FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES FOUR DRAFT TEXTS ON RISK OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IN MIDDLE EAST, NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE, LANDMINES
Press Release
GA/DIS/3097
FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES FOUR DRAFT TEXTS ON RISK OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IN MIDDLE EAST, NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE, LANDMINES
19971112 The Assembly would call upon the only State in the region of the Middle East not yet party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to accede to it without further delay, according to the terms of one of four draft resolutions approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).By further terms of the text concerning the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, the Assembly would call upon that State not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons and to renounce possession of such weapons, and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. The draft, sponsored by Egypt on behalf of the League of Arab States, was approved by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 17 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex IV.)
Prior to approval of the draft, the Committee, in a separate vote, approved the sixth preambular paragraph calling on all States not yet party to the Treaty to accede to it at the earliest date. That paragraph was approved by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 3 abstentions (Cuba, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea) (Annex III).
Under the terms of a text on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere, the Assembly would call for the ratification of the Treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba by all regional States, and call upon all concerned States to facilitate adherence to the protocols to such treaties by all relevant States that have not done so. The draft resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 4 against (France, Liberia, United Kingdom, United States) with 36 abstentions (Annex VI).
Prior to approval of the draft, a separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 3. By the terms of that paragraph, the Assembly would welcome steps to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties on the basis of arrangements arrived at among the States of the region concerned. It would also call upon all States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in the resolutions to establish such zones in the Middle East and South Asia. Operative paragraph 3 was approved by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 1 against (India), with 9 abstentions (Armenia, Bhutan, Cuba, Estonia, Finland, Israel, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Viet Nam) (Annex V).
First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
[The treaties cited above are the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco); the South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga); the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon Free Zone Treaty (Bangkok Treaty); and the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Pelindaba Treaty).]
According to the terms of a 118-Power draft on anti-personnel mines approved today, the Assembly would urge all States to ratify without delay the convention prohibiting the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti- personnel mines and on their destruction. The text was approved by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions (Annex II).
By further terms of the text, the Assembly would call upon all States to contribute towards the effective implementation of the convention in the areas of victim rehabilitation, mine clearance and destruction.
Under the terms of a second text on anti-personnel landmines, the Assembly would urge all States to intensify their efforts to contribute to the objective of the elimination of anti-personnel landmines. The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 2 against (Eritrea, South Africa), with 19 abstentions (Annex I).
It would also invite the Conference on Disarmament to intensify its efforts on the issue, by further terms of the text, and call upon all States that had not yet done so to implement, as interim measures, bans, moratoriums and other restrictions on anti-personnel landmines.
Statements were made by Algeria, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, Finland, India, Iran, Israel, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Mexico, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United States and Viet Nam.
The 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 continue taking action on disarmament draft resolutions and decisions. It had before it four texts on nuclear disarmament and other weapons of mass destruction, two drafts on anti-personnel mines, a draft on regional disarmament and a series of texts on the following disarmament categories: conventional arms control; confidence-building and transparency measures; disarmament machinery; other disarmament measures; and related matters of disarmament and international security.
Under a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament with a view to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/52/L.28/Rev.1), sponsored by Japan, the Assembly would urge States not parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to accede to it at the earliest possible date. It would call for the determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating them, and by all States of general and complete disarmament.
The Assembly would call upon all States parties to the NPT to work for the success of the next Review Conference to be held in the year 2000. It would also call upon all States to fully implement their commitments in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Further terms would have the Assembly welcome the ongoing efforts to dismantle nuclear weapons and note the importance of the safe and effective management of the resultant fissile materials.
A text on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/52/L.5/Rev.2), sponsored by Egypt on behalf of the League of Arab States, would have the Assembly call upon the only State in the region not yet party to the NPT to accede to the Treaty without further delay. It would also call upon that State not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons and to renounce possession of such weapons, and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. It would further ask the Secretary-General to bring the provisions of the resolution to the particular attention of Israel.
A draft text on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/52/L.35) would have the Assembly call for the ratification of the Treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba by all regional States, and call upon all concerned States to facilitate adherence to the protocols to such treaties by all relevant States that have not done so. It would also call upon the States parties and signatories to those treaties to implement further ways to cooperate in the promotion of the nuclear-weapon-free status of the southern hemisphere.
First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
The Assembly would also stress the role of such zones in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime and in extending the areas of the world that are nuclear-weapon free, with particular reference to the responsibilities of the nuclear-weapon States in that regard.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Kenya, Liberia, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
[The treaties cited above are: Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco); the South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga); the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Bangkok Treaty); and the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty (Pelindaba Treaty).]
By the terms of a 118-Power text, the Assembly would invite all States to sign and urge them to ratify without delay the anti-personnel mines convention (document A/C.1/52/L.1). The Assembly would also call upon States to contribute towards the effective implementation of the Convention in the areas of victim rehabilitation, mine clearance and destruction. The Convention will be opened for signature in Ottawa from 3 to 4 December 1997, and thereafter at United Nations Headquarters in New York until its entry into force.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino,
First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
[The treaty cited above is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Landmines and on Their Destruction.]
According to a draft on anti-personnel landmines (document A/C.1/52/L.23/Rev.1), the Assembly -- taking into account the efforts to address the landmine issue and underlining that those efforts should be mutually reinforcing -- would urge all States to intensify their efforts to contribute to the objective of the elimination of anti-personnel landmines.
The Assembly would welcome, as interim measures, the various bans, moratoriums and other restrictions already declared by States on anti- personnel landmines, and it would call upon States that have not yet done so declare and implement such restrictions as soon as possible. It would also invite the Conference on Disarmament to intensify its efforts on the issue.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Australia, Belgium, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Cameroon, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Monaco, Mongolia, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States.
On the status of the Chemical Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/52/L.45), a draft text would have the Assembly urge all States parties to meet in full their Convention obligations and to support the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in its implementation activities. It would stress the importance of full implementation of, and compliance with, all provisions of the Convention.
The Assembly would also stress the importance to the Convention that all possessors of chemical weapons, chemical weapons production facilities or chemical weapons development facilities, including previously declared possessor States, should be among the States parties to the Convention.
The draft resolution is co-sponsored by Canada and Poland.
[The treaty cited above is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction.]
First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
By the terms of a 15-Power draft resolution on assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them (document A/C.1/52/L.8/Rev.1), the Assembly would encourage the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to curb the illicit circulation of small arms and to collect them in affected States that so requested. The Assembly would encourage the setting up in the countries of the Saharo-Sahelian subregion of national commissions against the proliferation of small arms. It would welcome Mali's action to collect such arms in the affected States of that region.
The resolution is sponsored by Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Japan, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Togo.
By the terms of a 43-Power draft on small arms (document A/C.1/52/L.27/Rev.1), the Assembly would call upon all Member States to implement -- in cooperation with appropriate international and regional organizations, and police, intelligence, customs and border control services -- the recommendations unanimously approved by the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms. Member States would be encouraged to carry out the recommendations for post-conflict situations, including demobilizing former combatants and destroying weapons.
The Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to implement the relevant recommendations and to initiate a study on the problems of ammunition and explosives. It would further ask him to prepare a report, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be nominated by him in 1998 on the basis of equitable geographic representations, on the progress made in the implementation of those recommendations.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, Germany, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom and the United States.
According to the terms of a 27-Power text on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.39/Rev.1), the Assembly would call upon States to conclude agreements for nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and confidence- building measures at the regional and subregional levels. It would stress that sustained efforts were needed, 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 - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia, Mali, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.
By the terms of a text sponsored by Egypt on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/52/L.2), the Assembly would reaffirm its conviction of the interrelationship between transparency in the fields of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction and transfers of high technology with military applications. It would ask the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on ways to enhance such transparency, with a view to enhancing transparency in the field of conventional weapons, and to include in his report to the Assembly at its fifty-third session a special section on the resolution's implementation.
Under a draft resolution on regional confidence-building measures (document A/C.1/52/L.6), the Assembly would invite the States members of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa that have not yet signed the Non-Aggression Pact to do so, and it would encourage all member States to expedite ratification in order to contribute to the prevention of conflicts in the Central African subregion.
The Assembly would welcome the Committee's programmes, which are designed, among other objectives, to set up an early-warning system for Central Africa, to retrain demobilized soldiers and prepare them for reintegration into civilian life, and combat the illegal circulation of weapons and drugs in the subregion. It would express its conviction that the full implementation of such measures would promote confidence and the establishment of democracy and good governance in the region.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Gabon, on behalf of the States members of the United Nations Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa.
Under the terms of a 93-Power text on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/52/L.43), the Assembly would call upon Member States to provide to the Secretary-General by 31 May annually the requested data and information for the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, including nil reports if appropriate.
First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
The Assembly would also invite Member States, pending further development of the Register, to provide additional information on procurement from national production and military holdings. It would decide to keep its scope and participation under review, and to that end, ask the Secretary- General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2000, to report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, with a view to a decision at the fifty-fifth Assembly session.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Republic of the Congo, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, and Venezuela.
The Committee also has before it the following texts on the United Nations disarmament machinery:
By the terms of a text on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/52/L.3), the Assembly would reaffirm its support for the continued operation and strengthening of the Centre as an essential promoter of the regional peace and disarmament dialogue in the Asia-Pacific region known as the "Kathmandu process". The Secretary-General would be asked to support the Centre's continued operation.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Australia, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Costa Rica, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam.
By a text on the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.11/Rev.1), the Assembly would decide, subject to the emergence of a general agreement on its objectives and agenda, to convene that session. By further terms, it would endorse the recommendation of the Disarmament Commission at its 1997 session to include that item in the agenda of the Commission's 1998 session.
First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
The draft resolution is sponsored by Colombia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.
A draft resolution on the United Nations Disarmament Information Programme (document A/C.1/52/L.16) would have the Assembly express its concern at the continuing decrease in contributions to the Programme, and it would invite the Secretary-General to continue to support the timely publication and distribution of the United Nations Disarmament Yearbook.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Indonesia, Mexico, Myanmar, Pakistan and Peru.
By the terms of a draft resolution on the report of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.20), the Assembly would reaffirm the role of the Conference as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community. It would welcome the determination of the Conference to fulfil that role in the light of the evolving international situation, with a view to making early substantive progress on its priority agenda items.
The Assembly would also welcome the desire of the Conference to promote substantive progress during its 1998 session, and it would encourage the Conference to further review its membership and intensify the review of its agenda and methods of work.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Costa Rica, Kenya and Sri Lanka.
A draft resolution on the report of the Disarmament Commission (A/C.1/52/L.21) would have the Assembly recommend the adoption of the following items for consideration at the Commission's 1998 substantive session: the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones; the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament; and guidelines on conventional arms control/limitation and disarmament.
The Assembly would reaffirm the role of the Commission as the specialized, deliberative body within the United Nations multilateral disarmament machinery that allowed for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues, leading to the submission of concrete recommendations on those issues.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Australia, Belarus, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Gabon, Ghana, Indonesia, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Romania and Viet Nam.
According to the terms of a draft resolution on the role of the United Nations in disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.42), the Assembly would reiterate that nuclear disarmament has the highest priority in efforts to universally advance disarmament. It would underline the necessity to promote disarmament and regulate armaments on the basis of negotiations reflecting the security
First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
interests of all States and it would reiterate that the adoption and implementation of disarmament measures should take place in an equitable and balanced manner.
The Assembly would reaffirm its support for the United Nations machinery on disarmament and it would reaffirm that the Conference on Disarmament was the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament. It would affirm its support for the objectives of nuclear and conventional disarmament, as set out at the first special session devoted to disarmament, and it would also affirm that the implementation of international disarmament treaties and questions of compliance should be carried out in accordance with the provisions of those treaties.
The draft resolution is sponsored by India, Iran, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan.
By the terms of a draft resolution on the relationship between disarmament and development (document A/C.1/52/L.9), the Assembly would urge the international community to devote part of the resources made available by implementation of disarmament and arms limitation agreements to economic and social development, with a view to reducing the widening gap between developed and developing countries.
The Assembly would invite all Member States to communicate to the Secretary-General, by 15 April 1998, their views and proposals for the implementation of the action programme adopted at the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development. It would ask the Secretary-General to continue taking action, through appropriate organs within available resources, for the implementation of that action programme.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Colombia on behalf of the Non- Aligned Movement, Costa Rica and El Salvador.
According to a draft resolution on the observance of environmental norms in disarmament and arms control agreements (document A/C.1/52/L.10/Rev.1), the Assembly would call upon States to adopt unilateral, bilateral, regional and multilateral measures to ensure the application of scientific and technological progress in the framework of international security and disarmament, without detriment to the environment. It would reaffirm that international disarmament forums take fully into account environmental norms in disarmament agreements and that all States contribute to ensuring compliance with such norms.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Colombia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.
A text on the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace (document A/C.1/52/L.12), would have the Assembly again state its conviction that the participation of all
First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
the permanent members of the Security Council and the major maritime users of the Indian Ocean in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee would greatly facilitate dialogue to advance regional peace, security and stability. The Assembly would ask the Committee Chairman to continue his dialogue with those parties, and to report to the Assembly on his consultations at an early date.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Colombia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, and Costa Rica.
According to a draft resolution on the role of science and technology with respect to international security and disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.14), the Assembly would urge Member States to undertake multilateral negotiations aimed at establishing universally acceptable, non-discriminatory guidelines for international transfers of dual-use goods and technologies with military applications. Member States would be invited to undertake additional efforts to apply science and technology for disarmament-related purposes and to make disarmament-related technologies available to interested States.
By that text, the Assembly would affirm that scientific and technological progress should be used to promote the sustainable economic and social development of all States and to safeguard international security.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Bhutan, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ghana, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Lesotho, Malaysia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Singapore and Sri Lanka.
In the category of related matters of disarmament and international security, the Committee has before it the following:
By a draft text on the consolidation of peace through practical disarmament measures (document A/C.1/52/L.18), the Assembly would stress the particular relevance of the deliberations at the 1997 substantive session of the Disarmament Commission concerning conventional arms control/limitation and disarmament guidelines, and it would encourage the Commission to continue efforts aimed at their adoption.
The Assembly would take note of the Secretary-General's report and recognize that the readiness of the international community to assist affected States in their efforts to consolidate peace would greatly benefit the effective implementation of practical disarmament measures. Interested States would be invited to establish a group to facilitate the process and to build upon the momentum.
The draft resolution in sponsored by Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belarus, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana,
First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay.
Concerning international security matters, the Committee has before it the following three texts:
A Non-Aligned draft decision on strengthening international security (document A/C.1/52/L.13), by which the Assembly would decide to include the item entitled "Review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security" in the provisional agenda of its fifty-fourth session.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Colombia, on behalf of the Non- Aligned Movement, and Costa Rica.
According to a draft on the development of good-neighbourly relations among Balkan States (document A/C.1/52/L.34/Rev.1), the Assembly would urge normalization of the relations among those States. It would call upon them to promote good-neighbourly relations and to undertake unilateral and joint activities, including, in particular, confidence-building measures within the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
The Assembly would also call upon all Balkan States and other interested States to participate actively in and support the negotiations on regional arms control foreseen in the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It would also call upon the relevant international organizations and the United Nations system to continue to support and assist that ongoing process.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Austria, Andorra, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
Under a text on strengthening security and cooperation in the Mediterranean region (document A/C.1/52/L.36), the Assembly would call upon all States of the region to adhere to all the multilaterally negotiated legal instruments related to disarmament and non-proliferation, thus, creating the necessary conditions for strengthening peace and cooperation in the region.
The Assembly would encourage those States to build confidence among themselves by promoting genuine openness and transparency on all military matters by participating in, among other things, the United Nations system for
First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
standardized reporting of military expenditures and by providing accurate data to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.
It would also encourage the Mediterranean countries to further strengthen their cooperation in combating terrorism, which posed a serious threat to regional peace, security and stability and, therefore, to the improvement of the current political, economic and social situation.
The draft resolution is sponsored by Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Libya, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
Statements MAHMUD KAREMA (Egypt), on behalf of the League of Arab States, presented the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/52/L.5/Rev.2). The draft was subjected to intensive consultations which finally led to its submission. The second revision was based on the draft adopted last year under the same agenda item. The current draft, however, took into account some of the prevailing realities in the Middle East region, which underlined a basic fact -- namely, that one State, Israel, remained outside of the scope of the NPT.
He said that point was precisely what preambular paragraph 7 stated objectively and clearly. It was not "name calling" or "singling out", but a simple and clear reflection of the reality stated in a carefully measured and descriptive manner. Only one country in the Middle East region was believed to possess a significant nuclear arsenal under unsafeguarded installation, and until now, refused to adhere to the NPT and place its nuclear facilities under the full-scope safeguards of the IAEA.
He said he hoped the adoption of the current drafts would positively motivate the international community. Universal adherence to the NPT remained a cardinal priority, not only for the States of the Middle East, but for the international community as a whole. Israel's refusal created an imbalance that could not continue, as it undermined the efforts made by regional and non-parties, particularly those efforts aimed at the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region.
As a token of efforts to consolidate international support for that measure, the title of the agenda item itself was changed from "Israeli nuclear armament" to "the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East", he said. That change highlighted the conceptual departure from confrontation to reconciliation and, hopefully, towards confidence-building. It was now Israel's turn to accede to the NPT or to indicate its intention to do so.
First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
There were some 129 Member States that voted in favour of the non- proliferation draft last year -- including from Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe, he said. The consolidation of the NPT remained a solemn and sacred duty which should be faithfully discharged without exception.
Action on Texts The representative of Israel said that the draft (document A/C.1/52/L.5/Rev.2) singled out and condemned Israel for not acceding to the NPT. The terms of the draft touched on Israel's security considerations. That, in itself, constituted threats to the security and stability in the Middle East region.
Israel was repeatedly a target, he said. The unprovoked missile attacks on its civilian population during the Gulf war was a prime example. It was once again not Israel that was threatening security and stability in the region, but other States. Iraq was a party to the NPT, but that did not eliminate the threats that that country posed to world peace. Yet, only Israel was the target of the condemnatory resolution before the Committee.
Taking the floor on a point of order, the representative of Egypt expressed the belief that the representative of Israel's comments referred to the first draft revision rather than the current second revision.
Continuing, the representative of Israel said the motives that compelled the Committee to press the second revised draft were political in nature and had nothing to do with the specific purpose claimed by its co-sponsors. Had the draft truly addressed itself to universality, it should be broadly applied. If the Committee wished to highlight the current situation in the Middle East, it should target the "real proliferator" in the region.
Furthermore, he said, the introduction of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test- Ban Treaty (CTBT) into the draft created a facade of respectability which the draft so lacked. As one of the original signatories of the CTBT, Israel rejected that inclusion. The current draft rendered a great disservice to the cause of non-proliferation in the Middle East by creating the illusion that it tackled that matter. Rather, it would remain irrelevant to the evolving and dangerous situation in the Middle East. He called upon all delegations to vote against the draft.
The representative of South Africa, turning to the draft resolution on landmines (document A/C.1/52/L.23/Rev.1), said that he would have to vote against the draft. Throughout the negotiation for a total-ban treaty, he had consistently indicated his willingness to explore further negotiations in the Disarmament Conference of a defined and focused transfer ban. However, the draft raised a number of serious concerns. While aspiring to urge for intensifying efforts to eliminate those weapons, particularly in the Conference, it failed to recognize the changed international situation since Oslo.
First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
He said that he would have accepted neutral language, given that certain countries were unable to support the treaty negotiated in Oslo. Referring to last year's draft and calling for intensified efforts did not give due recognition to that achievement. An integral part of the international efforts to address the landmines scourge was undertaken in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. The draft, while calling for intensified efforts on the part of the Conference, did not recognize the achievements of that Convention.
The representative of Mexico said he would abstain in the vote on the landmines draft which invited the Conference to intensify its efforts in that regard. The use of anti-personnel landmines was a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law. The only real solution was a total ban of those weapons, which was why he had supported the Ottawa process and why he would sign the convention in Ottawa. In order to promote a total ban, he would support efforts undertaken in all forums, including in the Conference. Yet, he did not see why it should partially or totally renegotiate what was agreed just last year in the context of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons or what was achieved this year by the Ottawa process.
The representative of Cuba said that the urgent appeal addressed to States in operative paragraph 1 of the landmines draft should address the specific objective of the indiscriminate use of those weapons. Furthermore, the explicit reference in operative paragraph 1 to intensified efforts by regional organizations should be supplemented with a reference that took into account the characteristics of each region, particularly those regions directly involved in the process.
He said that given the status of work done on landmines thus far, it was not a good idea to send a political signal to the Conference to give priority to the landmines issue over the matter of the highest priority -- commencing negotiations on nuclear weapons. For those reasons and others, he would abstain in the vote.
The representative of Iran said his country attached great importance to any ban on weapons that did not discriminate in their effects against civilians. The efforts aimed at global prohibition should be accompanied by efforts to assist victims. Efforts towards a ban on landmines should be negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament. Despite reservations on the draft, Iran would vote in its favour.
The representative of Israel said he would vote in favour of the draft, as he supported efforts to prevent the indiscriminate use of landmines. In practical terms, Israel had contributed financial aid to mine-clearance projects in Angola, and contributing to such efforts in other areas. Israel had recently extended its unilateral moratorium on exporting anti-personnel landmines, but reserved its use for self-defence, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention on
First Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
Certain Conventional Weapons. Israel needed to use those weapons, but supported a process in which each State undertook not to use them except where security circumstances required. Israel would participate as an observer in the forthcoming Ottawa Conference.
The draft resolution on anti-personnel landmines (document A/C.1/52/L.23/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 2 against (Eritrea, South Africa), with 19 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)
The representative of Portugal, said he was pleased to support the three drafts dealing with anti-personnel landmines, particularly document A/C.1/52/L.23/Rev.1. However, each forum should pursue its efforts towards the elimination of such weapons in close cooperation with the others. Portugal supported the efforts of the Conference on Disarmament, and hoped that they would be compatible with the Ottawa process. The revised draft had taken into account some of the concerns that had been raised by Members.
The representative of Chile said he supported the draft. It was a positive tool in permitting universality for the ban on anti-personnel mines. Realistically, the draft encouraged complementary efforts in different forums. His country attached particular importance to what the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva could do on the question of those weapons.
The representative of Brazil said that, as a country sharing almost 17,000 kilometres of non-fortified borders, it would have seemed logical to retain the use of anti-personnel landmines. However, it had joined the ban on such weapons, contributing to consolidating confidence with its neighbours. It would sign the convention banning anti-personnel mines in Ottawa in December. The Ottawa negotiating process had been successfully concluded. However, it was preferable if countries that had not joined the ban had done so. The draft resolution would, therefore, have been unnecessary. He supported the draft, but had reservations about the Conference on Disarmament, which had not been capable of playing its role in that regard. At a time when countries should have been able to capitalize on the positive situation at the end of the cold war, the Conference had been almost paralysed in its work on the most important issues before it.
The representative of New Zealand supported the draft because it dealt with contributions towards banning landmines. The measures outlined in the draft were temporary -- interim steps in the process of achieving the complete elimination of those weapons, as required in the Ottawa convention.
The representative of the Netherlands said his country had taken an active stand to achieve a global and complete ban on anti-personnel mines. The Ottawa convention was a milestone in that process. He strongly hoped that all countries would sign it. Concerning efforts in the Conference on Disarmament, as stipulated in the draft, duplication should be avoided, and there should be no conflicting
First Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
regimes established. Other forums should not deviate from the achievements of the Ottawa process. Although he had misgivings about the draft resolution, he had voted in favour, because the Netherlands did not want to stand in the way of any progress on the issue.
The representative of Togo said the issue of anti-personnel landmines was of paramount importance. But consensus was important. Despite consultations on the draft, consensus had not been achieved, and he had abstained.
The representative of Norway, explaining his vote in favour of the draft, said that action was consistent with, and complementary to, the draft concerning the Ottawa process (document A/C.1/52/L.1). It dealt with interim measures for the total elimination of landmines. It invited the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate on the issue, although it did not mandate a specific negotiating role for it.
The representative of Austria, explaining his vote in favour of the draft resolution on anti-personnel landmines, said all States should intensify their efforts towards the total elimination of such mines. As the global norm had now been set, all relevant forums should be used to universalize the Ottawa convention. Negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament should be considered as stepping stones for the total elimination of such weapons. Unilateral moratoriums could only be considered interim measures.
The representative of Madagascar said that had he been present when the vote was taken, as co-sponsor, he would have voted in favour of the draft on anti-personnel landmines.
The representative of Bangladesh said he believed in the principles of general and complete disarmament as a constitutional and moral obligation. He believed that the elements of an agreement to eliminate anti-personnel landmines should buttress the security of all States, not weaken it. However, he supported the draft as it constituted a step towards the goal of the elimination of such weapons.
The representative of Slovenia said he voted for the draft, as he supported efforts in all forums seeking the banning of anti-personnel landmines.
The representative of Singapore, speaking on the draft on the convention on anti-personnel mines (document A/C.1/52/L.1), said his Government's position on landmines had been active and open. It had declared a two-year moratorium on the export of those landmines that had no self-destruct mechanism. He would vote in support of the draft.
However, he said, he firmly believed that the legitimate security concerns and right to self-defence could not be disregarded. A blanket ban, therefore, might be counter-productive. The draft appeared to have skirted over the need
First Committee - 17 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
of the legitimate security interests of certain countries. Those serious questions, including assistance to less developed countries to reduce their dependence on those weapons, needed to be addressed, as well as the complicated task of demining.
The representative of Pakistan said that given the position expressed at yesterday's meeting, he would abstain in the vote. For legitimate security reasons, he could not respond to the invitation in operative paragraph 1 to sign the convention. He sought clarification on the programme budget implications of the draft and concerning costs to be borne by States parties. He also asked whether the terms included in the draft prejudged action by the Fifth Committee.
The Committee secretariat explained that there would be no additional regular budget implications; the expenses would fall on the States parties to the convention. Furthermore, there was no prejudgement of action by the Fifth Committee.
The representative of Cameroon said that he had decided to co-sponsor the draft on the mines convention.
The representative of Viet Nam said that he had made his position clear on the landmines issue. As a victim of those weapons, his country recognized the efforts made by related forums and understood the human tragedy. Viet Nam had acceded to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and supported the prohibition of their indiscriminate use. However, the legitimate security concerns of States and their legitimate right to self-defence must be considered. While stressing the question of that weapons' indiscriminate use, he would have to abstain in the vote on the current draft.
The draft resolution on the convention on anti-personnel mines document (A/C.1/52/L.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex II.)
Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said that his country's security concerns precluded it from joining others in the convention's signing in December. While the United States had abstained in the vote on the draft, President Clinton remained committed to eliminating landmines, while meeting his security concerns.
Continuing, he said that the President had announced on 17 September that, by the year 2003, the United States would no longer use anti-personnel landmines outside the Korean peninsula. Within that area, it would have alternatives to those weapons by the year 2006. The Secretary of State had announced an initiative called "Demining 2010" aimed at working with other countries to accelerate demining activities. Efforts to eliminate those weapons had taken a quantum leap over the last several years. The United
First Committee - 18 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
States looked forward to working with all States and others towards that common goal. The representative of Algeria said that he had supported the draft text on anti-personnel mines convention. Algeria had fully participated in the work of Oslo and wished to support a total ban on the manufacture, stockpiling, use and transfer of those weapons. While he hoped for a total ban on non- discriminatory landmines, that objective required universal support.
Continuing, he said that Algeria supported the position of those countries that were currently unable to join the process. He had also supported the landmines draft (document A/C.1/52/L.23/Rev.1), which invited the Conference to intensify its efforts in the issue of landmines.
The representative of Finland said that he had voted in favour of the draft because he strongly supported its thrust. Finland was fully committed to the goal of a global total and effective ban on anti-personnel landmines, and had worked actively towards that end. It would continue to do so in the Conference on Disarmament. Finland could not, however, associate itself with the specific language contained in operative paragraph 1, which invites all States to sign the mines convention, for reasons that were well-known. He was pleased, however, that the Assembly was, for the first time, addressing the landmine issue in a truly comprehensive manner. The issue was too complex and too important to be adequately addressed by just one resolution. The Committee had before it three complementary drafts.
The representative of Turkey said that he had abstained in the vote on the draft on the mines convention. The indiscriminate use of those weapons caused human suffering and casualties and also adversely affected economic development and reconstruction. He, therefore, supported the goal of ending such tragedy. Given the humanitarian considerations, Turkey had put into effect a renewable three-year moratorium on the export of such weapons and had participated in mine- clearance activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, a stronger measure must be the product of extensive consultations that encompassed the humanitarian and security aspects of the issue. Such a measure must also fully take into account the fact that those weapons were indiscriminately and irresponsibly used by terrorists.
He said that the mines convention failed to strike a balance between humanitarian concerns and legitimate security needs of States, and was heavily tilted towards the former. Some major actors in the field had chosen to remain outside the Ottawa process and could not support last year's draft or the one just adopted. That was a strong indication that the convention agreed to in Oslo would not achieve universality in the foreseeable future. The Conference on Disarmament was the competent forum to bring about an international, universally acceptable, effectively verifiable landmine ban. He had just decided to co-sponsor the draft on anti-personnel landmines (document A/C.1/52/L.23/Rev.1), which the Committee had already adopted.
First Committee - 19 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
The representative of Azerbaijan said that he fully supported the adoption of a comprehensive, international legal instrument prohibiting anti-personnel landmines and promoting their destruction. A total ban of those weapons was one of the urgent humanitarian tasks of the international community. However, the present security situation and the absence of alternatives currently precluded him from joining a total ban. Some 20 per cent of his country was occupied. Meanwhile, the Oslo convention strictly prohibited the use of those weapons, demanding their destruction without exception. His country needed to use those weapons in exercise of its right of self-defence. The threat of resumed hostilities persisted on his country, and it needed to use mines as a deterrence. He, therefore, could not support the draft just approved.
The representative of Egypt supported the humanitarian objective of the convention and also supported the prohibition of anti-personnel landmines. The weapon faced objections by numerous States which had endured tremendous suffering. However, Egypt was locked in a situation, partially prompted by the need for legitimate security requirements. Until another alternative was found, the weapon offered a defensive alternative along its borders and guarded against terrorist infiltration.
Furthermore, he said that the draft convention did not lay down the legal framework to identify the responsibility of States that laid landmines in the territories of other States. Certain paragraphs underscored the moral responsibilities of the countries that masterminded the emplacement of mines in Africa during the First World War and colonial conflicts, and urged those countries to devote part of its resources to mine clearance and assistance to mine victims in the affected African countries. While Egypt had steadfastly followed the Ottawa process, and while it supported the conclusion of a universal, legally binding convention to prohibit those mines, it believed the forum most equipped to negotiate it was the Conference of Disarmament.
The representative of Myanmar said that, while his country supported banning the transfer and indiscriminate use of landmines and had participated in the Ottawa process, it was not in a position to associate itself with those States soon to be parties to the convention.
He said that he favoured a step-by-step approach to the landmines question. Their indiscriminate use and transfer were the real issues requiring an urgent banning. A significant number of countries still had reservations concerning a total ban. Other international agreements had evolved from consensus among States. Here, the absence of consensus was conspicuous. A humanitarian issue had suddenly become a disarmament issue. It was imperative that, in dealing with that issue, the legitimate security of States be fully taken into account. Further pursuit of the issue in the Conference was appropriate. It was for those reasons that his delegation had abstained in the vote on the mines convention draft (document A/C.1/52/L.1) and had voted in favour of the draft on anti- personnel landmines (document A/C.1/52/L.23/Rev.1).
First Committee - 20 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
The representative of Lebanon had voted in favour of the mines convention draft. He could adhere to the convention as called for in preambular paragraphs 1 and 2 of the draft text after the end of Israeli occupation of Lebanon and all other Arab territories.
The representative of India said that while he shared the objective of banning anti-personnel landmines, he had reservations about the draft. Such a ban could be achieved in a meaningful way through a phased approach that took into account defence requirements of States. That approach would build confidence and enable States to deal with the humanitarian crisis. The availability of non-lethal technology to perform the legitimate defensive role of landmines would accelerate their complete elimination. While greater efforts would be dedicated to mine clearance, he had abstained in the vote on the draft in view of the reasons cited.
The representative of Cuba said that the main objective should be to maximize the protection of the civilian population without restricting the military capabilities of States in their efforts to preserve their security. The absence of that important principle in the mines convention draft was precisely why Cuba had abstained in the vote. Mines continued to be required for the legitimate self-defence of many States, particularly of the developing ones that did not possess the necessary resources to acquire alternative means of self-defence. Although the hostility of one nuclear-weapon State persisted towards his country, Cuba would use all means to eliminate the horrible suffering by civilians from the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines.
The representative of Iran, as a country affected by millions of landmines, supported any genuine initiative dealing with a ban on those weapons. It had participated in the Ottawa process as an observer, and expected its result to be a comprehensive and balanced document that took into account both the humanitarian and security aspects of the problem. The final Oslo text did not meet those concerns in a clear and concrete manner. He, therefore, abstained in the vote on the mines convention draft, and hoped that the Conference on Disarmament would commence negotiations for a comprehensive and universally acceptable agreement to ban anti-personnel landmines.
The representative of Bulgaria said that he had voted in favour of the mines convention draft, bearing in mind the tremendous humanitarian problem posed by those weapons. He had also voted in favour of the landmines draft last year. Attaching great importance to the disarmament aspects of the issue, Bulgaria had co-sponsored the anti-personnel landmines draft (document A/C.1/52/L.23/Rev.1) as a complementary and non-competitive effort. Bulgaria had already started demining activities with a view to eliminating the old mine fields placed along its southern border. Bulgaria was carrying out an in-depth analysis of its military doctrine. Future accession to the convention on total ban of anti-personnel mines would incur considerable financial and material expenses, for which Bulgaria would require bilateral and multilateral
First Committee - 21 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
support. The work so far achieved in the Ottawa process was a good basis towards a comprehensive solution to the landmines problem, which should enjoy the broadest possible support.
The representative of Israel said that he had abstained on the mines convention draft. In view of his country's position on such weapons, Israel was precluded from signing the Ottawa convention, and, therefore, could not support the draft.
The Committee then proceeded to consider the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (A/C.1/52/L.5/Rev.2).
Speaking before action on the draft, the representative of the United States said he would vote against the text because it singled out Israel, and it was unacceptable in any form. The draft resolution did nothing to further the mutual arms control objectives of the countries in the region. Substantive agreements would only occur within the broader context of the Middle East peace process, to which the United States was fully committed.
The representative of Israel said he would vote against draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. His country's attitude towards the NPT had unjustifiably become the focus of criticism. There were other countries whose security situation meant that they were unable to sign the Treaty, and they had not been criticised in the same way. The NPT did not provide an adequate response to the security situation in the Middle East.
At a previous meeting, the Committee had adopted, by consensus, a draft resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (A/C.1/52/L.4), he continued. That covered all the principles for the establishment of such a zone, and the draft resolution currently before the Committee for action was, therefore, unnecessary. Its only objective was to single out and condemn Israel. The adoption of the draft would only be meaningful if it were adopted by consensus. Its adoption by majority vote would render it meaningless.
The representative of Iran said he would vote for the draft because the content was faithful to the real situation in the Middle East. It called on Israel, the only State not party to the NPT, to join the treaty and to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. Despite repeated calls for it to do so, there had been no change in the policy of Israel. If Israel did as was requested, that would facilitate the establishment of a nuclear-weapon- free zone in the Middle East.
A separate vote was requested on preambular paragraph 6 of the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (A/C.1./52/L.5/Rev.2), calling on all States not yet party to the NPT to accede to it at the earliest date.
First Committee - 22 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
Preambular paragraph 6 of the draft resolution, on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel,) with 3 abstentions (Cuba, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea). (See Annex III.)
The draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (A/C.1/52/L.5/Rev.2) as a whole was approved by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 17 abstentions. (See Annex IV.)
In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Tunisia said he had not voted on preambular paragraph 6. Had he had done so, he would have supported it.
The representative of India had abstained on the draft as a whole and voted against preambular paragraph 6. The reasons were consistent with India's stand on the NPT. India was not a party to the Treaty, and had no plans to become one. He could not, therefore, support a call on all States to accede to that Treaty.
The representative of Pakistan said he supported the draft on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East because it endorsed the objectives of nuclear non-proliferation in the region. It would have been preferable if the draft had been restricted to considerations relating solely to the region of the Middle East. He was concerned about the insertion of preambular paragraph 6, calling for adherence to the NPT. Because of Pakistan's security situation, it could not accede to the NPT. He hoped that the sponsors of the draft would reconsider the inclusion of that provision in further drafts on the subject.
The representative of Saudi Arabia said he voted in favour of the draft. As everyone knew, Israel was the only State in the region that had not acceded to the NPT. Israel should abandon nuclear weapons and put all of its nuclear installations under the safeguards of the IAEA. Such a move would reinforce the trust of all the peoples of the region.
The Committee then took up the draft on the establishment of a nuclear- weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (A/C.5/52/L.35). A separate vote was requested on operative paragraph 3 of the draft, calling on all States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia.
Operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere was approved by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 1 against (India), with 9 abstentions (Armenia, Bhutan, Cuba, Estonia, Finland, Israel, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Viet Nam). (See Annex V.)
First Committee - 23 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
The draft on the resolution on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon- free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (A/C.1/52/L.35) as a whole was approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 4 against (France, Liberia, United Kingdom, United States), with 36 abstentions. (See Annex VI.)
The representative of the United States, on behalf of France, United Kingdom and the United States, said he had voted against the draft because, despite consultations, it did not address certain problems. Why would the sponsors not explicitly state that the draft would not impinge on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? The text of the draft had improved, and he hoped future drafts would be acceptable. The vote in no way lessened those countries' commitment to existing nuclear-weapon-free zones, or to the establishment of further such zones.
The representative of China said he had voted in favour of the draft on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (A/C.1/52/L.35). China had always respected and supported the efforts to establish such zones, on the basis that they were freely arrived at and negotiated by States within the regions.
China had signed and ratified the relative parts of all nuclear-weapon- free zone treaties, except the one that proposed the establishment of such a zone in South Asia, he said. He believed that the establishment of nuclear- weapon-free zones represented a major contribution towards the non-nuclear proliferation regime. All such zones should be in keeping with the Charter and all principles of established international law, and should be based on equal and willing consultations. The geographical scope should not cover areas where there were territorial disputes. He noted that the draft voted on referred to applicable principles of maritime law. It did not seek to create any new legal principles above existing nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties.
The representative of India, referring to his vote against operative paragraph 3 of the draft, said he welcomed steps towards creating nuclear- weapon-free zones that were based on arrangements freely arrived at. His country's position on that was well known. He had called for the separate vote on that paragraph.
The representative of Israel had abstained in the voting on operative paragraph 3. He believed the establishment of such zones should come from freely agreed negotiations of the States within the concerned region.
The representative of Egypt, speaking about the separate vote on operative paragraph 3, said that as a co-sponsor of the draft, Egypt would have voted in favour.
The representative of the Republic of Korea, regarding the voting on operative paragraph 3, said that, due to a misunderstanding on the part of his
First Committee - 24 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
delegation, it had abstained, but the position of his Government was to support that paragraph.
The representative of Slovakia said that, also because of a misunderstanding, he had abstained. He would like to have voted in favour of operative paragraph 3.
The representative of Liberia said he had voted against the draft resolution by mistake. He requested a correction. As a co-sponsor of the draft, he would have voted in its favour.
(annexes follow)
First Committee - 25 - Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
ANNEX I
Vote on Anti-Personnel Landmines
The draft resolution on anti-personnel landmines (document A/C.1/52/L.23/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 2 against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Republic of the Congo, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen.
Against: Eritrea, South Africa.
Abstain: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Syria, Togo, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Absent: Afghanistan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Korea, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.
(END OF ANNEX I)
26
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
ANNEX II
Vote on Anti-Personnel Mines Convention
The draft resolution on the anti-personnel mines (document A/C.1/52/L.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Republic of the Congo, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: None.
Abstain: Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Syria, Turkey, United States.
Absent: Afghanistan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Nigeria, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.
27
(END OF ANNEX II)
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
ANNEX III
Vote on Sixth Preambular Paragraph on Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in Middle East
The sixth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/52/L.5/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of the Congo, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: India, Israel.
Abstain: Cuba, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea.
Absent: Afghanistan, Armenia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Lesotho, Madagascar, Palau, Republic of Moldova,
28
Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.
(END OF ANNEX III)
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
ANNEX IV
Vote on Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in Middle East
The draft resolution on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/52/L.5/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 2 against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Israel, United States.
Abstain: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Côte d'Ivoire, Estonia, India, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nepal, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of the Congo, Singapore, Uruguay.
Absent: Afghanistan, Armenia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia,
29
Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Madagascar, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.
(END OF ANNEX IV)
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
ANNEX V
Vote on Operative Paragraph 3 of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere
Operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/52/L.35) was approved by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 1 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Fiji, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myamnar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Republic of the Congo, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, 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, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: India.
Abstain: Armenia, Bhutan, Cuba, Estonia, Finland, Israel, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Viet Nam.
30
Absent: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Costa Rica, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Seychelles, Syria, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen.
(END OF ANNEX V)
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3097 20th Meeting (AM) 12 November 1997
ANNEX VI
Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere
The draft resolution on the nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/52/L.35) was approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 4 against, with 36 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: France, Liberia, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: Albania, Armenia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
31
India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey.
Absent: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Lesotho, Madagascar, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.
* *** *