Globol efforlsfor lhe lolol eliminqtionof rocism, rociql discriminolion, xenophobioond reloled infolerqnceond the comprehensive implemenlolion of ond follow up to lhe Durbon Declqrqlionond Progrommeof Aciion [.65/Rev.1 EUExplonotion vote of M r . C h o i rmo n , I h o ve i h e h o n o rto sp e o kon beholfof ihe Eur opeon Union exploin to our p o si ti o n o n th e d ro ft resolutioncontoined in docum eni 1.65/Rev. l , entitled "Globol efforts for the totol eliminotion of rqcism, rociol discriminotion, xenophobio ond reloted intoleronce ond the comprehensive implementotion of ond follow uo to the Durbon Declorotion ond Progromme of Action". The condidote countries crootio* ond The Former Yugoslov Republic of Mqcedonio*, the Countries of the Stobilizotion ond AssociotionProcessond Potentiol c o n d i d o te s A l b o n i o ,B o snio ond Hezegovinoond M ontenegr o, well os os the Republic of Moldovo ond Georgio, olign themselves with ihis declorotion.l The EuropeonUnionwishesto reiteroteits full commitment ond highest priority ottoched, to the fight ogoinst rocism, rociol discriminotion, xenophobio ond reloted intoleronce,to which we ottoch ihe highest priority. we were omong those who octively porticipoted in the deliberotions the World Conference ogoinstRocismheld in Durbon in of 20ol ond ogreed on itsfinol document, os o globol ogendo to eliminote rociol discriminqiion over the world. Since then, the EuropeonUnion oll ond its Member stotes hove focused their efforts on the full i m p l e me n to ti o n f th e D u rbonDeclor otion o ond Pr ogr omm e Action. of In this connection,the EUwos pleosed to support,of ihe lost session of this Generol Assembly, the convening in 200? of q Reviewconference on the implementotionof the DDPAwithin the fromeworkof the GA. As we onnounced then, toking into occount the negotiotion process,our understonding wos thqt the review would be conducted of o high-level meeting in the fromework of the GA, thot it would focus on the i m pl e me n to ti o n f th e D ur bon outcome docum ent,without r eopening o ony port thereof,ond thot its preporotionby ihe Humon Rights council would noi entoil the creoiion of new mechonisms. our firm belief thot ln the mojor volue odded of ihe DDPA is its universolity, the EU hos

repeotedly reoffirmedthot the respectivefollow-upmust be done in o fromeworkthot preserves brood consensus the ochieved of Durbon qnd includesoll regionsof the world.

M r . C h o i rmo n . For ihese reosons, wos deeply disoppointing us thot lost yeor, even it to before our compromiseof the'ThirdCommittee wos confirmed by the GA Plenory,two droft resolutions were presentedof the Humon Rights Council thot controdicted the letter ond ihe soirit of the New York decision.We were forced to vote ogoinst both these droft resoluiions o n d th u sth e co n se n suo c hievedof the GA wos br oken. s Siill, the EU hos poriicipoted octively ond constructively ot the orgonizotionol session of the Review Conference's Preporotory we Committee held lost August.After long ond prolonged discussions, were pleosed to see thot the openness,hord work ond strongwill of oll withouto vote, d e l e g o ti o n s n o b l e d th e Pr epComto odopt l5 decisions e includingon the objectivesof the ReviewConference. And yet, lost September,lessthon one month ofter the PrepCom hos deliberoied,three droftswere submittedto the Humon Rights Councilot itssixthsession thot were not in linewith the compromises reoched of the P r e p C o m. h eE Uw o s o n c e ogoin for ced to vote ogoinst T suchpr oposol s . We remoin fully committed to the implementotion of the PrepCom decisions ond, lostweek only, hove supportedthe endorsementof such decisions thisThirdCommiitee. by

M r. C h o i rmo n , It is surprising ond disconcertingto us thot this body, which hos just endorsed these decisions, now to toke oction on o droft resolution is which, in some instonces, direcilycontrodicisthem. We recognize on effort on the port of the sponsors this initiotiveto of occommodote severol of the EU proposols.Still,droft resolution1.65 c h o n g e s th e P re p C o m'sogr eement os it concer ns the holding o f internotionol,regionol ond notionol meeiings or other initioiivesin prepoiotion for the Durbon ReviewConference.lt furthermore contoins longuoge which con be construedos prejudgingthe speciolprocedures review process currently Council. underwoyof the HumonRights

F i no l l y, Mr. C h o i rmo n ,o n d om ong other ospects,por ogr ophsdeoling wiih budgetory orrongements for the Wodd Conference ond its preporotory process olso controdict PrepCom decision 1/12. The o g re e me n t re q ch e d i n August concer ning the finoncing of the preporotory processto the Durbon Review Conference hos been reo p en e d o n d n e w l o n g u oge wos included for qllocotionof odequote funding from the UN regulor budget to the Review Conference itself, before o decisionis token in respeci of its formot, venue ond duroiion. Theseore essentiol ospects thot must be determined before provisions reloting to the funding of the Conference qre odopted. The EUwould hove wished thot these decisions hod olreody been token, ond presented proposols this effect of the losi PrepCom os well os, os ii to concerns the formot of the ReviewConference,within the negotiotions of droft resolution 1.65.On boih occosions, there wos no ogreement to proposols. the Secretoriot incorporote our As hos noted in its stotement c o n ce rn i n gth e P B Io f d ro ft r esolution 1.65, fullbudget implicotions the of gZ.2 millionthis resolution provisionolly. estimoted of opproximotely would be oddressedoi the oppropriote time when consultotions ore c o mp l e te d co n ce rn i n g num berof or gonizqiionol r ongem enis the o or for ReviewConference,includingon itsdote ond durotion. The EUfurthermore regretsthot the negotiotions ihe droft text were on initiotedoi o very lote stoge, only obout o week ogo, ond thot thereby little iime hos been devoted to consultotions. Thiswos not odequote process deols considering the complexityof the text ond the extensive ii w i t h . We h o ve p re se n te do num ber of pr oposols oim ed of br ingingthe text in line with previous ogreements bui, unfortunotely,the moin sponsors droft resolution of 1.65 foiled to ochieve thisobjective. At this point, we osk ourselves whether it is worth for oll delegoiionsto moke oll such efforts to reoch compromisesif ihey con be so eosily broken. We olso reiterote our doubts obout whether some of the moin ployersin this processore genuinelyinterestedin keeping the Durbon follow-upprocesson o consensus bosiswhich includesoll regionsof the world. Foroll thesereosons, EUwillvote ogoinstdroft resoluiion the contoined in d o cu me n t 1 .6 5 .

T h o n kyo u , Mr. C h o i rmo n .