Fifty-ninth General Assembly
General Committee
5th Meeting (AM)
October 27, 2004

GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS INCLUSION OF THREE ADDITIONAL ITEMS ON
GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S CURRENT AGENDA, SPLITTING OF DEBATE ON PALESTINE,
MIDDLE EAST

The General Committee this morning decided to recommend the inclusion of
three additional items on the General Assembly’s current agenda, and
decided to split its joint debate on the situation in the Middle East
and the question of Palestine.

The Committee, by a show of hands vote of nine in favour with none
against and 14 abstentions, recommended the inclusion of an item on the
situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. The request was
contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan
(document A/59/236), annexed to which was an explanatory memorandum
stating that the ongoing conflict in the Nagorno Karabakh region had
resulted in the occupation of a significant part of Azerbaijan’s
territory, the expulsion of a large portion of its population and severe
damage to the national economy.

The memorandum noted that the process for the peaceful settlement of the
conflict on the basis of the norms and principles of international law
was being carried out by the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE), through the Minsk Group. But as of yet, no results had
been achieved. In the meantime, according to the memorandum, illegal
activities were currently being carried out in the occupied territories
of Azerbaijan, in particular by transfer of settlers to artificially
create a new demographic situation in those territories.

Azerbaijan’s representative said his country had made the request due to
the lack of effective response to the obvious threats to its sovereignty
and territorial integrity. Azerbaijan would not tolerate colonization of
its territory. It truly regretted that numerous warnings about dangerous
new realities in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan had gone ignored
and, therefore, had been forced to come to the Assembly in an effort to
stop blatant violation of international and humanitarian law.

He stressed that the request was not an attempt to replace the OSCE
peace process but to facilitate it. The Assembly was the chief
deliberative, policy making organ of the United Nations, he said, and it
was Azerbaijan’s Charter-based right to raise the issue.

France’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Co-Chairmanship of
the Minsk Group, which also includes the Russian Federation and the
United States, said the OSCE had been actively dealing with this
situation for quite some time in a professional-minded spirit, chiefly
through the Minsk Group. Part of that process had already yielded
discussions between the parties and the Group had proposed further talks
on the situation.

With that in mind, the request for the introduction of a new item could
have negative consequences, he said, such as harming efforts to bring
about a just and lasting settlement. While the Group had no doubts about
the sincerity of Azerbaijan’s request, it did not believe that the
current session of the Assembly was the proper forum to discuss the matter.

Armenia’s Ambassador said that there was no urgent situation surrounding
Nagorno Karabagh today. According to rule 15 of the Assembly’s rules of
procedure, only an item of “an important and urgent character” justified
a request to include a new item on the Assembly’s current agenda. The
reasons offered to justify Azerbaijan’s request misrepresented the
situation on the ground.

He explained that first, there was the former autonomous region of
Nagorno Karabagh, which had always and continued to be
Armenian-populated. Then, there were the territories surrounding Nagorno
Karabagh, which had come under the control of Nagorno Karabagh Armenians
as a result of the war unleashed by Azerbaijan in an attempt to stifle
the peaceful drive of the people of those territories for
self-determination.

It was obvious, he said, that there were no settlements outside of
Nagorno Karabagh proper, in territories controlled by Armenian forces.
Nor was there a policy to settle those lands. He wondered what new
demographic situation Azerbaijan had been referring to. The conflict had
created refugees on both sides. By initiating the request, Azerbaijan
relied on the sensitivities towards its country from members of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). He stressed that the
conflict had no religious connotations, but was closely related to the
security environment in the South Caucasus. He urged the Committee not
to take action on the request.

Speaking in favour of the inclusion of the item on, before the vote,
were the representatives of Gambia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Djibouti, and
Turkey (on behalf of the OIC). The representatives of Belgium and
Australia spoke against its inclusion.

The representatives of Kazakhstan and China hoped the situation could be
resolved through peaceful negotiations.

At the top of the meeting, the Committee recommended the inclusion of
two other items on its current agenda. The first, entitled “Andean Zone
of Peace,” was introduced by Peru’s representative. Speaking on behalf
of the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela), he
said that the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass
destruction and anti-personnel mines constituted a concrete contribution
to the strengthening of international peace, security and trust, as well
as to the principles of the Charter and international law. It was also
recommended that the item be considered directly in the plenary meeting.

The second item, entitled “Observer status for the South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation in the General Assembly”, was
introduced by Pakistan’s representative, who said the Association worked
to promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and to improve their
quality of life. It also hoped to accelerate economic growth, social
progress and cultural development in the region, providing individuals
with the opportunity to live in dignity and realize their potential. The
Committee also decided to allocate that item to its Sixth Committee (Legal).

Acting on a request from the Secretary-General, the Committee also added
a new sub-item to its agenda in order to elect a member of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ). In document A/59/237, the
Secretary-General informed the Committee that a vacancy in the Court
would occur effective 11 February 2005, due to the resignation of Judge
and Former President Gilbert Guillaume.

Lastly, acting on a proposal by the representative of Syria, the
Committee decided to recommend that the Assembly split its consideration
of agenda item 36, on the Situation in the Middle East, and item 37, the
Question of Palestine, which was scheduled to be considered jointly.

The General Committee will meet again at a time to be announced.