Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLI, Global Issues II

82. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State¹

New York, December 20, 1985, 2306Z

3912. Subject: 40th UNGA: Third Committee Wrap-Up

1. C—Entire text.

2. Summary: United States interests fared well in Third (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural) Committee² during the 40th UNGA. The adoption of resolutions for the first time on human rights in Iran and Afghanistan marked a major and welcome departure from the practice of dealing only with the human rights situations in a few Latin American countries. In another promising development, the human rights situations in El Salvador and Guatemala received more balanced treatment than in prior years, permitting U.S. abstentions. On the negative side, the human rights situation in Chile was again dealt with in harsh and unfair terms, forcing us to vote “no.”³

3. The committee acted by consensus to:

—Endorse the results of the Nairobi Women’s Conference and the seventh UN Crime Congress without reopening any of the controversial issues raised earlier in 1985;

—Hold a non-contentious “World Conference for International Youth Year” in the UNGA plenary;

—Convene an International Conference on Narcotic Drug matters in 1987;

—Defer consideration of the “right to development” issue and a scheduled UN Human Rights Commission Working Group on the same subject;⁴

—Adopt a harmless—and meaningless—Declaration on the Rights of Non-Nationals,⁵ which neither expands nor constricts the rights already granted aliens under national law and existing international instruments.

4. Most resolutions adopted were similar to those of previous years; while the texts of some G–77 and Soviet-initiated resolutions were worse than their immediate predecessors, they encountered, in most cases, greater Western opposition. Soviet bloc initiatives which bear watching in the future include: two consensus resolutions on UN work in the field of social development and on the convention against genocide; one on the “indivisibility” of economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights (adopted over a U.S. negative vote); and a draft resolution on “exploitation” of human rights issues. The latter draft did not come to a vote owing largely to opposition from the Third World.

5. We presented our views on racism, self-determination, social and women’s issues, refugee and narcotic drug matters, and a range of human rights questions. The following report summarizes Third Committee activity on its various “clusters” of agenda items. End summary.

6. Human rights (items 101, 102, 103, 104, 144, 12)—Iran and Afghanistan resolutions adopted, Soviet draft on “inadmissibility” deferred:

Despite concerted and vigorous lobbying by the Soviet bloc and Iran, the committee broke new ground at the 40th UNGA by adopting resolutions on the human rights situations in Afghanistan and Iran. The resolutions drew on reports submitted by the U.N. Human Rights Commission’s Special Rapporteur on Afghanistan, Felix Ermacora of Austria, and its Special Representative on Iran, Andres Aguilar of Venezuela. The resolutions expressed deep concern over the human rights situations in both countries: The plenary vote on Afghanistan was 80 (US) –22–40, and on Iran 53 (US) –30–45. In the voting on both resolutions we noticed clear signs of deal-making between the Soviet bloc and Iran. Syria, acting as a surrogate for Iran and the Soviets, proposed that no action be taken on either resolution: The proposal was defeated in committee. In plenary, the bloc countries either opposed, abstained, or did not participate in the vote on Iran, with the Iranians not participating on Afghanistan.

7. The Committee also adopted resolutions, as it has for several years, on Chile, El Salvador, and Guatemala. The resolutions on El Salvador and Guatemala reflected many of the improvements in these two countries as they head toward democracy and a greater respect for human rights. While the resolutions still remained unbalanced, the U.S. was able to abstain on both; we would have joined consensus on El Salvador had the Soviet Union not called for a vote. The Chile resolution was harsh and out of proportion to the other resolutions and to the situation in Chile. The U.S., while expressing concern about the human rights situation in Chile, voted “no.”

8. Obviously stung by the Afghanistan report, the resulting resolution, and the Committee’s willingness to deal with human rights situations in places other than Latin America, the Soviets proposed (through the Ukrainian “delegation”) a resolution on the “inadmissibility of the exploitation or distortion of human rights issues for interfering in the internal affairs of states.” This transparent effort to set back or even eliminate the U.N.’s ability to work in the human rights field was put off when it encountered strong opposition not only from Western but also from Third World delegations. (Comment: We have not seen the end of Soviet efforts to cut the U.N.’s Human Rights machinery.)

9. One of the two long-running Third Committee working groups concluded several years of work by drafting a declaration on the rights of individuals who are not nationals of the country in which they live. The final product, adopted by the UNGA, contributes nothing to the existing human rights instruments and merely reiterates, in a qualified fashion, that certain basic rights should be enjoyed by aliens as well as nationals of a state.

10. The U.S. cosponsored consensus resolutions on religious intolerance and on the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. Consensus texts were also adopted on: The rights of the child; the human rights covenants (and reporting obligations thereunder); the status of the Convention Against Torture; summary executions; disappearances; mass exoduses; and the United Kingdom’s slow-moving initiative on psychiatric abuse. A Soviet resolution on “The Right to Life” (i.e., let’s work to disarm NATO) was met by slightly stronger Western opposition than in the past (nine negative votes) and the West broke consensus for the first time in recent years on a GDR resolution on measures to be taken against Nazism and Fascism, etc. A new Soviet initiative to introduce the status of the convention against genocide into UNGA debates led to consensus adoption of a bland resolution which could be troublesome in the future.

[Omitted here is information unrelated to human rights.]

14. Alternative approaches/right to development (Item 107):

As a result of a Cuban-sponsored resolution at the UN Human Rights Commission,⁶ the Third Committee considered the esoteric—and undefined—concept of “the right to development.” Despite Western willingness to join consensus (after separate paragraph voting) on a compromise Yugoslav draft declaration, Pakistani amendments and disunity among Third World delegations led Yugoslavia to propose deferring consideration of the item until the 41st UNGA. A UNHRC working group scheduled to meet in January 1986 to consider “meas-ures to promote the right to development” was postponed as the deferral of the declaration on this subject would have left the group discussing only, in the words of the Moroccan delegate, “the sex of angels.” The working group meeting was postponed until the UNHRC provides “appropriate guidance.” The decisions to postpone consideration of the draft declaration and the working group nullified the UNHRC resolution forced through by Cuba in March 1985 over Western and moderate African objections. Cuba also suffered a minor setback on the Omnibus Resolution presented under the agenda item on alternative approaches: This time around, 22 delegations abstained on almost the same text which in 1984 had been adopted by a vote of 131–2 (U.S.) –12.

1. Source: Department of State, Human Rights Subject Files, 1985, Lot 87D205, PREL—UNGA—Nov thru Dec 1985. Confidential. Sent for information to USUN Geneva. Sent to Islamabad, Moscow, Pretoria, and Vienna.
2. An unknown hand underlined the phrase, “United States interest fared well in Third (social, humanitarian, and cultural) Committee.”
3. An unknown hand underlined this sentence.
4. An unknown hand underlined this sentence.
5. An unknown hand underlined the phrase, “the Rights of Non-Nationals.”
6. See footnote 7, Document 77.