FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFTS ON BILATERAL ARMS NEGOTIATIONS, SECURITY ASSURANCES, DELAYS ACTION ON NUCLEAR TESTING TEXT
Press Release
GA/DIS/3039
FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFTS ON BILATERAL ARMS NEGOTIATIONS, SECURITY ASSURANCES, DELAYS ACTION ON NUCLEAR TESTING TEXT
19951114 The Assembly would encourage the United States, the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine to continue their cooperative efforts aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons and strategic offensive arms on the basis of existing agreements, by a draft on bilateral arms negotiations and nuclear disarmament approved this afternoon by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).Approved by a vote of 139 in favour to none against, with 17 abstentions, the text would have the Assembly support those countries in their efforts to reduce their nuclear weapons and invite to them to keep other States informed of their progress to that end. (For voting results, see Annex II.)
Prior to approval of the draft as a whole, a separate vote was held on preambular paragraph 7, which notes with appreciation the indefinite extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and acknowledges the importance of the determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally. That paragraph 7 was approved by a vote of 116 in favour to none against with 29 abstentions. (See Annex I.)
The Assembly would appeal to all States to work towards early agreement on security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States, including conclusion of a legally binding international instrument, by a draft resolution approved by a vote of 113 in favour to 1 against (Swaziland, later announced as an error), with 42 abstentions. (See Annex III.)
By that text, the Assembly would recommend to the Conference on Disarmament that it continue intensive negotiations to reach early agreement on such assurances, taking into account the widespread support for the conclusion of an international convention.
Also this afternoon, in a debate over when action should be taken on the draft to halt nuclear testing, the representative of the United Kingdom asked
First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3039 20th Meeting 14 November 1995
if the desire of the co-sponsors to change the Chairman's decision to defer that vote until Friday, 17 November, arose from concern that support for their draft was evaporating.
Co-sponsors, including Australia, Brazil, Fiji, Mexico, Papua New Guinea and Uruguay, said any delay was unnecessary and politically motivated. The representative of China said that his decision on the vote was made a long time ago, and he did not wish to be subjected to any pressure by any corner or group of countries. The debate had shown it was premature to put the draft to a vote on Wednesday.
Following a brief suspension of the meeting, the Chairman announced a decision to take action on the draft on Thursday, 16 November at 3 p.m.
Statements were also made by Belgium, Burundi, Djibouti, Finland, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Spain (also on behalf of the European Union, and Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Poland and Romania), Uruguay, Colombia, Swaziland, Argentina, India and the Russian Federation.
The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 15 November, to continue taking action on draft resolutions.
Committee Work Programme
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue taking action on draft resolutions concerning bilateral nuclear arms negotiations and nuclear disarmament, and security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States.
The 25-Power draft resolution on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations and nuclear disarmament (document A.C.1/50/L.35/Rev.1) would have the Assembly encourage the United States, the Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine to continue their cooperative efforts aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons and strategic offensive arms on the basis of existing agreements. The Russian Federation and the United States would be supported in their efforts to reduce their nuclear weapons. Both would be invited to keep other Member States duly informed of progress in their discussions and in implementation of their strategic offensive arms agreements and unilateral decisions.
The text is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kazakstan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States.
A 17-Power draft on security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States (document A/C.1/50/L.39/Rev.1) concerns efforts to conclude effective international arrangements to assure such States against the use or threat of nuclear weapons. By its terms, the Assembly would appeal to all States to work towards early agreement on a common formula that could be included in an international, legally binding instrument. It would recommend to the Conference on Disarmament that it continue intensive negotiations to reach early agreement on assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States, taking into account the widespread support for the conclusion of an international convention.
The draft is sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Colombia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Sudan and Viet Nam.
Statements
RICHARD BUTLER (Australia) said since there were no ongoing consultations taking place on the draft to halt nuclear testing, that could not have been the cause of deferment. Ambassador Starr had indicated that while some consultations had taken place, those had not included all of the co-sponsors of the draft. A meeting was announced for today for the purpose of reviewing the timing of action on that resolution. He proposed that action be taken on the draft on Wednesday, 15 November.
First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3039 20th Meeting (PM) 14 November 1995
MARTINEZ MORCILLO (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European countries, said action on the draft had been postponed until next Friday. He indicated it would be difficult to inform governments of a change of date and he sought action on the draft on Wednesday, 15 November.
JOSE EDUARDO M. FELICIO (Brazil) said his delegation was ready to vote on the draft as soon as possible. Others should have their instructions by now as to how to vote on a cessation of nuclear tests. All countries should vote in condemnation of nuclear explosions. Immediate action was required.
KAPPY YARKA (Papua New Guinea) said the draft was the result of a core group that represented all regions, and had been with the Committee for some time. No amendments or further consultations had been requested on the draft. He said he was upset that the Chairman had sought deferment on it. Why should action be delayed unnecessarily? Those opposing were only trying to mislead and delay the work of the Committee.
GRAHAM EVERETT LEUNG (Fiji) said Australia's eminently reasonable proposal should be acted upon. The deferment should continue only until tomorrow.
MOHAMED AMAR (Morocco) said the Chairman's decision to take action on the draft on Friday should be respected. The draft which would condemn nuclear testing does not talk about condemnation; it just strongly deplored it.
GUSTAVO ALVAREZ (Uruguay) said there had been no prior discussion, just a deferment until Friday. His delegation was prepared to vote today on that draft.
Sir MICHAEL WESTON (United Kingdom) asked for a clarification on why the co-sponsors wanted to vote tomorrow and change the decision that the Chair had made to postpone the vote until Friday. Did they think their support for the draft was evaporating?
Mr. BUTLER (Australia) asked if the representative of Spain, speaking on behalf of members of the European Community, was saying that the advice provided last night was erroneous. It was not. It was clear last night that the matter was not settled. Dates were frequently changed. Action should be taken on Wednesday, 15 November. There had been no decision yesterday. There could not have been until the co-sponsors met.
A. de ICAZA (Mexico) said there had been plenty of time for all delegations to get their instructions on the draft. There was no reason for postponement, apart for the convenience of one delegation. What reason was there for waiting? There were no ongoing consultations. Everyone had instructions; the program was clear. It was the first resolution of the first
First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3039 20th Meeting (PM) 14 November 1995
cluster. Could it be that some delegations think that if action was taken on Friday, there would be no repercussions in the world press because the following day was a Saturday? he asked.
WOLFGANG HOFFMANN (Germany) said there were precedents for politically- based delays in voting. Voting on Friday, 17 November, on the current draft was one such example.
Mr. MORCILLO (Spain) said that he did not want to get into a dispute with the representative of Australia. The draft was important to all delegations in the room, not just the sponsors.
SHA ZUKANG (China) said that while his decision to vote on the draft was made a long time ago, no country had any right to exert pressure on other countries. China did not wish to utilize the voting opportunity to exert pressure. Neither did China wish to be subjected to any pressure by any corner or group of countries. The debate had shown it was premature to put the draft to a vote tomorrow, Wednesday.
Mr. KANTOLA (Finland) said the draft was being considered at a high political level within the delegations and should not be acted upon Wednesday.
Mr. BUTLER (Australia) said the question was not whether there was rush to take action or not. The draft was ready. The concept of being in a hurry did not apply. The onus of proof was not upon those who were ready, but upon those who wanted a delay. He proposed a decision be taken now to take action on the draft Wednesday, 15 November.
Mr. VATTANI (Italy) said that the vote on such a delicate draft resolution required time for reflection at the highest levels. There should be no hurry to take action on that resolution. A request for time did not come from just one delegation. Italy, for one, would be happy to have additional time on that text.
Mr. MERNIER (Belgium) said he could not deny the respective delegations' feelings. There were no grounds to rush.
DYSANE ABDALLAH DORANI (Djibouti) said the present atmosphere reminded him of the Cold War. Why was there an effort to vote on Wednesday when a decision was passed by the Chairman Monday to vote on Friday. There was a silent majority of 150 Committee members that needed to be respected.
JAAP RAMAKER (Netherlands) said he did not have final instructions from his Government and appealed to the Committee to be flexible.
Mr. NSANZE (Burundi) said the conflicting positions were nearly intransigent, and he hoped the various sides would become more flexible, with
First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3039 20th Meeting (PM) 14 November 1995
the aim of attaining a compromise. Burundi was in the category of States proposing to defer action.
The CHAIRMAN proposed a vote on the proposal made by the representative of Australia.
SIR MICHAEL WESTON (United Kingdom) asked why all the rush, and why not proceed as was originally agreed?
Mr. MORCILLO (Spain) asked for a brief suspension of the meeting in order to consult with other members of his delegation.
The CHAIRMAN agreed to suspend the meeting for 10 minutes. Following the suspension, the Chairman said the draft on a halt to nuclear testing would be taken up on Thursday, 16 November at 3 p.m. sharp.
SOHRAB KHERADI, Committee Secretary, announced that the following countries had joined as co-sponsors of draft resolutions and decisions: on the prohibition of biological weapons (L.1), Cyprus; on a halt to nuclear testing (L.3), Jamaica; on small arms (L.7), Belgium and the United States; on the permanent neutrality of Turkmenistan (L.9), France, India and Mauritius; on disarmament fellowship, training and advisory services (L.11), Guinea, Mali and Myanmar; on the role of science and technology (L.13), Nicaragua.
Other added co-sponsors were: on the Chemical Weapons Convention (L.14), Belarus, Cape Verde, Cyprus and Latvia; on Disarmament Week (L.16), Iran; on nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons (L.17/Rev.1), Germany; on transparency in armaments (L.18), Papua New Guinea; on expanding the Conference on Disarmament (L.21/Rev.1), Republic of Korea; on preventing an arms race in outer space (L.33), Malaysia, Papua New Guinea; on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations and disarmament (L.35/Rev.1), the Czech Republic, Iceland and Poland.
Also: on the illicit transfer and use of conventional arms (L.37/Rev.1), Botswana, France, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Sudan and Swaziland; on regional disarmament (L.38), Bangladesh, Djibouti and New Zealand; on security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States (L.39/Rev.1), Malaysia; on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (L.40), Djibouti; on compliance with disarmament agreements (L.42), Cyprus and Malaysia; on good-neighbourly relations among Balkan States (L.43), Albania, the Czech Republic and France.
First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3039 20th Meeting (PM) 14 November 1995
Action on Draft Texts
ANDELFO GARCIA (Colombia), speaking on behalf of co-sponsors of the draft resolution on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations and nuclear disarmament (L.44), proposed an oral revision. In operative paragraph 1, the following would be added after "United States of America": "and the Protocol to that Treaty, signed in Lisbon by the parties on 23 May 1992".
Mr. MORCILLO (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union and Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Poland and Romania. He said all the members of the Union would this year abstain for the first time on the text on security assurances against non-nuclear-weapon States. The Union continued to attach importance to negative security assurances but could not support a text which merely repeated Assembly resolution 49/73 with only some small changes.
Many favourable developments had taken place since then, he said. Declarations were made by the new States about both positive and negative security assurances. The States parties to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) agreed without a vote to consider additional steps to assure new States parties to the Treaty against the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Those might take the form of an internationally binding legal instrument.
The draft also made no mention of the need for reciprocal commitments on non-proliferation on the part of recipients of security assurances, he said. That point took on added significance in the context of an NPT which had been indefinitely extended.
A separate vote was taken on preambular paragraph 7 of the text on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations and disarmament (L.35/Rev.1).
[Note: Preambular paragraph 7 reads as follows:
"Noting also with appreciation the indefinite extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and acknowledging the importance of the determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons, and by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,"]
Preambular paragraph 7 was approved by a vote of 116 in favour to none against with 29 abstentions. (See Annex I.)
The draft resolution was approved as a whole by a vote of 139 in favour to none against with 17 abstentions. (See Annex II.)
First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3039 20th Meeting (PM) 14 November 1995
The draft resolution on security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States (L.39/Rev.1) was approved by 113 votes in favour to 1 against (Swaziland) with 42 abstentions. (See Annex III.)
The representative of Swaziland said he had intended to abstain in the voting.
The representative of Australia, speaking in explanation of vote on security assurances, said his country favoured more satisfactory arrangements to provide such assurances. It had joined with Canada and New Zealand in urging the traditional co-sponsors to make a number of fundamental changes which are required to reflect reality on an increasingly deficient text. Unfortunately, that had not been done.
He said there was a link between security assurances and verifiable, nuclear non-proliferation commitments. It was disappointing that the co- sponsors were unable to accept even a cross-reference to that matter. It was deeply troubling that even the barest of cross-reference to important, relevant outcomes of the NPT Review and Extension Conference could not be considered for inclusion.
The representative of Argentina said the text on security assurances did not adequately reflect progress made in that area. He cited in particular the declarations made at the NPT Review Conference. Argentina was unable to support the text, because of the way it was drafted.
The representative of India said her country's abstention on the text concerning bilateral nuclear arms negotiations and disarmament were based on its often expressed positions. India did not "note with appreciation" the indefinite extension of the NPT. While India welcomed the steps being taken by the nuclear-weapon States towards disarmament, the situation was not as bright as portrayed in the text.
The representative of the Russian Federation said his country had abstained on the text concerning security assurances. Unfortunately, the text insufficiently evaluated the positive significance of measures already undertaken on those lines. He cited the unanimous adoption of Security Council resolution 984 (1995), which guaranteed security for non-nuclear- weapon States, as well as the agreed statement by the nuclear-weapon States on the non-use of nuclear weapons against those States participating in the NPT.
(annexes follow)
First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3039 20th Meeting (PM) 14 November 1995
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3039 20th Meeting (PM) 14 November 1995
ANNEX I
Vote on Preambular Paragraph 7 of Draft on Bilateral Nuclear Arms Negotiations
Preambular paragraph 7 of the draft on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations (Document A/C.1/50/L.35/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 0 against, with 29 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Yemen.
Against: None.
Abstaining: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Absent: Algeria, Bahamas, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mali, Mauritius, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.
(END OF ANNEX I)
First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3039 20th Meeting (PM) 14 November 1995
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3039 20th Meeting (PM) 14 November 1995
ANNEX II
Vote on Draft on Bilateral Nuclear Arms Negotiations
The draft on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations (Document A/C.1/50/L.35/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 139 in favour to 0 against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: None.
Abstaining: Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Lesotho, Libya, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, United Republic of Tanzania.
Absent: Bahamas, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kuwait, Lebanon, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.
(END OF ANNEX II)
First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3039 20th Meeting (PM) 14 November 1995
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3039 20th Meeting (PM) 14 November 1995
ANNEX III
Vote on Draft on Negative Security Assurance
The draft on the negative security assurance (Document A/C.1/50/L.39/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 1 against, with 42 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Swaziland.
Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan.
Absent: Bahamas, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Lebanon, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.
* *** *