Assembly President Says Implementation of Agreements Should Be Seen
‘As a Core Principal of Effective Multilateralism in the Twenty-First Century’
The
General Assembly this evening — resuming a meeting suspended on Friday
pending agreement by its Budget Committee — concluded the main part of
its sixty-seventh session with the adoption of 22 texts, two of which
set the rates Member States will pay for the regular and peacekeeping
budgets over the next three years.
Noting that the more than
300 draft resolutions and decisions adopted since September ran the
gamut of contemporary global challenges, Assembly President Vuk Jeremić
told delegations on Friday, 21 December, that “what happens in one part
of the world invariably affects us all”. It was with that in mind, he
said, that he had chosen “bringing about adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations by peaceful means” as the session’s
overarching theme. “In these tumultuous times, the enormity of this
challenge is evident,” he said.
He asked States to
consistently implement what had been agreed: “doing so should be seen by
all Member States as a core principle of effective multilateralism in
the twenty-first century”. It was only the conduct and dedication of
States that would determine the future strength of the Assembly.
Capping
days of intense negotiations, the Assembly adopted a range of Fifth
Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) resolutions, covering the scale
of assessing Member States’ dues, the United Nations pension system and
the proposed 2013 budget for 33 political missions.
By
one consensus text, the Assembly retained the existing formula for
assessing Member States’ financial contributions to the United Nations
regular budget and its peacekeeping operations during the 2013-2015
period. It kept in place the existing elements for the regular budget,
including the average statistical base period of three to six years, a
country’s gross national income (GNI) converted to United States dollars
using market exchange rates, and its population size. It also
maintained the 0.01 per cent ceiling for assessing the rate of least
developed countries and the 22 per cent maximum assessment rate for
everyone else.
Concerning peacekeeping
assessments — where each Member State is assigned to 1 of 10 levels,
with corresponding discount rates — the Assembly adopted a consensus
text, taking note of updates to those levels, as suggested by the
Secretary-General. By further terms, it endorsed those updates subject
to certain provisions, and used them establish Member States’ fees for
the period 2013‑2015. Recognizing the need for reform, the Assembly
decided to review the structure of the assessment scale during its
seventieth session.
Though not tasked with
passing a budget this year, the Assembly adopted a consensus text
revising expenditures upwards by $243.26 million to $5.39 billion, and
income by $3.99 million to $511.74 million for the current biennium.
The Secretary-General’s proposed budget for 33 special political
missions also came under scrutiny, with the Assembly approving
$566.48 million to keep them running in 2013.
On the United Nations
Joint Staff Pension Fund, the Assembly adopted a consensus text
increasing the mandatory retirement age to 65 for new participants
effective no later than 1 January 2014, and amending Fund regulations to
allow for the recovery of pension entitlements from staff who defrauded
participating employers.
Other Budget Committee
texts addressed post-adjustment payment for staff, the financing for the
United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT) and the
International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia,
as well as the Residual Mechanism, funding for the enterprise resource
planning system and the internal justice system, and funding for
commitments made at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable
Development.
Acting on two outstanding
texts of its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), the
Assembly adopted — without a vote for the first time — a resolution on
the human rights situation in Myanmar, welcoming the positive
developments in the country and the Government’s commitment to continue
political reform, democratization and national reconciliation.
At the same time, it urged
Myanmar to continue the release of political prisoners without delay
and ensure the full restoration of their rights. It expressed concern
about arbitrary detention, forced displacement and rape, urging an end
to such violations. Elsewhere, it urged accelerated efforts to address
violence affecting ethnic minorities, expressing concern about the
Rohingya minority in Rakhine State.
The Assembly also adopted a
consensus resolution on the Committee against Torture, authorizing that
Committee — without prejudice to the Assembly’s intergovernmental
process on treaty body strengthening — to meet for an additional week
per session as a temporary measure, with effect from May 2013 until the
end of November 2014, to address the report backlog.
On
the recommendation of its First Committee (Disarmament and International
Security), the Assembly adopted an updated text on the arms trade
treaty by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to none against, with
17 abstentions. (See Annex III.) By its terms, it decided to convene in
New York, from 18 to 28 March 2013, the Final United Nations Conference
on the Arms Trade Treaty, to be governed by the rules of procedure
adopted on 3 July 2012. It also decided that the text of the treaty
submitted by the Conference President on 26 July 2012 would be the basis
for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegates to put
forward proposals on that text. The text passed after votes on its
operative paragraphs 2 and 3.
In other business, the
Assembly elected Malaysia, Brazil and Peru to the Organizational
Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission to serve two-year terms
beginning on 1 January 2013, with two seats yet to be filled. It
appointed Côte d’Ivoire and Senegal to the Committee on Conferences to
serve three-year terms beginning on 1 January 2013, with five seats
remaining vacant.
The Assembly also extended
terms for judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and
of the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia through the
adoption of two more texts.
Explanations of vote were
made by the representatives of Saudi Arabia, Monaco, Oman, Cuba (also on
behalf of Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador and Iran), Iran and
Syria.
A representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See also spoke in explanation of vote.
The representative of the
Russian Federation introduced an amendment to a draft. The delegate
from Cyprus requested that it be put to a recorded vote.
The Fifth Committee Rapporteur introduced that body’s reports.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea exercised the right of reply.
Action on Committee Texts
The Assembly today first
took up reports of the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and
Cultural), which had been pending, owing to consideration by the Fifth
Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) of their programme budget
implications.
Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolution XVI on “the Committee against Torture” contained in Third Committee report A/67/457/Add.2.
The Assembly turned next to draft resolution I on “human rights situation in Myanmar” (document A/67/457/Add.3),
by which it would welcome the positive developments in the country and
the Government’s commitment to continue political reform,
democratization and national reconciliation.
Speaking before the vote on that text, the representative of Saudi Arabia
said his delegation would join consensus. His Government supported the
progress being made in Myanmar and the commitments of its Government
towards political reform, human rights protection and national
reconciliation, among others. The Rohingya Muslim minority had endured
tragic circumstances manifested in a policy of harassment and violence,
and Saudi Arabia stressed that full rights should be accorded to that
minority, including, among others, citizenship and political rights. He
called for full access to humanitarian assistance for the affected
persons and groups, regardless of race or religion, adding that his
country had contributed $50 million towards helping those victims.
He noted that after the
vote on the text in the Third Committee, the Myanmar delegation had
expressed strong reservations to the term “Rohingya minority”. That did
not serve the aspiration to reach a peaceful settlement to Myanmar’s
oppressed minority and was a negative indicator against the
international community’s consensus. His Government would continue
monitoring the situation with hopes that Myanmar’s Government would
cooperate fully with the international community towards achieving
justice for the Rohingya Muslim minority.
The Assembly then adopted, for the first time without a vote, the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar.
Next, the Assembly turned
to draft resolution IV contained in the First Committee (Disarmament and
International Security) report on the arms trade treaty (document A/67/409),
also pending due to consideration by the Fifth Committee of budget
implications. It concerned building on progress made so far towards the
adoption of a strong, balanced and effective such treaty.
The
Assembly first, in a separate recorded vote of 126 in favour to
1 against (Iran), with 21 abstentions, retained operative paragraph 2,
thereby setting the dates for a final conference in 2013. (For details
of the vote, see Annex I.)
Next, operative paragraph
3, by which the Assembly decided that the treaty text submitted by the
Conference President on 26 July would be the basis for future work, was
retained by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 1 against (Iran) with 24
abstentions (Annex II). The resolution as a whole was adopted by a
recorded vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions
(Annex III).
Speaking after the vote, a representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Holy See
welcomed adoption of the arms treaty resolution, which he said
“reignites hope”, after the unfortunate stalemate at the July
conference. The international community, he said, would have a legally
binding instrument, but to achieve “such a noble goal”, it was necessary
to have an open and transparent process that allowed for the full
participation of all States.
He said his delegation
understood the inclusion of “mutatis mutandis” in the present text and
recognized it as a necessary change to rectify improper treatment of his
delegation during the July conference. The Holy See was to be fully
recognized within the United Nations, in accordance with the rules of
procedure.
Right of Reply
The delegate of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
taking the floor in exercise of the right of reply concerning the draft
resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East,
rejected the allegations made against his country. “ Israel has nuclear
weapons and it is the major source of nuclear proliferation in the
Middle East,” he said. “It should know very clearly that its continued
possession of nuclear weapons will eventually give rise to nuclear
proliferation in the Middle East, posing a threat to the regional peace
and security.” Further, the more Israel clung to its policies of
continued possession of nuclear weapons, with the silent support of the
United States, the more it would show itself as the “typical
representative example of the double standards of the United States in
the field of nuclear proliferation”.
Action on Fifth Committee Texts
Next, Fifth Committee
Rapporteur JUSTIN KISOKA of the United Republic of Tanzania introduced
its reports. For further information on those texts, please see Press
Release GA/AB/4057.
Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolutions on financial reports and audited financial statements, and reports of the Board of Auditors (document A/C.5/67/L.8); programme planning (document A/C.5/67/L.10) and pattern of conferences (document A/C.5/67/L.5).
It next turned to a draft resolution on scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations (document A/C.5/67/L.6), adopting it without a vote.
Speaking before the text’s adoption, the representative of Monaco
explained that her country had joined in the consensus on paragraph 6.
However, it had seen its assessments jump by 300 per cent from 2013 to
2015. The methodology used had resulted in a distortion in evaluating
Monaco’s capacity to pay. Despite the enormous increase, however, her
Government reiterated its commitment to comply fully with its
international obligations and to honour its payment on time.
The Assembly then adopted without a vote a draft resolution on scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations peacekeeping operations (document A/C.5/67/L.7).
Explaining his position, the representative of Oman
said that, while his country had joined the consensus, consideration
should be given to the fact that there was no justification for raising
the level for Oman’s to “level B”. In view of all objective criteria,
Oman should be at the same level of developing countries where the per
capita income had increased gradually and nominally. The level at which
Oman had been put was a level that included all developed countries,
while Oman remained a developing State. He was not pleased with the
“sudden move to level B”.
Moving on, the Assembly adopted without a vote a draft decision on the United Nations common system (document A/C.5/67/L.14), and draft resolutions on the United Nations pension system (document A/C.5/67/L.9), administration of justice at the United Nations (document A/C.5/67/L.11) and financing of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (document A/C.5/67/L.15).
Before taking action on the draft resolution on financing of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (document A/C.5/67/L.16), the delegation of the Russian Federation
said that there had not been time to properly verify the figures that
had emerged on financing the tribunals. The Secretariat had assured his
delegation that subsequent amendments regarding financing would be
provided in an informal way. Unfortunately, it had not been possible to
achieve consensus on the financing for the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The Russian Federation had shown
flexibility, he said, yet even its modified proposals were not reflected
in the text submitted by the Committee Chair. In his view, he said,
double standards and a politicized approach were adopted with respect to
the finance and technical issues. He urged completion of the
Tribunal’s work and the transfer of its remaining functions to the
Residual Mechanism, in line with the relevant Security Council
resolutions. He had been pressed to propose oral amendments.
Following a request by the representative of Cyprus
for a recorded vote on the amendments, the Assembly voted 59 against to
17 in favour, with 65 abstentions, thereby rejecting the proposal
(Annex IV). The draft resolution as a whole was then adopted by a
recorded vote of 139 in favour to none against, with 12 abstentions
(Annex V).
Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolutions on financing of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (document A/C.5/67/L.17) and on financing of the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT) (document A/C.5/67/L.4).
The Assembly turned next to the two draft resolutions contained in the report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget for the biennium 2012-2013 (documents A/C.5/67/L.18 and A/C.5/67/L.19).
Explaining its position before action on the first draft, Cuba’s
delegate, also on behalf of Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and
Iran, said the programme budget for 2012-2013 included estimates on
special political missions, good offices and other political initiatives
authorized by the General Assembly or Security Council. The
delegations were concerned at the inclusion of financial resources
related to the activities of the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on
the responsibility to protect, as the General Assembly “has not
legislated” that concept or defined it. The delegations were concerned
that the budget did not allow them to identify the level of resources
related to the responsibility to protect within the overall level of
funds requested for the Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide.
That inclusion did not help to reach agreement with regard to the
budgetary estimates for that thematic group. The delegations,
therefore, considered it necessary to call for a recorded vote on
section I of the draft resolution.
The representative of Iran
said his country had always supported the United Nations in the scope
of its work as long as it abided by international law. However, the
issue of the responsibility to protect was still under consideration by
the General Assembly. There was no reason to fund posts about which
there was no definition, he said, and that was why his country would
vote “no” on section I.
Section I was then
retained by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 12 against, with
22 abstentions (Annex VI). The draft resolution as a whole was adopted
without a vote, as was draft resolution II.
The representative of Syria,
speaking after the vote, said his country had voted in favour of the
draft text concerning financing for special political missions; however,
he had reservations about the allocation of certain resources. Special
Envoy Terje Roed-Larsen had exceeded his mandate by following up on
matters of two States, Lebanon and Syria, while he blatantly favoured
Israel. His delegation had joined the consensus on the programme budget
for the biennium; however, regarding revised estimates for the Human
Rights Council, he again expressed reservations on resources for two
positions related to that matter.
Next, the Assembly took up
the item on review of the efficiency of the administrative and
financial functioning of the United Nations (, adopting without a vote
the draft resolution on the proposed programme budget outline for the biennium 2014-2015 (document A/C.5/67/L.13), as well as a draft decision on questions deferred for future consideration (document A/C.5/67/L.20).
Also
acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted a resolution, under its
agenda item 139, on administrative and budgetary coordination of the
United Nations with the specialized agencies and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Other Business
The General Assembly then
filled three of five vacancies on the Organizational Committee of the
Peacebuilding Commission, as follows: Brazil, Malaysia and Peru for
two-year terms beginning on 1 January 2013.
Turning to the appointment
of members of the Committee on Conferences, the Assembly appointed Côte
d’Ivoire and Senegal to three-year terms beginning on 1 January 2013.
The Assembly next adopted
without a vote a draft decision to extend the terms of five judges on
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (document A/67/L.51),
as follows: Mehmet Güney (Turkey), Khalida Rachid Khan (Pakistan),
Arlette Ramaroson (Madagascar), Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov (Russian
Federation) and Andrésia Vaz (Senegal), who are members of the
tribunal’s Appeals Chamber, until 31 December 2014 or until the
completion of the cases to which they are assigned, whichever comes
first.
Also acting without a
vote, it adopted a draft decision to extend the terms of 21 judges on
the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (document A/67/L.52),
as follows: Appeals Chamber Judges Carmel Agius (Malta), Liu Daqun
(China), Theodor Meron (United States), Fausto Pocar (Italy) and Patrick
Robinson (Jamaica) until 31 December 2013; permanent Trial Chambers
Judges Jean-Claude Antonetti (France), Guy Delvoie (Belgium), Burton
Hall (Bahamas), Christoph Flügge (Germany), O-Gon Kwon (Republic of
Korea), Bakone Justice Moloto (South Africa), Howard Morrison (United
Kingdom) and Alphons Orie (Netherlands) until 31 December 2013; and ad
litem Trial Chamber Judges Elizabeth Gwaunza (Zimbabwe), Michèle Picard
(France), Árpád Prandler (Hungary) and Stefan Trechsel (Switzerland)
until 1 June 2013, and Melville Baird (Trinidad and Tobago), Flavia
Lattanzi (Italy), Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua (Democratic Republic of the
Congo)and Frederik Harhoff (Denmark) until 31 December 2013.
Closing Statement by General Assembly on 21 December
Reviewing achievements
made during the main part of the General Assembly’s sixty-seventh
session, VUK JEREMIĆ, President of the General Assembly, spotlighted the
adoption by the plenary, of, thus far, 231 resolutions and
63 decisions. Highlights included texts on human rights improvement,
freedom of religion or belief, combating intolerance, strengthening the
United Nations disarmament machinery and a so-called “humanitarian
omnibus resolution”.
However,
he said, the issue that had perhaps drawn the most attention was the
“historic” vote held on 29 November on granting the State of Palestine
non-Member Observer State status in the United Nations. As those votes
were cast, the President had extended an appeal to the Assembly — and to
Palestine and Israel in particular — to work for peace with the aim of
reaching a comprehensive settlement. “Today, allow me to call again for
a just peace in the holy land,” he said.
Indeed, in today’s
globalizing, interconnected world, “what happens in one part of the
world invariably affects us all”. It was with that in mind that he had
chosen “bringing about adjustment or settlement of international
disputes or situations by peaceful means” as the overarching theme for
the sixty-seventh session, he said, adding that, “in these tumultuous
times, the enormity of this challenge is evident”.
Mr. Jeremić had opened the
meeting informing the Assembly that negotiations had fallen short on a
draft resolution to set up the Open-Ended Working Group on the
Sustainable Development Goals, and that a decision on the matter — one
of the main outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference — would have to be
postponed until a later date. When he turned to sustainable development
during his closing statement, he said he would not be sharing the
longer portion of his statement that he had prepared on that topic.
“I have certain strong
beliefs which I am no longer prepared to share with this audience,” he
stressed in that regard. He personally believed that such a discussion
was critical to the future of humankind, and hoped that such views would
be “reflected in decisions we might make in this chamber”. However,
before such decisions or agreements occurred, he was no longer prepared
to speak in public about sustainable development.
Turning
to other matters, he said that, over the past few years, the Group
of 20 (G-20) had come to play an increasingly important role in the
debate on how to improve global economic governance. “I believe the
General Assembly, which operates on the basis of the sovereign equality
principle, can provide a unique platform to exchange views and share
information on shared economic concerns,” he said, announcing his
intention to launch a process that would lead to the establishment of a
non-intrusive form of regularized interaction between the Assembly and
the G-20.
The
intent of that initiative was not to infringe on established
prerogatives, but to complement existing international efforts, in
accordance with the G-20’s outreach to countries not in the collective
and the United Nations, he explained. In addition, he would organize a
thematic debate on ways to enhance dialogue between the G‑20 “and the
rest of the world”.
Among other high-level
thematic debates that would be convened in the months ahead would be one
in partnership with the Organization of American States (OAS) on social
inequality, one on the “role of international criminal justice in
reconciliation” and another on “culture and development”. A thematic
session would be devoted to examining “tools for peaceful resolution of
conflicts in Africa”, and a thematic debate would be held on “climate
change, green energy and water sustainability”. In addition, a thematic
session would be held on the International Year of Water Cooperation,
among other topics.
While those themes merited
the significant attention of the Assembly, Member States must also
endeavour to consistently implement what had already been agreed.
“Doing so should be seen by all Member States as a core principle of
effective multilateralism in the twenty-first century,” he said. It was
only the conduct and dedication of States that would determine the
future strength of the Assembly, he emphasized.
ANNEX I
Vote on Operative Paragraph 2, Arms Trade Treaty
Operative paragraph 2 of
the draft resolution on the arms trade treaty (document A/67/409) was
retained by a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 1 against, with
21 abstentions, as follows:
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus,
Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei
Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo,
Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea,
Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada,
Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia,
Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco,
Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New
Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic
of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis,
Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino,
Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa,
Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United
States, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia.
Against: Iran.
Abstain: Bahrain,
Bolivia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Mauritania, Myanmar, Namibia, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan,
Sudan, Syria, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Yemen.
Absent: Angola,
Azerbaijan, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde,
Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea,
Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Kenya,
Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Paraguay, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal,
Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan,
Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.
ANNEX II
Vote on Operative Paragraph 3, Arms Trade Treaty
Operative paragraph 3 of
the draft resolution on the arms trade treaty (document A/67/409) was
retained by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 1 against, with
24 abstentions, as follows:
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium,
Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei
Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa
Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Djibouti, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia,
Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala,
Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy,
Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia,
Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco,
Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania,
Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka,
Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,
Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States,
Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia.
Against: Iran.
Abstain: Bahrain,
Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait,
Lebanon, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates,
Venezuela, Yemen.
Absent: Angola,
Azerbaijan, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde,
Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea,
Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Kazakhstan, Kenya,
Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Paraguay, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal,
Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan,
Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.
ANNEX III
Vote on Arms Trade Treaty draft as a whole
The draft resolution on
the Arms Trade Treaty (document A/67/409) was adopted by a recorded vote
of 133 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium,
Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei
Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China,
Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland,
India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia,
Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia,
Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro,
Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria,
Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania,
Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain,
Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,
Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States,
Uruguay, Viet Nam, Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstain: Bahrain,
Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Oman,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela,
Yemen.
Absent: Angola,
Azerbaijan, Belize, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African
Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon,
Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati,
Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Paraguay, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal,
Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan,
Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.
ANNEX IV
Vote on Oral Amendment to Financing for Former Yugoslavia Tribunal
An oral amendment to the
draft resolution on the financing for the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (document A/67/675) was rejected by a
recorded vote of 59 against to 17 in favour, with 65 abstentions, as
follows:
Against: Albania,
Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan,
Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico,
Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San
Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States,
Uruguay.
In favour:
Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Kazakhstan, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Serbia, Sudan, Syria,
Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Abstain:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam,
Cameroon, Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guyana,
Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait,
Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali,
Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger,
Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda,
Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone,
Singapore, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates,
United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen.
Absent: Angola,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belize, Benin, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape
Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea,
Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Kenya,
Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Nepal, Palau, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and
Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon
Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga,
Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.
ANNEX V
Vote on International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Financing
The draft resolution as a
whole on the financing for the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia (document A/67/675) was adopted by a recorded vote of
139 in favour to none against, with 12 abstentions, as follows:
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium,
Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei
Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile,
Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador,
Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana,
Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland,
India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan,
Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar,
Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman,
Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal,
Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint
Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa,
San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South
Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland,
Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and
Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United
Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Viet Nam,
Yemen, Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstain: Belarus,
Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador,
Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Syria, Venezuela.
Absent: Angola,
Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belize, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African
Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica,
Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Micronesia
(Federated States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Palau, Paraguay, Sao Tome and
Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname,
Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu,
Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.
ANNEX VI
Vote on Section I, Draft on Programme Budget for Biennium 2012-2013
Section I of the draft
resolution on questions relating to the Programme Budget for the
Biennium 2012-2013 (document A/67/677) was retained by a recorded vote
of 113 in favour to 12 against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina,
Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon,
Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea,
Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada,
Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon,
Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia,
Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia,
Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal,
Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Kitts and
Nevis, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia,
South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda,
Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of
Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Yemen.
Against: Bolivia,
Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador,
Iran, Nicaragua, Niger, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sudan,
Venezuela, Zambia.
Abstain: Barbados,
Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, China, Djibouti, Ethiopia,
Fiji, Haiti, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Papua
New Guinea, Russian Federation, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands,
South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo, Zimbabwe.
Absent: Angola,
Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central
African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau,
Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Marshall
Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique, Nauru, Pakistan,
Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal,
Seychelles, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste,
Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.
