A/69/PV.77 General Assembly

Members will recall that the General Assembly held a debate on agenda item 13 and its sub-item (a), jointly with agenda item 115, and adopted resolution 69/15 at its 51st plenary meeting, on 14 November. We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/69/L.43 and draft decision A/69/L.44, one by one. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget implications of draft resolution A/69/L.43 and draft decision A/69/L.44 is contained in document A/69/701. The Assembly will first take a decision on draft resolution A/69/L.43, entitled “Organization of the *1471864* 14-71864 (E) United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda”. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt it?

The Assembly will now take action on draft decision A/69/L.44, entitled “Dates for the meetings of the process of intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda”. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt it?

I give the floor to the representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. At the outset, the Group of 77 and China would like to take this opportunity to thank the Permanent Representative of Italy, Mr. Sebastiano Cardi, for his work as Chair of the Second Committee and to express its appreciation for the efforts made by the Bureau of the Second Committee. We recognize his leadership as Chair, congratulate him on the positive outcome of the whole process and thank the entire Bureau for its hard work. The Group of 77 and China would like also to thank the Permanent Representative of Denmark, Mr. Ib Petersen, and the Permanent Representative of Papua New Guinea, Mr. Robert Guba Aisi, for their work and dedication on the coordination of resolution 69/244, “Organization of the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda”, and to express our appreciation for the efforts made by the Permanent Representative of Ireland, Mr. David Donoghue, and the Permanent Representative of Kenya, Mr. Macharia Kamau, for their coordination of decision 69/550, “Dates for the meetings of the process of intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda”, and draft decision A/69/L.46, “Modalities for the process of intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda”. We acknowledge their leadership as co-facilitators in this process. We appreciate the constructive spirit shown by all delegations in this process and sincerely hope that such a spirit will continue throughout the whole process of intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda. The Group expresses its deep appreciation and sincere gratitude for the valuable support extended by Mr. Taghi Mohammad Pour Ferami, of the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as coordinator of the Group of 77 and China, for the negotiations of the modalities for the organizational and intergovernmental negotiation on the post-2015 development agenda. We would also like to thank the Secretariat for its efforts in providing us with required support in this process. The Group of 77 and China welcomes the adoption of resolution 69/244, on the organization of the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda”, and of decision 69/550, concerning dates for the meetings of the process of intergovernmental negotiations on the post- 2015 development agenda. The Group expects draft decision A/69/L.46, on the modalities for the process of intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda, to be adopted as soon as possible to ensure a smooth negotiation process on the post-2015 development agenda. We reaffirm the centrality of a just, transparent and inclusive intergovernmental negotiation process in the establishment of the post-2015 development agenda, as decided at the special event towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals, held in 2013. We stress that this intergovernmental negotiation process will need to fully observe the rules of procedure and established practices of the General Assembly, consistent with its modalities, resolutions and decisions. As such, this process must be driven by Member States and conducted as per standard modalities for intergovernmental negotiations in the General Assembly, underpinned by the rules of procedure of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. The Group of 77 and China believes that it is highly important to establish a sense of ownership of the process and of the agenda on the part of all countries. For that to happen, it is important for the Group that the text develop in a manner that guarantees such an atmosphere. Recognizing the differences between this process and the process of the Open Working Group, we are of the strong conviction that the co-facilitators of the process will do their best in this regard. We also believe that to arrive at a negotiated and agreed outcome document, the report of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals should be the main basis for the integration of goals and targets into the agenda. We underline the need for a coherent approach to the post-2015 development agenda, which should reinforce the international community’s commitment to poverty eradication, create synergies among all the processes and reinforce the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development in a balanced manner with the contributions of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, the financing for development process, the Intergovernmental Committee on Experts for Sustainable Development Financing, the process to develop options for a United Nations technology facilitation mechanism and other relevant processes. We emphasize that the post-2015 development agenda should be an agenda for development, and in this context it is important to advance economic, social and environmental development in a comprehensive, balanced and coordinated manner. This agenda should be broader than that of the Millennium Development Goals and seek to include areas, issues and groups of populations that are key to achieving sustainable development. For the Group of 77 and China, it is also important to guarantee the full and effective participation of all delegations from developing countries in the negotiation process. That implies that the Secretariat should guarantee the resources necessary for the participation of at least one delegate from each developing country in all preparatory meetings. Before concluding, let me assure the President of the Assembly of the full cooperation of the States members of the Group 77 and China in the intergovernmental negotiation process.

We have heard the only speaker in explanation of vote. The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 13 and of agenda item 115.

Members will recall that the Assembly held a debate on agenda item 74 and its sub-items (a) and (b) at its 66th and 67th plenary meetings, on 9 December 2014. We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/69/L.29. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget implications of the draft resolution is contained in document A/69/697. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/69/L.29. I now give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I would like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution and in addition to those delegations listed in document A/69/L.29, the following countries have also become sponsors of the draft resolution: Australia, Barbados, Belize, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Indonesia, Italy, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mexico, Montenegro, Nauru, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Thailand, Tonga, Ukraine and the United States of America.

A recorded vote has been requested.

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

Turkey voted against resolution 69/245, entitled “Oceans and the law of the sea”, under sub-item (a) of agenda item 74. I would like to recall the reasons that have prevented Turkey from being a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Turkey supports international efforts to establish a regime of the sea that is based on the principle of equity and is acceptable to all States. However, in our opinion, the Convention does not provide sufficient safeguards for special geographical situations and, as a consequence, does not take into consideration conflicting interests and sensitivities arising from special circumstances. Furthermore, the Convention does not allow States to register reservations to its articles. Although we agree with the Convention in its general intent and with most of its provisions, we are unable to become a party to it, owing to those prominent shortcomings. That being the case, we cannot support a resolution that calls upon States to become parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and to harmonize their national legislation with its provisions.

Colombia reiterates its commitment to cooperating with the initiatives and efforts aimed at recognizing the importance of issues related to oceans and the law of the sea. Although Colombia abstained in the voting on resolution 69/245 under agenda item 74, “Oceans and the law of the sea”, my delegation would like to highlight the fact that the stipulations contained in the resolution cannot be considered or interpreted in any way that would imply that its provisions extend to those States not parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. That is justified on the basis of the principle of pacta tertiis, which establishes that a treaty does not create rights or obligations for third-party States without their consent, as established in article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. Taking into account the spirit of cooperation, and in support of the consensus sought by the various delegations on this important issue, Colombia abstained in the voting on this resolution. Colombia is not a party to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and therefore is not bound by the provisions of that instrument, and its clauses and stipulations and the norms of customary law  — except for those that Colombia has expressly recognized or will recognize in future through its inclusion in our domestic legislation — do not apply to my country. Given the aforementioned, Colombia reiterates its historical position with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and its related agreements, and we therefore would like to place on the record our explicit reservation regarding the content of this resolution.

My delegation would like to refer to resolution 69/245, under agenda item 74 (a), “Oceans and the law of the sea”, which the General Assembly has just adopted. We would like to express our gratitude to the facilitator of the resolution, Ambassador Eden Charles of Trinidad and Tobago. We would also like to express our gratitude to the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. It is important to note that Venezuela is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. That is why the standards mentioned in these instruments, which include some that could be qualified as customary law, cannot be applied to my country, unless we recognize them explicitly. Given the importance of the sustainable management of resources and biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions, my country believes that this national issue should be regulated by a specific international instrument that is separate from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biodiversity. That instrument should prioritize the precautionary principle and the need to preserve the rights of humankind as a whole. Venezuela hopes that future decisions on this issue, including the negotiation of a future instrument, will be guided by an inclusive spirit. For Venezuela, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea should not be the only legal framework that seeks to regulate activities related to the oceans and seas, nor can it be qualified as a universal instrument. While the text that was submitted to us does include positive aspects, we note the presence of elements that led my country to express reservations regarding the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (resolution 66/288), such as the topics related to marine biodiversity. We believe that the process of updating the Convention’s terms should be examined, since new situations have arisen that the current text is inadequate and in some cases even counter-productive in addressing. That has affected the evolution of a regime that should cover the most important contemporary issues related to the seas and oceans in a balanced, equitable and inclusive way. For all those reasons, Venezuela abstained in the voting that just took place.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote after the vote. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 74 and of agenda item 74 as a whole?

Members will recall that the Assembly held its debate on agenda item 128 at its 72nd plenary meeting, on 15 December 2014. We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/69/L.42. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget implications of the draft resolution is contained in document A/69/699. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/69/L.42, entitled “Investigation into the conditions and circumstances resulting in the tragic death of Dag Hammarskjöld and of the members of the party accompanying him”. I now give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

I should like to announce that, since the submission of the draft resolution, and in addition to those delegations listed in document A/69/L.42, the following countries have become sponsors of A/69/L.42: Andorra, Armenia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iraq, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mongolia, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Republic of Tanzania and Uruguay.

May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/69/L.42?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 128?

The Assembly will now take action on draft resolution II, recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 11 of its report. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget implications of draft resolution II is contained in document A/69/698. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution II, entitled “Modalities for the implementation of resolution 68/304, entitled ‘Towards the establishment of a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes’”. A recorded vote has been requested. [Subsequently, the delegation of the Czech Republic informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote against.]

I now give the floor to those representatives wishing to make statements or speak in explanation of vote after the vote.

We know it is late and everyone is tired, but we also know that this is a time to clearly outline the efforts that every delegation has made to arrive at the best possible agreement, to respectfully dissent and to enable us to continue debating on an equal footing on topics on which we have not reached a common position. Conscious of the fatigue we are all feeling, but grateful for those efforts, my delegation would like to acknowledge the leadership of Ambassador Sacha Sergio Llorentty Solíz, Permanent Representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, in his capacity as Chair of the Group of 77 and China. We also thank every member of the Group, all our colleagues and the staff of each of the delegations. Together, we have worked day and night, with respect for the principles governing our truly democratic debate, in order to consolidate the culture of tolerance, transparency and equal treatment and conditions that all Member States deserve. I would like to highlight the unity, solidarity and cohesion of the Group of 77 and China, because we firmly believe that those are the values that will be the foundation of our future debates. We want to build a more just world of equality and peace. I would also like to thank those who supported us on resolution 69/247, on modalities for the implementation of resolution 68/304. I am quite sure that they will support us in the future. If anyone has objections or qualms, they can be sure that the subject of sovereign debt restructuring can be based only on a unified will. The resolution was not being introduced for Argentina alone, but rather for Argentina and other developing and developed countries that have suffered and continued to suffer. It is to prevent the continued operation of so-called vulture funds, whose only motive is lawless speculation and limitless profits, thanks to the existence of the financial market. What they are doing can only be described as unjust, anarchic and unpredictable. I would like to thank the President for this conclusion to the meetings that have brought us together and that promise a very intense 2015, with serious discussions and commitments that must be met. The proposals made by our countries and groups are aimed at no one; they are for everyone. They are not for a few countries, but for all. They are not just for the present but for the future.

Concerning the vote on resolution 69/247, entitled “Modalities for the implementation of resolution 68/304, entitled ‘Towards the establishment of a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes’”, Côte d’Ivoire would like to make the following statement. For many countries faced with the enormous requirements of financing for development, public loans have become a means of mobilizing foreign resources. In many cases, when circumstances become more favourable, restructuring such sovereign debt is necessary in order to maintain a country’s economic and financial stability and enable it to continue its national development process. The restructuring of sovereign debt is therefore a normal and ordinary mechanism that any country should expect to have access to. However, using such debt for speculative purposes, as has occurred for several decades, particularly in the form of so-called vulture funds, is a genuine problem for the development of countries dealing with such situations. Vulture funds should therefore be a matter of serious concern to the international community, and Côte d’Ivoire is committed to supporting countries that share that opinion. We therefore voted in favour of the resolution. However, we should emphasize that in our view, the Bretton Woods institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund, are the most suitable format for discussing questions relating to the issue of restructuring sovereign debt.

Over the past decade, the Group of 77 and China has been calling for the submission of proposals on establishing a legal framework for the purposes of restructuring sovereign debt. Last June, in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, Heads of State and Government of the Group of 77 and China discussed the urgent need for the international community to consider the options for a mechanism to resolve debt issues equitably, effectively, durably, independently, and oriented to international development, and urged all countries to promote and contribute to discussions in the framework of the United Nations and other appropriate forums to that end. In response to the call of the overwhelming majority of the international community represented here, the Assembly adopted resolution 68/304, which recognizes, inter alia, the need to establish a legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes, and gives us a clear mandate to do so. We all know that debt restructuring processes and debt sustainability itself are subject to serious risks related to speculators who seek excessive gain from countries that face debt obligations and repayment processes, and which are often highly vulnerable. The General Assembly has a responsibility to discuss this extremely important topic. In resolution 68/304, of 9 September 2014, the General Assembly decided, through a process of intergovernmental negotiation at its sixty-ninth session, to establish a multilateral legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring processes. In that resolution, it also decided to define the modalities for the intergovernmental negotiations and the adoption of the text of the multilateral legal framework at the main part of its sixty-ninth session, before the end of 2014. Resolution 69/247, which we have just adopted, fulfils the mandate for defining these clear modalities for the implementation of resolution 68/304.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (c) of agenda item 17.

We shall now take action on draft resolution III, recommended by the Third Committee in paragraph 36 of its report. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget implications of the draft resolution is contained in A/69/696. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution III, entitled, “Situation of human rights in Myanmar”. The Third Committee adopted it. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

I call on the representative of Belarus in explanation of position on the resolution just adopted.

Belarus would like to reaffirm its position regarding the adoption of country-specific resolutions as an unproductive way to exert pressure on sovereign Governments under the pretext of human rights. Therefore, we do not associate ourselves with the consensus on resolution 69/248, on the situation of human rights in Myanmar.

May I take that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (c) of agenda item 68 and agenda item 68 as a whole?

The General Assembly will now consider the reports of the Fifth Committee on agenda items 130 to 132, 135, 139, 141 to 143, 145 to 147, 151, 152, 159, 162 and 166. I request the Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee, Mr. Matthias Dettling of Switzerland, to introduce in one intervention the reports of the Fifth Committee before the Assembly. Mr. Dettling (Switzerland), Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee: I have the honour today to present to the General Assembly the reports of the Fifth Committee containing recommendations on issues that require action during this main part of the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly. The Fifth Committee met from 3 October to 29 December 2014 and held 27 plenary meetings and several rounds of informal consultations and innumerable informal informal consultations. I would like to draw the Assembly’s attention to the fact that several Fifth Committee reports have already been considered by the General Assembly, at its 22nd, 55th, 68th and 73rd plenary meetings held on 9 October, 18 November and 10 and 18 December, respectively, on the following agenda items: agenda item 132, “Programme budget for the biennium 2014-2015”, with respect to resolution 69/3, entitled “United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response”; agenda item 136, “Scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations”, specifically on Article 19; sub-items (a) to (e) agenda item 113, “Appointments to fill vacancies in subsidiary organs and other appointments”; agenda item 133, “Programme planning”; agenda item 140, “United Nations pension system”; and agenda item 144, “Administration of justice at the United Nations ”. I shall now present additional reports of the Fifth Committee on the following items. On agenda item 130, “Financial reports and audited financial statements, and reports of the Board of Auditors”, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly, in paragraph 8 of its report A/69/688, the adoption of one draft resolution that was adopted by the Committee without a vote. On agenda item 135, entitled “Pattern of conferences”, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly, in paragraph 7 of its report A/69/695, the adoption of one draft resolution that was adopted by the Committee without a vote. On agenda item 139, entitled “United Nations common system”, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly, in paragraph 6 of its report A/69/683, the adoption of one draft resolution that was adopted by the Committee without a vote. On agenda items 145, entitled “Financing of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994”; 146, entitled “Financing of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991”; and 147, entitled “Financing of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals”, the Committee, in paragraph 6 of the respective reports contained in documents A/69/691 to A/69/693 recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the related draft resolutions, all of which the Committee adopted without a vote. With respect to the draft resolutions on the financing of peacekeeping operations, I should like to inform the General Assembly that the Committee adopted all the draft resolutions without a vote. The reports of the Fifth Committee are presented under the following agenda items: agenda item 151, “Financing of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic”, contained in document A/69/684; agenda item 152, “Financing of the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire”, contained in document A/69/685; agenda item 159, “Financing of the United Nations Mission in Liberia”, contained in document A/69/682; agenda item 162, “Financing of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan”, contained in document A/69/686; and agenda item 166, “Financing of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur”, contained in document A/69/687. Furthermore, under agenda item 132, entitled “Programme budget for the biennium 2014-2015”, contained in document A/69/422/Add.1, the Committee considered two draft resolutions. With regard to draft resolution I, an oral amendment was introduced by the delegation of Cuba to section IV of the draft resolution. A recorded vote was requested by the delegation of the Netherlands on the amendment, in which the Committee voted not to include the oral amendment in the draft resolution. The Committee subsequently adopted the draft resolution as a whole without a vote. Also with regard to agenda item 132, the Committee considered and recommended the adoption of five statements of programme budget implications. The reports of the Fifth Committee on those statements are issued in documents A/69/696 to A/69/699 and A/69/701. Finally, under agenda item 131, entitled “Review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations”, in paragraph 10 of its report A/69/702, the Committee adopted, without a vote, a draft resolution on the proposed programme budget outline for the biennium 2016-2017. Also, in paragraph 11 of the same report, the Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of a draft decision relating to questions deferred for future consideration, which was adopted by the Committee without a vote. I wish to thank delegations for their cooperation and to assure them that the changes made in the course of the Fifth Committee’s resumed 27th formal meeting have been duly taken into account and will be reflected in the draft resolutions and reports to be issued shortly. Before I conclude, allow me on a brief personal note to thank the Chair of the Fifth Committee, Ambassador František Ružička, for the wise and noble way in which he guided us through our difficult work, as well as my fellow Bureau members, whose cooperation and friendship I highly appreciate and value.

I thank the Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee. Before proceeding further, I would like to emphasize that, as the Fifth Committee has just finished its work, the reports are available in English only. It is my understanding that they will be issued in all languages as soon as possible. I thank representatives for their understanding. 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 Fifth Committee that are before the Assembly today.

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

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 8 of its report, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.17. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 130.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.24. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

I give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation on a point of order.

We would like to express our deep regret over the absence of the translations in all official languages of the draft resolutions being submitted. This is a violation of both the Charter of the United Nations and many General Assembly resolutions, including those on multilingualism. This practice is not acceptable to the Russian Federation. We expect the Secretariat to make every effort to prevent this from happening in the future.

The point of the representative of the Russian Federation has been noted. The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 135.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.12. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled “United Nations common system”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

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

The Assembly has before it a draft decision recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft decision, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.23. We will now take action on the draft decision, entitled “Budgetary and financial situation of the organizations of the United Nations system”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

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

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.18. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled “Report on the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

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

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 5 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.19. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

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

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.20. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 145.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.21. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

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

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.22. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

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

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.13. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

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

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.14. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

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

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.8. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 159.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.15. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 162.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.16. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 166.

The Assembly has before it two draft resolutions recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 46 of its report, the texts of which, for the time being, are contained in documents A/C.5/69/L.26 and A/C.5/69/L.27, respectively, and a draft decision recommended by the Committee in paragraph 47 of the same report. I now give the floor to representatives wishing to speak in explanation of vote before the voting.

The delegation of Cuba has the honour to speak on behalf of the delegations of Nicaragua, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the Republic of Ecuador on the draft resolution contained in document A/C.5/69/L.26, specifically on section IV, which includes estimates in respect of special political missions, good offices and other political initiatives authorized by the General Assembly and/or the Security Council. The delegations on whose behalf I am speaking would like to reiterate their full support for the activities of the Special Adviser to the Secretary- General on the Prevention of Genocide and their respect for international law. However, we have to once again register our regret that the purview of the Special Adviser includes activities and outcomes related to the concept of the responsibility to protect, despite the fact that there is no intergovernmental agreement on the definition of that concept, its scope of application and other related aspects. Furthermore, we believe that its inclusion contravenes the resolutions of the General Assembly, including resolution 63/308 and other successive resolutions in the area of programme and budget planning, the regulations and detailed rules for the planning of programmes, the programme budget, the supervision of implementation, and means of evaluation. This is why, on behalf of our delegations, and bearing in mind the elements I mentioned with respect to the inclusion of the responsibility to protect in the logical framework of mandate of the Special Envoy for the Prevention of Genocide, the delegation of Cuba requests a recorded vote on section IV of draft resolution I, contained for the time being in document A/C.5/69/L.26.

My delegation has asked for the floor to explain its vote on section IV of draft resolution I under this agenda item. Iran has always supported the activities of the United Nations in all areas related to its scope of work as long as they abide by the rules and regulations of the Organization and remain within the scope of international law and the purview of the United Nations. Although Iran supports the functions of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, in my delegation’s view the issue of the responsibility to protect, including its definition, is still under the consideration of the General Assembly. It is therefore not acceptable to my delegation that the limited financial resources of the Organization should be allocated to funding posts for which there is no mandated definition. It is for this reason that my delegation will vote against section IV of the draft resolution.

My delegation takes the floor on section IV of draft resolution I, as contained in document A/C.5/69/L.26, as a supporter of the principle of the responsibility to protect. Recalling the opinion of the Secretary-General, our experience has led us to grapple with the fact that no legal principle, not even sovereignty, should ever be allowed to shield genocide, crimes against humanity and mass human suffering. But without implementation, our declarations ring hollow. Without action, our promises are meaningless. It is this very same spirit that led to the endorsement of the principles of the responsibility to protect in the outcome document of the 2005 World Summit (resolution 60/1). Since then, the Secretary- General, in his annual report, has been providing both conceptual clarity on the principle and the set of processes and tools for translating it from words into deeds. Rwanda commends and fully supports the three pillars of the responsibility to protect, as stipulated in the outcome document of the 2005 United Nations World Summit and formulated in the Secretary-General’s 2009 report on implementing the responsibility to protect (A/63/677). These pillars are of equal length, strength and viability, with no set sequence to be followed from one pillar to another. Rwanda also commends the work of the Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and that of the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect in ensuring the implementation of these three pillars. We believe that it is our collective duty to ensure that those Offices are fully operational in carrying out their mandates and responsibilities in the face of the many situations of crisis and mass atrocities happening around the world. Therefore, as co-Chair of the Group of Friends on Responsibility to Protect, we will vote in favour of section IV of the draft resolution, and we call on all Member States to do likewise.

The Assembly will first take a decision on draft resolution I, entitled “Questions relating to the programme budget for the biennium 2014-2015”, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.26. A recorded vote has been requested on section IV.

The Assembly will now consider draft resolution I, entitled “Questions relating to the programme budget for the biennium 2014-2015”, as a whole. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

Draft resolution II, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.27, is entitled “Programme budget for the biennium 2014-2015”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

We now turn to the draft decision recommended in paragraph 47 of the report, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.27. The draft decision is entitled “United Nations Office for Partnerships”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

I now give the floor to representatives wishing to speak in explanation of position or vote.

Concerning agenda item 132, my delegation wishes to dissociate itself from that section of resolution 69/263 in which it allocates budgetary resources to the Panel of Experts of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 (2006) for sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran. As my delegation clearly stated when the Panel was established, we firmly believe that the Security Council sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran are unlawful and targeted to the civilian population. They are posited on unfounded, baseless allegations and derived from the political motives of certain States. For the same reason, therefore, we object to the funding of the Panel of Experts.

My delegation would like to explain its vote on section IV of resolution 69/262. We voted in favour of section IV, on estimates in respect of special political missions, but with reservations concerning the allocation of financial resources to Mr. Roed-Larsen, the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the Implementation of Security Council resolution 1559 (2004), which is not in conformity with paragraph 2 of decision 63/262 and exceeds the mandate established in that resolution. The issue is that it treats relations between two sovereign countries, Lebanon and Syria, over their shared border, diplomatic exchanges, and border demarcation, without requiring an explanation from Israel for the same problem. We also support the decisions of the Human Rights Council, but we maintain our position on its resolution 25/23, which has financial implications.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 132.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 10 of its report, and a draft decision recommended in paragraph 11 of the same report. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled “Proposed programme budget outline for the biennium 2016-2017”, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.28. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly will now take action on the draft decision, entitled “Questions deferred for future consideration”, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/69/L.29. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

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. František Ružička, Permanent Representative of Slovakia to the United Nations and Chair of the Fifth Committee, the members of the Bureau and the Secretary of the Committee, as well as representatives, for a job well done. May I request a round of applause for them? The General Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of all the reports of the Fifth Committee before it. Programme of work

With regard to the programme of work of the General Assembly, apart from organizational matters and items that may have to be considered by operation of the rules of procedure of the Assembly, and bearing in mind that the Assembly has already considered and taken action on the majority of items thus far, I should like to inform members that the following agenda items remain open for consideration during the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly: agenda items 9, 10, 12, 13 (a) and (b), 14, 17 (c), 18, 19 (a), (c) and (h), 20, 28 to 30, 32 to 36, 38, 39, 41 to 47, 52, 62 (a) and (b), 63, 69 (a) to (c), 108, 111 (b), 112 (a), (b) and (d), 113 (b), (f), (g), (i) and (j), 114 to 122, 124 to 126, and 129 to 167. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to take note of those items on the agenda that remain open for consideration during the sixty-ninth session of the Assembly?