American Jewish International Relations Institute AJIRI Report #11 January 2007 The UN’s Holocaust Resolution of 2007 Significance of Co-sponsorship On January 26, the UN General Assembly adopted Res. 61/255, reaffirming Res. 60/7 of November 1, 2005, which had established January 27 as the annual International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust and had rejected “any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event.” Clearly directed at President Ahmadinejad, the new resolution urged all Member States “to unreservedly reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities towards that end.” The text, sponsored by 103 members led by the United States, was adopted by consensus (that is without a vote). The fact that only two states, Iran and Venezuela, took the trouble to state their disagreement with the Holocaust resolution is not of great significance because quite a number of UN members simply did not attend the meeting to make negative remarks. Since there was no recorded vote, a listing that distinguishes the states that cosponsored the resolution from those that did not reveals the differences in the positions taken by the Member States. UNGA Debate on the Resolution Without formally objecting, the Iranian representative delivered a statement dissociating his country from the resolution and concluding with the following remarks, as summarized in the UN release on the session: “The main aims behind submitting today’s resolution were anything but about genocide and the suffering that wrought …. The main sponsors otherwise would have referred to other cases of genocide, past and present, especially in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Palestine, and the Balkans, where enormous suffering had occurred. In view of the above, he fully dissociates himself from today’s entire hypocritical exercise.” Venezuela echoed the Iranian statement: “[T]he resolution should also cover the deaths of those killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the Palestinian people who were the victims of excesses perpetrated under the pretext of self-defense and security…. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were being victimized by actions carried out in the name of democracy by the United States.” The Egyptian representative, while expressing his support of the resolution (which Egypt had not cosponsored) went out of his way to emphasize the European context of the Holocaust. The UN press release states: “He thanked the co-sponsors, particularly the European countries, for keeping that memory alive and for working to correct those mistakes.” He added that the “international community should not remain complacent in combating the xenophobic tide growing in many parts of the world,” a comment clearly directed at the issue of the status of Moslem immigrants in Europe. Costa Rica subsequently associated itself with the Egyptian statement. Indonesia noted that while “there could be no forgetting its lessons, the Holocaust was hardly the only human tragedy to offer such lessons.” Most emphatic support of the resolution was offered by the German representative, who noted “that the unprecedented crime of the Holocaust had been committed by Germans in the name of their country, and that Germany’s very special responsibility stemmed from that.” The Russian representative used the opportunity to underline the role of the Red Army: He noted that “the International Day of Commemoration [of the Holocaust] …had been the date when the Red Army had freed the Auschwitz death camp…. The memory of the heroism of the Soviet soldiers and the many millions of victims in his country could never reconcile itself with those of ‘opportunistic political interests’ who sought to distort the significance of that history.” Following the adjournment of the session, the following exchange took place between the U.S. representative, Ambassador Wolff, and a group of reporters: Reporter: Ambassador, were you disappointed that there were so few members in the General Assembly hall for this -- Ambassador Wolff:  Yes, I was. The Cosponsors As the attached tabulation shows, the 103 co-sponsors came from the following regions: The UN’s “West European and Others Group” 29 (including the U.S.) Africa 19 Latin America 15 East European state exclusive of former USSR 14 Pacific Island States 8 Former USSR 7 Asia 6 CARICOM 5 The following changes of position on co-sponsorship took place as we compare the 2005 results with those of 2007: Co-sponsoring in 2005 but not in 2007: Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Mali, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Kazakhstan, Mali, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. Not co-sponsoring in 2005 but co-sponsoring in 2007: Ghana, Grenada, Jamaica, Kenya, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Togo, and Vanuatu. Implications for Future Anti-Israel Resolutions The proceedings that accompanied adoption of the Holocaust Resolution and the list of cosponsors and non-cosponsors allow us to draw the following inferences: (1) China’s change of position is a clear signal of its new outlook. It appears to be eager to identify itself with stands opposing the U.S. at the UN. (2) Russia’s co-sponsorship does not have any broad implications regarding its approach. It appears to have been motivated by historical considerations: the fact that millions of its Jewish citizens died in the Holocaust and the role of the Red Army in liberating concentration camps. (3) The overwhelming majority of Latin American states cosponsored the resolution, probably reflecting the presence of Latin America’s Jewish communities. However, Venezuela’s highly antagonistic statement, anti-U.S. and anti-Israel, reflected Hugo Chavez’s increasingly pronounced antisemitism. As a result of the outcome of the December 2006 elections in Ecuador and Nicaragua, these two states have now joined the Cuba-Venezuela camp. What is surprising is that Bolivia has not. (4) The large number of African states among the cosponsors, 19, constituting 44% of the non-Arab League members of the African Group, suggests that these states deserve greater attention in efforts to reduce the votes for anti-Israel resolutions. (5) The failure of Philippines to cosponsor the resolution is particularly disappointing. (6) India, probably afraid that the Moslem states might put the issue of Kashmir on the UN agenda, remained another non-cosponsor. (7) The CARICOM states deserve further attention. Some of them are likely to be influenced by Venezuela, but Bahamas and Barbados should certainly be expected to be among the cosponsors, but they were not in either 2005 or 2007. Co-Sponsorship of UNGA Res. 61/255, on the Holocaust Adopted by Consensus on January 26, 2007 West European and Others Group all 29 (incl. Turkey) East European States, excl.former USSR all 14 Arab League none of 21 Latin America Africa, excl. Arab League Yes No Yes No Argentina Cuba Benin Angola Bolivia Ecuador Cameroon Botswana Brazil Nicaragua CAR Burkina Faso Chile Venezuela Congo Burundi Colombia Cote d’Ivoire Cape Verde Costa Rica D.R. Congo Chad Dominican Rep. Ethiopia Eq. Guinea El Salvador Gabon Eritrea Guatemala Ghana Gambia Honduras Kenya Guinea Mexico Liberia Guinea-Bissau Panama Madagascar Lesotho Paraguay Mauritius Malawi Peru Mozambique Mali Uruguay Rwanda Namibia Senegal Niger CARICOM Seychelles Nigeria Sierra Leone Sao Tome&Princ. Grenada Antigua&Barbuda Togo South Africa Haiti Bahamas Swaziland Jamaica Barbados Tanzania St. Kitts Belize Uganda Trinidad&Tob. Dominica Zambia Guyana Zimbabwe St. Lucia St. Vincent Suriname Asia, excl. Arab League Former USSR and Pacific Island States Yes No Yes No Japan Afghanistan Estonia Armenia Maldives Bangladesh Georgia Azerbaijan Mongolia Bhutan Latvia Belarus South Korea Brunei Darussalam Lithuania Kazakhstan Singapore Cambodia Moldova Kyrgyzstan Timor-Leste China Russia Tajikistan North Korea Ukraine Turkmenistan India Uzbekistan Indonesia Iran Laos Malaysia Myanmar Nepal Pakistan Philippines Sri Lanka Thailand Viet Nam Pacific Island States Fiji Kiribati Marshall Isl. Papua New Guinea Micronesia Solomon Islands Nauru Tuvalu Palau Samoa Tonga Vanuatu   3