THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES FOUR DRAFT TEXTS ON RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, AS IT CONCLUDES WORK FOR 56TH SESSION

Fifty-sixth General Assembly

Third Committee

61^st  & 62^nd Meetings (AM & PM)

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES FOUR DRAFT TEXTS ON RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION,

AS IT CONCLUDES WORK FOR 56^TH SESSION

Draft Supporting Establishment of Anti-Discrimination Unit,

Appointment of Experts by Secretary-General Approved by Vote of 137-2-2

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) this afternoon concluded its work for the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly by approving, over the course of morning and afternoon sessions, four draft resolutions relating to the elimination of racism and racial discrimination. 

According to an orally amended text on follow-up to the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which was approved by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (Australia, Canada), the Assembly would support a decision by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to establish an anti-discrimination unit to combat racism and to promote equality and non-discrimination.  (For details see Annex.)

Further, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to appoint five independent eminent experts, one from each region, to follow the implementation of the provisions of the Declaration and Programme of Action approved at the Conference.  It would also request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to cooperate with those five experts and report annually to the Assembly and the Human Rights Commission.

By other terms of the text, the Assembly would call upon all relevant organs, organizations and bodies of the United Nations system to become involved in the follow-up to the World Conference, which was convened in Durban, and would urge States to establish and implement without delay national policies and action plans to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including their gender-based manifestations.

The representatives of Israel, United States, Canada, Spain (for the European Union), Australia and Venezuela (for the “Group of 77” developing countries and China), spoke in explanation of position on the text.

In other action, the Committee, acting without a vote, approved an orally amended text on the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.  By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm that racism and racial discrimination,

xenophobia and related intolerance constitute a negation of the purposes of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It would have the Assembly request the Secretary-General to accord high priority to the activities of the Programme of Action for the Third Decade and, in that regard, to ensure that the necessary financial resources are provided for the implementation of such activities during the remainder of the Decade.  The text would also have the Assembly recognize that the outcome of the World Conference against Racism presents a guideline for the remainder of the Decade.

Again acting without a vote, the Committee approved an orally amended text on measures to combat contemporary forms of racism, by terms of which the Assembly would urge States that have not yet done so to consider ratifying or acceding to the international human rights instruments that combat racism and related intolerance, in particular to accede to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as a matter of urgency.

By other terms, it would reaffirm that violence against others stemming from racism did not constitute expressions of opinion, but rather offenses.  Also by the text, the Assembly would strongly condemn the fact that slavery and slavery-like practices still exist today in parts of the world and urge States to take immediate measures as a matter of priority to end such practices, which constitute flagrant violations of human rights. 

The representatives of Syria spoke following adoption of that text.

By the fourth orally amended text approved this morning, also without a vote, on measures to be taken against political platforms and activities based on doctrines of superiority which are based on racial discrimination or ethnic exclusiveness and xenophobia, including, in particular, neo-Nazism, the Assembly would urge States to take all available measures in accordance with their obligations under international human rights instruments to combat such phenomena. 

By its terms, the Assembly would urge all States to consider the adoption, as a matter of high priority, of appropriate measures to eradicate activities that lead to violence and condemn any dissemination of ideas based on doctrines of superiority, consistent with their national legal systems and in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other relevant treaties.

The Assembly would again resolutely condemn political platforms and activities based on doctrines of superiority.  Also, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to bring this text to the attention of Member States, relevant human rights bodies and mechanisms of the United Nations system.

The representative of the Russian Federation spoke following that text’s approval.

The representative of Venezuela, for the Group of 77 and China, introduced, and made the oral amendments to, the first three texts.  The representative of

(page 1b follows)

Belarus introduced, and made oral amendments to, the final text on behalf of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Federation.

In other business this afternoon, the Committee decided to take note of the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the work of its 58^th and 59^th sessions.

Fuad Mubarak Al-Hinai (Oman), Committee Chairman, made a concluding statement.

The morning meeting was twice suspended to permit further consultation.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to conclude its work for the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly by taking action on draft proposals relating to the elimination of racism and racial discrimination. 

Before the Committee were four draft resolutions, three of them -- sponsored by Venezuela -- relating respectively to the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination; the follow-up to the World Conference against racism; and measures to combat contemporary forms of racism and racial discrimination.  The fourth text -- measures against political platforms based on doctrines of superiority -- is sponsored by Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Federation.

Also before the Committee was a statement submitted by the Secretary-General containing the programme budget implications of the draft on follow-up to the World Conference against racism.

A draft entitled Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination (document A/C.3/56/L.83/Rev.1) would have the Assembly reaffirm that racism and racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance constitute a negation of the purposes of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It would have the Assembly request the Secretary-General to accord high priority to the activities of the Programme of Action for the Third Decade and, in this regard, to ensure that the necessary financial resources are provided for the implementation of such activities during the remainder of the Decade.

By other terms, the Assembly would reiterate its call upon all governments, United Nations bodies, the specialized agencies, intergovernmental and regional organizations and interested non-governmental organizations to contribute fully to the effective implementation of the Programme of Action for the Third Decade.

The text would have the Assembly recognize that the outcome of the World Conference against racism would show the path for the remainder of the Decade and that the success of both the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference and the Programme of Action for the Third Decade will require political will and adequate funding at the national, regional and international levels, and international cooperation.

According to the draft resolution entitled comprehensive implementation of the outcome and follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (document A/C.3/56/L.84/Rev.1), the Assembly would express its satisfaction with the outcome of the World Conference, which constitutes a solid foundation for further action and initiatives. 

Also by the text, the Assembly would call upon all relevant organs, organizations and bodies of the United Nations system to become involved in the follow-up to the World Conference and invite specialized agencies and related organizations of the United Nations system to strengthen and adjust, within their respective mandates, their activities, programmes and medium-term strategies to take into account the follow-up to the World Conference.

The text would also have the Assembly invite all human rights treaty monitoring bodies and all mechanisms and subsidiary bodies of the Commission on Human Rights to consider the relevant provisions of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action in the discharge of their respective mandates. 

Further, it would urge States to establish and implement without delay national policies and action plans to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including their gender-based manifestations.  States would also be called upon to formulate and implement without delay at the national, regional and international levels policies and plans of action to combat those phenomena.

The text would also have the Assembly support the decision by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to establish an anti-discrimination unit to combat racism and to promote equality and non-discrimination.  

The Assembly would request the Secretary-General to appoint five independent eminent experts, one from each region, to follow the implementation of the provisions of the Declaration and Action Programme.  It would also request the High Commissioner for Human Rights to cooperate with those five experts and report annually to the Assembly and the Human Rights Commission, taking into account information and views provided by States, relevant human rights treaty bodies, special procedures and other mechanisms of the Human Rights Commission and other institutions.

The Assembly also would recognize the critical importance of placing the outcome of the Durban Conference on an equal footing with previous United Nations world conferences in the human rights and social fields.

The statement submitted by the Secretary-General containing the programme budget implications of the draft on follow-up to the World Conference against racism (document A/C.3/56/L.87) notes that should the above text be adopted, an additional provision would be required over and above the regular budget resources appropriated for the biennium 2002-2003.  That provision would represent a charge against the contingency fund and, as such, would require an increase in appropriation for the biennium 2002-2003 of approximately $1.2 million for the establishment of the anti-discrimination unit and the work of the five experts.

By a draft entitled measures to combat contemporary forms of racism and racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/56/L.85/Rev.1), the General Assembly would urge States that have not yet done so to consider ratifying or acceding to the international human rights instruments that combat racism and related intolerance, in particular to accede to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as a matter of urgency, with a view to achieving universal ratification by the year 2005.

Also by the text, the Assembly would urge States to adopt and implement, or strengthen, national legislation and administrative measures that expressly and specifically counter racism and prohibit racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance whether direct or indirect, in all spheres of public life.  It would also urge States to establish, on the basis of statistical information, national programmes, which may include affirmative or positive measures, to promote access of individuals and groups of individuals who are or may be victims to racial discrimination of basic social services.

Further, the Assembly would condemn the misuse of print, audio-visual and electronic media and new communication technologies, including the Internet, to incite violence motivated by racial hatred, and it would call upon States to take all necessary measures to combat this form of racism in accordance with commitments undertaken under the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

By other terms, it would reaffirm that violence against others stemming from racism did not constitute expressions of opinion, but rather, offenses.  It would also express its profound concern about 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 Assembly would further express its profound concern about and condemnation of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against, and stereotyping of, migrant workers and members of their families, persons belonging to minorities and members of vulnerable groups in many societies.

Also by the text, the Assembly would strongly condemn the fact that slavery and slavery-like practices still exist today in parts of the world and urge States to take immediate measures as a matter of priority to end such practices, which constitute flagrant violations of human rights. 

According to the text on measures to be taken against political platforms and activities based on doctrines of superiority which are based on racial discrimination or ethnic exclusiveness and xenophobia, including, in particular, neo-Nazism (document A/C.3/56/L.86/Rev.1), the Assembly would state that it remains convinced that political platforms and activities based on doctrines of superiority and violent national ideologies, which are based on racial discrimination or ethnic exclusiveness and xenophobia, including neo-Nazism, must be condemned as incompatible with democracy and accountable governance.

By the text, the Assembly would urge States to take all available measures in accordance with their obligations under international human rights instruments to combat political platforms based on doctrines of superiority and violent nationalist ideologies. 

The Assembly would urge all States to consider the adoption, as a matter of high priority, of appropriate measures to eradicate activities that lead to violence and condemn any dissemination of ideas based on doctrines of superiority, consistent with their national legal systems and in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. 

The Assembly would again resolutely condemn political platforms and activities based on doctrines of superiority, which are based on racial discrimination or ethnic exclusiveness and xenophobia, including neo-Nazism, which entail abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms. 

Also, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to bring this resolution to the attention of Member States, relevant human rights bodies and mechanisms of the United Nations system.

Action

The Committee began by taking up the text on follow-up to the conference against racism (document A/C.3/56/L.84/Rev.1).

A debate ensued between the representatives of Canada and Venezuela (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China) about the order of consideration of the draft resolutions, as the representative of Canada had to seek instructions on draft resolution L.84/Rev.1.  Venezuela’s representative objected to Canada’s proposal to postpone action on that draft until after other action.

The representative of Venezuela, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, introduced oral amendments to the draft.

The eighth preambular paragraph should read:  “Emphasizing that in implementation of commitments undertaken under the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adequate resources at the national, regional and international levels were necessary and constitute an important element in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”.

She also introduced amendments to operative paragraphs 6, 15, 16 and 17. Operative paragraph 17 should read:  “Further recognized that review and appraisal will be critical for effective follow-up to the World Conference and decides to consider the progress made in this regard as well as to consider, overall, the modalities of the review and appraisal at its 59th session”.

She announced that Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and Luxembourg had joined as co-sponsors of the draft.

The delegations of Liechtenstein, Turkey, Norway, Iceland, Czech Republic, Russian Federation, Republic of Korea and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia also joined as co-sponsors.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Israel said he would vote against the draft resolution.  The events at the World Conference in Durban were an affront not only to Israel, but to any individual valuing the true objectives of international efforts to combat racism and racial discrimination.  The hijacking of the Durban Conference to isolate and attack Israel had done a disservice to those who would have benefited from genuine action against racism.  Instead of contributing to the fight, certain delegations had acted to increase hatred by singling out one country for defamation.  His delegation therefore, had withdrawn from the Conference.

He regretted that during the Conference, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict had repeatedly been invoked.  That conflict was one between two peoples, which could only be resolved by renunciation of violence and a commitment to negotiations conducted in the spirit of compromise and mutual recognition.  He regretted that certain delegations had sought to eliminate any reference to anti-Semitism in the draft resolutions.  Israel fully supported international efforts

aimed at eradication of racism, racial discrimination and related forms of intolerance.  Because of that position, his country could not support the outcome of Durban.  Had there been a paragraph by paragraph vote on the other draft resolutions, he would have refrained from joining consensus on any paragraph which supported establishing Durban as the basis on which the international community conducted its fight against racism.

The text was then approved by a vote of 137 in favor to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions (Australia, Canada).  (For details see Annex.)

FUAD MUBARAK AL-HINAI (Oman), Committee Chairman, emphasized the important nature of the action taken.

The representative of the United States, in explanation of position, said national experience had shown that the battle against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance was a long one, requiring a strong, unequivocal commitment.  One part of that struggle as a world community was the fight against anti-Semitism.  A civilized society must guard against that, or any ideology that attempted to denigrate one group of people and that led to hatred, exclusion and violence.  The United States had withdrawn from the World Conference against racism and had not been part of the agreement to adopt the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, because the Conference had placed inappropriate and unacceptable focus on a single country-specific situation irrelevant to the Conference’s subject matter.

He said his country had additional concerns about the draft regarding expenditure of funds from the regular United Nations budget.  Those provisions called for funds toward the operation of an anti-discrimination unit in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the establishment of a body of five eminent persons to monitor the implementation of the Durban outcome documents.  As his country had not agreed to establishment of either body, he objected to approval of those mechanisms in the draft and had voted against it.  Nevertheless, the United States remained committed to combating racism and related intolerance.

The representative of Canada, speaking in explanation of position on draft resolutions L.83, L.84 and L.85 said the Durban Conference had been inexcusably mired in issues related to the Middle East.  Canada had chosen to stay, rather than leaving the Conference, in order to exert a positive influence on its proceedings.  His delegation disassociated itself from all references in the Durban outcome to the Middle East.  Any process, declaration, or language that did not serve to advance a negotiated peace in the region was unacceptable.

With exceptions, the Durban outcome documents did contain helpful language for the fight against racism and related intolerance, he said.  Canada was strongly committed to the eradication of such phenomena.  It would use the positive measures contained in the Durban outcome documents in its anti-racism efforts.  His delegation had had serious concerns about both the Durban process and its outcome documents –- that was why it had abstained on the vote.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Spain said he had voted in favor of the resolution on follow-up to the Durban Conference because the Union was committed to all aspects of democracy and to fighting racism in all its forms by every means possible.  The Group of 77 had put forward a great position and effort regarding the resolution.  It was unfortunate that the resolution could not be adopted without a vote.  On the other hand, the fact that only one out of four resolutions had needed a vote was a good sign.  The Union would continue with the follow-up work to the Conference.  No efforts should be spared in ensuring that the follow-up was performed effectively and without “turbulence”.  It was also very unfortunate that the already difficult intergovernmental negotiations had been complicated by the lateness of the financial implications being made available.

Speaking in explanation of vote, Australia’s representative affirmed that her country opposed all forms and aspects of racism and intolerance.  She said the only way to defeat the problem was to steadfastly implement forward-looking strategies.  She had abstained on the vote because of the level of dissent that had been expressed in Durban.  The vote reflected her country’s deep disappointment in the Durban outcome and the fact that it could not support a resolution that fully supported that outcome.  Also, the financial implications associated with implementation had been disclosed so late there was no way to evaluate that aspect of the resolution.  Nevertheless, her country and region would support the many valuable conclusions contained in the Durban outcome.

The representative of Venezuela, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77, said that while the Group was satisfied that the resolution had been approved, it wished to express its sense of frustration about the fact that it had gone to a vote.  The Group had worked very hard over almost five weeks of negotiations in the hope that the difficult areas could be isolated, and any vote could be limited to certain paragraphs.

The Committee then turned to the text on the Third Decade to Combat Racism (document A/C.3/56/L.83/Rev.1).

The representative of Venezuela, for the Group of 77, introduced the text.  She noted a number of amendments to the text, among them:

The seventh preambular paragraph would be amended to read:  “Welcoming that the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance urged States and the international community to support the activities of the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.”

The eighth preambular paragraph would be amended to read:  “Recognizing that the Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance addressed a wide range of practical issues that could complement the Programme of Action of the Third Decade.”

After noting several smaller changes to be made to operative paragraphs 1,

2 and 5, she said that the text of operative paragraph 7 should be replaced with “Recognizing that the success of the Programme of Action for the Third Decade will require political will, adequate resources and international cooperation.”

She then announced that Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and Luxembourg wished to join as co-sponsors.

Turkey, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland also announced their intention to sponsor the draft.

The orally amended text was then approved without a vote.

The Committee then turned to the text on measures to combat contemporary forms of racism and racial discrimination (document A/C.3/56/L.85/Rev.1).

The representative of Venezuela, for the Group of 77, also introduced that text. 

She began by making a number of amendments to the text, among them:

The operative paragraph 10 would be replaced by the following text:  “Affirms that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, where they amount to racism and racial discrimination, constitute serious violations of and obstacles to the full enjoyment of all human rights.”

Following operative paragraph 16, which would be amended to end on the words “accountable governance”, a new paragraph would be added.  It would read: “Declares that all human beings are born free, equal in dignity and rights and have the potential to contribute constructively to the development and well-being of their societies and that any doctrine of racial superiority is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous, and must be rejected along with theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races.”

At the end of operative paragraph 34, the following text should be added: “inter alia, against Africans and people of African descent, xenophobia, negrophobia, Islamophobia/anti-muslims, anti-semitism and related intolerance.”

She announced that Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and Luxembourg were joining as co-sponsors of the text.

Belarus, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein also joined as co-sponsors.

That orally amended text was also approved without a vote.

The representative of Syria said the concept of anti-semitism in the context of religious intolerance was not a monopoly of certain countries.  On the contrary, it also pertained to Arabs with all their divergent beliefs.  Paragraph 34 of the resolution on measures to combat racism should have included a phrase referring to Muslim/Jewish Arab societies similar to the way it had been included in the Declaration adopted in Durban.

Mr. AL-HINAI (Oman), Committee Chairman, thanked the representative of Venezuela for her work on the above resolutions, saying she had done her delegation proud.

The representative of Belarus introduced the draft concerning doctrines of superiority (document A/C.3/56/L.86/Rev.1).  She made a number of technical changes to the fourth and ninth preambular paragraphs, then said the beginning and end of operative paragraph 1 would also change.  Rather than resolutely condemning

actions entailing abuse of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Assembly would now remain convinced that such actions must be condemned as incompatible with democracy and accountable governance.

Also, she said, by a new operative paragraph 7, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to bring the resolution to the attention of Member States, human rights bodies and the United Nations system, rather than requesting him to report on measures taken to implement the resolution.

Cuba became an additional co-sponsor, before the Committee adopted the orally amended draft resolution without a vote.

Making a general statement after the vote, the representative of the Russian Federation made note of the resolution’s full name and pointed out that the concept of “neo-nazism” had been included.  He elaborated on aspects of racism that were covered by the resolution, including its rejection of all forms of superiority based on ethnicity.

The Committee then took note of the work of the Committee on Racial Discrimination (document A/56/18) and concluded its work for the session.  In closing, the CHAIRMAN thanked delegates and Secretariat staff for their cooperation and dedication.

(annex follows)

ANNEX

Vote on follow up to Racism Conference

The draft resolution on the follow up to the World Conference against racism (document A/C.3/L.84/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to

2 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, United States.

Abstaining:  Australia, Canada.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Bahrain, Barbados, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

* *** *