wikileaks ico  Home papers ico  Cables mirror and Afghan War Diary privacy policy  Privacy
IdentifierCreatedClassificationOrigin
09USUNNEWYORK1048 2009-11-17 20:28:00 UNCLASSIFIED USUN New York
Cable title:  

UN THIRD COMMITTEE TAKES ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN,

Tags:   PHUM PREL PGOV KWMN UNGA 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0013
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1048 3212028
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 172028Z NOV 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7653
INFO RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 3950
					  UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001048 

DEPT FOR IO/HR, DRL/MLGA, PRM/PIP, S/GWI

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM PREL PGOV KWMN UNGA
SUBJECT: UN THIRD COMMITTEE TAKES ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN,
TORTURE, AND OTHER RESOLUTIONS



1. SUMMARY: On October 29 and November 10th the Third Committee of
the UN General Assembly took action on five resolutions, adopting
all by consensus, and defeating an amendment to the Violence against
women resolution which related to foreign occupation. The
resolutions on the situations of human rights in Iran and the DPRK
sparked debate and the right of reply. END SUMMARY.



2. During formal meetings on October 29 and November 10, the Third
Committee took action on A/C.3/64/L.4/Rev.1, (Policies and Programs
Involving Youth); and A/C.3/64/L.16/Rev.1, (Intensification of
Efforts to Eliminate All Forms of Violence against Women.) Sudan
introduced an amendment to the later draft, A/C.3/64/L.25*.
Resolution A/C.3/64/L.4/Rev.1 (Policies and Programs Involving
Youth) was adopted by consensus without any amendment. Resolutions
A/C.3/64/L.5/Rev.1 (Realizing the Millennium Development Goals for
persons with disabilities), A/C.3/54/L.19 (Improvement on the
situation of women in rural areas) and A/C.3/64/L.23/Rev.1 (Torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) were
adopted without a vote.



3. After the Netherlands introduced draft resolution
A/C.3/64/L.16/Rev.1, Sudan introduced amendment L.25* which included
text that had been in the resolution adopted last year, addressing
violence against women in instances of foreign occupation and
terrorism. The Netherlands delegate pointed out that the amendment
did not fit the institutional nature of the draft text and would
significantly shift its balance. The U.S. and Peru voiced their
disapproval of the amendment in an explanation of vote (EOV) before
the vote. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 52 in favor to 60
against, with 40 abstentions. Colombia and Serbia had an EOV;
Colombia voted against the amendment and Serbia, as a co-sponsor of
the amendment, abstained from voting. NOTE: The amendment was
defeated primarily due to abstentions, no votes and absences from
sub-Saharan countries in a reaction to Egyptian attempts to dominate
the African group. END NOTE.



4. The committee then adopted by consensus draft resolution
A/C.3/64/L.16/Rev.1, (Intensification of Efforts to Eliminate All
Forms of Violence against Women.) Syria and Malaysia made
statements after action supporting attention to foreign occupation.
Liechtenstein decided to forego presenting an amendment on impunity
in of the failure of the Syrian amendment.



5. After the adoption of the Torture resolution, L.23/Rev.1, China,
Chile, Syria, and South Africa explained their respective positions.
China disassociated itself with paragraph 29 of the resolution
which referenced the Special Rapporteur's interim report. Chile
said it would have preferred keeping the reference to capital
punishment. Syria urged Member States to take all measures to
prevent torture and commented that war, the threat of war, or
political instability should not be excuses for conducting torture.
South Africa said it would have preferred a more specific approach
to torture to address such issues as the closure of the facilities
in Guantanamo Bay, rights of victims, and accountability of people
responsible for torture.



6. Twenty-nine resolutions were introduced on November 10, including
the Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran
(A/C.3/64/L.37) and the Situation of human rights in the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) (A/C.3/64/L.35). In reaction,
Iran and the DPRK exercised their rights of reply. Iran
characterized resolution L.37 as misleading and exaggerated,
criticizing Canada, the resolution's main sponsor, for its human
rights record. The DPRK rejected L.35 stating that it was full of
fabrication and concerned only with political interests not human
rights.



RICE