UN Human Rights Treaties

United Nations
A/52/PV.70
General Assembly
Official Records
Fifty-second Session
70th plenary meeting
Friday, 12 December 1997, 3 p.m.
New York
President: Mr. Udovenko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Ukraine)
The meeting was called to order at 3.10 p.m.
Reports of the Third Committee
The President: This afternoon, the General Assembly
will consider the reports of the Third Committee on agenda
items 102 to 111, 112 and sub-items (a) to (e), and 12.
I request the Rapporteur of the Third Committee to
introduce the reports of the Third Committee in one
intervention.
Mrs. Martínez (Ecuador) (interpretation from
Spanish): I am pleased to introduce the following reports of
the Third Committee on the items assigned to the
Committee by the General Assembly for consideration.
Under agenda item 102, entitled “Social development,
including questions relating to the world social situation and
to youth, ageing, disabled persons and the family”, the
Third Committee recommends, in paragraph 25 of
document A/52/634, the adoption of five draft resolutions.
Under agenda item 103, entitled “Crime prevention
and criminal justice”, the Third Committee recommends, in
paragraph 22 of document A/52/635, the adoption of seven
draft resolutions.
Under agenda item 104, entitled “International drug
control”, the Third Committee recommends, in paragraph
8 of document A/52/636, the adoption of one draft
resolution.
Under agenda item 105, entitled “Advancement of
women”, the Third Committee recommends, in paragraph
32 of document A/52/637, the adoption of seven draft
resolutions, and, in paragraph 33, the adoption of one
draft decision. I should like to state that draft resolutions
II and III were considered under both item 105 and item
106, entitled “Implementation of the outcome of the
Fourth World Conference on Women”.
Under agenda item 106, entitled “Implementation of
the outcome of the Fourth World Conference on
Women”, the Third Committee recommends, in paragraph
10 of document A/52/638, that one draft resolution be
adopted. I should like to point out to the General
Assembly that in operative paragraph 47 of the draft
resolution entitled “Follow-up to the Fourth World
Conference on Women and full implementation of the
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action”, in the
English text only, after the words “fifty-second session”,
delete the word “or”.
Under agenda item 107, entitled “Report of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced
persons and humanitarian questions”, the Third
Committee recommends, in paragraph 24 of document
A/52/639, the adoption of five draft resolutions.
Under agenda item 108, entitled “Promotion and
protection of the rights of children”, the Third Committee
recommends, in paragraph 16 of document A/52/640, the
adoption of two draft resolutions and, in paragraph 17, the
adoption of one draft decision.
97-86734 (E) This record contains the original text of speeches delivered in English and interpretations of speeches
delivered in the other languages. Corrections should be submitted to original speeches only. They
should be incorporated in a copy of the record and be sent under the signature of a member of the
delegation concerned, within one month of the date of the meeting, to the Chief of the Verbatim
Reporting Service, Room C-178. Corrections will be issued after the end of the session in a
consolidated corrigendum.
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Under agenda item 109, entitled “Programme of
activities of the International Decade of the World's
Indigenous People”, the Third Committee recommends, in
paragraph 8 of document A/52/641, the adoption of one
draft resolution.
Under agenda item 110, entitled “Elimination of
racism and racial discrimination”, the Third Committee
recommends, in paragraph 22 of document A/52/642, the
adoption of three draft resolutions.
Under agenda item 111, entitled “Right of peoples to
self-determination”, the Third Committee recommends, in
paragraph 22 of document A/52/643, the adoption of three
draft resolutions.
Under agenda item 112 (a), entitled “Human rights
questions: implementation of human rights instruments”, the
Third Committee recommends, in paragraph 23 of
document A/52/644/Add.1, the adoption of four draft
resolutions and, in paragraph 24, the adoption of one draft
decision. I should like to draw the attention of the General
Assembly to the fact that in draft resolution III, “Fiftieth
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”,
operative paragraph 2, the words “for all” should be added
at the end. Also, at the end of operative paragraph 10, add
the words “including the adoption of the Declaration on the
Right to Development”.
Turning to agenda item 112 (b), entitled “Human
rights questions, including alternative approaches for
improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and
fundamental freedoms”, the Third Committee recommends,
in paragraph 62 of document A/52/644/Add.2, the adoption
of 18 draft resolutions and, in paragraph 63, the adoption of
one draft decision.
On agenda item 112 (c), entitled “Human rights
questions: human rights situations and reports of special
rapporteurs and representatives”, the Third Committee
recommends, in paragraph 44 of document A/52/644/Add.3,
the adoption of 11 draft resolutions and, in paragraph 45,
the adoption of one draft decision. I wish to note that in
paragraph 4 of draft resolution X, “Situation of human
rights in Rwanda”, the words “Special Representative of
Rwanda” should be replaced by the words “Special
Representative for Rwanda”.
On agenda item 112 (d), entitled “Human rights
questions: comprehensive implementation of and follow-up
to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action”, the
Third Committee recommends, in paragraph 11 of
document A/52/644/Add.4, the adoption of one draft
resolution and, in paragraph 12, the adoption of one draft
decision. I wish to note that in paragraph 5 of the report
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland should be added to the list of sponsors of draft
resolution A/C.3/52/L.64.
With respect to agenda item 112 (e), entitled
“Human rights questions: report of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights”, the Third
Committee reports in document A/52/644/Add.5 that no
proposals were submitted under this item.
On agenda item 12, entitled “Report of the
Economic and Social Council”, the Third Committee
recommends, in paragraph 9 of document A/52/633, the
adoption of two draft decisions. I wish to note that the
title of draft decision I was omitted from the report. It
should read “Organization of work of the Third
Committee and biennial programme of work of the
Committee for 1998-1999”.
The President: If there is no proposal under rule 66
of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General
Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the Third
Committee that are before the Assembly today.
It was so decided.
The President: Statements will therefore be limited
to explanations of vote or position. The positions of
delegations regarding the recommendations of the Third
Committee have been made in the Committee and are
reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind
members that by paragraph 7 of decision 34/401 the
Assembly agreed that
“When the same draft resolution is considered
in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a
delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote
only once, i.e., either in the Committee or in plenary
meeting, unless that delegation's vote in plenary
meeting is different from its vote in the Committee.”
May I remind delegations that, also in accordance
with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of
vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by
delegations from their seats.
Before we begin to take action on the
recommendations contained in the reports of the Third
Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we
2
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
are going to proceed to take decisions in the same manner
as was done in the Committee, unless the Secretariat is
notified otherwise in advance. This means that where
recorded votes and a separate vote were taken in the
Committee, the Assembly will do the same.
I also hope that we shall be able to proceed to adopt
without a vote those recommendations that were adopted
without a vote in the Third Committee.
Agenda item 102
Social development, including questions relating to the
world social situation and to youth, ageing, disabled
persons and the family
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/634)
The President: The General Assembly will now take
a decision on the five draft resolutions recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 25 of its report (A/52/634).
We turn first to draft resolution I, entitled
“International Year of Older Persons: towards a society for
all ages”.
Draft resolution I was adopted by the Third Committee
without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly too wishes
to adopt the draft resolution?
Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 52/80).
The President: Draft resolution II, entitled “Follow-up
to the International Year of the Family”, was adopted by
the Third Committee without a vote. May I take it that the
General Assembly too wishes to adopt the draft resolution?
Draft resolution II was adopted (resolution 52/81).
The President: Draft resolution III, entitled
“Implementation of the World Programme of Action
concerning Disabled Persons: towards a society for all in
the twenty-first century”, was adopted by the Third
Committee without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly
wishes to adopt this draft resolution?
Draft resolution III was adopted (resolution 52/82).
The President: Draft resolution IV, entitled “Policies
and programmes involving youth”, was adopted by the
Third Committee without a vote. May I take it that the
General Assembly too wishes to adopt the draft resolution?
Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 52/83).
The President: Draft resolution V, entitled
“Education for all”, was adopted by the Third Committee
without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes
also to adopt this draft resolution?
Draft resolution V was adopted (resolution 52/84).
The President: I call on the representative of Egypt.
Mr. Wissa (Egypt): I wish to put on record that my
delegation had wished to join in sponsoring draft
resolution V, entitled “Education for all”, but as the Third
Committee had concluded its consideration of agenda
item 102, we were unable to do so.
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of
the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of
agenda item 102?
It was so decided.
Agenda item 103
Crime prevention and criminal justice
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/635)
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on the seven draft resolutions recommended by
the Third Committee in paragraph 22 of its report
contained in document A/52/635.
We turn first to draft resolution I, entitled “Followup
to the Naples Political Declaration and Global Action
Plan against Organized Transnational Crime”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution I
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 52/85).
The President: Draft resolution II is entitled “Crime
prevention and criminal justice measures to eliminate
violence against women”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution II
without a vote.
3
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution II was adopted (resolution 52/86).
The President: Draft resolution III is entitled
“International cooperation against corruption and bribery in
international commercial transactions”.
The Third Committee adopted this draft resolution
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution III was adopted (resolution 52/87).
The President: Draft resolution IV is entitled
“International cooperation in criminal matters”.
The Third Committee adopted this draft resolution
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 52/88).
The President: Draft resolution V is entitled “United
Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and
the Treatment of Offenders”.
The Third Committee adopted this draft resolution
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution V was adopted (resolution 52/89).
The President: Draft resolution VI is entitled
“Strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice Programme, particularly its technical
cooperation capacity”.
The Third Committee adopted this draft resolution
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution VI was adopted (resolution 52/90).
The President: Draft resolution VII is entitled
“Preparations for the Tenth United Nations Congress on
the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders”.
The Third Committee adopted this draft resolution
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution VII was adopted (resolution 52/91).
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of
the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of
agenda item 103?
It was so decided.
Agenda item 104
International drug control
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/636)
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on the draft resolution recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 8 of its report contained in
document A/52/636.
The Third Committee adopted the draft resolution,
entitled “International action to combat drug abuse and
illicit production and trafficking”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 52/92).
The President: We have concluded this stage of our
consideration of agenda item 104.
Agenda item 105
Advancement of women
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/637)
The President: The Assembly has before it seven
draft resolutions recommended by the Third Committee in
paragraph 32 of its report contained in document
A/52/637 and one draft decision recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 33 of the same report.
4
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution II was adopted (resolution 52/86).
The President: Draft resolution III is entitled
“International cooperation against corruption and bribery in
international commercial transactions”.
The Third Committee adopted this draft resolution
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution III was adopted (resolution 52/87).
The President: Draft resolution IV is entitled
“International cooperation in criminal matters”.
The Third Committee adopted this draft resolution
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 52/88).
The President: Draft resolution V is entitled “United
Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and
the Treatment of Offenders”.
The Third Committee adopted this draft resolution
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution V was adopted (resolution 52/89).
The President: Draft resolution VI is entitled
“Strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice Programme, particularly its technical
cooperation capacity”.
The Third Committee adopted this draft resolution
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution VI was adopted (resolution 52/90).
The President: Draft resolution VII is entitled
“Preparations for the Tenth United Nations Congress on
the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders”.
The Third Committee adopted this draft resolution
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution VII was adopted (resolution 52/91).
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of
the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of
agenda item 103?
It was so decided.
Agenda item 104
International drug control
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/636)
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on the draft resolution recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 8 of its report contained in
document A/52/636.
The Third Committee adopted the draft resolution,
entitled “International action to combat drug abuse and
illicit production and trafficking”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 52/92).
The President: We have concluded this stage of our
consideration of agenda item 104.
Agenda item 105
Advancement of women
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/637)
The President: The Assembly has before it seven
draft resolutions recommended by the Third Committee in
paragraph 32 of its report contained in document
A/52/637 and one draft decision recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 33 of the same report.
4
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Zambia had the privilege of making a statement in the
Third Committee on behalf of the members of the Southern
African Development Community (SADC), in which we
elaborated on the vital importance of the right of ownership
of land for rural women. We pointed out that land tenure
practices usually ensure male control of activities and the
allocation of the best land and agricultural input for export
crops. We further pointed out that inheritance practices,
whereby land traditionally passes from father to son —thus
denying women their right to inheritance, let alone their
right to equal inheritance — further reinforce male control
and exacerbate the poverty of women.
In addressing the issue of the feminization of poverty,
one of the key issues that has been identified is that of land
ownership. A definite link has been made between poverty
and the absence of land ownership. It is a proven fact that
land ownership facilitates access to a range of benefits and
opportunities, and the disproportionate enjoyment by men
of rights to land excludes women from those benefits and
opportunities. Without title to land, women's access to
agricultural support services, particularly credit and
extension services, where land ownership is expected as
collateral or as a precondition, is drastically limited.
The majority of land in Africa is agricultural land
subject to traditional inheritance practices, and therefore the
right to equal inheritance of land by women becomes vitally
important. It lies at the very heart of women's economic
empowerment, especially for rural women who may not be
able to purchase title to land. The issue is also a question
of development. Any meaningful development is not
possible when more than half of a population are denied the
right to own land, which is a major productive resource.
It is also a question of human rights. Everyone is born
equal and has the right to be treated equally. The issue of
land rights discrimination is a matter of human rights.
Women are being discriminated against by virtue of their
being born as women.
For these reasons the delegation of Zambia will, in all
appropriate forums, continue to advocate the enactment of
laws that will guarantee women the right to equal
inheritance. In this light, we wish to express our gratitude
to the delegation of Mongolia for its excellent work and
patience in striving to achieve consensus on this draft
resolution. We also wish to express our gratitude to all
those delegations which worked so hard to maintain the
delicate consensus reached in the Commission on the Status
of Women on the inheritance language. We regret that a
few delegations, which were clearly a minority, chose not
to respect and maintain that agreement. We shall,
however, remain unrelenting in our pursuit of justice on
this very important issue.
Mr. Saleh (Bahrain) (interpretation from Arabic):
My delegation will join consensus on draft resolution I,
entitled “Improvement of the situation of women in rural
areas”. But we would like to put on record our
reservations with regard to operative paragraph 2 (e)
because it contradicts our Islamic shariah. Islam has
guaranteed women their full rights, including the right to
inheritance. The Holy Quran provides that the male will
have twice as much as the female. Therefore with regard
to the issue of inheritance in Islam, there is a definite rule
from which we cannot turn aside and which cannot be
questioned.
Ms. Mohamed (Yemen) (interpretation from
Arabic): With regard to the resolution entitled
“Improvement of the situation of women in rural areas”,
we support its adoption by consensus. However, we
would also like to make clear that the issue of inheritance
in Islam is complex. In Islam, inheritance distribution
between the sexes is governed by relationship and
kinship. My delegation would like to put on record our
reservations about the wording of paragraph 2 (e) of the
draft resolution.
The President: We turn first to draft resolution I,
entitled “Improvement of the situation of women in rural
areas”.
The Third Committee adopted the draft resolution
without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to
do likewise?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 52/93).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution II, entitled “United Nations Development Fund
for Women”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution II was adopted (resolution 52/94).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution III, entitled “International Research and
Training Institute for the Advancement of Women”,
without a vote.
6
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution III was adopted (resolution 52/95).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution IV, entitled “Improvement of the status of
women in the Secretariat”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 52/96).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution V, entitled “Violence against women migrant
workers”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution V was adopted (resolution 52/97).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution VI, entitled “Traffic in women and girls”,
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to the same?
Draft resolution VI was adopted (resolution 52/98).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution VII, entitled “Traditional or customary practices
affecting the health of women and girls”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution VII was adopted (resolution 52/99).
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on the draft decision entitled “Reports considered
by the General Assembly in connection with the question
of the advancement of women”, recommended by the Third
Committee in paragraph 33 of the report.
May I consider that the Assembly wishes to adopt the
draft decision?
The draft decision was adopted.
The President: I call on the representative of Yemen,
who wishes to make a statement in explanation of position.
Ms. Mohamed (Yemen) (interpretation from
Arabic): With regard to the draft resolution on the
advancement of women in the Secretariat, we were not
present when it as adopted. We wish to express our
official support for the draft resolution, as well as our
desire to become one of its sponsors.
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of
the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of
agenda item 105?
It was so decided.
Agenda item 106
Implementation of the outcome of the Fourth World
Conference on Women
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/638)
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on the draft resolution recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 10 of its report.
The Third Committee adopted the draft resolution,
entitled “Follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on
Women and full implementation of the Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do
likewise?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution
52/100).
The President: We have concluded this stage of our
consideration of agenda item 106.
Agenda item 107
Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and
displaced persons and humanitarian questions
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/639)
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on the five draft resolutions recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 24 of its report contained
in document A/52/639.
7
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
We turn first to draft resolution I, entitled “Assistance
to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa”,
which the Third Committee adopted without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 52/101).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution II, entitled “Follow-up to the Regional
Conference to Address the Problems of Refugees, Displaced
Persons, Other Forms of Involuntary Displacement and
Returnees in the Countries of the Commonwealth of
Independent States and Relevant Neighbouring States”,
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution II was adopted (resolution 52/102).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution III, entitled “Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution III was adopted (resolution 52/103).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution IV, entitled “Continuation of the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees”, by
acclamation.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 52/104).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution V, entitled “Assistance to unaccompanied refugee
minors”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution V was adopted (resolution 52/105).
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of the
General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda
item 107?
It was so decided.
Agenda item 108
Promotion and protection of the rights of children
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/640)
The President: The Assembly has before it two
draft resolutions recommended by the Third Committee in
paragraph 16 of its report contained in document
A/52/640 and one draft decision recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 17 of the same report.
We turn first to draft resolution I, which is entitled
“The girl child”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution I,
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 52/106).
The President: Draft resolution II is entitled “The
rights of the child”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution II
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution II was adopted (resolution 52/107).
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on the draft decision entitled “Reports considered
by the General Assembly in connection with the question
of the promotion and protection of the rights of children”,
recommended by the Third Committee in paragraph 17 of
its report.
May I consider that the Assembly wishes to adopt
the draft decision?
The draft decision was adopted.
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of
the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of
agenda item 108?
8
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
It was so decided.
Agenda item 109
Programme of activities of the International Decade of
the World's Indigenous People
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/641)
The President: I give the floor to the representative
of Fiji, who wishes to speak in explanation of position
before a decision is taken.
Mr. Bune (Fiji): Fiji believes that observation of the
International Decade of the World's Indigenous People
should not be an exercise just to admit that indigenous
people still exist in our world. Observation of the Decade
should therefore be meaningful and fruitful to the future of
indigenous people. It should address the bleak future they
now face, through the establishment of an international fund
for their survival, development, progress and enhanced
future. We must move at a greater speed to adopt the draft
United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous
peoples. We must set up as quickly as possible an
indigenous-people unit in our Organization. Our ultimate
goal should be the adoption of an international convention
on the world's indigenous people.
We are also concerned over the lack of progress on
the adoption of the draft declaration on the rights of
indigenous peoples. An international declaration on such
rights is, in our view, an international testimony and
commitment to our care, concern and profound interest in
the future of our indigenous people. Yet after three
meetings, only two of the 45 articles have been adopted.
The two adopted are almost negligible with regard to the
substantive aspects of indigenous rights, such as selfdetermination,
ownership and control of resources and
affirmative-action programmes to promote their
development and progress. If observation of the Decade is
to be meaningful, the international community, and Member
States in particular, should display the political will to
finalize the draft declaration as quickly as possible.
We are most concerned over the information on the
world's indigenous people on page 43 of the 1997 Human
Development Report. According to the report, indigenous
people have seen their values and customs destroyed by the
incoming population and have frequently turned to
alcoholism or suicide. In developing countries, they mix to
some extent with the majority population, but in the
industrial countries, many have ended up on reservations,
facing a bleak future. The report went on to state that in
almost all societies where they are to be found,
indigenous peoples are poorer than most other groups,
fare worse in the non-income dimensions of poverty and
face discrimination when it comes to employment. The
report is a very sad commentary on the fate of the world's
indigenous people at a time when we are observing an
International Decade of the World's Indigenous People.
The question my delegation wishes to ask is, what are we
really observing? The bleak future of the world's
indigenous people, their victimization and repression in
our world, a trend in their treatment which could spell
their extinction?
Surely, our observations should be more meaningful
and helpful and contribute to the creation of a better
future for indigenous people during the decade.
We therefore continue to call for the drafting,
negotiation and adoption of an international convention on
the world's indigenous people to create a legal framework
for their survival, development, progress and future in our
world. The indigenous people consider the adoption of the
current draft critical to their survival. This was the
message that came out clearly from the many
representatives of indigenous peoples throughout the
world who attended a regional seminar hosted by my
Government last year as part of its programme of
activities for observance of the Decade of the World's
Indigenous People.
We believe that a positive aspect of international
observance should be the setting up of a unit for
indigenous peoples' affairs in the United Nations, a
proposal which my delegation has been espousing
consistently over the past few years. In our view, our
observance of the Decade would be even more significant
and meaningful if such a unit were established.
Finally, my delegation would like to see these
matters reflected in the draft resolution on the Decade at
our fifty-third session.
In the meantime, Fiji will join the consensus on the
draft resolution before us since we still consider it a step
in the right direction.
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on the draft resolution recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 8 of its report.
9
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
The Third Committee adopted the draft resolution
without a vote.
May I consider that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 52/108).
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of the
General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda
item 109?
It was so decided.
Agenda item 110
Elimination of racism and racial discrimination
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/642)
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on the three draft resolutions recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 22 of its report contained in
document A/52/642.
We turn first to draft resolution I, entitled “Measures
to combat contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”.
The Third Committee adopted the draft resolution
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 52/109).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution II, entitled “Report of the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution II was adopted (resolution 52/110).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution III, entitled “Third Decade to Combat Racism
and Racial Discrimination and the convening of a world
conference on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
related intolerance”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution III was adopted (resolution 52/111).
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of
the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of
agenda item 110?
It was so decided.
Agenda item 111
Right of peoples to self-determination
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/643)
Mr. Mukhopadhaya (India): India would like to be
added to the list of sponsors of draft resolution III, on the
right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
which forms part of the report of the Third Committee on
this agenda item.
The President: The representative of India's
statement will be reflected in the proceedings of the
meeting.
The Assembly will now take a decision on the three
draft resolutions recommended by the Third Committee in
paragraph 22 of its report.
We turn first to draft resolution I, entitled “Use of
mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and
impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to selfdetermination”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda,
Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana,
Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China,
Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire,
Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,
El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana,
Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti,
10
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of),
Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan,
Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho,
Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar,
Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique,
Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria,
Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,
Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint
Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname,
Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand,
Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United
Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay,
Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Against:
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland,
Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Micronesia (Federated States of), Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of
America
Abstaining:
Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia,
Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece,
Grenada, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Papua New
Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic
of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan
Draft resolution I was adopted by 113 votes to 18,
with 41 abstentions (resolution 52/112).
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution II, entitled “Universal realization of the right of
peoples to self-determination”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution II was adopted (resolution 52/113).
The President: Draft resolution III is entitled “The
right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola,
Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia,
Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan,
Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam,
Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia,
Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador,
Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea,
Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon,
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao
People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon,
Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger,
Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea,
Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar,
Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania,
Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint
Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,
Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab
Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine,
United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of
Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen,
Zimbabwe
Against:
Israel, United States of America
Abstaining:
Dominican Republic, Georgia, Marshall Islands,
Micronesia (Federated States of), Norway, Uruguay
11
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Draft resolution III was adopted by 160 votes to 2,
with 6 abstentions (resolution 52/114).
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of the
General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda
item 111?
It was so decided.
Agenda item 112
Human rights questions
Report of the Third Committee (Part I) (A/52/644)
The President: May I take it that the General
Assembly wishes to take note of part I of the report of the
Third Committee on agenda item 112, entitled “Human
rights questions”?
It was so decided.
(a) Implementation of human rights instruments
Report of the Third Committee (Part II)
(A/52/644/Add.1)
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on the four draft resolutions recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 23 of part II of its report and
on the draft decision recommended by the Third Committee
in paragraph 24 of the report.
We first turn to draft resolution I, entitled
“International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of
All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution I
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 52/115).
The President: The Third Committed adopted draft
resolution II, entitled “International Covenants on Human
Rights”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution II was adopted (resolution 52/116).
The President: Draft resolution III, entitled “Fiftieth
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights”, was adopted by the Third Committee without a
vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt
draft resolution III, as orally revised, without a vote?
Draft resolution III, as orally revised, was adopted
(resolution 52/117).
The President: Draft resolution IV is entitled
“Effective implementation of international instruments on
human rights, including reporting obligations under
international instruments on human rights”.
A separate vote has been requested on operative
paragraph 21 of draft resolution IV.
As there are no objections to that request, I shall
first put to the vote operative paragraph 21.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina,
Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas,
Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia,
Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France,
Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala,
Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho,
Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Maldives, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway,
Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru,
Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea,
Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation,
Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra
Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South
12
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Africa, Spain, Sweden, Tajikistan, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and
Tobago, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of
America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela
Against:
Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Ghana,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Sudan
Abstaining:
Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, China, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mali,
Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,
Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian
Arab Republic, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,
United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen,
Zambia, Zimbabwe
Operative paragraph 21 was retained by 118 votes to
5, with 37 abstentions.
The President: The Third Committee adopted draft
resolution IV as a whole without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution IV, as a whole, was adopted
(resolution 52/118).
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on the draft decision recommended by the Third
Committee in paragraph 24 of its report.
The draft decision is entitled “Documents considered
by the General Assembly in connection with
implementation of human rights instruments”.
May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to
adopt the draft decision?
The draft decision was adopted.
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of the
General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item
(a) of agenda item 112?
It was so decided.
(b) Human rights questions, including alternative
approaches for improving the effective enjoyment
of human rights and fundamental freedoms
Report of the Third Committee (Part III)
(A/52/644/Add.2)
The President: The Assembly has before it 18 draft
resolutions recommended by the Third Committee in
paragraph 62 of Part III of its report (A/52/644/Add.2)
and one draft decision recommended by the Committee in
paragraph 63 of the same report.
I shall put the 18 draft resolutions and the draft
decision to the Assembly one by one. After all the
decisions have been taken, representatives will have the
opportunity to explain their vote.
We turn first to draft resolution I, “Respect for the
principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in
the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin,
Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam,
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, China,
Colombia, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba,
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt,
El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana,
Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras,
India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Jamaica,
Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali,
Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New
Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saint
Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia,
Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic,
Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of
Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen,
Zambia, Zimbabwe
13
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Against:
Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia,
Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia
(Federated States of), Monaco, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian
Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Tajikistan, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey,
Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United States of America
Abstaining:
Afghanistan, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Guatemala, Kyrgyzstan, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Turkmenistan, Vanuatu
Draft resolution I was adopted by 96 votes to 58, with
12 abstentions (resolution 52/119).
The President: We turn now to draft resolution II,
entitled “Human rights and unilateral coercive measures”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda,
Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan,
Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso,
Cameroon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros,
Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador,
El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada,
Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti,
Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of),
Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique,
Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria,
Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea,
Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian
Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa,
Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname,
Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab
Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Against:
Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy,
Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova,
Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Swaziland, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of
America
Abstaining:
Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, Belize, Bolivia, Cape
Verde, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea,
Georgia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands,
Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands,
Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Vanuatu
Draft resolution II was adopted by 91 votes to 46,
with 26 abstentions (resolution 52/120).
The President: We turn now to draft resolution III,
entitled “Respect for the right to universal freedom of
travel and the vital importance of family reunification”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Benin,
Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei
Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde,
Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo,
Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea,
Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,
India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Jamaica,
Jordan, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
14
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco,
Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman,
Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru,
Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic,
Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab
Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay,
Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
Against:
United States of America
Abstaining:
Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain,
Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bulgaria, Canada,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi,
Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands,
Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia,
Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea,
Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation,
Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand,
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad
and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Draft resolution III was adopted by 94 votes to 1, with
73 abstentions (resolution 52/121).
The President: Draft resolution IV is entitled
“Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution IV
without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to
likewise?
Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 52/122).
The President: Draft resolution V is entitled
“Effective promotion of the Declaration on the Rights of
Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and
Linguistic Minorities”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution V
without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to
do the same?
Draft resolution V was adopted (resolution 52/123).
The President: Draft resolution VI is entitled
“Human rights in the administration of justice”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution VI
without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to
do likewise?
Draft resolution VI was adopted (resolution 52/124).
The President: Draft resolution VII is entitled
'Strengthening of the rule of law”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution VII
without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to
do the same?
Draft resolution VII was adopted (resolution
52/125).
The President: We now turn to draft resolution
VIII, entitled “Protection of United Nations personnel”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution VIII
without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to
do likewise?
Draft resolution VIII was adopted (resolution
52/126).
The President: Draft resolution IX is entitled
“United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education,
1995-2004, and public information activities in the field
of human rights”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution IX
without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to
do the same?
Draft resolution IX was adopted (resolution 52/127).
The President: Draft resolution X is entitled
“National institutions for the promotion and protection of
human rights”.
15
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution X
without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to
do likewise?
Draft resolution X was adopted (resolution 52/128).
The President: Draft resolution XI is entitled
“Strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing
the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine
elections and the promotion of democratization”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola,
Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia,
Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan,
Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso,
Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile,
Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,
El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia,
Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia,
Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya,
Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho,
Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali,
Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco,
Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria,
Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New
Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal,
Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova,
Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis,
Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka,
Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand,
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan,
Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of
America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela,
Yemen, Zambia
Against:
None
Abstaining:
Brunei Darussalam, China, Cuba, Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lao People's
Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Myanmar, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda,
United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe
Draft resolution XI was adopted by 157 votes to 0,
with 15 abstentions (resolution 52/129).
The President: Draft resolution XII is entitled
“Protection of and assistance to internally displaced
persons”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution XII
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution XII was adopted (resolution
52/130).
The President: Draft resolution XIII is entitled
“Strengthening of United Nations action in the field of
human rights through the promotion of international
cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity,
impartiality and objectivity”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda,
Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados,
Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil,
Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape
Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros,
Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador,
Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon,
Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran
(Islamic Republic of), Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya,
Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
16
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali,
Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia,
Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal,
Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama,
Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,
Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint
Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname,
Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand,
Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United
Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela,
Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Against:
Israel, United States of America
Abstaining:
Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria,
Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France,
Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall
Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania,
San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands,
Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Draft resolution XIII was adopted by 116 votes to 2,
with 50 abstentions (resolution 52/131).
The President: Draft resolution XIV is entitled
“Human rights and mass exoduses”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution XIV
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution XIV was adopted (resolution 52/132).
The President: Draft resolution XV is entitled
“Human rights and terrorism”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and
Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh,
Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia,
Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso,
Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Colombia,
Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia,
Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,
El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,
India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Jamaica,
Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's
Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali,
Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New
Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic
of Korea, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis,
Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South
Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland,
Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab
Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay,
Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Against:
None
Abstaining:
Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi,
Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia
(Federated States of), Monaco, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra
Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain,
Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukraine, United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu
Draft resolution XV was adopted by 115 votes to 0,
with 57 abstentions (resolution 52/133).
17
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
The President: Draft resolution XVI is entitled
“Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of
human rights”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution XVI
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution XVI was adopted (resolution 52/134).
The President: Draft resolution XVII is entitled
“Situation of human rights in Cambodia”.
The Third Committee adopted this draft resolution
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution XVII was adopted (resolution 52/135).
The President: Draft resolution XVIII is entitled
“Right to development”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda,
Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan,
Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam,
Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad,
Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica,
Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,
India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Jamaica,
Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's
Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands,
Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New
Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic
of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda,
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon
Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname,
Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey,
Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab
Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay,
Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
Against:
Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of America
Abstaining:
Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, France, Georgia,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, New
Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, San
Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Tajikistan,
Uzbekistan
Draft resolution XVIII was adopted by 129 votes to
12, with 32 abstentions (resolution 52/136).
[Subsequently, the delegations of Australia, the Republic
of Moldova, Romania and Ukraine informed the
Secretariat that they had intended to abstain; the
delegation of Ghana had intended to vote in favour.]
The President: We next turn to the draft decision
contained in paragraph 63 of part III of the report. The
Third Committee adopted the draft decision, entitled
“Award of human rights prizes in 1998”, without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
The draft decision was adopted.
The President: I shall now call on those
representatives who wish to make statements in
explanation of vote or position.
Mr. Najem (Lebanon) (interpretation from Arabic):
My delegation has asked to speak in explanation of vote
18
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
on draft resolution XV, entitled “Human rights and
terrorism”.
At the outset, I wish to stress that Lebanon vigorously
condemns all acts of terrorism and believes that terrorism
is one of the most terrible scourges of democratic societies.
My delegation reiterates its commitment to cooperating
fully in the context of any just, equitable and impartial
international effort to combat terrorism. In fact, Lebanon
has already ratified most of the international conventions
against terrorism.
My delegation abstained in the voting on this
resolution for the following reasons. First, the resolution
does not condemn state terrorism that allows for the
occupation of foreign territories, such as the Israeli
occupation of southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa and
the horrible massacres of our fellow citizens by the Israeli
army. We, like many other States, are convinced that
foreign occupation is one of the most awful forms of
terrorism.
Secondly, the resolution makes no reference to
General Assembly resolution 46/51 of 9 December 1991,
referred to by the Commission on Human Rights in other
resolutions adopted subsequently to emphasize the need to
establish a clear definition of the concept of terrorism.
Thirdly, the resolution does not draw a distinction
between the right to combat foreign occupation and the just
and legitimate struggle of peoples to liberate their
territories. The latter is a right enshrined in international
law, including the United Nations Charter and the
Declaration on Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the
United Nations.
Mrs. Castro de Barish (Costa Rica) (interpretation
from Spanish): The delegation of Costa Rica wishes to
explain its non-participation in the voting on draft
resolution I, entitled “Respect for the principles of national
sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of
States in their electoral processes”.
We can support many of the principles enunciated and
paragraphs contained in the text. However, we do not
support the content of the seventh preambular paragraph,
especially where it states
“that political systems and electoral processes are
subject to historical, political, cultural and religious
factors”.
This sentence could serve as a pretext for perpetuating
unacceptable past and even current practices in some
electoral processes, such as the use of intimidation and
violence to affect the results of voting by Governments
that wish to remain in power through regimes that are not
truly democratic.
For that reason, my delegation preferred not to
participate in the voting on this draft resolution.
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of
the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of
sub-item (b) of agenda item 112?
It was so decided.
(c) Human rights situations and reports of special
rapporteurs and representatives (Part IV)
(A/52/644/Add.3)
The President: I now call on those representatives
who wish to explain their votes or positions before the
voting on the 11 draft resolutions and one draft decision
contained in document A/52/644/Add.3.
Mrs. Dorjee (Bhutan): My delegation has requested
the floor to speak in explanation of vote before the voting
on draft resolution VI, entitled “Situation of human rights
in the Islamic Republic of Iran”.
In accordance with Bhutan's position on countryspecific
resolutions pertaining to human rights, our
delegation will abstain in the voting on the draft
resolution. We would, however, like to place on record
our reservation on operative paragraph 4 (g) of the text,
which addresses the issue of capital punishment. A
number of delegations had approached the sponsors with
an amendment to delete the words “for apostasy or nonviolent
crimes” from that paragraph, which we regret, was
not accepted.
The deletion would have avoided an intrusive
qualification on which crimes may and may not be
penalized by capital punishment. We would remind the
Committee that no international consensus exists on the
abolition of capital punishment. We also point out that
article 6 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights allows capital punishment for the most
serious crimes. Unlike operative paragraph 4 (g), the
Covenant does not attempt to specify which crimes capital
punishment may or may not be applied to.
19
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
With regard to draft resolution XI, entitled “Situation
of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)”, while
Bhutan supports the draft resolution, we wish to express our
reservations on the seventh preambular paragraph, which
calls attention to document A/52/490 of 17 October 1997,
the report of the Special Rapporteur. Paragraph 36 of the
report includes references to capital punishment, which
clearly exceeds the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
Mr. Rahmtalla (Sudan) (interpretation from Arabic):
The delegation of the Sudan would like to make a general
statement before the voting on the draft resolution on the
situation of human rights in the Sudan, draft resolution IV
in the report of the Third Committee contained in document
A/52/644/Add.3.
The Government of the Sudan takes a continued
interest in human rights; this is a genuine principle of our
Government, which has placed the issue of achieving peace
and the system of governance in the country at the forefront
of its priorities. Proof of that is what has been achieved in
the field of human rights since the beginning of this year
alone, which we would like to summarize as follows.
First, the Peace Agreement between the Government
and all the rebel factions except one was signed on 21 April
1997. That Agreement, known as the Khartoum Agreement,
included the issue of human rights and fundamental
freedoms. This has been attested to by the Special
Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights appointed
by the General Assembly to study the situation of human
rights in the Sudan. Here, I would like to cite some
excerpts by way of example. The Agreement stated:
“1. The Sudan is a multiracial, multi-ethnic,
multicultural and multireligious society. Islam is the
religion of the majority of the population and
Christianity and the African creeds are followed by a
considerable number of citizens. Nevertheless the basis
of rights and duties in the Sudan shall be citizenship,
and all Sudanese shall equally share in all aspects of
life and political responsibilities on the basis of
citizenship.
“2. Freedom of religion, belief and worship shall be
guaranteed.
“3. A suitable atmosphere shall be maintained for
practising, worship, dawa, proselytization and
preaching.
“4. No citizen shall be coerced to embrace any
faith or religion.
“5. There shall be no legislation that would
adversely affect the religious rights of any citizen.
“6. a. Shariah and custom shall be sources of
legislation”.
In separate provisions, the Khartoum Agreement
states:
“The Supreme Court is the custodian of the
Constitution and is thus entrusted with the protection
and interpretation of the Constitution.
“The people of south Sudan shall exercise the right
to self-determination through a referendum.
“The Constitution shall enshrine the following
principles: a. There shall be no punishment except as
provided for by the law; and b. Every person is
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
“The bill of rights and freedoms shall be enshrined
in the Constitution.
“All personal matters such as marriage, divorce,
parentage and inheritance shall be governed by the
religion and custom of those involved.”
Second, following the signing of the Agreement, the
Government tried to negotiate with the only rebel faction
outside the peace process. It agreed to adopt the
Declaration of Principles of the Extraordinary Summit of
the Heads of State and Government of the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) as
a basis for discussion and negotiations. The Sudanese
Government participated at the highest levels in the latest
talks held under the aegis of IGAD last October, in which
it was agreed to resume negotiations next April.
Third, in the field of relief to those affected by war
in the country, Sudan's cooperation continued with the
process which it initiated in the first place — Operation
Lifeline Sudan. Last week, the Special Envoy of the
Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs for the Sudan,
Mr. van Schaik, visited our country and conducted highly
positive negotiations with the Government. In line with
these negotiations, new outlets for food distribution to
new regions in the country were allowed, including the
areas under the control of the sole rebel faction. It is
20
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
worth mentioning here that some of those who cosponsored
the draft resolution described the results of the
visit of the Special Envoy as extremely positive. On our
side, we emphasize what they have stated in this regard.
Fourth, the country's independent National
Commission for the Preparation of the Permanent
Constitution continues its work, with the involvement of all
sectors of the Sudanese people. It is expected that it will
complete the draft constitution at the beginning of 1998.
Fifth, the Government renewed once more, through its
President, the offer of amnesty to all those who bore
weapons against the homeland. It also reiterated its
invitation for political participation internally by all parties,
without any restrictions or exclusions. A great number of
politicians and citizens accepted this invitation.
Sixth, the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on
Human Rights, Mr. Gáspár Bíró, was received twice, first
in January and then in September 1997. Complete
cooperation was accorded him at all levels, official and
unofficial, as he stated in his interim report [A/52/510,
annex] to this session of the General Assembly.
Seventh, many constitutional decrees were issued in
July 1997 providing the framework for human rights and
fundamental freedoms contained in the Khartoum Peace
Agreement.
Eighth, the Consultative Council for Human Rights, a
body comprising various formal and informal circles
interested in human rights, has set up a number of factfinding
commissions to verify allegations of human rights
violations. A number of these committees have completed
their work, and the Special Rapporteur made comments
about the results. Efforts still continue in cooperation with
him to foster and protect human rights in the Sudan.
Through these comments we intended to provide only
some examples of the persistent efforts being made by my
country's Government to foster and maintain human rights.
However, instead of these accomplishments meeting with
recognition and appreciation, we regrettably find that the
American delegation and the co-sponsors of the draft
resolution insist on submitting a draft resolution which
could, at a minimum, be described as devoid of honesty
and credibility. It clearly reflects the degree of politicization
to which some States have gone in dealing with this noble
issue relating to the promotion and preservation of human
rights.
When we refer to the politicization of human rights,
the finger of blame is always pointed at us and we are
characterized as attempting to run away from upholding
the principles of human rights.
However, the targeting of the present Government by
the United States does not require any proof. The
American declarations on the need to get rid of the
current Sudanese Government by any and all means,
including military ones — let me reiterate: by any and all
means, including military ones —fill all mass media. The
visits paid by American officials to the region and to
what is described by the United States as “front-line
States” is a fact, not a Sudanese allegation. We even find
the United States attempting to set the Sudan against its
neighbours, with whom the Sudan will continue to foster
its relations.
It is clear that all these policies, which have been
declared at the highest levels, aim at prolonging the
duration of the conflict in the southern part of the Sudan
and undermining the efforts of the Sudan Government to
establish peace. If we add to this the unilateral imposition
of economic sanctions against the Sudan, we find that all
these policies cannot be construed in a non-political
context. The other proof of that is the statement of the
spokesman of the United States State Department that the
objective of the unilateral economic sanctions against the
Sudan is to exercise political pressure on the elected
Sudanese Government and to coerce it into changing its
behaviour and seriously to involve itself in the peace talks
held in Nairobi. That matter has led to hampering these
talks, delaying them until the beginning of next year.
All of these policies emphasize to the States
Members of the United Nations the real motives behind
the submission of this draft resolution on the human
rights situation in the Sudan. These practices constitute a
gross violation of internationally binding resolutions in
the area of human rights. The Assembly has very recently
stated that the imposition of unilateral economic sanctions
represents a violation of the economic and humanitarian
rights of peoples and adversely affects economic and
social development, the right of the individual to live in
dignity, and a contravention of the Charter of the United
Nations and the principles of international law.
The insistence of the sponsors in submitting this
kind of draft resolutions and the addition of new and
negative elements annually are in line with the ongoing
campaigns against the orientation of the Sudanese people
and its Government. Such campaigns are targeting the
21
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
tolerant Islamic faith. Otherwise, how can we interpret the
addition of a new element to this year's draft resolution
which deals with the sexual abuse of children? It is an
accusation which would make any Muslim feel ashamed.
Some might deny what we are saying, but these attacks are
levelled at Islam and at more than 1 billion Muslim
believers in the United Nations sanctuary during the
celebration of a great occasion — United Nations Human
Rights Day — on the pretext of protecting the rights of
women. This stands as proof that Islam is the primary
target. We cannot accept that some would exploit the
rostrum of this international Organization to derogate from
an incontrovertible right — the right to faith.
We also denounce any attempts to belittle divine faiths
or to subject them to human whims and secular purposes.
We strongly denounce any deprecation of Islam or any
attempt to distort it or to link it to allegations of violations
of human rights, the rights of children and the rights of
women or with terrorism. We see in such behaviour a new
and enormous challenge facing the international community
which should strive to put a stop to this kind of
confrontational attitude among various creeds and faiths in
this world.
I should like to conclude my statement by saying that
the Government of the Sudan will continue its drive
towards peace. The insistence of some on ignoring the
positive references in the report of the Special Rapporteur
to the peace agreement signed in Khartoum on 21 April
1997 and other positive developments by way of fostering
human rights in the Sudan will not dissuade the
Government from such pursuit. It will not be impeded by
the intransigence and inequity manifested by the group of
sponsors. The Sudan will continue on its road to achieving
peace and good-neighbourliness.
For these reasons, my delegation rejects this draft
resolution and calls for a vote thereon. We request that
most members of the Assembly reject it. We take this
opportunity to draw the attention of the Group of 77 and
China to the stand they took, as described on the same day
last year by the representative of Costa Rica, to the effect
that the Group will ask for a vote on any draft resolution
containing the phrase “within existing resources”, and that
the Group will vote against that phrase, which is mentioned
in paragraphs 8 and 21 of the present draft resolution.
It is a source of irony that the European Union and
most of its members which are sponsors of this draft
resolution rejected that phrase last year. But when the
matter is coupled with political objectives, logic vanishes,
the human conscience goes to sleep, and the principled
stands taken by those European States, which sponsored
this draft resolution in spite of the existence of this phrase
therein, are put on hold.
Is this not contradiction in its most glaring
manifestations?
The President: May I ask the representative of
Sudan to stick to the decision we made in General
Assembly resolution 34/401, which sets a time limit of 10
minutes for an explanation of vote. I appeal to that
representative to wind up his statement, as he has already
exceeded the time limit.
Mr. Erwa (Sudan): I am very grateful to you, Sir.
Indeed, I was about to express my appreciation to you. I
should like to conclude.
(spoke in Arabic)
My delegation would like to seize this opportunity
also to extend its gratitude to all those States that did not
support this draft resolution when it was put to the vote
in the Third Committee on November 1997. We again
call upon the States to uphold justice, not only for the
purpose of supporting Sudan, but also for the glorification
of the principles of human rights which all of us espouse
and for shielding them from political exploitation.
Mr. Rodríguez Parrilla (Cuba) (interpretation from
Spanish): To affirm that gross, systematic and mass
human rights violations are taking place in Cuba is vulgar
slander. Lauding a ridiculous Special Rapporteur cannot
conceal the fact that he is but a pitiful pawn. Though
some may feign ignorance, everyone knows that this
exercise is a gross political manipulation by the United
States against Cuba.
In the last few weeks, the United States submitted a
draft resolution endorsing a report that no one knew about
and later offered up its sterile resolution as a tribute to
Miami's annexationist mafia.
The United States' economic war on Cuba constitutes
the only mass, gross and systematic violation of the rights
of the Cuban people. This is an irrefutable truth.
We are being accused by the United States, the
country that is trying to subjugate a whole people through
hunger and disease; the organizer, for almost half a
century, of the most unprecedented plans of aggression,
22
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
and from whose territory, in recent months, terrorist acts
against Cuba have been carried out with impunity.
This is also the country of racism and inequality,
where the family income of blacks is half that of whites;
where infant mortality in the black population is twice that
of whites; where the incarceration rate of blacks is six
times that of whites; and where the leading cause of death
among black youths is homicide, whereas white youths
mainly die driving luxurious cars while drunk. There are
more young blacks in prison than in college and, at the
current rate, an absolute majority of young blacks will in a
few years be in prisons or reform schools.
The United States is the country where immigrants are
hated, exploited — even literally enslaved — or murdered
in a “low-intensity war“ on the southern border. It is home
to the biggest and most repressive prison system, and it is
where one out of every six people executed is innocent. It
is where well-known cases of police brutality are on the
rise; where there is an increasing number of reported cases
of torture of detainees and inmates; and where Puerto Rican
political prisoners serve long prison terms, suffer abuse and
lack medical care.
In the United States the homeless are growing in
number; there are 40 million people with no medical
insurance, more than half of them children; domestic
violence is on the rise, even against children, who have the
highest suicide rate in the developed world. The United
States people are of the opinion that they are living in a
sick and misguided country, where hopelessness is growing
as the economy grows.
We have been told that this draft resolution enjoys
broad, even universal sponsorship. That is false. In fact
there is one author and a small group of junior partners,
some of them original and some what I might call
“restored”. Two thirds of States Members will not be voting
in favour of this infamy. These are the same old sponsors,
who share a colonial mentality by which they would put
dozens of countries of the South into the dock without
recognizing their own inequality, injustice, racism and
xenophobia, their violations of the human rights of
immigrants and minorities, their unjust and selective
deportation policies, the impunity with which the trade in
human, even children's, organs operates, and their tolerance
of child and “exotic” prostitution.
Also curious is the voting pattern followed by today's
sponsors in the draft resolutions adopted by the Third
Committee, when they are not devoted to reproving
countries of the South. Almost without exception, this
afternoon's sponsors voted against draft resolutions
dealing with respect for sovereignty and non-interference
in electoral processes and against condemnation of
unilateral coercive measures that violate human rights.
They also voted against or abstained on draft resolutions
on the non-use of mercenaries, and on the right to
development — in the latter case protesting a paragraph
that promoted the inclusion of the Declaration on the
Right to Development in the International Bill of Human
Rights. Almost unanimously they also abstained on draft
resolutions dealing with freedom of travel and family
reunification, with objectivity, impartiality and nonselectivity
in the field of human rights, and with terrorism
and its connection with human rights.
Moreover, the countries of the European Union,
whose differences in the human rights area could be
addressed through cooperation and dialogue, are being
forced to perform acrobatics in a one-way stream, and
they rush to give pleasing explanations every time they
defend, even timidly, their own sovereignty from the
extraterritorial laws imposed on them by the Empire.
There are also chronic sponsors. One of them is
responsible for the most serious violations of human
rights in the Middle East. The United States has applied
extraterritorial sanctions against it based on the Helms-
Burton Act, just two weeks after it had supported with its
vote the United States embargo on Cuba.
Another is a far-off republic where converted
apparatchiks, in order to disguise their lack of
industriousness in restoring their democracy, have sold
the United States their uranium and their souls, in the
hope that their corruption and despotism will be forgiven.
After exerting so much pressure on so many
countries of the South, the delegation of the United States
can be proud of having achieved the “dramatic” inclusion
in this anti-Cuban exercise of precisely those who in the
past had offered their territory for the Bay of Pigs
invasion and who now rent their seat and their adjectivecrammed
speeches to the Miami mafia; of the
accomplices in the dirty war against their own country;
and of those who now betray their own people by
restoring the privileges of criminals in one of this
century's most brutal dictatorships.
Cuba takes pride in its democracy; like all
democracies it is imperfect, but Cuba has found its own
formulas to ensure for every Cuban without exception
23
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
direct and full participation in the country's decisions. Cuba
takes pride in having, and periodically electing, “a
Government of the people, by the people and for the
people”.
What is actually being called into question today is the
constitutional order which the Cuban people gave
themselves in a referendum. The purpose is to show that
the Cuban revolution is incompatible with so-called
democratic values, with individual liberties and with
political rights.
Cuba is proud of its socialist revolution, and the
overwhelming majority of Cubans are ready to defend it
with their blood. Cuba exists under the circumstances of an
undeclared war waged from near its shores. The so-called
dissident movement, purporting to be a legitimate
opposition, is a fifth column made up of a mere handful of
annexationists organized and financed by the United States.
They are not political dissidents; they are vulgar
mercenaries.
Cuba reiterates its willingness to cooperate and to
engage in dialogue in this field. But it is also prepared for
confrontation. Cuba enjoys full sovereignty; it is
independent in its own right, and it owes an explanation
only to its own people on how it votes at the United
Nations. In defence of its sovereignty, its democracy and its
people's human rights, Cuba will vote against this travesty.
Ms. Mohamed (Yemen) (interpretation from Arabic):
Yemen has always taken a firm and well-defined position
on draft resolutions transmitted by the Third Committee to
the General Assembly on the human rights situation in
specific States, and we shall continue to do so. Our
decision not to participate in the voting on these draft
resolutions is based on a strong conviction and clear
understanding of all the complex factors that affect human
rights, that violate fundamental freedoms, and that deprive
human beings of the ability to enjoy their dignity, wherever
they may be.
In principle, in its policies and in its civilization,
Yemen attaches high priority in its decision-making and its
practices to human rights at the local, regional and
international levels. It seeks constantly to establish the
appropriate political and economic environment and to
create social conditions in which the theoretical and
practical concepts of human rights can be translated into
reality.
The development and democratic process proceeding
progressively in Yemen is in total consonance with
international conventions, criteria and instruments.
Successful attempts by my country to hold free and direct
parliamentary elections, the participation of all sectors in
them, the success of women in gaining parliamentary
seats, and the other positive steps being taken at present
to establish a free democratic and economic order all
attest to our serious approach towards realizing human
rights, so that all Yemeni citizens may exercise their
rights and be enabled to actually enjoy their freedoms,
and their freely chosen options in their society. Yemen is
also constantly striving to broaden the network of
education and training and granting the press and
information media, in general, large freedom of
expression and participation. Today, in Yemen, there are
more than 100 newspapers and independent party
publications. Moreover, there are more than 17 political
parties and organizations. All these efforts are aimed
ultimately at raising awareness, expanding education and
bolstering economic and political security and stability, as
well as effecting the basic and necessary changes that
would enable the citizens of Yemen to breathe freely in
an environment of freedom and dignity and thereby to
exercise their human rights, which emerge in their
fullness within their own environment, culture, local
civilization and history, which define their own identity
first and foremost as human beings.
Therefore, when Yemen chooses not to participate in
the voting on human rights situations in various States, it
does so on the basis of its strong belief in the importance
of complete respect for the identity of the human being.
Such an identity, in the final analysis, is the essence of
man's being and existence.
Therefore, we will not participate in the voting and
would like to explain and summarize our position as
follows. First, politicization of human rights issues and
their manipulation as a means of political coercion in
order to realize economic, trade or other objectives are
unacceptable. Secondly, to consider the human rights
issue as a pretext for interference in others' internal affairs
in order to spread hegemony over or effect the political
dependence of a certain country or region is also
unacceptable. Thirdly, fourthly and fifthly it is
unacceptable to use a double standard in the application
of rules, to adopt a selective approach in finding fault and
to disregard the right to development or to understate its
direct effect on human rights.
24
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Finally, Yemen reiterates all the calls it made in the
discussions of the Third Committee to the effect that it is
better to conduct open dialogues among peoples than to
resort to accusations and confrontation. We also believe it
important to consider the essential reasons which open the
door to human rights violations, such as poverty, ignorance
and war.
In addition, we would like to call for the development
of the approach used by the international community in
adopting legislation and resolutions in the field of human
rights, in order to enable everyone to participate. This
would foster the feeling that there is a genuine desire for
the protection of human rights, without bias.
My country's delegation will not participate in the
voting on any of the draft resolutions now before us, with
the exception of those adopted by consensus.
Mr. Al-Hitti (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): We
have expressed our position clearly in the Third Committee
with regard to the issue of human rights in general, and
with regard to the draft resolution on the situation of human
rights in Iraq in particular. We still hold the same position.
On the other hand, due to my country's inability to pay
its contributions to the United Nations budget, as a result of
the unjust economic embargo against Iraq, my country has
been denied the right to vote, pursuant to Article 19 of the
United Nations Charter. If we had the right to vote, we
would vote against the draft resolutions on human rights
situations in the Sudan, Cuba and Nigeria. This is because
these are political draft resolutions that have nothing to do
with human rights in those countries.
Mr. Gambari (Nigeria): From the outset, my
delegation had queried the purpose and intent of the draft
resolution entitled “Situation of human rights in Nigeria”,
contained in document A/52/644/Add.3, which the General
Assembly is now considering. It is quite clear to us that the
authors are intent on pursuing their political agenda by
prescribing for the people of Nigeria the type of political
system they must adopt and when to do so. It is their
scheme to use this very important issue of human rights as
a vehicle for blatant interference in the internal affairs of
my country. We are convinced that genuine concern for the
people of Nigeria is the least consideration in the minds of
the authors of this draft resolution.
Incidentally, it is significant to note that the authors of
the draft resolution on Nigeria are the same countries which
have just voted against or abstained in the voting on the
draft resolution on the right to development.
The manner in which the draft resolution on the
human rights situation in Nigeria was initiated and
presented also leaves much to be desired. It was discussed
in secrecy and was sprung as a surprise to our delegation
in the Third Committee; it thus calls into question the
credibility and, indeed, the very integrity of its authors.
This draft resolution also does a disservice to the
genuine efforts at the global level towards the promotion
and protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, in accordance with the principles of nonselectivity,
objectivity and impartiality. The content of
this draft resolution is not based on any report of any of
the principal organs or offices of the United Nations
system. It makes no such reference, because there is none
for consideration at this session.
Beyond procedural and presentation issues, the
provisions of the draft resolution reflect a deliberate
attempt by the authors to misrepresent grossly the
situation of human rights and the democratization process
in Nigeria. If they had wanted to be objective, or if they
had taken pains to know it as it is, they would have
spared all of us the travesty which this draft resolution
represents.
My delegation has outlined at every opportunity the
concrete actions and steps taken by the Government of
Nigeria towards ensuring the promotion and protection of
human rights. I am proud to note again that we are one of
the countries that have established an independent and
fully functional National Human Rights Commission,
which serves as a watchdog against any human rights
abuses and provides an avenue for redress where any
abuses may have occurred. Indeed, the Chairman and
some members of the Commission will be making an
official visit to the United Nations Headquarters here in
New York next week to further explain the activities of
the Commission, and we invite delegations to meet them.
The legal system and our system of tribunals are
constantly being looked at closely, and reviewed as
necessary, in order to ensure that individuals are able to
get free and fair trials in accordance with our laws and in
accordance with relevant international standards.
Those familiar with the Nigerian judiciary will bear
testimony to the fact that it is a highly professional and
credible one, which has always upheld the rule of law and
the defence of justice for all. The Nigerian press remains
25
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
one of the most vibrant and free presses anywhere in the
world. The sheer number of independent and privately
owned newspapers and radio and television stations in
Nigeria speaks for itself.
On the question of democratization, the Government
of Nigeria in 1995 set out a carefully phased programme
for transition to civil rule, with a terminal date of 1 October
1998. This is the year 1997, and the various stages in the
transition programme are being implemented as set out in
the timetable. Only last Saturday, 6 December 1997,
legislative elections for state assemblies, which were
contested by the five political parties, were held in the 36
states of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The over 700
local government councils in Nigeria are today headed and
administered by elected chairmen and councillors. I am
happy to inform the Assembly that some of the elected
officials at the local level joined their counterparts from all
over the world to deliberate at the recently concluded
World Conference of Mayors, held in Abuja, the federal
capital of Nigeria.
The progress and achievements are there for anyone
with an open mind to see. That is why, viewed against the
backdrop of these concrete steps and efforts, the draft
resolution before us on Nigeria is a gross misrepresentation
of the actual situation in my country. The draft resolution
is inappropriate, it is unfair and it is unbalanced. It is also
prejudicial to the democratization process in Nigeria. That
is why, at the Third Committee level, of the African
countries —which, after all, are closest to the true situation
in Nigeria — only three voted in support of the draft
resolution. That is also why most Asian and Caribbean
Member States did not support the draft resolution in the
Third Committee. And that is why my delegation will again
vote against this draft resolution. We urge all well-meaning
members of this Assembly and true friends of Nigeria to
join us in voting against it in this plenary meeting.
The President: The Assembly has before it 11 draft
resolutions recommended by the Third Committee in
paragraph 44 of part IV of its report, and the draft decision
recommended by the Third Committee in paragraph 45 of
the same report.
I shall put the 11 draft resolutions and the draft
decision to the Assembly one by one. After all decisions
have been taken, representatives will again have the
opportunity to explain their votes.
We turn first to draft resolution I, entitled “Situation
of human rights in Myanmar”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution I
without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to
do the same?
Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 52/137).
The President: Draft resolution II is entitled
“Human rights in Haiti”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution II
without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to
do the same?
Draft resolution II was adopted (resolution 52/138).
The President: We turn now to draft resolution III,
entitled “Situation of human rights in Kosovo”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina,
Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin,
Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Cape
Verde, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala,
Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland,
Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy,
Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan,
Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia,
Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of),
Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan,
Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of
Korea, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,
Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South
Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden,
Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay,
Uzbekistan, Vanuatu
Against:
India, Russian Federation
26
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Abstaining:
Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Belarus, Bhutan,
Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cameroon, Chad, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire,
Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial
Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao
People's Democratic Republic, Liberia, Malawi,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria,
Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines,
Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts
and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Singapore, Slovakia, Sri
Lanka, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda,
Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela,
Zambia, Zimbabwe
Draft resolution III was adopted by 106 votes to 2,
with 56 abstentions (resolution 52/139).
[Subsequently, the delegation of Swaziland informed the
Secretariat that it had intended to abstain.}
The President: We turn now to draft resolution IV,
entitled “Situation of human rights in the Sudan”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda,
Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas,
Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia,
Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea,
Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands,
Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of),
Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland,
Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian
Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain,
Sweden, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukraine,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay,
Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
Against:
Afghanistan, China, Comoros, Cuba, India,
Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Viet
Nam
Abstaining:
Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei
Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon,
Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt,
Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao
People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho,
Liberia, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania,
Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Oman,
Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic
of Korea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka,
Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia,
Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United
Republic of Tanzania, Zambia
Draft resolution IV was adopted by 93 votes to 16,
with 58 abstentions (resolution 52/140).
The President: Draft resolution V is entitled
“Situation of human rights in Iraq”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda,
Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan,
Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize,
Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada,
Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France,
Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana,
Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait,
Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall
Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New
27
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland,
Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova,
Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon
Islands, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden,
Tajikistan, the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay,
Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia
Against:
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nigeria, Sudan
Abstaining:
Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei
Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape
Verde, Chad, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba,
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea,
Eritrea, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People's
Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia,
Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique,
Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Panama,
Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Sierra
Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syrian Arab
Republic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan,
Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of
Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe
Draft resolution V was adopted by 99 votes to 3, with
60 abstentions (resolution 52/141).
The President: We turn now to draft resolution VI,
entitled “Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic
of Iran”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium,
Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada,
Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia,
Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guyana,
Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius,
Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco,
Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua,
Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Trinidad
and Tobago, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United States of America,
Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia
Against:
Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh,
Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Cuba,
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Ghana,
India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kuwait,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives,
Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan,
Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sri
Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan,
Viet Nam, Zimbabwe
Abstaining:
Albania, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan,
Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde,
Chad, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea,
Eritrea, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-
Bissau, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao
People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho,
Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia,
Nepal, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Republic of
Korea, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis,
Saint Lucia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa,
Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia,
Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab
Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania
Draft resolution VI was adopted by 74 votes to 32,
with 56 abstentions (resolution 52/142).
The President: We now turn to draft resolution VII,
entitled “Situation of human rights in Cuba”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia,
Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile,
Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,
El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia,
28
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Poland,
Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova,
Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of
America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu
Against:
Angola, Belarus, Benin, Burundi, China, Cuba,
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran
(Islamic Republic of), Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Myanmar,
Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea,
South Africa, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda,
United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
Abstaining:
Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan,
Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso,
Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Comoros,
Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Dominica, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea,
Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Jordan,
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Malawi,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico,
Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Oman, Peru,
Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and
Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra
Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland,
Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates,
Venezuela
Draft resolution VII was adopted by 64 votes to 29,
with 75 abstentions (resolution 52/143).
The President: Draft resolution VIII is entitled
“Situation of human rights in Nigeria”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia,
Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium,
Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia,
Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece,
Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi,
Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia
(Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway,
Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea,
Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation,
Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon
Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Tajikistan, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad
and Tobago, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of
America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela,
Zimbabwe
Against:
Benin, Chad, China, Cuba, Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Iran
(Islamic Republic of), Liberia, Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone,
Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo
Abstaining:
Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam,
Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde,
Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica,
Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia,
Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao
People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Malaysia,
Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique,
Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New
Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and
Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,
Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, Tunisia,
Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of
Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia
Draft resolution VIII was adopted by 81 votes to 18,
with 64 abstentions (resolution 52/144).
29
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
[Subsequently, the delegation of Swaziland informed the
Secretariat that it had intended to abstain.]
The President: Draft resolution IX is entitled
“Situation of human rights in Afghanistan”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution IX
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution IX was adopted (resolution 52/145).
The President: Draft resolution X is entitled
“Situation of human rights in Rwanda”.
The Third Committee adopted draft resolution X
without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
Draft resolution X was adopted (resolution 52/146).
The President: Draft resolution XI is entitled
“Situation of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)”.
A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and
Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan,
Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium,
Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil,
Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde,
Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,
El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia,
Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary,
Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland,
Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan,
Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali,
Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco,
Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger,
Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic
of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab
Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan,
Vanuatu, Venezuela
Against:
Belarus, Russian Federation
Abstaining:
Angola, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, China,
Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic
of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon,
Ghana, India, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Liberia, Namibia, Nigeria, Papua New
Guinea, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Uganda, United
Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe
Draft resolution XI was adopted by 133 votes to 2,
with 27 abstentions (resolution 52/147).
[Subsequently, the delegation of Mali informed the
Secretariat that it had intended to abstain.]
The President: We turn now to the draft decision
recommended by the Third Committee in paragraph 45 of
part IV of the report.
The Third Committee adopted the draft decision,
entitled “Documents considered by the General Assembly
in connection with human rights situations and reports of
special rapporteurs and representatives”, without a vote.
May I consider that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
The draft decision was adopted.
The President: I shall now call on those
representatives who wish to make statements in
explanation of vote.
30
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Mr. Mukhopadhaya (India): My delegation has asked
for the floor to make an explanation of vote on draft
resolution III, entitled “Situation of human rights in
Kosovo”, contained in document A/52/644/Add.3,
transmitting the report of the Third Committee on agenda
item 112 (c), “Human rights questions: human rights
situations and reports of special rapporteurs and
representatives”.
India is committed to the promotion and protection of
all human rights everywhere in the world. India is also
committed to the preservation and protection of the
territorial integrity, national sovereignty and independence
of Member States of the United Nations. India also firmly
adheres to the Charter principle of non-intervention in the
internal affairs of Member States. Furthermore, as a country
of many languages and faiths that is committed to
pluralism, India is firmly committed to the promotion and
protection of the rights of all minorities within the
framework of the unity and territorial integrity of Member
States.
Nevertheless, my delegation was compelled to vote
against the resolution because it is perhaps the only
resolution under this agenda item whose title refers to one
part of a sovereign country as though that part of the
country were not an integral part of the country concerned.
It could therefore be seen as inconsistent with Article 2,
paragraph 7, of the Charter.
It also seems to deviate from the principles of nonselectivity
and indivisibility of human rights by appearing
to view the situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
in bits and parts, through a single ethnic prism. Moreover,
since there is already a resolution on the situation of human
rights in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) — as part of an omnibus resolution that also
covers the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the
Republic of Croatia — the right place to address the
situation of human rights in Kosovo would appear to be in
the context of that resolution.
For the reason outlined above, we were obliged to
vote against the draft resolution.
My delegation also wishes to take this opportunity to
make a brief explanation of position on preambular
paragraph 7 of draft resolution XI of the same document,
“Situation of human rights in the territories of the Republic
of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)”.
With reference to the Special Rapporteur's
observations on the death penalty, including the call for
the abolition of the death penalty, contained in paragraph
36 of the report in document A/52/490, we would like to
underline that there are two views on whether the death
penalty is compatible with international law or not. Those
who have acceded to the Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have
undertaken to abolish capital punishment in their penal
codes. The other view sees it as a legitimate penal
provision within the competence of national legislation
and provided for under article 6, paragraph 2, of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to
deal with
“the most serious crimes in accordance with the law
in force at the time of the commission of the crime”.
Given this divergence of positions and provisions, it
cannot be asserted that the death penalty is incompatible
with applicable international law.
Mrs. Cornette (Guyana): My delegation takes the
floor in explanation of vote after the voting with regard
to draft resolutions VI and XI of document
A/52/644/Add.3.
While our delegation voted in favour of draft
resolution VI, entitled “Situation of human rights in the
Islamic Republic of Iran”, we would like to place on
record our reservations regarding operative paragraph 4
(g), which calls for the regulation of capital punishment.
Capital punishment is an intrinsic part of the
Guyanese legal system. Consequently, my delegation
cannot accept within this resolution attempts to impose
conditions on the use of capital punishment by States. The
language of operative paragraph 4 (g) seeks to define in
broad and sweeping terms the nature of crimes for which
capital punishment may be prescribed and to set
limitations for its use. Since there exists no international
consensus on the abolition of capital punishment, my
delegation is concerned that the wording in this paragraph
can be construed as an attempt to undermine internal
judicial laws. We believe that it is the sovereign right of
each State to implement a legal system which it deems
appropriate and effective for its own particular circumstances.
Further, Guyana supported draft resolution XI,
entitled “Situation of human rights in the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
31
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
Montenegro)”. However, we would like to express our
reservations on the seventh preambular paragraph, which
refers to
“the reports and recommendations of the Special
Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on
the situation of human rights in the territories of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro)”.
In this report, the Special Rapporteur deals with the
issue of capital punishment and ultimately calls for the
abolition of the death penalty. Guyana's objections to this
are twofold. First of all, capital punishment is applied in
Guyana and is considered a legitimate part of the State's
judicial system. Moreover, since there exists no
international consensus on the abolition of capital
punishment, we cannot support the Rapporteur's statement
in this regard.
We would like to request that these comments be
recorded in the official records.
Mr. Myaing (Myanmar): My delegation voted against
draft resolution VI, entitled “Situation of human rights in
the Islamic Republic of Iran” in the Committee and has
continued to maintain that position at this plenary meeting.
The reason we requested the floor today is to bring the
attention of the Assembly to operative paragraph 4 (g),
which is connected with the issue of capital punishment.
The language used therein is in contravention of that of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Furthermore, no international consensus has yet been
reached to abolish capital punishment. The inclusion of
such a paragraph in the draft resolution is of concern to our
delegation.
Mr. Rodríguez San Martín (Bolivia) (interpretation
from Spanish): The General Assembly has taken a decision
on the draft resolution entitled “Situation of human rights
in Cuba”, which expresses the international community's
concern at the situation regarding fundamental freedoms in
Cuba, on the basis of the report submitted by the Special
Rapporteur. The Bolivian delegation voted in favour of this
draft resolution because we are convinced that the full and
effective enjoyment of human rights is a basic condition for
development. We believe that participatory and
representative democracy is the way to achieve sustainable
development and stability for peoples. Respect for human
rights is part and parcel of a democratic system, which is
why the promotion and protection of human rights
concerns us all.
Mr. Xie Bohua (China) (interpretation from
Chinese): I would like to make the following statement
regarding our position under agenda item 112 (c) on draft
resolution III, “Situation of human rights in Kosovo”.
Respect for State sovereignty and territorial integrity
is an important principle of the Charter of the United
Nations. On the basis of this principle, the delegation of
China is never in favour of consideration, under the
agenda item on human rights in individual countries, of
issues relating to an area that falls within the territory of
one country. We believe that Kosovo is part of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which is a sovereign
country whose sovereignty and territorial integrity should
be respected.
On the basis of that consideration, the delegation of
China could not support the draft resolution on the
situation of human rights in Kosovo that has just been
adopted. Therefore, we abstained in the voting.
Ms. Foo (Singapore): When the draft resolution on
the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of
Iran was acted on in the Third Committee, a total of 10
delegations placed on record their reservations on the
statement on capital punishment contained in operative
paragraph 4 (g). Today, a further three delegations have
also recorded their reservations on the paragraph which is
now contained in draft resolution VI in document
A/52/644/Add.3. These 13 delegations had different
voting positions on the resolution as a whole. However,
all agreed that the language of operative paragraph 4 (g),
in attempting to dictate what crimes should or should not
be punished by the death penalty, was sweeping and
intrusive and, indeed, out of line with general
international law.
Article 6, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights explicitly permits capital
punishment for
“the most serious crimes in accordance with the law
in force at the time of the commission of the crime”.
It does not single out any particular crime. Even the
Special Representative of the Commission on Human
Rights on the situation of human rights in the Islamic
Republic of Iran, in referring to the use of the death
penalty in the country, did not make any value judgement
32
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
on what crimes could or could not be penalized by capital
punishment.
My delegation would like to reiterate its objection to
operative paragraph 4 (g).
My delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution
“Situation of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)” in the
Third Committee on 26 November 1997. We have done so
again today in the plenary. In supporting the resolution,
however, my delegation would like to reiterate, for the
record, our reservations on the seventh preambular
paragraph of a resolution that was before the Assembly as
draft resolution XI in document A/52/644/Add.3.
The seventh preambular paragraph makes reference to
the Special Rapporteur's report, contained in document
A/52/490, which, inter alia, claims that the death penalty is
incompatible with applicable international law. The Special
Rapporteur's comments on the death penalty clearly exceed
her mandate. Her claim that the death penalty is
incompatible with international law is patently wrong.
Representatives to the Third Committee will recall that
when this draft resolution was taken up for action on 26
November 1997, a total of 22 countries expressed similar
reservations, either in explanations of vote or in general
statements, with regard to the Special Rapporteur's
comments on the death penalty. A further three delegations
have expressed reservations today in the plenary.
It is hoped that the General Assembly will take due
note of the reservations expressed by the 25 delegations
which have spoken out on this issue. It is clear that there is
no international consensus on the abolition of capital
punishment.
Mr. Dlamini (Swaziland): First, on the question of
human rights in Nigeria, our position is that we abstain, as
it was in the Third Committee.
Still on the subject of Nigeria, our belief that we
should abstain emanates from the fact that a lot of good is
being done in Nigeria. Even the report or communiqué of
the Commonwealth summit of Heads of State indicated that
a lot of good is being done in Nigeria. The elections which
have recently taken place at the state level are also
indicative of all the good that is being done in Nigeria.
My delegation therefore believes that before
adopting or drafting resolutions, those who are keen to do
so should first embark upon a deeper study of a country
to see if there have been any improvements or not. Let
us, as delegations, avoid drafting resolutions routinely,
because doing so would mean that we are not exercising
justice at all, except to act on grudges.
On the Sudan, we abstained, on the principle that the
resolution being debated here fails to acknowledge all the
efforts that have been exhibited in the Sudan.
We also abstained on Iran, because we believe that
the Government of Iran is doing a lot of good and is
moving in a good direction.
On the question of capital punishment, my country
and many developing countries still have capital
punishment statutes, like many countries in the “supreme”
world.
On Kosovo, our position is that we abstain, because
we believe that the national integrity of a State should be
respected.
Mr. Choe Myong Nam (Democratic People's
Republic of Korea): My delegation voted against the draft
resolutions on the human rights situations in various
countries, including the Islamic Republic of Iran. My
delegation does not agree with the manner in which the
human rights situations of those countries are handled.
My delegation has always maintained its position
that a politicized approach to the human rights issue
cannot in any way contribute to international cooperation
in the field of human rights.
In addition, I would like to put on record my
delegation's reservations on operative paragraph 4 (g) of
resolution VI, on the human rights situation in the Islamic
Republic of Iran, concerning the death penalty. My
delegation believes that the decision as to whether to
maintain or abolish the death penalty is a matter of the
sovereign rights of individual States.
Mr. Ndiaye (Senegal) (interpretation from French):
My delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution
entitled “Situation of human rights in the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)”
when it was submitted to the Third Committee.
33
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
My delegation has just voted in favour of this text
again, but wishes to express its reservations on the seventh
preambular paragraph, which refers to the comments of the
Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights,
whose mandate was to study the situation of human rights
in the territories of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic
of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The Rapporteur made several comments, in particular
on capital punishment, which is still part of our national
legislation and on which there is not yet an international
consensus, so my delegation would like to put this
statement on the record.
Mrs. Castro de Barish (Costa Rica) (interpretation
from Spanish): Costa Rica co-sponsored draft resolution XI,
on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia
and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). We wish
to reiterate our support for the seventh preambular
paragraph, which refers to the reports of the Special
Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights
concerning the human rights situation in the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro),
and, in particular, for her most recent report, of 17 October
1997, as well as for her comments on capital punishment.
This is because Costa Rica is a party to the Additional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. We believe that the Covenant is a fully legitimate
and valid part of international law. It is clear that the
Protocol is optional and therefore is binding only on those
States parties that have adopted it.
Costa Rica is a party to the Protocol, and we abolished
capital punishment more than 100 years ago. This happened
because of the sensitivity of a woman, the wife of the
President of the Republic, Doña Emilia Solórzano de
Guardia, who urged her husband to submit a draft bill to
Costa Rica's Legislative Assembly to that end. After a
lengthy debate, the bill was adopted. Years later, the
Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica declared Doña Emilia
an honoured daughter of the country.
The President: We have heard the last speaker in
explanation of vote after the voting.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General
Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (c) of
agenda item 112?
It was so decided.
(d) Comprehensive implementation of and follow-up
to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of
Action
Report of the Third Committee (Part V)
(A/52/644/Add.4)
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on the draft resolution recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 11 of Part V of its report
(A/52/644/Add.4) and on the draft decision recommended
by the Third Committee in paragraph 12 of the same
report.
We turn first to the draft resolution, entitled
“Comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action”, which the
Third Committee adopted without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the
same?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution
52/148).
The President: We turn now to the draft decision,
entitled “Working Group of the Third Committee”.
May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to
adopt the draft decision recommended by the Third
Committee?
The draft decision was adopted.
The President: We have thus concluded this stage
of our consideration of sub-item (d) of agenda item 112.
(e) Report of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights
Report of the Third Committee (Part VI)
(A/52/644/Add.5)
The President: The Assembly will now consider
Part VI of the report of the Third Committee.
May I take it that the Assembly takes note of Part
VI of the report?
It was so decided.
34
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of the
General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item
(e) of agenda item 112?
It was so decided.
Agenda item 12 (continued)
Report of the Economic and Social Council
Report of the Third Committee (A/52/633)
Draft resolution (A/52/L.66)
The President: I call upon the representative of
Denmark to introduce draft resolution A/52/L.66.
Mr. Bøjer (Denmark): I almost feel I should
apologize to you, Mr. President, and to my colleagues —
and perhaps in particular my colleague from Swaziland —
for prolonging our proceedings at the end of a long day and
a long week. However, this issue is important, and the
purpose is one we all share.
I am therefore not apologetic but pleased to introduce
draft resolution A/52/L.66, entitled “United Nations
International Day in Support of Victims of Torture”. This
draft resolution is wholly procedural and limited in scope
and substance to Economic and Social Council decision
1997/251, by which the Economic and Social Council
approved by consensus the request of the Commission on
Human Rights to the General Assembly, in preparing for
the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, to proclaim 26 June United Nations
International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, with a
view to the total eradication of torture and the effective
functioning of the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Since the agenda for the Third Committee this year
does not include a specific item on torture, and owing to
the fact that Economic and Social Council decision
1997/251 has not been expressly endorsed but merely taken
note of in the report of the Third Committee, Denmark has
decided to present this draft resolution in the plenary of the
Assembly. You may ask, “Why Denmark?” Simply because
Denmark was the originator of Commission on Human
Rights resolution 1997/38, which was adopted without a
vote. It is my sincere hope that the present draft resolution
can also be adopted without a vote.
The President: The Assembly will first take a
decision on the two draft decisions recommended by the
Third Committee in paragraph 9 of its report (A/52/633).
We turn first to draft decision I, entitled
“Organization of work of the Third Committee and draft
biennial programme of work of the Committee for 1998-
1999”.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt
draft decision I?
Draft decision I was adopted.
The President: We turn next to draft decision II,
entitled “Report of the Economic and Social Council”.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt
draft decision II?
Draft decision II was adopted.
The President: The Assembly will now take a
decision on draft resolution A/52/L.66, “United Nations
35
General Assembly 70th plenary meeting
Fifty-second session 12 December 1997
International Day in Support of Victims of Torture,” just
introduced by the representative of Denmark.
May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft
resolution A/52/L.66?
Draft resolution A/52/L.66 was adopted (resolution
52/149).
The President: May I take it that it is the wish of the
General Assembly to conclude its consideration of the
chapters of the report of the Economic and Social Council
allocated to the Third Committee?
It was so decided.
The President: The General Assembly has thus
concluded its consideration of all the reports of the Third
Committee. I should like to thank the Third Committee and
its Chairman and other officers for the timely conclusion of
the Committee's work and activities, despite the great
number of very important issues that the Committee
considered.
The meeting rose at 6.20 p.m.
36