LEGAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS UN DECLARATION ON HUMAN CLONING TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Fifty-ninth General Assembly

Sixth Committee

28^th Meeting (PM)

LEGAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS UN DECLARATION ON HUMAN CLONING TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Vote:  71-35-43

Concluding its work for the fifty-ninth session, the Sixth Committee (Legal) this afternoon recommended to the General Assembly the adoption of a declaration on human cloning by which Member States would be called on to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life.

The Committee took that decision as it approved, as amended and by a vote of 71 in favour to 35 against with 43 abstentions, a draft resolution entitled, “United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning”, the result of negotiations conducted by the Working Group established to finalize that text.  (See Annex V for voting details.)

By further terms of the draft resolution, contained in document A/C.6/59/L.27/Add.1, Member States would be called on to adopt all measures necessary to protect adequately human life in the application of life sciences, as well as measures necessary to prohibit the application of genetic engineering techniques that may be contrary to human dignity.

The General Assembly, in its decision 59/547 of 23 December 2004, on the recommendation of the Sixth Committee, established a Working Group to finalize the text of a United Nations declaration on human cloning, on the basis of the draft resolution contained in A/C.6/59/L.26 and to report to the Sixth Committee during the fifty-ninth session.

On 19 November 2004, the Committee averted a divisive vote on the question of an international convention against human reproductive cloning by deciding to take up the issue again as a declaration at a resumed February session.  Italy’s representative introduced the resolution containing a declaration on human cloning, which essentially replaced two earlier texts that aimed at a treaty on the issue, one proposed by Costa Rica and the other by Belgium.

Prior to adoption of the draft resolution, the Committee voted to reverse the order of texts to be acted on, thereby taking up document A/C.6/59/L.27/Add.1 first before taking up the document A/C.6/59/L.26, the basis for negotiations.  That action was taken by a vote of 69 in favour to 39 against with 39 abstentions (see Annex I).

The Committee also acted on three amendments to the Declaration, proposed by Belgium, adopting the first, which added language to the second preambular paragraph (59-47-41), and rejecting those that would have deleted operative paragraph (a) (48-57-42); and replaced operative paragraph (b) (52-55-42).  (See Annexes II, III and IV for details.)

Echoing the views of several delegations which voted against the draft resolution, Belgium’s representative said that there was a difference between reproductive human cloning and therapeutic cloning.  It was reasonable, he said, in the interest of science, to preserve, at the national level, a possibility of cloning for therapeutic purposes and through the establishment of appropriate controls.  The adoption of the text by a divided vote, following a controversial process, took away from its validity and his country did not feel bound by it.

The representative of Finland regretted that, after three years of negotiations, the Committee had not reached a decision on its mandate to negotiate a convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings.  It had also failed to send to the world a strong and unanimous message by failing to reach a consensus on a political declaration.

Deeply regretting that the Working Group had been unable to arrive at a text acceptable to all States, Singapore’s representative said that, on issues founded on values and beliefs, no single State should be allowed to hold sway over other States.  Trying to impose a uniform set of values on others only deepened the divide between parties.  Today, there was unanimity that reproductive cloning was an abhorrent prospect and should be banned.  It was unfortunate that that concern was hijacked by those wanting to ban cloning for beneficial medical purposes.  The resolution adopted did not capture the diversity of views expressed on the issue but sought to impose a single set of views on the international community.

Like others who voted in favour of the resolution, the representative of Costa Rica said that the Committee had done the right thing, finally adopting a decision that recognized the ethical and practical aspects of human cloning, gave a negative reaction to reproductive cloning and emphasized the importance of human life.  Human dignity should always prevail over the interests of science.

The international community had confirmed its respect for human dignity, added the representative of the United States.  The Committee’s action was an important step on the path of achieving a culture of life, making sure that scientific advance served human dignity.  She called for further legislative action at the national level, encouraging more States to support a ban on human cloning.  Medical research must proceed but in an ethical manner.  No human life should ever be produced in order to be destroyed for the benefit of another.

The member countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as stated by Turkey, had abstained in the vote on the draft resolution, regretting that a vote had been required on the issue and that consensus could not be reached.

The Committee also adopted its provisional programme of work for its sixtieth session.

In closing remarks, Committee Chairman Mohamed Bennouna (Morocco) said it was important that the Committee had adopted the declaration on cloning, which marked the end of one stage in the debate.  “It is what it is, with its weaknesses and strengths”, he stated.

Also explaining their votes were the representatives of Republic of Korea, Syria, United Kingdom, China, Japan, Russian Federation, Denmark, Sweden, Mongolia, Norway, France, Cuba, Nigeria, Brazil, Venezuela, Canada, Netherlands and Germany.

Explanations of Vote

While expressing regret that consensus had not been reached on the Declaration, the representative of the Republic of Korea said that he had voted against the draft.  His delegation had worked on the text in good faith, but the other group had been unwilling to accommodate.  The term “human life” meant different things in different countries, cultures and religions.  It was inevitable that the meaning of that ambiguous term was subject to interpretation.  That interpretation of human life should be left to each State.  Therapeutic human cloning could be useful for research and development of science.  Under strict regulation, it could save countless people from needless suffering.  His Government had already instituted the strictest measures on research control in domestic law.

Syria’s representative supported the position of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which supported consensus action on the Declaration.  His delegation condemned the fact that a vote had been required on the text.  He believed that today’s vote had set an unwelcome precedent in the Committee, which had a practice of adopting its texts by consensus.  His delegation had abstained in the vote in line with the Islamic Conference’s position.  The expression “human life” should be left to individual States’ interpretation.

The representative of the United Kingdom also regretted that it had not been possible to reach consensus.  Although the supporters of the proposal had argued that the reference to “human life” in the text was ambiguous, and some States had voted on that basis, the United Kingdom could not, in good faith, vote for a political declaration in those terms, which could be interpreted as a call for a total ban on all forms of human cloning.

The United Kingdom remained totally opposed to reproductive cloning, he said.  He called on all States to take urgent action in their national legislation to ban such an abhorrent prospect, as his country had done.  However, States should reach their own national consensus on whether to permit or prohibit therapeutic cloning.  Such research was permitted in his country, because of the hope it offered of new treatments to benefit millions of people and their families.  But his delegation respected the cultural, religious and social differences that could lead other countries to take a different approach.  The Declaration voted upon today was non-binding and did not reflect a consensus within the Assembly.  It would not affect his country’s approach to stem cell research.  Therapeutic cloning research would continue to be permitted in the United Kingdom.

Belgium’s representative said he had voted against the draft resolution.  There was a difference between reproductive human cloning and therapeutic cloning.  It was reasonable, in the interest of science, to preserve, at the national level, a possibility of cloning for therapeutic purposes and through the establishment of appropriate controls.  The adoption of the text by a divided vote, following a controversial process, took away from its validity and his country did not feel bound by it.

Singapore’s representative said he deeply regretted that the Working Group had been unable to arrive at a text acceptable to all States.  On issues founded on values and beliefs, no single State should be allowed to hold sway over other States.  Trying to impose a uniform set of values on others only deepened the divide between parties.  Today, there was unanimity that reproductive cloning was an abhorrent prospect and should be banned.  It was unfortunate that that concern was hijacked by those wanting to ban cloning for beneficial medical purposes.  The resolution adopted did not capture the diversity of views expressed on the issue, but sought to impose a single set of views on the international community.

The representative of China said it was regrettable that no consensus had been achieved on the text.  His country had always been opposed to experiments in reproductive human cloning.  Such cloning should be banned.  China believed that all countries should adopt domestic measures according to their own ethical, moral, cultural and religious principles.  They could either ban, or regulate and control therapeutic cloning to ensure that it did not hurt human dignity.  China had hoped that all countries would manifest cooperation and understanding and reach consensus on the Declaration.  However, the efforts had not brought the desired results.  His delegation had voted against the Declaration, because its language was vague and could be interpreted as banning therapeutic cloning.  That was not acceptable to his delegation.  Thus, the Declaration was not legally binding to his Government, which would continue to oppose reproductive cloning and carry out strict control of therapeutic cloning, so that ethics of life and human dignity were not violated.

Japan’s representative said his delegation had tried hard to reach consensus on the text, but the resolution just adopted was not acceptable to Japan.  The text failed to fully embrace all the aspects of the issue.  Japan had voted against the draft, since it was difficult to interpret as permitting therapeutic cloning and did not respect various views of Member States on that matter.

Last July, after careful consideration of the matter by a committee of experts in fields related to bioethics and others, Japan had decided to permit the creation and utilization of cloned human embryos for research purposes under strict conditions.  Even it the Sixth Committee adopted the draft, that would not affect Japan’s domestic policy on human cloning.  In accordance with that policy, Japan would go forward with the implementation of therapeutic cloning research under strict conditions, while fully respecting human dignity.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that the question of cloning touched upon complex moral and ethical issues and he had been in favour of a consensus decision.  In view of the great sensitivity of the issue, unfortunately, no consensus had been achieved not only on a legally binding convention, but also on the Declaration.  He had voted for the text in the belief that the Declaration contained good balance.  He hoped States would ban reproductive human cloning at the national level, but would allow the framework for therapeutic cloning to the extent it did not hurt human dignity.

The representative of Finland said that his delegation regretted that, after three years of negotiations, the Committee had not reached a decision on its mandate to negotiate a convention against the reproductive cloning of human beings.  It had also failed to send to the world a strong and unanimous message by failing to reach a consensus on a political declaration.  The text just approved was of such a nature that his delegation could have adhered to it.  But, over time, the focus had shifted too much from the main purpose of prohibiting reproductive cloning.  The legislation in his country allowed therapeutic cloning under the control of a relevant act.  He was not in a position to support any solution aiming to prejudge national legislation.  His delegation had had no other option, but to vote against the Declaration.

The representative of Denmark supported the position of the United Kingdom, China, Japan and others.  His delegation had had no other choice, but to vote against the text.

Sweden’s representative said that her delegation had voted against the text, but it did respect the views of others.  Her delegation had worked with other delegations to express the view that reproductive cloning should be prohibited.  Sweden supported a total ban of reproductive cloning, which violated human dignity.  Her country was planning to introduce legislation prohibiting reproductive cloning both in research and for other purposes.  All forms of cloning should be regulated by national norms, based on national moral, religious, cultural and other values.  At the same time, her delegation supported research on the condition that human values were not jeopardized.  Sweden felt that it was not bound by the Declaration and could not accept any statement that could be interpreted as banning therapeutic cloning.

Mongolia’s representative said the gap between the different views was too wide to bridge.  The concept should not be rejected outright.  While condemning reproductive human cloning, he was not against cloning for therapeutic purposes.

The representative of Norway, whose Government prohibited cloning for both reproductive and therapeutic purposes, stated that he did not see merit in a non-binding declaration.  As it was put to a vote, he felt compelled to vote against it.

France’s representative said that her delegation strongly regretted that the Committee had been unable to adopt a consensus text.  She remained convinced that there was a clear consensus on the need to ban cloning for reproductive purposes.  Divergent views had been expressed in the three years on therapeutic cloning and embryo research.  Based on the dangers involved, reproductive cloning needed to be urgently banned, but her country could not support statements that could be interpreted as banning therapeutic cloning.  For that reason, France had voted against the text.

The representative of Cuba said that she had voted against the document.  Her delegation opposed reproductive cloning of human beings and respected research for therapeutic purposes, which had great scientific potential and could solve many medical problems.  States must carry out vigorous control over cloning, without compromising ethics and the dignity of human beings.  Any regulation should not lead to a ban in research in that area, however.  Her delegation would have preferred a convention with elements already presented.  However, her delegation had worked alongside others to achieve compromise on the Declaration.  She regretted that consensus turned out to be not possible.  She hoped the Declaration would not be an obstacle to development of science for the benefit of humankind.

The representative of Nigeria said that he had voted in favour, because there was no better option.  He believed that every form of cloning, including reproductive and therapeutic cloning, was an unnecessary invasion of the sanctity of life and human dignity.  Cloning was unethical and was against civilized moral values.  It also exposed women, especially from developing countries, to degradation and exploitation.  He reiterated his delegation’s call for total ban on all forms of human cloning and called for further action by the United Nations to elaborate a convention banning all forms of cloning.

The representative of Costa Rica said that today the Committee had done a right thing, finally adopting a decision that recognized the ethical and practical aspects of human cloning, gave a negative reaction to cloning and emphasized the importance of human life.  Human dignity should always prevail over the interests of science.

The representative of the United States said that her country had supported the significant document adopted today.  The international community had confirmed its abhorrence of cloning and declared its respect for human dignity.  It had issued a call to all Member States to prohibit all forms of human cloning and introduce relevant legislation without delay.  Her country had always emphasized the incompatibility of all human cloning with human dignity and the sanctity and protection of human life.  Today’s Declaration echoed that commitment.  The action of the Committee was an important step on the path of achieving a culture of life, making sure that scientific advances served human dignity.  She called for further legislative action at the national level.  That was the most expeditious and effective route.  She also encouraged States to support a ban on human cloning.  Now, the United Nations had issued a call for action.  Medical research must proceed, but proceed in an ethical manner.  No human life should ever be produced to be destroyed for the benefit of another.

The representative of Brazil expressed deep regret that the Committee had had to vote on an issue that should have been solved by consensus.  The Declaration could only stress the strong divisions of the international community.  His country valued human life and dignity, but he had voted against the text as a result of its inaccurate and dubious language.  He felt that it was necessary to have more scientific information and debate before a final decision on merits of therapeutic cloning could be made.  The matter should be dealt with by national legislation.  A bill was being debated in his country on that matter.  He also regretted that the Committee deviated from the original mandate to establish a complete ban on reproductive cloning.

Venezuela’s representative said that she had voted against the text because it did not clearly meet the objective of achieving a ban on all forms of reproductive cloning.  That did not correspond to the national legislation of her country.  Her Government supported scientific research, with the understanding that human dignity was respected.

The representative of Canada also expressed regret that consensus had not been achieved.  He was concerned that the vote had only further entrenched the differences.  All forms of cloning, for whatever purpose and through whatever technique, were prohibited in Canada.  The expansion of the original mandate into reproductive rights was also not acceptable to Canada.

The representative of the Netherlands said she voted against the resolution, which contained a non-legally binding document.  She stressed that the votes against the text demonstrated that the international community was far from banning therapeutic cloning.

Germany’s representative said that, although he had voted in favour of the resolution, today was not a day to celebrate.  The declaration did not even muster 50 per cent of the votes of the membership.  He hoped the current system of anarchy over human cloning would be overcome in the coming years and that consensus would again be possible.

ANNEX I

Vote on Motion to Reverse Order

The motion under rule 31 of the General Assembly Rules of Procedure to reverse the order of the vote on the draft resolutions was adopted by a recorded vote of 69 in favour to 39 against, with 39 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uzbekistan.

Against:  Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tonga, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Abstain:  Algeria, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Norway, Oman, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Benin, Bhutan, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Pakistan, Palau, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Zambia.

ANNEX II

Vote on Amendment to Preambular Paragraph 2

The amendment to preambular paragraph 2 of the Declaration, which would add the words “and in particular article 11 thereof, which states that practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as the reproductive cloning of human beings, shall not be permitted” (document A/C.6/59/L.27/Add.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 59 in favour to 47 against, with 41 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Hungary, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Sudan, Suriname, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uzbekistan.

Abstain:  Algeria, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Barbados, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Andorra, Angola, Benin, Bhutan, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Israel, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Zambia.

ANNEX III

Vote on Amendment to Operative Paragraph (a)

The amendment to the Declaration that would delete operative paragraph (a) (document A/C.6/59/L.27/Add.1) was rejected by a recorded vote of 48 in favour to 57 against, with 42 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Hungary, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Sudan, Suriname, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uzbekistan.

Abstain:  Algeria, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Barbados, Burkina Faso, Congo, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Andorra, Angola, Benin, Bhutan, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mauritania, Monaco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Amendment to Operative Paragraph (b)

The amendment to operative paragraph (b), which would replace it by the following:  “Member States are called upon to prohibit the reproductive cloning of human beings; they are also called upon to prohibit other forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity” (document A/C.6/59/L.27/Add.1) was rejected by a recorded vote of 52 in favour to 55 against, with 42 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Hungary, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Sudan, Suriname, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uzbekistan.

Abstain:  Algeria, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Barbados, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Chile, Congo, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Nepal, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Andorra, Angola, Benin, Bhutan, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mauritania, Monaco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Zambia.

ANNEX V

Vote on Declaration on Human Cloning

The United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning (document A/C.6/59/L.27/Add.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 71 in favour to 35 against, with 43 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uzbekistan.

Against:  Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, India, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, United Kingdom, Venezuela.

Abstain:  Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Bhutan, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia.

* *** *