URGENT STEPS TO REDUCE RISK OF ACCIDENTAL USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS CALLED FOR IN DRAFT TEXT APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

13 November 1998

Press Release
GA/DIS/3135

URGENT STEPS TO REDUCE RISK OF ACCIDENTAL USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS CALLED FOR IN DRAFT TEXT APPROVED BY FIRST COMMITTEE

19981113 Committee Also Approves Draft Resolutions On New Disarmament Agenda, Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

The General Assembly would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in that context, for immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons, by the terms of one of three nuclear-related draft resolutions approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

The new draft text, on reducing nuclear danger which was submitted by India, was approved by a recorded vote of 68 in favour to 44 against, with 12 abstentions. By further terms, the five nuclear-weapon States would be requested to undertake measures towards implementing the Assembly's call, and Member States would be called on to take measures to promote nuclear disarmament, with the ultimate objective of eliminating nuclear weapons. (For details of the vote, see Annex II.)

Prior to approval of the draft, a separate recorded vote was taken on operative paragraph 3, concerning the call on Member States to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to promote nuclear disarmament. The paragraph was approved by a recorded vote of 67 in favour to none against, with 53 abstentions (Annex I).

By the terms of another new draft resolution, entitled "Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda", the Assembly would call upon the nuclear-weapon States to demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to the speedy and total elimination of their nuclear weapons. It would also call upon them to vigorously pursue the reduction of reliance on non-strategic nuclear weapons and, as an interim measure, to de-alert their nuclear weapons and remove nuclear warheads from delivery vehicles. The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to 19 against, with 32 abstentions (Annex VIII).

Prior to approval of the draft, two separate recorded votes were taken. The first was on operative paragraph 8, which would have the Assembly call upon States to adhere, unconditionally and without delay, to the Treaty on the

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It was approved by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Slovenia) (Annex VI).

The second vote was on operative paragraph 17, by which the Assembly would call for legally binding security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States party to the NPT against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. It was adopted by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 1 against (United Kingdom), with 6 abstentions ( Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Slovenia) (Annex VII).

Under a draft resolution sponsored by Japan on nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons, the Assembly would call upon all States to redouble their efforts to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, confirming and strengthening their policies not to export equipment, materials or technology that could contribute to those weapons. That draft was approved by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to none against, with 11 abstentions (Annex V).

Prior to approval of the draft, separate votes were taken on the second preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 1. The second preambular paragraph, which was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 1 against (India), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan), would have the Assembly bear in mind recent nuclear test that challenged the international non-proliferation regime (Annex III).

The first operative paragraph of the text, by which the Assembly would reaffirm the importance of achieving universality of the NPT, was approved by a recorded vote of 136 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Syria) (Annex IV).

Following consultations with the Japanese Government and the distribution of a revised text, the representative of Pakistan decided to withdraw an amendment to the above draft.

Statements were made by the representatives of India, Japan, France, Pakistan, China, United States, Mexico, Portugal, Syria, Republic of Korea, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Colombia, China, Algeria, Iran, Argentina, United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Turkey, Canada, Italy, Norway, Australia, Germany, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Guinea.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to conclude consideration of all disarmament and security-related draft resolutions.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue taking action on all disarmament and security-related draft resolutions.

The Committee had before it draft texts on: a new agenda towards a nuclear-weapon-free world; reducing nuclear danger; the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT); prohibition of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons; and nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. It also had before it amendments to the drafts on fissile material, nuclear disarmament and the CTBT.

A draft resolution on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (document A/C.1/53/L.11) would have the Assembly call upon all States that had not yet done so to adhere to the Treaty at the earliest possible date, thus contributing to its rapid entry into force and the early achievement of universal adherence. The Assembly would urge States to maintain their moratoria on nuclear weapons tests and to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty. It would decide to include the item in the provisional agenda of the fifty-fourth session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Australia, Fiji, Mexico and New Zealand.

An amendment submitted by Pakistan (document A/C.1/53/L.53) to that draft would add a new fifth preambular paragraph, as follows:

"Recalling that Article XIV.I requires the signature and ratification by all the States listed in Annex 2 of the CTBT for the Treaty to enter force."

The amendment would further replace the words "Calls upon" in operative paragraph 1 with the word "Invites", so that the paragraph would now read, "Invites all States to sign and to become parties to the CTBT at the earliest possible date."

The amendment would further add the word "concerned" after the words "urges the States" in the first line of the third operative paragraph. In the same paragraph, it would add the words "especially all forms of nuclear testing for the qualitative development of nuclear weapons,", after the words "... refrain from acts," in line two and before the words "... which would defeat..." in line three.

Thus, the new operative paragraph 3 would read:

"Urges the States concerned to maintain their moratoria on nuclear weapons tests and to refrain from acts, especially all forms of nuclear

First Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

testing for the qualitative development of nuclear weapons, which would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty pending its entry into force."

An amendment submitted by India to the CTBT draft (document A/C.1/53/L.64) would add the following to the end of operative paragraph 3: "and emphasizes that if the objectives of the Treaty were to be fully realized, the continued commitment of all States signatories, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to nuclear disarmament would be essential."

That paragraph would now read:

"3. Urges States to maintain their moratoria on nuclear weapons tests and to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty pending its entry into force and emphasizes that if the objectives of the Treaty were to be fully realized, the continued commitment of all States signatories, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to nuclear disarmament would be essential."

By the terms of a draft resolution, sponsored by India and Fiji, on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/53/L.16/Rev.2), the Assembly would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in that context, for immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons. The Assembly would request the five nuclear-weapon States to undertake measures towards the implementation of the above call. It would also call upon Member States to take the necessary measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the ultimate objective of eliminating nuclear weapons.

According to a draft text on the prohibition of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices (document A/C.1/53/L.24/Rev.1), the Assembly would welcome the decision of the Conference on Disarmament to establish, under item 1 of its agenda on the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, an ad hoc committee to negotiate, on the basis of the report of the Special Coordinator, a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

The Assembly would note with satisfaction that the ad hoc committee had already engaged in the first step in the substantive negotiations and would encourage the Conference to re-establish the ad hoc committee at the beginning of the 1999 session.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea,

First Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States.

An amendment sponsored by India and Pakistan to the draft on fissile material (document A/C.1/53/L.51) would insert the following as a new first preambular paragraph:

"Recalling paragraph 50 of the Final Document of the First Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (SSOD I) which called for the cessation in the production of fissile material for weapons purposes as part of a comprehensive phased programme leading to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons."

After the existing second preambular paragraph, the following additional preambular paragraphs would be inserted:

"Noting the continuing differences among Member States regarding the scope and objectives of the Treaty,

"Convinced that any treaty on fissile material must constitute a disarmament measure and not only a non-proliferation measure,"

Also, the following would be added at the end of operative paragraph 3:

"to negotiate a fissile materials treaty, which must form an integral step of a process of nuclear disarmament leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework."

Operative paragraph 3 would then read:

"3. Encourages the Conference on Disarmament to re-establish its ad hoc committee at the beginning of the 1999 session to negotiate a fissile materials treaty, which must form an integral step of a process of nuclear disarmament leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons within a time- bound framework."

Under a draft text on nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/53/L.42/Rev.1), the Assembly would call upon all States to redouble their efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, confirming and strengthening their policies not to export equipment, materials or technology that could contribute to those weapons. The Assembly would also call for the determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons, and by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

First Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

By further terms, the Assembly would reaffirm the importance of achieving the universality of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and for all States parties to fulfil their obligations under the Treaty. It would call upon all States parties to the Treaty to make their best efforts for the success of the next Review Conference to be held in the year 2000.

It would recognize the importance and necessity of pursuing such actions as the early signature and ratification of the CTBT by all States and the cessation of nuclear tests pending its entry into force, as well as the early conclusion of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and the commencement of multilateral discussion on possible steps that should follow such a convention.

It would also recognize the importance and necessity of pursuing the early entry into force of the 1993 Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START II) and the early commencement and conclusion of negotiations for START III by the Russian Federation and the United States, and further efforts by the five nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally and through their negotiations.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Greece, Japan, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway and Romania.

An amendment submitted by Pakistan (document A/C.1/53/L.54) to the nuclear text would:

-- delete the second preambular paragraph;

-- replace the words "Looking forward" with the word "Urging" in the existing third preambular paragraph;

-- after the existing sixth preambular paragraph, insert a new preambular paragraph, as follows:

"Considering that the application of arbitrary, coercive and discriminatory measures by some States to promote these objectives is inconsistent with international law and, therefore, unacceptable;";

-- add to the existing seventh preambular paragraph, the following:

"which must constitute an integral step in a process of nuclear disarmament leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons within a specific period of time,";

First Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

-- after the existing seventh preambular, add two new preambular paragraphs, as follows:

"Noting the Conference on Disarmament's decision to pursue intensive consultations on appropriate methods and approaches to deal with the agenda item `Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament',";

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

-- replace operative paragraph 1 with the following:

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

-- at the end of operative paragraph 2, add:

"to ensure the total elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified period of time,";

-- replace the third subparagraph of operative paragraph 4 with the following subparagraph:

"The early commencement of multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament in the Conference on Disarmament.";

-- in operative paragraph 4, change the position of the second subparagraph, so that it becomes the final subparagraph.

By a draft text entitled: Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/53/L.48/Rev.1), the Assembly would call upon the nuclear-weapon States to demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to the speedy and total elimination of their nuclear weapons and, without delay, to conclude negotiations to that end, thereby fulfilling their obligations under the NPT. It would also call upon the United States and the Russian Federation to bring the 1993 START II into force without delay and to proceed thereafter with negotiations on START III, and to integrate all five nuclear-weapon States into the nuclear disarmament process.

The Assembly would also call upon the nuclear-weapon States to vigorously pursue the reduction of reliance on non-strategic nuclear weapons and negotiations on their elimination as an integral part of their overall nuclear disarmament activities. It would call upon them, as an interim measure, to proceed to the de-alerting of their nuclear weapons and, in turn,

First Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

to the removal of nuclear warheads from delivery vehicles. Those States would be urged to examine further interim measures, including undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.

The Assembly would further call upon those three nuclear-weapon-capable States that had not yet acceded to the NPT to clearly and urgently reverse all nuclear weapons development or deployment and to refrain from any actions which could undermine regional and international peace and security and the efforts of the international community in that regard. The Assembly would call upon those States that had not yet done so to adhere unconditionally and without delay to the NPT and to conclude full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreements. It would also call upon all States to sign and ratify the CTBT.

By further terms, the Assembly would call upon the Conference on Disarmament to establish a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament. It would also call on the Conference to pursue negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Pending the entry into force of such a treaty, it would urge all States to observe a moratorium on the production of that material.

It would further call for the conclusion of a legally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and stress that nuclear-weapon-free zones, especially in regions of tension such as the Middle East and South Asia, would contribute significantly to the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Guatemala, Ireland, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Samoa, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zambia.

Action on Texts

The representative of India introduced the twice revised draft text on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/53/L.16/Rev.2). She said her delegation was pleased with the broad range of support that had been accorded the draft by Committee members. Her delegation had conducted extensive consultations, especially with regard to the operative paragraphs of the draft. Changes in the revised text reflected the result of those consultations, with the aim of promoting nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. The operational consideration still accorded to nuclear weapons after the cold war was dangerous and constituted a risk to humanity. She hoped the draft would maintain the wide support of Member States.

First Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

The representative of Japan introduced the revised text of the draft on nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/53/L.42/Rev.1). He said the co-sponsors of the draft consulted with various delegations on the changes that were made in the text. Despite those changes, however, the fundamental nature of the draft had not been altered, which was the importance of strengthening nuclear disarmament and for concrete action for the ultimate elimination of those weapons. That purpose had also been reflected upon in many past resolutions over the years. This year it had been made more pressing by the nuclear tests in South Asia, as was duly highlighted by the draft he was introducing. He hoped it would be adopted with overwhelming support.

A separate recorded vote was requested on operative paragraph 3 of the draft on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/53/L.16/Rev.2), which concerns the ultimate objective of eliminating nuclear weapons. The paragraph was approved by a recorded vote of 67 in favour to none against, with 53 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

The Committee then approved the draft on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/53/L.16/Rev.2) as a whole, by a recorded vote of 68 in favour to 44 against, with 12 abstentions (Annex II).

The representative of France said the draft, as revised the first time, had some elements that were unacceptable to her Government. The draft adopted the principal position that the existence of nuclear weapons was very dangerous for international peace and security and was contradictory to the principles of the United Nations Charter. That was not the position of her country. Her delegation believed that nuclear deterrence constituted an essential element in the politics of national defence.

The draft, she said, also called for a revision of strategic doctrines. That was the sovereign right of nuclear-weapon States. With regard to the level of alert and targeting mentioned in the draft, her country had taken several relevant disarmament steps, including the reduction of the alert level of its nuclear forces. She did not wish to go into further details regarding the unacceptable elements in the draft. It would suffice to add that its language had been improper and selective. Her delegation could only vote against such a text. The Committee then turned to the draft on nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/53/L.42/Rev.1).

The representative of Pakistan announced that his delegation wished to withdraw the amendment they had proposed on that draft (document A/C.1/53/L.54). He had many misgivings about the draft. However, intensive consultations with the principal sponsor, Japan, led to the deletion of the elements that had caused such agitation. In view of that, he would withdraw the amendment, as a gesture of appreciation.

First Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

Separate votes were requested on the second preambular paragraph, concerning recent nuclear tests, and on operative paragraph 1, which concerns the NPT.

In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Pakistan said he would abstain in the vote on the second preambular paragraph, because it referred to the recent nuclear tests in South Asia without reflecting on subcritical tests by the nuclear-weapon States. All nuclear tests should be treated alike.

The Committee then approved the second preambular paragraph of the draft on nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/53/L.42/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 1 against (India), with four abstentions (Bhutan, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan) (Annex III).

The representative of China, speaking in explanation of vote, said that when the draft on reducing nuclear danger was first introduced in the Committee on 2 November, his delegation had commented on it. Nuclear danger was not limited to nuclear weapons, but also covered the proliferation of those weapons. As clearly indicated in the NPT, the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war. In order for the draft to reflect nuclear danger in a more comprehensive, balanced and objective way, appropriate amendments should be made to the text.

He said all countries concerned should be requested to accede to the NPT, so as to make the draft really conducive to reducing nuclear danger. For that purpose, his delegation had originally intended to table amendments to the draft along those lines and, following consultations with the parties concerned, it had gained extensive support. It had also consulted with the delegation of India on the draft many times. Although that delegation had accepted some of the proposals and had made some improvements to the draft, the draft as a whole was still flawed and still not comprehensive or balanced. For those reasons, he had abstained in the vote.

The representative of the United States, also speaking in explanation of vote, said that he had voted against the draft because it was yet another unrealistic nuclear disarmament resolution that failed to acknowledge the real progress being made on unilateral, bilateral and multilateral levels to reduce nuclear dangers. For the United States, the cold war and the nuclear arms race had been consigned to the "ash heap of history". Unilateral and bilateral efforts over the last decade had reduced the size of nuclear arsenals. Globally, there was less possibility of a nuclear exchange involving the five nuclear- weapon States than at any other time over the last 50 years.

He said his country had taken advantage of the new political realities of the post-cold-war world by making deep reductions in its nuclear arsenal. Among

First Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

its other successes was its unilateral reduction of its deployed non-strategic nuclear weapons by 80 per cent, a reduction by 59 per cent of its overall nuclear warhead stockpiles, an 80 per cent reduction of its non-strategic stockpiles, and a 47 per cent reduction of its strategic stockpiles. Once START II had entered into force and been fully implemented, the United States would have reduced its strategic nuclear forces by two thirds from cold-war levels. Since 1988, it had dismantled more than 13,300 nuclear warheads and bombs, averaging 100 per month. As of May 1994, no country was targeted on a day-to-day basis by United States strategic forces.

Those actions had directly contributed to reducing the nuclear threat, he said. Further step-by-step progress would also be made. The impractical proclamation contained in the present text, which used the same tired rhetoric, would do nothing to promote nuclear disarmament. The sponsor not only ignored the historic achievements of recent years, but, through its own nuclear testing, might have actually undermined the cause it claimed to support. The draft must be seen for what it was -- an attempt to distract international attention from the real cause of increased nuclear danger, namely, the nuclear test explosions conducted by two States in South Asia in May 1998.

The representative of Mexico said he had voted in favour of the preambular paragraph of the nuclear disarmament draft. The Spanish version of the text indicated that the recent nuclear tests had posed a challenge to international efforts to strengthen the global regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, while the English version of the text said that the recent nuclear tests were the challenge, as if there were no others. He would have abstained in the vote on the English version of that paragraph, but since his obligation was to vote on the text in his own language, his vote was, therefore, correct.

A separate vote was requested on operative paragraph 1 of the text, which reaffirms the importance of achieving universality of the NPT and calls upon States not parties to the Treaty to accede to it without delay and without conditions.

The representative of Portugal joined as co-sponsor of the draft.

The representative of Pakistan said that operative paragraph 1 was totally unacceptable. As was well known, the subcontinent of South Asia had already been nuclearized. One State had declared itself a nuclear-weapon State and another had demonstrated its capability to explode and manufacture nuclear weapons. Under the circumstances, it was totally unrealistic for the General Assembly to call for universal acceptance of the NPT by those countries. It was especially unrealistic and unacceptable that such a demand be made in a nuclear disarmament draft. The paragraph ignored the existence of the 30,000 nuclear weapons on red alert in the hands of the nuclear-weapon States, which posed the primary danger of nuclear war.

First Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

Moreover, he said that the call in the first operative paragraph for adherence to the NPT had betrayed the fact that the true objective of the draft, as with many other Committee initiatives, was to promote nuclear non- proliferation and nuclear disarmament. He would vote against that operative paragraph.

Operative paragraph 1 of the nuclear disarmament draft (document A/C.1/53/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 136 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Spain) (Annex IV).

The Committee next took up the draft as whole.

The representative of France, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, drew attention to an inaccuracies in the French text, which actually changed the interpretation of the text. In operative paragraph 4, subparagraph 5, which recognized the necessity of pursuing further efforts by the five nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally and through their negotiations, the last two words of the French text changed "their negotiations" to "the negotiation". On the basis of the correct translation, her delegation would vote in favour.

The representative of Syria said his delegation had voted in favour of operative paragraph 1, but his vote had been improperly recorded.

The representative of the Republic of Korea, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote on the draft as a whole, said his Government had supported a practical and incremental approach to nuclear disarmament, while upholding the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. It was important for the international community to proceed to that ultimate goal on a step-by-step basis that was built on consensus and confidence-building.

He said that the draft reflected, in a balanced way, the international community's impending tasks on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, taking into account developments since the South Asia nuclear tests. Multilateral discussion on possible future steps in that regard should be reinforced. As the final guardian of nuclear disarmament, the international community should revitalize discussions on how to proceed to the ultimate elimination of those weapons. Efforts by the five nuclear-weapon States towards reducing their nuclear arsenals should be accelerated in order to make full use of the strategic environment created by the end of cold war. He would, therefore, vote in favour of the draft.

The representative of Cuba said his delegation would abstain, once again, on the nuclear disarmament text submitted by Japan. The draft did not establish a minimal, universally acceptable path towards nuclear disarmament. In spite of its title, the text, rather than dealing with nuclear disarmament,

First Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

emphasized selective approaches concerning horizontal nuclear proliferation. For that reason, if action had been taken on the draft's amendments, he would have voted in favour of them.

He said that taking partial approaches to the problem in no way created the necessary conditions to attain the nuclear disarmament objective. Those approach were a perfect pretext for those who advocated their obsolete nuclear military doctrines. He hoped that in 1999 the Committee would adopt a draft on the subject that would truly meet the expectations of the international community.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said he would abstain in the vote on the draft, as in previous years. Japan, as a victim of atomic bombs, should have pursued nuclear disarmament, in particular the total elimination of nuclear weapons. However, it continued to enjoy the protection of nuclear weapons and allowed such bases to be stationed on its territory. Moreover, the draft, though entitled "nuclear disarmament", lacked crucial elements for that process, in particular for the total elimination of those weapons. Rather, it simply promoted non-proliferation, which was regarded by many as a discriminatory approach to the nuclear disarmament question.

The representative of Colombia agreed that the draft referred more to non-proliferation than to nuclear disarmament. Although his delegation did not disagree with the contents of the text, the Committee had considered others that referred directly to the nuclear disarmament issue. His delegation would, therefore, abstain in the vote.

The draft resolution on nuclear disarmament with a view to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/53/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to none against, with 11 abstentions (Annex V).

The representative of China, speaking in explanation of vote, said he favoured the main thrust of the draft and had therefore voted in favour of it. He did, however, have some different views on some of the wording in the operative portion of the text. The countries with the largest and most sophisticated nuclear arsenals bore special responsibility for nuclear disarmament. As such, those countries should implement, as early as possible, the already concluded nuclear disarmament agreement and further reduce their nuclear arsenals by a large margin.

He said such actions would not only generate a positive impact on international peace and security, but create favourable conditions for other countries not to aspire to those weapons. Those States should also renounce the first use of nuclear weapons, as well as their nuclear deterrent strategies. The draft resolution had not included those points.

First Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

The representative of the United States said he was pleased to have been able to support that important draft. There were already enough drafts before the Committee that permitted delegations to take a utopian position on nuclear disarmament. The present text, in contrast, offered a more realistic vision of what had been accomplished and of what lay ahead. The United States was firmly committed to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons, but that could only be accomplished by a step-by-step process that took into account international realities.

Negotiations for a fissile material cut-off treaty had finally begun in the Conference on Disarmament, he said. He looked forward to hard work in that regard, and to further nuclear disarmament progress, both on a bilateral and unilateral basis. He had noted the call in the draft for multilateral discussion on nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, to which he looked forward in the forthcoming NPT Review Conference.

The representative of France said she was pleased that, once again, her delegation had voted in favour of the draft, as it had done in previous years. The text had reflected her country's commitment to non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. However, she regretted the absence, for first time, of the mention of unilateral efforts in that regard. The present text failed to acknowledge the comprehensive nature of the ambitious measures undertaken by France, beginning in 1996. Among them was the closing and dismantling of factories producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

She said that such measures were major decisions on the path towards implementing France's commitments under article VI of the NPT. Moreover, those lengthy and costly operations were irreversible. The absence of any reference to that disarmament programme seemed to emanate from a failure to comprehend the facts. Why should the text have disregarded the announcement of such undertakings, which were still being implemented, and why ignore the fact that her country would close the site of its nuclear installations at Mururoa before the end of 1998 -- which would make France the only country that removed its nuclear facilities? she asked.

Referring to operative paragraph 4 of the text, which necessitated further efforts by the five nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally and through their negotiations, she said her country recognized the scope of the efforts being made by the States with the largest nuclear arsenals. Their course, however, was specific to them alone. Given the enormity of the issue, the technical choices that had been made thus far had excluded the dismantling of nuclear warheads. Moreover, START II had not been ratified and its timetable, therefore, remained uncertain.

She drew attention to the reference in the text in the fifth subparagraph of operative paragraph 4, which concerned the process between the United States and the Russian Federation. Her country would reserve the right to assess

First Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

whether and when global efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons justified preference being given to a course other than the unilateral one resolutely undertaken by France.

The representative of Algeria, speaking in explanation of vote, said he had not voted in favour of the text because it overlapped and was at variance with the nuclear disarmament draft (document A/C.1/53/L.47). Moreover, its title did not precisely reflect its content, and some of its elements were not in line with the view on nuclear disarmament of the Non-Aligned Movement. The conceptual approach, which emphasized non-proliferation, did not seem the right one at present. For those reasons, he was unable to support the draft. He had voted in favour of the second preambular paragraph, which referred to the challenge posed by the recent nuclear tests, but he would have included all nuclear tests of any kind.

The representative of Iran, also speaking in explanation of vote, said he had supported the basic thrust of draft, but had abstained in the vote, because the substance of the text was not consistent with its title. The draft purported to be a nuclear disarmament initiative, but its elements focused solely on non-proliferation issues. Accordingly, the present text still needed some improvements, if it was to be true to its title.

The Committee then took up the draft text on a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/53/L.48/Rev.1).

While introducing the revised text to that draft, the representative of Ireland said that, from the outset, the co-sponsors of the draft had promoted dialogue with all delegations willing to contribute to the further elaboration of the text. That resulted in the enrichment of the draft. The co-sponsors did not pretend to have achieved the definitive determination of the nature or process of nuclear disarmament. The draft proposed an agenda, which was wholly realizable, for which the context and mechanisms were, for the most part, already at hand and which could be infinitely developed.

The consultations which the co-sponsors held with other delegations had demonstrated a steady awakening to the fact that the time had now come to move forward, together, to eliminate nuclear weapons, he said. It had not been easy for the co-sponsors to develop the text, and the balance they sought to achieve was for a middle ground -- drawing together the international community as a whole. That had not been easy, either. The draft represented a call for action and the parameters for an agenda required to achieve the goal it sought.

Then the CHAIRMAN announced that there were to be separate votes on operative paragraph 8, concerning the NPT, and operative paragraph 17, also concerning the NPT, of the draft.

First Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Pakistan said that operative paragraph 8 of the draft repeated the provisions of previous resolutions that had been adopted. Given the "condition of nuclearization" in South Asia, his delegation considered it unrealistic that the draft had called for adherence to the NPT. His country could not do so. Therefore, his delegation would vote against that operative paragraph.

The representative of the United States said his delegation would not participate in the voting on individual paragraphs, because they considered the overall thrust of the draft on a new agenda to be flawed. Thus, it was pointless for them to consider its paragraphs in isolation.

The representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation perceived the new agenda draft as a single whole. They, therefore, did not see the purpose of voting on fragments of it. For that reason, they would not participate in the voting on separate paragraphs.

The representative of Slovenia announced that his delegation wished to withdraw their co-sponsorship of the new agenda draft.

The Committee adopted operative paragraph 8 of the draft on a nuclear- weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/53/L.48/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 3 against (India, Israel, Pakistan), with 4 abstentions (Bhutan, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Slovenia) (Annex VI).

The Committee then turned to operative paragraph 17 of the new agenda draft.

In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Pakistan said his delegation favoured the conclusion of effective security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. However, they believed that the restriction of those assurances to parties to the NPT, as was suggested by the draft, was discriminatory and unacceptable. For that reason, his delegation would abstain in the voting on operative paragraph 17.

The Committee adopted operative paragraph 17 of the draft on a nuclear- weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/53/L.48/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 1 against (United Kingdom), with 6 abstentions (Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Slovenia) (Annex VII).

The representative of Pakistan said that the draft on a new nuclear disarmament agenda was more fair and equitable than the one just approved, submitted by Japan. However, its perspective was less categorical and clear than the nuclear disarmament draft submitted by Myanmar and other Non-Aligned

First Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

Movement countries. The positive aspect of the new agenda draft was its recognition of the link between nuclear disarmament and nuclear non- proliferation. It also recognized the realities of the five nuclear-weapon States and certain other States, which also had nuclear capability or now possessed nuclear weapons. The demands which had been made in the text on those respective categories of States, however, were somewhat unclear and unequal.

He said that, whereas the nuclear-weapon States were asked to conduct negotiations in accordance with article VI of the NPT, two major nuclear Powers were urged to pursue START and to integrate those other countries into a seamless process of negotiations. It also called upon them, as an interim measure, to de-alert their nuclear weapons and remove their nuclear warheads from delivery vehicles. On the other hand, the nuclear-weapon-capable States were asked to reverse their nuclear programmes, immediately accept the NPT and full scope IAEA safeguards, and take measures that were unrelated to their security environment. No steps taken by any State should be unrelated to their security environments and to the issues those States confronted.

In the region of South Asia -- as a result of nuclear weapons explosions, as a result of a declaration by one State of its nuclear-weapon status, as a result of an acute conventional arms imbalance -- he said his country was obliged to rely on the deterrence effects of nuclear capability to prevent aggression. Like France, it would maintain that deterrence remained a fundamental element of its defence strategy. The representative of the United States had further elaborated the concept of deterrence and had underlined that it had preserved the peace for 50 years. Hopefully, South Asia, which had experienced three wars in the last 50 years, would see no further wars in the next 50.

He said his country also had the right, under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, to self-defence. It had exercised that right when it conducted nuclear explosions on 28 and 30 May. It was, therefore, strange that the nuclear-weapon States should "nit-pick" on the draft -- because it did not refer to those tests. Such a reference would have landed the draft in the category of the nuclear-testing draft, as unfair and discriminatory -- and in the category of disarmament measures that felt good but achieved nothing. Unfortunately, due to the unacceptable provisions contained in the draft, his delegation would be obliged to vote against it as a whole. Nevertheless, the initiative undertaken by the draft's co-sponsors was appreciated.

The draft resolution entitled towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/53/L.48/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to 19 against, with 32 abstentions (Annex VIII).

The representative of Luxembourg, speaking in explanation of vote on behalf of Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Iceland and Portugal, said that, regrettably, those eight countries had abstained in the vote on the

First Committee - 17 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

new agenda text. The draft contained many positive elements, and those countries, too, called on States that had not yet done so to adhere to the NPT, conclude IAEA safeguards agreements, and sign and ratify the CTBT, without delay and without conditions. Those countries also believed it was important that the Conference on Disarmament conclude, without further delay, a fissile material cut-off treaty. They also supported the creation, within the Conference, of a subsidiary body entrusted with nuclear disarmament.

He said those countries also agreed with the promotion of nuclear-weapon- free zones, wherever possible. They subscribed to the fundamental objective of nuclear disarmament and the total elimination of those weapons. While they were willing to tirelessly explore all ways to attain that goal, the draft did not consistently live up to the intentions of its co-sponsors. The draft's imperfections included its conclusion of the need for a new agenda, which was not shared by the countries associated with the statement.

The draft's rejection of the existing agenda -- because it was sterile in the past and seemed unfruitful in the future -- was imprecise and dangerous, he went on. The only reasonable process was the one which originated in article VI of the NPT. Furthermore, they could not support the call for an international conference on nuclear disarmament in the light of the forthcoming NPT review conference and a fourth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament. The present agenda had demonstrated its validity.

Finally, he added, it was alarming that a resolution that had some 37 paragraphs had said nothing about the major event of the testing in South Asia. Rather, it contained an unacceptable ambiguity that there could be only two categories of States in the NPT, either nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear weapon States.

The representative of China said that, as a nuclear-weapon State, China had never evaded its own responsibility for nuclear disarmament, and it was ready to fulfil its obligations in that regard. From the day China first possessed nuclear weapons, it had undertaken not to be the first to use them at any time and under any circumstances. It had undertaken, unconditionally, not to use or threaten to use those weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon States or in any nuclear-weapon-free zones, nor had it participated in any nuclear arms race. It remained opposed to nuclear deterrence doctrines based on the first-use of nuclear weapons.

He said that the indefinite extension of the NPT had not implied that the nuclear-weapon States could possess nuclear weapons indefinitely. They should intensify efforts aimed at fulfilling their obligations under article VI of the NPT. The countries with the largest and most sophisticated nuclear weapons should renounce nuclear deterrence and cease research and development of outer space weapons and missile defence systems. His delegation favoured the objective of the draft on a new agenda, namely, its call for a nuclear-weapon-free world.

First Committee - 18 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

It also favoured some steps in draft, such as its call upon nuclear-weapon States to review their nuclear policies and conclude a legally binding instrument of security assurances for non-nuclear weapon States.

He said that given the great disparity of nuclear forces among the nuclear- weapon States, and given the fact that a few countries still held to first-use nuclear deterrence doctrines, it was premature to ask all nuclear-weapon States to adopt the same measures. Based on those reasons, he had abstained in the vote on the draft.

The representative of Turkey, also speaking in explanation of vote, said that his delegation had voted against the draft. While the international community aspired to a nuclear-weapon free world, those weapons could not be wished away. Instead, systematic and progressive efforts by nuclear-weapon States was essential. Moreover, a broad agenda and a step-by-step process would ensure that obligations undertaken by all States were being fulfilled. Such an agenda had been agreed upon at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, and had been recently advanced in the Conference through the commencement of negotiations to ban fissile material for weapons purposes.

The NPT strengthened review process was the appropriate nuclear disarmament forum, he said. For that reason, he failed to see the utility of yet another international conference, as proposed in operative paragraph 14 of the text, especially at a time of cost-saving measures. The fifth preambular paragraph stated that the nuclear-weapon States had not fulfilled, speedily and totally, their commitments towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. Voting in favour of the draft would not fulfil that objective.

He said that despite his objection to the draft's main thrust, it incorporated language that he could support, specifically concerning the roles of the IAEA, the CTBT, the NPT review conference, and nuclear-weapon-free zones. Had those paragraphs been put to separate votes, he would have voted in favour of them. Its negative vote should not be construed as opposition to the lofty goals of nuclear disarmament, which could be achieved through active participation in the NPT.

The representative of Canada said that following a period of high-level consultation, his delegation had abstained in the vote on the new agenda draft. It would like to see the objectives of the draft achieved and, through consultations, the text had come a long way. On balance, however, there was still more to be achieved in that respect.

He said that the Committee was well aware of his country's disarmament commitment, as a core dimension of the broader pursuit of greater international peace and security. It was also aware of its unequivocal commitment to all aspects of nuclear disarmament and to the nuclear non-proliferation regime, founded on the NPT and its associated instruments. In recognition of that

First Committee - 19 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

commitment and of the challenges faced at the brink of new millennium, his Government would table a study of its disarmament and non-proliferation policy in the next few weeks, which it would take into account during its continued policy of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation.

Today's vote on the new agenda draft should not prejudge that process, he said. Some countries had raised strong objections to the text, related to their impression that it was rooted in "old speak" and did not adequately credit nuclear disarmament progress, or mention the South Asia nuclear tests. His country had carefully examined those arguments. Above all, it remained deeply concerned that the NPT-based nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime was now under serious strain. He saw the new agenda resolution from that perspective; it was timely and pointed and reminded everyone of the urgent need for further progress on both those fronts.

Indeed, while progress had been made on the nuclear disarmament front, there was both room and an imperative to do more. Nuclear proliferation was unacceptable, and his country accordingly looked forward to pursuing those issues actively and forcefully. The text called for a review of its implementation at next year's General Assembly, which his country also anticipated. Hopefully, all those engaged in the disarmament debate would take maximum advantage to obtain the broadest support for the NPT-based nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime.

The representative of India, speaking in explanation of vote, said that the draft resolution went far beyond the parameters of the joint declaration made by eight countries last spring. It included extraneous elements and formulations, which had been adopted in other forums. She rejected formulas, such as the one which appeared in operative paragraph 7, which called for the nuclear-weapon-capable States to adhere to the NPT and reverse their nuclear processes. Those were not only extraneous, but were completely divorced from the reality on the ground. That concept, among others, was analytically hollow.

She said the Committee deliberations had once again demonstrated that there was no consensus on a proposal for the establishment of such a zone in South Asia. Thus, the call for it in the draft was equally baseless. She had abstained in the vote on operative paragraph 17 because she did not envisage negative security assurances within the restrictive framework of the NPT. There was a surprising lack in the text of any mention of the first-use nuclear doctrines. Similarly, the draft ignored efforts in certain countries to refine and modernize nuclear weapons for their retention well into the next millennium.

Also absent was any reference to the final document of the tenth special session of the General Assembly on disarmament, she said. Moreover, any future agenda should consider the starting premise for global disarmament as

First Committee - 20 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

contained in the final document of the first special session on disarmament. She sympathized with those countries who wished to get the self-anointed nuclear-weapon States to accept unequivocal commitments for nuclear disarmament. The draft was silent on the multifarious sources of proliferation that the NPT had failed to stem. Any new agenda elaborated within the framework of the NPT would be unequal and discriminatory.

The nuclear-weapon States, which had yet to provide unequivocal commitment to the speedy elimination of nuclear weapons, had sought to justify their opposition to the draft by criticizing it for not referring to the nuclear tests that took place in May. Their statements were evidence of their desire to use those tests as an excuse to reject any new nuclear disarmament proposal. India's commitment to nuclear disarmament remained, and it would continue that pursuit in a non-discriminatory framework.

Her delegation had not pressed amendments in deference to some of the co-sponsors and in the hope that those points would find a suitable place in that draft in future, she said. While her country shared the objective of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, it remained unconvinced of the utility of an exercise bound by the flawed and discriminatory approaches of the NPT.

The representative of the United States said the draft would delay the process of nuclear disarmament rather than advance it. The draft questioned the validity of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, and his delegation rejected that since that doctrine had kept the peace and ended the cold war. Thus, the United States and its allies decided to maintain it, in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, relative to the right to individual and collective self-defence. The process of nuclear disarmament could only progress in the context of national security interests. The most realistic way was a step-by-step approach.

Continuing, he said, far from a new agenda, the draft was a collection of topics on the pre-existing nuclear disarmament agenda. It called into question what the international community had already agreed on with regard to how to approach nuclear disarmament. It was hard to see how the draft could promote nuclear disarmament. Indeed, that draft was just another example of "feel good arms control".

The representative of the United Kingdom said he wished to reiterate that his country was wholly committed to nuclear disarmament. A practical expression of that was their strategic defence review. It was also worth noting that his country had ratified the CTBT. The new agenda draft was flawed for many reasons. For example, it neither mentioned nor condemned the South Asia tests. His country was ready to support any measure that would advance nuclear disarmament, but that draft did not. Therefore, his delegation had voted against it.

First Committee - 21 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

The representative of Italy said his delegation had abstained in the voting because the draft raised some concerns. His country was not convinced that nuclear disarmament would be advanced by a draft that was not consistent with the provisions of the NPT on how to approach nuclear disarmament. A more balanced text was more desirable. His country would continue to work for the goal of nuclear disarmament, which it considered the primary responsibility of the nuclear-weapon States. Due to the deficiencies of the draft, his delegation decided to abstain in the vote.

The representative of Norway said nuclear disarmament and nuclear non- proliferation were vital for a significant reduction and ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons. Nuclear disarmament was the responsibility of all States. In that context, however, the nuclear-weapon States had primary responsibility. Thus, their participation in the process was paramount. His country appreciated the ideas in the draft and the desire for nuclear disarmament in a more practical way. Still, the draft was problematic, due to the way it was formulated. Its language was too confrontational regarding the nuclear-weapon States. Among other debits, it lacked balance because it was critical of the way the nuclear-weapon States approached nuclear disarmament, without even reflecting on the South Asia tests.

The representative of Australia said the premise of the draft was that the current nuclear non-proliferation agenda had failed and was in dire need of repair. That was not acceptable. The regime was progressing well. Since the end of the cold war, there had been deep cuts in the number of nuclear weapons in the world. There was certainly no room for complacency, as the events of this year had cautioned. Nonetheless, it could not be said that the world had hit an iceberg either.

The representative of Germany said, as several other delegations had highlighted the faults of the draft in relative detail, he would only add that he had abstained in the voting because he believed that a step-by-step approach, as opposed to the bias of the draft, was the best way to approach the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The representative of Japan said his delegation truly appreciated the ideas expressed by the draft. It contained a number of common ingredients with the draft on nuclear disarmament and the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons, to which his delegation was main sponsor. His delegation decided to abstain on the new agenda draft because it went a little too far and contained a few premature elements. His delegation believed that a step-by-step approach was the most practical route towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said the draft addressed a very important aspect of nuclear disarmament. His delegation appreciated the efforts of the sponsors for a nuclear-weapon-free world, which everybody shared. The draft reaffirmed a position that had been affirmed many

First Committee - 22 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

times in the Committee and in other forums. However, the draft did not meet the expectations of all Member States. A nuclear-weapon-free world would be possible only when nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon States were in agreement.

The representative of the Republic of Korea, said, as he had emphasized on many past occasions, his country supported international efforts to strengthen the non-proliferation regime and the associated goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world. Thus, his delegation appreciated the efforts of the co-sponsors. His country felt very strongly about the main thrust of the draft. However, the draft contained several drastic elements that were unrealistic and inappropriate.

He said his delegation believed that any realistic nuclear disarmament measure should blend idealism and realism. The advent of a nuclear-weapon-free world could only happen through a step-by-step approach to the elimination of nuclear weapons. It had to be admitted that no country would compromise its national security for the sake of disarmament. It was against that background that his delegation abstained in the voting on the new agenda draft.

The representative of Algeria said his Government completely supported the nuclear disarmament process and the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free world. His delegation welcomed the efforts of the sponsors and promoters of the draft. However, although the draft was important, it had to be said that it posed a few problems. It completely disregarded the existing agenda of nuclear disarmament. Also, the language in certain parts of it needed to be altered. For those reasons, among others, his delegation abstained in the voting.

The representative of Guinea said that due to "certain imponderables", his delegation was not able to cast its vote when the new agenda draft was being acted upon. They would have voted in favour of the draft because it reflected the concerns of his country, regarding the need to rid the world of the nuclear threat.

The representative of France said, as she had already explained, the general inspiration for the new agenda draft seemed nefarious. That was the reason why her delegation did not participate in the separate votes on operative paragraphs 8 and 17, given that the adoption or rejection of any of them would not change anything in a draft, which was counter-productive as a whole. Her delegation did not support it in part, or as a whole.

(annexes follow)

First Committee - 23 - Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

ANNEX I

Vote on Operative Paragraph 3 on Reducing Nuclear Danger

Operative paragraph 3, concerning the objective of eliminating nuclear weapons, of the draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/53/L.16/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 67 in favour to none against, with 53 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia.

Against: None.

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

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX I)

24

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

ANNEX II

Vote on Reducing Nuclear Danger

The draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/53/L.16/Rev.2) was approved by a recorded vote of 68 in favour to 44 against, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

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

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, China, El Salvador, Guatemala, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, San Marino, Ukraine.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Jordan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

25

(END OF ANNEX II)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

ANNEX III

Vote on Second Preambular Paragraph on Nuclear Weapon Elimination

The second preambular paragraph, concerning recent nuclear tests, of the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament with a view to the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/53/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 1 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia.

Against: India.

Abstain: Bhutan, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Oman, Palau, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen,

26

Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX III)

27

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

ANNEX IV

Vote on Operative Paragraph 1 on Nuclear Weapon Elimination

Operative paragraph 1, concerning the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), of the draft resolution on nuclear disarmament with a view to the elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/53/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 136 in favour to 3 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: India, Israel, Pakistan.

Abstain: Bhutan, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Syria.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

28

(END OF ANNEX IV)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

ANNEX V

Vote on Disarmament with View to Nuclear Weapon Elimination

The draft resolution on disarmament with a view to the elimination of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/53/L.42/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to none against, with 11 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: None.

Abstain: Algeria, Bhutan, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Iran, Israel, Myanmar, Pakistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Syria, Tajikistan,

29

Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX V)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

ANNEX VI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 8 on New Agenda

The vote on the draft resolution on operative paragraph 8, concerning the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), in the draft resolution entitled towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1//53/L.48/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 3 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, 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, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against: India, Israel, Pakistan.

Abstain: Bhutan, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Slovenia.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Belize, Cameroon, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, France, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea,

30

Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Palau, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United States, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX VI)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

ANNEX VII

Vote on Operative Paragraph 17 on New Agenda

Operative paragraph 17, concerning the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), of the draft resolution entitled towards a nuclear- weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1//53/L.48/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 1 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: United Kingdom.

Abstain: Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Slovenia.

31

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Belize, China, Comoros, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, France, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Palau, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United States, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

(END OF ANNEX VII)

First Committee Press Release GA/DIS/3135 30th Meeting (AM) 13 November 1998

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Need for New Agenda

The draft resolution entitled towards a nuclear-weapon-fee world: the need for a new agenda (document A/C.1/53/L.48/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to 19 against, with 32 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against: Armenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, India, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Monaco, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bhutan, Canada, China, Croatia, Denmark, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan,

32

Kyrgyzstan, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Slovenia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Comoros, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Honduras, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

* *** *