Sixty-seventh General Assembly

Plenary

62^nd Meeting, resumed (PM)

General Assembly Concludes Main Part of Session Following Consensus in Fifth

 

Committee on Member State Contributions to Regular, Peacekeeping Budgets

 

Assembly President Says Implementation of Agreements Should Be Seen

‘As a Core Principal of Effective Multilateralism in the Twenty-First Century’

The General Assembly this evening — resuming a meeting suspended on Friday pending agreement by its Budget Committee — concluded the main part of its sixty-seventh session with the adoption of 22 texts, two of which set the rates Member States will pay for the regular and peacekeeping budgets over the next three years.

Noting that the more than 300 draft resolutions and decisions adopted since September ran the gamut of contemporary global challenges, Assembly President Vuk Jeremić told delegations on Friday, 21 December, that “what happens in one part of the world invariably affects us all”.  It was with that in mind, he said, that he had chosen “bringing about adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations by peaceful means” as the session’s overarching theme.  “In these tumultuous times, the enormity of this challenge is evident,” he said.

He asked States to consistently implement what had been agreed: “doing so should be seen by all Member States as a core principle of effective multilateralism in the twenty-first century”.  It was only the conduct and dedication of States that would determine the future strength of the Assembly.

Capping days of intense negotiations, the Assembly adopted a range of Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) resolutions, covering the scale of assessing Member States’ dues, the United Nations pension system and the proposed 2013 budget for 33 political missions.

By one consensus text, the Assembly retained the existing formula for assessing Member States’ financial contributions to the United Nations regular budget and its peacekeeping operations during the 2013-2015 period.  It kept in place the existing elements for the regular budget, including the average statistical base period of three to six years, a country’s gross national income (GNI) converted to United States dollars using market exchange rates, and its population size.  It also maintained the 0.01 per cent ceiling for assessing the rate of least developed countries and the 22 per cent maximum assessment rate for everyone else.

Concerning peacekeeping assessments — where each Member State is assigned to 1 of 10 levels, with corresponding discount rates — the Assembly adopted a consensus text, taking note of updates to those levels, as suggested by the Secretary-General.  By further terms, it endorsed those updates subject to certain provisions, and used them establish Member States’ fees for the period 2013‑2015.  Recognizing the need for reform, the Assembly decided to review the structure of the assessment scale during its seventieth session.

Though not tasked with passing a budget this year, the Assembly adopted a consensus text revising expenditures upwards by $243.26 million to $5.39 billion, and income by $3.99 million to $511.74 million for the current biennium.  The Secretary-General’s proposed budget for 33 special political missions also came under scrutiny, with the Assembly approving $566.48 million to keep them running in 2013.

On the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund, the Assembly adopted a consensus text increasing the mandatory retirement age to 65 for new participants effective no later than 1 January 2014, and amending Fund regulations to allow for the recovery of pension entitlements from staff who defrauded participating employers.

Other Budget Committee texts addressed post-adjustment payment for staff, the financing for the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT) and the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia, as well as the Residual Mechanism, funding for the enterprise resource planning system and the internal justice system, and funding for commitments made at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.

Acting on two outstanding texts of its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), the Assembly adopted — without a vote for the first time — a resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar, welcoming the positive developments in the country and the Government’s commitment to continue political reform, democratization and national reconciliation.

At the same time, it urged Myanmar to continue the release of political prisoners without delay and ensure the full restoration of their rights.  It expressed concern about arbitrary detention, forced displacement and rape, urging an end to such violations.  Elsewhere, it urged accelerated efforts to address violence affecting ethnic minorities, expressing concern about the Rohingya minority in Rakhine State.

The Assembly also adopted a consensus resolution on the Committee against Torture, authorizing that Committee — without prejudice to the Assembly’s intergovernmental process on treaty body strengthening — to meet for an additional week per session as a temporary measure, with effect from May 2013 until the end of November 2014, to address the report backlog.

On the recommendation of its First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), the Assembly adopted an updated text on the arms trade treaty by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions. (See Annex III.) By its terms, it decided to convene in New York, from 18 to 28 March 2013, the Final United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, to be governed by the rules of procedure adopted on 3 July 2012.  It also decided that the text of the treaty submitted by the Conference President on 26 July 2012 would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegates to put forward proposals on that text.  The text passed after votes on its operative paragraphs 2 and 3.

In other business, the Assembly elected Malaysia, Brazil and Peru to the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission to serve two-year terms beginning on 1 January 2013, with two seats yet to be filled.  It appointed Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal to the Committee on Conferences to serve three-year terms beginning on 1 January 2013, with five seats remaining vacant.

The Assembly also extended terms for judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and of the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia through the adoption of two more texts.

Explanations of vote were made by the representatives of Saudi Arabia, Monaco, Oman, Cuba (also on behalf of Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador and Iran), Iran and Syria.

A representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See also spoke in explanation of vote.

The representative of the Russian Federation introduced an amendment to a draft.  The delegate from Cyprus requested that it be put to a recorded vote.

The Fifth Committee Rapporteur introduced that body’s reports.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea exercised the right of reply.

Action on Committee Texts

The Assembly today first took up reports of the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), which had been pending, owing to consideration by the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) of their programme budget implications.

Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolution XVI on “the Committee against Torture” contained in Third Committee report A/67/457/Add.2.

The Assembly turned next to draft resolution I on “human rights situation in Myanmar” (document A/67/457/Add.3), by which it would welcome the positive developments in the country and the Government’s commitment to continue political reform, democratization and national reconciliation.

Speaking before the vote on that text, the representative of Saudi Arabia said his delegation would join consensus.  His Government supported the progress being made in Myanmar and the commitments of its Government towards political reform, human rights protection and national reconciliation, among others.  The Rohingya Muslim minority had endured tragic circumstances manifested in a policy of harassment and violence, and Saudi Arabia stressed that full rights should be accorded to that minority, including, among others, citizenship and political rights.  He called for full access to humanitarian assistance for the affected persons and groups, regardless of race or religion, adding that his country had contributed $50 million towards helping those victims.

He noted that after the vote on the text in the Third Committee, the Myanmar delegation had expressed strong reservations to the term “Rohingya minority”.  That did not serve the aspiration to reach a peaceful settlement to Myanmar’s oppressed minority and was a negative indicator against the international community’s consensus.  His Government would continue monitoring the situation with hopes that Myanmar’s Government would cooperate fully with the international community towards achieving justice for the Rohingya Muslim minority.

The Assembly then adopted, for the first time without a vote, the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar.

Next, the Assembly turned to draft resolution IV contained in the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) report on the arms trade treaty (document A/67/409), also pending due to consideration by the Fifth Committee of budget implications.  It concerned building on progress made so far towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective such treaty.

The Assembly first, in a separate recorded vote of 126 in favour to 1 against (Iran), with 21 abstentions, retained operative paragraph 2, thereby setting the dates for a final conference in 2013.  (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

Next, operative paragraph 3, by which the Assembly decided that the treaty text submitted by the Conference President on 26 July would be the basis for future work, was retained by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 1 against (Iran) with 24 abstentions (Annex II).  The resolution as a whole was adopted by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions (Annex III).

Speaking after the vote, a representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See welcomed adoption of the arms treaty resolution, which he said “reignites hope”, after the unfortunate stalemate at the July conference.  The international community, he said, would have a legally binding instrument, but to achieve “such a noble goal”, it was necessary to have an open and transparent process that allowed for the full participation of all States.

He said his delegation understood the inclusion of “mutatis mutandis” in the present text and recognized it as a necessary change to rectify improper treatment of his delegation during the July conference.  The Holy See was to be fully recognized within the United Nations, in accordance with the rules of procedure.

Right of Reply

The delegate of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, taking the floor in exercise of the right of reply concerning the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, rejected the allegations made against his country.  “ Israel has nuclear weapons and it is the major source of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East,” he said.  “It should know very clearly that its continued possession of nuclear weapons will eventually give rise to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, posing a threat to the regional peace and security.”  Further, the more Israel clung to its policies of continued possession of nuclear weapons, with the silent support of the United States, the more it would show itself as the “typical representative example of the double standards of the United States in the field of nuclear proliferation”.

Action on Fifth Committee Texts

Next, Fifth Committee Rapporteur JUSTIN KISOKA of the United Republic of Tanzania introduced its reports.  For further information on those texts, please see Press Release GA/AB/4057.

Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolutions on financial reports and audited financial statements, and reports of the Board of Auditors (document A/C.5/67/L.8); programme planning (document A/C.5/67/L.10) and pattern of conferences (document A/C.5/67/L.5).

It next turned to a draft resolution on scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations (document A/C.5/67/L.6), adopting it without a vote.

Speaking before the text’s adoption, the representative of Monaco explained that her country had joined in the consensus on paragraph 6.  However, it had seen its assessments jump by 300 per cent from 2013 to 2015.  The methodology used had resulted in a distortion in evaluating Monaco’s capacity to pay.  Despite the enormous increase, however, her Government reiterated its commitment to comply fully with its international obligations and to honour its payment on time.

The Assembly then adopted without a vote a draft resolution on scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations peacekeeping operations (document A/C.5/67/L.7).

Explaining his position, the representative of Oman said that, while his country had joined the consensus, consideration should be given to the fact that there was no justification for raising the level for Oman’s to “level B”.  In view of all objective criteria, Oman should be at the same level of developing countries where the per capita income had increased gradually and nominally.  The level at which Oman had been put was a level that included all developed countries, while Oman remained a developing State.  He was not pleased with the “sudden move to level B”.

Moving on, the Assembly adopted without a vote a draft decision on the United Nations common system (document A/C.5/67/L.14), and draft resolutions on the United Nations pension system (document A/C.5/67/L.9), administration of justice at the United Nations (document A/C.5/67/L.11) and financing of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (document A/C.5/67/L.15).

Before taking action on the draft resolution on financing of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (document A/C.5/67/L.16), the delegation of the Russian Federation said that there had not been time to properly verify the figures that had emerged on financing the tribunals.  The Secretariat had assured his delegation that subsequent amendments regarding financing would be provided in an informal way.  Unfortunately, it had not been possible to achieve consensus on the financing for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  The Russian Federation had shown flexibility, he said, yet even its modified proposals were not reflected in the text submitted by the Committee Chair.  In his view, he said, double standards and a politicized approach were adopted with respect to the finance and technical issues.  He urged completion of the Tribunal’s work and the transfer of its remaining functions to the Residual Mechanism, in line with the relevant Security Council resolutions.  He had been pressed to propose oral amendments.

Following a request by the representative of Cyprus for a recorded vote on the amendments, the Assembly voted 59 against to 17 in favour, with 65 abstentions, thereby rejecting the proposal (Annex IV).  The draft resolution as a whole was then adopted by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to none against, with 12 abstentions (Annex V).

Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolutions on financing of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (document A/C.5/67/L.17) and on financing of the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT) (document A/C.5/67/L.4).

The Assembly turned next to the two draft resolutions contained in the report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget for the biennium 2012-2013 (documents A/C.5/67/L.18 and A/C.5/67/L.19). 

Explaining its position before action on the first draft, Cuba’s delegate, also on behalf of Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Iran, said the programme budget for 2012-2013 included estimates on special political missions, good offices and other political initiatives authorized by the General Assembly or Security Council.  The delegations were concerned at the inclusion of financial resources related to the activities of the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the responsibility to protect, as the General Assembly “has not legislated” that concept or defined it.  The delegations were concerned that the budget did not allow them to identify the level of resources related to the responsibility to protect within the overall level of funds requested for the Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide.  That inclusion did not help to reach agreement with regard to the budgetary estimates for that thematic group.  The delegations, therefore, considered it necessary to call for a recorded vote on section I of the draft resolution.

The representative of Iran said his country had always supported the United Nations in the scope of its work as long as it abided by international law.  However, the issue of the responsibility to protect was still under consideration by the General Assembly.  There was no reason to fund posts about which there was no definition, he said, and that was why his country would vote “no” on section I.

Section I was then retained by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 12 against, with 22 abstentions (Annex VI).  The draft resolution as a whole was adopted without a vote, as was draft resolution II.

The representative of Syria, speaking after the vote, said his country had voted in favour of the draft text concerning financing for special political missions; however, he had reservations about the allocation of certain resources.  Special Envoy Terje Roed-Larsen had exceeded his mandate by following up on matters of two States, Lebanon and Syria, while he blatantly favoured Israel.  His delegation had joined the consensus on the programme budget for the biennium; however, regarding revised estimates for the Human Rights Council, he again expressed reservations on resources for two positions related to that matter.

Next, the Assembly took up the item on review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations (, adopting without a vote the draft resolution on the proposed programme budget outline for the biennium 2014-2015 (document A/C.5/67/L.13), as well as a draft decision on questions deferred for future consideration (document A/C.5/67/L.20).

Also acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted a resolution, under its agenda item 139, on administrative and budgetary coordination of the United Nations with the specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Other Business

The General Assembly then filled three of five vacancies on the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission, as follows: Brazil, Malaysia and Peru for two-year terms beginning on 1 January 2013.

Turning to the appointment of members of the Committee on Conferences, the Assembly appointed Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal to three-year terms beginning on 1 January 2013.

The Assembly next adopted without a vote a draft decision  to extend the terms of five judges on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (document A/67/L.51), as follows: Mehmet Güney (Turkey), Khalida Rachid Khan (Pakistan), Arlette Ramaroson (Madagascar), Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov (Russian Federation) and Andrésia Vaz (Senegal), who are members of the tribunal’s Appeals Chamber, until 31 December 2014 or until the completion of the cases to which they are assigned, whichever comes first.

Also acting without a vote, it adopted a draft decision to extend the terms of 21 judges on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (document A/67/L.52), as follows: Appeals Chamber Judges Carmel Agius (Malta), Liu Daqun (China), Theodor Meron (United States), Fausto Pocar (Italy) and Patrick Robinson (Jamaica) until 31 December 2013; permanent Trial Chambers Judges Jean-Claude Antonetti (France), Guy Delvoie (Belgium), Burton Hall (Bahamas), Christoph Flügge (Germany), O-Gon Kwon (Republic of Korea), Bakone Justice Moloto (South Africa), Howard Morrison (United Kingdom) and Alphons Orie (Netherlands) until 31 December 2013; and ad litem Trial Chamber Judges Elizabeth Gwaunza (Zimbabwe), Michèle Picard (France), Árpád Prandler (Hungary) and Stefan Trechsel (Switzerland) until 1 June 2013, and Melville Baird (Trinidad and Tobago), Flavia Lattanzi (Italy), Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua (Democratic Republic of the Congo)and Frederik Harhoff (Denmark) until 31 December 2013.

Closing Statement by General Assembly on 21 December

Reviewing achievements made during the main part of the General Assembly’s sixty-seventh session, VUK JEREMIĆ, President of the General Assembly, spotlighted the adoption by the plenary, of, thus far, 231 resolutions and 63 decisions.  Highlights included texts on human rights improvement, freedom of religion or belief, combating intolerance, strengthening the United Nations disarmament machinery and a so-called “humanitarian omnibus resolution”.

However, he said, the issue that had perhaps drawn the most attention was the “historic” vote held on 29 November on granting the State of Palestine non-Member Observer State status in the United Nations.  As those votes were cast, the President had extended an appeal to the Assembly — and to Palestine and Israel in particular — to work for peace with the aim of reaching a comprehensive settlement.  “Today, allow me to call again for a just peace in the holy land,” he said.

Indeed, in today’s globalizing, interconnected world, “what happens in one part of the world invariably affects us all”.  It was with that in mind that he had chosen “bringing about adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations by peaceful means” as the overarching theme for the sixty-seventh session, he said, adding that, “in these tumultuous times, the enormity of this challenge is evident”.

Mr. Jeremić had opened the meeting informing the Assembly that negotiations had fallen short on a draft resolution to set up the Open-Ended Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals, and that a decision on the matter — one of the main outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference — would have to be postponed until a later date.  When he turned to sustainable development during his closing statement, he said he would not be sharing the longer portion of his statement that he had prepared on that topic.

“I have certain strong beliefs which I am no longer prepared to share with this audience,” he stressed in that regard.  He personally believed that such a discussion was critical to the future of humankind, and hoped that such views would be “reflected in decisions we might make in this chamber”.  However, before such decisions or agreements occurred, he was no longer prepared to speak in public about sustainable development.

Turning to other matters, he said that, over the past few years, the Group of 20 (G-20) had come to play an increasingly important role in the debate on how to improve global economic governance.  “I believe the General Assembly, which operates on the basis of the sovereign equality principle, can provide a unique platform to exchange views and share information on shared economic concerns,” he said, announcing his intention to launch a process that would lead to the establishment of a non-intrusive form of regularized interaction between the Assembly and the G-20.

The intent of that initiative was not to infringe on established prerogatives, but to complement existing international efforts, in accordance with the G-20’s outreach to countries not in the collective and the United Nations, he explained.  In addition, he would organize a thematic debate on ways to enhance dialogue between the G‑20 “and the rest of the world”.

Among other high-level thematic debates that would be convened in the months ahead would be one in partnership with the Organization of American States (OAS) on social inequality, one on the “role of international criminal justice in reconciliation” and another on “culture and development”.  A thematic session would be devoted to examining “tools for peaceful resolution of conflicts in Africa”, and a thematic debate would be held on “climate change, green energy and water sustainability”.  In addition, a thematic session would be held on the International Year of Water Cooperation, among other topics.

While those themes merited the significant attention of the Assembly, Member States must also endeavour to consistently implement what had already been agreed.  “Doing so should be seen by all Member States as a core principle of effective multilateralism in the twenty-first century,” he said.  It was only the conduct and dedication of States that would determine the future strength of the Assembly, he emphasized.

ANNEX I

Vote on Operative Paragraph 2, Arms Trade Treaty

Operative paragraph 2 of the draft resolution on the arms trade treaty (document A/67/409) was retained by a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 1 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia.

Against:  Iran.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Bolivia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Myanmar, Namibia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent:  Angola, Azerbaijan, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Paraguay, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX II

Vote on Operative Paragraph 3, Arms Trade Treaty

Operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on the arms trade treaty (document A/67/409) was retained by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 1 against, with 24 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia.

Against:  Iran.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent:  Angola, Azerbaijan, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Paraguay, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX III

Vote on Arms Trade Treaty draft as a whole

The draft resolution on the Arms Trade Treaty (document A/67/409) was adopted by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent:  Angola, Azerbaijan, Belize, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Paraguay, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Oral Amendment to Financing for Former Yugoslavia Tribunal

An oral amendment to the draft resolution on the financing for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (document A/67/675) was rejected by a recorded vote of 59 against to 17 in favour, with 65 abstentions, as follows:

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.

In favour:  Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Kazakhstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Serbia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen.

Absent:  Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belize, Benin, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Nepal, Palau, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX V

Vote on International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Financing

The draft resolution as a whole on the financing for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (document A/67/675) was adopted by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to none against, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Syria, Venezuela.

Absent:  Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belize, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Section I, Draft on Programme Budget for Biennium 2012-2013

Section I of the draft resolution on questions relating to the Programme Budget for the Biennium 2012-2013 (document A/67/677) was retained by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 12 against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Against:  Bolivia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Iran, Nicaragua, Niger, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sudan, Venezuela, Zambia.

Abstain:  Barbados, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, China, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Fiji, Haiti, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Pakistan, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record