A/66/PV.130 General Assembly
The meeting was called to order at 11.30 a.m.
39. The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan
In connection with this item, I have received a letter dated 3 August 2012 from the representative of Azerbaijan, in which he requests that the consideration of this item be deferred to the sixty- seventh session of the Assembly.
May I take it that the Assembly decides to defer its consideration of the item and to include in the draft agenda of the sixty-seventh session an item entitled “The situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan”?
It was so decided.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 39?
63. New Partnership for Africa’s Development: progress in implementation and international support (a) New Partnership for Africa’s Development: progress in implementation and international support
Vote:
66/293
Consensus
It was so decided.
124. United Nations reform: measures and proposals
Vote:
66/295
Consensus
66. Rights of indigenous peoples
Vote:
66/296
Consensus
40. Question of the Comorian island of Mayotte
Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on 16 September 2011, the General Assembly decided to include this item in its agenda on the understanding that there would be no consideration of this item by the Assembly until further notice.
In connection with the item, I have received a note verbale dated 16 August 2012 from the Permanent Mission of the Comoros to the United Nations requesting the inclusion of this item in the provisional agenda of the sixty-seventh session. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to include an item entitled “Question of the Comorian island of Mayotte” in the draft agenda of the sixty- seventh session?
Offi cial Records
It was so decided.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 40?
It was so decided.
42. The situation in Central America: progress in fashioning a region of peace, freedom, democracy and development
Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on 16 September 2011, the Assembly decided to include item 42 in the agenda of the sixty-sixth session, in accordance with decision 60/508, of 31 October 2005. In that decision the General Assembly decided that this item shall remain on the agenda for consideration upon notification by a Member State. Accordingly, this item has been included in the draft agenda of the sixty-seventh session.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 42?
It was so decided.
43. Question of Cyprus Armed aggression against the Democratic Republic of the Congo Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) The situation of democracy and human rights in Haiti Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system concerning the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and international peace and security Consequences of the Iraqi occupation of and aggression against Kuwait
Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on 16 September 2011, the Assembly decided to include items 43 to 48 in the agenda of the sixty-sixth session, in accordance with paragraph 4 (b) of the annex to resolution 58/316, of 1 July 2004. In that resolution the General Assembly decided that those items shall remain on the agenda for consideration upon notification by a Member State. Accordingly, those items have been included in the draft agenda of the sixty-seventh session.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda items 43 to 48?
It was so decided.
125. Follow-up to the recommendations on administrative management and internal oversight of the Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme
Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on 16 September 2011, the General Assembly decided to include this item in the agenda of the sixty-sixth session.
In connection with this item, I have received a letter dated 14 September from the representative of Costa Rica, in which he requests that consideration of the item be deferred to the sixty-seventh session of the Assembly.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to defer consideration of agenda item 125 and to include it in the draft agenda of the sixty-seventh session?
It was so decided.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 125?
It was so decided.
153. Financing of the United Nations Mission in East Timor
Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on 16 September 2011, the Assembly decided to include this item in the agenda of the sixty-sixth session.
It is my understanding that it would be desirable to defer consideration of this item to the sixty-seventh session of the General Assembly. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to defer consideration of this item and to include it in the draft agenda of its sixty-seventh session?
It was so decided.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 153?
It was so decided.
162. Financing of the United Nations Mission in the Sudan
Members will recall that, at its 2nd plenary meeting, on 16 September 2011, the Assembly decided to include this item in the agenda of the sixty-sixth session.
Members will also recall that, under agenda item 162, the Assembly adopted resolution 66/244, at its 93rd plenary meeting, on 24 December 2011.
It is my understanding that it would be desirable to defer consideration of this item to the sixty-seventh session of the General Assembly. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to defer consideration
of this item and to include it in the draft agenda of its sixty-seventh session?
It was so decided.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 162?
It was so decided.
Agenda items remaining for consideration during the sixty-sixth session of the General Assembly
I should like to remind delegations that the following agenda items, on which action has been taken at previous meetings, have remained open for consideration during the sixty-sixth session of the General Assembly: items 9, 11, 14, 15, 22, 22 (a), 30, 31, 34, 34 (a), 36, 37, 64, 70, 70 (a), (b) and (c), 110, 111, 113, 114, 114 (a) and (c), 115, 115 (f) and (i), 116, 117, 120, 123, 123 (a) and (b), 125, 127, 128, 129 and 131 to 165.
As members are aware, these items have been included in the provisional agenda of the sixty-seventh session of the General Assembly with the exception of sub-item (c) of agenda item 114, entitled “Election of twenty-nine members of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme”; sub-item (i) of agenda item 115, entitled “Appointment of the judges of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal”; agenda item 133, entitled “Programme budget for the biennium 2010- 2011”; agenda item 134, entitled “Proposed programme budget for the biennium 2012-2013”; agenda item 151, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”; and agenda item 155, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea”.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda items 9, 11, 14, 15, 22, 22 (a), 30, 31, 34, 34 (a), 36, 37, 64, 70, 70 (a) to (c), 110, 111, 113, 114, 114 (a) and (c), 115, 115 (f) and (i), 116, 117, 120, 123, 123 (a) and (b), 125, 127 to 129 and 131 to 165 at the present session?
It was so decided.
May I also take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to include agenda items 9, 11, 14, 15, 22, 22 (a), 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 64, 70, 70 (a), (b) and (c), 110, 111, 113, 114, 114 (a), 115, 115 (f), 116, 117, 120, 123, 123 (a) and (b), 125, 127 to 129, 131, 132, 135
to 150, 152 to 154 and 156 to 165 in the draft agenda of the sixty-seventh session?
It was so decided.
7. Organization of work, adoption of the agenda and allocation of items
Members will recall that the Assembly concluded its consideration of agenda item 27 and its sub-items at its 89th plenary meeting, on 19 December 2011. In order for the Assembly to take action on the draft resolution, it will be necessary to reopen consideration of agenda item 27. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to reopen its consideration of agenda item 27?
It was so decided.
Members will further recall that at its 2nd plenary meeting, on 16 September 2011, the General Assembly decided to allocate agenda item 27 to the Third Committee. To enable the General Assembly to take action expeditiously on the document, may I also take it that the Assembly wishes to consider agenda item 27 directly in plenary meeting and proceed immediately to its consideration?
It was so decided.
27. Social development
I would like to make an oral revision to draft resolution A/66/L.59/Rev.1, as follows. All preambular paragraphs in the text should be deleted.
We shall now proceed to take action on draft resolution A/66/L.59/Rev.1, entitled “Global Day of Parents”, as orally revised.
May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/66/L.59/Rev.1, as orally revised?
Draft resolution A/66/L.59/Rev.1, as orally revised, was adopted (resolution 66/292).
Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of position on the resolution just adopted, may I remind delegations that explanations of position are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.
Costa Rica welcomes the attention that you have given, Mr. President, to the issue of the family. We should have preferred the text we have adopted to have benefitted from an open consultation process, particularly since the subject is of interest to everybody. Although, like other countries of our region, we did have an opportunity to submit written proposals, we did not have an opportunity to personally explain our proposals and concerns on the subject. My delegation considers it important that the proclamation of a Global Day of Parents be an element of the global human rights instruments relating to the subject and such important concepts as the best interests of the child.
The delegation of Chile supported the consensus adoption of resolution 66/292, “Global Day of Parents”. In Chile, article I of the Political Constitution of the State, on institutions, provides that families are the central nucleus of society. However, like the delegation of Costa Rica, my delegation should have wished to participate in informal consultations to discuss the best methods and actions to contribute to promoting those important ideas. We should remember in that regard that an entire international framework embodies the concepts made up of the principal human rights instruments, particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration itself, the former providing as fundamental principal the best interests of the child.
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member States. We acknowledge the important work you have done over the past year, Mr. President, and thank you for your active engagement with the United Nations membership.
With regard to resolution 66/292 on the Global Day of Parents, we joined the consensus, but we would like to make three points. First, although we appreciate that ultimately we were able to submit amendments, we regret that, despite similar requests from other groups of countries, the call for informal consultations was not heeded.
Secondly, there is no evidence that the proclamation and dedication of “days”, “years” or “decades” has an impact on policy.
In fact, the United Nations already celebrates the International Day of Families, on 15 May, which, in our view, includes the interest of parents worldwide.
Thirdly, we regret the choice of 1 June for the Global Day of Parents for it is in many countries in Europe and around the world a well-established day dedicated to children. No substantial reasons were given to explain why the United Nations needed to proclaim a new day on 1 June.
In view of the full protection of the rights of the child, we understand that this resolution fully complies with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly, as well as the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the key actions for its further implementation.
I have the honour to make this statement following the adoption of resolution 66/292, on behalf of Iceland, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland. We would like to thank you, Mr. President, for having postponed the date for the adoption of this resolution, which has given us more time to reflect upon your proposal. We joined the consensus on the resolution. However, we would like to clarify our position on three points.
Firstly, we strongly regret that no open informal consultations took place on such an important topic, as various opinions coexist on the issue among the United Nations membership. Secondly, we do not see added value in the introduction of a new Global Day of Parents, since an International Day of Families already exists that allows for the recognition of the roles of parents and other important caregivers. Finally, with respect to the proposed date for the new Global Day, we believe that 1 June is not a felicitous date, as it conflicts with the International Children’s Day celebrated in many countries. We believe that this day should continue to be exclusively devoted to children around the world and their respective rights and needs.
I have the honour to deliver this explanation of position on resolution 66/292.
We welcome your initiative, Mr. President, to proclaim 1 June as the Global Day of Parents to be observed annually by the General Assembly. Such recognition is in order to honour and recognize the
valuable contributions made by parents all over the world belonging to all religions, cultures and societies. Indeed, the role of parents as the primary caregivers, teachers and providers of critical support for the upbringing and development of the child is well-recognized by the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We were therefore happy to see that the first draft of the resolution acknowledged that goal. The revised version of the text included some language that, in our view, did not correspond to the role ascribed to parents by the Convention. However, we acknowledge your wise decision, Mr. President, to further revise orally the revised version, which led to addressing those anomalies. We are accordingly happy to support the resolution as adopted
We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position following the adoption of the resolution.
May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to conclude its consideration of agenda item 27?
It was so decided.
7. Organization of work, adoption of the agenda and allocation of items
Members will recall that the Assembly concluded its consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 63 at its 122nd plenary meeting, on 23 July. In order for the Assembly to take action on draft resolution A/66/L.63, it will be necessary to reopen the consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 63.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to reopen its consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 63?
It was so decided.
Members will recall that the General Assembly considered, in a joint debate, agenda
item 63 and its sub-items (a) and (b) and agenda item 13 at its 32nd and 33rd plenary meetings, on 11 October 2011. Members will also recall that, under sub-item (a), the Assembly adopted resolution 66/286 at its 122nd plenary meeting, on 23 July.
The Assembly will now take action on draft resolution A/66/L.63, entitled “A monitoring mechanism to review commitments made towards Africa’s development”.
May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/66/L.63?
It was so decided.
Draft resolution A/66/L.63 was adopted (resolution 66/293).
I should like to express my sincere thanks to Ambassador Macharia Kamau of Kenya and Ambassador Mårten Grunditz of Sweden, the two co-facilitators of the consultations, who so ably conducted the discussions and complex negotiations. I am sure that members of the Assembly will join me in extending to them our sincere appreciation.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 63 and of agenda item 63 as a whole?
It was so decided.
121. Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly
Members will recall that the Assembly considered, in a joint debate, agenda item 121 and agenda item 120, at its 70th plenary meeting, on 1 December 2011. The Assembly has before it the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly, which has been circulated in document A/66/891.
The Assembly also has before it a draft resolution contained in paragraph 77 of the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group.
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution entitled “Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly”, contained in paragraph 77 of the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly.
May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt the draft resolution?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 66/294).
I should now like to express my sincere thanks to Ambassador Susan Waffa-Ogoo of the Gambia and Ambassador Alexander Lomaia of Georgia, the two co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Working Group, who have so ably conducted the discussions and complex negotiations of the Working Group. I am sure that the members of the Assembly join me in extending to them our sincere appreciation.
May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 121?
It was so decided.
Members will recall that the Assembly considered agenda item 124, in a joint debate, with agenda item 14, agenda item 117, and agenda item 123 and its sub-item (a) at its 72nd plenary meeting, on 2 December 2011, and adopted resolution 66/254 at its 98th plenary meeting, on 23 February 2012.
We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/66/L.62, entitled “Extension of the intergovernmental process of the General Assembly on strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system”.
I now give the floor to the representative of Iceland.
Allow me to make a few corrections to the text contained in document A/66/L.62. These corrections reflect the text as negotiated.
In the first line of the first preambular paragraph, the words “by” and “it” should be deleted.
The third preambular paragraph should be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“Taking note also of the report of the President of the General Assembly on the intergovernmental process of the General Assembly on strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system”.
In the first line of the fifth preambular paragraph, the word “of” should be deleted and replaced by the word “from”. In the second line, the word “of” should be deleted, to read “as well as experts”.
In the second line of operative paragraph 1, the words “in order” should be deleted. In the fourth line, the word “needed” should be inserted before the words “to strengthen”.
Finally, in the third line of operative paragraph 2, the word “considering” should be replaced by the word “consider”.
I take note of the corrections just made. The Secretariat will reflect the changes in the final version of the document.
We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/66/L.62, entitled “Extension of the intergovernmental process of the General Assembly on strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system”, as orally corrected.
The Assembly will now take action on the draft resolution.
May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/66/L.62?
Draft resolution A/66/L.62, as orally corrected, was adopted (resolution 66/295).
On this occasion, let me thank the two co-facilitators, Ambassador Gréta Gunnarsdóttir of Iceland and Ambassador Desra Percaya of Indonesia, for their diligence and hard work in tackling this important issue. I would also like to thank Member States for their tendency towards a spirit of cooperation and compromise. That is the way in which we should go forward, and I sincerely hope that Member States will continue to build upon what is commonly shared and to see the big picture in the important task that lies ahead of them.
Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of position, may I remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.
I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.
I wish to draw the Assembly’s attention to
a mistake in the Russian-language text of the draft resolution.
The phrase “and the contribution” is missing from the first line of the fifth preambular paragraph.
(spoke in English)
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the cross- regional group that includes the following States: Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Syria, Venezuela and my own country, the Russian Federation. We were pleased to join the consensus on the adoption of resolution 66/295, entitled “Extension of the intergovernmental process of the General Assembly on strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system”. We are particularly satisfied that the text is fully in line with the provisions of the founding resolution on the subject, namely, resolution 66/254.
The cross-regional group attaches great importance to the goal of strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system. We continue to be committed to constructive dialogue and negotiations aimed at reaching a successful consensus outcome of the intergovernmental process established in accordance with resolution 66/254. The group is convinced that the end result of the process should contribute to consolidating the capacity of the human rights treaty body system to fulfil its principle task under the relevant international treaties, that is, to assist States parties in implementing their obligations in accordance with the respective human rights instruments.
From the beginning of the intergovernmental process, the cross-regional group has engaged with other States in a constructive spirit and has made a number of specific proposals on strengthening the treaty body system and improving its functioning. Those proposals — this is by no means an exhaustive list — include the elaboration of a code of conduct for members of the treaty bodies and the establishment of a relevant accountability mechanism for experts; guaranteeing the observance of the principle of equitable geographical representation in electing members of the treaty bodies; strengthening the mechanisms for meetings of conferences of States parties; and increasing the transparency of contacts between the treaty bodies and relevant stakeholders in the process of considering reports by States parties. The cross-regional group looks forward to continuing to discuss those and other
proposals during future meetings within the framework of the intergovernmental process.
We believe that strict compliance with the basic provisions of resolution 66/254 is crucial for the success of the negotiations ahead of us. Those elements include maintaining the intergovernmental nature of the process in the General Assembly, in particular by respecting the current modalities set out in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the resolution; and the possibility of discussing any proposal on strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system coming from any State or group of States, which also follows from the authority of the General Assembly under the Charter of the United Nations.
The cross-regional group would like to take this opportunity to express its sincere and profound appreciation to you, Mr. President, to the members of your team who have been engaged in the intergovernmental process, and especially to the two co-facilitators, Ambassador Gréta Gunnarsdóttir and Ambassador Desra Percaya, for all their efforts and hard work throughout the intergovernmental process. We look forward to their reappointment by the President of the General Assembly at its sixty-seventh session. We equally extend our thanks to the members of the co-facilitators’ team, in particular Mr. Mochammad Chandra Yudha and Mr. Ahmad Arief Adnan of Indonesia and Mr. Thorvardur Atli Thórsson of Iceland.
The cross-regional group fully shares the co- facilitators’ assessment of the overall approach of Member States during the past months as both positive and constructive. It is crucial that we continue in the same spirit and with the same dedication to our common cause. I ask members to please consider this statement as a reflection of our group’s commitment and dedication to the letter and spirit of resolution 66/254, on the intergovernmental process.
I am making this statement on behalf of the co-facilitators of the intergovernmental process, namely, Iceland and Indonesia. Allow me, at the outset, Mr. President, to reiterate our appreciation for the trust and honour that you have conferred upon us and our countries to facilitate such an important process related to the human rights treaty body system.
As laid out in resolution 66/254, we sought, through the mandate that given us to us by the President, to conduct open, transparent and inclusive
negotiations on how to strengthen and enhance the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system. We therefore sought to provide a common platform for Member States to discuss and deliberate upon this very complex but important issue. That included a series of thematic discussions on issues related to the reporting process, methods of work, the capacity to implement and resources, as well as on the previous reports by the Secretary-General and the recent report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the outcome of her multistakeholder process. In addition, during the intergovernmental process we heard interventions and received written inputs from non-State actors representing the treaty body system, national human rights institutions and civil society. We believe that those interventions and contributions supported the intergovernmental process by providing additional information and perspectives that enriched the discussions. We wish to thank them for sharing their expertise on this matter.
We would furthermore like to emphasize that, in the view of the co-facilitators, the overall approach of Member States during the process was positive and constructive. Our observation is that, throughout the negotiations, delegations exhibited a strong sense of commitment and a spirit of cooperation and compromise, which we believe sets a positive tone for future engagement in that process.
Finally, allow me to express the heartfelt appreciation of the co-facilitators for the contribution of Member States to the intergovernmental process. As resolution 66/295, which we have just adopted, states, strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights treaty body system is a common goal of us all. This positive atmosphere should allow the process to advance in a constructive way with the shared objective of strengthening the treaty body system as a whole.
The United States would like to thank the co-facilitators of this process, the Ambassadors of Iceland and Indonesia, for all of their efforts. We look forward to continuing the dialogue on strengthening the treaty body system.
As we said throughout the negotiations, the United States does not support a code of conduct for the treaty bodies. We believe that non-governmental organizations must continue to be included in all aspects of the discussion throughout this process. We thank the co-facilitators for bringing forward this text.
We will continue to engage with other delegations on the dialogue going forward.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 124?
It was so decided.
7. Organization of work, adoption of the agenda and allocation of items
Members will recall that the Assembly concluded its consideration of agenda item 66 and its sub-items at its 89th plenary meeting, on 19 December 2011. In order for the Assembly to take action on draft resolution A/66/L.61, it will be necessary to reopen its consideration of agenda item 66.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to reopen its consideration of agenda item 66?
It was so decided.
Members will further recall that at its 2nd plenary meeting, on 16 September 2011, the General Assembly decided to allocate agenda item 66 to the Third Committee. To enable the General Assembly to take action expeditiously on this item, may I take it that the Assembly wishes to consider agenda item 66 directly in plenary meeting and to proceed immediately to its consideration?
It was so decided.
I should now like to make the following oral corrections to draft resolution A/66/L.61.
The last part of sub-paragraph (j) of paragraph 3 should read:
“submit the proposed list to Member States for their consideration on a non-objection basis, and bring the list to the attention of the General Assembly;”.
In paragraph 5, the words “full and effective” should be deleted. The paragraph should therefore read:
“Encourages the participation of indigenous women, young people, older persons and persons with disabilities in the World Conference;”
In connection with draft resolution A/66/L.61, as orally corrected, I now give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.
In connection with draft resolution A/66/L.61, entitled “Organization of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples”, as orally corrected, I wish to put on record the following statement of financial implications on behalf of the Secretary-General, in accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly.
Under the terms of paragraphs 1 and 3 (a) of draft resolution A/66/L.61, as orally corrected, the General Assembly would decide that the high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly, to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, will be held on Monday, 22 September, and on the afternoon of Tuesday, 23 September 2014.
The Assembly would also decide that the organizational arrangements of the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples shall be as follows. The World Conference will be composed of two plenary meetings, in the form of an opening and a closing session, three interactive round tables and one informal panel discussion. The opening meeting will start at 9.00 a.m., and two round tables will take place simultaneously on the afternoon of Monday, 22 September.
The opening and closing plenary meetings, as well as one of the parallel round tables, will require three meetings with interpretation in all six languages, and they will use the entitlements of the General Assembly. Verbatim reports in all six languages will be provided only for the plenary meetings. The two round tables and the informal panel discussion will therefore constitute an addition of three meetings, with interpretation in all six languages, to the meeting workload of the Department of General Assembly and Conference Management. That would constitute an additional requirement to the amount of $33,300 for meetings in 2014.
Furthermore, additional documentation comprising 32 pages of post-session documentation in all six official languages would be required in 2014. That would constitute an additional requirement to the amount of $62,300 for documentation services in 2014.
Consequently, an additional requirement of $95,600 for the biennium 2014-2015 would arise under section 2, “General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management”, for meeting servicing and documentation.
Accordingly, should the General Assembly adopt draft resolution A/66/L.61, additional resources in the amount of $95,600 would be required under the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2014-2015 under section 2, “General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management”. That would require additional appropriations of $95,600 to be included in the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2014-2015.
The Assembly will now take action on draft resolution A/66/L.61, entitled “Organization of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples”, as orally corrected.
May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/66/L.61, as orally corrected?
Draft resolution A/66/L.61, as orally corrected, was adopted (resolution 66/296).
Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of position on the resolution just adopted, may I remind delegations 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.
We would like to express our sincere appreciation for the leadership and extensive efforts of the co-facilitators, His Excellency Luis-Alfonso de Alba, Permanent Representative of Mexico, and Mr. John Henriksen, international representative of the Sami Parliament of Norway, during the negotiations of resolution 66/296. We would also like to note our appreciation for the high degree of professionalism, openness and creativity on the part of the co-facilitators and their team throughout this process in bringing together a number of diverging positions to achieve our shared goal of providing a basis for a successful World Conference on Indigenous Peoples. We also note the close consultations with indigenous peoples conducted by the co-facilitators. We highly value the outcome reached in our discussions.
The European Union fully supports the World Conference and the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples through all stages of the Conference. We look forward to the participation and contribution of indigenous peoples at the Conference and believe that the resolution allows Member States and indigenous peoples to work closely together through the preparatory process as well as during the Conference.
In that regard, we would like to make one comment on the text just adopted, with reference to the full participation of civil society in the Conference. We firmly believe that maintaining a strong and open dialogue with civil society groups within the rules of procedure of the General Assembly will be an important contribution to the Conference. We regret that this principle could not be fully reflected in the text owing to the reluctance of some Member States.
We have consistently noted throughout the consultations on this resolution that the process of admission for non-governmental organizations to participate in the World Conference should be transparent and allow for the full involvement of the General Assembly. It is our interpretation of operative paragraph 3 (j) that, within the Assembly, Member States will receive full information on the applications and will be able to make a final decision on the presence of civil society representatives or specific non-governmental organizations.
We once again thank all colleagues for their efforts to reach a consensus. We would also like to extend our warm gratitude to both co-facilitators for their persistent efforts to accommodate all views expressed in the negotiations. We highly value the close cooperation that we have shared throughout this process.
The delegation of the Russian Federation joined in the consensus on the adoption of the draft resolution contained in document A/66/L.61. We would like to thank the Permanent Representative of Mexico, Mr. De Alba, for his efforts to coordinate the difficult negotiating process on this document.
The Russian Federation sets great store by international efforts to protect the rights and interests of indigenous peoples around the world, and we are convinced that the General Assembly can play a tangible role in achieving that goal. These were the deciding factors when we made the decision to support
the initiative on the holding of a world conference on indigenous peoples in the format of a General Assembly plenary meeting. We believe that the success of the Conference will depend largely on strict compliance with the modalities of the forum.
In that respect, we would like to stress that nothing in this resolution should be construed as annulling or modifying the existing rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the status of the General Assembly as the highest intergovernmental body, or the procedure for the harmonization of documents for their subsequent adoption by the Assembly.
The following paragraphs should be viewed from that perspective: the fourth preambular paragraph and operative paragraphs 3, 5, 7, 9 and 12. This is especially the case in the context of accreditation and of participation in preparing and harmonizing the draft outcome document of the World Conference.
In conclusion, we would like to note the important role played by the coordinators of the negotiating process, as appointed by the President of the General Assembly, who are charged with facilitating the quest for mutual understanding among Member States and ensuring that no unfounded and irresponsible statements are made that could distort the fundamental positions of official delegations. Sadly, in this case, those requirements were satisfied only by the Member States coordinator. We hope that lessons will be learned from those negative experiences.
The delegation of the Plurinational State of Bolivia would like to refer to draft resolution A/66/L.61, on the organization of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly, to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, to be held on 22 and 23 September 2014.
Bolivia would like to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank Ambassador Luis-Alfonso de Alba, Permanent Representative of Mexico, and Mr. John Henriksen, international representative of the Sami Parliament, who, on behalf of the General Assembly, guided the informal consultations on the draft resolution. We are of the view that this document is the outcome of broad-based, constructive and transparent negotiations.
For the first time in history, and 69 years after the founding of the United Nations, a High-level Plenary
Meeting of the General Assembly to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples will be held in 2014. It will be the outcome of more than 20 years of negotiations, which is the time it took to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples, until finally, in September 2007, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted. There can be no doubt that this Conference will be a new milestone for the more than 370 million indigenous peoples throughout the world.
It is important to recall that almost two months after the adoption of the historic Declaration, during the Ibero-American Summit of Heads of State and Government held in November 2007 in Santiago de Chile, with the support of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, our brother, the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Evo Morales Ayma, put forward the idea that the United Nations might organize a world conference on indigenous peoples. However, that original idea has only been half fulfilled: although in 2014 we will hold such a conference, it will take place in the format of a high-level plenary meeting. But we are sure that in future the dream of holding a United Nations conference on indigenous peoples will be realized.
The modalities resolution that we have just adopted deals with basic aspects: the date, the format of the conference and the form that the opening plenary meeting will take, with the participation of three indigenous peoples’ representatives and the Chairs of the Permanent Forum and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Likewise, it sets out the format for the informal round-table discussions, which will be co-chaired by Member States and representatives of indigenous peoples.
A second key element of this modalities resolution relates to the accreditation of the representatives and institutions of indigenous peoples, which is a clearly differentiated process. In operative paragraphs 3 (h), (i) and (j) of the resolution, for example, it is stated that non-governmental organizations of civil society, academic institutions and national human rights institutions will be included. That definition makes it clear once again that indigenous peoples can never be considered non-governmental organizations.
A third element we deem important is the fact that the 2014 Conference will produce an action-oriented outcome document aimed at contributing to the realization of the rights of indigenous peoples, with a
view to achieving the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the goal of promoting the achievement of the internationally agreed development objectives.
Lastly, we would like to draw attention to the commitment of the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia and of its indigenous peoples to participating actively in all of the preparatory processes and in the 2014 Conference. We can assure the Assembly of the presence of our President, Evo Morales Ayma, as the first indigenous constitutional President, at the opening session of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly, to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, which is to be held on 22 September 2014.
Sweden welcomes the adoption of the resolution on the modalities of the World Conference of Indigenous Peoples and, like others, we would like in particular to extend our gratitude to the two co-facilitators. We are particularly pleased that the resolution stresses the importance of including the participation of indigenous peoples, which is fully in line with the objective of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Swedish Government is committed to the active involvement of indigenous peoples in the preparation for and in the World Conference. My Government has therefore decided to contribute $100,000 to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations. We encourage other Governments that have not already done so and other stakeholders to consider joining us.
Sweden also sees merit in the General Assembly’s adoption of a decision, in the near future, setting out general procedures that would apply to the participation of indigenous peoples’ representatives at United Nations meetings, given that indigenous peoples’ representatives are not always organized as non-governmental organizations and that issues affecting them are not limited to human rights.
The United States would like to add our thanks to Ambassador De Alba of Mexico and Mr. John Henriksen for their efforts in facilitating the discussions of the modalities of the High-Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly to be known as the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples.
There are more than 370 million indigenous people who live in some 90 countries around the world. We
honour their immeasurable contributions to society and call upon all States to work together with indigenous communities to meet our common challenges. Throughout negotiations on this document, we have underscored the important role indigenous peoples and civil society organizations should play through their participation in that Conference.
The process of admission for civil society organizations, including non-governmental organizations, to participate in the Conference must be completely transparent. Paragraph 3 (h) of resolution 66/296 states that indigenous peoples’ organizations and institutions:
“should be invited to submit applications to the Secretariat through an open and transparent accreditation procedure, in accordance with the established practice”.
But we are not aware of a set practice in this regard. The procedures of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples differ from each other. The resolution does not define a process by which indigenous groups will be accredited to the High-level Meeting, and therefore this issue will require further consideration by Member States, in consultation with indigenous people and other stakeholders.
We understand paragraph 3 (j) to mean that the list of non-governmental organizations and other potential participants will be sent to the General Assembly for its consideration, where Member States will evaluate any possible objections made by other States.
Paragraph 9 concerns the World Conference outcome document. As the World Conference is a high-level meeting of the General Assembly, Member States have the responsibility to negotiate the outcome document and consider it for adoption. However, indigenous peoples’ input from the preparatory process and the World Conference itself will be taken into account during the negotiations. These concepts are contained in paragraph 9, which refers to:
“inclusive and open informal consultations at an appropriate date to enable sufficient consideration by Member States and agreement by the General Assembly before its formal action at the high-level meeting”.
We are also concerned with paragraph 12, which requests the President of the General Assembly, in consultation with Member States and representatives of indigenous peoples, to finalize the organizational arrangements of the World Conference. All decisions about the World Conference that are not delegated in this paragraph should remain with the Member States.
The United States looks forward to continued cooperation to make the World Conference a productive session.
China attaches great importance to the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights. The World Conference on Indigenous Peoples will give us a great opportunity to discuss and deliberate on the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights. We steadfastly support the convening of this World Conference and we support the participation of indigenous representatives in the Conference in accordance with General Assembly procedures.
With respect to the accreditation of non-governmental organizations, we believe that the Charter of the United Nations, Economic and Social Council decision 1996/31 and the relevant procedures should be strictly adhered to.
Finally, we appreciate the work of the President of the General Assembly and thank the co-facilitators and their team for their efforts in the discussion on resolution 66/296, and we will continue to work with them.
We have heard the last speaker on this item.
I should now like to express my sincere thanks to Ambassador Luis-Alfonso de Alba of Mexico and Mr. John Henriksen, the two co-facilitators of the consultations, who so ably conducted the discussions and complex negotiations. I am sure that members of the Assembly join me in extending to them our sincere appreciation.
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 66?
It was so decided.
The meeting rose at 1 p.m.