FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT STRONGLY DEPLORING ALL CURRENT NUCLEAR TESTS, URGES IMMEDIATE STOP TO ALL TESTING

16 November 1995

Press Release
GA/DIS/3043

FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT STRONGLY DEPLORING ALL CURRENT NUCLEAR TESTS, URGES IMMEDIATE STOP TO ALL TESTING

19951116 Vote is 95-12-45; Committee Also Approves Two Draft Resolutions on Role of Science and Technology

The General Assembly would strongly deplore all current nuclear testing and strongly urge the immediate cessation of all nuclear testing, under a draft resolution approved this afternoon by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

By other terms of the text, the Assembly would commend those nuclear- weapon States observing testing moratoriums and urge them to continue such moratoriums pending the entry into force of a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty. The text was approved by 95 votes in favour to 12 against with 45 abstentions. (For voting details, see Annex I.)

Speaking before the vote, the representative of Marshall Islands said "any one single nuclear-weapon test anywhere is one test too many". He appealed to those developing countries which had "come under immense pressure by a certain country that had threatened to withhold assistance" -- to vote in favour of the resolution.

The representative of France said the text was based on untrue statements and unfounded assertions. She said it was inspired "by passion rather than reason, by short-term calculations rather than long-term aims". The countries voting in its favour would, in effect, be working against the cause of non-proliferation, disarmament and peace.

Also this afternoon, the Committee approved two other draft resolutions concerning the role of science and technology in the context of international security, disarmament and related fields.

The Assembly would invite Member States to enhance bilateral and multilateral dialogue on the role of science and technology in international security, disarmament and related fields, by the terms of the 33-Power text. Such dialogue would aim at ensuring implementation of international legal commitments and at exploring ways of further developing international legal rules on transfers of high technology having military applications.

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

That text was approved by 148 votes in favour to none against, with 9 abstentions (Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, France, India, Iran, Japan, Pakistan, United Kingdom and the United States). (See Annex II.)

Under a 17-Power text also approved this afternoon, the Assembly would urge States to undertake multilateral negotiations to establish guidelines for international transfers of high technology having military applications. By its terms, the Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to develop a database of concerned research institutions and experts to promote the application of science and technology to disarmament objectives.

By other terms of the text, the Assembly would affirm that scientific and technological achievements should be used for the benefit of all mankind and that the transfer and exchange of technological know-how for peaceful purposes should be promoted. That text was approved by 98 votes in favour to 6 against (France, Israel, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom and the United States), with 51 abstentions. (See Annex III.)

Statements were also made by the representatives of Papua New Guinea, Australia, Mexico, Fiji, United Kingdom, Philippines, Malaysia, Malta, China, United States, Swaziland, Argentina, Russian Federation, Finland, Luxembourg (speaking also for Belgium and Netherlands), Spain, Romania, Pakistan, Bulgaria, Canada and India. Speaking on behalf of its co-sponsors (Cuba, India, Iran, Myanmar and Pakistan), Iran withdrew the proposed amendments to the 33-Power text on the role of science and technology.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 17 November, to continue taking action on disarmament-related draft resolutions and decisions.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue taking action on draft resolutions and decisions on disarmament questions. It had before it one draft resolution on a halt to nuclear testing, and two on the role of science and technology.

A 45-Power draft resolution calling for a halt to nuclear testing was also before the Committee (document A/C.1/50/L.3). "Deeply concerned about the potential negative effects of underground nuclear testing on health and the environment", the text would commend those nuclear-weapon States observing nuclear testing moratoriums. In an expression of "shared alarm", the States would strongly deplore all current nuclear testing, and strongly urge the immediate cessation of all nuclear testing.

The draft is sponsored by Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Barbados, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Kyrgyz Republic, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Uruguay and Venezuela.

By a 32-Power draft resolution on the role of science and technology in international security, disarmament and related fields (document A/C.1/50/L.13), the Assembly would invite Member States to enhance bilateral and multilateral dialogue on the role of science and technology. Such dialogue would aim at ensuring implementation of commitments already made under international legal instruments and at exploring ways of further developing international legal rules on transfers of high technology having military applications.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Australia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Kazakstan, Lithuania, Moldova, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, South Africa, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Uruguay.

One draft text before the Committee (document A/C.1/50/L.53) contains amendments to the draft resolution on the role of science and technology (document A/C.1/50/L.13). One amendment would replace the second preambular paragraph, which currently reads as follows:

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

"Recognizing the importance of continued multilateral dialogue on means of promoting the transfer of technology for peaceful purposes while ensuring that such technology is not diverted to non-peaceful purposes,"

It would be replaced with:

"Recognizing the importance of continued multilateral dialogue on internationally agreed means of ensuring transfer of technology for peaceful purposes while avoiding diversion of such technology to non-peaceful purposes,"

Another amendment would replace operative paragraph 1 (b), which reads as follows:

"1. Invites Member States to enhance bilateral and multilateral dialogue on the role of science and technology in the context of international security, disarmament and other related fields with a view to:

"(b) Exploring ways and means of further developing international legal rules on transfers of high technology with military applications;:

By the terms of the amendment, part (b) would be revised to read as follows:

"(b) Exploring ways and means of developing multilaterally negotiated, universally accepted and non-discriminatory agreements on transfer of high technology with military applications;"

The proposed amendments have been submitted by Cuba, India, Iran, Myanmar and Pakistan.

A 16-Power draft resolution on the role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament (document A/C.1/50/L.48), would have the Assembly urge Member States to undertake multilateral negotiations, with the participation of all interested States, to establish universally acceptable, non-discriminatory guidelines for international transfers of high technology with military applications.

The Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to develop a database of research institutions and experts to promote transparency and international cooperation in applying scientific and technological developments to such disarmament objectives as weapons disposal, conversion and verification. It would invite Member States to apply science and technology for disarmament- related purposes and to make such technologies available to interested States.

First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

By other terms of the text, the Assembly would invite all States to communicate their views on the matter to the Secretary-General. It would encourage the United Nations to contribute, within existing mandates, to promoting the use of science and technology for peaceful purposes. It would affirm that scientific and technological achievements should be used for the benefit of all mankind, to promote sustainable economic and social development, and to safeguard international security. It would affirm that the transfer and exchange of technological know-how for peaceful purposes should be promoted.

The text is sponsored by Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cuba, Guyana, India, Kenya, India, Indonesia, Iran, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines and Sri Lanka.

Statements

LAURENCE N. EDWARDS (Marshall Islands) said he must stress the "urgent and heartfelt appeal" to support the draft to halt nuclear testing. The text was balanced and to the point. It did not condemn or attack or undermine any people or government. It merely pointed out that a certain action was wrong and must be stopped.

"Any one single nuclear-weapon test anywhere is one test too many", and "any single nuclear test in the Pacific is adding to the burden we will face in the future", he said. He further appealed to those developing countries who had "come under immense pressure by the threats of a certain country, who have threatened to withhold assistance to them should they vote in favour of the resolution". He would hold every delegation accountable for their decision on that issue.

UTULA UTUOC SAMANA (Papua New Guinea) said the draft clearly reflected overwhelming global opinion against nuclear testing and dispatched a strong message to any country conducting such tests that such behaviour was aggressive and intolerable. The expense of that "horrendous experiment" was contrary to the principles and goals of the United Nations. A vote in support of the draft was a vote against those who "dared to threaten international peace and security", and a vote against the "political power of abuse against inhumanity".

RICHARD STARR (Australia) said the text was simple -- its core was the call upon those States which continued to conduct nuclear tests to stop immediately. The text had a broad and diverse range of co-sponsors, and gave expression to the views of peoples around the world that now was the time for all nuclear testing to cease. The text expressed precisely what had been called for by the peoples of the world and endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the Member States of the United Nations.

First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

MANUEL TELLO (Mexico) said the text deeply deplored nuclear-weapon tests and it urged their immediate cessation. It was an occasion for all delegations to reaffirm that the perfecting of nuclear arsenals was no longer permissible or tolerable. It was also an opportunity to reaffirm nuclear non- proliferation in all its aspects. It was, above all, an opportunity to create the necessary climate for the conclusion of comprehensive test-ban treaty, a goal which had been pursued for more than three decades. It was finally an opportunity for delegations to reiterate their concern about the possible ill- effects of underground nuclear tests for health and the environment. To fail to vote in favour "would be extremely grave".

POSECI BUNE (Fiji) said he would support the draft, which reflected the genuine anguish of his country over current nuclear testing. As much as he would have liked a stronger text, it was measured and balanced. It "was not anti-government, and certainly not anti-people".

Explanation of Vote before Vote

The representative of the United Kingdom said his Government had not conducted a nuclear-weapon test since 1991, and he could confirm again that it had no plans to test in the future. However, he would vote against the draft because it was seriously deficient in a number of respects.

Preambular paragraph four was a "gross misrepresentation of the facts". At least two nuclear-weapon States had made clear they were not ready to accept a cessation at this time. Because of those positions, no undertaking to cease testing immediately was included. Instead it was agreed that the nuclear-weapon States should exercise utmost restraint, pending the coming of a comprehensive test-ban treaty into force. Its early conclusion was now in sight. The draft resolution made no mention of the progress being made, nor of the importance given to its conclusion by all five nuclear-weapon States.

In addition, he said he could not subscribe to the views expressed in operative paragraphs 2 and 3, or in preambular paragraph five, as he believed that underground testing, when properly conducted, did not have the ill-health effects alluded to in that paragraph. He would vote against the draft.

The representative of the Philippines said the draft represented the valiant and sincere efforts of many, and had achieved much. It contained strong language against nuclear testing, which was a welcome development. The original, stronger language for which he had fought, had been disregarded, ostensibly to gain support for the draft. The issue of nuclear testing was not one from which States could hide. Perhaps the tragedy in all this was that although the cold war had ended, the attitudes that sustained it still plagued the international community.

First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

The representative of Malaysia said nuclear testing undermined international peace and security. It was outrageous that in the face of overwhelming opposition to the resumption of such tests, they had nevertheless continued. Malaysians were angered by such testing and had appealed to the peoples of the world in insisting that governments cease their testing. In the light of those deep concerns, he would have preferred stronger language, especially in operative paragraph 2 which should have called for the condemnation of the current nuclear testings. The language that it only "strongly deplores" such tests was language which he found unsatisfactory. He would favour the draft, but not co-sponsor it.

The representative of Malta said he had consistent and unequivocal positions on nuclear weapons. In casting his vote in favour of the draft, he pointed out that preambular paragraph four did not accurately reflect the undertakings of the nuclear-weapon States at the Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The representative of China said he his Government had always exercised utmost restraint in nuclear testing. During the cold war period, the two nuclear Powers had conducted approximately 1,000 nuclear tests. China had never participated in the nuclear arms race either during the cold war, or during any time thereafter, but has consistently stood for the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons, as well as chemical and biological weapons. It had also exercised utmost restraint in nuclear-weapons development and China's amount of nuclear weapons was always kept at a minimum. The total number of China's tests for the past 30 years had averaged one per year.

He said that having been threatened repeatedly by certain nuclear Powers, China had conducted a limited number of nuclear tests and possessed a limited number of nuclear weapons solely for its defence. China had no foreign nuclear umbrella, and was repeatedly subjected to invasion and occupation by imperialists of the world, and threats by nuclear Powers. All countries had the right to maintain an appropriate capacity for national defence and self-protection. China's nuclear weapons were not directed against any other country. He consistently supported the goal of a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty and said those negotiations had achieved gratifying progress. Upon entry into force of such a treaty, China would cease nuclear weapons test explosions.

He said he had some serious reservations on the text and believed that its adoption would only do damage to comprehensive test-ban negotiations. He would have to vote against the draft.

The representative of the United States said his country would abstain on the text concerning a halt to nuclear testing. The United States was committed to a testing moratorium, which it had imposed on itself. Such a

First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

course was the way to enhance the political atmosphere most conducive to rapid success in the negotiations on a comprehensive test ban. The United States regretted the tests by China and France. However, it also regretted the tone of the draft resolution and would have preferred a more moderate text.

He said the United States did not support the assertion in the fourth preambular paragraph that testing was not in conformity with undertakings made by States at the NPT Review Conference. In fact, the language of the Conference text had been compromise language. The statement in the fifth preambular paragraph that testing had negative effects on health and the environment went too far for his delegation, without first seeing relevant evidence.

He said the United States could not join operative paragraph 2 in strongly deploring all current testing, for the reasons stated. Operative paragraph 3, which strongly urges the immediate cessation of all nuclear testing could have been modified. His Government regretted that its efforts to promote a more moderate text had not been successful, and that it would have to abstain in the voting.

The representative of Swaziland said he was concerned about the thrust of the draft resolution, and the effects it had and might have. "The time to tell the truth is now. The time to tell the truth about nuclear testing is now." Nuclear armaments were a threat, wherever they might be. His delegation would never support views, from any quarter, which sought to compromise the realities of nuclear testing.

JOELLE BOURGOIS (France), said that French policy was the target pursued by the instigators of that draft. "What does France want? France wants to safeguard her national independence and help further the cause of peace. What is she doing? France is completing a nuclear testing programme which is strictly limited, both in terms of duration and in terms of the number of tests carried out." That programme was "aimed at keeping up the credibility of her deterrence force, which contributed to her security and to the security of Europe". Simultaneously, France had committed itself to conclude a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, and has opted for the zero yield.

The draft text was based on untrue statements, as well as unfounded assertions, she continued. Everyone knows that during the NPT Review and Extension Conference, nuclear-weapon States never committed themselves to immediately put an end to their nuclear testing. Utmost restraint meant neither prohibition nor suspension. "Everyone knows the precautions we have taken, the scientific studies which have been conducted, the transparency we have accepted to prove the innocuity of French experimentations." To raise negative potential effects for health and environment was an unfounded assertion.

First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

What would be the outcome of such a resolution? she asked. France would keep on her course. Meanwhile, precious time had been wasted due to the emotional and controversial atmosphere which had prevailed over the Committee's work. The draft would give substance to the idea that the NPT could go unimplemented, and would undermine the very achievements which needed strengthening, such as the negotiation of the comprehensive test-ban treaty. "This draft resolution would allow certain countries to take a stand today, the better to evade the issue tomorrow."

She said the text was inspired "by passion rather than reason, by short- term calculations rather than long term aims". The countries that would vote in favour of the text would, in effect, work against the cause of non- proliferation, disarmament and peace.

SOHRAB KHERADI, Committee Secretary, announced that the following countries had joined as co-sponsors of draft resolutions and decisions: on a comprehensive test-ban treaty (document A/C.1/50/L.8/Rev.1), Gabon, Liechtenstein and Malta; on nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/50/L.17/Rev.2), Venezuela; on the export of anti- personnel land-mines (document A/C.1/50/L.45), Andorra.

The draft resolution on a halt to nuclear testing was approved by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 12 against, with 45 abstentions. (For voting details, see Annex I.)

Explanation of Vote After Vote

The representative of Argentina said he had voted in favour of the draft and he wanted to restate the importance of the early conclusion of the comprehensive test-ban treaty. He also welcomed the commitment by France to a comprehensive test ban and to the elimination of testing in the future. Regarding the fifth preambular paragraph of the text, it was necessary to have more scientific basis for that section.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he had abstained on the vote, although he shared the general thrust of the draft. At a time when work on the comprehensive test ban was nearing the finishing line, the draft - - which did not unite all parties -- could turn out to be counter-productive.

The representative of Finland said he had voted in favour of the draft, but the conclusion of the comprehensive test ban was of the highest priority. Only a multilateral agreement could assure the international community of a world where nuclear tests would never be conducted. Regrettably, General Assembly resolutions and unilaterally negotiated agreements did not provide such assurances. The declaration of four nuclear-weapon States of a zero- yield option had provided significant momentum in the comprehensive ban

First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

negotiations, and should have been given the credit it deserved. The text also inaccurately reflected the undertakings of the nuclear-weapon States at the Review Conference of the NPT.

The representative of Luxembourg, also speaking on behalf of Belgium and the Netherlands, said in the final analysis he had decided to vote in favour of the draft. He had repeatedly deplored such tests, but he was bothered by the inadequacies of the text. Different views, no matter how important, could not justify some of the turbulence he had been witnessing, and he could not forget the ties of friendship affected by those lapses of conduct. He would welcome the conclusion of the comprehensive ban, and pointed out that France has been the first to come forward unreservedly in that regard. His vote for the draft resolution did not mean that he was endorsing its imperfections which were sizeable. It was also unfortunate that a document crafted by experts was making wrongful use of the NPT text, in particular in the fourth preambular paragraph of the draft.

The representative of Spain said that although he had abstained, it did not affect his general position of deep regret over nuclear tests. He attached much importance to the conclusion of the comprehensive test-ban treaty. His abstention reflected certain reservations he had regarding the significance of the commitments adopted at the NPT Review Conference.

The representative of Romania said he had abstained on the vote. At the current juncture of negotiations on the comprehensive ban, it was essential to avoid unnecessary political provocation. The creation of a political climate conducive to speeding up those negotiations and to arriving, as soon as possible, to the elimination of nuclear weapons, was of the highest priority.

The representative of Pakistan said his country was happy that the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban was now in sight and it shared the aims of the draft resolution. It had abstained in the voting on the text, however, as some of its central provisions contained an imbalance. An operative paragraph commended the moratorium observed by nuclear States, which had conducted many nuclear tests in the past. It only deplored all current testing. Owing to that imbalance, Pakistan had abstained.

The representative of Bulgaria said his country had been a long-time supporter of a comprehensive test ban, which would go a long way in meeting the security concerns of the international community. The inability to arrive at a consensus draft resolution did not promote progress in current negotiations on a comprehensive test ban.

First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

Thirty-three Power Draft on Role of Science and Technology

The Committee then turned to the 33-Power draft resolution on the role of science and technology. [The list of co-sponsors at the outset of this Press Release inadvertently omitted Afghanistan.]

BEHROUZ MORADI (Iran) speaking also on behalf of Cuba, India, Myanmar, Pakistan -- as co-sponsors of the proposed amendments -- said they had agreed not to press their amendments to action. The sponsors of the draft resolution agreed to delete the second preambular paragraph and to make a statement to dispel some of the concerns of the co-sponsors of the proposed amendments.

M. J. MOHER (Canada) said much productive dialogue had been undertaken in order to promote agreement on the current text. The co-sponsors of the draft resolution were requesting the deletion of its second preambular paragraph.

[By that paragraph, the Assembly would recognize "the importance of continued multilateral dialogue on means of promoting the transfer of technology for peaceful purposes while ensuring that such technology is not diverted to non-peaceful means".]

Speaking on behalf of the 33 co-sponsors of the draft resolution, the Canadian representative said the text clearly referred to two areas in which enhanced bilateral and multilateral dialogue was invited on the role of science and technology. The first dealt with ensuring the implementation of commitments already undertaken under international legal instruments, such as the NPT, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. The second referred to efforts to develop international rules governing high technology having military applications.

He said the draft did not attempt to resolve significant existing differences of opinion. In particular, it did not deal with the subject of export-control regimes. Many countries, including his own, considered such regimes as positive and acceptable mechanisms. Other countries disagreed with that view. The draft resolution sought to promote enhanced dialogue, and so did not address that and other specific issues.

The 33-Power draft resolution on the role of science and technology was approved by 148 votes in favour to none against, with 9 abstentions (Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, France, India, Iran, Japan, Pakistan, United Kingdom and the United States). (For voting details, see Annex II.)

First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

Seventeen Power Draft on Science and Technology

The 17-Power draft resolution on the role of science and technology was approved by a recorded vote of 98 votes in favour to 6 against (France, Israel, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and the United States), with 51 abstentions. ( See Annex III.)

Speaking in explanation of the vote on the draft on the role of science and technology (document A/C.1/50/L.13), the representative of Argentina said the responsible use of technology by all States was needed. In order to avoid the transfer of technology for military purposes, strict controls which guaranteed strictly peaceful uses were essential.

The representative of India thanked Canada for its efforts on what appeared to be a logjam over that text.

The representative of Myanmar said he meant to register a positive vote for the other draft on the role of science and technology (document A/C.1/50/L.48) before the voting machine had locked.

(annexes follow)

First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

ANNEX I

Vote on Draft on Halt to Nuclear Testing

The First Committee approved the draft resolution on ending nuclear testing (document A/C.1/50/L.3) by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 12 against, with 45 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: China, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, France, Gabon, Mali, Mauritania, Monaco, Niger, Senegal, Togo, United Kingdom.

Abstaining: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Benin, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Israel, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Madagascar, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United States, Zaire.

Absent: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Haiti, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Oman, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX I)

First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

ANNEX II

Vote on Draft on 33-Power Science and Technology

The First Committee approved the draft on the Role of Science and Technology (document A/C.1/50/L.13) by a recorded vote of 148 in favour to none against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, 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, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, France, India, Iran, Japan, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Barbados, Belize, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Vanuatu, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX II)

First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3043 24th Meeting (PM) 16 November 1995

ANNEX III

Vote on 17-Power Draft on Science and Technology

The First Committee approved a 17-Power draft on the role of science and technology (Document A/C.1/50/L.48) by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 6 against, with 51 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: France, Israel, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belize, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, Monaco, Myanmar, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Vanuatu, Zaire.

* *** *