AG/RES. 2258 (XXXVI-O/06) VOTE OF APPRECIATION TO THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT

1. The United States reserves on all references to the draft Inter-American Convention against Racism and All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance, because it believes the Working Group should not engage in negotiations on a new convention against racism. As there is already a robust global treaty regime on this topic, most notably the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to which some 170 countries are States Parties, a regional instrument is not necessary and runs the risk of creating inconsistencies with this global regime. The United States believes that the Working Group should be more action-oriented in addressing the scourge of racism and discrimination. For instance, the working group could analyze the forms and sources of racism and discrimination in the Hemisphere and identify practical steps that governments in the Americas might adopt to combat racism and other forms of discrimination, including best practices in the form of national legislation and enhanced implementation of existing international and national instruments. This would be aimed at bringing immediate and real-world protection against discrimination.

2. The delegation of El Salvador submitted a declaration on this resolution. The text of this declaration is contained in the minutes of the thirty-sixth regular session of the OAS General Assembly.

3. Reservation by the United States: The United States has long been concerned about the persistent violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law throughout the world. The United States will continue to be a forceful advocate for the principle of accountability for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, but cannot support the flawed International Criminal Court. Thus, the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute and has no intention of doing so. In light of this position, the United States cannot join in the consensus on an OAS resolution that promotes the Court.

4. The “conversion of the Americas into an antipersonnel-land-mine-free zone” is incompatible with current United States landmine policy, which clearly states that we will not become a party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention). The United States remains committed to humanitarian mine action and to cooperating in practical steps to end the harmful legacy of landmines. The United States will continue to support OAS efforts to eliminate the humanitarian threat of all persistent landmines and declare countries “mine-impact-free.”

5. The United States does not support the CTBT and does not intend to become a party to it. The United States will continue to work, as appropriate, with working groups of the CTBTO PrepCom and with its Provisional Technical Secretariat on the International Monitoring Systems (IMS) and IMS-related activities. The United States continues to observe its nuclear testing moratorium and has no plans to conduct a nuclear explosive test.

6. The delegation of Colombia wishes to make the following declaration on operative paragraph 1 of the resolution “Fighting Transnational Organized Crime in the Hemisphere.”

Colombia has ratified the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its Additional Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, and is fully committed to their application.

However, Colombia has stated that it will not ratify the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, or the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air.

Colombia does not agree with the text of Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition, concerning its scope of application. Colombia would have preferred that the Protocol apply to all transfers of firearms, their parts and components, and ammunition, in order to make a real contribution to preventing and combating illicit trafficking therein, and in order that transfers between states, like all other transfers, be subject to the control mechanisms set out in the Protocol.

The definition of “illicit trafficking” contained in Article 3, section (e), of the Protocol must be borne in mind: it states that, for a transfer to be licit, the authorization of all states parties involved in it is required. An escape clause, such as that appearing in Article 4, runs counter to that definition inasmuch as it implies that a state may transfer arms without the authorization or consent of one of the other states concerned. This would not only make such a transfer illicit but also open up the possibility for arms to be transferred to non-state actors.

Colombia, a country that has been seriously affected by the illicit trafficking in arms, cannot accept that certain arms transfers, such as transfers to non-state actors–which in our view constitute a grave crime–and transfers between states be excluded from the Protocol’s control measures, and therefore, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, took the sovereign decision not to ratify this Protocol.

With reference to the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, Colombia has stated that it will not ratify this instrument inasmuch as it considers that it contains provisions designed to legitimize the forced repatriation of migrants who have not necessarily been smuggled. That approach was promoted during the negotiation of the Protocol by the destination countries, none of which has ratified the 1990 United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

Colombia believes that the clause contained in Article 6, paragraph 4, could lead to the criminalization of migrants, whereas the purpose of the Protocol is to pursue criminal groups, not migrants.

Pursuant to the above, and in compliance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Colombia took the sovereign decision not to ratify the Protocol.

Venezuela reiterates the content of its reservations to the FTAA formulated in the Declarations and Plans of Action of the Summit of the Americas (paragraph 15 of the Declaration of Quebec City and paragraph 6-A of the Plan of Action; and paragraph 12 of the Declaration of Nuevo León), as well as in resolution AG/RES. 2014 (XXXIV-O/04), “Trade and Integration in the Americas,” and previous resolutions with the same title.

7. The General Assembly instructed the Committee on Meetings and Organizations, in resolution AG/RES. 1531 (XXVII-O/97), to study the costs of meetings and to draft policies on cost-sharing that would clearly indicate the amount the Organization would finance when a member state or organization offers to host a meeting.

8. The General Assembly, in resolution AG/RES. 457 (IX-O/79), instructed the General Secretariat to base its calculation of the costs of conferences on the cost of holding them at headquarters.

9. “3. To establish that the official offer to host an OAS meeting should be issued formally by the host country and received in the General Secretariat prior to signature of the agreement between the host country and the General Secretariat, in accordance with operative paragraph 4 of this resolution.”

“4. To instruct the General Secretariat, when preparing agreements for the hosting of OAS meetings away from headquarters: (a) to verify compliance with requirements established in resolutions AG/RES. 457 (IX-O/79), AG/RES. 1531 (XXVII-O/97), AG/RES. 1757 (XXX-O/00), AG/RES. 1974 (XXXIII-O/03), and AG/RES. 2059 (XXXIV-O/04); (b) to specify clearly the financial commitments to be assumed by the Organization or by the host country and/or, when applicable, those which will be covered by specific funds; (c) to ensure that the agreements are signed by the parties at least 60 days before the beginning of the meeting.”

10. “6. To establish that all funds for the meetings deposited with the General Secretariat by the host country and, when applicable, by other donors, in keeping with the agreement, shall be administered by the General Secretariat and must be deposited with the General Secretariat at least 60 days before the beginning of the meeting; and that, should such resources not be deposited with the General Secretariat by the deadline established in the agreement, the General Secretariat will automatically inform the Permanent Council to instead schedule the meeting at headquarters.”

11. Venezuela reiterates the reservation it entered to paragraph 15 of the Declaration of Quebec City and to paragraph 6.A of the Plan of Action, as concerns the entry into force of the FTAA in 2005.

Venezuela reaffirms its reservation to paragraph 12 of the Declaration of Nuevo León, which reads as follows: “Venezuela enters a reservation with respect to the paragraph on the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) because of questions of principle and profound differences regarding the concept and philosophy of the proposed model and because of the manner in which specific aspects and established timeframes are addressed. We ratify our commitment to the consolidation of a regional fair trade bloc as a basis for strengthening levels of integration. This process must consider each country’s particular cultural, social, and political characteristics; sovereignty and constitutionality; and the level and size of its economy, in order to guarantee fair treatment.”

Venezuela reiterates that negotiations for the establishment of any regional integration organization must take into account the broad social agenda of the peoples of the Americas, for the purpose of helping to eradicate poverty, raise the living standards of the marginalized sectors of our populations, generate jobs, improve the working conditions of workers, promote social inclusion, strengthen social dialogue and protection, improve health and education, and protect the environment, as well as respect and recognize the value of cultural diversity, as embodied in the Declaration and the Plan of Action of the 2001 Summit of the Americas.

12. www.oas.org/dil/esp/derecho_internacional_privado_foros.asp.

13. The United States does not join consensus on paragraph 6 of this resolution. The Hemisphere’s Ministers of Justice and Attorney Generals, meeting in the Dominican Republic, have asked another meeting, the Second Meeting of Officials Responsible for Penitentiary and Prison Policies, to look into the same matter that this paragraph asks the Permanent Council to look into. The United States believes that this resolution’s request to the Permanent Council is inappropriate, as a duplicative mandate.

14. The United States understands that this will be a declaration with moral and political force and participates in the important work of this Working Group on the basis of this understanding. Canada shares this understanding.

15. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela attaches great importance to the Declaration of the Fourth EU-Latin America/Caribbean Summit, adopted by the Heads of State and Government at the meeting held in Vienna, Austria, in May 2006, in which they firmly rejected all coercive measures of unilateral character with extraterritorial effect that are contrary to international law and the commonly accepted rules of free trade. They also agreed that this type of practice poses a serious threat to multilateralism. For that reason, and given that this is a Permanent Council item, we also consider that a meeting should be held to address said issue.

16. The United States observes that this resolution includes partially inaccurate characterizations of the OAS Charter and international law in its third, fourth, and fifth preambular paragraphs, and its first operative paragraph. The United States is a party to the Charter, and accepts the Charter’s statements on the subjects of those paragraphs. However, the United States cannot join consensus on this resolution to the degree that those paragraphs inaccurately characterize the Charter and international law.

171. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reaffirms the statement made in the footnote to resolution AG/RES. 2121 (XXXV-O/05), to the effect that the IACHR should include in the study entrusted to it under operative paragraph 9 of said resolution, taking into account the right of all citizens to seek, receive, and impart information, how the state may guarantee that right to populations that are socially and economically excluded, in the framework of the principles of transparency of information, when that information is disseminated via the media, and on the basis of the right to equality of all individuals under the law.

Along those lines, we underscore the important conclusions and reflections of the Special Meeting on the right to public information, held on April 28, 2006, within the framework of the OAS, in which it was recognized that the media were responsible for ensuring that citizens receive, without distortions of any type, information provided by the state.

18. Mexico notes an inconsistency between resolution AG/RES. 2240 (XXXVI-O/06), “Combating the Commercial Sexual Exploitation and Smuggling of and Trafficking in Children in the Hemisphere,” and resolution AG/RES. 2256 (XXXVI-O/06), “Hemispheric Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons: Conclusions and Recommendations of the First Meeting of National Authorities on Trafficking in Persons,” as regards the competent forum for dealing with the problem of trafficking in persons at the OAS. Mexico believes that trafficking in persons should be addressed from a crosscutting, integrated perspective and, therefore, stresses that, until such time as the Organization has a forum for that purpose, the appropriate forum is the Permanent Council.

19. The delegation of the United States of America disagrees with this paragraph.

20. The delegation of the United States of America disagrees with this paragraph.

21. Including, but not limited to, the implementation of the mandates to prevent, punish, and eradicate violence against women, $100.0

22. Including the implementation of the Strategic Plan of the Inter-American Children’s Institute and the Inter-American Program of Cooperation to Prevent and Remedy Cases of International Abduction of Children by One of Their Parents, $100.0.

23^. Includes additional $20.0 for translation expenses.

24^{. Includes $32.0 for operational expenses}.

25^{. Includes $60.0 for operational expenses}.

26. At its meeting of November 9, 2006, the Permanent Council asked the General Secretariat to interpret the aforecited paragraph as expressly stipulated in Article 80, (a) and (b), of the General Standards to Govern the Operations of the General Secretariat; and that it is the understanding of the delegations that the 15% is calculated on the amount contributed to FEMCIDI during 2006 for execution in 2007.