PREVENTION OF VIOLENT DISINTEGRATION OF STATES CALLED FOR IN FIRST COMMITTEE DRAFT TEXT

15 November 1996

Press Release
GA/DIS/3074

PREVENTION OF VIOLENT DISINTEGRATION OF STATES CALLED FOR IN FIRST COMMITTEE DRAFT TEXT

19961115 Seven Texts Approved, Five by Recorded Vote; Conference on Disarmament, NPT Review Conference among Topics Addressed

The General Assembly would call upon all States, international organizations and United Nations organs to continue to help prevent the violent disintegration of States, under the terms of a draft resolution approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

According to that text, one of seven draft resolutions and decisions approved this morning, the Assembly would stress the importance of good- neighbourliness and friendly relations among States, affirm the need for strict compliance with the principle of the inviolability of international borders and affirm the need for strict compliance with the principle of the territorial integrity of any State. The text was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 7 abstentions (Algeria, China, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Pakistan, United Republic of Tanzania). (For details of the vote see Annex V.)

By another draft approved this morning, by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (India, Israel), the Assembly would note the decision of the States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to hold in April 1997 the first meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the NPT Review Conference, which is to be held in the year 2000 (Annex I).

The Assembly would recognize the legitimate aspirations of all countries that have applied for membership to participate fully in the work of the Conference on Disarmament, according to a draft approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Turkey, United States). It would consider all remaining applications for membership with a view to reaching a decision before the end of its 1997 session (Annex II).

According to one of two draft decisions adopted this morning, the Assembly would decide to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-second

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

session discussion of an item on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of vehicles for their delivery. The Committee approved that text by a recorded vote of 92 in favour to none against, with 53 abstentions (Annex III).

By a second draft decision, approved by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to none against, with 51 abstentions, the Assembly would include the item entitled "Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security" in its 1997 provisional agenda (Annex IV).

Acting without a vote this morning, the Committee approved resolutions that would have the Assembly:

-- reiterate its appeal for voluntary contributions to the Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa for implementation of the Committee's programme of work;

-- and request the Secretary-General to make recommendations and develop guidelines for the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures, such as collection, control and disposal of arms.

Statements were made this morning by the representatives of Egypt, Israel, Turkey, India, Syria, Cuba, Pakistan, China, United States, Chile, Paraguay, Malaysia, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, Liechtenstein, Algeria, Uganda, Iraq, Colombia, Costa Rica, Poland and Iran. The Director of the Centre for Disarmament Affairs also spoke.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. Monday, 18 November, to conclude action on its remaining drafts.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to take action on the remaining drafts on its agenda.

The Committee had before it: three drafts related to nuclear weapons; two on chemical weapons; one draft on regional confidence-building measures; drafts on the membership of the Conference on Disarmament and the fourth special session of the Assembly devoted to disarmament; a decision on disarmament measures; a draft resolution on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures; and two drafts on international security.

A draft resolution on the report of the Conference on Disarmament (A/C.1/51/L.1/Rev.1) would have the General Assembly recognize the legitimate aspirations of all countries that have applied for membership to participate fully in the work of the Conference on Disarmament. It would have the Assembly consider all remaining applications for membership with a view to reaching a decision on its further enlargement before the end of its 1997 session.

The resolution is sponsored by Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Greece, Ireland, Kazakstan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Malaysia, Portugal, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Tunisia.

A draft resolution (document A/C.1/51/L.3) on the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) would have the Assembly take note of the decision of the parties to the NPT to hold the first meeting of the Preparatory Committee in New York from 7 to 18 April 1997, for the Review Conference to be held in the year 2000. The Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to render the necessary assistance and provide the services required for the Conference and its Preparatory Committee.

The draft is sponsored by Sri Lanka on behalf of the States parties to the NPT.

A draft decision (A/C.1/51/L.7) on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of vehicles for their delivery notes that the Assembly decided to include the item in the provisional agenda of its fifty-second session.

A draft resolution (document A/C.1/51/L.11/Rev.1) on the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament would have the Assembly decide to convene that session in 1999. It would also decide to convene a meeting of the Preparatory Committee for that session before the end of the current Assembly session to set an exact date and decide

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

on organizational matters. It would request the Preparatory Committee to submit its progress report to the Assembly at its fifty-second session.

The draft is sponsored by Colombia on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.

By a draft resolution submitted by 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".

The programme budget implications of the draft on central Africa (A/C.1/51/L.52) states that the proposed revision of the budget would provide for substantive servicing of one regular annual meeting of the Standing Advisory Committee. The total cost of that meeting would be $171,800. Total contributions to date to the Committee's Trust Fund, established in March, stand at $602,932.

By a draft decision submitted by Colombia on the strengthening of international security (document A/C.1/51/L.22) the Assembly would decide to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-second session the item entitled "Review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security".

A draft resolution (document A/C.1/51/L.27) on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East would have the Assembly call upon Israel, the only State in the region that was not yet party to the NPT, to accede to it without further delay. It would also call on Israel not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons.

The draft would have the Assembly call upon Israel to place all unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.

First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

The Assembly would also welcome Djibouti's accession to the NPT, as well as Oman's decision to accede to it.

The draft is sponsored by Egypt on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the League of Arab States.

A draft resolution (document A/C.1/51/L.28) on establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, sponsored by Egypt, would have the Assembly urge all parties to consider the urgent steps required for implementation of the proposal for such a zone, and invite the countries concerned to adhere to the NPT. It would call upon all countries of the region that had not done so, pending establishment of the zone, to agree to place all their nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards.

The draft would further have the Assembly stress the importance of achieving rapid progress in the bilateral Middle East peace negotiations for the promotion of security in the region. It would invite all countries in the region to declare their support for establishing such a zone, and invite those countries not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or permit the stationing in their territories, or territories under their control, of nuclear weapons.

The Assembly would invite the nuclear-weapon States and all other States to render assistance in establishment of the zone, and invite all parties to consider appropriate means that may contribute to the goal of general and complete disarmament in the Middle East. It would request the Secretary- General to continue consultations with the States of the region and other concerned States in order to move towards establishment of a nuclear-weapon- free zone in the Middle East.

By a draft resolution on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures (document A/C.1/51/L.38) the Assembly -- in stressing the importance of certain practical disarmament measures, such as the collection, control and disposal of arms -- would request the Secretary-General to make recommendations and develop guidelines for an integrated approach to such measures, and to seek the view of Member States on the subject and include them in his report to the Assembly at its next session. The Assembly would call upon Member States and regional groups to assist the Secretary-General in that regard and to contribute actively to the implementation of such practical disarmament measures.

The Assembly would also invite the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research to consider assisting the Secretary-General by contributing a comparative report to such an integrated approach on the basis of its Disarmament and Conflict Resolution Project.

First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

The draft is sponsored by Angola, Australia, Austria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal and Romania.

A draft resolution (document A/C.1/51/L.42/Rev.1) on prevention of the violent disintegration of States would have the Assembly call upon all States, relevant international organizations and competent United Nations organs to continue to help prevent such violent disintegration. The Assembly would stress the importance of good-neighbourliness and friendly relations among States to the solution of problems among States. It would affirm the need for strict compliance with the principle of the inviolability of international borders among States, and request all States and relevant international organizations to communicate their views on the question to the Secretary- General. It would also affirm the need for strict compliance with the principle of the territorial integrity of any State.

The text is sponsored by Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Congo, Denmark, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States and Zaire.

By a draft resolution on the status of the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/51/L.48), the General Assembly would call upon all States that had not yet done so to sign and/or ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) without delay.

Other terms of the text would have the Assembly stress the importance that all possessors of chemical weapons or their production or development facilities be among the original parties to the Convention. In that context, the Assembly would stress the importance that the United States and the Russian Federation, as declared possessors of such weapons, be among the original States parties to the Convention.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Canada, India, Mexico and Poland.

According to a draft resolution submitted by Iran on the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/51/L.49), the General Assembly would stress the prime importance to the Convention that all States, in particular the two declared possessors of chemical weapons, should ratify the Convention before its entry into force. It would recommend that the States parties consider the implications to the full implementation of the Convention in case of its non-

First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

ratification by all States, in particular by any one of the two declared possessors of chemical weapons, upon its entry into force.

By other terms of the text, the Assembly would urge the early resolution of all remaining substantive issues by the Preparatory Commission for the Organization on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Statements

PRVOSLAV DAVINIC, Director of the Centre for Disarmament Affairs, following up on a prior question about the financial implications of certain drafts to be voted on today, announced that there were no additional financial requirements on the following three drafts: the Non-Proliferation Treaty, regional confidence-building and practical disarmament measures.

MAGED ABDEL AZIZ (Egypt) introduced revised versions of two drafts concerning the Middle East -- the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (A/C.1/51/L.27/Rev.1), and establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in that region (A/C.1/51/L.28/Rev.2). He said he hoped the drastic changes in the text on nuclear proliferation would lead to a positive vote.

In the revised draft on nuclear proliferation, preambular paragraphs 7 and 8 were merged and preambular paragraph 9 would now read, "concerned about threats posed to security and stability by the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the region". An additional preambular paragraph would read, "Noting the adoption of the Comprehensive- Test-Ban Treaty by the United Nations General Assembly".

In that same draft, operative paragraphs 2 and 3 were merged as operative paragraph 2. The name of the one State in those two paragraphs had been omitted.

In the revised draft on establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, preambular paragraphs 4 and 11 had been deleted. Operative paragraph 4 had been changed slightly from the same paragraph in last year's draft on the subject, and now read as follows: "Notes the importance of bilateral Middle East peace negotiations and the multilateral Working Group on Arms Control and Regional Security in promoting mutual confidence and security in the Middle East, including the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone".

He said the draft on a nuclear-weapon-free zone was identical to last year's draft, an indication of how much his delegation was working to have the draft adopted by consensus. There had been six new paragraphs in the original draft, but there were now no new paragraphs. He hoped for the draft's adoption by consensus.

First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

YEHIEL YATIV (Israel), speaking on two drafts before the Committee, said that his country's position on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East was well known and remained unchanged. No amendments to the draft would alter that position. Any amendment was politically motivated and therefore unacceptable. He hoped to have more to say on the issue at a later date. As for the draft on establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East, the new version was still unacceptable to Israel because it did not reflect the situation in the Middle East, where the peace process was indeed ongoing, as were the negotiations related to that process. The latest amendments would not bring Israel to consensus this year. Changing a single word would not persuade Israel to join consensus.

TUGAY ULUCIVIK (Turkey) proposed an oral amendment to the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

MAGED ABDEL AZIZ (Egypt) said he would not comment at this stage on the remarks by the representative of Israel.

Action on Drafts

The Committee approved the draft on the 2000 Review Conference of the parties to the NPT was approved by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to none against, with two abstentions (India, Israel). (For details of the vote see Annex I.)

Speaking after the vote, the representative of India said that in keeping with her country's position on the NPT, she had abstained from voting. She did not see the draft as procedural. She found it difficult to accept that the processes involved in the NPT should become legal tender in the United Nations through that resolution. An Assembly resolution was not necessary to set a date for the Review Conference. That could be done elsewhere. The draft sought to enhance the status of a Treaty to which her delegation objected. She welcomed the fact that the draft's request for assistance by the Secretary-General had no financial implications for the membership of the United Nations.

The representative of Syria said that he had voted in favour of the draft, but indefinite extension of the Treaty had left certain nuclear-weapon States outside the Treaty. He meant the Middle East. The 1995 conference had represented a unique opportunity for nuclear non-proliferation, to which Israel had not responded. Syria had originally refused to adhere to the NPT unless Israel submitted its nuclear facilities to the IAEA process. He could not accept that Israel, with its vast nuclear arsenal and its continued occupation of the territory of its neighbours, remained outside the Treaty. He hoped that the forthcoming review conference would take that factor into account.

First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

The representative of Cuba said his country's opinion of the NPT was well known. He had voted in favour of the draft because he believed the text was merely procedural. His vote should in no way be interpreted as a change of position on the NPT.

The representative of Pakistan said he had voted in favour because he believed the draft was unexceptionable and purely procedural. Pakistan's positions on the NPT were well known, as were the circumstances under which it could accede to the Treaty.

The draft on regional confidence-building measures was then approved without a vote.

The representative of China, speaking in explanation after action on the draft on regional confidence-building, said his country was very much concerned about the peace and stability of Africa. The advisory committee in central Africa, established in 1992, had adopted a series of measures. That effort was appreciated. The draft's approach was like that of administering a specific medicine for a specific illness. His delegation, therefore, joined consensus on that draft.

The draft on expansion of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament was approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Turkey, United States) (Annex II).

The representative of China, speaking in explanation of vote, said his delegation had voted in favour of the draft to expand the Conference's membership. China welcomed the admission of 23 countries to the Conference in June 1996. Those countries should join the Conference as full members, enjoying the equal rights of other Conference members.

The representative of the United States said his delegation had abstained in the vote on that draft, because the United States had not yet decided whether it supported the idea of expansion. The draft could imply a firm deadline for that decision. The number of members in the Conference now totalled 61, and his Government had not yet had sufficient time to evaluate the results of that expansion. He was, therefore, not sure whether it was wise to admit additional countries so soon.

There were good reasons to believe that such expansion might succeed, but it was vitally important that the Conference fulfil its key role and not become so large as to become unwieldy. His delegation had proposed language that would have made clear that the Assembly was not attempting to establish a deadline for taking action on such expansion. He regretted such an adjustment was not made. In practice, the Conference would decide that question at an appropriate time, which the wording of the draft did not adequately reflect.

First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

The representative of Turkey shared the view of the main thrust of the draft, but had abstained in the vote -- not because it wanted the door closed to new members, but because it had strong reservations about one particular application requirement to the Conference.

The representative of Chile said he supported the draft because his delegation shared the sentiment of justice and equity, and associated itself, in particular, with Latin American countries in that regard. The draft was not new, but served to remind the Conference of prior commitments. He hoped the various candidates would be considered.

The representatives of Paraguay, and Malaysia said that had their delegations been present for the vote, they would have voted in support of the draft.

The representative of Kyrgyzstan said the expanded membership would provide an opportunity for smaller countries to be involved in global issues.

Turning to the draft decision on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the representative of Mexico said that the issue called for comprehensive consideration of all its aspects by the international community. For several years, his country had advocated a frank and constructive dialogue on the issue, and proposed that the Secretary-General's report on the subject be considered by a group of governmental experts. He regretted that initiative had not succeeded.

It was necessary to adapt to the new realities of the disarmament agenda, he said. The draft decision on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was a concrete proposal that the item be kept on the agenda for the next session of the Assembly.

The Committee approved the draft decision on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of vehicles for their delivery by a recorded vote of 92 in favour to none against, with 53 abstentions (Annex III).

The draft resolution on consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures was then approved without a vote.

Speaking after the decision, the representative of China said he had voted in favour of the draft, but believed that the definition of small and light weapons remained unclear, presenting no basis for dealing with the transfer and use of those weapons. While China believed that appropriate transparency measures could help build trust among States, it was clear that countries differed in terms of size and strength. The regional and security environments in which they lived, as well as their need for armaments, differed from country to country. In general terms, then, the draft did not

First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

give the full picture. However, despite its different interpretation of the language, China believed that the main thrust of the draft was generally speaking consistent with the interests of regional States.

The representative of the United States said it was not his country's general practice to endorse blanket requests to the Secretary-General to develop particular recommendations in the general disarmament field. The United States believed that such decisions should be arrived at by States themselves, in established forums, such as the Conference on Disarmament, the Disarmament Commission and the First Committee itself. However, he had voted in favour of the draft because it was an important issue. He urged the Secretary-General to take into account the views of Member States in developing recommendations and suggestions.

The representative of Mexico, referring to operative paragraph 3 of the draft, said it was up to the existing United Nations bodies, not the Secretary-General, to make recommendations and suggestions. In general, Mexico was displeased by the revised Protocol II 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. Consistent with that position, he objected to the draft's welcome of that Protocol.

The representative of Egypt agreed with previous speakers that many aspects of the draft, such as its references to small arms and light weapons, needed fine-tuning. In referring to practical measures, the draft failed to define exactly what practicality meant. Furthermore, it did not give precise definitions of what it meant by "regional arrangements".

Turning to the draft resolution on the prevention of the violent disintegrating of States, the representative of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia thanked speakers in yesterday's debate for their reactions and suggestions to the draft. He noted that in consultations on the draft, the Chinese delegation had stated its preference for discussion of human rights and fundamental freedoms to be handled in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural). He was pleased that four permanent members of the Security Council were co-sponsors of the draft, and he regretted that the co- sponsors had been unable to bring China on board. However, he understood why China could not do so and fully respected its position.

He said he believed that the Committee's approval of the draft without a vote had been requested, although it was also his impression that China might request a separate vote on preambular paragraph 4, which concerns the obligation of States under the Charter. He pointed out that today's draft was a follow-up to the resolution on the importance of good-neighbourliness, adopted by the First Committee last year. However, he hoped for the

First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

Committee's approval without a vote, as a unanimous signal that the Committee stood against the violent disintegration of States.

The representative of Mexico said that his country could not accept the primacy accorded in the draft to territorial integrity, as against the principle, dear to Mexico, of non-intervention. Mexico would therefore abstain on the draft, and sought a recorded vote.

The representative of China said he had already enunciated his country's position on the draft. In yesterday's consultations with the co-sponsors, both violent and nonviolent disintegration had been discussed. China was against all forms of disintegration. It had requested a recorded vote, but not a separate vote on preambular paragraph 4, on which his delegation had particular reservations. He regretted that China's proposals had not been incorporated, and hoped that drafts in future sessions of the Assembly would address the questions he had raised

The draft decision on review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security was approved by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to none against, with 51 abstentions (Annex IV).

Speaking before the vote on the draft concerning the violent disintegration of States, the representative of Ukraine said the draft was of the utmost importance. It reaffirmed the basic principles of international law, including the inviolability of borders and territoriality. Ukraine supported its general thrust, adding that the time had come for the United Nations to consider ways of making the use of force inadmissible, and promoting adherence to international law. His delegation would co-sponsor the draft.

The draft on the prevention of violent disintegration of States was approved by a vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 7 abstentions (Algeria, China, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Pakistan, United Republic of Tanzania) (Annex V).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Liechtenstein said that since her delegation fully agreed with the thrust of the draft, it had supported it. However, the text could have contained additional elements that would have made it more balanced and more substantial.

She said that concerning the issue of friendly relations, the text failed to quote resolution 26/25 of the General Assembly, a crucial text in that context, which would have struck a clearer balance. Reference to the Charter was welcome, but she felt that the draft should have addressed the root cause of the violent disintegration of States.

First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

The representative of Chile said that despite his country's agreement with much of the text, he hoped the co-sponsors would correct the draft's shortcomings in a follow-up text.

The representative of Algeria said that all States were required to respect the Charter in prohibiting the use of force, preventing conflicts and avoiding intervention in domestic conflicts. However, the principle of self- determination was obscured by the draft, which contained legal imbalances that Chile could not endorse. The First Committee might not be the place for consideration of the draft.

The representative of Uganda said that his support of the draft was due to the emphasis of the well-known principles his country held dear. However, the draft was unbalanced, and presupposed that most disintegration of States had been caused by the interference of others. That view was incorrect, as there were other contributing factors, such as internal ones.

Marginalization of particular portions of society, and the phenomena of intolerance within States were primary causes of their disintegration, he said. To ignore those factors was to make a half-hearted attempt to solve the problem. In follow-up action by the co-sponsors and the United Nations, those other factors should be considered.

The representative of Iraq said that his delegation supported the noble goal of the draft, and hoped that all States refrained from attempts to disintegrate independent States. Unfortunately, attempts were being made by a super-Power, ironically a co-sponsor of the draft -- namely the United States -- to cause Iraq's disintegration by force, through imposing no-fly zones and arming and supporting rebel groups. He hoped the draft would help prevent such attempts.

The representative of Colombia supported the thrust of the draft, despite certain shortcomings in its language.

The representative of Costa Rica said his delegation had abstained in the vote. Costa Rica, as a country without an army, was against the violent disintegration of any State. If any State was to disintegrate, it should be through peaceful means. The draft did not reflect complete respect for self- determination of States, however.

Turning to the draft resolution on the status of the Chemical Weapons Convention, the representative of Poland, speaking on behalf of Canada, India and Mexico, said a second revision would be issued before the Committee took action on Monday. It was understood by the draft's co-sponsors that if the amended text was adopted without a vote, Iran would withdraw its draft on the Chemical Weapons Convention.

First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

The representative of Iran endorsed the statement made by the representative of Poland. If the amended draft on the status of the Chemical Weapons Convention was adopted without a vote, his delegation would withdraw its draft.

The representative of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and as co-sponsor to the draft on the fourth special session on disarmament (L.11/Rev.1) said that a revised version of the draft would be issued before action was taken next week.

The revised draft will incorporate the following:

Preambular paragraph 2 will read: "Recalling also that there being a consensus to do so in each case, three special sessions of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament were held in 1978, 1982 and 1988;"

Preambular paragraph 6 will add the word "interim" before the word report in line 1;

Operative paragraph 1 will read: "Decides, subject to the emergence on the consensus of its objectives and agenda, to convene its fourth special session devoted to disarmament in 1999."

Operative paragraph 2 will read: "Notes the view of the Secretary- General that preparations for the special session could begin in 1997."

Operative paragraph 3 will read: "Decides, subject to the outcome of deliberations at the 1997 Disarmament Commission session on the fourth special session on disarmament, to convene a meeting of the preparatory committee for the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament before the end of its fifty-first session, to set an exact date and to decide on organizational matters relating to the convening of the special session, and to submit its progress report to the General Assembly at its fifty-second session."

Operative paragraph 4 will remain the same as in the first revision.

Operative paragraph 5 will read: "Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-second session, an item entitled, 'convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament', and subject to the outcome of deliberations at the 1997 Disarmament Commission session, to take up the report of the preparatory committee for the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament."

The representative of Iran explained his country's position on the draft on the NPT review conference. Although the draft failed to specify the

First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

purposes of the Preparatory Committee, he assumed that the April 1997 meeting would consider both the procedural and the substantive aspects of the Treaty, as well as the decisions taken at the 1995 review conference. To ensure the success of the coming review conference, it was essential that States parties to the NPT hold appropriate prior consultations.

On the draft on expansion of the membership of the Conference on Disarmament, he said his country acknowledged the right of each Member State to be represented. But since the Conference membership had only recently been expanded, the new political balance should be allowed to operate for a while before fresh expansion was considered. As a negotiating body, the Conference could suffer adverse effects if it was transformed into an open-ended forum.

First Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/DIS/3074 24th Meeting (AM) 15 November 1996

ANNEX I

Vote on NPT Review Conference

The draft resolution on the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and its Preparatory Committee (document A/C.1/51/L.3) was approved by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, 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, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syria, 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.

Abstaining: India, Israel.

Absent: Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Burundi, Cambodia, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, 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, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX I)

16

ANNEX II

Vote on Conference on Disarmament Membership

The draft resolution on an increase in the membership of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/51/L.1/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 144 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: None.

Abstaining: Turkey, United States.

Absent: Bahamas, Barbados, Burundi, Colombia, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Honduras, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Nigeria, Palau, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX II)

17

18

ANNEX III

Vote on Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

The draft resolution on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of vehicles for their delivery in all its aspects (document A/C.1/51/L.7) was approved by a recorded vote of 92 in favour to none against, with 53 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: None.

Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Bahamas, Barbados, Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nigeria, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.

19

(END OF ANNEX III)

20

ANNEX IV

Vote on Declaration on Strengthening International Security

The draft decision on a review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security (document A/C.1/51/L.22) was approved by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to none against, with 51 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: None.

Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Angola, Bahamas, Barbados, Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Honduras, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Nigeria, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zaire.

21

(END OF ANNEX IV)

22

ANNEX V

Vote on Preventing Violent Disintegration of States

The draft resolution on the prevention of the violent disintegration of States (document A/C.1/51/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: None.

Abstaining: Algeria, China, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Pakistan, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent: Angola, Armenia, Bahamas, Barbados, Burundi, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Honduras, Jamaica, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, 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, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zaire.

* *** *

23