UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE TAKES ACTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001138 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL AORC UNGA IR BM KN SUBJECT: UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE TAKES ACTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS IN IRAN, BURMA, AND THE DPRK ¶1. SUMMARY: On November 21, the UN General Assembly Third Committee passed by vote draft resolutions on the human rights situations in Iran, Burma, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Delegations opposing the draft resolutions argued that the Human Rights Council, rather than the General Assembly, was the proper forum to address human rights concern, and that such resolutions constituted interference in Member States, internal affairs. The Committee rejected two no-action motions by comfortable margins, one put forward by the Burmese delegation, and one by the Iranian delegation. The Committee passed three other draft resolutions by vote, and adopted four by consensus. END SUMMARY IRAN, BURMA, AND THE DPRK -------------- ¶2. On November 21, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) Third Committee took action on draft resolutions on the human rights situations in Iran, Burma, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK),passing each by vote. Draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.26, entitled "Situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," passed in a vote of 95 in favor (U.S.),24 against, and 62 abstentions. Draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.33, entitled "Situation of human rights in Myanmar," passed in a vote of 89 in favor (U.S.), 29 against, and 63 abstentions, while the Burmese delegation's no-action motion was rejected in a vote of 90 against (U.S.),54 in favor, and 34 abstentions. Draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.40, entitled "Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran," passed in a vote of 70 in favor (U.S.),51 against, and 60 abstentions, while the Iranian delegation's no-action motion was rejected in a vote of 81 against (U.S.),71 in favor, and 28 abstentions. The United States is a co-sponsor of all three country-specific human rights draft resolutions. ¶3. The DPRK Deputy PermRep issued a statement calling the draft resolution on the situation in his country "the product of a political conspiracy to enforce a change to the ideology and system of the DPRK." The draft's co-authors, he said, were "blindly obeying the United States, the worst peace disturber and human rights violator of the world." The Burmese PermRep called the draft resolution on Burma substantively and procedurally "flawed," and accused the co-sponsors of exploiting human rights for political purposes. Further, he said the presentation of the draft to the Committee demonstrated an "utter lack of respect" for the Human Rights Council (HRC),and was "clearly a case of selectively targeting a developing country that is in disfavor with the powerful Western countries." The Advisor to the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs called the draft resolution on Iran "unwarranted, non-objective and politically motivated," and said it contained a number of "falsified and unsubstantiated elements" that contradicted the real human rights situation in Iran. He accused Canada (the main sponsor),the United States and Israel (co-sponsors) of committing gross human rights violations, and called for the international community to pay attention to the human rights situation in all countries "without exception or ulterior considerations." ¶4. Delegations issuing general statements or Explanations of Vote on the country-specific human rights draft resolutions largely argued against the drafts on the basis of one or both of two points. First, many delegations argued that the UNGA was not the appropriate body in which to address human rights concerns in specific countries, as the HRC had been established for exactly that purpose. They emphasized that the HRC's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was the best mechanism to examine the human rights situations in Member States, and that unlike the draft resolutions, the UPR applied equally to all States, and was transparent, forward-looking, and non-confrontational. Second, several of the drafts, opponents maintained that passing the draft resolutions would constitute interference in States, internal affairs, contrary to the principles enshrined in the UN Charter. Egypt, Syria, CUBA (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement),Venezuela, Belarus and Malaysia were among the most vocal opponents to the draft resolutions, in addition to the countries named in the drafts. They and other opponents called the draft resolutions "politicized," "selective," and "one-sided," claiming that they applied double-standards, undermined the HRC's work, and damaged the Third Committee's credibility. A fuller reflection of the debate can be found at www.un.org/apps/pressreleases. OTHER ACTION -------------- ¶5. Also on November 21, the Committee adopted the following draft resolutions by consensus: A/C.3/63/L.32, entitled "Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights;" A/C.3/63/L.41, entitled "International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Forced Disappearance;" A/C.3/63/L.38/Revision 1, entitled "Protection of migrants;" and A/C.3/63/L.13/Revision 1, entitled "Trafficking in women and girls." The United States is a co-sponsor of draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.13/Revision 1. The United States delivered an Explanation of Position on draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.38/Revision 1; the complete text of this and all other U.S. statements can be found at www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov. ¶6. The Committee passed three other draft resolutions by vote. Draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.31, entitled "Human rights and unilateral coercive measures," passed in a vote (called by the United States) of 124 in favor, 52 against (U.S.),and no abstentions. Draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.44, entitled "Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order," passed in a vote (called by the United States) of 120 in favor, 52 against (U.S.),and seven abstentions. Draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.53/Revision 1, entitled "International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination," passed in a vote of 178 in favor (U.S.), none against, and no abstentions. Operative Paragraph 13, which authorizes the treaty body of the Convention to meet for an additional week per session in 2009-2011, passed in a separate vote (called by the U.S. for budgetary reasons) of 165 in favor, one against (U.S.),and eight abstentions. (NOTE: The Egyptian delegate called for the vote on the draft resolution after a long procedural argument with the Committee Chair. The delegate disagreed with the Chair's ruling that a resolution could be adopted by consensus after a separate paragraph vote had taken place. Several other delegations weighed in, agreeing with the Chair's ruling. While repeatedly indicating his disagreement with the ruling, the Egyptian delegate declined to formally appeal the Chair's decision, which would have resulted in a Committee vote on the decision.) Wolff