Fifty-ninth General Assembly

Third Committee

48^th & 49^th Meetings (AM & PM)

Seven Draft Resolutions On Human Rights, Advancement of Women

Approved By Third Committee

 

Topics Include Right to Food, Human

Trafficking, Globalization, Coercive Measures, Mercenaries

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today approved seven draft resolutions on the advancement of women and human rights questions, including those related to the right to food, globalization, the use of mercenaries, and unilateral coercive measures.

A draft resolution on globalization and human rights was adopted by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 50 against, with 3 abstentions (Brazil, Chile and Singapore).  (See annex I.)  The text would have the General Assembly reaffirm that narrowing the gap between rich and poor, both within and between countries, is an explicit goal at the national and international levels, as part of the effort to create an enabling environment for the full enjoyment of all human rights.  The Assembly would underline the urgent need to establish an equitable, transparent and democratic international system in which poor people and countries have a more effective voice.

Making a general statement before the vote, the representative of Venezuela said her delegation supported the draft.  Globalization meant the impoverishment and exclusion of people and the distortion of sustainable development, which was a key priority for the security of her country.

After the vote, the representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union had voted against the resolution because, while it acknowledged that globalization could has both positive and negative implications for the enjoyment of human rights, it remained unconvinced that it impacted all human rights, as suggested by the draft’s title.  Although the benefits of globalization were not equally shared at present, the European Union objected to the direct link between globalization and increased poverty reflected in the text.

The Committee then adopted a draft on human rights and unilateral coercive measures by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 51 against, with no abstentions.  (See annex II.)  The text would have the General Assembly reject unilateral coercive measures with all their extraterritorial effects as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, in particular against developing countries.

The representative of Malaysia, the draft’s main sponsor, said the Non-Aligned Movement was greatly concerned that unilateral measures had created obstacles to development and to trade relations among States.  The Non-Aligned movement reiterated its call to all States to put an immediate end to such measures.

A text on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination was adopted by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 45 against, with 10 abstentions (Australia, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, San Marino, Switzerland, Ukraine and Uzbekistan).  (See annex III.)  The text would have the General Assembly urge all States to take legislative measures to ensure that their territories and nationals were not used for recruitment, assembly, financing, training and transit of mercenaries for the planning of activities designed to impede the right of peoples to self-determination, to destabilize or overthrow the Government of a State or to dismember of impair the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.

Expressing his country’s wish to be included on the list of cosponsors, the representative of Equatorial Guinea noted that his country had suffered an attempt to overthrow the Government on 17 March 2004, and he said he would have liked to see the draft resolution contain a specific reference to that attempt.  The issue of mercenaries, the use of which had seen an upsurge in recent years, must be treated with the same seriousness as other affairs.

The text on the right to food, which would have the General Assembly encourage all States to take steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right to food, was adopted by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 2 against (Israel and the United States), with no abstentions.  (See annex IV.)  The text would have the General Assembly stress the need to make efforts to mobilize and optimize the allocation and utilization of technical and financial resources from all sources, including external debt relief for developing countries, and to reinforce national actions to implement sustainable food security policies.

Presenting the draft for adoption, the representative of Cuba, its main sponsor, said that the right of all to live free from hunger was based on existing principles of international humanitarian law.  Now was the time to act, as hunger would not allow the international community to wait for action.  He called on all to support the draft and to reaffirm the right to food.

The text on 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 was then adopted by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 54 against, with 10 abstentions (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Haiti, Iraq, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, Thailand and Uruguay).  (See annex V.)  The draft would have the General Assembly stress the vital role of the work of United Nations and regional arrangements in promoting and encouraging such respect.

The representative of Cuba, the draft’s main sponsor, said the text called upon all Member States to refrain from taking unilateral coercive measures to exert economic pressure in particular upon developing countries.  Each country had the right to determine of its own free will its own economic, political and social systems.

Approved without a vote was a text on 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.

The Committee also approved without a vote a text concerning trafficking in women and girls, which would have the General Assembly urge governments to devise, enforce and strengthen effective measures to combat and eliminate all forms of trafficking in women and girls, particularly for commercialized sexual exploitation.  It would call on governments to criminalize all forms of trafficking in persons, and to condemn and penalize all offenders, either in the country of origin of the offender or in the country in which the abuse occurs.

Concluding its consideration of the advancement of women, the Committee took note of the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on its thirtieth session.

Also today the Committee heard the introduction of a draft resolution by Mexico 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.

The Third Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. Monday, 22 November, to continue taking action on the wide range of issues before it.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to take action on a variety of draft resolutions related to advancement of women, the right of peoples to self-determination and questions of human rights.

Action on Draft Resolutions

The first text before the Committee for consideration today concerned Trafficking in women and girls (A/C.3/59/L.27/Rev.1) and would have the General Assembly urge governments to devise, enforce and strengthen effective measures to combat and eliminate all forms of trafficking in women and girls, particularly for commercialized sexual exploitation, through a comprehensive anti-trafficking strategy.  Urging governments to consider signing and ratifying relevant United Nations legal instruments, the Assembly would call upon them to criminalize all forms of trafficking in persons, and to condemn and penalize all those offenders, including intermediaries, through competent national authorities, either in the country of origin of the offender or in the country in which the abuse occurs.

Governments would be urged to support and allocate resources for programmes to strengthen preventive action, in particular education and campaigns to increase public awareness of the issue at the national and grass-roots level; to allocate resources to provide comprehensive programmes for the physical, psychological and social recovery of victims of trafficking; and to enable women victims of trafficking to make complaints to the police or other authorities.  Governments would also be encouraged to undertake campaigns to clarify opportunities, limitations and rights in the event of migration to enable women to make informed decisions.

While stressing the need for a global approach to eradicate trafficking in women and children, the Assembly would also urge governments to strengthen national programmes to combat trafficking in persons, especially women and girls, through increased bilateral, regional and international cooperation.

A number of amendments to the draft were read out by the Committee Secretary.

The draft’s main sponsor, the representative of the Philippines, also read out several amendments to the text.

Making a general statement on the draft, the representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Union remained firmly committed to fighting the problem of trafficking in persons, especially women and children.  The Union thus welcomed the Commission on Human Rights’ establishment of a new mandate for a Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and girls.  The European Union had co-sponsored the present draft and had worked constructively to bring the draft more in line with important new developments.  The Union recognized that the majority of victims of trafficking continued to be women and girls, and that the gender perspective was appropriate.  However, the Union would have preferred to see a draft resolution on “trafficking in persons, especially women and children” -- in line with the language of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate -- and hoped that future drafts would be thus drafted.

The representative of Norway said she wished to endorse the statement just made by the representative of the Netherlands.

The draft resolution on trafficking in women and girls was then adopted as orally revised and without a vote.

Making a statement in explanation of position after the adoption, the representative of Venezuela said her delegation welcomed the adoption of the present draft resolution.  Trafficking constituted a problem of human rights, she acknowledged, and the majority of those subject to trafficking were women and girls with low levels of economic wherewithal.  Thus, the emphasis on gender in the text had been appreciated.  The draft on trafficking in women and girls constituted an adequate signal to reaffirm her country’s commitment to defence of the rights of women and girls, which had been clearly established in the Constitution.

Before concluding its consideration of the advancement of women, the Committee took note of the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on its thirtieth session (document A/59/38 (Part I)).

Resuming consideration of human rights questions, the Committee then took up the text on Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/59/L.35), which would have the General Assembly reaffirm that narrowing the gap between rich and poor, both within and between countries, is an explicit goal at the national and international levels, as part of the effort to create an enabling environment for the full enjoyment of all human rights.  It would call upon Member States, relevant agencies of the United Nations system, intergovernmental organizations and civil society to promote equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth for managing globalization, so that poverty is systematically reduced and the international development targets are achieved.  It would also underline the urgent need to establish an equitable, transparent and democratic international system in which poor people and countries have a more effective voice.

Making a general statement before the vote, the representative of Venezuela said her delegation supported the draft.  Globalization meant the impoverishment and exclusion of people.  It distorted sustainable development, which was a key priority for the security of her country.

The text on globalization and human rights was then adopted by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 50 against, with 3 abstentions (Brazil, Chile and Singapore).  (See annex I)

Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Union had voted against the resolution.  While acknowledging that globalization could have implications -- both positive and negative -- upon the enjoyment of human rights, the Union remained unconvinced that it impacted all human rights, as had been suggested by the draft’s title.  The European Union regretted that the resolution had focused on the negative aspects of globalization, without fully acknowledging that globalization constituted a positive force that should be used to the benefit of all, without exclusion.  The Union continued to acknowledge that the benefits of globalization were not equally shared at present, but objected to the direct link between globalization and increased poverty reflected in the text.  Globalization could also serve as a stimulant to eradicate poverty all over world.  For example, the global information revolution had contributed substantively to promotion of and respect for human rights, yet the text remained silent on such issues.  The text remained unbalanced and one-sided; however, the European Union remained ready to discuss the text actively in future.

The Committee next turned to the text on Human Rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.359/L.40), which would have the General Assembly urge all States to refrain from adopting or implementing any unilateral measures not in accordance with internal law and the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those of a coercive nature with all their extraterritorial effects, which create obstacles to trade relations among States.  It would reject unilateral coercive measures with all their extraterritorial effects as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, in particular against developing countries.  It would also urge the Commission on Human Rights to take fully into account the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures, including the enactment of national laws and their extraterritorial application, in its task concerning the implementation of the right to development.

The representative of Malaysia, the draft’s mains sponsor, said the Non-Aligned Movement was greatly concerned about unilateral measures that had led to negative consequences for developing countries.  They created obstacles to development and to trade relations among States.  The Non-Aligned Movement reiterated its call to all States to put an immediate end to such measures.

The text on human rights and unilateral coercive measures was then adopted by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 51 against, with no abstentions.  (See annex II.)

Making a statement in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Venezuela said it had been a recent victim of unilateral action of the United States, which had expressed its policy of opposing loans to Venezuela from the international bodies to which it belonged.

Introduction of Draft Resolution

Subsequently, the Committee heard the introduction of 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.3/59/L.58) by the representative of Mexico.  She noted that the Ad Hoc Committee had been established in 2001 to draw up a convention on the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, and that the international community had shown the political will to advance negotiations since that time.  Her country considered that the Ad Hoc Committee had made considerable progress and had come to a positive point in its work.  She reiterated that the desired outcome was to establish standards for respect of the rights of persons with disabilities to which all States were committed.

The representative of Georgia said she had been absent during both votes this morning, but wished to vote against both the draft on globalization and human rights and the draft on human rights and unilateral coercive measures.

Action on Draft Resolutions

At the top of its afternoon meeting, the Third Committee turned to the draft on the Use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determiantion (document A/C.3/59/L.68), which would have the General Assembly urge all States to take the necessary steps and to exercise the utmost vigilance against the menace posed by the activities of mercenaries.  States should take legislative measures to ensure that their territories and nationals were not used for recruitment, assembly, financing, training and transit of mercenaries for the planning of activities designed to impede the right of peoples to self-determination, to destabilize or overthrow the government of a State or to dismember of impair the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.

Condemning recent mercenary activities in Africa, the Assembly would call upon States to investigate the possibility of mercenary involvement whenever and wherever criminal acts of a terrorist nature occurred and condemned any form of impunity granted to perpetrators of mercenary activities.  Also requesting the new Special Rapporteur to circulate the proposal for a new legal definition of a mercenary, drafted by her predecessor, the text would request the Special Rapporteur to take into account in the discharge of her duties that mercenary activities continued to occur in many parts of the world and were taking on new forms, manifestations and modalities.

Expressing his country’s wish to be included on the list of co-sponsors, the representative of Equatorial Guinea noted that his country had suffered an attempt to overthrow the Government on 17 March 2004.  The issue of mercenaries, the use of which had seen an upsurge in recent years, must be treated with the same seriousness as other affairs.  However, he noted that he would have liked to see the draft resolution contain a specific reference to the attempt to overthrow his country’s Government.

The draft’s sponsor, the representative of Cuba, said that the international community must combat the use of mercenaries, and prevent their use in Third World countries.  He recalled that the text asked the new Special Rapporteur to circulate the proposed new definition of mercenaries drafted by her predecessor, and to inform the Committee as to her activities.  With regard to the statement just made by Equatorial Guinea, he noted that the resolution condemned the recent use of mercenaries in Africa, as well as the damage wrought by the use of mercenaries upon the African continent.  He also expressed total support for Equatorial Guinea and solidarity with African nations.  For many years, his country had combated the phenomena of mercenaries, colonialism and apartheid.

Making a general statement before the vote, the representative of the United States said his delegation had called for the vote and would vote against the draft.  It deplored the use of mercenaries, who in many cases were involved in terrorist activities, but discussion of this issue should take place in the Security Council.  It was inappropriate for the Third Committee to spend its valuable time on this topic.

The representative of the Netherlands, on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union shared concerns about the dangers of mercenary activities and was concerned about the effect of mercenaries on the nature and duration of armed conflict.  However, the European Union could not support the draft as it was not convinced that the Third Committee was the right forum to deal with mercenary activities.  The issue should not be tackled as a human rights problem and it did not fall within the mandate of the Third Committee.  The question of mercenaries fell within the competence of the Sixth Committee.

The text on the use of mercenaries was then adopted by a recorded vote of 115 in favour and 45 against, with 10 abstentions (Australia, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, San Marino, Switzerland, Ukraine and Uzbekistan).  (See annex III.)

Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of Argentina said that he had voted in favour of the draft.  However, he felt that the reference to the principle of self-determination contained in preambular paragraph 4 was out of context, given that it did not reference relevant United Nations resolutions on decolonization, nor on particular situations such as that of the Malvinas islands.

The representative of Barbados noted that he had been absent at the time of the vote, but he would have voted in favour of the draft.

The text on 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) would have the General Assembly reaffirm that the promotion, protection and full realization of all human rights should be guided by the principles of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity and should not be used for political ends.  It would also stress the continuing need for impartial and objective information on the political, economic and social situations and events of all countries.

The representative of Cuba, the draft’s main sponsor, said United Nations action in the field of human rights should be based on respect for the economic and social realities in each country.  Promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms should be governed by principles of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity and should not be used for political purposes.

The draft was adopted without a vote.

The Committee next took up the text on The right to food (document A/C.3/59/L.64/Rev.1), which would have the General Assembly encourage all States to take steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right to food and stress the need to make efforts to mobilize and optimize the allocation and utilization of technical and financial resources from all sources, including external debt relief for developing countries, and to reinforce national actions to implement sustainable food security policies.

Recognizing that the promises made at the World Food Summit in 1996 to halve the number of persons who are undernourished by 2015 are not being fulfilled, the Assembly, under the draft’s terms, would welcome the meeting of world leaders for action against hunger and poverty convened by the Presidents of Brazil, Chile and France and the President of the Government of Spain, and urge States to given adequate priority in their development strategies and expenditures to the realization of the right to food.

Encouraging the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to continue mainstreaming a gender perspective in the activities relating to his mandate, the assembly would invite governments, relevant United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, treaty bodies, civil society actors, including non-governmental organizations, as well as the private sector, to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur in the fulfilment of his mandate.

The representative of Cuba said that the right of all to live free from hunger was based on existing principles of international humanitarian law.  As the President of Brazil had stated, the most deadly of all weapons of mass destruction yet created by man was misery.  Now was the time to act, as hunger would not allow the international community to wait for action.  He called on all to support the draft and to reaffirm the right to food.

Making a general statement on the draft, the representative of Malaysia noted that her country had traditionally co-sponsored this draft.  However, this year, Malaysia’s concerns had not been accommodated by the main sponsors.  That had left Malaysia unable to co-sponsor.  Expressing the hope that the present difficulty could be redressed in future years, to allow Malaysia to rejoin the co-sponsors, she said that her delegation would vote in favour of the draft in the event of a recorded vote.

The representative of Venezuela said her delegation had suggested establishing an international humanitarian front and would support it and hoped the rest of the international community would also lend its support.

Making a statement in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said her delegation was profoundly committed to promoting food security around the world.  However, the United States could not support the resolution as drafted.  Her country had consistently held the position that the right to be free from hunger was a goal to be realized progressively, and it did not diminish the responsibility of governments to their citizens.  Moreover, she noted that the draft contained inaccuracies.

Speaking in explanation before the vote, the representative of Israel said the right to food unquestionably stood among the most important rights enjoyed by human beings.  However, it could not be limited geographically, and attention should not be focused unfairly upon certain regions to further political agendas.  The report of the Special Rapporteur, on which the text was based, did not give attention to regions in proportion to their needs, but seemed to be driven by particular political obsessions.  The emphasis placed upon the situation in the West Bank and Gaza was problematic.  Israel could not lend credence to a draft based on a report, which had focused almost solely on admonitions against Israeli conduct, without regard for the context of the proper allocation of priority in responding to food emergencies.  The report belied the complex reality on the ground, weakening its message and its responsibility to the most troublesome parts of the world.

One must wonder what positive outcome could have been accomplished if the Special Rapporteur had fulfilled his mandate in a professional and balanced manner, he said.  Israel could not support a resolution commending the Special Rapporteur for his work.  The way to alleviate the situation of peoples in the Middle East, and around the world, was not through politicized reports and one-sided resolutions, but by adopting balanced and concerted actions.  Israel had worked hard to support the economy and sources of food for Palestinian people, and remained committed to realization of the right to food in every corner of the world.

The text on the right to food was then adopted by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 2 against (Israel and the United States), with no abstentions.  (See annex IV.)

The representative of Japan noted that he had voted in favour of the draft, as his Government fully recognized the importance of the right to food.  In the past, Japan had co-sponsored similar resolutions.  On the present text, Japan had voted in favour, but wished to clarify its position on operative paragraph 9 --Japan continued to have reservations on the language used therein.

Also speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that, in recent years, his Government had prioritized the solving of food shortages in his country.  Commending the international community for its efforts to realize the right to food, he noted that his country had, in the past, supported similar resolutions.  However, the Democratic Republic of Korea had not participated in the present vote as it could not accept the paragraphs concerning his country, contained in the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, referred to in the text.

As had been clarified in his delegation’s comments during the general discussion he said, the Special Rapporteur had not made an independent judgment on the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but had placed full trust in the conclusions of ill-minded persons.  That action had tarnished the image of his country in the international community’s eyes.  It was to be hoped that the Special Rapporteur would present a fair and objective report concerning the food situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the future.

The text on 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) would have the General Assembly stress the vital role of the work of United Nations and regional arrangements in promoting and encouraging such respect.  Calling upon Member States to refrain from enacting or enforcing unilateral coercive measures as tools of political, military or economic pressure against any country, the Assembly would also call upon them fully to cooperate, through constructive dialogue, to ensure promotion and protection of all human rights and to promote peaceful solutions to international problems of a humanitarian character.

The representative of Cuba, the draft’s main sponsor, said the draft called upon all Member States to refrain from taking unilateral coercive measures to exert economic pressure, in particular upon developing countries.  Each country had the right to determine of its own free will its own economic, political and social systems.

Making a statement in explanation of the vote before the vote, the representative of the Netherlands, on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union would vote against the draft because it could not accept the selective use of the principles of the United Nations Charter.  The Third Committee was not the appropriate forum for this issue, which was already being discussed in the plenary and the Sixth Committee.  It was to no avail to duplicate these discussions.

The representative of Australia, speaking also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, said the work on human rights was guided by the United Nations Charter, but the resolution selectively applied the United Nations Charter.  The principle of national sovereignty should be respected, but it should not prejudice other provisions in the Charter.

The text on respect for the purposes and principles of the Charter to achieve international cooperation in promoting human rights was then adopted by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 54 against, with 10 abstentions (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Haiti, Iraq, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, Thailand and Uruguay).

Statements in Exercise of the Right of Reply

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of the United Kingdom said, in reference Argentina’s mention of the Falkland Islands, that his country’s position was well known.  It had last been set out by the Ambassador in a written right of reply to the statement made by the President of Argentina during the General Assembly’s general debate.

Before the meeting’s conclusion, the representative of Belgium noted that he had wished to vote against the draft on respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter to achieve international cooperation in promoting human rights, but his vote –- for reasons he could not explain –- had not been correctly reflected on the board.

ANNEX I

Vote on Impact of Globalization on Human Rights

The draft resolution on the impact of globalization on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/59/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 50 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Brazil, Chile, Singapore.

Absent:  Benin, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Georgia, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Palau, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Human Rights and Coercive Measures

The draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/59/L.40) was adopted by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 51 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Dominica, Sao Tome and Principe, Antigua and Barbuda, Seychelles, Maldives, Fiji, Georgia, Benin, Nauru, Haiti, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Palau, Turkmenistan, Central African Republic, Tuvalu, Chad, Comoros, United Republic of Tanzania, Côte d’Ivoire, Kiribati, Vanuatu, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Liberia.

ANNEX III

Vote on Use of Mercenaries

The draft resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights (document A/C.3/59/L.68) was approved by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 45 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Australia, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, San Marino, Switzerland, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Absent:  Barbados, Benin, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Fiji, Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Right to Food

The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/59/L.64/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 2 against, with no 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, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, 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, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Benin, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Respect for United Nations Charter Principles

The draft resolution on respect for United Nations Charter purpose and principles (document A/C.3/59/L.66) was approved by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 54 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Haiti, Iraq, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, Thailand, Uruguay.

Absent:  Benin, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Fiji, Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

* *** *