ASSEMBLY WOULD REAFFIRM IMPORTANCE OF RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT FOR EVERY PERSON IN ALL COUNTRIES, ACCORDING TO THIRD COMMITTEE TEXT APPROVED BY VOTE

26 November 1997

Press Release
GA/SHC/3460

ASSEMBLY WOULD REAFFIRM IMPORTANCE OF RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT FOR EVERY PERSON IN ALL COUNTRIES, ACCORDING TO THIRD COMMITTEE TEXT APPROVED BY VOTE

19971126 Decision To Convene World Conference on Racial Discrimination No Later than 2001 also Approved; Committee Concludes Work for Current Session

The General Assembly would reaffirm the importance of the right to development for every human person and all peoples in all countries, in particular the developing countries, as an integral part of fundamental human rights by the terms of one of two draft resolutions, by the terms of a draft resolution approved by a recorded vote in an extended meeting of the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) as it concluded its work this evening.

Approved by a vote of 104 in favour to 12 against, with 33 abstentions (see Annex III for details of the vote.), the text on the right to development was among six proposals approved at the Committee's last meeting for the current session, in which it approved a total of 72 draft proposals.

Other terms of the text would have the Assembly recognize that the Declaration on the Right to Development constitutes an integral link between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action through its elaboration of a holistic vision integrating economic, social and cultural rights with civil and political rights.

Before the vote on the text as a whole, the Committee rejected -- by a vote of 37 in favour to 96 against, with 8 abstentions (Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Korea) (see Annex II) -- amendments proposed by the European Union on the text, which was sponsored by the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. The amendments consisted in the deletion of seven paragraphs on issues concerning the lack of participation of developing countries in the decision-making processes at the global level on macroeconomic policy issues; resources released by effective disarmament measures to be used for comprehensive development, in particular that of developing countries; new obstacles to the realization of the right to development, including the negative effects of globalization; the inclusion of the Declaration on the Right to Development in the International Bill of Human Rights; and human rights as an instrument of trade protectionism.

Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

Explanations of position of the two votes on the draft were made by the representatives of Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union), Colombia, Canada, Australia, Slovenia, Norway (on behalf of the Nordic countries, United Kingdom and the Netherlands), Japan, United States, Liechtenstein, Russian Federation, New Zealand, China, France, Germany and Spain.

By another text, approved by a vote of 123 in favour to 2 against (Belarus, Russian Federation), with 24 abstentions (see Annex I), the Assembly would condemn in the strongest terms the continued forcible expulsion of individuals from their homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the practice of destroying the homes of those forcibly expelled, and call for the immediate arrest and punishment of individuals engaged in those actions.

The representatives of Egypt, Singapore, Jordan, Greece, Lebanon, Bahrain, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Sudan, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Senegal, Oman, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Libya, Russian Federation, Pakistan, Morocco, Costa Rica, Tunisia and Niger spoke in explanation of position.

Approved without a vote, another draft resolution would have the Assembly express profound concern at, and unequivocal condemnation of, all forms of racism and racial discrimination, in particular, all racist violence, including related acts of random and indiscriminate violence. The United States spoke in explanation of position.

A related draft text, also approved without a vote, would note with grave concern that millions of people remain victims of racism and racial discrimination. While urging the implementation of the Programme of Action for the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, the Assembly would decide to convene a world conference on racism and racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance no later than the year 2001. The representatives of the United States and Cuba spoke in explanation of position.

By the terms of a revised draft, sponsored by Canada, and approved without a vote, the Assembly would reiterate its strong condemnation of the crime of genocide and all other violations of human rights which were perpetrated in Rwanda in 1994. It would also express concern at alleged continuation of human rights violations in that country. The representative of the United States spoke in explanation of position.

Also this afternoon, the Committee took note of several reports before it for consideration during the current session and approved its draft 1998- 1999 biennial programme of work, as orally revised and introduced by the Chief of the Documentation, Programming and Monitoring Section of the Division of General Assembly Affairs and Economic and Social Council Affairs of the Department for General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services, William Bunch.

Third Committee - 1b - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

Concluding remarks were made by the representatives of Colombia (for the Non-Aligned Movement), Antigua and Barbuda (for Latin American and Caribbean States), Pakistan, South Africa (for the Southern African Development Community), Luxembourg (for the European Union), Australia (for Western European and Other States), Lesotho (for African States), Lebanon, Belarus (for Eastern European States), United Republic of Tanzania (for the "Group of 77" developing countries), United States and the United Kingdom.

The Committee also paid tribute to the representative of Costa Rica, Emilia Castro de Barish, on her fortieth year as a representative to the General Assembly.

Committee Work Programme

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this afternoon to continue taking action on all outstanding drafts before it.

Draft Texts for Action

By a draft resolution on measures to combat contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/52/L.31/Rev.1), the General Assembly would express profound concern at, and unequivocal condemnation of, all forms of racism and racial discrimination, in particular all racist violence, including related acts of random and indiscriminate violence. It would express the same concern and condemnation for all forms of expression of racism, including propaganda, activities and organizations based on doctrines of superiority, of either one race or group of persons that attempt to justify or promote racism and racial discrimination in any form. The same concern and condemnation would apply to manifestations of intolerance against migrant workers and members of their families, as well as against gypsies, nomads or other vulnerable people.

By the draft, the Assembly would categorically condemn those who misuse some print, audio-visual and electronic media and new communication technologies including the Internet, in inciting acts of violence motivated by racial hatred. It would call upon all governments and intergovernmental organizations, with the assistance of non-governmental organizations, to supply relevant information to the Special Rapporteur based on situations in various countries, and urges all governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur.

The draft is sponsored by the United Republic of Tanzania on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China.

By a draft resolution on the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and the convening of a world conference on the issue (document A/C.3/52/L.38/Rev.1), the Assembly would note with grave concern that despite efforts of the international community, the principal objectives of the two Decades to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination have not been attained and that millions of people remain victims. It would urge the Secretary-General, United Nations bodies, the specialized agencies, all governments and relevant organizations to implement the Programme of Action for the Third Decade, paying particular attention to the situation of indigenous people. It would decide to convene a world conference on racism and racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance no later than the year 2001.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Mexico, Turkey and the United Republic of Tanzania.

A statement submitted by the Secretary-General contains the programme budget implications of the draft resolution on the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and the convening of a world conference on the issue (document A/C.3/52/L.74). It states that the full cost for servicing the conference and the preparatory process is tentatively estimated at $2.5 million. The additional costs of convening the conference outside

Third Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

Geneva would be the responsibility of the host government. Should the Assembly adopt the draft resolution, no additional appropriation would be required under the proposed 1998-1999 programme budget.

By a draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/52/L.66/Rev.1), sponsored by Colombia on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, the Assembly would reaffirm the importance of the right to development for every human person and all peoples in all countries, in particular the developing countries, as an integral part of fundamental human rights as well as the potential contribution its realization could make to the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It would recognize that the Declaration on the Right to Development constitutes an integral link between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action through its elaboration of a holistic vision integrating economic, social and cultural rights with civil and political rights.

Further by the draft, the Assembly would reiterate its commitment to implementing the results of the World Conference on Human Rights, which reaffirms that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and that democracy, development, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. It would also reiterate that lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic environment at the international level. The need for States to cooperate with a view to promoting, encouraging and strengthening universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without any distinction as to race, sex, language or religion would be reaffirmed. It would be stressed that human rights should not be used as an instrument of trade protectionism.

In addition, the Assembly would take note of the importance given to human rights by the Secretary-General in his measures and proposals for the reform of the United Nations, and urge him to give high priority to the promotion and realization of the right to development. The Commission on Human Rights would be called upon to consider carefully the report of the second session of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts to elaborate a strategy for the implementation and promotion of the right to development, as set forth in the Declaration on the Right to Development, in its integrated and multidimensional aspects, bearing in mind the conclusions of the Commission's Working Group on the Right to Development, and the conclusions of the Vienna Conference and recent United Nations development-related Conference.

Further by the draft, the Assembly would note the efforts made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights within her mandate, and encourage her to continue the coordination of various activities with regard

Third Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

to the implementation of the right to development. It would note also that measures taken for the promotion and realization of the right to development should be more effective, and call upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights to explore further ways and means to achieve that objective. The High Commissioner would be further requested, within her mandate, to continue to take steps for the promotion, protection and realization of the right to development, by, among other measures, drawing on the expertise of the funds, programmes and specialized agencies of the United Nations system related to the field of development.

The Secretary-General would be requested to inform the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-fourth session and the General Assembly at its fifty-third session of the activities of the organizations, funds, programmes and specialized agencies of the United Nations system for the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development, as well as obstacles identified by them to the realization of the right to development. All Member States would be called upon to make further concrete efforts at the national and international levels to remove the obstacles to the realization of the right to development. The Commission would be called upon to continue to make proposals to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, on the future course of action on the question, in particular on practical measures for the implementation and enhancement of the Declaration on the Right to Development.

It would be noted that the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an ideal occasion for the international community to assess the progress achieved in: realizing freedom from fear and freedom from want as the highest aspiration of the common people; and promoting the advent of a world where the inherent dignity of all members of the human family is recognized.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Rwanda (document A/C.3/52/L.65), sponsored by Canada, Ethiopia and Rwanda, the Assembly would reiterate its strong condemnation of the crime of genocide and all other violations of human rights which were perpetrated in Rwanda in 1994, and express its concern at the alleged continuation of human rights violations in that country. Remaining deeply concerned about the continued suffering experienced by the survivors of the genocide and massacres, the Assembly would urge the Government of Rwanda and the international community to provide them with the necessary assistance. It would also express grave concern at the killings of civilians, including elderly women and children, during attacks on genocide survivors, witnesses and other innocent people by militias and insurgents opposed to the Government of Rwanda.

The Assembly would condemn in the strongest terms any acts of violence or intimidation against United Nations staff or any other international staff serving in Rwanda and pay tribute to the memory of those killed. It would

Third Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

urge all States to cooperate fully, without delay, with the International Tribunal for Rwanda. It would also appeal to the international community to contribute further financial and technical support to the Government of Rwanda for the strengthening of the Rwandan judicial system and for the reconstruction of the human rights infrastructure.

The Assembly would also call upon States, United Nations bodies and agencies and other international organizations to intensify their efforts to contribute financial and technical support to the efforts of the Government of Rwanda aimed at the resettlement of all the refugees and survivors of the 1994 genocide and massacres, as well as the implementation of the national reconstruction and resettlement programme.

A draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (document A/C.3/52/L.69/Rev.1), would have the Assembly call for the full and consistent implementation of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the annexes thereto, (the "Peace Agreement") and the Basic Agreement on the Region of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (the "Basic Agreement") by all parties to them. It would condemn in the strongest terms the continued forcible expulsion of individuals from their homes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the practice of destroying the homes of those forcibly expelled, and call for the immediate arrest and punishment of individuals engaged in those actions. It would also condemn the continuing restrictions on freedom of movement, as noted by the Special Rapporteur in her report, between the Republika Srpska and the Federation and urge all parties to guarantee the freedom of movement of returnees and residents of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Recognizing the extraordinary suffering of the victims of rape and sexual violence and the necessity for an appropriate response to provide assistance to those victims, the Assembly would express its concern, in particular, for the welfare of those victims who are currently among the internally displaced or otherwise affected by the war and who have experienced severe trauma and require psychological and other assistance. It would insist that all parties implement fully the commitments made in the Peace Agreement to protect human rights, and also insist that the parties act to promote and protect democratic institutions of government at all levels in their respective countries.

The Assembly would call upon the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to undertake substantially greater efforts to institute democratic norms, especially in regard to the promotion and protection of free and independent media, and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It would also call upon it to ensure the speedy and consistent investigation of acts of discrimination and violence against refugees, and to ensure the

Third Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

arrest and punishment of those responsible for those acts. It would further call upon that Government to allow for the return of nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and refugees currently outside its territory.

The draft would also urgently demand that the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia take immediate action to put an end to the repression of, and prevent violence against, non-Serb populations in Kosovo, including acts of harassment, beatings, torture, warrantless searches, arbitrary detention and unfair trials, and also to respect the rights of persons belonging to minority groups in the Sandjak and Vojvodina and of persons belonging to the Bulgarian minority and to allow the immediate, unconditional return of the long-term mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to Kosovo, Sandjak and Vojvodina, called for in Security Council resolution 855 (1993) of 9 August 1993.

The Assembly would call upon the Government of Croatia to undertake greater efforts to strengthen its adherence to democratic norms, especially in regard to the promotion and protection of free and independent media; and to cooperate fully with the United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (UNTAES) to assure that the reintegration of Eastern Slavonia occurs peacefully and with respect for the human rights of all residents and returning displaced persons and refugees, including those belonging to minorities, and their right to remain, leave or return in safety and dignity.

In addition, the Assembly would strongly condemn instances of harassment of displaced Serbs and reports of collusion or active participation in such acts by Croatian members of the Transitional Police Force of the Region of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium, and call upon the Government of Croatia to strengthen and to take continuing measures to end all forms of discrimination by Croatian authorities in the areas of employment, promotion, education, pensions and health care, among others.

The Assembly would be called upon the Commission on Human Rights for Bosnia and Herzegovina to intensify its activities concerning alleged or apparent violations of human rights, or alleged or apparent discrimination of any kind. It urges the parties to implement results of recent municipal elections, through the Constitution, without delay of councils in all municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It would urgently call upon all States and all parties to the Peace Agreement to meet their obligations to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. It would strongly condemn the continuing refusal of the authorities of the Republika Srpska and the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to arrest and surrender indicted war criminals known to be present in their territories, as they have agreed to do.

Third Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

The draft is sponsored by Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Morocco, Pakistan, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States.

In addition the Committee has before it in document A/C.3/52/L.77 its organization of work and draft biennial programme of work for 1998-1999, which is transmitted in a note by the Secretariat. The document contains in annex I measures on the organization of work of the Third Committee and in annex II the draft biennial programme of work of the Committee for 1998-1999.

Action

ALESSANDRO BUSACCA (Italy), Committee Chairman, said that because of ongoing consultations he had been asked to postpone the meeting until 4:30 p.m.

The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said that whatever was ready should be presented and then consultations should continue on other items.

The representative of Guinea-Bissau said that action should be taken where there was agreement and the others should be left for consultations.

The representative of the United States said he agreed with the two representatives "101 per cent".

The representative of Kenya said he supported the others "1 million per cent".

The Committee then first took up the draft resolution on measures to combat contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/52/L.31/Rev.1).

The CHAIRMAN said Turkey should have been included as an original co-sponsor and the draft had no programme budget implications.

The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, the main sponsor, said Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Finland and Norway were also co-sponsors.

She also said amendments had been circulated and they were as follows:

Third Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

in operative paragraph 9, "certain countries" was deleted and "various parts" inserted in its place; also, "focused" was deleted and "effective" was inserted. In operative paragraph 10, "appropriate" was inserted between "take" and "measures". In operative paragraph 11, "condemns those who" was deleted and "deplores the" was inserted; "some" was deleted and "of" was inserted; "in inciting" was deleted and "to incite" was inserted. In operative paragraph 13, "based on situations in various countries" was deleted.

Also, she said, a preambular paragraph 6 bis should be added as follows: "Noting that the use of such technologies can contribute to combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." Operative paragraph 4 should be amended to read, "Affirms that acts of racist violence against others stemming from racism does not comprise expression of opinion but rather offences;"

Spain, Poland, Austria, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Romania, Republic of Moldova, Israel and Liechtenstein became additional sponsors.

Speaking before action, the representative of the United States said he would join consensus on the draft. He noted that the United States Government's ability to put limits on speech was limited by the Constitution. Therefore, there were some paragraphs that would not be consistent with United States law. He said the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania had been a great asset during the negotiations on the draft.

The resolution was approved without vote.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and the convening of a world conference on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/52/L.38/Rev.1), along with a statement of programme budget implications (document A/C.3/52/L.74).

The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, the main sponsor of the draft, on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said there were a number of amendments. The tenth preambular paragraph should read: "Noting with concern that the dissemination of racist and xenophobic propaganda is also being channelled through new communication technologies including computer networks such as the Internet". Operative paragraph 8,

which would become 8 bis, would read: "Affirms its determination to combat violence stemming from intolerance (on the basis of ethnicity), which it considers an issue of particular gravity".

Third Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

The representative of Benin said that due to a typographical error, the placement of the asterisk in the French text listing the co-sponsors suggested the wrong representative for the Group of 77 and China.

The draft was approved as orally revised without a vote.

Speaking in explanation of position, the representative of the United States said the issue of racism was an example of precisely the kind of theme that could be brought to the General Assembly in a special session as a means to enhance its standing and relevance. Ways were being sought to link the discussion to a broader international dialogue while results of previous world conferences were still being implemented, including that of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna, which dealt with racism and racial discrimination as a major concern. He did not oppose adoption of the draft without a vote.

The representative of Cuba said his country had always been in the forefront of the fight against racism. Cuba had serious reservations about the text because it departed severely from the original. Also, the reference to programme 19 in paragraph 2 of the statement on financial implications was inappropriate.

The representative of Canada joined in the adoption of the draft by consensus. He said it should be remembered that the preparatory process outlined in the draft was purely an indicative one at present.

The Committee then took up the draft on the human rights situation in Rwanda (document A/C.3/52/L.65/Rev.1). The CHAIRMAN said the text had no financial implications.

The representative of Canada, the main sponsor, said negotiations on the draft had just been completed and he hoped it would be adopted by consensus. He said Canada would be the sole sponsor. Ethiopia had been of great assistance as co-chair.

The representative of Sudan said he had only the original document, not the revised version.

The CHAIRMAN suspended the meeting. When the meeting resumed, the representative of Egypt said the draft resolution was an unofficial text and there were no translations, which went against rule 56 of the rules of

procedure. That should not constitute any precedent, but in light of the late hour, he would agree with the process of action. However, the record should reflect he refused to let such action become a precedent.

Third Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

The CHAIRMAN said the desire to avoid setting a precedent was behind the decision being made now by the Committee about whether the rule should be suspended.

The representatives of France, Sudan, Spain, Algeria, China, and Costa Rica said they would not object to taking action but a precedent should not be set.

The draft was approved without a vote.

Speaking in explanation of position, the representative of the United States said that he would have wanted the resolution to call more attention to the upsurge in violence. Particularly troubling was the similarity between violence in Rwanda now and the cycles of violence that Rwanda had gone through during 1994.

The Committee then took up the draft on the right to development (document A/C.3/52/L.66/Rev.1).

The CHAIRMAN said the resolution had no programme budget implications.

The representative of Colombia, the main sponsor, said a paragraph had been left out and it should be read out again because it was important.

Ms. NEWELL, the Committee Secretary, read aloud paragraph 16 bis, as follows: "Affirms in the above regard that the inclusion of the Declaration on the Right to Development in the International Bill of Human Rights would be an appropriate means of celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

The representative of Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the European Union, proposed the deletion of preambular paragraphs 5, 15, 17, 20, and operative paragraphs 7, 8, 16 and 16 bis. The European Union still had problems with the draft, especially with the preceding paragraphs because the need to develop could not sacrifice the other human rights. More time was needed to make the language more specific. Perhaps if that additional time had been available, the resolution could have been adopted without a vote.

The representative of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, said he would speak in English to make the position of the Non-Aligned clear. The draft had been under intensive negotiations and had been the subject of many meetings and views. After many days, it had become clear that it would not be possible to reach agreement. That was the reason for the revised version. He was sorry that the European Union was introducing amendments at such a late stage. Consensus would have been nice but the paragraphs referred to by the European Union were of vital importance. He enumerated the reasons for why each paragraph was important and provided

Third Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

examples.

He said he was surprised that those paragraphs had been requested to be taken out. After 50 years of accepting those principles on the Universal Declaration, it was disheartening to put the draft to a vote. Paragraph 16 bis flowed from the previous one. Circumstances had changed. It would be more than justice to bring into the International Bill of Human Rights one of the most important rights, the right to development. The Non-Aligned countries would push for that as part of the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary. They could not accept deletion of the paragraphs.

The representative of Canada said he wanted to make an explanation of position before the vote but delivering it after the vote.

The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said he supported Colombia on behalf of the Non-Aligned countries and asked that the paragraphs not be removed.

The representative of Kenya said that the paragraphs should not be deleted. The European Union should make it clear that they were not opposed to transparency and clarity. They should know the world was interconnected and there were five stages of development. He would not accept the deletion. The right to development was a basic right and he would fight to the end for it.

The representative of Canada said he did not know a vote had been called.

The CHAIRMAN said Colombia had asked for it.

The representative of Colombia said he had asked for consensus, not a vote.

The CHAIRMAN said that if the European Union amendments were to be included, they needed to be voted on.

The representative of Cuba said a number of delegations had said to both the chair and the European Union that the amendments were inappropriate and therefore they should be withdrawn. If the European Union insisted, a vote would be needed but the Presidency of the European Union had not been heard from.

The representative of Luxembourg, on behalf of the European Union, said she was not in a position to withdraw the amendments and would see what she could do in a few minutes.

Third Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

The representative of Sudan said she understood that the vote had not been called for by Colombia but if a vote was called, she assumed that amendments would be rejected.

The CHAIRMAN said the item would be postponed until the other issues had been acted on.

The Committee then took up the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (document A/C.3/52/L.69/Rev.1).

The CHAIRMAN said there were no programme budget implications.

The representative of the Russian Federation, speaking on a point of order, said the document containing the revision had not been introduced until today and it was a new resolution, not a procedural one. The Committee should therefore postpone action until Friday.

The representative of Sudan asked for a clarification on the status of the revised text, whether the revisions had made it new or just revised.

Ms. NEWELL, the Committee Secretary, said that by definition a revision took the place of all preceding drafts.

The CHAIRMAN said some amendments by the United States had been added which made the draft different from the one introduced yesterday.

The representative of the United States, the main sponsor of the draft, said the amendments were as follows: at the end of preambular paragraph 7, the phrase "and especially the recommendation set forth therein" was deleted. In operative paragraph 8, the phrase "in the former Yugoslavia" was deleted and replaced by the proper designation to read, "the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)".

In operative paragraph 14, the word "citizens" was deleted, replaced by the word "nationals". In operative paragraph 15, there was an addition after Bulgarian minority, which read "and to allow the immediate, unconditional return of the long-term mission of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to Kosovo, Sanjak and Vojvodina, called for in Security Council resolution 855 (1993) of 9 August 1993". In operative paragraph 16, after "(Serbia and Montenegro)", add "in conformity with the rule of law and international obligations". In operative paragraph 31, after free access, delete the phrase, "in accordance with applicable international law" and add the phrase "and organizations" after institutions. In operative paragraph 40, delete "in particular" and replace it with "inter alia".

Third Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

The representative of the Russian Federation asked whether those amendments were procedural.

The CHAIRMAN said that before answering the question he wanted to hear other views regarding the proposal to postpone action on the item until Friday.

The representative of the United States said there had been extensive consultations. Russia had played an important role and at least a collegial agreement on the issues had been reached. There was nothing more to be done on the resolution and consultations had been held on whether there was any sense in continuing discussion. There was no prospect for change and therefore action should be taken.

The representative of the Russian Federation, speaking on a point of order, said the issues of substance and procedure were beginning to be confused. If the issue was procedural, then action could be taken, but it had to be clarified whether the changes went beyond procedure. If so, then the amendments had to be reported to the Russian capital 24 hours ahead of time. The procedural request was warranted.

The representative of Luxembourg said she supported the United States position. The text would not change further and as a co-sponsor, she wanted to take action.

The representative of Egypt said that requesting a postponement was a right. Rule 120 of the rules of procedure said that documents had to be available 24 hours ahead. However, there had been an official document before the revision and so Egypt did not want to postpone and was agreeing on action now.

The representative of New Zealand said action should be taken now.

The representative of Costa Rica said she was a sponsor and concurred that no more changes could be made. Action should be taken now because she would not be here Friday.

The representative of Norway said he was also a co-sponsor of the draft that had been under consultation for a long time. Further extensive amendments were not likely and action should be taken today.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he wanted a reply to his earlier question. Responding to Egypt, he asked if the Committee wanted to create another precedent. A precedent was not being set on Rwanda so it

Third Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

should not be done on that item either.

The representative of Spain said she was not getting an interpretation into Spanish.

The representative of the Russian Federation said there was no need to set precedents.

The representative of Egypt said the revised document was dated 25 November, which constituted 24 hours, and action could be taken.

The representative of the Russian Federation said rule 120 clearly stated the period from which the 24 hours had to be counted. The opposite situation had occurred the previous year on the same resolution just before the Thanksgiving holiday. The Russian Federation then had acceded to having the vote deferred until Friday. In the spirit of gentlemanly cooperation and in the spirit of rule 120, action should be deferred.

The CHAIRMAN said the issue was not entirely procedural but also not unusual. The changes were just amendments to the text. In the situation on the resolution regarding Rwanda, a whole new document was in question. Action would take place today.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he bowed to the Chairman's decision but would stick by his position and ask for a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN said the text had no financial implications.

The representative of Croatia said it was a pleasure to be a co-sponsor. Most concerns had been taken into account. The text more accurately reflected the differences in views. Croatia was on the Council of Europe and was pleased that the resolution called on the High Commissioner. Croatia's commitment to human rights and to regional concerns was evident.

The representative of Luxembourg said she expressed full support for the draft and yet wanted to restate a formulation to represent the correct name for one of the republics, which was the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, without Serbia and Montenegro in parenthesis. Also, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway and Poland were additional co-sponsors.

Speaking in explanation of position, the representative of Egypt expressed full support for the draft but had reservations on preambular

Third Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

paragraph 7, which reads: "Calling attention to the reports and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), including in her most recent report of 17 October 1997". He said that the Special Rapporteur's report had referred to capital punishment and therefore there was a conflict. There was no consensus on abolition of the death penalty and the Human Rights Commission had exceeded its rights when it called for abolition of the death penalty in the report.

The representative of the Netherlands said she had co-sponsored the draft.

The representative of Singapore said, in explanation of position, that he supported the resolution but had reservations on preambular paragraph 7. The Special Rapporteur's comments on the death penalty had clearly exceeded her mandate. There was no international consensus on abolition of capital punishment. Many countries believed capital punishment was an important part of their judicial system. Singapore supported the draft overall but rejected the Special Rapporteur's gratuitous comments on the death penalty in her report.

The representative of Jordan said there was no consensus on abolition of the death penalty. He entered reservations about preambular paragraph 7. Even as amended, the paragraph referred to the report of the Special Rapporteur.

The representative of Greece said she adhered to what Luxembourg had said. She would vote in favor of the draft as an expression of support for the human rights of minorities. The principle should be applied to all States. Greece was not a co-sponsor because additional effort had to be made to ensure protection from both secessionists and those wanting to interfere over borders.

The representative of Lebanon said he affirmed support for the draft but had reservations with regard to the seventh preambular paragraph. There was no consensus on capital punishment and calling for its abolition ran counter to shariah law. He wanted his view recorded.

The representative of Bahrain said he would vote in favour but expressed reservations with regard to the seventh preambular paragraph. Capital punishment had religious dimensions and a social impact contrary to his own religion and culture. He wanted his view recorded.

The representative of Iran, stating that he supported the draft, added

Third Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

that he wanted his reservations against the seventh preambular paragraph noted for the record. Capital punishment was applied in his religion and he could not support anything that went counter to that.

The representative of Syria said he supported the resolution but had reservations about the implications regarding the death penalty and wanted the view noted in the summary records.

The representative of Saudi Arabia said he supported the resolution but with reservations about the implication regarding the death penalty. He wanted the view to be noted in the summary records.

The representative of Mauritania said he supported the draft but had reservations about implications regarding the death penalty, a view he wanted reflected in the record.

The representative of Myanmar said he supported the resolution but expressed reservations regarding implications about the death penalty and he wanted his views noted in the summary records.

The representative of Sudan said the paragraph in the Special Rapporteur's report that had been recalled by the preambular paragraph was erroneous in referring to the universality of the call against capital punishment.

The representative of Kuwait expressed reservations about the implications regarding the death penalty.

The representative of the United Arab Emirates said he supported the resolution but had reservation about the seventh preambular paragraph, which referred to the Special Rapporteur's report and its statement on capital punishment.

The representative of Qatar said he had reservations about the seventh preambular paragraph.

The representative of Senegal said he would vote yes but he had reservations about the seventh preambular paragraph because there was no consensus on capital punishment.

The representative of Oman said he had reservations about the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said he had reservations on the seventh preambular paragraph.

The resolution was put to a vote and was approved by a vote of 123 in

Third Committee - 17 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

favour and 2 against (Belarus, Russian Federation), with 24 abstentions. (See Annex I.)

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Libya said he had voted for the resolution and wanted some reservations noted on the record. The report of the Special Rapporteur, as reflected in the seventh and eighth preambular paragraphs, showed the mandate had been exceeded. Instead of addressing human rights in line with internationally recognized norms, the recommendations blatantly exceeded the confines of the mandate. The Rapporteur had stated that capital punishment was against international law, which was incorrect. Capital punishment was a legitimate part of juridical systems and he wanted the statement of position to be part of the official record.

The representative of the Russian Federation said his country was taking an active part in normalizing the situation in the former Yugoslavia, including in the human rights arena. A balanced approach was needed in all areas of the region. The co-sponsors showed the understanding of the need for objectivity and for a balanced text. Greater compatibility was needed between the text and international law. The stereotypes of the matter should be surmounted. He could not go along with the text as currently drafted. It contained errors that had been there before, and only a few cosmetic changes had been made. The draft was too hackneyed and it did not accurately reflect the situation. That did not help the countries involved. Russia had voted against the draft.

The representative of Pakistan said he had co-sponsored the draft. However, the report mentioned in the seventh preambular paragraph and its reference to capital punishment were incompatible with shariah and national laws. He wanted his reservations put on record.

The representative of Morocco said it had become a co-sponsor because the draft protected the Bosnian people. There was no consensus on capital punishment and that view should be entered on the record.

The representative of Costa Rica said she represented a country that had not had capital punishment for many years. That protection was part and parcel of the Constitution. Abolition of capital punishment was part of international law.

The representative of Tunisia said he did not feel bound by the seventh preambular paragraph or the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur.

The representative of Niger said that given the existence of the capital punishment in his country, he would not agree with the seventh preambular paragraph.

Third Committee - 18 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

The Committee then took up again the draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/52/L.66/Rev.1) following informal negotiations among some delegations.

The representative of Luxembourg said the European Union had participated actively in the negotiations on the draft resolution. However, those consultations had ended before there was an acceptable solution. She would maintain her position on the proposal she had made earlier to delete a number of paragraphs. She assumed that those paragraphs would be deleted. (Preambular paragraphs 5, 15, 17 and 20 as well as operative paragraphs 7, 16, and 16 bis.)

[Those paragraphs read as follows:

-- preambular paragraph 5: Emphasizing that development-oriented approaches to the promotion of human rights, as expressed by the Declaration on the Right to Development, constitute an important contribution to the development and strengthening of alternative approaches to the promotion and protection of all human rights;

-- preambular paragraph 15: Expressing its concern at the lack of participation of developing countries in the decision-making process at the global level on macroeconomic policy issues, with far-reaching impacts on the world economy and with negative implications for the exercise of the right to development in developing countries;

-- preambular paragraph 17: Also reaffirming that all States should promote the establishment, maintenance and strengthening of international peace and security and, to that end, should do their utmost to achieve general and complete disarmament under effective international control and to ensure that the resources released by effective disarmament measures are used for comprehensive development, in particular that of developing countries;

-- preambular paragraph 20: Expressing concern that more than 10 years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development, obstacles to the realization of the right to development still persist at both the national and international levels, and that new obstacles have emerged to the rights stated thereto, including, inter alia, the negative effects of globalization on the right to development, particularly in developing countries;

-- operative paragraph 7: Stresses that human rights should not be used as an instrument of trade protectionism;

Third Committee - 19 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

-- operative paragraph 8: Takes note of the importance given to human rights by the Secretary-General in his measures and proposals for the reform of the United Nations, and urges him to give high priority to the promotion and realization of the right to development;

-- operative paragraph 16: Notes that the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an ideal occasion for the international community to assess the progress achieved in: (a) Realizing freedom from fear and freedom from want as the highest aspiration of the common people; (b) Promoting the advent of a world where the inherent dignity of all members of the human family is recognized; and

-- operative paragraph 16 bis: Affirms in the above regard that the inclusion of the Declaration on the Right to Development in the International Bill of Human Rights would be an appropriate means of celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."]

The representative of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said he was now pleased to ask for a vote on the draft resolution. He was convinced that the majority of the Committee would "push the red button" (vote against the deletions of the paragraphs). All delegations should vote against the European Union's amendments, he said.

The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77, said the Group supported the position of the Non- Aligned Movement as stated by Colombia. She urged all members to "press the red button" -- vote against the deletion of the paragraphs proposed by the European Union.

The CHAIRMAN said a recorded vote had been requested on the deletions proposed by the representative of Luxembourg.

The representative of Sudan asked for a clarification on the vote. If the vote was to delete the paragraphs then the Non-Aligned Movement should vote against.

The CHAIRMAN said the vote was to delete the paragraphs as proposed by Luxembourg. Those in favour would "press the green button, those against would press the red button".

The CHAIRMAN said there would be a recorded vote on the deletion of paragraphs and another vote on the entire draft.

The representative of Cuba asked which delegation had asked for a recorded vote on the resolution as a whole.

The CHAIRMAN said it was the United States.

Third Committee - 20 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Colombia, said once again the absolute majority would vote in favour of the draft resolution because it responded to the concerns of the countries represented in the Committee.

The representative of Canada said the Committee was in agreement on the right to development, but there were different perceptions on what it meant and how to realize it. Real progress on the implementation of the right to development could only be made by a step-by-step approach. He hoped that the position taken today would be temporary since the draft resolution did not contain the elements that would advance the implementation of the right to development and which made it predictable that there could be no consensus on the text. He said he would vote against the resolution.

The representative of Australia said he supported strongly the right to development. He was disappointed that consensus had not been possible on the draft resolution this year, but the text contained a number of new elements that did not advance the implementation of the right to development. Australia intended to abstain in the vote on the resolution as a whole. He expressed the hope that there would be consensus on the issue again in the future.

The representative of Slovenia said he regretted that consensus had not been possible. He would vote against the European Union's amendments because the paragraphs related to a number of elements that were useful, such as in operative paragraph 16. The reason for the vote had not been sufficiently discussed and did not bode well for next year's commemoration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The negotiations on the draft had been disappointing. Additional efforts were needed to make the discussion on the right to development more productive, leading to consensus.

The representative of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries as well as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, said he regretted that consensus had not been reached. That was deplorable after the progress on the issue during the last two years in the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. This year's failure was particularly deplorable. His Government had given assistance towards promoting human rights in the development process and supported programmes to build democratic institutions and strengthen the rule of law. The resolution contained new and extraordinary elements on such issues as globalization and the participation of developing countries in the decision-making process at the global level on macroeconomic policy issues. Such issues should be dealt with outside of the context of human rights. Operative paragraphs 16 and 16 bis were of concern. True development required that individuals and groups took an active part in development. The right to development should be pursued and should be linked to all other human rights. It called for a comprehensive view of human rights.

Third Committee - 21 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

The representative of Japan said she recognized the importance of the right to development. She hoped that the draft resolution would be adopted without a vote. She did not find the new elements in the text, such as references to macroeconomic policy issues and disarmament issues, were appropriate to be addressed in the current draft. Japan would vote against the resolution as a whole.

The Committee then voted on the proposals made by the representative of Luxembourg.

By a recorded vote of 37 in favour to 96 against, with 8 abstentions (Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Korea), the Committee rejected the European Union's proposals. (See Annex II.)

The entire draft resolution was then approved by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 12 against, with 33 abstentions. (See Annex III.)

Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of the United States said he had voted against the draft resolution. He regretted that the efforts to reach consensus had failed and had resulted in a vote. He had profound disagreements with substantive issues in the draft resolution. He did not accept that the issues of globalization, macroeconomic policy and trade protectionism were proper topics for consideration in the various United Nations human rights forums.

He said he did not accept that the right to development should in any way be considered on par with the International Bill of Human Rights; nor did he accept that the Third Committee should take a position on disarmament; nor that a resolution on the right to development did not recognize that among the major obstacles to the realization of the right were corruption and failure to ensure good governance, administration of justice and the rule of law. Four- and-a-half years after the first consensus statement in Vienna on the subject, and after several consecutive consensus resolutions in the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, he believed that Member States would be able to proceed step-by-step, developed and developing countries together, toward a more complete understanding of what the right to development meant and how Member States could work together toward its realization.

The consensus had now been broken because some delegations had tried to move too fast on the question of what the right to development meant, while other delegations had been very sensitive to major changes and rejected discussion of issues that rightfully belonged on other United Nations forums, he said. The United States had no disagreement with the decision of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to make the right to development one of her own priorities. However, he expressed the hope that a

Third Committee - 22 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

more consensus-oriented approach would be taken by Member States before she devoted her time to that issue, in order not to place unnecessary obstacles in her path.

He regretted the present state of affairs. It came at a time when the United Nations was gaining stronger support from developed countries for human rights programmes that benefited developing countries, such as national institutions, electoral assistance, rule of law and administration of justice. He expressed the hope that all delegations would reflect on how they could retain the spirit of cooperation that prevailed on those issues as they approached the right to development at the Commission on Human Rights next March.

The representative of Liechtenstein said she had to abstained on the vote on the draft resolution particularly because of the new elements in such paragraphs as preambular paragraphs 15, 17 and preambular paragraph 8. It was disturbing to note that consensus on the right to development continued to be very fragile while at the same time there seemed to be a consensus on the importance of that inalienable human right. Some elements of the issue should be dealt with by the competent bodies, while consensus on the draft resolution would provide support for the High Commissioner for Human Rights. There was need for consensus on the issue.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he was disappointed that it had not been possible to reach a consensus, in spite of earlier agreements in the General Assembly and the Commission for Human Rights. The Russian Federation supported the draft resolution as a whole because it was essential to have international cooperation for implementing the right to development. He expressed the hope that at the forthcoming session of the Commission on Human Rights it would be possible to reach agreement on the draft on the right to development. He praised the diplomatic skills of the representative of Colombia.

The representative of New Zealand said he had abstained on the vote on the draft because he had reservations on a number of areas. He had voted in favour of the European Union's proposals to delete a number of paragraphs. Overall his position reflected the importance of the right to development as integral to human rights. He therefore regretted that there was no consensus. He looked forward to a more realistic approach to the issue next year.

The representative of China, a co-sponsor of the draft text, said he had stated that during the last few weeks the developing countries had demonstrated maximum flexibility in the negotiations on the draft resolution in order to achieve consensus. However, despite the efforts of the co- sponsors, the Committee had to vote on the draft text. He expressed regret

Third Committee - 23 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

and disappointment on the fact that a vote had been necessary. The promotion and realization of the right to development was a matter of utmost importance and an urgent desire for developing countries.

As the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration approached, the legitimate demands of developing countries for the right to development to be included in the International Bill of Human Rights should be met, he said. The draft resolution reflected the demands and aspirations of developing countries to promote the right to development. He expressed the hope that the draft resolution would be implemented comprehensively by the United Nations system, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. He urged all the countries concerned to discard their prejudices and take an active and cooperative approach towards implementing the draft resolution.

The representative of France said he had abstained on the vote. He regretted the lack of consensus, as it had been possible on the issue recently in the Commission on Human Rights. The international community should seek to be united again on such an important issue. He could not accept the text because it contained a number of factors that were alien to the right to development. The right to development was the right of every individual and should be the focus of any comprehensive approach to promoting human rights. He expressed the hope that there would be consensus on the issue at the next session of the Commission on Human Rights.

The representative of Germany said one third of the Committee Members had not voted in favour of the draft resolution -- which was a significant number. He was disappointed by the fact that there had been a vote on the draft text. The text contained extraneous issues. He appealed for the impasse to be corrected during the upcoming session of the Commission on Human Rights.

The representative of Spain said he endorsed the statements of the two last speakers. It was important that the next session of the Commission on Human Rights regained consensus on the issue. A realistic approach to the right to development was of utmost importance and the international community should seek to win consensus on it. There were a number of elements in the draft resolution that were difficult to accommodate at the current stage. He appealed to the co-sponsors to see if they could reconcile positions and bring a realistic vision to the concept of the right to development.

Other Matters

The representative of Cuba asked about the extension of the mandate of the Working Group of the Third Committee.

Third Committee - 24 - Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

The representative of Turkey, who had asked for a right of reply during the morning meeting in response to a statement by the representative of Iraq, said he had already explained his views on the situation in northern Iraq when he spoke on November 17. The CHAIRMAN, responding to the representative of Cuba, said it was up to the Committee to decide when and how it would convene the Working Group. He then expressed the Committee's appreciation to Ambassador Danilo Turk (Slovenia) for his work as Chairman of the Working Group of the Third Committee. The representative of Cuba said he expected the mandate of the Working Group to be extended as had been done in the past. The Committee then took note of the following reports of the Secretary- General on progress towards the realization of the right set forth in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; on the status of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture; on human rights and terrorism; on rape and abuse of women in the areas of armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia; on the human rights situation in southern Lebanon and West Bekaa; as well as the report of the Committee against Torture. WILLIAM BUNCH, Chief of the Documentation, Programming and Monitoring Section of the Division of General Assembly and Economic and Social Council Affairs, Department for General Assembly Affairs and Conference Service, introduced the draft 1998-1999 biennial work programme for the Third Committee and made a number of amendments. Following a number of questions, the Committee approved its work programme, as orally amended. The representative of Kazakhstan said he would like to record that his vote on the draft resolution on human rights and terrorism (document A/C.3/52/L.58) should have been in favour. The Committee then took note of the report of the Economic and Social Council (document A/52/3), in particular chapters I, IV and V and Chapter VII, which had been allocated to the Third Committee by the General Assembly, thereby concluding its work for the fifty-second session. The CHAIRMAN said the early conclusion of the Committee's work had been attributable to the hard work of all delegations. He noted that the Committee was less formal than the other Main Committee. The progressive streamlining of the Committee's work did not detract from the political relevance of the sensitive issues on the Committee's agenda. The new element of the Committee's work -- the informal briefings by high-level Secretariat personnel and special representatives had been successful and should be continued. The Committee should continue to explore ways of strengthening cooperation with the Second Committee (Economic and Financial). He expressed the Committee's gratitude for the work of the Committee Secretary and her staff and all Secretariat staff who had assisted in the Committee's work.

(annexes follow)

Third Committee 25 Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

ANNEX I

Vote on Situation of Human Rights in Former Yugoslavia

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (document A/C.3/52/L.69/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 2 against, with 24 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: Belarus, Russian Federation.

Abstain: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mali, Namibia, Nigeria, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Afghanistan, Armenia, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea- Bissau, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Palau, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia. (END OF ANNEX I)

Third Committee 26 Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

ANNEX II

Vote on Amendment to Right to Development Draft

The amendments proposed by the European Union to the draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/52/L.66/Rev.1) were rejected by a vote of 37 in favour to 96 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Against: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cape Vede, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation.

Absent: Albania, Armenia, Bahamas, Benin, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Croatia, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Jamaica, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Palau, Republic of the Congo, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX II)

Third Committee 27 Press Release GA/SHC/3460 49th Meeting (PM) 26 November 1997

ANNEX III

Vote on Right to Development

The draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/52/L.66/Rev.1) was approved by a vote of 104 in favour to 12 against, with 33 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua and New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Monaco, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine.

Absent: Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Honduras, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritius, Palau, Republic of the Congo, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *