UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY TAKES ACTION ON THIRD

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 USUN NEW YORK 001197 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: UNGA PHUM SUBJECT: UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY TAKES ACTION ON THIRD COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS REF: A. USUN NEW YORK 01082 ¶B. USUN NEW YORK 01112 USUN NEW Y 00001197 001.2 OF 003 ¶1. (U) Summary: The UN General Assembly took action on Third Committee resolutions in a plenary meeting on November 18, including the adoption of the contentious resolutions on the situation of human rights in the DPRK, Iran, and Belarus. The General Assembly rejected a no-action motion on the Iran resolution, the only no-action motion put forth in the plenary meeting. In addition, it rejected an amendment proposed by Venezuela on the Iran resolution to delete the request for a report by the UN Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Iran. The General Assembly also took action on all other Third Committee resolutions with the exception of those containing program budget implications. These remaining resolutions are expected to be considered on December 21, except for the resolution on the Durban Review Conference which may be deferred until March. End Summary Country-Specific Human Rights Resolutions -------------- ¶2. (U) The resolution on the DPRK was adopted 101(US)-22-59. Laos delivered the only explanation of vote, calling for non-selective treatment of human rights issues but also expressing sympathy for the families of abductees. ¶3. (U) When the General Assembly began consideration of the Iran resolution, Iran immediately put forth a no-action motion. As he did in the Third Committee, the Iranian delegate argued that the Human Rights Council (HRC) is the most competent U.N. institution to deal with human rights issues. He called the resolution "categorically unwarranted and unjustified" and said it should be excluded from the agenda. Portugal and San Marino spoke against no-action, noting that human rights are part of the mandate of the GA, which must consider all issues within its mandate when brought forth by member states. They expressed regret that the no-action motion was proposed even after a no-action motion was rejected in the Third Committee and said adoption of the motion would undermine the work of the Third Committee. The United States endorsed the statement made by San Marino. ¶4. (U) Venezuela spoke in favor of the no-action motion, criticizing the use of country specific human rights resolutions for political purposes and arguing that such resolutions are selective and do not benefit the victims of human rights. Venezuela argued in favor of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism of the HRC to address human rights issues in a non-selective, objective way. Pakistan also spoke in favor of the no-action motion. The no-action motion failed 80-84(US)-19. ¶5. (U) Venezuela then unexpectedly offered an amendment to delete part of operative paragraph 5 of the resolution, which calls for a comprehensive report by the UN Secretary-General on the human rights situation in Iran. Again, Venezuela stated that such a report would undermine the HRC and should be handled by the UPR mechanism. Iran supported Venezuela's proposal and accused Canada (the resolution's original sponsor) of using the GA for a "misinformation campaign against Iran." Canada expressed disappointment that these concerns were never raised in the Third Committee and noted the irregularity of introducing a last minute amendment in the GA. The Canadian Deputy Permanent Representative also questioned whether the report could be such a cause for USUN NEW Y 00001197 002.2 OF 003 concern, noting that Iran's principal criticism regarding the resolution was that the information in it was out of date and that a report would address those concerns. Canada also called attention to the fact that a report was also requested in the DPRK resolution the GA had just adopted. The amendment was rejected 57-70(US)-45. The committee then adopted the resolution by a vote of 73(US)-53-55. ¶6. (U) The General Assembly then took action on the resolution on the situation of human rights in Belarus, without a no-action motion. Belarus reiterated its Third Committee claim that the resolution was "unjustified" and "politically motivated" and argued that it undermined the HRC, which had eliminated the mandate of the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Belarus. The resolution was nonetheless adopted by a vote of 72(US)-33-78. After the adoption, Belarus said the resolution was "not in keeping with reality" and had no legal, political, or moral force. He said Belarus cooperates internationally on human rights and is willing to engage in a dialogue with all countries, without exception, on human rights issues. ¶7. (U) Action on the resolution on the situation of human rights in Burma was postponed to allow for review of its financial implications. The resolution includes provisions for funding of the Secretary-General's Special Envoy for Myanmar. Other Third Committee Resolutions -------------- ¶7. (U) The General Assembly took action on all but four of the remaining Third Committee resolutions. Most were adopted by consensus, as in the Third Committee, including the U.S. resolution entitled "Eliminating rape and other forms of sexual violence in all their manifestations, including in conflict and related situations." ¶8. (U) Actions on other individual items from Third Committee were as follows: Agenda Item 63: Advancement of Women "Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women" was postponed for review of the program budget implications (PBI). Agenda Item 65: Report of the Human Rights Council "Institution building of the UN Human Rights Council" was postponed for review of the PBI. "The Human Rights Council Report" was adopted by consensus, but as in the Third Committee, the U.S. and Israel disassociated from consensus. Agenda Item 66: Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Children "The Rights of the Child" was adopted 183-1(US)-0. Agenda Item 68: Elimination of racism and racial discrimination "Inadmissibility of Practices Fueling Contemporary Forms of Racism" was adopted 130-2(US)-53. The Marshall Islands joined the U.S. in voting against the resolution. USUN NEW Y 00001197 003.2 OF 003 "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 Programmed of Action" was postponed for review of the PBI. Agenda Item 69: Rights of peoples to self-determination "The Use of Mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self determination" was adopted 127-52(US)-6. "The Right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" was adopted 176-5(US)-4. Israel, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau joined the United States in voting against. Australia, Cameroon, Canada and Nauru abstained. Agenda Item 70b: Human Rights Questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. "Moratorium on the use of the death penalty" was adopted 104-54(US)-29. Antigua-Barbuda, Barbados, Singapore, Nigeria, Egypt, Malaysia, China, Bangladesh, Syria, and the Bahamas all spoke against the resolution, generally arguing that states have the sovereign right to determine their own criminal justice systems, that the death penalty is not prohibited under international law, and that capital punishment is applied only for the most serious crimes only after due process of law. Egypt reiterated the value it places on the lives of unborn children. "Strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization," sponsored by the United States, was adopted after a paragraph vote on PP5, as in the Third Committee. The paragraph was adopted 168(US)-0-13. The resolution as a whole was adopted 182(US)-0-2. "Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights" was adopted 129-54(US)-4. "Combating defamation of religions" was adopted 108-51(US)-25 "The Right to Development" was adopted 136-53(US)-0 "Human rights and unilateral coercive measures" was adopted 132-54(US)-0 "Promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of human rights by all" was adopted 126-54(US)-6. "The Right to Food" was adopted 186-1(US)-1 with the DPRK abstaining. "Respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character" was adopted 120-55(US)-10. Khalilzad