Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
djxeno

U.N. Vote on Fight Against Racism

Recommended Posts

UNITED NATIONS

Press Release

xxxxxxxxxx

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES FIVE-PART DRAFT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR ACTION TO

COUNTER RACISM AND INTOLERANCE, AS IT CONCLUDES CURRENT SESSION

xxxxxxxxxx

Fifty-seventh General Assembly

Third Committee

25 November 2002

60th Meeting (PM)

Deeply concerned about persisting and growing racial discrimination, related

intolerance and acts of violence, the General Assembly would reaffirm its

commitment to a global drive for the total elimination of those phenomena,

under the terms of a resolution approved today by a vote of 153 in favour to

2 against (United States, Israel), with three abstentions (Canada, Australia,

Marshall Islands), as the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural)

concluded its 2002 session. (See Annex.)

Acknowledging that no derogation from the prohibition of racial

discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid and slavery was permitted,

under relevant human rights instruments, the five-part text would have the

Assembly draw States' attention to four priority areas: consideration of

accession or ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms

of Racial Discrimination, with a view to universal ratification by 2005;

comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and

Programme of Action; implementation of the Programme of Action for the Third

Decade to Combat Racism; and consideration of action by the Special

Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism.

Conscious of the fact that the history of humanity is replete with major

atrocities as a result of gross violations of human rights and believing that

lessons can be learned through remembering history to avert future tragedies,

the Assembly would decide to proclaim 2004 as the International Year to

Commemorate the Struggle against Slavery and its Abolition. The Assembly

would also emphasize that poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, and

economic disparities are closely associated a vote of 153 in favour to

2 against (United States, Israel), with three abstentions (Canada, Australia,

Marshall Islands), as the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural)

concluded its 2002 session. (See Annex.)

Acknowledging that no derogation from the prohibition of racial

discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid and slavery was permitted,

under relevant human rights instruments, the five-part text would have the

Assembly draw States' attention to four priority areas: consideration of

accession or ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms

of Racial Discrimination, with a view to universal ratification by 2005;

comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and

Programme of Action; implementation of the Programme of Action for the Third

Decade to Combat Racism; and consideration of action by the Special

Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism.

Conscious of the fact that the history of humanity is replete with major

atrocities as a result of gross violations of human rights and believing that

lessons can be learned through remembering history to avert future tragedies,

the Assembly would decide to proclaim 2004 as the International Year to

Commemorate the Struggle against Slavery and its Abolition. The Assembly

would also emphasize that poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, and

economic disparities are closely associated with racism, racial

discrimination and related intolerance and contribute to the persistence of

racist attitudes and practices, which in turn generate more poverty.

The text would further urge States to, among other things, adopt effective

measures to combat criminal acts motivated by racism and xenophobia, to take

measures so that such motivations are considered as an aggravating factor for

the purposes of sentencing, to prevent such crimes from going unpunished and

to ensure the rule of law. The Assembly would also condemn the misuse of

print, audio-visual and electronic media or new communication technologies to

incite violence motivated by racial hatred and to condemn political platforms

based on xenophobia or doctrines of racial superiority.

Before the Committee took action on the text, several delegations expressed

serious concerns about references to the outcome of the Durban World

Conference against Racism and its outcome, the Durban Declaration. While they

reaffirmed support for the fight against racism and related intolerance, some

felt the negotiations at Durban had been "inexcusably marred" by negative

references to the Middle East. The Conference had also been accompanied by

demonstrations outside inciting racial hatred.

At the same time, others believed the Durban Declaration constituted a solid

foundation for the fight against racism, and provided a new and balanced

blueprint fowith racism, racial

discrimination and related intolerance and contribute to the persistence of

racist attitudes and practices, which in turn generate more poverty.

The text would further urge States to, among other things, adopt effective

measures to combat criminal acts motivated by racism and xenophobia, to take

measures so that such motivations are considered as an aggravating factor for

the purposes of sentencing, to prevent such crimes from going unpunished and

to ensure the rule of law. The Assembly would also condemn the misuse of

print, audio-visual and electronic media or new communication technologies to

incite violence motivated by racial hatred and to condemn political platforms

based on xenophobia or doctrines of racial superiority.

Before the Committee took action on the text, several delegations expressed

serious concerns about references to the outcome of the Durban World

Conference against Racism and its outcome, the Durban Declaration. While they

reaffirmed support for the fight against racism and related intolerance, some

felt the negotiations at Durban had been "inexcusably marred" by negative

references to the Middle East. The Conference had also been accompanied by

demonstrations outside inciting racial hatred.

At the same time, others believed the Durban Declaration constituted a solid

foundation for the fight against racism, and provided a new and balanced

blueprint for action. They urged that the controversies emerging from the

Non-Governmental Forum and the demonstrations outside the Conference, which

had incited racial hatred, must not be used to detract from the international

community's focus on the fight against racism.

The Committee took note of the relevant chapters of the report of the

Economic and Social Council (document A/57/3), and the Secretary-General's

note transmitting the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights on implementation and follow-up to the World Conference against

Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance (document

A/57/443).

Finally, the Committee approved its programme of work for the upcoming

2003-2004 substantive session (document A/57/75).

As the Committee concluded its work, Chairman Christian Wenaweser

(Liechtenstein), thanked all delegations for their confidence and said he had

done his best to live up to their expectations. It had not been an easy

session, but he felt that delegations had showed a great spirit of

cooperation. He also thanked the Bureau, the Vice-Chairpersons, and the

Secretariat, and noted that there had been transparency and dialogue in the

workings of the Committee.

He stressed that he believed consensus was an important tool, even though it

was sometimes impossible. Referring to the occasionally drawn-out

negotiations, he said it had not been responsr action. They urged that the controversies emerging from the

Non-Governmental Forum and the demonstrations outside the Conference, which

had incited racial hatred, must not be used to detract from the international

community's focus on the fight against racism.

The Committee took note of the relevant chapters of the report of the

Economic and Social Council (document A/57/3), and the Secretary-General's

note transmitting the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights on implementation and follow-up to the World Conference against

Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance (document

A/57/443).

Finally, the Committee approved its programme of work for the upcoming

2003-2004 substantive session (document A/57/75).

As the Committee concluded its work, Chairman Christian Wenaweser

(Liechtenstein), thanked all delegations for their confidence and said he had

done his best to live up to their expectations. It had not been an easy

session, but he felt that delegations had showed a great spirit of

cooperation. He also thanked the Bureau, the Vice-Chairpersons, and the

Secretariat, and noted that there had been transparency and dialogue in the

workings of the Committee.

He stressed that he believed consensus was an important tool, even though it

was sometimes impossible. Referring to the occasionally drawn-out

negotiations, he said it had not been responsible for the Committee to have

spent more than five hours on one resolution, at a cost of more than $23,000.

In conclusion, he again thanked delegations and stressed that the Committee

had indeed completed important work.

Also speaking towards the conclusion of the meeting, thanking the Chairperson

and the Bureau as well as reflecting on the session, were representatives of

Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group), Denmark (on behalf of the European

Union), Lebanon (on behalf of the Arabic Group), San Marino (on behalf of the

Western European and other States Group), Canada (on behalf of JUSCANZ),

Venezuela (on behalf of the Group of 77), Argentina (on behalf of the Latin

American Group), Indonesia (on behalf of the Asian Group), Jamaica (on behalf

of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)), and Albania (on behalf of the Eastern

European Group).

The representatives of Benin and Suriname also spoke.

Background

Before the Committee there will be a draft resolution on the Fight against

Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance and

Comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and

Programme of Action (document A/C.3/57/L.34/Rev.1). It would have the

Assembly call upon all States resolutely to bring to justice the perpetrators

of crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, and call upon those that have

not yet done so to consider including in their ible for the Committee to have

spent more than five hours on one resolution, at a cost of more than $23,000.

In conclusion, he again thanked delegations and stressed that the Committee

had indeed completed important work.

Also speaking towards the conclusion of the meeting, thanking the Chairperson

and the Bureau as well as reflecting on the session, were representatives of

Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group), Denmark (on behalf of the European

Union), Lebanon (on behalf of the Arabic Group), San Marino (on behalf of the

Western European and other States Group), Canada (on behalf of JUSCANZ),

Venezuela (on behalf of the Group of 77), Argentina (on behalf of the Latin

American Group), Indonesia (on behalf of the Asian Group), Jamaica (on behalf

of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)), and Albania (on behalf of the Eastern

European Group).

The representatives of Benin and Suriname also spoke.

Background

Before the Committee there will be a draft resolution on the Fight against

Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance and

Comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and

Programme of Action (document A/C.3/57/L.34/Rev.1). It would have the

Assembly call upon all States resolutely to bring to justice the perpetrators

of crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, and call upon those that have

not yet done so to consider including in their legislation racist and

xenophobic motivation as an aggravating factor for the purposes of

sentencing. States would also be called upon to review and revise, where

necessary, their immigration laws and policies and practices so that they

were free from racial discrimination.

The Committee also had before it a text on the organization of work of the

Third Committee and draft biennial programme of work of the Committee for

2003-2004 (document A/C.3/57/L.75).

Also before the Committee is the report of the Economic and Social Council

for 2002 (document A/57/3) and its supplements, which deals with matters

calling for action by or brought to the attention of the General Assembly. It

also mentions the special high-level meeting of the Council with the Bretton

Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization. Concerning the

high-level segment of the Economilegislation racist and

xenophobic motivation as an aggravating factor for the purposes of

sentencing. States would also be called upon to review and revise, where

necessary, their immigration laws and policies and practices so that they

were free from racial discrimination.

The Committee also had before it a text on the organization of work of the

Third Committee and draft biennial programme of work of the Committee for

2003-2004 (document A/C.3/57/L.75).

Also before the Committee is the report of the Economic and Social Council

for 2002 (document A/57/3) and its supplements, which deals with matters

calling for action by or brought to the attention of the General Assembly. It

also mentions the special high-level meeting of the Council with the Bretton

Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization. Concerning the

high-level segment of the Economic and Social Council, the report focuses on

the contribution of human resources development, including in areas of health

and education, to the process towards development, as well as the Ministerial

declaration of the high-level segment submitted by the President of the

Council. The report covers the operational activities of the Economic and

Social Council as well as its coordination, including its strengthening

through building on recent achievements, so that it can fulfil the role

ascribed to it in the Charter of the United Nations.

Action on Draft Resolution

The Committee had before it a draft resolution on the Fight against Racism,

Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance and the

Comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and

Programme of Action (document A/C.3/57/L.34/Rev.1).

A recorded vote was requested.

In a general statement, the representative of Israel said Israel fully

supported efforts aimed at eradicating racism. Because Israel was against

racism, the outcome of Durban could not be accepted. His delegation would not

be joining the consensus and would vote against the draft resolution. Had

there been a paragraph-by-paragraph vote, Israel would have voted against any

reference to Durban being the basis for the fight against racism. The

highjacking of the Conference did a great disservice to those who would have

benefited from effc and Social Council, the report focuses on

the contribution of human resources development, including in areas of health

and education, to the process towards development, as well as the Ministerial

declaration of the high-level segment submitted by the President of the

Council. The report covers the operational activities of the Economic and

Social Council as well as its coordination, including its strengthening

through building on recent achievements, so that it can fulfil the role

ascribed to it in the Charter of the United Nations.

Action on Draft Resolution

The Committee had before it a draft resolution on the Fight against Racism,

Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance and the

Comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and

Programme of Action (document A/C.3/57/L.34/Rev.1).

A recorded vote was requested.

In a general statement, the representative of Israel said Israel fully

supported efforts aimed at eradicating racism. Because Israel was against

racism, the outcome of Durban could not be accepted. His delegation would not

be joining the consensus and would vote against the draft resolution. Had

there been a paragraph-by-paragraph vote, Israel would have voted against any

reference to Durban being the basis for the fight against racism. The

highjacking of the Conference did a great disservice to those who would have

benefited from efforts to eradicate racism. For these reasons, his delegation

along with that of the United States had been compelled to leave the

Conference. The conduct at the Conference had been offensive and something

United Nations resolutions must avoid basing themselves on.

The representative of South Africa said the outcome of the World Conference

in Durban had one of its primary objectives racial equality and racial

justice everywhere in the world. The Conference put the victims of racism at

the heart of the future work of the Committee, she said. It was important

that the General Assembly ensured the implementation and follow-up to the

Durban Declaration at the national and international levels. She also

appreciated the patience and important work undertaken by the co-sponsors of

the current draft resolution. The Durban Declaration constituted a solid

foundation for the fight against racism. Finally, she stressed that the

controversies that had come out of the Non-Governmental Forum and the

demonstrations outside the Conference, which had incited racial hatred, must

not be used to detract the international community's focus on the fight

against racism.

Before the vote, the representative of the United States explained his vote

and said that the United States was committed to the fight against racism,

including anti-Semitism. He had been disappointed that anti-Semitism had not

been mentioned in the resorts to eradicate racism. For these reasons, his delegation

along with that of the United States had been compelled to leave the

Conference. The conduct at the Conference had been offensive and something

United Nations resolutions must avoid basing themselves on.

The representative of South Africa said the outcome of the World Conference

in Durban had one of its primary objectives racial equality and racial

justice everywhere in the world. The Conference put the victims of racism at

the heart of the future work of the Committee, she said. It was important

that the General Assembly ensured the implementation and follow-up to the

Durban Declaration at the national and international levels. She also

appreciated the patience and important work undertaken by the co-sponsors of

the current draft resolution. The Durban Declaration constituted a solid

foundation for the fight against racism. Finally, she stressed that the

controversies that had come out of the Non-Governmental Forum and the

demonstrations outside the Conference, which had incited racial hatred, must

not be used to detract the international community's focus on the fight

against racism.

Before the vote, the representative of the United States explained his vote

and said that the United States was committed to the fight against racism,

including anti-Semitism. He had been disappointed that anti-Semitism had not

been mentioned in the resolution as a contemporary form of racism. The United

States had withdrawn from the Durban Conference and had not agreed with the

Declaration. The Conference had also been accompanied by demonstrations

outside inciting racial hatred. The United States would vote against the

adoption of this resolution, even though the United States fully supported

the goals the Conference initially had been intended to fulfil.

The representative of Denmark, on behalf of the European Union, said the

European Union was committed to the fight against racism, at home and abroad.

Racism was a cause and manifestation of violence around the world. The Durban

Declaration provided a new and balanced blueprint for action against racism.

The European Union had already begun to take action at the national and

regional commitment in this regard and believed that the Durban Declaration

needed to have consensus support in order to have any effect. The efforts

made by all co-sponsors to reach agreement were commended. She regretted that

it was not possible to adopt this draft resolution by consensus.

The representative of Canada said that Canada would abstain in the vote since

the text was vitally flawed in one area. It focused on the Durban Conference,

which had been unacceptably marred by references to the Middle East. Canada

disassociated itself from those paragraphs. He noted that operative paragraph

50 to cooperate with theolution as a contemporary form of racism. The United

States had withdrawn from the Durban Conference and had not agreed with the

Declaration. The Conference had also been accompanied by demonstrations

outside inciting racial hatred. The United States would vote against the

adoption of this resolution, even though the United States fully supported

the goals the Conference initially had been intended to fulfil.

The representative of Denmark, on behalf of the European Union, said the

European Union was committed to the fight against racism, at home and abroad.

Racism was a cause and manifestation of violence around the world. The Durban

Declaration provided a new and balanced blueprint for action against racism.

The European Union had already begun to take action at the national and

regional commitment in this regard and believed that the Durban Declaration

needed to have consensus support in order to have any effect. The efforts

made by all co-sponsors to reach agreement were commended. She regretted that

it was not possible to adopt this draft resolution by consensus.

The representative of Canada said that Canada would abstain in the vote since

the text was vitally flawed in one area. It focused on the Durban Conference,

which had been unacceptably marred by references to the Middle East. Canada

disassociated itself from those paragraphs. He noted that operative paragraph

50 to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur in his mandate, which must be the

fight against contemporary forms of racism against Africans and their

descendants, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.

The representative of Australia said he was deeply disappointed that real

outcomes had been prevented by politicization and division. Australia was

also concerned about the future mechanisms of this draft. Any follow-up

mechanisms must be consensual -- follow-up mechanisms going beyond this basis

could not be accepted. Efforts must be geared to constructively fighting

against racism.

In a recorded vote, the resolution was approved by a vote of 153 in favour to

2 against (United States, Israel), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Canada and

Marshall Islands). (See Annex.)

After the vote, the representative of Senegal said he regretted that it had

been necessary for the international community to vote on a resolution on

racism. He felt that the Durban consensus should have been preserved, and

that follow-up mechanisms to Durban that were non-consensual must be avoided.

New mechanisms must be the outcome of a consensus. He added that the question

of racism must not be seen only from a North-South, black-white dichotomy.

All forms of discrimination must be fought with the same vigour. His

delegation had voted in favour, hoping that useful compromises would be found

at the next human rights session in Geneva.

The Committee then took Special Rapporteur in his mandate, which must be the

fight against contemporary forms of racism against Africans and their

descendants, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.

The representative of Australia said he was deeply disappointed that real

outcomes had been prevented by politicization and division. Australia was

also concerned about the future mechanisms of this draft. Any follow-up

mechanisms must be consensual -- follow-up mechanisms going beyond this basis

could not be accepted. Efforts must be geared to constructively fighting

against racism.

In a recorded vote, the resolution was approved by a vote of 153 in favour to

2 against (United States, Israel), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Canada and

Marshall Islands). (See Annex.)

After the vote, the representative of Senegal said he regretted that it had

been necessary for the international community to vote on a resolution on

racism. He felt that the Durban consensus should have been preserved, and

that follow-up mechanisms to Durban that were non-consensual must be avoided.

New mechanisms must be the outcome of a consensus. He added that the question

of racism must not be seen only from a North-South, black-white dichotomy.

All forms of discrimination must be fought with the same vigour. His

delegation had voted in favour, hoping that useful compromises would be found

at the next human rights session in Geneva.

The Committee then took note of the Secretary-General's transmission of the

report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the

implementation and follow-up to the World Conference against Racism (document

A/57/443) and recommended that the General Assembly do the same.

ANNEX

Vote on Fight against Racism

The draft resolution on the fight against racism and related intolerance

(document A/C.3/57/L.34/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 153 in

favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and

Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain,

Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia,

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria,

Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China,

Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech

Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the

Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,

Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana,

Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran,

Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao

People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein,

Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar note of the Secretary-General's transmission of the

report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the

implementation and follow-up to the World Conference against Racism (document

A/57/443) and recommended that the General Assembly do the same.

ANNEX

Vote on Fight against Racism

The draft resolution on the fight against racism and related intolerance

(document A/C.3/57/L.34/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 153 in

favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and

Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain,

Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia,

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria,

Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China,

Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech

Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the

Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,

Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana,

Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran,

Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao

People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein,

Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta,

Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique,

Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria,

Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Phillipines, Poland,

Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian

Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino,

Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South

Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland,

Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad

and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United

Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia,

Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Canada, Mars, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta,

Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique,

Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria,

Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Phillipines, Poland,

Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian

Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino,

Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South

Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland,

Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad

and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United

Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia,

Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Australia, Canada, Marshall Islands.

Absent: Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, El Salvador, Equatorial

Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iraq,

Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger,

Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and

Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste,

Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still dont understand why anyone would take the UN seriously.....That organization is full of hypocracy and racism.....They have human rights counsel's who's members are known for their human rights violations......Security counsels with countries that support terrorism....Then they hold assembly's where Anti-Semitism is encouraged.......Fuck them....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×