A/65/PV.68 General Assembly

It was a great privilege to serve this year as the Chairman of the Kimberley Process on behalf of the State of Israel. It is an immense responsibility to lead such an important Process, which encompasses so many stakeholders and touches the lives of millions around the world. Personally and professionally, I found it both challenging and rewarding, exhausting and gratifying. Guided by the objective of protecting the credibility of the Kimberley Process, we focused on collaborating with all participants and furthering its important aims. To that end, Israel, as Chair, worked closely and consistently with the communities that depend on diamonds for their livelihood and well- being, ensuring that this precious mineral does not serve as a tool for oppression and abuse. It was both a pleasure and an honour to host hundreds of representatives for the intersessional and plenary meetings. These representatives represented 50 countries, civil society organizations and the global diamond industry. As Chair, we acted not only to uphold the core Kimberley Process standards, but also to enhance its capabilities by putting forward three comprehensive initiatives, all of which were adopted by consensus. These initiatives, inter alia, improve enforcement measures to combat the trade of conflict diamonds through cooperation with the World Customs Organization and have laid the foundation of a technical administrative body that assists the rotating Chairs in managing the process irrespective of their resources. These measures will undoubtedly make the Kimberley Process more robust by enhancing its operational capabilities. Our work this year also included providing information to the United Nations Panel of Experts on Liberia and the Group of Experts on Côte d’Ivoire. As Chair of the Process, we directed the relevant Kimberley Process committees to convey the requested information, which directly contributed to the implementation of Security Council resolutions 1893 (2009) and 1903 (2009). Israel focused extensively on finding a solution to the issue of rough diamond exports from the Marange area in Zimbabwe. I am concerned that no consensus has been reached on the way to move forward. Efforts to overcome this challenge are still ongoing. If we are unsuccessful, I would recommend that the incoming Chair, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, take all measures to reach a long-term solution on this issue. The unfortunate lack of consensus in the Kimberley Process did not prevent Israel from making controversial decisions that are of major importance to combating exports of rough diamonds from Marange that are not compliant with Kimberley Process Certification Scheme standards. Supported by Kimberley Process members, these decisions are vital to maintaining the integrity and credibility of the Process. They represent important milestones, as member countries remain steadfast in their adherence to these decisions, despite the current lack of consensus. This should serve as a source of pride to the Kimberley Process and as a notice to its critics. Kimberley Process discipline endures despite strong economic incentives to the contrary, proving to consumers around the world that the Process is both a formidable tool and an effective regulator. On behalf of the group of sponsors, I have the honour to introduce draft resolution A/65/L.52 entitled, “The role of diamonds in fuelling conflict: breaking the link between the illicit transaction of rough diamonds and armed conflict as a contribution to prevention and settlement of conflicts”. The draft resolution is supported by a wide range of Member States. I would like to take this opportunity to thank delegations for their professional and constructive contributions to the negotiations on the draft resolution. Our collective work has led to a draft resolution that will advance the fundamental objectives of the Kimberley Process. The draft resolution is a testament to the importance our global community attaches to curbing the trade in conflict diamonds and to preventing them from fuelling violence and instability. Through the draft resolution, we resolve to continue our collective efforts to achieve the goals of the United Nations and to ensure peace, security and safety for all. Israel passes on a strong and active Kimberley Process, with clear and defined channels for moving the Process forward. This would not have happened without the cooperation and support of all the participants who make up the unique mosaic called the Kimberley Process. I would like to thank my colleagues from the member countries, the civil society coalition and the World Diamond Council for their support. It was a true privilege to serve with them to benefit communities around the world. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the incoming Chair, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and to offer my best wishes for its success in leading this important Process.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU). The candidate countries Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia; as well as Armenia, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova align themselves with this statement. The European Union, which participates as a single member in the Kimberley Process, would like first to welcome the results of the Israeli Chairmanship of the Process in 2010 insofar as they illustrate the Process’s capacity to address new challenges effectively. The EU notes with satisfaction that the tools that make the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme so unique have been further strengthened this past year. The Process has ensured the statistical transparency of diamond production and trade and, through its peer review system, continued monitoring of the Scheme’s implementation. The European Union, as Chair of the Working Group on Monitoring, encourages the continued commitment of participants to scrutiny through Kimberley Process review visits, as well as the submission of substantive annual reports. The European Union would in particular like to express appreciation to Belarus, Bangladesh and India for having hosted review visits, and to Botswana, Canada, Lesotho, Ukraine and the United States for inviting review visits. The EU also welcomes the enhanced cooperation on Kimberley Process implementation and enforcement, which represents a significant step forward as it will foster greater collaboration between national enforcement agencies and international bodies such as the World Customs Organization. This is a key area for Kimberley Process action, since at the end of the day the Certification Scheme’s credibility as an international process depends on effective implementation and enforcement by its participants. Furthermore, the European Union actively supports the Kimberley Process’s efforts to develop new tools in order to adapt to a changing environment. In this respect, the EU welcomes the development of new rules and procedures under the leadership of the Russian Federation and the implementation of new types of tools, such as international vigilance measures making use of the footprints of certain diamonds. The EU firmly believes that the consistent use of such tools will strengthen the Kimberley Process’s ability to tackle illicit trade in conflict diamonds, and calls on all participants to step up efforts in this respect. The EU also supports Kimberley Process actions to address the challenges posed by the recent development of cross- border Internet trading. Recent rebel activity in the Central African Republic and the situation in Côte d’Ivoire remind us of the continuing threat that conflict diamonds may pose to regional stability and security. In this sense, continuing Kimberley Process engagement and monitoring of diamond production in Côte d’Ivoire in the light of Security Council resolution 1893 (2009), further illustrates the positive role that the Process can play in concrete crises where production and trade of diamonds might affect peace and security. The Kimberley Process dialogue with Guinea and continued engagement with Ghana and Liberia under resolution 1903 (2009) enhance regional cooperation in this respect. This cooperation should continue, and the EU also supports engagement with non-Process neighbours of Côte d’Ivoire so that they will join in the fight against conflict diamonds. The most complex challenge to the Kimberley Process’s credibility in 2010 related to the implementation of the so-called Swakopmund Decision and Joint Work Plan to address indications of non- compliance in Zimbabwe’s Marange mining area. The EU strived to play an active and constructive role in the implementation of the Joint Work Plan, which appears to be a key test of economic governance and stability in Zimbabwe. The EU welcomes the significant progress achieved by Zimbabwe in moving towards the goal of full compliance with the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme in the Marange diamond fields, while noting the need for further action, notably as regards the regulation of artisanal mining and the prevention of systemic large-scale smuggling. The EU notes that considerable efforts were made by participants to reach a consensus regarding Kimberley Process implementation in Marange and calls on Zimbabwe to continue to engage constructively with the Process on the basis of the draft decision presented by the Process Chair, which provides a workable arrangement for Certification Scheme implementation in Marange. The EU further calls on Process participants to improve regional cooperation and implement international vigilance measures in order to contain the flow of illicit diamonds from Marange. The EU stands ready to support implementation of a consensual decision as a key element to protect the integrity of the Kimberley Process and ensure that Marange diamonds contribute to Zimbabwe’s economic development and do not fuel further violence and human rights violations. In 2010, the international community has demonstrated its determination to act collectively and constructively through the Kimberley Process, as an innovative instrument to prevent diamonds from fuelling conflicts and, ultimately, make a contribution to economic and social development, particularly in developing countries. The EU would like to express its gratitude to Israel for its stewardship of the Process. We now warmly welcome the Democratic Republic of the Congo as the upcoming Kimberley Process Chair and support the selection of the United States as the 2012 Chair.

It is my honour to address the General Assembly today on behalf of Canada. I would like to begin by expressing our heartfelt gratitude for Israel’s chairmanship of the Kimberley Process in 2010. In addition to the intersessional and plenary meetings, the Chair convened two extraordinary meetings in Saint Petersburg and Brussels to seek an agreement on the conditions of export for diamonds from the Marange fields in Zimbabwe. As negotiations continue, we commend the outgoing Chair’s steadfast commitment to finding a resolution agreeable to all parties. We would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Democratic Republic of the Congo as the incoming Chair — the first francophone African nation to take on that role. We look forward to engaging with the Democratic Republic of the Congo over the coming year as we continue to advance the implementation of the Certification Scheme. We are hopeful that the selection of the 2011 Vice-Chairmanship can be concluded in due course. Let me also congratulate Swaziland on its conditional admission into the Kimberley Process. (spoke in French) Canada welcomes the progress made this year on enforcement issues. We were very pleased to co-host a seminar on enforcement challenges and opportunities on the margins of the intersessional meeting in June. We believe that this work is critical to enhancing the effectiveness of the Certification Scheme, and we are encouraged by the widespread participation and overall enthusiasm for this initiative. We applaud the efforts undertaken by the Kimberley Process Chair towards greater cooperation and collaboration with the World Customs Organization. We also appreciate the considerable progress made in the development and adoption of important Kimberley Process administrative decisions this year, particularly on procedures for respecting confidentiality and on the submission of Kimberley Process certificate-based data. As a long-standing advocate for a permanent Kimberley Process secretariat, Canada was very pleased that participants agreed to establish an ad hoc committee to further explore this issue. These elements of progress notwithstanding, we are of the view that the Kimberley Process is facing a critical moment in its existence. The polarizing debate on Zimbabwe has uncovered deep flaws in the ability of the Kimberley Process to address instances of non- compliance in a timely and effective manner. Canada remains concerned by Zimbabwe’s piecemeal implementation of the Joint Work Plan agreed to at the 2009 plenary, and by the unauthorized actions of the Kimberley Process Monitor to Zimbabwe. We are hopeful that the ongoing negotiations with Zimbabwe will produce a mutually satisfactory outcome, and we remain committed to collaborating constructively with colleagues to achieve that end. However, we strongly caution against taking a short-term perspective on this issue; the long-term viability of the Kimberley Process must not be sacrificed in favour of a band-aid solution. We are also concerned by the continued erosion of respect for the civil society observers to the Kimberley Process. All parties must be allowed to participate freely in Process-related activities without fear of harassment or reprisal. We firmly believe that the tripartite nature of the Process is sacrosanct; without the participation of all three groups of stakeholders, the institution of the Kimberley Process ceases to exist. (spoke in English) Canada has decided to co-sponsor this year’s draft resolution (A/65/L.52) in spite of shortcomings with respect to the substance of the document. In particular, we regret that the draft resolution makes no reference to Zimbabwe’s ongoing obligations under the Joint Work Plan and the Saint Petersburg agreement. The draft resolution is also silent on the need for Venezuela to engage with the Kimberley Process, in light of the plenary’s conditional acceptance of a one- year extension of Venezuela’s self-suspension from the Certification Scheme. While these omissions are disappointing, the 2010 agenda of the Kimberley Process was considerably broader in scope, as demonstrated by the areas of progress previously outlined. Through our co- sponsorship of the draft resolution, Canada wishes to recognize these efforts and to underscore our appreciation for Israel’s leadership on these issues. It is undeniable that, 10 years after the first forum to discuss the issue of conflict diamonds was held in Kimberley, South Africa, the scope of the conflict diamonds problem has been significantly reduced. There is no doubt that the Kimberley Process has enhanced the accountability, transparency and effective governance of the trade in rough diamonds, but we cannot assume that we may now rest on our laurels because all is well. If the Kimberley Process wants to remain relevant and credible in the eyes of consumers, we must adapt to new realities, address new challenges and anticipate new opportunities. Most importantly, we must put the integrity of the Process above individual, short-term interests. As we have stated before, consumers do not distinguish between conflict diamonds from areas controlled by rebel groups and from those controlled by Governments with blood on their hands. It is critical that we work together to stop human rights abuses committed in the production and trade of diamonds. We must not let diamonds linked to human rights abuses enter the international diamond market and place at risk an industry that is of great importance to many of our economies.

Since June 2000, Russia has been an active participant in the Kimberley Process. In that time, significant work has been done, the effectiveness of which has been demonstrated above all in the pooling of efforts of various parties and observers to resolve the major problem of how to exclude conflict diamonds from legitimate trade. We note with satisfaction that this issue is being successfully resolved. Russia welcomes the development of the Kimberley Process and the expansion of its membership. An element of importance to the success of the Kimberley Process is the unification within its ranks of all countries engaged in operations related to trade in rough natural diamonds. The future of the Kimberley Process is indissolubly linked to the further development of interaction with United Nations agencies and other international institutions and organizations, which will also contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of the Process. One extremely important objective of the Kimberley Process is the formulation of transparent and comprehensible rules for the functioning of all its mechanisms and relevant procedures. Moreover, the full potential of and opportunities offered by the Kimberley Process have not yet been exhausted. A great deal of work remains to be done in seeking further potential for improving the leadership of the Process structures and working bodies. Serious attention should be focused on initiatives aimed at strengthening cooperation with the Kimberley Process in the application of law. One guarantee for the success of the Kimberley Process is the pooling of effort by the Governments of States parties, industry and civil society to implement the tasks assigned to the Process by the international community. To that end, we believe it important to exclude the possibility of expanded interpretation of the objectives and tasks of the Kimberley Process, the consequence of which would be its politicization, the imposition for discussion and decision-making of issues related to human rights, and a shift in emphasis from conflict diamonds to combating illicit trade in diamonds. In that regard, we believe that there is a definite need clearly and strictly to abide by the mandate of the Kimberley Process. We note with satisfaction the major contribution of Israel, as Chair of the Kimberley Process this year, to international efforts to halt the trade in conflict diamonds and to the organization of effective work in preparing and reaching agreement on the draft resolution submitted today (A/65/L.52). In conclusion, I wish the Democratic Republic of the Congo success in the post of Chair of the Kimberley Process in the year ahead.

It is indeed a great honour for me to address the General Assembly today and to reaffirm my country’s commitment to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. I take this opportunity to extend South Africa’s appreciation to Israel, as the current Chair of the Scheme, for the hard work done this year. South Africa also welcomes the Democratic Republic of the Congo as the incoming Chair for 2011 and looks forward to working with the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2011 to further strengthen the Certification Scheme. It has been but 10 years since Governments, civil society and the diamond industry, devastated by the role diamonds played in the civil wars of Sierra Leone, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia, converged on the mining town of Kimberley, South Africa. Our objective was to address the scourge of conflict diamonds and, in so doing, to help to alter the world’s perception of diamonds as a source of conflict, destruction and bloodshed to a source of development, growth and stability. The outcome of our deliberations was the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. In the seven short years since the commencement of its international implementation, the Scheme has almost entirely eradicated conflict diamonds from the legitimate international trade in rough diamonds. The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme has grown in its membership and sphere of influence. The Certification Scheme currently consists of 49 participants representing 75 producing, trading and processing countries, a vibrant and robust civil society coalition and the global diamond industry represented by the World Diamond Council. South Africa is pleased with ongoing outreach efforts under way to ensure that the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is inclusive of all new diamond producers, traders and processors. The Kimberley Process, through its various working bodies, has become an efficient technical negotiating forum that has, despite many challenges, managed to maintain the credibility of the diamond industry, on which so many economies — particularly those of the producing countries in Africa — are reliant for their development. South Africa views the General Assembly debate on the role of diamonds in fuelling conflict as an invaluable opportunity to take stock of the Kimberley Process’s achievements and challenges. South Africa continues to view the Certification Scheme as a critical forum for ensuring that the atrocities once associated with diamonds are a part of history never to be repeated. We acknowledge that the Scheme has been very successful in this regard, but we are also mindful of the need to avoid complacency. We must remain vigilant. South Africa supports efforts towards the periodic review of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme as a means through which to ensure that the Process remains relevant in an ever-changing global environment. Furthermore, South Africa strongly supports the diamonds for development agenda to ensure that the revenue from diamonds makes a difference in the quality of lives of those who need it most. South Africa acknowledges the work undertaken by the various Kimberley Process working bodies and recognizes the joint communiqué of the plenary of November 2010. South Africa implores members of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme not to exceed the Scheme’s framework and not to go beyond the parameters and primary reasons for its establishment. South Africa is confident that the Kimberley Process has the requisite mechanisms and political will to resolve its current challenges and encourages all parties to the Process to unite for further progress. Finally, South Africa urges all parties to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme to consider that, 10 years ago, we converged to solve a global problem. Our solidarity of purpose led to the establishment of a body that has accomplished its objectives. In the true spirit of the Kimberley Process, South Africa wishes to see the Process united in purpose and to see the Scheme sustained and its core values and principles upheld. The challenges that face the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme are an opportunity to renew our commitment to a clean international diamond trade that contributes to the development and prosperity of all people.

The United States strongly supports the Kimberley Process. We warmly welcome the Democratic Republic of the Congo as it assumes the chairmanship of the Kimberley Process in 2011, and look forward to working closely with it. We also express our gratitude to Israel for being the Chair in 2010, for making important contributions to the long-term future of the Kimberley Process, and for providing important leadership on the most difficult challenges facing the system, from improving its administration and enhancing enforcement efforts to demonstrating resolve to deal with the most divisive issues. The Kimberley Process is making tangible progress in breaking the link between illicit transactions of rough diamonds and armed conflict. As we mark the tenth anniversary of the General Assembly’s adoption of its first resolution related to the role of diamonds in fuelling conflict (resolution 55/56), we strongly believe that further efforts are needed to address this challenge fully and meaningfully in the second decade of the twenty-first century. The Governments, industry and civil society organizations engaged in the Kimberley Process deserve recognition for seven years of collective efforts in preventing diamonds from being used to fund conflict. The Kimberley Process furthered these efforts with several noteworthy achievements in 2010, many of which would not have been possible without the tireless work of the Chair. The Kimberley Process devoted significant resources to enhancing enforcement, including the first enforcement seminar held in June, which was attended by more than 80 experts from current and prospective Process members, from industry, and from civil society organizations. Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Côte d’Ivoire developed the first national smuggling profiles for the seminar — a model that we hope will be followed by all participants. To advance enforcement efforts, the Kimberley Process established formal cooperation with the World Customs Organization, which will add rough diamonds to its select list of products monitored for smuggling. We welcome the willingness of Kimberley Process members to focus on the evolution of the system. The plenary decided to further develop a proposal to establish a much-needed administrative staff that can better handle the many technical tasks now expected of the Kimberley Process Chair and other participants. The plenary also clarified the confidentiality of Kimberley Process documents, a step that should advance greater public awareness of the organization’s work. Two different working groups discussed ways for the Kimberley Process to better incorporate human rights principles, including the critical questions of how these principles can be maximized in artisanal mining areas. We also welcome the progress made regarding oversight of mining and exports from Guinea. Guinea took laudable steps to implement a 2009 decision, underscoring how important it is that participants move to comply with the Kimberley Process. The role diamonds can play in conflict is nowhere more evident than in West Africa, and we applaud the efforts of West African participants to address their own implementation issues and the concerns raised by trafficking of illicit diamonds from Côte d’Ivoire. However, notwithstanding these positive developments, the United States continues to have serious concerns on a number of specific issues. We remain concerned about Zimbabwe’s lack of progress in implementing the minimum requirements of the Kimberley Process with respect to the Marange diamond fields. In particular, we are concerned about the smuggling and violence in and around Marange and Zimbabwe’s willingness to cooperate with the Kimberley Process. As the review mission that travelled to Zimbabwe in August 2010 noted, despite some progress, “there is still some way to go to achieve full compliance with the minimum standards of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme in the Marange diamond fields and also for the Government to honour all of the commitments [it has made]”. Zimbabwe’s achievement of full compliance is in the long-term interests of Zimbabwe and its people, and essential at this stage to the integrity of both the Kimberley Process and the international community’s stated commitment to addressing the issue of diamonds and conflict. We also encourage Venezuela to take all necessary steps to complete the process of extending its self-suspension and, more importantly, to come back into Kimberley Process compliance. We call on the Central African Republic to cooperate with the Kimberley Process to monitor reports of activities of rebel movements in its diamond-mining areas. Unless all countries are willing to establish and maintain effective internal control systems, the diamond trade will be vulnerable to abuse by rebel movements and others seeking to engage in illicit trade that can lead to grave violence or corruption. Finally, the United States calls attention to the role of civil society organizations, local communities and the diamond industry in addressing the nexus between diamonds and conflict. The commitment of these groups and the willingness of countries to work with them remain essential. We need integrated solutions to the development and enforcement challenges posed by the diamond trade — solutions that benefit from the involvement of the private sector and non-governmental organizations. We note in particular the work of the Kimberley Process Working Group on Alluvial and Artisanal Production, which has undertaken discussion of such issues as ethical standards in diamond mining. Until diamonds represent prosperity for people all along the supply chain, they will continue to be vulnerable to fuelling conflict. Once again, we thank Israel for its leadership of the Kimberley Process in 2010. Israel set a standard for the commitment needed to identify areas of concern and find practical and meaningful ways to address them. Although many have questioned the functionality of a system with no permanent staff and a Chair with a term of just one year, Israel demonstrated how much can really be accomplished within this context and leaves the Kimberley Process — indeed, the international community — better equipped to address the challenges before us.

There is something very odious and, quite frankly, obnoxious about statements of shock and dismay made by certain members of this body following the introduction of the draft resolution on the role of diamonds in fuelling conflict (A/65/L.52). Interestingly, almost all of their Governments are at the beck and call of the diamond industries in their countries. Even the so-called civil society bodies purportedly concerned with human rights conditions in my country are more often than not partisans of the very same diamond industry cabals. This industry is a monopoly of a tribe that benefited under apartheid and does not wish to change its stock in trade. And its friends stand here passing judgement on Zimbabwe. What irks these people and their Governments is that Zimbabwe’s diamonds are not under their control. Zimbabwe will never surrender to foreign control these stupendous endowments given by the greatness of God. Worse still for these vengeful people is the fact that Zimbabwe is a founding member of the Kimberley Process and certification system — indeed, a fully engaged member determined to uphold the Process’s integrity and core mandates. Any statement to the contrary is clearly false and self-serving. Some members have raised questions regarding human rights. The Human Rights Council adequately deliberates on those issues. Let it be known, however, that Zimbabwe does not go beyond its borders to conquer and brutalize other persons out of the gaze of the international community. Zimbabwe is not a perfect practitioner in the area of human rights, but neither do we preach that others should be better than ourselves. Those who point fingers at Zimbabwe have much to run away from. We in Zimbabwe will address our shortcomings in these matters, without vengeance or retributive justice. Our country is healing well from recent internal divisions, which were sown in part by the very same people we have discordantly heard from here today. Latter-day empire-builders should wake up; the train laden with glorious stones is leaving without them. Choo-choo-choo-choo-choo-choo-choo! Zimbabwe will never surrender its rightful ownership of its diamonds or control of their exploitation. We shall trade these stones without conflict and within the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. Those who wish to retard our progress will be shamed. The eighth and seventeenth preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution are instructive as to the manner in which Zimbabwe chooses to exploit its diamond endowment. Zimbabwean diamonds, I wish to emphasize, are not conflict diamonds. The Kimberley Process Monitor — a key victim of apartheid, the Reverend Frank Chikane — did his work, which was found to be professional and worthy. Marange diamonds are not the only diamonds in Zimbabwe. They are being singled out because black Zimbabweans control them. Some of these detractors decry large-scale smuggling of the alleged Marange diamonds. Their own nationals, however, pitch tents and fly in sophisticated aircraft in neighbouring countries to purchase those very same diamonds. Who is fuelling this alleged smuggling of diamonds from Zimbabwe? We reject the paternalistic call for Zimbabwe’s diamonds to be used for the benefit of our own people. Who is making such calls? Our resources are for our people and we need no persuasion from anybody else. My delegation trusts that the howls of those jealous of Zimbabwe’s potential will be dismissed with the contempt they deserve. We congratulate the new Kimberley Process Chair for 2011, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. My delegation pledges to continue to engage constructively in this matter, despite the entrenched detractors who do not desire progress and are blinded by their racism and unbridled, brutal power.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item. We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/65/L.52. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has asked to speak in explanation of vote before the voting. May I remind him that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela wishes to state its position on draft resolution A/65/L.52, entitled “The role of diamonds in fuelling conflict: breaking the link between the illicit transaction of rough diamonds and armed conflict as a contribution to prevention and settlement of conflicts” and on the letter submitted by Israel as Chair of the Kimberley Process for 2010, contained in document A/65/607. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela participated very actively and constructively in the negotiation process that took place under the auspices of this Organization on the agenda item we are considering today. However, once again, Venezuela was the target of attacks by certain delegations that seek to prevent my country from exercising its sovereign prerogative to participate in the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. This year was no exception in that regard. This is why I wish to draw attention to this matter in this Hall and to respond to the representative of Canada. It was the Israeli chairmanship of the Kimberley Process that refused to allow any positive mention in the draft resolution before us of the steps taken by Venezuela to fully rejoin the Process. In a responsible and sovereign act, Venezuela decided to self-suspend — I emphasize “self-suspend” — until we could meet the minimum criteria required by the system for trading our diamonds, which had been previously certified and, as is well established, do not fund any type of conflict. Unfortunately, and very much in spite of the constructive efforts of my delegation and others, Israel refused to make any positive reference to Venezuela in draft resolution A/65/L.52. We wish to recall that in the Delhi declaration adopted in 2008 (see A/63/560, annex I), it was agreed that the Chair of the Kimberley Process would continue to provide assistance and support to Venezuela to ensure its full reintegration into the system. In the light of that commitment, we wonder what actions were taken by Israel as Chair of the Process. Why, in the report before us, is there no mention of the lack of political will on the part of the Chair to work on reintegrating Venezuela in this area? Instead, five paragraphs contain references to my country that are hardly constructive or positive, and a failure to acknowledge the steps taken by Venezuela during Namibia’s productive chairmanship of the Kimberley Process in 2009. We wish to underscore that these hostile actions against Venezuela and the language contained in the report were driven by the Israeli Chair and agreed at a meeting at which my country was not present. Despite the discriminatory, politicized and barely transparent steps taken by the Chair of the Kimberley Process in 2010, which show a lack of good faith, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will support draft resolution A/65/L.52. Nonetheless, for the reasons just expressed, Venezuela wishes to note its reservations on the initial part of paragraph 21. We cannot recognize with great satisfaction the performance of Israel as Chair of the Process.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/65/L.52, entitled “The role of diamonds in fuelling conflict: breaking the link between the illicit transaction of rough diamonds and armed conflict as a contribution to prevention and settlement of conflicts”. I call on the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to inform the Assembly that, since draft resolution A/65/L.52 was introduced, the following countries have become sponsors: Albania, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, the Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia, Montenegro, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain of Northern Ireland, the United Republic of Tanzania and the United States of America.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/65/L.52?

I now call on those representatives who have asked to speak in explanation of position on the resolution just adopted. May I remind them that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

The delegation of the United Arab Emirates would like to make the following statement on behalf of the Group of Arab States. The Arab Group joined consensus on resolution 65/137, which we have just adopted, on the role of diamonds in fuelling armed conflict. My country believes that the Kimberley Process plays an important role in breaking the link between the illicit transaction in rough diamonds and armed conflict. The decision of the Arab Group to join consensus is aimed at supporting the primary objective of the resolution: the prevention of illicit transactions in order to negate their role in armed conflict in diamond-producing countries, and to seek instead to use diamonds for economic and social development in many developing countries, particularly in Africa, in order to promote their efforts to attain the Millennium Development Goals. In the discussion on this resolution, Israel, the occupying Power, as is its custom in its contribution to international ad hoc groups, attempted to assert illegal political falsifications in the framework of the Kimberley Process concerning the occupied city of Jerusalem, referring to it as an integral part of Israel and treating with disdain the legitimate international status of Jerusalem as Arab and occupied, in contravention of relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. The Arab Group drew Member States’ attention to this dangerous situation, which they sought to address in informal consultations prior to the adoption of the draft resolution. The allusion to Jerusalem was struck from the draft. The Arab Group is concerned about the fact that the Kimberley Process has been used for political purposes in 2010. The Arab Group insists on the importance of guarding against Israeli attempts to claim that occupied Arab territory is part of Israeli territory. Some countries may not be aware of the political and legal repercussions of these Israeli attempts to impose a fait accompli in order to strengthen Israel’s occupation of Arab territories. To that end, the Arab Group asserts that, in keeping with the relevant international instruments, including Security Council resolutions, the Arab and Palestinian territories, including Jerusalem, that have been occupied by Israel since 4 June 1967, including the occupied Syrian Golan and the remaining land in southern Lebanon, are military-occupied territories that should be governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and all resolutions that are legally in force internationally.

My delegation joined the consensus today on resolution 65/137, just adopted, on the role of diamonds in fuelling conflict. In fact, since the very first iteration of the resolution, my delegation has fully supported its main objective of breaking the link between the illicit trade in rough diamonds and armed conflict as a contribution to preventing and settling conflicts. However, my delegation finds it quite unfortunate that the Israeli regime, with such a dark and documented record of illicit trade in blood diamonds, was appointed Chair of the Kimberley Process, and wonders whether it would be capable of making any positive contribution to the work of the Process. Hence, I would like to express my delegation’s strong reservation concerning the first part of paragraph 21 of the resolution and on any part of the resolution and the report contained in document A/65/607 that may be construed as recognition of the Israeli regime.

My country would like to associate itself with the statement made by the Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates on behalf of the Arab Group. There is no doubt that the illicit trade in rough diamonds negatively impacts the legitimate international trade in diamonds. The misuse and abuse of this trade has led to extremely destructive conflicts in many countries, especially on the African continent, and has prolonged and fuelled such conflicts. My delegation joined the consensus in order to express its support and understanding that the main purpose of resolution 65/137, which we have just adopted, is to prevent the illicit trade in diamonds from playing a role in fuelling conflicts in diamond- producing countries, based on the principles of the Kimberley Process. Moreover, the resolution aims to prevent the illegitimate exploitation of the natural wealth of peoples, especially on the African continent, through transnational activities that deprive diamond- producing countries of their own national resources. However, my delegation would like to register its reservation concerning all paragraphs of the resolution that mention Israel because we have serious concerns about the chairmanship of the Kimberley Process having been awarded to Israel, which does not abide by the basic principles of the Process. These concerns were confirmed by the report issued by the Group of Experts on Côte d’Ivoire to the Security Council (S/2009/521), which clearly sets forth Israel’s involvement in the illegal export of rough diamonds from Côte d’Ivoire. Israel’s chairmanship of the Kimberley Process represents a mistaken interpretation of the requirements of the lofty cause to which we referred at the beginning of our statement. Everybody recalls that our delegation warned of this situation at the previous session of the General Assembly. We have submitted all of the necessary proof that justifies our serious concerns in the matter. It is well known to all that Israeli diamond merchants, some of whom work from Israeli settlements in occupied Arab territories and most of whom serve as reserve officers in the Israeli army, exploit the diamond trade in Africa and other areas to conclude destructive deals, sell illegal weapons, foment internal discord in some countries, and involve children in armed conflicts. All of that, of course, fuels conflicts and negatively impacts international peace and security, not to mention the fact that it also finances international terrorism, organized crime and separatist movements throughout the world.

Botswana is taking the floor in order to reaffirm our commitment to the Kimberley Process. We therefore fully support resolution 65/137, which the Assembly has just adopted. The resolution is an important instrument that recognizes the unique relationship between the United Nations system and the Kimberley Process, which is a voluntary body set up to regulate international trade in rough diamonds with a view to preventing conflict diamonds from entering the legitimate trade in rough diamonds. In that regard, we wish to express our sincere appreciation to the delegation of Israel, in its capacity as Chair of the 2010 Kimberley Process and for its outstanding leadership in concluding resolution 65/137 and presenting the report on developments in the Kimberley Process (A/65/607). We also welcome and congratulate the Democratic Republic of the Congo as the incoming Kimberley Process Chair for 2011. The Kimberley Process strongly subscribes to United Nations resolutions, such as the one we have just adopted, that serve to validate and nurture this mutually beneficial relationship. It reaffirms our collective commitment to doing our utmost to contribute to the prevention and settlement of conflicts by breaking the link between illicit transactions in rough diamonds and armed conflict. Most importantly, while the resolution that we have just adopted, while underlining the fact that conflict diamonds continue to be a matter of concern to the international community, also recognizes the significant strides that have been and continue to be made towards achieving our common objective, in line with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. While my delegation is aware of the number of challenges that the Kimberley Process continues to face, we are also encouraged by the determination of participant Governments to ensure that the Process continues to have credibility and their resolve to rise to the challenges of the future. In that connection, the Kimberley Process membership continues to address the problem of conflict diamonds by participating in and effectively implementing the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, and encourages those countries in a position to do so to join the Kimberley Process without hesitation. There is no doubt that the widest possible participation of the international community is essential to ensuring the effectiveness of the Kimberley Process itself.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote. I call on the representative of Israel on a point of order.

On behalf of all sponsors, I wish to thank the delegations that supported the adoption of resolution 65/137, entitled “The role of diamonds in fuelling conflict: breaking the link between the illicit transaction of rough diamonds and armed conflict as a contribution to prevention and settlement of conflicts”. We deeply regret the use of this forum by certain States to politicize a process that has nothing to do with the resolution and the noble goals of the Kimberley Process. The range of sponsors and supporters of the resolution — developing and developed countries from both North and South, Kimberley Process members and others — illustrates the wide agreement throughout the international community that combating the trade in conflict diamonds remains an important priority. The Kimberley Process is an essential mechanism for curbing this illicit trade and addressing the violence and instability that it spreads. Today, we have strengthened the Kimberley Process so as to further global peace, stability and lawful economic development. While we have taken this important step in New York, the important work of implementing the resolution around the world continues. Again, I would like to congratulate Member States on their consensus on and their commitment to addressing this issue. We look forward to working with Member States in realizing the goals and objectives set forth in this resolution.

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 32? It was so decided.

I am very pleased and honoured today to introduce, jointly with Pakistan, draft resolution A/65/L.44/Rev.1, which further moves forward our collective efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace throughout the world. In 2004, when the Philippines first introduced to the General Assembly a resolution on the promotion of interreligious dialogue (59/23), it did so in the firm belief — shared with many partners in the United Nations — that one of the ways to achieve global peace would be by drawing the human family closer together in greater understanding and respect for its diversity. To accomplish that goal, walls had to be torn down, bridges had to be built and efforts had to be made to bring the human family closer together. This we saw through interreligious and intercultural dialogue. In the six years since that landmark resolution was unanimously adopted, we have moved forward together and closer towards our goal. In those six years, we have seen a deeper appreciation for interreligious and intercultural dialogue in the context of the holistic and comprehensive efforts of the United Nations to achieve peace. In those six years, we have witnessed increasing efforts in many parts of the world to foster dialogue among religions, cultures and civilizations. We note that, since 2004, the resolutions on this subject have been adopted unanimously by the General Assembly. The draft resolution was forged following four informal consultations and several bilateral negotiations. Throughout the process, we strived to be open and to consider the many comments and the input received from a wide range of participants. With dialogue as our overarching theme for the draft resolution, it was fitting that dialogue should likewise be the hallmark of our process. Through open dialogue, we were able to forge draft resolution A/65/L.44/Rev.1, which contains several key elements, including technical updates of resolution 64/81 on the same subject, in particular on the celebration of the International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures, led by UNESCO. The draft resolution also emphasizes the importance of culture for development in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, as stated in the outcome document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly (resolution 65/1). The draft resolution affirms the importance of sustaining the process of engaging all stakeholders, in particular women and youth, in the interreligious and intercultural dialogue within the appropriate initiatives at the various levels. The draft resolution welcomes the efforts made by the media to promote interreligious and intercultural dialogue, and encourages the further promotion of dialogue among the media. At the same time, it emphasizes the right to freedom of expression and reaffirms that the exercise of that right carries with it special duties and responsibilities. The draft resolution also acknowledges the holding of the Special Non-Aligned Movement Ministerial Meeting on Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation for Peace and Development, the biggest intergovernmental gathering to celebrate 2010 as the International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures. It takes note too of the Manila Declaration, which highlights the importance of enhancing efforts to promote respect for the diversity of religions, beliefs, cultures and societies. Finally, it calls upon Member States to consider, as appropriate and where applicable, interreligious and intercultural dialogue as an important tool in efforts aimed at achieving peace and the full realization of the Millennium Development Goals. On a minor editorial note, we wish to point out the repetition in the third footnote of reference to the Regional Interfaith Dialogue, in Perth, Australia, which was already indicated in lines 6 and 7 of the same footnote. We therefore wish to make a verbal amendment to the footnote, which is to strike out the repetitive portion, from line 11 up to the word “levels” in line 13 of the same footnote. The draft resolution is a product of both labour and love, and the Philippines would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to thank all those who have actively participated in the discussions and helped make the consultations a truly enriching process and a meaningful exercise in genuine dialogue. We are grateful to the delegation of Pakistan, the principal co-sponsor, and the core group of sponsors for all their hard work in coordinating our efforts and for their commitment to seeing the draft resolution through. We are thankful, too, for the other original sponsors and the new sponsors. As it stands now, there are 54 sponsors of the draft resolution. We urge all those who have yet to sign up as sponsors to do so at the Secretariat table. We are likewise grateful for the technical assistance provided by UNESCO, the Office for Economic and Social Council Support and Coordination, and the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. We are thankful, too, to the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management for the technical assistance it has extended. Interreligious and intercultural dialogue remains a vital component of our comprehensive efforts to achieve lasting peace in the world — peace as a precondition for development and peace as an end in itself. In submitting the draft resolution for action today, the Philippines has full confidence that we will be able to move further forward together, towards an objective we all share and aspire to, through a dialogue that keeps us all drawn together as one human family.

As one of its two main sponsors, together with the Philippines, Pakistan is honoured to introduce draft resolution A/65/L.44/Rev.1, entitled “Promotion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation for peace”. My colleague the Permanent Representative of the Philippines has aptly underlined the importance of this important initiative, which our two countries have led over some time. The initiative has gained the support of a wide number of Member States, which is reflective of its importance and the need to pursue it meaningfully at various levels. The draft resolution was the subject of a series of informal consultations. Discussions were held in a collegial atmosphere to reflect on various aspects of the draft resolution and how to improve its contents. I wish to convey the gratitude of the sponsors for the constructive contributions of all our partners to enriching the text of the draft resolution. We are also grateful to delegations for their flexibility and cooperation in achieving a balanced text that reflects the concerns of all partners. We accordingly hope that the draft resolution will be adopted by consensus. The issues that the draft resolution aims to address have never been more relevant. Today, the world around us is becoming more vulnerable to divisive ideologies and countless mutual suspicions and mistrust. Every day reminds us of the need to engage closely with one another to overcome the unfounded but deeply entrenched mutual fears that are based on a lack of understanding of each other’s perspectives and perceptions. That lack of understanding can be meaningfully addressed by promoting dialogue, respect and tolerance of each other’s views. Interfaith and intercultural dialogue must be promoted in an organized fashion at all levels by all, including but not limited to religious leaders, local institutions, national Governments, regional and international organizations, civil society and the media. Only through dialogue can we better understand each other and appreciate the value each culture and faith brings to enriching the cultural life of humankind and promoting a culture of peace. We believe that despite their diversity, religions have much more in common that unites us than differences that divide us. We need to build on those commonalities to promote religious and cultural harmony within and among societies. We also believe that religious and cultural diversity are positive driving forces that can meaningfully contribute to the socio- economic development of multicultural societies, which is important for a culture of peace. We greatly appreciate the steps being taken by various Governments at the national level, including initiatives like the Bishop Ulama Conference in the Philippines, to promote religious harmony and dialogue through an understanding of the Christian and Islamic faiths. In Pakistan, too, interfaith harmony committees have been established at the local level throughout the country, with the participation of religious leaders of all faiths, in order to enhance understanding, address misperceptions and promote harmony through dialogue. Promoting dialogue on this subject at all levels will contribute towards achieving a global culture of peace. We urge all Member States to support this draft resolution with a view to strengthening efforts to foster greater understanding and cooperation between cultures and faiths, which will pave the way for a peaceful future for us today and for coming generations.

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/65/L.44/Rev.1, as orally revised. The representative of Belgium has asked to speak in explanation of vote before the voting. May I remind him that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) on draft resolution A/65/L.44/Rev.1, entitled “Promotion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation for peace”. As it did last year, the EU has decided to join the consensus on the draft resolution. We again do so, however, with serious reservations regarding a number of elements contained therein. The EU is convinced that intercultural dialogue can make a significant contribution to mutual understanding between persons with different cultural, religious and other identities. In the view of the EU, a fruitful and genuine dialogue cannot be guided by Government authorities. The EU therefore regrets that the sponsors of the draft resolution could not accept even a brief reference to individuals and civil society in the context of intercultural and interreligious dialogue in the fourth preambular paragraph. The EU is increasingly concerned about initiatives seeking to establish religion and religious values as cornerstones of the work of the United Nations. Interreligious dialogue is only one of the various dimensions of intercultural dialogue. Both inter- and intra-religious dialogue take place between individuals and religious organizations or leaders. It is possible that the United Nations system, along with Member States, can play a facilitating role, promoting the necessary conditions for that dialogue to take place, but in our view it should neither organize such dialogue nor endorse its outcome. Religion should therefore not be institutionalized in the framework of the United Nations. Furthermore, the EU believes that States should respect the prerogatives of religious leaders and religious communities, as well as of individuals, in matters of religion and belief; and it joins the consensus in the understanding that the twelfth preambular paragraph cannot be read as referring to States trying to interfere with those prerogatives. The EU is also concerned about attempts to categorize individuals exclusively on the basis of their religion or faith. Religion or faith may indeed constitute part of the multiple identities of an individual, and interreligious dialogue is certainly one of the various dimensions of dialogue. But it is important that the diversity of identities be reflected in the global dialogue efforts as a whole. The EU regrets that the sponsors of this initiative were not prepared to integrate all these basic foundations for a genuine dialogue into the text, and is able to join the consensus only on the understanding that they are implied. The EU hopes that next year the main sponsors will be able to better translate these concerns into the text. The EU also has concerns regarding paragraph 7, notably its reference to the Manila Declaration and Programme of Action on Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation for Peace and Development. Since the draft resolution is to be adopted by the universal membership of the General Assembly, the EU holds the view that it would have been more appropriate to refer to the Non-Aligned Movement conference and related documents in the preamble. While we appreciate that the main sponsors have somewhat alleviated our concerns about paragraph 7, we would nevertheless like to state that the EU’s joining the consensus on the draft resolution should not be construed as an acknowledgement of support for the recommendations contained in the documents adopted at that conference, especially those relating to combating the defamation of religions. The EU also notes with concern references in the draft resolution to the role of the media in the promotion of interreligious dialogue. Although the European Union acknowledges the potential and importance of the media in promoting tolerance through knowledge and exchange, we do not want the media to receive instructions from States or the United Nations on what they should do or not do, or to limit the free flow of speech and information through the media. The EU therefore maintains its reservations about paragraph 5. Finally, the draft resolution once again refers to the possibility of proclaiming a United Nations decade for interreligious and intercultural dialogue. As we did last year, let me reiterate our scepticism about this idea. The EU does not believe that such a decade would contribute significantly to genuine dialogue. The EU is opposed in principle to the proliferation of new international days, years and decades, since in many cases their effectiveness has been low. We believe that it is more important to focus on implementing existing and concrete initiatives if their impact is to be seen on the ground. To conclude, let me reiterate that the EU attaches great importance to promoting intercultural dialogue, particularly the work done by UNESCO, which is the lead United Nations agency in the promotion of such dialogue, as well as to other initiatives for enhancing dialogue and mutual understanding, such as the Alliance of Civilizations.

The General Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/65/L.44/Rev.1, as orally revised, entitled “Promotion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation for peace”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that since the introduction of draft resolution A/65/L.44/Rev.1, the following countries have also become sponsors: Afghanistan, Angola, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, China, the Congo, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Fiji, Grenada, Honduras, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Oman, Peru, the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Yemen.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/65/L.44/Rev.1, as orally revised?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 15.

On behalf of the member States of the Community of Portuguese- speaking Countries (CPLP) — Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Portugal, Sao Tome and Principe and Timor-Leste — I have the honour to introduce draft resolution A/65/L.23/Rev.2, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries”, under agenda item 122. The CPLP brings together 240 million people in eight countries and four continents. Its member States are key players in the international arena at the United Nations, the European Union, the African Union, the Common Market of the South, the Organization of American States, the Southern African Development Community and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. One of the major objectives of the Community is to strengthen cooperation among its member countries through concerted political and diplomatic action, particularly within the framework of international organizations, so as to give ever greater expression to their common interests and needs within the international community. Another important goal that we actively pursue is the intensification of bilateral and multilateral cooperation among member States, especially in the sectors of health, education, agriculture, public administration, technology, and so on. On the diplomatic front, CPLP is deeply involved in developing actions with other international partners that can assure the security, political stability and normal working of democratic institutions, as is currently the case in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, where a challenging post-conflict process is being conducted through the country-specific peacebuilding configuration, under the guidance of Brazil. This year, the draft resolution before the General Assembly aims at strengthening cooperation between the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries and the specialized agencies and other bodies and programmes of the United Nations, in particular the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the International Labour Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. Such cooperation has been extremely important to the implementation of programmes and to the development of partnerships in projects to fight starvation and poverty, as well as the HIV/AIDS pandemic in CPLP countries, thus contributing to assisting countries in reaching the Millennium Development Goals, while strengthening synergies between the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries and the specialized agencies and other bodies and programmes of the United Nations, as well as regional and subregional organizations that have a direct impact on Portuguese-speaking countries. The draft resolution also highlights the importance of the decision of the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries, taken in Luanda in May 2009, to create CPLP centres of excellence for the training of trainers in the area of peacekeeping operations with a view to continuing and, where possible, further enhancing the contributions of CPLP member States to United Nations peacekeeping operations. Lastly, the draft resolution asks the Secretary- General to submit to the General Assembly, at its sixty- seventh session, a report on the implementation of the present draft resolution. On behalf of the States members of the CPLP, allow me to express our profound gratitude and appreciation to those countries that joined in sponsoring the draft resolution. Finally, let me reiterate that, in all our actions, the principle of solidarity in diversity, which is one of the beacons of the Angolan presidency of the CPLP, has guided our steps.

I now give the floor to the representative of Tajikistan to introduce draft resolution A/65/L.43.

I have the honour, on behalf of the 57 States members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) group in New York, of introducing draft resolution A/65/L.43, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference”. Since the introduction of the draft resolution, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, the Philippines and Thailand have joined the list of sponsors. The text of the draft resolution is a consensus outcome of consultations among the entire United Nations membership. I thank the Secretary-General for his comprehensive and informative biennial report contained in document A/65/382, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations”, which greatly facilitated our consideration of the agenda item. The draft resolution takes into account, inter alia, the desire of the United Nations and the OIC to continue to cooperate closely in the political, economic, social, humanitarian, cultural and scientific fields and in their common search for solutions to global problems. It also notes the progress made in the strengthening of cooperation between the United Nations and its agencies and the OIC. The OIC attaches great importance to that cooperation and intends to strengthen its collaboration with the United Nations and its agencies in order to enhance synergies between our two organizations. The Organization of the Islamic Conference remains an important partner of the United Nations in the matter of peace and security and in fostering a culture of peace at the global level. The two organizations have taken various decisions, including agreements to continue cooperation on conflict prevention and resolution, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, combating international terrorism, countering religious intolerance, including Islamophobia, promoting and protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all, humanitarian assistance and capacity-building in electoral assistance, and improving the relevant follow-up mechanisms. As experience shows, joint activities stemming from closer cooperation have given rise to deeper and more reflective exchanges and opened up new areas of cooperation. Closer coordination strengthens the work of the United Nations. For that reason, closer cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference and other organizations is essential to the pursuit of our common goals and aspirations for international peace and prosperity, including the Millennium Development Goals, as set out in the Millennium Declaration (resolution 55/2). The OIC is ready to take a pragmatic approach to ensure that the agreed activities between the two organizations are implemented. To that end, the OIC looks forward to the full support of all our partners.

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolutions A/65/L.23/Rev.2 and A/65/L.43. The Assembly will first take a decision on draft resolution A/65/L.23/Rev.2, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the introduction of draft resolution A/65/L.23/Rev.2, the following countries have become sponsors: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, the Central African Republic, the Congo, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Greece, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, New Zealand, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the United States of America and Zambia.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/65/L.23/Rev.2?

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/65/L.43, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference”. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/65/L.43?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-items (g) and (s) of agenda item 122? It was so decided. Programme of work The Acting President (spoke in French): I should like to consult members regarding an extension of the work of the Fifth Committee. Members will recall that at its 62nd plenary meeting, on 10 December 2010, the General Assembly approved the recommendation of the Bureau that the Fifth Committee would complete its work by Friday, 17 December 2010. However, the Chairman of the Fifth Committee has just informed the President of the Assembly that the Committee will not be able to finish its work by tomorrow, Friday, 17 December. May I take it that the General Assembly agrees to extend the work of the Fifth Committee until Tuesday, 21 December 2010? It was so decided.