GENERAL ASSEMBLY STRESSES NEED FOR FULL IRAQI COOPERATION WITH I"A, AS IT ADOPTS TEXT ON WORK OF AGENCY BY 141-2-8 VOTE

29 October 1996

Press Release
GA/9144

GENERAL ASSEMBLY STRESSES NEED FOR FULL IRAQI COOPERATION WITH IAEA, AS IT ADOPTS TEXT ON WORK OF AGENCY BY 141-2-8 VOTE

19961029 Assembly Also Approves Credentials of 123 Member States, Defers Decision on Credentials of Representative of Afghanistan

The General Assembly this morning stressed the need for Iraq to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to resolve the remaining inconsistency concerning the full, final and complete declaration about its nuclear weapons capability in order to achieve implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions.

The Assembly took that action by adopting a resolution on the work of the IAEA by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 2 against (Iraq and Lebanon), with 8 abstentions (Cuba, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Chile, Federated States of Micronesia, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Sudan and Syria). (See Annex III for voting details.) While noting that Iraq had adopted a more constructive approach over the past year, the Assembly expressed concern regarding Iraq's failure to provide immediate access to an IAEA team in July and that it had previously withheld information about its nuclear weapons programme in violation of its obligations under relevant Council resolutions.

By other terms of the draft, the Assembly welcomed the measures taken by the Agency to maintain and strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of its safeguards system. It urged all States to cooperate with the Agency in promoting measures to enhance the safety of nuclear installations; to strengthen technical assistance to developing countries; and to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the safeguards system. In particular, the Assembly urged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to cooperate fully with the Agency in the implementation of the safeguards agreement.

After the recorded vote, the representative of Vanuatu informed the Assembly that his delegation had intended to vote in favour of the text. The representative of Lebanon said that he had intended to abstain from that vote.

Before the vote, two amendments, sponsored by Egypt and Israel, respectively, were withdrawn when the representative of Canada introduced a revised draft text, which he said incorporated aspects of those two amendments.

The adoption of the resolution followed the defeat of another amendment sponsored by Iraq by which the Assembly would have replaced operative paragraph seven of the revised draft relating to Iraq's efforts to implement relevant Council resolutions. The Assembly decided by a vote of 11 in favour

General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

to 71 against, with 41 abstentions, not to adopt the Iraqi amendment. (See Annex I.)

Introducing that amendment, the representative of Iraq said that operative paragraph in the draft text was inaccurate. It did not include information contained in a recent IAEA report to the Council, such as the fact that the IAEA team had not found equipment or material in Iraq proscribed by the Council, and that the industrial infrastructure which Iraq had set up to produce and weaponize special nuclear material has been destroyed.

In explanation of vote, the representative of the United States said the amendment was inaccurate and unbalanced, as the IAEA report had not only mentioned improvements in Iraq's behaviour, but also had listed areas in which it had not complied.

Following the vote on that amendment, a separate vote was held on the third preambular paragraph of the draft text which addressed the Agency's promotion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as envisaged by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and other relevant international instruments. The Assembly adopted that paragraph by a vote of 123 in favour to 3 against (India, Indonesia, Israel), with 11 abstentions. (See Annex II.) After that action, the representative of Sudan said that his delegation had intended to vote in favour of the third preambular paragraph, but it had instead been recorded as an abstention.

The representative of India, speaking before the vote, said his country could not accept the language of the draft as it linked the NPT with the right of countries to develop nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes.

Statements during the Assembly's concluding discussion of the 1995 IAEA report were made by the representatives of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, Pakistan, Kenya, India, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Marshall Islands, South Africa and Australia.

Explanations of vote were made by the representatives of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, France, Syria, China, Viet Nam, Iran, Israel, Swaziland, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon and Pakistan. Statements in exercise of the right of reply were made by the representatives of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea.

At the outset of this morning's meeting the Assembly adopted a resolution, without a vote, approving the first report of the Credentials Committee. That report informs the Assembly that the Committee had accepted the credentials of representatives of 123 Member States and it had decided to defer any decision on the credentials of the representatives of Afghanistan until a later meeting.

Statements in explanation of position on the Credentials Committee report were made by the representatives of Iran and Libya.

The Assembly will meet again at 3 p.m. today to begin consideration of the work of its working group on Security Council reform.

Assembly Work Programme

The General Assembly met this morning to continue consideration of the annual report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and a related draft resolution. It was also scheduled to review progress of its open-ended working group on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council. The Assembly was also expected to consider the first report of the Credentials Committee.

Draft on IAEA

The Assembly had before it a draft resolution (document A/51/L.9/Rev.1) by which it would take note of the 1995 report of the IAEA. (For background information on the report of the IAEA, see Press Release GA/9143 issued 28 October.)

By the terms of that draft, the Assembly would welcome the measures taken by the Agency to maintain and strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of its safeguards system. In particular, it would welcome the establishment by the IAEA Board of Governors of the committee now drafting a model protocol to strengthen the safeguards system, thus improving the Agency's capacity to detect any undeclared nuclear activities. The Assembly would also welcome measures taken to strengthen the Agency's technical cooperation activities.

By that text, the Assembly would urge all States to cooperate with the Agency in promoting measures to enhance the safety of nuclear installations; to strengthen technical assistance to developing countries; and to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the safeguards system.

The Assembly would commend the Agency's efforts to implement the safeguards agreement still in force between the Agency and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. At the same time, it would express concern over the continuing non-compliance of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea with the safeguards agreement and urge that country to cooperate fully with the Agency.

While noting that Iraq had adopted a more constructive approach over the last year, the Assembly would express concern that Iraq failed to provide access to an Agency team in July and that it had withheld information from the Agency about its nuclear weapons programme in violation of Security Council resolutions. By that same text, the Assembly would stress the need for Iraq to cooperate with the IAEA so as to resolve remaining inconsistency. The Assembly would stress that the Agency team would continue to exercise its right to investigate any aspects of Iraq's past nuclear weapons capability.

General Assembly Plenary - 3 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

By the draft, the Assembly would note two statements by the President of the 1996 IAEA General Conference; one relating to the application of IAEA safeguards in the Middle East, another on the composition of regional groups.

Other aspects of the draft text would have the Assembly welcome the entry into force of the Convention on Nuclear Safety and appeal to States to become party to it; welcome Agency efforts to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear material; and note substantial progress achieved in the negotiations to strengthen the international regime of liability and compensation for damage caused by nuclear incidents.

Also, the Assembly would recognize the importance of the work of the Agency in promoting the further application of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as envisaged in the statute of the Agency and in accordance with the inalienable right of States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In that regard, the Assembly would also recognize the work relating to purposes relevant to other internationally legally binding agreements which have concluded relevant safeguards agreements with the IAEA to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with the NPT.

The draft text is co-sponsored by the following Member States: Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

By the terms of an amendment to that draft text sponsored by Egypt (document A/51/L.10), the Assembly would note the statement made by the President of the IAEA General Conference accepted by the Conference in September which requested the IAEA Director General to invite experts from the Middle East and other areas to a technical workshop on safeguards, verification technologies and related experience. Egypt proposes that the amendment be inserted following the draft's last preambular paragraph.

Another amendment introduced by Israel (document A/51/L.12) would have the Assembly note the statement made by the President of the General Conference also accepted by the Conference in September relating to the amendment of article VI of the IAEA statute, which outlines the composition and selection of members of the IAEA Board of Governors. By that statement the Chairman of the IAEA Board of Governors was asked to consult with member States on aspects of member States representation on the Board of Governors. The Board Chairman was specifically requested to report to the General Conference specific proposals to include each member State within the

General Assembly Plenary - 4 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

appropriate geographic area at the time of the September 1997 Conference. Israel proposes that the amendment be inserted as the last preambular paragraph of the draft resolution.

In addition, Iraq had submitted an amendment to the draft text (document A/51/L.11) which would replace operative paragraph seven, addressing Iraq's efforts to implement relevant Council resolutions. In addition to commending the IAEA's strenuous efforts to implement Security Council resolutions, the amendment would have the Assembly also support the conclusions and assessments contained in the consolidated semi-annual report of the Director General of the IAEA to the Security Council.

[The semi-annual report (document S/1996/833), submitted to the Council on 7 October, states that within the period under review, the IAEA has not seen instance of activities, or the presence, in Iraq, of equipment or material proscribed by relevant Security Council resolutions. The report goes on to say that all quantities of special nuclear material found in Iraq had been removed, and the industrial infrastructure which Iraq had set up to produce and weaponize special nuclear material has been destroyed. However, the report notes that the IAEA is aware that the know-how and expertise acquired by Iraqi scientists and engineers could provide an adequate base for re-constructing a nuclear weapons-oriented programme.]

The Iraqi amendment to the IAEA draft would also have the Assembly call upon Iraq to continue its cooperation with the IAEA in achieving the complete implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions.

Security Council Reform

The working group's report before the Assembly details its activities during the fiftieth session (document A/50/47 and Add.1). The working group was established by the Assembly in December 1993 to consider all aspects of Council reform and to report on its progress.

According to the report, during meetings and informal consultations beginning November 1995 and concluding last month, the working group continued to discuss aspects of Council reform which have been the focus of its deliberations since it began work in January 1994, namely: proposals for the increase in permanent membership of the Council; proposals on increase in non- permanent membership; proposals relating to rotation or shared Security Council seats; improvement in the Council's working methods and its transparency; and the decision-making process in the Council, including the veto power. The working group affirmed that final agreement on size and composition of the Council, as well as other aspects of reform, should comprise a comprehensive package, that work on individual issues should be allowed to proceed concurrently and that progress on one issue should not be impeded by lack of progress on another.

General Assembly Plenary - 5 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

During last session's deliberations, the working group reaffirmed the principles which were guiding the work on reform, such as sovereign equality of all Member States and equitable geographical distribution on contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security. It also agreed that expansion of the Council, specifically, would be conducted so as to ensure equitable geographical distribution, in light of the increase in the Organization's membership, particularly Member States which are developing countries. There was also agreement on the fact that important changes in international relations should be brought to bear on the consideration of the Council's size and composition.

However, views of working group members on how to bring about an expansion and other changes continued to differ. For example, proposals to only increase the non-permanent membership received both support and objections, as did the idea of an increase in permanent membership. The concept of regional rotation of permanent seats was supported by some and rejected by others.

Proposals were also made on decision-making in the Council, including the question of the veto, the report continues. A suggestion that the use of the veto be curtailed and rationalized, such as limiting the veto power to actions taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, received wide support. However, some expressed opposition to any limitation on the scope of the veto.

The working group noted during its deliberations that steps have already been taken by the Council to improve its working methods and enhance transparency, states the report. Many such measures were instated to improve the Council's documentation procedure, increase communication between the Council and troop-contributing countries and enhance transparency through greater reliance on open meetings and briefings of delegations. Initiatives, listed by the working group's bureau in a non-paper annexed to the report, include making the Council's draft report to the Assembly available under limited distribution, providing a monthly tentative forecast of the Council's schedule and making available draft resolutions in provisional form at the time of the Council's consideration.

Also, the report continues, the Council has instated a variety of meetings and consultations with troop-contributing countries to review the planning, management and coordination of peace-keeping operations. It has also become a practice of the Council to make information regarding the workings of its sanctions committees more accessible.

During last session's discussions, members of the working group called for the full implementation and formalization of such Council initiatives, according to the report. A large number of delegations underlined the need for the Security Council to continue to improve its working methods and

General Assembly Plenary - 6 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

transparency with regard to Council reports to the Assembly; briefings of non- members of the Council; consultations with present and potential troop- contributing countries; and the participation of non-members in Council discussions. New ideas to those ends were presented.

At the close of its work for the fiftieth session, the working group concluded that the discussions on Security Council reform should continue during the Assembly's current session. In its report, it recommends that the Assembly adopt a draft resolution by which it would decide that the working group should continue its work, taking into account the progress achieved during previous sessions and the views expressed during the current session. The working group would be asked to submit a report to the Assembly before the end of its current session, including any agreed recommendation.

Credentials Committee

The first report of the Credentials Committee (document A/51/548) informs the General Assembly that during the Committee's first meeting on 11 October it considered the credentials of representatives of 124 Member States participating in the current Assembly session and accepted the credentials from 123 of the Member States concerned.

However, the Committee had deferred any decision on the credentials of the representatives of Afghanistan until a later meeting, the report states. Prior to making that decision, the Committee was informed that formal credentials had been submitted for the representatives of Afghanistan on 15 September by "Burhan-u-ddin Rabbani, President of the Islamic State of Afghanistan", the same signatory to the Afghan credentials accepted by the Committee during the fiftieth session.

The Committee was also informed that two communications, on 3 and 10 October, respectively, had been received from the "Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kabul, Afghanistan". The first challenged the legal validity and authority of statements, actions or views of the delegations whose credentials had been issued by President Rabbani. It further said that delegation "is not the legitimate representative of the Islamic State of Afghanistan". The second communication stated that individuals and personnel at the Afghan mission to the United Nations were not "acceptable to the new ruling Government of Taliban".

By a draft resolution contained in the report, the Assembly would approve the Committee's first report.

General Assembly Plenary - 7 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

Credentials Committee Report

The Assembly began its consideration of the first report of the Credentials Committee by considering the draft resolution contained in the report by which the Assembly would approve that report.

Explanation of Vote Before the Vote

ESHAGH AL-HABIB (Iran) said that his delegation had reservations about the first portion of the report relating to the credentials of Israel. Iran wished to disassociate itself from the portion of the report referring to the credentials of Israel.

The Assembly approved the report of the Credentials Committee by adopting the resolution, without a vote.

Explanation of Vote After the Vote

MOHAMED E. MATRI (Libya) said Libya's acceptance of the resolution did in no way mean that it recognized the credentials of Israel.

Report of IAEA

SLOBODAN TASOVSKI (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said that one of the most significant tools towards curbing the spread of nuclear weapons was the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). His country intended to sign and ratify the treaty shortly. The conclusion of a multilateral and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of a fissile material for nuclear-weapons purposes was an important goal towards the strengthening of the NPT regime and deserved priority in the Conference on Disarmament.

He welcomed strengthening the safety standards of nuclear installations. The responsibility of the States operating nuclear power plants at a critical low level of safety was of special importance, as was the need for those States to cooperate closely with the IAEA in implementing safety measures and standards. He pointed out that the Convention on Nuclear Safety entered into force on 24 October, and confirmed support for the proposed measures for strengthening the present safeguards system ("Programme 93+2") whose implementation would increase the capability of the Agency to detect undeclared nuclear activities. In the area of technical cooperation, his country's involvement with the Agency was in the improvement of scientific knowledge and practical use of nuclear energy in medicine, agriculture and industry. Assistance by the Agency was particularly helpful in the treatment of animal diseases, radioimmunoassays (RIA) technology in nuclear medicine and personal dosimetry.

General Assembly Plenary - 8 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

YURI BOGAYEVSKIY (Ukraine) said that his country had had two significant anniversaries this year. The first, 26 April, was the sad tenth anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe, "that remains an inconsolable pain and incurable wound" for the Ukrainian people. The second was the first of June, the day when Ukraine became a State free from nuclear weapons, after the withdrawal of the last strategic nuclear warhead from its territory. By eliminating the world's third largest nuclear arsenal, the one it had inherited from the former Soviet Union, Ukraine had also made a practical contribution to diminishing the global nuclear threat.

Ukraine considered the IAEA's safeguards system as the most important set of measures taken by the international community to ensure the use of nuclear power exclusively for peaceful purposes. The successful development of a strengthened safeguards system, based on the so-called "Programme 93+2", depended on the respect of the principles of national sovereignty, equality of requirements and universal nature of the participation of States.

In closing, the delegate said that the decision to decommission the Chernobyl power plant by the year 2000 would only be successfully achieved if Ukraine received the necessary financial and technical assistance, as the burden of Chernobyl had gone far beyond the country's capabilities.

FATEHYAB ALI KHAN (Pakistan) said that any imbalance in the two major activities of the IAEA -- prevention of nuclear proliferation and the promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy -- would not serve the objectives of the Agency. Despite the negative public perception in some countries and the fears about the danger of nuclear proliferation, nuclear energy remained a viable and attractive energy option for many countries, particularly the fossil-fuel-deficient developing countries. Conventional means of generating electricity not only imposed a heavy financial burden, but also posed a serious threat to the environment.

The IAEA had achieved a high rate on overall implementation, he said, but this had considerably decreased the readily usable reserve resources at the end of 1995. Further reductions beyond this could be detrimental to the efficient implementation of technical cooperation programmes. In order to ensure the continued success of the Agency in this area, States should pay their contributions in full and on time. On the prevention of proliferation, Pakistan had consistently adhered to, and should continue to extend its fullest support to, the Agency's safeguards. The situation in South Asia, however, could escalate at any time owing to the Kashmir dispute. Nuclear energy carried a two-fold burden: "the stigma of Hiroshima and the legacy of Chernobyl". While the first was addressed by safeguards, non-proliferation and disarmament measures, the second called for greater attention to the safety of nuclear installations. Pakistan accorded the highest priority to safety in its nuclear facilities and had benefited from the nuclear safety expertise available through the Agency.

General Assembly Plenary - 9 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

ESTHER TOLLE (Kenya) said that the African Regional Cooperative Agreement for Research, Development and Training Related to Nuclear Science and Technology (AFRA) had been very valuable due to its orientation, focus and relevance to the needs of the region, particularly in the area of manpower development and the sharing of available facilities and expertise. It had played a vital role in strengthening the concept of regional cooperation and self-reliance of the African continent. Kenya fully supported the programme. At the bilateral level, the IAEA was assisting various projects to help improve Kenya's agricultural production. Similarly, a draft framework document, which would form the core of future IAEA technology transfer activities, had been produced. The Agency had also assisted, by providing information and assistance to Kenyan institutions, in the area of radiation safety and waste management. Kenya urged the Agency to maintain its effort in devising local solutions.

Regional agreements, such as the creation of the African Nuclear-Free Zone, were a useful means of reducing tension, encouraging sustainable development and promoting confidence and regional security. It was extremely important to support such regional effort to curb nuclear proliferation. Sustainable socio-economic development needed a dependable and reliable supply of energy, and at the moment there was an over-dependence on hydro and fossil fuel sources of energy. The IAEA had a great role to play in the development of nuclear research reactors for Member States in the least developed countries category. Kenya noted with appreciation the fact that the IAEA had an increase in the representation of developing countries among its staff, which now exceeded the 30 per cent target; there had also been an increase in the representation of women.

A.C. JOSE (India) said that in four decades the IAEA had evolved into what was perhaps the most scientific organization in the United Nations system. It had crossed important milestones, including setting up model projects, implementing the "Partners in Development" concept, expanding several nuclear applications programmes and setting up the Standing Advisory Group on Technical Cooperation (SAGTAC). But the IAEA had a long way to go if it was to serve the cause of sustainable development to an appreciable degree. There were still many who needed to be convinced that nuclear technology was the inevitable option to satisfy the needs of developing countries.

The Regional Cooperative Agreement arose out of the India-Philippines Agency Project, which was essentially directed towards utilization of existing research reactors in the region. India believed that the time had come for including the development of nuclear power within the ambit of the Regional Cooperative Agreement. On the question of the IAEA's safeguards, "Programme 93+2", his country wished to reiterate that the financial implications of the programme may be excessive and that an overemphasis on the policing role of the Agency was creating an imbalance in the attention and the resources it devoted to its promotional activities. By rushing headlong into

General Assembly Plenary - 10 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

the programme, the Agency might have bitten off more than it could chew. The Agency should consolidate its work and set new goals; nevertheless, India was willing to go by consensus on that issue.

India, he continued, was the first country to call for a convention to ban the use of nuclear weapons and a comprehensive plan to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. India had joined every genuine effort to ban all weapons of mass destruction and had accepted every universally negotiated and agreed obligation in that regard. "Nuclear disarmament is a global issue", the delegate said. India had presented, along with 27 other member States of the Conference on Disarmament, a phased, step-by-step proposal leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons, within a specific time-frame. India, he said in closing, would continue to strive with other like-minded nations to achieve the long-cherished goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.

PARK SOO GIL (Republic of Korea) said that the entry into force on 24 October of the Convention on Nuclear Safety was one of the Agency's major achievements. The Republic of Korea, as a nation heavily dependent on nuclear power generation for its energy requirements, with 11 power reactors in operation and six under construction, attached great importance to the work of the IAEA and believed that nuclear power would play an increasingly important role in sustainable development. His country had consistently supported the strengthening of the IAEA safeguards system.

North Korea's long-standing non-compliance with its safeguards agreement under the NPT remained a matter of serious concern, he continued. The IAEA had clearly outlined where the issue now stood, after all those exhausting efforts by the Agency and the international community to obtain that country's nuclear transparency. North Korea's open and persistent refusal to comply fully with its safeguards obligations posed a serious threat to the integrity and credibility of the global non-proliferation regime under the NPT and the IAEA safeguards system. His Government believed that some progress had been achieved in the implementation of the United States-Democratic People's Republic of Korea Agreed Framework; its full implementation would help with that country's denuclearization. But it did not redeem North Korea from its obligations under the NPT. His country urged North Korea to fully comply and cooperate faithfully with the IAEA.

In closing, he said that reform of the Agency's Board of Governors was long overdue; its Statute should be amended without delay to reflect the changes in the international community over the past two decades.

GRIGORY BERDENNIKOV (Russian Federation) told the Assembly that his country supported the IAEA's priorities "in every possible way". It was well known that technical assistance provided by the Agency to developing countries played an important role in the development of international cooperation in the area of the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The Russian Government had

General Assembly Plenary - 11 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

decided to contribute 7.5 billion roubles to the technical assistance and cooperation fund, despite its complicated financial situation.

The significance of nuclear energy for defining development strategies for the twenty-first century was a starting point at the Moscow Summit on Nuclear Safety and Security, he continued. However, the future of nuclear energy was inseparably linked to meeting ever-increasing safety requirements. The Summit had made a significant step forward in this regard, initiating specific programmes of international cooperation to ensure operational safety of the nuclear power complex. Those programmes involved, first of all, the building of safe nuclear reactors for the twenty-first century. Experience could be gained from such reactors built in Russia, France, Germany, Japan, the United States and elsewhere. The establishment of international nuclear safety centres in Russia and the United States was a major step forward in fostering international cooperation in that field. Secondly, it involved the need to find safe and cost-effective utilization and disposal of radioactive waste. Thirdly, it was necessary to develop and improve the existing international regimes that regulated that particular issue.

LAURENCE N. EDWARDS (Marshall Islands) said during the period that the Marshall Islands was under the administration of the United States its population had been adversely affected due to nuclear weapons testing. He noted that recently an IAEA team had visited the Marshall Islands to address such matters. All efforts had been taken by his Government to facilitate the work of the IAEA mission, by providing access to all damaged nuclear weapons test sites in the Marshall Islands and to the current storage site at Runit Island. He hoped that the visit of the IAEA would enable the Agency to provide information to assist the Marshall Islands decisions on the future of the Runit Island site. The Marshall Islands would work with the IAEA to assess the overall situation within its territory.

FREDERICK O. BERGH (South Africa) said that during the past year there had been progress in global non-proliferation and disarmament, the most significant being the adoption by the General Assembly of the CTBT and the signing of the Treaty of Pelindaba creating an African nuclear-free zone. The IAEA was carrying out its mandate well, and all facets in the field of nuclear technology were being covered. In the area of developing conventions, and in maintaining and improving safety standards, perhaps the most significant development was the entry into force of the Convention on Nuclear Safety. South Africa would consider the ratification of the Convention during the current session of its Parliament. It would also host the open-ended group of technical and legal experts on a convention on the safety of radioactive waste management in a fortnight.

For the first time, he said, South Africa submitted projects of its own for consideration by the Technical Assistance Department, projects beneficial not only to South Africa, but to the entire region. In the past year, it had

General Assembly Plenary - 12 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

served as the Chair of the African Regional Cooperative Agreement for Research, Development and Training Related to Nuclear Science and Technology (AFRA), the regional organization charged with developing projects of benefit to the whole region. It was concerned, however, that the vast majority of the funding to the Technical Assistance Fund came only from a handful of donor countries; not all countries capable of contributing easily were doing so, nor were some developing countries who were often substantial beneficiaries paying their modest share. South Africa was participating in the work of the Committee examining the draft protocols to strengthen the efficiency and improve the effectiveness of the safeguards system and there was hope it would conclude its work this year. He drew attention to two features in its work: the improved ability to detect activities which pose a proliferation risk, and the idea of improving efficiency.

JOHN CAMPBELL (Australia) said he placed great value on the IAEA's international safeguards and technical cooperation activities, which underpinned the NPT. The importance accorded to them was reaffirmed in the decision in 1995 to extend the NPT indefinitely and in its important accompanying documents. Delighted at the passage of the CTBT last month, and its opening for signature, he noted, "We have at last brought nuclear testing to an end, not only in our region, but in all regions." He was grateful to the IAEA for the support to the advisory committee's study of the radiological situation at Mururoa and Fanga Taufa atolls, and looked forward to the study producing some concrete answers about the effect of nuclear testing in the South Pacific region.

This year's resolution highlighted the important measures and decisions the IAEA had taken to strengthen the safeguards system. That was an important element of the decision on principles and objectives for nuclear non- proliferation and disarmament adopted at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. He hoped that current negotiations in the IAEA to conclude a model protocol to comprehensive safeguards agreements for measures requiring additional legal authority could be concluded soon. It had been necessary again this year for the resolution to record the continuing non-compliance and lack of full cooperation of Iraq and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea with the IAEA. Urging them to cooperate, he noted that these cases underlined the importance of strengthening the safeguards system.

MIKE SNELL (Canada) introduced the revised IAEA draft text. He said the draft was the result of consultations to incorporate concerns expressed in several amendments proposed to the resolutions, notably those sponsored by Egypt and Israel, respectively. As a result of the consultations, Egypt and Israel had agreed to withdraw their amendments. It was hoped that the draft would be adopted with the widest possible support.

General Assembly Plenary - 13 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

RAZALI ISMAIL (Malaysia) said that in light of the statement by the representative of Canada, the amendments sponsored by Egypt and Israel, respectively, were withdrawn and therefore would not be put to a vote.

NIZAR HAMDOON (Iraq) introduced an amendment by which the Assembly would replace operative paragraph seven of the revised draft relating to Iraq's compliance with relevant Security Council resolutions. He said that based on information contained in the IAEA Director-General's semi-annual report to the Security Council submitted this month, statements in operative paragraph seven of the revised text were inaccurate. He noted that the draft text called upon Iraq to fulfil its obligations with respect to relevant Council resolutions and expresses concern regarding Iraq's failure to grant access to an IAEA team. However, the IAEA report describes the incident as the joint IAEA/ United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) team meeting some difficulties in gaining immediate access to the site, which was classified as a sensitive site. When the team arrived at the site, it was advised that the facility was a sensitive site and that the appropriate UNSCOM modalities needed to be applied. The team had waited for about two hours for the arrival of a high- ranking official and then was granted access. It was clear from the IAEA report that there was no delay but instead the fulfilment of specific modalities. The inspection found no evidence of restricted materials.

Also, he said there was no mention in the draft text of the IAEA statement that during the period under review no equipment or material proscribed by relevant resolutions had been found and that all quantities of a special nuclear material found in Iraq had been removed. Also, the infrastructure established to produce nuclear material had been destroyed. For those reasons, Iraq proposed the amendment which would replace operative paragraph seven with a new paragraph supporting the conclusions and assessments contained in the semi-annual report of the IAEA Director-General.

The PRESIDENT said that El Salvador and Iceland had joined as co- sponsors of the draft.

Explanation of Vote Before the Vote

KIM CHANG GUK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula was created by the United States deployment of nuclear material. His Government felt that that nuclear issue was not one to be brought before the United Nations. The agreement between his country and the United States noted that the nuclear issue of the Korean peninsula was a political one and would be solved only when the framework agreement between the two countries was fully implemented. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been fulfilling its obligations to freeze nuclear facilities and had been cooperating with the IAEA on operation of facilities not included in the freeze. However, the IAEA was putting forward unreasonable demands, knowing full well that the framework agreement could not be implemented in one or two

General Assembly Plenary - 14 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

years. If the United Nations, siding with the IAEA position, forced unreasonable demands on his country, it would only threaten the agreed framework. The United States should fulfil its commitments under the agreement in order to build confidence between the parties. The draft text was intended to place pressure on his Government. For those reasons, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would vote against the draft text.

P.V. KUMAR (India) said his Government supported the draft's mentions of the IAEA work as a whole. However, his Government did not accept the language contained in preambular paragraph three and its linkage of the NPT with the right of countries to develop nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. His Government had called for a separate vote on that paragraph and his delegation would vote against its inclusion in the draft.

Mr. ROBINSON (United States) said that the amendment proposed by Iraq was inaccurate and unbalanced. While the IAEA semi-annual report had noted some improvements in Iraq's behaviour, it also listed areas in which Iraq had not fully complied with its obligations under Council resolutions. The draft text, while containing some inaccuracy, struck a balance between both positions expressed by the IAEA. However, Iraq was attempting to pretend that its cooperation was complete and that there was no negative information in the semi-annual IAEA report. He urged Member States to vote against the amendment sponsored by Iraq.

HERVE LADSOUS (France) said that the amendment followed the conclusions of the IAEA. Supporting the actions of the IAEA, France wished for Iraq to continue to cooperate with the work of the Agency. As a co-sponsor of the draft text, France would abstain from that portion of the vote.

Action on IAEA Draft

The Assembly then took up the amendment submitted by Iraq to replace the seventh operative paragraph of the draft which refers to Iraq's compliance with relevant Security Council resolutions. By a recorded vote of 11 in favour to 71 against, with 41 abstentions, the Assembly decided not to adopt the amendment sponsored by Iraq. (See Annex I for voting details.)

The Assembly then held a separate vote on the third preambular paragraph of the draft, addressing aspects of the Agency's promotion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as envisaged by the NPT and other relevant international instruments. The Assembly adopted that paragraph by a vote of 123 in favour to 3 against (India, Indonesia, Israel), with 11 abstentions. (See Annex II.)

Following that decision, the Assembly took up the draft resolution on the IAEA as a whole. The Assembly adopted the resolution by a vote of 141 in favour to 2 against (Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Lebanon), with 8 abstentions (Cuba, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Chile, Federated States of Micronesia, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Sudan and Syria). (See Annex III.)

General Assembly Plenary - 15 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

Explanation of Vote After the Vote

KHALIL ABOU-HADID (Syria) abstained from the vote, because Israel had not acceded to the NPT provisions, and thus it was not possible to make that region a non-nuclear zone. Israel had declared that it had no intention of acceding to those provisions, and that represented a danger for the region. Israel's persistence and obstinate refusal jeopardized security worldwide. Syria expressed the hope that the Middle East would become a nuclear-free zone.

Regarding the establishment of regional groups, he said Syria supported Egypt's statement on the amendments of the sixth preambular paragraph. It should be done with approval of the States of that region. Israel must first of all accede to the NPT, since this was a sine qua non condition for any attempt by Israel to associate itself with the region. Israel must respect the order of things and not put the cart before the horse.

SHA ZUKANG (China) expressed appreciation for the work of the IAEA. In the new international situation, the Agency had made important contributions in peaceful uses of nuclear energy and other matters such as nuclear waste management. China supported most of the IAEA report. However, it could not agree with operative paragraphs six and seven of the resolution. China believed in dialogue and consultation on equal footing. To exert pressure could only complicate things instead of bringing a solution. Based on that position, China abstained in the vote on the resolution.

PHAM QUANG VINH (Viet Nam) said that his delegation attached great importance to the work of the IAEA, especially technical assistance in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, as well as its cooperation and development projects. The Agency had rendered valuable assistance to developing countries. Viet Nam was in agreement with many of the positive comments on the IAEA's work. The resolution contained parts which had serious implications for national sovereignty and the territorial integrity of States. While appreciative of the tasks of the IAEA, Viet Nam regrettably abstained in the voting because of those principles.

MEHDI DANESH-YAZDI (Iran) explained that his delegation had reservations on the thirteenth preambular paragraph and on operative paragraph three. Regarding the classification of States in regional groups, Member States themselves should make decisions regarding the groups. The protocol should enhance international cooperation, and should not be limited to those countries which already have full-scope safeguards agreements with the Agency.

YEHIEL YATIV (Israel) said that the workshop on verification technologies was not connected to the resolution on safeguards in the Middle East, adopted at the last IAEA conference. Israel appreciated the professional work of the IAEA. On the third preambular paragraph, his delegation said that the application of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes should be conducted based on equality, not on whether or not the State was a party to the NPT. Thus Israel had to vote against the paragraph.

General Assembly Plenary - 16 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

MOSES MATHENDELE DLAMINI (Swaziland) said that his country had voted in favour of the resolution, influenced by the spirit and letter of the Pelindaba Treaty which Swaziland ratified. The NPT should be respected and honoured by all Member States.

SAEED HASSAN (Iraq) did not participate in the vote. If it had had the right to vote, Iraq would have voted against the resolution. Iraq would have abstained on the entire resolution because it contained an unbalanced paragraph (operative paragraph seven) which in fact made use of the draft resolution for the wrong kinds of purposes. In particular, it tried to perpetuate the sanctions against Iraq. His delegation wished to thank those countries which had voted in favour of Iraq's amendment, and also those who abstained. Such abstentions were a way of rejecting the language and unbalanced formulations of operative paragraph seven.

MAGED A. ABDEL AZIZ (Egypt) said he abstained on the amendment on operative paragraph seven because of the belief that the specific paragraph on Iraq should reflect the delicate balance between the positive and negative aspects of the subject. The amendment by Iraq did not reflect this delicate balance as outlined in the report of the Director-General of the IAEA. Egypt voted in favour of the main resolution to confirm its support of the IAEA in all aspects.

GUMA I. AMER (Libya) said he voted in favour of the draft, but felt that if the thirteenth preambular had been put to a separate vote, he would have voted against that paragraph.

SAMIR MOUBARAK (Lebanon) said he had intended to abstain in the vote on the draft resolution, but due to a technical error, the wrong button was pressed. He would like to have his comments recorded that they wished to abstain.

KHALID BABAR (Pakistan) abstained in the vote on the third preambular paragraph. While his country was committed to nuclear non-proliferation, it believed that the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes was the right of all States. Pakistan could not accept any linkages on this issue.

Right of Reply

KIM CHANG GUK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), replying to Japan, Ireland, the United States and others, said that the United States- Democratic People's Republic of Korea Agreed Framework clearly stated the obligations of his country. Considering that, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was cooperating with the IAEA well beyond the Agreed Framework. The Korean Peninsula nuclear issue could not be resolved by the IAEA, a technical body, but by the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It was the fashion to peck at his country when a nuclear issue was discussed in the international arena, and that was very dangerous. He would not accept any of the prejudiced and one-sided pressures, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would not shoulder the responsibilities

General Assembly Plenary - 17 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

unilaterally. Referring to the Republic of Korea, he said he would not bother to respond to remarks made by "dogs and criminals".

Mr. CHUN (Republic of Korea) said that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had a legal obligation to abide by its bilateral agreements; however, that country should be reminded that it was also dealing with multilateral obligations under the provisions of the NPT. For the sake of the integrity of the IAEA safeguards system, it now fell to the United Nations to draw attention to the only country in the entire world which was continuing its non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards. Bilateral agreements could not replace North Korea's obligations. Also, North Korea's unfortunate and deliberate choice of words and the hostility the General Assembly had just witnessed were typical of the way that country reacted. Their intemperate words were, for some, a "free source of entertainment", but others, perhaps not used to it, may have thought they just heard "the snarl of a dinosaur or the outburst of an alien". By slandering the Republic of Korea, North Korea had affronted more than 180 countries which had relations with Korea. It was deplorable that North Korea persisted in confrontational behaviour. The Republic of Korea had helped North Korea with the building of two light reactors and had shipped rice to feed their starving people. North Korea was biting the hand that fed them. Their words demonstrated how distant they had become from the rest of the world. North Korea relied on a totalitarian system of control and personality cult. If their paranoia had become so acute as to shamelessly hurl insults, it caused one to seriously wonder about their regime's viability. North Korea was its own worst enemy.

Mr. KIM (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) said that once again they had heard the barking of the dog of South Korea, which was a colony and had no rights. The South Korean representative's indecent action in the Assembly Hall slandered the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. They were attempting to stall the implementation of the framework agreement between his country and the United States because they were afraid that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would improve relations with the United States. The nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula would not be solved until the agreement was implemented.

TARIK ALI BAKHIET (Sudan) said that his delegation had intended to vote in favour of the third preambular paragraph, but it had been included in the recorded vote as an abstention.

Mr. CHUN (Republic of Korea) said that North Korea had again resorted to typical remarks. Those remarks would be dismissed as senseless and absurd. To describe his country as a colony or representatives as dogs was an affront to all countries with diplomatic relations with the Republic of Korea.

JEAN RAVOU-AKII (Vanuatu) said that during the vote on the draft as a whole his delegation's vote had been recorded as an abstention, while it had intended to vote in favour of the text.

(annexes follow)

General Assembly Plenary - 18 - Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

ANNEX I

Vote on Amendment to Operative Paragraph 7 of Draft Resolution on Report of IAEA

The amendment to operative paragraph 7 on Iraq's efforts to implement Council resolutions (document A/51/L.11) was defeated by a recorded vote of 11 in favour to 71 against, with 41 abstentions as follows:

In favour: Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia.

Abstaining: Albania, Bahrain, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial, Federated States of Micronesia, France, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Jamaica, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mali, Mexico, Myanmar, Niger, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tajikistan, Thailand, Venezuela.

Absent: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominica, Estonia, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iran, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Oman, Palau, Paraguay, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Granandines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX I)

General Assembly Plenary 19 Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

ANNEX II

Vote on Third Preambular Paragraph to Draft Resolution on Report of IAEA

The third preambular paragraph dealing with nuclear energy for peaceful purposes of the draft resolution on the IAEA (document A/51/L.9/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 3 against with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India, Indonesia, Israel.

Abstaining: Bahamas, Belize, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, Federated States of Micronesia, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Vanuatu.

Absent: Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Eritrea, Estonia, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malta, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX II)

General Assembly Plenary 20 Press Release GA/9144 43rd Meeting (AM) 29 October 1996

ANNEX III

Vote on Draft Resolution on Report of IAEA

The draft resolution on the report of the IAEA (document A/51/L.9/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 2 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The Former Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Lebanon.

Abstaining: China, Cuba, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Federated States of Micronesia, Sudan, Syria, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

Absent: Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Dominica, Estonia, Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Lesotho, Malta, Namibia, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and Grenadis, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX III AND PRESS RELEASE GA/9144)