Regional group positions on country-specific procedures at the 58th session

AT the 58th Session 14 countries were the subject of draft resolutions under Item 9. The numbers from each regional group they were as follows: African Group (6), Asian Group (4), Eastern Group (2), GRULAC (1) and Israel. The introducers and sponsors of the original draft resolutions were as follows: Western Group (Chechnya, DRC, Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Sudan, S.E. Europe, and Zimbabwe), African Group (Burundi and Equatorial Guinea), GRULAC (Cuba), OIC and others (Israel), and the Chairman (Afghanistan). The EU introduced by far the most drafts, introducing 8 of the 14 draft resolutions. Of the six drafts on African countries, the EU and the Western Group introduced 4 (DRC, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Zimbabwe).

There is, therefore, some merit in accusations that the majority of country specific proposals last year came from the EU. On many of these, however, the EU was sponsored by other states, including many states from the Eastern European Group and Japan (DRC and Sudan), and Nigeria, Niger and Sierra Leone (Sierra Leone). Of the four drafts resolutions on members of the Asian Group, the EU introduced three, with the only Asian Group sponsor being Japan (Iraq). A fuller picture of how regional groups responded to the EU draft resolutions can be found by analysing how countries actually used their votes.

Of the 14 draft resolutions: four country resolutions were adopted with a vote (Iraq, Sudan, Cuba, and Israel), six were adopted without a vote (Burundi, S.E. Europe, DRC, Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Sierra Leone), four proposed country resolutions were rejected with a vote (Chechnya, Iran, Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe). The rejected resolutions were all done so by way of vote. In other words, there was always a fight over the rejection of proposed country resolutions. By contrast, states on six occasions were able to adopt country resolutions by consensus. When a proposed resolution was put to a vote, however, an equal number were accepted as those rejected (28.5% adopted and 28.5% rejected). Therefore, where draft country resolutions were forced to a vote, the 'for' and 'against' Item 9 lobbies had an equal number of successes and failures. Overall, however, 71.5% of proposed country resolutions were adopted by vote or by consensus. On the basis of last year's voting, this shows more support for Item 9 than against it. Moreover, it shows inconsistency on the part of the regional groups that have expressed opposition to Item 9. In particular, the African Group on three occasions (Burundi, DRC and Sierra Leone) and the Asian Group on two occasions (Myanmar and Afghanistan) were prepared to adopt by consensus resolutions on states within their own groups.

An analysis of the voting margins for the 8 draft resolutions that were put to a vote gives some insight into the allegiances of states within their regional groups. The voting margins on the four resolutions rejected and the 4 adopted were as follows: rejections - Zimbabwe (2), Iran (1), Chechnya (1) and Equatorial Guinea (31); adopted - Cuba (2), Israel (32), Iraq (7) and Sudan (1). The voting margins in relation to Equatorial Guinea, Israel and Iraq show no genuine opposition to the draft resolutions. Equatorial Guinea was the only country mandate the Western Group appeared content to lose. The vast majority of states appeared to support, or were resigned to, the continuing mandates in respect of Israel and Iraq. The remaining five draft resolution votes were decided on narrow margins of only one or two votes. These highly marginal votes were on more regionally sensitive Item 9 countries and show regional group allegiances more clearly .

The African Group and the Asian Group were able to successfully combine three times (Zimbabwe, Iran and Chechnya), by voting together or by the use of abstentions, to defeat Western Group draft resolutions. The Western Group succeeded in adopting two resolutions by marginal votes (Cuba and Sudan) by combining with GRULAC, and with the support of disloyal members of the African Group (South Africa and Uganda) and the Asian Group (Republic of Korea and Thailand). Two votes were particularly close, as they had very few abstentions; Sudan (Armenia, South Africa, Thailand, Venezuela) and Zimbabwe (Brazil, Cameroon and Venezuela). These abstaining countries, all of which are again members of the CHR, may hold the balance on this year's Item 9 draft resolutions on Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Overall, the Western Group was the only regional group to show solidarity on all country votes and invariably voted to support Item 9 resolutions, with the exception of the vote on Equatorial Guinea, where they abstained. The Asian Group members were mostly loyal to their group's opposition to the Item 9 resolutions that actually went to a vote, while the African Group showed loyalty on some issues but was split on others. Members of GRULAC and the Eastern Group mostly did not show strong group loyalty, and members appeared to vote fairly autonomously either for or against Item 9 resolutions.