GENERAL ASSEMBLY WOULD STRONGLY DEPLORE SOUTH ASIA NUCLEAR TESTS UNDER TERMS OF DRAFT TEXT APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE
Press Release
GA/DIS/3134
GENERAL ASSEMBLY WOULD STRONGLY DEPLORE SOUTH ASIA NUCLEAR TESTS UNDER TERMS OF DRAFT TEXT APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE
19981112 Resolution Approved by Recorded Vote of 98-6-31; Committee Votes to Take No Action on Four Proposed AmendmentsThe General Assembly would express grave concern over and strongly deplore the recent nuclear tests conducted in South Asia, by the terms of a draft resolution approved this afternoon by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).
By further terms of the text, the Assembly would note that the countries concerned had declared moratoriums on further testing and had expressed their willingness to enter into legal commitments not to conduct any further nuclear tests. It would reiterate the need for such legal commitments to be expressed in legal form, by signing and ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 6 against (Benin, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Zambia, Zimbabwe), with 31 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex V.)
Prior to approval of the draft, the Committee took a series of "no action" votes on a number of proposed amendments, which the sponsors said were designed to balance a discriminatory draft and broaden its scope beyond the South Asia nuclear tests. The proponents of the no-action motions, however, argued that the amendments were intended to alter the resolution, which was straightforward and non-confrontational. They called for Committee members to stand together against attempts to frustrate efforts by the international community to express intense concern about the South Asia nuclear tests.
A motion to take no action on an amendment submitted by Sri Lanka, which sought to deplore not only the recent South Asia nuclear tests, but all nuclear tests, was approved by a recorded vote of 63 in favour to 60 against, with 13 abstentions (Annex I).
The Committee also approved a no-action motion on an amendment submitted by Pakistan by a recorded vote of 62 in favour to 51 against, with 18 abstentions. That amendment would have had the Assembly express grave
First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
concern at and strongly deplore all nuclear testing and experiments for the qualitative development of nuclear weapons (Annex II).
By the terms of an amendment submitted by India, the Assembly would have called upon all States that had not yet done so to become parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, so as to facilitate its entry into force by September 1999. A no-action motion on that amendment was approved by a recorded vote of 60 in favour to 49 against, with 21 abstentions (Annex III).
An amendment submitted by Nigeria, Zambia and Zimbabwe would have had the Assembly urge the five nuclear-weapon States to fulfil their commitments under the NPT and to intensify their efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate elimination of those weapons in accordance with that Treaty. The motion for no action on that amendment was approved by a recorded vote of 59 in favour to 57 against, with 17 abstentions (Annex IV).
The representative of India withdrew two further amendments to the nuclear testing draft, and the representative of Pakistan withdrew an amendment submitted jointly by his country and India. He said that given the results of the no-action motions on previous amendments, he would not wish to subject his country to such votes in the General Assembly.
Statements were made by the representatives of New Zealand, Ecuador, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Solomon Islands, Costa Rica, United States, Zambia, Argentina, Algeria, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Hungary, Ecuador, Portugal, Cuba, Norway, Ireland, Lithuania, Australia, Zambia, Philippines, Kenya, China, Turkey, Republic of Moldova and Haiti.
The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Friday, 13 November, to conclude action on all disarmament and security-related draft resolutions.
Committee Work Programme
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this afternoon to take action on a draft resolution on nuclear testing, as well as on amendments to the draft submitted by Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
According to the text on nuclear testing (document A/C.1/53/L.22), the Assembly would express grave concern over and strongly deplore the recent nuclear tests conducted in South Asia. It would note that the countries concerned had declared moratoria on further testing and had expressed their willingness to enter into legal commitments not to conduct any further nuclear tests.
By further terms of the text, the Assembly would note that the States concerned had declared moratoria on further testing and had said that they were willing to enter into legal commitments not to conduct any further nuclear tests. It would reiterate the need for such legal commitments to be expressed in legal form, by signing and ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
The draft resolution is sponsored by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway.
The amendment submitted by Sri Lanka (document A/C.1/53/L.52) would replace the fifth preambular paragraph, by which the Assembly would recall Security Council resolution 1172 (1998), with a paragraph recalling all previous United Nations resolutions on nuclear testing.
Also, the first operative paragraph, by which the Assembly would express grave concern over and strongly deplore the recent nuclear tests conducted in South Asia, would be replaced by a paragraph that would have the Assembly express concern over and deplore all nuclear tests for whatever purpose, and urge cessation of all such tests in the future.
An amendment submitted by India (document A/C.1/53/L.55) would add the words "within a specified framework of time" to the first preambular paragraph, which would then read:
"Reaffirming that the cessation of all nuclear testing will contribute to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects, to the process of nuclear disarmament leading to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified framework of time and therefore to the further enhancement of international peace and security."
An amendment submitted by Pakistan (document A/C.1/53/L.56) would add a new operative paragraph after the existing operative paragraph 1, which would
First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
have the Assembly express grave concern at and strongly deplore all nuclear testing and experiments for the qualitative development of nuclear weapons, which were contrary to the spirit and objectives of the CTBT.
The amendment would also add a new operative paragraph after the existing operative paragraph 2, by which the Assembly would call for the immediate withdrawal of all unilateral, coercive or discriminatory measures.
Another amendment submitted by India (document A/C.1/53/L.57) would change the second preambular paragraph -- by which the Assembly reaffirms its commitment to and the crucial importance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the CTBT to the international regime on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and as essential foundations for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament -- to a paragraph by which the Assembly would reaffirm its commitment to the crucial importance of the CTBT to international efforts to halt proliferation of nuclear weapons through nuclear testing.
A further amendment by India (document A/C.1/53/L.58) would change operative paragraph 2, which now reads, "Notes that the States concerned have declared moratoria on further testing and have said that they are willing to enter into legal commitments not to conduct any further nuclear tests, and reiterates the need for such legal commitments to be expressed in legal form by signing and ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty."
The phrase beginning "and reiterates" would be replaced by a phrase that would call upon all States that had not yet done so to become parties to the CTBT, so as to facilitate its entry into force by September 1999.
An amendment by Pakistan and India (document A/C.1/53/L.61) would replace operative paragraph 2 with, "Welcomes the moratoria on further testing declared by certain States and their statements in the General Assembly relating to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty."
Also, after operative paragraph 2, a new paragraph would be added, by which the Assembly would call on all States that had not done so, especially those listed in annex 2 of the CTBT, to become parties to the Treaty, so as to facilitate its entry into force.
By the terms of an amendment submitted by Nigeria, Zambia and Zimbabwe (document A/C.1/53/L.62), a new paragraph would be added after operative paragraph 2, by which the Assembly would urge the five nuclear-weapon States to fulfil their commitments relating to nuclear disarmament under article VI of the NPT and to intensify their efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate objective of eliminating those weapons in accordance with that article.
First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
Action on Text
The Committee took up the draft resolution on nuclear testing (document A/C.1/53/L.22).
Speaking on behalf of the co-sponsors of the draft text, the representative of New Zealand said the objective of the draft was straightforward. Concern about the nuclear tests in South Asia this year had been of fundamental importance to the Committee. Those tests "were pernicious -- no matter the justifications presented". They were conducted in defiance of an international norm opposed to nuclear testing and would have a negative effect on future non- proliferation and nuclear disarmament endeavours.
He said the draft did no more than refer directly to the nuclear tests in South Asia in May and to the international community's reaction to them. It did not name the country's concerned and did acknowledge subsequent progress. The draft called for commitments to be made in a legal form through signature and the ratification of the CTBT. The draft was, therefore, focused, credible and balanced. It did not establish new benchmarks. It was not discriminatory, based on earlier decisions by the Committee. It reflected the appropriate reaction of the international community to the testing that had taken place.
He was aware that a small number of delegations would like to see the draft disappear, he said. Some of those Member States had mounted a strong challenge to the Committee's ability to take action on the draft resolution, "proffering a raft of disparate amendments to the text". In the opinion of the co-sponsors, those amendments ultimately diverted attention from the tests themselves. They raised issues dealt with fully in the other 20 nuclear draft resolutions before the Committee. They served to broaden and even destroy the simple, straightforward purpose of the draft.
He said the purpose and message of the draft was so important that it could not be diluted or embellished. The co-sponsors considered it fundamental that the international community had an opportunity to address the clear issue contained in the draft, which had been the product of broad consultations among the co-sponsors. The draft enjoyed wide support across regional groups.
It would be a serious mistake to revise the draft text, he stressed. The most effective approach was for the Committee to consider the draft as it stood, without considering amendments. In that light, the co-sponsors would motion that the Committee take "no action" on each of the amendments. By supporting such a motion, the Committee would have a clear opportunity to protect the central message in the draft resolution. The co-sponsors had renewed hope that the draft would receive the widest possible support of the Committee and that efforts to amend it would be opposed vigorously.
First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
The representative of Ecuador said he had decided to co-sponsor the draft resolution on nuclear testing because of his country's unequivocal and firm rejection of nuclear tests, regardless of their origin. Ecuador had never been selective regarding countries or people in deploring past nuclear tests. It responded similarly to the more recent tests. Those had taken place after the indefinite extension of the NPT, which enjoyed the support of 187 States parties, and following the conclusion of the CTBT, which had already been signed by 150 States. He said that, in addition to the individual statements made by his Government, it had signed declarations on nuclear testing adopted by the heads of State or governments of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), and by the Rio Group. The current draft perfectly reflected the positions elaborated in those declarations and referred to a specific subject. It was unwise to alter the essence of its content with amendments that would change its focus and limit its scope. While his country had always defended the principles outlined in many of those amendments, it could not support their adoption in the present context. Furthermore, the texts of those amendments were already contained in other Committee drafts.
He said his country maintained a friendship and solidarity with the countries of South Asia, which shared its social and economic ideals. Nuclear tests, however, were not part of that common agenda.
The representative of Pakistan said there was a central contradiction in the position of the draft's co-sponsors. Although the draft was entitled "nuclear testing", its contents were directed only at the nuclear tests conducted in South Asia. If the co-sponsors sought to deal with the tests in South Asia and their implications, they should have introduced a resolution which dealt with the nuclear and security aspects of the South Asian situation. The Committee could then have dealt with that situation in all its aspects. The nuclear tests had not arisen in a vacuum, but were a response to a particular security environment.
He said that the draft's co-sponsors could not, on the one hand, limit the focus of the resolution only to nuclear testing and, at the same time, limit its focus only to South Asia. If the authors wished to limit the focus to the title of the text, then they must refer to all nuclear testing, and refer also to the sub-critical tests, fusion research and other laboratory simulations, designed for the qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons. Did the draft not include those nuclear tests because they were being conducted by nuclear-weapon States, or for other racially motivated reasons? he asked. Moreover, why did the co-sponsors refuse to entertain any amendments or modifications to their text, which would make it more balanced and more consistent with the current realities?
He appealed to all fair-minded delegations to at least consider removing the discrimination contained in the draft and support at least some of the amendments, which sought to make it fair and equitable.
First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
The representative of the Republic of Korea said he associated himself fully with the statement made by the representative of New Zealand, on behalf of the draft's co-sponsors. As one of the co-sponsors, he would join the appeal to members to adopt the present text with overwhelming support. As a country that had a voluntary and unequivocal policy of denuclearization, his Government had attached particular importance to the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and had actively joined international efforts to strengthen that regime.
He said that the nuclear testing in South Asia last May dealt a serious blow to the development of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime through the indefinite extension of the NPT and the conclusion of the CTBT. Those tests had seriously undermined the credibility and integrity of that regime. As he had indicated on many occasions, his country deeply regretted those nuclear tests. The States concerned should desist from further nuclear testing, and accede to the NPT and the CTBT, the main pillars of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
It was imperative that the Committee, and indeed the General Assembly as a global institution, send a clear and firm message that such challenges as those posed by the nuclear tests could not be condoned. That would be achieved through the adoption of the draft resolution, unamended. The draft was well crafted to reaffirm the international community's resolve towards strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. It put forth a focused approach, aimed at specifically addressing the dangerous ramifications of the nuclear testing in South Asia. Any misstep in the signal of that text could send a wrong signal to those States that aspired to nuclear-weapon status. The draft, as it stood, should receive overwhelming support.
The representative of India said that following the tests in May, her Government had announced a voluntary moratorium on nuclear tests and the Prime Minster had stated to the General Assembly on 24 September that it would move towards de jure formalization of that obligation. In announcing that moratorium, India had already accepted the basic obligation of the CTBT.
She said that the draft was coercive and attempted to pressure India. Her country had attempted to reconcile its needs with those of the international community in putting an end to nuclear tests. Recriminations or attempts to isolate countries, such as through the present text, did not help. The draft did not address the broad issues of nuclear testing, but focused only on the tests in May. Since the dawn of the nuclear age, there had been more than 2,000 nuclear tests. The Committee was being asked, for the first time, to approve a discriminatory text, which did not treat all aspects of nuclear testing, but rather isolated India and Pakistan.
While not addressing nuclear testing as a whole, the draft went far beyond the subject by referring to Security Council resolution 1172 (1998), which addressed issues that had nothing to do with nuclear tests, she said.
First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
The Council resolution was discriminatory in its perspective and contrary to the United Nations Charter. Furthermore, it had not given India an opportunity to participate in the Council's discussions in the matter. Her queries on that resolution remained unanswered.
In an attempt to bring the present draft in line with General Assembly principles, she said her country had proposed a number of amendments, in an attempt to balance an otherwise discriminatory and self-serving text. It was true that no amendments had been tabled on the nuclear testing draft in 1995, but none were probably necessary. Here, the co-sponsors had made no attempt to seek the view of parties affected most by the draft. Rather, they had presented it on a "take it or leave it" basis. Other countries had also proposed amendments and they all deserved serious consideration.
She went on to say that the nuclear testing draft did not go far enough in making explicit the direct relationship between the cessation of nuclear tests and nuclear disarmament. India had actively participated in negotiations on the CTBT, which began in 1993. At that time, her delegation had expressed the view that such a treaty could contribute effectively to non-proliferation in all its aspects, if it was linked to the elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound programme. Those proposals were not accepted, including by delegations that had co-sponsored the present draft.
While the draft expressed alarm at the recent nuclear testing, several countries across the geographical spectrum had expressed their understanding of the context of those tests, she said. Moreover, several distinguished institutions had seen the tests as a wake-up call for nuclear disarmament. The Non-Aligned Movement Summit at Durban, South Africa, had noted the complexities arising from the nuclear tests. A letter circulated today by the draft's co-sponsors had not mentioned the Non-Aligned Movement declarations or the results of other recent meetings, which had adopted a more balanced approach.
She said that since the draft was on nuclear testing, it should express concern about the qualitative development of nuclear weapons, which contravened the purpose of the CTBT. If the international will was for all to adhere to international disarmament norms, then the norm of prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons existed in the United Nations Charter, humanitarian law and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice.
Some co-sponsors were beneficiaries of certain security arrangements, she went on. Of those, two were members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), whose strategic doctrine was predicated not only on possession of nuclear weapons, but on their first use. A third co-sponsor enjoyed the protection of a nuclear umbrella. It was quite extraordinary that such countries should propose a resolution seeking to criticize the nuclear tests carried out by other countries. The nuclear testing draft was discriminatory and moulded in
First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
a coercive manner, which would be counter-productive and impact negatively on the forthcoming disarmament agenda.
The representative of Mexico said his country's opposition to all nuclear tests had been constant. He believed that nuclear non-proliferation in all its aspects was indispensable to the advent of a world free of nuclear weapons.
He said his country had condemned the South Asia tests when they were conducted, and had said then that those tests undermined and endangered the international non-proliferation norm, which was indispensable to international peace and security. In a statement at the time, his country had appealed to all States to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects, and had also urged negotiations towards the complete elimination of those weapons.
He said the General Assembly should, as it had done in the case of previous nuclear tests, take a stand on the South Asia tests. It was important for the General Assembly to express the disapproval that the members of the international community had expressed about those tests. Thus, his delegation would vote in favour of the draft as a whole.
With regard to the amendments, he said his delegation would vote against those seeking to undermine the purpose of the draft, which was to deplore those tests. Accordingly, he would support those amendments that did not intend to undermine the draft and that called for a world free of nuclear weapons.
The representative of Japan said the position of his Government on the South Asia tests had already been underlined during the general debate. He would reiterate, however, that his country was opposed to any nuclear tests and that had been clarified with regard to past tests.
In keeping with that policy, his Government strongly deplored the South Asia tests, because any nuclear testing constituted an obstacle to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Since the Committee was primarily concerned with security issues and disarmament, it was legitimate and logical that it address the South Asia tests through the draft on nuclear testing. That was appropriate, because those tests were particularly relevant to the Committee's agenda this year. His delegation would, therefore, support the draft, as it was.
The representative of Pakistan said he considered the draft on nuclear testing unfair and discriminatory. Indeed, he believed it would be entirely contradictory to the objective of the co-sponsors. His country had explained that it was compelled to conduct those tests in response to earlier tests that had been conducted. Those passing judgement on his country should bear in mind that Pakistan had acted in self-defence, in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. Also, in conducting those tests, his country had not broken any commitments, as it was not a party to the NPT and had not signed the CTBT.
First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
He said his country had demonstrated sensitivity to international concerns with a number of steps, including a pledge to ratify the CTBT and a moratorium on further nuclear tests. It had also entered into dialogue with one major Power and with its neighbour, India. The draft text on nuclear testing was backward-looking, because it did not appreciate those positive developments that had taken place since the tests. Rather, it denigrated those developments. The language of operative paragraph 2 of the draft would only serve to strengthen those nuclear-weapon States that wished to focus only on nuclear non-proliferation, while de-emphasizing nuclear disarmament.
Continuing, he said any pronouncement against the South Asia tests must be accompanied by the reaffirmation of a commitment to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The draft needed to adopt such a bias to be balanced, non-discriminatory and forward-looking. The last summit of the Non-Aligned Movement had opposed the unilateral and discriminatory position of certain Powers regarding the nuclear non-proliferation regime. It had also called for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specific time-frame. From that perspective, the amendments that his delegation had proposed were designed to inject the necessary balance into the draft.
He said the unwillingness of the co-sponsors to accommodate those amendments amounted to inflexibility, even arrogance. The "no-action motion" on the amendment should be strongly opposed by the Committee members, and he appealed for the widest possible support from all "fair-minded" delegations.
The representative of Brazil, on a point of order, said he would like clarification on the number of times delegations were allowed to exercise the right to a point of order.
The representative of Canada noted that he had previously decided not to engage in polemics regarding the draft on nuclear testing, which his delegation co-sponsored. However, he had been compelled to make it categorically clear that his Government did not act on the basis of racism. With regard to the operational procedure of the Committee, the Chairman should ensure that all delegations understood the rules and that the Committee should stick to those rules with regard to multiple rights of reply.
The representative of Brazil said his delegation would vote in favour of the draft on nuclear testing, as proposed by the co-sponsors, and would abstain on all the amendments to that draft. Although he shared some of the sentiments and principles in those amendments, his delegation believed that they would divert attention from the key issue of nuclear testing.
The representative of the Solomon Islands referred to the statement of the representative of Pakistan regarding the co-sponsors of the draft on nuclear testing, among whom he was proud to be included. He resented the comment that the co-sponsors of the draft text were arrogant. The representative of Pakistan,
First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
who had also been less than fair to the Chairman, should be advised not to use that kind of language. The representative of Costa Rica said his country had been steadfast in its opposition to nuclear tests wherever they had taken place. The draft text addressing that subject pursued a clear objective. It should be maintained as a whole and not undermined by amendments.
The representative of the United States said he supported the draft as tabled, without amendments. The text was simple, straightforward, non- confrontational and forward-looking. It was simple because it focused on one issue, namely, nuclear testing in South Asia. It was straightforward because it addressed the shared worldwide concern. It did not confront or single out any specific country by name or make any demands. It also took note of the testing moratoria by the States concerned, as well as their expressed willingness to enter into legal commitments not to conduct any further nuclear tests.
He said his delegation would support no-action motions on all of the amendments, whatever their content. Their aim was transparent -- to "kill the resolution and turn it into something else". The First Committee was the one disarmament forum in which all the nations of the world were represented. Its members should stand together against attempts to frustrate the international community's efforts to express intense concern about the South Asia tests.
The representative of Zambia said that his delegation, together with those of Nigeria and Zimbabwe, had submitted an amendment to the nuclear testing draft (document A/C.1/53/L.62). It sought to urge the five nuclear- weapon States to fulfil their nuclear disarmament commitments. The amendment would enrich the draft by lending it some balance. Nuclear testing was the engine that fed qualitative nuclear weapons development and the five nuclear- weapon States had conducted some 2,000 tests since the dawn of the nuclear age.
The draft's co-sponsors should be able to embrace that straightforward amendment, he said. Regrettably, they had indicated that they would not entertain any amendments at all, because they wanted the draft to remain focused. That focus, however, was not only on nuclear testing, but on the two South Asian countries that had conducted nuclear tests last May. That focus was discriminatory. The draft should also address nuclear tests conducted via computer or laboratory simulations, a practice of some nuclear-weapon States.
To the argument that the reference in his amendment to article VI of the NPT had already appeared in other drafts, he would say that since that reference had encountered no rejection, it should be embraced in the present text, as well. A rejection of the amendment would make it extremely difficult for him to support the draft. His country fully supported a total ban of all nuclear testing in all environments by any country or group of countries. In that spirit, it had signed the CTBT, but it regretted, even at the time, that the Treaty was not comprehensive in prohibiting all forms of nuclear testing.
First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
The representative of Argentina said the amendments were far removed from the draft, which expressed concern about nuclear testing and strongly deplored the South Asia tests. The amendments expressed concern over the absence of a call for nuclear disarmament. Although that was legitimate, it was included on other drafts specifically on that subject. Regardless of the merits of the amendments, their incorporation into the nuclear testing draft would undermine its nature. His country, therefore, would vote against them.
The representative of Algeria said that nuclear disarmament must remain the absolute priority of the international community in the disarmament sphere. Thus, his delegation shared concerns about all nuclear testing, including the recent tests in South Asia. No argument, including nuclear deterrence, could be justified. Nuclear weapons production and their further development in laboratories must be banned, for the sake of collective security.
He said he could not support the present text for two reasons. First, the reference to Security Council resolution 1172 (1998) condemning the South Asia testing was inappropriate, as was the geographical reference to South Asia. Moreover, the moratorium declared by Pakistan and its intention to join the CTBT should be encouraged. He would have had no problem joining the text if it identified with the language of the 1995 Assembly resolution. Until the last moment, he had supported consultations aimed at elaborating such acceptable language, but those had failed. For all those reasons, he could not support the draft or, on principle, any no-action motion on the amendments, which was an undemocratic action.
The representative of Sri Lanka clarified that the draft amendment presented by his delegation (document A/C.1/53/L.52) on the nuclear testing draft (document A/C.1/53/L.22) had previously been introduced to the Committee.
The representative of India introduced three amendments on the nuclear testing draft (documents A/C.1/53/L.55, L.57, and L.58). She said the amendments were designed to make the draft more balanced and fair. Her country resolutely stood for nuclear disarmament and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time-frame. That was consistent with the position of the Non-Aligned Movement.
The representative of Pakistan introduced his delegation's amendment to the nuclear testing draft (document A/C.1/53/L.56). He said the amendment addressed two issues. The first was that the draft did not express concern about nuclear tests and experiments for qualitative development of nuclear weapons, contrary to the provisions of the CTBT. The second was that certain States had been subjected to unilateral, discriminatory and coercive measures with regard to nuclear non-proliferation. The amendment reflected the desired changes, and he hoped that it would be supported by the Committee members.
First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
He then proceeded to introduce and amendment jointly sponsored by his delegation and India (document A/C.1/53/L.61). He said the amendment addressed the perceived shortcomings of the nuclear-testing draft. The draft failed to reflect the fact that many countries had welcomed the moratoria declared by his country and by India in the General Assembly, and the amendment addressed that omission. Furthermore, he did not understand why the draft only asked the States concerned to ratify the CTBT. That Treaty would enter into force only after the ratification of 44 countries. The amendment drew attention to that issue.
The representative of Zimbabwe introduced an amendment to the nuclear- testing draft (document A/C.1/53/L.62). He said his delegation did not support the no-action motion on amendments to the draft. The amendments were designed to lend weight to the draft. His country was party to the NPT and was committed to the global nuclear disarmament process. Like the rest of the international community, it was strongly opposed to nuclear testing in general terms.
He said nuclear tests and nuclear disarmament were related and inseparable. Thus, the drive to stop nuclear testing must be a step towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. Even some of the nuclear-weapon States, such as China and the United States, recognized that much. His delegation believed that the South Asia tests, which his country had also deplored, were the result of the existence of a nuclear club looking to maintain monopoly with regard to the possession of nuclear weapons.
The nuclear-weapon States should not claim the moral high ground in arguing that nuclear weapons were safe in their hands and that others could not be trusted with them, he said. His country had acceded to the NPT and the CTBT as a step towards the advancement of nuclear disarmament. Thus, his delegation co-sponsored the amendment to the nuclear-testing draft to further promote that goal.
The position of the Non-Aligned Movement and African States was that an end to nuclear testing must constitute a step leading to nuclear disarmament and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, he said. The possession of nuclear weapons by any State was an invitation for others to acquire them. He could not understand why the co-sponsors of the draft on nuclear testing should oppose well-meaning amendments to that draft.
The Committee then took up Sri Lanka's amendment (document A/C.1/53/L.52) to the nuclear-testing draft (document A/C.1/53/L.22).
The representative of Hungary proposed a no-action motion on Sri Lanka's amendment, and said that, as a co-sponsor of the nuclear testing draft, his delegation attached a great importance to the preservation of the integrity of the draft.
First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Sri Lanka said that, on behalf of South Asian States, his delegation opposed the no-action motion. The nuclear-testing draft was flawed, because it had concentrated on the South Asia tests, rather than on all nuclear tests.
He said the amendments were conceived to make the draft more acceptable and fair. They were simple amendments invoking all United Nations resolutions on nuclear tests, rather than singling out Security Council resolution 1172 (1998) on the South Asia tests, as did the draft. All nuclear tests should be deplored, to give the draft a common focus. In the interest of fairness and equity, Committee members should oppose the no-action motion on amendments.
The representative of India said his delegation associated with the statement of the representative of Sri Lanka with regard to the no-action motion on amendments. They had doubts about the legality of that motion. The co-sponsors of the draft were, in effect, asking the Committee to consider the substance of the draft and to ignore that of the amendments. That was unfair and undemocratic.
He added that the co-sponsors of the draft shared with India a common parliamentary democracy, introduced to them by the United Kingdom -- the same country that had also introduced them to nuclear testing. A deeply divisive draft had been presented before the Committee, and the co-sponsors were urging that amendments, which were intended to make the draft more balanced, not be considered. That turned logic on its head.
The representative of Ecuador said he supported the no-action motion proposed by the representative of Hungary. The amendment altered the essence of the draft's message.
The representative of the Republic of Korea said that in an earlier statement, he had explained his support of the unamended draft. He understood the points raised by the Sri Lankan representative when he presented the amendment, but inclusion in the draft would change the spirit and purpose of the text. That was not the acceptable to his delegation, which would, therefore, support the no-action motion. The Committee then approved the no action motion on that amendment (document A/C.1/53/L.52) by a recorded vote of 63 in favour to 60 against, with 13 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)
It next took up an amendment submitted by India (document A/C.1/53/L.55).
The representative of Portugal presented a motion for no action on the amendment.
The representative of India announced the withdrawal of two amendments (document A/C.1/53/L.55 and document A/C.1/53/L.57).
First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
The Committee next took up an amendment by Pakistan (document A/C.1/53/L.56).
The representative of New Zealand made a motion for no action on the amendment. He said that amendment served to divert, if not destroy, the straightforward purpose of the text.
The representative of Cuba said that the proposed amendment was directly related to the essence of the nuclear testing draft. For that reason, it was of the utmost importance that all Member States exercise their right to express themselves freely on those proposals. Using procedural manoeuvres, such as no-action motions, to prevent delegations from stating their views on substantive issues of such sensitivity was objectionable. His delegation, therefore, would vote against that no-action proposal.
The representative of Norway said he favoured the no-action proposal on that amendment. The decision of India and Pakistan to test nuclear weapons clearly defied international norms and constituted a serious threat to the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, as well as to peace and security in the region. It was, therefore, essential that the international community raise its common concern about the tests.
He said that the draft before the Committee was an important one that framed the issue in a focused, credible and balanced way. It should be approved in its present form without any amendments, which would only dilute or obscure its message. The motion for no action on each amendment should be supported. The representative of Pakistan said he would second the opposition to the no-action motion expressed by the representative of Cuba. The draft resolution, apart from expressing its concern about the South Asia testing, should also express concern about the non-explosive testing taking place. The amendment would delete the coercive and discriminatory aspects of the text. The Committee should be allowed to vote for that fair call. He, therefore, called for opposition to the no- action motion proposed by the New Zealand delegation.
The representative of Ireland said he would second the no action motion made by the representative of New Zealand. As a co-sponsor of the nuclear testing draft, he was opposed to any amendments which would take the focus away from its very clear message.
The motion to take no action on that amendment (document A/C.1/53/L.56) was approved by a recorded vote of 62 in favour to 51 against, with 18 abstentions (Annex II).
The Committee next took up another draft amendment by India (document A/C.1/53/L.58).
First Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
The representative of Lithuania requested a no-action vote on the amendment.
The representative of Bhutan said he opposed that no-action motion and would vote against it. He would appeal to all delegations to do so, as well.
The representative of Australia said he supported the proposal made by the representative of Lithuania that the Committee take no action on that amendment.
The representative of India said she opposed the no-action motion just tabled.
The representative of Ecuador said he supported the no-action proposal.
The motion to take no action on the amendment (document A/C.1/53/L.58) was approved by a recorded vote of 60 in favour to 49 against, with 21 abstentions (Annex III).
The representative of Pakistan said that, given the results of the no-action motions on previous amendments, he would not wish to subject his country in the General Assembly to such votes. On behalf of India and Pakistan, he then withdrew an amendment (document A/C.1/53/L.61).
The Committee next took up the amendment submitted by Nigeria, Zambia and Zimbabwe (document A/C.1/53/L.62).
The representative of Portugal presented a motion of no action on that amendment.
The representative of Zimbabwe said his delegation, along with the other co-sponsors of the amendment, would vote against the no-action motion, because condemning and banning nuclear tests was not an end in itself. That view had been clearly articulated by the OAU and the Non-Aligned Movement. The goal of the international community should be nuclear disarmament. He urged the Committee to vote against the no-action motion and those "habitual abstainers" should not abstain, but should vote against the no-action motion.
The representative of Canada said he supported the no-action motion to the amendment and requested the support of all delegations for that purpose.
The representative of Zambia, as a co-sponsor of the amendment, said he would oppose the no-action motion.
The representative of Norway said that, for reasons outlined in previous interventions, he would support the no-action proposal by the Portuguese delegation.
First Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
The motion to take no action on the amendment (document A/C.1/53/L.62) was adopted by a recorded vote of 59 in favour to 57, against with 17 abstentions (Annex IV).
The representative of Pakistan, speaking in explanation of vote, said that he deeply regretted that the Committee, through the procedural device of no-action motions, had been prevented from pronouncing itself on various amendments to the nuclear-testing text. It was obvious that the draft was divisive and controversial and did not enjoy broad support. It was discriminatory and unfairly aimed against his country. For all the reasons previously cited, he would vote against it.
The representative of Cuba said that his country's position on the subject of nuclear testing was well known. It opposed all forms of nuclear tests, including laboratory and sub-critical tests, which contributed to the qualitative development of nuclear weapons. Without prejudice to that substantive position, the Committee had a duty to act consistently as it tackled the various subjects before it. In that context, it must not subject its approach to any selectivity. The language used in the draft hardly reflected the integrated and balanced approach that should be taken to such a sensitive subject.
He said he did not favour procedural manoeuvres designed to prevent Member States from stating their views on substantive issues. What had occurred with each amendment, the majority of which aimed to restore balance to the text, in no way contributed to effective solutions. His delegation had, therefore, voted against all no-action motions and, for that reason, would abstain in the vote on the draft.
The representative of France said that his vote on the no-action motion to the last amendment (document A/C.1/53/L.62) was improperly recorded. He had intended to vote in favour of no action. Similarly, Austria's vote was also improperly recorded and should have been in favour.
The Committee next took up the draft resolution on nuclear testing (document A/C.1/53/L.22).
The representative of the Philippines, speaking in explanation of vote, said that he had previously expressed strong support for the text and would vote in its favour. Although the amendments were not adopted, that did not diminish the value or the principles some of them espoused. Hopefully, the exercise would truly show the opposition to all forms of nuclear testing. The Committee should not embark on a similar exercise in the future.
Prior to voting on the draft resolution, it was announced that Uruguay had become a co-sponsor.
First Committee - 17 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
The draft resolution on nuclear testing (document A/C.1/53/L.22) was approved by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 6 against (Benin, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Zambia, Zimbabwe), with 31 abstentions (Annex V).
The representative of Kenya said he had abstained in the vote on the draft, because it did not take into account the pertinent positions contained in some of the draft amendments. As a result, the text was not as balanced and fair as it could have been. Singling out States in resolutions went against the principle of equity and fair play. He had, therefore, abstained in the vote. That vote notwithstanding, his country remained committed to the ideals inherent in the NPT and the CTBT.
The representative of India said she regretted the procedural tactics used to suppress the open debate on substantive issues. The approval of a draft in a coercive and discriminatory manner would not help advance the issues at hand, namely, the promotion of nuclear disarmament. She rejected the premise and contention of the draft, which was selective, discriminatory and coercive and included non-relevant aspects. Isolating India would not be helpful in the process of interaction it had embarked upon. For those reasons, she had voted against draft as a whole.
The representative of China said that in May, with the CTBT concluded and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons an international norm, India had blatantly conducted its nuclear tests, in a flagrant flouting of the non- proliferation regime. That event had dealt a major setback to international arms control and disarmament efforts and had negatively affected both regional and international peace and security. Afterwards, another South Asian country was compelled to respond.
He said that the Committee, as the forum for the consideration of disarmament and international security questions, should logically react to those events. The draft resolution on nuclear testing reflected, in an objective manner, the international community's views with regard to the nuclear tests in South Asia. He had voted in favour of the draft and also in favour of the no-action motions, because some of the amendments would have fundamentally changed the content of the text and diverted its objective. He supported the essence of some amendments -- such as the one sponsored by Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Zambia -- but they should not be added to the nuclear- testing draft, because they were reflected in other relevant drafts.
The representative of Turkey said that his country had ardently supported the full implementation of the NPT. It had signed the CTBT on the day it opened for signature and had already submitted its ratification to its Parliament. Hopefully, the international norm against testing would become universal. His country had repeatedly voiced concern about nuclear tests, but had previously abstained on the votes on past drafts in that regard, because they needed to more vigorously appeal to nuclear-weapon States to end those
First Committee - 18 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
tests. Consistent with that policy, he had abstained on the present draft and would have abstained in the vote on all of the amendments.
The representative of the Republic of Moldova said he had abstained in the vote on the draft as a whole. His country firmly opposed nuclear testing for any reason, at any time, and believed that the principle of nuclear non- proliferation, whether vertical or horizontal, must be steadfastly observed. His country also associated itself with all relevant provisions of the draft and had supported all previous drafts on nuclear testing.
He had abstained, however, because of the selective, partial and negative direction of certain paragraphs, he said. For those reasons, he had joined in submitting amendments to design a more balanced resolution, consistent with previous Assembly practices on nuclear testing. His abstention, however, should not be construed as condoning nuclear testing in any form, by any party any purpose.
The representative of Haiti said her delegation voted in favour of the draft on nuclear testing, because it was consistent with the international drive towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. In the same spirit, her country had acceded to the NPT and adhered to the CTBT. It had also welcomed the initiative of the Conference on Disarmament to start negotiations on a treaty that would ban the production of fissile material for weapon purposes or for other explosive devices.
Her country, she said, shared the general concern regarding the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. Those tests increased the tension in the region and dealt a severe blow to the international non-proliferation regime. Her Government welcomed the declaration by both countries that they would conduct no further tests and intended to accede to the CTBT.
Concluding, she said her delegation would have preferred to have the nuclear testing draft address all nuclear tests. The nuclear-weapon States continued with laboratory nuclear tests and those also deserved to be deplored, because they undermined the NPT. Unfortunately, the amendments that had addressed that issue were not adopted.
(Annexes follow)
First Committee - 19 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
First Committee - 20 - Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
ANNEX I
Vote on No Action on Nuclear Testing Amendment L.52
The motion to take no action on the amendment to the draft resolution on nuclear testing (document A/C.1/53/L.52) was approved by a recorded vote of 63 in favour to 60 against, with 13 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.
Against: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Israel, Panama, Paraguay, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen.
(END OF ANNEX I)
21
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
ANNEX II
Vote on No Action on Nuclear Testing Amendment L.56
The motion to take no action on the amendment to the draft resolution on nuclear testing (document A/C.1/53/L.56) was approved by a recorded vote of 62 in favour to 51 against, with 18 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.
Against: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chad, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Iran, Israel, Mozambique, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Oman, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen.
22
(END OF ANNEX II)
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
ANNEX III
Vote on No Action on Nuclear Testing Amendment L.58
The motion to take no action on the amendment to the draft resolution on nuclear testing (document A/C.1/53/L.58) was approved by a recorded vote of 60 in favour to 49 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Federated State of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.
Against: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chad, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Oman, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen.
23
(END OF ANNEX III)
24
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
ANNEX IV
Vote on No Action on Nuclear Testing Amendment L.62
The motion to take no action on the amendment to the draft resolution on nuclear testing (document A/C.1/53/L.62) was approved by a recorded vote of 59 in favour to 57 against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.
Against: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Haiti, Israel, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Oman, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen.
(END OF ANNEX IV)
25
First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3134 29th Meeting (PM) 12 November 1998
ANNEX V
Vote on Nuclear Testing
The draft resolution on nuclear testing (document A/C.1/53/L.22) was approved by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 6 against, with 31 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.
Against: Benin, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Israel, Kenya, Libya, Maldives, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam.
Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Namibia, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen.
26
* *** *