A/67/PV.59 General Assembly

Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2012 — Session 67, Meeting 59 — New York — UN Document ↗

In the absence of the President, Mr. Momen (Bangladesh), Vice-President, took the Chair.
Vote: A/RES/67/126 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (178)
Vote: A/RES/67/127 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (127)
Vote: A/RES/67/114 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✗ No (1)
✓ Yes (170)
Vote: A/RES/67/115 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (170)
Vote: A/RES/67/116 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
— Abstain (1)
✓ Yes (172)
Vote: A/RES/67/117 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
— Abstain (2)
✓ Yes (173)
Vote: A/RES/67/118 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (98)
Vote: A/RES/67/119 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (171)
Vote: A/RES/67/120 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (169)
Vote: A/RES/67/121 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (164)
Vote: A/RES/67/122 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✗ No (1)
✓ Yes (168)
Vote: A/RES/67/125 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (175)
Vote: A/RES/67/133 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
— Abstain (1)
✓ Yes (174)
Vote: A/RES/67/134 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
— Abstain (2)
✓ Yes (175)
The meeting was called to order at 10.20 a.m.

Reports of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee)

The Acting President #66699
The General Assembly will consider the reports of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) on agenda items 49 to 60, 116 and 131. I request the Rapporteur of the Committee to introduce the reports of the Committee in one intervention. Mr. Ismaili (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Rapporteur of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee): I have the honour to introduce to the General Assembly the reports of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) submitted under agenda items 49 to 60, 116 and 131. The reports, contained in documents A/67/420 to A/67/433, include the texts of draft resolutions and decisions recommended to the General Assembly for adoption. For the convenience of delegations, a checklist prepared by the Secretariat of action taken in the Special Political and Decolonization Committee is contained in A/C.4/67/INF/3. During the main part of the sixty-seventh session, the Special Political and Decolonization Committee held a total of 23 formal meetings, during the course of which it adopted 24 draft resolutions and four draft decisions. Of those, 10 draft resolutions and three draft decisions were adopted without a vote. The first report, submitted under agenda item 49, entitled “University for Peace”, is contained in document A/67/420. Under the terms of the draft resolution, contained in paragraph 8 of the report, the General Assembly would welcome the progress made by the University in introducing innovative programmes on critical subjects related to peace and security and would support the University’s work in the area of conflict prevention, conflict resolution and peacebuilding. The second report, submitted under agenda item 50, entitled “Effects of atomic radiation”, is contained in document A/67/421. Among other things, under the terms of the draft resolution, contained in paragraph 8 of the report, the General Assembly would decide to endorse the proposed programme of work of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, including in relation to the accident following the East Japan Earthquake and tsunami and on the effects of radiation exposure on children. The third report, submitted under agenda item 51, entitled “International cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space”, is contained in document A/67/422 and contains a draft resolution in paragraph 16 and a draft decision in paragraph 17. During its consideration of the item, the Fourth Committee held a number of meetings as a Working Group of the Whole, chaired by the delegation of Japan. Under the terms of the draft resolution, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space would be requested to continue to consider, as a matter of priority, ways and means of maintaining outer space for peaceful purposes and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its sixty-eighth session. Under the terms of the draft decision, the Assembly would decide to appoint Armenia, Costa Rica and Jordan to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. The fourth report, submitted under agenda item 52, entitled “United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East”, is contained in document A/67/423. The Fourth Committee considered the report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, as well as other relevant reports. The Committee adopted four draft resolutions related to various aspects of the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, as contained in paragraph 16 of the report. The fifth report, submitted under agenda item 53, entitled “Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories”, is contained in document A/67/424. The Fourth Committee considered the report of the Special Committee concerning the protection and promotion of the human rights of the Palestinian people and other Arab inhabitants of the occupied territories, as well as other reports by the Secretary-General. The Fourth Committee adopted five draft resolutions, which are contained in paragraph 18 of its report. The sixth report, relating to agenda item 54, entitled “Comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects”, is contained in document A/67/425. The Fourth Committee heard comprehensive introductory statements by, and held an informal interactive dialogue with, the Under- Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations and the Under-Secretary-General for Field Support. Many of the issues raised during the interactive discussion and the comprehensive general debate held under this item will be further considered by the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations in its upcoming session in 2013, the report of which will be considered by the Fourth Committee in the first half of 2013. Under the terms of the draft resolution contained in the present report, the Assembly would decide to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-eighth session a new item entitled “Comprehensive review of special political missions” and to allocate it to the Special Political and Decolonization Committee. The Secretary-General would also be requested to submit a report on all policy matters pertaining to special political missions. The seventh report, submitted under agenda item 55, entitled “Questions relating to information”, is contained in document A/67/426. The Fourth Committee considered the report submitted by the Committee on Information (A/67/21) and other related reports and heard from the Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information about the efforts being made by his Department to promote the United Nations message around the world. The Fourth Committee adopted, without a vote, a draft resolution in two parts and a draft decision, which are contained in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the report. With regard to the cluster of items on Non-Self- Governing Territories and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, namely, agenda items 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60, the Fourth Committee considered those items together and held a joint general debate at which it heard 67 speakers on the various Non-Self Governing Territories, including the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. Under those items, the General Assembly has before it five reports, as follows. The report under agenda item 56, entitled “Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations”, is contained in document A/67/427. The report on item 57, “Economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories”, is contained in document A/67/428. With regarding to agenda item 58, entitled “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations”, the report is contained in document A/67/429. The report relating to agenda item 59, entitled “Offers by Member States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self-Governing Territories”, is contained in document A/67/430. The corresponding draft resolution in each of the four reports I have just referred to is contained in paragraph 7 of the relevant report. The report submitted under agenda item 60, entitled “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”, is contained in document A/67/431. Under this item, the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) adopted six draft resolutions and a draft decision, which are contained in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the report. In order to take into account developments in the Turks and Caicos Islands since the Committee’s adoption of draft resolution IV, a number of technical revisions have been proposed to part B, chapter X, of the draft resolution. Those revisions have already been agreed on at the level of the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2012. The technical revisions would be as follows: the last clause of the fifth preambular paragraph should read, “and the subsequent presentation of a draft constitution for public consultation in 2011 and introduction of a new constitution for the Territory”. In addition, the sixth preambular paragraph and paragraph 2 of the draft resolution should be deleted. In paragraph 1 the word “planned” should be replaced by the words “holding of”. Finally, in paragraph 3 the phrase “and also notes the view expressed by the administering Power that elections should not be postponed any longer than necessary” should be deleted. With regard to agenda item 116, entitled “Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly”, the report containing the proposed work and timetable of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) for the sixty-eighth session of the General Assembly is contained in document A/67/432. I would like to draw the attention of delegations to the fact that, in order to take into account the new agenda item entitled “Comprehensive review of special political missions”, which is to be considered by the Committee at the sixty-eighth session, the Bureau of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) proposes that the draft decision on the proposed programme of work and timetable of the Committee for that session be technically revised to provide for the holding of two additional meetings, on 4 and 5 November 2013. Accordingly, the dates for the consideration of the item dealing with the United Nations Relief Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and the item entitled “Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories” would be adjusted to 6 and 7 November and 8, 11 and 12 November 2013, respectively. The Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) recommends to the General Assembly for adoption the draft decision, with the oral revisions I have just presented. As indicated in the report of the Committee contained in document A/67/433, at this stage the need did not rise for the Committee to take up item 131, entitled “Programme planning”. I have the honour to submit to the General Assembly for its consideration and adoption the draft resolutions and draft decisions recommended by the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) in its reports contained in documents A/67/420 to A/67/433, as well as the technical revisions I have presented. Before I conclude, I would like to note the high level of cooperation prevailing in the Committee. The Committee was able to fulfil the mandate entrusted to it by the Assembly and to complete its work effectively and constructively within the time allotted. I would like to express, on behalf of the Bureau of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), our sincere appreciation to all delegations for their constructive participation during the session. I would like to pay particular tribute to the Chair of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), His Excellency Mr. Nelson Messone of Gabon, whose knowledge and experience in multilateral forums, enhanced by his consummate diplomatic skills, enabled the Committee to consider in depth all the agenda items allocated to it. The other members of the Bureau, Ms. Ayesha Borland of Belize, Mr. Dimitrios Felopoulos of Greece and Mrs. Maratee Andamo of Thailand, with whom I had the pleasure of working, also contributed greatly to the successful conclusion of the Committee’s work. I would also like to place on record our appreciation for the able and effective assistance provided by the secretariat of the Committee from the Disarmament and Peace Affairs Branch of the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management: the Secretary of the Committee, Ms. Emer Herity, and her team of Ms. Christa Giles, Mr. Dino Del Vasto, Mr. Martin Vrastiak, Ms. Nana Kharbedia and Ms. Silvia Dallai.

52.  United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/423)

Vote: 31/37 Recorded Vote
✓ 170   ✗ 1   8 abs.
Show country votes
✓ Yes (170)

53.  Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/424)

Vote: 31/37 Recorded Vote
✓ 98   ✗ 8   72 abs.
Show country votes
✓ Yes (171)

60.  Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/431)

Vote: 31/37 Consensus
Offi cial Records
The Acting President #66700
If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) that are before the Assembly today. It was so decided.
The Acting President #66701
Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. Before proceeding further, I wish to consult members on how I intend to refer to the reports of the Committee. In order to save time, given that this morning the Assembly is not taking up the reports of any other Main Committee, I will use only the term “the Committee”, on the understanding that the Committee’s formal name will be reflected in the official records. As I hear no objection, we shall proceed accordingly. The positions of delegations regarding the recommendations of the Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind members that under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401, the General Assembly agreed that “[w]hen the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, that is, either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation’s vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee”. May I remind delegations that, also in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Before we begin to take action on the recommendations contained in the reports of the Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we are going to proceed to take decisions in the same manner as was done in the Committee, unless the Secretariat is notified to the contrary in advance. That means that, where recorded votes were taken, we will do the same. I should also hope that we will proceed to adopt without a vote those recommendations that were adopted without a vote in the Committee. Before proceeding further, I would like to draw the attention of members to a note by the Secretariat entitled “Checklist of reports of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) to the General Assembly on agenda items 49 to 60, 116 and 131”, which has been circulated, in English only, as document A/C.4/67/INF/3. The note has been distributed desk-to-desk in the Hall as a reference guide for action on draft resolutions and decisions recommended by the Committee in its reports. In that connection, members will find, in the fourth column of the note the symbols of the draft resolutions and decisions of the Committee, with the corresponding symbols of the reports for action in the plenary in the second column of the same note. Furthermore, members are reminded that additional sponsors are no longer accepted now that the Committee has adopted the draft resolutions and decisions. Any clarification about sponsorship should be addressed to the Secretary of the Committee.
Vote: 32/413 Recorded Vote
✓ 170   ✗ 6   4 abs.
Show country votes
— Abstain (1)
✓ Yes (172)
Vote: 32/413 Recorded Vote
✓ 171   ✗ 6   3 abs.
Show country votes
✓ Yes (169)
Vote: 32/413 Consensus

49.  University for Peace Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/420)

The Acting President #66702
The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Committee in paragraph 8 of its report. We will now take action on the draft resolution. The Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

9.  Report of the Economic and Social Council

Vote: 67/136 Consensus

121.  Cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations (l) Cooperation between the United Nations and the International Organization of la Francophonie

Vote: 67/137 Consensus
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 67/111).
The Acting President #66703
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 49? It was so decided.
Vote: 31/100 Recorded Vote
✓ 172   ✗ 6   1 abs.
Show country votes
— Abstain (2)
✓ Yes (173)
Vote: 31/100 Recorded Vote
✓ 169   ✗ 6   5 abs.
Show country votes
✓ Yes (164)
Vote: 31/100 Consensus

50.  Effects of atomic radiation Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/421)

The Acting President #66704
The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Committee in paragraph 8 of its report. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 67/112).
The Acting President #66705
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 50? It was so decided.
Vote: 32/95 Recorded Vote
✓ 173   ✗ 6   2 abs.
Show country votes
✓ Yes (98)

51.  International cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/422)

The Acting President #66706
The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Committee in paragraph 15 of its report and a draft decision recommended by the Committee in paragraph 16 of the same report. We will first take a decision on the draft resolution. The Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Vote: 32/95 Recorded Vote
✓ 164   ✗ 8   6 abs.
Show country votes
✓ Yes (164)
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 67/113).
The Acting President #66707
We will now take action on the draft decision entitled “Increase in the membership of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space”. The Committee adopted the draft decision by a recorded vote. However, I have been informed that the draft decision may be adopted without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt the draft decision?
Vote: 31/169 Recorded Vote
✓ 174   ✗ 3   1 abs.
Show country votes
— Abstain (1)
✓ Yes (174)

32.  The role of diamonds in fuelling conflict Note verbale dated 14 December 2012 from the United States Mission to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting the report of the Kimberley Process Certifi cation Scheme to the General Assembly for 2012, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 66/252 (A/67/640)

Vote: 67/135 Consensus
The draft decision was adopted.
The Acting President #66708
I now give the floor to the representative of Azerbaijan, who wishes to speak in explanation of position on the decision just adopted.
Vote: 31/169 Recorded Vote
✓ 168   ✗ 1   11 abs.
Show country votes
✗ No (1)
✓ Yes (168)
Mr. Sharifov AZE Azerbaijan #66709
Azerbaijan disassociates itself from the consensus on the decision entitled “Increase in the membership of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space”. Our position was clearly voiced during the First Committee meeting on the issue. I would like to provide the following clarifications in that regard. First, we fully support the admission of Costa Rica and Jordan to the membership of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). At the same time, let me recall that, in contrast to those two countries, the application of Armenia for membership in COPUOS enjoyed no consensus during its review at the fifty-fifth meeting of the Committee, held in June in Vienna. Secondly, we are of the view that the integrity of the consensus-based principle of decision-making in a Committee should be maintained, particularly on issues pertaining to the admission of new members. Thirdly, my country’s reservation to Armenia’s application and the lack of consensus on it, both in COPUOS and in the First Committee, were also based on Armenia’s actions against my country’s peaceful programmes in outer space, which relate to the period when it was not even a member of COPUOS. One such examples includes the joint Azerbaijan-United States project on a satellite launch on which an additional discriminatory clause was applied by United States legislators under the pressure of extremist Armenian diaspora groups. As soon as Armenia becomes a member of the Committee, such provocative efforts against Azerbaijan’s outer space initiatives will continue and intensify. Needless to say, the interests of Armenia are in reality very far from the principles pertaining to the peaceful use of outer space. Indeed, it is hard to associate Armenia with such a notion as peace. Armenia’s political and military leadership are responsible for unleashing war against Azerbaijan, seizing my country’s territories, carrying out ethnic cleansing there and committing other atrocious crimes against Azerbaijani civilians, including women and children. We are confident that, as with any other aggressor’s persistent denial of international law and suppression of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Armenian policy must face strong international resistance, rather than benefit from membership in various international bodies together with peace-loving countries.
The Acting President #66710
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 51? It was so decided.
Vote: 32/97 Recorded Vote
✓ 175   ✗ 3   2 abs.
Show country votes
— Abstain (2)
✓ Yes (175)
The Acting President #66711
The Assembly has before it four draft resolutions recommended by the Committee in paragraph 16 of its report. As no delegation wishes to take the floor in explanation of vote before the voting, we will now take a decision on draft resolutions I to IV, one by one. After all the decisions have been taken, representatives will again have an opportunity to explain their vote on any or all of the draft resolutions. We turn first to draft resolution I, entitled “Assistance to Palestine refugees”. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Israel Abstaining: Cameroon, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, United States of America
Draft resolution I was adopted by 170 votes to 1, with 8 abstentions (resolution 67/114).
The Acting President #66712
Draft resolution II is entitled “Persons displaced as a result of the June 1967 and subsequent hostilities”. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor- Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States of America Abstaining: Cameroon, Honduras, Panama, Papua New Guinea
Draft resolution II was adopted by 170 votes to 6, with 4 abstentions (resolution 67/115).
The Acting President #66713
Draft resolution III is entitled “Operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East”. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor- Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States of America Abstaining: Cameroon
Draft resolution III was adopted by 172 votes to 6, with 1 abstention (resolution 67/116).
The Acting President #66714
We now turn to draft resolution IV, entitled “Palestine refugees’ properties and their revenues”. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States of America Abstaining: Cameroon, Papua New Guinea
Draft resolution IV was adopted by 173 votes to 6, with 2 abstentions (resolution 67/117).
The Acting President #66715
I now give the floor to the representative of the United States of America, who wishes to speak in explanation of vote following the voting.
Mr. Erdman USA United States of America #66716
As President Obama said in this Hall almost three months ago, “the road is hard but the destination is clear: a secure, Jewish State of Israel and an independent, prosperous Palestine” (A/67/PV.6, p. 14) With that goal in mind, we remain deeply troubled by the repetitive and disproportionate number of one-sided General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel. There are a total 17 such resolutions, all of which are unbalanced in their explicit or implicit one-sided criticism of Israel. All parties to this tragic conflict have direct responsibilities for ending it, and we are disappointed that Member States continually single out Israel without acknowledging the obligations and difficult steps required of both sides. These resolutions set back our collective efforts to advance a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In contrast to the 17 annual resolutions on Israel, this body has only adopted five other resolutions this year critical of specific Member States, all focused on severe human rights abuses. Support for these biased resolutions does not contribute to a just, lasting and comprehensive peace. In fact, they push us further away from that goal. These resolutions presuppose the outcome of permanent status issues, which can only be resolved through direct negotiations between the parties. Furthermore, they damage the credibility of the United Nations. I would like to highlight three annual resolutions that are particularly troubling: “Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat” (resolution 67/21), “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” (resolution 67/20) and “Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories” (A/67/424, draft resolution I). Those three resolutions renew mandates for United Nations bodies established more than a generation ago, wasting valuable resources, expending limited time and perpetuating the perception of systematic and inherent United Nations bias against Israel. All Member States should evaluate the effectiveness of supporting and funding those bodies. Those who support a Palestinian State should do all they can to support the parties’ efforts to bring about a just and lasting peace and avoid actions like these resolutions that hinder them. The United States sees no contradiction between support for the Palestinian people and support for Israel. We do not support these resolutions. Instead, we are focused on continuing to work with the parties, the Quartet and our international partners to create a context conducive to resumed negotiations.
The Acting President #66717
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 52? It was so decided.
The Acting President #66718
The Assembly has before it five draft resolutions recommended by the Committee in paragraph 18 of its report. As no delegation wishes to take the floor in explanation of vote before the voting, we shall now proceed to take a decision on draft resolutions I to V, one by one. After all the decisions have been taken, representatives will again have an opportunity to explain their vote. We turn first to draft resolution I, entitled “Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories”. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, Panama, United States of America Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu [Subsequently, the delegation of the United Kingdom informed the Secretariat that it had intended to abstain.]
Draft resolution I was adopted by 98 votes to 8, with 72 abstentions (resolution 67/118).
The Acting President #66719
Draft resolution II is entitled “Applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories”. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emiraes, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States of America Abstaining: Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu
Draft resolution II was adopted by 171 votes to 6, with 3 abstentions (resolution 67/119).
The Acting President #66720
Draft resolution III is entitled “Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan”. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States of America Abstaining: Cameroon, Honduras, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu
Draft resolution III was adopted by 169 votes to 6, with 5 abstentions (resolution 67/120).
The Acting President #66721
Draft resolution IV is entitled “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution IV was adopted by 164 votes to 8, with 6 abstentions (resolution 67/121).
The Acting President #66722
Draft resolution V is entitled “The occupied Syrian Golan”. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution V was adopted by 168 votes to 1, with 11 abstentions (resolution 67/122).
The Acting President #66723
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 53? It was so decided.

54.  Comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/425)

The Acting President #66724
The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Committee in paragraph 9 of its report. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Committee adopted the draft resolution entitled “Comprehensive review of special political missions” without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 67/123).
The Acting President #66725
The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 54.

55.  Questions relating to information Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/426)

The Acting President #66726
The Assembly has before it two draft resolutions recommended by the Committee in paragraph 12 of its report and a draft decision recommended by the Committee in paragraph 13 of the same report.
The Acting President #66727
We will now take a decision on draft resolutions A and B and on the draft decision, one by one. Draft resolution A is entitled “Information in the service of humanity”. The Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution A was adopted (resolution 67/124 A).
The Acting President #66728
Draft resolution B is entitled “United Nations public information policies and activities”. The Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution B was adopted (resolution 67/124 B).
The Acting President #66729
We will now take action on the draft decision entitled “Increase in the membership of the Committee on Information”. The Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
The draft decision was adopted.
The Acting President #66730
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 55? It was so decided.

56.  Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories transmitted under Article 73 e of the Charter of the United Nations Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/427)

The Acting President #66731
We will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested. [Subsequently, the delegations of Djibouti and Georgia informed the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.]
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution was adopted by 175 votes to none, with 4 abstentions (resolution 67/125).
The Acting President #66732
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 56? It was so decided.

57.  Economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self- Governing Territories Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/428)

The Acting President #66733
We will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution was adopted by 178 votes to 2, with 2 abstentions (resolution 67/126).
The Acting President #66734
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 57? It was so decided.

58.  Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples by the specialized agencies and the international institutions associated with the United Nations Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/429)

The Acting President #66735
We will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution was adopted by 127 votes to none, with 54 abstentions (resolution 67/127).
The Acting President #66736
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 58? It was so decided.

59.  Offers by Member States of study and training facilities for inhabitants of Non-Self- Governing Territories Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/430)

The Acting President #66737
We will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. The Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 67/128).
The Acting President #66738
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 59? It was so decided.
The Acting President #66739
The Assembly has before it six draft resolutions recommended by the Committee in paragraph 25 of its report and one draft decision recommended by the Committee in paragraph 26 of the same report. As no delegation wishes to take the floor in explanation of vote before the voting, we shall now take a decision on draft resolutions I to VI and on the draft decision, one by one. After all the decisions have been taken, representatives will again have the opportunity to explain their votes. We turn first to draft resolution I, entitled “Question of Western Sahara”. The Committee adopted itwithout a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 67/129).
The Acting President #66740
Draft resolution II is entitled “Question of New Caledonia”. The Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
Draft resolution II was adopted (resolution 67/130).
The Acting President #66741
Draft resolution III is entitled “Question of Tokelau”. The Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution III was adopted (resolution 67/131).
The Acting President #66742
Draft resolution IV is entitled “Questions of American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands”. The Committee adopted draft resolution IV without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt it, as orally revised by the Rapporteur of the Committee?
Draft resolution IV, as orally revised, was adopted (resolution 67/132).
The Acting President #66743
Draft resolution V is entitled “Dissemination of information on decolonization”. A recorded vote has been requested. [Subsequently, the delegation of the Congo informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour.]
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution V was adopted by 174 votes to 3, with 1 abstention (resolution 67/133).
The Acting President #66744
Draft resolution VI is entitled “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution VI was adopted by 175 votes to 3, with 2 abstentions (resolution 67/134).
The Acting President #66745
We will now take action on the draft decision, entitled “Question of Gibraltar”. The Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
The draft decision was adopted.
The Acting President #66746
The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 60.

116.  Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/432)

The Acting President #66747
We will now take action on the draft decision entitled “Proposed programme of work and timetable of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) for the sixty-eighth session of the General Assembly”, recommended by the Committee in paragraph 5 of its report. The Committee adopted the draft decision without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt it, as orally revised by the Rapporteur of the Committee?
The draft decision, as orally revised, was adopted.
The Acting President #66748
The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 116.

131.  Programme planning Report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/67/433)

The Acting President #66749
May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to take note of the report of the Committee, as contained in document A/67/433?
It was so decided.
The Acting President on behalf of General Assembly #66750
The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 131. On behalf of the General Assembly, I would like to thank Mr. Nelson Messone, Permanent Representative of Gabon to the United Nations and Chair of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), members of the Bureau, the Secretary of the Committee and representatives for a job well done. The General Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of all the reports of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) before it.
The Acting President #66751
I now give the floor to the representative of the United States of America to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.42.
Ms. Milovanovic USA United States of America on behalf of group of sponsors #66752
I thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to speak before the General Assembly today. On behalf of the group of sponsors, I have the honour to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.42, 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 that led to consensus on the draft resolution. We look forward to its adoption. 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 that our global community places on curbing the trade in conflict diamonds. 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. It has been an honour to serve as the Chair of the Kimberley Process this year on behalf of the United States. It is an enormous responsibility to lead the Process, which encompasses stakeholders from Government, industry and civil society, and affects the livelihoods of millions around the world. Since the Kimberley Process launched its Certification Scheme in January 2003, much has been achieved. The Process has helped to bring improved governance and transparency to the diamond trade in countries that were previously marked by conflict, such as Liberia, Sierra Leone and Angola. The Kimberley Process has helped to foster improvements in diamond- sector governance and monitoring in the vast range of producing, trading and consuming countries. The Process has directed the collection of detailed statistics on the rough diamond trade, which were simply unobtainable prior to the Process’s existence. Those statistics help everyone to understand how the trade works and can also help us to zero in on anomalies that may indicate corruption. The Process continues to facilitate the development of detailed diamond footprints in producing countries. The United States has contributed significantly to those efforts through the geological survey and is now spearheading a unique collaboration of geologists and rights monitors who will jointly monitor artisanal diamond production in Guinea at the Guinean authorities’ request. The Kimberley Process has also served as a critical platform for development and a stronger focus on local communities in producing countries. The Process’s participants and its observers, from both industry and civil society, have together made possible the improved registration of minors in Ghana and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Process has enhanced understanding of diamond valuation and has improved diamond mining techniques in Sierra Leone and Guyana. It has also contributed to securing land-use rights and stable incomes for artisanal miners in the Central African Republic and in Liberia, diminishing in the process the likelihood of conflict. Although much remains to be done in this area, we can already see that many lives have been improved by the Process’s work. Not enough people know of those accomplishments and many more like them. The Process had previously not been as effective as it should in communicating with the world about its efforts and its successes. As Chair, I made it my mission to highlight the importance and the successes of the Kimberley Process. We look back with pride on the year 2012 as a time when Process participants and observers laid the foundation for our colleagues in South Africa to launch the Process into its second decade as a stronger and more effective process. The Process’s founders decided unanimously that diamonds must stop funding rebel movements’ violence. Recognizing that millions of people depend on diamonds for their livelihood, they also sought to keep demand for legitimate diamonds strong by preserving the gem’s reputation. The Process set a benchmark and a level playing field for the diamond trade worldwide. No matter where rough diamonds are produced or traded, the Process certificate ensures consumers that they have not funded rebel groups’ abuses. During my travels this year, it became clear that we need to do everything in our power to keep the Process relevant and effective. This is essential to ensuring that a diamond remains synonymous with love and commitment, that a robust diamond market continues to help millions of people pursue a better quality of life, and that the Process lives up to the hopes that the General Assembly has placed in it. The question I believe we should ask is, are we sufficiently investing in the future of the Process? If the Process is to respond appropriately to the challenge that it has set for itself, we cannot simply say that our accomplishments to date suffice and that all is well. The race for excellence has no finish line. To equip the Process fully for that race, we must be willing to go to the heart of the difficult issues. Under the United States chairmanship this year, the Kimberley Process has begun to demonstrate that willingness. The discussion has been engaged on such key questions as whether the Process certificate provides the assurances that today’s and tomorrow’s consumers want and whether the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, established to produce those certificates, is implemented with sufficient rigour and with adequate attention to the development and protection of the people working within it. Regarding the core definition of a conflict diamond, we believe that change is both healthy and inevitable. We further believe that the definition should be updated next year through a continuation of the careful, considered and inclusive process that was launched by the United States Chair. I am pleased to report that dialogue continues to progress with a newly achieved basic recognition, shared across the board, that this effort is absolutely necessary. This is an excellent start, and we anticipate that discussions, review and reforms will continue next year when South Africa assumes the Chair. There will be much work ahead because consumers are and increasingly will be looking for more. This year we focused first on implementation and enforcement. After all, compliance with the minimum requirements of the Certification Scheme is at the core of our efforts. In this light, we sponsored a customs seminar in West Africa and brought enforcement experts to our June meeting for innovative discussions that allowed participants to engage with others who share their place in the global supply chain. We also convened a special gathering of law-enforcement officials at our meeting in Washington last month. Those officials seek to remain engaged with the Process as a subgroup, and I am confident that the Process will find a way to encourage that expertise and collaboration further. We also worked to build on the Process’s association with the World Customs Organization, including through standardizing the practices for sharing fraudulent certificates within the Process and with the World Customs Organization. We adopted several measures to improve monitoring and compliance. For example, the Working Group on Monitoring adopted updates to its system for peer review. For its part, the Participation Committee revised its guidelines on how to handle serious non-compliance by participants so that the rules for such cases are clear and transparent and the process is fair and objective. We institutionalized a data anomaly questionnaire from the Working Group on Statistics, which will identify potential compliance problems through statistics. This will allow the Process to correct problems earlier and more easily. This year, we looked at diamonds as part of a broader development picture. We established the development and assistance section of the website. The site is now the first step in a matchmaking effort that brings together those seeking technical assistance with other Process participants or observers in a position to offer their expertise, all in a no-fault environment. We began issuing a monthly technical assistance bulletin in order to pair those in need of expert assistance with those who can provide it. The bulletin has already resulted in the United Arab Emirates hosting a compliance training seminar, and in 2013 the Gemological Institute of America plans to hold several seminars for sub-Saharan African participants. Those will focus on much sought after skills in rough diamond grading and evaluation. A conference on development and diamonds took place in June and laid the groundwork for regular meetings at which development goals can be addressed. At the Process plenary meeting in November, we adopted the Washington Declaration, which was prepared by the Working Group on Artisanal Alluvial Production, chaired by Angola. The Declaration will integrate development policy goals into diamond production by artisanal and alluvial producers. Its implementation will contribute to reducing the potential for conflict, while improving the lives of those who are at the very beginning of the supply chain. This year we are proud also to have extended the Kimberley Process to new countries. The Republic of Cameroon was admitted to the Process in August; the Republic of Panama, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Kingdom of Cambodia were admitted at the November plenary; and colleagues from Burkina Faso, Mali and Kenya also attended Process meetings. I sincerely hope that they can enter into the Process family in the near future. Our chairmanship also focused on communication and transparency. I personally engaged in a press outreach campaign that emphasized the successes to date of the Kimberley Process, while not shying away from the challenges for the future. With very generous support from the Antwerp World Diamond Centre, we were able to overhaul and dramatically expand the use of the Process website, which is located at www.kimberleyprocess.com. The Process was in great need of administrative support to assist Chairs in ensuring smooth functioning during the Process year and to provide institutional memory between chairmanships. The November plenary selected the industry umbrella group, the World Diamond Council, to run an administrative support mechanism as of 1 January 2013 for one year. I believe that we have set the stage for a successful South African chairmanship, marking the first 10 years of the Kimberley Process, and we look forward to seeing the full fruition of our chairmanship’s efforts to launch a new decade of a reinvigorated and relevant Kimberley Process.
The Acting President #66753
I now give the floor to the observer of the European Union.
Mr. Beviglia Zampetti European Union #66754
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU). The acceding country Croatia; the candidate countries the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Iceland and Serbia; and the country of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina align themselves with this declaration. The European Union and its member States, which act as a single participant in the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, would like first of all to welcome the results of the United States chairmanship of the Kimberley Process in 2012 insofar as they illustrate the important efforts deployed this year to continue strengthening the Kimberley Process. In this context, the EU welcomes the approval at the recent Process plenary meeting of an administrative decision on the selection, engagement and operation of a administrative support mechanism and the selection of the World Diamond Council to host such a mechanism for a period of one year, commencing 1 January 2013. The EU also welcomes the adoption of revised guidelines for the Participation Committee in recommending interim measures as regards serious non-compliance with the minimum requirements of the Certification Scheme, the development of a documents compendium, and the relaunch of work on valuation methodologies. The EU firmly believes that the consistent use of such tools will strengthen the Process’s ability to tackle the illicit trade in conflict diamonds, and calls on all participants to step up efforts in that respect. Furthermore, the EU notes with satisfaction that the Process has endorsed proposals to enhance the peer review system for monitoring the Scheme’s implementation, and has sought to improve the statistical transparency of diamond production and trade through the adoption of a data anomalies questionnaire process and guidelines for statistical reconciliation between participants. As Chair of the Working Group on Monitoring, the EU has actively contributed to the development of those new tools and encourages the continued commitment of participants to scrutiny through Process review visits, as well as the submission of substantive annual reports. The EU would in particular like to express appreciation to Thailand, Lebanon, Canada, Switzerland and the United States for having hosted review visits in 2012 and to South Africa, Liberia, Togo, Armenia, Guyana, Viet Nam and the Russian Federation for inviting review visits in 2013 and 2014. The EU also welcomes the commitment made to further enhancing information-sharing as regards Process implementation and enforcement, including through collaboration with national enforcement agencies and international organizations, such as the World Customs Organization. At the end of the day, the Scheme’s credibility as an international process depends on effective implementation and enforcement by its participants. In that regard, the number of fake certificates detected, the illegal shipments blocked and the arrests conducted in 2012 testify to the fact that the Process is making a difference on the ground. The EU looks forward to further progress in that area in 2013. In the light of Security Council resolution 2045 (2012), Process engagement with Côte d’Ivoire illustrates the positive role that the Scheme can play in situations where the production and trade of diamonds might affect peace and security. As the new Chair of the Friends of Côte d’Ivoire, the EU is determined to further support Ivorian efforts to reintegrate the Scheme and ensure that Ivorian diamonds will contribute to recovery and development, rather than to conflict. In that context, the EU, through its Joint Research Centre, has been helping to develop a common methodology for satellite monitoring of diamond mining in Côte d’Ivoire and, through its Instrument for Stability, will provide technical assistance to the Ivorian artisanal mining sector and for reinforcing the country’s chain of custody. As regards other countries in the region, the EU has supported the Process’s dialogue with Guinea leading to the successful conclusion of the 2009 Swakopmund administrative decision and continued engagement with Liberia, under Security Council resolution 2025 (2011), as regional cooperation remains key to ensuring stability in West Africa. A very important testimony to the Process’s ability to resolve situations of non-compliance relates to its implementation in Zimbabwe’s Marange mining area. As the Chair of the Working Group on Monitoring, the EU has played an active role in facilitating the follow- up to the implementation of the special measures put in place under the 2011 Kinshasa administrative decision. The EU appreciates the significant efforts of Zimbabwe’s authorities that have led to the lifting of the measures and the Zimbabwean Government’s renewed public commitment to maintaining the good practices developed this year and to ensuring that the Process’s civil society coalition will continue to have access to the Marange diamond fields. The EU believes that the monitoring framework that has been applied to Marange is a useful model for future situations where the Process works together with a participant to resolve issues of sustaining compliance. In looking forward, the EU very much welcomes the decision taken at the Process plenary meeting in Washington to reaffirm the mandate of the Committee on the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme Review to continue discussions and consultations on broadening the Process’s scope in order to assess how the scheme can respond to wider ethical issues. We strongly recognize the need to strengthen and adapt the Process to meet additional challenges in the global diamond supply chain and provide assurance for consumers that diamonds are not tainted by violence. Before I conclude, please allow me to stress that one of the unique features of the Process is its tripartite structure. Civil society is a key element of the Process and has contributed much both to its initial establishment and to its subsequent operation. The final communiqué of the plenary meeting in Washington reflects the important role of civil society in the Kimberley Process. In this respect, the EU calls on all participants and observers to recognize the full diversity of opinions within and about the Kimberley Process, and to continue working together to enhance the Process’s credibility. In 2012, the international community has demonstrated its determination to act collectively and constructively through the Kimberley Process, a valuable instrument to prevent diamonds from fuelling conflicts and, ultimately, to contribute to economic and social development, particularly in developing countries. In this context, the EU welcomes the Washington Declaration on integrating the development of artisanal and small-scale diamond mining in the Kimberley Process. The European Union would like to express its gratitude to the United States for its stewardship of the Process this year. We now warmly welcome South Africa as incoming Chair during the tenth anniversary of the process, and note with appreciation that the People’s Republic of China has offered to serve as the incoming Vice-Chair. We look forward to working closely with the new Chair to bring renewed impetus and strength to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme.
Mr. Prosor ISR Israel #66755
Let me begin by expressing our gratitude to the United States of America for its chairmanship of the Kimberley Process in 2012. In particular, I would like to thank Ambassador Gillian Milovanovic for skilfully manning the helm of the Process over the past year. I would also like to extend Israel’s welcome to South Africa, the incoming Chair. We look forward to engaging closely with it during the coming year. Few objects carry as much universal symbolism as diamonds. From the Star of Sierra Leone to the crown jewels of England, since antiquity these gems have captivated humankind with their beauty, rarity and durability. Diamonds have driven some of the world’s most powerful machinery and decorated some of the world’s most powerful political figures. They can symbolize love and devotion, wealth and prosperity, or authority and power. And, as we have seen over the past two decades, diamonds can also be used to fund terrorism, war and ethnic conflict. Nine years ago, the international community came together to form the Kimberley Process. The Process was designed to ensure that the diamonds in jewellery store display cases around the world were not being mined by warlords in conflict zones. Together, we have made great strides in confronting this danger. Our collective efforts started, as they say, like a diamond in the rough. They have blossomed into the polished and effective process that we speak of today. Twenty years ago, conflict diamonds accounted for 15 per cent of the global market; today, they are less than 1 per cent of that market. We can say proudly that the Kimberley Process has been instrumental in achieving those very impressive results. Israel has been deeply involved in the Kimberley Process since its inception. In 2003, we issued the first- ever certificate for a conflict-free diamond. Two years ago, we served as the Kimberley Process Chair. Last year, we chaired the Participation Committee, overseeing the membership process for four new countries. Israel sees this work as an expression of our most fundamental values. Business ethics are a cornerstone of Judaism. Tradition tells us that the first question Jews are asked in the afterlife is if we conducted our personal and business affairs with candour and honesty. The message is clear. We must guard our values throughout our lives as if they were the most precious gems, so that we can enjoy a sparkling and shiny afterlife. Israel is committed to making sure that each and every diamond is certified as conflict-free throughout its entire life cycle, from the mine to the display case. As a proud sponsor of draft resolution A/67/L.42, we endorse the Assembly’s decision to introduce more regular review visits, broader expert participation and more stringent requirements for reporting. We also support the decision to integrate artisanal and small- scale diamond mining into the Certification Scheme. Yet, we still have much work to do. We must continue to improve the implementation of the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme. The civil society coalition must be fully involved in the Kimberley Process, particularly in monitoring implementation country by country. The Kimberley Process must also enhance collaboration with diamond industry associations, international organizations and enforcement agencies. All of these stakeholders benefit from exchanging information. Israel looks forward to working hand in hand with the international community to move the Kimberley Process forward. This process is too important to fail. Our commitment to this cause must be as unbreakable as the diamonds we seek to certify. We must be vigilant. We must ensure that the process is being implemented rigorously and fairly, and we cannot rest until every diamond in the global diamond trade can be properly certified as conflict-free.
Mr. Maksimychev RUS Russian Federation [Russian] #66756
Since 2000, the Russian Federation has been an active participant in the Kimberley Process. We welcome its further development in order to address the primary task of eliminating rough conflict diamonds from legitimate trade. Widening the range of participants in the Kimberley Process contributes to enhancing its international standing. The legitimacy and effectiveness of the Kimberley Process depend directly on the degree and quality of its engagement with the United Nations on the basis of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, and with other international organizations. One important challenge is to further the establishment of transparent rules for the mechanisms and procedures of the Kimberley Process. In this connection, we should take no hasty steps towards reform, in particular in terms of the persistent attempts to amend the basic definition of “conflict diamonds”, for which the support of the majority of Process participants is lacking. Priority needs to be given to perfecting the work of the Kimberley Process in its current form. The activities of the Kimberley Process are of a strictly applied nature, and its artificial politicization through the introduction of subjects that have nothing to do with its purview would have a negative impact on achieving its core tasks. Primary efforts should be aimed at motivating States to fully participate within the framework of the policy of engagement. Sanctions not only fail to achieve positive results, but lead to the creation of new grey areas in the area of trade in rough diamonds. A unique feature and advantage of the Kimberley Process is its tripartite nature. Russia advocates the pooling of the efforts of States, the diamond industry and civil society in full compliance with the fundamental principles of international law, including respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and non-interference in their internal affairs. The need for compliance with the national legislation of participating States, including by representatives of civil society, is not under discussion, and we see no reason to empower non-governmental organizations with exclusive rights or privileges within the framework of the Kimberley Process. We thank the United States, as Chair of the Kimberley Process in 2012, and its delegation for its effective preparation and coordination of the informal consultations on draft resolution A/67/L.42 on the role of diamonds in fuelling conflict, which we support. In conclusion, I wish every success to the Republic of South Africa as Chair of the Kimberley Process in 2013, and to the People’s Republic of China as Vice-Chair.
Mr. Ngculu ZAF South Africa #66757
It is a great honour and privilege for South Africa to be granted this opportunity to make remarks on this important and pertinent matter. The diamond industry plays a major role in driving economic growth and prosperity in many countries, especially in Africa and the rest of the developing world. It is therefore of paramount importance that the entire industry lend its unequivocal voice of support to initiatives meant to ensure that the global trade in diamonds is conflict-free. This imperative brings to the fore the need for cooperation among Governments, the diamond industry, national and multinational institutions and civil society organizations in enhancing the integrity of institutions of governance in the trade of diamonds. Chief among those initiatives is the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, which entered into force in 2003 to provide assurances to the global diamond industry and consumers that the diamonds on the global market were not illicit conflict diamonds. This international effort has succeeded in purging the diamond industry of negative stigmatization and provides conditions for the legitimate trade of diamonds globally. The 2012 plenary session of the Kimberley Process recently concluded its business in Washington, D. C., where significant progress was made in strengthening controls on the global trade of rough diamonds. In particular, the decision to lift the special monitoring measures that were put in place at the 2011 Kinshasa plenary on the Marange diamond fields is highly commendable. In this regard, let me applaud the commitment and efforts of the Zimbabwean authorities, industry and civil society coalition to comply with the requirements of the special measures. It is our fervent hope that this development will pave the way for the lifting of the sanctions imposed by the United States Government on the trade of diamonds from the Marange area. In the same breath, South Africa welcomes the lifting of the 2009 Swakopmund administrative decision on Guinea at the Washington, D. C., plenary, as this will enhance Guinea’s efforts to attract investments and fully harness the economic potential of its diamond sector. South Africa stands ready to cooperate with Zimbabwe and Guinea to ensure continued compliance with the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme’s minimum requirements. South Africa also welcomes efforts taken by the Government of Côte d’Ivoire to adhere to the minimum standards, which are an essential requirement for the Security Council to consider lifting sanctions on diamond exports from that country. As South Africa takes the Kimberley Process leadership baton from the United States of America, we are cognizant of the challenges that lie ahead in driving the reform agenda that was pursued by the United States of America during its chairmanship in 2012. In this regard, allow me to reiterate the remarks made by our Minister of Mineral Resources, Ms. Susan Shabangu, at the Zimbabwe Diamond Conference held in November, where she said: “South Africa would like to see the Kimberley Process evolve not only in terms of its set goals and objectives but also in terms of strengthening its effectiveness and efficiency. In evolving, it is, however, important to ensure that the core mandate is not lost, but rather that its implementation measures are strengthened to deal with the evolving challenges of the day.” As the incoming Kimberley Process Chair, South Africa looks forward to the Assembly’s valued contribution to the vision that will further enhance the strong heritage of the Kimberley Process and to welcoming all members to our beautiful country in 2013.
Mr. Ruiz Hernandez PAN Panama [Spanish] #66758
At the outset, allow me to begin by commending the important work carried out under the presidency of Mr. Vuk Jeremić in handling the items on our agenda. He can count on the support of my delegation and Government in continuing to work towards the successful completion of your mandate. In reference to draft resolution A/67/L.42 on the Kimberley Process, 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”, under agenda item 32, the Republic of Panama would like to reiterate its support for this very important international initiative. The implementation of the Kimberley Process continues to have a positive impact by reducing the likelihood that diamonds from conflict zones contribute to armed conflict; the Process thereby helps to protect legitimate trade and ensures the effective implementation of resolutions related to the diamond trade in conflict zones. Furthermore, Panama takes this opportunity to congratulate the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kingdom of Cambodia and Cameroon, which, along with our country, were admitted as full participants to that initiative during the plenary meeting held in Washington, D. C., on 30 November. Panama thanks the United States, as Chair of the Process, for its support for the efforts of my country to join this noble cause and for its hard work this year in its capacity as Chair. We hope that the Kimberley Process will continue to be strengthened through cooperation between its members and their joint desire to work for a world free from conflict diamonds and their devastating consequences. Finally, we congratulate South Africa and wish it every success in its role as the new Chair of the initiative in 2013. We are sure that their work will contribute greatly to strengthening the objectives of the Kimberley Process. Panama will continue to work with all the States members of the Process to that end.
The Acting President #66759
We have heard the last speaker in the debate on agenda item 32. In view of the desire of members to dispose of this item expeditiously, I should like to consult the Assembly with a view to proceeding immediately to consider draft resolution A/67/L.42. In this connection, since the draft resolution was circulated only this morning, it would be necessary to waive the relevant provision of rule 78 of the rules of procedure, which reads as follows: “As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed or put to the vote at any meeting of the General Assembly unless copies of it have been circulated to all delegations not later than the day preceding the meeting”. Unless I hear any objection, I will take it that the Assembly agrees with this proposal.
It was so decided.
The Acting President #66760
The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/67/L.42, 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 give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.
Mr. Saijin Zhang Department for General Assembly and Conference Management #66761
I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations listed in A/67/L.42, the following countries have also become sponsors of the draft resolution: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Montenegro, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The Acting President #66762
May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/67/L.42 without a vote?
Draft resolution A/67/L.42 was adopted (resolution 67/135).
The Acting President #66763
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.
The Acting President #66764
Members will recall that the Assembly held a debate on agenda item 9, jointly with agenda item 14, at its 28th plenary meeting, on 22 October. I give the floor to the representative of Kenya to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.43.
Mr. Kamau KEN Kenya #66765
It is indeed my honour and privilege to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.43, on the inclusion of the Republic of South Sudan in the list of least developed countries. The draft resolution is pursuant to Economic and Social Council resolution 2012/32 of July 2012, which endorsed the inclusion of South Sudan in the list of least developed countries. As we are all aware, the Republic of South Sudan became a Member of the United Nations on 14 July 2011, following its accession to independence. Hence, it is the world’s newest State. As the world’s newest State, the Republic of South Sudan faces a number of socioeconomic challenges that call for the support of the international community, particularly the United Nations. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to thank the various countries and groups that have sponsored the draft resolution. It has met with wide and enthusiastic support. We recommend the draft resolution for adoption by the General Assembly.
The Acting President #66766
The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/67/L.43, entitled “Inclusion of South Sudan in the list of least developed countries”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.
Mr. Saijin Zhang Department for General Assembly and Conference Management #66767
I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations listed in document A/67/L.43, the following countries have become sponsors of the draft resolution: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Viet Nam.
The Acting President #66768
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to adopt draft resolution A/67/L.43?
Draft resolution A/67/L.43 was adopted (resolution 67/136).
The Acting President #66769
The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 9.
The Acting President #66770
Members will recall that the Assembly held a debate on agenda item 121 and its sub-items (a) to (w) at its 40th plenary meeting, on 19 November 2012. I now give the floor to the representative of Gabon to introduce draft resolution A/67/L.30/Rev.2.
Mr. Messone GAB Gabon [French] #66771
I will give a brief introduction to draft resolution A/67/L.30/Rev.2. The complete text of my statement will be distributed later. I take the floor in my capacity as chair of the group of French-speaking ambassadors to introduce this draft resolution, which concerns the cooperation between the United Nations and the International Organization of la Francophonie (OIF). I would like to thank all Member States for the spirit of consensus that prevailed during the negotiations on the draft resolution. I pay tribute to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and to his teams for their determination to strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and other international organizations. This is a very important aspect of the work of the international community to meet current challenges. One such challenge was the theme of the fourteenth Summit of la Francophonie, held in Kinshasa at the level of Heads of State and Government — “Francophonie, Environmental and Economic Challenges facing Global Governance”. The commitments undertaken pursuant to the declaration adopted following the Summit reflect the areas for priority action by member States and Governments of francophone countries, including cooperative management in addressing environmental and economic challenges, in the spirit of the Millennium Development Goals and in accordance with the outcome document (resolution 66/288, annex) of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20); the promotion of democratic governance and human rights, and work to strengthen peace in the francophone world; the promotion and defence of cultural diversity and multilingualism; the improvement of global governance; and the establishment of a multilateral system guaranteeing balanced and equitable representation. Five thematic resolutions addressing various crisis situations were adopted by the Heads of State and Government in Kinshasa. These decisions reflect the importance of the mandates entrusted to the International Organization of la Francophonie, which remains the forum of choice for the expression and realization of solidarity among its member countries. At the most recent Summit of the International Organization of la Francophonie, Qatar and Uruguay joined the OIF, which now has 77 members, or more than a third of the States members of the General Assembly. The draft resolution before us today reflects the ongoing enhancement of cooperation between the United Nations and the International Organization of la Francophonie. The draft resolution was developed on the basis of resolution 65/263, adopted two years ago, and is further complemented by the provisions of the most recent report of the Secretary-General on cooperation with regional organizations (A/67/280). I am pleased to bring to the Assembly’s attention to just a few results of the successful partnership between the United Nations and the International Organization of la Francophonie in 2011 and 2012, which has contributed to the achievement of our common goals and objectives. These include the active participation of the OIF in the preparatory work for Rio+20; further cooperation between the OIF and the United Nations in the area of peacekeeping in order to better respond to the challenges arising from the presence of diverse francophone contingents in peacekeeping operations; the strengthening of OIF cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council; significant developments in OIF cooperation with UN-Women, mainly with respect to combating violence against women; and, lastly, the promotion of international criminal justice, which was recently enhanced by the signing of a partnership agreement between the OIF and the International Criminal Court. It will be noted that these efforts also seek to strengthen our common work on the dialogue among cultures in the context of of renewing dialogue between different linguistic families. All of these elements underscore the desire of our two organizations to respond in a coordinated manner to the major challenges facing the international community. In conclusion, I stress the many challenges that remain, requiring us to shoulder our responsibility to ensure that our multilateral work is an ongoing manifestation of a coherent effort leading to a promising future. I thank once again all Member States, in particular the sponsors of the draft resolution, for their support.
The Acting President #66772
The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/67/L.30/Rev.2, entitled “Cooperation between the United Nations and the International Organization of la Francophonie”. I give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.
Mr. Saijin Zhang Department for General Assembly and Conference Management #66773
I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations listed in document A/67/L.30/Rev.2, Finland and Liechtenstein have become sponsors of the draft resolution.
The Acting President #66774
May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/67/L.30/ Rev.2 without a vote?
Draft resolution A/67/L.30/Rev.2 was adopted (resolution 67/137).
The Acting President #66775
In accordance with resolution 33/18 of 10 November 1978 and General Assembly decision 53/453 of 18 December 1998, I now call on the Permanent Observer of the International Organization of la Francophonie.
Mr. Savadogo International Organization of la Francophonie on behalf of OIF [French] #66776
As Permanent Observer of the International Organization of la Francophonie (OIF) to the United Nations, let me first of all convey to the Assembly the heartfelt congratulations of President Abdou Diouf, Secretary-General of the OIF. He recently welcomed the successful work we are carrying out together in a framework of ever-fresh and efficient efforts. It is therefore a tremendous honour for me to address the General Assembly on behalf of the OIF, which has 77 member States from the five continents. Echoing the chair of the group of francophone States, I would like to express our deep gratitude to Mr. Vuk Jeremić, President of the General Assembly at its sixty-seventh session, and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for their attention to our organization. I specifically commend our extremely positive working relationship with the various departments of the United Nations. This ongoing cooperation allows us to pursue many collaborative projects and thereby contribute to managing and settling crises that affect francophone countries, defending the universality of rights and freedoms, supporting the many efforts for sustainable development undertaken by States members of both organizations, and enhancing their mutual support. As the chair of the group of francophone representatives said earlier, the most recent Summit of the OIF, held in Kinshasa, highlighted in particular the views and concerns that are shared by the francophone community and the United Nations. This well-structured and in-depth cooperation is encouraging, and it underscores the common ambitions of the United Nations and the OIF in promoting development, solidarity, peace and democracy and in upholding cultural and linguistic diversity, and hence the multilingualism that is so important to us. Our partnership involves concrete actions carried out over the course of several months through cooperative efforts on the ground. In New York, Geneva, Brussels and Addis Ababa, we can firmly rely on the group of francophone representatives, who support the participation of francophone countries in multilateral actions. Resolution 67/137 (2001), just adopted, reflects the efforts undertaken by our organizations to ensure that their work to promote the implementation of our shared values is carried out every day in a coordinated and determined manner. I welcome the adoption of this resolution, whose coordination and follow-up was led by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which hosted our Kinshasa Summit in October. The resolution encourages us to move forward and to consider new ways of cooperating, particularly with the different linguistic groups. I affirm that the International Organization of la Francophonie is fully prepared to work to that end.
The Acting President #66777
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (l) of agenda item 121?
It was so decided.
The Acting President #66778
I shall now give the floor to speakers who wish to speak in exercise of the right of reply. May I remind members that statements in exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second intervention and should be made by delegations from their seats.
Mr. Nazarian ARM Armenia #66779
My delegation would like to express its deep concern over the irresponsible conduct of the delegation of Azerbaijan, which became a member of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) last year and, yet, has demonstrated to that body in Vienna, to the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) and today to the General Assembly unacceptable behaviour. Armenia is an equal member of the international community and the United Nations family. Azerbaijan’s position of preventing Armenia from adhering to that United Nations body simply on grounds of discrimination is outrageous. It goes against the spirit of the United Nations, of the Charter and of treating other Members with respect and on equal terms. My delegation will not even touch upon the absurdities expressed by the representative of Azerbaijan, which run contrary to the spirit of the discussions in Dublin between our respective Ministers for Foreign Affairs and the co-chairs of the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Armenia recognizes the common interest of the international community in furthering the peaceful uses of outer space. We believe that the exploration of outer space should be only for the betterment of humankind and to the benefit of States, irrespective of the stage of their economic anxiety and development or the state of their bilateral relations. We are confident that our membership in COPUOS will help to further expand our capabilities in space technology and areas of its application, as well as make an important contribution to international cooperation, economic development and social progress. Earlier this year in the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), my delegation had a chance to brief COPUOS members and members of the Committee in greater detail on the participation and contribution of Armenian scientists, who have played and continue to play an active role in this difficult, knowledge-intensive field. Today we fully recognize the usefulness and significance of international endeavours in this sphere. Our scientific community is encouraged to continue its international and regional cooperation programmes with a view to achieving a convergence of positions on many issues of common concern in the peaceful uses of outer space. We would like to take this opportunity to convey our deep appreciation to Member States for their full support for the Armenian application. The Government of Armenia is convinced that its membership in COPUOS will help to further expand its capabilities in space technology and its areas of application, as I said earlier. We will demonstrate confident performance in the application of space science and technology in the interest of national and international development.
Mr. Sharifov AZE Azerbaijan #66780
I take the floor to exercise our right of reply to the statement made by the representative of Armenia. As I already noted in my statement after the adoption of the decision, Armenia is in reality very far from the principles pertaining to the peaceful uses of outer space. Armenia’s stance testifies to the fact that it is far from thinking of engaging in a sober and efficient search for peace. That country does not deserve to stand in the same row with peace-loving countries and to benefit from membership in various international bodies advocating peace. That State fails to fulfil its most basic and compelling responsibilities and gives preference to escalation, with unpredictable consequences. It is curious that Armenia, which bears the primary responsibility for unleashing a war against Azerbaijan, is making comments on issues pertaining to such notions as peace negotiations and other matters. The remarks just made by the representative of Armenia were full of distortions and the misinterpretation of facts. While speaking at the United Nations, the representative of Armenia has introduced nothing new and once again abused his right to speak from the rostrum of the General Assembly. This is illustrative of Armenia’s uninterrupted attempts — even by using irrelevant agenda items for such deliberations — to create a wrong impression of the real situation on the ground and to deflect the attention of the international community from the urgent need to address the major problems caused by that country. We are confident that Armenia will be obliged to cease its provocative policy of occupation of Azerbaijan’s territories, denounce its territorial claims towards neighbouring nations and establish civilized relations with all the countries of the region.
Mr. Nazarian ARM Armenia #66781
We regret to have asked for the floor again. However, it would be preferable if the representative of Azerbaijan had not taken the floor, once again confusing the aim and the purpose of this debate. By exercising its right of reply and aiming it at entertaining its domestic public audience, the Azerbaijani representative is brazenly attempting to distract the attention of Member States from the reality on the ground by shifting the responsibility for its own militaristic actions and violations of the ceasefire. Unfortunately, that practice of putting the blame on others in order to hide its own crime has become a regular exercise for Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani representative should realize that such cheap steps made in the General Assembly are not only unconvincing, but shameful. By now it is obvious that not only Armenia but each and every delegation is tired of the tirades of Azerbaijani propaganda, which repeat themselves from one meeting to the other using the same exact terms, irrespective of the subject under consideration.
Mr. Sharifov AZE Azerbaijan #66782
It is with great pleasure that I take the floor to exercise my second right of reply to the remarks made by the representative of Armenia. Actually, his approach and remarks represent yet another piece of evidence testifying to Armenia’s apparent disregard of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law. That also testifies to the validity of our concern with regard to the membership of Armenia in the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and exposes the real intention of that country. The remarks by the representative of Armenia do not constitute an exception from the usual speculation and misinterpretation by officials of that country as to the true value of the content of the conflict settlement process and mediation efforts. Armenia disregards international law and pursues a destructive and militaristic policy in the region, and its delegation openly challenged the ongoing political efforts towards an early resolution of the conflict and, advocating racist ideology, attempts to lecture others on notions with which it is totally unfamiliar. As a result, we have heard irrelevant and out-of- context comments that obviously fail to respond to our arguments. Having seen no reason to prolong the discussion on the issue at this stage, we would like to express our confidence that Armenia’s destructive political agenda is fated never to be realized.
The meeting rose at 12.40 p.m.