The chair of the BMS urged states to adopt the final
report as it stands, emphasizing its non-binding nature
and characterizing it as a very modest step. The chair noted
that no delegation had approached the conference facilitators
with substantive comments on the draft text.
Iran blocked the adoption of the final report, repeating
its procedural concerns and its demand for either a line
by line negotiation on the outcome text or for that portion
of the report to be submitted by the chair as a working
paper.
The chair was compelled to suspend the meeting numerous
times in order to allow for consultations on a possible
outcome.
Summary of action on the final report
The chair reported that his efforts to achieve consensus
has not yielded results and that the bureau had decided
by consensus to call a vote on the final report.
In light of this decision, Iran withdrew its amendment
for the outcome text to be removed from the final report,
but called for a formal vote on the draft final report.
States parties to conference decided to waive the rule
on 48 hour delay on voting.
Japan formally submitted the draft final report for a
vote, seconded by Switzerland and Colombia.
States parties voted
to adopt the final report as orally amended, with 134 states
in favor, none opposed, and with Iran and Zimbabwe abstaining.
After the vote, many states, including China and Pakistan,
emphasized that this vote should not be used as a precedent
in other multilateral venues or fora.
Highlights of the discussion
over the final report
Highlights of statements in favor of adopting the final
report as it stands orally amended
At least 13 delegations expressed support for adopting
the final report as it stands, including Norway, the African
Group, Nigeria, Trinidad and Tobago, Sierra Leone, Pakistan,
the United Kingdom, MERCOSUR, CARICOM, the European Union,
Italy, Japan, Kenya, and Jamaica.
The Non-Aligned Movement said the majority of its members
were prepared to support the text as it stood. NAM noted
that, during the consultative process leading to the outcome
document, NAM’s positions had been heard and considered
and that the draft report was in line with its positions.
NAM expressed the understanding, however, that the facilitation
process was not as transparent or inclusive as a line by
line negotiation.
Syria noted there were procedural gaps in the facilitation
process, pointing to the lack of active interchange, but
said it would support the consensus.
Highlights of statements appealing to Iran to reconsider
its position
At least six delegations made direct appeals to Iran to
reconsider its positions, including the Netherlands, Liberia,
Nigeria, Colombia, the United Kingdom, and Kenya.
The Netherlands, using strongly charged language, gave
numerous examples of where a facilitation approach lead
to a successful outcome, stating that heeding Iran’s
words—requiring line by line negotiations for all
consensus documents—would condemn the UN system to
impotence.
Nigeria reminded the conference that delegates represent
millions of people who are dying daily because of this issue
and argued that complaints about process and procedure should
not "clog the wheels" from reaching success.
Liberia made an evocative appeal to Iran, emphasizing
its own history of conflict and stating that the issues
facing delegations was not a theoretical but rather a matter
of life and death.
Honduras, on behalf of SICA and Mexico, said it could
not accept Iran’s position.
Highlights of alternative solutions put forward
Egypt suggested the chair should open up a substantive
process to hear Iran’s concerns, thereby allowing
the document to be adopted.
Sierra Leone suggested that Iran’s concerns should
be annexed to final report.
Nigeria suggested a footnote be annexed to the final report
indicating that the procedures used in this BMS would not
set a precedent for future meetings, in order to assuage
one of Iran's reported concerns.
