THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES NINE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS, ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

Third Committee

57^th & 58^th Meetings (AM & PM)

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES NINE DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT,

HUMAN RIGHTS, ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN

Recorded Votes Taken on Texts Concerning INSTRAW,

Right to Development, UN Role in Promoting Democracy

The Third Committee (Social, Cultural and Humanitarian) today approved nine draft resolutions, three by recorded votes, on the advancement of women, the rights of children, the rights of persons with disabilities, and on human rights questions related to the right to development and human rights education.

Among other issues addressed in the drafts considered by the Committee today were the role of the United Nations in promoting democracy, the future of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW), follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing, and budgetary concerns related to the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict.

The representative of Israel withdrew a draft resolution his delegation had proposed on the situation of Israeli children, saying hostile changes to the draft had been proposed by Egypt and other delegations.  Israel’s draft would have had the General Assembly stress the need for Israeli children to live a normal life free from terrorism, destruction and fear.  He said Israel had proposed its draft only after a similar draft had been presented on Palestinian children.  Israel had voted against that draft, as it did not believe that one group of children should be singled out over other groups.

He said the changes proposed to Israel’s draft were shameless attempts to deny to Israeli children the attention that Palestinian children had already received in the Committee.  The delegations sponsoring the amendment had demonstrated the double standard that animated their conduct at the United Nations. 

The representative of Egypt said there was nothing hostile about the amendment his delegation had proposed.  That amendment called for changing the title of the draft presented by Israel to “the situation of and assistance to children in the Middle East region” and for the General Assembly to stress the need for all Middle East children to live a normal life free from occupation, deprivation, terrorism, destruction and fear.

He noted there were countless killings of Palestinian children by Israeli forces and said Israel’s denial to Palestinian children of their basic rights to food, health care and education necessitated a resolution to address the need for the protection and promotion of their rights.  The United Nations did not have double standards, he said, urging Israel to retract its withdrawal and table the resolution.

A draft resolution addressing the future of INSTRAW was approved by a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 5 against (Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States), with 33 abstentions (see Annex I).  The draft would have the General Assembly urge Member States to make voluntary financial contributions to the United Nations Trust Fund for the Institute and would have the General Assembly continue to provide its full support to current efforts to revitalize the Institute.

A draft resolution on theright to development, stressingthat States held primary responsibility for the protection of human rights and for economic and social development, was approved by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 2 against (United States and Israel), with 6 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Georgia, Japan, Republic of Moldova and Sweden)(see Annex II).

Recognizing the need for strengthening democratic processes, the Committee approved a draft resolution on strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization by a vote of 156 in favour, to none against, with 7 abstentions (Brunei Darussalam, China, Cuba, Libya, Myanmar, Syria, Viet Nam) (see annex III).  The draft would have the General Assembly commend the electoral assistance provided upon request to Member States by the United Nations, recognizing that the fundamental responsibility of organizing free and fair elections lies with governments.

Draft resolutions approved without a vote included texts on the follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing, follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly, the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, 1995-2004, the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities,preparations for the observance of the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family in 2004, and, following a rejection of an amendment by vote (see Annex IV), a draft resolution on the girl child.

Also reviewed by the Committee was a draft resolution on the Office of the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, addressing concerns about the financial instability of the Office and its adverse impact on the implementation of that Office’s mandate.  The draft would have the General Assembly decide to support, through regular budgetary funding, the activities under the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict.  Due to concerns expressed by many delegations about the manner in which the estimated programme budget implications had been assessed and the lack of official documentation on the matter, the Committee deferred action on the draft until its next meeting.

Also today, the Committee took note of the following reports:  a note by the Secretary-General on the Activities of the United Nations Development Fund for Women, a report of the Secretary-General on the Future operation of the International Research, and a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report on the preparations for the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family in 2004.

The Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 28 November, to take action on remaining draft resolutions and to conclude its work for the main part of the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly.

Statements

The representative of Syria said that her delegation had not been able to speak on Monday, even though she had asked for the floor.  She questioned that decision, taken by the chair, without consulting with delegations.  On Monday, action on a draft resolution had been deferred without any consultation with delegations.  Her delegation hoped this decision had not been taken to put pressure on delegations regarding that draft resolution.

A representative of Egypt supported what the representative of Syria had said and stressed the need for delegations to express their views on draft resolutions.

Action on Draft Resolutions

The Committee had before it a draft resolution on the follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing (document A/C.3/58/L.10/Rev.1) that would have the General Assembly stress that the role of civil society, including non-governmental organizations, was important in supporting governments in their implementation and assessment of and follow-up to the Madrid Plan of Action.  The Economic and Social Council would be requested to consider ageing when elaborating its list of cross-sectoral thematic issues common to the outcomes of major United Nations conferences for the establishment of the multi-year work programme for the coordination segment of its substantive session.  The Statistical Commission would be requested to assist Member States in developing modalities for disaggregating data by age and sex.  Finally, the General Assembly would recommend that the institutional linkages between United Nations gender and ageing focal points be strengthened in order to enhance the integration of the gender aspects of ageing within the system.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

Before the Committee was a draft resolution, presented by the Chairman on the basis of informal consultations, on the follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/58/L.85).  The draft would have the General Assembly call on States to continue to take effective action to implement the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session.  States would also be invited to submit responses to the Secretary-General’s questionnaire on the implementation of the Platform for Action.  The Secretary-General would be requested to ensure that all United Nations personnel and officials receive training on mainstreaming a gender perspective in their work.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

After the resolution’s approval, the representative of the United States said his delegation supported women’s full enjoyment of human rights, but wished to point out that its joining consensus on the draft in no way constituted a reaffirmation of the language in the Beijing Declaration.  The United States understood that none of the terms should be interpreted to constitute support for abortion or abortion-related services.

The Committee had before it a draft resolution on the future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) (document A/C.3/58/L.36) that would have the General Assembly urge Member States to make voluntary financial contributions to the United Nations Trust Fund for the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women, particularly during the critical transitional period.  It would also have the General Assembly continue to provide its full support for current efforts to revitalize the Institute and to provide funds complementary to the existing ones, if needed, to ensure that the Institute would have adequate resources to function for a period of one year and to present its report requested in resolution 57/311.

A recorded vote had been requested.

Making a general statement, the representative of Morocco, speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China and Mexico, said that gender equality was an important issue before the United Nations.  The Institute was part of the United Nations’ institutional arsenal that aimed to improve the situation of women and gender equality.  The INSTRAW was the only such Institute on this issue and was also located in a developing country.  Welcoming the appointment of a Director of the Institute, he stressed the need to maintain the momentum of support to the Institute.  He encouraged delegations to vote in favour of the draft.

The representative of El Salvador associated himself with the statement made by the representative of Morocco.  In addition, he appreciated that support had been given to INSRTAW by the General Assembly and the Third Committee.  The INSTRAW was at a delicate point and needed decisive support from Member States.  He invited all Third Committee colleagues to continue to support the Institute and the advancement of women.

A representative of the Dominican Republic asked what delegations had requested the vote, and was informed that the vote had been requested by the United States and Japan.

The representative of Mexico said that her Government supported the work of INSTRAW, as well as the appointment of the newly appointed Mexican Director of the Institute.

Making a general statement as well, the representative of the Dominican Republic, the host country of INSTRAW, welcomed the important work carried out by the working group on the future operations of INSTRAW, as well as the recommendations made.  Four members had already been appointed to the new Executive Board, as well as a Director for the Institute.  Their appointment would allow the work of INSTRAW to move forward.

It was hoped that due to the one-year delay in the appointment of a Director, the Institute would be given further support in order to allow it to fulfil its mandate -– the advancement of women.  The INSTRAW played a critical role in advancing the world programme on gender equality, development and peace, the representative said.  Despite its critical financial situation, the Institute was undertaking innovative projects, including the development of a database that included 2,000 gender related sources.  Member States were called upon to vote in favour of the draft in order to allow this important Institution to carry out its work.

A representative of Spain, explaining her vote before the vote, said that INSTRAW was the only Institute of the United Nations that had its headquarters in a Latin American country.  It was also the only Institute that dealt with research and training for the advancement of women.  Spain had presided over the working group on the future operations of the Institute and would vote in favour of the draft.

The representative of the United States said his country had been an active member of the working group to give it appropriate leadership.  However, if the Institute was to be viable, it must rely on voluntary contributions.  Any other source of funding was unacceptable to the United States, and he had therefore called for a vote.

The representative of Japan said her country was deeply committed to the goal of achieving gender equality and had been one of the biggest donors to INSTRAW.  She was convinced that the Institute must be supported by voluntary contributions.  Unfortunately, even though INSTRAW had received a subsidy from the United Nations regular budget, there was no evidence for a revitalization of its work.  Japan could not accept operative paragraph 5 of the draft concerning the financing of the Institute and would vote against the draft.

A representative of the Czech Republic said she regretted that, as a matter of principle, her delegation could not support the draft and would be forced to abstain in the vote.  She wished that the Institute would become viable and attract both old and new donors.

The draft resolution was then adopted by a recorded vote of 126 in favour, 33 abstentions, to 5 against (Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States) (see Annex I).

After the vote, the representative of Sweden, on behalf of Denmark, Netherlands and the United Kingdom, said they were deeply committed to the advancement of women and gender equality.  The United Nations had a vital contribution to make towards those goals.  However, the draft resolution could be seen to imply future additional subvention to INSTRAW from the regular budget.  Those States that believed in and supported the work of Institute should step forward and provide voluntary contributions to its work.

The representative of the Republic of Korea attached a high priority to the advancement of women, both nationally and internationally, but could not support the potential financial consequences of the draft.  Her delegation had therefore abstained.

The representative of Canada, speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, said those Governments were deeply committed to the advancement of women’s rights.  However, in the light of United Nations reform, they were unable to support funds being provided to the Institute from the regular budget.

A representative of Benin said that she supported the statement made by the representative of Morocco and expressed the hope that one day there would be consensus on this draft resolution, with the support of donors and partners. 

The representative of Morocco, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China and Mexico, thanked colleagues that had voted in favour of the draft.  They had also voted in favour of gender equality.  He stressed that financial considerations must not be allowed to stand in the way of the advancement of women.

The Committee had before it a draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/58/L.52), which stressesthat the basic responsibility for the protection of human rights and for economic and social development lies with States, while recognizingthe need for strong partnerships with civil society organizations and the private sector in pursuing development initiatives.

The draft emphasizesthe importance of identifying obstacles impeding the full realization of the right to development at both the national and international levels.  In addition, the draft would have the General Assembly recognize the need to address market access for developing countries and to stress the need to adopt measures at the national and global levels to ensure that the process of globalization is fully inclusive and equitable.

The Chairman noted that the United States had requested a recorded vote on the draft. 

In a general statement before the vote, the representative of Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said her delegation was fully committed to the realization of the right to development.  However, the Union would have welcomed a reference to mainstreaming a rights-based approach, including the right to development, in United Nations agencies, funds and programmes.  Mainstreaming of all human rights should be emphasized.  The European Union considered that the active participation of the individual in the realization of human rights was an important element that should not be overlooked.  She noted that the Union believed the amended draft marked an improvement from the version originally tabled.

The representative of Japan, in explanation of vote before the vote, said the current draft taken as a whole was still overly concerned with economic issues and did not reflect the kind of balance his delegation would have liked.  The draft gave only cursory treatment to the individual or human aspects of development that deserved more attention.  Neglect of that would not do justice to development efforts.  Japan would continue to actively engage in development activities but would abstain from voting on the draft.

The representative of the United States, saying her delegation opposed the draft, which continued to present a lack of development as a justification for a lack of human rights.  Furthermore, there was no internationally accepted definition of the right to development.  For those reasons, the United States would vote against the draft.

The draft was approved by a vote of 158 in favour to 2 against (United States and Israel), with 6 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Georgia, Japan, Republic of Moldova and Sweden) (see Annex II).

In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Australia said his delegation supported the right to development as a fundamental human right but abstained because of concerns that the text did not sufficiently recognize the positive aspects of globalization in development processes.  Australia recognized that the primary responsibility for the realization of human rights, including the right to development, rested with States.  Australia was committed to continue working to realize human rights, including the right to development.

In a draft before the Committee on strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization (document A/C.4/58/L.61), the text would have the General Assembly commend the electoral assistance provided upon request to Member States by the United Nations, and requests that such assistance continue on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the evolving needs of requesting countries to develop, improve and refine their electoral institutions and processes, recognizing that the fundamental responsibility of organizing free and fair elections lies with governments.

In addition, the text would have the General Assembly encourage the Secretary-General, through the Electoral Assistance Division, to continue responding to the evolving nature of requests for assistance and the growing need for specific types of medium-term expert assistance aimed at supporting and strengthening the existing capacity of the requesting government, in particular through enhancing the capacity of national electoral institutions.

The Committee was informed that a delegation had asked for a recorded vote.

Explaining his vote, the representative of Cuba said that his Government recognized the important role of the United Nations in giving assistance in the electoral processes, when requested by the country in question.  Cuba had made a number of suggestions and recommendations to the main sponsor of the draft, the United States, but regrettably none of those proposals had been included.

Cuba believed that some aspects of the draft were based on a selective and discriminatory premise that only developing countries required electoral assistance, the representative said.  Indeed, recent elections held in developed countries showed that they too could benefit from electoral assistance.  Cuba would therefore not support the draft and would abstain.

The draft resolution was approved in a vote of 156 in favour, with 7 abstentions (Brunei Darussalam, China, Cuba, Libya, Myanmar, Syria, Viet Nam) (see annex III).

In a general statement after the vote, the representative of Egypt said the draft was important, and his delegation had therefore voted in favour of it.

Before the Committee was a draft resolution on the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, 1995-2004 (document A/C.3/58/L.62) that would have the General Assembly urge all governments to promote the development of national strategies for human rights education and to strengthen knowledge of human rights issues in their education policies.  It would urge the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat to continue to utilize United Nations information centres to disseminate basic information, reference and audio-visual materials on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and would encourage the Office of the High Commissioner to continue to support national capacities for human rights education and information.

The draft was approved without a vote, as orally revised.

Resuming its deliberations in the afternoon, the Committee continued consideration of a draft resolution on the situation of and assistance to Israeli children (document A/C.3/58/L.30/Rev.2) that would have the General Assembly stress the urgent need for Israeli children to live a normal life free from terrorism, destruction and fear and demand that the Palestinian Authority respect its obligation to undertake effective operations aimed at confronting those engaged in terror and the dismantlement of terrorism capabilities and infrastructure and to guarantee that those responsible for terrorist acts were brought to justice.  

An amendment to the draft resolution on the situation of and assistance to Israeli children (document A/C.3/58/L.30/Rev.1), proposed by the representative of Egypt would have the draft be entitled “the situation of and assistance to children in the Middle East region” (document A/C.3/58/L.81).  The text of the amendment would have the General Assembly stress the urgent need for Middle East children to live a normal life free from occupation, deprivation, terrorism, destruction and fear.  In addition, the General Assembly would express its support for all efforts to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East and to ensure peace and prosperity for the peoples of the region, including children.

The representative of Israel said his delegations wished to withdraw its draft due to the hostile amendments that had been presented by the representative of the Egyptian and a number of other delegations.  Israel had presented its draft only after a similar draft had been presented on Palestinian children.  Israel had voted against that draft, since he did not believe that one group of children should be pointed out in a selective manner.  Once the plight of Palestinian children had been reserved for special attention in a separate and situation-specific resolution, Israeli children certainly deserved no less.  Once the decision had been made to tolerate a resolution singling out Palestinian children, it was no wonder why Israel had felt a need to insist on a mirror resolution of its own on the plight of Israeli children. 

He said that the motives of those who had proposed changes to Israel’s draft resolution in document A/C.3/58/L.81 were no doubt transparent and clear to the Committee.  In his view, the changes proposed were not amendments within the General Assembly Rules of Procedure.  They were shameless attempts to deny to Israeli children the attention that Palestinian children had already received in the Committee.  In such an act, that was both grossly unfair and deeply mean-spirited, those delegations had sought to deny from Israel even the opportunity to have its substantive resolution voted upon.

From the perspective of those who had sponsored those changes, he said that a resolution that expressly recognized that Israeli children were also suffering would contradict the worldview that they had tried to propagate at the United Nations –- that Israelis were the villains, never the victim, that Israelis had responsibilities but no rights, and that the Palestinians had rights but no responsibilities.

He thanked delegations that had supported the draft.  In addition, he thanked the delegations that had opposed Israel’s resolution at every turn and sponsored the proposed changes to the text.  Those delegations had demonstrated more eloquently than any statement he could have given –- the shameless double standard that animated their conduct at the United Nations.  It was those same delegations that had, for years now, used their numbers and their audacity to dictate their own blinkered worldview on the United Nations agenda as if the United Nations were their private property.  They had littered the United Nations with countless one-sided resolutions, committees and reports that sent a divisive, one-sided and anachronistic message. 

As long as that state of affairs was tolerated and appeased, rather than forcefully confronted, no one could wonder why the legitimacy of certain General Assembly resolutions was challenged.  While he regretted having to withdraw the draft resolution, he hoped that, at the very least, it would serve as a wake-up call to delegations as to the magnitude of the problem facing the General Assembly in securing its legitimacy on issues related to the conflict in the Middle East.  It was time to change.  The Committee could start by ensuring that next year’s session addressed the issue of children, and all other issues, on a fair, equal and universal basis.  He appealed to colleagues to let this be a lesson from this sorry episode.

The representative of Egypt, noting there were countless killings of Palestinian children by Israeli forces, denied there was anything hostile about the amendment it had proposed to Israel’s draft.  The amendment did not contain anything new.  The United Nations did not have double standards, and he urged Israel to retract its withdrawal and table the resolution.

He pointed out that Israeli children had a Government to provide milk and education, while many Palestinian children did not have access to schools because they were blocked by tanks.  Such denial of their basic rights was the reason Palestinian children needed a resolution that would address the need for protection and promotion of their rights.  As the first country in the region to have reached a peace treaty with Israel, Egypt still believed peace was possible.  It called for peace for all children of the Middle East.

The representative of the United States said that earlier this month, the Committee had approved a draft on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian children.  The United States had opposed this resolution because one group of children had been singled out.  In addition, the United States did not like to see children’s rights being politicized.  It was hoped that in future years, the Committee would avoid singling out one group of children, in one region. 

The Committee had granted different treatment on the draft on the situation of and assistance to Israeli children, the representative said.  The approval of that draft resolution would have helped to redress the imbalance of the earlier resolution.  It was unfortunate that hostile amendments had distorted the content of the draft to such an extent that the sponsor had felt forced to withdraw it.  That would only add to the opinion that the United Nations had failed to provide a balanced approach to the conflict in the Middle East. 

Before the Committee there was a draft resolution on the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities (document A/C.3/58/L.78) that would have the General Assembly welcome the report of the Ad Hoc Committee and endorse its decision to establish a working group with the aim of preparing and presenting a draft text, which would be the basis for negotiations on the draft convention by Member States and observers in the Committee.  The General Assembly would decide that the Committee start negotiations on a draft convention at its third session and urge that further efforts be made to ensure the active participation of non-governmental organizations in the Committee.

Before taking action, the Committee was provided clarifications on the programme budget implications of the draft resolution. 

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

After its approval, the representative of the United States said his country had intended to join consensus although there was a level of concern as to the pace of the work of the Ad Hoc Committee.  He added that the United States had been informed that there would be no programme budget implication and had been disappointed to hear the budget implications at such a late date.  The United States therefore disassociated itself from the consensus.

The representative of Canada said she deplored the lateness of the programme budget implications and reserved the right to engage in further discussion on this matter within the Fifth Committee.

A representative of Japan said she regretted the lateness of the programme budget implications and requested the Secretariat to provide such statements in a timely manner in the future.

The representative of Pakistan said his delegation had joined the consensus and understood the draft to mean that negotiations of the Ad Hoc Committee would take place between members of the Committee and the observers for the Holy See and Palestine. 

The representative of the United Kingdom said that the amendment and programme budget implications had put into question the United Kingdom’s co-sponsorship of the draft.  The United Kingdom had however joined consensus. 

A representative of Sweden also expressed her concern on the manner in which information had been received concerning the programme budget implications.  The approval of the draft resolution in such a swift manner had made it impossible for co-sponsors to address new developments within the draft. 

The representative of Mexico, main sponsor of the draft, thanked all delegations that had made the approval of the draft possible.  The adoption of the text sent a clear and important message as to the United Nations’ attachment to the elaboration of a Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.  He assured delegations that his delegation would be conducting negotiations within the Fifth Committee in order to resolve outstanding issues regarding the programme budget implications. 

A representative of Ecuador said the approval of this draft sent a clear message to the international community that would be the basis for action concerning the Ad Hoc Committee.

The Committee had before it a draft resolution on the preparations for the observance of the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family in 2004, recommended for action by the Economic and Social Council, (document A/C.3/58/L.2).  The draft would have the General Assembly recommend that all relevant actors, including governments and relevant non-governmental organizations, and research and academic institutions, contribute to developing strategies and programmes aimed at strengthening the livelihoods of families.  It would also have the General Assembly recall its invitation to the Secretary-General to launch the tenth anniversary of the Year in early December 2003.

Also before the Committee was an amendment (document A/C.3/58/L.48) to draft resolution L.2 that would have the General Assembly welcome the decisions of Benin and Qatar to host regional conferences for events related to the observance of the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family in 2004.  The General Assembly would also call on United Nations system agencies and bodies, including the regional commission, within existing resources, to support regional events concerning the year and to contribute to the success of these events.

The amendments contained in L.48, as orally revised for incorporation into draft L.2, were approved without a vote.

The Committee then approved without a vote the draft resolution contained in document A/C.3/58/L.2, as orally amended.

The Committee also took note of the Secretary-General’s note transmitting the report on the preparations for the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family in 2004 (document A/58/67-E/2003/49).

The Committee had before it a draft resolution on the girl child (document A/C.3/58/L.25/Rev.1) that would have the General Assembly urge all States to enact and enforce legislation to protect girls from all forms of violence and exploitation, including female infanticide, female genital mutilation, rape, domestic violence, child prostitution and child pornography, trafficking and forced labour; and to develop support programmes to assist girls who are subjected to violence.  It would have the General Assembly urge States to take special measures for the protection of war-affected girls and to protect them from sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

In addition, the draft would have the General Assembly request the Secretary-General to ensure that all organizations and bodies of the United Nations system take into account the rights and particular needs of the girl child in the country programme of cooperation in accordance with national priorities.  It would also have the General Assembly request all human treaty bodies, special procedures and other human rights mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to adopt, regularly and systematically, a gender perspective in the implementation of their mandates.  The draft further deplored all the cases of sexual exploitation and abuse of women and children, especially girls, in humanitarian crisis, including those cases involving humanitarian workers and peacekeepers.

The representative of the United States said her country had difficulties with operative paragraph one of the draft resolution.  She proposed an amendment that would have the paragraph read that the General Assembly “stress the need for full and urgent implementation of the rights of the girl child as guaranteed to her under all applicable human rights instruments”.  She stressed that the United States would not stand in the way of consensus of the draft as a whole if the amendment was not accepted by the Committee.

The representative of Namibia said that given the importance attached to the right of the girl child, she was not in a position to accept the United States’ amendment.  She called for a vote and would vote against it.

In a vote of 145 against and 3 in favour (Colombia, Singapore, and the United States), with 6 abstentions (Georgia, Haiti, Israel, Honduras, Papua New Guinea and Uganda), the proposed amendment was rejected (see Annex IV).

The draft was then approved without a vote.

Before the Committee was a draft resolution on the Office of the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict (document A/C.3/58/L.28), addressing concerns about the financial instability of the Office and its adverse impact on the implementation of the Office’s mandate.  The draft would have the General Assembly decide to have the activities under the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict supported through regular budgetary funding.

Before taking action on the draft, a representative of the Budget Division provided the Committee with information on the programme budget implications of the draft.  Many delegations expressed serious concerns about the manner in which the estimated programme budget implications, ranging from 4 to 6 million dollars, had been assessed and the lack of official documentation on the matter.  Some delegations suggested referring the draft to the Fifth Committee for consideration.

Action was deferred on the draft until the Committee’s next meeting, with directions to the Budget Division to provide the Committee with programme budget implications, rather than estimates.

ANNEX I

Vote on Institute for Advancement of Women (INSTRAW)

The draft resolution on the future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (document A/C.3/58/L.36) was approved by a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 5 against, with 33 abstentions as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Nauru, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guinea, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan.

ANNEX II

Vote on Right to Development

The draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/58/L.52) was approved by a recorded vote of 158 in favour to 2 against, with 6 abstentions as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, United States.

Abstain:  Australia, Canada, Georgia, Japan, Republic of Moldova, Sweden.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Grenada, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan.

ANNEX III

Vote on UN Role in Democratization

The draft resolution on strengthening the United Nations role in democratization (document A/C.3/58/L.6) was approved by a recorded vote of 156 in favour to none against, with 7 abstentions as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Brunei Darussalam, China, Cuba, Libya, Myanmar, Syria, Viet Nam.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Amendment to Draft Resolution on Girl Child

The United States amendment to operative paragraph 1 draft resolution on the girl child (document A/C.3/58/L.25/Rev.1) was not adopted by a recorded vote of 3 in favour to 145 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Colombia, Singapore, United States.

Against:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Georgia, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Papua New Guinea, Uganda.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bhutan, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Grenada, Iraq, Jordan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Oman, Palau, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *