Determination of trading plan and terms of its assembly

Best Binary Options Brokers 2020:
  • BINARIUM
    BINARIUM

    Top Binary Options Broker 2020!
    Best For Beginners!
    Free Trading Education!
    Free Demo Account!
    Get Your Sign-Up Bonus Now:

  • BINOMO
    BINOMO

    Only For Experienced Traders.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADDRESSES HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS IN FIVE COUNTRIES, AS IT ADOPTS 60 DRAFT TEXTS RECOMMENDED BY ITS THIRD COMMITTEE

Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixtieth General Assembly

64th Meeting (PM)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADDRESSES HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATIONS IN FIVE COUNTRIES,

AS IT ADOPTS 60 DRAFT TEXTS RECOMMENDED BY ITS THIRD COMMITTEE

Guidelines on Reparations for Victims of Human Rights Violations,

Prohibiting Torture, Combating Defamation of Religions among Other Issues

Expressing serious concern over the continuation of widespread human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Government’s refusal to cooperate with the Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteur assigned to investigate the situation, the General Assembly adopted for the first time a draft on the human rights situations in that country, one of 52 draft resolutions and eight decisions recommended by its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) that it approved this afternoon.

The draft — like several other texts pointing to human rights abuses in specific countries — reflected the Assembly’s serious concern over reports of torture, public executions, arbitrary detention, the lack of due process, extensive use of forced labour, high rates of infant malnutrition and restrictions on humanitarian organizations attempting to deliver food aid in that country. The draft was adopted by a vote of 88 in favour to 21 against, with 60 abstentions (Annex XVIII).

Further, the Assembly also expressed its serious concern over severe restrictions on freedom of religion, expression, assembly and on free movement within the country and abroad, as well as trafficking of women for sexual exploitation, forced marriage and forced abortions. The Assembly also urged the Government to ensure that humanitarian organizations, particularly the World Food Programme (WFP), have safe and unimpeded access to all parts of the country.

Such country-specific texts had led to much heated debate during the Third Committee’s 2005 session. At a time when the United Nations was reforming its human rights machinery and laying the groundwork for a new and objective Human Rights Council, many members of the Non-Aligned Movement had claimed that the Committee’s practice of targeting developing countries while ignoring human rights abuses in the developed world ran contrary to the reform process. Moreover, they had stressed, it would make the Council as politicized as its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, which had long been hamstrung by finger-pointing, selectivity and double standards. But several developed countries’ representative had argued that it was the Committee’s responsibility to speak out against particularly egregious human rights abuses and ensure that all countries comply with international human rights and humanitarian norms.

Requests during this year’s Third Committee session to adjourn debate on texts pointing to human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Myanmar, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan were rejected. But the Committee did approve in late November a “no motion” action, which ended its discussion of the human rights situation in the Sudan. The text on Myanmar was postponed today. By recorded votes, the Assembly adopted the other country-specific texts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (96-2-60, Annex XIII); Iran (75-50-43, Annex XVI); Turkmenistan (71-35-60, Annex XVII); and Uzbekistan (74-39-56, Annex XIX).

The Assembly also approved a text forwarded by the Third Committee on basic principles and guidelines on the right to reparation for victims of gross international human rights violations. The parameters — which had been negotiated over a 15-year period and were considered indispensable in the fight against impunity — would help victims and their representatives, as well as States design and implement public policies on reparations. The text also recommended that States promote their widespread use and dissemination among law enforcement officials, military and security forces, legislative bodies, judiciary, human rights defenders, and the public at large.

Best Binary Options Brokers 2020:
  • BINARIUM
    BINARIUM

    Top Binary Options Broker 2020!
    Best For Beginners!
    Free Trading Education!
    Free Demo Account!
    Get Your Sign-Up Bonus Now:

  • BINOMO
    BINOMO

    Only For Experienced Traders.

Similarly, a text on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment called on States to fully condemn and prohibit all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It sent a strong signal that attempts by States or public officials to authorize or legalize torture for reasons of national security or to fight terrorism were not justifiable. The text also urged States not to expel, return or extradite persons, including alleged terrorist suspects, to another State where they could be at risk for torture or ill-treatment on the grounds that diplomatic assurances would protect such persons, noting that such assurances did not release States from their obligations under international human rights, humanitarian and refugee law.

By a text on combating defamation of religions, adopted by 101 in favour to 53 against, with 20 abstentions (Annex IV), the Assembly strongly deplored physical attacks on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship and expressed deep concern that Islam was frequently linked to terrorism and human rights violations and that Muslim minorities were subjected to ethnic and religious profiling, particularly since the 11 September 2001 events. The draft also deplored using the media, including the Internet, to incite violence, xenophobia or related intolerance or discrimination towards Islam or any other religion.

The Assembly also approved a draft on global efforts to totally eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to implement and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, expressing deep concern over the increase in anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia in various parts of the world and the emergence of violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas. The text was adopted by a vote of 172 in favour to
3 against ( Israel, Marshall Islands, United States), with 4 abstentions ( Australia, Canada, Palau, Tuvalu) (Annex II).

By a text on implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning disabled persons, the Assembly urged all stakeholders to improve treatment of and services for people with disabilities, as well as encouraged Member States to support preparation of a draft Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.

The Assembly postponed action on a draft on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women — which would authorize three annual three-week Third Committee sessions as a temporary measure to process its backlog of reports of States parties — a text on the future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) and a text on the rights of the child, until the Fifth Committee had finalized budget implications for both resolutions. However, the Assembly did approve texts supporting the work of the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) and theadvancement of women, with particular emphasis on ending violence against women, notably women migrant workers and women living in rural areas.

Further, the Assembly adopted texts on the rights of refugees worldwide, migrants and internally displaced persons and the elderly, as well as resolutions concerning social development; international drug control, crime prevention and criminal justice; racist practices; Palestinian self-determination; right to development; right to food; globalization; and the United Nations role in elections.

It also approved the Third Committee’s draft 2005-2006 biennial programme of work, and in a series of decisions took note of the relevant reports before the Committee during its 2005 session.

The representatives of the United States, Islamic Republic of Iran, Guatemala, United Kingdom, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Japan, Viet Nam, and the Sudan also made statements.

The Assembly will meet again at a time and date to be announced.

The General Assembly met this afternoon to take action on the reports of the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).

**Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions

The Committee’s Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions (document A/60/499) contains three draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I on enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would have the Assembly decide to increase the number of Committee members from 68 to 70 States, and request that the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) elect the additional members at its 2006 organizational session.

Draft resolution II on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa would have the Assembly call upon the international community to take concrete action to protect and assist refugees, returnees and displaced persons, and to contribute generously to assistance programmes. It would condemn all acts that threaten the personal security and well-being of refugees and asylum-seekers, and call upon States to respect refugee protection. It would deplore the continuing violence and insecurity, which threaten the safety of staff members of the Office of the High Commissioner and other humanitarian organizations. It would further urge all parties to a conflict to protect humanitarian assistance activities, preventing attacks on humanitarian workers and investigating and prosecuting crimes committed against humanitarian personnel.

Further, it would have the Assembly call upon all African States and sub-regional organizations, in conjunction with the United Nations and the international community, to strengthen existing partnerships and forge new ones in supporting the international refugee protection system. It would also call upon the international donor community to help implement community-based development programmes that benefit refugees and host communities, as well as environmental and infrastructure rehabilitation programmes for refugees in countries of asylum. It would also appeal to the international community to respond positively to the third-country resettlement needs of African refugees, making full use of the Multilateral Framework of Understandings on Resettlement, as well as urge the international community to provide generous funding for refugee programmes and ensure that Africa receives a fair and equitable share.

Draft resolution III on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) would have the Assembly endorse the report of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the UNHCR on the work of its fifty-sixth session. Further, the Assembly would urge all States and relevant non-governmental and other organizations, in conjunction with the UNHCR and in a spirit of international solidarity and responsibility, to cooperate and mobilize resources in order to enhance countries’ capacity to receive large numbers of refugees and asylum-seekers, and call upon the UNHCR to continue mobilizing international assistance to address the root causes and the economic, environmental and social impact of large-scale refugee populations in developing countries, particularly least developed countries, and countries with economies in transition.

Further to the text, the Assembly would urge all States and international organizations and institutions to enhance efforts to address the root causes of forced displacement and recognize the UNHCR’s catalytic role in that regard. The Assembly would also strongly reaffirm the UNHCR’s fundamental importance and purely humanitarian function to provide international protection to refugees and seek permanent solutions to refugee problems. In addition, the Assembly would condemn all acts that threaten the personal security and well-being of refugees and asylum-seekers, including unlawful expulsion and physical attacks, as well as call upon States of refuge, in cooperation with international organizations, to ensure respect for the principles of refugee protection, including human treatment of asylum-seekers.

The Assembly would also encourage the UNHCR to continue to improve management systems and ensure effective, transparent use of resources and urge Governments and other donors to respond promptly to annual and supplementary appeals by the UNHCR for funding.

The draft decision on the Report of the Secretary General on assistance to unaccompanied refugee minors would have the Assembly take note of that report (A/60/300).

**Implementation of the Outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the Twenty-Fourth Special Session of the General Assembly

The Committee’s report on implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly (document A/60/500) contains one draft resolution.

The draft on implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly would have the Assembly reaffirm that implementation of the Social Summit commitments and the millennium targets were crucial to a coherent, people-centred approach to development; recognize that employment and social integration had suffered from a general disconnect between economic and social policymaking; and emphasize that poverty reduction policies should attack poverty by addressing its root and structural causes and manifestations.

**Social Development, including questions relating to the world social situation and to youth, ageing, disabled persons and the family

The Committee’s report on social development, including questions relating to the world social situation and to youth, ageing, disabled persons and the family (document A/60/501) contains four draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I on the implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning disabled persons: realizing the Millennium Development Goals for persons with disabilities would have the Assembly call upon Governments to take necessary measures to advance beyond the adoption of national plans for people with disabilities by creating or reinforcing arrangements to promote disability issues and by allocating sufficient resources to fully implement existing plans and initiatives.

Further to the draft, the Assembly would also urge Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to provide special protection to disabled persons from marginalized sectors of society, particularly women and children with disabilities, and to continue to support the United Nations Voluntary Fund on Disability.

Draft resolution II on cooperatives in social development would have the Assembly urge Governments, relevant international organizations and specialized agencies to give due consideration to the role and contribution of cooperatives in the implementation of and follow-up to outcomes of the Social Summit and other conferences. It would also request the Secretary-General to render support to Member States in their efforts to create a supportive environment for the development of cooperatives; to continue to provide assistance for human resources development, technical advice and training; and to promote an exchange of experience and best practices through conferences, workshops and seminars at national and regional levels.

Draft resolution III on follow-up to the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family and beyond would have the Assembly recommend that Governments, in cooperation with concerned academic and research centres, as well as relevant non-governmental organizations, encourage action-oriented research to address public policy with a family perspective, and recommend that Government research be complemented by the study of topics by the United Nations programme on the family.

Further, the Assembly would urge specialized agencies and inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations to address family-related concerns within the framework of United Nations major conferences and relevant follow-up, as well as urge Member States to create a conducive environment for all families, regardless of sex, age, status or disability, with particular attention to the rights of women and girls.

In addition, the Assembly would call upon the Secretariat to continue its important role on family issues within the United Nations system, and call upon Member States to undertake a review of the role and functions of existing national mechanisms for the family with respect to integrating family issues into national development.

Draft resolution IV on follow-up to the International Year of Volunteers would have the Assembly invite all stakeholders, especially from the private sector community and from private foundations, to support volunteerism as a strategic tool to enhance economic and social development. Further it would call upon relevant organizations and bodies of the United Nations system to integrate volunteerism into policies, programmes and reports, and encourage Governments to establish partnerships with civil society in order to build national volunteer potential at the national level.

The draft decision on the Report considered by the General Assembly in connection with the question of social development would have the Assembly take note of the following reports: Report of the Secretary-General on the World Youth Report 2005; Report of the Secretary-General on the World Social Situation, 2005; Report of the Secretary-General on a global analysis and evaluation of national action plans on youth employment (A/60/133 and Corr.1); and Report of the Secretary-General on making commitments matter: young people’s input to the 10-year review of the World Programme of Action for Youth in the Year 2000 and Beyond.

**Follow-up to the International Year of Older Persons: Second World Assembly on Ageing

The Committee’s report on follow-up to the International Year of Older Persons: Second World Assembly on Ageing (document A/60/502) contains one draft resolution.

The draft on follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing would have the Assembly call on Governments, organizations, bodies of the United Nations system and non-governmental organizations to reinforce advocacy campaigns about the Assembly’s decisions, as well as ensure their programmes adequately incorporate challenges of ageing populations and concerns of older persons.

Further to the draft, the Assembly would stress the need to increase national capacity-building to implement the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing 2002 and would encourage Governments to support the United Nations Trust Fund for Ageing.

Also, the Assembly would call upon Governments to consult and utilize the Research Agenda on Ageing for the Twenty-First Century to help strengthen national capacity to implement and appraise the Madrid Plan of Action.

Further, it would request that the United Nations system continue to strengthen the capacity of focal points on ageing and provide them with adequate resources to further implement the Madrid Plan. The Assembly would also stress the importance of collecting data and population statistics disaggregated by age and sex on policy formulation.

**Advancement of Women

The Committee’s report on the advancement of women (document A/60/503) contains six draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I on the in-depth study on all forms of violence against women requests that the Secretary-General seize all opportunities to raise awareness on the conduct of the study and solicit contributions, as well as to continue to strengthen cooperation with relevant non-governmental organizations in the preparation of the study.

The Assembly would also decide to extend to its sixty-first session the deadline for submission of the report in subparagraph (d) of its resolution 58/185, in time for its in-depth consideration at that session, at the latest by early September 2006, and to consider the report at its sixty-first session under the item entitled “advancement of women”.

Draft resolution II on the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) would have the Assembly encourage the Fund to help harmonize and coordinate United Nations reform through strengthened partnerships with other funds, programmes and organizations to promote women’s human rights and gender equality in policies and guidelines developed by the United Nations Development Group. It would also urge the United Nations system to use the Fund’s technical and coordination experience on gender issues and to undertake gender mainstreaming.

Further, the Assembly would emphasize the importance of the Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence against Women, and would urge Governments, non-governmental organizations and the private sector to increase contributions to the Fund. It would also encourage the Fund to continue to support the gender equality and women’s empowerment goals and targets of the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS, and to respond to country requests to develop and strengthen accountability mechanisms for gender equality, including countries’ gender-responsive budget analyses and sex-disaggregated data as a basis for formulating gender-responsive public policy.

Draft resolution III on improvement of the situation of women in rural areas would have the Assembly invite Member States to continue implementing the outcome of and ensure follow-up to United Nations conferences and summits and to improve national, regional and global development strategies for women’s advancement. That would include, among other things, ensuring rural women’s participation in developing and monitoring macroeconomic policies and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers; pursuing rural women’s political and socio-economic empowerment through affirmative action and other support, taking into account their perspectives in emergency and humanitarian relief; and investing in basic services, education, literacy, social and health services. That would also entail developing assistance programmes and advisory services for rural women’s economic empowerment in banking, modern trading and financial procedures and microcredit, as well as designing and revising laws to ensure rural women’s equal rights to land and other property, credit, capital and technologies.

Draft resolution IV on the future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) would have the Assembly request that INSTRAW actively participate in discussions on international migration and development, particularly the General Assembly’s high-level dialogue in September 2006. It would also stress the importance of Member States’ voluntary contributions to the United Nations Trust Fund for INSTRAW and would urge them to contribute to the Fund, particularly during this critical transitional period. Further, it would have the Assembly decide to provide full support to current efforts to revitalize INSTRAW, and the requisite funds to carry out its core functions for at least the next three years.

Draft resolution V on violence against women migrant workers would have the Assembly request that all Governments continue to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights and the Commission on Violence against Women. The Assembly would also call on Governments to incorporate a gender perspective in all policies on international migration, and urge concerned Governments, particularly those of the countries of origin and destination, to further strengthen national efforts to protect and promote the rights and welfare of women migrant workers, and to support and allocate appropriate resources for programmes aimed at strengthening preventive action.

The Assembly would also call on concerned Governments, particularly those of the countries of origin and destination, to put in place penal and criminal sanctions to punish perpetrators of violence against women migrant workers and to provide victims of violence with immediate assistance and protection, as well as encourage non-governmental organizations to do so. In addition, it would encourage Governments to create and implement sensitivity and skills training programmes for law enforcement, prosecutors and service providers who deal with abused women migrant workers, as well as encourage them to adopt or strengthen existing measures to protect migrant workers rights in recruitment and deployment practices, in order to prevent exploitation, ill-treatment and trafficking.

Draft resolution VI on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women would have the Assembly urge States parties to comply fully with their obligations under the Convention and the Optional Protocol, as well as urge Governments, organizations and bodies of the United Nations system and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to disseminate the Convention and the Optional Protocol. The Assembly would also encourage all relevant United Nations entities to continue to build women’s knowledge of and capacity to utilize human rights instruments, particularly the Convention and the Optional Protocol.

The draft decision on the Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on the review of the United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women would have the Assembly take note of that report (document A/60/281).

**Implementation of the Outcome of the Fourth World Conference on Women and of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly, entitled “Women 2000: gender equality, development and peace for the twenty-first century”

The Committee’s report on implementation of the outcome of the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly (document A/60/504) contains one draft resolution.

The draft on follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly would have the Assembly call on Governments, the United Nations system, other international organizations and civil society to fully commit to and step up contributions to implement the Beijing Declaration, Platform of Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session. It would also call on States parties to fully comply with their obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and its Optional Protocol, and call on non-parties to consider signing, ratifying or acceding to the Protocol.

Further to that text, the Assembly would call on Governments, United Nations relevant funds, programmes and special agencies, as well as invite international financial institutions and civil society, to intensify action to fully implement the three outcomes through, among other things, sustained national, regional and international political commitment to mainstream gender perspectives into all policies and programmes, and strengthening national institutional mechanisms for gender equality and women’s advancement through financial and other assistance.

Further, the Assembly would strongly encourage Governments to continue to support civil society, particularly non-governmental organizations and women’s groups, to implement the Declaration, Platform of Action and special session outcome. It would also call on the United Nations system to continue to ensure their implementation through the work of the Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, gender specialists, and training and support for personnel in gender mainstreaming.

**Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Children

The Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of the rights of children (document A/60/505) contains two draft resolutions.

Draft resolution I on the girl child would have the Assembly urge States to take all necessary measures and to institute legal reforms to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by the girl child of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to take effective action against violations of those rights and freedoms.

Further to that text, the Assembly would urge States to promote gender equality and equal access to basic social services, such as education, nutrition, health care, including sexual and reproductive health care, vaccinations, as well as promote protection from major killer diseases and mainstream a gender perspective in all development policies and programmes. It would also urge States to take special measures to protect girls affected by armed conflicts, such as in the delivery of humanitarian assistance and disarmament, demobilization, rehabilitation assistance and reintegration processes.

Draft resolution II on the rights of the child refers to implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols; promotion and protection of the rights of the child; promoting and protecting the rights of children, including children in particularly difficult situations; prevention and eradication of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; children affected by armed conflict; children infected and affected by HIV/AIDS; and follow-up.

By the terms of the text, the Assembly would urge States that have not yet done so, to consider signing and ratifying or acceding to the Optional Protocols to the Convention and fully implement them through effective national legislation, withdraw reservations that are incompatible with the Convention or its Optional Protocols and consider reviewing other reservations with a view to withdrawing them.

Concerning registration, family relations and adoption, the Assembly would once again urge all States to step up efforts to comply with their obligations under the Convention to preserve a child’s identity, including nationality and family relations; allow for registration of the child immediately after birth; ensure simple, expeditious and effective registration procedures at minimal cost; and raise awareness of the importance of local, national and regional birth registration.

Concerning the economic and social well-being of children, the Assembly would call upon States and the international community to create an environment that would, among other things, support poverty-eradication, the right of the child to the highest attainable standard of health and social services, equal opportunity and access to education, and social services for pregnant and adolescent mothers.

Also, the Assembly would condemn all forms of violence against children, including physical mental and sexual violence, torture, child abuse and exploitation, hostage taking and domestic violence. In addition, it would condemn the abduction of children, particularly extortion of children in armed conflict, and urge States to prevent and protect children from all forms of violence, investigate and prosecute cases of torture and other forms of violence against children, end impunity for perpetrators, criminalize and penalize effectively sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children.

Regarding children affected by armed conflict, the Assembly would strongly condemn the recruitment or use of children in such conflict and related violations and abuses, and would urge States and other parties engaged in such practices to end them. It would also call on States to raise the minimum age of voluntary recruitment into the national armed forces to age 18 and adopt safeguards against forced and coerced recruitment.

The Committee’s report on indigenous issues (document A/60/506) contains one draft resolution.

The draft on the programme of action for the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People would have the Assembly adopt the draft programme of action, and urge all actors involved in the process to cooperate to achieve the Second Decade’s goals. The Assembly would also appeal to the international community to provide financial support to the Decade’s Voluntary Fund and adopt for the Decade the theme “Agenda for Life”. Further, it would request that the coordinator consult with Member States, agencies and organizations of the United Nations system, indigenous peoples and other groups on whether to conduct mid-term and end-of-term reviews of the Decade.

**Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination

**Comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action

The Committee’s report on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination (document A/60/507) contains two draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance would have the Assembly express deep concern over the glorification of the Nazi movement and former members of the Waffen SS organization, including by erecting monuments and memorials, as well as holding public demonstrations to glorify the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and neo-Nazism. The Assembly would also stress that such practices did injustice to the memory of the countless victims of crimes against humanity committed in the Second World War and poisoned the minds of young people, particularly during the sixtieth anniversary of victory in the Second World War and the liberation of Auschwitz and other concentration camps, and that such practices were incompatible with the United Nations Charter and the Organization’s goals and principles.

Further to the text, the Assembly would stress that such practices fuelled contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and contributed to the spread of various extremist political parties, movements and groups, including neo-Nazis and skinhead groups. The Assembly would also emphasizes the need to end such practices, and would call upon States to step up measures to combat these phenomena and the extremist movements, which posed a real threat to democratic values.

Draft resolution II on 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, which is comprised of four parts, would have the Assembly underline the importance of urgently eliminating violent trends involving racism and racial discrimination.

Part I, on basic general principles, would have the Assembly express its profound concern about and its unequivocal condemnation of all forms of racism and racial discrimination, while expressing deep concern at recent attempts to establish hierarchies among emerging and resurgent forms of racism and related intolerance.

It would emphasize the responsibility of States to adopt effective measures to combat criminal acts motivated by such intolerance and urge States to adopt measures to address them. It would further urge all States to review and, where necessary, revise their immigration policies so that they are free of racial discrimination and compatible with international human rights instruments. It would condemn the misuse of media and new communication technologies to incite violence motivated by racial hatred, and call upon States to take all necessary measures to combat this form of racism in accordance with the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. It would also encourage all States to include in their educational curricula and social programmes knowledge of and tolerance and respect for foreign cultures, peoples and countries.

Part II, on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, would urge the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights to maintain on its website a list of countries that have not yet ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and to commit to meeting the deadline for universal ratification as decided upon by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. It would also express concern at the serious backlog caused by overdue reports submitted to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination while making a strong appeal to all States parties to comply with their treaty obligations.

Part III, on comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, would call upon States that have not yet elaborated their national action plans on the combating of such ills, to comply with their commitments undertaken at the conference, and call upon all States to implement without delay plans of action at the national, regional and international levels. It would further express its concern at the increasing incidence of racism in various sporting events. In that regard, it would invite the Fédération Internationale de Football Association to consider introducing a visible theme on non-racism in connection with the World Cup tournaments to be held in Germany in 2006 and in South Africa in 2020.

Part IV, on the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and follow-up to his visits, would have the Assembly recognize with deep concern the increase in violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed against communities of people of African, Asian and Arab descent, indigenous people, and Christian, Jewish, Muslim and various religious communities. It would also recognize with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas.

Part V, on general issues, would have the Assembly request that the Secretary-General submit a report on the resolution’s implementation to the General Assembly’s sixty-first session.

The draft decision on the Report of the Secretary-General under agenda item 69 would have the Assembly take 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 implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

**Right of Peoples to Self-Determination

The Committee’s report on the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/60/508) contains two draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination would have the Assembly express its deep concern at continuing acts or threats of foreign military intervention and occupation that are threatening to suppress, or have already suppressed, the right to self-determination of peoples and nations. Further, it would have the Assembly express grave concern that, as a consequence of such actions, millions of people have been and are being uprooted from their homes as refugees and displaced persons. It would emphasize the urgent need for concerted international action to alleviate their condition.

In addition, it would have the Assembly declare its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, and call upon States responsible to immediately halt them. Further, it would deplore the plight of millions of refugees and displaced persons who have been uprooted as the result of such acts, and reaffirm their right to return to their homes voluntarily in safety and honour. It would request the Commission on Human Rights to continue to give special attention to human rights violations, especially the right to self-determination, resulting from foreign military intervention, aggression or occupation.

Draft resolution II on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination would have the Assembly reaffirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine, and urge all States and United Nations agencies and organizations to continue to support the Palestinian people in the early realization of that right.

The decision on documents considered by the General Assembly in connection with the question of the rights of people to self-determination would have the Assembly take note of the Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination and the Note by the Secretariat on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.

**Human Rights Questions

The Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509) contains a draft decision, which would have the Assembly take note of the following reports:

Under sub-item 71(a):

Report of the Human Rights Committee on its eighty-second to eighty-fourth sessions;

Report of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families on its second session;

Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture;

Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment;

Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery;

Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

Report of the Secretary-General on human rights and mass exoduses;

Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies on their seventeenth meeting; and

Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on equitable geographical distribution in the membership of the human rights treaty bodies: analysis of the membership of the human rights treaty bodies since 1970.

Under sub-item 71(b):

Report of the Secretary-General on strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity;

Report of the Secretary-General on the right to development;

Report of the Secretary-General on human rights and unilateral coercive measures;

Report of the Secretary-General on human rights and terrorism;

Note by the Secretary-General on human rights defenders;

Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health;

Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the independent expert of the Commission on Human Rights on the effect of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights; and

Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or belief.

Under sub-item 71(c):

Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Myanmar;

Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on assistance to Sierra Leone in the field of human rights;

Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi;

Note by the Secretary-General regarding the interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Sudan;

Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation and the activities of her Office, including technical cooperation, in Nepal;

Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; and

Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the issue of Palestinian pregnant women giving birth at Israeli checkpoints.

Under sub-item 71 (e):

Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; and

Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan and on the achievements of the technical assistance in the field of human rights.

**Implementation of Human Rights Instruments

Addendum I to the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509/Add.1) contains three draft resolutions on implementation of human rights instruments.

Draft resolution I on Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law would have the Assembly adopt basic principles concerning the obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights law and international humanitarian; gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations on international humanitarian law that constitute crimes under international law; statutes of limitations; victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law; treatment of victims; victims’ right to remedies; access to justice; reparation for harm suffered; access to relevant information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms; non-discrimination; non-derogation; and the rights of others.

Draft resolution II on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment would have the Assembly condemn all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including through intimidation, and call on States to fully implement the absolute prohibition of such practices. The Assembly would also condemn any action or attempt by States or public officials to make legal, authorize or acquiesce such practices, including on the grounds of national security or through judicial decision.

Further, it would urge States not to expel, return or extradite persons to another State where such persons would possibly be subjected to torture, as well as recognize that diplomatic assurances did not release States from their obligations under international human rights, humanitarian and refugee law, in that regard. The Assembly would also call on States to take appropriate legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent and prohibit the production, trade, export and use of equipment designed to inflict torture or related practices.

Further to the text, the Assembly would urge all States that had not yet done so, to become parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as a matter of priority, and call on States parties to give early consideration to signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention.

Draft resolution III on International Covenants on Human Rights would have the Assembly express regret at the number of States parties that had failed to fulfil their reporting obligations under the International Covenants on Human Rights, as well as urge States parties to fulfil those obligations on time, and to attend and participate in the consideration of the reports by the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights when so requested. The Assembly would also stress the need for improved coordination among relevant United Nations mechanisms and bodies to support States parties, upon their request, to implement the International Covenants on Human Rights and the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

**Alternative Approaches for Improving the Effective Enjoyment of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Addendum 2 (Part I) to the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509/Add.2 (Part I)) contains a draft resolution on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The draft of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities would have the Assembly decide that the Ad Hoc Committee hold, within existing resources, prior to the sixty-first session of the General Assembly, a session from 16 January to 3 February 2006, in order to achieve a complete reading of the draft text of a convention prepared by Ad Hoc Committee Chairman and a session from 7 to 18 August 2006. The Assembly would also underline the importance of further strengthening technical cooperation and coordination between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA).

Further to the text, the Assembly would stress the need for greater efforts to ensure disabled persons access at the United Nations, with reasonable accommodation regarding facilities and documentation, and requests that the Secretary-General explore and implement innovative measures, within existing resources, and in consultation with disabled persons organizations and the Bureau of the Ad Hoc Committee, to provide selected documents of the Ad Hoc Committee in formats accessible to participants with visual and hearing disabilities. The Assembly would also urge Member States, observers, civil society, international organizations, financial institutions and the private sector to contribute to the voluntary fund for the Ad Hoc Committee’s work.

Addendum 2 (Part II) to the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509/Add.2 (Part II)) contains 20 draft resolutions on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Draft resolution I on combating defamation of religions would have the Assembly express deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions and related manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in some regions of the world; strongly deplore physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship, as well as targeting of religious symbols; and express deep concern over the religious defamation campaigns, ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 events, and that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism. The Assembly would also deplore the use of print, audiovisual and electronic media, including the Internet, or other means to incite violence, xenophobia or related intolerance or discrimination towards Islam or any other religion.

Further to the text, the Assembly would stress the need to effectively combat religious defamation, particularly of Islam and Muslims, in human rights forums. It would urge States to take resolute action to prohibit dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas through political institutions and organizations and urge them to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from religious defamation. It would further call for steps to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance.

The Assembly would also urge States to ensure that all public officials, including law enforcement, the military, civil servants and educators, respect different religions and beliefs, and do not discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief; underscore the need to combat religious defamation through education and awareness-raising at the local, national, regional and international level; and urge States to ensure equal access to education for all and to refrain from racial segregation in schools.

Draft resolution II on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa would have the Assembly request that the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights provide additional funds and human resources to enable the Yaoundé-based Subregional Centre to respond positively and effectively to the growing need to promote and protect human rights, and develop a culture of democracy in the subregion.

Draft resolution III on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights would have the Assembly emphasize that development should be at the centre of the international economic agenda, and that coherence between national development strategies and international obligations and commitments was imperative to enable development and inclusive, equitable globalization. The Assembly would also call upon Member States, relevant United Nations agencies, intergovernmental organizations and civil society to promote equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth, to manage globalization in order to systematically reduce poverty and achieve international development targets.

Further, the Assembly would underline the urgent need to establish an equitable, transparent and democratic international system to strengthen and broaden developing countries’ participation in international economic decision-making and norm-setting, as well as the need to continue to analyse globalization’s consequences for the full enjoyment of all human rights.

Draft resolution IV on Establishment of a United Nations human rights training and documentation centre for South-West Asia and the Arab region would have the Assembly take note with satisfaction of the continuing cooperation and assistance of the OHCHR to further strengthen existing regional arrangements and machinery to promote and protect human rights, particularly through technical cooperation aimed at capacity building, public information and education. The Assembly would also request that the Secretary-General and the OHCHR support the Centre through an agreement with the host country to set up and make resources available its establishment.

Draft resolution V on the national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights would have the Assembly encourage Member States to set up national institutions for human rights protection and promotion and to strengthen existing ones. The Assembly would also urge the Secretary-General to continue to give high priority to Member States’ requests for assistance in setting up and strengthening national human rights institutions as part of the United Nations Programme of Advisory Services and Technical Assistance in the Field of Human Rights.

Further to the text, the Assembly would commend the high priority given by the OHCHR to support national human rights institutions, and would invite Governments to contribute additional funds to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights.

Draft resolution VI on human rights and unilateral coercive measures would have the Assembly urge all States to refrain from adopting or implementing unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the United Nations Charter. It gives particular attention to those which created obstacles to trade relations among States, thus impeding achievement of rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments.

Further to the text, the Assembly would reject unilateral coercive measures as tools for political and economic pressures against a country, especially developing countries, because of their negative impact on human rights of children, women and the elderly in particular. The Assembly would also call upon Member States that had initiated such measures to revoke them as soon as possible, in accordance with their obligations under international human rights instruments, and would urge the Commission on Human Rights to fully take into account such measures’ negative impact on the right to development.

Draft resolution VII on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights would have the Assembly urge all international actors to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity, mutual understanding and promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights, and to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The Assembly would also call upon Member States, specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations to continue constructive dialogue and consultations to enhance understanding and the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Draft resolution VIII on the right to development would have the Assembly stress that poverty eradication is one of the critical elements in the realization of the right to development. It would also stress the need to strive for greater acceptance and realization of the right to development at the international and national levels, and call upon States to institute the required measures. It would further emphasize the critical importance of identifying and analyzing obstacles impeding the full realization of that right at both the national and international levels. It would underline the fact that the international community is far from meeting the Millennium Goal of halving the number of people living in poverty by 2020, and emphasize the principle of international cooperation between developed and developing countries towards achieving the goal.

It would urge developed countries that have not yet done so to work towards meeting the targets of 0.7 per cent of their gross national product for official development assistance to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.2 per cent to least developed countries, while encouraging developing countries to ensure that the assistance is used effectively. It would further call for the implementation of a desirable pace of meaningful trade liberalization.

The draft would stress the need for the integration of the rights of children in all policies and programmes, especially in health, education and full development of their capacity. It would further stress that additional measures must be taken at the national and international levels to fight HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases. It would also emphasize the urgent need for measures to fight corruption, as well as the need to strengthen the activities of the OHCHR in promoting the right to development.

Draft resolution IX on Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism would have the Assembly deeply deplore violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of the fight against terrorism, as well as violations of international refugee law and international humanitarian law. It would also deplore the suffering caused by terrorism to victims and their families.

By other terms of the draft, the Assembly would stress that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and call upon States to raise awareness among national authorities about the importance of obligations involved in combating terrorism. Also, it would urge States to respect fully non-refoulement obligations under international refugee and human rights law, and request the Commission on Human Rights, as well as United Nations human rights treaty bodies to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur. It would encourage the Special Rapporteur to coordinate efforts with them, in order to promote a consistent approach. It would also request all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and ask the High Commissioner to keep examining the question of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms while making general recommendations concerning the obligation of States on this issue and providing assistance to States and relevant United Nations bodies.

Draft resolution X on human rights in the administration of justice would have the Assembly reiterate its call to all Member States to spare no effort in providing for effective legislative procedures and adequate resources to ensure full implementation of human rights standards in the administration of justice. The Assembly would also appeal to Governments to include in their national development plans the administration of justice as an integral part of development and to allocate adequate resources for legal-aid service to protect and promote human rights.

Further, the Assembly would call on mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights and its subsidiary bodies, including special rapporteurs, special representatives and working groups, to continue to give special attention to the effective promotion and protection of human rights in the administration of justice, including juvenile justice and to provide specific recommendations in that regard, including proposals for advisory services and technical assistance.

Also by the text, the Assembly would call on the OHCHR and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to reinforce their national capacity-building activities in the administration of justice, particularly post-conflict situations, and in cooperation with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations of the Secretariat.

Draft resolution XI on effective promotion of the Declaration of the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities would have the Assembly urge States and the international community to promote and protect the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities through adequate education and participation in political, economic, social, religious and cultural life and in the economic development of their respective nations. The Assembly would also call upon States to give special attention to promoting and protecting the human rights of minority children, taking into account the different risks for girls and boys; urge States to take all necessary constitutional, legislative and administrative measures to promote and give effect to the Declaration; and appeal to States to cooperate bilaterally and multilaterally in that regard.

Further to the text, the Assembly would call upon States to protect cultural and religious sites of national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities and call upon the Secretary-General to make available, at States’ requests, qualified expertise on minority issues, including experts on dispute prevention and resolution. The Assembly would also call upon the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote implementation of the Declaration and continue to engage in dialogue with Governments to disseminate widely the “United Nations Guide for Minorities”.

In addition, the Assembly would call on the Working Group on Minorities of the Sub-commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to fully implement its mandate, focus on interactive dialogue with relevant non-governmental organizations and independent experts on minority issues, as well as call upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights to support those experts.

Draft resolution XII on the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms would have the Assembly call upon all States to promote and give full effect to the Declaration, as well as condemn all human rights violations against persons engaged in promoting and defending human rights and fundamental freedoms worldwide. Further, the Assembly would urge States to take appropriate action, consistent with the Declaration and all other relevant human rights instruments, to eliminate such human rights violations, and would call upon them to ensure protection of human rights defenders, at both the local and the national levels, including in times of conflict and peace-building. The Assembly would also call upon them to ensure, protect and respect freedom of expression and association of human rights defenders, as well as facilitate registration in a non-discriminatory, expeditious and inexpensive manner in accordance with national legislation.

Further to the text, the Assembly would urge States to ensure that any measures to combat terrorism and preserve national security comply with their obligations under international law and do not hinder the work and safety of human rights defenders; urge States to effectively address impunity for attacks, threats and acts of intimidation on human rights defenders and their relatives; and urge States to cooperate with and assist the Special Representative in carrying out her tasks by furnishing all requested information. The Assembly would urge those States that have not yet responded to the communications transmitted to them to do so without delay, and to speedily investigate urgent appeals and allegations brought to their attention by the Special Representative.

Draft resolution XIII on strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization would have the Assembly request the Electoral Assistance Division of the Department of Political Affairs to continue informing Member States regularly about the requests received and the nature of any assistance provided. It would also request that the United Nations ensure, before undertaking to provide electoral assistance, that there is adequate time to organize and carry out an effective mission, that conditions exist for a free and fair election and that the mission’s results will be reported comprehensively and consistently. Further, it would request the Secretary-General to provide the Electoral Assistance Division with adequate resources to carry out its mandate. It would also ask him to ensure that the OHCHR is able to respond to the numerous and increasingly complex requests from Member States for advisory services. In addition, it would request the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to continue its governance assistance programmes in cooperation with other relevant organizations.

Draft resolution XIV on promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all would have the Assembly urge all States to apply the purposes and principles of the Charter in their relations with other States, regardless of their political, economic or social system and irrespective of their size, geographical location or level of economic development. Further, it would call upon the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to carry out consultations with Member States and the specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations, on how the Commission on Human Rights could work for the promotion of an international environment conducive to the full realization of the right of peoples to peace, and encourage non-governmental organizations to contribute actively to that endeavour.

Draft resolution XV on respect for the principles of national sovereignty and diversity of democratic systems in electoral processes as an important element for the promotion and protection of human rights would have the Assembly call upon all States to refrain from financing political parties or other groups in any other State in a way that would be contrary to the United Nations Charter or would undermine the legitimacy of States’ electoral processes. The Assembly would also condemn acts of armed aggression or use of force against peoples, their elected Governments or legitimate leaders.

Draft resolution XVI on the right to food would have the Assembly express its deep concern at the number and scale of natural disasters, diseases and pests and their increasing impact in recent years, which have resulted in a massive loss of life and livelihood and threatened agricultural production and food security, particularly in developing countries. It would stress the importance of reversing the continuing decline of official development assistance devoted to agriculture. It would further have the Assembly consider it intolerable that there are about 852 million undernourished people in the world and that, somewhere in the world, a child under the age of 5 dies every five seconds from hunger or hunger-related diseases, when the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates the planet could provide enough food to feed twice the world’s present population.

It would also express its concern that women are disproportionately affected by hunger, food insecurity and poverty. It would have the Assembly request that all States and private actors, as well as international organizations, take fully into account the need to promote the effective realization of the right to food for all, and urge States to give adequate priority in their development strategies and expenditures to the realization of the right to food. It would call upon Member States, the United Nations system and other relevant stakeholders to support national efforts aimed at responding rapidly to the food crises currently occurring across Africa.

Further to the text, it would have the Assembly request the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights to provide all the necessary human and financial resources for the effective fulfilment of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate. It would call upon all Governments to cooperate with him, and request the Special Rapporteur to submit a comprehensive report on the implementation of the present resolution to the Commission on Human Rights at its sixty-second session, as well as an interim report to the General Assembly at its sixty-first session.

Draft resolution XVII on elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief would have the Assembly condemn all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief. The Assembly would also, among other things, urge States to ensure adequate freedoms including the right to freely practice one’s religion, or to change one’s religion, as well as to ensure full respect and protection for religious sites and symbols.

In addition, the Assembly would urge States to ensure the right and freedoms of all people to establish religious, charitable and humanitarian institutions; ensure the right to life, liberty, or security, the right to not be arrested, detained or tortured for their beliefs; further ensure that all public officials, civil servants and law enforcement bodies respect different religions and their beliefs; and take resolute action to prohibit dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and materials that constituted discrimination, intimidation or coercion.

In addition, the Assembly would emphasize that equating any religion with terrorism should be avoided, and further emphasize that restrictions on the freedom to manifest religion should only be permitted if limited by law or are necessary to protect public safety and the fundamental rights of others. Also, the Assembly would stress the need for the Special Rapporteur to continue to apply a gender perspective through the identification of gender-specific abuses in the reporting process.

Draft resolution XVIII on human rights and cultural diversity would have the Assembly express its determination to prevent and mitigate cultural homogenization, in the context of globalization, through cultural exchanges and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity, to emphasize the promotion of cultural pluralism at the national, regional, and international levels, enhancing respect for cultural diversity, and also emphasize that respect for diversity promotes human rights.

Further to the text, the Assembly would urge all actors on the international scene to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality, and human dignity, rejecting all forms of racism and intolerance. It would also urge States to ensure that their political and legal systems reflect multicultural diversity within their societies, improve democratic institutions and avoid marginalization of any group. Further, it would call upon States, international organizations, the United Nations and other non-governmental organizations to promote cultural diversity to advance the causes of peace development and human rights.

Draft resolution XIX on Protection of and assistance to internally displaced persons would have the Assembly encourage the Secretary-General’s Representative on the human rights of internally displaced persons to continue his analysis of the causes of internal displacement and the needs and rights of the displaced, as well as prevention, protection and assistance. The Assembly would express particular concern over the violence and abuse, sexual exploitation, forced recruitment and abduction of many internally displaced women and children, and welcome the Representative’s commitment to pay closer attention to their protection and development needs, as well as those of severely traumatized individuals, older persons and disabled persons.

Further by that text, the Assembly would urge all Governments to continue to facilitate the Representative’s activities and seriously consider inviting the Representative to visit their countries so that he could advise them on internal displacement issues. It would call upon Governments to protect, assist and reintegrate internally displaced persons and facilitate efforts of relevant United Nations agencies and humanitarian organizations in that regard. In addition, the Assembly would emphasize the central role of the Emergency Relief Coordinator in coordinating inter-agency protection and assistance for internally displaced persons and the need to further strengthen inter-agency arrangements to meet humanitarian challenges facing such persons. Further, it would encourage all relevant United Nations agencies and humanitarian assistance and development organizations to enhance collaboration through the Inter-Agency Standing Committee and in countries with internally displaced persons.

Draft resolution XX on protection of migrants would have the Assembly strongly condemn acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, and would urge States to apply the existing laws when such acts occur. It would also call upon States to implement the commitments contained in the Durban Declaration and Program of Action. Further, it would strongly condemn all forms of racial discrimination and xenophobia related to access to employment, vocational training, housing, schooling, health and social services. It would call upon all States to consider reviewing and, where necessary, revising immigration policies to eliminate all discriminatory practices against migrants and their families.

It would request States to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, especially women and children. It would urge States parties to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and its two supplementing protocols, to implement them fully while calling upon States that have not ratified them to do so as a matter of priority. It would reaffirm emphatically the duty of States parties to ensure full respect for the observance of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, particularly the right of all foreign nationals to communicate with a consular official of the sending State in the case of arrest or imprisonment, as well as reaffirm emphatically the obligation of the receiving State to inform without delay the foreign national of his or her rights under the Convention.

It would further call upon States to facilitate family reunification in an expeditious manner. It would call upon States to protect and promote all human rights of migrant children, particularly unaccompanied migrant children, and underline the importance of reuniting them with their parents. It would request all States to enforce labour law effectively, including by addressing violations regarding migrant workers’ labour relations and working conditions. It would call upon States to observe national legislation and applicable international legal instruments when enacting national security measures in order to respect the human rights of migrants. Finally, it would call upon States that have not yet done so to enact domestic legislation and take further effective measures to combat and prosecute international trafficking in and smuggling of migrants.

**Human Rights Situations and Reports of Special Rapporteurs and Representatives

Addendum of the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509/Add.3) contains six draft resolutions on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives.

Draft resolution I on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo would have the Assembly condemn the ongoing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, particularly in North Kivu, South Kivu, northern Katanga and other eastern parts of the country, including armed violence against civilians and sexual violence against women and children, the killing of United Nations peacekeeping troops in the Ituri province and human rights worker Pascal Kabungulu Kibembi, harassment of human rights defenders, the continued illegal exploitation of natural resources in the east and related human rights abuses.

The Assembly would also urge all parties to the conflict to: further implement the Global and All-Inclusive Agreement and immediately cease action impeding the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; support the transitional Government in re-establishing political and economic stability; immediately stop recruitment of child soldiers; and implement without delay action plans called for in Security Council resolutions 1539 and 1612. Further, the Assembly would urge parties to protect women and children from violence and condemn, in particular, the widespread use of sexual violence as a means of warfare, while urging parties to ensure the safe and free movement of all civilians, United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers and human rights defenders.

In addition, the Assembly would call upon the Government of National Unity and Transition to: hold free and transparent elections within the specified time frame; restructure and ensure human rights training for the national army, national police force and other Government institutions; ensure the surrender of light and heavy weapons; set up the Independent Electoral Commission; and improve the effectiveness of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Human Rights Monitoring Centre and the Haute-Autorité des Médias.

Further it would call upon the Government to re-establish stability and the rule of law, comply fully with international human rights obligations and continue to cooperate with United Nations human rights mechanisms, while ensuring that perpetrators of human rights violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law are brought to justice. It would also call upon the Government to carry out a comprehensive judicial and prison system reform, promote the full enjoyment of all human rights by women and children, continue to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and abolish the death penalty. It would further call upon the Government to prevent the use of the media to incite hatred, protect human rights defenders from threats and harassment, accelerate its programme to demobilize, disarm and reintegrate former combatants, increase efforts to eliminate corruption and strengthen good governance and transparent economic management.

The draft would also have the Assembly call upon the region’s Governments to contribute to preventing armed groups operating in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from perpetrating killings and other serious crimes, by tackling the illicit trade by these armed groups in illegally extracted natural resources and arms. It would also call upon them to fully respect the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the country, and work with the United Nations mission there to urgently disarm and resettle or repatriate foreign armed groups, support the transitional process and adhere fully to the Principles on Good-neighbourly Relations and Cooperation between the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda.

In addition, it would call upon them to implement the Joint Verification Mechanism, work through the Tripartite Commission Plus One and respect the principles of the November 2004 Dar es Salaam Declaration. Finally, it would call upon them to ensure the rights and well-being of internally displaced persons, returnees and refugee populations, peacefully repatriate members of the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda returning to Rwanda, continue to cooperate with the Court and the Tribunal for Rwanda and swiftly pass legislation necessary for the Court’s investigations to proceed smoothly.

Draft resolution II on the situation of human rights in Iran would have the Assembly express its serious concern over the continuing harassment, intimidation and persecution of human rights defenders, non-governmental organizations, political opponents, religious dissenters, journalists, and students through undue restrictions on freedoms of assembly, press and expression, arbitrary arrests, as well as the disqualification of large numbers of prospective candidates during the June 2005 presidential elections.

Additionally, it would call on the Iranian Government to ensure full respect for the rights to freedom of assembly, opinion and expression, and end the persecution of political opponents and human rights defenders. It would also call on it to ensure full respect for the right to due process, as well as equality before the law, and to eliminate the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman punishments, end impunity for violations of human rights, abolish public executions, particularly those who were under the age of 18 at the time of their offence, and eliminate all forms of discrimination and violence against women and minorities.

Draft resolution III on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan would have the Assembly express its grave concern at continuing and serious human rights violations, including the repression of political opposition, arbitrary detentions, imprisonment and surveillance. It would also have the Assembly express its grave concern at poor prison conditions and credible reports of torture and mistreatment of detainees, as well as the Government’s continued denial of unaccompanied access to prisoners to the International Committee of the Red Cross. It would further have the Assembly express its grave concern at the Government’s complete control of the media and continued restrictions on the exercise of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.

It would have the Assembly express its grave concern at continued discrimination against ethnic minorities in the fields of education, employment and media access, as well as forced displacement of its citizens, including a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities. It would also have the Assembly express its grave concern at continued restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly and the continuing failure of the Government to respond to criticisms regarding the investigation, trial and detention procedures following the reported assassination attempt against the country’s president in 2002. It would have the Assembly express grave concern at arbitrary or unlawful interference with individual privacy and violations of the freedom to leave one’s own country, as well as reported instances of hate speech against national and ethnic minorities and Government policies that significantly restrict equal access to quality health care and education.

The draft would have the Assembly urge the Government of Turkmenistan to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms and work closely with the OHCHR, and cooperate with all the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, particularly requests made by a number of special rapporteurs to visit the country. It would urge the Government to implement fully the recommendations of the rapporteur of the Moscow Mechanism of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and work constructively with the Organization’s institutions. It would urge the Government to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and other interested representatives of the international community full access to places of detention, and give those in detention full access to lawyers and relatives.

It would urge the Government to respect everyone’s right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and cease the harassment, detention and persecution of religious minorities. It would urge the Government to bring laws and practices governing registration of public associations in line with standards of the OSCE, and enable non-governmental organizations and other civil society actors to carry out their activities without hindrance. It would also urge the Government to submit reports to United Nations treaty bodies to which it has assumed a reporting obligation and give their recommendations due regard.

Draft resolution IV on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would have the Assembly express its serious concern at the Government’s refusal to cooperate with or recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights. It would also express serious concern over continuing reports of widespread human rights violations, including torture, public executions, arbitrary detention, the absence of due process, the imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, the large number of prison camps and the extensive use of forced labour.

Further, the Assembly would express serious concern over severe sanctions imposed on citizens repatriated from abroad, as well as severe restrictions on the freedom of religion, expression, and assembly. Additionally, it would express serious concerns about limitations imposed on the free movement of people within the country and abroad, continued violation of the human rights of women through trafficking for prostitution or forced marriage, forced abortions and infanticide of children of repatriated mothers, and unresolved questions relating to the abduction of foreigners.

Further, the Assembly would express its concern that the Government has not engaged in technical cooperation activities with the OHCHR. It would express its deep concern at the precarious humanitarian situation in the country, in particular the prevalence of infant malnutrition. The Assembly would urge the Government to ensure that humanitarian organizations, particularly the World Food Programme (WFP), have safe and unimpeded access to all parts of the country.

Draft resolution V on the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan would have the Assembly express its grave concern over allegations of serious human rights violations in Uzbekistan, particularly the Government’s use of indiscriminate and disproportionate force to quell the May 2005 Andijan demonstrations resulting in many civilian casualties; pressure to prevent Uzbek refugees from travelling to third countries; arbitrary arrest and detention; increasing restrictions on and harassment and censorship of journalists and civil society activities; continued blocking of opposition parties; lack of freedom of thought and religion; and serious constraints and harassment of non-governmental organizations and human rights defenders, including the ICRC.

Further by that text, the Assembly would deeply regret the Uzbek Government’s decision to reject repeated calls by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to set up an independent inquiry commission on the events in Andijan and request that the Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions visit Uzbekistan soon afterwards. The Assembly would also strongly call upon the Uzbek Government to fully implement without delay the June 2005 recommendations of the report of the OHCHR, particularly authorizing the establishment of an independent inquiry commission into the events in Andijan; accede to the 1951 Convention and the
1967 Protocol on refugee status; end harassment and detention of eyewitnesses to the Andijan events; ensure readily accessible and fair trials and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and fully implement the recommendations of the Independent Expert on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

By further terms, the Assembly would call upon the Government to permit religious freedom, fully implement the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, made following his 2002 visit to Uzbekistan, work closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and cooperate fully with the Commission on Human Rights and relevant United Nations treaty bodies. It would also call upon the Government to give the ICRC access to Uzbek detainees, fully implement commitments undertaken in the framework of the OSCE, register independent opposition political parties and allow them to participate in the electoral process, and lift restrictions on civil-society activities.

Draft resolution VI on the situation of human rights in Myanmar would have the Assembly express grave concern over, among other things, the extension of house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi and her deputy, Tin Oo, and other senior leaders of the National League for Democracy, the consistent harassment of League members and other politicians, and continued denial of freedom for human rights defenders to pursue their activities.

The Assembly would also strongly call on the Myanmar Government to end systematic human rights violations; to bring to justice human rights abusers, including members of the military; to allow human rights defenders to pursue their activities unhindered and safely; and to make it a high priority to become party to all international human rights instruments. It would also strongly call on Myanmar officials to end recruitment and demobilization of child soldiers and maintain close dialogue with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), to end widespread rape and sexual violence by the armed forces, particularly against women of ethnic nationalities, and end systematic enforced displacement that led to refugee flows to neighbouring countries.

The Assembly would also strongly call on Myanmar officials to release all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally, lift all restraints on peaceful political activity, give clear assurances that no action would be taken against persons lodging complaints of forced labour, and fully cooperate with the Special Envoy and the Special Rapporteur to bring the country towards civilian rule, as well as facilitate an independent international investigation of reports of sexual violence by the armed forces and ensure United Nations and humanitarian organizations unhindered access to all parts of the country to deliver humanitarian assistance.

**Comprehensive Implementation of and Follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

Addendum 4 of the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509/Add.4) states that no action was taken by the Third Committee under its sub-item on the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

**Report of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Addendum 5 of the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509/Add.5) refers to the Committee’s discussions and actions concerning its agenda sub-item on the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

**Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

The Committee’s report on crime prevention and criminal justice (document A/60/510) contains three draft resolutions, one annex and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I on strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, in particular its technical cooperation capacity would have the Assembly request the UNODC to continue efforts to provide Member States with technical assistance to strengthen international cooperation in preventing and combating terrorism. The Assembly would also urge States and relevant international organizations to develop national, regional and international strategies to complement the Programme in effectively addressing transnational organized crime, and urge States and funding agencies to review their funding policies for development assistance, and to include crime prevention and criminal justice in such assistance.

Draft resolution II on the United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders calls upon all Member States and non-governmental organizations to adopt concrete measures to support the Institute in the development of requisite capacity and to implement its programmes and activities aimed at strengthening crime prevention and criminal justice systems in Africa.

Also, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to intensify efforts to mobilize all relevant entities of the United Nations system to provide the necessary financial and technical support to the Institute, and to enhance the promotion of regional cooperation, coordination and collaboration in the fight against crime.

Draft resolution III on Follow-up to the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice invites Governments to consider the Bangkok Declaration and the recommendations adopted by the Eleventh Congress in formulating legislation and policy directives, and to identify areas covered in the Declaration where further tools and training manuals based on international standards and best practices are needed.

Further, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to distribute the report of the Eleventh Congress and to seek proposals by Member States on ensuring appropriate follow-up to the Bangkok Declaration for consideration and action by the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its fifteenth session.

The annex contains the text of the Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.

The draft decision on Reports considered by the General Assembly in connection with the question of crime prevention and criminal justice would have the Assembly take note of the Report of the Secretary-General on preventing and combating corrupt practices and transfer of assets of illicit origin and returning such assets to the countries of origin (A/60/157) and the Report of the Secretary-General on the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (A/60/172).

**International Drug Control

The Committee’s report on international drug control (document A/60/511) contains two draft resolutions.

Draft resolution I on international cooperation against the world drug problem, which urges all States to ratify or accede to, and States parties to implement all the provisions of, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 as amended by the 1972 Protocol, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988.

Further to the text, the Assembly would call upon all States to strengthen efforts in the fight against the world drug problem; to consider providing additional reporting analysis on women-specific data relating to the use of illicit substances and access to appropriate treatment services; and to transmit voluntarily information on emerging substances of abuse to the UNODC.

The draft resolution also includes provisions on judicial cooperation, countering money-laundering; international cooperation in illicit crop eradication and alternative development; and specific action to be taken by the United Nations system.

Draft resolution II on providing support to Afghanistan with a view to ensuring effective implementation of its Counter-Narcotic Implementation Plan would have the Assembly call on the international community to provide the necessary support to the counter-narcotic objectives of the Afghan Government through continued technical assistance and financial commitment, including the eight pillars of the Counter-Narcotic Implementation Plan. The Assembly would also urge Afghanistan to maintain illicit drug control as a high priority, as stipulated in its Constitution and the Plan, in order to combat illicit cultivation of opium poppy, illicit drug production and trafficking.

**Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly

The Committee’s report on revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (document A/60/512) contains two draft decisions.

Draft decision I on the programme of work for Third Committee for the sixty-first session of the General Assembly would have the Committee take up 10 agenda items during its sixty-first session. That would include social development –- including implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly; social development, including questions relating to the world social situation and to youth, ageing, disabled persons and the family; United Nations Literacy Decade: education for all; and Follow-up to the International Year of Older Persons: Second World Assembly on Ageing. That would also include crime prevention and criminal justice; international drug control; the advancement of women, including implementation of the outcome of the Fourth World Conference on Women and of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly; the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions; and promotion and protection of the rights of children, including follow-up to the special session on children.

Further, that would include agenda items on indigenous issues; elimination or racial discrimination, including Comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; the right of peoples to self-determination; and promotion and protection of human rights, including implementation of human rights instruments, human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives, and comprehensive implementation and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

Draft decision II on rotation of the post of Rapporteur of the Third Committee would have the Third Committee endeavour to elect a candidate nominated by the Group of Western European and other States to serve as the Committee’s Rapporteur at the Assembly’s sixty-first session.

Action on Third Committee Reports

PEDRO CARDOSO ( Brazil), Rapporteur of the Third Committee, introduced the Committee’s reports.

The Assembly first took up the Committee’s Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions (document A/60/499), which contained three draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolutions on enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa; on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and a draft decision on the Report of the Secretary General on assistance to unaccompanied refugee minors.

The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly (document A/60/500), which contained one draft resolution. The draft was adopted without a vote.

Next, the Assembly turned to the Committee’s report on social development, including questions relating to the world social situation and to youth, ageing, disabled persons and the family (document A/60/501), which contains four draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Without a vote, it adopted draft resolutions on the implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning disabled persons: realizing the Millennium Development Goals for persons with disabilities; on cooperatives in social development; on follow-up to the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family and beyond; and on follow-up to the International Year of Volunteers.

By the draft decision, the Report considered by the General Assembly in connection with the question of social development was also adopted without a vote. The Assembly took note of the following reports: Report of the Secretary-General on the World Youth Report 2005; Report of the Secretary-General on the World Social Situation, 2005; Report of the Secretary-General on a global analysis and evaluation of national action plans on youth employment (A/60/133 and Corr.1); and Report of the Secretary-General on making commitments matter: young people’s input to the 10-year review of the World Programme of Action for Youth in the Year 2000 and Beyond.

The Assembly then turned to the Committee’s report on follow-up to the International Year of Older Persons: Second World Assembly on Ageing (document A/60/502), which contained one draft resolution. It was adopted without a vote.

The Assembly then turned to the Committee’s report on the advancement of women (document A/60/503), which contained six draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Without a vote, it adopted draft resolutions on the In-depth study on all forms of violence against women; on United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM); on improvement of the situation of women in rural areas; and on violence against women migrant workers and a draft decision on the Report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on the review of the United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (document A/60/281).

The Assembly then decided to postpone action on the draft resolution on the future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) and the draft resolution on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women until budget implications prepared by the Fifth Committee were available.

The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on implementation of the outcome of the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform of Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly (document A/60/504), which contained one draft resolution. It adopted the draft without a vote.

Next, the Assembly turned to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of the rights of children (document A/60/505), which contained two draft resolutions.

It adopted without a vote a draft resolution on the girl child.

The Assembly then decided to postpone action on the draft resolution on the rights of the child until budget implications prepared by the Fifth Committee were available.

The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on indigenous issues (document A/60/506), which contained one draft decision. The draft on the programme of action for the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, was adopted without a vote.

Next, the Assembly turned to the Committee’s report on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination (document A/60/507), which contained two draft resolutions and one draft decision.

By a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 4 against (Japan, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, United States), with 57 abstentions, the Assembly adopted a draft resolution on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. (See Annex I.)

Also by a recorded vote of 172 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, United States), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Palau, Tuvalu), the Assembly adopted a draft resolution on 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. (See Annex II.)

Without a vote, the Assembly adopted a draft decision on the Report of the Secretary-General under agenda item 69, taking 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 implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/60/508), which contained two draft resolutions and one draft decision.

RONALD GOODARD ( United States), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote on the text on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, said his delegation had worked continually to support the social and economic development and legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. His delegation had no quarrel with the text or its general aim, but could not support it because it reflected an outdated approach conceived when the Palestinian people lacked democratic leadership and believed that the solution to their problems lay in the United Nations. It did not reflect recent progress on the ground. There was a role for the United Nations, but that role was in supporting both parties to the conflict. One-sided resolution from the Assembly undermined the credibility of the United Nations as a whole.

Without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolutions on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination.

By a recorded vote of 170 in favour to 5 against ( Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 1 abstention ( Australia) the Assembly adopted the text on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (Annex III).

It also adopted the draft decision on documents considered by the General Assembly in connection with the question of the rights of people to self-determination, by which the Assembly took note of the Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of the use of mercenaries as a means of impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination and the Note by the Secretariat on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.

The Assembly then turned to the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509), which contained a draft decision, by which the Assembly took note of a meeting report under sub-item 71(a), 71(b), 71(c) and 71(e).

The Assembly then turned to the Addendums to the Committee’s reports on human rights questions.

First, it took up Addendum I to the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509/Add.1), which contained three draft resolutions on implementation of human rights instruments.

Without a vote, it adopted draft resolutions on Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law; on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and on International Covenants on Human Rights.

Second, it took up Addendum 2 (Part I) to the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509/Add.2 (Part I)), which contained a draft resolution on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Assembly decided to postpone action on that draft on the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities until its budget implications prepared by the Fifth Committee were available.

Mr. GOODARD (United States), speaking in explanation of vote before the vote on the resolution on human rights and the administration of justice, said his delegation would bring to the Assembly’s attention some of the amendments that had been tabled by the United States to operative paragraphs 1 and 2 during the Committee’s consideration of the text. While the United States was not going to resubmit those amendments, it would reaffirm its position in that it had strong concerns with the text’s reference to implementing “all human rights standards”, which included a variety of non-binding norms and recommendations. The United States took seriously its commitment to fully implement “human rights obligations” it had undertaken and believed that that more limited and accurate language should be used when addressing the topic in future resolutions.

Next, it took upAddendum 2 (Part II) to the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509/Add.2 (Part II)), which contained 20 draft resolutions on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

By a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 53 against, with 20 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on combating defamation of religions (Annex IV).

Then, without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolution on Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa.

By a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 53 against, with 4 abstentions ( Brazil, Chile, Iraq, Singapore) the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (Annex V).

The Assembly then adopted without a vote draft resolutions on the Establishment of a United Nations human rights training and documentation centre for South-West Asia and the Arab region and on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights.

The representative of Iran, speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, said her delegation joined the consensus on the text on the establishment of a human rights training and documentation centre for the South Asian region, but would dissociate itself from the contents of paragraph 12 of the text.

By a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 53 against, with no abstentions, the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (Annex VI).

The Committee then adopted without a vote the draft on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights.

By a recorded vote of 172 in favour to 2 against (Marshall Islands, United States) with 5 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Palau), the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the right to development (Annex VII).

The Committee then adopted without a vote draft resolutions on Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; on human rights in the administration of justice; on effective promotion of the Declaration of the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities; and on the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

By a recorded vote of 136 in favour to none against,with 31 abstentions, the Assembly adopted preambular paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization (Annex VIII).

It then adopted that draft resolution as a whole by a recorded vote of
173 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention ( Tuvalu) (Annex IX).

Then, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 53 against, with 8 abstentions (Argentina, Armenia, Chile, India, Mexico, Samoa, Singapore, Vanuatu), the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all (Annex X).

Also by a recorded vote of 110 in favour to 6 against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 61 abstentions, it adopted the draft resolution on respect for the principles of national sovereignty and diversity of democratic systems in electoral processes as an important element for the promotion and protection of human rights (Annex XI).

The Assembly then adopted, by a recorded vote of 176 in favour to 1 against ( United States) with 1 abstention ( Israel), the draft resolution on the right to food (Annex XII).

Without a vote, the Assembly then adopted draft resolutions on elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion of belief; on human rights and cultural diversity; on Protection of and assistance to internally displaced persons; and on protection of migrants.

Mr. AMOROS (Cuba) speaking after the vote on the text on the subregional centre for human rights and democracy in Central Africa, said the language in that draft must be limited to subregional context. On the draft on national institutions for the promotion of human rights, he said his delegation believed there was much to be discussed concerning that text.

CONNIE TARACENA SECAIRA (Guatemala), speaking after the vote on the text concerning the fight against defamation of religions, said that her delegation defended the freedom of worship, but that the text lacked balance and hoped that future texts would be more inclusive. Guatemala had voted in favour of the text.

RICHARD WOOD (United Kingdom), speaking on behalf of the European Union, speaking after the vote on the text on the right to development, said that his delegation had voted as a whole on the text, and he drew the Assembly’s attention to the statement that delegation had made on the subject in committee.

Next, the Assembly took up Addendum 3 of the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509/Add.3), which contained six draft resolutions on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives.

The Assembly decided to postpone action on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar until budgetary implications prepared by the Fifth Committee were available.

SIN SONG CHOL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) speaking before the vote, said his delegation categorically rejected the draft resolution on the human rights situation in his country. The text had been tabled by the European Union as a part of a “political plot” against his country by the United States and its allies. Indeed, the text had been tabled by States the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea considered the “kingpins” of human rights violations, including the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom, on behalf of the European Union.

The United States was a “criminal State” in its own right. Having occupied sovereign States by force, it was indiscriminately killing innocent people by using chemical weapons, such as white phosphorous, without hesitation. As for Japan –- “a war-criminal” State of the Second World War –- he stressed that that country had not settled its accounts for crimes against humanity committed during the War and was indeed embellishing them and pressing ahead with efforts to repeat its criminal history. He added that, despite the introduction of an “abduction” clause in the draft, the abduction of Korean people was not a settled matter. During its 40-year occupation of Korea, Japan had mobilized by force or abduction 8.4 million people for military service, forced labour and sex slaves. Even today, Japan continues abducting Democratic People’s Republic of Korea citizens –- and described recent incidents of Japanese non-governmental organizations travelling to the China-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea border to lure and abduct Japanese/Korean citizens to take them to Japanese islands.

For its part, the United Kingdom had grown fat after years of colonial exploitation and massacre. Today, it was a zealous junior collaborator with the United States in its aggression against sovereign States and violation of international law and human rights law, “all under the slogan of the war on terror”. He said the European Union was nothing less than hypocritical, though it posed as a champion of human rights. He added that the manoeuvrings by the United States and Japan against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were human rights violations in themselves. With all that in mind, even if the text was adopted by the Committee, because of those who had backed it in the main, it would not have the authority of many other resolutions of the United Nations.

By a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 2 against ( Rwanda, Uganda), with 60 abstentions, the Assembly adopted preambular paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Annex XIII).

By a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 2 against ( Rwanda, Uganda), with 61 abstentions, the Assembly adopted operative paragraph 9(c) of that draft (Annex XIV).

The Assembly then adopted that resolution as a whole by a recorded vote of 102 in favour to 3 against ( Egypt, Rwanda, Uganda), with 67 abstentions (Annex XV).

By a recorded vote of 75 in favour to 50 against, with 43 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran (Annex XVI).

By a recorded vote of 71 in favour to 35 against, with 60 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan (Annex XVII).

By a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 21 against, with 60 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (Annex XVIII).

By a recorded vote of 74 in favour to 39 against, with 56 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan (Annex XIX).

TOSHIRO OZAWA(Japan) speaking after the vote on the draft resolution on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said his delegation had made a statement in Committee on the matter, but was nevertheless disturbed by false allegations and unhelpful comments made be that delegation earlier. Japan hoped that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea took seriously that the Assembly had just adopted the text, and hoped, as well, that it would cooperate with the United Nations human rights officials dealing with the situation in that country.

PHAM HAI ANH ( Viet Nam) said his delegation had voted against the draft on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as it shared the position of many that the text was politicized and did not take into account the principles of State sovereignty and integrity. At the same time, Viet Nam rejected all acts of abduction.

The Assembly then took up Addendum 4 of the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509/Add.4), which stated that no action was taken by the Third Committee under its sub-item on the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

Next, the Assembly turned to Addendum 5 of the Committee’s report on human rights questions (document A/60/509/Add.5), which refers to the Committee’s discussions and actions concerning its agenda sub-item on the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The Assembly then turned to the Committee’s report on crime prevention and criminal justice (document A/60/510), which contained three draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolutions on strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, in particular its technical cooperation capacity; on the United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders; and on Follow-up to the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice; and a draft decision on reports considered by the General Assembly in connection with the question of crime prevention and criminal justice, by which the Assembly took note of the Report of the Secretary-General on preventing and combating corrupt practices and transfer of assets of illicit origin and returning such assets to the countries of origin (A/60/157) and the Report of the Secretary-General on the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (A/60/172).

The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on international drug control (document A/60/511), which contained two draft resolutions.

Without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolutions on international cooperation against the world drug problem and on providing support to Afghanistan with a view to ensuring effective implementation of its Counter-Narcotic Implementation Plan.

Lastly, the Assembly took up the Committee’s report on revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (document A/60/512), which contained two draft decisions.

Without a vote, the Assembly adopted the draft decisions on the programme of work of the Third Committee for the sixty-first session of the General Assembly and on rotation of the post of Rapporteur of the Third Committee.

Speaking in exercise of the right or reply, Mr. SIN (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), said that his delegation believed that instead of seeking support for questions that had already been decided and wasting the Assembly’s time it would be more appropriate for Japan to seek a better understanding of the outstanding issues between the two Governments. The earlier statements of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been based on facts and reports from citizens on the boarder between China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. He would urge Japan to look very seriously at its past crimes, as well as the crimes it was currently committing on the border between China and his country.

Mr. ABDELMANNAN (Sudan), speaking in explanation of vote after the vote on the text concerning elimination of all forms of racism based on religious belief, said his delegation had joined consensus with the understanding that the language in operative paragraph 4(a) urging States to ensure that their constitutional and legislative system provided adequate effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience and religion did not in fact contradict any religious beliefs.

Vote on Practices Contributing to Racism

The draft resolution on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism (document A/60/507-I) was adopted by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 4 against, with 57 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Federated States of Micronesia, Japan, Marshall Islands, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Vanuatu

Absent: Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lebanon, Liberia, Mali, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tonga.

Vote on Total Elimination of Racism

The draft resolution on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination and comprehensive implementation of Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/60/507-II) was adopted by a recorded vote of 172 in favour to 3 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, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, 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, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, United States.

Abstain: Australia, Canada, Palau, Tuvalu.

Absent: Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland.

(END OF ANNEX II)

Vote on Palestinian Self-Determination

The draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/60/508-II) was adopted by a recorded vote of 170 in favour to 5 against, with 1 abstention, 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, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, 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, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States.

Absent: Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu.

(END OF ANNEX III)

Vote on Defamation of Religions

The draft resolution on combating the defamation of religions (document A/60/509/Add.2 (PT II)-I) was adopted by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 53 against, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Armenia, Botswana, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Honduras, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia.

Absent: Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Mongolia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

Vote on Globalization’s Human Rights Impact

The draft resolution on globalization and its input on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/60/509/Add.2 (PT II)-III) was adopted by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 53 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, 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, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Brazil, Chile, Iraq, Singapore.

Absent: Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tuvalu.

Vote on Unilateral Coercive Measures

The draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/60/509/Add.2 (PT II)-III) was adopted by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 53 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, 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, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, 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, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland.

(END OF ANNEX VI)

Vote on Right to Development

The draft resolution on human right to development (document A/60/509/Add.2 (PT II)-VIII) was adopted by a recorded vote of 172 in favour to 2 against, with 5 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, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, 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, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, 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: Marshall Islands, United States.

Abstain: Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Palau.

Absent: Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland.

(END OF ANNEX VII)

Vote on Preambular Paragraph 5/UN Role in Elections

The draft resolution on strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic elections and the promotion of denunciation (document A/60/509/ADD.2 (PT II)-XIII) was adopted by a recorded vote of 136 in favour to none against, with 31 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

Abstain: Algeria, Bahrain, Belarus, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, Iran, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Syria, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Tonga, Tunisia, Tuvalu.

(END OF ANNEX VIII)

Vote on UN Role in Elections

The draft resolution on strengthening the role of the United Nations in elections (document A/60/509/ADD.2 (PT II)-XIII) was adopted by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Syria, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago.

(END OF ANNEX IX)

Vote on Promotion of Peace

The draft resolution on the promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of human rights (document A/60/509/ADD.2 (PT II)-XIV) was adopted by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 53 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Chile, India, Mexico, Samoa, Singapore, Vanuatu.

Absent: Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tonga.

Vote on Respect for National Sovereignty

The draft resolution on respect for the principles of national sovereignty and diversity by democratic system in electoral processes (document A/60/509/Add.2 (PT II)-XV) was adopted by a recorded vote of 110 in favour to 6 against, with 61 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Absent: Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu.

(END OF ANNEX XI)

Vote on Right to Food

The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/60/509/Add.2 (PT II)-XVI) was adopted by a recorded vote of 176 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, 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, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, 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: United States.

Absent: Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Guyana, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland.

(END OF ANNEX XII)

Vote on Preambular Paragraph 4/Human Rights in Democratic Republic of Congo

The fourth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution on human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/60/509/Add.3-I) was adopted by a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 2 against, with 60 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia.

Against: Rwanda, Uganda.

Abstain: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Belarus, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX XIII)

Vote on Operative Paragraph 1/Democratic Republic of Congo

Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/60/509/Add.3-I) was adopted by a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 2 against, with 61 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia.

Against: Rwanda, Uganda.

Abstain: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Belarus, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX XIV)

Vote on Human Rights in Democratic Republic of Congo

The draft resolution on human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/60/509/Add.3-I) was adopted by a recorded vote of 102 in favour to 3 against, with 67 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Egypt, Rwanda, Uganda.

Abstain: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent: Belarus, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Turkmenistan, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX XV)

Vote on Human Rights in Iran

The draft resolution on human rights in Iran (document A/60/509/Add.3-II) was adopted by a recorded vote of 75 in favour to 50 against, with 43 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.

Against: Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia.

Absent: Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Georgia, Grenada, Jordan, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Turkey, Uruguay.

(END OF ANNEX XVI)

Vote on Human Rights in Turkmenistan

The draft resolution on human rights in Turkmenistan (document A/60/509/Add.3-III) was adopted by a recorded vote of 71 in favour to 35 against, with 60 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.

Against: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Zambia.

Absent: Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Georgia, Grenada, Kiribati, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Mongolia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine.

(END OF ANNEX XVII)

Vote on Human Rights in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

The draft resolution on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/60/509/Add.3-IV) was adopted by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 21 against, with 60 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.

Against: Belarus, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Russian Federation, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia.

Absent: Armenia, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Oman, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland.

(END OF ANNEX XVIII)

Vote on Human Rights in Uzbekistan

The draft resolution on human rights in Uzbekistan (document A/60/509/Add.3-V) was adopted by a recorded vote of 74 in favour to 39 against, with 56 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Against: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Gambia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia.

Absent: Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Mongolia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tuvalu, Ukraine.

Determination of trading plan and terms of its assembly

The victorious Allies of WWI imposed harsh reparations on Germany, which were both economically and psychologically damaging. Historians have long argued over the extent to which the reparations led to Germany’s severe economic depression in the interwar period.

Learning Objectives

Defend and critique the decision to demand high reparations from Germany after the war

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • One of the most contentious decisions at the Paris Peace Conference was the question of war reparations, payments intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war.
  • Most of the war’s major battles occurred in France, and the French countryside was heavily damaged in the fighting, leading French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau to push for harsh reparations from Germany to rebuild France.
  • Both the British and American representatives at the Conference ( David Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson ) opposed these harsh reparations, believing they would create economic instability in Europe overall, but in the end the Conference decided that Germany was to pay 132 billion gold marks (USD $33 billion) in reparations, a decision that angered the Germans and was a source of resentment for decades to come.
  • Because of the lack of reparation payments by Germany, France occupied the Ruhr in 1923 to enforce payments, causing an international crisis that resulted in the implementation of the Dawes Plan in 1924. This raised money from other nations to help Germany pay and shifted the payment plan.
  • Again, Germany was unable to pay and the plan was revised again with a reduced sum and more lenient plan.
  • With the collapse of the German economy in 1931, reparations were suspended for a year and in 1932 during the Lausanne Conference they were cancelled altogether.
  • Between 1919 and 1932, Germany paid fewer than 21 billion marks in reparations.

Key Terms

  • indemnities: An obligation by a person to provide compensation for a particular loss suffered by another person.
  • reparations: Payments intended to cover damage or injury inflicted during a war. Generally, the term refers to money or goods changing hands, but not to the annexation of land.
  • Young Plan: A program for settling German reparations debts after World War I, written in 1929 and formally adopted in 1930. After the Dawes Plan was put into operation in 1924, it became apparent that Germany would not willingly meet the annual payments over an indefinite period of time. This new plan reduced further payments by about 20 percent.

World War I reparations were imposed upon the Central Powers during the Paris Peace Conference following their defeat in the First World War by the Allied and Associate Powers. Each defeated power was required to make payments in either cash or kind. Because of the financial situation Austria, Hungary, and Turkey found themselves in after the war, few to no reparations were paid and the requirements were cancelled. Bulgaria paid only a fraction of what was required before its reparations were reduced and then cancelled. Historian Ruth Henig argues that the German requirement to pay reparations was the “chief battleground of the post-war era” and “the focus of the power struggle between France and Germany over whether the Versailles Treaty was to be enforced or revised.”

The Treaty of Versailles and the 1921 London Schedule of Payments required Germany to pay 132 billion gold marks (USD $33 billion) in reparations to cover civilian damage caused during the war. This figure was divided into three categories of bonds: A, B, and C. Of these, Germany was only required to pay towards ‘A’ and ‘B’ bonds totaling 50 billion marks (USD $12.5 billion). The remaining ‘C’ bonds, which Germany did not have to pay, were designed to deceive the Anglo-French public into believing Germany was being heavily fined and punished for the war.

Because of the lack of reparation payments by Germany, France occupied the Ruhr in 1923 to enforce payments, causing an international crisis that resulted in the implementation of the Dawes Plan in 1924. This plan outlined a new payment method and raised international loans to help Germany to meet her reparation commitments. In the first year following the implementation of the plan, Germany would have to pay 1 billion marks. This would rise to 2.5 billion marks per year by the fifth year of the plan. A Reparations Agency was established with Allied representatives to organize the payment of reparations. Despite this, by 1928 Germany called for a new payment plan, resulting in the Young Plan that established the German reparation requirements at 112 billion marks (USD $26.3 billion) and created a schedule of payments that would see Germany complete payments by 1988. With the collapse of the German economy in 1931, reparations were suspended for a year and in 1932 during the Lausanne Conference they were cancelled altogether. Between 1919 and 1932, Germany paid fewer than 21 billion marks in reparations.

The German people saw reparations as a national humiliation; the German Government worked to undermine the validity of the Treaty of Versailles and the requirement to pay. British economist John Maynard Keynes called the treaty a Carthaginian peace that would economically destroy Germany. His arguments had a profound effect on historians, politicians, and the public. Despite Keynes’ arguments and those by later historians supporting or reinforcing Keynes’ views, the consensus of contemporary historians is that reparations were not as intolerable as the Germans or Keynes had suggested and were within Germany’s capacity to pay had there been the political will to do so.

Background

Most of the war’s major battles occurred in France, substantially damaging the French countryside. Furthermore, in 1918 during the German retreat, German troops devastated France’s most industrialized region in the north-east (Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin). Extensive looting took place as German forces removed whatever material they could use and destroyed the rest. Hundreds of mines were destroyed along with railways, bridges, and entire villages. Prime Minister of France Georges Clemenceau was determined, for these reasons, that any just peace required Germany to pay reparations for the damage it had caused. Clemenceau viewed reparations as a way of weakening Germany to ensure it could never threaten France again. Reparations would also go towards the reconstruction costs in other countries, including Belgium, which was also directly affected by the war.

Reparations: Avocourt, 1918, one of the many destroyed French villages where reconstruction would be funded by reparations.

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George opposed harsh reparations, arguing for a smaller sum that was less damaging to the German economy so that Germany could remain a viable economic power and trading partner. He also argued that reparations should include war pensions for disabled veterans and allowances for war widows, which would reserve a larger share of the reparations for the British Empire. Woodrow Wilson opposed these positions and was adamant that no indemnity should be imposed upon Germany.

The Paris Peace Conference opened on January 18, 1919, aiming to establish a lasting peace between the Allied and Central Powers. Demanding compensation from the defeated party was a common feature of peace treaties. However, the financial terms of treaties signed during the peace conference were labelled reparations to distinguish them from punitive settlements usually known as indemnities, intended for reconstruction and compensating families bereaved by the war. The opening article of the reparation section of the Treaty of Versailles, Article 231, served as a legal basis for the following articles, which obliged Germany to pay compensation and limited German responsibility to civilian damages. The same article, with the signatory’s name changed, was also included in the treaties signed by Germany’s allies.

Did Reparations Ruin the German Economy?

Erik Goldstein wrote that in 1921, the payment of reparations caused a crisis and that the occupation of the Ruhr had a disastrous effect on the German economy, resulting in the German Government printing more money as the currency collapsed. Hyperinflation began and printing presses worked overtime to print Reichsbank notes; by November 1923 one U.S. dollar was worth 4.2 trillion marks. Geoff Harcourt writes that Keynes’ arguments that reparations would lead to German economic collapse have been adopted “by historians of almost all political persuasions” and have influenced the way historians and the public “see the unfolding events in Germany and the decades between Versailles and the outbreak of the Second World War.”

But not all historians agree. According to Detlev Peukert, the financial problems that arose in the early 1920s were a result of post-war loans and the way Germany funded its war effort, not reparations. During World War I, Germany did not raise taxes or create new ones to pay for wartime expenses. Rather, loans were taken out, placing Germany in an economically precarious position as more money entered circulation, destroying the link between paper money and the gold reserve maintained before the war. With its defeat, Germany could not impose reparations and pay off war debts, which were now colossal.

Niall Ferguson partially supports this analysis. He says that had reparations not been imposed, Germany would still have had significant problems caused by the need to pay war debts and the demands of voters for more social services. Ferguson also says that these problems were aggravated by a trade deficit and a weak exchange rate for the mark during 1920. Afterwards, as the value of the mark rose, inflation became a problem. None of these effects, he says, were the result of reparations.

Several historians take the middle ground between condemning reparations and supporting the argument that they were not a complete burden upon Germany. Detlev Peukert states, “Reparations did not, in fact, bleed the German economy” as had been feared; however, the “psychological effects of reparations were extremely serious, as was the strain that the vicious circle of credits and reparations placed the international financial system.”

The Weimar Republic

In its 14 years in existence, the Weimar Republic faced numerous problems, including hyperinflation, political extremism, and contentious relationships with the victors of the First World War, leading to its collapse during the rise of Adolf Hitler.

Learning Objectives

Describe the Weimar Republic and the challenges it faced

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • The Weimar Republic came into existence during the final stages of World War I, during the German Revolution of 1918–19.
  • From its beginnings and throughout its 14 years of existence, the Weimar Republic experienced numerous problems, most notably hyperinflation and unemployment.
  • In 1919, one loaf of bread cost 1 mark; by 1923, the same loaf of bread cost 100 billion marks.
  • With its currency and economy in ruin, Germany failed to pay its heavy war reparations, which were resented by Germans to begin with.
  • Many people in Germany blamed the Weimar Republic rather than their wartime leaders for the country’s defeat and for the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles, a belief that came to be known as the “stab-in-the-back myth,” which was heavily propagated during the rise of the Nazi party.
  • The passage of the Enabling Act of 1933 is widely considered to mark the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of the Nazi era.

Key Terms

  • hyperinflation: This occurs when a country experiences very high and usually accelerating rates of inflation, rapidly eroding the real value of the local currency and causing the population to minimize their holdings of local money by switching to relatively stable foreign currencies. Under such conditions, the general price level within an economy increases rapidly as the official currency loses real value.
  • Enabling Act of 1933: A 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave the German Cabinet – in effect, Chancellor Adolf Hitler – the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag.
  • Stab-in-the-back myth: The notion, widely believed in right-wing circles in Germany after 1918, that the German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield but was instead betrayed by the civilians on the home front, especially the republicans who overthrew the monarchy in the German Revolution of 1918–19. Advocates denounced the German government leaders who signed the Armistice on November 11, 1918, as the “November Criminals.” When the Nazis came to power in 1933, they made the legend an integral part of their official history of the 1920s, portraying the Weimar Republic as the work of the “November Criminals” who seized power while betraying the nation.

Weimar Republic is an unofficial historical designation for the German state between 1919 and 1933. The name derives from the city of Weimar, where its constitutional assembly first took place. The official name of the state was still Deutsches Reich; it had remained unchanged since 1871. In English the country was usually known simply as Germany. A national assembly was convened in Weimar, where a new constitution for the Deutsches Reich was written and adopted on August 11, 1919. In its 14 years, the Weimar Republic faced numerous problems, including hyperinflation, political extremism (with paramilitaries – both left- and right-wing); and contentious relationships with the victors of the First World War. The people of Germany blamed the Weimar Republic rather than their wartime leaders for the country’s defeat and for the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles. However, the Weimar Republic government successfully reformed the currency, unified tax policies, and organized the railway system. Weimar Germany eliminated most of the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles; it never completely met its disarmament requirements and eventually paid only a small portion of the war reparations (by twice restructuring its debt through the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan). Under the Locarno Treaties, Germany accepted the western borders of the republic, but continued to dispute the Eastern border.

From 1930 onward, President Hindenburg used emergency powers to back Chancellors Heinrich Brüning, Franz von Papen, and General Kurt von Schleicher. The Great Depression, exacerbated by Brüning’s policy of deflation, led to a surge in unemployment. In 1933, Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as Chancellor with the Nazi Party as part of a coalition government. The Nazis held two out of the remaining 10 cabinet seats. Von Papen as Vice Chancellor was intended to work behind the scenes to keep Hitler under control, using his close personal connection to Hindenburg. Within months the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Enabling Act of 1933 brought about a state of emergency: it wiped out constitutional governance and civil liberties. Hitler’s seizure of power (Machtergreifung) brought the republic to an end. As democracy collapsed, a single-party state founded the Nazi era.

Challenges and Reasons for Failure

The reasons for the Weimar Republic’s collapse are the subject of continuing debate. It may have been doomed from the beginning since even moderates disliked it and extremists on both the left and right loathed it, a situation referred to by some historians, such as Igor Primoratz, as a “democracy without democrats.” Germany had limited democratic traditions, and Weimar democracy was widely seen as chaotic. Weimar politicians had been blamed for Germany’s defeat in World War I through a widely believed theory called the “Stab-in-the-back myth,” which contended that Germany’s surrender in World War I had been the unnecessary act of traitors, and thus the popular legitimacy of the government was on shaky ground. As normal parliamentary lawmaking broke down and was replaced around 1930 by a series of emergency decrees, the decreasing popular legitimacy of the government further drove voters to extremist parties.

The Republic in its early years was already under attack from both left- and right-wing sources. The radical left accused the ruling Social Democrats of betraying the ideals of the workers’ movement by preventing a communist revolution, and sought to overthrow the Republic and do so themselves. Various right-wing sources opposed any democratic system, preferring an authoritarian, autocratic state like the 1871 Empire. To further undermine the Republic’s credibility, some right-wingers (especially certain members of the former officer corps) also blamed an alleged conspiracy of Socialists and Jews for Germany’s defeat in World War I.

The Weimar Republic had some of the most serious economic problems ever experienced by any Western democracy in history. Rampant hyperinflation, massive unemployment, and a large drop in living standards were primary factors.

In the first half of 1922, the mark stabilized at about 320 marks per dollar. By fall 1922, Germany found itself unable to make reparations payments since the price of gold was now well beyond what it could afford. Also, the mark was by now practically worthless, making it impossible for Germany to buy foreign exchange or gold using paper marks. Instead, reparations were to be paid in goods such as coal. In January 1923, French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr, the industrial region of Germany in the Ruhr valley, to ensure reparations payments. Inflation was exacerbated when workers in the Ruhr went on a general strike and the German government printed more money to continue paying for their passive resistance. By November 1923, the US dollar was worth 4,2 trillion German marks. In 1919, one loaf of bread cost 1 mark; by 1923, the same loaf of bread cost 100 billion marks.

Hyperinflation in Weimar Republic: One-million mark notes used as notepaper, October 1923. In 1919, one loaf of bread cost 1 mark; by 1923, the same loaf of bread cost 100 billion marks.

From 1923 to 1929, there was a short period of economic recovery, but the Great Depression of the 1930s led to a worldwide recession. Germany was particularly affected because it depended heavily on American loans. In 1926, about 2 million Germans were unemployed, which rose to around 6 million in 1932. Many blamed the Weimar Republic. That was made apparent when political parties on both right and left wanting to disband the Republic altogether made any democratic majority in Parliament impossible.

The reparations damaged Germany’s economy by discouraging market loans, which forced the Weimar government to finance its deficit by printing more currency, causing rampant hyperinflation. In addition, the rapid disintegration of Germany in 1919 by the return of a disillusioned army, the rapid change from possible victory in 1918 to defeat in 1919, and the political chaos may have caused a psychological imprint on Germans that could lead to extreme nationalism, later epitomised and exploited by Hitler.

It is also widely believed that the 1919 constitution had several weaknesses, making the eventual establishment of a dictatorship likely, but it is unknown whether a different constitution could have prevented the rise of the Nazi party.

Self-Determination and New States

The dissolution of the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires created a number of new countries in eastern Europe and the Middle East, often with large ethnic minorities. This caused numerous conflicts and hostilities.

Learning Objectives

Give examples of self-determination in the interwar period

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • The self-determination of states, the principle that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference, developed throughout the modern period alongside nationalism.
  • During and especially after World War I, there was a renewed commitment to self-determination and a major influx of new states formed out of the collapsed empires of Europe: the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire.
  • Many new states formed in Eastern Europe, some out of the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where Russia renounced claims on Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania, and some from the various treaties that came out of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.
  • These new countries tended to have substantial ethnic minorities who wished to unite with neighboring states where their ethnicity dominated (for example, example, Czechoslovakia had Germans, Poles, Ruthenians and Ukrainians, Slovaks, and Hungarians), which led to political instability and conflict.
  • The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire became a pivotal milestone in the creation of the modern Middle East, the result of which bore witness to the creation of new conflicts and hostilities in the region.

Key Terms

  • Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: A peace treaty signed on March 3, 1918, between the new Bolshevik government of Soviet Russia and the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire), that ended Russia’s participation in World War I. Part of its terms was the renouncement of Russia’s claims on Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania.
  • self-determination: A principle of international law that states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.
  • Nansen passport: Internationally recognized refugee travel documents, first issued by the League of Nations to stateless refugees.

Geopolitical Consequences of World War I

The years 1919-24 were marked by turmoil as Europe struggled to recover from the devastation of the First World War and the destabilizing effects of the loss of four large historic empires: the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. There were numerous new nations in Eastern Europe, most of them small.

Internally these new countries tended to have substantial ethnic minorities who wished to unite with neighboring states where their ethnicity dominated. For example, Czechoslovakia had Germans, Poles, Ruthenians and Ukrainians, Slovaks, and Hungarians. Millions of Germans found themselves in the newly created countries as minorities. More than two million ethnic Hungarians found themselves living outside of Hungary in Slovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia. Many of these national minorities found themselves in bad situations because the modern governments were intent on defining the national character of the countries, often at the expense of the minorities. The League of Nations sponsored various Minority Treaties in an attempt to deal with the problem, but with the decline of the League in the 1930s, these treaties became increasingly unenforceable. One consequence of the massive redrawing of borders and the political changes in the aftermath of World War I was the large number of European refugees. These and the refugees of the Russian Civil War led to the creation of the Nansen passport.

Ethnic minorities made the location of the frontiers generally unstable. Where the frontiers have remained unchanged since 1918, there has often been the expulsion of an ethnic group, such as the Sudeten Germans. Economic and military cooperation among these small states was minimal, ensuring that the defeated powers of Germany and the Soviet Union retained a latent capacity to dominate the region. In the immediate aftermath of the war, defeat drove cooperation between Germany and the Soviet Union but ultimately these two powers would compete to dominate eastern Europe.

At the end of the war, the Allies occupied Constantinople (Istanbul) and the Ottoman government collapsed. The Treaty of Sèvres, a plan designed by the Allies to dismember the remaining Ottoman territories, was signed on August 10, 1920, although it was never ratified by the Sultan.

The occupation of Smyrna by Greece on May 18, 1919, triggered a nationalist movement to rescind the terms of the treaty. Turkish revolutionaries led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a successful Ottoman commander, rejected the terms enforced at Sèvres and under the guise of General Inspector of the Ottoman Army, left Istanbul for Samsun to organize the remaining Ottoman forces to resist the terms of the treaty.

After Turkish resistance gained control over Anatolia and Istanbul, the Sèvres treaty was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne, which formally ended all hostilities and led to the creation of the modern Turkish Republic. As a result, Turkey became the only power of World War I to overturn the terms of its defeat and negotiate with the Allies as an equal.

Europe in 1923: The dissolution of the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires created a number of new countries in eastern Europe, such as Poland, Finland, Yugoslavia, and Turkey.

Self-Determination

The right of peoples to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law. It states that peoples, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference. The explicit terms of this principle can be traced to the Atlantic Charter, signed on August 14, 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It also is derived from principles espoused by United States President Woodrow Wilson following World War I, after which some new nation states were formed or previous states revived after the dissolution of empires. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made nor what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy, or full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between peoples should be—nor what constitutes a people. There are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.

The employment of imperialism through the expansion of empires and the concept of political sovereignty, as developed after the Treaty of Westphalia, also explain the emergence of self-determination during the modern era. During and after the Industrial Revolution, many groups of people recognized their shared history, geography, language, and customs. Nationalism emerged as a uniting ideology not only between competing powers, but also for groups that felt subordinated or disenfranchised inside larger states; in this situation, self-determination can be seen as a reaction to imperialism. Such groups often pursued independence and sovereignty over territory, but sometimes a different sense of autonomy has been pursued or achieved.

The revolt of New World British colonists in North America during the mid-1770s has been seen as the first assertion of the right of national and democratic self-determination because of the explicit invocation of natural law, the natural rights of man, and the consent of and sovereignty by, the people governed; these ideas were inspired particularly by John Locke’s enlightened writings of the previous century. Thomas Jefferson further promoted the notion that the will of the people was supreme, especially through authorship of the United States Declaration of Independence which inspired Europeans throughout the 19th century. Leading up to World War I, in Europe there was a rise of nationalism, with nations such as Greece, Hungary, Poland, and Bulgaria seeking or winning their independence.

Woodrow Wilson revived America’s commitment to self-determination, at least for European states, during World War I. When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia in November 1917, they called for Russia’s immediate withdrawal as a member of the Allies of World War I. They also supported the right of all nations, including colonies, to self-determination. The 1918 Constitution of the Soviet Union acknowledged the right of secession for its constituent republics.

This presented a challenge to Wilson’s more limited demands. In January 1918 Wilson issued his Fourteen Points that among other things, called for adjustment of colonial claims insofar as the interests of colonial powers had equal weight with the claims of subject peoples. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918 led to Russia’s exit from the war and the independence of Armenia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia, and Poland.

The end of the war led to the dissolution of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire and the creation by the Allies of Czechoslovakia and the union of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbia as new states. However, this imposition of states where some nationalities (especially Poles, Czechs, and Serbs and Romanians) were given power over nationalities who disliked and distrusted them eventually helped lead to World War II. Also Germany lost land after WWI: Northern Slesvig voted to return to Denmark after a referendum. The defeated Ottoman empire was dissolved into the Republic of Turkey and several smaller nations, including Yemen, plus the new Middle East Allied “mandates” of Syria and Lebanon (future Syria, Lebanon and Hatay State), Palestine (future Transjordan and Israel), Mesopotamia (future Iraq). The League of Nations was proposed as much as a means of consolidating these new states, as a path to peace.

During the 1920s and 1930s there were some successful movements for self-determination in the beginnings of the process of decolonization. In the Statute of Westminster the United Kingdom granted independence to Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Irish Free State, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Union of South Africa after the British parliament declared itself as incapable of passing laws over them without their consent. Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iraq also achieved independence from Britain and Lebanon from France. Other efforts were unsuccessful, like the Indian independence movement. Italy, Japan, and Germany all initiated new efforts to bring certain territories under their control, leading to World War II.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact

The Kellogg-Briand Pact intended to establish “the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy,” but was largely ineffective in preventing conflict or war.

Learning Objectives

Identify why the Kellogg-Briand Pact was concieved and signed

Key Takeaways

Key Points

  • After World War I, seeing the devastating consequences of total war, many politicians and diplomats strove to created measures that would prevent further armed conflict.
  • This effort resulted in numerous international institutions and treaties, such as the creation of the League of Nations and in 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
  • The Kellogg-Briand Pact was written by United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand.
  • It went into effect on July 24, 1929, and before long had a total of 62 signatories.
  • Practically, the Kellogg-Briand Pact did not live up to its aim of ending war or stopping the rise of militarism, and in this sense it made no immediate contribution to international peace and proved to be ineffective in the years to come.
  • Nevertheless, the pact has served as one of the legal bases establishing the international norms that the threat or use of military force in contravention of international law, as well as the territorial acquisitions resulting from it, are unlawful.
  • It inspired and influenced future international agreements, including the United Nations Charter.

Key Terms

  • Kellogg–Briand Pact: A 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve “disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them.”
  • multilateral treaty: A treaty to which three or more sovereign states are parties. Each party owes the same obligations to all other parties, except to the extent that they have stated reservations.
  • annexation: The political transition of land from the control of one entity to another. It is also the incorporation of unclaimed land into a state’s sovereignty, which is in most cases legitimate. In international law it is the forcible transition of one state’s territory by another state or the legal process by which a city acquires land. Usually, it is implied that the territory and population being annexed is the smaller, more peripheral, and weaker of the two merging entities, barring physical size.

The Kellogg–Briand Pact (or Pact of Paris, officially General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy) is a 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve “disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them.” Parties failing to abide by this promise “should be denied of the benefits furnished by this treaty.” It was signed by Germany, France, and the United States on August 27, 1928, and by most other nations soon after. Sponsored by France and the U.S., the Pact renounces the use of war and calls for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Similar provisions were incorporated into the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties and it became a stepping-stone to a more activist American policy. It is named after its authors, United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand.

The texts of the treaty reads:

After negotiations, the pact was signed in Paris at the French Foreign Ministry by the representatives from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, British India, the Irish Free State, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It was provided that it would come into effect on July 24, 1929. By that date, the following nations had deposited instruments of definitive adherence to the pact: Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, China, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Romania, the Soviet Union, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, Siam, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey. Eight further states joined after that date (Persia, Greece, Honduras, Chile, Luxembourg, Danzig, Costa Rica and Venezuela) for a total of 62 signatories.

In the United States, the Senate approved the treaty overwhelmingly, 85–1, with only Wisconsin Republican John J. Blaine voting against. While the U.S. Senate did not add any reservation to the treaty, it did pass a measure which interpreted the treaty as not infringing upon the United States’ right of self-defense and not obliging the nation to enforce it by taking action against those who violated it.

A photo of the actual signed Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928).

Effect and Legacy

As a practical matter, the Kellogg–Briand Pact did not live up to its aim of ending war or stopping the rise of militarism, and in this sense it made no immediate contribution to international peace and proved to be ineffective in the years to come. Moreover, the pact erased the legal distinction between war and peace because the signatories, having renounced the use of war, began to wage wars without declaring them as in the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in 1935, the Spanish Civil War in 1936, the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939, and the German and Soviet Union invasions of Poland. Nevertheless, the pact is an important multilateral treaty because, in addition to binding the particular nations that signed it, it has also served as one of the legal bases establishing the international norms that the threat or use of military force in contravention of international law, as well as the territorial acquisitions resulting from it, are unlawful.

Notably, the pact served as the legal basis for the creation of the notion of crime against peace. It was for committing this crime that the Nuremberg Tribunal and Tokyo Tribunal tried and sentenced a number of people responsible for starting World War II.

The interdiction of aggressive war was confirmed and broadened by the United Nations Charter, which provides in article 2, paragraph 4, that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” One legal consequence of this is that it is clearly unlawful to annex territory by force. However, neither this nor the original treaty has prevented the subsequent use of annexation. More broadly, there is a strong presumption against the legality of using or threatening military force against another country. Nations that have resorted to the use of force since the Charter came into effect have typically invoked self-defense or the right of collective defense.

Break Even Analysis

What is Break Even Analysis?

Break Even Analysis in economics, business, and cost accounting Financial Accounting Theory Financial Accounting Theory explains the “why” behind accounting – the reasons why transactions are reported in certain ways. This guide will help you understand the main principles behind Financial Accounting Theory refers to the point in which total cost and total revenue Sales Revenue Sales revenue is the income received by a company from its sales of goods or the provision of services. In accounting, the terms “sales” and “revenue” can be, and often are, used interchangeably, to mean the same thing. Revenue does not necessarily mean cash received. are equal. A break even point analysis is used to determine the number of units or dollars of revenue needed to cover total costs ( fixed and variable costs Fixed and Variable Costs Cost is something that can be classified in several ways depending on its nature. One of the most popular methods is classification according to fixed costs and variable costs. Fixed costs do not change with increases/decreases in units of production volume, while variable costs are solely dependent ).

Formula for Break Even Analysis

The formula for break even analysis is as follows:

Break even quantity = Fixed costs / (Sales price per unit – Variable cost per unit)

  • Fixed costs are costs that do not change with varying output (e.g., salary, rent, building machinery).
  • Sales price per unit is the selling price (unit selling price) per unit.
  • Variable cost per unit is the variable costs incurred to create a unit.

It is also helpful to note that sales price per unit minus variable cost per unit is the contribution margin Contribution Margin Contribution margin is a business’ sales revenue less its variable costs. The resulting contribution margin can be used to cover its fixed costs (such as rent), and once those are covered, any excess is considered earnings. per unit. For example, if a book’s selling price is $100 and its variable costs are $5 to make the book, $95 is the contribution margin per unit and contributes to offsetting the fixed costs.

Example of Break Even Analysis

Colin is the managerial accountant in charge of Company A, which sells water bottles. He previously determined that the fixed costs of Company A consist of property taxes, a lease, and executive salaries, which add up to $100,000. The variable cost Variable Costs Variable costs are expenses that vary in proportion to the volume of goods or services that a business produces. In other words, they are costs that vary associated with producing one water bottle is $2 per unit. The water bottle is sold at a premium price of $12. To determine the break even point of Company A’s premium water bottle:

Break even quantity = $100,000 / ($12 – $2) = 10,000

Therefore, given the fixed costs, variable costs, and selling price of the water bottles, Company A would need to sell 10,000 units of water bottles to break even.

Graphically Representing the Break Even Point

The graphical representation of unit sales and dollar sales needed to break even is referred to as the break even chart or Cost Volume Profit (CVP) CVP Analysis Guide Cost Volume Profit Analysis (CVP analysis), also commonly referred to as Break Even Analysis, is a way for companies to determine how changes in costs (both variable and fixed) and sales volume affect a company’s profit. With this information, companies can better understand overall performance graph. Below is the CVP graph of the example above:

Explanation:

  1. The number of units is on the X-axis (horizontal) and the dollar amount is on the Y-axis (vertical).
  2. The red line represents the total fixed costs of $100,000.
  3. The blue line represents revenue per unit sold. For example, selling 10,000 units would generate 10,000 x $12 = $120,000 in revenue.
  4. The yellow line represents total costs (fixed and variable costs). For example, if the company sells 0 units, then the company would incur $0 in variable costs but $100,000 in fixed costs for total costs of $100,000. If the company sells 10,000 units, the company would incur 10,000 x $2 = $20,000 in variable costs and $100,000 in fixed costs for total costs of $120,000.
  5. The break even point is at 10,000 units. At this point, revenue would be 10,000 x $12 = $120,000 and costs would be 10,000 x 2 = $20,000 in variable costs and $100,000 in fixed costs.
  6. When the number of units exceeds 10,000, the company would be making a profit on the units sold. Note that the blue revenue line is greater than the yellow total costs line after 10,000 units are produced. Likewise, if the number of units is below 10,000, the company would be incurring a loss. From 0-9,999 units, the total costs line is above the revenue line.

Download the Free Template

Enter your name and email in the form below and download the free template now!

Interpretation of Break Even Analysis

As illustrated in the graph above, the point at which total fixed and variable costs are equal to total revenues is known as the break even point. At the break even point, a business does not make a profit or loss. Therefore, the break even point is often referred to as the “no-profit” or “no-loss point.”

The break even analysis is important to business owners and managers in determining how many units (or revenues) are needed to cover fixed and variable expenses of the business.

Therefore, the concept of break even point is as follows:

  • Profit when Revenue > Total Variable cost + Total Fixed cost
  • Break-even point when Revenue = Total Variable cost + Total Fixed cost
  • Loss when Revenuesensitivity analysis What is Sensitivity Analysis? Sensitivity Analysis is a tool used in financial modeling to analyze how the different values for a set of independent variables affect a dependent variable and scenario analysis Scenario Analysis Scenario analysis is a technique used to analyze decisions through speculating various possible outcomes in financial investments. In financial modeling, this process is typically used to estimate changes in the value of a business or cash flow. By using the Choose or Offset functions an analyst can crease base case performed in financial modeling What is Financial Modeling Financial modeling is performed in Excel to forecast a company’s financial performance. Overview of what is financial modeling, how & why to build a model. . Using Goal Seek Goal Seek The Goal Seek Excel function (What-if-Analysis) is a method of solving for a desired output by changing an assumption that drives it. The function uses a trial and error approach to back-solving the problem by plugging in guesses until it arrives at the answer. It is used for performing sensitivity analysis in Excel in Excel, an analyst can backsolve how many units need to be sold, at what price, and at what cost to break even.

CFI is a leading provider of financial analysis courses and financial analyst certification FMVA® Certification Join 350,600+ students who work for companies like Amazon, J.P. Morgan, and Ferrari programs for investment banking, equity research, and financial planning and analysis ( FP&A FP&A Role The Financial Planning & Analysis (FP&A) role is gaining greater importance today as it helps bring out crucial analysis on business performance. An FP&A role is no longer limited to management reporting but it also requires lots of business insights so that the top management ) professionals. To help you advance your career, check out the additional CFI resources below:

  • Cost Volume Profit (CVP) Template CVP Analysis Template This CVP analysis template helps you perform a break-even analysis, calculate margin of safety and find the degree of operating leverage. Cost Volume Profit (CVP analysis), also commonly referred to as Break Even Analysis, is a way for companies to determine how changes in costs (both variable and fixed) and sales volu
  • How the 3 Financial Statements are Linked How the 3 Financial Statements are Linked How are the 3 financial statements linked together? We explain how to link the 3 financial statements together for financial modeling and valuation in Excel. Connections of net income & retained earnings, PP&E, depreciation and amortization, capital expenditures, working capital, financing activities, and cash balance
  • Cost Behavior Analysis Cost Behavior Analysis Cost behavior analysis refers to management’s attempt to understand how operating costs change in relation to a change in an organization’s level of activity. These costs may include direct materials, direct labor, and overhead costs that are incurred from developing a product.
  • Analysis of Financial Statements Analysis of Financial Statements How to perform Analysis of Financial Statements. This guide will teach you to perform financial statement analysis of the income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow statement including margins, ratios, growth, liquiditiy, leverage, rates of return and profitability.
Best Binary Options Brokers 2020:
  • BINARIUM
    BINARIUM

    Top Binary Options Broker 2020!
    Best For Beginners!
    Free Trading Education!
    Free Demo Account!
    Get Your Sign-Up Bonus Now:

  • BINOMO
    BINOMO

    Only For Experienced Traders.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Binary Options Theory and Practice
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: