FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT TEXTS ENCOURAGING BILATERAL DISARMAMENT BETWEEN RUSSIAN FEDERATION, UNITED STATES

12 November 1996

Press Release
GA/DIS/3070

FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT TEXTS ENCOURAGING BILATERAL DISARMAMENT BETWEEN RUSSIAN FEDERATION, UNITED STATES

19961112 Two Resolutions Require Recorded Votes; Differ Over Provisions on Nuclear Weapon Elimination, Existing Agreements

The General Assembly would encourage intensified bilateral nuclear disarmament efforts between the Russian Federation and the United States, by the terms of two drafts on bilateral nuclear-arms negotiations approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), although the resolutions differed in their provisions concerning the pace of nuclear disarmament and the recognition of existing agreements.

The first text, submitted by Colombia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement of countries, was approved by a recorded vote of 83 in favour to 35 against, with 21 abstentions. According to that draft, the Assembly would call upon the Russian Federation and the United States to accord the highest priority to their work for deep reductions in their nuclear armaments, in order to contribute to the elimination of nuclear weapons "within a time-bound framework". (For details see Annex I.)

The second text, which was introduced in the Committee by the United States, was approved by a recorded vote of 129 in favour, with 12 abstentions. By that text, the Assembly would encourage the Russian Federation, the United States, Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine to continue their cooperative efforts aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons and strategic offensive arms on the basis of existing agreements. It would also welcome the accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) of Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine as non-nuclear-weapon States (Annex II).

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the United States said he voted against the draft sponsored by Colombia. He referred to it as a counter-draft to the joint Russian Federation-United States draft on bilateral

_______

* Press Release GA/DIS/3069 of 11 November should have been the 19th meeting.

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

negotiations and said that, unlike his own text, the Non-Aligned draft avoided all mention of the NPT. The draft's language on nuclear non-proliferation was distorted to reflect the views of the Cartagena Non-Aligned Conference on nuclear disarmament, not the results of the NPT. The draft's only function would be to divide Member States on a vital topic, belittling recent achievements in bilateral and multilateral disarmament, he said.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that the draft sponsored by Colombia was a "model of wishful thinking", presenting the desires of the sponsors as reality. It ignored the NPT and the 1995 extension of that Treaty. It made no reference to the results of the 1996 Moscow summit on nuclear safety and security. It also made a highly selective reference to the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the use of nuclear weapons, which did not reflect the many shades of opinion contained in that advisory ruling.

Following approval of those drafts, the representative of Cuba proposed an amendment to the draft resolution on anti-personnel land-mines, which would have the Assembly urge that the legitimate right of States to self-defence be taken into account in negotiations for such a ban. Speaking on the amendment, the representative of China said that without effective military alternatives to land-mines, a total ban, such as the one contained in the draft before the Committee, violated the international principle that arms control measures should not diminish security.

Statements were also made by Algeria, Pakistan, Benin, Burundi, Zambia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Thailand, India, Iran, Viet Nam, Gabon, Turkmenistan, Nigeria, Syria, Latvia, Mexico, Mali, Australia, Ukraine and Sri Lanka.

The First Committee will meet again tomorrow at 10 a.m. to continue taking action on disarmament drafts.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue taking action on disarmament draft resolutions and decisions. It has before it three nuclear-related drafts, including two drafts on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations, and a draft on the advisory opinion of the World Court.

It also has a series of drafts on conventional weapons, which include measures to curb the illicit transfer of conventional arms, curbing the illicit traffic in small arms, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and anti-personnel land-mines. Also before the Committee are two drafts on regional disarmament and security, and on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels.

The Committee has before it a text sponsored by Colombia on behalf of the States of the Non-Aligned Movement on bilateral nuclear-arms negotiations and nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/51/L.21). By its terms, the Assembly would call upon the Russian Federation and the United States to give the highest priority to intensifying efforts to achieve deep reductions in their nuclear armaments, in order to contribute to the elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework. It would invite them to keep the Conference on Disarmament informed of their progress in their discussions and urge them to make further efforts to bring the Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START II) into force at the earliest possible date.

Under a draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/51/L.37), the Assembly would underline the Court's unanimous conclusion that an obligation exists to pursue good-faith negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. It would call on all States to fulfil that obligation immediately by starting multilateral negotiations in 1997 leading to early conclusion of a convention to prohibit the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons, and providing for their elimination.

The draft is sponsored by Afghanistan, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Paraguay, Philippines, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

By a draft resolution on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations and nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/51/L.45), the General Assembly would encourage the Russian Federation, United States, Belarus, Kazakstan and Ukraine to continue

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

their cooperative efforts aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons and strategic offensive arms on the basis of existing agreements. The Assembly would encourage and support the Russian Federation and the United States in their efforts to reduce their nuclear weapons and to continue to give those efforts the highest priority in order to contribute to the ultimate elimination of those weapons.

The draft is sponsored by Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States.

A draft resolution (document A/C.1/51/L.16) on measures to curb the illicit transfer and use of conventional arms would welcome adoption by the Disarmament Commission of guidelines for international arms transfers. It would invite Member States to enact national legislation and adopt administrative procedures to exercise effective control over armaments and the export and import of arms. It would also invite Member States to provide the Secretary-General with their views on ways of collecting weapons transferred illicitly and proposals on national, regional and international levels to curb the illicit transfer and use of conventional arms.

The draft is sponsored by Afghanistan, Cambodia, Nicaragua, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

A draft resolution on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/51/L.31) would have the Assembly call upon States to conclude agreements, wherever possible, for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels. It would stress the need for sustained efforts, within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament and under the umbrella of the United Nations, to make progress on the entire range of disarmament issues.

By that text, the Assembly would affirm that global and regional approaches to disarmament, as complements to each other, should therefore be pursued simultaneously. The Assembly would support and encourage efforts aimed at promoting confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels in order to ease regional tensions and to further disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation measures.

First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

The draft resolution was sponsored by Albania, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, Mali, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

In a draft resolution on curbing the illicit traffic in small arms (document A/C.1/51/L.35) the Assembly would encourage the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to curb the circulation and to collect such arms, with the support of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa and in close cooperation with the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The Secretary-General would also be requested to continue to examine the issues and to report to the Assembly at its fifty-second session.

By further terms of the draft, the Assembly would encourage the setting up of national commissions against the proliferation of small arms in the countries of the Saharo-Sahelian subregion.

The draft is sponsored by Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Togo.

A draft resolution on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (document A/C.1/51/L.40) would have the Assembly urgently call upon all States that have not yet done so to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects and its Protocols and upon successor States to take appropriate measures so that ultimately adherence to these instruments will be universal. It would call upon the Secretary-General to continue to inform the Assembly periodically of ratifications and accessions to the Convention and its Protocols.

By further terms of the draft, the Assembly would again commend the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) to all States, with a view to achieving the widest possible adherence to this instrument at an early date.

The draft is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom and the United States.

A draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/51/L.44) would have the Assembly decide to give urgent consideration to that issue.

First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

By that text, the Assembly would request the Conference on Disarmament, as a first step, to consider the formulation of principles that could serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control, and would look forward to a Conference report on the subject. The Assembly would decide to include the item in the agenda for its fifty-second session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Benin, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

By a draft resolution on an international agreement to ban anti- personnel land-mines (document A/C.1/51/L.46) the Assembly would urge States to pursue vigorously an effective, legally-binding international agreement to ban the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel land-mines with a view to completing the negotiation as soon as possible.

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would urge States that had not yet done so to accede to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and Protocol II, as amended on 3 May 1996. It would urge all States immediately to comply to the fullest extent possible with the applicable rules of Protocol II as amended.

The Assembly would also call upon States that had not yet done so to declare and implement such bans, moratoriums or other restrictions -- particularly on operational use and transfer -- at the earliest possible date. The Secretary-General would be requested to prepare a report on steps taken to complete an international agreement banning anti-personnel land-mines, and on other steps taken by Member States in that regard. Member States would be requested to provide such information to the Secretary-General by 15 April 1997.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Palau, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sweden, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

General Statements

ABDELKADER MESDOUA (Algeria) said that the draft on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice was important, since it reflected the Court's unanimous position that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was contrary to international law. That ruling further strengthened the cause of nuclear disarmament. For the non-aligned countries, that was a great asset, which was why his country had sponsored the draft and asked for its full support.

STEPHEN LEDOGAR (United States) said that he would vote against the draft on bilateral nuclear-arms negotiations sponsored by Colombia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was a counter-draft to the joint Russian- United States draft on bilateral negotiations. Unlike that text, the current draft avoided all mention of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The draft's language on nuclear non-proliferation was distorted to reflect the views of the Cartagena Non-Aligned Conference on nuclear disarmament, not the results of the NPT. The United States had not signed the Cartagena document and was not bound by its language. He regretted that the draft had been submitted since its only function would be to divide Member States on a vital topic, belittling recent achievements in bilateral and multilateral disarmament. The draft sponsored by his country and the Russian Federation would have more impact on his country's attitude towards a fourth special Assembly session on disarmament than all the rhetoric in the draft now before the Committee.

Action on Texts

The draft on bilateral nuclear-arms negotiations was approved by a recorded vote of 83 in favour to 36 against, with 21 abstentions. (For details of the vote see Annex I.)

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the Russian Federation said he had voted against the draft, which conflicted with the text sponsored by his country and the United States. The present draft, to his regret, had all the shortcomings of last year's text. It contained distortions. It was a model of wishful thinking, presenting the desires of the sponsors as reality. It ignored the NPT and the 1995 extension of that Treaty. This year, the draft's shortcomings were even more glaring than in the past. It made no reference to the results of the 1996 Moscow summit on nuclear safety and security. It made a highly selective reference to the opinion of the World Court, which did not reflect the many shades of opinion contained in that advisory ruling.

The representative of Ukraine said he had abstained from voting. As the first State to unilaterally renounce nuclear weapons, it was concerned that progress towards nuclear disarmament did not get proper recognition in the

First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

draft. The country's experience of real economic problems stemming from nuclear disarmament showed that the complex issue should not be affected by proposals for a time-bound framework of nuclear disarmament, which could only further complicate matters.

The representative of Pakistan, speaking before action on the second draft on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations, said that he had certain reservations about the reference to limited steps of nuclear disarmament, and the omission of multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament, especially within the Conference on Disarmament. However, since the process of nuclear disarmament must be encouraged and supported, his delegation had decided to vote in favour of both drafts.

The representative of Benin said that had he been present for the vote taken on the draft text he would have voted in favour of it.

The representative of Burundi, speaking on the draft on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations sponsored by the United States and the Russian Federation, said although both draft texts aimed at the ultimate goal of complete and general disarmament, both drafts contained imperfections. Yet, in spite of their defects, they were small steps towards the ultimate goal. As such, all drafts deserved a considered approach, instead of an antagonistic one. Therefore, he would vote in favour of the draft because of the goal which his Government so cherished.

The representative of Zambia said that he was not present for the vote on bilateral arms negotiations and would have voted in favour of it.

The representative of Costa Rica said that although he missed the vote on bilateral arms negotiations, he would have voted in favour of it.

The draft on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations, sponsored by the United States and the Russian Federation and introduced by the United States, was approved by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to none against, with 12 abstentions (Annex II).

Speaking after action on the draft, the representative of Indonesia said that the text had departed in significant ways from the drafts on the subject two years ago, which he had supported. Those departures included reduced emphasis on the primary responsibility of nuclear-weapon States. It also lacked elements for a programme of nuclear disarmament, and failed to acknowledge the unanimous decision of the International Court of Justice, which constituted an extremely important element towards the goal of disarmament. In addition, the reference to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons was not sufficient. For those reasons, his delegation had abstained in the vote.

First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

The representative of Thailand said her delegation had supported the draft based on her delegation's firm and consistent stand on nuclear proliferation and disarmament. However, the draft did not adequately reflect the sentiment of the international community. The majority of States wished to see a time-bound framework for nuclear disarmament through negotiations within the Conference on Disarmament. She hoped for a single, comprehensive resolution on that subject in the future.

The representative of India said one draft was not a reaction to the other, but an illustration of differing perceptions in the area of bilateral negotiations. Efforts appeared to have been set back, since the START II treaty had not yet entered into force. Yet, even if it had entered into force, the two nuclear-weapon States that were the subjects of the draft would still have nuclear warheads in the year 2003.

Clearly, those bilateral reductions needed to be part of comprehensive multilateral negotiations leading to the total elimination of those weapons within a time-bound framework, she said. There was an urgent need for the two nuclear-weapon States to intensify their efforts and begin work on deep reductions of their nuclear arsenals. She therefore supported the approach contained in the draft sponsored by the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement, and had abstained on the second draft.

The representative of Ukraine said his delegation had supported the draft sponsored by the United States and the Russian Federation, although it lacked adequate reflection on the subject. The reduction of nuclear weapons by several countries, including his own, had not been recognized in the draft.

The representative of Algeria said that despite the draft's shortcomings, his delegation had voted in favour of it, because it favoured all disarmament drafts.

The representative of Iran said that although his delegation sympathized with the draft's thrust, he had abstained in the vote. It departed from the principle position of the non-aligned countries, and made no reference to the extraordinary opinion of the World Court, or to the sorry state of affairs on nuclear disarmament. It also contained some elements that his delegation could not verify, including the point about the NPT. As long as that Treaty was not implemented, his country was not in a position to appreciate its outcome.

The representative of Viet Nam voted in favour of both texts on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations and hoped the nuclear-weapon States would continue to reduce their nuclear arsenals. The Committee should adopt one resolution on the matter in the future.

First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

The representative of Gabon said he had intended to support the draft.

The representative of Turkmenistan told the Committee that he had voted in favour of the draft just approved, but had abstained from voting on the previous draft on the same subject.

The representative of Nigeria said that she had intended to vote in favour of both drafts on bilateral arms negotiations and nuclear disarmament.

The representative of Syria said he supported bilateral nuclear arms negotiations, but had abstained from voting on the draft just approved by the Committee out of solidarity with the views of the Non-Aligned Movement.

The representative of Latvia said that he had intended to vote against the draft on bilateral nuclear-arms negotiations sponsored by the Non-Aligned.

HUMBERTO RIVERO ROSARIO (Cuba) introduced a draft amendment (document A/C.1/51/L.50) to the draft text on the prohibition of anti-personnel land- mines, which was introduced last week by the United States. The proposed amendment added a new preambular and a new operative paragraphs, both of which underscored the inherent rights of States enshrined in the United Nations Charter, particularly the right to self-defence. He was very concerned by the fact that negotiations under way for an international agreement to ban anti- personnel land-mines did not reflect the fact that land-mines were a weapon widely used for defensive purposes by many nations. The failure of negotiators to evoke that right threatened to distort future debate. It was no secret that, even now, land-mines still constituted for many States a reliable tool for the defence of their territorial integrity.

The NPT, he went on, was more than 25 years old, yet promises made by the nuclear-weapon States to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament were still unmet. Only yesterday the representative of the United States, commenting on the proposed draft on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, had declared that his country would not permit its sovereignty to be affected by the convention envisaged in the draft. In the case of chemical weapons, the two largest possessors of those arms had not ratified the existing Convention.

The same state of affairs distorted the struggle to prevent an arms race in outer space, or to prevent the development of radiological weapons, he said. Those were all weapons that threatened humanity. Cuba was among the countries that possessed neither nuclear weapons nor a "star wars" arsenal. Land-mines often represented the only safeguard available to small countries without sophisticated weapons. The amendment that Cuba proposed merely supplemented the draft that was already before the Committee. He, therefore, requested that action on that draft be held in abeyance.

First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

The representative of Mexico said that he supported the draft resolution on measures to prevent the illicit transfer of conventional weapons. The Rio Group of nations would soon meet in Cancun to begin negotiations for a convention to that effect, recently proposed by the President of his country. He was a co-sponsor of the draft on arms control at the regional and subregional levels. While it was not among signatories to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, its respect for the principles of that agreement was beyond dispute.

However, he continued, he was not satisfied with the results of the Review Conference of that Convention, particularly the revised Protocol II on land-mines. However, he enthusiastically supported the draft for an international agreement to prohibit production and use of land-mines. That draft was a true reflection of Mexico's desire for an agreement on the elimination of anti-personnel land-mines in the shortest possible time. Humanitarian rather than military considerations should be the guiding factor. In military terms, land-mines were an excellent defensive weapon. In humanitarian terms, however, they were a catastrophe. The Conference on Disarmament was not the proper forum to negotiate a ban, for it was a humanitarian issue. Mexico would not support any proposal that did not call for a total ban on land-mines. Therefore, he would not support proposals directed at making questionable military necessity the point of greatest importance, in other words the amendment proposed by Cuba.

The representative of Mali notified the Committee of an amendment to the draft on assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms.

The representative of Australia said in supporting the draft on anti- personnel land-mines, the First Committee would be taking welcome qualitative steps towards the solution of a devastating problem. On 15 April, Australia had declared its support for a total prohibition of those weapons and had unilaterally renounced their use by its own defence forces. However, while such unilateral moves served a useful purpose, only multilateral cooperation would provide a lasting solution.

He urged the Committee to heed the call embodied in the draft for good- faith negotiations towards an international instrument and added that he considered the Conference on Disarmament the best forum for that purpose. While he agreed with Mexico that anti-personnel mines were a humanitarian problem, that problem arose from the fact that mines were a cheap and effective military tool. A military solution was, therefore, the best way to address that humanitarian problem.

He, too, had been disappointed that the review conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons had not led to a total ban on the production and use of land-mines. However, Protocol II to that Convention was an important interim step before a total ban was achieved. He hoped other

First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

States would follow Australia's example and move quickly to ratification. He also hoped States would seek rapid technical solutions in order to provide a substitute for land-mines, rather than avail themselves of the nine-year deferral period provided for in Protocol II.

During yesterday's voting on disarmament drafts, he concluded, Australia's positive vote on a text sponsored by Japan on the elimination of nuclear weapons had not been reflected in the mechanical record of the vote. He trusted that the Bureau would ensure that the gremlin in the voting machine was eliminated.

The representative of Sri Lanka noted that arguments about land-mines reflected the dependence of certain States on those weapons. That led to the to the conclusion that it was their indiscriminate and irresponsible use that was unacceptable, hence the existence of moratoriums intended to halt their export and choke off the supply. However, one important aspect of the question had eluded all previous drafts on land-mines -- the fact that anti- personnel land-mines were being used with devastating effect by insurgent forces, which had no difficulty obtaining them on the black market, despite export bans. Moreover, insurgents in his own country had developed the capacity to manufacture the weapons locally, and use them at will with devastating results. They had scarcely been affected by export moratoriums.

His country's experience, he said, argued for a targeting of insurgents, as well as governments, in draft resolutions on the subject. That would, of course, raise knotty verification issues. The insurgents in Sri Lanka were able to move their makeshift production lines around in a way that would make inspection difficult, a factor that must be taken into account in negotiations for a ban on land-mines.

On the amendment proposed by the representative of Cuba, he agreed that anti-personnel land-mines were sometimes used as effective defensive weapons. Indeed, how could a vulnerable country faced with invasion be expected not to act in self-defence, he asked? However, although he understood the rationale behind the Cuban proposal, he found it difficult to accept. The inherent right of States to self-defence needed no stress in ongoing negotiations to prohibit the development and use of anti-personnel land-mines.

On the draft on measures to curb the illicit transfer of conventional weapons, he said that the end of the cold war had resulted in the proliferation of every type of conventional weapon from small arms to missiles, creating massive security problems, chaos and social misery. The draft, which was designed to take appropriate measures for a solution to the problem, noted for example that mercenaries and child soldiers acquired weapoons from illicit sources. An important development during the year had been adoption by the Commission on Disarmament of guidelines on the transfer of conventional weapons. The draft called on States to enact adequate

First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

national legislation to control the traffic and bring offenders to justice. If such legislation was enacted as quickly as possible, Sri Lanka was confident that it would go a long way towards controlling the problem.

The representative of Costa Rica said that his country had been very much affected by land-mines. As such, he could not consider deferring adoption of the draft by arguing for the inclusion of a paragraph on the right of self-defence. Anti-personnel land-mines impaired human rights, and those rights overrode those of self-defence. While not perfect, the draft was realistically all that could be achieved.

The representative of Slovenia strongly supported the initiative for an international agreement banning those mines. In that context, his Government had adopted a declaration on land-mines stating that it never had produced those mines and never would. In accordance with international efforts, Slovenia would ban their use and favoured their total elimination.

The representative of China said that his country supported appropriate, practical restrictions on anti-personnel land-mines. It also supported humanitarian efforts for civilian victims of those mines. Pending the entry into force of the newly revised Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons, China would not export mines that did not meet the technical standards contained in that Protocol.

However, the legitimate means of self-defence for many countries gave them the right, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, to use land-mines for their security, he said. To protect against interference or encroachment upon the sovereignty of a country, including those countries that had less developed military technologies, land-mines were still a legitimate means of military defence. Without currently effective military alternatives, a comprehensive ban violated the internationally recognized principle that arms control measures should not diminish the security measures of a country. Countries differed geographically and had different defence needs. A comprehensive ban would deny them the legitimate military value of anti- personnel land-mines and diminish their security. The humanitarian and defence considerations must be dealt with in a balanced manner.

Land-mines may inflict heavy damages to innocent civilians in countries at war or in periods of post-war construction, he said. Preventing their indiscriminate use and strengthening international mine clearance was an answer. Preventing outside aggression, protecting national security and ensuring that people lived in peace were also important humanitarian elements. He would review the new Protocol and consider its ratification. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons was far from universal and had only about 60 signatories. Therefore, "talk" of a comprehensive ban against anti-

First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

personnel land-mines was premature, and his country opposed a comprehensive ban in that regard. He would, however, support the amendment proposed by the delegation of Cuba.

The representative of India, as a co-sponsor of the draft on measures curbing the illicit transfer and use of conventional arms, said that the draft on that subject should be adopted by consensus. His country favoured a total ban on anti-personnel land-mines. However, the international community needed to address not only its humanitarian aspect, but also the security requirements of States. As such, she favoured a ban on the indiscriminate use of land-mines. The goal identified in the current draft -- banning all use, including for guarding live borders -- could perhaps be achieved in a phased manner.

The representative of the Republic of Korea shared the deep concern over the scourge of anti-personnel land-mines, which victimized civilians and posed tremendous obstacles to economic and social development. His country had contributed to the United Nations trust fund to assist in mine clearance, had extended its national moratorium for another year and was considering the amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. While his country fully recognized the need for the total elimination of anti- personnel land-mines, the existing security situation on the Korean peninsula, and the absence of alternatives, precluded it from fully subscribing to a total ban.

The representative of Pakistan said that he would fully support the draft curbing the illicit transfer and use of conventional weapons, particularly the concept interlinking peace and security, and the urgent need to resolve conflicts and diminish tensions in that regard. The best approach to controlling the illicit transfer of armaments was to promote peace and security in regions of tension. In such turbulent areas of conflict, national control measures and embargoes could contain and arrest conflict escalation.

The negotiations that had resulted in the adoption of Protocol II on anti-personnel land-mines had been difficult and complex, he said. In the ultimate analysis, their complete ban would not have resulted in agreement. Such a measure should be kept under multilateral review and consideration. Its achievement without the concurrence of a number of key countries would be meaningless. A number of them were not prepared for a complete ban now, and to proceed in that direction would be counter-productive. While the current draft had more than 100 co-sponsors, the revised Protocol II had only half as many adherents. He hoped the co-sponsors of the draft resolution who were not parties to the Convention, would adhere to that Convention as a first step. He would support the amendment proposed by Cuba, but would not be in a position to support the present draft.

(Annexes follow)

First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

ANNEX I

Vote on Bilateral Nuclear Arms Negotiations

The draft resolution on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations, sponsored by Colombia on behalf of the States Members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (document A/C.1/51/L.21) was approved by a recorded vote of 83 in favour to 36 against, with 21 abstentions:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Armenia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Japan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malta, New Zealand, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Tajikistan, Ukraine.

Absent: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Cambodia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jamaica, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zambia.

(END OF ANNEX I)

First Committee 15 Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996

ANNEX II

Vote on Bilateral Nuclear Arms Negotiations

The draft resolution on bilateral nuclear arms negotiations sponsored by, among others, the Russian Federation and the United States (document A/C.1/51/L.45) was approved by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to none against, with 12 abstentions:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: none.

Abstaining: Burkina Faso, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Syria, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jamaica, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *

First Committee 16 Press Release GA/DIS/3070 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1996