Action on Texts
Before the committee was a draft resolution on the
Office of the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict (document A/C.3/58/L.28), as orally revised, addressing concerns about the financial instability of the Office and its adverse impact on the implementation of its mandate. The draft would have the General Assembly decide to support, through regular budgetary funding, the activities under the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict.
A recorded vote was requested.
In a general statement before the vote, the representative of
Gabon said the many conflicts shaking many areas of the world, particularly Africa, had led to the use of children as combatants and soldiers. Children must be spared from the traumatizing effects of armed conflict. Because of the Office’s full dependence on voluntary contributions, it had to cope with an unprecedented situation in the Secretariat. No other department was funded solely through voluntary contributions. With the renewal of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, there was a need for greater financial stability of the Office in order to enable it to carry out its mandate. If the resolution was delayed, it would not be possible to provide the Office with the necessary resources because the biannual budget was currently being considered by the Fifth committee. He urged delegations to support the resolution.
The representative of
Guinea Bissau said his delegation was thunderstruck by the fact that the debate that took place during the Committee’s last meeting was not taken into consideration by the Budget Division. Delegates had expressed their broad desire to have the figures necessary to make their decision, as stipulated in the rules of procedure. His delegation was shocked and perplexed and not satisfied by the position of the Budget Division, which was not in conformity with their obligations to provide the data necessary for delegations to make their decision. He emphasized that it was necessary and indispensable that the Budget Division absolutely respect that.
The representative of
Nigeria said her delegation supported the draft resolution. The issue of children in armed conflict was too serious to be trivialized, as it was being trivialized in the current discussion.
In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the
United Kingdom, speaking also on behalf of Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Netherlands, Finland, Belgium and Luxembourg, said the delegations were committed to helping the United Nations system respond effectively to reach the children with greatest need. However, they could not support the resolution because it would serve to undermine the effectiveness of the United Nations response. It prejudged and undermined the forthcoming report of the Secretary-General on children. There was no urgency or need for the resolution at the current time. The resolution narrowly focused on one part of the United Nations response and could promote divisions. The proper place to consider the resolution, whose essence involved budgetary issue considerations, was in the Fifth Committee. The resolution was well intended, but misplaced and, therefore, they felt compelled to vote against the resolution.
The representative of the
United States said his delegation regretted that the sponsors of the draft were unwilling to await the report of the Secretary-General that would provide the necessary data and a comprehensive response to the problem of children in armed conflict. The action requested by the sponsors of the draft was premature. Furthermore, such budgetary issues should be addressed by the Fifth Committee. In view of those considerations, the United States would vote against the draft.
The representative of
Japan said her delegation would vote against the draft because Japan could not support any resolution that prejudged the activities of any office before the submission of the comprehensive assessment of the Secretary-General. Her delegation regretted that the draft was introduced in the first place and would vote no.
The representative of
Uganda said her delegation attached great importance to all efforts made to address the problems of children in armed conflict. However, her delegation was disappointed that the draft ignored the plight of children in northern Uganda and that the language proposed by her delegation had been withdrawn. It was a tragedy that the United Nations would fund the operations of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict and not call on him to visit areas he had so far ignored. For that reason, Uganda would abstain from voting on the draft.
The representative of Canada said that her country was deeply concerned by the plight of children in armed conflict. Last year, the Third Committee had recognized the importance of this issue and the progress that had been made since the establishment of the mandate of the Special Representative. The Committee had also committed itself to ensuring the effectiveness and strengthening of his Office. The Secretary-General had been requested to provide an assessment of the situation. Since such a report had not been completed, the Committee was forced to take action without a thorough knowledge of the situation. That undermined efforts made to respond to the plight of children in armed conflict. The delegation of Canada would, therefore, vote against the draft, since the plight of children must be approached in a comprehensive manner.
A representative of Mexico said that his Government supported the work of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, Olara Otunnu. He would vote in favour of the draft resolution, but expressed concern about the inadequate conditions under which the Committee was taking the decision. The financing by the regular budget of the Office of the Special Representative must not exclude the possibility of voluntary contributions.
The representative of Switzerland said that she supported the statements made by Canada and the United Kingdom.
The draft resolution was approved in a recorded vote of 106 in favour to
21 against and 29 abstentions (see Annex I).
After the vote, a representative of Norway underscored that Norway’s abstention was not to be understood as a lack of support for the work of the Special Representative. In principle, Norway believed that imperative tasks within the United Nations system should be supported within the regular budget. However, no decisions could be taken before the completion of the comprehensive assessment of the Secretariat.
The representative of Venezuela said she had abstained in the vote of the draft, even though her country had always supported the work of the Special Representative. She hoped that the issue would be considered in the Fifth Committee.
A representative of Liechtenstein said that he had voted in favour of the draft resolution, but expressed concern about the manner in which the draft had been put before the Committee.
The representative of Portugal said that the draft resolution had suffered from bad timing, since the assessment was not yet completed. For that reason, Portugal had abstained.
A representative of Slovenia said that she had voted in favour of the draft. However, she expressed concern about the procedures used with regard to its approval.
The representative of Egypt asked who requested the vote, and was informed that the United States and Japan had requested the vote.
A representative of Gabon, in a general statement, thanked those delegations that had voted in favour of the draft and expressed their commitment to children suffering in armed conflict.
The Committee had before it a draft resolution on the
importance of the role of parents in the care, development and well-being of children (document A/C.3/58/L.23/Rev.1) that would have the General Assembly urge all States to render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and to ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children. In addition, States would be called upon to take special measures to support children living without parental support, including orphans, children working and/or living on the street, internally displaced and refugee children, as well as institutions that care for them.
Also before the Committee was an
amendment (document A/C.3/58/L.83) to draft resolution L.23/Rev.1 that would have the title change to “the importance of the role of parents, legal guardians and other caregivers in the promotion and protection of the rights of the child and the care, development and well-being of children”. In addition, new operative paragraphs would reaffirm that States shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents and, where applicable, to members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child.
The representative of
Benin, the main sponsor of draft L.23/Rev.1, urged delegates to vote against the amendment and for sponsors of the amendment to withdraw the amendment.
The representative of
New Zealand, the main sponsor of the proposed amendment, said his delegation regretted that the sponsors of the amendment had been accused of sabotaging the draft. The amendments were proposed because of concerns about elements that were absent from the draft. It seemed sensible the draft should include language regarding the rights of parents. However, the amendments took note of the fact that, in many societies, the rights and responsibilities of extended family members, not just parents, were applicable in the raising of children.
A recorded vote was requested on the amendment.
In a general statement before the vote, the representative of the
United States said the amendments were aimed at corroding the core principles of the resolution on the role of parents, which was intended to identify the role of parents. The draft was necessary and long overdue. The United States would like to see resolution adopted by consensus, without the amendments proposed.
The representative of
Egypt said his delegation could not agree with many things stated by the representative of New Zealand. The amendments did not reflect negotiations in good faith. It was not a draft on family or children. There were separate draft resolutions on family and children. His delegation objected to diluting the reference to parents. It was the first time that any United Nations resolution specifically addressed the role of parents.
The representative of
Guinea-Bissau said his delegation had difficulty understanding the changes proposed, which tended to diminish the importance of the role of parents. The idea behind the draft was not to define the role of parents but to reaffirm and highlight the primary role that falls on parents in the education and growth of children.
The representative of
Chile said his delegation supported the amendment because it agreed with the general approach of resolution L.23, but agreed with the delegation of New Zealand that some elements were missing. The purpose of the amendment was to complement the draft to strengthen the text, and in no way did it undermine or sabotage the text. It sought to maintain language that was important and if left out would constitute a step backwards.
The representative of
Switzerland said the intention of the amendment was in no way to dilute the draft but was to give it a strong framework in conformity with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The representative of
Lesotho said Lesotho wished to withdraw its co-sponsorship of the draft resolution.
The representative of
Guatemala said her delegation wished to express that at no time was it the intention of the sponsors of the amendment to sabotage the role of parents, but to complement and strengthen the draft. Guatemala urged delegations to vote in favour of the amendments.
The representative of
Fiji said her Government had just adopted new legislation reflecting the indigenous nature of families and parenting. The inclusion of caregivers and legal guardians did not detract from the rights of children. Fiji regretted that any resolution pertaining to the rights of children and importance of family as the bedrock of society must be put to a vote.
The representative of
El Salvador wished to express support of statements made by New Zealand, Guatemala and Fiji. It was important to take into account language already agreed upon by everybody in the conventions mentioned. El Salvador called on delegations to maintain that spirit of coherence by approving the amendments.
The representative of
Sierra Leone said the proposed amendments complicated the issue and raised a conflict between the roles of family and parents. In his society, there was a special respect for the role of the extended family, which was recognized in the draft. The amendments in document L.83 complicated the issue and Sierra Leone hoped other delegations would recognize that and reject them.
The representative of
Nepal said his delegation was committed to implementation of those human rights instruments to which it was a party. It appreciated the initiative of Benin and also appreciated the merits of the amendments sponsored by New Zealand. His delegation regretted that the very important topic of the role of parents in raising their children had been put into question. He urged that both sides show flexibility, since there was not much difference in their positions. Nepal would like to see the draft adopted by consensus.
In explanation of vote, the representative of
Egypt said his delegation would vote no to the amendment, both because it was opposed to the amendment and because a vote against the amendment was the only way to have the draft approved by consensus.
The representative of the
Sudan said her delegation was saddened that the draft on the importance of the role of parents was being diluted by the amendments proposed. Her delegation would vote against all amendments to the draft.
The representative of
Iran said his delegation would vote against the amendments because they deviated from the core concept of the draft and would complicate its content, instead of complementing it.
The first amendment of document L.83, proposing a change in title, was approved in a vote of 72 in favour to 54 against, with 25 abstentions (see Annex II).
The representative of
Benin said her delegation regretted the vote approving the change in title.
The Committee then approved the other amendments in document L.83 by a vote of 77 in favour to 48 against, with 26 abstentions (see Annex III).
The representative of the
United Republic of Tanzania said her delegation regretted that the Committee was compelled to vote on agreed language in document L.83. She had abstained. The draft was about the role of parents, and not the rights of the child.
The representative of
Pakistan said his delegation attached great importance to the well-being of children and the role of parents. Since they were taken out of context by the amendments, which had changed the orientation of the draft, Pakistan withdrew its co-sponsorship from the draft resolution now that amendments had been incorporated in the draft. It would abstain from a vote on the draft.
The representative of
Syria said her delegation voted against the amendments.
The representative of
Qatar said his delegation had joined the sponsors of the draft resolution, but would like to withdraw its sponsorship of the draft resolution in light of the amendments just approved.
The representative of the
Niger said his delegation had voted against the amendments because they distorted the spirit of the draft resolution. The amendments were a mask to advance the agenda of its sponsors. Niger had, therefore, withdrawn its sponsorship of the draft resolution and would abstain in a vote on the draft.
The representative of
Bangladesh said her delegation was committed to protecting rights of children and believed in the role of parents in guaranteeing the well-being of children. However, it voted against the amendments and would like to withdraw its co-sponsorship of the draft.
Given the amendments just adopted, the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said he wished to be withdrawn from the list of co-sponsors. The representatives of Gabon, Congo, Dominica, Madagascar, Burundi, Cameroon, Libya, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, United States, Sierra Leone, Zambia, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Zimbabwe, Haiti, Senegal, China, Eritrea, Myanmar, and Rwanda similarly, said that they would like to be withdrawn from the list of co-sponsors.
The representative of Lebanon said that he had abstained in the block vote of amendments.
The representative of Guinea-Bissau said that he had voted against, since the amendments were out of place. He called on members of the Committee to really think about what had just happened. This had been a true hijacking of a draft resolution, he said.
The representative of Rwanda said that the amendments had completely transformed the meaning of document L.23/Rev.1. He had voted against all the amendments.
The representative of the United States proposed amendments to preambular paragraphs one and two of draft resolution L.23/Rev.1, as amended.
The representative of Pakistan also proposed amendments to the amended draft L.23/Rev.1.
The representative of El Salvador asked that those proposals be given to delegates in writing. A representative of Sierra Leone endorsed the idea of having all these proposals and amendments handed out in writing.
The representative of Egypt proposed a no-action motion on draft resolution on document L.23/Rev.1, as amended.
In a recorded vote of 66 in favour to 63 against, with 13 abstentions, the Committee approved the no-action motion (see Annex IV).
