1997 NEGOTIATIONS FOR CONVENTION TO ELIMINATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS CALLED FOR BY FIRST COMMITTEE DRAFT TEXT

Press Release
GA/DIS/3072

1997 NEGOTIATIONS FOR CONVENTION TO ELIMINATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS CALLED FOR BY FIRST COMMITTEE DRAFT TEXT

Resolution Takes Note of ICJ Opinion on Nuclear Weapons; Texts Also Approved on Conventional Arms, Transparency Concerns

The General Assembly -- underlining the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that an obligation exists to conclude negotiations on nuclear disarmament -- would call upon all States to fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 1997 for a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting development or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination, according to a draft resolution approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

The Court's Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons was issued in July of this year. By the text approved this morning, the Assembly would include an item on follow-up to the Court's opinion in the provisional agenda for its next session. The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 92 in favour to 22 against, with 29 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex III.)

Prior to approval of the draft as a whole, a separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 3, which underlines the unanimous conclusion of the Court that there exists an obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament "under strict and effective international control". That paragraph was approved by a vote of 115 in favour to 7 against (France, Latvia, Monaco, Romania, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States), with 19 abstentions (Annex I).

Another separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 4 of that draft, which calls upon all States to commence multilateral negotiations in 1997 leading to early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination. That paragraph was approved by a vote of 87 in favour to 27 against, with 27 abstentions (Annex II).

The Assembly would call on States to conclude agreements for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence-building measures at the regional and subregional levels, according to a draft approved by a vote of

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

145 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (India). It would stress the need for sustained efforts, within the framework of the Conference on Disarmament, to make progress on the entire range of disarmament issues (Annex IV). By another draft approved today, the Assembly would give urgent consideration to conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels. The draft which was approved by a vote of 144 in favour to 1 against (India), with 4 abstentions (Brazil, Cuba, Libya, Venezuela) would have the Assembly ask the Conference on Disarmament to consider formulating principles that could serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control (Annex V). According to the terms of another text, the Assembly would call upon Member States to provide data for the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, and recall its request to Member States to provide the Secretary-General with their views on the continuing operation of the Register, its further development, and transparency measures related to weapons of mass destruction. The Assembly would invite the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work in the field of transparency of armaments. The draft as a whole was approved by a vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 15 abstentions (Annex VIII). A separate vote on operative paragraph 3 (b) of the draft, which concerns a report on the Register, was approved by a vote of 124 in favour to none against, with 11 abstentions (Annex VI). A second separate vote on operative paragraph 5, which concerns the Conference on Disarmament, was approved by a vote of 125 in favour to none against, with 14 abstentions (Annex VII). By a draft on objective information on military matters, approved this morning without a vote, the Assembly would recommend the Secretary-General's guidelines and recommendations for such information, and would call on Member States to report annually to the Secretary-General for the latest fiscal year for which data are available. It would request him to seek the views of Member States and make recommendations on necessary changes to the content and structure of the standardized reporting system of military expenditures, in order to strengthen and broaden participation. By another draft approved without a vote, the Assembly would welcome adoption by the Disarmament Commission of its guidelines for international arms transfers and would invite Member States to enact national legislation to exercise control over armaments and their export and import. Statements were made by the representatives of Argentina, Belgium, United States, Australia, France, Iceland, United Kingdom, China, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Russian Federation, Germany, Mali, Sweden, Chile, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakstan, India, Cuba, Syria, Iraq, Mexico, Myanmar, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Israel, Indonesia, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and Iran. The first Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to continue taking action on disarmament drafts.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to take further action on disarmament drafts. It had before it one nuclear-related text -- on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on nuclear weapons --and a draft on measures to curb the illicit transfer of conventional weapons. It also had two drafts on regional disarmament and security, three drafts on confidence-building measures, and a draft text on prevention of an arms race in outer space.

A draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/51/L.37) would have the Assembly -- in underlining the unanimous conclusion of the Court of the obligation to conclude negotiations on nuclear disarmament -- call upon all States to fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 1997 for a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting development or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.

Further terms of the text would have the Assembly decide to include the item of a follow-up to the Court's opinion in its provisional agenda.

The draft is sponsored by Colombia, Costa Rica, Fiji, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Uruguay, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

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 to exercise control over armaments and their export and import. It would also invite Member States to provide the Secretary-General with their views on ways of collecting weapons transferred illicitly, as well as proposals on the 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 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.

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

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.

The draft resolution is 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.

A draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/51/L.44/Rev.1) would have the Assembly decide to give urgent consideration to that issue. It would request the Conference on Disarmament, as a first step, to consider the formulation of principles to serve as a framework for regional agreements on conventional arms control. The Assembly would decide to include the item in its fifty- second agenda.

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

By a draft resolution submitted by the Congo, on behalf of the States members of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa, on regional confidence-building measures (document A/C.1/51/L.15) the Assembly would reiterate its appeal for voluntary contributions to the Committee's implementation of its programme of work. That appeal referred particularly to those measures promoting participatory systems of governance as a means of preventing conflicts, combating illicit arms trafficking, and setting-up an early warning system in Central Africa.

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would welcome with satisfaction the decision to hold a subregional conference of the Standing Advisory Committee in Brazzaville in January 1997 on the topic "Democratic institutions and peace in Central Africa".

According to a draft resolution (document A/C.1/51/L.18) on transparency in armaments, the Assembly would call upon Member States to provide requested data for the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, and reaffirm its decision to keep the scope of and participation in the Register under review. The Assembly would recall its request to Member States to provide the Secretary-General with their views on the continuing operation of the Register and on transparency measures related to weapons of mass destruction.

The Assembly would further request the Secretary-General to ensure that sufficient resources are made available to the Secretariat to operate and

First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

maintain the Register. It would invite the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency of armaments, and would also reiterate its call upon all Member States to cooperate at the regional and subregional levels with a view to enhancing international efforts aimed at increased openness and transparency in armaments.

The draft is sponsored by Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States.

A draft resolution (document A/C.1/51/L.47), on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military budgets, would have the Assembly recommend the Secretary-General's guidelines and recommendations for objective information on military matters to all Member States for implementation. It would have the Assembly call on Member States to report annually to the Secretary-General for the latest fiscal year for which data are available. It would request the Secretary-General to circulate annually such reports. It would request him to seek the views of Member States and make recommendations on necessary changes to the content and structure of the standardized reporting system of military expenditures.

The draft is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

A draft resolution (document A/C.1/51/L.43), on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, would have the Assembly reaffirm its recognition that the legal regime applicable to outer space did not, by itself, guarantee the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The Assembly would call upon all States, particularly those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and prevention of an arms race in outer space.

First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

The Assembly would request the Conference on Disarmament to re-establish its Ad Hoc Committee with a negotiating mandate at the beginning of its 1997 session with a view to negotiating such an agreement. It would urge States conducting activities in outer space, and States interested in conducting such activities, to keep the Conference on Disarmament informed of the progress of negotiations.

The draft is sponsored by Algeria, Bolivia, China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea and Sri Lanka.

Statements

The Committee began today's meeting with remarks on a draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/51/L.4/Rev.1), which the Committee approved yesterday by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 4 against (Canada, France, United Kingdom, United States), with 36 abstentions (see Press Release GA/DIS/3071, of 13 November).

By the terms of that text, the General Assembly would call upon all States to consider proposals to establish further nuclear-weapon-free zones, especially in such areas as the Middle East and South Asia. It would urge ratification by all regional States of the treaties establishing nuclear- weapon-free zones in Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific, South-East Asia and Africa, and call upon the States parties to those treaties to cooperate further with a view to consolidating the status of the nuclear- weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas.

ALEJANDRO DEIMUNDOTO (Argentina) said that he wished to make clear the position of his country with regard to that draft. Argentina was a country squarely in the southern hemisphere, bordered by the South Atlantic. As an original signer of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, establishing the South Atlantic as a nuclear-weapon-free zone, it was clearly committed to the concept of a peaceful southern hemisphere and South Atlantic. Argentina aspired to a genuine consolidation of the hemisphere as a nuclear-weapon-free zone. Its firm commitment to nuclear non-proliferation was beyond dispute. He stated that the configuration of yesterday's voting alignments did not necessarily leave clear the motivations of a number of States in the manner of its conclusion.

Action on Texts

The representative of Belgium, speaking also on behalf of the Netherlands and Luxembourg before the vote concerning the draft on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, said those countries would vote against the draft. It was not vote against the actual opinion of the Court. They did not believe they were authorized to read that opinion in

First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

a selective way. To choose a particular paragraph from the text could destroy the overall balance of the Court's opinion.

He said that only three paragraphs in the draft were actually derived from the Court. The draft thereby showed a certain frivolity and opened the way to undesirable distortions. More disturbing was the use of that opinion in a political way. The ultimate aim of the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the need to add to measures of non-proliferation were matters of priorities. However, the draft served neither objective.

The representative of the United States said her country would vote no on that draft, as well as on operative paragraphs 3 and 4, upon which separate votes were expected. The draft was not really about the opinion of the Court, but repeated the calls made in other drafts for immediate multilateral negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention. Her country had opposed those drafts in the past and would continue to oppose such calls.

She said that the draft selectively quoted language from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that served to narrow its context, and would appear to relieve non-nuclear-weapon States of any disarmament responsibilities. Operative paragraphs 3 and 4, taken together, attempted to turn the Court's opinion into a legal edict that required immediate negotiations and a rapid conclusion. The eighth preambular paragraph allowed that a multilateral forum should be held within the Conference of Disarmament.

The United States took the objectives of article 6 of the NPT very seriously, she said. The Court's added wording on the obligation to bring such negotiations to a conclusion did not enhance the obligation already set forth. As President Clinton told the General Assembly at its current session, as soon as the Russian Federation ratified the Treaty on Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START II), further negotiations would begin. That bilateral effort was the sensible approach and the one most likely to achieve concrete results. A multilateral forum was simply not conducive, given the extremely intricate process of nuclear disarmament involving sensitive trade-offs and sensitive security calculations.

The representative of Australia said his country would abstain in the vote on that draft. While his country was committed to the twin goals of non-proliferation and balanced steps towards nuclear disarmament, it was, therefore, sympathetic to the general aims of the text. However, there were many steps to be taken before the question of a single nuclear weapons convention could be productively addressed.

The representative of France said that his country had indicated to the International Court of Justice that it did not consider the Court an appropriate forum to consider the political question that had been put to it.

First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

Moreover, the opinion that had emerged from the Court showed that use or threat of use of nuclear weapons could be considered lawful under exceptional circumstances, such as the need for self-defence, whose primacy was enshrined in the Charter. France's own nuclear force was solely deterrent in nature, and was, indeed, an element of stability that contributed to international security.

The obvious conclusion was that the Court's opinion was clearly consistent with France's deterrent doctrine, he said. But the draft before the Committee offered tendentious and questionable interpretations of that opinion. It merged incompatible elements and was selective in its quotation of the opinion. It would contribute nothing to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. France would continue its vigorous pursuit of international security, but would vote against the draft before the Committee.

He said that if a separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 3, he would also vote against it. That paragraph, which evoked the Court's unanimous conclusion that there existed an obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, constituted a selective extract from the Court's opinion. France's position on nuclear disarmament was based upon the principles and objectives emerging from such agreements as the conclusions of the NPT Review Conference and the agreement to negotiate for a fissile-material production cut-off. France would continue to act in that way.

The representative of Iceland said that the Court's opinion was an important development in international law, but the text of the draft did not give a balanced and even-handed picture of the Court's opinion. It attempted to subordinate bilateral nuclear arms negotiations to the work of the Conference on Disarmament. Notwithstanding the worthy motives of the draft's authors, it could only diminish the value of the Court's opinion. He would abstain from voting.

The representative of the United Kingdom said he would vote against the draft, which was "ostensibly on the advisory opinion" of the World Court. His country's position was based primarily on operative paragraph 4 of the draft, which called on States to begin immediate negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention. If there was a separate vote on that paragraph, or on paragraph 3 -- which quoted partially and incompletely from the Court's opinion -- he would vote against them. The United Kingdom had always believed that the Court was not the suitable forum for the issue before the Committee. However, its negative vote should not be seen as diminishing its high regard for the Court. He deplored the present draft precisely because it, indeed, diminished the opinion of the Court.

In a separate recorded vote, operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on the opinion of the International Court of Justice was approved by 115 in favour to 7 against (France, Latvia, Monaco, Romania, Turkey, United

First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

Kingdom, United States), with 19 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

The Committee approved operative paragraph 4 of the draft by a recorded vote of 87 in favour to 27 against, with 27 abstentions (Annex II).

The Committee approved the draft as a whole by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 22 against, with 29 abstentions (Annex III).

Statements after the vote

The representative of China said he had voted in favour of the draft. China advocated complete prohibition and destruction of nuclear weapons. From the outset of its acquisition of those weapons, it had made a solemn undertaking that it would never be the first to use them or threaten to use them. It had frequently appealed to other nuclear-weapon States to negotiate a no-first-use agreement among themselves and to conclude a binding agreement not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States. If those concerns were met, the possibility of such use or threat of use would not occur. China had not participated in voting on the original resolution requesting the Court's opinion, but it fully understood the legitimate concerns of non-nuclear-weapon States. Therefore, considering that the draft was consistent with China's position, it had voted in favour of it.

The representative of Japan said she had abstained from voting because, as a country that had experienced the calamity of nuclear bombardment, Japan believed that the experience should never be repeated. It believed that the use of nuclear weapons was clearly contrary to the spirit of humanity that was at the core of international law. Many dissenting opinions had been attached to the opinion, reflecting the divided views of the judges. Although Japan concurred with the unanimous conclusion of the obligation to negotiate for a convention to prohibit nuclear weapons, it was more important for negotiations to begin for a cut-off of production of fissile materials, which was the next realistic step, rather than the convention called for in the draft.

The representative of New Zealand said he had supported the original resolution requesting the Court's opinion. Its findings were interesting. Of particular interest to New Zealand was the conclusion of the obligation to negotiate a prohibition of nuclear weapons. He hoped that it would serve as a reminder to the nuclear-weapon States of their responsibilities.

The representative of Spain, speaking in explanation of vote on the advisory opinion, said the draft just decided was not opportune nor appropriate for dealing with the cause of nuclear disarmament. It made selective use of the Court's opinion and took some of its elements out of context.

First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

His country fully supported endeavours to reduce those weapons and to achieve general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. The best way to contribute to the specific tangible goals was through guaranteeing the effectiveness of recent achievements. Urgent negotiations prohibiting production of fissile material for nuclear weapons were required.

The representative of Ireland said he voted in favour of that draft. The examination by the Court on the question of the legality of nuclear weapons had provided compelling arguments for further and deeper consideration of the moral and legal framework for nuclear disarmament, and had provided authoritative impetus for the undertaking and concluding of negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons.

He would have preferred that the draft set down a firm call on the international community to consider further the fundamental and challenging questions posed by the advisory opinion. The particular means of pursuing negotiations highlighted in the draft were not the sole possible means, and the vote had shown that they did not command the agreement of all delegations. His vote in favour of the draft was intended to underline his view that, in the wake of the Court's opinion, there was a new opportunity to pursue all efforts in good faith towards nuclear disarmament.

The representative of Portugal said that while his country agreed in principle with the ultimate goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons, it could not support that goal as proposed in the draft. The Court's opinion, which was complex and balanced, was not fully articulated in the draft.

The representative of Greece said his country held the Court in the highest esteem, but was unable to support the current draft. The authors of the draft had arbitrarily selected certain excerpts of the Court's opinion, which affected its spirit and content.

The representative of Austria said he had abstained from the vote with regret. He was in full agreement with the Court's opinion and urged further acceleration of the process of nuclear disarmament, which should culminate in a nuclear weapons convention. However, a number of intermediate but very concrete steps would have to be taken first. Those thoughts were not reflected in the draft.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he had voted against the draft as a whole. The text was an inaccurate and incomplete reflection of the content of the advisory opinion of the Court. In particular, the draft was completely silent about the fact that the Court did not conclude that there was an international law or prohibition against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the co-sponsors of the draft saw fit to use a selective and politicized approach to that opinion. Furthermore, the

First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

approach in operative paragraph 4 -- a nuclear weapons convention -- might not be the most effective or realistic way of reaching the final goal.

The representative of Germany said his country regretted that the draft used the advisory opinion in a way that forced Germany to vote against the draft as a whole. Despite opposition to the draft, his Government welcomed the thorough and balanced opinion of the Court, and fully shared the Court's conclusion, as quoted in operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution.

The representative of Mali said his delegation had abstained from the vote. The global elimination of nuclear weapons was the desired ultimate goal, and he, therefore, supported the objectives of the text. Negotiations in a multilateral forum should be aimed at that goal. However, the draft quoted selectively from the Court's opinion.

He said that nuclear disarmament was primarily a political task requiring effective verification. What was needed was full implementation of existing disarmament agreements, an early conclusion of START II, efforts to strengthen control of plutonium, uranium, and fissile material for weapons purposes, and increased transparency of nuclear arsenals. All nuclear-weapon States should demonstrate their readiness to continue and strengthen those efforts.

The representative of Sweden said his Government welcomed the advisory opinion, and voted in favour of the draft. However, Sweden welcomed and supported all efforts in the appropriate forums to achieve elimination of nuclear weapons. In that regard, the Conference on Disarmament and further effective measures by nuclear-weapon States themselves had an important role to play. He would have preferred to see that better reflected in the text.

The representative of Chile said that some Committee members seemed to feel that the draft did not fully do justice to the advisory opinion, and some explanations of the vote seemed aimed at detracting from the significant scope of that opinion. It was not accurate to say that the Court had accepted the principle that self-defence exempted a country from the prohibition on the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. That specific issue had not gained the consensus of the Court.

The draft's reference to the obligation to undertake and conclude in good faith negotiations on all aspects of nuclear disarmament could be considered selective, he said. However, that was not just a doctrine of the Court, but also the progressive trend in the international community. The ways and means necessary to address that challenge might be open for discussion, but not the need to negotiate. There was no room in the debate on the issue for exclusive areas being declared off-limits to the action of the international community.

First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

The representative of Argentina said that his delegation had abstained in the vote, based on the fact that the text did not reflect in a balanced and accurate way the advisory opinion of the Court. Such partial reflection detracted from the major contribution offered by the Court's finding. He highlighted the important role of the Court, which he said could not be separated from its opinion.

The Committee approved without a vote the draft on measures to curb the illicit transfer and use of conventional arms.

The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic said he would support the drafts on regional disarmament and conventional arms control at the regional level. The thrust of those two drafts addressed the problems besetting his region. Central Asia was a theatre of violent conflicts, where mutual agreement and confidence were urgently needed to defuse tensions. The newly independent States of Central Asia had chosen to move forward, despite the challenges of social and economic transformation.

He said the region was committed to resolving regional security concerns on a regional basis, with special attention paid to such problems as inter- ethnic conflict, drug trafficking, terrorism, and illegal migration. To eradicate those threats, it was essential to achieve mutual cooperation and the regular exchange of information. The President of his country had proposed a conference on confidence-building in Central Asia, but that proposal had not been fully implemented because of the lack of strong support from the international community. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was a good model of what could be done in Central Asia.

The representative of Kazakstan said she concurred with the remarks by the representative of the Kyrgyz Republic, and welcomed the call made by the President of that country for a conference on confidence-building in Central Asia. At the beginning of the year, a conference convened at Alma Ata had brought together more than 20 Asian States, including all the States of Central Asia, and had begun concrete work towards a common declaration on relations between the States of the region. A working group appointed by the conference was now drawing up draft documentation, which was under study by participants at the conference. After several meetings of that ad hoc group, a decision had been reached to hold a meeting at the foreign minister level, which had received strong United Nations support.

The representative of India said he had requested a recorded vote on the draft on regional disarmament, on which his country would again abstain. It understood the value of the regional approach to disarmament, but such an approach had to be subject to a freely arrived at set of principles that fully encompassed the security concerns of all States. The current draft reflected those concerns only partially. For example, it advanced as a goal the

First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

enhancement of the security of small States, whereas the security of all States should be the focus of the draft. Without that, the draft was not credible.

The draft on regional disarmament was approved by a recorded vote of 145 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (India) (Annex IV).

The representative of India, speaking on the draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional level, said the text suffered from various shortcomings. Once again, it failed to stress the need for an agreement freely arrived at among all States -- the militarily significant ones and the less significant States with limited military capabilities. In addition, it was not the task of the Conference on Disarmament -- a forum for negotiating global agreements -- to reach agreements on regional measures. Finally, the draft referred to arms control in South Asia. As the Committee knew, India had reservations on that issue -- it did not regard South Asia as a "region" in security terms. It would vote against the draft.

The Committee approved the draft on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to 1 against (India), with 4 abstentions (Brazil, Cuba, Libya, Venezuela) (Annex V).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Cuba said he had voted in favour of the draft on regional disarmament because it reflected the interests of all delegations, establishing the clear interdependence that existed between nuclear disarmament, global conventional disarmament and regional disarmament, although the draft did not contain several recommendations made by Cuba. However, Cuba had abstained from the vote on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels. It departed in many ways from previously negotiated texts and failed to stress the importance of participation by all regional States in the process. It also failed to evoke the legitimate right of States to self-defence. Cuba had, therefore, abstained. The Committee then turned to the draft resolutions on regional confidence-building measures and transparency in armaments.

The representative of Syria, speaking before the vote on the transparency in armaments draft, said he supported the world trend towards a world community free from use of force or threat of use of force. His country would participate in any international endeavour that would achieve that call. However, the draft did not take into account the special situation in the Middle East -- namely, Israel's continued occupation of Arab territory, its persistent refusal to adhere to United Nations resolutions, and its possession of the most weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, transparency in the area was just the tip of the iceberg. Accordingly, his delegation would abstain in that vote.

First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

The representative of Iraq said he would abstain in the vote on the transparency draft because it did not reflect the aspirations of Member States, namely, proof of the efficiency of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms in curbing the arms trade.

The representative of Mexico said that his delegation would abstain on the vote. Operative paragraph 5 of the transparency text invited the Conference on Disarmament to continue its work on the subject. However, he believed the Conference had concluded and completed its prior mandate, requiring a new mandate for any continuation in the field of transparency.

The Secretary of the Committee stated that there were no financial obligations to the United Nations upon adoption of the draft on transparency in armaments.

On a point of order, the representative of China requested a separate vote on operative paragraph 3 (b) and operative paragraph 5. He had not requested a separate vote on operative paragraph 3 of the draft.

In a separate recorded vote, operative paragraph 3 (b) of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments, which recalls the Assembly's request to the Secretary-General for a report on the operation of the United Nations Register on Conventional Arms, was approved by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to none against, with 11 abstentions (Annex VI).

In another separate recorded vote, operative paragraph 5 of the draft on transparency in armaments, which invites the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work in the field of transparency in armaments, was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to none against, with 14 abstentions (Annex VII).

The draft resolution as a whole was approved by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 15 abstentions (Annex VIII).

The representative of China, speaking in explanation of vote, said it was impossible to have absolute transparency. Efforts to increase transparency, regardless of specific conditions, might not help to promote confidence and build security. Only proper and realistic measures could promote trust.

The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms might be such a measure, he said, but the number of participants had not reached even half the Member States of the United Nations, and the Register had not achieved a reduction in international arms transfers. The most urgent task was to sum up the experience and lessons gained since the Register's establishment and move towards a universal register. His delegation had voted in favour of the draft as a whole, but abstained from the votes on operative paragraphs 3 (b) and 5.

First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

The representative of Myanmar said his delegation had abstained in the votes on the operative paragraphs and on the draft resolution as a whole. Transparency in armaments needed to be voluntary, non-discriminatory and universal. More time was needed for Member States to review that question, before taking further steps in that regard.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said his delegation had abstained on the draft, as it had last year. The Register did not serve disarmament. He wondered if it could really ensure transparency and whether transparency contributed to disarmament.

The arms trade was thriving, and the Register had recorded only a small number of weapons, he said. It had no influence at all over the big military Powers and certain developed countries that were intentionally transferring weapons on a large scale to conflict areas. The Register, in fact, served as an advertisement for weapon-exporting countries. After four years, it was still unclear whether it curbed the transfer of weapons or promoted it. A register should be developed to include not only weapons traded, but weapons deployed, aimed at their withdrawal.

The representative of Israel said that his delegation was among the first countries to support the Register. Transparency could not achieve its goals unless all countries provided data. While a lack of full participation persisted, the Register still had to meet the test of time. The existing categories of weapons should be consolidated before further ones were considered. His country did not support certain references contained in the text, and felt that additional countries from the Middle East must join the Register. Until such time, it would be premature to enter into discussions in transparency beyond those already agreed upon in the United Nations. Israel had voted in favour.

The representative of Indonesia agreed in principle with the general thrust of the draft, but did not believe it was appropriate for the Conference on Disarmament to continue its work in transparency, as called for in the draft. His delegation had, therefore, abstained.

The representative of Algeria said his country had always attached great importance to the question of transparency in military matters. However, it had once again been unable to support the draft, which continued to advocate handling of the issue in forums which had already demonstrated their limited capacities to meet the expectations of all States. He could not continue to support the search for measures that were unlikely to revitalize efforts aimed at installing a valid and effective system promoting genuine transparency in the military field.

The representative of India said he had abstained on the draft on transparency as a whole and on operative paragraph 3 (b). While India agreed

First Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

with the general thrust of the draft, that paragraph evoked developing and enhancing the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. Hasty development was unlikely to enhance participation in a mechanism that was still in its early years, and that was far from enjoying universal adherence. Universal adherence must be achieved before any such development could be considered.

The representative of Egypt noted that a divergence of views continued to exist on the Register of Conventional Arms. If it was to become a true confidence-building measure, it must be universal, comprehensive and non- discriminatory. It must establish equal rights for all participating States and take into account the legitimate security concerns of States. It must go beyond conventional weapons to embrace weapons of mass destruction.

He noted that the group of experts had been unable to reach agreement on any effort to expand the scope of the Register to include information on stockpiling or on indigenous production capacities, which he said was clear testimony to the lack of political will to meaningfully embrace the principle of transparency. He would continue to attach importance to the work of the group of experts and hoped that prospects for the eventual development of the Register would one day become less remote. He had abstained in the vote.

The representative of Cuba said that four years of experience in the operation of the Register had demonstrated that it was far from achieving universality. More time was needed, as well as a much higher level of response. Cuba had abstained from voting on the draft, and had also abstained from voting on operative paragraph 5, since the Conference on Disarmament had completed its work on transparency and would not now be able to add the issue to its agenda.

The representative of the Sudan said that his country supported the draft in principle. In its current state, the Register itself needed more transparency and clarity. The data it provided were too scanty. A number of developing countries, like his own, could not get hold of conventional weapons to defend their national sovereignty. He argued that the manufacturers of conventional weapons exported those arms selectively to developing countries. Such exports should be stopped. He stressed the importance of developing a register of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction parallel to the current Register.

The representative of Pakistan said that, while his country reported regularly to the Register, it believed that transparency was not an end in itself. It was merely one element in a broader approach to arms control and disarmament. He had hoped that a broader approach for conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels might be evolved. However, he had voted in favour of operative paragraphs 3 (b) and 5. The proposals encompassed by the draft envisaged a process that he could support.

First Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

The representative of Iran said he had abstained on the draft. Despite Iran's support for transparency in armaments, it regretted that no concrete efforts had so far been made to expand the Register's scope to include data on weapons other than conventional ones. There was no evidence that it had led to restrictions in the transfer of conventional weapons. There had been no efforts to promote full regional participation on an equal basis in the Register. Iran purchased fewer conventional arms than any country in the Middle East, he said, noting that not all States in the region reported to the Register. If new proposals emerged for a discussion on transparency, Iran was ready to insist that weapons of mass destruction be included in the Register's scope.

The draft resolution on objective information on military matters was then approved without a vote.

The representative of Israel, in explanation of vote on objective information on military matters, said he supported the cessation of the arms race and the reduction of military expenditures. However, global reporting on military expenditures would require a regional settlement.

The representative of Syria said his delegation would have abstained if that draft had been put to a vote, because of his position on the question of transparency, which had been explained during action on the transparency draft.

The representative of Pakistan said his country had gone along with consensus on the draft, but it favoured a comprehensive approach to the issue of military expenditures, especially in the context of security at the regional level. Future consideration of transparency issues, expenditures, or conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels should be taken on a comprehensive basis.

(annexes follow)

First Committee - 17 - Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

ANNEX I

Vote on Opinion of ICJ -- Operative Paragraph 3

Operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on the International Court of Justice's opinion on the use of nuclear weapons, which refers to nuclear disarmament negotiations under international control (document A/C.1/51/L.37), was approved by a recorded vote of 115 in favour to 7 against, with 19 abstentions:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: France, Latvia, Monaco, Romania, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Andorra, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Georgia, Greece, Israel, Kazakstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Spain, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Absent: Albania, Armenia, Bahamas, Barbados, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.

18

(END OF ANNEX I) First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

Annex II

Vote on Opinion of ICJ -- Operative Paragraph 4

Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on the International Court of Justice's opinion on the use of nuclear weapons, which refers to a multilateral nuclear weapons convention (document A/C.1/51/L.37) was approved by a recorded vote of 87 in favour to 27 against, with 27 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Gabon, Georgia, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Liechtenstein, Malta, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Sweden, Tajikistan, Togo, Ukraine.

Absent: Albania, Armenia, Bahamas, Barbados, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Trinidad and

19

Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX II)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

Annex III

Vote on Opinion of ICJ

The draft resolution on the International Court of Justice's opinion on the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/51/L.37) was approved by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 22 against, with 29 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstaining: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Norway, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Tajikistan, Togo, Ukraine.

Absent: Albania, Bahamas, Barbados, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Jordan, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Palau, Rwanda,

20

Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX III)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

ANNEX IV

Vote on Regional Disarmament

The draft resolution on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/51/L.31) was approved by a recorded vote of 145 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

21

Abstaining: India.

Absent: Angola, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Canada, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Palau, 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, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

ANNEX V

Vote on Conventional Arms Control at Regional Level

The draft resolution on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/51/L.44/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to 1 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo,

22

Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India.

Abstaining: Brazil, Cuba, Libya, Venezuela.

Absent: Angola, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX V)

23

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

ANNEX VI

Vote on Transparency in Armaments -- Operative Paragraph 3 (b)

Operative paragraph 3 (b) of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments, which concerns a report on the operation of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms (document A/C.1/51/L.18), was approved by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to none against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstaining: China, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon, Mexico, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Syria.

Absent: Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Oman, Palau, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, United Arab

24

Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX VI)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

ANNEX VII

Vote on Transparency in Armaments -- Operative Paragraph 5

Operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments, which concerns the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/51/L.18) was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to none against, with 14 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstaining: China, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Myanmar, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syria.

Absent: Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau,

25

Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Oman, Palau, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX VII)

First Committe Press Release GA/DIS/3072 22nd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1996

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Transparency in Armaments

The draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/51/L.18) was approved by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to none against, with 15 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstaining: Algeria, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Mexico, Myanmar, Saudi

26

Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syria, United Arab Emirates.

Absent: Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Grenada, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malawi, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zaire.

* *** *