A/62/PV.109 General Assembly

I have the honour today to present to the General Assembly the reports of the Fifth Committee containing recommendations on issues that require action during the second part of the resumed sixty-second session of the General Assembly. In the course of the second part of the resumed session, which took place between 5 May and 13 June 2008, the Fifth Committee held 15 formal meetings, as well as numerous informal meetings and informal consultations. In accordance with General Assembly resolution 49/233 of 23 December 1994, the second part of the resumed session of the Fifth Committee was devoted primarily to considering the financing of United Nations peacekeeping missions and associated peacekeeping issues. The Committee considered the financing of 18 peacekeeping missions, related peacekeeping items and other issues. With regard to sub-item (a), entitled “United Nations peacekeeping operations”, of agenda item 125, entitled “Financial reports and audited financial statements, and reports of the Board of Auditors”, in paragraph 6 of its report contained in document A/62/534/Add.l, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of a draft resolution that was adopted by the Committee without a vote. In paragraph 13 of its report under agenda item 140, entitled “Administrative and budgetary aspects of the financing of the United Nations peacekeeping operations”, which is contained in document A/62/600/Add.1, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of three draft resolutions. Draft resolution I is entitled “Support account for peacekeeping operations”, draft resolution II is entitled “Financing of the United Nations Logistics Base at Brindisi, Italy” and draft resolution III is entitled “Reformed procedures for determining reimbursement to Member States for contingent-owned equipment”. In paragraph 14 of the same report, the Committee also recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of an oral draft decision entitled “Use of 300-series and 100-series appointments”. All the draft resolutions and the decision were adopted without a vote. With regard to the draft proposals on the financing of peacekeeping operations, I should like to inform the General Assembly that, with the exception of sub-item (b), entitled “United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon”, of agenda item 153, entitled “Financing of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Middle East”, the Committee adopted all the draft proposals without a vote. The reports of the Fifth Committee are presented under the following agenda items: 141, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Operation in Burundi”; 142, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire”; 143, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus”; 144, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”; 146, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor”; 147, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste”; 148, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea”; 149, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia”; 150, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti”; 151, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo”; 152, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Mission in Liberia”; sub-item (a), entitled “United Nations Disengagement Observer Force”, of item 153, entitled “Financing of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Middle East”; 154, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone”; 155, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Mission in the Sudan”; 156, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara”; 161, entitled “Financing of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur”; and 164, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad”. With regard to sub-item (b), entitled “United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon”, of agenda item 153, entitled “Financing of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Middle East”, the report of the Fifth Committee is contained in document A/62/878. With regard to the draft resolution recommended by the Committee to the General Assembly for adoption, the Committee decided to retain the fourth preambular paragraph and operative paragraphs 4, 5 and 21 by a single recorded vote of 74 in favour, 4 against and 45 abstentions. In paragraph 14 of that report, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the draft resolution as a whole, which was adopted in the Committee by a recorded vote of 124 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention. Under agenda item 126, entitled “Review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations”, the Committee had before it a draft resolution entitled “Procurement reform”, which the Committee adopted without a vote. Under the same agenda item, in paragraph 15 of document A/62/604/Add.2, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of a draft decision entitled “Questions deferred for future consideration”, which the Committee adopted without a vote. Before I conclude, allow me again to thank delegations for their cooperation in the conduct of negotiations. I would also like to thank Ambassador Hamidon Ali, Chairman of the Fifth Committee, for the way in which he guided us through our difficult work. I should also like to thank the members of the Bureau, with whom it was, as always, a pleasure to work. On behalf of all of us, I would also like to express our profound thanks to the representatives of the Secretariat — and especially the secretariat of the Fifth Committee — for their cooperation, patience and support.

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports that are before the Assembly today.

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. The positions of delegations regarding the recommendations of the Fifth Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind members that, under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401, the General Assembly agreed that “When the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, i.e., either in the Committee or in plenary meeting unless that delegation’s vote is different from its vote in the Committee”. May I remind delegations that, also in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Before we begin to take action on the recommendations contained in the reports of the Fifth Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we are going to proceed to take decisions in the same manner as was done in the Fifth Committee, unless notified otherwise in advance. That means that where separate or recorded votes were taken, we will do the same. I should also hope that we may proceed to adopt without a vote those recommendations that were adopted without a vote in the Fifth Committee.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 125.

Draft resolution II is entitled “Financing of the United Nations Logistics Base at Brindisi, Italy”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

Draft resolution III is entitled “Reformed procedures for determining reimbursement to Member States for contingent-owned equipment”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The draft decision is entitled “Use of 300-series and 100-series appointments”. The Fifth Committee adopted the draft decision without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 140.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 141.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 142.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 143.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 144.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 146.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 147.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 148.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 149.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 150.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 151.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 152.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 153. (b) United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon Report of the Fifth Committee (A/62/878) The Acting President: The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 14 of its report. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon”. A single separate vote has been requested on the fourth preambular paragraph and operative paragraphs 4, 5 and 21 of the draft resolution. Is there any objection to that request? There is none. A recorded vote has been requested.

I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested. [Subsequently, the delegation of Malta advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.]

I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, who wishes to speak in explanation of vote following the voting.

My delegation joined in the consensus adoption of the resolution entitled “Financing of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force”. We also voted in favour of the resolution entitled “Financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon”. We did so on the basis of a principle that we have always emphasized, namely, that the responsibility for financing those two missions must be borne by Israel, the aggressor and occupying Power responsible for the establishment of those operations. Our position is in line with the general principles enshrined in resolution 1874 (S-IV), adopted on 27 June 1963 during the fourth special session of the General Assembly.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 153.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 154.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 155.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 156.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 161.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 164.

The draft decision is entitled “Questions deferred for future consideration”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 126. The General Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of all the reports of the Fifth Committee before it.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Bahamas.

I have the honour of making this statement on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States, which has actively participated in the ongoing consultations concerning the composition of the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission. We thank the President of the General Assembly and his Office for all their efforts in that regard, and while we welcome this decision as an interim accommodation, we must state unequivocally that it does not address the fundamental concerns of the Latin American and Caribbean Group regarding the composition and distribution criteria of the Peacebuilding Commission. After many months of continued discussions, it remains clear to us that the Commission is a body created by the United Nations that does not respond adequately to the principle of equitable geographical distribution. As currently constituted, the Commission stands as an organ primarily for troop and financial donors, and that is not a trend that the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States is willing to advance. We are of the conviction that it would be in the best interests of the entire Organization to continue to review the composition of the Peacebuilding Commission with a view to redressing imbalances on a sustainable basis, thus reflecting the reality that the experience and contributions of all regions are valuable to the work of the Commission. For the Latin American and Caribbean States, the principle of equitable geographical representation is fundamental to the consolidation of universal multilateralism. From the time of its inception and, more recently, in the framework of ongoing consultations, we have continuously defended a balanced representation in the overall composition of the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission. We firmly believe that a balanced representation of all regional groups is fundamental to the legitimacy of the body and that the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission would benefit greatly from such a composition. In that context, the States members of our Group intend to pursue, in consultation and collaboration with the other regional groups, a solid and long-term solution to the challenge of underrepresented regional groups. We reiterate our conviction that this can and should be done through the election of members from within the wider General Assembly, a component of the constituting resolution that was included precisely for the purpose of balancing the general composition of this Commission. That continues to be our interpretation of sub-item (e) of operative paragraph 4 of resolution 60/180. Once again, on behalf of the States members of the Latin American and Caribbean Group, I thank President Kerim for his guidance and assistance in bringing us to this critical point, where the only option is one of forward movement. We look forward to working with him and all Member States in a spirit of cooperation and mutual support in finding a lasting and equitable solution for regional representation on the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (c) of agenda item 113.

I give the floor to the representative of Mexico.

On behalf of the sponsoring countries Belarus, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, the Dominican Republic, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Venezuela and Mexico, I have the honour to introduce the draft resolution contained in document A/62/L.25/Rev.2, entitled “Global Forum on Migration and Development”. The draft resolution takes into consideration, among other elements, the fact that the summary of the High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development, held in 2006, underlined the close link among migration, development and human rights, as well as that respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants was essential for taking advantage of the positive aspects of international migration. The draft resolution stresses the need to promote a comprehensive and coherent discussion on all aspects of the phenomenon of migration, taking into account its importance on the global agenda. It also recalls that Member States participating in the High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development expressed interest in continuing the dialogue on migration and supported the proposal of the Secretary-General to create a global forum to address, in depth and in a systematic manner, all topics related to international migration and development. In that sense, it recognizes that the Global Forum on Migration and Development should be strengthened with the aim of addressing the multidimensional aspects of international migration and development with a comprehensive approach. In paragraph 1, it recognizes that exchanges of information and expertise, consultation and closer cooperation between the Global Forum on Migration and Development and the United Nations could have a positive impact and, in that regard, proposes a series of measures to be taken. In paragraph 2, it welcomes the inclusion of the topic of the human rights of migrants in the Forum’s agenda. I would like to point out that in the Chinese and English versions of the draft resolution, there is a mistake in the third preambular paragraph. The subject of resolution 62/156 should read “protection of migrants” instead of “protection of migrant workers”. The draft resolution on which we are taking action today has been the subject of four open-ended consultative processes and a significant number of consultations in other formats since December 2007. The differences between the original version, in document A/62/L.25, and the revised version speak for themselves and show the enormous flexibility and political will of the sponsors in addressing all concerns. On that basis, we invite all delegations to support the draft resolution. I would now like to make some remarks in my national capacity. The issue of migration is of unquestionable historical relevance and has become a topic of major importance in the context of globalization. It is evident that, in a significant number of cases, the current composition of our societies is indissociably connected to historical and current migratory flows. A clear example of that is the western hemisphere, which, from North to South, is made up of societies that are the product of various migratory flows originating from every region. These are mixed societies on several different levels. Mexico is proud of its mixed heritage. Migration enriches our societies, rendering them more diverse and pluralistic, encouraging the exchange and evolution of ideas. In conjunction with the implementation of adequate policies, we can advance towards creating more tolerant, open, universal and, above all, humane communities. As sponsors of the draft resolution, we believe in the capacity of the United Nations to reach that objective. In addition, regarding the topic of development, the receiving countries benefit from migratory flows that complement their need for skilled and unskilled labour. That is particularly relevant in societies whose demographic structure does not guarantee growth or the maintenance of their current economic standards. On the other hand, in the countries of origin, diaspora communities generally play a relevant role within the economic structure. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that migration poses a number of important challenges. Those challenges are serious and varied. There are concerns regarding security; economic consequences, such as the loss of human capital from developing countries; and social consequences, such as the disintegration of the family. In the vast majority of cases, migrants’ only intention is to secure a better future for themselves and their families, even at the cost of risking their lives, leaving their homes, cultures and language, only to then encounter foreign and, in some cases, hostile environments. In that regard, tendencies to criminalize the most vulnerable populations are particularly alarming. My delegation considers that cooperation and dialogue among all stakeholders involved in migration — including, inter alia, Governments, specialized agencies, civil society and the private sector — are essential if we are to take full advantage of the potential benefits of migration, consistently facing the challenges posed by the various aspects of the issue through an integrated and multidimensional approach. That approach should take into consideration above all that migration is not about the flow of goods or resources, but about human beings, who cannot be handled or managed in a mechanical way. It is therefore indispensable to keep human beings and the need to decisively guarantee the protection of human rights and dignity at the core of our considerations. The fight against racism and xenophobia and the defence of all the rights of migrants, particularly when they constitute a vulnerable population, are essential efforts. That is in line with the spirit and the letter of the United Nations Charter, as well as its highest values and the agreements reached in various documents within the framework of the Organization. We are aware of the way in which the topic of migration has been addressed within the framework of the United Nations in recent years and we embrace that accumulated knowledge. Allow me to explain the main factors that motivated us in presenting this draft resolution. The first was our commitment to multilateralism and our trust in the United Nations as the most democratic and representative international organization, as it promotes open and honest dialogue among Member States as partners for development. The second was our commitment to the universal and non-selective protection of human rights, including those of migrants, regardless of their migratory status. In that context, we believe that the Global Forum on Migration and Development proposed by the Secretary-General can provide a privileged space for a full and coherent discussion of all the topics related to international migration and development. In that regard, the draft resolution recognizes that, although the United Nations and the Forum are of different natures, closer cooperation between the two could have a positive impact in addressing the topic of migration. The draft resolution also sends a clear message that discussions on migration cannot exclude the human component, and it therefore welcomes the inclusion of the topic of human rights in the agenda of the second session of the Forum. On the eve of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and given the current challenges in this area to which we all are witness on an almost daily basis, we believe it crucial to point out that full respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants is a sine qua non condition for taking advantage of the positive aspects of international migration. We believe that, in addressing the topic of migration, human beings should be at the centre of our discussions. For Mexico, supporting this draft resolution means supporting an integrated approach to the topic of migration, taking into account human beings; it means supporting a more effective multilateralism and the role that the United Nations can play in the search for solutions to the challenges we face. We are convinced of the great value of the work of the United Nations and the benefits that can be reaped from it in other forums. No matter now difficult an issue might be, the United Nations has an historical role to play in its treatment. Supporting the draft resolution is an additional step in our commitment to creating more tolerant, open, universal and, above all, humane communities.

We will now proceed to consider draft resolution A/62/L.25/Rev.2, as orally corrected. In connection with the draft resolution, I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I would like to inform members that, under the terms of paragraph 1 (b) of draft resolution A/62/L.25/Rev.2, the General Assembly would request the Secretary-General to include in his report, called for in resolution 61/208, an evaluation of the existing cooperation mechanisms on migration and development and to make it available to the second meeting of the Global Forum. It is recalled in this connection that the programme budget implication statement, contained in document A/C.5/62/19, was issued in December 2007 in response to the request in paragraph 1 (a) of draft resolution A/62/L.25 to present at the second meeting of the Global Forum, to be held in Manila, an evaluation of the existing cooperation mechanisms on migration and development. It is further recalled that, at its 26th meeting, on 26 December 2007, the Fifth Committee, having considered the statement of programme budget implications submitted by the Secretary-General and the related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, decided to inform the General Assembly that, should it adopt draft resolution A/62/L.25, additional requirements of $110,000 would be met within the overall appropriations under section 9, Economic and social affairs, of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009 and also decided to report thereon in the context of the performance report. The General Assembly, however, did not adopt draft resolution A/62/L.25 in December 2007. The request in paragraph 1 (b) of draft resolution A/62/L.25/Rev.2 provides for a change from a standalone report on the evaluation of existing cooperation mechanisms on migration and development to a part of the regular Secretary-General’s report to be submitted by the General Assembly in accordance with its resolution 61/208. That change would also result in the amendment to the programme budget implications contained in the previous programme budget implications statement of draft resolution A/62/L.25 as follows. The Secretary-General’s report requested in resolution 61/208, to be submitted at the sixty-third session, is to be ready by the end of July 2008. Given the short lead time, the evaluation would not be as detailed as originally envisioned in the original programme budget implication statement, contained in document A/C.5/62/19. Therefore, the consultant to carry out the evaluation could be hired for a maximum of one work month at $10,000. That amount would be met from within existing resources under section 9, Economic and social affairs, of the programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009. The contractual service requirements originally envisaged in document A/C.5/62/19 would no longer apply. As the requested evaluation would be part of the Secretary-General’s report, the additional translation, editing and printing costs would be accommodated within the resources allocated for the preparation of the report. Since the report would be issued as an official United Nations document, it could be distributed to all permanent missions in New York prior to the Global Forum’s meeting. Copies of the report could also be delivered by Department for Economic and Social Affairs staff attending the Forum, disseminated electronically and/or reproduced locally. Accordingly, should the General Assembly adopt draft resolution A/62/L.25/Rev.2, no additional resources would be required over and above the level of resources approved under section 9, Economic and social affairs, of the programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009. As the requested evaluation would be part of the already programmed report, no modifications would be required for the programme of work of section 9, Economic and social affairs.

Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of vote before the voting, allow me to remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

The United States will vote against this draft resolution because it seeks to link the Global Forum on Migration and Development with the United Nations. The Forum is an independent, intergovernmental process that falls outside of the United Nations system, and we believe that separation should be maintained. We do not see the need for closer cooperation between the Forum and the United Nations, as called for in the draft resolution, nor do we believe that the Secretary-General should be requested to prepare reports for the Forum, as the draft resolution also proposes. The United States believes that follow-up to the High-level Dialogue on Migration and Development should appropriately be addressed in the Second Committee of the General Assembly, which has a biennial agenda item on the topic of international migration and development. That item is on the provisional agenda of the Assembly’s sixty-third session, and we look forward to a thorough discussion of it this fall. The United States values international migration and is proud of its strong immigrant tradition. According to United Nations statistics, the United States is home to 20 per cent of the world’s migrants. Between 2000 and 2006, over 6 million migrants became legal permanent residents of our country. We believe that those facts speak to the level of opportunity, integration and success that immigrants in the United States enjoy. United States policy on international migration focuses on the promotion of respect for the human rights of migrants, the protection of asylum-seekers and refugees, opposition to uncontrolled and illegal migration, support for anti-trafficking efforts, and encouragement of the rapid and successful integration of our legal immigrants. The United States believes strongly that orderly migration, when managed effectively, benefits countries of origin and destination, as well as migrants themselves.

Canada will vote against draft resolution A/62/L.25/Rev.2 because we have serious reservations both about its objective and about certain elements of the text. We deeply regret that Mexico and the group of sponsors were not willing to continue with the regular process of open and inclusive informal negotiations on the text in order to address in a satisfactory manner the concerns raised repeatedly by a large number of delegations since the first draft was submitted in December. Allow me to explain clearly what Canada’s position concerning the draft resolution does not reflect. Our position is not a reflection of the importance that Canada attaches to constructive dialogue between States on the multidimensional aspects of international migration and development. Over the past few years, we have witnessed a growing sophistication in the way migration is considered. Linkages between migration and development are being explored in greater depth — an approach that Canada finds valuable. Canada is actively involved in international relations related to migration and development at the bilateral and regional levels, as well as in a variety of multilateral forums, including the Global Forum on Migration and Development. Our position on the draft resolution is not in any way a reflection of the importance we attach to human rights issues. Canada fully supports the protection and the promotion of human rights for all. We hope that all countries participating in the second meeting of the Global Forum, to be held in Manila in October 2008, will come prepared to share information on the practical steps that they have taken in their own countries to advance the issues that will be discussed at the Forum, including the very important question of human rights. Canada considers that the Global Forum on Migration and Development presents an opportunity for constructive, productive dialogue on that subject and for advancing the human rights of migrants through concrete and practical initiatives. Less than two years ago, after participating in the High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development, the vast majority of countries represented at the High-level Dialogue opted to launch an independent, States-led Global Forum on Migration and Development outside the framework of the United Nations. Canada has been actively involved in those efforts. The Global Forum has an appropriate mechanism for States to consider its direction — the assembly of countries known as the Friends of the Forum, whose responsibility it is to determine the direction of the Global Forum. Given that arrangement, Canada does not believe that a General Assembly draft resolution focused on the Forum is appropriate. Canada also regrets that the draft resolution does not respect the intergovernmental agreement concerning deliberations on international migration and development that Member States agreed to at the sixtyfirst session following the High-level Dialogue. In resolution 61/208, the General Assembly decided that possible options for appropriate follow-up to the Highlevel Dialogue would be considered at its sixty-third session. Further, Canada supports the efficient and rational management of the General Assembly’s work. The General Assembly has a dedicated agenda item on international migration and development, and that is where matters related to international migration and development should be taken up. We trust that the present draft resolution will not become an annual occurrence, resulting in unnecessary duplication of work and of reporting. In relation to the draft resolution, Canada recalls the remarks of the Secretary-General at the time of the High-level Dialogue: “There is no consensus on making international migration the subject of formal, norm-setting negotiations” (A/61/PV.3, p. 4). In the absence of such consensus and in light of the widely differing views on the appropriate role for the United Nations in that area at this time, Canada encourages Member States that wish to further constructive, rather than divisive, dialogue to focus their efforts on the work of the Global Forum in order to develop concrete approaches and practices that further the positive outcomes of international migration and development.

Indonesia takes the floor to give an explanation of vote before the voting on the draft resolution entitled “Global Forum on Migration and Development”, contained in document A/62/L.25/Rev.2. Indonesia, as a country of emigration, immigration and transit, has always made the issue of migration a top priority of our policy. It is therefore very important to have a common and global framework in the United Nations based on the multidimensional nature of migration that captures the opportunities and tackles the challenges arising from international migration. At this juncture, it is crucial to maintain a consensus on the draft resolution in support of that important issue, which has also been addressed at the bilateral, regional and global levels, and by international organizations, including within the framework of the United Nations. Indonesia does not believe that voting is the appropriate decision-making process to resolve the issues surrounding the draft resolution, and we are of the view that voting on the draft resolution would only diminish the basic framework on international migration that we have been working towards. For that reason, we shall abstain in the voting on the draft resolution, which should be adopted by consensus. Nevertheless, my delegation fully supports all positive measures, such as the Global Forum on Migration and Development, that broaden our perspective and provide insight for States Members of the United Nations. While the Forum is an informal and State-led initiative, it can serve as a confidencebuilding measure to discuss the complex, multidimensional aspects of international migration and development in a systematic and comprehensive way.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/62/L.25/Rev.2, entitled “Global Forum on Migration and Development”, as orally corrected. Additional sponsors are Bolivia and Venezuela. A recorded vote has been requested.

Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of vote, I would remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. I now give the floor to the representative of Cuba.

Our delegation wishes first of all to thank the authors of the resolution we have just adopted for their efforts to find common ground for understanding on the complex subject of international migration and its implications for the development of our countries. We were powerfully struck by the double standard with which forums that are organized outside of the United Nations are handled. Some that are used to attack and defame Members of this Organization seem to be favoured, while others that have more noble intentions are rejected when they are not to the liking of some of the most powerful countries of the world. The current phenomenon of global migration is directly related to the present and unsustainable international economic and political order in which the poor majorities are simply marginalized by the ultra-orthodox logic of the market of neoliberal globalization. It is necessary to consider that subject comprehensively, linking it, above all, to development policies that respond to the structural causes of migration flows in our day. To criminalize migrants, to militarize or build walls at borders, to adopt laws and resolutions that make it possible to detain migrants for long periods of time without legal guarantees or, worse yet, to politicize the subject of migration, inciting many to migrate illegally in insecure and risky circumstances, do nothing to help the genuine cooperation that is needed in this regard. Partisan approaches only fuel xenophobia, racism, racial discrimination and prejudices against minorities, and promote the inhuman illegal trafficking in persons. The Cuban delegation hopes that the initiatives on global migration promoted within and outside the framework of the United Nations will contribute to the emergence of solutions that change the structural causes of the phenomenon. If we limit ourselves to formulas to control migration flows, we will merely be postponing the crisis that looms on the horizon. The beneficiaries of the present world order should reflect and at least act with intelligence and common sense if they do not wish to act with generosity.

I have the honour to take the floor in explanation of my delegation’s vote after the voting. It is the view of Malaysia that the resolution just adopted does not accurately or in a nuanced manner convey how the rights of migrants are to be discussed across the entire migration chain and the role of sending and receiving States alike as duty-bearers at the second meeting of the Global Forum on Migration and Development in Manila at the end of this year. We regret that the resolution does not treat all the issues before the Global Forum in an equal manner and with the same emphasis. It is also the view of my delegation that the overall concept of the resolution creates a bad precedent for involving the United Nations in an essentially independent State-led initiative. As was decided in resolution 61/208, the question of the Global Forum is to be considered as a follow-up to the 2006 High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development, and that the relationship between the Forum and the United Nations is to be discussed at the upcoming sixty-third session of the General Assembly. As such, it was premature at this stage for the resolution to have been discussed. We believe that the resolution should not in any way prejudge or be used as a basis of discussions for the negotiations that we are to have at the sixty-third session. Malaysia looks forward to constructive discussions at that time. It is for the reasons that I have explained that my delegation has abstained in the voting on the resolution.

It is my honour to take the floor on behalf of the European Union. On 6 June, the European Union asked for the postponement of the consideration of the agenda item on the Global Forum on Migration and Development. We did so because we believe that, in today’s world, marked by globalization and significant demographic change, the dialogue on migration and development has become very important. In that context, the need for a resolution on the Global Forum on Migration and Development that represents the view of the wider membership of the United Nations is even greater; hence the need to strive for a consensual outcome. In 2006, the topic was addressed at the High-level Dialogue in New York. In the same year, the General Assembly adopted the Second Committee resolution on international migration and development, also mentioned in the resolution considered in today’s plenary meeting. It is in that document that States Members of the United Nations agreed to include in the agenda of the sixty-third session of the General Assembly the issue of international migration and development. The European Union believes that the discussion introduced with the item on today’s agenda is premature and not in accordance with the will expressed by the General Assembly during its sixtyfirst session. The 2006 resolution on international migration and development noted with interest in its preambular part the offer of the Government of Belgium to convene in 2007 a State-led initiative, the Global Forum on Migration and Development. In his address to the Forum, the Secretary-General noted that, “For many years, Member States of our United Nations found it hard to discuss the sensitive issue of migration in the international arena”. The importance of the Global Forum is therefore tremendous, as it offers the opportunity for countries to continue the dialogue on migration and development and to contribute to the development of holistic approaches to the issue. The Forum is a useful tool for the exchange of views and ideas on how to tackle challenges emanating from the nexus between migration and development. The European Union has always been a strong supporter of the Global Forum in the belief that it can bring added value, provided that it is informal, voluntary, non-binding and driven by interested United Nations Member States and participants. The cooperation between the United Nations and the Forum is through the Secretary-General’s Special Representative, which was reaffirmed by the members of the Forum in its guiding principles. Members of the Forum have not agreed on a stronger link and therefore we should not act prematurely, with only one Forum meeting behind us. Rather, we should take advantage of its consultative nature for confidence-building among States and for achieving progress towards better integrating migration as a positive factor in development policies. In the contrary case, we risk jeopardizing a process that brings practical responses to the challenges and opportunities of migration and development. On 6 June, we expressed our view that the draft resolution presented on that date failed to represent the view of the wider membership of the United Nations. Since then, we have engaged in further informal consultations, which have resulted in the text before us today. The European Union appreciates that the sponsors have incorporated some amendments. Nevertheless, the new resolution presented today does not address all of our concerns. It is for that reason that the European Union abstained in today’s voting. Furthermore, the European Union is of the view that the follow-up to the High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development should continue to be dealt with in the context of the biennial Second Committee agenda item dedicated to international migration and development.

My delegation would like to put on record the simple reason why it abstained in the voting on resolution 62/270. The obvious reason was to demonstrate our neutrality on this polarized issue, as expected of the host of the second meeting of the Global Forum on Migration and Development.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote after the vote. Several delegations have asked for the floor to make statements after adoption, and I shall call on them now.

My delegation welcomes the adoption of resolution 62/270 today because we believe that it will facilitate greater cooperation between the Global Forum on Migration and Development and the United Nations system. As a sponsor of the resolution, Ecuador associates itself with the statement made by the representative of Mexico and wishes to reiterate its traditional position that the analysis and discussion of migration and development being conducted at various levels, in particular multilaterally, should include the issue of the human rights of migrants in all forums, whether by Member States, United Nations bodies, civil society or the private sector, pursuant to the close link among migration, development and human rights that has already been highlighted as a result of the High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development, held by the Assembly in September 2006. Ecuador supports the recommendation of the Secretary-General that the Global Forum examine in depth and systematically all topics related to international migration and development. The Secretary-General emphasized in his report of 18 May 2006 (A/60/871) that, within the United Nations system there is no single entity that examines those subjects systematically. Following several months of negotiations, the sponsors displayed great flexibility and a spirit of conciliation to achieve consensus on subjects related to the link between the Forum and the United Nations system and the human rights of migrants on the agenda of the Manila meeting. That reflects the commitment of all United Nations Members that consideration of the human rights of migrants should be comprehensive and holistic. Ecuador believes that the huge interest shown by a number of delegations in the subject before us today demonstrates the need for the link among migration, development and human rights to be discussed and in a systematic and sustained manner in the Assembly; in adopting today’s resolution, Member States are thus working in the right direction towards that end. Ecuador, in co-sponsoring and supporting the resolution, acted consistently with its migration policy at the national and international levels as a country of origin and destination for migration. It suffices to mention that in the Constituent Assembly, which is now preparing a new constitution for Ecuador, we have approved the recognition of universal citizenship, which would entail, among other things, the elimination of tourist visas for the admission into our territory of all citizens of the world. Ecuador views with concern the fact that, in the context of the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — which in article 13 highlights the right of everyone to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State and to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country — the European Parliament has adopted a directive of return, applicable in European Union member States, to residents from third countries residing illegally, by which persons with an illegal status can be imprisoned for a period of between 6 and 12 months if they do not comply with a deportation order 30 days after notification. Those measures are a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of international human rights instruments because they criminalize illegal immigration, which is prohibited under the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Ecuador believes that the penalization of illegal immigration cannot be concealed behind a policy of return because the latter is imposed not by force, but voluntarily in the context of basic respect for human rights and guarantees in a spirit of cooperation and dialogue. Ecuador regrets that the resolution that we have adopted on a topic that means so much to us all was not adopted by consensus and that some delegations opposed it despite the fact that the issue of migration, from a human rights perspective, is of supreme importance on the global agenda and, as a multilateral topic, falls within the Organization’s responsibility. Ecuador will continue to work towards constructive dialogue on migration without limiting the comprehensive focus on the human rights of migrants and their families, in accordance with the mandate established by our heads of State in the final document of the 2005 World Summit.

The Nicaraguan delegation, as a sponsor, associates itself with the statement made by the representative of Mexico. We welcome the adoption of resolution 62/270 on the Global Forum on Migration and Development and are grateful to those who supported us. At the same time, we regret that some delegations did not support the initiative and remained inflexible throughout a lengthy process of negotiations, in which the sponsors clearly showed flexibility towards reaching consensus. The sponsors were aware of the great need for dialogue on this subject at different levels — particularly at the multilateral level, where it is possible to consider the problems and opportunities presented by migration from a multidimensional perspective — and to adopt measures to protect and promote the human rights of migrants. The High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development, held in 2006, emphasized the close relationship among migration, development and human rights. For that reason, we believe that any initiative to discuss the issue under that principle will always be welcome. Likewise, we are pleased that the initial proposal of the Secretary-General to create a global forum that would address that issue in depth and systematically has been brought to fruition by the convening of the Global Forum on Migration and Development in Brussels in 2007 and its second meeting, to be held in the Philippines this year. We hope that the adoption of resolution 62/270 will be the beginning of a close and constructive relationship between the Forum and the United Nations as the universal body where the interests of all actors involved converge and where subjects are approached on terms of equality, justice and solidarity so as to ensure that the outcome of discussions is aimed at improving situations and not at favouring a certain group. Far from resolving the problem, addressing the topic of migration with agendas imposed by receiving countries only exacerbates it. My delegation also wishes to express its concern at the directive of return recently adopted by the European Parliament. In addition to highlighting once again the contradictions of the free market model imposed on our countries, which promotes the mobility of goods and services while opposing the free movement of the human beings who produce those goods and services, the directive violates the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and several articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular article 13, which establishes that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State”. I would ask the Europeans who came to our America and went to other continents whether they encountered the same restrictions and hostility when they arrived in our lands to take our resources. The directive was drafted without taking into account the contributions that migrations, especially from Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia and Africa have made to the prosperity of the European Union, making its markets dynamic and correcting the demographic deficit. Today more than ever, we need to reactivate dialogue among the countries of destination and of origin to promote viable solutions that are respectful of the human rights of migrants and their families. Nicaragua appeals to the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and Africa to join the initiatives of all fraternal countries to unite in defence of the human rights of migrants.

The Bolivian delegation does not want to make a lengthy statement since most of the concepts that we should have liked to mention have already been put forward by the delegations that sponsored resolution 62/270. Nonetheless, I want to emphasize that, in the view of the Bolivian delegation, the resolution constitutes one more step in defence of those millions of migrants who find themselves obliged to live in often subhuman conditions — those thousands, indeed millions, of migrants who are obliged to live in secret. Those countries that benefit from the contribution of those millions of migrants are precisely those that simply do not understand that humanity is moving forward. The resolution is yet another step in defence of respect for the human rights of those millions of migrants. We are delighted that only two countries voted against the resolution because that helps us to see with great hope that even those countries of the European Union that do not yet understand the contribution of those migrants voted in favour of it. We are also quite concerned about decisions taken in the European Parliament this week. We hope that, in spite of those decisions, the European Community will become increasingly aware and take decisions that promote the defence of the human rights of migrants.

My delegation takes the floor as one of the sponsors of the resolution that has just been adopted. Chile is a country of immigration. The presidency of the Republic of Chile has been occupied by descendants of Spanish, Swiss, German, French, Italian and English immigrants. Chile is home to the largest community of descendants of Croatians that exists outside of Croatia. Chile is home to the largest community of descendants of Palestinians living outside the Middle East. Last month, the President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, welcomed at the Palacio de La Moneda in Santiago 108 new Palestinian immigrants who formerly lived near the border with Iraq and who have become Chilean citizens and been welcomed with open arms. Chile, which has become a host country for immigration from neighbouring countries, recently enacted a law under which amnesty was granted to over 50,000 illegal immigrants from fraternal countries who have come to our country to seek a better future for themselves and their families. We understand the importance of the contribution of migration because we have experienced it and are grateful for it. That is why we sponsored today’s resolution and voted in favour of it. We see nothing in it that can prejudge the final outcome of the discussions that will be conducted within the United Nations to define forward-looking policies regarding immigration. We also know that the United Nations and its system rest on three pillars — international security, human rights and development. Immigration has an extremely important role to play in those three pillars. Chile views the problem of immigration in the same way as it views all problems that relate to the human person — from the perspective of the human security paradigm. The entire United Nations agenda must be seen from the perspective of the inherent dignity of human beings. We are a social organization created by and for the benefit of human beings. Concepts such as dignity and solidarity resound in the collective heart of Chileans in the strongest manner because, at certain dramatic points in our history, we ourselves benefited from solidarity. We want to call here for a universal vision and for all to approach this phenomenon with generosity because some day, be it in some other court or in some other life or when we have to face our own consciences, we will have to respond to the question: “What have we done for our fellow man?” And we are talking about our fellow man here. We hope that in the future the force of our reasoning, the importance of the values that we are defending and ultimately the dignity of flesh-and-blood human beings will be taken into account as the backdrop for this entire discussion so that we can feel truly proud of an organization which, I repeat, was created by and for human beings.

First of all, I should like to express my thanks to the delegations that supported resolution 62/270. For my delegation, it was surprising to note that, after almost a year of intensive consultations and efforts to address a subject that is in every way relevant to the United Nations context, some delegations could not muster the political will to adopt the resolution without a vote. My delegation expresses its profound disappointment at the fact that all the sponsors’ efforts were not reciprocated. It is not a question of bringing a new matter before the United Nations; this is a subject that has been debated in the Organization for many years, as delegations emphasized in their explanations of vote. It is a question of complementing the efforts of the international community to promote a comprehensive approach to the matter and, above all, international cooperation in this field. Migration is a subject that is very relevant to a large number of countries, if not to all Members of the Organization. That is why it is inconceivable that it was not possible to approach the matter on a consensus basis today. My delegation will continue to make every effort to bring the positions closer together, but Mexico will never agree to the Assembly’s ignoring the issue.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 116.