FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFTS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, TRANSPARENCY IN ARMAMENTS, AS IT CONCLUDES SESSION

Press Release
GA/DIS/3101

FIRST COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFTS ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, TRANSPARENCY IN ARMAMENTS, AS IT CONCLUDES SESSION

The General 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, under the terms of one of two draft resolutions approved this afternoon by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security), as it concluded its work for the current session.

The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to none against, with 9 abstentions (Algeria, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan). (For details of the vote, see Annex VI.)

By further terms of the text, the Assembly would call for 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.

Prior to approval of the draft as a whole, the Committee held two separate votes. By the first, it approved the ninth preambular paragraph, welcoming the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). The vote was 141 in favour to 1 against (India), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Libya, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania). (See Annex IV.)

Operative paragraph 1, which urged States not parties to the Non- Proliferation Treaty to accede to it at the earliest possible date, was approved by 142 votes in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 1 abstention (Cuba). (See Annex V.)

The Committee also approved a draft resolution on transparency in armaments sponsored by Egypt. By its terms, the Assembly would reaffirm its conviction of the interrelationship between transparency in the fields of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction, as well as with transfers of equipment and technologies directly related to their development and manufacture. The text was approved by 81 votes in favour to 45 against, with 16 abstentions. (See Annex III.)

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

Prior to the approval of the text as a whole, the Committee held two separate votes. The sixth preambular paragraph which would have the Assembly stress the need to achieve universality to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention, was approved by 80 votes in favour to 34 against, with 25 abstentions. (See Annex I.) [The full titles of those Conventions are the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction.] The Committee also approved its operative paragraph 3, which asks the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States on ways to enhance transparency with respect to weapons of mass destruction and the transfers of equipment and technologies directly related to their development and manufacture, with a view to enhancing transparency in the field of conventional weapons. The vote was 73 in favour to 46 against, with 17 abstentions. (See Annex II.) In a closing statement, Committee Chairman Mothusi Nkgowe (Botswana) said that indisputable efforts had been made in scaling down nuclear weapons at both the unilateral and bilateral levels. The world expected the process to continue at a steady and more rapid pace, which should be done on a multilateral level. Also encouraging was the progress made in the area of nuclear non-proliferation at the regional level, particularly with respect to the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones. Concerning weapons of mass destruction, he cited the statements by the Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and by the Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive-Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, which pointed the way to further collaboration in consolidating and strengthening existing disarmament and arms limitation agreements. Drawing attention to the Committee's impassioned exchange of views on the issue of anti-personnel mines, he said that expectations had grown sharply for the disarmament machinery of the United Nations to play a part in addressing that problem. Divergent views persisted on the mechanism to eliminate the menace posed by those weapons. Coming from a part of the world which had experienced some of the worst consequences deriving from the flow of small arms, he said he welcomed the Committee's broad agreement that the international community should continue to tackle the problem of the illicit proliferation of such weapons. Statements were also made by the representatives of Egypt, Myanmar, Pakistan, Japan, Togo, Nepal, Peru, Oman, Mexico, United States, Luxembourg (for the European Union and associated States), Canada, Argentina, South Africa, Sudan, Australia, China, Cuba, India, Russian Federation, Iran, Bangladesh, Algeria, Sri Lanka and Nigeria.

The General Assembly will meet to take action on the reports of the First Committee at 10 a.m. on Friday, 5 December.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to take action on two draft resolutions and one draft decision. The draft resolutions were on nuclear disarmament and transparency in armaments. The draft decision concerned the rationalization of the Committee's work and reform of its agenda. It also had before it amendments to the nuclear disarmament text.

According to the text 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.

Amendments to that draft text have been submitted by Pakistan (document A/C.1/52/L.48). By their terms, the following paragraph would be inserted after the second preambular paragraph:

"Recognizing that in the light of the fundamental changes in the international situation, it is all the more imperative for nuclear-weapon States and military alliances to renounce the policy of nuclear deterrence and to agree to the prohibition of nuclear weapons and their progressive dismantling and elimination,".

After the tenth preambular paragraph, the draft would include two new paragraphs:

"Concerned at statements by some nuclear-weapon States that they will continue to retain nuclear weapons indefinitely,

"Gravely concerned about recent developments that have increased the danger of the use of nuclear weapons, including against non-nuclear weapon States,".

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

A new operative paragraph 1 would read:

"Reiterates its call upon the nuclear-weapon States to undertake a step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat and a phased programme of progressive and balanced deep reductions of nuclear weapons, and to carry out effective nuclear disarmament measures with a view to the total elimination of those weapons within a time-bound framework."

A further amendment would renumber existing operative paragraph 1 as paragraph 2 and add the following at the end of the paragraph:

", and full implementation of its provisions, specially article VI, by the nuclear-weapon States".

A final amendment would delete operative paragraph 2.

By the terms of a revised text on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/52/L.2/Rev.1), 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 equipment and technologies directly related to the development and manufacture of such weapons. 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.

(The revised text replaces the phrase "transfers of high technology with military applications" with "transfers of equipment and technologies directly related to the development and manufacture of such weapons". It does so in the fourth and sixth preambular paragraphs, and in operative paragraph 2).

Costa Rica, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia joined as co-sponsors of the draft resolution submitted by Egypt.

By a draft decision on the rationalization of the Committee's work and reform of the agenda (document A/C.1/52/L.51/Rev.1), 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 more than five weeks, if possible.

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.

First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

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

PRVOSLAV DAVINIC, Director of the Centre for Disarmament Affairs, brought to the attention of the Committee the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific, and the United Nations Centre of Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean. The report proposed cutting the positions of the directors of the three regional centres.

It has been decided that the Secretary-General's proposal to abolish the directors' positions should be drawn to the attention of the First Committee, he said. While the First Committee would not be able to hold substantive discussions on the report, its members should consider it and instruct their colleagues on the Fifth Committee. He reiterated that the Secretary-General was not proposing that three centres be abolished, but that because of the lack of resources, the posts of directors be abolished.

MAGED ABDEL AZIZ (Egypt), on behalf of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (A/C.1/52/L.2/Rev.1), said the draft clearly represented the firm belief of the co-sponsors regarding the relationship between transfers of equipment and technologies and the development and manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. It was necessary to address the transfer of armaments in a balanced way.

The United Nations Register of Conventional Arms was set up with the understanding that weapons of mass destruction would be included in it, he said. Despite repeated annual reaffirmation of that aim, no improvement had been achieved. The co-sponsors of the current draft, therefore, felt that it was imperative to supplement the other draft (A/C.1/52/L.43) with the current text, which would help to enhance transparency. States which did not support the expansion of the Register had other advantages, including military alliances. He had hoped that the points in the current draft would be included in the other draft, but its co-sponsors had insisted on putting it forward on Friday.

MYA THAN (Myanmar), commenting on the Secretary-General's report, recalled that the Committee had adopted on Friday a draft on the work of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific. That Centre was run entirely on voluntary contributions. The Member

First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

States of the region appreciated the work of the Centre. The post of the director should be retained. While the need for financial stringency was understandable, the work of the Centre should be taken into account.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan), commenting on the draft on nuclear disarmament (A/C.1/52/L.28.Rev/1), said it was natural for Japan to initiate the draft, since the Japanese were victims of the only two incidents when nuclear weapons were used. The objective of nuclear disarmament had also been accorded the highest priority by the international community. It was unfortunate that in order to illicit support from nuclear-weapons States for the initiative, the draft had been formulated in a way that was unlikely to advance its principal objective. It focused not on nuclear disarmament, but on nuclear non- proliferation, which it equated with nuclear disarmament in the very last paragraph. The first paragraph urged adherence to the NPT, the call for disarmament was relegated to the second paragraph. The nuclear non- proliferation cart must not be put before the disarmament horse -- even though some nuclear powers claimed they could not agree to nuclear disarmament because of nuclear proliferation.

The draft studiously omitted to take note of the negative developments, he said. Those included the assertion by some nuclear-weapons States that they would continue to maintain such weapons indefinitely, and continue testing nuclear weapons under the excuse of maintenance of arsenals. Under such circumstances, it was not surprising that the nuclear-weapons States had no difficulty in supporting the draft resolution. Indeed, they might consider it as an alibi to continue to maintain their nuclear arsenals. Pakistan was, therefore, compelled to propose the amendments to the draft (A/C.1/52/L.48) There had been extensive consultations with many States on the proposed amendments; one nuclear-weapon State supported them. However, Pakistan had decided not to press for amendments. It would abstain on the vote, and if operative paragraph 1 was voted on separately, Pakistan would be forced to vote against it.

AKIRA HAYASHI (Japan) said that Pakistan and Japan had been involved in extensive consultations, which had lasted for more than a week. Japan had stressed the great importance of the draft, which was adopted for the first time in 1994, and subsequently in the following two years. The delegation of Pakistan had explained its view in detail on the draft resolution. The candid exchange of views was very important for both countries, and they had reached a mutual understanding. He expressed his deep appreciation for Pakistan's constructive attitude and spirit of understanding. They were now ready to go forward with the action.

First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

KOMI MENSAH AFETO (Togo) said he wished to comment on the report of the Secretary-General on the Regional Centres for Peace and Disarmament. The item on the Regional Centre in Africa was not on the Committee's agenda this year. He was surprised to receive the Secretary-General's report, which spoke of abolishing the director's post, at this late stage. He sought further information.

GOPAL BAHADUR THAPA (Nepal) said that last Friday, the Committee had approved without a vote the draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific. Representatives then had spoken highly about work of the Centre. He therefore failed to understand why, at this late hour, a report on the regional centres was being presented. He requested the continuation of the director's post.

JUAN MIGUEL MIRANDA (Peru) said he was struck by the fact that the proposal in question had been sent to the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) without simultaneously being brought to attention of the First Committee. The Regional Centre in Latin America and the Caribbean was unable to continue its work and had not had a director for a number of years. As stated in the Secretary-General's report, contacts had been established between the Secretariat and a number of regional countries in order to resume the Centre's activities. It therefore did not make sense to eliminate the director's post.

PRVOSLAV DAVINIC, Director of the Centre for Disarmament Affairs, said that a number of questions pertaining to the work of the regional centres had been raised. He agreed with the statement by the representative of Togo that there was no such item on the Committee's current agenda. The only centre on the First Committee's agenda this year was the one in based in Kathmandu.

There were two different issues here, he said. The Secretary-General was doing his utmost to revive the centres by stimulating contributions and finding alternative means to finance them. As administrator of the Organization, the Secretary-General had to act responsibly in terms of available resources. He had proposed bringing the matter to the attention of the Fifth Committee to deal with the centres' financing and activities. The Advisory Committee on Administration and Budgetary Matters (ACABQ) had asked the Secretary-General to submit his report to the First Committee about a week ago. The Budget Office had done its utmost to provide the report to the Committee before the conclusion of its current session.

The matter was not completely closed but was still being discussed in the Fifth Committee, he said. Representatives in the First Committee should advise their colleagues in the Fifth Committee of their concerns. It would have been preferable to have more time with the report, but the budget mechanics had made it necessary to submit it now.

First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

MOHAMED AL-HASSAN (Oman) said he supported transparency in all forms. Transparency was one of the most important elements required to strengthen confidence among States. Oman's position was consistent with that of the Arab Group regarding the deficiencies in the Register of Conventional Arms, which needed to be more comprehensive and to include other weapons of mass destruction in its scope. Given the calamities in his region, expanding the Register would be an important step towards serving the immediate security needs of many States there.

Action on Texts

The representative of Mexico said that Mexico had participated in the Register from the outset, but had maintained its position that the Register needed to include weapons of mass destruction in its scope. While he had some doubts about the language used in operative paragraphs 2 and 3 in the draft (document A/C.1/52/L.2/Rev.1), he supported the general thrust and balance of the text. In the coming year, consultations would hopefully make it possible to refine the concepts being outlined in the Committee so it might prepare a single text on the topic. He would vote in favour of the draft as a whole.

The representative of the United States said that country placed great emphasis on the concept of transparency in armaments. The United States had been proud to co-sponsor the transparency draft which was approved last week. It also supported the Secretary-General's report on transparency and the recommendations of the group of government experts. The United States was disappointed that the group failed to recommend the expansion of the Register to include the procurement of weapons from national production, as well as from imports and exports.

Egypt's text, on the other hand, focused on transparency as it related to weapons of mass destruction, and went well beyond current efforts on that difficult issue, he said. In view of the failure to achieve consensus on Egypt's proposal to include a new category of weapons of mass destruction stocks in the Register, the effort to "walk back" a consensus by linking transparency of conventional arms with transparency of weapons of mass destruction was unfortunate. Such linkage was a recipe for inaction and failure. The possession by certain States of weapons of mass destruction could be used by them as a reason not to participate in the Register. Furthermore, Egypt's concern was already reflected in operative paragraph 7 of last weeks transparency draft (document A/C.1/52/L.43), rendering unnecessary the current draft (document A/C.1/52/L.2/Rev.1). It was high time to re-establish the ad hoc committee on transparency in the Conference on Disarmament.

First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

The representative of Luxembourg spoke on behalf of the European Union, as well as Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Iceland and Norway. He expressed great satisfaction at the consensus achieved in the report on the Register by the group of governmental experts. Last week's draft, as presented by the Netherlands, reflected that consensus. The main purpose of that draft was to make those recommendations operational. It was therefore regrettable that Egypt, a country which had taken part in the group's consensus, had presented its own transparency draft focusing on weapons of mass destruction, and moving far beyond the group's consensus on that sensitive and controversial issue.

He said he understood that the sponsor of the current transparency text would withdraw the draft if its concerns were taken into consideration. Subsequently, language was identified which took account the specific concerns of the draft's primary sponsor. The European Union was therefore surprised to learn that the author of the draft still had not been able to support last week's text, even with the agreed amendments.

The current text broke the consensus, he said. It was unacceptable to the European Union because it drew a dubious link between the concept of transparency with respect to conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction. Positions concerning transparency in weapons of mass destruction ranged considerably, further rendering it inadvisable to link them with conventional weapons. The success achieved in Europe and elsewhere concerning confidence-building in the sphere of conventional weapons would not have been possible had weapons of mass destruction been included in the equation. He would therefore urgently appeal to the primary sponsor of the draft to withdraw it. If it was put to a vote, the above-mentioned States would vote in a block against it.

The representative of Canada said his country firmly advocated transparency in arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament. He was concerned, however, about some of the terminology of the current draft. He would therefore vote against it.

The representative of Argentina fully supported the conclusion reached by the governmental experts on the continuing operation of the Register and its further development. Although the Register concerned conventional armaments, the principle of transparency could be applied as well to weapons of mass destruction and to the transfer of technology with military applications, as recognized in operative paragraph 5 (a) of last week's transparency draft. Another draft on the same subject was unnecessary. Furthermore, transparency regarding weapons of mass destruction should not undermine the efficiency of existing mechanisms designed to enhance transparency in conventional armaments. To be successful, any such efforts

First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

would require consensus. Argentina did not agree with operative paragraph 2 of the current text, and would abstain in the voting on the draft as a whole.

The representative of South Africa said that he would vote in favour of the draft on the basis of a clear policy of his Government, which sought to apply transparency to all armaments. He would abstain in the voting on operative paragraph 3, however, because he did not believe that linkage should be established between the current transparency draft and the recently approved text.

The representative of Sudan said that transparency in armaments strengthened confidence and peace among States, and therefore supported the present draft. Transparency should be extended to weapons of mass destruction and to the transfer of equipment and technology used in their manufacture. In order to strengthen confidence, eliminate all kinds of weapons, and safeguard the transparency to which all States aspired, Sudan would support the current text and join in sponsoring it.

The representative of Australia said he would vote against the draft resolution. Australia supported the application of transparency and other confidence-building measures to weapons of mass destruction as a general principle. However, in implying that transparency regarding conventional weapons was conditional on enhanced transparency with respect to weapons of mass destruction, the text reached too far. Furthermore, such a linkage was clearly divisive.

By a recorded vote of 80 in favour to 34 against with 25 abstentions, the Committee then approved the sixth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution, on the need for universality on the various treaties governing weapons of mass destruction. (For details of the voting, see Annex I.)

Operative paragraph 3 on the interrelationship between transparency in conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction, was approved by 73 votes in favour to 46 against with 17 abstentions. (See Annex II.)

The draft resolution on transparency in conventional armaments and weapons of mass destruction (A/C.1/52/L.2/Rev.l) was approved as a whole by 81 votes in favour to 45 against with 16 abstentions. (See Annex III.)

The representative of China said that he supported the application of workable and appropriate transparency measures. China had always supported a total ban on and the complete destruction of all weapons of mass destruction. In order to achieve those objectives, transparency regarding those weapons was necessary and inevitable. The international community had concluded conventions in the chemical and biological weapons sphere. Negotiations to strengthen the verification protocol of the Biological Weapons Convention was

First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

under way. The transparency problems concerning those two categories of weapons were being addressed. The immediate priority remained the promotion of nuclear disarmament and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The countries with the largest nuclear arsenals needed to take the lead in reducing them. China abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole and did not participate in the separate votes on the sixth preambular paragraph and on operative paragraph 3.

The representative of Cuba said he had voted in favour of the transparency text because it reflected a broader approach to the question than had formerly prevailed. Weapons of mass destruction could not be excluded from the efforts of the international community, which presently applied transparency only to conventional weapons. To view those two categories separately would be to take a discriminatory and selective approach, which he could not support. It was hoped there would be a single resolution on the question next year, applying the principle as an integrated whole in all its aspects.

However, Cuba's favourable vote on the draft as a whole could not be interpreted as a change in its position concerning the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), he said. It had therefore abstained in the separate vote on the sixth preambular paragraph.

The representative of the United States said he had voted against the sixth preambular paragraph of the draft. While the United States supported the universality of the treaties mentioned, that paragraph distorted their purposes and goals.

The representative of India said he had voted against the sixth preambular paragraph and had abstained on the draft as a whole, for reasons which were obvious and consistent with his country's position on the NPT. India was not a party to the NPT and had no intention of becoming a party to it.

The representative of the Russia Federation said that his vote against the sixth preambular paragraph should not be interpreted to mean that he had any difficulties with the appeal for universality of the NPT and of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions. Russia consistently favoured the universality of those international disarmament instruments. Its negative vote on the paragraph was tied to the fact that it distorted the purposes, content and basic orientation of those treaties.

The representative of Iran said that he had voted in favour of the draft because his country attached great importance to transparency with respect to weapons of mass destruction in all their aspects. Under the relevant resolution adopted by the Assembly in 1991, transparency had applied to

First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

conventional weapons, the transfer of high technology and weapons of mass destruction. Iran's position concerning the transfer of high technology for weapons purposes had not changed.

The representative of Sudan said he had voted in favour of the draft and should have been announced as a co-sponsor prior to the voting.

The representative of India called for a separate recorded vote on the ninth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 1 the draft on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.28/Rev.1). Even though its title said it was about nuclear disarmament with a view to the elimination of nuclear weapons, it should have been better entitled "implementation of the NPT". India had to maintain its position on the draft resolution, even though it supported the elimination of nuclear weapons. He did not believe that the NPT would lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons. He could not support a resolution which sought to continue the inequality of that Treaty. For reasons that were well known, India would vote against the ninth preambular paragraph. It would vote against operative paragraph 1, as it had not signed the NPT and had no intention of so doing.

The representative of Cuba, said his delegation would, once again, abstain, on the draft, because it did not command a rudimentary basis of general acceptance of nuclear disarmament. Despite its title, it focused on non-proliferation, in particular on the NPT, to which his country was not a State party. The draft did not move forward with the objective of nuclear disarmament. Cuba would abstain on operative paragraph 1 and on the draft as a whole.

The representative of Mexico, said he would vote in favour of the draft resolution. Had the amendments put forward by Pakistan been put to the vote, he would have voted in its favour.

The Committee then took a separate vote on the ninth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament, which reads as follows: "Welcoming the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty at the fiftieth session of the General Assembly and its opening for signature at the beginning of the fifty-first session, and noting the subsequent signing of that Treaty by over 140 Member States,"

The ninth preambular paragraph of the draft on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.28/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 1 against (India), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Libya, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania). (For details of the vote, see Annex IV.)

The Committee next took a separate vote on operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution, which reads as follows: "Urges States not parties to the

First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to accede to it at the earliest possible date, recognizing the importance of universal adherence to the Treaty;"

Operative paragraph 1 of the draft on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.28/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 1 abstention (Cuba). (For details of the vote, see Annex V.)

The Committee then approved the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (A/C.1/52/L.28/Rev. 1) as a whole by a recorded vote of 138 to none against, with 9 abstentions (Algeria, Cuba, Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan). (See Annex VI.)

The representative of China, speaking after the vote, said he had voted in favour of the ninth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 1. For the first time, China had voted in favour of the draft as a whole. China had no objection to the thrust of the draft, which was that nuclear weapons should be totally eliminated. The current draft was an improvement over those of the past two years; it was well balanced. He hoped that in the future the draft could be combined with the draft put forward by the Non-Aligned countries. That would also help to rationalize the work of the First Committee and improve its efficiency.

The representative of Bangladesh said he had voted in favour of the draft as a whole and on the two separate paragraphs because the text represented a step forward towards the goal of general and complete nuclear disarmament. However, a much stronger language than was actually included in draft would have been preferable. Support for the draft was an expression of his country's support for all moves that could lead to nuclear disarmament.

The representative of Iran, said his country's view had been reflected in the draft on nuclear disarmament approved last week. He also supported the basic thrust of the current draft, but had abstained because its substance was not consistent with its title. It purported to be about nuclear disarmament, but it focused on nuclear-non proliferation. Regarding the seventh preambular paragraph, which welcomed the decision of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the NPT to extend the Treaty indefinitely, he said that, while Iran welcomed the review process, it was too early to extend the Treaty indefinitely. It was necessary first to see whether commitments already agreed upon would be followed through.

The representative of Algeria said he was unable to vote in favour of the draft because the text duplicated, and in some respects conflicted with the previously approved draft on nuclear disarmament, which Algeria traditionally supported. The title of the current draft did not reflect the

First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

content of the document. Some of the elements included were not in accord with his delegation's view of disarmament, which was in line with that of the Non-Aligned Movement. Furthermore, the conceptual approach taken by the current draft did not look at disarmament within a specific time-frame. If the amendment presented by Pakistan had been included, he would have voted in favour of the draft.

The representative of Sri Lanka, said he had not been present for the vote on the draft text on transparency in armaments. If he had been present, he would have voted in favour of the separate paragraphs and of the draft as a whole.

The representative of Nigeria said her country's views were well reflected in the draft on nuclear disarmament approved last week. That draft addressed all its pertinent concerns. Nigeria had not voted in favour of the current draft resolution as it did not address the real needs of disarmament. Hopefully, next year there would be only one draft on this very important issue.

MOTHUSI NKGOWE (Botswana), Committee Chairman, said that the draft decision on the rationalization of the work and reform of the agenda of the Committee, had been tabled on assumption that it would be agreed on by consensus. However, an amendment had been proposed, and since he did not want to convene a meeting of the First Committee tomorrow to deal just with that issue, he had withdrawn the draft decision. Consultations on the matter would continue, and it would be handed over to his successor. The matter would be brought before the Committee at its next session.

Closing Statement by Chairman

Mr. NKGOWE (Botswana), Chairman of the Committee, reflecting on the work of the Committee at the conclusion of the current session, said that there was an overall mood of mutual respect even where national positions would have suggested differently. That mood enhanced the image of the United Nations as an institution devoted to dialogue even on the matters related to sovereign interests and national security, and reinforced the sense that governments represented here were engaged in a collaborative effort aimed at building confidence and fostering disarmament.

Indisputable efforts had been made in scaling down nuclear weapons at both the unilateral and bilateral levels, he said. It was equally indisputable that the world expected the process to continue at a steady and more rapid pace, which should be done on a multilateral level.

Also encouraging was the progress made in the area of nuclear non- proliferation at the regional level, particularly with respect to the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, he went on. The existing zones were strengthened, and the Disarmament Commission was asked to set out guidelines for their establishment. The Central Asian States understood the

First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

complexities involved in establishing such a zone in their region, for which they had requested the assistance of the international community. In their determination to achieve that objective, they recognized the need for cooperation among their neighbours, some of whom were nuclear-weapon States.

He said that the Committee had two first-time events at the current session in the area of weapons of mass destruction. The newly appointed Director-General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons established in April, made an outstanding statement to the Committee. Furthermore, the Committee welcomed the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the inauguration of the Organization. The Committee was also informed of the recent ratification of the Convention by several important States, particularly the declared chemical-weapon State. Those ratifications had increased confidence in the Convention and the chemical disarmament regime, and bode well for the universal acceptance of the agreement.

Secondly, the Committee also was addressed by the Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive-Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, he said. The substantive work of the Provisional Technical Secretariat to that Treaty began last March without delay. Those two statements highlighted the important links between the Committee and General Assembly with those organizations. They also pointed the way to further collaboration in consolidating and strengthening existing disarmament and arms limitation agreements.

Regarding conventional weapons, the Committee had had an impassioned exchange of views on the issue of anti-personnel mines. Of all the items considered in the current session, the landmine issue received the greatest scrutiny by the international public opinion, for which expectations had grown sharply for the United Nations disarmament machinery to play its part. The deliberations confirmed that all States shared the basic humanitarian objective of eliminating anti-personnel mines, which maimed and killed indiscriminately even in post-conflict situations. The final objective of universality of that new norm in international disarmament law seemed to be accepted and underlined. Nonetheless, not all States were currently ready to accept a total ban of those weapons or to sign the convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction.

He said he was most grateful that the debate on the mines issue did not degenerate into "a war between humanitarian virtucrats and mine mongers". However, views continued to differ on the mechanism to be employed to eliminate that weapon's menace. Some preferred the universality of the Ottawa process. Others preferred strict compliance to the amended Protocol II of the

First Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Still others sought the framework of the Conference on Disarmament.

He said that there was broad agreement that the international community should continue to tackle the widespread problem of legal and illicit proliferation of small arms. The Assembly had before it the study on small arms that was an unprecedented effort at the international level to grasp the scope of the issue and to make recommendations concerning its solution. Coming from a part of the world that had experienced some of the worst consequences deriving from the flow of such weapons, he welcomed the Committee's continuing attention to the matter. The two studies envisioned in the draft resolution -- on ammunition and explosives and on the implementation of the recommendation of the study by the Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms -- should shed greater light on how the United Nations should tackle the issue.

Continuing, he said that the Committee once again recognized the important contribution that transparency and openness in armaments had made in building confidence and trust among States, fostering the adoption of mutually-agreed disarmament measures. In welcoming the continuing operation and further development of the Register of Conventional Arms, the Committee's text called for fuller participation and greater openness by all States. Notwithstanding the continued divergence of views on how to expand the Register's scope, it was already proving its viability in contributing, in no small measure, to international security.

Finally, he said that it was noteworthy that the Committee this year had been able to approve without a vote the text on convening the fourth special session of the Assembly devoted to disarmament. Such a "meeting of minds" in the Committee was welcome and would hopefully yield positive results in the consideration of that issue next year.

(Annexes follow)

First Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

ANNEX I

Vote on Sixth Preambular Paragraph of Transparency Text

The sixth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/52/L.2/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 80 in favour to 34 against, with 25 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Georgia, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Malta, Marshall Islands, Norway, Republic of Korea, San Marino, Senegal, Sweden, Turkey, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX I)

First Committee 17 Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

ANNEX II

Vote on Operative Paragraph 3 of Transparency Text

Operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/52/L.2/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 73 in favour to 46 against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain: Argentina, Belarus, Chile, Cyprus, Georgia, India, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Solomon Islands, South Africa.

Absent: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX II)

First Committee 18 Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

ANNEX III

Vote on Transparency Text as a Whole

The draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/52/L.2/Rev.1) was approved as a whole by a recorded vote of 81 in favour to 45 against, with 16 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, 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, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan.

Abstain: Argentina, Belarus, Chile, China, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, India, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea.

Absent: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX III)

First Committee 19 Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

ANNEX IV

Vote on Ninth Preambular Paragraph of Nuclear Disarmament

The ninth preambular paragraph of the draft text on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.28/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 1 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, 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, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, 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, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India.

Abstain: Bhutan, Libya, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent: Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mauritius, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

First Committee 20 Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

ANNEX V

Vote on Operative Paragraph 1 of Nuclear Disarmament

Operative paragraph 1 of the draft text on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/52/L.28/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 142 in favour to 3 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, 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, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, 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, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India, Israel, Pakistan.

Abstain: Cuba.

Absent: Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mauritius, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Yemen.

First Committee 21 Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on Nuclear Disarmament

The draft text on nuclear disarmament as a whole (document A/C.1/52/L.28/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to none against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, 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, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, 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, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Algeria, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan.

Absent: Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mauritius, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Yemen.

First Committee 22 Press Release GA/DIS/3101 24th Meeting (PM) 17 November 1997

* *** *