Original Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gashc3912.doc.htm Date: November 28, 2007 Press release excerpts Sixty-second General Assembly Third Committee 54th Meeting (PM)* RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT, GIRL CHILD, PROTECTION OF MIGRANTS AMONG ISSUES ADDRESSED, AS THIRD COMMITTEE ADOPTS SIX TEXTS, CONCLUDES CURRENT SESSION Other Drafts Concern Implementation of Durban Declaration; Centre For Human Rights, Democracy in Central Africa; Sixty-Third session Work Programme ...The United States and the member States of the European Union also voted against the revised draft resolution on the elimination of racism and preparations for a follow-up conference in 2009 on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance that took place in Durban, South Africa in August and September 2001.  The main sponsor, Pakistan, said the text had undergone considerable change since the draft’s introduction before the Committee, but concern was expressed about its request to the Secretary-General to provide funding for a series of regional preparatory meetings, as well as the review conference itself.  The representative of Israel, meanwhile, recounted his country’s displeasure with the Durban conference, recalling that some countries and non-governmental organizations had used the occasion to demonize his country... ...The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to take action on the 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/Rev.1, with programme budget implications contained in document A/C.3/62/L.90).  (For background, please see press release http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gashc3909.doc.htm GA/SHC/3909 of 20 November.)... ...The meeting adjourned for a few minutes, after the Secretary said he was awaiting an oral statement regarding program budget implications on a revised version of the 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/Rev.1, with programme budget implications contained in document A/C.3/62/L.90). The representative of Pakistan, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that, following consultations, the text had been almost entirely changed; the title of the revised text had become global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.  A number of oral revisions had been made.  Once the General Assembly had acted on the draft resolution, it was the joint responsibility of States to ensure that the Durban Review Conference and the preparatory process were facilitated.  The action taken by the Committee today would reveal whether the gap between rhetoric and reality vis-à-vis eliminating racism and discrimination had been bridged. The Secretary said that the programme budget implications contained in “L.90” still applied, even in view of the revisions that had just been made by the representative of Pakistan.  He then placed on the record an oral statement from the Secretary-General regarding allocation of resources. The representative of Israel said her country was deeply alarmed by racially motivated violence, and it supported international efforts to address the problem.  But, at times, such efforts had been derailed by political interests of some Member States.  At the Durban conference, slanderous, racist and harmful rhetoric had been directed at one State, calling into question the value of such international conferences.  One single country had been demonized; Israel and the United States, therefore, had withdrawn from the conference and opposed follow-up resolutions that ignored what had happened there.  Durban had been a sad display of racism and intolerance.  Israel was compelled to call for a vote, and it would vote against.  It was hoped that, in due time, the blunders of Durban would be rectified. The representative of the United States said the draft resolution endorsed the flawed outcome of the World Conference held in Durban in 2001 and was, therefore, itself seriously problematic.  Durban follow-up activities duplicated work being undertaken by other bodies.  The Human Rights Council should not act as a preparatory committee for the Durban Review Conference, but rather dedicate itself to addressing emerging human rights situations.  The Secretary-General should, meanwhile, not be asked to fund regional preparatory meetings that duplicated work already underway.  States should focus on implementing existing commitments regarding racism, rather than follow-up to a flawed instrument. The representative of Colombia made an editorial comment regarding a footnote to operative paragraph 25.  The Chairman said the error would be duly corrected. The representative of Portugal, on behalf of the European Union, recalled that, at the sixty-first session of the General Assembly, the Union had supported the convening in 2009 of a Durban Review Conference, on the understanding that it would be conducted at a high-level meeting in the framework of the General Assembly; that it would focus on implementation of the Durban outcome document without reopening any part of that document; and that its preparation by the Human Rights Council would not entail the creation of new mechanisms.  It was disappointing, however, that two draft resolutions had been put before the Human Rights Council that contradicted the letter and spirit of the resolution adopted by the sixty-first session.  The Union had been forced to vote against those resolutions, and thus consensus was broken.  The European Union, nevertheless, participated actively at the meeting of the Preparatory Committee of the Review Conference, where 15 decisions had been adopted without a vote.  Those decisions were subsequently endorsed by the Third Committee, but now it was taking action on a draft resolution that, in some instances, contained language that contradicted those decisions.  The draft resolution changed the Preparatory Committee’s agreement regarding the holding of international, regional and national meetings in preparation for the Durban Review Conference, and it contained language that could be construed as prejudging the special procedures review process under way at the Human Rights Council.  In addition, paragraphs dealing with budgetary arrangements for the World Review Conference and its preparatory process contradicted the decisions taken by the Preparatory Committee.  The Union also regretted that negotiations on the draft text had been initiated only about a week ago, allowing little time for consultations.  The Union was asking itself if it was worth making efforts to reach compromises that would be easily broken.  It also doubted whether some of the main players were interested in keeping the Durban follow-up process on a consensus basis that included all regions.   The Union would vote against the draft resolution. The representative of Armenia said his delegation had participated actively at Durban and attached importance to the full implementation of the Durban Declaration and its Programme of Action.  He also supported the idea of a review conference.  However, the only way for the process to succeed was through consensus action based on inclusiveness.  Though he was encouraged by the flexibility and openness demonstrated by participants, parties had not come to mutually acceptable conclusions.  For that reason, he was unable to support the current resolution and would abstain from the vote. The representative of Pakistan raised a point of order, saying that the intervention by the delegate from Portugal had related to draft resolution L.65.  The Committee was presently taking action on Revision 1 of the text, which was substantially different from the one tabled previously. The Committee then approved the draft by a vote of 119 in favour to 45 against, with 6 abstentions ( Armenia, Japan, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland) (Annex II). The representative of Japan said he had abstained from the vote, because, in the interest of maintaining the financial health of the United Nations and to promote sound financial management practices, States should have enough time to consider programme budget implications associated with various texts. The Committee took note of the report of the Secretary-General on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (A/62/480). The Secretary said that, in view of “L.65/Rev.1”, “L.86” would have to be revised.  That would be done in due course. The representative of Egypt said he believed that “L.86” did not include any elements regarding the report of the Human Rights Council.  The Secretary had said that a number of agenda items had been missing from the Arabic version; the official version would be corrected in due course.  The representative of Sudan said his delegation had brought to attention of the Secretariat that five agenda items had been missing from the Arabic version, but that a revised version now reflected the English version.  The representative of Benin said “L.86” had no reference to commemorations of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The Secretary said that it could have been the case that the anniversary would have elapsed before the sixty-third session; therefore there would have been no need for its entry.  Regarding the report of the Human Rights Council, the representative of Uruguay recalled that the General Committee’s decision to convey that report to the Third Committee applied to the current session only, and a new decision would be taken at the next session.  The Secretary concurred with the recollection of the representative of Uruguay. The Committee then adopted the programme of work for the sixty-third session of the General Assembly, as contained in “L.86”... ANNEX II Vote on Durban Declaration The draft resolution on the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and programme of action (document A/C.3/62/L.65/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 119 in favour to 45 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows: In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States. Abstain:  Armenia, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland. Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.