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