UN Human Rights Treaties

UNITED NATIONS
General Assembly
FORTY-NINTH SESSION
Official Records
THIRD COMMITTEE
35th meeting
held on
Thursday, 17 November 1994
at 3 p.m.
New York
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 35th MEETING
Chairman: Mr. CISSÉ (Senegal)
CONTENTS
AGENDA ITEM 93: ELIMINATION OF RACISM AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (continued)
AGENDA ITEM 94: RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION (continued)
AGENDA ITEM 95: SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE WORLD
SOCIAL SITUATION AND TO YOUTH, AGEING, DISABLED PERSONS AND THE FAMILY
(continued)
AGENDA ITEM 99: REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES,
QUESTIONS RELATING TO REFUGEES, RETURNEES AND DISPLACED PERSONS AND HUMANITARIAN
QUESTIONS (continued)
This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be sent under the signature of a member of the
delegation concerned within one week of the date of the publication to the Chief of the Official Records
Editing Section, room DC2-794, 2 United Nations Plaza, and incorporated in a copy of the record.
Corrections will be issued after the end of the session, in a separate corrigendum for each Committee.
Distr. GENERAL
A/C.3/49/SR.35
2 December 1994
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
94-82383 (E) /...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 2
The meeting was called to order at 3.40 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM 93: ELIMINATION OF RACISM AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (continued)
(A/C.3/49/L.8/Rev.1)
Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.8/Rev.1
1. The CHAIRMAN invited the Committee to take action on draft resolution
A/C.3/49/L.8/Rev.1 entitled "Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial
Discrimination".
2. Mr. REZVANI (Islamic Republic of Iran) said that, having further analysed
the revised draft resolution, his delegation wished to add an amendment to those
it had previously introduced. He accordingly proposed that the words "and the
effects of restrictive immigration policies against them", which had originally
appeared in paragraph 17 of the draft resolution, should be added after the word
"families" in paragraph 6.
3. Mr. MUCH (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said he was
distressed that a delegation should wish to interfere with the consensus on the
draft resolution that was certain to be achieved thanks to the commendable
efforts of the Group of African States, which had drafted it. He therefore
rejected the proposed amendment.
4. Mr. ORDZHONIKIDZE (Russian Federation), supported by Mr. OULD MOHAMED
LEMINE (Mauritania), Mr. LAMPTEY (Ghana) and Miss DIOP (Senegal) said that lastminute
amendments should not be introduced when lengthy discussions with a view
to reaching agreement had already been conducted. As the draft resolution
addressed a vital issue, it was important that it should be adopted by
consensus, particularly since it contained the Revised Programme of Action for
the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination (1993-2003). He
therefore appealed to the Iranian representative not to insist on his proposed
amendment.
5. Mr. REZVANI (Islamic Republic of Iran) confessed surprise at the reaction
to his modest amendment, which addressed a relevant concern and contained
wording that had appeared in the original draft, and was not intended to disrupt
the consensus adoption of that extremely important document. His country,
however, had not been party to the relevant consultations, and its views could
therefore only be expressed from the floor. Since, however, the draft
resolution related to an entire decade, he believed that further work could be
carried out the following year and therefore agreed to respond to the appeals
made by withdrawing his amendment for the sake of consensus.
6. Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.8.Rev.1 was adopted.
7. Mr. KUEHL (United States of America) affirmed that his country was pleased
to join the consensus on combating racism and racial discrimination and noted
with satisfaction that the draft resolution had no budget implications. As in
/...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 3
other United Nations programmes, the United States would seek to achieve savings
in the Programme of Action adopted by the draft resolution with a view to
enhancing the effectiveness of the United Nations.
AGENDA ITEM 94: RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO SELF-DETERMINATION (continued)
(A/C.3/49/L.5/Rev.1)
Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.5/Rev.1
8. The CHAIRMAN invited the Committee to take action on draft resolution
A/C.3/49/L.5/Rev.1 entitled "The right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination",
which was now also sponsored by Bahrain and Kuwait. He also
drew attention to the oral amendment introduced at an earlier meeting to
paragraph 3 by replacing the words "extend their support to" by the words
"continue to support".
9. Mr. ELDEEB (Egypt), whose delegation was the coordinator for the draft
resolution, expressed gratitude on behalf of its sponsors to all delegations
which had cooperated with a view to producing a consensus draft. He also
announced that Guinea and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic had joined the
sponsors.
10. Mr. YAACOBI (Israel), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting,
said that, despite the title of the draft resolution, the issue in question was
not self-determination. It was commitment to the agreements signed by the
Palestine Liberation organization (PLO) and his country, as well as to one of
the principles underlying the peace process: direct negotiation without
preconditions. That principle had paved the way for the Declaration of
Principles on Interim Self-Government, in which the two parties had agreed to
negotiate the issues relating to permanent status at a later stage. Yet the
draft resolution prepared by the PLO was intended to predetermine the outcome of
those permanent-status talks. His country would therefore vote against it, and
it urged all Member States that supported the peace process to do the same.
11. Mr. BIØRN LIAN (Norway) said that his country supported the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination. However, according to the Declaration
of Principles signed by the PLO and Israel, the final status of the Palestinian
territories was to be decided by negotiations between them, and the General
Assembly should be careful not to interfere. His country would therefore
abstain in the vote.
12. Mr. KUEHL (United States of America) said that his country would vote
against draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.5/Rev.1. The United States was profoundly
committed to the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and
to the current negotiations, which it was sponsoring together with the Russian
Federation. The encouraging progress already achieved, including agreements
between the PLO and Israel, held the clear promise of continuing, despite
unrelenting efforts from the enemies of peace to derail the entire process.
/...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 4
13. Given that the international community should do its utmost to promote and
support that historic enterprise, the United Nations should not adopt
controversial positions on issues that were supported by only one party to the
peace negotiations, the outcome of which draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.5/Rev.1
could undermine. The Committee’s efforts should not, therefore, be directed
towards resolutions that would have a polarizing and divisive effect.
14. Mr. ORDZHONIKIDZE (Russian Federation) supported the right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination and that of Israel to peaceful
coexistence. As a sponsor of the Middle East peace process, his country based
its position on the view that the future of the Palestinians should be decided
in the context of the bilateral talks between Israel and Palestine. Believing
that attempts to influence the character of those talks would complicate
matters, his delegation would abstain in the vote.
15. A recorded vote was taken.
In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda,
Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin,
Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam,
Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde,
Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany,
Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary,
India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland,
Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao
People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives,
Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea,
Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saint
Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,
Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Venezuela,
Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Israel, United States of America.
Abstaining: Argentina, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji,
Georgia, Guatemala, Iceland, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Norway, Panama, Peru, Republic of Korea, Republic
of Moldova, Russian Federation, Rwanda, South Africa,
Swaziland, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.
16. Draft resolution was adopted by 124 votes to 2, with 27 abstentions.
/...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 5
17. Mr. HAMIDA (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) said that he had voted in favour of the
draft resolution in view of his country’s full and constant support of the right
of the Palestinian people to self-determination. That vote, however, did not
signal its recognition of the so-called "State of Israel". He wished to place
on record his reservation concerning the references to the Middle East peace
process; a just and lasting peace in the Middle East would be achieved only with
the establishment of a democratic Palestinian State where all races and
religions coexisted as they now did in South Africa.
18. Mr. NIETO (Argentina) said that his delegation had abstained in the vote
because it had not wanted to participate in taking a decision that might in any
way affect the ongoing peace negotiations between the PLO and Israel. That vote
should not be interpreted as favouring in any way the rights of one of the
parties to the detriment of those of the other.
19. Mr. COLOMA (Chile) said that his delegation had voted in favour of the
draft resolution and hoped that its adoption would not adversely affect the
ongoing peace negotiations. Chile would continue to support the peace process
in the Middle East.
20. Mr. CRAPATUREANU (Romania) said that his country had consistently supported
the peace process in the Middle East and welcomed the positive developments in
that regard. In voting in favour of the draft resolution, Romania had taken
into consideration two basic elements reflected in the text: the principle of
self-determination and the right of all States in the region to live within
secure and internationally recognized borders.
21. Ms. BUCK (Canada) said that her country had voted in favour of the draft
resolution because of its support for the right of the Palestinian people to
self-determination within the framework of the peace negotiations. Although
Canada did not specifically advocate the establishment of a sovereign
Palestinian State, it would not oppose it, if the peace process led to that
result. Care must be taken to avoid prejudicing the outcome of the current
peace negotiations.
22. Ms. HERNANDEZ VALVERDE (Costa Rica) said that, although her delegation
supported unreservedly the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination,
it had abstained in the vote because it believed that the
adoption of the draft resolution under consideration would impede the ongoing
peace process in the Middle East. She hoped that that process would continue
and lead to lasting peace for all States in the region.
23. Mr. WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) said that his delegation had voted in favour
of the draft resolution on the understanding that paragraph 2 did not run
counter to General Assembly resolutions which provided that forms of political
status other than independence might be comprised within the right to selfdetermination,
if the peoples concerned expressed themselves in favour of such
other forms.
/...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 6
24. Mr. AL-KIDWA (Observer for Palestine) expressed satisfaction at the
adoption of the draft resolution by an absolute majority. The right of all
peoples to self-determination was a recognized principle of international law
and the Palestinian people had long fought to exercise that right. Genuine
support for the peace process meant that the right of the Palestinian people to
self-determination must be supported because there would be no just and lasting
peace in he Middle East unless the Palestinian people were able to exercise that
right fully. Contrary to what some delegations claimed, there was no
contradiction in that regard.
25. The votes cast by the United States and Israel had shocked his delegation.
Their attitude was reminiscent of the atmosphere that had prevailed before the
peace process had begun. He had hoped that the results of the vote would be
different because of what had been achieved in the peace process. It was
incomprehensible how it was possible to recognize the existence of the
Palestinian people, on the one hand, and deny its right to self-determination,
on the other. The peace negotiations must be conducted in accordance with
international law and the United Nations Charter. The position of the friendly
countries that had not voted in favour of the draft resolution was surprising.
The results of the vote would be carefully studied by the Palestinian leadership
in order to draw the necessary conclusions for the peace process in the region.
Lastly, he hoped that the current session of the General Assembly would lead to
more positive developments in order to further that process.
26. Mr. MUCH (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union and Austria,
Finland and Sweden, said that the delegations for which he spoke had voted in
favour of the draft resolution. They warmly welcomed the progress already
achieved in the Middle East peace process and encouraged the parties to continue
to negotiate in a constructive spirit in order to reach agreement on the
permanent status of the territories. He hoped that the adoption of the draft
resolution would be part of a new approach towards resolutions on the Middle
East, and he attached the greatest importance to the declared intention of the
main sponsors of the draft resolution that it should not be seen as
predetermining the outcome of the negotiations on the permanent status of the
territories.
27. The European Union continued to support the right of the Palestinian people
to self-determination and had long held the position that the exercise of that
right was an ongoing process and could be implemented in a variety of ways. He
welcomed the fact that the Palestinian people, in exercising its right to selfdetermination,
had chosen the path of negotiation. The European Union would
support that process through specific measures in the economic, administrative
and electoral fields. Reaffirmation of the right of the Palestinian people to
self-determination went hand in hand with reaffirmation of the right of all
countries in the region, including Israel, to live in peace within secure and
internationally recognized borders. He welcomed the fact that both elements
were reflected in the draft resolution.
28. Ms. FERTEKLIGIL (Turkey) said that her country, which had always
consistently supported the right of the Palestinian people to self-
/...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 7
determination, had voted in favour of the draft resolution. She stressed that
all States in the region, including Israel, had the right to live in peace
within secure and internationally recognized borders and said that Turkey would
continue to support the efforts to bring about a comprehensive and lasting peace
in the region.
29. Mr. REZVANI (Islamic Republic of Iran) said that his delegation had voted
in favour of the draft resolution, but had strong reservations about the last
preambular paragraph and paragraph 2. He did not believe that the recent
agreements would restore the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and
therefore wished to dissociate himself from those paragraphs.
30. Mr. USUI (Japan) said that, although his delegation had voted in favour of
the draft resolution, it felt that adopting such a resolution, which urged the
international community to support only one party in the peace process, was not
a useful contribution to that effort. The permanent status of the occupied
territories must be determined by the parties themselves through negotiations.
31. Mr. ALI (Iraq) said that his delegation supported all the rights of the
Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination by establishing
its own State in the occupied territories, with Jerusalem as its capital. Iraq
had voted in favour of the draft resolution, but had reservations about the
third preambular paragraph and paragraph 2.
32. Mr. DEKANY (Hungary) said that his delegation had voted in favour of the
draft resolution. Paragraph 3 of the draft resolution, however, should not be
interpreted as a departure from the current political framework of the peace
process. The draft resolution as a whole should be viewed in the context of the
right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and
internationally recognized borders, as stated in its third preambular paragraph.
Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.6*
33. The CHAIRMAN invited the Committee to take up draft resolution
A/C.3/49/L.6,* on the use of mercenaries, and said that Algeria, Egypt, Ghana
and Malaysia had joined the sponsors.
34. Ms. NEWELL (Secretary of the Committee) said the draft resolution had been
revised in several places. In paragraph 3, the phrase "or threaten the
territorial integrity of any sovereign State" should be inserted in the
penultimate line after the words "any State". In paragraph 6, the phrase
"within existing resources, working meetings to analyse and consider" should be
inserted after the words "and to consider" in the fourth line. In paragraph 7,
the phrase "with specific recommendations" should be inserted after the words
"to report" in the first line.
35. Mr. MATESIC´ (Croatia), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote,
said that his delegation opposed the use of mercenaries to violate human rights
and impede the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination,
particularly since his country had been the victim of mercenaries recruited,
/...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 8
financed and trained by Serbia and Montenegro in order to impede the exercise of
the right of the citizens of Croatia to self-determination. In that connection,
the report of the Special Rapporteur on the use of mercenaries (A/49/362) did
not deal with the issue of mercenaries in the region in the proper manner. The
report uncritically presented unsubstantiated charges by the Belgrade
authorities, which should have been carefully examined before being given a
degree of legitimacy by being published in such a report. Independent
investigation was the proper way to address such issues.
36. During the barbaric aggression launched by Serbian forces against Croatia,
a number of foreign nationals had come as volunteers to assist in the defence of
Croatia. Most of those individuals were of Croatian origin and had come to
defend the homes where they or their parents had been born and to protect family
members from the bloody fate that had been planned for them. Those individuals
had come before the establishment of the Croatian Army and were no longer
involved in the defence of Croatia. They could in no way be considered
mercenaries, since they had come to protect the human rights of Croat citizens,
including the most basic human right, the right to life. Accordingly, while
supporting the general thrust of draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.6,* Croatia would
not be able to vote in favour of that document.
37. Mr. KUEHL (United States of America) said that his delegation would join
others in voting against draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.6.* Although his
Government remained opposed to the recruitment and use of mercenary forces
around the world, that draft resolution was not the way to address the problem.
Attempts to connect the question of mercenaries with drug traffickers diluted
vitally important anti-narcotics efforts. The time spent on those issues could
be better devoted to more pressing human rights problems. Furthermore, the
draft resolution stretched the definition of mercenaries far beyond the terms of
that set forth in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
38. The activities of mercenaries, while criminal in many ways, did not fit the
definition of human rights violations committed by Governments. In addition,
his delegation did not believe that the Special Rapporteur on the use of
mercenaries had made a case for continuing the consideration of that question
under the rubric of human rights. The Special Rapporteur had exhausted the
study of mercenaries and, in the interest of rationalizing the human rights
agenda, his mandate should not be extended when it expired. If the Special
Rapporteur continued his work, however, he should take into account the
definition of mercenaries contained in the Additional Protocol referred to and
should employ more stringent standards when reporting accusations and "rumours"
of mercenary activities.
39. A recorded vote was taken.
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan,
Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize,
Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil,
Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon,
Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa
/...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 9
Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador,
Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana,
Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of),
Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, 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, Republic of
Moldova, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saudi
Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab
Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia,
Zimbabwe.
Against: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia,
Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Fiji, Greece,
Ireland, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia
(Federated States of), New Zealand, Poland, Republic of Korea,
Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Uruguay.
40. Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.6* was adopted by 101 votes to 19, with 34
abstentions.
41. Mr. MUCH (Germany), speaking in explanation of vote on behalf of the
European Union as well as Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden, said that the
European Union condemned unequivocally the recruitment, use or financing of
mercenaries and well understood the concerns, particularly of African countries,
which had led to the submission of the draft resolution. Nevertheless, it was
regrettable that the report of the Special Rapporteur (A/49/362) contained
several considerations that were conceptually mistaken or extraneous to his
mandate. Furthermore, the European Union could not associate itself with the
request in paragraph 6 of the draft resolution that the Centre for Human Rights
should devote, as a matter of priority, more effort to the question of mercenary
activities, particularly at a time when available resources for more pressing
human rights activities were extremely scarce. For those reasons, the European
Union had been unable to support draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.6.*
42. Mr. USUI (Japan) said that his delegation had voted against the draft
resolution. While Japan did not employ mercenaries or send mercenaries to other
countries, it had some reservations about taking up the issue in the context of
self-determination.
/...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 10
43. Mr. VAUGHN-FENN (United Kingdom) said that his delegation’s decision to
call a vote on the draft resolution should in no way be taken to mean that his
Government underestimated the sponsors’ real concern regarding mercenary
activities. The United Kingdom shared those concerns, but did not believe that
mercenary activities should be combated primarily as a human rights issue.
There were human rights aspects to the problem, but not such as to constitute a
coherent mandate for a Special Rapporteur. His delegation considered that the
report of the Special Rapporteur on the use of mercenaries (A/49/362) amply
illustrated that he was proceeding on the basis of a flawed mandate. The report
made no practical contribution to addressing the real problems regarding the use
of mercenaries. Such problems should instead be addressed by such means as
international cooperation against crime, and the resources currently expended on
that mandate should be redeployed to the numerous areas of higher priority
within the human rights budget.
44. Mrs. PILOTO (Zimbabwe) said that her delegation would have wished to join
the sponsors of the draft resolution.
45. Ms. TOMKINSON (Australia) said that her Government firmly opposed the use
of mercenaries, which it considered unlawful, and was currently considering
ratification of the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use,
Financing and Training of Mercenaries. Her delegation had, however, abstained
in the vote on the draft resolution, believing that much of the subject-matter
addressed by the Special Rapporteur was already appropriately considered
elsewhere in the United Nations, and that recent developments in Africa and
Central America had reduced the human rights relevance of the problem of
mercenaries.
46. Mr. OTUYELU (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the sponsors, apologized for
having omitted to mention before the vote that the Zimbabwean delegation wished
to become a sponsor of the draft resolution. He welcomed the recognition by
other delegations of the illegality of the use of mercenaries. That illegality
had human rights implications, and that in turn was the whole purpose of the
draft resolution. The need to optimize the use of resources was well
recognized. It was not the intention of the sponsors to waste resources on
unnecessary items; their shared concerns regarding mercenary activities should
be seen in the proper context. He welcomed the remarks of those who shared
those concerns, and suggested that efforts should be made to make the Special
Rapporteur’s work more effective. It was for the Committee to decide whether
his mandate should continue.
47. Mr. VOLSKI (Georgia) said that his delegation had voted against the draft
resolution. Georgia had a positive attitude to the inalienable right of peoples
to self-determination, and was categorically opposed to the use of mercenaries.
However, events in his country had shown that people who called themselves
fighters for self-determination sometimes used mercenaries who showed examples
of unheard-of cruelty; for that reason, the draft resolution was inappropriate.
/...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 11
48. Ms. MURUGESAN (India) said that her delegation, as one of the sponsors of
the draft resolution, wished to emphasize that mercenary activity was not
confined to Africa and Latin America.
Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.7/Rev.1
49. A recorded vote was taken.
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia,
Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin,
Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei
Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape
Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica,
Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea,
Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait,
Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon,
Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia,
Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger,
Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay,
Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis,
Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa,
Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic,
Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United
Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: France, Israel, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of America.
Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands,
Micronesia (Federated States of), Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of
Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.
50. Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.7/Rev.1 was adopted by 101 votes to 4, with 49
abstentions.
/...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 12
AGENDA ITEM 95: SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE WORLD
SOCIAL SITUATION AND TO YOUTH, AGEING, DISABLED PERSONS AND THE FAMILY
(continued) (A/C.3/49/L.9/Rev.1, L.10/Rev.1, L.11 and L.12)
Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.9/Rev.1
51. The CHAIRMAN invited the Committee to take up draft resolutions
A/C.3/49/L.9/Rev.1, on International Youth Year; A/C.3/49/L.10/Rev.1, on persons
with disabilities; A/C.3/49/L.11, on youth; and A/C.3/49/L.12, on cooperatives.
52. Mr. SUTOYO (Indonesia), speaking on behalf of the sponsors, announced that
the Russian Federation had also become a sponsor of the draft resolution.
53. He said that, further to consultations and with a view to reaching
consensus on the text, that paragraph 3 of the draft resolution should be
revised by replacing the word "four" by "up to four" and by replacing the words
"to adopt" by the words "to consider, with a view to adopting,". Consequently,
the word "four" in the first line of paragraph 4 should be deleted. On behalf
of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, he commended the draft resolution for
adoption by consensus.
54. Mr. AQUARONE (Netherlands), Ms. FENG Cui (China), and Mr. MINOVES-TRIQUELL
(Andorra) announced that their delegations wished to join the sponsors of the
draft resolution.
55. Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.9/Rev.1, as orally revised, was adopted.
56. Mr. MUCH (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, and supported
by Ms. FURUYA (Japan) and Mr. KUEHL (United States of America), said that the
delegations concerned had joined the consensus on the draft resolution because
they supported the idea of commemorating the tenth anniversary of the
International Youth Year, and welcomed the revisions that had been made to the
text. However, the draft world programme of action for youth would have to be
discussed in the Commission for Social Development and in the Economic and
Social Council. It would therefore be premature to urge the Secretary-General
to take certain actions regarding the implementation of a programme which had
not yet been adopted.
Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.10/Rev.1
57. Ms. RAMIRO-LOPEZ (Philippines), speaking on behalf of the sponsors,
announced that Azerbaijan, Greece and the Russian Federation had also become
sponsors of the draft resolution.
58. Mr. MINOVES-TRIQUELL (Andorra), Mrs. LOPES da ROSA (Guinea-Bissau) and
Mr. TESSEMA (Ethiopia) announced that their delegations, too, wished to join the
sponsors.
59. Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.10/Rev.1, as orally revised, was adopted.
/...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 13
Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.11
60. Mr. AQUARONE (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the sponsors, announced
that Andorra, Armenia, Nicaragua, the Philippines, the Russian Federation and
Singapore had also become sponsors of the draft resolution.
61. Ms. FERTEKLIGIL (Turkey), Mrs. LOPES da ROSA (Guinea-Bissau),
Ms. ENKHTSETSEG (Mongolia), Mr. PACE (Malta), Mr. SUTOYO (Indonesia),
Mr. VENTEGODT (Denmark), Mr. OTUYELU (Nigeria), Miss DIOP (Senegal),
Mr. PALIHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) and Mrs. AKHAMLICH BENNANI (Morocco) said that they,
too, wished to join the sponsors.
62. Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.11 was adopted.
Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.12
63. The CHAIRMAN said that Benin, Ecuador, Estonia, Guinea-Bissau, the Lao
People’s Democratic Republic, Kenya, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Papua New
Guinea, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Senegal and the United Republic
of Tanzania had asked to be added to the list of sponsors.
64. Mr. STREJCZEK (Poland), Ms. MURUGESAN (India), Mr. REZVANI (Islamic
Republic of Iran), Mr. SIDDIG (Sudan), Mr. ZAQUEU (Mozambique) and Mr. BUBALA
(Zambia) said that they also wished to join the sponsors.
65. Ms. ENKHTSETSEG (Mongolia), speaking on behalf of the sponsors, said that
the Dominican Republic, Rwanda and Turkmenistan also wished to sponsor the draft
resolution. She added that the following revisions should be made: in
paragraph 2, the word "Decides" should be replaced by the phrase "Invites
Governments, relevant international organizations and specialized agencies,
national and international cooperative organizations"; and in paragraph 7, the
words "to maintain and increase the support provided by the United Nations"
should be replaced by "to continue to provide support".
66. Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.12, as orally revised, was adopted.
67. The CHAIRMAN suggested that the Committee should take note of the reports
of the Preparatory Committee for the World Summit for Social Development,
contained in documents A/49/24 and Add.1.
68. It was so decided.
69. The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee had thereby concluded its
consideration of agenda item 95.
/...
A/C.3/49/SR.35
English
Page 14
AGENDA ITEM 99: REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES,
QUESTIONS RELATING TO REFUGEES, RETURNEES AND DISPLACED PERSONS AND HUMANITARIAN
QUESTIONS (continued) (A/C.3/49/L.14)
Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.14
70. Mr. KASTBERG (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the sponsors, said that
Andorra, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Cyprus, Colombia, Guinea-
Bissau, Guyana, New Zealand, the Niger, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian
Federation had asked to be added to the list of sponsors of draft resolution
A/C.3/49/L.14, entitled "Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees". He thanked all those who had worked with his delegation in preparing
the text.
71. Mr. ELDEEB (Egypt), Mr. ADECHI (Benin) and Mr. PACE (Malta) said that they
also wished to be added to the list of sponsors.
72. Draft resolution A/C.3/49/L.14 was adopted.
The meeting rose at 5.50 p.m.