GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS 2006-2007 BUDGET OF $3.79 BILLION, AS MAIN PART OF SIXTIETH SESSION CONCLUDES

Sixtieth General Assembly

Plenary

69^th Meeting (AM, Night)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS 2006-2007 BUDGET OF $3.79 BILLION,

AS MAIN PART OF SIXTIETH SESSION CONCLUDES

Budget Provision Limits First-Year Spending as ‘Exceptional Measure’;

Assembly Also Sets May/June Meeting to Follow up 2001 HIV/AIDS Declaration

The General Assembly concluded the main part of its sixtieth session this evening by adopting a 2006-2007 budget of $3.79 billion, including a provision that would, “as an exceptional measure”, limit the first-year expenditures the Secretary-General can enter into to $950 million, with the remaining funds subject to a later request.

 As it acted on a series of resolutions recommended by its Fifth Committee (Administrative & Budgetary), the Assembly indicated it expected expenditures in the course of 2006 amounting to approximately $1.9 billion and the spending limit will, in effect, cover the needs of the organization for approximately half the year.

Addressing the Assembly after adoption of the budget resolution, the representative of Jamaica, on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, expressed serious concerns on the process of the negotiations, which he said had been conducted in a closed group behind closed doors.  His gravest reservation, however, was on the spending limitation of $950 million, which nullified the fruit of efforts, turning a two-year budget into a six-month budget.  The introduction of conditionalities through the control of the purse was a troubling tendency.

While he supported reform for improved management and efficiency within the United Nations system, he opposed the imposition of the spending limit on the Secretary-General.  Faced with a choice, the Group did not want to risk a serious financial situation for the Organization and had decided not to call for a vote on the spending cap.

The United States representative, on the other hand, welcomed the agreement and said it would permit ongoing United Nations operations and activities, while Member States continued discussions on implementing the reforms agreed at the 2005 World Summit.  The decision provided the Organization with sufficient resources to continue its operations while underscoring the collective commitment by Member States to achieve a stronger, more effective and more accountable organization.  He hoped that progress on reform measures would be more than sufficient to support a continuation of the budget for the remainder of 2006.

Also this evening, the Assembly approved a text noting the resources that are needed to provide for the establishment of an Ethics Office and decided to establish an Independent Audit Advisory Committee to provide assistance in the discharge of the Assembly’s oversight responsibilities.  In this connection, the Secretary-General was requested to propose the Committee’s terms of reference and report to the second resumed session on related resource requirements.  Also established today was a Working Capital Fund, which was set at $100 million for the biennium 2006-2007.

Yet another draft adopted today sets the procedures for covering the Organization’s unforeseen and extraordinary expenses in the coming biennium, authorizing the Secretary-General to enter into certain commitments in that regard, with prior concurrence of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) and in accordance with Financial Regulations and Rules of the United Nations.

Acting on the financing of the two international Tribunals, the Assembly adopted a 2006-2007 budget of some $269.76 million for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and $305.14 million for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  It also approved $225.68 million for the Department of Safety and Security; and a $10.51 million budget for the Joint Inspection Unit, as well as $16.21 million for the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC).

Recognizing the urgent need to continue the implementation of the design and pre-construction phase of the Capital Master Plan, the Assembly also provided an interim budget for the project, without prejudice to the decision at a later stage regarding the strategy for the implementation of the Plan.  As a minimum amount  for the Plan’s implementation during the first four months of 2006, it decided to convert $8.2 million of the existing commitment authority into an appropriation with assessment for 2006.  The Assembly will take up the Plan again in March 2006.

Other Fifth Committee texts addressed:  the scale for setting Member States’ contributions to the budget; human resources management issues; the Organization’s biennial calendar of conferences and meetings for 2006-2007; and the decision to organize, effective 1 January 2006, guided tours at the United Nations Office at Nairobi.

Also today, the Assembly adopted several outstanding plenary resolutions, including on:  the follow-up to the outcome of the twenty-sixth special session:  implementation of the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS; and assistance to survivors of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, particularly orphans, widows and victims of sexual violence.

Other resolutions adopted this evening included a First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) text on transparency in armaments; a Second Committee (Economic and Financial) text on international migration and development; and Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural) texts on the rights of the child, and 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.

In his closing remarks, Assembly President Jan Eliasson (Sweden) told delegations that if crucial achievements of the current session, such as the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission and the new Central Emergency Response Fund, were quickly and effectively implemented and supported, they stood to make an important, practical difference to people around the world who relied on the United Nations for a brighter future.

Saying it had been “an unusually intense period of work” for the Assembly, he recalled that, 100 days ago, world leaders gathered at Headquarters for the World Summit and adopted an ambitious reform agenda for the United Nations.  The achievements so far must give impetus to the ongoing work on other important reform issues -- the Human Rights Council, development follow-up and reform of the Economic and Social Council, Secretariat and Management reform, Security Council reform and counter-terrorism.

Background

The General Assembly met today to conclude its work for the main part of the sixtieth session.

Action on Texts

The Assembly first turned to the draft resolution entitled “2001-2010:  Decade to Roll Back Malaria in Developing Countries, Particularly in Africa” (document A/60/L.44), by which it would call on the international community to support the “Roll Back Malaria” partner organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and appeal to the international community to work towards increased and sustained bilateral assistance to combat malaria, including support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, in order to assist States, particularly malaria-endemic countries, to implement sound national plans to control malaria in a sustained and equitable way that, among others, contributes to health system development.

Introducing the text, STANISLAS KAMANZI ( Rwanda) said, on behalf of the African Group, that Africa bore the overwhelming proportion of the malaria burden worldwide.  As many as 144 million people in Africa lived in areas at risk of epidemic malaria.  That was the cause of up to 12 million episodes and between 155,000 and 310,000 deaths per year among people of all ages, in Africa alone.  Malaria, however, was preventable, treatable, and curable.  He also introduced revisions, and updates to last year’s text. 

Acting without a vote, the Assembly then adopted the draft resolution, as orally revised. 

The Assembly then took up two other draft resolutions.  The first, on “New Partnership for Africa’s Development:  progress in implementation and international support” (document A/60/L.16/Rev.1), would have the Assembly stress that conflict prevention, management and resolution, and post-conflict consolidation are essential for the achievement of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)’s goals, and emphasize that progress in implementing the Partnership depends also on a favourable national and international environment for Africa’s growth and development.

The second, on “Causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa” (document A/60/L.45), would have the Assembly express its support of Africa’s goal of achieving a conflict-free Africa by the year 2010, and welcome the determination of the African Union to strengthen its peacekeeping in the continent, in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter and in close coordination with the United Nations, through the Union’s Peace and Security Council.

Speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, DIEDRE MILLS (Jamaica) introduced the two texts, saying both were particularly important to the Group, as they reflected the full support it attached to extending support to the African continent.  That was in keeping with the attention the Group had been giving Africa’s special needs throughout the year.  Both texts underscored the progress in the continent, as well as the need for the continued support of the United Nations system and the wider international community, in general.  She made some oral corrections to the text on NEPAD. 

The Assembly then adopted both resolutions without a vote, the first as orally revised. 

Speaking after action, IMERIA NUÑEZ DE ODREMÁN ( Venezuela) said she had not opposed consensus on the African drafts, but she wished to express her reservation to the reference of the Outcome Document of the September World Summit.

Closing Remarks by Assembly President

In his closing remarks, Assembly President JAN ELIASSON (Sweden) told delegations that if crucial achievements of the current session, such as the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission and the new Central Emergency Response Fund, were quickly and effectively implemented and supported, they stood to make an important, practical difference to people around the world who relied on the United Nations for a brighter future.

Saying it had been “an unusually intense period of work” for the Assembly, he recalled that, 100 days ago, world leaders gathered at Headquarters for the World Summit and adopted an ambitious reform agenda for the United Nations.  That had set the pace and direction of much of its work in the last few months.  Since the Summit, Members had engaged wholeheartedly in the implementation of the reforms, alongside its regular work programme.  He was deeply grateful to all for the energy they had invested in the work, and for their willingness to work through the open, transparent and inclusive mechanisms put in place for consultations and negotiations.

Among the other achievements recorded, he noted the adoption of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.  In addition, he hoped that later today action would be taken on the draft resolution on HIV/AIDS, thereby paving the way for an important high-level meeting next year.

The achievements so far must also give impetus to the ongoing work on other important reform issues -- the Human Rights Council, development follow-up and reform of the Economic and Social Council, Secretariat and Management reform, Security Council reform and counter-terrorism.  They should also give everyone strength as they began in January to consider further aspects of the Summit follow-up, such as system-wide coherence, the environment work and General Assembly revitalization.

The most valuable and tangible contribution to revitalizing the Assembly would be timely and effective implementation of the World Summit Outcome, he said.  He was convinced, more than ever, about the importance of strengthening the Assembly’s role and relevance.  That body represented all of the nations and peoples of the world.  Together, they must reaffirm the central position of the Assembly as the chief deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations. 

While the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) had not yet finalized its work on the 2006-2007 budget, he was hopeful that, during the course of the day, it could reach a conclusion on that “urgent and absolutely vital” issue for the United Nations, which required clearly defined financial conditions to guide its work in the next two years.

The meeting was then suspended at 11 a.m., awaiting Fifth Committee reports.

Resumed Action on Drafts

The Assembly, resuming its meeting at 10:10 p.m., continued its consideration of outstanding items.  Turning to the draft resolution on implementation of the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS (document A/60/L.43), the Assembly President said that more than 300 people in the next hour would die of AIDS, and scores more, including children, would be infected.  Five years ago, the international community finally “stepped up to the plate”.  The current text paved the way for the comprehensive review in 2006 of progress of the 2001 Declaration.

Everyone knew there was difficulty finding common ground on some sensitive issues, and he appreciated the spirit of compromise.  The high-level attendance would be critical of the success of the proposed meeting next year.

The representative of Cuba, explaining his position before the vote, said that when the Outcome Document of the September Summit was adopted, his delegation had made it clear that it was dissatisfied with the section relating to the international development agenda.  It had also expressed clear reservations about the text, which was flawed and subjected to manipulation by some very powerful delegations.  No substantive progress on the commitments undertaken at international conferences had been recorded, particularly with regard to HIV/AIDS.  Following the Assembly’s twenty-sixth special session in 2001, the core agreement had been undermined when access to the appropriate medication was not possible for all.  Setting a target in that regard in the present resolution for 2010, when everyone knew there was an urgent need now to control the pandemic, was unacceptable.

Clearly, he said, the guardians of the new liberal market were more concerned about the pharmaceutical market than the lives of the millions of people suffering the consequences of HIV/AIDS.  It would be a good thing for those families whose members were dying in the next hour to know the above facts.  In the present text, the Assembly was, once again, committing the same mistake as it had in September.  Thus, he would not take part in the agreement and dissociated himself from its language, specifically that endorsing treatment for all in need.

Then, acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted the resolution on follow-up to the Declaration on HIV/AIDS.

After the vote, Venezuela’s representative said he had not opposed consensus on the draft just adopted.  However, one of the many reasons he had not accepted the Outcome Document in September had been because of the considerable delay in combating HIV/AIDS.  His country had seen a deterioration and a failure to comply with the Millennium Declaration and the development goals in the new language adopted by certain Heads of State and Government in September.  Those were now committing themselves solely to achieving overall treatment for those in need by 2010, instead of firmly committing to ensuring that everyone in need had anti-retroviral drugs available to them right now.  The international community must keep in mind the aims of the Millennium Declaration and not undermine it.

He said that the delay in tackling the HIV/AIDS scourge should not be a precedent, enabling the most powerful countries to diminish the commitment to the Millennium Development Goals, in general.  He had reservations in the draft resolution just adopted to the third preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 12.

The United States representative said he had joined consensus on the draft proposing a follow-up meeting.  While he regretted the appearance of an unexpected, last-minute statement of programme budget implications, he expected that all costs for the review not already covered by the biennium budget would be absorbed.

The Assembly then turned to draft resolution A/60/L.34 entitled “Assistance to survivors of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda , particularly orphans, widows and victims of sexual violence”.

In explanation of vote, the representative of the United States said he was pleased to join consensus on the text.  Regarding operative paragraph 4, to which he had proposed an amendment, he emphasised his delegation’s commitment to carrying out the mandate of the resolution and stopping genocide wherever it might occur.  The United States had devoted monetary and human resources to a wide range of programmes in Rwanda, ranging from HIV/AIDS and food security to promoting justice and reconciliation.  The United States also contributed to 25 per cent of the budget of the international Tribunal trying the perpetrators of the 1994 genocide.

The Assembly adopted the text without a vote.

Speaking after action, Nigeria’s representative thanked members for adopting the text without a vote, demonstrating their understanding of the situation of the survivors of the 1994 genocide.  He also thanked those who participated in the negotiations for their flexibility, and the countries that co-sponsored the resolution.

Turning to the remaining report of the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), on general and complete disarmament, the Assembly began its consideration of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/60/463, draft resolution XXIV).

It first took up the final words of the second operative paragraph, voting to retain those words by 97 in favour to none against, with 20 abstentions.  (For details of the voting, see Annex I.)

It next voted to retain operative paragraph 3 by 94 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex II).

Operative paragraph 4 b was then adopted by a vote of 97 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions (Annex III).

Operative paragraph 6 was adopted by a vote of 93 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions (Annex IV).

By a recorded vote of 99 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the text as a whole (Annex V).

Next, the Assembly adopted draft resolution II, recommended by the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) in its report on “International migration and development” (A/60/490/Add.3).

It then turned to the draft resolution, recommended by the Second Committee in its report on “Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries” (A/60/491/Add.1).

The Assembly adopted operative paragraph 6 of the resolution by a vote of 86 in favour to 2 against ( Sudan, United States), with 38 abstentions (Annex VI).

It then adopted the text as a whole without a vote.

The representative of the United Kingdom said that his vote should have been recorded as an abstention.

Turning to the recommendations of the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), contained in its report on “Advancement of Women” (A/60/503), the Assembly took up draft resolution IV, “Future operations of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW)”, which it adopted by a vote of 95 in favour to 10 against, with 25 abstentions (Annex VII).

Next, the Assembly took up draft resolution VI on “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women”.  Operative paragraph 14 of the text was adopted by a vote of 117 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 6 abstentions (Brunei Darussalam, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, United Arab Emirates).  (Annex VIII)

Operative paragraph 15 of the text was adopted by a vote of 105 in favour to 8 against (Bahrain, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United States, Yemen) with 8 abstentions (Brunei Darussalam, China, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Qatar, Singapore, United Arab Emirates) (Annex IX).

The text as a whole was adopted by a vote of 127 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (Annex X).

The Assembly then turned to draft resolution II entitled “Rights of the child”, contained in the Third Committee’s report on “promotion and protection of the rights of children” (A/60/505).

Operative paragraph 15(d) of draft resolution II was adopted by a vote of 95 in favour to 11 against, with 14 abstentions (Annex XI).

Operative paragraph 27 of draft resolution II was adopted by a vote of 85 in favour to 20 against with 16 abstentions (Annex XII).

Operative paragraph 28 of draft resolution II was adopted by a vote of 93 in favour to 10 against, with 17 abstentions (Annex XIII).

Operative paragraph 35 of draft resolution II was adopted by a vote of 116 in favour to 3 against ( Japan, Uganda, United States), with 3 abstentions ( Ghana, Guinea, Morocco).  (Annex XIV)

Draft resolution II as a whole was adopted by a vote of 130 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (Annex XV).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said he wanted to bring to the Assembly’s attention the amendments his delegation had proposed on the text in the Third Committee.  Its position had not changed.  He disagreed with the phrasing in the text of references to the International Criminal Court and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as other instruments protecting children.

Turning to part I of the report of the Third Committee on enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms (document A/60/509/Add.2), it adopted the draft resolution on the Ad Hoc Committee on the Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, without a vote.

When the Assembly took up draft resolution VI in the report of the Committee, Myanmar’s representative said that, for the reasons he had explained in the Committee, he categorically rejected the allegations and accusations in the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.  He reiterated his dissociation from the text, and he requested that his statement be reflected in the records of the plenary.

The Assembly then adopted draft resolution VI, without a vote.

Next, the reports of the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) on agenda items 121, 122, 127, 129, 132, 134, 135, 123, 124 and 122 were presented by the Committee’s Rapporteur, KATJA PEHRMAN ( Finland).  (For more detailed summaries of these reports, see Press Release GA/AB/3719.)

The draft resolution contained in the report on “Financial reports and audited financial statements, and reports of the Board of Auditors” (document A/60/561) was adopted, without a vote. 

Turning to the report on “Review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations” (document A/60/609), it adopted the draft resolution contained in paragraph 8 (“L.17”) entitled “Report of the Office of International Oversight Services on the inspection of programme and administrative management of the subregional offices of the Economic Commission for Africa”, without a vote.

The Assembly PRESIDENT then announced that the draft decision contained in paragraph 9 of that report would be considered at the end of the meeting.  

It adopted the draft resolution contained in paragraph 6 of the report on “Pattern of conferences” (document A/60/601) (A/C.5/60/L.21), without a vote.

Turning to the report on “Scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations” (document A/60/602), it adopted the draft resolution contained therein (A/C.5/60/L.20), without a vote. 

The draft resolution contained in paragraph 6 of the report of the Committee on “Human resources management” (document A/60/603) (A/C.5/60/L.23) was also adopted, without a vote.

It next adopted the draft resolution contained in paragraph 6 in the “Report of the Secretary-General on the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services” (document A/60/604) (A/C.5/60/L.5) on implementation of the recommendations of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on its management audit of the regional commissions, also without a vote. 

Turning to the report on “Financing of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda” (document A/60/605), it adopted the two draft resolutions contained in paragraph 6 of A/C.5/60/L.15 and A/C.5/60/L.18, respectively, on the second performance report for the biennium 2004-2005 on the Rwanda Tribunal, and on its financing, without a vote.

Taking up the report on “Financing of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (A/60/606), the Assembly first adopted resolution A/C.5/60/L.16 on the second performance report for the biennium 2004-2005, without a vote.  It adopted A/C.5/60/L.19 on the financing of the Tribunal, also without a vote.

The Assembly next adopted the draft resolution in paragraph 7 of the Committee’s report on “Programme budget for the biennium 2004-2005” (document A/60/593), on “Estimates in respect of political missions, good offices and other political initiatives authorized by the Assembly and/or the Security Council:  United Nations Office in Timor-Leste”, without a vote.

It then adopted the draft decision in paragraph 8 of that report, entitled “United Nations Fund for International Partnerships”.

In other action, a draft resolution entitled “Programme budget for the biennium 2004-2005 contained in paragraph 6 of the Committee’s report (A/60/593/Add.2) was adopted without a vote.  The two-part draft resolution concerns final budget appropriations for the biennium 2004-2005 and final income estimates for the biennium 2004-2005.

Then, it was announced that the five draft resolutions in the report entitled “Proposed programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007” (document A/60/608) would be considered in English only because of the lateness of the hour.

Draft I entitled “Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007” (A/C.5/60/L.25) was adopted without a vote.

Draft II (A/C.5/60/L.26) entitled “Programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007” was adopted, without a vote.  By the text, the Assembly appropriated $3.798 million for 2006-2007, while “as an exceptional measure” limiting the first portion of expenditures the Secretary-General is authorized to enter into to $950 million.  The remaining funds may be requested by the Secretary-General at a later date.

Draft III entitled “Special subjects relating to proposed programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007” (A/C.5/60/L.27), concerning such issues as the International Trade Centre and the Capital Master Plan, was adopted, without a vote.

Draft IV entitled “Unforeseen and extraordinary expenses for the biennium 2006-2007” (A/C.5/60/L.12) was adopted, without a vote.

Draft V entitled “Working Capital Fund for the biennium 2006-2007” (A/C.5/60/L. 13), which was also adopted, without a vote, established the Fund in the amount of $100 million.

Explaining his vote, the representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said tonight’s agreement was a good outcome for the United Nations.  There was an assessment for one year, which meant that all Member States were expected to make contributions as required by the Charter.  The Union had played its part in bridging differences.  The budget and the associated resolution brought together the different issues facing the United Nations.  Modest progress had been made recently in implementing the Summit’s Outcome Document.  He hoped to see further progress next year.  Management reform was a priority for all, and the Summit had set the timetable for that.  In working on paragraph 3 of the budget appropriation resolution, negotiators had agreed on a budget permitting the continuous functioning of the United Nations, and acknowledged that the Secretary-General’s request would be considered on its merits with no automaticity.

Jamaica’s representative, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said he had agreed to adoption without a vote on the budget for the biennium and the accompanying appropriations resolution.  However, he must express serious concerns and reservations, first of all on the process.  Negotiations and decision-making at the United Nations should be done in an open, transparent and inclusive process.  For that, there were established arrangements within the Committee structures.  What happened in this instance did not meet high standards.  Negotiations were conducted in a closed group behind closed doors.  Unfortunately, that was becoming too frequent a practice.  If not done properly, decisions taken by consensus would be open to question.

Second, he said that, on substance, he was pleased that it had been possible to agree on the budget for the next biennium, and believed it was a good budget.  The Group of 77 had negotiated constructively in good faith to achieving that result and had made many compromises to accommodate others.  But he expressed his gravest reservation to paragraph 3 of the appropriation regarding the spending limitation of $950 million, which nullified the fruit of efforts, turning a two-year budget into a six-month budget.  Worse was its purpose, which was to apply pressure on Member States to act under the pain of underfunding for the Organization.

The introduction of conditionalities through the control of the purse was a troubling tendency, he said.  He supported reform for improved management and efficiency within the United Nations system.  He continued to judge proposals on their merits.  He rejected conditionalities and opposed the imposition of the spending limit on the Secretary-General.  Faced with a choice, the Group did not want to risk a serious financial situation for the Organization and had decided not to call for a vote on the spending cap.  He expected the membership to ensure that requests for further spending would be honoured when the Secretary-General made his requests in mid-year 2006.

Japan’s representative welcomed the adoption of the 2006-2007 biennium budget by consensus.  His position was borne out of its deep commitment to reform of the United Nations and the conviction that it must be achieved early in the Assembly’s session.  He expected that progress would be made in the next six months on management reform issues, which must be assessed properly in adjusting the budget.  He agreed to the compromise solution for a mechanism to do that, a mechanism which was unique and showed the seriousness of all Member States regarding reform.  Paragraph 3 of the appropriations resolution did not mean automaticity in considering the Secretary-General’s further requests.  He welcomed the adoption of the budget and would work constructively in all reform discussions next year. 

The representative of South Africa said that he joined consensus despite serious reservations about the process that led to agreement on the budget.  He had only agreed to the budget because he believed in the ideals that the Organization stood for.  He did it because he supported the reform efforts embarked on since September.  But there should be no illusion that he would be able to support such an action in the future.  Today’s action was totally exceptionable.  He would not allow the budget to be used to abolish mandates outside the Summit’s decision. 

Most persuasive was that the Secretary-General himself said that he could live with this budget, albeit with reluctance on the part of the Secretariat, he continued.  He joined consensus to ensure that the United Nations was provided with a realistic budget and predictable resources in the coming year.  But Member States had failed to live up to their responsibility by setting conditionalities on expenditures.  He was concerned with the impact of that political decision on the functioning of the United Nations.  There was a misperception that the reform agenda was pursued by some Member States and that they could impose their vision for reform on others through coercive measures.  That was not conducive to a transparent process.  He supported reform of the United Nations, but also believed in the equality of all Member States, despite the different levels of contribution to the Organization. 

The representative of the United States welcomed today’s decision to approve budgetary arrangements that would permit ongoing United Nations operations and activities, while Member States continued discussions on implementing the reforms they agreed to during the September Summit.  The agreement established a biennium budget with a first-year assessment in which the Secretary-General was authorized to spend $950 million -- about six months of expenditures -- pending further action by the Assembly.  That decision provided the Organization with sufficient resources to continue its operations, while underscoring the collective commitment by Member States to achieve a stronger, more effective, and more accountable organization.

Today’s agreement, he continued, also provided for:  establishment of an Ethics Office with adequate resources to commence its important functions; conduct of an independent external evaluation of the Organization’s auditing and oversight systems in order to identify measures for strengthening those important systems; and creation of an Independent Audit Advisory Committee. 

It was clear that, in six months, it would be possible to assess progress on management reform issues and then decide how to address resource questions for the remainder of 2006.  “We have the ability, which the negotiators of the resolutions have acknowledged, to refrain from joining consensus on the next budget decision.”  He hoped that progress on reform measures would be more than sufficient to support a continuation of the budget for the remainder of 2006.  All of those improvements would strengthen the Organization and increase its credibility, so that it could better carry out the priorities that Member States had agreed to.

Speaking also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, the representative of Australia welcomed the consensus achieved, and associated himself with the statements made by the European Union, Japan and the United States.  Canada, Australia and New Zealand did not regard the undertaking in the budget to entail an automatic approval for further requests in 2006. 

The representative of the Russian Federation said that, from the outset, he had consistently advocated adopting a full-fledged budget for the forthcoming biennium.  Adoption of the budget tonight would contribute to the full-fledged activities of the Organization in the implementation of the extremely important reforms, including in the area of management flowing from the 2005 Summit.  He emphasized the urgent need to continue the reform process to enhance and strengthen accountability and reporting in the Secretariat.

Egypt’s representative, associating himself fully with the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77, said that, in adopting the biennium budget without a vote, he had supported the full and speedy implementation of reforms agreed in the 2005 Outcome Document, but he did not believe that the United Nations budget should be held hostage to implementation of those reforms.  The United Nations was “much bigger” than the reforms, and it should always “and together” be ensured that the Organization got the necessary funds to fulfil “honestly and objectively” all mandates adopted by its Member States. 

He said that setting a cap on the authorization of the Secretary-General’s spending in 2006 was done on an exceptional basis and should not constitute a precedent to be followed at any time in the future.  He stressed the need to maintain the necessary balance between the activities of the Assembly, the Fifth Committee, the ACABQ and other organs dealing with budgetary and financing issues, particularly in dealing with the reform process.  He looked forward to approval, without any reservations or conditions, of further spending authorization when the Secretary-General submitted his request, and he cautioned against “mixing” that spending authorization with the positions taken on the reform proposals, or with progress achieved thereon, particularly as concerned mandate reviews, which were not cost-cutting measures, but ones which enhanced the Organization’s effectiveness.

Cuba’s representative fully supported the statement by the Group of 77.  In September, everyone had witnessed how the reform of the Organization had been bogged down, how it had been used, unfortunately, to put a hold on consideration and adoption of the programme budget, following the political agenda of the major contributor.  The Assembly should consider those proposals on their own merits, bearing in mind its role of assignation of necessary resources to carry out full implementation of all mandates adopted by it.  He reiterated that the reform process had no link to the Organization’s budget.  On that understanding, he would approach future negotiations next year, and he hoped those would develop in a genuine, open, transparent and democratic climate.

He said he had decided to go along with the consensus on that resolution out of solidarity with the Group of 77, but the distorted exercise of negotiations outside the procedures established for work of the Fifth Committee had made it impossible to consider the important reports and decisions before it for action.  He, therefore, reserved the right to come back to any matter not properly considered and on which specific action had not been taken now.  He reiterated his reservations.  On the revised budget estimate in section 23, on Human rights, the mandates of that section had not been properly approved by the Assembly.  He would have to return to that matter, in order to negotiate and adopt the proper narratives. 

Regarding operative paragraph 11 of the resolution, any discretion given to the Secretary-General in the budgetary area must go hand-in-hand with clear acceptance of responsibility and accountability, he stressed.  He also noted the Fifth Committee’s responsibility for budgetary issues.  It should be ensured that implementation of the resolution was not used to “hold the Organization hostage”.  “The United Nations cannot be at the mercy of the political agenda of a single country, but must respond to the interests of all Member States”, he said. 

Venezuela’s representative, also associating himself with the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77, said that, once again, he had participated in a negotiating process that called into question the Organization’s most fundamental principles.  The budget was to be discussed in a technical manner through established procedures, thereby providing all Member States with an opportunity to establish their priorities in accordance with their interests.

On the contrary, he said he had been involved in a process in which several Member States had hijacked the procedures by promising a financial crisis if their unilateral demands were not been met.  That had become standard operating procedure here; the negotiations had been turned into an instrument for use by the most powerful nations.  That could not be farther from the meaning of a consensus. 

He said that the “Dracula effect” was at work here, where agreement was forged in darkness.  He had “complete and total” reservations about the World Summit Outcome, which lacked political and legal value, as it laid down no commitments, obligations or mandates for his country.  He, therefore, expressly submitted his reservations tonight to preambular paragraph 1, and operative paragraphs 5 and 13 to the draft resolution just adopted. 

Sudan’s representative, in support of the issues concerning the least developed countries, said he had mistakenly voted against operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution contained in document A/60/491/Add.1 under item 55.  He had meant to vote in favour of the paragraph, and not against it.

Reverting to the report entitled “Review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial function of the UN” (document A/60/609), the Assembly then adopted the draft decision contained therein (A/C.5/60/L.29), without a vote, on questions deferred for future consideration.

The General Assembly PRESIDENT said the calendar had just turned to 24 December, or Christmas Eve.  At 10:30 this morning, he said he was hopeful that during the course of the day, a conclusion could be reached on that urgent and absolutely vital issue for the United Nations, namely the budget.  He had said that the Organization had needed clearly defined financial conditions to guide its work in the next two years.  He thanked Member States for the work they had done, both by those who had laboured in the Fifth Committee until the last minute before the holidays and all others who had been involved in making it possible to adopt a budget for the next two years.  This had been about “hard choices”, when it came to both substance and process, where severe time pressures had certainly played a role.  But, the Organization now had a foundation for its work.

He urged the United Nations to continue its “regular” work and, at the same time, in a determined way, implement what the leaders had decided in September.  He would -- to the maximum -- continue to work in the open and transparent and inclusive manner he had set out from the beginning of the session.  That also required Member States to deliver and produce the results they were asked to by their leaders.  He still thought, when looking back at the fall, that much had been achieved:  a decision had been taken on the Peacebuilding Commission; the existing central emergency fund had been transformed into a central emergency response fund; the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel had been adopted; action had been taken on the draft resolution on HIV/AIDS, paving the way for the important high-level meeting next year. 

Important and difficult work lay ahead, he said.  Work must continue on the Human Rights Council, as well as with the development agenda and follow-up to the Economic and Social Council reform, and so forth, including Secretariat management reform issues.  Security Council reform and counter-terrorism were also on the agenda.  The most valuable and tangible contribution to the Assembly’s revitalization would be the effective implementation of the World Summit Outcome.  After the experiences of this fall, he was more convinced than ever about the importance of strengthening the role and relevance of the General Assembly, which represented all of the nations and peoples of the world.  Its central position as the chief, deliberative policymaking representative organ of the United Nations must be reaffirmed.

He thanked everyone and read out the list of the several agenda items deferred from the main part of the sixtieth Assembly session to next year.

ANNEX I

Vote on Words in Operative Paragraph 2/Transparency

Words in operative paragraph 2 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/60/463-XXIV) were retained by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to none against, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX II

Vote on Operative Paragraph 3/Transparency

Operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/60/463-XXIV) was adopted by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX III

Vote on Operative Paragraph 4(b)/Transparency

Operative paragraph 4(b) of the draft resolution on transparency (document A/60/463-XXIV) was adopted by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Operative Paragraph 6/Transparency

Operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on transparency (document A/60/463-XXIV) was adopted by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX V

Vote on Transparency in Armaments

The draft on transparency in armaments (document A/60/463-XXIV) was adopted by a recorded vote of 99 in favour to none against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Bahrain, China, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 6/Least Developed Countries Conference

Operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on the Third United Nations Conference on Least Developed Countries (document A/60/491/Add.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 2 against, with 38 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, France, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Sudan, United States.

Abstain:  Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine.

Absent:  Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VII

Vote on INSTRAW

The draft resolution on the future operations of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) (document A/60/503) was adopted by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 10 against, with 25 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Operative Paragraph 14/Women’s Anti-Discrimination Convention

Operative paragraph 14 of the draft resolution on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (document A/60/503-VI) was adopted by a recorded vote of 117 in favour to 1 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Brunei Darussalam, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, United Arab Emirates.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iran, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Operative Paragraph 15/Women’s Anti-Discrimination Convention

Operative paragraph 15 of the draft resolution on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (document A/60/503-VI) was adopted by a recorded vote of 105 in favour to 8 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia.

Against:  Bahrain, Cuba, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United States, Yemen.

Abstain:  Brunei Darussalam, China, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, Qatar, Singapore, United Arab Emirates.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iran, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX X

Vote on Women’s Anti-Discrimination Convention

The draft resolution on the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (document A/60/503-VI) was adopted by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iran, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX XI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 15(d)/Rights of Child

Operative paragraph 15(d) of the draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/60/505-II) was adopted by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 11 against, with 14 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia.

Against:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Brunei Darussalam, Guyana, Iran, Jamaica, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Syria, United States.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Malawi, Morocco, Qatar, Sri Lanka, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX XII

Vote on Operative Paragraph 27/Rights of Child

Operative paragraph 27 of the draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/60/505-II) was adopted by a recorded vote of 85 in favour to 20 against, with 16 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Barbados, Brunei Darussalam, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Libya, Maldives, Mali, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, United States, Yemen.

Abstain:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates, Zambia.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX XIII

Vote on Operative Paragraph 28/Rights of Child

Operative paragraph 28 of the draft resolution on rights of the child (document A/60/505-II) was adopted by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 10 against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.

Against:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Brunei Darussalam, Guyana, Jamaica, Malaysia, Singapore, Syria, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Bahrain, China, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Iran, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Zambia.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX XIV

Vote on Operative Paragraph 35/Rights of Child

Operative paragraph 35 of the draft resolution on rights of the child (document A/60/505-II) was adopted by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 3 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Japan, Uganda, United States.

Abstain:  Ghana, Guinea, Morocco.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX XV

Vote on Rights of Child

The draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/60/505-II) was adopted by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 1 against, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Israel, Kenya, Kiribati, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record