VZCZCXYZ0002
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1138/01 3401449
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 051449Z DEC 08
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5476
INFO RUEHGO/AMEMBASSY RANGOON PRIORITY 0292
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 3456

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001138 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL AORC UNGA IR BM KN
SUBJECT: UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE TAKES ACTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 
SITUATIONS IN IRAN, BURMA, AND THE DPRK 
 
¶1. SUMMARY:  On November 21, the UN General Assembly Third 
Committee passed by vote draft resolutions on the human 
rights situations in Iran, Burma, and the Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea.  Delegations opposing the draft 
resolutions argued that the Human Rights Council, rather than 
the General Assembly, was the proper forum to address human 
rights concern, and that such resolutions constituted 
interference in Member States, internal affairs.  The 
Committee rejected two no-action motions by comfortable 
margins, one put forward by the Burmese delegation, and one 
by the Iranian delegation.  The Committee passed three other 
draft resolutions by vote, and adopted four by consensus. 
END SUMMARY 
 
IRAN, BURMA, AND THE DPRK 
-------------------------- 
 
¶2. On November 21, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) Third 
Committee took action on draft resolutions on the human 
rights situations in Iran, Burma, and the Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea (DPRK), passing each by vote.  Draft 
resolution A/C.3/63/L.26, entitled "Situation of human rights 
in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea," passed in a 
vote of 95 in favor (U.S.), 24 against, and 62 abstentions. 
Draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.33, entitled "Situation of human 
rights in Myanmar," passed in a vote of 89 in favor (U.S.), 
29 against, and 63 abstentions, while the Burmese 
delegation's no-action motion was rejected in a vote of 90 
against (U.S.), 54 in favor, and 34 abstentions.  Draft 
resolution A/C.3/63/L.40, entitled "Situation of human rights 
in the Islamic Republic of Iran," passed in a vote of 70 in 
favor (U.S.), 51 against, and 60 abstentions, while the 
Iranian delegation's no-action motion was rejected in a vote 
of 81 against (U.S.), 71 in favor, and 28 abstentions.  The 
United States is a co-sponsor of all three country-specific 
human rights draft resolutions. 
 
¶3. The DPRK Deputy PermRep issued a statement calling the 
draft resolution on the situation in his country "the product 
of a political conspiracy to enforce a change to the ideology 
and system of the DPRK."  The draft's co-authors, he said, 
were "blindly obeying the United States, the worst peace 
disturber and human rights violator of the world."  The 
Burmese PermRep called the draft resolution on Burma 
substantively and procedurally "flawed," and accused the 
co-sponsors of exploiting human rights for political 
purposes.  Further, he said the presentation of the draft to 
the Committee demonstrated an "utter lack of respect" for the 
Human Rights Council (HRC), and was "clearly a case of 
selectively targeting a developing country that is in 
disfavor with the powerful Western countries."  The Advisor 
to the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs called the draft 
resolution on Iran "unwarranted, non-objective and 
politically motivated," and said it contained a number of 
"falsified and unsubstantiated elements" that contradicted 
the real human rights situation in Iran.  He accused Canada 
(the main sponsor), the United States and Israel 
(co-sponsors) of committing gross human rights violations, 
and called for the international community to pay attention 
to the human rights situation in all countries "without 
exception or ulterior considerations." 
 
¶4. Delegations issuing general statements or Explanations of 
Vote on the country-specific human rights draft resolutions 
largely argued against the drafts on the basis of one or both 
of two points.  First, many delegations argued that the UNGA 
was not the appropriate body in which to address human rights 
concerns in specific countries, as the HRC had been 
established for exactly that purpose.  They emphasized that 
the HRC's Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was the best 
mechanism to examine the human rights situations in Member 
States, and that unlike the draft resolutions, the UPR 
applied equally to all States, and was transparent, 
forward-looking, and non-confrontational.  Second, several of 
the drafts, opponents maintained that passing the draft 
resolutions would constitute interference in States, 
internal affairs, contrary to the principles enshrined in the 
UN Charter.  Egypt, Syria, Cuba (on behalf of the Non-Aligned 
Movement), Venezuela, Belarus and Malaysia were among the 
most vocal opponents to the draft resolutions, in addition to 
the countries named in the drafts.  They and other opponents 
called the draft resolutions "politicized," "selective," and 
"one-sided," claiming that they applied double-standards, 
undermined the HRC's work, and damaged the Third Committee's 
credibility.  A fuller reflection of the debate can be found 
at www.un.org/apps/pressreleases. 
 
OTHER ACTION 
------------ 
 
¶5. Also on November 21, the Committee adopted the following 
 
 
draft resolutions by consensus:  A/C.3/63/L.32, entitled 
"Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of 
human rights;" A/C.3/63/L.41, entitled "International 
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Forced 
Disappearance;" A/C.3/63/L.38/Revision 1, entitled 
"Protection of migrants;" and A/C.3/63/L.13/Revision 1, 
entitled "Trafficking in women and girls."  The United States 
is a co-sponsor of draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.13/Revision 1. 
 The United States delivered an Explanation of Position on 
draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.38/Revision 1; the complete text 
of this and all other U.S. statements can be found at 
www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov. 
 
¶6. The Committee passed three other draft resolutions by 
vote.  Draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.31, entitled "Human rights 
and unilateral coercive measures," passed in a vote (called 
by the United States) of 124 in favor, 52 against (U.S.), and 
no abstentions.  Draft resolution A/C.3/63/L.44, entitled 
"Promotion of a democratic and equitable international 
order," passed in a vote (called by the United States) of 120 
in favor, 52 against (U.S.), and seven abstentions.  Draft 
resolution A/C.3/63/L.53/Revision 1, entitled "International 
Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial 
Discrimination," passed in a vote of 178 in favor (U.S.), 
none against, and no abstentions.  Operative Paragraph 13, 
which authorizes the treaty body of the Convention to meet 
for an additional week per session in 2009-2011, passed in a 
separate vote (called by the U.S. for budgetary reasons) of 
165 in favor, one against (U.S.), and eight abstentions. 
(NOTE:  The Egyptian delegate called for the vote on the 
draft resolution after a long procedural argument with the 
Committee Chair.  The delegate disagreed with the Chair's 
ruling that a resolution could be adopted by consensus after 
a separate paragraph vote had taken place.  Several other 
delegations weighed in, agreeing with the Chair's ruling. 
While repeatedly indicating his disagreement with the ruling, 
the Egyptian delegate declined to formally appeal the Chair's 
decision, which would have resulted in a Committee vote on 
the decision.) 
Wolff