A/62/PV.79 General Assembly

It is my honour to inform the Assembly that after the meeting of the Committee, in addition to the Member States listed in paragraph 5 of the report of the Credentials Committee for the sixty- second session of the General Assembly, credentials have been duly submitted under rule 27 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly by Côte d’Ivoire. In addition to the Member States mentioned in paragraph 6 of the report of the Credentials Committee, Cape Verde and Timor-Leste have communicated to the Secretary-General information concerning the appointment of their representatives to the sixty-second session of the General Assembly by means of a facsimile communication from the head of State or Government or Minister for Foreign Affairs or by means of a letter or note verbale from the permanent mission concerned.

The General Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Credentials Committee in paragraph 12 of its report. The Credentials Committee adopted this draft resolution 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 sub-item (b) of agenda item 3.

The United States is very gratified to note that the General Assembly has now taken action on this important pillar of the Organization’s response to sexual exploitation and abuse. Victims of sexual exploitation and abuse by United Nations staff and related personnel will now receive the assistance they need to address the very real needs arising out of those reprehensible acts. My delegation is especially pleased to note that, in adopting this text, the international community strongly condemns all acts of sexual exploitation and abuse and reiterates its support for the Secretary- General’s zero-tolerance policy. We call on all Member States to strengthen their resolve to change the culture of impunity that allows such horrific acts to take place.

My delegation would like to take the floor at this time just to express our gratitude for the effective commitment of all the delegations that participated actively and constructively to ensure that this agreement, which is an historic one in our view, could be adopted by consensus. After many months and in fact years of discussing and debating this issue — to which we are all committed but the final result of which seemed to evade us — thanks to the sacrifice, commitment and, of course, the creativity of all those involved, we have managed to reach an agreement that, for many, will represent a true Christmas gift in this holiday season. My delegation was the chair of the Working Group thanks to you, Mr. President, and we would like to avail ourselves of this opportunity to report back to you and state with a sense of satisfaction and humility that we have completed our task. We would like to thank you, Sir, and all the delegates who have aided us in this task.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 116. The Assembly will take up sub-item (a) of agenda item 77, and the remaining reports of the First Committee on agenda item 99, the report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) on agenda item 31, the reports of the Third Committee on agenda items 65 and 68 and sub- items (b) and (c) of agenda item 70, and the reports of the Fifth Committee as soon as the Fifth Committee has concluded its work. I should like to consult members regarding an extension for the work of the Fifth Committee. Members will recall that at its 73rd plenary meeting, on 13 December 2007, the Assembly agreed to extend the work of the Fifth Committee to Wednesday, 19 December. However, I have been informed by the Chairperson of the Fifth Committee that the Committee will need an additional meeting to complete its work. May I therefore take it that the Assembly agrees to extend the work of the Fifth Committee for an additional meeting? It was so decided. The meeting was suspended at 3.30 p.m. and resumed at 4.10 a.m. on Saturday, 22 December 2007. Agenda item 77 (continued) Oceans and the law of the sea (a) Oceans and the law of the sea Draft resolution (A/62/L.27) Report of the Fifth Committee (A/62/617) The President: Members will recall that the Assembly held a debate on this item at its 64th, 65th and 77th plenary meetings, on 10 and 18 December 2007. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget implications of draft resolution A/62/L.27 is contained in document A/62/617. We will now proceed with the consideration of draft resolution A/62/L.27. Before giving the floor to the representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, who wishes to speak in explanation of vote before the voting, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

My delegation would like to refer to the draft resolution contained in A/62/L.27 on agenda item 77 (a), “Oceans and the law of the sea”, on which the Assembly will soon be voting. On this matter, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reaffirms its commitment to cooperating with efforts to promote coordination on questions related to oceans and the law of the sea, in accordance with international law and without reference to any particular convention. In spite of committed, flexible negotiating efforts with a view to drafting a text covering the interests of all States and accommodating the legal freedom of non-party States, in accordance with the outcome of the Open-ended Informal Consultative Process, and in particular that of the recent negotiations, the text that is before States for their consideration does not, in our view, reflect a consensus. My delegation would like to repeat, as we said in informal consultations in June 2007 and in the negotiations recently concluded, that the reasons that prevent Venezuela from becoming a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea persist today. Accordingly, my delegation is not in a position to agree with States supporting this draft resolution inasmuch as the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is not party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982; nor are the standards of such Convention applicable to it as customary international law, except for those which the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has expressly recognized or will recognize in the future through their incorporation into its national legislation. Thus, my delegation would like to reaffirm its historic position on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea whereby some aspects contained in the document before the Assembly today lead my delegation to abstain in the vote to be taken.

We have heard the only speaker in explanation of vote before the voting. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/62/L.27, entitled “Oceans and the law of the sea”. Additional sponsors of the draft resolution are Australia, Austria, Belize, Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Kenya, Malta, the Federated States of Micronesia, Namibia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Palau, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Ukraine and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Benin, Turkey. Abstaining: Colombia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of). [Subsequently, the delegation of Benin advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.]

I now call on representatives who wish to speak in explanation of vote on the resolution just adopted.

I would take this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. The Group of 77 and China had made a concrete proposal on sections X and XIV of the resolution just adopted. Those two sections deal respectively with matters relating to marine biodiversity and the Open-ended Informal Consultative Process. The Group’s position was carefully reflected in its proposal, but an agreement on the proposal could not be reached. It was for the sake of compromise that the Group accepted a joint proposal made by Pakistan and the United States. As this proposal, for the first time, acknowledged problems related to legal regimes beyond exclusive economic zones and addressed issues related to capacity-building and goods and services derived from marine genetic resources. The proposal also kept the doors open for future consultation on these issues. There is a need to ensure better reflection of these issues and of matters related to intellectual proprietary rights. Hence, the Group remains committed to continue its efforts to elaborate its position on these issues in the future.

Turkey voted against the draft resolution contained in document A/62/L.27, entitled “Oceans and the law of the sea”. I would like to underline that the reasons that have prevented Turkey from becoming party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea remain valid. Turkey supports the international efforts to establish a regime of the sea that is based on the principle of equity and that can be acceptable to all States. However, in our opinion, the Convention does not make adequate provisions for special geographical situations and, as a consequence, cannot establish an acceptable balance between conflicting interests. Furthermore, the Convention makes no provision for registering reservations on specific clauses. Although we agree with the Convention in its general intent and most of its provisions, we are unable to become a party to it owing to these serious shortcomings. That being the case, we cannot support the resolution, which calls upon States to become parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to harmonize their national legislation with its provisions.

Japan supported the adoption of resolution 62/215. However, we would like to put on record the following explanation of our position regarding the resolution. As was expressed in our general statement, Japan shares with other States parties a recognition of the need to strengthen the functioning of the secretariat of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. However, such efforts must be made within overall existing budget levels, as well as within the limit approved in accordance with the established budget request process. In this regard, it is highly regrettable that budgetary implications were attached to some paragraphs of the resolution, which were intended to go around the established budget process. The United Nations budget itself is increasing at a pace, which exceeds the ability of Member States to contribute, and Japan has been taking the position that programme budget implications, which lead to further increments in the budget, cannot be allowed.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 77 and of agenda item 77 as a whole? It was so decided. Reports of the First Committee, Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), Third Committee and Fifth Committee The President: The General Assembly will now take up the remaining reports of the First Committee, on agenda item 99; of the Special, Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), on agenda item 31; and of the Third Committee, on agenda items 63, 65 and 68, and sub-items (b) and (c) of agenda item 70. Thereafter, the General Assembly will take up the reports of the Fifth Committee on agenda items 125, 129, 131, 134, 135, 137 to 140, 161, 164, 136 together with 128, 126, 127 and 128. 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 of the First, Fourth, Third and Fifth Committees which are before the Assembly today. It was so decided.

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote or position. The positions of delegations regarding the recommendations of these Committees have been made clear in the Committees, 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 in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee”. May I further 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 First, Fourth, Third and Fifth Committees, I should like to advise representatives that we are going to proceed to take decisions in the same manner as was done in the Committees, unless notified otherwise in advance. This 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 respective Committees.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 99? It was so decided.

The General Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of all the reports of the First Committee.

The United States wishes to dissociate itself from the consensus on draft resolution II, on international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space. We regret that we are unable to join the consensus, but the implications of this draft resolution for the regular budget of the United Nations are unacceptable to the Government of the United States.

A separate vote has been requested on paragraph 42 of draft resolution II. Is there any objection to that request? I see none. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Montenegro, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Paragraph 42 was retained by 129 votes to 6, with 13 abstentions. [Subsequently, the delegations of Croatia, France and Portugal advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.]

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution II as a whole. The Special Political and Decolonization Committee adopted draft resolution II without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 31? It was so decided.

The General Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of all the reports of the Special Committee and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) before it.

Egypt believes in the importance of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and in its constructive role in eliminating all forms of discrimination against women. Egypt was also among the first countries to sign the international Convention that led to the establishment of the Committee. For those reasons, Egypt today will vote in favour of draft resolution VI as a whole. Egypt voted against paragraph 15 in the Third Committee, because it would have a negative impact on the proceedings of the Committee and undermine its efficiency, as three of its sessions would occur in parallel chambers. Nevertheless, we support the other elements of the draft resolution, including the increase in the number of the Committee’s meetings, which would help it to better carry out its duties within specific time frames and in a more effective way. We shall abstain in the voting on paragraph 15 today.

Draft resolution VI is entitled “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women”. Separate votes have been requested on paragraphs 14 and 15 of the draft resolution. Are there any objections to that request? I see that there are none. I shall first put to the vote paragraph 14 of draft resolution VI. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor- Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: United States of America. Abstaining: Brunei Darussalam, China, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Niger, Singapore. Paragraph 14 was retained by 143 votes to 1, with 6 abstentions. [Subsequently, the delegation of Japan advised the Secretariat that it had intended to abstain.]

I shall now put to the vote paragraph 15 of draft resolution VI. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Syrian Arab Republic, United States of America. Abstaining: Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Egypt, Malaysia, Mexico, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen. Paragraph 15 was retained by 132 votes to 2, with 15 abstentions. [Subsequently, the delegation of Japan advised the Secretariat that it had intended to abstain.]

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution VI as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: United States of America.

I shall now give the floor to representatives who wish to speak in explanation of vote on the resolution just adopted.

The Syrian Arab Republic voted in favour of this important resolution, resolution 62/218, because we fully believe in the need to eliminate all forms of violence and discrimination against women. The Syrian Arab Republic is a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and attaches special importance to women’s full enjoyment of human rights in accordance with its national laws and international commitments. The Syrian Arab Republic attaches great importance to the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women with a view to arriving at the desired objective in the best possible and transparent manner. For that purpose, the Syrian Arab Republic voted against paragraph 15 of the resolution, because we believe that that paragraph includes an inefficient mechanism that endorses parallel and simultaneous meetings for the Committee. The Syrian Arab Republic believes that that division will be an obstacle to objectivity and transparency in the discussion of reports. We would like this reservation to be recorded in the verbatim record of this meeting.

Before we conclude our consideration of the question of the advancement of women, my delegation would like to state that Colombia reiterates the interpretive considerations and clarifications presented by our delegation in the Third Committee during the consideration and adoption of draft resolutions II, entitled “Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women”, and V, entitled “Improvement of the situation of women in rural areas”, as contained in document A/62/433, Part II. Colombia reiterates its support for the adoption of those important draft resolutions.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 63? It was so decided.

The United States is compelled to vote “no” on the institution- building package considered by the Assembly today. We had hoped that the Human Rights Council’s institution-building session would address the deficiencies that had politicized the Council and prevented it from acting as a serious and effective human rights institution. But so far the Council’s record has not only failed to fulfil our hopes, it has even fallen short of our limited expectations. First, there was the Council’s relentless focus during the year on a single country — Israel. At the same time, the Council failed, during that year, to address serious human rights violations taking place in other countries such as Zimbabwe, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Belarus and Cuba. Key provisions of the institution-building package before us today appear likely to compound the Council’s institutional weaknesses. It is particularly disappointing that the package prematurely terminates the mandates of the United Nations Special Rapporteurs charged with monitoring and reporting on two of the world’s most active perpetrators of serious human rights violations, the Governments of Cuba and Belarus. Another disturbing feature of the package is that the permanent agenda of the Human Rights Council contains one, and only one, item having to do with a specific country. Once again, that country is Israel. That raises serious questions about the Council’s institutional priorities, its ability to make unbiased assessments of human rights situations and whether it will take seriously its responsibility to protect and promote human rights around the world with particular attention to the most serious violations of human rights. Finally, deeply unfair and untransparent procedures were employed to deny Council members the opportunity to vote on the package we are now considering. If a tactic like this had been used in a national election in any country in the world, if a Government had announced that the election would be held on a certain day and then told voters who showed up on the appointed day that the election had actually been held at midnight the night before, the world would rightly regard that election as unfree and unfair. The proceedings of all United Nations bodies should be models of fairness and transparency. That is particularly true of the Human Rights Council, which was intended to be the world’s leading human rights protection mechanism. The procedure by which this package was adopted calls into serious question whether it can ever realize that goal. The Human Rights Council will not be the world’s most important human rights mechanism until it consistently focuses on the world’s worst human rights violations, including extrajudicial killing, the use of rape for military and political purposes and the imprisonment of people for their political or religious opinions, and calls those acts — which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights called “barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind” — by their right names. In short, we hope that the Human Rights Council will stand in solidarity with victims of human rights violations around the world, and not with the perpetrators.

The new Australian Government is strongly committed to the promotion of human rights and wants the Human Rights Council to play a strong, positive role in promoting and protecting human rights around the world. The Council’s institution-building package contains a potentially useful set of tools and working practices, including the innovative universal periodic review mechanism. We welcome the continuing role in the Council of United Nations Special Rapporteurs and the increasingly interactive dialogues with them, which have generally improved and assisted Council consideration of country and thematic human rights issues, including on issues of particular concern to Australia and countries of the Asia-Pacific region. The new special sessions have also proved useful in dealing with pressing situations in the Sudan and, recently, Myanmar. That said, we remain of the view that the Human Rights Council’s institution-building package is unbalanced. We were deeply disappointed at the unnecessary inclusion of a separate standing item focusing exclusively on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, which contradicts the Council’s founding principles of non-selectivity and objectivity. Given these concerns, Australia will maintain its vote against this resolution. We remain strongly committed to working constructively and actively with Council and non-Council members alike to ensure this new United Nations body is able to respond effectively to urgent human rights situations.

We now turn to the draft resolution. A recorded vote has been requested. I call on the representative of Egypt on a point of order.

I am taking the floor on a point of order. I note that Israel is voting on this draft resolution. At the same time, I see that a representative from the delegation of Andorra is sitting in the seat of Israel and exercising the vote on behalf of Israel. I would like to seek clarification and to determine the credentials of the representative sitting in the seat of Israel to vote on its behalf.

There is an explanation for that. The necessary document was already submitted to the Credentials Committee of the Secretariat so that that representative may vote on behalf of Israel. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor- Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States of America. Abstaining: Nauru.

I call on the representative of Egypt on a point of order.

I am sorry to take the floor again on this, but has this matter been notified to the Credentials Committee or the General Committee? I am not aware of any notification to the General Committee or the Credentials Committee about this arrangement. I think that, according to the rules of procedure, such arrangements must be approved by the Credentials Committee or the General Committee, as appropriate.

The explanation of the Secretariat is that it has been submitted to the Office of Legal Affairs, in accordance with the practice which we are following. I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their votes on the resolution just adopted.

We wish to explain our vote as follows. We know why the United States Government continues to seek to stigmatize Cuba. It does so because it cannot dispense with its odious fabrications, because it requires a pretext to pursue its policy of hostility, blockade and aggression against the Cuban people, and because it cannot renounce its intention to destroy our way of living. We also know why the United States does not want a credible and dignified Human Rights Council. That is because it preferred the discredited Commission on Human Rights, in which it managed to avert consideration of its horrendous violations of human rights in the base at Guantánamo Bay, an illegally occupied territory of Cuba, and in which, through pressure and blackmail, it was able to impose selective and politicized solutions against third world countries. Where is the morality in the United States position when it practices torture and humiliation in the concentration camp in the Guantánamo base and in Abu Ghraib and bears responsibility for secret detention and torture centres operated in Europe by the Central Intelligence Agency, where it commits grave violations of human rights through its hundreds of covert flights? That Government does not even have the valour to stand up to international scrutiny by running for election in the Human Rights Council out of fear of not being elected — unlike Cuba, which has been elected — because of its dubious and questionable human rights record and misdeeds throughout the world. Hypocrisy and cynicism do not belong in this debate. The Cuban people are ready to cooperate and fully participate in all efforts to build a Human Rights Council that will offer an effective response to the claims for justice of the peoples of the South and the major social sectors in developed countries that have also been condemned to marginalization and poverty.

My delegation wishes to explain its vote on resolution 62/219 on institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council. My delegation voted in favour of the resolution pursuant to its vote in favour of the draft resolution in the Third Committee. We did so because our delegation believes that the package of proposals we put together on institution-building of the Human Rights Council was a consensus package. All parties agreed to it, and we believe that institution-building must take many elements into consideration. The few countries that voted against the resolution based their votes on political considerations and because they wish the Council to be an extension of the infamous former Commission on Human Rights. Among those delegations was that of Australia. Australia has a human rights record that is not especially honourable, particularly with respect to its position on indigenous populations and immigrants, whom it marginalizes politically and economically.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 65? It was so decided.

The United States reiterates its opposition to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Our record of domestic legislation and policies to combat vigorously such activities and attitudes demonstrates our commitment. The United States has long been a party to the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Although we supported the stated objectives of the World Conference held in Durban in 2001 and continue to support those objectives, the Conference itself was deeply flawed and divisive. The draft resolution now before us endorses a continuation of that flawed outcome and is therefore itself seriously problematic, even aside from the inadequacy of the budget preparations that have been noted in the Fifth Committee. We believe that Durban follow-up activities being carried out by the Preparatory Committee in Geneva, an organ of the Human Rights Council, are duplicative of the work done by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and by the Human Rights Committee for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the work related to the conventions of the International Labour Organization that address workers’ rights. At a time of limited resources and many great needs, we do not support the continuation of such duplicative work. For those reasons, and as we have stated before, we do not believe it would be appropriate to spend United Nations resources on preparatory activities for a Durban review conference. And we believe that the Human Rights Council should dedicate itself to the role for which it was created: addressing human-rights situations around the world, particularly emerging situations. Similarly, we strongly believe that, with so many pressing issues before us, the Secretary-General should not be asked to fund regional preparatory meetings that duplicate work already under way. We also believe that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should provide more substantial programming and cooperative assistance in countries around the world to combat the scourge of racism, rather than putting its valuable resources towards more conferences. Each country must have a legal framework in place to protect people from discrimination and to preserve other individual rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of religion. At this time, States should be focusing on the implementation of existing commitments, rather than on the follow-up of a flawed process or the creation of new processes and instruments. The essential elements in multilateral efforts to combat contemporary forms of racism are universal ratification and effective implementation of the existing International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. For those reasons, the United States will vote against the draft resolution.

We have heard the only speaker in explanation of vote. The Assembly will now take action on draft resolution II, recommended by the Third Committee in paragraph 26 of its report. Draft resolution II is entitled “Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow- up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action”. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: Armenia, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 68? It was so decided.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 70? It was so decided. (c) Human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives Report of the Third Committee (A/62/439/Add.3) Report of the Fifth Committee (A/62/614) The President: The Assembly will now take action on draft resolution II, recommended by the Third Committee in paragraph 49 of its report. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget implications of draft resolution II is contained in document A/62/614. We shall now take a decision on draft resolution II, entitled “Situation of human rights in Myanmar”. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay. Against: Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zimbabwe. Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.

I now call on the representative of Myanmar, who wishes to speak in explanation of vote on the resolution just adopted.

We asked for a recorded vote on this resolution and cast a negative vote, because the exploitation of human rights for political purposes is not acceptable to Myanmar. Our domestic political process has made significant strides with the completion of the national convention process. In fact, we have been on track for a smooth transition to democracy, and we are determined to proceed with our seven-step political process. With the establishment of a 54-member commission for drafting a State constitution, which commenced its work on 3 December, we have already embarked on the third step of the seven-step road map. The resolution is particularly objectionable since it delves into areas that, under the Charter, are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of my country. Myanmar cannot allow or accept blatant interference in this home-grown political process. Therefore, we dissociate ourselves from the resolution and will not be bound by its provisions.

We have heard the only speaker in explanation of vote. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (c) of agenda item 70 and of agenda item 70 as a whole? It was so decided.

The General Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of all the reports of the Third Committee. Reports of the Fifth Committee The President: The General Assembly will now consider the reports of the Fifth Committee on agenda items 125, 129, 131, 134, 135, 137 to 140, 161, 164, 136 together with 128, 126, 127 and 128. I request the Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee, Mr. Steven Ssenabulya Nkayivu of Uganda, to introduce in one intervention the reports of the Fifth Committee before the Assembly. Mr. Nkayivu (Uganda), Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee: I have the honour today to present to the General Assembly the reports of the Fifth Committee containing recommendations on the issues that required action during the main part of the sixty-second regular session of the General Assembly. The Fifth Committee met from 5 October to 21 December 2007 and held 26 plenary meetings and more than 90 rounds of informal consultations and innumerable informal/informal consultations. Regarding agenda item 125, entitled “Financial reports and audited financial statements, and reports of the Board of Auditors”, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly in paragraph 7 of its report in document A/62/534 the adoption of a draft resolution, which the Committee adopted without a vote. Under agenda item 129, entitled “Programme planning”, the Committee recommends to the Assembly, in paragraph 8 of its report in A/62/564, the adoption of a draft resolution, which the Committee adopted without a vote. On agenda item 131, entitled “Pattern of conferences”, the Committee recommends to the Assembly, in paragraph 7 of its report in A/62/535, the adoption of a draft resolution, which the Committee adopted without a vote. On agenda item 134, entitled “Joint Inspection Unit”, the report of the Fifth Committee is contained in document A/62/536. The draft resolution recommended in paragraph 6 was adopted without a vote. Under agenda item 135, entitled “United Nations common system”, the Committee recommends to the Assembly, in paragraph 7 of its report in A/62/565, a draft resolution, which was adopted by the Committee without a vote. Regarding agenda item 136, entitled “Report on the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services”, and item 128, “Proposed programme budget for 2008-2009”, in paragraph 6 of its report in A/62/605 the Committee recommends to the Assembly the adoption of a draft resolution entitled “Reports of the Office of Internal Oversight Services and financing of the Procurement Task Force”, which the Committee adopted without a vote. On agenda item 137, entitled “Administration of justice at the United Nations”, the Committee recommends to the Assembly in paragraph 7 of its report in A/62/597 the adoption of a draft resolution, which the Committee adopted without a vote. The report of the Committee on agenda item 138, “Financing of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994”, is contained in document A/62/598. In paragraph 6 of the report, the Committee recommends to the Assembly a draft resolution, which the Committee adopted without a vote. The Committee report under agenda item 139, “Financing of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991”, is contained in document A/62/599. In paragraph 6 of the report the Committee recommends to the Assembly a draft resolution, which the Committee adopted without a vote. Under agenda item 140, “Administrative and budgetary aspects of the financing of the United Nations peacekeeping operations”, the Committee report is contained in document A/62/600. In paragraph 6, the Committee recommends to the Assembly the adoption of a draft resolution, which the Committee adopted without a vote. The Committee reports on agenda item 161, “Financing of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur”, and item 164, “Financing of the United Nations mission in the Central African Republic and Chad”, will be issued as documents A/62/601 and A/62/602, respectively. In paragraph 6 of each report, the Committee recommends to the Assembly the adoption of a draft resolution, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in A/C.5/62/L.15 and A/C.5/62/L.16, respectively. The Committee adopted each without a vote. Agenda item 127 is entitled “Programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007”. In paragraph 7 of its report in A/62/603, the Committee recommends to the Assembly the adoption of a draft resolution, which the Committee adopted without a vote. With regard to agenda item 128, in its draft report contained in A/C.5/62/L.23 — the official version of which will be issued as document A/62/563/Add.1 — the Committee recommends the adoption of draft resolution I, “Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009”, which the Committee adopted by a recorded vote of 141 in favour, 1 against and no abstentions, and draft resolution II, “Programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009”, which the Committee adopted without a vote. Also in document A/62/563/Add.1 is draft resolution III, entitled “Special subjects relating to the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008- 2009”. The Committee decided to retain part V of the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 92 in favour, none against and 14 abstentions. Draft resolution III as a whole was adopted without a vote. Another report of the Fifth Committee under agenda item 128 is contained in document A/62/563/Add.2. The draft resolution recommended by the Committee is found in paragraph 9 of the report. The Committee decided to retain operative paragraph 10 of the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 93 in favour, 1 against and 47 abstentions. The Committee recommends to the Assembly the adoption of the draft resolution as a whole, which the Committee adopted by a recorded vote of 140 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention. Finally, under agenda item 126, entitled “Review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations”, the Committee’s report is contained in document A/62/604. In paragraph 5 the Committee recommends to the Assembly the adoption of a draft decision relating to questions deferred for future consideration. The draft decision was adopted by the Committee without a vote. I wish to thank delegations for their cooperation and to assure them that the changes made in the course of the Fifth Committee’s 26th formal meeting, held this evening, have been duly taken into account and will be reflected in the draft resolutions and reports which will be issued shortly. Before I conclude, allow me, on a brief personal note, to thank the Chairman of the Fifth Committee, Ambassador Hamidon Ali, for the wise and noble way in which he guided us through our difficult work, as well as my fellow Bureau members, working with whom is always a truly gratifying experience. On behalf of all of us, I would like to express our profound thanks to the representatives of the Secretariat for their patience and support, and most especially to the Secretariat of the Fifth Committee, Mr. Movses Abelian, Ms. Hannah Davies and their staff. Last but not least, our thanks go to Mr. Rajat Saha, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions. To all of those whom I have had the privilege and honour to be seated next to at the podium of conference room 3, I would like to thank them for their camaraderie. I wish all present wonderful holidays.

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

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 129.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 131.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 134.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 135.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 137.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 138.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 139.

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 161.

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

I shall now call on the representative of Singapore, who wishes to speak in explanation of position on the resolution just adopted.

My delegation welcomes the adoption of resolution 62/234 and, I must stress, its adoption by consensus. Through this resolution, the General Assembly has again emphasized the importance of strong oversight over the activities of the United Nations. My delegation was pleased to join that consensus. At the same time, as my delegation has stated before in the course of discussions on this topic, the United Nations has been beset with numerous allegations, innuendoes and misdirection, much of it, unfortunately, by Members of the Organization and even the Procurement Task Force. Anyone who questions the activities of the Task Force is immediately accused of being pro-corruption or anti-reform. That has served only to deflect attention from the real issues. As this resolution demonstrates, the General Assembly has not been misled. The entire membership has clearly indicated that nobody, not even the Procurement Task Force, is exempt from being accountable. Through this resolution, we have agreed that the Task Force must uphold the same standards to which it seeks to hold others. In that regard, we have requested that the Task Force be audited and held accountable for all its actions to date. My delegation views this as a step forward in ensuring a thorough, more transparent and more accountable Organization.

We have heard the only speaker in explanation of position. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda items 136 and 128.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 126.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 127.

Since the adoption of the budgets for special political missions for 2007, my delegation has sought to engage, in a transparent manner, the Secretariat and interested delegations in an attempt to guarantee respect for the relevant legislative mandates of the budget of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General. We undertook intensive and expansive contact to explain our points of view to the Secretariat and to other interested delegations. Our comments were fully understood and supported because they were practical and were founded on tangible facts related directly to political and legal errors, which were cited in the logical framework of the budget of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559 (2004) and in the budget of the United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon. We stressed in our comments the need for consistency between the logical framework and the legislative mandate under resolution 1559 (2004), because this logical framework — according to the report of the Secretary-General on estimates in respect of special political missions, good offices and other political initiatives authorized by the General Assembly and/or Security Council (A/62/512/Add.1) — addresses the resolution in a selective and non-objective manner. Furthermore, it flagrantly goes beyond the Council’s political reading of the provisions of resolution 1559 (2004). Moreover, it links the budget of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the implementation of resolution 1559 (2004) with issues that surfaced after the Council adopted that resolution, in a context that is totally irrelevant to the terms of reference for its implementation. It is even worse that the logical framework under consideration has totally ignored the daily Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty. Furthermore, it left the door wide open to the continuation of such violations; it intentionally overlooked them. This is totally incompatible with the statement to the Security Council by the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Mr. Lynn Pascoe, who said, “There was an increase in the number of instances of Israeli aerial violations of Lebanese sovereignty”. Covering up Israel’s violations and its continued occupation of parts of Lebanon and falsification of expected accomplishments and indicators of achievement will not serve the interests of Lebanon, nor will it further the implementation of Security Council resolutions. That course of action serves the purpose of protecting the continued Israeli violations of resolution 1559 (2004), as well as other relevant Security Council resolutions on Lebanon. It takes Lebanon’s independence and stability as hostage to Israeli interests. My delegation regrets the current deadlock in negotiations due to attempts by some to impose self- serving political agendas favouring Israel in our discussions at the expense of Lebanon’s vital interests, in a manner that runs counter to the presumed objectivity expected of the Secretariat and its commitment to relevant mandates with regard to the budget of its two special envoys in Lebanon. That is what prompted us to request a special vote on part V of draft resolution III, “Special subjects relating to the proposed programme budget for 2008- 2009”, contained in document A/62/563/Add.1. This is an unwelcome precedent in the work of the Fifth Committee. My delegation will follow the special deliberations on this resolution with great interest. In the future, we hope that our concerns with regard to our national interest will be taken into account. Our joining the consensus on the draft resolution in general does not necessarily mean that we agree on the language in part V of the resolution. We expect the Secretariat to reconsider drafting its upcoming report so that it will take into account our concerns, and in a way that would protect its credibility.

The Syrian Arab Republic is a sisterly and friendly country; I repeat, a friend and a sisterly country. It is a dear neighbour to my country, Lebanon. Syria, as I say, is a sisterly country with which we share relations of kinship, history and common interests, as well as a common destiny, in the face of a common enemy of both countries. We in Lebanon, believing in the need to consolidate the relationships of brotherhood with the Syrian Arab Republic, aspire to establish diplomatic relations between the two sisterly countries. We also hope to exchange ambassadors. That consensus decision by all Lebanese people was reached when their representatives agreed in the national dialogue that took place during the summer of 2006. However, that decision was then obstructed by the Israeli war machine during the war that Israel waged against Lebanon. The Lebanese were unanimous then in their desire to arrive at the settlement of all issues that could obstruct furthering relations between the two sisterly countries, including demarcation of joint boundaries. (spoke in English) The delegation of Lebanon reiterates its understanding that the violations of Lebanese sovereignty by Israel and the occupation of Lebanese land that continues as we speak fall within the mandate of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559 (2004). All the reports that the Special Envoy submitted to the Security Council on the implementation of resolution 1559 (2004) referred to Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty. The delegation of Lebanon repeatedly emphasized that the reports on the financing of special political missions should reflect Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty as part of the indicators of achievement of the logical framework for the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the implementation of resolution 1559 (2004). We would also like to clarify that there was some kind of confusion among certain delegations. We as a delegation had a problem with operative paragraph 9 during the informals, and everybody should be aware of the fact that, as per our understanding, it is no longer in the text upon which we will be voting. That is why we kindly hope that all delegations will hope in favour of part V.

Draft resolution I is entitled “Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009”. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: United States of America.

Draft resolution II is entitled “Programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

Draft resolution III is entitled “Special subjects relating to the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009”. A separate vote has been requested on part V of draft resolution III. As there is no objection to that request, I shall put to the vote part V, on which a separate, recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe. Against: None. Abstaining: Iran (Islamic Republic of), Syrian Arab Republic. Part V was retained by 127 votes to none, with 2 abstentions.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution III as a whole. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

Draft resolution IV is entitled “Unforeseen and extraordinary expenses for the biennium 2008-2009”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

Draft resolution V is entitled “Working Capital Fund for the biennium 2008-2009”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

I now give the floor to the representative of Japan to speak in explanation of vote or position.

Japan welcomes the adoption of the biennial budget for 2008-2009. It is indeed the result of dedicated and painstaking efforts of representatives of Member States and the Secretariat. I would like to warmly congratulate the Secretary-General for the approval of his first proposed programme budget. The timely approval of budget is essential for ensuring the financial stability of the United Nations. My delegation is particularly pleased that the initial appropriations are contained at the level of the revised budget for the current biennium. The budget we have just adopted is only the initial step in financing United Nations activities for the next two years. Some of the deferred items and additional requirements, including special political missions, must be considered in the course of the next year. Japan has been advocating for the Secretary- General to present, as early as possible, the vision and totality of the necessary requirements he envisages for the next two years. To enhance predictability on the total financial responsibility of Member States and the examination of the possibility of redeployment, an early indication of the comprehensive picture will be helpful and will facilitate intergovernmental negotiations. I would like to reiterate the need to exercise restraint in requesting additional requirements and to meet those requirements through cost-effectiveness and redeployment from all priority activities to the extent possible. We strongly hope that in preparing and implementing the budget, the Secretary-General will make every effort to further strengthen the unity and the coherence of the Secretariat and its overall financial control.

We now turn to document A/62/563/Add.2. The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 9 of its report, which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/62/L.25, in English only. The draft resolution is entitled “Questions related to the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund”. A separate vote has been requested on operative paragraph 10 of the draft resolution. Is there any objection to this request? There is none. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: United States of America. Abstaining: Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Operative paragraph 10 of the draft resolution was retained by 95 votes to 1, with 45 abstentions.

I now put to the vote the draft resolution as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: United States of America. Abstaining: Canada.

I now give the floor to delegations wishing to speak in explanation of vote.

My delegation welcomes the adoption of this resolution, which has been the fruit of a long and difficult process of negotiation undertaken in the defence of principles established in the Charter of the United Nations, such as fair treatment for each and every Member State of the Organization. Ecuadorian officials, who have for many years contributed to the work of the Organization, participated in the ideal of successfully fulfilling the multilateral mandate. Their single aspiration was ultimately to be able to count on the support of the Organization so as to live in dignity for the last few years of their lives. Almost ten years have gone by, and they can now finally enjoy a measure that might not solve their problems, but will provide some kind of an answer to their rightful claim. Member States, within the framework of their competence and in strict accordance with the rules regulating the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund, have now begun to deal responsibly with the situation without establishing a precedent. My delegation regrets that a question of principle and justice, the results of which have no legal or economic implications for any Member State and do not have implications for the Organization’s budget, has been raised to a level of confrontation never before seen in this Assembly. It would be interesting to employ the pseudo-legalistic attitude that was used to address this item when it comes to items of great interest, when it comes to the correct financing and functioning of the Organization. Similarly, my delegation deeply regrets that a group of Member States whose commitment we never doubted and who showed support in informal consultations for the text of the resolution has today abstained in this vote. The delegation of Ecuador once again would like to express its gratitude for the solidarity shown by the broad majority in defending this principle, which maintains the purchasing power for retirees worldwide, clearly established in the regulations for the adjustment system for United Nations pensions. This resolution does not have major economic consequences and it does not establish any precedent, but seeks dignified treatment, as I pointed out earlier, for the retirees living in Ecuador.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union. The European Union abstained on operative paragraph 10 of this resolution because this is a provision, notwithstanding its exceptional character, which could be interpreted as being a precedent. We had hoped until the very end that we could avoid recourse to a vote and that the resolution could be adopted by consensus, in accordance with the traditions of the Fifth Committee, to which we are very attached.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 128. This is the final plenary meeting of the main part of the sixty-second session of the General Assembly. It has been an honour for me to preside over this busy, dynamic and constructive period of work. The Assembly held three substantive high-level meetings on contemporary global challenges: to promote interreligious and intercultural understanding and cooperation for peace, to assess the consensus on financing for development, and to follow up on commitments made at the 2002 children’s summit. It also held a thematic debate to monitor the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy. In addition, the plenary met 79 times and the General Committee 3 times, and we held 9 informal consultations and adopted over 240 resolutions. I would like to thank the Chairpersons of the Main Committees for their professionalism, which enabled us to conclude this busy schedule in a timely manner. May I also extend my sincere appreciation to all Vice-Presidents for their contribution, and to the Bureaux of the six Main Committees for supporting the Assembly’s work. For those and other accomplishments I would also like to thank all Member States for working together in a spirit of collective responsibility and thereby enhancing the relevance and vitality of this House. May I also take this opportunity to thank the Secretary-General for his support and cooperation, and also for his initiative to develop a close working relationship with me. Our complementary relationship has delivered results, in particular on climate change, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Capital Master Plan. We will continue to work together closely in the best interests of this Organization on other priority issues during this session, in particular on management reform and counter-terrorism. I would also like to commend the dedication and commitment of all the staff in my cabinet, as well as Under-Secretary-General Shaaban and all the officials from the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, whose work behind the scenes ensures that the Assembly runs smoothly. It is time to take stock and to look ahead to the new year. Please allow me to briefly highlight some encouraging developments that illustrate how we have been changing the way we do business. The adoption of the resolutions on social justice and member States’ initiative on mandate review are examples of a more cooperative atmosphere. I would like to commend the delegates of the Fifth Committee for their efforts to adopt the biennial budget of the Organization. I wish that more flexibility could have been demonstrated in the attempt to reach a consensus on this very important matter. The manner in which Member States approached elections to the Security Council and the adoption of a resolution on agricultural technology and development demonstrates a more responsible attitude. A more responsive approach to contemporary events was evident in the adoption of several resolutions on Palestine and on climate change, which demonstrate that we are attuned to changing contemporary events. Together, we have strengthened and coordinated working relations with the Secretariat and other principle organs to better accomplish the common goals of this Organization, including through your active engagement in briefings by the Secretary- General and senior United Nations officials on topical political issues, such as Myanmar. I have also met periodically with the Presidents of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council to spread best practices and improve coherence. In addition, we have had a broader engagement with parliamentarians, civil society, academia and the private sector. Our outreach with those and other important constituencies, including the media, must continue to be developed. I would also like to acknowledge the many productive meetings I have had with different regional and political groupings of Member States in various formats and settings to enhance cooperation and mutual understanding. All of these trends indicate that the General Assembly is performing, that it is more responsive, more action-oriented and more concerned with results. We should therefore replace the agenda item on General Assembly revitalization with the notion of the Assembly’s role in strengthening the United Nations system. How well this Assembly performs depends on Member States, of course. When they are active and engaged, that also allows any President of the General Assembly to show leadership. We can live up to our mandate only if together we continually strive to address contemporary issues and emerging trends. This is the best way to bolster the Assembly’s authority and international standing. At the beginning of the session we defined five interdependent priorities for the sixty-second session. I would like to briefly set out the way forward. On climate change, the Assembly will hold a high-level panel and debate on 11 and 12 February, focusing on our partnerships with the private sector and civil society. It is also an opportunity to assess the work of the United Nations in light of the Bali agreement. On financing for development, we have successfully agreed on a comprehensive preparatory process, including several multi-stakeholder review sessions, to ensure an optimum outcome in Doha in December 2008. I would like to see all Monterrey stakeholders take a leading role in the organization and substance of the sessions. On the Millennium Development Goals, the Assembly will hold an interactive thematic debate on 1 and 2 April to consider where priority action can be taken to accelerate progress on the poverty, health and education Goals. I also invite Member States to use that opportunity to set out the strategic development priorities for the international community throughout 2008. In our efforts to renew the Organization’s management, effectiveness and coherence, we will press ahead with the mandate review process to streamline our work, hold a plenary meeting on 8 April to consider proposals on the way forward on management reform and begin consultations on system-wide coherence to assess progress already achieved at the country level, with a view to achieve greater effectiveness and coherence. On counter-terrorism, we will continue to take stock and identify gaps in implementation in preparation for the full review in September 2008. We will remain closely engaged with the Task Force and will work to reach agreement on the comprehensive convention. On these and other issues we have together created the basis for action next year by setting in motion agreed processes and defining the parameters for concrete next steps. For example, Member States adopted a resolution to hold a comprehensive review of the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS on 10 and 11 June 2008. On Security Council reform, the Assembly has agreed to move forward on the basis of a principled framework and, working with the task force, has begun to identify elements that can form the basis of intergovernmental negotiations. I would also like to inform members that, following requests from Member States, I shall convene interactive thematic debates on human security and human trafficking to further demonstrate our leadership on global issues. I see in all the developments I have outlined encouraging signs of improved cooperation, understanding and trust. The General Assembly’s work is becoming more compelling and relevant to everyday lives of the global public we serve. It is the combined will of all Member States that creates this vital driving force behind the Assembly. I therefore encourage you to continue to take the initiative and to strive for results. The holiday period is a time of rest and renewal, and also a time of hope and reaffirmation. When we return, let us not forget that our joint venture continues. We have a busy schedule ahead, and there are many important issues that require our close attention and consideration. Given the holiday period, I would like to invite all delegations to make a New Year’s resolution. As you have exemplified during the main part of the session, I would like you all to reaffirm your commitment to work together cooperatively and responsibly with a view to achieve results when you return to New York. May I sincerely thank you all for your support and hard work and wish you all a very happy holiday. With regard to the programme of work of the Assembly, apart from organizational matters and matters that may have to be considered by operation of the rules of procedure of the Assembly, and bearing in mind that consideration and action have already been taken by the Assembly on the majority of items thus far, I should like to inform members that the following items on the agenda remain open for consideration during the sixty-second session of the General Assembly: agenda items 10, 11, 14 to 17, 18, 20, 22 to 28, 34, 43 to 46, 48, 53 (a), 54 (d), 57 (b), 64 (a) and (b), 86, 98 (g), 108, 109, 110, 113 (a), (c) and (d), 114 (i), 115, 116, 117, 118, 121 to 156, 161 and 164. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to take note of those items on the agenda that remain open for consideration during the sixty-second session of the General Assembly? It was so decided.