t United Nations

I GENERALASSEMBLYTWENTY-THIRD SESSION

t Official Records

THIRD COMMJTYEE, !635thMEETIHG

Iÿriday, 13 December 1968,at 11.S a.m.

. NEW YORÿ

CONTENTS

Agenda item 62: Page

International Year for Htwnan Rights (con____-_tlnue_d) :

(a_) Measures and activities undertaken inconnexion with the International Year £orHÿrnan Rights: report o£ the Secretary-General;

_J International Conference on Human RighfsConsideration of draft resolution A/C.3/L.1639 (concluded) ................ 1

Consideration of draft resolufion A/O.3/L. 164 O/Rev. 1 I.ooo,.°o,o..,o.o.o,

Chairman: Mr. Erik NETTEL (Austria).

AGENDA ITEM 62International Year for Human Rights (continued)(A/

7194, A/7195, A/7195/Add.] and-Ad-d.3-9, A/CONF.32/41, A/L.1639, A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.1, A/C.3/L.1641/Rev.I, A/C.3/L.1642/Rev.2, A/C.3/L.1651, A/C.3/L.1654):

(a) Measures and activities undertaken in connexion- with the Interndtional Year for Human Rights:

report of the Secretary-General;(b) International Conference on Human Rights

CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT RESOLUTION A/C.3/L.1639 (concluded)

i. Mr. EL-FATTAL (Syria), explaining the vote castby his delegation at the 1638thmeeting, saidthat it hadvoted in favour of draft resolution A/C.3/L.1639 onthe understanding that the national and internationalorganizations to which appreciation was expressed fortheir efforts in connexion with the International Yearfor Human Rights did not include those bodies which,behind a false front of concern for the exercise Ofhuman rights, engaged in activities that had nothingtQ do with that subject. In a number of Western coun-tries there were bodies of that kind which, instead ofreally concerning thÿemselves with respect for humanrights, were simplÿ instruments of Zionism whosesole purpose was to lauhch defamatory campaignsagainst the Arab countries. In addition, events inrecent years had revealed that some bodies supposedlyconcerned with the observance of human rights wereinfiltrated by agents who were using them for quitedifferent purposes. Consequently, it should be clearlyunderstood that the expressions of appreciation in thedraft resolution were addressed solely to those inter-national organizations which were really pursuinghumanitarian goals.

2. Mr. ZORRILLA (Mexico) said that he had voted infavour of draft resolution A/C.3/L.1639, primarilybecause of the efforts his country had made to com-memorate the International Year for Human Rightsin a fitting manner. An official function attended byMinisters of State had been held on I0 December inthe Mexican capital, to celebrate the twentieth anni-versary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.In addition, the holding of the 1968 Olympic Games inMexico had provided an opportunity for a large numberof foreign visitors to see that the eountryhad a multi-racial society which, while fully aware of its limita-tions, was determined to improve the well-being of itsmembers to the greatest possible extent, by enablingall to share the fruits of progress, and to ensurerespect for human rights. In his view, the OlympicGames, in which friendly athletic rivalry had beencombined with cultural activities, had been Mexico'sbest contribution to the observance of the InternationalYear for Human Rights.

3. Mr. NASINOVSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Re-publics) said that he had abstained from voting ondraft resolution A/C.3/L.1639, because he did notthink that it served any useful purpose. Firstly, therewas no point in States Congratulating themselves ontheir activities in connexion with the InternationalYear for Human Rights, and, secondly, the issuanceof the bulletin referred to in that text, which would besent to individuals and private institutions, was totallyunnecessary. Moreover, such a measure would be

contrary to the interests of the United Nations, since,as was indicated in the statement of financial implica-tions (A!C.3/L.1651), it would require the diversionof funds and staff that could be put to better useelsewhere. His delegation hoped that it would bepossible in future not to have draft resolutions of thattype, which occasioned additional expenditure andachieved nothing worthwhile.

CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT RESOLUTIONA/C.3/L.1640/REV.I

4. Mr. LOPEZ (Philippines), introducing draft reso-lution A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.I, said that its aim was tobring back to the mainstream of United Nations en-deavours the sadly neglected question of freedom ofinformation. It was a paradox that freedom of infor-mation, which the General Assembly itself had de-scribed as the touchstone of all the freedoms upheldby the Organization, had received such scant attentionin the past ten years. The draft Convention on Freedomof Information, of which only the preamble and thefirst few articles had been adopted, had last been con-sidered in 1961. As for the draft Declaration on Free-dora of Information, nothing had been done since theEconomic and Social Council had submitted it to theGeneral Assembly in 1960.

1 A/C.3/SR.1639

:i:i:i : neral ssemb -- Twen third Session-- Third Committee IFreedom of information was a prerequisite to the mittee (A./C.3/L.1640/Rev.I), which was in aceorÿi better achieved

" enjoyment of other rights, and it was therefore the with the provisions of resolution XXVI of the Teheran freedom of infoÿ' first to Come under attack when tyrants or invading Conference, was most significant. However, he re. He also eonsideÿ

armies wanted to Oppress peoples. Without it, there gretted that the Committee had not enough time to ing of journalistcould be no peace in the world other than that of a study the text more thoroughly and to propose amend, they performedprison camp or of the cemetery. Moreover, in an ments that might improve it. For instance, operative bution to the artideologically divided world like thatofthepresentday, paragraphs 2 and 3 had certain technical implicationsfreedom of information could have different and Con- regarding which he could not Commit his Government. 13. For thosetradictory meaningsÿa fact which enormously corn- Again, he had some doubts about the need to prepare lution should b

plicated the consideration of the problem. Neverthe- a draft convention on freedom of information, men. USSR representsless, while the recognition of those difficulties had tioned in paragraph 6, since that right was already Although he Was ÿprevented the General Assembly from eonsideringthe set forth in the Universal Declaration He Would, with laudable m(

' qi item for almost a decade, the media of information had however, have no objection to the formulation of a subject with the n

not remained static. Modern technology had vastly draft declaration on the subject. With those reserva, mittee had not eincreased the influence of the Press, radio, cinema tions, he was prepared to vote for the text.

! and television; Communications satellites had elimi- 14. Mrs. AFNAÿ

nated national frontiers and, at the same time, the 9. Mr. NASINOVSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist lÿe- discrepancies betgap in information media and facilities between the publics) said that there Were contradictions in the lution under Consiÿdeveloped and the developing countries hadgrownstill draft resolution (A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.1), which was an paragraph ofwhic]

• wider. The time had therefore Come for the United attempt to set aside all the past resolutions of the of the highest valÿNations to assumeits responsibilities in that extremely United Nations and to undermine the established part. For examplevital field. In that Connexion, although he was aware practice of the Organization. His delegation was the possibility thÿthat it would be an illusion to expect sudden success opposed to changes in accepted procedures and be- press any informawhere only frustration had been met with thus far, lieved that the preparation of the Convention on ends, since it didhe hoped that Some progress could be made on the Freedom of Information should be brought to an graph 2 was of Ilong road towards an agreement, effective and Speedy conclusion, as provided in since it did not ind

General Assembly resolution 8z10 (IX), sothatpriority were to have aeec6. The draft resolution was essentially a restatement consideration could be given to that extremely impor- they could afford.of facts and principles which were widely known or rant task at the next session. For that reason, it desire that Was shaccepted in the United Nations. The preamble and categorically rejected the latest initiative, the aim of sions could hardlyoperative paragraph 1 and 2 reflected ideas contained which was to jettison all the work already performed the Press was priin various resolutions of the General Assembly, the on the subject. Although his delegation had reserva- free to pursue itsEconomic and Social Council and the Commission on tions about what had been donewithregardto the draft graph 4, she consiHuman Rights concerning freedom of information. The Convention, it was, inprinciple, in favour of the formu- prove the informati(fourth preambular paragraph paralleled paragraph 18 lation of that instrument and could not accept the idea With respect to parÿof the Proclamation of Teheran, and operative para- that it should now be abandoned, after the preamble decide whether it

graph 3 repeated language already used in resolutions and the first few articles had been adopted, rapporteur on freed,

of the General Assembly and the Economic and SocialCouncil. Paragraph 4 referred to an aspect of the 10. As the draft resolution had been submitted at the 15. For those tea,.problem which was thespecialresponsibilityofUNDP, end of the session, when the Committee no longer to the proposed rexUNESCO, the ILO and ITU. While paragraph 5 corn- had time to consider it in detail, and in view of the continue on the draftmended the practice of triennial reporting onfreedom fact that, for the same reason, ithad not been possible mati0n.of information, it Suggestedthatthatroutineprocedure " to study the question at the Teheran Conference, he 16. Mr. VASS (Hÿdid not permit the study of problems in depth, for proposed that the text should be considered at the speakers who had sawhich the services of a special rapporteur would be twenty-fourth session of the General Assembly in and open to disputeaneeded. The last paragraph proposed that the General connexion with the item on freedom of information, much more attenticAssembly should give priority to the Consideration of 11. Mr. VELA (Guatemala) expressed reservations circumstances in wÿthe draft Declaration on Freedom of Information; that con6erning both the wording of the draft resolution were proceeding. Laÿ

would considerably facilitate work on the draft Con-vention on Freedom of Information. under consideration (A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.1) and the not conducive tother(

ideas it expressed. In particular, he thought it would debate, especially in

rL

1639th meeting -- 13 December 1968

accordheran

he re-

ime tonend-

rativeations

nment.

repare, men-

alreadywould,n of a;serva-

rvationssolutionand theit wouldLedia bythem tomerit of

ly rela-te para-

£ settingf infor-

xion, heheld at

ited Na-rd reso-

he ideas

3f infer-

govern-

rmation.could be

d at thelonger

€ of the)ossiblerace, hei at thembly intion.

ist Re-in the

was anof the

blished)n wasmd be-ion onto an

ded inriorityimpor-

son, itaim of

,formed

serva-le draftformu-

;he idea'eamble

better achieved by adopting measures to safeguardfreedom of information than by imposing restrictions.He also considered that greater attention to the train-ing of journalists to assume the public function whichthey performed would be a more constructive contri-bution to the attainment of the objectives in question.

13. For those reasons, his delegation supported theUSSR representative's proposal that the draft reso-lution should be considered at the next session.Although he was sure that the text had been submittedwith laudable motives and zealÿ he felt that the Com-mittee had not enough time to consider so complex asubject with the necessary care.

14. Mrs. AFNAN (Iraq) said that there were obviousdiscrepancies between the preamble of the draft reso-lution under consideration (A/C. 3/L. 1640/Rev. 1), eachparagraph of which expressedprinciples andobjectivesof the highest value, and the provisions of the operativepart. For example, she felt that paragraph 1 sanctionedthe possibility that the information media might sup-press any information which did not further their ownends, since it did not speak of all information. Para-graph 2 was of great interest but was imprecise,since it did not indicate whether the citizens of a Statewere to have access to the foreign Press at pricesthey could afford. Although paragraph 3 reflected adesire that was shared by all, she felt that its provi-sions could hardly be implemented in countries wherethe Press was privately owned and was completelyfree to pursue its profit-making aims. As to para-graph 4, she considered it equally necessary to im-prove the information media of the developed countries.With respect to paragraph 5, she wondered who woulddecide whether it was necessary to appoint a specialrapporteur on freedom of information°

15. For those reasons, her delegation was opposedto the proposed text and considered that work shouldcontinue on the draft Convention on Freedom of Infor-mation.

16. Mr. VASS (Hungary) agreed with the previousspeakers who had said that a subject so controversialand open to dispute as freedom of information deservedmuch more attention than it could be given in thecircumstances in which the Committee's discussionswere proceeding. Lack of time and other factors werenot conducive to thorough examination and constructivedebate, especially in the case of so complex and im-portant a question, and would diminish the value of thedraft resolution under consideration (A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.1) if it was adopted. The draft resolution mighttherefore be taken up in connexion with item 60, onfreedom of information, at a more favourable time,perhaps at the twenty-fourth session of the GeneralAssembly.

17. Mr. GAIFFIER d'HESTROY (Belgium) recalledthat his country had supported all efforts since 1947to formulate a Convention on Freedom of Information,precisely because it attributed great importance tothat subject. Although the draft resolution before theCommittee (A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.1) did not treat theserious problem of freedom of information withthe depth it deserved, it at least testified to the factthat that important question had not been ignored atthe twenty-third session of the General Assembly.

j

18. However, he considered that it was not enoughto mention article 19 of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights in the proposed text as ensuring theexercise of freedom of opinion and expression; theright of every one to those freedoms must also bereaffirmed. He would therefore have preferred theoperative paragraphs notÿonly to stress the functionof the information medi£ and the responsibility ofStates, but also to set out the inalienable and funda-mental rights of the human person in that connexion.A clear reference to the right of everyone to seek,receive and impart information and ideas freely andwithout limitation would round off the text and makeit more uniform.

19. With regard, in particular, to paragraph 5, itwould be difficult for him to cast a vote concerningthe appointment of a special rapporteur withoutknowing what kind of duties he would have. If thespecial rapp0rteur's terms of reference were toensure that those working in the information fieldhad high standards of conduct and to see that theright of States to develop their national informationenterprises and the right to combat practices tendingto restrict the information media were safeguarded,his delegation would be able to supportthe draft reso-lution with more enthusiasm.

20. Mrs. ROQUET (Canada) said that she supportedthe draft resolution because she considered it oppor-tune and necessary. The objectives set out in opera-tive paragraph 3 were laudable, but her delegationwas somewhat concerned about the standards andprinciples that Would govern national progress orfriendly relations among nations; in its view, thoseprinciples should be defined by the United Nations.She therefore proposed that, in order to make thedraft resolution more acceptable to all delegationsthe words "in accordance with the principles definedby the United Nations in each of those spheres" shouldbe inserted after the word "nations" and that thecomma between the words "progress" and "for"

should be replaced by the word "and".

21. Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia) said it was re-grettable that some Western Powers used the argu-ment that information should flow freely and withoutimpediment as a pretext for protecting their propa-ganda activities. At present, the information mediaof certain countries gave a distorted picture of reality,slanting and falsifying some news items and omittingothers. Human rights would be trampled underfootif the oÿganizations responsible for disseminatinginformation did not adopt a world-wide code of ethics.

22. Freedom of information now served to maskpropaganda and pornography at the national andinternational levels. Licence had replaced true free-dom; man had forgotten that freedom entailed respon-sibilities and limitations, and if he did not reformhe would be the victim of his own excesses. Of course,the draft resolution before the Committee was notnew, for it contained ideas already expressed inother resolutions, but it served to draw attention tothe urgency of the question. It was essential that thedraft Declaration on Freedom of Information shouldbe adopted at the next session of the General Assembly.

23. Mr. KALANGALI (Uganda) said that the polemicalnature of the draft resolution was clear from the first

L.

4 General Assembly -- Twenty-third Session -- Third Committee

i

preambular paragraph, which mentioned the right"to hold opinions without interference and to seekÿreceive and impart information and ideas through anymedia and regardless of frontiers". He neverthelessagreed with the idea expressed in the fifthpreambularparagraph, namely, that the time had come for theinternational community to take renewed interest inmeasures calculated to promote freedom of informa-

tion and to encourage the responsible exercise of thatfreedom. Item 60 (Freedom of information) was un-doubtedly very important and had caused great con-troversy. For precisely that reason, it would,be in-advisable to adopt the draft resolution with a hasteunworthy of the importance of the question, His dele-gation felt that operative paragraph 2 involved somedanger, since the State was a responsible entity andmust ensure national security. He therefore con-sidered the draft resolution unnecessary, when a

draft Coÿvention on Freedom of Information wasbeing prepared. He had no objection to the aims ofthe draft resolution, but, since there was no time to

examine it thoroughly, he thought that a decision on itshould be deferred until the twenty-fourth session ofthe General Assembly.

24. Mr. FRACKIEWICZ (Poland) said that the debateon the subject of freedom of information showed howdifficult it was to reconcile all views and ahlso howmany problems were involvedÿfor example, the mono-polization of information by private companies ornational agencies, the distinction between propagandaand information in the true sense, and so forth. Thequestion was complex and extremely urgent, but itcould not be resolved pending preparation of thedraft Convention. Although his delegation appreciatedthe intentions of the sponsors, it wished formally tomove that the debate should be closed and that thedraft resolution should be considered in connexionwith item 60.

25. Mr. LOPEZ (Philippines) said that he hoped thatthe representative of Poland would withdraw hisproposal and allow the debate to proceed, out ofdeference to the representatives who had not yet hadan opportunity to express their views on the question.

26, Mrs. FERRINGA (Netherlands) said that she toowas opposed to the closure of the debate,

27. The CHAIRMAN put to the vote the motion forclosure of the debate on draft resolution A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.!.

The motion for elossre o£ the debate on draft reso-lÿtion A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.1 was rejected by49 votesto 8, with 2S abs tent ions.

28. Mr,. PAOLINI (France), supported by Mr. LOPEZ(Philippines), expressed the opinion that, since the

• #debate had not been closed, the second Pohshproposalcould not be put to the vote, for if it were adopted thedecision that the Committee had just taken would benullified.

29. Mrs. FERRINGA (Netherlands) said that theenormous technical advances made intelecommunica-

tions had considerably increased the potentiality andinfluence of information media. It was obvious that thatinfluence could be for good or evil. Thepurpose of thedraft resolution (A/Co3/L°I640!Rev.I) was to ensurethat the information media fulfilled a constructive

function in influencing the development of the in-" dividualo Moreover, the draft resolution did not limitthe freedom of action of those' media in any way, nordid it lay down any restrictive rules. It simply askedfor the valuable collaboration of those media instrengthening fundamental freedoms and democraticinstitutions and thus promoting progress and economicand social development° Her delegation thereforehoped that the draft resolution would be given widesupport in the Committee.

30. Mrs. TSERENNADMID (Mongolia) agreed thatthe question of freedom of information was of greatimportance and deserved special attention, as wasconfirmed by the fact that the United Nations had beendealing with it for so many years. It was clear thatthe Committee had not enough time to study itthoroughly and that limitation of the time allowedto speakers prevented-them, from developing theirideas on the question. In her delegation's opinion, thedraft resolution did not take sufficient account of thework already accomplished by the United Nations inthe matter of freedom of information. Consequently,her delegation shared the opinion expressed by therepresentatives of the USSR, Guatemala and Hungary.

31. Lady GAITSKELL (United Kingdom) said that inher country some concern had been expressed aboutthe need to ensure the independence of informationmedia, since in general more efforts seemed to bedevoted to devising means of limiting freedom ofinformation, under the guise of preventing abuses ofthat right, than to ensuring that it was properly pro-tected. It was admittedly difficult to draw a linebetween protecting the individual's right to freedomof information, on the one hand, and the need to main-

tain s democratic society, on the other. When it cameto action at the international level, the different con-ceptions, practices and legislation in the field ofinformation made it difficult to formulate provisionswhich could command general support.

32. Her delegation therefore welcomed the initiativetaken by the Philippine and other delegations and con-sidered that the revised version of their draft reso-lution was a distinct improvement on the original. Herdelegation had no difficulties with the substance of thedraft resolution. The fourth preambular paragraph,in particular, was timely and to the point. The tech-nological and scientific improvements in the field ofcommunications, including the dissemination of infor-mation by means of satellites, opened up exciting newprospects, At the same time, it should be recognizedthat those new techniques could entail dangers for theprivacy of the individual. Her delegation could supportoperative paragraph 3 in its amended form, for itheld that States should not do anything more than"encourage" information media to accept their shareof responsibility for promoting the objectives laiddown in that paragraph. Her delegation was, however,somewhat sceptical about the recommendation inoperative paragraph 5 for the appointment of a specialrapporteur on freedom of information. Moreover, if,as provided for in operative paragraph 6, itwas decidedthat priority was to be given to the draft Declaration onFreedom of Information at the twenty-fourth sessionof the General Assembly, there seemed to be need forthe appointment of a special rapporteur for the timebeing. It would be better to concentrate on the draft

Declaraÿmight bpreferreferentinforraai

33. Mr.Republktatives othe Polibe Consmoreove

at the Ipresentthere wÿgraph shCovenanloperatiwthat theconsider

ports. T

rapportemade tehad beeÿRights,extreme]

Secretar:of the es'

34. Mr.

the sponthe texthad no (

agreed,problemshould b,confinedattemptcase witlprovidedgive priÿInformatiAssembl5resolutio:the pres,

In his opshould thof its beÿFurtherr;graph 5 ]no concI

permaneÿ

35. Mr.media wÿaccept sthought ttgraph 3 o:be addre;to operatisibility fomarion m

placed u]agencies,contributÿ

36. Mrs.resolutionwhich was

1639th meeting

Lhe in-)t limitay, norJ askeddia in

oeraticonomic9reforen wide

nitiativeand con-Lft reso-inal. Her,ce of theragraph,'he tech-

field ofof info r -

[ring neweognizeds for theJ supportn, for itore thandr share;ires laidhowever,ation ina special9over, if,

decidedration on

Session; need forthe timethe draft

Declaration and then decide after that what measuresmight be desirable. Her delegation would thereforeprefer to see operative paragraph 5 confined toreference to the periodic reports on freedom ofinformation.

33. Mr. KACHURENKO (Ukrainian Soviet SocialistRepublic) shared the views expresed by the represen-tatives of Iraq, Guatemala and Hungary and supportedthe Polish proposal that the draft resolution shouldbe considered in conjunction with item 60, which,moreover, the Committee had decided not to take upat the present session. The draft resolution as atpresent worded had certain defects: for example,there was no reason why the first preambular para-graph should not mention article 19 of the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights also, andoperative paragraph 5 could be interpreted as meaningthat the question of freedom of information should heconsidered within the framework of the triennial re-ports. The proposal for the appointment of a specialrapporteur on freedom of information had first beenmade ten years earlier and during the past year ithad been considered by the Commission on HumanRights, but in the present case it was put forward inextremely vague terms. It would also be useful if theSecretariat could ascertain the financial implicationsof the establishment of that function.

34. Mr. SQUIRE (United States of America) thankedthe sponsors of the draft resolution and said thatthe text could be improyed, although his delegationhad no difficulty about accepting it as it stood. Heagreed, of course, that it was a highly complexproblem that demanded a thorough analysis, but itshould be borne in mind that the draft resolution wasconfined to one aspect of the question and did notattempt to cover all the aspects, as would be thecase with a convention. The only concrete measureprovided in the draft resolution was the decision togive priority to the draft Declaration on Freedom ofInformation at the twenty-fourth session of the GeneralAssembly. Moreoverÿ it was not true that the draftresolution disregarded the work accomplished up tothe present in the field of freedom of information.In his opinion, tho debate should continue and thereshould then be a vote on the draft resolution, insteadof its being considered in conjunction with item 60.Furthermore, he did not think that operative para-graph 5 had any financial implications, since it madeno concrete proposal for the establishment of apermanent post.

35. Mr. VALDIVIESO (Peru) said that informationraedia were extremely sensitive and did not easilyaCCept suggestions made by States. He therefoiÿethought that the recommendation in operative para-graph 3 of draft resolution A/C.3/L.164O/Rev.l shouldbe addressed directly to those media. With regardto Operative paragraph 4, he did not thinkthat respon-sibility for the development and improvement ofinfor-raation media in the developing countries should be

Placed upon United Nations bodies or specializedagencies, even though they were certainly able toContribute to the achievement of those objectives.

36. Mrs. GROZA (Romania) pointed out that draftCSolution A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.I concerned a subject

Which was of great importance but which was of a very

d that)f greatas wasad been

9ar thatItudy itallowed!.g theirion, thet of thetions inquently,[ by theiungary.

i that ind aboutrmationd to be9dora of

buses offly pro-' a line

freedom,o main-

it cameent con-field ofovisions

delicate nature. The debate had shown the disparitybetween the views that had been advanced and thed ifficulty0f reaching a majority agreement thatwouldmake the document effective. Her delegation agreedwith the Polish representative that the draft reso-lution should be considered in conjunction with agendaitem 60, on freedom of information.

37. Mr. PAOLINI (France) said that he was opposedto the Polish representative's proposa!, firstly becauseit diverged from the procedure followed in the debateon the present item 62, since, for example, draftresolution A/C.3/L.1637/Rev.2 had been studied inconnexion with that item when its consideration couldquite well have been deferred until the Committeetook up item 57, on the elimination of all forms ofracial discrimination, and, secondly, for practicalreasons, since draft resolution A/C.3iL.1640/Rev.Ihad already been given ample consideration andwouldsho]ztly be ready to be put to the vote. Furthermore,it was quite likely that the consideration of item 60would be deferred until the following session, whereasthe draft resolution under consideration included anextremely important provision in operative para-

graph 6, in which it was decided to give priority atthe twenty-fourth session, pending completion of thedraft Convention on Freedom of Information, to theconsideration and adoption of the draft Declarationon Freedom of Information.

38. He proposed that the words "the media of infor-mation operating within their respective territories"in operative paragraph 3 should be replaced by "theinstitutions, bodies and persons responsible for infor-mation functions" and supported the Canadian repre-sentative's proposal regarding operative paragraph 3.He proposed that the words "the appointment" inoperative paragraph 5 should be replaced by "con-sideration of the possibility of appointing". Lastly, heproposed that the words "conduct and" in operativeparagraph 6 should be deleted, since they could lendthemselves to equivocal and dangerous interpretations.

39. Mrs. STEVENSON (Liberia) stressed the impor-tance of information inasmuch as it helped to promotegreater solidarity between nations and to make peopleaware of their rights, and eager to defend them.Although draft resolution A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.I wasnot perfect, it showed the interest of the United Na-tions in promoting the ideals of peace and freedom.She supported the Canadian proposal regarding opera-tive paragraph 3, as also the United Kingdom sug-gestion with regard to the appointment of a specialrapporteur which was recommended in operativeparagraph 5 and which" she thought should be post-poned until the draft Convention on Freedom ofInformation had been adopted.

40. Mr. SANON (Upper Volta), referring to theprocedural difficulty that the French representativehad invoked in opposing the Polish proposal, saidthat draft resolution A/C.3/L.1637/Rev.2 had beenconsidered under the present item 62 simply becauseno one had proposed that it should be considered inconjunction with a different item.

41. ' He supported the Canadian proposal with regardto operative paragraph 3 of draft resolution Aic.3/L.1640/Rev.1 and thought that operative paragraph 4should be drafted in more precise terms in order

13 December 1968

11,

! i General Assembly -- Twenty-third Session -- Third Committee.

//:

i

i I

I' i

i

]l]

i

<,/

ii::

!iI

to set forth the idea it embodied in greater clarity.Lastly, he supported the French proposal regardingoperative paragraph 6, which might otherwise imply acertain degree of control.

42. Mr. ARTAZA (Chile) said that, generally speak-ing, he supported draft resolution A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.1. Nevertheless, the experience of his country,where the broadest freedom of information prevailed,and the experience of other developing countries ledhim to believe that attempts should not be made tomaintain the status quo, inasmuch as freedom ofinformation was not absolute at the lÿresent time,owing to the high cost of the technical factors in-volved. In many developing countries, the communica-tion media were in the hands of giant companieswhich defended special interests and opposed thereform plans of progressive Governments. He there-fore proposed that the following words should beadded at the end of operative paragraph h "withoutlending themselves to the defence of interests whichare opposed to the general good of the nationalcommunity".

43. Mr. SCHREIBER (Director, Division of HumanRights}, replying to a question put by the representa-tive of the Ukrainian SSR, said that the appointmentof the special rapporteur referred to in draft reso-lution A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.1, operative paragraph 5,would not entail any additional expenditure for thetime being, since what was involved was not an actualappointment but merely a recommendation, for actionby the bodies concerned.

44. He announced that some of the material com-

memorating the twentieth anniversary of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights which hadbeen sent in byMember States, specialized agencies andnon-govern.mental organization in response to a suggestion bythe Secretary-General was currently on display inthe part of the United Nations building open to thepublic.

45. Mrs. WARZAZI (Morocco} observedthatfreedomof information was a double-edged weapon where thedeveloping countries were concerned, because theydid not have at their disposal the enormous com-munication media which the developed countries had.In that respect, therefore, the two categories ofcountries should not be equated, and it was naturalthat the countries of the Third World should wish toprotect themselves against the disadvantages whichfreedom of information might entail, not so muchinside their own territories, but abroad. From thatstandpoint, she supported the Chilean representative'sproposal regarding operative paragraph 1 of draftresolution A/C.3/L.1640/Rev.1, which could perhapsbe combined with the amendment which her own dele-gation was proposing to the same paragraph andwhich consisted of replacing the words "informationfreely, fairly and accurately" by the words "freelyobjective, accurate and responsible information".

She also proposed that, in paragraph 2, the words"objective and sound" should be inserted before theword "sources".

The meetinÿ rose at 1.5 p.m.

J

i

Lr

iLitho in U.N. 77301--August 1970--2,275