Report on Gov Sub-Committee 2 - Monday Nov 10

["Meryem Marzouki" <marzouki@ras.eu.org>]

Government Sub-Committee 2 – Monday Nov 10, 14h-17h and 19h-22h
Report from Rikke Frank Jorgensen and Meryem Marzouki

NB. When an article is said to be « adopted », this means that it has
been agreed upon by Sub-Committee 2, but it has still to be formally
adopted by the government plenary.

Generally speaking, a lot of time is wasted on editorial modifications,
as well as on discussing again issues which have already been agreed
upon.

The afternoon session has examined paragraphs 2 to 10, and the evening
session stopped after discussion on paragraph 26.

Observers, including CS made comments in the evening session, covering
whole section B (article 16 to 58). (please refer to their texts). Note
that the comments by UNESCO led to a reaction from Russia, saying that
this declaration could by no mean be made in the name of members states,
and that if it’s made in the name of UNESCO Secretariat, this should be
clearly said.

Paragraphs to be discussed again after more consultations and new
proposals are:
1, 2bis, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16, 18

Adopted paragraphs are:
2, 3, 6, 6bis, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17, 19, 20, 26

Unknown status: 11, 12  (we missed the discussion – Sorry)

Regarding still to be discussed paragraphs, main issues are:
- Para1: Reference to UDHR, China having proposed to delete it, with the
argument that “the UDHR doesn’t contain principles”. The discussion is
about whether the text should be kept as it is or if Senegal compromise
should be adopted, referring to the UDHR itself, and not to “its
principles”.
- Para2bis: Italy (EU), El Salvador, Nigeria, Canada, Azerbaïdjan,
Cameroon, Mali, Malawi are in favor of deletion of this paragraph,
arguing that it repeats para1, and that it has nothing to do in a
political declaration. USA and Syria want to maintain it. A possible
compromise would be to keep it, but elsewhere in the text. USA wants to
suppress the reference to national laws.
- Para4 and Para5 (on Article 19 and Article 29): its seems that Article
19 would be referred to as “an essential foundation of the IS”  and not
“the foundation”. But the discussion has reflected a tough negotiation
on the balance 19/29, with Canada even proposing to suppress the
reference to Article 19, in order to get rid from Article 29.
Switzerland and EU  prefers  having only a reference to Article 19, and
not Article 29 (or at least having them in separate articles). USA wants
to keep reference to Article 19.
- Para13 (peopleS or people?): EU needed an interruption to discuss this
issue. Seems contentious. No common position adopted.
- Para14 (contentious issues: referring to post-conflicts situations and
to foreign occupation). USA wants to drop the post-conflict situation.
Sudan prefers to mention conflicts instead of post-conflict. The Arab
group, supported by Iran and Cuba, insists on keeping the reference on
foreign occupation.
- Para16 (keeping or not the word “trust”). Should be examined when
discussing the privacy and security paragraphs.
- Para18 (keeping or not the wording on “conformity with the domestic
legislation”). A possible compromise would be to take into account
domestic legislation only regarding postal services and energy.
- Para19 and para26 (citizens, persons or individuals?). Strangely (or
not?), even the word “citizens” has been discussed ! United Arab
Emirates favor “citizen”, then Cuba thinks “persons” is more generic,
then Italy (EU) prefers “individuals”. And, guess what, “individuals”
has been adopted.
- Para24: New language proposal by Brazil. Opposed by US (can live with
change of “applications” to “models”). US and Iran will draft new text
together. No agreement reached.

Regarding adopted paragraphs, here is some info on their discussion:

- Para3: Big contentious issue is to keep or not the text between
brackets (at all levels/at both national and international levels, in
qualifying the rule of law). Italy (EU), Canada, New Zealand, USA don’t
want to qualify at all the rule of law, while Iran, China, Syria (Arab
group), Russia, Nigeria, Cuba, Egypt and Pakistan insist on keeping the
text, with a majority preferring “both national and international
levels” wording. Then India came with a compromise, following the
Monterrey consensus: the “national and international levels” should
qualify the good governance, and not the rule of law. Another
contentious issue, raised by Algeria, has been the request to add a
reference to the Vienna Declaration, when mentioning the right to
development. As usual, this has been supported by the South, while the
North doesn’t want this mention which would strengthened the wording on
the right to development.
- Para9: Italy (EU) suggests to add “adults” after “young people”.
- Para9-10-11: China proposed to merge them :-) Opposed.
- Para21: Proposal by Thailand to re-include the importance of design for
all, including people with special needs, as previously discussed at
prepcom3. Supported by New Zealand, who proposed to add a sentence to
para22. There was no follow up on this when para22 was discussed. Para.
21 unchanged and adopted.
- Para22: Discussion on equitable v. open access as suggested by
Australia. Opposed by the US and EU. Proposal by Armenia on a new para28
on people with disabilities. No follow-up on this. Current text kept and
adopted.