VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1126/01 3511543
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 171543Z DEC 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7816
INFO RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 3982

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001126 
 
DEPT FOR IO/HR, DRL/MLGA, PRM/PIP, S/GWI 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PREL PGOV KWMN UNGA
SUBJECT: UN THIRD COMMITTEE TAKES ACTION ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY, 
DURBAN REVIEW CONFERENCE AND ELECTORAL ASSISTANCE, AMONG OTHERS 
 
¶1. SUMMARY: On November 23 and 24 the Third Committee of the UN 
General Assembly took action on the remaining 11 resolutions on the 
Committee's agenda, adopting 7 by consensus and 4 by vote. In an 
unusual usage of Third Committee rules of procedure, the Durban 
Review Conference resolution had to be re-voted due to an alleged 
technical malfunction by The Russian Federation.  Because of concern 
over adding a sexual orientation dimension to the definition of 
gender, which many assumed referred only to women, the Africa Group 
introduced two amendments to the resolution on Cultural Diversity, 
of which one was adopted and one rejected. END SUMMARY. 
 
ELECTIONS 
---------- 
 
¶2. Resolution L.26 (strengthening the role of the United Nations in 
enhancing periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of 
democratization) was adopted by consensus for the first time since 
the U.S. began running this resolution in 1992.  The number of 
cosponsors has grown to 85, from the initial support of 44 
cosponsors when it was first introduced 17 years ago.  This year, 
the U.S. delegation held open informal consultations, taking on 
board a number of suggestions from Venezuela and others.  The 
Russian and Chinese delegation, however, continued to object to 
references made in OP8 to the OSCE's principles for election 
observation, a reference which was of key importance to the EU.  The 
Russian delegation called a vote on part of the paragraph.  An 
overwhelming majority of Member States supported the resolution as 
presented by the U.S., and the Russian proposal was defeated. 
Procedurally, Egypt requested that the Chair review and explain the 
rules of procedures that allowed for adoption without a vote even 
though a paragraph had been voted.  The Chair explained that under 
Rule 129, the resolution could be adopted without a vote.  In 
statements after action Iran, Libya and Venezuela said that while 
democracies shared common features, there was no single model of 
democracy.  Egypt noted that the Principles of Election Observation 
were not endorsed by the African Union.  The Cuban delegate, 
acknowledging changes made by the main sponsor, explained that the 
Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation and 
the Code of Conduct for International Observers was not negotiated 
through an intergovernmental process and had not been adopted by 
States. 
 
HRC REPORT 
---------- 
 
¶3. Action on the Report of the Human Rights Council (HRC) was split 
between the GA Plenary - where aspects of the HRC dealing with the 
Goldstone Commission's investigations into the Gaza conflict were 
debated - and the Third Committee, which took up the remainder of 
the HRC's work.  The deletion of the controversial Goldstone issue 
from the Third Committee's portion of the Report, and the avoidance 
of any budgetary implications in the report, allowed the Third 
Committee to adopt the Report by consensus for the first time. 
Egypt, the DPRK, Israel, and Sweden, on behalf of the European 
Union, delivered EOPs on A/C.3/64/L.61 (report of the Human Rights 
Council).  The delegate from Egypt expressed concern with the delay 
of the report of the twelfth session, since it contained issues 
important to Egypt, such as freedom of opinion and expression, on 
which Egypt had worked jointly with the delegation of the U.S.  The 
DPRK reaffirmed its opposition over the country-specific resolutions 
and said they were undertaken in a spirit of selectivity and double 
standards.  The delegate from Israel voiced concern over the work 
and methods of the Human Rights Council and said that it continued 
to address certain situations in a biased and prejudiced manner, 
particularly the situation in the Middle East.  The delegate from 
Sweden, speaking on behalf of the EU, said that the report of the 
HRC had been handled in an unfortunate manner and the GA plenary 
would be a more appropriate venue for the review of the report than 
the Third Committee. 
 
Durban 
------- 
 
¶4. An unusual vote re-take of the vote on draft resolution L.55 
(adoption of the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference) 
took place after the Russian delegate, on a point of order, 
announced there was a technical error and its "yes vote" had been 
incorrectly reflected as an abstention.  The first vote was 
161-6(US)-12.  The Committee then voted again with a slight 
difference: 163-5(US)-9.  The U.S. delegation called a point of 
order and requested that the Chair justify its position on the rules 
of procedures allowing the re-vote (Note: Mission believes the 
Russian delegate inadvertently leaned on the abstention button after 
casting his yes vote, thereby changing his vote.)  The Chair ruled 
that the machine had malfunctioned and a repeat of the vote was 
justified.  The Marshal Islands voted "no" the first time and did 
not vote the second time. 
 
¶5. Israel called for a recorded vote on resolution L.54 (Durban 
 
 
Declaration and Program of Action) 122-13(US)-45 with the U.S. 
Norway, and Sweden giving EOVs before the vote.  The U.S. explained 
it could not support the resolution because of its infringement on 
freedom of speech.  Norway, speaking on behalf of Iceland, was 
disappointed in the negotiations and would abstain.  The delegate 
from Sweden deplored how the negotiations were handled since the 
last meeting was canceled. 
 
COUNTERING TERRORISM 
---------------------- 
 
¶6. Mexico, the main sponsor of resolution L.43 (protection of human 
rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism), called 
a vote after Zambia, on behalf of the Africa Group, introduced an 
amendment to operative paragraph 12, which takes note of the report 
of the SG and Special Rapporteur on Countering Terrorism, and 
another amendment, to operative paragraph 19 which requests that the 
Special Rapporteur continue to make recommendations in the context 
of his mandate.  The African Group felt the Special Rapporteur's 
report reflected an attempt to introduce notions of sexual 
orientation and gender identity, which they believe have no 
foundation in international human rights law.  The Group was 
concerned by the Rapporteur's interpretation of his mandate to 
"integrate a gender perspective in his mandate."  Most delegations 
assumed a gender perspective only referred to women and were 
blind-sided by the broader definition taken by the Rapporteur.  The 
Africa Group expressed alarm that his report had redefined notions 
around "gender", thereby "re-classifying" women and men.  The Africa 
Group was concerned with redefining a gender perspective to include 
gays, lesbians and transgender and said that the Special Rapporteur 
had injected his personal and political opinions into the document. 
Pakistan, Venezuela, Syria, and St. Lucia made statements in support 
of the amendments.  Both amendments were adopted; 77-73(US)-23 and 
81-73(US)-20, respectively, and the U.K. then withdrew as a 
cosponsor.  In light of the changes, the resolution was then voted 
on as a whole and adopted by 181(US)-0-1 (St. Kitts & Nevis was the 
one abstention). 
 
CULTURAL DIVERSITY 
------------------ 
¶7. Cuba introduced resolution L.49 (human rights and cultural 
diversity) and said in exceptionally harsh terms that a "small group 
of States" (meaning the EU and its allies) had boycotted the 
negotiation process, in an attempt to impose their view on others. 
Sweden, speaking on behalf of the EU, noted that Cuba would not 
accommodate an important proposal and thus called for a recorded 
vote.  In an EOV before action, Deputy ECOSOC Representative John 
Sammis said that as references to avoiding the usage of cultural 
diversity as an excuse for human rights abuses had not been 
included, the U.S. could not support the text.  The committee then 
approved it by 125-50(US)-4. 
 
CONSENSUS 
---------- 
¶8. During formal meetings on November 23 and 24, the Third Committee 
adopted by consensus the following resolutions: A/C.3/64/L.59/Rev.1 
(assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa); 
A/C.3/64/L.61 (report of the Human Rights Council); A/C.3/64/L.63 
(Office of the President of the Human Rights Council); 
A/C.3/64/L.36/Rev.1 (elimination of all forms of intolerance and of 
discrimination based on religion or belief); A/C.3/64/L.20/Rev.1 
(the girl child ); A/C.3/64/L.44/Rev.1 (International Year for 
People of African Descent). 
 
 
RICE