NUCLEAR RESTRAINT URGED FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE IN DRAFT RESOLUTION APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

10 November 1998

Press Release
GA/DIS/3132

NUCLEAR RESTRAINT URGED FOR CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE IN DRAFT RESOLUTION APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

19981110 Seven Texts Approved, Three by Recorded Vote; ICJ, Arms Register, Mongolia's Nuclear-Free Status among Issues Addressed

The General Assembly, welcoming the fact that there are currently no nuclear weapons stationed in Central and Eastern Europe, would urge all concerned States to continue making it possible to have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on that territory, by the terms of one of seven draft resolutions approved today in the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

The draft text, sponsored by Belarus, was approved by a recorded vote of 57 in favour to 41 against, with 39 abstentions. By further terms of the text, the Assembly would call on the nuclear-weapon States and other concerned States to abide by their nuclear non-proliferation obligations under existing multilateral and bilateral agreements. (For details of the vote, see Annex III).

According to a draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding the legality of nuclear weapons, the Assembly would underline, once again, the Court's unanimous conclusion that there existed an obligation to pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control. The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 100 in favour to 25 against, with 23 abstentions (Annex II).

Recognizing the importance of further developing the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, the Assembly would urge Member States to submit their views to the Secretary-General on, among other things, the elaboration of the practical means for its further development in order to increase transparency related to weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons. The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 82 in favour to 44 against, with 17 abstentions (Annex VI).

Prior to approval of the draft, separate votes were taken on the eighth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 3 (b). By the terms of the

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

first, the Assembly would stress the need to achieve universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. That paragraph was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 2 abstentions (Cuba, Pakistan) (Annex IV).

Operative paragraph 3 (b), by which the Assembly would urge Member States to submit their views to the Secretary-General on developing the Register in order to increase transparency of weapons of mass destruction, was approved by a recorded vote of 80 in favour to 46 against, with 17 abstentions (Annex V).

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft text on Mongolia's nuclear-weapon-free status, by which the Assembly would invite Member States, including the five nuclear-weapon States, to cooperate with Mongolia in consolidating and strengthening its independence, sovereignty, economic security and nuclear-weapon-free status. The Assembly would appeal to the member States of the Asia-Pacific region to support Mongolia's efforts to join the relevant regional security and economic arrangements.

By the terms of three other draft resolutions approved without a vote, the Assembly would:

-- decide, subject to the emergence of a consensus on its objectives and agenda, to convene a fourth special session devoted to disarmament and recommend that item's inclusion in the 1999 agenda of the Disarmament Commission;

-- reaffirm the role of the Conference on Disarmament as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum and welcome its determination to fulfil that role, with a view to making early substantive progress on the priority items of its agenda;

-- and reaffirm strong support for the continued operation and strengthening of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific, and underscore the importance of the "Kathmandu process" as a powerful vehicle for the development of regional security and disarmament dialogue.

Statements were made by the representatives of Mongolia, United Kingdom, Bangladesh, Nepal, Canada, Australia, Chile, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Australia, Canada, India, San Marino, United States, China, Malaysia, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Greece, Japan, New Zealand, Germany, Poland, Austria (on behalf of the European Union and associated countries), Lithuania, Croatia, Ukraine, Argentina, Egypt, Cuba, Israel, Iran, Portugal, Netherlands and Turkey.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday, 12 November, to continue taking action on all disarmament and security-related draft resolutions.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to continue taking action on all disarmament and security-related draft resolutions. It had before it draft texts on: the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons; the nuclear-weapon-free status of Mongolia; transparency of armaments, including weapons of mass destruction; Conference on Disarmament; regional disarmament; a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament; and on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific.

According to the terms of the text on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/53/L.5), the Assembly would reaffirm its strong support for the continued operation and strengthening of the Centre, and underscore the importance of the "Kathmandu process" as a powerful vehicle for the development of regional security and disarmament dialogue. It would appeal to Member States, in particular those within the Asia-Pacific region, to contribute to the strengthening of the Centre.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam.

By the terms of a draft resolution on Mongolia's nuclear-weapon-free status (document A/C.1/53/L.10/Rev.2), the Assembly would invite Member States, including the five nuclear-weapon States, to cooperate with Mongolia in consolidating and strengthening its independence, sovereignty, economic security and nuclear-weapon-free status.

The Assembly would appeal to the member States of the Asia-Pacific region to support Mongolia's efforts to join the relevant regional security and economic arrangements. In that context, it would request the Secretary- General and relevant United Nations bodies to provide the necessary assistance to Mongolia, within existing resources, to take those necessary measures. It would also ask him to report on the implementation of the resolution at its fifty-fifth session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Mongolia and the Philippines.

By the terms of a text sponsored by the United Kingdom on the report of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.12/Rev.1), the Assembly would reaffirm the role of the Conference as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community and welcome its determination to fulfil that role in the light of the evolving international

situation, with a view to making early substantive progress on the priority

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

items of its agenda.

The Assembly would also welcome the decision of the Conference to entrust its successive Presidents with the task of pursuing intensive consultations and seeking its members views on approaches for dealing with the agenda item on the cessation of a nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. It notes the recommendations by the last President of the 1998 session that they should resume at the start of the 1999 session.

It would further welcome the decisions of the Conference to establish two ad hoc committees concerning assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States against the threat of use or use of nuclear weapons and a fissile material cut-off treaty, and notes the recommendations that they be re-established at the beginning of the 1999 session. The Assembly would also encourage the Conference to intensify its consultations on the review of its membership, with a view to reaching an early agreement on its further expansion.

A draft text sponsored by Belarus on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.23/Rev.1) would have the Assembly urge all the concerned States to exert efforts to continue making it possible to have no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of the non-nuclear-weapon States of the region of Central and Eastern Europe. It would call upon those States and other concerned States to abide by their nuclear non-proliferation obligations under existing multilateral and bilateral agreements. The Assembly would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its fifty-fifth session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by the Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Malawi and Mali.

By the terms of a text on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/53/L.39/Rev.1), the Assembly would recognize the importance of achieving greater progress in the further development of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, so that it might truly enhance confidence-building and security among States and accelerate efforts towards the attainment of the goal of complete and general disarmament.

Towards that goal, the Assembly would urge Member States to submit their views to the Secretary-General, for consideration by the group of governmental experts to be convened in the year 2000, on: the early expansion of the scope of the Register; and the elaboration of practical means for the Register's further development in order to increase transparency related to weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, and to transfers of equipment and technology directly related to the development and manufacture of such weapons.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Egypt, Jordan, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan and Swaziland.

First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

A draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/53/L.45) would have the Assembly underline once again the unanimous conclusion of the Court that there existed an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

The Assembly would call once again upon all States to immediately fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 1999 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination.

It would request all States to inform the Secretary-General of the efforts and measures undertaken to implement the present resolution and nuclear disarmament, and would request the Secretary-General to apprise the Assembly at its fifty-fourth session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

A draft resolution sponsored by South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement on a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.50/Rev.1) would have the Assembly decide, subject to the emergence of a consensus on its objectives and agenda, to convene the special session. It would endorse the report of the 1998 substantive session of the Disarmament Commission and recommend that the item be included in its 1999 agenda, which should promote agreement on the agenda and timing of the special session.

The Assembly would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of its fifty-fourth session and, subject to the outcome of the deliberations at the Commission's 1999 substantive session, to set an exact date for and to decide on organizational matters relating to the special session.

Action on Texts

The representative of Mongolia introduced a revised draft text on his country's nuclear-weapon-free status (document A/C.1/53/L.10/Rev.2). He said

First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

that due to his country's geographic location, among other factors, it had experienced difficulties in establishing an internationally recognized "single State" nuclear-weapon-free zone. The standard formula for creating such zones could not be applied in Mongolia's case. That, however, did not mean that his country's aspiration for the zone could not be defined, internationally recognized and respected.

He said that, as a result of the consultations and negotiations that had taken place since October 1997, his country became convinced that its nuclear- weapon-free status would be credible and durable, if its overall security was ensured and internationally recognized. That understanding formed the basis of the concept in the draft resolution.

Under the text's terms, the General Assembly would invite the States concerned to work with Mongolia in taking the necessary measures to consolidate and strengthen its nuclear-weapon-free status and security, he said. The draft text had been revised as a result of a request by one of the States concerned to make absolutely clear that all the five nuclear-weapon States were equally involved. To that effect, the words "States concerned" in operative paragraph 3 had been changed to read "Member States, including the five nuclear-weapon States".

The representative of the United Kingdom introduced a revised draft resolution on the report of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.12/Rev.1). He said the original draft had acknowledged that after a period of reflection the Conference had re-embarked on substantive negotiations and looked forward to productive work in 1999. Since then, a number of delegations who welcomed the draft had also made some suggestions towards its revision. He had tried to incorporate those suggestions in the revised draft. He hoped the changes would make it possible for the new draft to be approved without a vote.

The representative of Bangladesh introduced a revised draft resolution on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/53/L.5/Rev.1). As a result of that revision, he wished to withdraw an earlier amendment (document A/C.1/53/L.46) on the subject.

The representative of Nepal clarified that his delegation had held informal consultations that sought to accommodate the views of several delegations on the same draft to which the representative of Bangladesh referred. Due to Bangladesh's withdrawal of the earlier amendment, he hoped the draft resolution would be adopted by acclamation.

The representative of Canada said he appreciated Mongolia's aspiration for a nuclear-weapon-free status. He welcomed the sentiments expressed in the draft text that addressed the subject, especially the consideration that was accorded careful consultations with others. His country strongly supported

First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

Mongolia's position and hoped that the draft text would be adopted by consensus.

The representative of Australia spoke on the several amendments that had been proposed to the draft text on nuclear testing (document A/C.1/53/L.22). He said it was not surprising that the two countries concerned had been trying to deflect the message of the draft, which was designed to express the concern of the General Assembly and of the international community as a whole regarding those tests. There were established international norms about nuclear testing and the two concerned States had tried to defend their actions in a variety of ways, which included attempts to interpret the tests in the North-South context.

He said the two countries involved argued that the non-proliferation regime was discriminatory. That link was spurious. In a bid to defend their actions, those two countries pointed to the pace of nuclear disarmament. Yet, threats to nuclear non-proliferation norms and to the NPT would not hasten the advent of a nuclear-weapon-free world. They also used national security as a reason for conducting those tests, but their security had been weakened rather than strengthened. He appealed to the Committee not to accommodate any amendments to the draft, as that would neutralize its message.

The representative of Chile said his delegation completely agreed with the consensus on the draft text on Mongolia's nuclear-weapon-free status. He would also like to clarify that his delegation always judged draft texts on their merit. The draft on Mongolia might not be perfect, but it had clear merit.

The representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said that the draft resolution on Mongolia's nuclear-weapon-free status should be adopted without a vote, as in previous years. As a landlocked country, Mongolia had been developing positive and peace-building policies. The draft, particularly operative paragraphs 2 and 3, was a positive step towards the future establishment of such zones.

The representative of Pakistan said he wished to respond to the statement just made by the representative of Australia, concerning the several amendments to that text. Australia at one time had allowed its territory to be utilized by another State for the conduct of nuclear-test explosions. In doing so, Australia had contributed to the vertical and horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. Even today, Australia benefited from the nuclear umbrella and the protection afforded it by its alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.

He said that if Australia was wedded to the goal of nuclear disarmament, it should disallow the doctrine of nuclear deterrence embedded in the alliance to which his country was a party. Then, Australia and Canada, like New Zealand, at least would have the courage of their convictions. That, unfortunately, was not the case today.

First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

He noted the comment by the representative of Australia that the 2,000 past nuclear tests were no justification for the present testing. While true, that did not mean that by focusing a draft only on the present testing, one should condone past testing to which Australia was a party. It had even been suggested that testing by nuclear-weapon States should not be mentioned in the report of the Conference on Disarmament, but testing by India and Pakistan should be mentioned in the report, because those were non-nuclear- weapon States. Such a double standard was an attempt at justifying the draft resolution submitted by the delegations of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

The Australian representative had said that India and Pakistan were trying to project a North-South dimension to the nuclear-testing draft, but the draft had emanated from three countries that were members of the "northern group", he said. Those countries had put forward a draft pertaining to South Asia, but had not consulted with the countries concerned and had refused to entertain amendments. Was that not the North acting against the South? he asked. Was it Pakistan and India that had made it a North-South issue, or was it the sponsors of the draft that had done so? Clearly, there were overtones of North and South in the draft.

Continuing, he said it was a discriminatory text, which referred to specific countries. Similarly, the Security Council resolution 1172 (1998) had been adopted without the participation of the two countries concerned. The same process was being considered in the Committee and the countries concerned were being told that such a process was not discriminatory. The text did not deserve the support of the South, or even of the North -- at least not of those who believed in fairness and equal treatment for all countries. He urged all Committee members to vote against the draft, whose motives were coloured and whose origins were doubtful.

The representative of the Republic of Korea, speaking on the draft concerning the nuclear-weapon-free status of Mongolia, said he had attached importance to the role of nuclear-weapon-free zones in promoting a nuclear- weapon-free world. Existing zones had made significant contributions towards nuclear disarmament. In their establishment, consensus by the States of the region was indispensable. The declaration by Mongolia of its nuclear-weapon- free status was an encouraging initiative that should encourage the promotion of nuclear-weapon-free single States.

The representative of South Africa said he was prompted to speak because the draft on nuclear testing had been characterized as a North-South issue. That issue should be debated on its substance, rather than by attempting to categorize it in any way. His country, to date, was not a co-sponsor of the draft and was speaking as a country that was a member of the South. However, it agreed with several elements of the text. It was opposed, past and present, to nuclear testing and to any current tests aimed at developing new nuclear weapons. It had opposed and would continue to oppose nuclear-test explosions, as it had in 1995 when it co-sponsored the resolution on nuclear testing and tests were being conducted by France and China.

First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

On the North-South issue, he said that the so-called South had a very firm and very clear position on nuclear testing, as contained in the 1995 document adopted by heads of State of the Non-Aligned Movement in Cartagena, which was reinforced in 1998 in the final Non-Aligned Movement document emanating from the meeting in Durban, South Africa. The Movement, in both documents, firmly rejected all kinds of nuclear tests and strongly deplored their resumption. If the issue was to be categorized as a North-South issue, clearly the South had firmly and historically opposed nuclear testing.

The representative of Australia read out the co-sponsors of the nuclear testing draft, which, he said, represented "a good North-South mix". Whether or not no-action motions were democratic or undemocratic, a vote on that issue in the Committee could hardly be described as undemocratic. Coming from a "footballing nation", the representative of Pakistan would know what was meant by the phrase, "play the ball, not the man".

The representative of Canada said his country did not play that version of football. It hoped the Committee would act on the draft resolution as submitted. It was prepared as the result of extensive consultations, which dated back at least one month, and there had been conversations with the two States concerned. He was anticipating a straight-forward decision on the draft, as submitted. Obviously, he would oppose the proposed amendments.

He said the text was discriminatory in that it was about testing versus non-testing, but that was the only discriminatory aspect of it. The comments made by the representative of South Africa concerning a North-South aspect of the text were welcome. He could not speak authoritatively for the Non-Aligned Movement, but 187 members of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and more than 150 members of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) formed a pretty large constituency, which was neither North nor South -- but a global community expressing concern. If delegations opposed nuclear testing, they should support the draft resolution, without amendments.

The representative of India said that she had not intended to take the floor, but was compelled to do so in view of the debate on the nuclear testing draft. In spite of the statement made by the representative of Canada, at no stage did any consultations take place with her delegation on substantive aspects of the text. It was consulted only on the procedural aspect, specifically regarding when the draft might be acted upon.

She said that, although the draft sought to address the broad issue of nuclear testing, unfortunately it focused only on the tests conducted last May. The text was selective and discriminatory in its approach and objective. It was not intended to treat all relevant aspects of testing, but to isolate two countries in a particular region. While it did not address nuclear testing as a whole, it went far beyond its scope by referring to Security Council resolution 1172 (1998), which had addressed a number of issues that had nothing to do with nuclear testing. Also, her country had not been asked to participate in the Council's discussion prior to its adoption of the

First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

resolution.

The text on nuclear testing was discriminatory and self-serving, she said. It did not promote nuclear disarmament and was, in the end, counter- productive. With a view towards balancing the text and focusing it on nuclear testing, her delegation had introduced certain amendments, which would hopefully be considered on the basis of their substance.

The representative of Pakistan said that the question posed by the representative of Canada was that, if nuclear testing was bad, the text deserved a favourable vote. His own delegation was not saying that testing was good. It was saying that the draft was discriminatory, in that it focused only on two countries in one region, and so forth. The representative of Australia had said to "play the ball, not the man" but what happened when the ball was a foul ball -- and the present text was a foul ball. What was democratic about a draft prepared by a caucus of countries, which would not entertain amendments and would vote for no action? he asked.

He drew attention to the statement made by the representative of South Africa. He wondered if South Africa was actually speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Anyone who heard the quotations from the Non-Aligned Movement summits in Cartagena and Durban would see that the Movement's position on nuclear testing was balanced and took into account the positive developments that had occurred since May. If the present text had reflected the Durban document, he would be very happy, as would the entire Non-Aligned Movement.

In recalling the comment made by the representative of Canada that the draft did not seek to review the history, he said that the text should take into consideration recent positive developments. In a discriminatory manner, the co-sponsors of the draft ignored those developments and condemned the two countries concerned. That representative also said that all nuclear tests were bad. The Pakistani delegation had sought the prohibition of all nuclear testing in the CTBT -- including laboratory and sub-critical tests -- yet his position had not been incorporated into the Treaty, which prohibited only explosive nuclear tests. To not include those kinds of nuclear tests in the draft resolution was also discriminatory.

The representative of South Africa pointed out that he always spoke on behalf of his own country, unless he indicated otherwise. It was not necessary for him to speak on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement on nuclear testing, because the language contained in the documents of both the Durban and Cartagena summits had allowed the Movement's heads of State to speak for themselves.

The representative of Chile said his delegation had understood that the nuclear testing debate would take place on Thursday, 12 November. In light of the current exchanges, that discussion should be very brief. Moreover, since

First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

great intellectual weight was not being displayed at present, his patience was wearing thin. The Committee should stick to today's programme.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on Mongolia's nuclear weapon free status (document A/C.1/53/L.10/Rev.1).

The representative of San Marino, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that her Government had always favoured nuclear-weapon-free zones and had supported the idea of a single nuclear-weapon-free State. Such a self-declaration should be recognized by the international community and given the impartiality and importance it deserved. She hoped the draft would be approved without a vote.

The draft resolution on Mongolia's nuclear-weapon-free status was then approved without a vote.

The representative of the United States said he had joined consensus on the draft, because it would encourage constructive steps aimed at enhancing stability in the Central Asian region. The political cooperation it called for would lead to significant international security benefits for Mongolia and for those States that participated in the process. It also supported the draft because Mongolia's unique geographic and security situation merited unique consideration.

He said that the role envisaged for the Secretary-General would further enhance the visibility of efforts to provide security benefits to the international community as a whole. Statements made by some delegations contained the misconception that the draft called for the establishment of a single State nuclear-weapon-free zone. A close examination of the text revealed that Mongolia had moved beyond that position and called for a broader range of measures to increase its security -- an approach that would yield important benefits.

The representative of China said he had joined consensus on the draft because his country had always respected the quest of countries to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones on the basis of agreements freely arrived at among the States in the region, and in light of current regional circumstances. As such, he supported Mongolia's desire to establish a nuclear-weapon-free State. Countries large or small, strong or weak, were equal members of the international family and deserved respect. As Mongolia's neighbour, his country fully respected its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. He hoped its nuclear-weapon-free status would be respected by all.

Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Malaysia said his delegation fully supported the establishment of nuclear- weapon-free zones in various parts of the world. His country was a party to the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon Free Zone Treaty (Bangkok Treaty). It also supported Mongolia's aspiration for a single-State nuclear-weapon-free zone, and considered it a bold and commendable step.

First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

He said the creation of such a zone would contribute effectively to disarmament measures, in particular towards the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It would also enhance regional, as well as global peace and security. The broad support accorded Mongolia's initiative indicated the feasibility of the theory of single-State nuclear-weapon-free zones. The draft appealed for the support of the Member States of the Asia- Pacific region, with regard to Mongolia's desire to join that regional security and economic arrangement.

The representative of Australia said his country supported Mongolia's initiative and considered it consistent with the principles of the NPT, as established and underscored during the 1995 review and extension conference of that Treaty.

The representative of Jamaica said her country supported the draft on Mongolia's nuclear-weapon-free status. That initiative should be applauded, because the establishment of such zones in various parts of the world would facilitate the global nuclear disarmament process. Initiatives towards that goal deserved encouragement.

Next, the Committee considered the draft text on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/53/L.45).

The Committee Secretary announced an oral amendment to the draft, by which the words "addendum 1, dated 29 October 1998" had been added to the second line of the last preambular paragraph, following the word "1998".

A separate vote was requested on operative paragraph 1 of the draft, which underlines the consensus of the Court regarding the obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations in good faith and to conclude negotiations on nuclear disarmament under international control. The Committee approved the paragraph by 133 votes in favour to 5 against (Bulgaria, France, Monaco, Russian Federation, United States), with 5 abstentions (Israel, United Kingdom, Turkey, Czech Republic, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). (For details of the vote see Annex I.)

In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Kuwait announced that his delegation had not participated in the voting and would have voted in favour had it been otherwise.

The representative of Luxembourg, speaking also on behalf of Belgium and the Netherlands, said he attached great importance to the opinion of the International Court of Justice. It had to be stressed that the opinion of the Court was indivisible and selecting paragraphs for action could only dilute the message of that opinion.

The representative of Chile said his country attached a great importance to international law and to the opinion of the International Court of Justice in that context. He was dumb-struck by the result of the vote on the first

First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

operative paragraph. That seemed inconsistent with everything else that had been said in the Committee. The opinion of the Court was a sound basis, from which the international community could not depart. Unanimously, the Court agreed on the nature of the threat by nuclear weapons and on the obligation of all States to pursue, in good faith, nuclear disarmament.

He said it was obvious that the devastating effects of the use of nuclear weapons caused them to be linked to the provisions of international humanitarian law. Also, in the context of the Charter of the United Nations, it was the responsibility of the international community to preserve international peace and stability. The mere possession of nuclear weapons in situations of extreme hostility would make the use of force possible. The opinion of the Court offered a framework that must be taken into account in nuclear disarmament. He found it inexplicable that a separate vote was requested on one paragraph.

The representative of the United Kingdom said his country was committed to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons and had expressed that with its strategic defence review. His country had repeatedly clarified that, when satisfied with verified progress towards that goal, it would ensure that British nuclear weapons were included in multilateral negotiations. Considerable progress had been made on nuclear disarmament and his country believed that the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off treaty was a crucial next step, as was recognized by the parties to the NPT.

He said his country had already made a unique contribution with regard to the question of fissile materials, by ending its production of those materials and by declaring its defence stocks. His country would continue to play an active and constructive role in getting the related negotiations off to a good start during the next session of the Conference on Disarmament.

His country, he said, welcomed the recognition of the importance of obligations under the NPT, including those of the nuclear-weapon States regarding nuclear disarmament and those expressed in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons. However, given that the draft resolution contained highly selective quotations from the Court's opinion, his delegation had abstained in the vote on operative paragraph 1 of the draft and would vote against the draft as a whole.

The Committee then adopted the draft on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/53/L.45) by a recorded vote of 100 in favour to 25 against, with 23 abstentions (Annex II).

In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Greece reiterated his country's respect for the Court. He believed that the Court was an essential institution with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security. However, his delegation did not support the fact that the sponsors of the draft text had arbitrarily selected parts of the opinion of

First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

the Court. That altered the spirit of the Court's viewpoint.

The representative of the United States said, as had been the case every year, his country voted against operative paragraph 1 of the draft and against the draft as a whole. His country was opposed to the ideas expressed in the draft, because it believed that a step-by-step approach, including unilateral, bilateral and multilateral measures remained the only realistic approach to effective nuclear disarmament. The draft had been unacceptably selective in the way that it dealt with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. By so doing, it misrepresented and distorted the findings of the Court.

The representative of Japan said his delegation voted in favour of operative paragraph 1 of the draft, but abstained in the vote on the draft text as a whole. His country had suffered the impact of an atomic bomb and fervently wished that nuclear weapons would never again be used and that the nuclear disarmament process would progress steadily. The advisory opinion of the Court demonstrated the complexity of the problem. Rather than jumping at the problem in 1999, which was only two months away, his country believed a gradual approach was relatively more practical.

The representative of New Zealand said he had supported past resolutions on the subject and did so again with regard to this year's draft, notwithstanding that he would have liked some elements of it to have been presented differently. He believed it was possible to go along with the language of the draft without prejudging its outcome. Above all, the draft had been somewhat superseded by the text on a new agenda for a nuclear-weapon- free world (document A/C.1/53/L.48), which his country had co-sponsored.

The representative of the Republic of Korea said his delegation recognized the urgency of accelerating the global elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The draft on the advisory opinion of the Court was significant. Yet, he did not believe that a time- bound programme was a realistic approach. Against that background, his delegation voted in favour of operative paragraph 1 of the draft and abstained on the draft as a whole.

The representative of Germany also said his delegation welcomed the goal of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, but did not support the draft because, as opposed to its recommendations, he believed that a step-by-step approach was the most realistic way to approach that goal.

Next, the Committee considered the draft resolution on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.23/Rev.1).

In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Poland, speaking on behalf of the following twelve States -- Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia -- said the amendments that

First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

Belarus had offered on the draft did not change the substance of the initial text. He had hoped that Belarus would withdraw the draft, in consideration of the position of the 12 countries directly concerned in the region, recently expressed in a joint statement. He regretted that it had not. Therefore, the countries for which he spoke had no choice but to vote against the draft.

The representative of Austria, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the Union had consistently expressed its support for the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones as a valuable contribution to the realization of the goals of the NPT. The Union reiterated the principle that the creation of such zones should be based on agreements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned. The Union believed that before a proposal -- such as the one on regional disarmament being considered by the Committee -- could be presented to the Committee, States of the region should be consulted first. That had not been the case. For that reason, the countries he spoke for would have to vote against the draft.

The representative of Lithuania said the draft had serious factual and contextual deficiencies. Where was the risk of nuclear proliferation in Eastern and Central Europe? he asked. If, indeed, there was a problem, Europe had enough instruments to deal with it. It was unnecessary to have burdened the United Nations with the issue. The draft distorted the picture of European security. It conjured up a ghost of nuclear proliferation. The great majority of the countries in the region did not see any threat and there was no need to try to convince outsiders of the existence of a threat. Whatever the purpose of the draft, his country would vote against it.

The representative of Croatia said his delegation agreed with the views of the Lithuanian representative. In addition, they would like to reiterate that the institutionalization of a zone free of nuclear weapons must be based on arrangements freely arrived at by all the States in the region. He would urge Belarus to first consult the regional States and then present the United

Nations with what they agreed on. Taking the matter to the United Nations first was counter-productive.

The representative of the Ukraine said, as was expressed by the sponsors, the draft text had been intended to consolidate positive developments in the world and in the region. Yet, they failed to reflect those positive developments, especially with regard to the new European security architecture. That was a serious omission. His country paid special tribute to its neighbours for the confidence-building measures among them. There was no doubt that the removal of nuclear weapons from their territories was greatly appreciated by the international community, as that had contributed to the stability of the region. Above all, the language of the draft contained some ambiguities, and for that reason, he would have to abstain.

The Committee then adopted the draft text on regional disarmament

First Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

(document A/C.1/53/L.23/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 57 in favour to 41 against, with 39 abstentions (Annex III).

In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of the United States said his delegation had noticed that the draft no longer contained references to the principles of democracy and civilian control of the military. However, the draft remained flawed, because it did not meet an essential criteria for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones. That criteria stated that the creation of such zones should result from arrangements freely arrived at by the States of the region concerned. It was clear that the overwhelming majority of States of the region had expressed their lack of interest in such a zone. He had hoped that the main sponsor of the draft would heed the advice of its regional neighbours against the zone. Unfortunately, it did not. His country could not support the creation of the zone.

The representative of Argentina said her delegation had abstained in the voting, because nothing suggested that nuclear weapons were about to be deployed in the region. Therefore, the objective of the draft was not clear.

The representative of Egypt said he supported the draft, due to his country's tradition of supporting the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones around the world, in conformity with the provisions of the NPT. He also saw the draft as an important confidence-building measure. Against that background, he appreciated the efforts of Belarus in presenting the draft for such a zone in Central Europe. His delegation voted in favour of the draft, but would also like to underline the need for it to secure the support of all the States directly concerned.

The Committee next took up the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/53/L.39/Rev.1), on which separate votes on the eighth preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 3(b) were requested.

The eighth preambular paragraph, which stresses the need to achieve universality of the NPT, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention, was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (India, Israel), with 2 abstentions (Cuba, Pakistan) (Annex IV).

The Committee turned to operative paragraph 3(b), which urges Member States to submit their views to the Secretary-General on further developing the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms in order to increase transparency related to weapons of mass destruction.

The representative of South Africa said that, given his country's position on transparency, it would again support the draft based on the belief that the principle of transparency should also apply to nuclear weapons and to the transfer of high technologies related to the development and manufacture of those weapons. He would abstain on the vote on operative paragraph 3(b), however, because transparency of weapons of mass destruction should not be

First Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

linked with the current Register, which dealt with conventional weapons.

The Committee then approved operative paragraph 3(b) by a recorded vote of 80 in favour to 46 against, with 17 abstentions (Annex V).

The representative of Austria, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated countries before the vote on the draft resolution as a whole, said that the Union would vote against the draft. The text was not acceptable for reasons of principle. General Assembly resolution 52/38 B had already established a questionable linkage between transparency of conventional weapons and of weapons of mass destruction in the Register. The Union had voted as a bloc against that draft last year. The present text only strengthened the supposed link between additional progress in developing the Register and greater transparency in the area of weapons of mass destruction.

He said that the Union was fully aware that positions on that subject varied considerably. However, regardless of how transparency was applied to weapons of mass destruction, that could not be linked to transparency of conventional weapons, in general, or to the Register, in particular. Thus, the Union and associated States would be compelled to vote against the draft.

The draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/53/L.39/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 82 in favour to 44 against, with 17 abstentions (Annex VI).

The representative of the United States, speaking in explanation of vote, said that it was disappointing that the sponsors continued to link transparency in conventional arms to transparency in weapons of mass destruction. Since the international community had not reached broad agreement to permit the Register to address transparency in weapons of mass destruction, advocating its expansion in that fashion amounted to a convenient excuse for certain countries not to submit data on conventional weapons.

He said that the other text on transparency, submitted by the Netherlands, had rightly called for universal participation in the Register and for Member States to provide their views to the Secretary-General on its further development. He had voted in favour of the eighth preambular paragraph in the context of a desire to achieve universality to those instruments.

The representative of China said his country had always upheld the complete elimination of all weapons of mass destruction. In order to achieve that objective, transparency measures on weapons of mass destruction would inevitably have to be adopted. To date, the international community had already concluded conventions on the complete prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention had already entered a phase of comprehensive implementation, and negotiations were being stepped up on a protocol to enhance the Biological Weapons Convention. Thus, questions concerning the transparency and verification of those two classes of weapons

First Committee - 17 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

of mass destruction either had been solved or were being resolved.

He said that regarding the last class of known weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons, the first priority was the promotion of the processes of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. Countries which possessed the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenals should continue to take the lead in drastically reducing their nuclear arsenals and abandoning their double standards on the non-proliferation question, leading to the elimination of those weapons.

For those reasons, and in view of the differing opinions on reconvening a group of experts on the transparency question and the Register's expansion, the Chinese delegation had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole and on operative paragraph 3.

The representative of India said her country's position on the NPT was well known. She had, therefore, voted against the eighth preambular paragraph concerning universality to the NPT. Regarding operative paragraph 3, the Register deserved continuing support. Moreover, in order to reach its full potential, the Register required further consolidation and universalization, but the best approach for moving that process forward needed to be assessed. Her delegation had abstained in the vote on that paragraph, as well as on the draft as a whole.

The representative of Australia said his delegation had continued to view as unproductive any suggestion that transparency in conventional weapons in the Register should be conditional on transparency in weapons of mass destruction. That linkage would not help promote transparency. It was unclear what the draft hoped to achieve by including weapons of mass destruction in the Register. Given that biological and chemical weapons were already banned under international instruments, it was difficult to see what would be gained by their inclusion in the Register, especially since non-States parties to those two treaties would submit a "no-return" to the Register.

He said that the biological and chemical weapons Conventions were, in themselves, a type of transparency measure and no realistic value could be gained by adding those weapons to the conventional arms Register. Rather, efforts should focus on universalizing those two Conventions, as well as the NPT.

The representative of Cuba said he had supported the draft because he completely agreed with its essential elements, namely that an increase in transparency in weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear, as well as transparency in the transfer of high technology for nuclear weapons, would strengthen regional as well as international stability, peace and security.

The reference in operative paragraph 3(b) was not particularly pertinent, he said. However, Member States should provide the Secretary- General with the requested information. Cuba's vote did not modify its well-known position regarding the NPT, to which it had not acceded. That Treaty was a selective and discriminatory norm, which established two categories of States and legitimized the possession of nuclear weapons for one

First Committee - 18 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

of those categories. For that reason, he had abstained in the vote on the eighth preambular paragraph.

The representative of Israel said he had voted against the draft, since it was not necessary or useful to expand the Register to include weapons of mass destruction. Such expansion might impair the functioning of that instrument. Instead, efforts should be devoted to encouraging those States, which had not yet done so, to contribute to the Register. It was a bit surprising to hear calls from neighbouring States about expanding the Register, while they themselves had failed to submit reports on existing transparency categories, including military holdings, imports and local production. The Register could be effective only if it was based on regional arms control agreements and a pattern of reciprocity.

The representative of Iran said that transparency, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 46/36 L, was meant to apply to conventional weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and the transfer of high technology with military purposes. All applications of that resolution should have been reflected in operative paragraph 3(b) of the current draft. Yet, because his delegation attached great importance to transparency in armaments, it had voted in favour of the draft.

The Committee then adopted the draft text on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific (document A/C.1/53/L.5/Rev.1) without a vote.

Next, the Committee considered the draft text on the report of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.12/Rev.1).

Prior to action on the draft, the representative of Portugal, speaking also on behalf of Greece, said in a general statement that as the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament, the Conference had a primary role with regard to the global disarmament process. The rule of procedure was that its membership should be reviewed at regular intervals, because the multilateral disarmament process should involve all States. Therefore, the Conference should open its membership to all those that had applied. The draft text encouraged consultations on that and he hoped for a successful outcome.

The Committee then adopted the draft on the Report of the Conference on Disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.12/Rev.1) without a vote.

In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of the Netherlands said his delegation had joined the consensus on the draft. He was

First Committee - 19 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

glad that the Conference had been able to make some progress in its work. It was, however, regrettable that the Member States had not been able to achieve a consensus on crucial issues. He hoped they would take up all such issues more successfully.

The representative of Turkey said his delegation had joined in the consensus, but would have liked to see the language in certain parts of the draft changed to what it was in the original text, as opposed to the revised one acted upon by the Committee.

The representative of South Africa said that, had the draft been presented for vote, his delegation would have called for a separate vote on operative paragraph 3 on security assurances. His country was a strong supporter of the concept of such assurances. However, that subject was primarily relevant to the NPT and he believed that it should be dealt with in that context. For many years, the Conference on Disarmament had dealt with it and gotten nowhere.

The Committee then adopted the draft text on the convening of a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.50/Rev.1) without a vote.

In explanation after action on the text, the representative of the United States said her delegation was pleased that for the second year in a row, the Committee adopted the draft text on that subject without a vote. That demonstrated that Member States continued to realize that such a session should be convened only when its purposes were clear and when concrete and balanced results based on consensus were possible. Her country's support for that resolution was predicated on the requirement for consensus, and also

represented a willingness to continue the search for such a consensus, on the basis of work already done in the Conference on Disarmament.

The representative of Australia said her delegation had joined the consensus on convening the special session, noting that the Conference on Disarmament had come close to an agreement on the modalities for such a session. Unfortunately, that had been blocked by one or two of its members. Those States should initiate serious consultations to clear the way for an agreement in the Conference.

(annexes follow)

First Committee - 20 - Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

ANNEX I

Vote on Operative Paragraph 1 of ICJ Opinion

Operative paragraph 1, concerning the responsibility to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations and conclude them under effective international control, of the draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/53/L.45) was approved by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 5 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Bulgaria, France, Monaco, Russian Federation, United States.

Abstain: Czech Republic, Israel, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Benin, Cameroon, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Kuwait, Lesotho, Mauritius, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

21

(END OF ANNEX I)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

ANNEX II

Vote on ICJ Opinion on Nuclear Weapons

The draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on nuclear disarmament negotiations (document A/C.1/53/L.45) was approved by a recorded vote of 100 in favour to 25 against, with 23 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Iceland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Norway, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Cameroon, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Lesotho, Mauritius, Palau,

22

Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX II)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

ANNEX III

Vote on Regional Disarmament

The draft resolution on regional disarmament (document A/C.1/53/L.23/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 57 in favour to 41 against, with 39 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, China, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Against: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, 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: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, India, Jamaica, Japan, Mali, Malta, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Peru, Republic of Korea, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Togo, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

23

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Mauritania, Mauritius, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX III)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

ANNEX IV

Vote on Eighth Preambular Paragraph on Transparency

The eighth preambular paragraph, which concerns the universality of treaties on weapons of mass destruction, in the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/53/L/39/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to 2 against with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecudador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav

24

Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India, Israel.

Abstain: Cuba, Pakistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Mauritius, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Syria, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

25

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

ANNEX V

Vote on Operative Paragraph 3(b) on Transparency

Operative paragraph 3(b), concerning the Register of Conventional Arms and weapons of mass destruction, of the draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/53/L.39/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 80 in favour to 46 against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Armenia, 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, Marshall Islands, 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.

Abstain: Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Brazil, China, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Georgia, India, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Lebanon, Lesotho, Mauritius, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Syria, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Vanuatu.

26

(END OF ANNEX V)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3132 27th Meeting (PM) 10 November 1998

ANNEX VI

Vote on Transparency in Armaments

The draft resolution on transparency in armaments (document A/C.1/53/L.39/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 82 in favour to 44 against, with 16 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Armenia, 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.

Abstain: Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Cyprus, Georgia, India, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malta, Marshall Islands, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burundi, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Lebanon,

27

Lesotho, Mauritius, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Syria, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Vanuatu.

* *** *