more resources to advancement of women, but it should do so efficiently.  Sweden had engaged constructively with the Institute to find a solution to its financial difficulties.  However, as a previous donor to the Institute, Sweden remained to be convinced that the Institute had a comparative advantage in research on women’s issues.  Therefore, she could not endorse funding the Institute from the regular budget.  Her country would not support the draft.

    The representative of the United States said that the United States had called for a vote and would vote against the draft. His delegation recognized that the Institute had taken steps to revitalize itself. However, the United States continued to believe that the Institute should be funded voluntarily. To do otherwise would drain resources from higher priority activities of the general budget.

    The representative of Japan said her delegation recognized efforts made by the director of the Institute. Her delegation considered the advancement of women of the utmost importance, but the Institute should be financed on the basis of voluntary contributions as clearly established in its statutes. The General Assembly had approved emergency funds for the Institute four times. If this draft were adopted, it would be the fifth time. Her delegation could not support this, as it believed the general budget should provide funds to the Institute only for emergency situations. Japan would vote against the draft and urged other delegations to do the same.

    The draft resolution was then approved as amended by a recorded vote of 128 in favour and 10 against (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Latvia, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States), with 29 abstentions. (See Annex).

    Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of Portugal said he had voted in favour of the draft because Portugal believed in the merit of the Institute’s objectives and the willingness and capacity of its new Director to give it a new and focused approach.  In the months ahead, Portugal would follow the Institute’s activities closely to see if the Institute could be turned into a more focused and dynamic body.

    Statement in Exercise of the Right of Reply

    Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Panama said, in response to the Cuban statement earlier today, which had referenced the pardoning of four Cuban nationals by the former President of Panama, that the individuals had been held in Panama on various counts. The pardon had been given a few days before the former President stepped down in favour of the new President.  Therefore, the present administration felt it necessary to stress that the decision could not be justified, but the pardon procedure could not be interrupted.

    Panama remained clearly and unequivocally committed to facing the threat of terrorism, she said, and aware of its international commitments to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. Panama also held that pardons should only be granted in accordance with the constitutional order, and never in cases of terrorism, drug trafficking and money-laundering. If was unacceptable to abuse the pardon. This position was well known, including by Cuba.


    ANNEX

    Vote on Future Operation of INSTRAW

    The draft resolution on the future operation of INSTRAW (document A/C.3/59/L.26) was approved by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to 10 against, with 29 abstentions, as follows:

    In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

    Against:  Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Latvia, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

    Abstain:  Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Fiji, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine.

    Absent:  Central African Republic, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

    * *** *