Burma Newscasts: 11/26/08

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Residents of eastern Burma actively engaged in peaceful resistance, says Karen Human Rights Group

Sein Myint
Mon News
25 November 2008

Rural villagers in eastern Burma are actively resisting harsh military rule, says a new report released by the Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG) on Tuesday. Highlighting local non-violent resistance, KHRG argues, is crucial to ending international perceptions of rural residents as passive, without agency and justifiably excluded from aid administration and political processes.

The report, titled “Village agency: Rural rights and resistance in a milijavascript:void(0)tarized Karen State,” documents a variety of tactics villagers employ to undermine the exploitation and restriction that punctuates daily life in the border areas. Though villagers often live under constant threat of violent retribution, the KHRG report indicates that villagers regularly undermine regime authorities through jokes and counter-narratives, as well as find ways to discreetly or even overtly avoid compliance.

KHRG also argues that displacement should be understood as a preemptive, overt form of resistance, rather than simply a reactive coping mechanism. Rural residents “vote with their feet,” says KHRG, which both clearly stamps the regime as illegitimate and reduces the population it can control, and harness for exploitation and resource extraction.

This “village agency,” as KHRG calls it, includes establishing hiding sites ahead of expected displacement, hiding food stores and covert agricultural projects, trading with residents of regime controlled areas in secret “jungle markets,” sharing resources and cooperating to provide community services.

Though the tactics documented by KHRG are not rare, depictions of ethnic Karen residents of eastern Burma tend to focus on villagers as passive victims, caught in the inevitable cross fire between armed insurgents and an abusive military regime. Such depictions, argues KHRG, have “perpetuated the exclusion of [rural villagers] from the ongoing political processes which effect them” and can “promote inappropriate external responses to the situation in Karen areas.”

Based on its report, KHRG makes a series of concrete recommendations, which can be separated into three essential categories: first, new efforts should be undertaken to support local civil society groups engaged in ongoing efforts to improve daily life, through assistance to both organizations that operate in regime controlled areas and cross-border organizations operating without government consent.

Second, non-governmental organizations, United Nations agencies and any other actors implementing support projects should do so with careful consideration of their effect on local resistance efforts. And third, the voices of rural villagers should be incorporated into academic and policy discussions, as well as journalism and advocacy efforts.

Nai Kasauh Mon, director of the Thailand-based Human Rights Foundation of Monland, agrees with the push to recognize the agency of rural villagers. “Residents of the border areas, internally displaced people, they have the capacity. For example, in the Mon community, health workers, education workers and other people in the community work to help each other,” says Nai Kasauh Mon. “In reality, people use lot’s of strategies. But often the media only learns a little. They don’t always do in depth reporting. Something big happens, and they focus on that.”

The KHRG argument for support of local-level civil society also appears to dovetail with the thinking of other Burma analysts and experts. According to David I. Steinberg, distinguished professor at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, developing local support networks will help pave the way for a more democratic and responsive government in Burma. A strong civil society network, Steinberg says, “widens the space between the state and society, giving people greater freedom from government control. Such pluralism is an important base on which more responsive and responsible governments can be built.”

Ashley South, a Burma expert frequently tapped by the United Nations, concurs and argues that development of such civil society networks are a prerequisite to lasting change in Burma. “One consequence of Burma’s fifty year civil war has been the erosion of pluralism and democratic practices,” he argues, going on to say, “alternative forms of social and political organization…will be essential if any elite-led political transition in Burma is to be sustained, and positively effect the lives of people.”

Detained activists transferred to regional prisons

Nov 25, 2008 (DVB)–At least 20 political prisoners were transferred to regional prisons yesterday, according to family members, while relatives of two 88 generation students are still trying to find out where they are being held.

Among those transferred were Tun Tun Naing, who was sent to Meikhtila prison in Mandalay division, Than Tun (also known as Shell Ko), who was transferred to Bamaw prison in Kachin state and U Thattama (also known as Thet Zaw), who was sent to Myingyan prison in Mandalay division.

Ye Myat Hein of the 2007 Generation Students was sent to Kalay prison in Sagaing division and Zin Linn Aung to Paungde jail in Bago division, according to family members.

The relatives of two of the nine 88 generation student leaders who were sent to remote prisons last week are still trying to establish were they are being held.

Family members of Ko Ko Gyi and Than Tin (also known as Gyi Than) made enquiries at the prisons where the activists had been sent, but prison authorities said they were not there.

Ko Ko Gyi was said to have been transferred to Mai Sat prison near the Thai-Burma border, but his younger brother Aung Tun said the family had not been able to confirm this.

"I heard that he and Min Ko Naing were transferred to Keng Tung jail from Insein,” Aung Tan said.

“It is said that Min Ko Naing is in Keng Tung. I am not sure where my brother is,” he said.

“I heard he has gone on to Mai Sat. There are also rumours that he is in Arakan state."

The family of Than Tin, who was reportedly sent to Sittwe prison, have also been unable to confirm his whereabouts, as have the family of labour rights activist Su Su Nwe, who was reportedly sent to Kalay prison.

Reporting by Phone Min Naing

Bilin monks boycott government officials

Nov 25, 2008 (DVB)–Monks in Bilin township, Mon state, decided during a recent meeting to launch a boycott against government officials and supporters by refusing alms from them and not performing religious rites in their homes.

The monks, who are led by the abbots of Kyauktalone-taung, Three Pagodas and Kaylatha-taung monasteries, could not be reached for comment.

But Aye Myint, a lawyer from Bago and leader of the Guiding Star legal aid group, recently visited the area and heard about the boycott.

Aye Myint said he had found out about the protest when his relatives had asked the monks to perform a religious rite at their home.

"It was only when they told the abbots that they were from the authorities that the monks agreed to come to the house," Aye Myint said.

"They also spoke to me because they found out that I was Aye Myint of Guiding Star,” he said.

“They are boycotting the officials because they are still feeling aggrieved by the arrests and imprisonment of monks."

U Thuriya, the abbot of Kinywa monastery, told Aye Myint that the monks had decided not to perform religious rites at the homes of ward, village or township chairs, civil servants or members of the Union Solidarity and Development Association.

The abbot said the decision had been taken in protest at the public humiliation of monks during last year’s Saffron Revolution and at the recent sentencing of monks.

Reporting by Naw Say Phaw

“Pull Them Out With Tweezers”

By MIN LWIN
The Irrawaddy News
Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Despite their crucial role in assisting survivors of Cyclone Nargis, local aid groups in Burma have become the target of an ongoing crackdown on activities deemed inimical to the interests of the country’s ruling regime. Twenty-two volunteer aid workers have been arrested in connection with their relief work in the Irrawaddy delta, where the cyclone struck on May 2-3.

Recently, six of the detained volunteers—Zarganar, Zaw Thet Htwe, Ein Khaing Oo, Tin Maung Aye, Thant Zin Aung and Kyaw Kyaw Thint—received lengthy prison sentences for their efforts on behalf of victims of the disaster.

Of this group, Zarganar is undoubtedly the best known in Burma. He is the country’s most popular satirist, noted for directing his acerbic wit at the generals who have ruled for the past two decades. Last Friday, he was sentenced to 45 years’ imprisonment for criticizing the regime’s response to the humanitarian disaster in the delta.

The comedian was arrested in June while contributing to the spontaneous private relief effort that stepped in to fill the vacuum left by the authorities, who were more interested in going ahead with a referendum on a constitution designed to legitimize military rule.

It would be an understatement to say that the regime did not appreciate the efforts of ordinary citizens who came to the rescue of those less fortunate than themselves. Fearing that dissident groups would take advantage of the situation to foment unrest, the junta soon moved to clamp down on unauthorized do-gooders.

“The military government doesn’t allow any opposition groups to operate [in the cyclone-affected area] or exert influence,” said Aung Thu Nyein, a researcher from the Thailand-based Vahu Development Institute. He added that the ruling generals would not tolerate anyone who reminded them of their failure to help their own suffering people.

It came as no surprise, then, that the authorities were quick to arrest Zaganar, who has been an agitator for change since the nationwide uprising against military rule in 1988.

Imprisoned in 1990 for four years, he has nonetheless continued to challenge the junta’s right to rule. Last year, when thousands of monks gathered to protest the regime’s policies, he was one of their most outspoken supporters.

In the wake of Cyclone Nargis, Zarganar was critical not only of the junta, but also of the United Nations. “I am not happy with the UN,” he said in an interview with The Irrawaddy. “Why are they so concerned with the government’s endorsement of their relief work? They should have taken more risks.”

Others agree that the international response to the regime’s abuses leaves a great deal to be desired.

Describing the jailing of Zarganar as “a cruel joke on the Burmese people,” Brad Adams, the Asia director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, added that it was “a bigger joke on those abroad who still think ignoring repression in Burma will bring positive change.”

Although the UN says that it hopes to “build trust” with the regime through cooperation in the relief effort, local and international NGO workers in Burma say that the ongoing crackdown on volunteers shows that the junta is more interested in maintaining control than in helping people.

“The government’s imprisonment of humanitarian aid workers sends the message that Burmese social organizations must follow the junta’s regulations whether they like it or not,” said a Rangoon-based social worker.

While private donors and humanitarian aid workers face arrest and imprisonment for acting on their own initiative, government-backed organizations like the Union Solidarity and Development Association are free to coordinate with international aid agencies, providing them with access to resources and opportunities to profit from the relief effort.

Despite his long history of persecution at the hands of the authorities (which included a three-week stint in jail last year for making public offerings to protesting monks), Zarganar has shown no signs of bowing to his oppressors.

Perhaps this is because his stage name is taken from a Burmese slogan that was popular during the struggle against British colonial rule: “If you have hairs that stand up when you are afraid, pull them out with tweezers.”

Zarganar (“tweezers” in Burmese) knows better than most that the only way to confront your fears is by plucking them out at their roots.

Spy identified at opposition meeting

by Than Htike Oo
25 November 2008

Chiang Mai (Mizzima)– A government informer sent by the Burmese Embassy was exposed at a recent meeting held by opposition members in Malaysia, according to participants in the meeting.

A person attending a meeting for Burma affairs held at a hotel in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on the morning of the 23rd of November, was later exposed as an employee of the Burmese Embassy in the Malaysian capital.

"When we suspected him, he was called and taken outside by two of our participants. Then they shouted, 'The intelligence official from the Burmese Embassy is here,' holding his ID card. Only after that, did we realize that a government informer was sitting among us," Than Pe, Chairman for the Arakan League for Democracy-Exile, and one of the participants in the meeting, told Mizzima.

The accused received frequent phone calls and the people at the meeting later suspected him after seeing him passing information on to those on the other end of the call.

The participants of the meeting seized his voice recorder and camera but let him go.

The meeting was attended by Dr. San Aung from the exile-government National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB) and Khin Ohnmar, Chairman of the Network for Democracy and Development (NDD), among others residing in Kuala Lumpur.

The meeting discussed and exchanged views on the current situation in Burma.

The task of unification

by Dr. Sein Myint
Mizzima News
25 November 2008

The world's most renowned scientist of the 20th century, Albert Einstein, successfully revealed the nature of light with his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 and postulated the curvature of spacetime in his Theory of General Relativity in 1916, integrating his work with Sir Isaac Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation, first conceived of over two-hundred years previously.

While high-profile searches for the unification of the four forces of nature continue through such mechanisms as the gigantic Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, the low-profile political quest for the "unification" of exile-Burmese democratic forces is subtly underway in the small town of Fort Wayne, Indiana.

It is most encouraging to learn that some exile student leaders from 1988 living in the United States and other countries have come together and are working under the process of unifying the exile democratic movement under a motto of 'One Voice One Goal,' as expressed by a former All Burma Students Democratic Front leader. And there is no shortage of endorsements and support from other exile democratic communities across the globe for their endeavors and efforts.

The unity talked about among exiles is long overdue, and time – a commodity that many exile opposition leaders took for granted for so long – is now running out. Soon after the 2010 elections in Burma, the legitimacy and mandate that the National League for Democracy (NLD) obtained through the 1990 elections will no longer be as effective a weapon as before.

The MPs elected in the 1990 election inside the country will soon be joining the Veteran Politicians club, currently comprised of ex-MPs from the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League era that lost their legitimate posts after General Ne Win's military coup of 1962.

In order for any exile organization to be named as a Federal Democratic Government, it should be based and founded upon democratic principles and must be supported by a broad grassroots-based exile community residing across the globe. And it should be well structured and organized, comprising dedicated, committed, honest and trustworthy team players, who are democratically elected by the various exile communities as their representatives.

However, today there are many exile democratic groups and organizations currently operating under diverse banners, with leaders pursuing their own political agendas and maintaining an egotistic stature – instead of promoting, as they should, unity in spirit and political magnanimity.

One shining example of unification across divides can be seen in the current actions of US President Elect Barack Obama, who has repeatedly made statements to the effect that he will reach out across party and personal divides when forming his future cabinet. Already, his principle Democratic Primary rival, Hillary Clinton, has been offered the post of Secretary of State.

Sadly, many of our compatriots are still wavering on priorities and lingering on self interests rather than the public interest, with many having long been living off welfare from sympathetic donors.

Under such circumstances, the emergence of a frustrated younger generation is inevitable, as many of them are well educated in Western universities and have lived long enough to appreciate the ways and functioning of democratic societies. Yet, they are still committed to the well-being of their fellow countrymen and women in their impoverished homeland, dedicated to the restoration of democracy and basic human rights and now ready to take on the task of unification.

Many of them still well remember how dear the whole population had to pay for the failure of uniting key political players at the critical juncture surrounding 1988. History cannot be allowed to repeat itself.

But the military regime is now well entrenched and more powerful than before, on course with a plan to rule for many years. Since the democratic opposition inside the country has been continuously marginalized for nearly two decades, all exile democratic leaders are imbued with the political responsibility and moral obligation to unite under a common umbrella group and to work for a common goal.

Dr. Sein Myint serves as the director of Policy Development of Justice for Human Rights in Burma, located in Maryland, USA. He is an Honorary Member of Amnesty International Chapter 22 in Washington D.C.

Domestic migrant workers still vulnerable: HRW

Mizzima News
25 November 2008

In marking today's 8th anniversary of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, a leading rights organization has cautioned that tens of thousands of migrant, domestic workers remain susceptible to multiple forms of abuse.

Human Rights Watch, in comments released yesterday, said the problem of abuse of domestic labor is predominantly directed at female employees of individual households and especially problematic in Middle Eastern and Asian countries.

"Governments need to punish abusive employers through the justice system, and prevent violence by reforming labor and immigration policies that leave these workers at their employers' mercy," said Nisha Varia, deputy director of the women's rights division at Human Rights Watch.

With Burma's domestic economy in tatters, thousands of Burmese women have found their way abroad as domestic help, the most prolific destination being neighboring Thailand.

Of the estimated one million Burmese migrant workers in Thailand, some 485,925 are registered as domestic labor as of mid-2007. However, even as Thai authorities pursue a program to register as many migrant workers in the country as possible, only half the Burmese migrant population is presently recorded – meaning the true number of Burmese domestic labour in Thailand could be significantly higher.

As of 2004, according to the World Health Organisation, Thailand's Chiang Mai Province alone was home to as many as 100,000 migrant workers from Burma. Meanwhile, every day, dozens of Burmese citizens are believed to be smuggled from locations on the border to Bangkok in search of work.

The domestic labor population is especially hard to document, as they are commonly more difficult to reach than migrant populations working in factories and other recognized, commercial business entities.

Domestic help in Thailand, as it is for the migrant population at large, is not covered by healthcare, and receives no guarantee of a minimum wage.

Despite the often overly demanding working conditions, the International Labor Organisation says that opportunities for domestic help are vital to women from poor countries seeking work and lacking educational qualifications. The average length of study for girls in Burma is eight years of schooling.

In order to better protect the rights and well-being of domestic, migrant workforces, Human Rights Watch calls on enhanced referral and support systems, more education for the women concerned as to what their rights are, and improved access to the judicial system when allegations of abuse are brought forward.

"Providing comprehensive support services to victims of violence, prosecuting abusers, and providing civil remedies are reforms that just can't wait," asserted Varia.

Charity starts at home, perhaps the prisons

Burmese aid for post flood health care in Orissa

by Syed Ali Mujtaba
Tuesday, 25 November 2008 21:11

Chennai (Mizzima)– The Burmese military junta has donated medical supplies worth Rs. 38 crore to the Orissa government to help its post flood health care programme as a token of appreciation for India's help to Burma when it was lashed by the deadly Cyclone Nargis in May.

Burma's Ambassador to India Kyi Thein handed over a consignment of 788 cartons containing 9.85 lakh disposable syringes to Anu Garg Orissa's Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department at a function held in Bhubneshwar on Monday.

Speaking on the occasion Kyi Thein said that in May this year when Burma was ravaged by Cyclone Nargis, the worst calamity in the country's history, India as a real friend extended its helping hand by sending the first relief materials for the victims.

"Now we have got a chance of handing over a small donation of Rs 38 crore worth disposable syringes to supplement the requirements of the government of Orissa" the Ambassador said and thanked the state government for accepting the donation.

Burma's tourism industry shows signs of life

by Zar Ni
25 November 2008

Chiang Mai (Mizzima) – The Burmese tourism industry has picked up a little bit in recent months, after suffering serious losses in the aftermath of May's Cyclone Nargis and last year's Saffron Revolution.

According to officials and Ministry of Hotel and Tourism statistics, the number of visitors entering Burma through Rangoon airport reached 11,245 in September and 17,848 as of the end of October.

"Though it has picked up a little bit, the number of visitors is not encouraging. We hope the number will rise further in the coming months," an official from the Hotel and Tourism Department told Mizzima.

"There were no bookings for tours and travels at all last November. But it has picked up a little bit in recent months, though it cannot catch up with the previous records," a manager of a tour and travel agency in Rangoon said.

However, despite recent gains, international visitors entering Burma through Rangoon airport had reached only 13,136 for November through to the 24th of the month.

Most visitors are from China, Japan, Thailand and Korea – taking into account border crossings in addition to the country's international air hub.

However, the U.S and European markets take the lion's share of the Burmese tourism profit market, up to 70 percent.

An official of a tour and travel agency which mainly deals with the European and Asian markets said, "We have received only inquires for the next month, but no confirmations. So we cannot say anything right now in advance, regarding the short-term prognosis."

Currently, most tourists visit Rangoon, Mandalay, Bagan and Inle Lake, meaning the hotel industry in these tourist attraction areas is not significantly suffering, despite the overall slump. These four destinations are also linked by a tourist friendly daily air travel loop that hops from Rangoon to Bagan to Mandalay to Heho (Inle Lake) – before returning to the former capital.

Hotels in Ngapali beach, in contrast, are facing much difficulty during these hard times.

"Sandoway Hotel in Ngapali beach had to close their business last month as there were no visitors. They could reopen their hotel only this month with a few visitors," commented the official.

Other hotels in Ngapali have had to conduct sale promotions to try and make ends meet.

"We are giving special prices and room rates to our customers now. The number of visitors rose slightly [in recent months] but could not catch up to the records of previous years," an official from Sandoway Resort said.

But, hotels located near the country's primary tourist attraction and ancient city of Bagan, have also been negatively affected by a dwindling number of visitors.

"There are many hotels in Bagan city. As our room rates are high and they are mainly for the foreign market, we have suffered a lot of hardship in this difficult time with the low number of visitors," a staff member from the Thiri Pyit Saya Hotel in Bagan said.

"The number of foreign visitors has declined in comparison with previous years," an official from Kumudra Hotel in Bagan city confirmed.

With the slight increase in foreign visitors, some tour guides are now finding jobs, while others are not.

"The number of tour guides is too great for the number of visitors, so that some tour guides are still unemployed. I am lucky enough to get back some jobs through my employer," a veteran tour guide from Rangoon said.

"Now, the industry has risen a little bit, but it is not yet okay. If this situation persists for a long time, I must shift to another job," a tour guide from Mandalay remarked.

45 Years for a Joke

In Burma, laughing at your leaders can be a crime.

"If I did not laugh I should die," Abraham Lincoln once remarked. It's a concept the people of Burma understand well. One of their most famous celebrities is a comedian known for his antiregime jokes who goes by the name Zarganar, or "Tweezers."

The junta that rules the country, however, doesn't appreciate Zarganar's sense of humor. Last week, he was sentenced to 45 years in jail for using the Internet to spread "disaffection" toward the government. Translation: laughing at your leaders can be a crime. More than 2,000 political prisoners are in jail in Burma, nearly double last year's number, according to human-rights workers.

Zarganar is one of about 100 pro-democracy activists, monks, lawyers and entertainers who have been sentenced this month. The harshest sentences have gone to monks who helped organize the Saffron Rebellion last year, but no one has gotten off light -- one antigovernment blogger got 20 years.

It may seem curious that the junta has waited until now to mete out these sentences. But regime critics say this is part of Than Shwe's master plan. He's making sure dissidents are out of the way for the country's "elections" in 2010. These will be the first elections in Burma under a new constitution, which is designed to guarantee that the military stay in power, regardless of the popular vote. He needn't worry about the opposition. Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy, has been under house arrest for most of the past two decades.

Zarganar used to tell a joke set in heaven. Various world leaders meet God and ask when their greatest ambitions will come true. Each cries when God tells them they will not live to see it. When General Than Shwe meets God, he asks when Burma will have enough water and electricity. In response, God cries.

Wall Street Opinion

Doctors Without Borders Issues Alert on AIDS in Burma

VOA News
25 November 2008

The international medical group Doctors Without Borders said Burma's military government must act now if it wants to address one of Asia's most serious epidemics of HIV/AIDS.

The group said that if Burma does not get the funds it needs for antiretroviral drugs, some 24,000 people could die next year from the disease. Doctors Without Borders said that in 2007 alone, AIDS-related illnesses killed 25,000 people.

In its report, which was released Tuesday in Bangkok, the group said that some 240,000 people in Burma are infected with HIV/AIDS virus, but only several thousand are receiving life-saving treatment.

The report says Doctors Without Borders is providing treatment to about 11,000 patients while the Burmese government, the United Nations and several non-governmental groups are taking care of another 4,000 patients.

A New Approach: Incorporating civilian resistance strategies within aid to Burma

Bangkok, 26 November'08, (Asiantribune.com): With the publication of the report Village Agency, the Karen Human Rights Group (KHRG) helps introduce important new voices into the debate over engagement with Burma – the voices of rural villagers themselves. Citing the personal testimonies of over 110 villagers in rural Karen State, the 181-page report seeks to challenge portrayals of villagers as helpless victims and instead highlights how these villagers can help strengthen international efforts to aid Burma.

Responses to the devastation wrought by Cyclone Nargis in May 2008 have served to further polarize international actors on Burma into two camps. While one group has called for a clear separation of politics from humanitarian and developmental concerns, the other has been more narrowly focused on the formal transfer of State power away from the military. Both of these approaches, however, neglect the strategies that villagers already employ to resist abuse and address their humanitarian concerns.

According to Naw September Paw, a Karen spokeswoman for the report "Karen villagers have been active in resisting the many human rights abuses committed against them. They have developed strategies to resist exploitation, reduce the demands placed upon them, escape attacks and evade attempts to bring them under military control."

In areas under the control of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC), villagers have employed negotiation, bribery, refusal, false compliance and confrontation in order to evade abuses such as forced labor and arbitrary taxation. And when the burden of military demands has become too great, villagers have fled to hiding sites in the forest and used a wealth of other strategies designed to support their efforts to evade the SPDC's ongoing campaign of forced relocation, while at the same time addressing their humanitarian needs.

Village Agency demonstrates how villagers’ strategies necessitate a new approach to international aid, one that is accountable to the local population and mindful of on-the-ground human rights implications. By recognizing that effective and politically conscious intervention need not focus on regime change, international approaches to Burma's political and humanitarian challenges can hopefully progress beyond the contentious debates in which they have been caught. Ultimately, the report asserts that the voices of villagers themselves must be included in the political processes which affect them.

Reiterating the above argument, September Paw stated "In trying to address the problems in Burma, the international community should listen to the voices of the villagers and work together with them to strengthen the tried and tested strategies that they are already using to resist abuse and claim their rights."

- Asian Tribune -

3rd Cmtee draft - approves 8 resolutions for GA adoption

General Assembly
GA/SHC/3941

Sixty-third General Assembly
Third Committee
46th & 47th Meetings (AM & PM)
24th November 2008

THIRD COMMITTEE DRAFT TEXT ENDORSES RECOMMENDATIONS, FUTURE WORKPLAN
OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL’S WORKING GROUP ON RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT

Approves 8 Resolutions for General Assembly Adoption;
Right to Food, Mercenaries, Combating Religious Defamation Among Issues

The General Assembly would endorse the recommendations of a Human Rights Council Working Group on the right to development and call on United Nations agencies to promote the concept of a right to development in their programmes, while stressing the need for the international financial and multilateral trading systems to do the same, according to one of eight resolutions approved by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today, including six by recorded vote.

Approved by a vote of 177 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 2 abstentions (Canada and Israel),the resolution on the right to development would have the Assembly call on the Council to continue to ensure that its agenda promotes and advances sustainable development and the Millennium Development Goals and to lead to raising the right to development as set out in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, to the same level and on a par with all other human rights and fundamental freedoms (Annex IV).

The Assembly would endorse the conclusion and Council’s recommendation adopted in the Working Group on the Right to Development and stress the importance of endorsing the 2008-2010 work plan for the high-level task force, established within the framework of the Working Group, which, among other things, would widen the criteria for the periodic evaluation of global partnerships to include various components of Millennium Development Goal 8, which was on global partnerships.

Other provisions of the draft would have the Assembly stress that the high-level task force and the Working Group take into account the need to help increase the participation of developing countries in international decision-making; to promote effective partnerships with developing countries, particularly the least developed countries; and strive for greater acceptance of the right to development at the international level, while urging all States to undertake the necessary policy formulation at the national level.

By a vote of 180 in favour to 1 against (United States) and no abstentions, the Committee also approved a resolution on the right to food, by which the Assembly would “consider it intolerable” that more than 6 million children still died every year from hunger-related illness before their fifth birthday, and that the number of undernourished people had grown to about 923 million worldwide, at the same time that the planet could produce enough food to feed 12 billion people, or twice the world’s present population. (See Annex III.)

By the terms of the text, the Assembly would express concern that, in many countries, girls were twice as likely as boys to die from malnutrition and childhood diseases and that twice as many women as men were estimated to suffer from malnutrition. Accordingly, it would have the Assembly encourage all States to take action to address gender inequality and discrimination against women, including through measures to ensure that women had equal access to resources, including income, land and water, so as to enable them to feed themselves and their families. By further terms of the draft, the Assembly would urge Member States to promote and protect the rights of indigenous people, who have expressed in different forums their deep concerns over the obstacles and challenges faced in the full enjoyment of the right to food.

After the vote, the representative of the United States said he was unable to support the text because he believed the attainment of the right to adequate food was a goal that should be realized progressively. In his view, the draft contained inaccurate textual descriptions of underlying rights.

The Committee also approved a draft resolution on the rights of the child by a vote of 180 in favour to one against ( United States), with no abstentions. Among other things, that omnibus text would call upon States to create an environment conducive to the well-being of all children, including by strengthening international cooperation in regard to the eradication of poverty, the right to education, the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, and the right to food.

On the subject of mercenary activity, the Committee approved -- by a vote of 122 in favour to 51 against, with 5 abstentions (Chile, Fiji, New Zealand, Switzerland and Tongo) ‑‑ a draft that would have the Assembly urge all States to take legislative measures to ensure that their territories and nationals were not used for the recruitment, assembly, financing, training and transit of mercenaries whose use could impede the right of people to self-determination, destabilize Governments, or dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of States. (See Annex I.)

That text, “on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination”, among other things, would request the Working Group on that issue to continue the work done by Special Rapporteurs to strengthen the international legal framework against the use of mercenaries, and to take account of the proposed legal definition of a mercenary in the Rapporteur’s report to the Commission on Human Rights at its sixtieth session.

Voting to reject the text, the representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said he was not convinced that the Third Committee and the Human Rights Council were the right bodies in which to discuss the use of mercenaries, since the question should not be dealt with in regard to human rights or the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. Also, drawing links between mercenaries and terrorism was part of the work of the General Assembly’s Sixth Committee. The representative of Malaysia, who voted in favour, noted the lack of clear and well-defined standards regarding the use of mercenaries, and added that the resolution was moving in the right direction in that regard.

The Committee also approved a draft on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, as revised, by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to none against, with 57 abstentions (see Annex VIII). The text would reiterate the obligation of all States to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, to identify and bring to justice those responsible, while ensuring the right of every person to a fair and public hearing. A list of categories of victims would include a reference to the sexual orientation of victims, which the representative of Sweden said had arisen froma finding in a 1999 report of the Special Rapporteur regarding the link between sexual orientation and arbitrary executions.

Indeed, the Committee approved that text after rejecting -- bya vote of 78 against to 60 in favour, with 29 abstentions (see Annex VI) ‑‑ a proposal by the representative of Uganda, acting on behalf of the Organization for Islamic Conference, to amend the text to remove a reference to the sexual orientation of victims. By a vote of 77 against to 59 in favour, with 25 abstentions (see Annex VII), the Committee had also chosen to reject a proposal by the same parties to include a direct reference to peoples under foreign occupation, retaining instead a reference to the killing of persons “affected” by foreign occupation.

A final draft approved by a vote ‑‑ on combating the defamation of religion, which was passed by 85 votes in favour to 50 against, with 42 abstentions (see Annex I) ‑‑ would have the Assembly urge all States to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred resulting from defamation of religions and the incitement to religious hatred in general. The representative of Uganda, its main sponsor, explained that the text incorporated the concerns of many delegations that all religions be covered by the text and not just Islam, because although Islam was usually at the core of such acts, it did not preclude the possibility that other religions could be targeted later (See Annex II).

Prior to the vote, the representative of the United States said he objected to the text’s way of conflating racism and racial discrimination, and would vote against it. The language appeared to suggest that, like race, a person’s religion was a characteristic that an individual could not change, even though the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contained provisions which said that individuals had a right to change and choose their religion, or to choose not to practice a religion at all. Also urging a “no” vote, the representative of the Observer Mission of the Holy See said he feared the resolution would lend itself locally to laws that would penalize religious minorities and stifle dialogue. The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the concept could have been better captured in terms of combating the incitement to religious hatred, which in his view could be fought on a clear legal basis.

Two other texts were approved without a vote: on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa; and on follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly.

Action was deferred on six draft resolutions: on protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism and a related amendment; on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief; on the Committee on the Rights of the Child and its related programme budget implications; on the report of the Human Rights Council and its

related programme budget implications;on the global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; and implementation of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: Realizing the Millennium Development Goals for Persons with Disabilities.

In other business, the Committee took note of a number of documents, including: the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on its fortieth and forty-first sessions (document A/63/38); the report of the Secretary-General on supporting efforts to end obstetric fistula (document A/C.3/63/222); the report of the Secretary-General on trafficking in women and girls (document A/C.3/63/215); the report of the Secretary-General on the improvement of the status of women in the United Nations system (document A/C.3/63/364); and a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme on the activities of the United Nations Development Fund for Women (document A/C.3/63/205).

It also took note of a note by the Secretariat regarding appointment of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children (document A/63/203).

Also speaking in connection to various drafts today were the representatives of Japan, Singapore, Benin, Cuba, Chile, Argentina, Egypt, India, Nigeria, Colombia, Brazil, Libya, United Kingdom, and Canada.

The representatives of Guatemala, Switzerland, Finland, Mauritius (speaking on behalf of the African Group), Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Sweden, Denmark, Costa Rica, the Netherlands, Israel, Sudan, Barbados, Jamaica, Mexico, Uruguay, Turkey, India, Japan, Norway, and Liechtenstein also spoke.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. Tuesday, 25 November, to take up all outstanding draft resolutions and to take up the agenda item on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) was expected to hear a continuation of an explanation of vote on a draft resolution regarding the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (document A/C.3/63/L.53/Rev.1 and its programme budget implications in document A/C.3/63/L.72), before taking action on remaining drafts from its last session: the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/63/L.50/Rev.1); on combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1); on the right to food (document A/C.3/63/L.42/Rev.1); on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief (document A/C.3/63/L.34/Rev.1); and extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/63/L.35/Rev.1, and its amendments contained in documents A/C.3/63/L.74 and L.75). (For further details, see Press Releases GA/SHC/3939 and GA/SHC/3940.)

It was also expected to take action on a number of other draft texts.

A draft resolution on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/C.3/63/L.58/Rev.1), would have the General Assembly call upon the international community to take concrete actions to meet the protection and assistance needs of refugees, returnees and displaced persons, and to contribute generously to projects and programmes aimed at alleviating their plight. It would also call for States to facilitate durable solutions for refugees and displaced persons, among other things.

A draft text on implementation of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: realizing the Millennium Development Goals for persons with disabilities (document A/C.3/63/L.3/Rev.1), would have the General Assembly, while expressing concern about the persistent gap between policy and practice in mainstreaming the perspectives of persons with disabilities, encourage States to ensure that their development strategies, policies and programmes were inclusive of issues concerning persons with disabilities. Further, it would encourage them to use the objectives of the World Programme of Action and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a guide for their work. It would also call on States to include a review and evaluation of the impact of development efforts on the rights, well-being and livelihood of persons with disabilities in country reports, in connection with the forthcoming periodic reviews of progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

By a draft text on the follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/63/L.73), the Assembly would, among other things, call upon Governments, the United Nations system and other international and regional organizations, and all sectors of civil society, including non-governmental organizations, as well as all women and men, to fully commit themselves and to intensify their contributions to the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session.

Having considered the recommendations contained in the report of the Human Rights Council for the period from 10 September 2007 to 24 September 2008, the Committee would have the Assembly -- by the terms of the draft resolution on that issue (document A/C.3/63/L.57/Rev.1) -- take note of the report and endorse its recommendations. The Committee also had before it the related programme budget implications of that action, contained in document A/C.3/63/L.77.

Also before the Committee was a draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/63/L.16/Rev.1). By the terms of that draft, the General Assembly would -- among other things -- call upon States to create an environment conducive to the well-being of all children, including by strengthening international cooperation in regard to the eradication of poverty, the right to education, the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, and the right to food.

A draft on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/63/L.51/Rev.1) was also before the Committee. The text would have the Assembly emphasize State responsibility to combat criminal acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance through various means. In the section of the draft relating to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the text would have the Assembly urge the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to maintain and issue regular updates on its website of a list of countries that had not yet ratified the Convention and to encourage such countries to ratify it at the earliest.

In addition, the draft would have the Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Council form a three-tiered intergovernmental process for the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Regarding the Durban Review Conference, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to allocate resources from the regular budget of the United Nations to facilitate the participation of special procedures and mechanisms of the Human Rights Council in meetings of the Preparatory Committee and the regional preparatory conferences.

Should the Assembly adopt that draft resolution, the programme budget implications (document A/C.3/63/L.70), based on estimated additional requirements for the Durban Review Conference and its preparatory process, would amount to $3.8 million. The amount for which an appropriation would be sought totals only $570,400, as it is anticipated that the balance of the estimated additional requirements of $3.2 million will be met through the pre-existing budget.

Also before the Committee was a draft text on the right to development (document A/C.3/63/L.30/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly stress the importance of the endorsement of the work plan for the high-level task force on the implementation of the right to development for the period 2008-2010, which would ensure that the criteria for the periodic evaluation of global partnerships would be extended to other components of Millennium Development Goal 8.

The Assembly would also stress the importance of the high-level task force taking into account, in its work, the need to: promote the democratization of the system of international governance in order to increase the effective participation of developing countries in international decision-making; promote effective partnerships with developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, for the purpose of the realization of their right to development; and strive for greater acceptance, operationalization and realization of the right to development at the international level, while urging all States to undertake the necessary policy formulation at the national level.

Next, while reaffirming that terrorism could not and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group, the Assembly would -- by a draft text on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/63/L.39/Rev.1) -- call on States not to resort to profiling based on stereotypes founded on grounds of discrimination prohibited by international law, including on racial, ethnic and/or religious grounds. It would urge States, while countering terrorism, to ensure due process guarantees. The Assembly would emphasize that targeted sanctions were a “significant tool” in countering terrorism and had a direct impact on targeted individuals and entities. It would recognize the need to continue ensuring the efficiency and transparency of the United Nations targeted sanctions regime, and in that regard, continue enhancement of efforts in support of these objectives as contained in Security Council resolution 1822 of 30 June 2008.

Further by the text, the Assembly would oppose any form of deprivation of liberty that amounted to placing a detained person outside the protection of the law, and urge States to respect the safeguards concerning the liberty, security and dignity of the person and to treat all prisoners in all places of detention in accordance with international law. It would request the Office of the High Commissioner and the Special Rapporteur to continue to contribute to the work of the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, including by raising awareness about the need to respect human rights while countering terrorism.

Taking note of a decision taken by the Committee on the Rights of the Child to request approval from the Assembly to meet in parallel chambers, draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.46/Rev.1 would have the Assembly authorize that request for ten working days during each of its three regular sessions, and for five working days during the weeks of its pre-sessional meetings, between October 2009 and January 2011.

The programme budget implications for that draft (document A/C.3/63/L.61*), should it be adopted, would amount to an additional requirement for the biennium 2008-2009 in the amount of $513,100, for General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management. Additional requirements in the amount of $245,600 were expected to arise in relation to conference-servicing and additional staffing requirements. The extent to which an additional appropriation for the biennium 2008-2009 would be required would be determined in the context of the consolidated statement of all statements of programme budget implications and revised estimates for the biennium.

By further terms, the General Assembly would be required to approve the proposed modifications to the outputs to be incorporated into the programme of work of section 23, Human rights, of the programme budget for the biennium 2008‑2009 under subprogramme 2, Supporting human rights bodies and organs. Further requirements of $4.2 million for 2010-2011 would be dealt with in the context of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2010-2011.

The final two texts before the Committee were on programme planning (document A/C.3/63/L.78) and revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/63/L.76).

Action on Draft Resolutions

The Committee resumed its consideration of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (document A/C.3/63/L.53/Rev.1) and its programme budget implications (document A/C.3/63/L.72), which had been adopted in the previous meeting by a vote of 178 in favour to 0 against, with 0 abstentions.

Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Japan said her delegation had been a traditional co-sponsor of the draft resolution and shared its concerns. However, the current text had significant programme budget implications that could impair the normal functions of the United Nations and, as such, her delegation had withdrawn its co-sponsorship. Any initiative undertaken must advance the most cost-effective measures and all parties should make efforts to reduce expenditures at every stage. Japan believed that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination should strive to dislodge the backlog within the specified time and should continue to work towards improving the effectiveness of its working methods.

The representative of Singapore said the draft resolution stressed the importance of ensuring that States parties would implement their obligations under the Convention and, as such, Singapore had voted in favour.

Benin’s delegate said his understanding was that the vote on the draft had been undertaken under rule 129 of the rules of procedure and not due to a request by the representative of Egypt. He asked for his statement to be included in Committee’s records.

The Committee then moved to take action on the draft resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/63/L.50/Rev.1). The Secretary informed the Committee that, should the draft be adopted, there would be no requirement for additional appropriation under the programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009.

The representative of Cuba, the main sponsor of the draft, said the draft before the Committee condemned any form of impunity for mercenaries or for those who recruited, funded and trained mercenaries. It would also ask for the Special Rapporteur on the issue to continue to work towards strengthening the international legal framework to combat the use of mercenaries, bearing in mind the new legal definition of mercenary introduced by the Special Rapporteur to the former Human Rights Commission in its sixtieth session. The draft contained a number of minimal revisions based on contributions by Member States. Should the draft be submitted to a vote, she requested all delegations to vote in favour.

The Chair informed the Committee that a recorded vote had been requested. In response to a question from the representative of Cuba, the Chair said that the United States had requested the vote.

The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 51 against, with 5 abstentions ( Chile, Fiji, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Tonga). (For details see Annex I.)

The representative of Chile, speaking in explanation of vote, said his delegation had abstained due to the content of preambular paragraph 9, on new forms of mercenary activities. That paragraph could be interpreted as an “automatic assimilation” of the work of private security companies to that of mercenaries. Further, also in reference to that paragraph, he noted that there currently were no legal instruments that clearly defined new mercenary activity.

The representative of Argentina expressed support to the free determination of all peoples suffering under occupation or colonization. The draft text recently voted on should be interpreted and applied in accordance with relevant resolutions of the General Assembly. In particular, she referred to the special and specific situation in the Malvinas and General Assembly resolution 2065(XX), as well as the pronouncement of the Committee on Decolonization, which recognized that a sovereignty dispute existed between the United Kingdom and Argentina and the need for a bilateral solution, based on renewed negotiations and bearing in mind the interest of the islands’ population.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated countries, expressed a shared concern over the dangerous activities of mercenaries and acknowledged the dangers and profoundly negative repercussions of such activity. However, the European Union was not convinced that the Third Committee and the Human Rights Council were the right bodies in which to discuss the use of mercenaries, since the question should not be dealt with in regards to human rights or the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. Also, drafting links between mercenaries and terrorism was part of the work of the General Assembly’s Sixth Committee. As such, while supporting efforts to reduce the threats caused by mercenaries, his delegation had voted against the draft.

The representative of Malaysia expressed concerns over the rise in the use of private military companies and private security companies, which often operated with little regulatory oversight. Malaysia did not support the use of mercenaries under any circumstance. Yet, it understood that, in certain circumstance, the use of private military companies or private security companies might be required. However, the lack of clear and well-defined standards regarding their use was of concern. The resolution was moving in the right direction in that regard and Malaysia, therefore, had chosen to co-sponsor the draft for the first time and had voted in its favour.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1), hearing from its main sponsor, the representative of Uganda, who spoke on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, together with Belarus and Venezuela. She said a wide number of delegations had participated in each of the three rounds of consultations, while some had not participated at all. The text reflected a desire to accommodate concerns raised during those consultations. The approach on the text had been changed to lay stress on the ills posed by the defamation of religion on all religions, and would call on States to combat such acts without exception. Though Islam was usually at the core of such acts at present, it did not preclude the possibility that other religions could be targeted next.

She said those States that claimed that the notion of defamation of religion had no bearing in international normative frameworks were overlooking the fact that all States had recently affirmed the global counter terrorism strategy, which had sought to de-link terrorism to a particular religion or ethnic group. The international community had further resolved to promote a culture of peace and respect for all religions. Eleven weeks ago, all States had reaffirmed their commitment to implement that strategy in an integrated manner, as reflected in General Assembly resolution 62/272 of 5 September, which had been adopted without a vote. She hoped that the negative reaction shown by some delegations would not signal a departure from that commitment. She also expressed hope that all those that said they would support the text if it made a reference to all religions would live up to their promise.

She then made an oral amendment to preambular paragraph 8 of the text, to change the reference to “illegal immigration” to “irregular immigration”.

The representative of the Observer Mission of the Holy See said the Committee had seen an increased focus on protection of religions based on the perceived rise in defamation of religious symbols and institutions. The concept of defamation had arisen from the belief that religious ideas and figures deserved protection by the State in an effort to ensure that their adherents were not offended. In the current international context, that notion risked removing the focus from the rights of individuals and groups towards the protection of institutions, symbols and ideas, and would lend itself locally to laws that would penalize religious minorities and stifle dialogue. While he was supportive of the need to protect believers from hate speech, he also believed that it was possible to protect religious freedom by applying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the agreements on the elimination of intolerance and discrimination based on religion and belief.

The representative of Egypt, aligning himself with the statement by Uganda, said the draft was an important one. Many changes had been introduced, and it now dealt with the defamation of all religions. It also dealt with the concerns of some that the Assembly should focus on discrimination of religious minorities, as the Holy See had indicated. The text dealt with those problems in the context of those existing instruments.

The Chair then informed the Committee that a vote had been requested.

In an explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of India said his country opposed defamation and stereotyping based on religion. The draft was an improvement on previous texts on the subject, but retained a focus on a single religion. Defamation and stereotyping was a problem of concern to all religions. He would abstain from the vote.

The representative of the United States said he appreciated the sponsors’ aim to address the denigration of religion in a number of manifestations, and agreed with the general tenets of the draft –- including its emphasis on education, its concern for the perpetuation of stereotypes, and encouraging public officials to respect people’s religions. He also appreciated the fact that the text had been expanded to include a reference to a variety of religions. While deploring hateful speech, his Government had a strong view that people should be free to express their opinion in challenge to an ideology of hate. He believed that some States were seeking to restrict expression in the name of defamation of religion, when they should be promoting dialogue involving all peoples.

He called on all Member States to reaffirm their belief in the freedom of expression and to call into account those that misused General Assembly resolutions to harass individuals who were seeking to express their opinions and beliefs. He also objected to the text’s way of conflating racism and racial discrimination. The language appeared to suggest that, like race, one’s religion was a characteristic that one could not change, which was in direct conflict to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration, which said that individuals had a right to change and choose their religion, and to manifest their beliefs through its teaching, practice and observance, or to choose not to practice a religion at all. It was unhelpful and incorrect to suggest that race and religion were the same. He would vote no on the draft.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said belief in tolerance, non-discrimination, freedom of expression, thought, conscience, religion or belief, were the principles upon which the Union had been formed. The European Union attached great importance to fighting the incitement to religious hatred. While he thanked the Organization of the Islamic Conference for organizing consultations on both the concept of defamation of religion and on the text itself, the European Union believed that human rights were indivisible. The right to freedom of expression was at the essence of the right to thought, conscience and belief.

He said it was necessary to make distinctions between incitement to religious hatred and the right to discuss or criticize religion, adding that only the former should be forbidden. He noted that the recent report of the Special Rapporteur on racism and related intolerance had recommended dealing with the concept of defamation of religion through the establishment of legal norms to combat the incitement to religious hatred. There was no need for additional norms on the question. In situations where fundamental rights were in conflict, only courts could establish the limits. That question could not be tackled in the political field, but in the legal field. He also could not accept the idea of defamation of religion being integrated into the human rights framework. International human rights law should be aimed at protecting people in exercising their freedom of religion, not in protecting religions, as such. He believed the resolution could be used to justify arbitrary decisions against religious minorities, for instance, by not allowing them to exercise their right to religion or belief. He could not support the resolution and would vote against it.

The draft was then approved, as orally revised, by a vote of 85 in favour to 50 against, with 42 abstentions. (See Annex II.)

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of Nigeria reaffirmed his delegation’s vote in favour of the draft. He noted that Nigeria was a multicultural and multiethnic country, in which religion had been given a great amount of protection. Overall, interreligious dialogue and harmony should be promoted in such a way as to foster unity for all peoples and mankind, with due respect to all cultures and religions.

The representative of Chile said that there should be no discrimination in the exercise of freedom of religion or expression and those freedoms could not be limited, except in those cases expressly referred to in international conventions. All incitement to racial or religious discrimination should be prohibited by law and States parties should immediately undertake such efforts. In addition, the concept of defamation of religions should not be used to weaken the right to freedom of expression, a right that was essential to strengthening rule of law and building democracy.

Colombia’s delegate said that the media could contribute to a greater understanding among all religions, beliefs, cultures and peoples and could facilitate dialogue among various groups. Colombia had abstained from voting due to the ambiguous nature of some of the concepts expressed in the draft, specifically those that could lead to unjustified limitations of freedom of expression. He expressed hope that, at the next session, more details could be heard regarding the defamation of religion and its relationship to freedom of expression.

The representative of Brazil said his delegation had abstained from voting because the draft contained some aspects that posed difficulties. Brazil’s constitution in regard to the freedom of religion was in line with the relevant articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. Brazil shared the view that the issue of defamation of religions should not be considered from a political perspective, but, rather, from a strictly legal one. He also underscored the importance of treating Islamophobia, Christianophobia and anti-Semitism on the same footing, as doing otherwise would invite accusations of selectivity and double standards.

The representative of Singapore said his delegation had voted in favour of the draft, on the understanding that its contents applied to all religions. In addition, Singapore’s understanding of the oral amendment made to preambular paragraph 8 was that it would have to be in accordance with each country’s national legislation. Defamation bred intolerance, stereotypes and distrust, and harmful rhetoric and demonization along cultural and religious lines were often the precursors to conflict. Such actions should be combated, along with all forms of intolerance.

The Committee then moved to take action on draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/63/L.42/Rev.1), which contained no programme budget implications.

The representative of Cuba said that, should the draft be approved, the General Assembly would then consider the resolution within the framework of a global food crisis and an economic crisis. Prior to the worsening of the food crisis there were 800 million hungry people across the world; now, that figure had increased to 923 million hungry people worldwide. The causes of the food crisis were systemic and due to the unfair distribution of wealth throughout the world.

The Human Rights Council had held a special session to analyze the issue and Cuba reaffirmed the need to continue considering the important issue both in the Council and in the Third Committee. However, in the Committee, the subject should be considered with a holistic view. Therefore, the draft under consideration did not only refer to the current crisis, but also addressed wider issues, such as the need to expand agricultural production and to support food security.

She also referred to a hard copy version of a number of editorial corrections to preambular paragraphs 11 and 17 of the text, as well as operative paragraph 32, which had been distributed in the conference room. The document also contained a revision to operative paragraph 25, which would now stress that States parties to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights consider implementing that Agreement, while mindful of the obligation of Member States to promote and protect the right to food.

The representative of Libya drew attention to an error in the Arabic version of the text, which referred to his country’s name incorrectly.

The Chair informed the Committee that a recorded vote had been requested and, in response to a question by Cuba, the Chair noted that the United States had requested the vote.

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 180 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions. (See Annex III.)

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the United States said that, while agreeing with the sentiment expressed in the resolution, his delegation could not support the text as drafted. The United States felt that the attainment of the “right to adequate food” or the “right to be free from hunger” was a goal that should be realized progressively. The current resolution contained numerous objectionable provisions, including inaccurate textual descriptions of underlying rights. The United States was the largest food donor in the world of international humanitarian food aid and it would continue to work towards providing food security to all. In the future, he expressed hope that the co-sponsors would work to address his delegation’s concerns, so the United States could join other countries in adopting the draft.

The representative of United Kingdom expressed concerns about paragraph 12, which stressed a commitment to promote and protect the economic, social and cultural rights of indigenous peoples. The United Kingdom did not recognize the concept of collective human rights, with the exception to a right to self-determination. In a statement delivered on 29 June 2006 at the adoption of the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, her Government had expressed its position that indigenous individuals were entitled to the full protection of their rights on an equal basis to all other individuals. The United Kingdom did not accept that some individuals should benefit from human rights that were not available to others. This was a long standing and well established position of her country. Her Government also believed that the rights of a group should not supersede the rights of the individual. While her Government acknowledged that many States had granted collective rights in their Constitutions, national laws and agreements, her support for the draft did not amount to a change in the United Kingdom’s position on collective rights.

The representative of Canada expressed a belief in the progressive realization of the right to food as a component to everyone’s right to an adequate standard of living. In its reports to the Committee that oversees implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Canada had illustrated the necessary steps to realize the right to adequate food. While her country supported the realization of that right, it was concerned by operative paragraph 25 of the text. She wished to note that there was no established link between the World Trade Organization (WTO) Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and the concepts of food security and right to food. In her understanding of paragraph 25, which would encourage WTO members to consider how to implement the TRIPS agreement, that paragraph did not suggest that United Nations Member States make substantive interpretations of the TRIPS agreements or that it instruct WTO members on how to implement it from a substantive standpoint. There was nothing in the TRIPS agreement to prevent States from pursuing the right to food or food security. She added that, as a strong supporter of the right to food, Canada had voted in favour of the text.

The representative of Guatemala said her vote in favour of the text had not been correctly reflected in the records.

The representative of Switzerland said his country had voted in favour of the text and had chosen to co-sponsor it after a long and difficult negotiation. He voiced hope that, next year, the main author would guarantee greater transparency in those negotiations.

Making a general statement, the representative of Malaysia said his Government would engage with the international community to address the need for food. States had a responsibly to their own citizens to ensure access to food, but soaring food prices had exacerbated the problem. The right to food was a universal human right and a pressing global concern that was interlinked to development issues, the international trade system and the global market structure. Solving the issue required more synergized action.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the Union was pleased to have worked with the delegation of Cuba, whom he thanked, on that important resolution. He appreciated its approach, which was based on human rights. The Universal Declaration had anticipated a certain standard of living for all people, which would include freedom from hunger. It was the responsibility of individual states to satisfy the food needs of their people, on the basis of the fulfilment of their political, civil and economic rights. Also, there was a clear link between financial security and enough food and the rights of women. It was important that States not lose sight of human rights in their national strategies to achieve food security for all.

Regarding paragraph 14, he said the European Union accepted the idea of differential treatment for developing countries as was defined in international law, and that no country should implement policies that were not in accordance with internationally accepted rules. If a rights based approach were adopted, it should promote individual rights rather than food production, since the latter corresponded only to the rights of citizens who were farmers.

The representative of Finland, aligning herself with the statement made on behalf of the European Union, expressed regret over having to withdraw her delegation’s co-sponsorship, due to the last-minute amendment that weakened the reference to the rights of indigenous peoples. In spite of considerable efforts by the main sponsors, negotiations had resulted in a compromise solution. Despite concerns over that paragraph, the overall form of the draft had allowed Finland to support the resolution and she expressed hope that, in the future, the text of the draft would improve so as to allow Finland to co-sponsor it once again.

The representative of Colombia said that the right to food was an important element for the achievement of the right to life. Operative paragraph 25, and its reference to the right to intellectual property, should be viewed against the backdrop of autonomy, especially in regard to analytical processes. As well, operative paragraph 14 would require an examination of those various concepts to ensure greater clarity, as there was currently no international agreement on its definition.

The Committee then moved to take action on draft resolution on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/C.3/63/L.58/Rev.1), which contained no programme budget implications.

The representative of Mauritius, speaking on behalf of the African Group, the main sponsors of the draft, welcomed the supportive manner in which consultations had been undertaken and said the current resolution reflected the overall views of the membership on the matter. That said, it had been impossible, due to time constraints, to address all the various concerns. However, those concerns had been noted and would be taken under consideration in the future.

He added two new preambular paragraphs after preambular paragraph 6, which encouraged States to undertake an active role in the matter and to help provide assistance to those in need. They also emphasized the primary responsibility of States in addressing the issues of internally displaced persons under their jurisdiction. With those revisions in light, he expressed hope that the draft would draw the broad support of Member States, as it had in the past.

The draft, as orally revised, was approved without a vote.

The representative of Cuba thanked Angola for its efforts in facilitating negotiations on the draft, as well as the efforts of the African Group in taking into account the various concerns of delegations. With regard to the last preambular paragraph of the draft, she said that, while States held the responsibility to protect internally displaced persons within their jurisdiction, the role of the international community should be to lend assistance to the State, if it so requested.

The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation had joined consensus, despite the fact that Pakistan was not party to the 1951 Convention or its Protocol. He also expressed concerns over the text of operative paragraph 21 and its reference to the “local integration of refugees”.

The representative of Syria, also thanking Angola for its efforts, said that Syria understood the last preambular paragraph to mean that the State had the prime responsibility to protect internally displaced persons on their territory and the international community should assist, with the consent of States.

The Committee was then expected to take action on draft resolution on the implementation of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: realizing the Millennium Development Goals for persons with disabilities (document A/C.3/63/L.3/Rev.1), but, as the Secretary informed the Committee, the document had not yet been released and consideration of the item was, therefore, postponed.

Next, the Committee approved without a vote a draft text on the follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/63/L.73), which was submitted by the Chair.

The representative of the United States, in explanation of position, said he understood that references in the text to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women did not amount to an endorsement of that body’s pronouncements on recommendations. He further understood that any references to its recommendations only applied to those that were consistent with its mandate. States parties to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women were under no obligation to change their policies if they were already consistent with the provisions of that Convention, particularly with regard to the rights of unborn children, and on prohibiting or restricting the use of abortion. He objected to the use of the term “reproductive health services”, because it had taken on an ambiguous meaning to include abortion, which the United States did not agree with. The United States had proposed modest changes to the language of the text, but they had not been accepted. He said he was disassociating from the consensus.

The representative of Egypt said he had joined consensus with the understanding that nothing in the text permitted, endorsed, urged, promoted or encouraged abortion or the right to abortion. The representative of Libya said his country had joined the consensus on a similar understanding, adding that abortion was only allowed in certain conditions, according to Islamic law. Similarly, the representative of Iran said he welcomed the consensus approval of the text, and supported its implementation in a manner consistent with national law. He also reserved Iran’s rights vis-à-vis Conventions to which it was not a party.

Following that action, the Committee then took note of a number of documents, including: the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on its fortieth and forty-first sessions (document A/63/38); the report of the Secretary-General on supporting efforts to end obstetric fistula (document A/C.3/63/222); the report of the Secretary-General on trafficking in women and girls (document A/C.3/63/215); the report of the Secretary-General on the improvement of the status of women in the United Nations system (document A/C.3/63/364); and a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme on the activities of the United Nations Development Fund for Women (document A/C.3/63/205).

For various reasons, the Committee then decided to defer action on three draft resolutions: on the report of the Human Rights Council for the period from 10 September 2007 to 24 September 2008 (document A/C.3/63/L.57/Rev.1*) pending the preparation of its related programme budget implications, to be contained in document A/C.3/63/L.77; on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/63/L.16/Rev.1), because negotiations were ongoing; and on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/63/L.51/Rev.1) and its related programme budget implications, contained in document A/C.3/63/L.70, also in view of ongoing consultations.

The Committee then moved to take action on the draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/63/L.30/Rev.1), which contained no programme budget implications. The Secretary informed the Committee that, should the draft be adopted, there would be no requirement for additional appropriation under the programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009.

The representative of Cuba, the main sponsor of the draft, said the text followed the guidelines established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, which confirmed that that right was an inalienable human right from which all individuals should benefit. The draft was based on the work of the Working Group of the Human Rights Council and the special high-level team on the exercise of the right to development. Operative paragraph 8 dealt with an important and priority subject for developing countries, namely, consideration towards the development of a binding international legal standard on the right to development. He thanked all delegations for their cooperation and expressed hope that it would be adopted by consensus. He also made a number of minor oral revisions to operative paragraphs 22 and 33.

The Chair informed the Committee that a recorded vote had been requested and, in response to a question by Cuba, said that the United States had made the request.

Speaking in explanation of vote, before the vote, the representative of the United States said that the United States opposed the resolution. As was well-known, the United States understood the term right to development to mean that each individual should enjoy the right to develop his or her intellectual or other capabilities to the maximum extent possible, through the exercise of the full range of civil and political rights. The draft contained references to some initiatives, such as the consideration of a legally binding instrument, which the United States, as it had in years past, found objectionable. The United States would continue to help countries achieve economic progress and their development goals. However, the resolution under consideration did not advance those goals and, as such, the United States would vote against the draft.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated countries, said that the European Union remained firmly committed to the enjoyment of the right to development by all. The right to development was a fundamental right and could not be used to signify any limitations to other rights. It was up to States to take primary responsibility to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights, including the right to development. The European Union would continue to play its part towards that end and would vote in favour on the resolution. Its support for the positive work done by the Working Group on the right to development and the special high-level team should not necessarily be interpreted to mean support for the development of a binding international legal standard. Finally, in regard to operative paragraph 11, the European Union believed that it was entirely up to the Human Rights Council to decide on follow-up.

The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 177 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 2 abstentions ( Canada, Israel) (Annex IV).

Speaking in explanation of vote, after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom said her country had played an active role in promoting the right to development and was, overall, supportive of the draft. However, operative paragraph 33 and its reference to indigenous peoples, rather than individuals, was of concern, since human rights were equal to all and did not belong to any one group over another. Such a paragraph should not be read so as to establish collective rights.

The representative of Canada said her country supported the concept of the right to development and it actively participated in the United Nations working group on the subject. Though it had joined consensus on the resolution at the ninth session of the Human Rights Council, Canada had substantive concerns over the current draft, as it still contained language regarding new international legal standards. It was premature to say that such standards would be necessary, while the working group and Task Force were still in deliberations. Such an instrument was only one of many options that might be considered in the future. In addition, the draft should focus more on the primary responsibility of each State to promote and protect the rights of its own citizens, within their respective jurisdictions. For that reason, Canada had abstained from voting.

The representative of Switzerland said that, despite concerns over operative paragraph 8, his delegation had voted in favour of the draft. Switzerland continued to hold reservations over a binding international legal standards and its support for the draft should not be seen as a final opinion on such a standard.

The representative of Finland, aligning herself with the statement made on behalf of the European Union, expressed a need to further strengthen references to the various international instruments providing for the rights of indigenous peoples, in the draft.

The Committee was then expected to take action on draft resolution on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief in document A/C.3/63/L.34/Rev.1. The Secretary informed the Committee that the document was still outstanding and therefore asked that its consideration be deferred to the afternoon, if possible.

The Committee then turned to the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/63/L.35/Rev.1), which the Secretary said would require $147,000 per biennium to implement, though it would require no additional appropriation under the 2008-2009 budget.

The representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of the Nordic Countries, thanked delegations for their constructive participation in the drafting of the text. She read an oral amendment to paragraph 5, agreed to at the very last minute, by which States that had not abolished the death penalty would pay particular regard to the provisions contained in articles 6, 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 37 and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, bearing in mind the safeguards and guarantees set out in various Economic and Social Council resolutions, and taking account of the Special Rapporteur regarding the need to respect essential procedural guarantees, including the right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence.

She said those changes would incorporate an amendment proposed in document A/C.3/63/L.74, and indeed, that amendment was duly withdrawn by its main sponsor, the representative of Uganda, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).

Continuing, the representative of Sweden said consensus had not been reached regarding amendments put forward in document A/C.3/63/L.75, also made by the representative of Uganda on behalf of the OIC, which the Chair said would be subject to a vote.

Addressing that amendment, the representative of Uganda explained that the OIC had repeatedly requested that the case of people under foreign occupation be addressed by the text, since they were most likely to be the subjects of extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions. The co-sponsors had tried to shift the focus from the rights of such people to foreign occupation as a situation. The response of the co-sponsors would be to dilute the reference to those people by adding a list of irrelevant cases and de-linking them from cases of refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants, which were often the result of foreign occupation. People affected by foreign occupation could include the population of neighbouring States, for example.

She said the OIC believed that attempts to avoid the core issues related to the rights of peoples living under foreign occupation would only heighten the adverse consequences of the situations imposed on them. It was for that reason that the group decided to table the amendment.

In addition, she said the notion of sexual orientation had no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument. The OIC acknowledged that some Member States might have accepted that notion, but there was no justification to highlight that controversial notion while ignoring that discrimination existed in different parts of the world on the basis of colour, race, gender or religion, among others. The OIC had proposed to the co-sponsors some generic language that would serve to cover all types of discrimination, without creating any negative discrimination in favour of certain individuals at the expense of others. Yet again, that language –- which would have enabled many OIC states to join the consensus and even join the list of co-sponsors -- had not been accepted.

She said the OIC would request two separate votes on items contained in document L.75: a vote on the suggestion to insert a reference to “peoples under foreign occupation” and another vote on replacing the phrase “including sexual orientation” with the term “whatsoever” [so that the entire sentence would read “to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings...including all killings committed for any discriminatory reason whatsoever].

The representative of Sweden said that, given the many good discussions that had been held on operative paragraph 6(b) and the efforts of the draft’s co-sponsors, it was with some regret that the amendments proposed in A/C.3/63/L.75 were still on the table. The co-sponsors could not accept such amendments and, as such, she requested a recorded vote on the separate sets of amendments.

The Committee then moved to take action on paragraph 1 of the draft amendment. On a point of order, the representative of Egypt said his understanding was that the voting would take place on paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) together and on 1(c) on its own, which the representative of Uganda affirmed.

In an explanation of vote, before the vote on paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b), the representative of Finland said that the resolution L.35/Rev.1 was aimed at protecting persons from extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions. In light of the importance many delegations attached to the issue of foreign occupation, the co-sponsors had decided, for the first time, to include a reference to persons under foreign occupation in operative paragraph 6(b). That paragraph aimed at protecting the right to life of all individuals, especially those belonging to specific groups. The alternative wording on foreign occupation, as proposed, clearly extended the coverage of that paragraph beyond its originally intended scope. At the same time, the proposed amendment would exclude many important groups of individuals in vulnerable situations. The wording of the draft resolution safeguarded the same rights that the co-sponsors of the proposed amendment sought to protect and it was regrettable that their proposed wording was not acceptable to all delegations. For those reasons, Finland would vote against the proposed amendments and respectfully asked other delegations to do likewise.

The representative of Sweden said that the co-sponsors had included a reference to foreign occupation with a wording that was based on what had been accepted in other resolutions. However, that language had been rejected and last-minute efforts to reach consensus on the previous Friday had also failed. Sweden did not agree with the analysis put forward by the delegate from Uganda in her statement, since it questioned whether there was a need to make reference to killings of persons affected by terrorism, hostage-taking or foreign occupation. There should be an investigation whenever such killings took place, without exception, so the inclusion of those killings did have a place in the resolution.

Continuing, she said that the word “persons” had been proposed by Sweden instead of “peoples” because killings of individual persons was the subject under consideration and should, therefore, be stressed. The language of the draft resolution fully reflected the issue at hand and did not need to be amended. At the same time, it should be understood that a vote against the amendment did not mean a vote against the inclusion of foreign occupation in the text but, rather, as a vote against the alternative wording on the issue.

The representative of Denmark , aligning herself with the statement by Sweden, said consultations on operative paragraph 6(b) had been very difficult and very tense. In recognition of concerns expressed by numerous delegations, the co-sponsors of the draft had agreed to include a reference to foreign occupation in the text, and to add hostage-taking and terrorism as well, all in an effort to bring the draft closer to universal acceptance by the Assembly. In order to maintain that broad compromise, all three elements should be kept in the text. The concrete meaning of the proposed amendments over the killings of peoples, as opposed to persons, introduced a collective dimension that was outside the scope of the paragraph. As such, Denmark would reject the proposed amendments and urged others to do likewise.

The representative of Syria, aligning herself with the statement made on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, expressed regret over the fact that her delegation’s concerns had not been taken into account in the text of the draft resolution. The wording in operative paragraph 6(b) was not clear, nor did it hold any meaning since the “persons affected by” terrorism, hostage-taking or foreign occupation was too ambiguous and did not take into consideration those living “under” foreign occupation. For that reason, Syria would vote in favour of the proposed amendments and urged all other countries to do the same.

The Committee then rejected paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of the proposed amendment, by a recorded vote of 78 against to 60 in favour, with 29 abstentions (Annex V).

In a general statement after the vote, the representative of Costa Rica said his delegation had abstained because the amendment would go beyond the scope of the text under discussion. Costa Rica had traditionally supported that resolution and, for the reason given, it had chosen, this time, to abstain.

The representative of Egypt asked that it be noted that the language of the proposed amendment was the exact language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the language used in the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Committee then moved to take action on paragraph 1(c) of the proposed amendment. Speaking in explanation of vote, before the vote, the representative of Argentina said her delegation had co-sponsored the draft resolution due to an awareness of the need to end extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, acts which continued to be committed. All individuals and groups that continued to be subjected to such practices should be protected and references to that specific group, those discriminated against due to sexual orientation, should not be excluded. The term “whatsoever” referred to all groups, which was not necessarily the focus intended. The inclusion of sexual orientation would ensure that the draft was clear and would stress the need to protect that particular group. For those reasons, Argentina would vote against the proposed amendment.

The representative of the Netherlands said his delegation would also vote against the amendment. “Let us call a spade a spade,” he said, noting that the United Nations should not shy away from addressing the problem by its name and should confront the issue. States often accepted that crimes against groups due to their sexual orientation and a lack of action increased impunity in that regard. The Special Rapporteur had noted the link between arbitrary killings and sexual orientation, and it was hard to understand the unwillingness of some States to address the issue. He thus called on all Member States to vote against the amendment.

Sweden’s delegate said quite some time had been spent in informal consultations on the issue of the inclusion of “sexual orientation” in the text. The reason for the inclusion of the phrase was based on observations made for the first time in 1999, by the Special Rapporteur regarding the link between sexual orientation and arbitrary executions. The language had not been removed over the years because evidence had shown that the problem continued to exist. Including the reference would alert States regarding the need to address the issue in the proper manner. Though “whatsoever” might be presumed to include that group, the issue still needed to be highlighted specifically. Sweden would vote against the proposed amendment and she urged other delegations to do the same.

The proposed amendment was rejected by a recorded vote of 77 against to 59 in favour, with 25 abstentions (Annex VI).

The Committee then took action on the draft as whole, as contained in document A/C.3/63/L.35/Rev.1.

The representative of Benin said that his delegation would withdraw its co-sponsorship of the resolution.

The representative of Uganda then requested a vote on the draft.

In a general statement, the representative of Sweden expressed regret over the request for a vote. The text had come a long way and negotiations had brought the draft as close as possible to a consensus. There was widespread agreement that the issue at hand was an important one and that the draft captured, overall, the concerns of delegations. Sweden would vote in favour of the draft and she respectfully called on all other delegations to do the same.

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to none against, with 57 abstentions (Annex VII).

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the United States said, although her delegation had abstained from voting, it joined the co-sponsors of the draft in condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Countries such as her own, who continued to maintain capital punishment on its books, should abide by their international obligations and should use such punishment for only the most serious of crimes. She noted that the language of the draft addressed two bodies of law, specifically international human rights law, as noted in preambular paragraph 3, and international humanitarian law. At the same time, in preambular paragraph 6, it notes the complementary and mutually reinforcing relationship between the two. Other parts of the text suggest that those different bodies of law applied in different circumstances. However, preambular paragraph 9 notes the intention of the resolution, which is to prevent, combat and eliminate the abhorrent practice. The United States did not believe that the resolution needed to touch on situations where international humanitarian law was applicable. The law of war provided a related, but different, framework for addressing that abhorrent conduct.

Continuing, she said that operative paragraph 8 and some other paragraphs could be improved to better recognize the differences between those two bodies of law. That said, it was important also to recognize the improvements that had already been made in relation to previous texts. In regard to references to the International Criminal Court in the text, there were some factual errors in the text in terms of what was or was not under the Court’s jurisdiction. It was unfortunate that more neutral language could not have been found when referring to the Court in the draft and that divisions over the Court itself had spilled over into resolutions on other issues. She also expressed regret over the undue politicization of parts of the resolution, in particular in regard to foreign occupation, and expressed hope that, in the future, changes would be made so as to allow the United States to show its full support for the draft and to vote in its favour.

Speaking also in explanation of vote, the representative of Iran said his country condemned the practice and believed that all States must eliminate those practices. He had taken part in informal consultations, during which he proposed amendments to enhance the text, so as to engender the widest possible support. He had strong reservations on paragraph 5, saying that any reference to those that retained the death penalty would undermine the universal responsibility of states to prevent extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary killings. The strong position of several delegations on sexual orientation, as contained in paragraph 6, which had no legal definition and foundation in international human rights instruments, should have been respected.

The representative of Israel said his country condemned such acts of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, but he was unable to support the language that blurred the distinction between those types of executions and killings in situations of armed conflict. His Government was committed to upholding international law, but nevertheless could not accept the inconsistent references to international law in the text. He was also concerned by the politicization of the draft, which “permeated a certain aspect of the resolution”. Coming from a region where political leaders were assassinated, he regretted not being able to support that text.

The representative of Sudan said that, in light of the opinion of OIC members, his Government appreciated the consensus reached on operative paragraph 5 and rejected aspects of paragraph 6. On paragraph 9, however, he remarked that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court did not extend into the national jurisdiction of States, because the Rome Statute had specified that to be the case. That paragraph had no consequence except to States that were bound by the Statute.

The representative of Barbados said he supported the first of two sets of amendments acted upon earlier, and had also supported the resolution as a whole because his Government condemned extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary killings.

The representative of Jamaica said her country supported efforts aimed at combating extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary killings, and was pleased that paragraph 5 had been amended. But references to the death penalty in the text would imply that that practice amounted to a form of extrajudicial and arbitrary execution. If so, her country did not share that opinion.

The representative of Egypt noted the improvement to the text this year as compared to the last, with the exception of the content of paragraph 6(b). He had hoped that the co-sponsors would have incorporated the amendment proposed by the OIC in that regard. Had that been the case, his Government would have been able to have joined the list of co-sponsors. He hoped that next year, the authors would be open to dealing with that issue once more.

The Committee then turned its attention to the draft text on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/63/L.39/Rev.1) and the amendment contained in document A/C.3/63/L.78. But, at the request of its main sponsor, the representative of Mexico, the Committee decided that action be deferred until tomorrow because consultations were still underway. The Chair suggested that if negotiations could be completed by the end of today, he would be willing to return to that text later.

Following that decision, the Committee took up the draft resolution on elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief(document A/C.3/63/L.34/Rev.1). The representative of France, its main sponsor, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said she would like to withdraw document A/C.3/63L.34/Rev.1 in favour of the original text, L.34, so as to facilitate the draft’s speedy approval. She then called on the Secretariat to note changes to the text as submitted at the end of October, which was being circulated in the room for the benefit of all delegates, and proceeded to announce those changes orally.

After several minutes, the representative of Sudan, on a point of order, said he objected to the approach being taken by the representative of France in laboriously reading each change to the text, because he found it confusing. Agreeing, the representative of Egypt said it seemed that amendments were in fact being made to L.34/Rev.1 and not L.34, and that there was some difficulty in following the representative of France’s train of thought.

The representative of France said a draft Rev.1 had been submitted on Friday, which had not been officially released. However, because she would like to have the text adopted today, she had elected to read the changes out loud. The Chair, however, agreed with others in saying that that method was producing much confusion, leading him to propose that the text be dealt with tomorrow. The representative of France agreed, though she cautioned that the Committee was not likely to escape the possibility of hearing further oral amendments tomorrow.

The Committee was expected to take action on draft resolution on the Committee on the Rights of the Child (document A/C.3/63/L.46/Rev.1) and its related programme budgetary implications (document A/C.3/63/L.61*). However, as the Secretary informed the Committee, documentation was not yet available and action would need to be postponed to the following day.

Similarly, when the Committee moved to take action on draft resolution on the report of the Human Rights Council for the period from 10 September 2007 to 24 September 2008 (document A/C.3/63/L.57/Rev.1**) and its related programme budget implications of that action, contained in document A/C.3/63/L.77, the representative of Cuba asked that the resolution be addressed the following day, in an effort to garner broad support for the draft.

The Committee then moved to the draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/63/L.16/Rev.1) and its related programme budget implications of that action, contained in document A/C.3/63/L.69.

The representative of Uruguay, the main sponsor, said the draft was the fruit of extensive negotiations and numerous informal consultations. She made a few oral revisions to the English version of the text, which had already been distributed informally in the room. Among the many challenges that stood in the way of the full enjoyment of human rights for children was child labour, and that issue was addressed in the resolution, in step with its definition as recognized by States parties to the International Labour Organization (ILO). The root causes of child labour, such as poverty and a lack of education, were also addressed. The draft called on States to translate the need to eradicate child labour into real action and requested that the Secretary-General include, in his report, progress made in fighting child labour and efforts towards its elimination. The draft also maintained its reference to concerns over the appointment of a new Special Rapporteur. The omnibus resolution sought to be as broad as possible, including all essential elements and covering all concerns expressed. Though some delegations were considered by that scope, they should be assured that the co-sponsors of the draft had considered each proposal individually and in depth before its inclusion.

The representative of Turkey said that his delegation disassociated itself from subparagraph (d) of operative paragraph 54 of the resolution and operative paragraph 55.

The representative of the United States said it was with a “heavy heart” that she requested a vote on the draft. Due to time constraints, last-minute changes had not been able to be thoroughly vetted by the very large number of co-sponsors and it was with regret that, as in years past, the United States would request a vote.

The representative of India said his delegation would support the draft, since the important omnibus resolution addressed a number of essential issues. However, he noted that India was not a State party to the relevant International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions in regard to child labour. Child labour was an issue that required a holistic and multipronged effort and, to that end, India continued to be committed to the fight against it.

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 180 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions.

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the United States welcomed the commitment of the United Nations and the Third Committee on issues relating to the rights of the child. The United States was equally committed to the issue and had worked to ensure that the protection of the rights of children was fully integrated into its foreign policy. However, she also expressed disappointment over the failure to make a number of minor changes that would have allowed the United States to support the draft. In particular, she referred to preambular paragraph 2, which stated that the Convention on the Rights of the Child “must constitute” the standard, and in operative paragraph 2, which might have been improved by urging States to “consider” becoming States parties to the Convention, as each State had a sovereign right to make such decisions on their own. Finally, operative paragraph 31, which recognized the contribution of the International Criminal Court in ending impunity for the most serious crimes against children, was not necessarily supported by fact, as it had not yet tried a single case in that regard.

The representative of Japan said she was concerned by certain paragraphs in the text that seemed to have programme budget implications. For instance, although the situation of children in armed conflict was of special importance, activities to address that issue should be funded through voluntary contributions. Such programme budget implications impaired the functioning of United Nations financial system.

The representative of Syria said she had voted in favour of the text, and that her country had worked to address the matter through its legislative and legal framework. She had no problems with the draft, in essence, but added that her Government would interpret paragraphs 12, 14, 15 and 39 in a manner consistent with national law.

The representative of Singapore said he had voted in favour of the draft because his Government supported the rights of the child. However, he had concerns regarding paragraph 3, on the need to withdraw reservations to Conventions. Article 19 of the law on treaties drew a distinction between permissible and impermissible reservations. Since the Convention on the Rights of the Child only forbade reservations that were incompatible with its objectives, he argued that it was inappropriate to insist that States reviewed permissible reservations with the aim of withdrawing them. He expressed concern at the trend to urge countries to quickly withdraw such reservations, because it could dissuade countries from acceding to such accords at all.

The representative of Uruguay said that, among the corrections that she had submitted to the Secretariat, a paragraph that should have appeared between paragraphs 53 and 54 seemed not to have been included in L.16/Rev.1. In response, the Secretary admitted that it was a mistake on the Secretariat’s part and assured the Committee that the text would be reissued for technical reasons.

At the invitation of the Chair, the representative of Uruguay read the paragraph, which would have the Assembly call on all States and relevant United Nations agencies and regional organizations to mainstream the rights of the child in conflict situations into their work. It would have those bodies ensure that their staff and personnel were properly trained on the issue, and be subject to codes of conduct. It would also have the Assembly encourage the participation of children in creating strategies to address the issue, giving due weight to each child according to the child’s age and maturity.

The representative of Sudan, on a point of order, objected to the addition of one more paragraph to a text after it had already been approved by the Committee. The Committee had faced a similar situation when it took action on a resolution on obstetric fistula, but was told that additional paragraphs could only be added once the draft reached the General Assembly. Responding, the Secretary said that the difference between that situation and today’s was that the mistake had been on the Secretariat’s part today, rather than an omission by the main sponsor. The Chair added that today’s omission had been announced while the Committee was still on the relevant agenda item.

The representative of Norway, also speaking on behalf of New Zealand and Switzerland, acknowledged some significant improvements in the text while, at the same time, expressing longstanding concerns about the negotiating framework of the resolution. A more open process might allow for further progress to be made. In addition, while the omnibus approach had value in bringing together some children’s rights texts for more systematic consideration, the current resolution was “unwieldy” and might restrict the amount of appropriate attention to all contemporary challenges or give the impression that issues not in the omnibus were not important. In view of those concerns, the omnibus resolution should not necessarily be seen as the exclusive vehicle for promoting the rights of the child and other initiatives might complement the omnibus approach.

The representative of Liechtenstein commended the two facilitators for their efforts to build consensus on the draft resolution. The draft contained positive language on many issues of great importance, though he expressed regret over the exclusion of a reference to Security Council resolution 1820 (2008), which was absent from the chapter on children in armed conflict, despite its relevance. A fundamental review of the negotiation framework would also be worthwhile as the current framework had resulted in a text that was long and difficult to read. The omnibus approach was, in principle, the right one, but ‘fresh thinking” could help improve its effectiveness in the future.

Before concluding its consideration of agenda item 60(a), Implementation of Human Rights Instruments, the Committee took note of the Secretariat’s note regarding the appointment of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on violence against children (document A/63/203).

On a point of order, the representative of Sudan asked for greater clarification in regard to his previous concerns and the adoption of the draft, after which the Chair informed the Committee that it was his understanding that the resolution had been adopted, with its added paragraph.

ANNEX I

Vote on Mercenaries

The draft resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of people to self-determination (document A/C.3/63/L.50/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 51 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Chile, Fiji, New Zealand, Switzerland, Tonga.

Absent: Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Combating Defamation of Religions

The draft resolution on combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 85 in favour to 50 against, with 42 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia.

Absent: Albania, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Right to Food

The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/63/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 180 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: United States.

Abstain: None.

Absent: Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tuvalu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Right to Development

The draft resolution on the right development (document A/C.3/63/L.30/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 177 in favour to 1 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: United States.

Abstain: Canada, Israel.

Absent: Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Amendment to Extrajudicial Executions Text

The amendments to operate paragraph 6(b) of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, included in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) (document A/C.3/63/L.75) were rejected by a recorded vote of 78 against to 60 in favour, with 29 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

In favour: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mongolia, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sri Lanka, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Belize, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ghana, Guyana, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Amendments to Extrajudicial Executions

The amendments of operative paragraph 6(b) of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution contained in paragraph 1(c) of document A/C.3/63/L.75 was rejected by a recorded vote of 77 against to 59 in favour, with 25 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.

In favour: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mongolia, Namibia, Rwanda, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent: Afghanistan, Algeria, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Extrajudicial Executions

The draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution (document A/C.3/63/L.35/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to none against, with 57 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela.

Against: None.

Abstain: Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Rights of the Child

The draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/63/L.16/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 180 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: United States.

Abstain: None.

Absent: Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kiribati, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

* *** *
For information media • not an official record
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/gashc3941.doc.htm

JEG's BURMA NEWS

WHO is WHO in BURMA, Translations into English

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER

Blogging LIVE

There Live Blogging

JOTMAN

MIZZIMA News

KALADAN Press - Dedicated for Rohingya Media

SHAN HERALD AGENCY FOR NEWS

DANIEL PEDERSEN

INNER CITY PRESS - UN

RADIO FREE ASIA NEWS

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Recent Posts from Burma Wants Freedom and Democracy

Recent posts from WHO is WHO in Burma

THE NUKE LIGHT OF MYANMAR

LABELS Select

ADOPT A PEN-PAL

BURMESE PRISONERS ABROAD

BURMA NEWS LINKS

Korea Dictator a Nuclear threat

BDC: Burma's Radio

GENERATION WAVE - Free Them All

URGENT Call to ALL BLOGGERS to show Solidarity for:

FREE THEM ALL NOW

BLOGGERS FOR BURMA

DOCUMENTS TO READ - SCRIBD

QUOTE on Justice

Arakan Refugee Relief Committee

FREE BURMA RANGERS- OK

SEELAN PALAY's Blog

SINGAPORE DEMOCRATS' NEWS

Status of Chinese People

About Me

Followers

Blog Archive

TINY URL

U R

Network