Vote on Deleting Reports on Nepal, Uganda from Committee Work Programme

The proposal to delete reports on Nepal and Uganda from the Third Committee work programme was adopted by a recorded vote of 76 in favour to 54 against, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Jordan, Mongolia, Oman, Qatar, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uruguay.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Montenegro, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.


Explanation of votes

The representative of Turkey said it was very unfortunate that the Committee had started its session by voting.  Its delegation wanted more time to consider the two reports, and more time to study the resolution, as well as more time to consult its capital.  Accordingly, Turkey abstained from voting.

The representative of Mexicosaid it was regrettable to have had to decide so hastily on this initiative.  They would have liked an explanation from OHCHR.  This Committee’s work was too important for hasty decisions.  There was a need to review the procedure by which these reports were submitted.  He was sure the Chairman would do everything to avoid another situation like that one.

The representative of Jordan said they abstained today on the understanding that a very important issue must not be decided as it was today.  Its delegation needed to talk with the capital, and expressed a wish to add their explanation to their official vote.

The representative of the United States said the hasty manner in which the decision had been taken in the morning meeting was disappointing.  The United States had voted against deletion.  He noted that General Assembly Resolution 48/141 had reaffirmed the need for ongoing adaptation of United Nations human rights machinery to defend and promote human rights.  The OHCHR should be allowed, even encouraged, to bring any human rights issue before the Committee.  Moreover, the Governments of Uganda and Nepal had signed memoranda of understanding with the OHCHR under which these reports had been drafted.  Moreover, as the Committee that dealt with human rights issues, it was more than a little troubling that the Committee would consider deleting two such agenda items, particularly without having allowed delegations the opportunity to consult with capitals.

The representative of Brazil, explaining its abstention, said the proposal to consider the two reports had been received with surprise.  It would have been preferable to have had more time for debate, as important institutional issues were at stake.

The representative of Uganda said the vote in favour of deletion had not been a victory for her country, but a victory for respect for procedure.  Uganda had been ambushed by the High Commissioner, who had not had the courtesy to show her report to her country.  It was to be hoped that she would respect procedure.  Uganda subscribed to observance of human rights, under its Constitution and under international human rights instruments.

The representative of France said he failed to understand why the Committee should decide not to consider reports from the outset.  Delegations and committees were free to decide on such reports.  It could not be taken seriously when some delegations referred to sanctions or the peace process in Uganda vis-à-vis the inclusion of the reports in the Committee’s work.  Moreover, why did past practice have to be changed without justification?  An irrational decision had been taken.  France had voted against deletion, and the decision did not auger well for the Committee’s work.  France was ready to immediately forget what had unfolded in the morning, and it hoped that others would as well.

The representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said that if the day could be judged by the morning, this morning was not very encouraging.  Matters should not be forced, he said.  The delegation of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia wanted more time to consult with its capital.  Having no instructions, they were compelled to vote against the motion, he said.  His delegation “sure hopes it will not continue like that,” he concluded. 

The representative of Benin said most delegations this morning who seemed to say they needed more time did vote against it, without waiting for instruction from their capitals.  Respect for procedure was important for the African countries.  Referring to the Human Rights Council, he said every time procedure was not respected, the African group would oppose that. 

The representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines said it was unfortunate that it came to a vote in the morning, but it was Saint Vincent’s desire that human rights issues were aired.  However, that desire could not be allowed to derail this Committee’s work.  The morning’s discussion was not a substantive matter, but was jurisdictional.  It went to OHCHR’s ability to co-opt the agenda of this Committee by imposing reports on it.  Paragraph 4 spoke of being subject to the discretion of the Secretary-General to carry out assigned tasks, he said.  An action beyond the resolution and a looming vote made St. Vincent’s only “fair choice” a vote in favour, to avoid Member States being “ambushed by sudden additions”.

The representative of Qatar said his delegation understood the African group’s position, as well as the important role undertaken by OHCHR.  His delegation could have voted in favour, but did not have time to consult with its capital, and therefore decided to abstain from voting.