Fifty-ninth General Assembly

Third Committee

44^th Meeting (AM)

 

third committee approves draft resolutions on human rights in Myanmar, protection

 

of migrant workers, prevention of involuntary disappearances

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today adopted without a vote three draft resolutions on human rights questions, including a text on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, a draft to protect migrant workers and their families, and a draft to prevent enforced or involuntary disappearances.

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar would have the General Assembly call upon the Government of Myanmar to end the systematic violations of human rights, restore democracy and release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, other members of the National League for Democracy, and all detained or imprisoned political prisoners.  Following the adoption of the draft, the representative of Myanmar reiterated his delegation’s position that the text was based on unsubstantiated allegations by remnant insurgents and anti-government groups, which were waging a war of disinformation on Myanmar.  He said the resolution was a blatant attempt to interfere in Myanmar’s domestic political process and was therefore contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

The Committee then heard statements from the representatives of Cambodia, Algeria, Cuba, Turkmenistan, Viet Nam, Pakistan, Indonesia, Belarus, Venezuela, Sudan, Iran, China, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nepal, Syria, India and Zimbabwe, all of whom rejected the politicization of human rights issues and expressed their opposition to selectivity and double standards in the area of human rights.  They said cooperative approaches through dialogue were preferable to country resolutions that lacked objectivity and impartiality.

Also speaking after the adoption of the draft on human rights in Myanmar, the representative of the United States said the situation in Myanmar had deteriorated significantly.  She called on Myanmar to take tangible steps including the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, allowing the full participation of the National League for Democracy and the initiation of a national dialogue to advance genuine national reconciliation and the establishment of democracy.

The draft resolution on enforced or involuntary disappearances was adopted following a rejection by recorded vote of an amendment proposed by the United States delegation (see annex).  The representative of France, the draft’s main sponsor, said enforced or involuntary disappearances were intolerable, constituted a form of organized repression and were also an incitement to commit other crimes.  The draft would have the General Assembly urge all governments to take appropriate legislative or other steps to prevent and suppress the practice of enforced disappearances.

Also adopted without a vote, the text on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families would have the General Assembly call upon States that had not yet done so to consider signing and ratifying or acceding to the Convention, with the aim of achieving a broader participation by Member States therein.  It would also call upon States parties to submit in due time their first periodic report.

In other action today, three draft resolutions -- on an International law enforcement assistance network for combating the criminal misuse of information technologies, on the outcome of the ten-year review of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly, and on the World Programme for Human Rights Education -- were withdrawn from consideration by the Committee.

Also today, the representative of Qatar (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China) introduced a draft resolution related to elimination of racism and racial discrimination, while the representative of Cuba introduced a text on the use of mercenaries.

Introducing draft resolutions on various issues related to the Committee’s consideration of human rights questions were the representatives of Australia, Cuba, Mexico and the United States.

The Third Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on 17 November, to continue to take action on, and hear introductions of, various draft resolutions before the Committee.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to take action on issues related to social development, crime prevention and criminal justice and questions of human rights.  It was also expected to hear introductions of various draft resolutions on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, the right to self-determination and human rights questions.

Action on Draft Resolutions

At the outset of its meeting, the Committee resumed its consideration of social development and decided to recommend that the General Assembly take note of the report of the Secretary-General on the preparations for and observance of the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family in 2004 (document A/59/176).

The representative of the United States then withdrew the text on International law enforcement assistance network for combating the criminal misuse of information technologies (document A/C.3/59/L.20) from consideration due to the lack of consensus on that document.  However, he added, the fight against cybercrime continued to require the support of all governments.  It had already demonstrated its effectiveness and would be even more effective given wider support.  All governments were encouraged to participate in that regard.

The text on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (document A/C.3/59/L.31) would have the General Assembly welcome the increasing number of signatures, ratifications or accessions to the Conventionand call upon States that have not yet done so to consider signing and ratifying or acceding to the Convention, with the aim of achieving a broader participation by Member States therein.  It would also call upon States parties to submit in due time their first periodic report under article 73 of the Convention.

Introducing several amendments to the text was the representative of Mexico.

An estimate of the programme budget implications of the draft resolution was contained in document A/C.3/59/L.63.

The draft resolution was then adopted as orally revised and without a vote.

As the Committee resumed consideration of implementation and follow-up to the World Summit for Social Development, the representative of South Africa withdrew the text of a draft decision on the Outcome of the ten-year review of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/59/L.16), explaining that the progress made in negotiations on the Chilean text on the same subject, contained in document A/C.3/59/L.17, had prompted his decision.

Turning to consideration of questions of human rights, the Committee took up the text related to the Question of enforced or involuntary disappearances (document A/C.3/59/L.61).  That text would have the General Assembly urge all governments to take appropriate legislative or other steps to prevent and suppress the practice of enforced disappearances, and to take steps to ensure that, when a state of emergency is introduced, the protection of human rights is ensured.

Once again urging governments concerned to take steps to protect witnesses of enforced disappearances, human rights defenders and the lawyers and families of disappeared persons, the Assembly would also urge them to continue efforts to elucidate the fate of disappeared persons and to make provision in their legal systems for victims of enforced or involuntary disappearances or their families to seek fair and adequate reparation.

By the text, the Assembly would also stress the importance of the endeavours of the Working Group on the subject and invite the Group to identify obstacles to the realization of the provisions of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.  The Assembly would appeal to all governments to cooperate with the Working Group and to reply promptly to its requests for information.

The representative of France, the draft’s main sponsor, said forced or involuntary disappearances were intolerable and constituted a form of organized repression.  They were also an incitement to commit other crimes.  He called for further action to complete a binding legal instrument to build on this mechanism to fight forced disappearances more effectively.

The representative of the United States then proposed an amendment, which was rejected by the representative of France, who cited the need to fight impunity and the pivotal role played by the International Criminal Court in this regard.

The amendment proposed by the United States was then rejected by a recorded vote of 3 in favour (Guinea-Bissau, Guinea and the United States) and 114 against, with 32 abstentions (see annex).

After the vote, the representative of Guinea-Bissau said she had misunderstood the vote.  Her delegation wished to reject the amendment.

The representative of Guinea said her delegation had also wished to reject the amendment.

The representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines said her delegation wished to have their vote recorded as an “against”, in line with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) position.

Making a general statement, the representative of the United States said that concerns over the content of preambular paragraph 7 had led his country to request the amendment.  The United States felt that the international community should use all available and appropriate regional and international justice mechanisms to combat the phenomenon of enforced or involuntary disappearances
and to hold those responsible for them to account.  Moreover, on operative paragraph 2, the United States felt that treaty negotiations on human rights instruments should be careful and deliberate in order to achieve a well-drafted and well-vetted instrument that reflected a true consensus.  However, the United States was pleased to join consensus on the resolution as a whole.

The Committee then adopted the draft resolution on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances without a vote.

The Committee then turned to consideration of the text on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/59/L.49), which would have the General Assembly express its grave concern at the ongoing systematic violation of human rights, including political, economic, social and cultural rights, of the people of Myanmar; the events of 30 May 2003 and the continuing detention and house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and members of the National League for Democracy; the fact that the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General and the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights have not been permitted to visit the country for six and twelve months, respectively; and the continuing restrictions placed on the National League for Democracy and other political parties, among other circumstances.

Among other provisions, the text would have the Assembly call upon the Government of Myanmar to end the systematic violations of human rights, restore democracy and respect the results of the 1990 elections and release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, other members of the National League for Democracy and other prisoners of conscience, as well as all detained or imprisoned political prisoners.  The Government would be called upon to initiate a full and independent inquiry, with international cooperation, into the Depayin incident of 30 May 2003, and to cooperate fully with the Special Envoy and the Special Rapporteur.  It would also be called upon to put an immediate end to the recruitment and use of child soldiers.

A statement on the draft’s programme budgetary implications was contained in document A/C.3/59/L.76.

The Committee was also informed that the name of France had inadvertently been omitted from the list of co-sponsors.  It was also informed that the Republic of Moldova had withdrawn as a co-sponsor.

Making a general statement as the text’s main sponsor, the representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said he wished to express appreciation to the delegation of Myanmar, and to other delegations that had participated in the negotiations on the draft.  The European Union regretted that the document on programme budgetary implications had been issued at such a late stage –- 14 days after the draft’s issuance.  It was to be hoped that, on future occasions, deadlines would be respected.  He also expressed satisfaction that the draft would once more be adopted without a vote.

Making a general statement on the text, the representative of Myanmar said that while the draft purported to promote human rights in Myanmar, its real aim was for some powerful countries to put in power a certain person and a certain political party of their choice.  The text was based on unsubstantiated allegations by remnant insurgents and anti-government groups which were waging a war of disinformation on Myanmar.  The resolution was a blatant attempt to interfere in Myanmar’s domestic political process and was therefore contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

He said that in August 2003 his Government had announced a seven-step political programme for a transition to democracy, and that the road map was welcomed in the country and well received by Myanmar’s neighbours and friends.  The reconvening of the National Convention in May 2004 was the first crucial step of the road map. The draft had not only failed to take these positive developments into account, but had also attempted to dictate the parameters of the next session of the National Convention.

He reiterated that the draft lacked objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity.  His Government was firmly resolved in its determination to promote and protect the human rights of all the people of Myanmar.  It was determined to implement its road map for transition to democracy.  Myanmar would not accept a resolution that politicized human rights with the intent of exerting pressure on matters, which were within its domestic jurisdiction.

Also making a general statement, the representative of Cambodia said the situation of human rights in any country should be addressed only through a cooperative approach, and with objectivity, impartiality, non-selectivity and transparency while taking into consideration the political, historical, social, religious and cultural characteristics of the country.

His country was pleased to note that the Government of Myanmar continued to pursue positive developments for the promotion and protection of human rights, including through the establishment of a Committee for the Prevention of Military Recruitment of Under-age Children, and through cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the Committee on the Rights of the Child and other United Nations and international organizations.  In conjunction with other Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, Cambodia felt that sanctions would not help to achieve the goal of ensuring the well-being of the common people.

The representative of Algeria said cooperation within the area of human rights must be based on equal exchange, dialogue and respect for differences and must be free of selectivity and must remain focused on the full implementation of all human rights.  Resorting to country-specific resolutions was regrettable and would not lead to a triumph of human rights.  Myanmar had made progress in protecting and promoting human rights and had committed to a process that should lead to the establishment of democracy.  Myanmar therefore deserved the understanding and encouragement of all.

The representative of Cuba said his delegation would not participate in any consensus for country resolutions.  Selective and discriminatory exercises did not contribute to real cooperation for human rights.

The representative of Turkmenistan said that the situation of human rights in any country should be addressed in line with the principles of cooperation, and with objectivity, impartiality, non-selectivity and transparency.  His country supported the position of the Government of Myanmar on the draft resolution, as well as its efforts to promote respect for the human rights of its people.

The representative of Viet Nam said that it was only through cooperation, sincere dialogue and respect for the principle of non-interference that the cause of promoting and protecting human rights would be advanced.  The introduction of country-specific resolutions, including the present one, ran counter to that position.  She also noted that the national reconciliation of Myanmar would soon be accomplished and that the international community should encourage, not complicate, that process.

The representative of Pakistan said his delegation was opposed to country resolutions as they did not help to improve the situation of human rights, but on the contrary tended to alienate the country and to cause unnecessary ill will.

The representative of Indonesia said country resolutions were counterproductive to human rights.  Dialogue was more constructive in persuading the country in question to improve its human rights record.

The representative of Belarus said his country understood the position of Myanmar.  While his country would join a consensus on the document, it would do so on the understanding that his country’s fundamental position on country-specific resolutions remained unchanged.  His country remained opposed to an artificial politicization of the Committee’s work.  That work should be cooperative, not confrontational.  Belarus supported the Government of Myanmar’s intention to facilitate the reinforcement of democracy in the country.

The representative of Venezuela said she wished to disagree with the policy, adopted by some United Nations Member States, of individually and selectively condemning certain States for violations of human rights.  That ran contrary to the Charter’s principles of non-intervention and non-interference in the affairs of States.

The representative of the Sudan said her delegation affirmed its position that rejected the politicization of human rights issues and was opposed to selectivity and double standards in the area of human rights.

The text on the situation of human rights in Myanmar was then adopted without a vote.

In a general statement following the adoption of the draft, the representative of the United States said the situation in Myanmar had deteriorated significantly.  Her delegation remained concerned about the detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the failure to permit the National League for Democracy to operate freely and to release political prisoners.  The desire of the people of Myanmar for democracy must be respected.  Democracy was not a Western value, but simply meant good governance rooted in accountability and transparency.  Myanmar must take tangible steps including the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners, the full participation of the National League for Democracy and the initiation of national dialogue to advance genuine national reconciliation and the establishment of democracy.  The United States urged the international community to consider steps to further strengthen sanctions and hoped the Secretary-General would remain focused on the situation in Myanmar.  Her delegation also urged the Myanmar authorities to allow special rapporteurs to return to Myanmar without delay.

The representative of Iran said her country had joined the consensus on the draft on Myanmar, but did not agree, on principle, with country-specific resolutions as they remained a biased procedure based on partiality and selectivity.

The representative of China noted that the representative of Myanmar had made strong reservations regarding the text of the draft resolution, which showed that strong differences remained between the positions of the draft’s main sponsors and the Government of the country concerned.  Given that situation, it was hard to see the usefulness of passing such a resolution.  Recently, the Government of Myanmar had cooperated with relevant human rights agencies of the United Nations, as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).  It had also invited the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General to visit the country many times.  This had shown the Government’s open-mindedness regarding issues of human rights and other issues.  The international community should recognize and encourage this.

The representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic said that, as an immediate neighbour of Myanmar, his country had followed the consideration of the present draft resolution closely.  It must be noted that, despite intensive consultations, the text had failed to reflect positive developments that had occurred in Myanmar, particularly the Government’s efforts to achieve national reconciliation through the seven-point road map.  That progress had been recognized by the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).  His delegation remained convinced that the draft resolution should have reflected such current realities so as best to reflect the situation of the people of Myanmar.

The representative of Nepal said the principles of objectivity, selectivity and impartiality must be respected.  The United Nations must encourage, through a dialogue with Myanmar, the further improvement of the situation of human rights in that country.

The representative of Syria said her delegation believed the treatment of human rights in any country must not allow for politicization, selectivity and double standards.  Cooperation and constructive dialogue were the best means of promoting human rights in all parts of the world.

The representative of India said her delegation reiterated its position that issues of concern should be addressed through bilateral engagements.  Selective targeting was counterproductive and contrary to the United Nations Charter.

The representative of Zimbabwe said his delegation wished to add its voice to those supporting the statement made by Myanmar today.  He also wished to emphasize that country-specific resolutions did not help the promotion and protection of human rights.  Instead, based as they were on selectivity and the settling of political agendas, they only added unnecessarily to polarization of the debate on human rights.  The international community should recognize that this approach to human rights issues was not helpful.

Introduction of Draft Resolutions on Human Rights

The Committee then heard introductions of several draft resolutions on various questions of human rights.

The representative of Qatar, on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, introduced a draft resolution on Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/59/L.71).  He said the draft highlighted the grave dangers of xenophobia and related intolerance, including contemporary forms of racism.  It called on the Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene high-level seminars before the next session of the Commission.  The seminars should focus on establishing complementary standards to eliminate racial discrimination and to combat racism on the Internet.  It was the responsibility of States to protect victims of racism.

On the draft related to the Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/59/L.68), the representative of Cuba said mercenaries had often been used to interfere in the internal affairs of States, particularly in the Third World.  The present text welcomed the appointment of Ms. Shaista Shameem as Special Rapporteur on the issue and encouraged her to continue the good work of her predecessor.  She was also urged to distribute the new legal definition of mercenaries, which had been drawn up by her predecessor.  The text also condemned recent activities of mercenaries in Africa and urged all States to bring to justice those acting as and supporting mercenaries.

He also noted that Chile had mistakenly been included in the list of sponsors.  The list should properly have included China, not Chile.

The representative of Chile said he wished to reaffirm that his country had not sponsored the draft resolution, which had just been presented.

Regarding the draft on the World Programme for Human Rights Education (A/C.3/59/L.41), the representative of Australia said his delegation was withdrawing the draft resolution in view of the fact that the report on which the draft was based would not be available until the end of November.  It would retable the resolution as a plenary item in conjunction with Human Rights Day to be held on 10 December.

On the text related to Strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity (document A/C.3/59/L.43), the representative of Cuba said the text affirmed the importance of guaranteeing universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in consideration of questions of human rights, as had been reaffirmed in the Vienna Declaration.  The draft stressed that promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, which remained a legitimate focus of attention for the international community, must be governed by the specified principles, not used for political purposes.

Introducing the draft resolution on the Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (document A/C.3/59/L.47), the representative of Cuba said the draft asked for a true democratic and equitable international order, given the global inequality of income and the continued spreading of poverty.  For the protection of all human rights, all efforts be undertaken in accordance with the United Nations Charter, fully respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the principle of the non-use of force and non-intervention on matters of domestic jurisdiction within any State.  The draft highlighted the need to work urgently in establishing a new international order based on equality, interdependence and cooperation.

On the text related to Protection of migrants (document A/C.3/59/L.51), the representative of Mexico said the draft sought to address that important question in a comprehensive manner, and from a human rights perspective.  Given the growing flow of migrants worldwide, it had become necessary to provide specific protection for them and their human rights.  The text had been updated and streamlined to deal with essential aspects of protection of migrants, such as the need to combat all forms of discrimination against migrants, labour laws related to working conditions for migrants and particular forms of abuse to which migrants were subjected.  The text also sought to address issues of remittances and facilitating family reunions.

Regarding the draft on The right to food (document A/C.3/59/L.64/Rev.1), the representative of Cuba said the text reaffirmed the existence of a fundamental right of all persons not to suffer from hunger and reiterated, as in the Rome Declaration and the Declaration of the World Food Summit, that food and hunger should not be used as political instruments.  It also stressed that the international community should refrain from unilateral measures, which were not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and which jeopardized food security.  The text expressed clearly the need for each State to adopt a strategy, in accordance with its capacity, to achieve the objectives contained in the Rome Declaration and the Declaration of the World Food Summit.  Malnutrition today continued to kill more individuals annually than HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis together.

Concerning the text on Respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification (document A/C.3/59/L.65), the representative of Cuba said the family remained a basic unit of society and should be strengthened as such.  Thus, it was disquieting to see a unilateral attempt to redefine the concept of the family.  The text urged all States to refrain from legislating coercive measures detrimental to the sending of remittances and reunification of families of migrants still in the country of origin.

On the text related to Respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character (document A/C.3/59/L.66), the representative of Cuba updated the Committee regarding negotiations on the text and invited all delegations to support the text at the next meeting of the Third Committee.

Regarding the draft on the Situation of human rights in Belarus (document A/C.3/59/L.55*), the representative of the United States said the text had been tabled as a result of persistent concerns regarding numerous serious, ongoing violations of human rights in Belarus.  As noted in the text, the Council of Europe had concluded that senior officials of the regime had been implicated in the murder and disappearance of political opponents and a journalist.  The text also noted that Belarus had failed to meet commitments to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in recent elections, and that the referendum on eliminating term limits on the presidency had been carried out in a “highly distorted campaign environment”.  Furthermore, her country remained concerned by the Government’s beating of leading political opponents after the elections, and its arrest and beating of peaceful demonstrators and foreign journalists.

Making a general statement on the text, the representative of Belarus said his country did not accept the draft resolution, either in form or in content.  Urging the international community to abandon the use of country-specific resolutions to address issues of human rights, he said his country remained constantly opposed to the consideration and adoption of such resolutions in the Third Committee.  Other delegations were encouraged to adopt the same approach.  Belarus continued to favour a cooperative approach to human rights; cooperation in this field should be constructive and based on mutual respect between equal countries.

The representative of Cuba said that once again, the main violators of human rights worldwide continued to try to place themselves as judges over other countries.  Cuba remained opposed to the present resolution, which constituted a gross interference in the internal affairs of Belarus.  His country also remained opposed to all such attempts at manipulation and to the adoption of this text in particular.

ANNEX

Vote on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances

The amendment to paragraph 7 of the draft resolution on enforced or involuntary disappearances (document A/C.3/59/L.61) was rejected by a recorded vote of 3 in favour to 114, with 32 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Guinea*, Guinea-Bissau*, United States.

Against:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, 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, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cape Verde, Haiti, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines*, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Albania, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Central African Republic, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Honduras, Jamaica, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *

__________

*     The representatives of Guinea-Bissau, Guinea and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines indicated that their votes should be reflected as “No”.