Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/gashc3909.doc.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/gashc3909.doc.htm Date: November 20, 2007 Sixty-second General Assembly Third Committee 49th & 50th Meetings (AM & PM) THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES THREE COUNTRY-SPECIFIC TEXTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS DESPITE OPPOSITION LED BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES   ...By the terms of a draft resolution entitled From rhetoric to reality:  a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/62/L.65), the Assembly would express “profound disappointment” at the fact that, six years after the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, the major commitments undertaken in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action are unfulfilled.  It would note with serious concern that there is no commitment for financial support to the Durban Review Conference from voluntary sources.  The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would be asked to put in place mechanisms to ensure the availability of adequate financial resources for the successful convening of the Durban Review Conference.  The Secretary-General would be asked to allocate adequate funding, from the regular budget of the United Nations, for regional preparatory conferences and the Durban Review Conference, including for the funding of delegations from least developed countries, as well as non-governmental organizations, particularly those from the developing countries. According to the text, the Assembly would urge Member States to withdraw reservations contrary to the object and purpose of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and to consider withdrawing other reservations.  The Assembly would express regret at the fact that the deadline set by the 2001 Durban World Conference for the universal ratification of the Convention has not been met; it would also endorse the decision of the Human Rights Council to realign the work and name of the Anti-Discrimination Unit in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), so as to render it consistent with its mandate, and the decision that henceforth the Unit should be known as the “Anti-Racial Discrimination Unit”, with operational activities that focus exclusively on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance... ...A draft resolution on the Report of the Human Rights Council on the preparations for the Durban Review Conference (document A/C.3/62/L.66), would have the Assembly welcome the Report of the Preparatory Committee on its first session, particularly the decisions adopted by the organizational session of this Committee.  It would also endorse the decisions adopted by this session... ...As the Committee began to take action on a draft resolution entitled From rhetoric to reality:  a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/62/L.65), the Secretary said that it would give rise to programme budget implications, and therefore action would have to be postponed.  The draft was then deferred until tomorrow... ...The Committee then took action on the draft resolution on the Report of the Human Rights Council on the preparations for the Durban Review Conference (document A/C.3/62/L.66).  The Secretary made an oral statement vis-à-vis programme budget implications; the representative of Angola asked all delegations to approve the draft by consensus. The representative of the United States asked for a recorded vote.  He said the draft had been bought to the Committee without proper review; it also called for an inappropriate use of United Nations resources.  His delegation particularly objected to the report’s suggestion that the Secretary-General find resources for funding costly preparatory meetings, and the suggestion that funding come from the United Nations general budget.  The United States had objections to the overall direction and procedures leading up to the Review Conference.  Also, the process by which the resolution had been brought before the General Assembly was troubling, as there had been neither meetings nor open discussions about the text or the 44-page report that it endorsed. The representative of Israel said the Durban Conference of 2001 had been anything but a meeting to eliminate racism; some delegations and non-governmental organizations had manipulated the occasion to demonstrate their deep-seated prejudice and hatred for one Member State and one particular people.  Israel had been compelled to withdraw from the conference; it would continue to vote against resolutions that heralded Durban as a display of international resolve to combat hatred and promote tolerance.  Durban had been a fiasco, and Israel could not support a resolution that called for a review conference.   Israel would vote against the resolution, and hope that, with time, the mistakes of Durban would be rectified. The Committee then approved the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 169 in favour to two against ( Israel and the United States), with four abstentions ( Australia, Cambodia, Canada and Fiji).  (See annex I)... ANNEX I Vote on Report of Human Rights Council on Preparations for Durban Review Conference The resolution on the report of the Human Rights Council on the Preparations for the Durban Review Conference (document A/C.3/62/L.66) was approved by a recorded vote of 169 in favour to 2 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows: In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against:  Israel, United States. Abstain:  Australia, Cambodia, Canada, Fiji. Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga.