DRAFT RESOLUTION ON NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE APPROVED BY DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

4 November 1998

Press Release
GA/DIS/3128

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE APPROVED BY DISARMAMENT COMMITTEE

19981104 Texts Also Approved on Nuclear Disarmament, Ottawa Convention, Objective Information on Military Matters

The General Assembly would call upon States parties and signatories to all existing nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties to pursue the common goals those envisaged and to promote the nuclear-weapon-free status of the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, according to one of four disarmament and security-related draft resolutions approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

By further terms of the draft, the Assembly would welcome the steps taken to conclude further nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned and call upon all States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia. The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 4 against (France, Monaco, United Kingdom, United Kingdom, United States), with 14 abstentions. (For details of the vote see Annex III.)

Prior to approval of the draft, the Committee held two separate votes. At the request of the representative of Pakistan, it voted on the words "and South Asia" in operative paragraph 3. It approved retaining the words by a vote of 118 in favour to 2 against (Bhutan, India), with 21 abstentions (Annex I).

By a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 1 against (India), with 18 abstentions, the Committee also retained operative paragraph 3 as a whole, which calls upon States to consider all relevant proposals for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, including in the Middle East and South Asia (Annex II).

A second nuclear disarmament text approved today would have the Assembly urge the nuclear-weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems and, as interim measures, to immediately de-alert and

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

deactivate their nuclear weapons. The text was approved by a recorded vote of 87 in favour to 40 against, with 15 abstentions (Annex IV).

In the conventional weapons category, the Committee approved a draft text on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention), by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions (Annex V).

By the terms of that text, the Assembly would invite all States that had not yet done so to adhere to the Convention and urge all States that had not yet done so to ratify it without delay, subsequent to their signature. It would renew its call upon all States to contribute towards the full realization and effective implementation of the Convention to advance the care and rehabilitation and the social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine awareness programmes, and the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world.

According to a draft approved without a vote, the Assembly would recommend the guidelines and recommendations for objective information on military matters to all Member States for implementation, and call upon them to report annually, by 30 April, to the Secretary-General, their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year for which data were available. It would also call upon them to provide him with suggestions to strengthen and broaden participation in the United Nations system for the standardized reporting of military expenditures, including necessary changes to its content and structure.

Statements were made by the representatives of Syria, United States, France, China, India, Japan, Chile, Lebanon, Finland, Egypt, Singapore, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Turkey, Cuba, Iran, Algeria, Myanmar and Oman.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday, 5 November, to continue taking action on disarmament and security-related draft resolutions.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue taking action on disarmament and security-related draft resolutions. It had before it draft texts on the prohibition of anti- personnel mines, objective information on military matters, a nuclear-weapon- free southern hemisphere and nuclear disarmament.

By the terms of a draft resolution on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures (document A/C.1/53/L.30), the Assembly would recommend the guidelines and recommendations for objective information on military matters to all Member States for implementation, fully taking into account specific political, military and other regional conditions, on the basis of initiatives and with the agreement of the States of the region concerned, and call upon them to report annually, by 30 April, to the Secretary-General, their military expenditures for the latest fiscal year for which data were available.

The Assembly would also call upon Member States to provide the Secretary-General with their views on the analysis and recommendations contained in his report of 4 August (document A/53/218) and with further suggestions to strengthen and broaden participation in the United Nations system for the standardized reporting of military expenditures, including necessary changes to its content and structure.

The Assembly would request the Secretary-General to send an annual note verbale to Member States requesting the submission of such data, and timely publish the due date for transmitting such data in appropriate United Nations media. The Assembly would also request him to consult with relevant international bodies with a view to encouraging wider participation, and ask him to recommend changes to the reporting system that would strengthen and broaden participation in a report to the Assembly at its fifty-fourth session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States.

According to a text on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (Ottawa Convention) (document A/C.1/53/L.33), the Assembly would invite all States that had not yet done so to adhere to the Convention and urge all States that had not yet done so to ratify the Convention without delay, subsequent to their signature. It would renew its call upon all States to contribute towards the full realization and effective implementation of the

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

Convention to advance the care and rehabilitation and the social and economic reintegration of mine victims, mine awareness programmes, and the removal and destruction of anti-personnel mines placed throughout the world.

The text would further have the Assembly welcome the generous offer of the Government of Mozambique to host the first meeting of the States parties, and invite all States parties and non-States parties, as well as the United Nations, other relevant international organizations or institutions, regional organizations, the International Committee of the Red Cross and relevant non-governmental organizations to attend that meeting as observers. It would request the Secretary-General to undertake the necessary preparations for its convening during the week of 3 May 1999.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Surinam, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

A text on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/53/L.37) would have the Assembly call upon the States parties and signatories to the 1967 Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco), South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga), Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Bangkok Treaty) and Africa Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba), in order to pursue the common goals those envisaged and to promote the nuclear-weapon-free status of the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, to explore and implement further means of cooperation among themselves and their treaty agencies.

The Assembly would also call for the ratification of those treaties by all regional States and for all concerned States to facilitate adherence to the protocols to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties by all relevant States that had not yet done so.

First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

The Assembly would welcome the steps taken to conclude further nuclear- weapon-free zone treaties on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned and call upon all States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia. It would reiterate the important role of nuclear-weapon-free zones in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime and in extending the nuclear-weapon-free areas of the world.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liberia, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

By the terms of a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.47), the Assembly would urge the nuclear-weapon States to stop immediately the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems and, as interim measures, to immediately de-alert and deactivate their nuclear weapons. It would call on those States, pending a total ban on nuclear weapons through a nuclear weapons convention, to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument not to be the first to use those weapons.

The Assembly would reiterate its call to the nuclear-weapon States to undertake the step-by-step reduction of the nuclear threat and to carry out effective nuclear disarmament measures with a view to the total elimination of those weapons within a specified timeframe. It would call for the conclusion, as a first step, of a universal and legally binding multilateral agreement committing all States to the objective of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and for the convening of an international conference on nuclear disarmament at an early date.

By further terms, it would reiterate its call upon the Conference on Disarmament to establish, on a priority basis, an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament to commence negotiations early in 1999, aimed at concluding a nuclear weapons convention. It would welcome the establishment in the Conference of an ad hoc committee to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, and urge the speedy conclusion of a universal and non-discriminatory convention in that regard. It would also welcome the establishment of an ad hoc committee to negotiate negative security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States and urge the pursuit of those efforts on a priority basis.

First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Bhutan, Burundi, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Action on texts

The Committee began with a discussion on how the postponement of action on draft texts previously scheduled to be addressed was affecting the work of the Committee and the preparation of the delegates.

The representative of the Marshall Islands then announced that she had intended to abstain in yesterday's vote on the draft resolution on a nuclear weapons convention (document A/C.1/53/L.14).

The Committee took up the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/53/L.37).

The representative of Pakistan requested a separate vote on the words "and South Asia" in operative paragraph 3 of the draft, which concerns the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones.

Following a procedural discussion on the appropriateness of such a vote, the Committee CHAIRMAN decided that the vote would proceed and explained that a negative vote would call for the deletion of the words, while a positive vote would call for their retention.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Pakistan said his country had supported the idea of creating a nuclear-weapon- free zone in South Asia for almost 25 years. Unfortunately, it did not receive the kind of support it had wished from the international community and from some of the regional States. Following the nuclear tests and the declaration of a nuclear-weapon status by one of the regional States, his Government believed that the goal of a nuclear-free South Asia was no longer realistic. The words in the text had become redundant and he would abstain in the vote.

The words "and South Asia" in operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution were retained by a recorded vote of 118 votes in favour to 2 against (Bhutan, India), with 21 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

The Committee then retained operative paragraph 3 by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 1 against (India), with 18 abstentions (Annex II).

In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Pakistan said his delegation had abstained in the vote on the entire paragraph, because of the result of the earlier vote on the three words. Practically all the regional States had abstained and the retention of those words contradicted the established principle that the creation of any such zone should be based on arrangements freely arrived at by all the regional States.

The representative of Syria pointed out that the Arabic version of the draft resolution had a preambular paragraph omitting very important words relating to the freedom of the high seas. He would like the Secretariat to insert those words

The representative of the United States, speaking in explanation of vote, said he had abstained in the vote on the words "and South Asia" in operative paragraph 3 because the representative of Pakistan had raised a major issue, namely whether the States of the region wanted a nuclear-weapon- free zone on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among States. It appeared that Pakistan did not. Since those words remained in operative paragraph 3, similarly, he had abstained in the vote on that paragraph.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution as a whole on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/53/L.37) by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 4 against (France, Monaco, United Kingdom, United States), with 14 abstentions (Annex III).

The representative of France, speaking in explanation of vote, also on behalf of the United Kingdom and the United States, said that all three delegations had voted "no" on the draft, since, despite consultations with the sponsors, the text still had not adequately addressed the main problem and retained a fundamental ambiguity. He remained concerned that the thrust of the draft was to prepare the ground for the establishment of the southern hemisphere as a nuclear-weapon-free zone.

He said that since all the land territory in the southern hemisphere, with the exception of a few small islands, was already covered by nuclear- weapon-free zones, the high seas was the only new area that could possibly contribute to a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere. Many speakers had said that was not the intention of the draft resolution, as it even made reference to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. If the area was not to cover the high seas, however, then what would the establishment of such a zone add to existing zones? he asked.

He could only conclude, therefore, that the sponsors of the text were attempting to create a new zone that covered international waters, he said. Such a step would be inconsistent with international law and would be

First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

unacceptable to all delegations that respected the Law of the Sea. Despite other and lesser problems, the sponsors had made some useful improvements, although those were still not enough to overcome his general concern about the text's purpose. He hoped it would meet the needs of all delegations next year.

The vote on the text should in no way be interpreted as calling into question his firm commitment to the treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Pelindaba and the Antarctic. Nor did he object, in principle, to the establishment of a new nuclear-weapon-free zone, which could make an important contribution to both regional and global security, provided it was supported by all States in the region concerned and was embodied in an appropriate treaty, including provisions for full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards.

The representative of China said his country had all along supported the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned. It had, thus, signed all the relevant protocols to such treaties. Meanwhile, it had actively supported efforts by the countries of the southeast Asian region to establish such a zone, and was consulting with them in connection with signing the relevant protocols as soon as possible.

He said that the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones promoted nuclear disarmament, prevented nuclear proliferation, and led to international peace and stability. Any zone should be in line with the United Nations Charter. Besides being established on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at, the practical circumstances of the countries concerned should also be taken into account. Those zones, however, should not cover the special continental shelf or sovereign and maritime rights. Further, the countries of such zones should not use military alliances as an excuse to shed their obligations.

The present text referred to the applicable principles and norms of navigational freedom on the high seas and maritime navigation rights in international law, he said. It did not seek to create additional legal obligations to existing nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. Thus, his delegation had voted in favour of the draft.

The representative of India would explain her delegation's vote on operative paragraph 3 of the text, which referred to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia. It had been her country's consistent policy that such a proposal could only be based on arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned. There was no consensus on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia.

She had, therefore, called for a separate vote on that paragraph and had voted against it. Those contradictions were even more apparent when the

First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

reference to South Asia was seen in the context of recent developments. Thus, the paragraph did not correspond to the current reality and had been retained at the insistence of one co-sponsor -- not from South Asia -- even while the co-sponsor that had presented the reference had been prepared to delete it.

That operative paragraph made a mockery of the stipulation that arrangements for the establishment of such zones should be freely arrived at, she said. Her country could just as well have proposed that East Asia and Europe be added after South Asia. That paragraph distorted the text, which prompted her abstention on the text as a whole.

The Committee next approved the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.47) by a recorded vote of 87 in favour to 40 against, with 15 abstentions (Annex IV).

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of Japan said his delegation had abstained in the vote on the nuclear disarmament draft. He had already referred, in explanation of his vote on the nuclear weapons convention (document A/C.1/53/L.14), to his country's fervent desire to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons. The idea contained in the present text, especially the element of a specified timeframe, did not command the support of all nuclear- weapon States and of many non-nuclear-weapon States. The draft, therefore, was not formulated on the basis of appropriate considerations.

The text did not refer to the highly important Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its review process, he went on. That Treaty was one of the most effectively realistic frameworks for the promotion of nuclear disarmament. Rather than embrace the idea of the elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified timeframe, his country would pursue the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world through the reduction of nuclear weapons in line with the nuclear-weapon States.

In that connection, he would urge the Russian Federation and the United States to advance the process of the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START). For its part, his country would continue to assist the Russian Federation in dismantling its nuclear arsenals. It would also request other nuclear-weapon States to make further efforts in that regard. His country also intended to push for a successful NPT Review Conference in the year 2000, the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and the early conclusion of a fissile material cut-off treaty. In view of the substantial differences of opinion on how to advance the nuclear disarmament process, his country would try to bridge the gap and nurture common understandings.

The representative of Chile, in explanation of the vote, said his country had always sought priority treatment for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. It, therefore, agreed with most ideas in the draft, including

First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

the reference to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and on forging a new nuclear disarmament agenda.

He said that certain aspects of the draft, however, did not contribute to its overall objective, such as a call for effective dialogue to promote progress on banning the use of nuclear weapons, leading to a complete abolition of those weapons. Certain preconditions in the text would make it difficult to break the current impasse, particularly the reference to a strict timetable. Thus, his delegation had abstained in the vote on the draft, although it agreed with its objectives.

The representative of China, speaking in explanation of the vote, said he had voted in favour of the nuclear disarmament draft because he had supported its main thrust and shared many of the same views with the Non-Aligned Movement and the non-nuclear-weapon States in favouring the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. In connection with the policy of nuclear deterrence that was based on the first-use of nuclear weapons, he favoured the conclusion of an international, legally binding instrument of negative security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States.

He noted that nuclear-weapon States had different historical backgrounds and motives for developing nuclear weapons. His country had been compelled to develop a small number of nuclear weapons for its self-defence, but it had never threatened any country or shirked from its nuclear disarmament responsibilities. From the time it first possessed those weapons, it had declared that under no circumstances would it be the first to use them. It had also committed not to use them against non-nuclear-weapon States or zones, and was the only nuclear-weapon State that had made and abided by such a commitment.

Moreover, he said his country had never participated in a nuclear arms race or deployed nuclear weapons outside its territory, or threatened their use against other countries. His country was ready to work with other countries in a joint effort to establish a nuclear-weapon-free world at an early date. Nuclear disarmament required that specific steps and timetables be worked out by the international community within the framework of negotiations for a nuclear convention. The countries with the largest and most sophisticated nuclear arsenals had a long way to go towards nuclear disarmament. Meanwhile, they should continue to fulfil their responsibilities in that regard.

The representative of the Côte d'Ivoire said had his delegation been present during the vote on the nuclear disarmament draft, it would have voted in favour.

The representative of Bhutan also said that had he been present for the vote, he would have voted in favour of that text.

First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

The representative of the Marshall Islands said that, had he been present for the vote yesterday on conventional arms control at the regional and subregional levels (document A/C.1/53/L.35), he would have voted in favour.

The Committee next took up the draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/53/L.33).

The representative of Lebanon, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that his country had supported the principle on which the Convention was based. He thanked the many States for their efforts in that regard, including Canada, Belgium, Norway and Austria. His country had not signed the Convention so far, however, because Israel continued to occupy a portion of Lebanon's territory and Israel had rejected the immediate and unconditional application of Security Council resolution 425 (1978).

He said he would request that mine clearance assistance be granted not only to those countries that were parties to the Convention. Such financial and technical assistance should be extended to all States that needed it, without exception. Out of appreciation for the noble efforts being made by some States associated with the Convention, his delegation would vote in favour of the draft.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on the Ottawa Convention (document A/C.1/53/L.33) by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions (Annex V).

The representative of Finland, speaking in explanation of vote, said that his country was committed to a total ban on anti-personnel landmines. That was also the objective of the draft resolution. The Ottawa Convention was an important step towards a worldwide ban and its early entry into force had further contributed to those expectations. It was in that context that his country voted in favour of the draft, thereby supporting it without prejudice to the first operative paragraph.

He said that the global normative framework regarding anti-personnel landmines would be further strengthened by the entry into force of the strengthened Protocol II of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed To Be Excessively Injurious or To Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons). The Conference on Disarmament should continue to address the issue, with a particular focus on landmines transfers, to complement the Ottawa Convention.

The representative of Pakistan, speaking in explanation of vote, said that his country had been a long-standing supporter of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, including the Protocol restricting the use of landmines. That Convention and its Protocols were a bulwark against the

First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

indiscriminate use of certain conventional weapons. Even before that Convention had come into existence, his country had strictly observed humanitarian law. Thus, its commitment to the Convention and its Protocols was without hesitation.

He said that his country had a long border and lived under the constant threat of the use of force. It, therefore, had to resort to anti-personnel mines for its defensive strategy. Presently, the international community could usefully focus on, first, universal adherence to the new Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, because that instrument would lead to the resolution of almost all the humanitarian problems that had resulted from the widespread and indiscriminate use of those weapons.

The international community, especially those nations financially able and primarily responsible for the 25,000 annual deaths from those weapons, must support an invigorated demining programme, he went on. The Conference on Disarmament could also promote progress towards the ultimate prohibition of those weapons, without jeopardizing the security of States. Given his country's approach to the problem and its continued reliance on those weapons for defensive strategy, his delegation had abstained in the vote, while applauding the noble objectives it sought to promote.

The representative of Egypt, speaking in explanation of vote on the landmines convention, said that his country's problem with those weapons began when they were left behind from the Second World War. As a result of the wars with Israel, the 22.7 million landmines now covered an area of 228,000 hectares. The enormous size of the infected area impeded mine-clearance efforts, as did the oxidation of trigger mechanisms and the sudden movement of sands that increased the depth of the mines. Those factors had resulted in 8,317 casualties between 1945 and 1996.

Although his country had not planted those mines, the Egyptian arms forces, through 1991, had removed 11 million landmines without any foreign assistance. That pioneering operation had levied a heavy toll on its limited capabilities and had diverted much needed resources from other sectors. His country, therefore, was in dire need for extensive assistance, including special demining equipment.

He said his Government supported the humanitarian objectives enshrined in the Ottawa Convention, but it still failed to address some of its pressing concerns. It did not lay down a binding legal framework that recognized the responsibility of those States that had deployed landmines on the territories of other States. As a result, it did not adequately provide for assurances in the field of mine-clearance assistance. It also did not take into consideration the legitimate right of self-defence, as provided for in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

The use of landmines under certain conditions, especially in the absence of other financially feasible alternatives, was a matter of cardinal importance for countries with extended and difficult to protect borders, he said. Although some had referred to a viable alternative, no operational measure had been presented to address those concerns. Moreover, the means to produce and use such a viable alternative was restricted to a few States. Thus, those who needed that new and advanced form of self-defence had to rely heavily on expensive imports from limited producers. Meanwhile, national security imperatives were ignored.

The problem Egypt faced was more acute than ever, as its population grew and expanded outside the narrow Nile Valley, he said. Furthermore, the infested areas had great potential for economic development. Although his country associated itself with the humanitarian aspects, as well as the need for a total landmines ban, it could not comprehend the argument that certain areas deserved more attention than others.

Finally, he said that the methodology used to conclude the Ottawa Convention outside the aegis of the Conference on Disarmament had weakened and defeated the democratic process of multilateralism and the meaning of its collective efforts. He hoped the issue would find the proper place in the agenda of the Conference.

The representative of Singapore, also speaking in explanation of vote on the Ottawa Convention, said that his country had been clear and open about its position on landmines and its opposition to their indiscriminate use. Towards that goal, it had declared a two-year moratorium in 1996 on the export of landmines that did not contain self-neutralizing mechanisms. Last February, it had expanded the moratorium's scope to include all forms of landmines and it had indefinitely extended it. At the same time, it firmly believed that legitimate security concerns and the right to self-defence could not be disregarded. A blanket ban, therefore, might be counter productive, especially if it compromised the security of its followers.

The representative of Morocco, speaking in explanation of vote, said that his country supported the humanitarian objectives of the draft, as well as Canada's efforts in that regard. It continued to view the text in the light of certain security concerns, particularly in its southern provinces. His delegation had, therefore, abstained in the vote.

The representative of the Republic of Korea, speaking in explanation of vote, said his country had experienced tremendous suffering due to the Korean War. It had attached particular importance to international humanitarian law and had upheld its basic principles. The use of anti-personnel mines was no exception. In joining international efforts to prevent suffering from the indiscriminate use of those weapons, his Government had implemented an indefinite extension of its moratorium on its export of anti-personnel landmines and had actively participated, including financially, in United

First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

Nations mine action programmes. A comprehensive and coordinated approach, with the United Nations as focal point, would enable the international community to address the tremendous human and material loss caused by those weapons.

Given its security interests, however, his country could not join the Ottawa Convention, he said. The use of anti-personnel landmines was indispensable for the defence of the demilitarized zone on the Korean peninsula, which was one of the most heavily mined areas of the world. It would not forego the use of those weapons until the threats to its security were removed. The international community, however, should take more practical steps towards minimizing the suffering caused by those weapons, namely through the adoption of a legally binding and universally applicable instrument banning the transfer of all kinds of mines. The Conference on Disarmament should start negotiations on such a ban at the earliest possible date. For those reasons, his delegation had abstained.

The representative of Turkey, speaking in explanation of vote, said his delegation had voted in favour of the draft, but it had unique security concerns prompting it to carefully consider its landmines policy. While fully conscious of the suffering caused by the indiscriminate use of those weapons, Turkey's long land borders needed to be protected against trespassing and drug and illicit arms trafficking.

He said his delegation had unsuccessfully sought the inclusion of a clause that would free States parties who shared common borders with non-States parties of their Treaty obligations. That had compelled Turkey to abstain in the vote on the draft in the last two years and had precluded it from signing the Ottawa Convention last year. It associated itself, however, with the Convention's fundamental humanitarian considerations and would welcome its entry into force next March.

For its part, in 1996 his country had implemented a national moratorium banning the export and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. It had announced a three-year extension of that moratorium and it did not exclude signing the Ottawa Convention in the future, once its security concerns were satisfactorily addressed. His delegation had opted to vote in favour of the draft text, but wished to underline that the Conference on Disarmament was the competent forum to address the security concerns of countries and enable them to join a landmines ban in stages.

The representative of Cuba, speaking in explanation of vote, said that it had always striven in landmines negotiations to guarantee maximum protection for the civilian population, without limiting the military capacity of States and their right of self-defence. The absence of any recognition of that legitimate right in the draft resolution had caused his delegation to abstain.

First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

For nearly four decades, Cuba had been exposed to a policy of aggression and hostility from the most economically and militarily powerful country in the world, he said. Renouncing its anti-personnel landmines for its defence was a challenge it could not afford. It continued to support all balanced efforts to eliminate the terrible effects of the irresponsible use of those weapons.

In explanation of vote, the representative of Iran said his country was affected by millions of anti-personnel landmines and, therefore, welcomed any initiative designed to ban those weapons. Accordingly, it had declared a moratorium on the export of landmines. However, the Ottawa Convention did not adequately address both the humanitarian and security aspects of the issue and, for that reason, he had abstained in the vote.

The representative of India, in explaining her abstention, said her country was committed to a non-discriminatory and universal ban on landmines. That could be best achieved through a phased approach and a confidence- building process enabling States, especially those with large borders, to address their legitimate national security requirements. In effect, the immediate and complete elimination of those weapons would not be in the security interest of some States. International consideration of the landmine problem should also address the related questions of mine clearance and assistance to mine victims.

The representative of Algeria said she had voted in favour due to her country's strong support for international efforts to contain the landmine menace. Her country had signed the Ottawa Convention and welcomed its entry into force. It supported a total prohibition and subscribed to the humanitarian objectives of the Convention. Those objectives, however, could only be realized if the Convention had the support of the international community and of the producers of landmines.

The representative of Kuwait indicated that she had not wanted to participate in the vote.

The representative of China, explaining his abstention in the vote, said his Government had always expressed serious humanitarian concerns over the landmine problem and believed that the right approach to dealing with it was to accommodate both the humanitarian and security aspects. Without compromising the legitimate rights of States to self-defence, those weapons should be controlled to limit civilian injury. There was need for restrictions on the use of mines and for international mine-clearing efforts.

He said his country actively participated in the process leading to the adoption of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and had ratified its Protocol. Furthermore, his country had joined international mine-clearing efforts and pledged $100,000 for mine-clearing in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1999. In cooperation with the United Nations, it would also hold training

First Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

courses to facilitate the efforts of the international community with regard to mine clearance.

The representative of Myanmar said, although he respected the decision of all those that had acceded to the Ottawa Convention, his country was not a signatory because it believed that a step-by-step approach was a better way to deal with the problem. Death was caused by the indiscriminate use and transfer of those weapons. Those were the real issues to be addressed and to ban. His Government had obvious reservations about the way in which the subject was being handled. It was for that reason that he had abstained in the vote.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures (document A/C.1/53/L.30).

The representative of Lebanon made a general statement with regard to the cluster of draft resolutions dealing with confidence-building measures, including transparency in armaments. He noted that the three draft resolutions addressing that subject -- documents A/C.1/53/L.30, L.39 and L.40 -- were similar in substance and form. He did not see why there had to be three resolutions on one issue, in view of the question of rationalizing the work of the Committee. The repetition was simply unjustifiable.

Continuing, he said despite the reservations of many delegates in the past, the general trend regarding transparency in weapons continued to involve only conventional weapons. That left a lot to be desired and made the whole process incomplete. Ideally, transparency should also cover all weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The presentation by States of information on their military expenditures and weapons categories should hide nothing. The credibility of transparency depended on the confidence it gave States.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said his Government had been participating in the United Nations Register on Conventional Arms since 1993. The enhancement of transparency was the key in building confidence among and between States and the Register had been significant in that regard. Particular importance should be attached to ensuring universality in the participation of States. All those not yet participating in the Register should reconsider their position. With regard to the future of the Register, it needed to be underlined that the participation of every member of the international community was indispensable.

The representative of Pakistan said greater transparency should not be a substitute for the reduction of tension and the resolution of conflicts caused by arms proliferation. The acquisition of those arms was governed by the national and regional security environment of those affected. That was a factor that should be seriously addressed.

First Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

Also, he continued, reporting military expenditures based on fallacious grounds did not help. Armed forces were maintained at a certain level due to the requirements for self-defence, especially by small States with relatively bigger neighbours. Thus, the approach adopted in dealing with the issue was not acceptable to the majority of States in the international system. Hard negotiations on that issue were needed.

The representative of Oman said his delegation had maintained his country's tradition of supporting resolutions on transparency. That should not, however, be seen as a total acceptance of everything in the drafts, as they had some obvious defects. His delegation shared the position of the group of Arab States regarding the status and scope of the Register, and he hoped for meaningful international consideration of the matter. He supported the idea of combining the three drafts addressing the transparency issue, to enable the Committee avoid having to deal with redundant texts.

The Committee approved the draft resolution on objective information on military matters, including transparency of military expenditures (document A/C.1/53/L.30) without a vote, with Bosnia and Herzegovina joining the list of co-sponsors.

(Annexes follow)

First Committee - 17 - Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

ANNEX I

Vote on `And South Asia' in Nuclear-Free Southern Hemisphere

The words "and South Asia" in operative paragraph 3, concerning nuclear- weapon-free zones, in the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/53/L.37) were retained by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 2 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Bhutan, India.

Abstain: Algeria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, France, Israel, Latvia, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Belize, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mauritius, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Syria, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX I)

First Committee 18 Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

ANNEX II

Vote on Operative Paragraph 3 of Nuclear Free Southern Hemisphere

Operative paragraph 3, concerning nuclear-weapon-free zones, of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/53/L.37) was retained by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 1 against, with 18 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India.

Abstain: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cuba, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, France, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mauritius, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Syria, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX II)

First Committee 19 Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

ANNEX III

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/53/L.37) was approved by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 4 against, with 14 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malyasia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, 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 Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: France, Monaco, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Bhutan, Bulgaria, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Georgia, Hungary, India, Israel, Latvia, Marshall Islands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Mauritius, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX III)

First Committee 20 Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

ANNEX IV

Vote on Nuclear Disarmament

The draft resolution on nuclear disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.47) was approved by a recorded vote of 87 in favour to 40 against, with 15 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: 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, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Chile, Cyprus, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malta, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, San Marino, South Africa, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Bhutan, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

First Committee 21 Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998

ANNEX V

Vote on Ottawa Convention

The draft resolution on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (document A/C.1/53/L.33) was approved by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, 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, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Egypt, Federated States of Micronesia, India, Iran, Israel, Kazakhstan, Libya, Marshall Islands, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Syria, United States, Viet Nam.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Mauritius, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *

First Committee 22 Press Release GA/DIS/3128 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1998