Third Committee Approves Draft Resolutions on Human Rights in Myanmar, Belarus
November 22, 2006 (Afternoon)	

CHAIRMAN:  Distinguished delegates, good afternoon.  I call to order the 52nd Meeting of the Third Committee.  I invite the Committee to resume its consideration of agenda item 63 Sub-item A entitled “Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Children.”  I give the floor to the main sponsor, Cuba, to make a statement.  

CUBA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  As we stated earlier this morning, after intense consultations on this draft resolution and after having introduced significant elements into this draft resolution L.12 and L.13, we were of the view that it was no longer necessary to maintain this draft resolution for it to be submitted to this Committee for its consideration.  And therefore, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, our delegation would like to officially inform you that we are prepared to withdraw this draft resolution.  While significant elements of this draft resolution are contained in the text of L.13 which the Committee adopted earlier this morning.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba.  
Distinguished delegates, with regard to draft resolution L.34, I understand that the main sponsor requested more time.  We shall thus resume consideration of the resolution later today.  
I invite the Committee to resume its consideration of agenda item 67C entitled:  “Human Rights Situation and Reports of Special Rapporteurs and Representatives.”  I invite the Committee to take action on draft resolution L.38/Rev. 1 entitled “Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar.”  I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the statement of program budget implication content and document L.56.  Does the main sponsor, Finland, wish to make a statement?  
I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.

CUBA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  Once again, on this subject matter, our delegation would like to make a statement.
[INAUDIBLE]

CHAIRMAN:  The floor is yours, sir.

UNITED KINGDOM:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize to our distinguished colleague from Cuba for interrupting him.  But I understood you to say, Mr. Chairman, that we are taking action on draft resolution L.38, Rev. 1 and the distinguished delegate of Cuba to say that he was making a general statement on the item.  
Other delegations, including Cuba, have already used this opportunity to speak out on that agenda item.  And pursuant to Rule 115, the list of speakers on this item was closed on the 18th of October, 2006.  The Rules of Procedure do not permit that that list be reopened.  Moreover, it is not the practice of the Third Committee to reopen discussion on the item before action is taken on it.  This kind of statement at this stage in the proceedings is, therefore, unacceptable for clear reasons both of procedure practice and of good order.  We would ask the Third Committee to resume its normal practice of giving the floor directly to the main cosponsor, after which there is plenty of opportunity for other delegations to make statements as an explanation of vote.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of United Kingdom.  As we practice in this Committee that once we open consideration of any agenda item, it’s up to any country to ask for the floor.  Therefore, I give the floor back to the distinguished representative of Cuba.

CUBA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  And in spite of the interruption, made by the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom, let’s continue with our statement.
My delegation’s of the view that this is entirely in keeping with the rules of the General Assembly and there is no clause whatsoever which would prevent us from making this statement.  As you yourself said, once again, I would like to address this matter for the consideration of our colleagues.  And once again, Chairman, thank you for your correct implementation of our own rules.  
Chairperson, on behalf of the States members of the Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba reaffirms what was agreed upon by our heads of state in government at its 14th Summit Conference regarding country-specific resolutions in the field of human rights.  And I quote, “The heads of states or government of the movement reemphasized that the exploitation of human rights for political purposes including the selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous considerations which is contrary to the founding principles of the movement and of the United Nations charter should be prohibited.”  
The heads of state or government of the States members of the Non-Aligned Movement also stressed their adherence and I quote, once again, “Their adherence to the purposes and principles of the United Nations charter and to the founding principles of the movement and oppose and condemn selectivity and double standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as all attempts to exploit human rights as a pretext for political purposes.”
These two paragraphs are contained in the final document of the 14th Non-Aligned Movement Summit that was held in Cuba from the 11th to the 16th of September of 2006.
Cuba in its capacity as chair of the Non-Aligned Movement encourages all members of the movement to adhere to these principles when casting their votes on the country-specific draft resolutions upon which we are to take action during this meeting of the Third Committee of the General Assembly.
We request that the present statement be included in the official records of this meeting.  And once again, we would like to thank you for having allowed us to make the statement on this subject matter, the 61st item.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba.  Before inviting Finland, the main sponsor of draft resolution L.38.  [INTERRUPTION]  Point of Order I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Myanmar.  The floor is yours, sir.

MYANMAR:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, under Rule 116 of the Rules of Procedure, my delegation is putting forward a motion for adjournment of the debate on draft resolution L.38/Rev. 1.  The highly politicized country-specific draft resolutions as contained in L.38/Rev. 1 should never find a place in the work of the Third Committee.  I move for adjournment taking into consideration resolution L.38/Rev. 1 entitled promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights, adopted by the august Committee on 15 November and in accordance with the principle position taken by the heads of states or government of the Non-Aligned Movement at the recent summit held in Havanan, Cuba, the text of which has just been read by the distinguished representative of Cuba.  
In other words, Mr. Chairman, my delegation is calling for a no-action motion on draft resolution L.38/Rev. 1.  I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Myanmar.  I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Canada.  

CANADA:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  I apologize to take the floor at this point on a Point of Order, but I had raised my flag earlier when the distinguished delegate from Cuba was speaking because in light of your ruling, Canada would also very much like to take the floor to make a general statement under this item prior to consideration of the individual resolutions.  And this is the statement.  Thank you.
During the session of the General Assembly [INTERRUPTION] 

CHAIRMAN:  It is not possible to give a statement before considering agenda item.  You can’t [DISCONTENT FROM FLOOR]  Excuse me.  The distinguished representative of Myanmar asked for Point of Order and you raised your flag to give a general statement.  Okay.  I give the floor to the secretary to make clear what the rule of procedure.

SECRETARY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Chairman, as seen from the vantage point of this podium, the distinguished representative of Myanmar raised to a Point of Order and moved under Rule 116 for the adjournment of the debate.  Therefore, in accordance with the rule, unless there is a procedural motion or a counter motion, the debate is to be -- the motion has to be put to a vote before any other delegation could be afforded the possibility of addressing the Committee.  The Secretary had indeed noticed the distinguished representative of Canada, but it was not on a Point of Order.  It was to make a statement and therefore, upon the advice of the Secretariat, the distinguished representative of Myanmar had to be given precedence since he was raising a Point of Order.  Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN:  Point of Order, I give the floor to the distinguished representative of United Kingdom.

UNITED KINGDOM:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  As I said before, I understood that the delegation of Cuba had asked to take the floor to make a general statement on the agenda item.  I believe that Canada was trying to make a point under the same process.  Either, Mr. Chairman, we were at the point of discussing this draft resolution in which case the delegation of Cuba should not have been given the floor to make a general statement or we were not at the stage of considering this resolution in which case that statement was perfectly valid and the delegation of Canada should have been allowed to make a statement under the same process.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of United Kingdom.  Point of Order, I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.  

CUBA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  When we were given the floor, no other delegation had submitted a procedural motion of any kind.  We understand that in accordance with the Rules of Procedure that we would have precedence.  At the time when our delegation requested the floor, no other delegation had requested the submission of a procedural motion at that point in time.  The United Kingdom had objected to the possibility of our taking the floor.  Therefore, we are not of the view that there is any conflict in the possibility of our delegation being able to take the floor on this matter currently under examination.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Distinguished delegates, the representative of Myanmar have moved for an adjournment of the debate under the terms of Rule 116 on draft resolution L.38/Rev. 1.  In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I will give the floor to two representatives to speak in favor of the motion and two representatives to speak in opposition of the motion after which the motion shall be put immediately to the vote.  Does any member which to speak in favor of the motion?
I give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.

CHINA:  Mr. Chairman, the Chinese delegation supports the no-action motion on resolution L.38, put forward by the delegation of Myanmar.  The founding of the Human Rights Council is an important achievement in the reforming of the United Nations human rights mechanism and is aimed at saving the international human rights viewed from long existing political confrontations and to promote genuine cooperation and dialogue in the human rights area.  The Third Committee of the General Assembly, as an important body in discussing human rights issues, should have progressed with the time.  However, reality has been disappointing.  What we see is a draft resolution which smacks of double standards and which will lead to political confrontations.  
This draft resolution will not help to promote or protect the human rights in Myanmar.  The Chinese delegation has always believed that differences in the human rights field should be resolved through dialogue in cooperation based on equality and mutual respect.  We’re opposed to the practice of using human rights issues to exert political pressures on the developing countries.  Based on this, we call on other delegations to support no-action motion L.38.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of China.  I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.

CUBA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  
My delegation would also like to support the adjournment of debate motion, the proposal originally submitted by the delegation of Myanmar.  We are of the view that we are facing a political -- politicization which in no way serves to enhance genuine cooperation in the field of human rights.  Taking into account of the existing deficiencies in the text of this draft resolution and this blatant manipulation and politicization, our delegation would like to support the proposal made by the delegation of Myanmar.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba.  Does any member wish to speak in opposition?  I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Norway.

NORWAY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Norway deeply regrets that the motion of no-action has been tabled on draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.  Firstly, regardless of the content of any resolution, all text submitted to the Committee should be reviewed on their merits and delegations should be allowed to comment on them.  Delegations should be allowed to express their opinion on context on all text and procedural means should not be used to prevent action on substance.  For that reason, Norway opposes no-action motion in principle.
Secondly, while there has been much talk about selectivity in the application of country-specific resolution, we believe serious situations concerning human rights merits consideration and is justified and warranted.  The United Nations including the Third Committee should remain a forum for addressing such cases.  Criticism should, of course, be supplemented with dialogue in appreciation of national conditions and capability in appreciation that national conditions and capabilities differ.  Dialogue should not, however, preclude criticism when this is required.  The Third Committee must never refrain from addressing severe human rights problems whenever and wherever they occur.  
Motion of no-action will in effect result in that the Committee is turning a blind eye to human rights violations.  A tabling of such motion runs in our view counter to the principle of dialogue.  Norway opposes the no-action motion and urges all others to do likewise.  I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Norway.  I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of New Zealand.  

NEW ZEALAND:  Mr. Chairman, the General Assembly has a mandate to consider human rights situations.  We have passed resolutions expressing our collective concern about some of the worst human rights situations for more than 30 years.  In many cases, this international attention has helped increase the pressure on states that have since turned into strong promoters of human rights.  New Zealand is committed to dialogue and cooperation on situations where there is evidence of serious violations on human rights.  We believe resolutions should only be adopted after negotiation with the countries concerned and with the broadest consensus possible.  This has always been the case with the resolution on Myanmar.  
There continue to be very serious questions about the situation of human rights in Myanmar and these are raised in the draft resolution before us.  This Committee needs to deal with those questions.  My delegation will be voting against this no-action motion and we hope all others can do the same.

CHAIRMAN:  We shall now proceed to vote on motion to take no action.  Please turn to the voting machine.  All those in favor of the motion, please press the green button.  All those against the motion, please press the red button.  All those abstaining on the motion, please press the yellow button.  [PAUSE]
Has everyone voted?  Kindly check to make sure your vote is properly recorded.  
Please lock the machine.  
The result of the vote is as follows:  in favor 64, against 77, abstentions 30.  The motion is rejected.
Does the main sponsor, Finland, wish to make a statement?  Yes.  I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Finland.

FINLAND/EU:  See statement: http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/EU_statement_MYanmar_11-22-06_68v.PDF http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/EU_statement_MYanmar_11-22-06_68v.PDF. 

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished permanent representative of Finland.  Does any other delegation wish to cosponsor this draft resolution?  
Does any delegation wish to make a statement in connection with the draft resolution?  
I give the floor to the distinguished permanent representative of Myanmar.

MYANMAR:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  I thank you for giving the floor to make a statement regarding draft resolution L.38/Rev. 1.  
Mr. Chairman, the European Union has once again put forward a highly politicized country-specific draft resolution on Myanmar under the pretext of promoting human rights.  This has become a yearly ritual which in no way promotes human rights since this is never the real intention of the cosponsors.  An objective perusal of the draft resolution clearly shows that the real intention is to manipulate Myanmar’s homegrown political process and to derail the seven-step political road map that Myanmar has set for itself for transition to a democratic society.
The draft is replete with unfounded allegations emanating from the exiles and remnants of the insurgents who are waging a systemic disinformation campaign, aided and funded by some of the powerful Western countries.  The draft resolution by intruding upon matters that, according to the United Nations charter falls under the sovereign domain of my country, make it entirely unacceptable to us.  The draft resolution champions the encroachment of the Security Council on the powers and functions of the General Assembly by welcoming Security Council involvement in Myanmar, a peaceful country which all of its neighbors have attested to as not being a threat to either regional or international peace and security.  It also goes against the principle position taken by the Non-Aligned Movement that Myanmar is not a threat to international peace and security.
Mr. Chairman, the Non-Aligned Movement and I quote:  “Consider the position by the Security Council to initiate formal and informal discussion on the situation of any member state of the organization or any issue that does not constitute a threat to international peace and security as contrary to Article 24 of the charter.”  
Mr. Chairman, we take the view that the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue aimed at the strengthening of the capacity of the members to comply with the human rights obligations for the benefit of all human beings.  It is our strong belief that such a goal could be achieved through a universal periodic review based on objective and reliable information.  Country-specific politically motivated resolution will not serve that purpose.  
With the establishment of the Human Rights Council as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, the logical forum for considering human rights issues is the Human Rights Council.  We should avoid duplication with the work of the Third Committee.  The proper forum for discussion of human rights, as I said, is the Human Rights Council.  The Third Committee should not take up the situation of human rights in Myanmar since the Council does not regard the situation in Myanmar as serious and urgent issue.  
The very fact that the European Union is taking up the issue in the Third Committee shows that it is motivated by political consideration.  It is a clear case of selectively targeting a developing country that is in disfavor with the political, powerful Western countries [INAUDIBLE] European Union draft resolution.  I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished permanent representative of Myanmar.  
Distinguished delegates, a recorded vote has been requested for this draft resolution L.38/Rev. 1.  Before proceeding to the vote, I will first give the floor to any delegation wishing to make a general statement in connection with the draft resolution and thereafter, to any delegation wishing to make a statement in explanation of vote.  
Does any delegation wish to make a general statement?
None.
Does any delegation wish to make a statement in explanation of vote before the vote?
I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Sudan.  

SUDAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Our delegation’s principle position against country-specific resolution is well known so I don’t need to repeat.  
In 2004, in a similar situation a wise Chinese colleague told a story full of lessons.  With all due respect for the intellectual property rights of the Chinese colleague, I will recall that story since it perfectly reflects the feelings of my delegation towards draft resolution L.38/Rev. 1.  The story goes:
There is an ancient Chinese fable entitled “Mr. Yi Who Loves Dragons.”  In China, the dragon is very popular because it’s a symbol of authority, strength and hope.  Thousands of years ago, a Mr. Yi was well known for his ardent love for dragons.  His mansion was decorated with carved dragons everywhere.  Dragons were painted on his stencils and embroidered on all his clothes.  The dragon king in heaven was deeply touched when he heard about this.  He knew he was popular because people were awed by his authority, but he had never met a person like Mr. Yi who truly loved dragons.  So he decided to pay a visit to Mr. Yi.  
When Mr. Yi awoke and saw the real dragon, he was scared witless and fled in his pajamas.  Does Mr. Yi truly love dragons?  Absolutely not.  From then on, Mr. Yi has been used to designate people who claim to love something while behaving otherwise.  
Mr. Chairman, let us take a look now at what the sponsors of this draft resolution are doing today.  Is it any way different from what Mr. Yi did thousands of years ago?  Absolutely not.  
Unfortunately, the legendary Mr. Yi seems to have found his modern ... version in the sponsors of draft resolution L.38/Rev. 1.  Otherwise, if they truly loved dragons, I mean human rights, Mr. Chairman, and decline the honor of being Mr. Yi, they could have tabled today draft resolutions on Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, secret detention centers and so forth, and so forth.  For this reason, Mr. Chairman, Sudan will vote against this draft resolution.  I thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Sudan.  I give the floor now to the distinguished rep of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  

VENEZUELA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela wishes to repeat its disapproval that the practice of submitting draft resolution and adopting resolutions that examine the human rights situation in specific countries under a highly politicized and highly selective approach, which is counter to the principles of the United Nations charter with regard to the sovereignty of states and noninterference in internal affairs.  
Our delegation wishes to record its serious concern with regard to the continued approach towards this matter.  Without paying due attention to the fact that it is on the basis of cooperation and open and frank dialogue and not through selective condemnations that we will be able to make progress in the promotion and protection of all human rights.  
As was indicated at the ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movements that was held in Doha and was reaffirmed at the meeting of heads of states and government of the Non-Aligned Movement states members at September this year in Havana, human rights issues must be addressed in a global perspective through a constructive approach which is based on dialogue, which is fair and equitable, with objectivity and respect for national sovereignty and for territorial integrity, noninterference in the internal affairs of states, with impartiality, nonselectivity and transparency being the guiding principles and taking account of the political, historical, social, religious and cultural features of each and every country.  
This delegation would request the bureau to include this statement in the official record as well as our vote against this resolution in the record of this meeting.  Thank you very much, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Uzbekistan.

UZBEKISTAN:  Thank you, Chairman.  I fully align myself with the statement which has been made by representatives of China, Cuba, with regard to accepted practice -- with regard to these country-specific resolutions which are continuing in our Committee.  
When the work of a principle body of the United Nations with regard to human rights -- that is the Human Rights Council currently when we have not yet defined the rules of discussion, then discussion here on this issue is a violation of -- a process of the violation of establishing the process of work of the Human Rights Council.  
I don't want to dwell on this issue because opposition on this issue is very well known, but substance I’d like to say that the resolution itself and it concerns indeed those countries that do not vote on these country-specific resolutions or who abstain from voting in favor of these resolutions.  
Now what is this resolution in fact?  Is it judging a country?  Or is it aimed at establishing a dialogue with the country?
The sponsors of the resolution confirm that this is a form of dialogue which contains a certain amount of criticism.  But if this were the case then, okay, we’d have no problem with it.  But look at the resolution itself.  For a dialogue, there is just one page which recognizes the successes of the country and four pages -- the paragraphs are totally contradictory and they are critical.  This does not look to me to be dialogue.  
Now I’m not talking here about some aspects which I believe are insulting to a country and a people when we say there is a violence, a cultural violence.  I do apologize for dwelling on this, but I’m from a developing country which will not vote in favor or will abstain, but we have carefully studied the content of this resolution and it does not at all correspond with the reality and does not facilitate dialogue.  Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished permanent representative of Uzbekistan.  I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt.

EGYPT:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  The delegation of Egypt reiterates its principle position to vote against the country-specific resolutions that deal with human rights in certain countries regardless of the objective aspects of that may be contained therein for a number of considerations first.  These resolutions are going to consolidate the concepts of selectivity and the politicization of human rights and dealing with them in accordance with double standards.  They will not give the opportunity to deal with these problems in an appropriate and objective manner within the framework of international cooperation that would assist states to develop their capabilities and to develop the situation of human rights in those countries without resort of confrontation, selectivity or politicization of human rights questions.
Second, the way these resolutions are tabled unilaterally without resort to any objective discussions or debate in the General Assembly runs fully counter with the efforts made to strengthen international cooperation in dealing with the human rights issues in the multilateral arena.  They should be dealt with through the periodic review carried out by the Human Rights Council or dissertation of human rights in all countries without exception.  The Human Rights Council is the umbrella forum that was established to consider the situations and the best way to development and improve the situation.  And then afterwards it is the duty of the Security Council to report to the General Assembly to discuss that report and to take the appropriate measures about them.  
Third, the fact that certain countries every year table those resolutions alongside their votes in the Human Rights Council against resolutions that deal with blatant violations of human rights in Palestine and Lebanon, smacks of the possibility of imposing certain cultural patterns as the basis of the judgment of human rights and strengthens the politicization of human rights without taking into account at all the cultural, religious and national specificities and the traditions and customs that constitute major part of the social culture.  This must be dealt with in a radical manner and in an attempt to unify the way human rights are dealt with internationally within different countries which are poor, strong or weak, from the north or from the south.  
For these reasons Egypt will vote against this draft resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar.  Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Egypt.  [INAUDIBLE] distinguished representative of Belarus.  

BELARUS:  Thank you, Chairman.  We have before us once again a country-specific resolution which does not contribute to developing mutually respecting dialogue on human rights issues.  The dialogue which is necessary to strengthen cooperation between countries and to address urgent issues in the area of human rights, this country-specific resolution which undermines the principle of objectivity and nonselectivity when we consider issues of human rights.  
This resolution, umpteenth resolution, which contradicts earlier decisions which were taken with regard to addressing and considering issues of human rights in countries throughout the world on a basis of unified criteria within the framework of the machinery for universal periodic reviews.  The delegation of Belarus speaks out against practices of double standards when the issues of human rights are discussed only in developing countries.  For those aforementioned reasons, the delegation of Belarus will vote against the draft resolution L.38.  Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Belarus.  I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Indonesia.

INDONESIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  
Mr. Chairman, my delegation very much regrets that this Committee has to deal again this time with country-specific resolutions.  The certified non-member status as shown in the deliberation of each country-specific resolution is clear indication that the UN, including this Committee, should devise new ways of addressing the human rights country situation in a more constructive and productive manner.
Mr. Chairman, as country from the same region, Indonesia follows closely in the development in Myanmar.  We share some concern with current regime [INAUDIBLE] in Myanmar as expressed in the document L.38/Rev. 1.  But we take note [INAUDIBLE] some positive trends and progress made and, at the same time, recognize that much still needs to be done in this regard in the country.  We, however, regard that the content of the draft resolution before us as a whole is not balanced and highly politicized.  Moreover, we cannot support the confrontational approach and happening of this draft resolution.  
We maintain that productive international cooperation is to be sought only through a genuine dialogue which is based on the principle of mutual respect.  On our part, we stand ready to extend our cooperation to the government of Myanmar, including in the field of human rights both at bilateral basis and in the framework of ASEAN, the Association of South-East Asian Nations.  
We see in the tabling of draft resolution such as the one before us is not helpful to our effort to achieve the desired result as far as in relation to the human rights situation in the country in question, nor is it helpful to our common efforts in improving our ways and means in dealing with human rights promotion and protection in general.  Therefore, we will be voting against draft resolution.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia.  
We shall now proceed to the recorded vote on the draft resolution containing document L.38/Rev. 1.  Will delegations wishing to vote in favor of the draft resolution, please press the green button.  Those against, please press the red button.  Those abstaining, please press the yellow button.  [PAUSE]
Have all delegations voted?  Are all votes correctly reflected on the board?  Please lock the machine.
The result of the vote is as follows:  in favor 79, against 28, abstaining 63.  The draft resolution and document L.38/Rev. 1 is adopted.  
Does any delegation wish to make a statement in explanation of vote after the vote?  
I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Algeria.

ALGERIA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  
My delegation voted against draft resolution L.38/Rev. 1 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.  We are of the view that country-specific resolutions result in confrontation which undermines the promotion of human rights.  We shall also vote in a similar fashion on all country-specific resolutions that have been submitted to this Committee.  My delegation is of the view that it is only through an approach based on authentic dialogue and cooperation that will be conducive to the promotion and protection of human rights in the countries concerned.  We wish to emphasize that the periodic, universal periodic review mechanism, which is in the process of being established by the Human Rights Council is the appropriate forum to examine human rights situations in all countries without exception.  Finally, the channel of dialogue can improve the human rights performance of these countries.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria.  I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Japan.

JAPAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Over the years, Myanmar has consistently engaged in dialogue and negotiations in the General Assembly as realizing [INAUDIBLE] the Commission on Human Rights for many draft resolutions on its human rights situation.  During that time, it has never blocked the adoption of such resolutions, although it has dissociated itself from them when they are adopted.  
Japan has appreciated the willingness and cooperative attitude of Myanmar to participate in this process.  We regret, however, that this year the Third Committee had to resort to a vote on the draft resolution, despite these cooperative efforts made by both Myanmar and many sponsors of this resolution.
Japan always considers it important that the international community should convey its message positively to encourage countries to continue cooperating with the international community in order to keep the democratization and improvement of the human rights situation on the ground moving forward.  
From this standpoint, we think this type of draft resolution should be made well balanced through dialogue.  Therefore, we always encourage delegations concerned to engage in sincere consultations, in this case, Myanmar and the cosponsors.  
On the other hand, we regret that some of the member states categorically reject any country-specific resolutions and discourage consultation itself among the countries concerned.  
Why we need to wait for briefing from the US-G Political Affairs, Mr. Gambari, on his second visit to Myanmar, we appreciate that Mr. Gambari was able to meet with all the people whom he requested to meet including Aung San Suu Kyi, as well as the leaders of the NLD.  We understand that the good offices effort of the Secretary General to facilitate democratization and national reconciliation in Myanmar is a process to be continued.  We strongly hope this process will bring about a concrete outcome.  In order to improve the human rights situation and democratization in Myanmar, we believe it is important that Myanmar maintains and develops its engagement, dialogue and cooperation with the international community, especially with the United Nations.  
My delegation voted in favor of this resolution because it request the Secretary General to continue to provide his good offices and pursue discussion on the situation of human rights and the restoration of democracy with the government and the people of Myanmar.  
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, we wish to point out that the resources of the United Nations are not limitless with regard to the PBI document issued together with this resolution.  Thus, member states, when considering any kinds of policies and resolutions, should give full consideration from the viewpoint of an efficient and appropriate financial management.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Japan.  I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Costa Rica.

COSTA RICA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  In light of your decision, my delegation will make a very brief explanation of its position with regard to this draft resolution that has just been adopted.  
In light of what was agreed upon last Friday, my delegation abstained.  We believe that it is within the Human Rights Council that we should address such resolutions.  In particular, my delegation deplores the fact that on this occasion it was not possible to reach a consensus.  And this is deplorable because this would have set an example hoping that we are embarking on a constructive dialogue in the field of human rights.  
I would ask the distinguished delegation of Myanmar to permit the adoption of this draft resolution in spite of their rejection of this motion.  But we would urge them to continue with dialogue.  We believe that this is the right way to move forward and we hope that at a given point in time we will be able to arrive at a consensus once again.  We believe that such subject matters should be taken up at the Human Rights Council.  And as was stated in our -- as we stated on Friday, it is important that we give the Human Rights Council an opportunity -- be given a chance, this is a body that all of us have worked for and endeavored for.
Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Costa Rica.  I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Brazil.

BRAZIL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  As stated in previous occasions, my delegation favors the implementation of the universal periodic review mechanism which will allow the United Nations to examine in a truly universal manner the situation of human rights in all countries of the world, free from selectivity and politicization.  Brazil voted in favor of the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, though regretting the discontinuation of the consensus that we find [INAUDIBLE] in the preceding years on this issue both in this assembly as well as in the former Commission on Human Rights.  Although we take note of some positive developments such as the visit of the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs in May this year and measures to prevent the use of child soldiers.  Brazil regrets the continuation of grave violations of human rights in the country which have justified the adoption of various resolutions.
Brazil is particularly concerned with the serious domestic situation in Myanmar and with the lack of willingness of its government to cooperate with the international community for a solution in the above mentioned problems.  For three years, Myanmar has been refusing to allow the Special Rapporteur, Professor Paul Sergio Pinheiro, and the Special Envoy of the Secretary General, Mr. Razali Ismail, to visit the country.  The Government of Brazil encourages the Government of Myanmar to resume the cooperation with the Special Rapporteur and the Special Envoy and to make concrete progress with a view to improve the situation of human rights in the country.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil.  I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Georgia.

GEORGIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I just would like to say that unfortunately Georgia delegation was not in the room during the voting and that I would like to ask you, through you, the Secretariat, to make it in the record of today's session that Georgia would have voted in favor of this resolution.  Thank you so much.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Georgia.  
Does any delegation wish to make a general statement?  
I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Myanmar.

MYANMAR:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  
Mr. Chairman, the vote on L.38/Rev. 1 was taken after a no-action motion.  These votes send a clear message the international community will no longer tolerate the abuse of human rights through country-specific resolutions.  They have clearly come out to say that the politicization of human rights would not be tolerated.  They have strongly shown support for the notion that human rights issues must be addressed within the global context through a constructive dialogue-based approach with objectivity, respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, noninterference in internal affairs of states, impartiality and transparency as guiding principles.  
Mr. Chairman, despite the tremendous political pressure exerted on member states by these powerful countries, it is most telling that out of 192 members, the draft resolution, tabled by 25-member European Union, together with the United States and additional 19 cosponsors, has the support of only 34 countries.  This is a demonstration by the international community that the name and blame tactics that is in use by these powerful countries, by selectively targeting developing countries for extraneous reason is entirely unacceptable.  We do not regard the result of the vote as a setback.  With our firm stand, we are sending a clear message that Myanmar will not accept exploitation for human rights for political purposes, will not allow the blatant attempts to dictate our domestic political process which is entirely in the domain of a sovereign state.  We will [INAUDIBLE] proceed with our seven-step political roadmap for a smooth transition to democracy.  We will continue our cooperation for the United Nations.  We will, however, resist all attempts to interfere in our internal affairs.  We will continue to oppose any country-specific resolution, selectively targeting developing countries particularly at a time when we are transforming the human rights mechanism through the establishment of the Human Rights Council.  We will be unwavering in our resolve to resist politicization of human rights.  We therefore reject and dissociate from the resolution.  We will not be bound by it.  
I wish to take this opportunity to thank members of the Non-Aligned Movement, members of the OIC, members of the Asian group, member of the African Union, members of GULAC, including members of CARICOM, members of the Arab League and our family members of ASEAN who despite tremendous pressure exerted on them took a principled position and stand in solidarity with Myanmar.  Our deep appreciation goes to our powerful neighbor, the People's Republic of China, and also our dear friend Cuba for speaking in support of the no-action motion.  
Last but not the least to the Secretary of the Committee for the fairness and efficient matter in which you guided the Committee on this important matter.  I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Myanmar.  I give the floor now to distinguished representative of Costa Rica.

COSTA RICA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  Once again, my delegation feels compelled to take the floor in order to make a general explanation.  We did not raise this as a Point of Order given the sensitivities of the subject matter and the various delegations involved.  
Chairman, in accordance with Article 109 of the Rules, the chairman must give the floor to the speakers in the order in which they signal their desire to take the floor.  To my delegation it is quite clear that this rule has not necessarily been complied with on this occasion and that unfortunately under the guidance of the Secretariat, the Chairman gave precedence to other delegations.  
As we were not directly involved, we did not appeal this decision as would have been necessary according to the Rules of Procedure.  However, we wish to outline our concern.  
In accordance with Rule 116, at any point in the debate a representative may move the adjournment of the debate, as was indeed the case.  This motion was immediately put to the vote and this assembly decided to reject that motion.  Therefore, we should then return to the point in our debate when that motion was first submitted to consideration.  That is before action was taken.  My delegation does not understand -- my delegation does not review that there is any clause or any rule that ordains the manner in which delegations should take the floor.  There is no muzzling order.  
My delegation wishes to insure that our statement is included in the official record of this meeting.  As was clearly stated by yourself, once an item is reopened for debate, any delegation whatsoever can request the floor and the floor must be granted to that delegation.  We support the decision that you took in this respect.  However, we are of the view that the manner in which this item was addressed was derisory rather than returning to the original point of our discussion, that is to the opening of the debate in order to give the floor to whomsoever requested the floor in order to make a general statement and then to proceed to the vote.  That unfortunately was not possible in this occasion.
This is a point of concern and we wish to insure that this does not arise in the future.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the distinguished representative of Costa Rica.
I invite the Committee to take action on draft resolution L.40 entitle situation of human rights in Belarus.  I first give the floor to the secretary to read out a statement of program budget implication arising from the draft resolution.  

SECRETARY:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  And before doing so allow me to recall that at the time of introduction of draft resolution L.40, the following delegations joined the list of cosponsors:  Angora, Croatia, Lichtenstein, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.  
Under the terms of operative paragraph 3 of draft resolution L.40, the assembly would insist that a government of Belarus cooperate fully with all the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council and, in particular, resolution 2004/14 establishing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur appointed in resolution -- through resolution 2005/13 as well as the representative of the organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on the Freedom of the Media.  In his report to the 61st Session of the Assembly on the revised estimates resulting from resolutions and decisions adopted by the Human Rights Council at its first -- and first and second special sessions.  The Secretary General informed the assembly that budgetary provisions have already been made for the activities related to the various human rights mandates listed in the annex to the Human Rights Council decision 1/102 within resources approved for the biennium 2006-2007.  These fall under Section 23 of the program budget for the biennium '06-'07.
By Decision 1/102, the United -- the Human Rights Council decided to extend exceptionally for one year, subject to the review to be undertaken by the Council, in conformity with General Assembly Resolution 60/251, the mandates and the mandate holders of all of the Commission Special Procedures of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, as well as the procedure established in accordance with Economic and Social Council Resolution 1503, as listed in the Annex to the Decision.  The Special Rapporteur is referred to in that Annex.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Secretary.  Does the main sponsor, the United States, wish to make a statement?  Yes, I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of the United States.

UNITED STATES:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  Before I begin --

CHAIRMAN:  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of the Russian Federation as he requests a point of order.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION:  Thank you, Chairman.  Our delegation asked to take the floor in order to -- in compliance with the Rule 116 of the Rules of Procedures suggests that we should not take a decision on Draft Resolution L.40 with regard to the situation of human rights in Belarus.  This is Russia’s principled position, since we believe it’s necessary to depoliticize the work of the Third Committee and the United Nations human rights system as a whole.  Many others have spoken about this in this room today.
Putting forward this draft resolution, the Russian Federation considers to be a negative step which is based totally on political considerations, and in no way does it reflect any concern about protection of human rights.
Mr. Chairman, the absence of any clear criteria with regard to the consideration of the Third Committee of so-called country situations leads to a selective approach to these types of resolutions.  This is particularly counterproductive when the Human Rights Council is developing its mechanism for universal periodic reviews, which the subject -- which will be studied in the case of all states, without any exception.
Taking account of all that, the Russian Federation energetically calls on all delegations to vote in favor of our rule -- of our procedure point that a decision not be taken on this resolution with regard to the situation of human rights in Belarus.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of the Russian Federation.  Distinguished Delegates, the representative of the Russian Federation has moved for the adjournment of the debate on Draft Resolution L.40 under the terms of Rule 116 in accordance with the Rules of Procedures.  I will give the floor to two representatives to speak in favor of the motion and two representatives to speak in opposition of the motion, after which the motion shall be put immediately to the vote.
Does any member wish to speak in favor of the motion?  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of China.

CHINA:  The Chinese Delegation supports the no action motion on Resolution L.40 put forward by the delegation from the Russian Federation.  We believe this draft resolution smacks of double standard, and it will lead to political confrontation.  This draft resolution will not help protect and promote the human rights situation in Belarus.  The Chinese delegation has always believed that differences on the issue of human rights should be resolved through dialogue and cooperation based on equality and mutual respect.  We are opposed to the practice of using human rights issues to exert political pressures on other countries.  In view of the above, we call on all other delegations to support the motion of no action on L.40.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of China.  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Cuba.

CUBA:  Thanks very much, Chairman.  Our delegation would also like to support the proposal made by the Russian Federation.  We are of the view that this draft resolution is a further attempt of political manipulation of selectivity and of double standards.  In turn, we are of the view that this draft resolution in no way promotes or enhances cooperation in the human rights field.  Rather, quite the contrary, we believe that this draft resolution does not reflect the new spirit of cooperation which was established following the inauguration of the Human Rights Council.  In the Council, we are currently working in order to develop a mechanism that will help mitigate and put an end to politicization and of selectivity which has hampered activities in the human rights field thus far.  Our delegation would like to urge all delegations to also support the proposal for a no action motion on this draft resolution.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of China.

MALE SPEAKER:  Of Cuba.  Cuba.

CHAIRMAN:  Of Cuba, sorry.  I beg your pardon.  It’s the pressure. [LAUGHTER] Does any member wish to speak in opposition?  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Finland.

FINLAND/EU:  See statement – HYPERLINK http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/EU_on_no_action_Belarus_11-22-06_68b.PDF http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/EU_on_no_action_Belarus_11-22-06_68b.PDF. 

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Finland.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of the United States.

UNITED STATES:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Chairman, the United States opposes adjournment of the debate on this resolution.  39 members of this committee, by expressing their willingness to cosponsor this resolution, have demonstrated their concern and expressed their concern about the serious human rights situation in Belarus.
As a matter of general principle, my government believes that country-specific human rights resolutions should be considered on their merits.  Adjournment of the debate would cut short such consideration and represent an abdication of responsibility by this committee.  We therefore urge all countries to vote against this procedural motion.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of the United States.  We shall now proceed to vote on the motion to adjourn the debate on Draft Resolution L.40.  Please turn to the voting machine.  All those in favor of the motion, please press the green button.  All those against the motion please press the red one.  All those abstaining on the motion, please press the yellow button.
Has everyone voted?  Kindly check to make sure your vote is properly recorded.  Please lock the machine.  The result of the vote is as follows.  In favor, 67.  Against, 75.  Abstentions, 31.  The motion is rejected.
Does the main sponsor, the United States, wish to make a statement?  Yes.  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of the United States.

UNITED STATES:  See statement – HYPERLINK http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/US_statement_Belarus_11-22-06_third_committee_390coppsp.doc http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/US_statement_Belarus_11-22-06_third_committee_390coppsp.doc. 

CHAIRMAN:  Does any delegation wish to make a statement in connection with the draft resolution?  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Belarus.

BELARUS:  Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Delegates, the delegation of Belarus deeply regrets that the Committee has missed yet another opportunity to state its opposition to divisive and politically biased initiatives which change the environment in this Committee for worse.
Protection and promotion of human rights is a very delicate matter.  It is based on nurturing the positive change and never on forcing it.  In a multilateral forum, one cannot achieve any progress in discussing the problems of human rights and acting upon them in the absence of a minimum degree of trust, mutual respect and fairness.  It is these principles that will essentially be put to vote in a few minutes’ time.
Do we believe in the exclusive right of the mightiest power of the world to determine at its own volition the only right perspective on human rights?  Do we believe in the right of the stronger powers of today to pick and choose indiscriminately a victim among sovereign states and imposed by shameless arm-twisting their often questionable judgment upon other respected members of the international community?  Do we find it acceptable when the unique UN environment is being replaced by the de facto right of the bigger and the richer to rule the day?
Please do not be mistaken.  The vote of our delegations on the draft resolution will objectively reflect our true position on these very revealing questions.  We understand, although never accepting it, the fact that some delegations might want to take to the UN their discontent with a lack of easy solutions to the problem of bilateral relations with individual states and try to exploit the good and respected name of the organization for their own political ends.  This is their sovereign right.
But the really big question is, should other member states silently and obediently put up with this abuse of UN principles and traditions?  The more we succumb to the magic power of the business as usual attitude, the less equal our vote and voice in the United Nations becomes.  Today we say it openly, that through our willing, unwilling or sometimes even forced approval of attempts to ostracize individual countries, we objectively raise their tolerance threshold on double standards, manipulation and scheming in our organization.
And to crown it all, here is the last bit of sad and harsh truth.  Voting in favor of the adoption of L.40 would effectively mean giving your support to the member state responsible for gross violations of human rights in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Al-Fallujah.  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Belarus.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Finland.

FINLAND/EU:  See statement – HYPERLINK http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/EU_statement_Belarus_draft_res_11022096_45vp.PDF http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/EU_statement_Belarus_draft_res_11022096_45vp.PDF. 

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Finland.  Distinguished Delegates, a recorded vote has been requested for this Draft Resolution L.40.  Before proceeding to the vote, I will first give the floor to any delegation wishing to make a general statement in connection with the draft resolution, and thereafter to any delegation wishing to make a statement in explanation of vote.  Does any delegation wish to make a general statement?  None.  Does -- No?
I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Uzbekistan.

UZBEKISTAN:  Thank you.  Thank you, Chairman.  I’m not going to repeat our position with regard to country-specific resolutions.  I’d like to draw attention, however, to the substance of this specific resolution that we’re looking at.  It’s a politicized resolution.  This is absolutely clear from the text of the resolution itself.  The delegations of the EU said today in its statement that Belarus is not cooperating with United Nations bodies on human rights.  But in the resolution itself it is written that Belarus does not fully cooperate.  So the basis of cooperation doubtlessly has -- This has been forgotten.  So it’s not really encouraging cooperation.
But as a matter of principle, I’d like to say that today we will take a decision that should a country adopt rules from one regional organization, even if it is a member of the organization, the resolution does not make any reference whatsoever to including UN experts in the outcomes of the recent elections held in Belarus.  So we can only base our decisions on the negative conclusions reached by the OSCE experts.  But there is no word about the positive conclusions reached by other regional organizations who said that the elections were totally in line with international norms.
Many paragraphs in this resolution are totally without -- totally not based on any confirmed facts, so they’re only general comments.  And without referring to specific paragraphs which I believe represent an involvement in the internal affairs of a state, when we talk about the concern of closing down one or other departments, such as the faculty of the university, this is not appropriate.  We’re only talking about the coming elections in January 2007, so it’s quite clear that this is a politicized resolution.  For that reason, we will vote against it.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank Distinguished Permanent Representative of Uzbekistan.  Does any delegation wish to make a statement in explanation of vote before the vote?  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Sudan.

SUDAN:  Thank you, Chairman.  I’d like to reassert the unswerving position of my country.  We refuse and reject country-specific resolutions which embody politicization, selectivity and dual standards.  Sudan reiterates its conviction that confrontation and targeting specific countries has nothing to do with the noble objective of enhancing and promoting human rights, dialogue and cooperation, technical assistance and capacity-building.  These are the only ways, the only effective ways of ensuring human rights.
The Human Rights Council, which replaced the former Commission, has opened a new era and should be based on the principles of impartiality, neutrality and should not exploit human rights issues for targeting political objectives or serve political objectives.
With regard to this draft resolution and the situation of human rights in Belarus, my country wonders who has really the right to point an accusing finger at another country with regard to violations of human rights.  I will leave it to this noble assembly to answer that question.  I don’t need to recall the fact, ladies and gentlemen, the story of Mr. Yi.  The delegation of Sudan will vote against this draft resolution.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Sudan.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

VENEZUELA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela wishes to repeat its disapproval of the practice of submitting draft resolutions and adopting resolutions which examine the human rights situation in specific countries from a highly politicized and selective angle which runs counter to the principles of the United Nations charter with regard to the sovereignty of states an noninterference in internal affairs.
Our delegation would like to state for the record its serious concern with the fact that this matter continues to be put under discussion without taking account of the fact that it is through cooperation, frank and open dialogue, and not on the basis of selective condemnations that we will be able to make progress in promoting and protecting all human rights.
These are reasons enough to vote against all country-specific resolutions as a point of principle.  Such draft resolutions which embody this inopportune and untimely practice which is inconsistent and violates the principles of the United Nations and violates human rights.  Many such countries voting on these resolutions are pointing accusing fingers, and again, our delegation wishes to state -- wishes that its statement be included in the official record of this meeting.  Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

IRAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Chairman, the Draft Resolution L.40 on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus is yet another political resolution which is brought to the Committee under the pretext of human rights.  This is an unfortunate fact that the UN mechanism on human rights is misused and manipulated by a few for pure political ends and objectives.  This approach of confrontation will not serve human rights, by no means.  Dialogue and cooperation are indeed the only way by which we can truly strive collectively for the cause of human rights.  Therefore, my delegation opposes the draft under consideration and will vote no.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Myanmar.

MYANMAR:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Chairman, we are once again witnessing once more case of misusing the Third Committee by powerful states to put pressure on a developing country for political reasons.  Such politically motivated measures do not promote the cause of human rights, but instead, by causing mistrust and confrontation, diminishes the cause of human rights.
The Draft Resolution L.40 on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus is also indeed a clear example of politicizing human rights.  We take the view that the promotions and protections of human rights should be based on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue and aimed at strengthening the capacity of member states to comply with their human rights obligations for the benefit of all human beings.  Country-specific, politically motived resolutions will not serve the purpose.
Furthermore, as a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Myanmar fully adheres to the principled position of the Movement on this issue, reemphasized at the recent Havana Summit.  We’re also strongly opposed to the selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous reasons, which is contrary to the founding principle of the movement and the charter.  My delegation will therefore vote against the draft resolution before us.  I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Myanmar.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Egypt.

EGYPT:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Chairman, the delegation of Egypt would like to reiterate its opposition of the draft resolutions that are country-specific regardless of whatever objective aspects that may be contained therein.  Those resolutions constitute a way to consolidate the concepts of selectivity and politicization in dealing with human rights issues, as well as the double standards of dealing with those issues.  Those resolutions do not afford the appropriate opportunity to deal with these questions in an objective manner, and in the framework of international cooperation and capacity building without resort to threats, confrontation or politicization.
The manner in which these resolutions are tabled, in a unilateral way and without holding any objective debate on them on the level of the General Assembly, runs counter to the efforts made to intensify international efforts on the multilateral level to deal with human rights issues.
Those issues are supposed to be dealt with through the periodic review of the Human Rights Council of the situation of human rights in all countries, without exception.
The fact that certain countries every year table those resolutions while at the same time they vote in the Human Rights Council against resolutions that deal with flagrant violations of human rights in the Occupied Arab Territories smacks of double standards in judging the level to which human rights are being observed.  It also brings to the fore the politicization of human rights in general without taking into account any specificity, religious, cultural, national of any country, nor of any traditions and customs of any countries that constitute an important part of the social culture.  This must be dealt with in a radical way in order to find ways to deal with the violations of human rights in all countries.
In that light, I’ll therefore mention, Mr. Chairman, Egypt, we will vote against this draft resolution on Belarus.  Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Egypt.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.

SYRIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Regarding the Draft Resolution L.40, the Syrian Arab Republic would like to express its complete rejection of the selective use of human rights questions in order to serve purposes that aim at the interference of the internal affairs of countries under the pretext of humanitarian and legal considerations in contravention of the UN Charter, which clearly stipulates the sovereign equality among all member states of the United Nations.
The objective debate on the basis of mutual respect and non-selectivity and respect for the territorial integrity of countries is the best way to deal with the relations among our countries and to ensure that everybody enjoys human rights and the basic freedoms contained in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the relevant international instruments.  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, my delegation will vote against the draft resolution before us.  Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.  We shall now proceed to the recorded vote on the draft resolution contained in the Document L.40.  Will delegations wishing to vote in favor of the draft resolution please press the green button?  Those against, please press the red button.  Those abstaining, please press the yellow button.
Have all delegations voted?  The result of the vote is [INAUDIBLE] The result of the vote is [INAUDIBLE]. It looks as if the delay is not from the member states, but from us.  Okay?
The result of the vote is as follows:  In favor, 70.  Against, 31.  Abstaining, 67.  The Draft Resolution L.40 is adopted.
Does any delegation wish to make a statement in explanation of vote after the vote?  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Brazil.

BRAZIL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  As stated previously, Brazil favors the implementation of the universal periodic review mechanism which will allow the United Nations to examine in a truly universal manner the situation of human rights in all countries of the world, free from selectivity and politicization.  We are of the view that country-specific resolutions should be adopted only in cases of such gravity that merit the particular attention of the international community.
In this regard, Brazil has abstained from the vote on the situation of human rights in Belarus, as we recognize the existence of some progress, such as the scheduling of local elections in January 2007, which we hope will occur in accordance with international standards for free, fair and transparent elections.  Brazil is concerned nonetheless with the persistence of complaints regarding the human rights situation in the country, especially regarding the prohibition and repression of political opposition and restrictions to freedom of conscience, religion, opinion, expression and press, amongst others.
We therefore encourage the Belorussian authorities to deepen their dialogue and international cooperation with a view to clarifying and improving the human rights situation in the country.  Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Brazil.  Does any delegation wish to make a general statement?  I give the floor to the Permanent Representative, Distinguished Permanent Representative of Belarus.

BELARUS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.  We express our deep regret at the outcome of the action just taken by the Committee.  The action was taken despite appeals of many prominent states to continue the search for dialogue and respectful cooperation.  We’re disappointed that these appeals were heard not by all delegations.
Despite the result of the voting, I would like to express our sincere gratitude and admiration for the brave conduct of the countries, and there is a majority of such countries today which have not supported the draft resolution on Belarus.  We hope that these companies will confirm their principled position during consideration of the relevant report of the Third Committee at the preliminary meeting of the General Assembly.
We also expect that the developing countries and members of the Non-Aligned Movement which voted in favor of the draft resolution today will give a second thought to our arguments and the principles of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in consideration of human rights issues and reconsider their position.
We call upon our partners to act likewise on other country resolutions.  Thus, the international community will receive a clear signal that the United Nations remains a common and safe home for all its members, a home where any member’s voice is heard, where accusation and confrontation give way to responsible dialogue and cooperation.  I think you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Belarus.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Costa Rica.

COSTA RICA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  In accordance with earlier statements made by our delegation, my delegation would like the statement that we made on Friday last in explanation of our vote to be reflected in the official record of this meeting.  We have abstained from voting on all country-specific resolutions, and we shall continue to do so for reasons previously outlined.  We believe it is the Security Council and the Human Rights Council that should address these issues, and we would like to use this opportunity to make a respectful call upon the Distinguished Delegate of Belarus to understand the concerns expressed by the international community.  Certainly, it is our belief that through closer cooperation and mutual respect, we will be able to make further progress in this area.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Costa Rica.  I invite the Committee now to take action on Draft Resolution L.42, entitled “Situation of Democracy and Human Rights in the United States of America.”  I’ve been advised that the draft resolution contains no program budget implications.  Does the main sponsor, Belarus, wish to make a statement?  Yes, I give the floor to the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Belarus.

BELARUS:  Distinguished Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, a predator and his prey.  This is an image that comes to mind every time we are made to deal with the foul matter of country-to-country accusations in this Committee.  Who is the prey?  Us, all 192 member states of the United Nations, including the most powerful, rich and self-assured nations of the world.
Who is the predator?  And invincible and invisible beast of idleness of mind, of hypocritical self-gratification, of human preconception and outright prejudice.  This delegation intends to fight this predator.  Today and always, with all means at our disposal, if it takes, we will do it on our own, as the lone honorary sponsor of this resolution.  We will be just as honored to do it with many of our friends and partners.  But trust us, the victory is possible.
Mr. Chairman, L.42 may well be unique.  Against the background of truly global diplomatic efforts of the mightiest willed power inexplicably focused at the time of world turmoil on such a modest object of attention as the Resolution on Human Rights in Belarus.  We in the country did nothing.  Not a single visit to a ministry by an accredited ambassador.  Not a single request of support, not by letter, not by phone call.  There was no need for this.  We’re not a part of this game.  We do not believe in such games.  We do not play them.
This delegation is not the least concerned about the apparent procedural hopelessness of L.42.  Numbers no longer matter.  We’re just proud to author this honest, truthful and decent document, and this is what really matters, and this is what really counts.
Why do we put this draft for action?  Because it has become inevitable, through impatience of some, by inaction and lenience of others.  It is undoubtedly an awkward situation.  For some it may be utterly uncomfortable.  It does not make any sense at all for many present in this hall.  It will continue to perplex us long after we conclude the business of this committee.  But is precisely through these uncomfortable, painful experiences and perplexing thoughts that this resolution is ultimately going to work like a bitter but life-saving medicine.  Now, ladies and gentlemen, comes your critical move.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Belarus.  Does any other delegation wish to cosponsor this draft resolution?  Does any delegation wish to make a statement in connection with the draft resolution?  Distinguished Delegates, a recorded vote has been requested for this Draft Resolution L.42.
Before proceeding to the vote, I will first give the floor to any delegation wishing to make a general statement in connection with the draft resolution, and thereafter to any delegation wishing to make a statement in explanation of vote.  Does any delegation wish to make a general statement?  Does any delegation wish to make a statement in explanation of vote before the vote?  We shall proceed to the recorded vote.
Excuse me.  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of the United States.

UNITED STATES: See statement – HYPERLINK http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/US_on_HR_in_USA_third_committee_11-22-06_490vdd.doc http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/US_on_HR_in_USA_third_committee_11-22-06_490vdd.doc. 

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of the United States.  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Finland.

FINLAND/EU: See statement http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/EU_EOV_HR_in_US_11-22-06_4va.PDF http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/EU_EOV_HR_in_US_11-22-06_4va.PDF. 

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Finland.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Egypt.

EGYPT:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Chairman, Egypt will continue in its firm position to oppose all draft resolutions tabled before the General Assembly that target specific countries without exceptions and without double standards in the condition of that position.  Therefore, the delegation of Egypt will vote against the draft resolution contained in Document L.42 entitled “The Situation of Democracy and Human Rights in the United States of America,” despite the fact that we believe that violations of human rights are not confined to certain countries and that the situation of human rights in all countries, without exception, need additional efforts.  However, we do not believe that the optimum way is to adopt resolutions in the General Assembly to condemn those countries.  Rather, it is the way to -- the way is to assist them to arrive at a clearer understanding of human rights and to consolidate their respect for those rights through cooperation, not confrontation.  This would ultimately lead to the achievement of the desired objectives.
Irrespective of the objective facts mentioned in the draft resolution under consideration, but we see that the rate of the tabling of such draft resolutions has reached such a level that the General Assembly and the Third Committee in particular must take a firm stand against them all, a stand that will end double standards and deliberate politicization as well as selectivity in dealing with the questions of human rights, a stand that will prevent the exchange of incriminating draft resolutions by certain states charging them of human rights violations in a manner that would turn the United Nations into an arena to settle political scores under the pretext and the name of human rights.  The delegation of Egypt would like to reiterate that the only situation that warrants the attention and concentration of the human rights council, the Third Committee and the General Assembly is the continued violations of human rights in the Occupied Territories in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, because these are situations in which the United Nations is not interfering in an internal affair between the people and their government.  Rather, it is interfering to protect an occupied people from the occupying power until the end of that occupation and until every people exercises their inalienable legitimate right to self-determination.  Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Permanent Representative of the Arab Republic of Egypt.  ... now to the Distinguished Representative of Algeria.

ALGERIA:  Thank you, Chairman.  Chairman, in the same way as my delegation voted against country-specific resolutions that are submitted to this committee in the past, my delegation will vote against Draft Resolution L.42 concerning the situation of human rights in the United States of America, because we consider that country-specific resolutions maintain an atmosphere of confrontation which go against human rights.  We also intend not to fall into the trap of double standards and politicization of resolutions on human rights.
My delegation wishes to reiterate that the periodical universal review system that is being considered now by the Human Rights Council is the appropriate machinery to examine the situation of human rights in all countries without any exception, and which facilitates dialogue in order to improve the performance of all countries with regard to human rights, and also intends to stress that this position cannot apply to the situations of human rights in conditions of foreign occupation.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Algeria.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Uganda.

UGANDA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Chairman, viewing what’s going on with amusement, but also concern.  Two wrongs cannot make a right.  If we are serious, as some countries have said, about introducing a country-specific resolution, then it’s selectivity, then it’s politicization, then we should go on our own and be principled.  But halfway, you cannot turn around, having been a very vocal advocate of one of you and turn around and now, in the same place, you come out, advocate the very system we are condemning.  Mr. Chairman, Uganda cannot be party to this circus, and therefore, we shall vote against this resolution.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Uganda.  We shall now proceed to the recorded vote on the draft resolution contained in Document L.42.  All delegations wishing to vote in favor of the draft resolution, please press the green button.  Those against, please press the red button.  Those abstaining, please press the yellow button.
Have all delegations voted?  Are all votes correctly reflected on the board?  Please lock the machine.
The result of the vote is as follows.  In favor, 6.  Against, 114.  Abstaining, 45.  The Draft Resolution L.42 is rejected.
Does any delegation wish to make a statement in explanation of vote after the vote?  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Zimbabwe.

ZIMBABWE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  My delegation has abstained on this resolution.  We did not -- We did so not because we have any difficulties with its content, but because we believe we should approach the issues differently.  And as a matter of principle, we are opposed to country-specific resolutions on human rights.  I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Zimbabwe.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

VENEZUELA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  In respect of the well-known and flagrant violations of human rights which are referred to in the draft resolution currently under discussion, our delegation, in accordance with our principled position not to support initiatives which in any way selectively single out countries in the human rights area, has chosen to vote against this draft resolution, as has been the case for all country-specific draft resolutions.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of China.

CHINA:  The Chinese delegation has noted that the Draft Resolution L.41 mentioned the human rights violations -- mentioned some of the issues in human rights violations.  We have believed consistently that there is not a single country in the world that has perfect human rights conditions, that has a perfect human rights record.  Governments of all countries should seriously address human rights violations in their own countries and strictly comply with their obligations under international human rights conventions and fully cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms.
The Chinese delegation has always believed that the differences on the human rights issues should be resolved through dialogue and cooperation, which will contribute to the development of the international human rights cause.  Therefore, we are not in favor of country-specific resolutions on human rights issues.  Based on the above considerations, the Chinese delegation has abstained in the voting on Draft Resolution L.42.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of China.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Brazil.

BRAZIL:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  As stated on previous occasions, Brazil favors the implementation of the universal periodic review mechanism which will allow the United Nations to examine in a truly universal manner the situation of human rights in all countries of the world, free from selectivity and politicization.  We are of the view that country-specific resolutions should be adopted only in cases of such gravity that merit the particular attention of the international community.
Brazil voted against the Draft Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in the United States for considering that it does not reflect in a balanced and comprehensive manner the general situation of human rights in the country.  Nevertheless, Brazil is concerned with denunciations of abuses in human rights violations in the context of the fight against terrorism.  Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Brazil.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Uzbekistan.

UZBEKISTAN:  Thank you, Chairman.  The delegation of Uzbekistan voted against this draft resolution.  However, this does not mean at all that we are not concerned by the situations that are set out in this resolution.  The principled position of Uzbekistan against this continued approach to country-specific resolutions in the Third Committee without previous study of them by the Human Rights Council, which is specially set up to do so, and on the basis of this, we voted against, but we believe that these issues should be studied more clearly by the international community, and we support it being submitted to the Human Rights Council in Geneva.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Uzbekistan.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Costa Rica.

COSTA RICA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  As was stated on Friday last, my delegation abstained from voting on this resolution.  Last year, Costa Rica participated vigorously in the debates that resulted in the establishment of the Human Rights Council, and we did so in the understanding that the existing mechanism needed to be improved.  And we did this also in the understanding that in spite of the many achievements that had been made, there were also deficiencies.  There were shortcomings that needed to be resolved, and that these shortcomings needed to be resolved as soon as possible.
Costa Rica is of the view that the mechanism to be used in order to overcome these deficiencies, to overcome these shortcomings, is the establishment of the Human Rights Council, and therefore from the very outset we’ve supported this body, and we shall continue to do so.  Costa Rica does not believe that this is the adequate forum at this point in time to address country-specific resolutions.  We have listened very closely to what was said by the Distinguished Delegate of the United States when this debate first started, and we welcome the fact that in his statement he made a point that Costa Rica has always upheld, namely that no country large or small has a perfect human rights record.
What is important -- and this was pointed out by the distinguished delegate of the United States -- is that we all meet the challenges that we face in a proactive manner and in a serious manner.  For the sake of consistency, Chairman, once again, we express our absolute adherence to international law and to the primacy of the respect for human rights.  And as a result, my delegation has abstained from voting on this resolution.  We believe that this resolution, and any such resolution in a similar vein, should be addressed by the Human Rights Council.
Like other delegations, we would like to use this opportunity to urge the Distinguished Delegation of the United States to take specific measures in order to allay concerns that have arisen in the human rights field.  Thank you very much, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Costa Rica.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Sudan.  The floor is yours.

SUDAN:  Thank you, Chairman.  Sudan, on the basis of its position of principle, which is to reject resolutions that target a specific country, abstained from voting despite the fact that we support the text of this draft resolution, which reasserts the flagrant violations that have taken place against human rights in the United States of America.  The secret prisons and all measure that are taken against detainees and the non-respect of humanitarian law and human rights in general.
Countries, whether large or small, must review what they have achieved with regard to human rights and promote cooperation at the global level to address these issues, and we call upon the United States of America and all states across the globe not to consider themselves as perfect or as a judge or referee with regard to human rights.  All these countries must revise and review the measures they are taking and cooperate with all agencies and human rights mechanisms.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Representative of Sudan.  I invite the Committee to take action on Draft Resolution L.43, entitled “Situation of Indigenous Peoples and Immigrants in Canada.”  I’ve been advised that the draft resolution contains no program budget implication.  Does the main sponsor, the Islamic Republic of Iran, wish to make a statement?  Yes, I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

IRAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Mr. Chairman, the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran has submitted to the Third Committee, the Draft Resolution on the Situation of Indigenous Peoples and Immigrants in Canada contained in Document L.43, with the firm belief that the situation of aboriginals and immigrants in Canada merits this Committee’s attention and action.  In so doing, we expect that a clear message be sent to the government of Canada to live up to its human rights obligations in order to address the existing legitimate concerns in this regard.
Since November 9, 2006, when we introduced the draft resolution, it has drawn the attention of many who have genuine concerns about the appalling situation of immigrants and aboriginal peoples in Canada.  Indeed, this draft resolution has brought the problems of the aboriginals and immigrants in Canada to the attention of the wider international community that has yet to be alarmed about the unfavorable and long-neglected situation of minorities and disadvantaged people in the developed part of the world, especially in Canada.
As we have all witnessed, the government of Canada arrogates to itself a leading global role on human rights advocacy while certain parts of its own population suffer from human rights violations under its watch and in the exercise of its discriminatory policies.  As a result, Canada’s human rights violation has been well documented by various human rights monitoring bodies, particularly the UN human rights mechanisms.
In fact, the main content of this draft resolution has been borrowed from the documents such as the report of the Human Rights Council.  Moreover, other sources, such as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, have reported on the discriminatory treatment of these people in Canada.  The said commission has reported that few Canadian aboriginal people have jobs, and many of them are left behind bars for a long period.  The commission has also described the health status of aboriginal peoples in Canada as both a tragedy and a crisis.
In addition, the Native Women Association of Canada and other institutions have also reported that approximately 500 aboriginal women have been murdered or reported missing over the past 15 years.  In brief, various reports indicate that significant disparities still remain between minorities and the rest of the population in areas of employment, access to water, health, housing and education.
Mr. Chairman, to the knowledge of all, it has never been our principled position to seek responses to our concerns through country-specific resolutions.  We, along with the overwhelming majority of the international community, believe that promotion and protection of human rights can best be realized through cooperation and dialogue.
Indeed, we have a strong preference for dialogue and cooperation.  However, the government of Canada has declined to reply to our sincere call for holding human rights dialogue, which would have provided both sides with the opportunity to raise issues of mutual concern.
Under the circumstances, the dialogue and cooperation on the important issue of human rights have been disregarded by Canada.  We have been left with no alternative except to express our concerns over the human rights violations in Canada through the draft resolution before the Committee.
Time and again, we have been reminded by the traditional sponsors of the resolutions on human rights situations that their position is based on their genuine concern over the actual situation of human rights in respective countries and has nothing to do with their political considerations and motives.
Their voting pattern, however, has proved the opposite.  The present draft resolution provides another test.  We will see whether the plight of certain disadvantage groups of people in Canada would win the sympathy and concern of the so-called claimants of human rights today.
I’m aware that many of our friends and partners have principled positions on specific country resolutions.  In view of these considerations, I hope the members of the Third Committee take the human rights situation in Canada seriously in consideration and vote in favor of the Draft Resolution L.43.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Does any other delegation which to cosponsor this draft resolution?  Does any delegation wish to make a statement in connection with the draft resolution?
I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Canada.

CANADA:  Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Canada is widely known as a vibrant and plural democracy whose very foundations are respect for human rights and the rule of law.  Canada has a long tradition of not only supporting, but actively advancing the rights of indigenous peoples.  Nevertheless, Canada recognizes that there are human rights challenges that we must address, and we are committed to taking steps to meet those challenges.
To this end, we engage in open and frank discussions on human rights with an active civil society and with aboriginal and other communities.  The Canadian government is held accountable by the public, by a freely elected parliament and by a free and independent media and judiciary.  There are many human rights advocates in Canada, including aboriginal leaders.  They can freely speak.  They are not in jail for having expressed opinions or for having claimed their rights.
Internationally, Mr. Chair, Canada is a party to all major human rights instruments, cooperates fully with UN human rights mechanisms and is fully up to date on its reports to treaty bodies and has a standing invitation to all Special Rapporteurs of the Human Rights Council.  Indeed, many Special Rapporteurs have visited and reported on Canada in recent years.  These reports are widely available and discussed in Canada.  Such reports are useful in identifying issues which merit attention.
The resolution in front of us refers to these reports.  We encourage delegations to read the reports in full to get a comprehensive view of human rights in our country.  For instance, the recent report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found the following, and I quote:  “Canada is a country governed by the rule of law, in which a strong and independent judiciary strives to ensure that trials are fair and exercises a generally rigorous control over the lawfulness of all forms of deprivation of liberty,” end of quote.
In this context, it is useful to point out that the human rights of immigrants are fully protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as provincial labor laws and international human rights instruments to which Canada is a party.
The Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous people noted the following, quote:  “Canada’s will to address the human rights challenges faced by aboriginal peoples is expressed through a wide array of programs and projects designed to close the human rights protection gap and to significantly improve the living standards as well as the human and social development indicators of aboriginal people within the foreseeable future.”  And further, he was, quote, “encouraged by Canada’s commitment to ensuring that the country’s prosperity is shared by aboriginal people, a goal to which the federal and provincial governments of Canada devote an impressive number of programs and projects and considerable financial resources,” end of quote.
The Committee on Economic, Social –

CHAIRMAN:  Could you conclude it please?

CANADA:  Mr. Chair, I should note that there was no timing of the intervention by the proponent of the motion.  I think it only fair to permit me to continue.

CHAIRMAN:  [INAUDIBLE] have only ten minutes left, and we want to conclude before 6:00.  Sorry.

CANADA:  The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted with appreciation the reduction in disparities between our aboriginal people and the rest of the population.  The Committee Against Torture recognized the efforts made by Canada in response to the issue of overrepresentation of indigenous -- of offenders in the correctional system, to develop innovative and culturally sensitive alternative criminal justice mechanisms, such as the use of healing lodges.  And I could go on and on, Mr. Chair.
But to conclude, the objective of bringing a country resolution in Third Committee of the General Assembly is not to identify those who do not have perfect human rights records.  If that were the case, there would be 192 country resolutions every year.  Country resolutions are an important tool with which to address the most egregious human rights situations -- that is, countries in which serious human rights violations are taking place and whose governments have shown themselves unwilling to address them.
Mr. Chair, I prefer not to speculate as to the reasons why this resolution was presented in the first place.  Rather, Canada invites delegations to address this resolution, like any other country resolution, on its merits.  And in looking at the merits, one should consider the overall situation of human rights in Canada, including that of aboriginal people and immigrants, the fact that Canada acknowledges shortcomings and challenges and Canada’s commitment and the concrete actions we take to make progress on human rights, the fact that our government openly engages with its citizens, that human rights advocates can freely speak up, and that citizens can claim their rights through many avenues.  And finally, Canada’s full cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms.
For all the reasons above, Mr. Chair, we respectfully invite delegations to vote against the resolution, “Situation of the Indigenous Peoples and Immigrants in Canada.”  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Canada.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Australia.

AUSTRALIA:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Australia and New Zealand, who is prepared to be associated with these comments, want to make it quite clear that we stand alongside Canada in its defense against these allegations that have been made against it, allegations that the sponsor was not prepared to support with evidence in the case it brought to this body.  We make it quite clear that our judgment is not a judgment on the process but a judgment on the merits.  Canada’s got every right, in our view, to be proud of its human rights record, and it certainly can stand proudly against any other state represented in this body today.
So we’re unimpressed, Mr. Chairman, that a motion like this is brought, obviously, for obvious reasons that have nothing to do with the record and performance of Canada in relations to its own human rights record.  If it wasn’t for the fact that you indicated that the time wasn’t available, I’d be quite happy to look to the reasons behind the sponsor bringing this action, but I won’t do it in these circumstances.  I’ll just say that on merit, Canada deserves support in this case.  There’s been no allegation brought before it that has brought with it any proof whatsoever, and Canada deserves recognition and applause for a history, a proud history of human rights protection, both in law and in culture.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Australia.  I wish to clarify that no time limit was imposed on any main sponsor while clarifying the draft resolution.  A recorded vote has been requested for this Draft Resolution L.43.  Before proceeding to the vote, I will first give the floor to any delegation wishing to make a general statement in connection with the draft resolution, and thereafter to any delegation wishing to make a statement in explanation of vote.  Does any delegation wish to make a general statement?  Does any delegation wish to make a statement in explanation of vote before the vote?
I give the floor to the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Egypt.

EGYPT:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  Chairman, in spite of the objective and procedural elements that have been explained to us by the Representative of Iran, my delegation will be voting against Draft Resolution L.42, entitled “Situation of indigenous peoples and immigrants in Canada.”  We maintain our position to refrain from supporting these types of resolutions in the Third Committee, namely country-specific resolutions, which is part of a double standards policy.  Without double standards.  I’m afraid, Mr. Chairman, that translation is not good.  Let me complete in English, then.  Egypt is going to vote -- Egypt is going to vote against the draft resolution in Document L.43, in continuation of our solid position to oppose all country-specific resolutions without distinction and without double standards, and despite the fact that Canada today voted against the resolution contained in Document L.13, rev. 1, entitled “Situation of Human Rights Arising from the Israeli Military Operations in Lebanon,” among only six countries that voted against that resolution.
In our opinion, dealing with situations of human rights in all countries, without exception, requires unified standards and requires that we do not build positions in human rights based on political consideration and on endeavors to adopt resolutions by the General Assembly to condemn certain states, but through working together to help all states, regardless of their advancement stage, to make better understandings of human rights and to enhance their respect for these human rights within a cooperative process and not a confrontational process.
And despite the fact that we did not touch on the merits or on the substantive consideration of this draft resolution, we see that the fact that this resolution is coming within a wave of resolutions and counter-resolutions requires that the General Assembly take specific action in that regard, and maintain a position of not adopting any kind of resolution in that effect.
This also requires that the delegation emphasize that the only case that requires that the Human Rights Council, Third Committee of the General Assembly will deal with is the systemic violations of human rights in the Occupied Arab Territories in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, which are the cases that -- or United Nations does not interfere in the internal affairs of states, but rather protect an occupied population from the occupying power, the occupation is gone, until this population will exercise its inalienable right of self-determination.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Egypt.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Finland.

FINLAND/EU: See statement http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/EU_EOV_Canada_11-22-06_68na.PDF http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/EU_EOV_Canada_11-22-06_68na.PDF. 

CHAIRMAN:  Excuse me.  Point of order.  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

IRAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  The point of order is because the Distinguished Representative of the EU is talking about a resolution that has been decided, adopted and close.  That item has been closed, and he’s reopening a previous item.  He’s talking about a resolution which has been decided by this Committee before.  I object that the representative talks about the resolution which is not in the issue right now.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  I give the floor back to the Distinguished Representative of Finland and urge him to conclude because of the shortage of time, please.  Thank you.

FINLAND/EU: See statement http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/EU_EOV_Canada_11-22-06_68na.PDF http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/EU_EOV_Canada_11-22-06_68na.PDF. 

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Finland.  I am advised that interpretation will have to stop at 6:15.  I appeal to delegations to make very brief statements.  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Kuwait.

KUWAIT:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  I’ll be extremely brief.  My delegation greatly deplores the situation of our debate in the Third Committee with regard to country-specific resolutions.  That is why we should be voting against Draft Resolution L.43, as we voted against L.41 on the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran.  My delegation is of the view that these resolutions are useless.

CHAIRMAN:  I would like to thank the Distinguished Delegate of Kuwait.

ALGERIA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  Chairman, my delegation would like to repeat that country-specific resolutions result in a climate of confrontation which hampers human rights.  In turn, we would like to recall that the universal periodic review mechanism that has been established by the Human Rights Council is the appropriate mechanism to examine the human rights situation in all countries, without exception.  In order to use dialogue, in order to bring about improvements in human rights performance, my delegation has listened to those delegations defending the human rights situations of their countries, often referring to the situation as being excellent, and often rejecting the accusations targeting their countries.
My country is not in any position to assess or judge the human rights situation in any of the countries represented here in this room.  Rather, we believe it is the universal periodic review mechanism accepted by all that should be responsible for assessing the human rights situation in each and every country under consideration, and for that reason we should be voting against Draft Resolution L.43 which has been submitted for approval and adoption, as we have voted against all country-specific resolutions that have been submitted.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of Algeria.  Distinguished delegates, a recorded vote has been requested for this draft resolution L.43.  Before proceeding to the vote, I will first give the floor to any delegation wishing to make a general statement in connection with the draft resolution, and thereafter to any delegation wishing to make a statement in explanation of vote.  Does any delegation wish to make a general statement?  Does any delegation wish to make a statement, explanation of vote before the vote?
We shall now proceed to the recorded vote on the Draft Resolution L.43.  Will delegations wishing to vote in favor of the draft resolution please press the green button, those against please press the red, those abstaining please press the yellow button.  Have all delegations voted?  Are all votes correctly reflected on the board?  Please lock the machine.
The result of the vote is as follows:  In favor, 6.  Against, 107.  Abstaining, 49.  The draft resolution is rejected.
Does any delegation wish to make a statement in explanation of vote after the vote?  I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of China.

CHINA:  Mr. Chairman, the Chinese delegation has noted that the human rights violations mentioned in the Draft Resolution L.43 -- mentioned in the Draft Resolution L.42, we are highly concerned about this.  We hope that this government will comply with its obligations under human rights conventions and take measures to further improve its human rights situation, especially that of immigrants and indigenous people.
The Chinese delegation has always believed that differences in human rights should be resolved through cooperation and dialogue.  We are opposed to the utilization of double standards and politicization of human rights issues.  We are not in favor of country-specific resolutions on human rights issues.  Based on the above consideration, the Chinese delegation has abstained from the voting on Draft Resolution L.43.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  I thank the Distinguished Representative of China.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

VENEZUELA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela voted against this draft resolution.  We wish to repeat our disapproval of the practice of submitting draft resolutions that examine the human rights situation in specific countries.  Thank you very much, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  May I urge other delegations to speak for one minute, please, because we have to conclude.  I give the floor to the Representative of Sudan.

SUDAN:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  I would like to repeat the principled position of Sudan.  We refuse and reject any country-specific resolutions, and as a result, my delegation did not abstain in the vote, although we agree with the contents of this draft resolution, which provides a detailed portrayal of the human rights violations perpetrated against the indigenous populations and immigrant population in Canada.  We encourage Canada to respect its human rights commitments and to fully cooperate with human rights mechanisms.  Thank you very much, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN:  [INAUDIBLE] from Brazil.

BRAZIL:  [INAUDIBLE] of the universal periodic review mechanism, which will allow the United Nations to examine in a truly universal manner the situation of human rights in all countries of the world, free from selectivity and politicization.  We are of the view that country-specific resolutions should be adopted only in cases of such gravity that merit the particular attention of the international community.  We have voted against the Resolution on the Situation of the Human Rights of Indigenous and Immigrant Peoples in Canada as we consider that the text does not reflect in a balanced manner the situation of those vulnerable groups in that country.
We point out to this extent that the draft generally reproduces recommendations of treaty bodies of which Canada is a party in those special procedures which visited the country in the context of the standing invitation extended by Canada to them since the 55th Session of the CHR.  The dialogue with these mechanisms demonstrates Canada’s openness to cooperation with the international human rights system.  Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN:  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Representative of Costa Rica.

COSTA RICA:  Thank you very much, Chairman.  Very quickly, simply to reaffirm Costa Rica’s position, which has been outlined on previous occasions, and we would like to ensure that this statement is included in the official record.  During this vote, we abstained for the following reason:  We believe that this is a matter that should be taken up by the Human Rights Council.  We have listened very closely to the statements made by the Distinguished Delegate of Canada, and we support in full efforts that have been undertaken in order to resolve any pending human rights issues and commend those efforts made.
Chairman, in light of this very interesting procedure and debate that has taken place here over the past few days, my delegation has been somewhat perplexed, but greatly interested, by the fact that on this occasion we did not hear a generic appeal against all country-specific resolutions.  We were very much struck by the fact -- let me repeat, Costa Rica has no difficulty whatsoever with the concept of country-specific resolutions as such.  This is a useful mechanism.  However, at this point in time we feel it is the Human Rights Council that should be at the forefront in this area.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  ... the floor to the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Uzbekistan.

UZBEKISTAN:  Thank you, Chairman.  The delegation of Uzbekistan voted against this draft resolution on the basis of its principled position, which is against country-specific resolutions.  However, we would once again like to point out that it is our understanding that country-specific resolutions should be examined first and foremost by the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
I’d like once again to draw attention to another aspect.  The last two resolutions on human rights in the USA and Canada are based on the fact that the time has come for the end of impunity of countries.  If they do not put an end to these practices, they will encounter stronger and stronger objections.  Thank you.

CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  I give the floor now to the Distinguished Permanent Representative of Zimbabwe.

ZIMBABWE:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  To reiterate that we do not support country-specific resolutions, and this explains why we abstained on this resolution.  I thank you.
CHAIRMAN:  Distinguished Delegates, in spite of our efforts, we have not managed to conclude our work today.  We are thus compelled to resume our deliberation on Friday.  Correction, on Tuesday morning. [LAUGHTER; APPLAUSE] And to take action on all outstanding draft proposals.  The program, of course, will be included in the journal.  Let me wish you a good holiday with many pumpkins and a few dragons.  The meeting is adjourned.
Excuse me, I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Cuba.

CUBA:  Chairman, before we conclude, I simply wish to make the following comment in light of something recently said by the delegation of Costa Rica.  I tried to make some remarks regarding one point explained by the delegation of Costa Rica, just right now, and I want to express that our delegation, at least make -- according with the mandate received by the Non-Aligned Movement, a point -- make a declaration at the beginning of the Item 66, 67(c), wherever the item was open.  You know, and I fulfill the mandate so I just want to clarify this, at least for the benefit of the delegation of Costa Rica.  Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  The meeting is adjourned.
[END]