NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ACCORDED HIGHEST PRIORITY BY FIRST COMMITTEE TEXT

14 November 1997

Press Release
GA/DIS/3100

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT ACCORDED HIGHEST PRIORITY BY FIRST COMMITTEE TEXT

19971114 Other Drafts Concern Small Arms, Transparency, Special Session, Asia-Pacific Disarmament Centre

The General Assembly would reiterate that nuclear disarmament has the highest priority in efforts to universally advance disarmament, according to the terms of one of five draft resolutions approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would underline the need to promote disarmament and regulate armaments on the basis of negotiations reflecting the security interests of all States. It would reaffirm that the Conference on Disarmament was the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament.

Following a discussion concerning the revised draft -- which deleted a reference to the Secretary-General's reform programme in order not to overlap with the work of the Assembly -- the text was approved by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 42 against, with 9 abstentions (Argentina, Canada, Georgia, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Malta, Marshall Islands, Republic of Korea, Uruguay). (For details of the vote, see Annex IV).

By the terms of a draft text on transparency in armaments that was approved today, 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.

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. The Committee approved the draft by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to none against, with 10 abstentions (Algeria, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Mexico, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Syria) (Annex III).

Prior to approve of the draft, the Committee held two separate votes. By the first, it approved operative paragraph 5(b) asking the Secretary- General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts, to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its future development.

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

The vote was 127 in favour to none against, with 8 abstentions (China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, Lebanon, Mexico, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Syria) (Annex I).

The Committee approved operative paragraph 7, which invited the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work in the field of transparency in armaments, by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to none against, with 14 abstentions (Annex II).

Under the terms of another draft approved today as orally revised, the Assembly would call upon all Member States -- in cooperation with appropriate international and regional organizations and police, intelligence, customs and border control services -- to implement the recommendations unanimously approved by the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, bearing in mind Member States' views on them. The text was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 8 abstentions (Bahrain, Israel, Mongolia, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates). (Annex VI.)

Prior to approval of the draft, the Committee had a separate vote on the fifth preambular paragraph, which reaffirmed the right of self-determination of all peoples, in particular peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation. That preambular paragraph was approved by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions (Annex V).

A draft resolution concerning a fourth special session on disarmament, as orally revised, was approved without a vote. By that text, the Assembly would decide, subject to the emergence of consensus on its objectives and agenda, to convene the fourth special session of the Assembly devoted to disarmament. It would also decide on an exact date for the session, subject to the outcome of the 1998 deliberations of the Disarmament Commission.

According to the terms of another text, approved by the Committee without a vote, the Assembly would appeal to Member States, in particular those within the Asia-Pacific region, as well as to governmental and non- governmental organizations, to contribute to the strengthening of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific.

Statements were made by the representatives of Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Ghana, Iran, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Mexico, Monaco, Myanmar, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. Monday, 17 November, 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 a text on nuclear disarmament by which the Assembly would call for the determined pursuit by nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of their elimination.

It also had before it texts concerning transparency in armaments and on small arms. Further texts included those on the convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, the role of the United Nations in disarmament and the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Development in Asia and Pacific. A draft decision before the Committee addressed the rationalization of the Committee's work and reform of its agenda.

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.

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

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

of equitable geographic representation, 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.

An amendment (document A/C.1/52/L.52), submitted by Pakistan, would replace the current operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution on small arms with the following:

"Endorses the recommendations contained in the report on small arms, which was approved unanimously by the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, bearing in mind the principles referred to above and the views of Member States on the recommendations;"

The current operative paragraph 1 reads as follows:

"Endorses the recommendations contained in the report on small arms, which was approved unanimously by the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms;".

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.

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,

First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

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.

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.

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.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Colombia, on behalf of the Non- Aligned Movement.

According to the terms of a draft resolution on the role of the United Nations in disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.42/Rev.1), the Assembly would reiterate that nuclear disarmament has the highest priority in efforts to universally advance disarmament. It would underline the necessity to promote

First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

disarmament and regulate armaments on the basis of negotiations reflecting the security 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 revised draft resolution deletes the first preambular paragraph contained in the original text concerning consideration of the Secretary- General's report entitled "Renewing the United Nations: a programme for reform" and the proposals contained therein concerning the restructuring of the United Nations Secretariat dealing with disarmament.)

The draft resolution is sponsored by India, Iran, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal and Pakistan.

By a draft decision on the rationalization of the Committee's work and reform of the agenda (document A/C.1/52/L.51), submitted by the Committee Chairman, the Assembly would decide that beginning with the fifty-third session, the Committee would try to conclude its substantive work in not less than 30 meetings.

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would have the Committee combine the existing phases of its work: "Structured discussion of specific subjects on the adopted thematic approach on disarmament and international security agenda items" and "Consideration of all draft resolutions submitted under all agenda items", provided that sufficient time was allowed for informal consultations and discussions on draft resolutions.

By further terms, the Committee Chairman would conduct consultations regarding rationalization of the work and reform of the agenda, and report to the Assembly at the beginning of its fifty-third session.

Statements

AKIRA HAYASHI (Japan) proposed an amendment on the draft resolution on small arms (document A/C.1/52/L.27/Rev.1), to add the words "bearing in mind the views of Member States on the recommendations" to operative paragraph 1. That paragraph would then read as follows: "Endorses the recommendations contained in the report on small arms, which was approved unanimously by the

First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms, bearing in mind the views of Member States on the recommendations;".

ANDELFO GARCIA (Colombia), speaking on behalf of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution on the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.11/Rev.1), said the co-sponsors had decided to delete from operative paragraph 1, the words "a general agreement" and replace them with the word "consensus". Operative paragraph 1 would read: "Decides, subject to the emergence of consensus on its objectives and agenda, to convene its fourth special session devoted to disarmament;".

He said that similarly, the third line of operative paragraph 3 would be amended as follows: the words "in the light of" would be replaced by "subject to". That paragraph would now read as follows: "Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its fifty-third session the item entitled "Convening of the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament", and subject to the outcome of the deliberations at the 1998 substantive session of the Disarmament Commission, to set an exact date for and to decide on organizational matters relating to the convening of the special session."

MAHMOUD KAREM (Egypt), speaking on a draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/52/L.2), said that the text established the long- awaited recognition by the General Assembly of the interrelationship between transparency and conventional arms, and between transparency and all weapons of mass destruction.

He said that since the adoption of texts on transparency, Egypt and the rest of the Non-Aligned Movement had stressed that the concept of transparency should not be limited only to conventional weapons but also to weapons of mass destruction, as well as to the transfers of high technology with military applications. That position did not in any way diminish Egypt's support for the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms and the need for the Register's development and expansion.

The draft, sponsored by Egypt, was an essential complement to the one adopted annually on the item, as contained in the other draft resolution on transparency currently before the Committee (document A/C.1/52/L.43). He appreciated the attempt by those co-sponsors to accommodate Egypt's concerns. However, no agreement was reached concerning specific amendments or specific courses of action. He would be willing to consider any proposal, and would, meanwhile, submit a slightly revised version of the transparency draft as (document A/C.1/52/L.2/Rev.1) by the end of the day.

Action on Texts

The Committee took up the draft on transparency in armaments (A/C.1/52/L.43). A separate recorded vote was taken on operative paragraph

First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

5(b), which reads as follows: "Requests the Secretary-General, with the assistance of a group of governmental experts to be convened in 2000, on the basis of equitable geographical representation, to prepare a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, taking into account the work of the Conference on Disarmament, the view expressed by Member States and the reports of the Secretary-General on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development, with a view to a decision at its fifty-fifth session;".

The Committee approved operative paragraph 5(b) of the draft resolution on transparency in disarmament (A/C.1/52/L.43) by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to none against, with 8 abstentions (China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, Lebanon, Mexico, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Syria). (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

A separate vote was also taken on operative paragraph 7 of the draft, which reads as follows: "Invites the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work undertaken in the field of transparency in armaments."

The Committee approved operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to none against, with 14 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex II.)

The draft resolution on transparency in armaments (A/C.1/52/L.43) as a whole, was approved by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to none against, with 10 abstentions (Algeria, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Mexico, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Syria.) (For details of the vote, see Annex III.)

Speaking after vote, the representative of China said he had voted in favour of the draft as a whole, abstaining on both of the operative paragraphs. The application of military transparency measures could help alleviate international tensions, but under current international circumstances, no country could agree to exercise absolute transparency concerning their armaments. There should not be transparency for the sake of transparency. The same level of transparency would have different effects on different countries. For some countries, a certain level of transparency would enable them to wield their power and flex their muscles, but for others, the same level would only create a vulnerability in security. It was, therefore, necessary to reach relevant and applicable transparency measures in treaties through negotiation.

The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms could be a useful experiment. However, experiences in the past few years had shown that participation was not extensive, he said. Only 85 countries participated in the register in 1996, less than half of the Members of the United Nations. The matter of greater urgency was how to increase the universality of the

First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

Register. Only after that should extending the scope of the Register be considered. Trying to do that too early would only jeopardize the Register altogether. Whether the issue should be taken up in the Conference on Disarmament next year needed to be settled by the Conference itself, which should, in making that decision, take into consideration other agenda items before it. Transparency was by no means a matter of urgency for the Conference.

The representative of Egypt said that between 1991 and 1993, Egypt had supported the resolution on transparency in armaments. However, Egypt's commitment to transparency was not met with equal commitments from all of the international community. Consequently, Egypt had started to abstain, since 1994, on that draft resolution. He continued to be dismayed by the lack of progress and lack of commitment to transparency in armaments. The Register remained limited to seven categories of conventional arms.

Furthermore, he said, the Register did not adequately address the issue of military holdings and procurement through national production. Only an expanded Register could serve the cause of transparency in armaments. Until then, or until there was a fuller commitment from all States, Egypt would continue to abstain on that draft resolution. He regretted that the sponsors of the draft had put it on the programme today.

The representative of Syria, explaining his vote on the draft, said his country fully supported the movement towards building an international community free of the use of force and the threat of use of force. He confirmed Syria's willingness to participate in any international endeavour that was aimed in good faith towards the realization of that objective. However, the draft did not take into account the special situation in the region of the Middle East. Because of Israel's persistence in its occupation of Arab territories, refusal to adhere to certain international treaties and ability to produce sophisticated weapons and stockpiling of such weapons, the issue of transparency concerning Israeli armaments was just the tip of the iceberg. He had, therefore, abstained in the vote.

The representative of Myanmar said he believed that transparency could be a useful confidence-building measure, provided it was non-discriminatory. The draft contained the same drawbacks as previous drafts of the resolution. There was still a need to review and reasses the nature of the Register. It could not be expanded until that had been done. There was not urgency for the Conference on Disarmament to look at the issue of transparency in armaments when it should be concentrating on such issues as fissile materials and other nuclear issues. He had, therefore, abstained on operative paragraphs 5 and 7, and on the draft as a whole.

The representative of Iran said he supported transparency in armaments as an important confidence-building measure, recognizing the contributions it

First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

could make in building and enhancing security. Iran participated in the Register. No concrete efforts had been made to expand the scope of the Register. Based on its operation in the past five years, there was no evidence that it had led to self-restraint in armaments. No efforts had been made to ensure the full participation of all regional States, for example those in the Middle East. The Conference on Disarmament had completed its mandate on the issue. However, Iran was ready to consider a new mandate on transparency in armaments for the Conference if that mandate included nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

The representative of Sri Lanka said that he had explained his Government's position on the subject of small arms in his statement of 16 October. A number of delegations had expressed concern about the selectivity in the Register's reporting of certain types of weapons, while ignoring weapons of mass destruction.

Some delegations held contradictory positions concerning operative paragraph 7, inviting the Conference on Disarmament to consider continuing its work in the field of transparency, he said. Others felt that the Conference was an independent organ, and as such, was the "master of its house". If that argument was accepted, then there was no rationale for the existence of operative paragraph 7 in the text. While the Conference was permitted to take its own decisions in some drafts, it was permissible in other texts to call on that body to undertake certain areas of work. Merely inviting the Conference, year after year, to consider undertaking efforts in transparency was not helping either the cause of transparency or of the Conference.

He said that he shared the apprehensions about the Register. It should be expanded to achieve its objective. He had abstained in the vote on operative paragraph 7. But, despite other deficiencies, he voted in favour of the text as a whole in support of further work in the area of transparency.

The representative of the Sudan said that he had voted in favour of the draft on transparency in disarmament because he believed that transparency contributed to confidence- and security-building. However, such transparency should include all types of armaments, including weapons of mass destruction. It should aim to consolidate the principles of peace and security in order to achieve the ultimate aim of complete and general disarmament.

He said that the Register lacked transparency. The information provided to it was incomplete and did not reflect the current reality. He, therefore, supported the response of the League of Arab States which had been made known to the Secretary-General. Further proposals in the areas of transparency had his support, but weapons of mass destruction needed to be included in the existing Register. Otherwise, the establishment of a parallel Register should be undertaken.

First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

The representative of Cuba said that the draft should have included the results of the work of the experts on the Register. The text should have been better balanced in order to secure more support from the delegations. The primary reason for his abstention on the text was his serious reservations on operative paragraph 7. Consideration of the transparency item was already properly concluded within the context of the Conference on Disarmament. He could, therefore, not agree to giving priority to topics which took up the time of the Conference and diverted its attention from matters of higher priority.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said that he had abstained in the vote on the text. He was suspicious of the objectives and effectiveness of the Register. The transfer of weapons globally had not decreased. The Register had had no bearing on the big Powers and the main weapons producer, which continued to transfer weapons into areas such as the Korean peninsula. All weapons deployed in foreign countries should be resisted.

The representative of Algeria said that he attached great importance to the question of transparency as a confidence-building measure, and had always supported initiatives aimed at promoting genuine transparency. Those initiatives, however, should cover all types of armaments, including weapons of mass destruction. Once again, Algeria was unable to support the draft, which continued to provide special treatment within a limited framework. He could not continue to support an initiative which could not motivate efforts to set up a viable system covering all types of weapons. The report of the Group of Experts further illustrated the difficulties in achieving progress in the Register for all types of weapons. He, therefore, abstained in the vote on the draft.

The representative of Nigeria said that as part of "Group of 21" in the Conference on Disarmament, she shared the views of other like-minded members of the group concerning transparency in armaments. It was nonetheless her hope that obstacles would be overcome in the Conference. However, even without agreement in the Conference, a report on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development could still be done by the year 2000. She voted in favour of operative paragraph 5(b), abstained in the vote on operative paragraph 7 and voted in favour of the draft as a whole.

The representative of Saudi Arabia said that he had abstained from the vote on the draft because the Register included seven types of conventional weapons, but excluded weapons of mass destruction and the transfer of advanced technology with military applications. What reinforced transparency was the inclusion of all kinds of armaments in the field of conventional arms, as well as weapons of mass destruction and advanced technology with military applications.

First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

The representative of Monaco said that had his vote on operative paragraph 7 been recorded, he would have voted in favour of the paragraph.

The Committee next approved the draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (A/C.1/52/L.3) without a vote.

The draft resolution concerning the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (A/C.1/52/L.11/Rev.1), as orally revised, was approved without a vote.

The representative of the United States appreciated the efforts of the draft's sponsors to develop a text that could be adopted without a vote. The text reflected the understanding that consensus was needed; there was no point in setting up a date for the fourth special session unless consensus on its objectives and agenda emerged. Hard work lay ahead in that regard.

He said that support for the text should not be construed as support for the fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, which should be convened on the basis of consensus, as were all previous disarmament sessions. In addition, it should not be weighted on nuclear issues but on issues of conventional weapons and transparency, as indicated in the working paper of the 1997 Disarmament Commission.

He questioned the need for, and intended purpose of the special session and asked whether the international climate was propitious for its convening, about the prospects of results and whether the costs would be justified by the results. He also asked whether such a session would conflict with or duplicate other ongoing disarmament activities. The approval of the draft without a vote indicated the broadly shared realization that the session should be convened only when its purposes were clear. He hoped the draft's approval signalled a shifting away from the pursuit of a special session on nuclear disarmament only, which seemed to be the motivation.

The representative of Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the European Union, as well as Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Iceland and Norway, expressed satisfaction over the consensus on the draft. The support for the draft, however, did not imply agreement with the fifth preambular paragraph.

He said that the European Union intended to participate in constructive exchanges concerning the special session at the 1998 session of the Disarmament Commission. Similarly, it would continue to contribute positively to reaching the necessary consensus on the date for the session and on the convening of its preparatory committee.

First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

The representative of the Russian Federation said that he had supported the draft. Further consultations had made it possible to prepare a text that enjoyed general support. He reiterated his view that the decision to convene a special session could be adopted only after consensus had been reached concerning the objectives, agenda and date for the session.

The representative of Israel said that Israel had joined the consensus. It shared the concerns expressed by previous delegations over the fifth preambular paragraph.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the role of the United Nations in disarmament (A/C.1/52/L.42/Rev.1).

Speaking before action on the draft, the representative of the Russian Federation said he would vote in its favour, since the Russian Federation had always supported the existing international disarmament machinery, as well as the important role played by the United Nations. Furthermore, he agreed with the provisions of the draft, including that the Conference on Disarmament was the sole multilateral negotiating body in disarmament.

He said that emphasizing the significance of the Conference was timely, since that body was encountering difficulties in preparing its future course of action following the banning of nuclear tests. He did not agree with those who wished to speed up matters by avoiding consensus, nor would he wish to reach agreements that did not take into account the security interests of all countries. The draft reaffirmed and recognized the role of the Conference. The deletion by the draft's co-sponsors of the first preambular paragraph in the original text avoided any overlap between the work of the First Committee with work elsewhere concerning reform of the Organization. The deletion removed any doubts that might have existed about it by those who opposed such overlap, including his own delegation.

The representative of the United States would vote against the draft because the text intruded on the larger efforts of United Nations reform which were more properly the work of the General Assembly. Even after dropping preambular paragraph 1, the text implicitly still attempted to influence the efforts of the Secretary-General. The United States, therefore, could not support the draft as a whole and would continue to work in the General Assembly plenary to manage the reform effort in an across-the-board manner.

The representative of Australia said she would vote against the draft because the reform issues should be considered in the package of the Secretary-General's track II package by the General Assembly, not its Committees. The reform issue should be dealt with as a package, not picked apart by Committees.

First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

She said that the overall intention of the text was clearly to discourage the Secretary-General from his proposals to strengthen the Secretariat's advisory capacity in the area of disarmament. The text also ignored that the Non-Aligned Movement had called for the updating of the United Nations disarmament agenda and machinery through a further special session on disarmament. Further, it imposed an artificial schedule of priority on the disarmament issues. Finally, operative paragraph 8 perpetuated the myth that the Secretary-General planned a "super-verification role" for the Secretariat.

The representative of China said that he would vote in favour of the draft because the text was not in conflict with the ongoing reform of the United Nations. However it was to be reformed, it should serve to improve the role and status of the United Nations disarmament machinery. The disarmament machinery, as mentioned in the text, should not only continue to exist, but its role should be further strengthened. The reference in the draft of compliance with existing treaties had his full endorsement. The United Nations Secretariat should, according to the authorization by the Assembly, provide support and services to the existing disarmament machinery.

The representative of Kenya said she would vote in favour of the draft because the United Nations had a role to play through its existing disarmament machinery. Operative paragraph 7 reaffirmed that the Conference on Disarmament was the sole negotiating disarmament body. Furthermore, with the deletion of preambular paragraph 1, there was no conflict between the draft and the ongoing process regarding reform in the General Assembly.

The draft resolution on the role of the United Nations in disarmament (A/C.1/52/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 42 against, with 9 abstentions (Argentina, Canada, Georgia, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Malta, Marshall Islands, Republic of Korea, Uruguay). (See Annex IV.)

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Canada said the substance of the draft was related to other matters, including the Secretary General's reforms, that were being considered elsewhere. He welcomed deletion of the first preambular paragraph, relating to the Secretary-General's reform proposals. The issues addressed needed more careful and comprehensive consideration. He had abstained in the vote.

The representative of Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the European Union, noted the improvements that had been made to the preambular section of the draft text. He said there were now more positive elements in the draft, but as a whole the text caused some important problems of principle. He had voted against the draft.

The representative of South Africa said his country had made clear its support for the Secretary-General's reform initiatives. However, the draft

First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

before the Committee was an endeavour to retain the status quo in the United Nations disarmament machinery. He had voted against that draft.

The representative of New Zealand, welcoming the Secretary-General's reforms, said he believed in the goal of a more effective and strengthened United Nations. He fully agreed with the approach to deal with the reform proposals as a package in the Assembly plenary. The draft on the role of the United Nations in disarmament was backward looking and superfluous. New Zealand had been obliged to join other States in opposing it.

The representative of Israel said he had voted against the draft; Israel dissociated itself from its main thrust. The draft was superfluous and added nothing to the functioning of the disarmament machinery.

The representative of Turkey said he had voted in favour of the draft. He appreciated the improvements that had been made in the text. The main thrust of the draft was in keeping with earlier General Assembly resolutions. The draft reaffirmed the Secretary-General's reform programme, it did not compete with it.

The representative of Ghana said he had voted in favour of the draft. He did not see in what way the draft contradicted the process under way in the Assembly. Reform was an ongoing process, and support for that process should not be questioned.

The representative of Argentina said he shared the views of several other speakers. The draft had not sufficiently taken into account the reform programme of the Secretary-General, and he had, therefore, abstained.

The Committee then turned to the draft on small arms (A/C.1/52/L.27/Rev.1).

Speaking before action on the draft, the representative of Pakistan informed the Committee that following the acceptance by the co-sponsors of the change in operative paragraph 1 of the draft on small arms, which added "bearing in mind the views of Member States on the recommendations", he had decided -- in the spirit of cooperation -- not to table the draft amendment that had been circulated during the meeting (A/C.1/52/L.52).

The representative of Singapore said he would vote in favour of the draft. There was an urgent need to control the circulation of small arms because of their destabilizing effects. In particular, they could fall into the hands of criminal elements and drug traffickers. He said he would support drafts aimed at controlling the excessive accumulation and illegal transfer of small arms, and that Singapore wanted to contribute constructively to any processes set up in that regard. However, such efforts should not impinge on the national security of States. The fourth preambular paragraph affirmed

First Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

that right. He also welcomed the new fifth preambular paragraph that clearly recognized that States should retain the right of self-determination.

The representative of the United Kingdom said he supported the work of the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms and would vote in favour of the draft as a whole, but he regretted the changes in operative paragraph 1 and wished to withdraw the co-sponsorship of the draft by the United Kingdom.

The representative of Japan said he wished to clarify whether the draft to be voted on included the oral revision that he had proposed during the current meeting. He would prefer that the draft as amended orally should be the subject of the vote.

The Committee Secretary said the draft to be voted on did include the oral revision.

The representative of the United States said that because of the revision to the draft, his country was no longer able to remain a co-sponsor. The language of the revision of operative paragraph 1 muddied its intention, and could be read to imply that General Assembly would only endorse the recommendations in the report depending on the views of some Member States. However, he still supported the resolution as a whole, and would vote in its favour.

The representative of Pakistan said he had studied the report of the Secretary-General, which had been prepared with the help of the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms. The Committee must observe the principle that once such a small group of experts had concluded its work, Member States must be given the opportunity to study the work closely before being asked to endorse or reject it. Pakistan had always considered the issue of small arms to be an important one and had supported other resolutions on the subject.

As one of the largest contributors of United Nations peacekeeping missions, Pakistan was fully cognizant of the dangers of small arms in conflict situations, he said. The report needed careful and considered study, and the issue required a long process before taking decisions. Some of the recommendations in the report appeared entirely impractical, yet the draft called for their support. That approach was not feasible, and the desire for quick results could impede real progress. As a minimum, his delegation had insisted on adding the phrase that was now included -- "bearing in mind the views of Member States on the recommendations". If that phrase had not been included, he could not have supported the draft. Despite the inclusion, his support for the draft should still be taken within the context of the comments he had just made.

The representative of Mexico said he favoured the approval of the draft as revised. His country attached great importance to the problems caused by

First Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

the proliferation and excessive accumulation of all weapons, including small arms. They had a destabilizing effect and fell into the hands of criminal elements, particularly those in the drug trade. Today in Washington D.C., the Organization of American States (OAS) would be signing a convention against illicit trade in such weapons, which was an initiative of the Rio Group. Mexico was taking an active part. There could be no doubt about his country's interest in the issue, but it had not been invited to join the work of the group of experts. There had not been enough time to adequately analyse the contents of the report of the Panel.

The representative of Brazil said his view was very similar to that expressed by Mexico.

The Committee Secretary read the fifth preambular paragraph that would be voted on separately from the draft as a whole. It reads as follows: "Reaffirming also the right of self-determination of all peoples, in particular peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, and the importance of the effective realization of this right, as enunciated, inter alia, in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights on 25 June 1993,".

Speaking on a point of order, the representative of Japan said neither he nor the other co-sponsors had asked for a separate vote on the fifth preambular paragraph.

The Committee Secretary said France had called for a separate vote on that paragraph.

The Committee approved the fifth preambular paragraph of the draft on small arms by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex V.)

The draft resolution on small arms (A/C.1/52/L.27/Rev.1) as a whole, as orally revised, was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 8 abstentions (Bahrain, Israel, Mongolia, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates). (For details of the vote, see Annex VI.)

Speaking after the vote, the representative of China said he had voted in favour of the draft, but did not take part in the voting on the fifth preambular paragraph. He appreciated the work of the Panel of Governmental Experts over the past year. Excessive accumulation and illegal transfer of small arms had a destabilizing influence, particularly in developing countries. The factors that gave rise to conflicts around the world were complex and varied, including territorial disputes and religious conflicts. Small arms were a symptom of such conflicts and not a root cause. It was

First Committee - 17 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

advisable to treat both the symptoms and the root causes, with the emphasis on the root causes.

There should be different kinds of approaches in handling small arms, he said. Efforts should be made in accordance with the United Nations Charter and should respect the individual rights of States. Full account should be taken of the reasonable security needs of countries in regions of conflict. China was against acts by any country which contravened international law and arms transfers. He called for vigilance against attempts to use the excessive accumulation and transfer of small arms as a pretext to meddle in the internal affairs of States and to enlarge spheres of influence. As for the fifth preambular paragraph, he had not taken part in the vote because he still needed time to study the implications contained therein.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that he had intended to support the initial draft on small arms. However, the co-sponsors added a new fifth preambular paragraph, changing the nature of the draft. Although the provisions of that paragraph were not the problem, their inclusion in the draft on small arms were hardly appropriate. Of major concern was the change included in operative paragraph 1. He was, therefore, forced to abstain on the amended draft.

The representative of Egypt said that following his abstention from the vote on the small arms draft in 1995, Egypt decided this year to vote in favour of the draft on the subject. That testified to Egypt's steadfast commitment to pursuing all efforts leading to a more stable world. It would closely monitor the issue of small arms to ensure that it was dealt with in a non-discriminatory and comprehensive manner. He ardently hoped that the issue would not go down the road of other issues, such as transparency in armaments, which was being addressed in a highly selective manner.

He said on that the disarmament priorities remained the same -- nuclear weapons must be eliminated on a priority basis; other weapons of mass destruction must also be eliminated comprehensively; and conventional weapons must be handled, although not selectively. Small arms did not exist only in conflict-ridden countries of the developing world. Controlling their transfer should not curb the Charter-based rights of States to acquire the means for their own self-defence. Small arms did not necessarily mean simpler or primitive arms; some were highly advanced and lethal.

The representative of the United States said that he strongly supported the principle of self-defence, but abstained in the vote on the fifth preambular paragraph because of the inclusion of a principle that was inappropriate in a draft on small arms.

The representative of Cuba said that because of the amendment to operative paragraph 1, Cuba would now vote in favour of the draft as a whole.

First Committee - 18 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

The Committee should duly take into account the work of the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms in order to facilitate subsequent consideration of the Panel's recommendations. The explicit references in the text to the right to self-defence and the need for a balanced, non- discriminatory approach to controlling small arms were appropriate.

Cuba's affirmative vote did not constitute a commitment to an automatic implementation of the recommendations contained in the Panel's report. Those recommendations required painstaking consideration prior to their adoption.

The representative of Israel said he had abstained in the vote on the small arms draft as a whole and on the fifth preambular paragraph. He did not agree with the introduction of that paragraph; it did not have a place within the context of the text on small arms. Israel's commitment to the right of self-determination had already been expressed in other contexts. Had the fifth preambular paragraph been removed, he would have voted in favour of the draft resolution.

The representative of Pakistan said that he voted in favour of the fifth preambular paragraph because it was an important addition and highly instrumental in enabling his delegation to favour the draft. The principle of self-determination was most relevant to the small arms issue. History would show that all struggles for self-determination and independence were fought with small arms and not with weapons of mass destruction. No recommendation on small arms should prejudice the right of peoples under foreign and colonial domination to seek their independence and freedom.

The representative of Algeria said while he voted in favour of the draft as amended, that did not mean that he endorsed the recommendations of the Panel. They would be considered by the experts in his country.

The representative of Nigeria said that had her delegation been present for the vote, she would have voted in favour of the fifth preambular paragraph and of the draft as a whole.

(annexes follow)

First Committee - 19 - Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

ANNEX I

Vote on Operative Paragraph 5(b) of Transparency in Armaments

Operative paragraph 5(b) of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/52/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to none against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Republic of the Congo, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, 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, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, Lebanon, Mexico, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Syria.

Absent: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Morocco, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Seychelles, Sudan, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

(END OF ANNEX I)

First Committee 20 Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

ANNEX II

Vote on Operative Paragraph 7 of Transparency in Armaments

Operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/52/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to none against, with 14 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Republic of the Congo, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, 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, Zimbabwe.

Against: None

Abstain: Algeria, China, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Congo, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Mexico, Myanmar, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria.

Absent: Afghanistan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

(END OF ANNEX II)

First Committee 21 Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

ANNEX III

Vote on Transparency in Armaments

The draft resolution on transparency in armaments as a whole (document A/C.1/52/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to none against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Republic of the Congo, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, 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, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Algeria, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Mexico, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Syria.

Absent: Afghanistan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Morocco, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

(END OF ANNEX III)

First Committee 22 Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

ANNEX IV

Vote on Role of United Nations in Disarmament

The draft resolution on the role of the United Nations on disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 42 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Canada, Georgia, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Malta, Marshall Islands, Republic of Korea, Uruguay.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Madagascar, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

First Committee 23 Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

ANNEX V

Vote on Fifth Preambular Paragraph of Small Arms Text

The fifth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution on small arms (document A/C.1/52/L.27/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to none against, with 23 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Demark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesa, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, 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, Republic of the Congo, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, El Salvador, France, Georgia, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Paraguay, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.

Absent: Afghanistan, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Madagascar, Morocco, Myanmar, Nigeria, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Seychelles, Syria, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia.

(END OF ANNEX V)

First Committee 24 Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997

ANNEX VI

Vote on Small Arms

The draft resolution on small arms as orally revised (document A/C.1/52/L.27/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Republic of the Congo, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, 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, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Bahrain, Israel, Mongolia, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates.

Absent: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Lebanon, Madagascar, Nigeria, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Syria, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

* *** *

First Committee 25 Press Release GA/DIS/3100 23rd Meeting (AM) 14 November 1997