A/37/PV.111 General Assembly

As members will recall, the reports on the items now before the Assembly were introduced by the Rapporteur of the Third Committee at the 110th meeting. The Assembly will first consider the report of the Third Committee on agenda item 84 and take a decision'on the draft resolution contained in paragraph 8 of that report [A/37/715]. That draft resolution, entitled "Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance", was adopted by the Third Committee without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? The draft resolution was adopted(resolution 37//87). 2. The PRESIDENT: The representative of Iraq wishes to explain the position of his delegation on the draft resolution, and I call on him. 3. Mr. HUSSAIN (Iraq)(imerpretationfrom Arabic): In the Third Committee, my delegation joined in the consensus' on this draft resolution in view of the importance of the subject. 4. First of all, my delegation would like to express its appreciation for the efforts made by the delegation of Ireland and the other sponsors of the draft resolution and to thank them for their work. 5. On this occasion, I should like to refer briefly to the fact that my Government takes great care in respecting all religions and all denominations in accordance with its fundamental principles, since it considers that citizens have full freedom of religion, outside the political framework, provided that the revolutionary approach to the building of a new society and the applicable laws and regulations are not contravened. My country respects the clergy, to the point ofconsidering it up to the State to guarantee their future and that of their families, and has given reconsideration to their pay scales and entitlements, in addition to providing proper housing for them. We have also begun to distribute blocks ofland for housing free to the clergy as a result of co-ordination between local government and the Ministry ofTrust Lands and Religious Affairs, and they are categorized as having Question of a convention on the rights of the child (continued)

The Assembly will now take decisions on the draft resolutions recommended by

The Assembly will now turn .its attention to the report of the Third Committee on - " -- .... 21. Draft resolution I is entitled "International Covenants on Human Rights". The Third Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 37/19/). 22. The PRESIDENT: Draft resolution 11 is entitled "Capital punishment". Although there was a recorded vote on this draft resolution in the Third Committee, I am not aware that a recorded vote has been requested in the plenary Assembly. In the absence of such a request, may I take it that the Assembly adopts draft resolution II? Draft resolution II was adopted (resolution 37/192). 23. The PRESIDENT: I now call on the representative of Oman, who wishes to explain his delegation's position on the draft resolution just adopted. 24. Mr. MAKKI (Oman): My delegation went along with the adoption of draft resolution 11, mainly as the result of its procedural nature. I wish, however, to place it on record that my delegation quite clearly expressed strong opposition in the Thir~ Committee with regard to the substantive issue, the abolition of the death penalty, which clearly contradicts our. Islamic Sharia law. 25. The PRESIDENT: The Assembly will now consider the report of the Third Committee on agenda item 88 [A/37/727] and take decisions on the two draft resolutions recommended in paragraph 10 of that report. They were adopted without a vote in the Committee. 26. Draft resolution I is entitled "Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt that draft resolution?

We next turn to draft resolution 11, entitled "Principles of Medical Ethics". May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt that draft resolution also?

I now call on the representative of Canada, who wishes to explain his delegation's position.

My delegation wishes to announce to the General Assembly, during its consideration of agenda item 88, that the Government of Canada has decided to make a unilateral declaration of its continued compliance with the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected

Draft resolution III is entitled "International Conference on Assistance to Refugees in Africa". The administrative and«financial implications of this draft resolution are contained in the -report of the Fifth Committee [A/37/757]. 37. It is my understanding that a separate vote has been requested on operative paragraph 5 of draft resolution Ill. As I hear no objection, I take it that the Assembly has no objection to taking a separate vote on that paragraph. 38. I therefore now put to the vote operative paragraph 5 of draft resolution Ill. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken.

If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution 111 as a whole without a vote. Draft resolution lll, as a whole; was adopted (resolution 37/197). 40. The PRESIDENT: I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their position. 41. Mr. STEVENS (Belgium) (interpretation from French): Belgium continues to attach great importance to the problem of refugees in Africa. We must, indeed, continue to seek a satisfactory solution. My country is prepared to contribute to this end in so far as it can do so. However, my delegation feels that the holding of a special conference to deal with this matter is not the most appropriate method. We have learned from experience that such conferences yield few results when compared with the heavy financial costs involved in holding them. It would be preferable for the international community to continue to· deal with the question of refugees in Africa within the framework of existing United Nations structures-that is, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, assisted by the various competent international organizations. 42. For those reasons, my delegation abstained in the separate vote on operative paragraph 5 of draft resolution Ill. 51. Furthermore: six delegations have sponsored to amendments, in document A/37/L.57, to draft resolution I; 10 other delegations have sponsored 19 amendments, in document A/37/L.56, to draft resolution 11. 52. In accordance with rule 74 of the rules of procedure, my delegation proposes that the Assembly take no action on all the amendments contained in documents A/37/L.56 and A/37/L.57. I should like to explain briefly to my good friends who sponsored the 53. In the Third Committee, my delegation voted in favour ofboth draft resolution I and draft resolution 11. We did so because we found much merit in the two draft resolutions. We did so also because we did not regard them-and we do not regard them-as being hostile and mutually exclusive. The concept of human rights covers a whole spectrum of rights embracing social, economic, cultural, civil and political rights. Human rights have both a collective and an individual aspect. Draft resolution I gives greater emphasis to social and economic rights and to the collective aspect, whereas draft resolution 11 gives greater emphasis to civil and political rights and to the individual aspect. It is for that reason that we regard the two draft resolutions as being complementary and compatible. Together, they appear to my delegation to strike a reasonable balance in our approach to the question of human rights. 54. The amendments proposed in documents A/371 L.56 and A/37/L.57 are, in the view of my delegation, not helpful and if adopted would· tend to upset the balance which we find in the two draft resolutions, taken tog~ther. It is for that reason that f propose to this Ass~mbly not to take any action on all the draft amendtnents contained in documents A/37/L.56 and A/37/L.57. 55. I wish to make two other points· before I con- (;Iude. First, it is clear that rule 88 of our rules of procedure does not apply on this occasion because the process of voting has not yet begun. Secondly, if any of my colleagues should question the legality of my invocation of rule 74, I would request the Legal Counsel, or a member of his staff, to advise the Assembly on the legality of my motion, before it is put to the vote.

The representative of Singapore has invoked rule 74 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. For the sake of clarity, I shall read out that rule: "During the discussion of any matter,"-and we are at the stage of discussion-"a representative may move the adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote. The President may limit the time to be allowed to speakers under this rule." 57. I shall therefore call on two representatives to speak in favour of the motion and two to sfpeak against it.

In the first place, my delegation would like to ask for clarification. Rule 74, invoked by the representative of Singapore, speaks ofadjournment of the debate. Does this mean that if the debate were adjourned the amendments would be voted on at another time? .

As a representative of' a delegation which has sponsored one of the sets of amendments,~1think I should address myself to the motion of the representative of Singapore. These amendments, as can be seen, were submitted on 15 December. Today is Saturday, 18 December. Obviously, there is not enough time to give serious consideration to the matter that has now been raised, and my delegation, to facilitate and speed up the work of this Assembly, can support the proposal not to vote on either set of amendments. I think that would keep

I wanted to make the same point you have just made, Sir. As I see' it the representative of Argentina and I myself have indicated that we would speak against the motion, depending upon what the representative of the Legal Counsel would say. I therefore think that if other delegations were given an opportunity to speak in favour of the motion it would nQt be in conformity with the rules ofprocedure; and ofcourse it would not be fair to those who are not in favour ofthe motion-if it should be considered to be in order.

I am not going to speak either in favour of or against the motion before the Assembly regarding the application of rule 74. What I would like to say is merely for the consideration of the Legal Counsel himself, because, regardless of what his view may be, this body is the master of its own rules and we may overrule the Legal Counsel himself if it is our wish. So I should like to say a few words about the effect of rule 74 if applied. 78. The representative of Singapore has invoked rule 74 in proposing that the debate on this.matter be adjourned. The question, therefore, is what will be the effect if the debate is adjourned. Shall we proceed to a vote;or shall we postpone the debate, which means to say that we shall not debate th~s matter any more this year but shall debate it next year? My delegation is of the view that while there may be some doubt concerning the meaning of the word "adjournment" of the debate in the English version of rule 74, there can be no doubt about its meaning in Spanish-and Spanish is one of the official languages of the United Nations. The phrase in Spanish is: HTodo representante podra proponer el aplazamiento del debate". rrAplazamiento" is very clear; it means postponement. Therefore, if we postpone the debate on this item, that means that it will not be considered again at this session, but will be considered at the next session. That is the view of my delegation.

I think the representative ~f the Philippines has emphasized the point made by the representative of Morocco. But I do not want to prejudge the opinion of the representative ofthe Legal Counsel. Of course, one can cite several precedents in the Assembly in this regard. Adopting the motion would not necessarily mean that we would not take up the item itself. The motion is to adjourn the debate only on the amendments; it does not apply to the report - of the Third Committee on the item. I think that should be clear to the members of the Assembly. The representative of Singapore invoked rule 74 only with respect to the amendments submitted to the draft resolutions recommended in the report of the Third CommHtee. 80. I tend to agree with the representative of the Philippines, a Vice-President ofthe Assembly, thatthe opinion of the Legal Counsel is advice and is not bind~pg on the Assembly, because the Assembly is master of its own procedure. . 90. Perhaps those who, like the r-epresentative of Singapore, were not in the Third Committee are not fully fllmiliar with tile way that this draft resolution to which we have proposed amendments was handled in the Committee and it might be useful if at this stage I enlightened members as to exactly what happened. 91. We have two differem draft resolutions here: one is draft resolution I, which in the Committee had the document symbol A/C.3/37/L.31; the other is draft resolution II, which in the Committee had the document symbol A/C.3/37/L.41. Draft ff.:solution A/C.3/ 37/L.31 was discussed at length, over a period of four weeks. We had as many as 10 pages of amendments from various de1f;gations. Those delegations which had proposed amendments held extensive consultations with the sponsors, on the basis of which a revised text of the draft resolution was issued and that is the text that was voted upon. It was on that text that delegations expressed their opinions. A large number of delegations voted in favour, some abstained and one delegation voted against it. In that sense, the issue was settled as far as the Third Committee was concerned, and that is the issue that is being reopened here in the Assembly with the amendments in document A/37/L.57. 92. As regards draft resolution A/C.3/37/L.4I, which is now draft resolution 11 -

I am sorry to have to interrupt the representative of India;. Under this rule that we are discussing, the President cannot permit representatives to go into the d~tai!~ or history of the substance of an issue that is before the Assembly. Representatives may speak only in favour ofor against th~ motion, th~ vote. 98. I call on the representative of the Philippines on a point of order. 99. -Mr. MORENO-SALCEDO (Philippines): I regret I must interrupt .the voting, but what I have to say refers precisely to the conduct of the voting. Before In favour: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji,

Mydelegat!.on also intends to vote against draft resolution H. because neither in the Committee nor here in the General Assembly have we been allowed to express our views on it. 108. The amendments put forward in document A/37/L.56, to a larg~ extent, reflect the kind of text we should have wished to see emerge in draft resolution H. However, for procedural reasons, it has not been possible to have even a discussion of those· amendments. Therefore, while there are many elements in draft resolution II that we could support, we are compelied to vote ~gainst it. 109. I hope that in the future the procedures' we have seen adopted here today :ind that were adopted in the Third Committee will not be repeated, so that it will be possible to have a fuller discussion of the issues.relating to human rights. I also hope that when delegations take positions they will be able to do so 114. We are therefore concerned that in this whole approach, which includes many ideas that we can all support,. we see emerging the purpose of undermining the Universal Declaration. of Human Rights and replacing it with what has been called the "declaration on the right to development" which is a collective right, as many delegations have repeatedly stated. 115. Clearly, if this is adllpted, people will resort to this pretext, in order to say that when satisfactory conditions are not present for the development of peoples, one cannot hope for effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms for individual human beings. 116. In our experience as a developing country, we can state that our institutional life, which began after we obtained independence and which has been responsible for the regime of liberty and representative and participatory democracy in our country with regard to human rights and fundamental freedoms, has achieved development, particularly the development of our human resources. That is why our people, which cherishes peace, friendship and freedom of choice, is a happy and confident people that realizes its aspirations in full freedom. We are not economically developed, but even so we have greater development than some countries that have greater economicresources but lack those precious possessions. 117. We would have voted against all the amendments in document A/37/L.56, the sole objective of which was to destroy the approach of draft resolution 11, which refers specifically to human rights and fundamental freedoms for the individual.

My delegation intends again to vote against draft resolution 11 because, neither in the Third Committe~ nor in this plenary meeting, has my delegation been given the opportunity to .submit any amendments to that draft resolution or to debate that draft. We a,re compelled to vote against that draft resolution although it contains elements that we could accept. We regret that the amendments that my delegation sponsored in document A/37/L.56 could not be considered in the plenary Assembly due to the procedural motion put forward with regard to the two sets of amendments, in docume:tts A/37/L.56 and A/37/L.57. We hope that the way that draft resolution 11 has been dealt with at this session will not be repeated in future and that those representatives who have something to say on the question of substance will be permitted to speak and will not be prevented from doing so by a procedural motion which, by the way, could have been put forward only with regard to the amendments contained in document A/37/L.57.

As has been so ably said by the representatfve or'Singapore, the two - draft' resoluffc>ns 126. That is why the Third Committee decided to adopt two draft resolutions ofa complementary nature under this item. In so far as the procedure in the Committee itself formally is concerned, I can endorse the views expressed by the representative of Sweden and add that when the Chairman of the Third Committee specifically requested delegations to put forward amendments at the time that was appropriate, those delegations, for reasons of their own, chose not to do so.

The Soviet delegation will vote in favour of draft resolution I, for that draft resolution is fully in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant international instruments relating to human rights and it fully takes account of the underlying basic concepts in regard to future activities in respect of human rights, as set forth in Assembly resolution 32/130. I should like to recall that that resolution was adopted with the support of delegations from all regional groups and in the absence Df any negative votes; only eight delegations abstained in the voting. 128. Draft resolution I contains a number of basic provisions which are essential to future activities in the area of human rights within the United Nations: it emphasizes the importance of States undertaking specific obligations through accession to, or ratification of, existing international instruments in this field; it reaffirms that international peace and security are essential elements in achie.ving the full realization of the right to development and the implementation of human rights; and it reiterates the need to accord priority to the search for solutions to mass and flagrant violations of human rights of the peoples and individuals affected by situations such as those mentioned in paragraph I (e) ofresolution 32/130. This draft resolution thus continues human rights action and develops international co-operation among States, in accord- . ance with resolution 32/130. 129. The Soviet delegation, at the same time, will, as it did in the Third Committee, vote against draft resolution 11, for the advocates of the draft resolution are trying to wipe out resolution 32/130 and other resolutions that have been adopted in recent years. They are trying to cancel out the provisions of such fundamental resolutions as 32/130 and the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights. They are trying to cancel out the importance of what has been achieved in economic, social and cultural rights. They In fin'our: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen; Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, .Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic ot), Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Li~yan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: United States of America. Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, J

I shall call now on those representatives who wish to explain their vote after the voting.

With regard to draft resolutions I and 11 in document A/37/693, my delegation would like to state that it views General Assembly resolution 32/130 as th~ corner-stone of action in the field of alternative ways and means for improving the effective implementation of human

I invite the Assembly to turn its a~tention to document A/37/769, containing a note by the Secretary-General relating to the election of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. * Resumed from the 70th meeting. NOTES I The delegation of Cyprus subsequently informed the Secre- tariat that it had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution. 2 The delegation of Cyprus subsequently informed the Secre- tariat that it had intended to vote in favour ofoperative paragraph 5. 3 The delegation of Zambia subsequently informed the Secre- tariat that it had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution.