ZERO DRAFT resolution
Scope, modalities, format and organisation of the third high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases
The General Assembly,
Recalling the General Assembly resolution A/RES/66/2 containing the ‘Political Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases’;
Also recalling General Assembly resolution A/RES/68/300 by which it decided to hold a comprehensive review, in 2018, of the progress achieved in the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases, (technical update from A/RES/68/271 on modalities NCDs)
Welcoming the WHO Global Conference on Non-Communicable Diseases, held in Montevideo in October 2017 and recalling the ‘Montevideo Roadmap 2018-2030 on non-communicable diseases as a sustainable development priority’, (update, new para)
Recognising that through the adoption of the Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals, in September 2015, Heads of States and Heads of Government made a bold commitment to reduce by 2030 by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well being, (based on PP3 on TB modalities resolution)
Taking note of the Secretary General’s 2018 report on the Progress on the prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases; ’(update, based on PP4 from A/RES/68/271 on modalities NCDs)
Mindful of the need to maintain strong national, regional and international political commitment towards the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases, (PP 3 A/RES/68/271 on modalities NCDs)
Decides that the one-day high-level meeting to undertake the comprehensive review and assessment convened by the President of the General Assembly shall be held in New York [on the third day of the general debate of the General Assembly at its seventy-third session], from 10:00 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3 to 6:00 p.m., consisting of an opening segment, a plenary segment for general discussion, two multi-stakeholder panels and a brief closing segment; (based on OP1 of TB modalities resolution)
Of the several substantive political uses of letters, a number are worth highlighting. First, a personal letter from one head of government (or foreign minister) to another is often used after changes of government or if relations between the states have been ‘frozen’ for some time due to a dispute. The letter may be delivered by an ambassador, or, more often, by a special envoy. A personal letter from one head of state to another may be used to supplement a note,28 as well as make a diplomatic initiative or appeal. For example, President Reagan, in an attempt to break the deadlock in negotiations on the Cyprus problem, sent a personal letter of 22 November 1984 to the president of Turkey, General Kenan Evren, urging resumption of negotiations.29
In conflicts states warn enemies and, on occasion, friends. The initial phase of the Cyprus problem provides a famous illustration of the latter. Against the background of growing Greek-Turkish Cypriot intercommu-nal violence and the possibility of military intervention by Turkey, President Johnson sent an extremely tough warning to Turkey on 5 June 1964. The so-called Johnson letter has been described as the ‘bluntest document ever sent to an ally’. In warning against intervention, the letter to President Inonu continued: ‘I hope you will understand that your NATO allies have not had a chance to consider whether they have an obligation to protect Turkey against Soviet intervention, without the full consent and understanding of its NATO allies’.30
The letter was also a model of Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Department of State drafting, in that it was sensitive to likely Turkish feelings and reaction. The tone of the letter was softened to appeal to Turkish national pride:31
• We have considered you as a great ally with fundamental common interests. Your security and prosperity have been the deep concern of the American people, and we have expressed that concern in the most practical terms. We and you fought together to resist the ambitions of the communist world revolution. This solidarity has meant a great deal to us, and I hope it means a great deal to your government and your people.
In September 2011 Palestine applied for membership of the UN. The Membership Committee was divided and failed to reach agreement on the application. However, in a separate application, Palestine was admitted to UNESCO on 31 October 2011 (103 for, 14 against, and 52 abstentions).32
Application of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations
Note by the Secretary-General
In accordance with rule 135 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly and rule 59 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, the Secretary-General has the honour to circulate herewith the attached application of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations, contained in a letter received on 23 September 2011 from its President (see annex I). He also has the honour to circulate a further letter, dated 23 September 2011, received from him at the same time (see annex II).
The President of the Security Council presents his compliments to the members of the Council and has the honour to transmit herewith, for their information, a copy of a note dated 23 September 2011 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, and its enclosures.
This note and its enclosures will be issued as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/2011/592.
23 September 2011
Declaration of the State of Palestine
In connection with the application of the State of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations, I have the honour, in my capacity as the President of the State of Palestine and as the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, to solemnly declare that the State of Palestine is a peace-loving nation and that it accepts the obligations contained in the Charter of the United Nations and solemnly undertakes to fulfil them.
(Signed) Mahmoud Abbas President of the State of Palestine Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization
Application of the State of Palestine for Admission to Membership in the United Nations
I have the profound honour, on behalf of the Palestinian people, to submit this application of the State of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations.
This application for membership is being submitted based on the Palestinian people’s natural, legal and historic rights and based on United Nations Genera! Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as well as the Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine of 15 November 1988 and the acknowledgement by the General Assembly of this Declaration in resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988.
In this connection, the State of Palestine affirms its commitment to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the vision of two States living side by side in peace and security, as endorsed by the United Nations Security Council and Genera! Assembly and the international community as a whole and based on international law and all relevant United Nations resolutions.
For the purpose of this application for admission, a declaration made pursuant to rule 58 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council and rule 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly is appended to this letter.
I should be grateful if you would transmit this letter of application and the declaration to the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly as soon as possible.
Mahmoud Abbas President of the State of Palestine Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization HE. Mr. Ban Ki-moon The Secretary-General of the United Nations The United Nations New York
Questions, explanation and lines of action
Letters are most commonly used to raise questions and explain policy, as well as set out intended lines of action. An example of the latter, which had a major impact on post-war Japanese orientation, is the so-called Yoshida letter. The letter of 25 December 1951, from Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida to John Foster Dulles, was the product of considerable pressure by Dulles to persuade the Japanese prime minister to conclude a peace treaty with the Republic of China and not Beijing. Yoshida was ambivalent as he sought to keep Japanese options open. However, he finally conceded shortly after the second meeting with Dulles on 18 December 1951 and accepted Dulles’s draft memorandum. The Yoshida letter helped the peace treaty with Japan through the US Senate in March 1952. Japan continued to recognise the Nationalist regime in Taiwan until 1972, after which it changed its recognition policy, in the wake of the United States’ revised policy (the so-called Nixon shock) towards the People’s Republic of China. The relevant section of the Yoshida letter sets out Japan’s recognition policy as follows:33
• My government is prepared as soon as legally possible to conclude with the National Government of China, if that government so desires, a Treaty which will re-establish normal relations between our governments in conformity with the principles set out in the multilateral Treaty of Peace, the terms of such bilateral treaty to be applicable as regards the territories now or hereafter under the actual control of the Japanese and Chinese National Governments ... I can assure you that the Japanese Government has no intention to conclude a bilateral Treaty with the Communist regime of China.
In the second example, the US trade representative uses a letter to set out the intention of negotiation on regional Asia-Pacific trade agreement, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. The letter is of interest in three respects. Its tone is drafted to reflect the delicate balance of US domestic economic interests - mirrored in the US House of Representatives. Another feature of note is the new concept of a ‘high standard, 21st century agreement’ which various sections of the letter partly explain (market opportunities for a variety of workers; new opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses; environmental standards; worker rights; and transparency). The letter is also of interest in that it illustrates the contrasting US policies on international trade between the proposed TPP regional agreement as against ‘America First’ realignment approaches (Trump administration).