A/36/PV.91 General Assembly

Wednesday, Dec. 9, 1981 — Session 36, Meeting 91 — New York — UN Document ↗

In the absence of the President. Mr. Naik (Pakistan), Vice-President. took the Chair.
Vote: A/RES/36/84 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (118)
Vote: A/RES/36/86B Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (132)
Vote: A/RES/36/86A Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (129)
Vote: A/RES/36/87B Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (107)
Vote: A/RES/36/88 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✗ No (3)
✓ Yes (93)
Vote: A/RES/36/89 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (116)
Vote: A/RES/36/92K Recorded Vote
Show country votes
Vote: A/RES/36/92J Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (78)
Vote: A/RES/36/92I Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (121)
Vote: A/RES/36/92H Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (115)
Vote: A/RES/36/92F Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (136)
Vote: A/RES/36/92E Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (118)
Vote: A/RES/36/92D Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (116)
Vote: A/RES/36/92C Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (143)
Vote: A/RES/36/94 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (115)
Vote: A/RES/36/95 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (145)
Vote: A/RES/36/96C Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (86)
Vote: A/RES/36/96B Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (109)
Vote: A/RES/36/96A Recorded Vote
Show country votes
— Abstain (1)
✓ Yes (147)
Vote: A/RES/36/97K Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (132)
Vote: A/RES/36/97J Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (134)
Vote: A/RES/36/97G Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (125)
Vote: A/RES/36/97E Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (84)
Vote: A/RES/36/97C Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (129)
Vote: A/RES/36/97A Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (114)
Vote: A/RES/36/98 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (101)
Vote: A/RES/36/99 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (123)
Vote: A/RES/36/100 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (82)
Vote: A/RES/36/102 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (127)
Vote: A/RES/36/103 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (120)
Vote: A/RES/36/104 Recorded Vote
Show country votes
✓ Yes (143)

58.  Review of the implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security: (a) Implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security; (b) Non-interference in the internal affairs of States; (c) Implementation of the Declaration on the Prepa- ration of Societies for Life in Peace: report of the Secretary-General REPORf OF THE FIRST COMMITTEE (A/361761) I. Mr. MAKONNEN (Ethiopia), Rapporteur of the First Committee: I have the honour to present to the General Assembly the reports of the First Committee on its work. They contain its recommendations on the disarmament and security questions under agenda items 39 to 58, 128 and 135. Those recommendations are to be found in doc- uments A/361740 to 761. With the exception of items 128 and 135, which are new, all the disarmament items have been included in the agenda of the thirty-sixth session in accordance with previous General Assembly resolutions. Thus, this year, discussion on these items in the First Committee could be considered as a continued expression of concern over the compleXities of disarmament prob- lems and of determination to continue exerting efforts to make progress -towards the ultimate objective of general and complete disarmament. 2. The First Committee, as in previous years, held at this session's combined general debate on all disarmament items, which took place at its 3rd to 26th _meetings, be- 3. The fact that the discussion in the First Committee took place on the eve of the second special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, scheduled to convene on 7 June {982, gave an opportunity to a large number of participants to articulate their expectations and to express their hopes about future action in the field of disarmament. 4. The report of the Preparatory Committee for th: Sec- ond Special Session of the General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament, which was contained in one of the recom- mendations under item 39, was much commented on dur- ing the debate and it is no exaggeration to say that there was general agreement that the comprehensive programme for disarmament still under negotiation should be the mainstay of the work of the forthcoming special session. 5. A number of other recommendations have been adopted with regard to the very important and extensive studies which will be submitted at the special session for consideration. I am referring to the study on the rela- tionship between disarmament and development [A/36/356 and Corr.]], the study on the relationship between disar- mament and international security [A/36/597] and the study on confidence-building measures [A/36/474 and Corr.l]. The Study on the implications of establishing an international satellite monitoring agency' has already been added to the documentation of the Preparatory Committee and will thus be referred to the special session. These studies, which were in preparation for two or in some cases three years, will be important in establishing broad guidelines and general policies on many of the disarma- ment issues to be considered by the special session. 6. Despite the complexities and difficulties of disarma· ment problems, the discussion in the First Committee has shown both that there continues to be a spirit of hope and optimism and the conviction that more efforts are needed and that there is no alternative but to pres~ on with the hard work, whether in the deliberative or negotiating bodies, in order to make further progress. Perhaps a sign of this hope is to be seen in the continued adoption by consensus of a substantial number of draft resolutions. This year the Committee adopted 48 draft resolutions on disarmament items, of which 18 were adopted without a vote. This is an indication that the international commu· nity still entertains the hope of widening the understand- ing of the problems and enlarging the areas of agreement in the field of disarmament. 7. With these few remarks I have the honour to submit the draft resolutions of the First Committee to the General Assembly for adoption. . Pursuant to r(lle 66 of the rules of procedure, it lmS decided not to discuss the reports ofthe First Committee.

The President #6190
The positions of delegations re- garding the various draft resolutions of the First Commit- tee have been made clear in the Committee and are re- flected in the relevant official records. I would remind 9. I would also remind members that, in accordance with the same decision, explanations of vote should not exceed 10 minutes. 10. We shall first consider the report of the First Com- mittee on agenda item 39, contained in document A/361740. 11. I call on the representative of Albania, who wishes to speak in explanation of vote before the vote.
Mr. BALEfA ALB Albania [French] #6191
In order to avoid speaking several times, the delegation of Albania wishes to explain in a single statement lhe views which will guide it throughout the whole of the voting procedure on the draft resolutions on disarmament. 13. The Albanian delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolutions contained in documents A/361746 and A/361757, in order to condemn the nuclear armament of Israel and South Africa. Those affirmative votes will be in line with our well-known attitude in this connection, namely, condemnation of all aggressive actions by those regimes. Our delegation will not take part in the voting on any other draft resolution. We took the same attitude in the First Committee. We explained our position on cer- tain draft resolutions which were adopted by a vote or by consensus and which we did not support. We maintain those explanations and shall not repeat them now. 14. We wish to make the following brief observation in order to explain our attitude on the remainder of the draft resolutions adopted by vote or by consensus which we do not support. The large number of resolutions adopted each year have absolutely no positive influence. Arma- ment and the arms race continue. In our opinion, a cer- tain number of draft resolutions are submitted not in order truly to serve the cause of disarmam~nt, but for political and propaganda purposes. During the voting procedure in the First Committee it was easy to s~ that several draft resolutions reflecting the interests of the super-Powers or military blocs were presented solely to discredit the adver- sary. Often the voting board indicated voting by opposing military blocs. 15. We are aware that a large number of draft resolu- tions are submitted or supported by democratic pro- gressive countries which are seriously disturbed by the terrifying pace of the arms race and sincerely wish to use every possible means to slow it down-even if only slightly-and to alert the world to the dangers of arma- ment. We share their concern and we support their good intentions. But in view of the fact that certain elements slip into these draft resolutions each time to adapt them to the prevailing situation in the United Nations, we also have reservations concerning them. 16. Those are the reasons which prevent us from par- ticipating in the voting on some draft resolutions and which force us to dissociate ourselves from the censensus on others.
Draft resolution A was adopted (resolution 36181 A).
The President #6192
The First Committee also adopted without a vote draft resolution B, entitled ••Pre- vention· of nuclear war". May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution B was adopted (resolution 36181 B).
The President #6193
We shall next consider the report of the First Committee on agenda item 40 [AI361741]. The Assembly will now take decisions on the two draft resolutions recommended by the First Committee in para- graph 9 of that report. The Committee adopted draft reso- lution A without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same?
Draft resolution A was adopted (resolution 36182 A).
The President #6194
The Assembly will now take a decision on dr~ft resolution B.
Draft resolution B was adopted by 120 votes to none, with 19 abstentions (resolution 36182 B).
The President #6195
We turn now to the report of the First Committee on agenda item 41 [AI361742]. I invite members to turn their attention to the draft resolution rec- ommended by the First Committee in paragraph 9 of the report. The Assembly will now ~ake a decision on that draft resolution.
The draft resolution was adopted by 138 votes to none. with 5 abstentions (resolution 36183).
The President #6196
Since the leport of the Fifth Committee on the financial and administrative implica- tions of the draft resolutions under agenda item 42 is not yet ready, I would suggest that the Assembly now take up agenda item 43. The Assembbr will_now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Com- mittee in paragraph 7 of its report on this item [AI36/744]. There is a request for a separate recorded vote on oper- ative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution. I therefore now put that paragraph to the vote.
A recorded vote was taken.
The President #6197
The Assembly will now vote on the draft resolution as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested. -.0':'1'
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution as a whole was adopted by 118 votes to 2, with 23 abstentions (resolution 36184).3
TIle draft resolution was adopted by 140 votes to none, with 5 abstentions (resolution 36/85). . 25. The PRESIDENT: I shall now call on those repre- sentatives who wish to explain their vote after the vote.
Mr. Espeche Gil ARG Argentina [Spanish] #6198
The Argentine Republic shares the aim of achieving as early as possible a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapon testing. In conformity with the position taken by the group of 21, Argentina is of the view that the Com- mittee on Disarmament is the appropriate forum in which to negotiate such a treaty. My country is therefore among those which have consistently supported resolutions pur- suing that objective. 27. However, although there is merit in the general di- rection taken by the resolution just adopted, it leaves a shadow of doubt about the right of nations to have access to peaceful applications of nuclear power, since operative paragraph 6 is not sufficiently clear about the scope of the treaty on the cessation of all nuclear test explosions-un- like the draft resolution in document Al361744, on which my country cast an affirmative vote a few moments ago. Consequently, my delegation abstained in the vote on the draft resolution contained in document Al361745. 28. Mr. de LA GORCE (France) (interpretation from French): The French delegation abstained in the vote. on the draft resolution recommenc~d in document Al361745. Under this resolution, and specifically paragraph 9, mem- bers of the Committee on Disarmament and in particular the nuclear-weapon States, including"France, are urged to co-operate with the Committee in fulfilling its mandate; in other words, according to the resolution, to negotiate a nuclear-test-ban treaty. 29. While the French Government does not wish to op- pose any possible consensus in the Committee on Disar- mament with regard to dealing with this question in a working group, it cannot consider participating in such a negotiation itself. It does not, indeed, consider that the prohibition of tests should be a prior and specific meas- ure, not linked in any way with nuclear disarmament. As the overwhelming number of nuclear weapons are pos- sessed by the two greatest Powers, the prohibition of tests can be considered only if real, balanced and verifiable progress is made in the reduction of the nuclear weapons of those States. An agreement on prohibition that did not come within that framework would not represent real pro- gress, with respect to either nuclear disarmament or non- proliferation. In view of the number of tests-about 1,200-that have been carried out in the past 25 years by the two main nuclear Powers, the actual effect of such an agreement would be to consolidate the advantages whicn they already have. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bar- bados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Co- lombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ec- uador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Re- public, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indo- nesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast. Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Re- public, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab·"Jama- 31. The PRESIDENT: We now turn to the report o(the hiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali. Malta, First Committee on agenda item 45 (A/36/746]. Mauritania. Mexico. Mongolia. Morocco. Mozambique. 30. In those circumstances, the new French Govern- ment, in conformity with its policy of peace in security, cannot consider any commitments that would be incom- patible with the maintenance of the conditions for that security, and therefore the conditions for deterrence.
A recorded vote was taken.
The President #6199
I shall now put to the vote draft resolution B, entitled "Implementation of the Declara- tion". A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution B was adopted by 132 votes to none, with 12 abstentions (resolution 36/86 BP
The President #6200
The next report of the First Com- mittee is on agenda item 46 [A/36/747]. In this connec- tion, a draft resolutiol.l has been submitted by Iraq in doc- ument A/36/L.53. The representative of Iraq will introduce the draft resolution. I call on the representative of Israel on a point of order.
Mr. BWM ISR Israel #6201
The General Assembly is now considering and taking action on 22 items which deal with disarmament and international security matters. All these items were allocated by the General Committee of the General Assembly to the First Committee. In the course of its 53 meetings the First Committee discussed extensively all the items which were allocated to it for consideration. About 60 draft resolutions were adopted by the Committee on these items, and all of them without exception are contained in the report of the Committee now ~fore us. One draft resolution, and one draft resolu- tion alone, was not submitted and considered, for reasons that are well known, at any of the 53 meetings of the First Committee. Iraq, the sponsor of the draft resolution, has spoken several times on the item and even explained its vote on the draft resolution contained in the report of the First Committee [A/36/747]. To admit draft resolution A/36/L.53 for consideration at this late stage would make a mockery of the whole system of allocation of items to the Main Committees and would fly in the face of the orderly and rational conduct of business in the General Assembly. Perhaps, Mr. President, you would wish to give this matter your consideration.
The President #6202
In accordance with the usual practice, the draft resolution contained in document A/36/ L.53 has been circulated and, also in accordance with that practice, I think it would be appropriate for the delegation of Iraq to introduce it formally in plenary me.eting. As I announced earlier, therefore, I call upon the representative of Iraq to introduce draft resolution A/56/L.53.
Mr. Al-Zahawi IRQ Iraq on behalf of group of Arab States #6203
On behalf of the group of Arab States, I have the honour to introduce the draft reso- lution in document A/36/L.53. My delegation sees noth- ing in the rules of procedure that would not allow a dele- gation to submit a draft resolution to the plenary meeting of the General Assembly. When the First Committee 42. The fIfth preambular paragraph of the draft resolu- adopted, on 25 November, draft resolution A/C.1I36/ tion recalls the report of the Secretary-General concerning L.34/Rev.l, my delegation stated its views to the effect Israeli nuclear armament which established the fact that that the Committee had not dealt with the item in a satis- all the known nuclear facilities in the territories of the 38. The Director-General of !AEA was the frrst to draw the attention of the international community to the fact that the Israeli military attack against the Iraqi installa- tions was also an attack on the Agency's safeguards re- gime, which is a basic element of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In his statement at the twenty-fifth session of the General Conference of IAEA, on 21 September, he said ''A blow has been inflicted on the Treaty with the recent air attack on the Iraqi research reactor cen,tre." The Direc- tor-General reiterated his deep concern in the statement he made in the plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 10 November last, when he said: "the Treaty, and by extension the Agency's safeguards regime, suffered a blow in June of this year when a non-treaty country, Israel, carried out a military attack against the research reactor in Iraq, a party to the Treaty and thus subject to lAEA safeguar.ds on all its nuclear activities." [50th meeting, para. 21.] 39. The draft resolution before us takes these views and legitimate concerns into consideration. The fIrst two pre- ambular paragraphs are self-explanatory. 40. The third preambular paragraph recalls Securi.ty Council resolution 487 (1981) of 19 June 1981. That res- olution is pertinent to the present item, as the Security Council expressed therein its deep concern "about the danger to international peace and security created by the premeditated Israeli air attack on Iraqi nuclear installa- tions on 7 June 1981, which could at any time explode the situation in the area, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States". In paragraph 3 of its resolu- tion, the Security Council further considered "that the said attack constitutes a serious threat to the entire safe- guards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". The Security Council, further, in paragraph 5 of its resolution, called upon Israel "urgently to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency". 41. Now, the fourth preambular paragraph of the draft resolution before us takes into consideration the resolution adopted on 12 June 1981 by the IAEA Board of Gover- nors6 and the resolution adopted on 26 September 1981 by the General Conference of IAEA,1 which expressed, inter alia, grave concern over the far-reaching implica- tions of such a military attack on the peaceful nuclear facilities in a member State and on the Treaty and the safeguards regime. 43. The sixth preambular paragraph of the draft resolu- tion takes into consideration the request made by the General Assembly 10 its previous resolutions on this item for the parties concerned to adhere to the Non-Prolifera- tion Treaty. 44. The seventh preambular paragraph reiterates the deep concern expressed by organs of the United Nations and other international organizations about the future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty because of the Israeli attack. 45. Operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution is basrd on all the resolutions recalled in the preambular paragraphs, particularly the General Assembly resolutions concerning this item which call for adherence to the Non- Proliferation Treaty and for the placing of all nuclear ac- tivities in the region under IAEA safeguards as a means of promoting the objective of the establishment of a nu- clear-weapon-free zone in the region. 46. Israel has not only refused to adhere to the Non- Proliferation Treaty and to submit all its nuclear facilities to international inspection, it has bombed facilities which were under IAEA safeguards and belonging to a State which is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Para- graph 49 of the annex to the Secretary-General's report to which I have referred makes the following highly perti- nent comment: . '~fter the Israeli Air Force's bombing attack on the Baghdad nuclear facility, it is unlikely that the world community will be content to accept unilateral judge- ment by Israel of ·the nuclear intentions of States in the Middle East, while exempting itself from offering greater reliability on this point. In the opinion of the Group of Experts, the raid on Iraq's reactor amounted to a unilateral veto on the acquisition of a nuclear ca- pability by a State particularly distrusted by Israel, even though that State had accepted IAEA safeguards." 47. Operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution should be viewed in the context of the passage I have just quoted. It aims at establis.hing the fact that Israel, by at- tacking an internationally safeguarded nuclear facility, has gravely harmed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the safe- guards regime, which are the basic international instru- ments for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, and has thus also adversely affected the prospects for the establishment of such a zone. In other words, Israel, hav- ~ng taken the law into its own hands, should not be al- lowed to repeat such destmctive 2.ctions-as it openly threatens to do-nor is it to be allowed to try to dictate, at the same time, its own formula for what it considers to be the proper modalities for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region. 57. The attitude of the Community to the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear facility has been made clear..on suc- 48. Operative paragraph 2 states an incontrovertible cessive occasions. We believe that that attack was a clear <'-.- ~:t, _e:pec~a~~i~_Vi~::;e_s;::-:_~~~s.:~,_V~O~:~_:f.th:~::i:I::~::_::e~O~_~he__un:~~:~:~~
The President #6204
I shall now call on those repre- sentatives who wish to explain their vote before the vote on these draft resolutions.
Mr. Adelman USA United States of America #6205
This draft resolution is improper and disruptive. The item was before the First Committee, where Iraq, as its represen- tative just stated, joined in the consensus for a procedural resolution on the Middle East nuclear-free zone. 52. If there were merit to the ideas contained in the draft resolution before us, quite at variance with the one we all considered in the First Committee, it should have been introduced and debated in the First Committee. That is' what the Committee is, after all, there for. Since this draft resolution does not introduce any new facts, any facts not known at the time the matter was dealt with in the proper Committee, there is therefore no excuse for it being raised here and now. One can only regret the con- tempt shown for orderly procedure. It serve£ no legitimate interest to destroy the structure of the orderly handling of the Assembly's business. As far as the United States is concerned, the unhelpfulness of this draft resolution is not limited to its procedural impropriety. The United States supports the concept of the establishment of the Middle East nuclear-free zone. It has been and continues to be l\;ady to support serious initiatives towards that goal. 53. This draft resolution is no such initiative. It is un- balanced, in that it focuses on the failure of one country in the Middle East-of course, Israel-to apply IAEA safeguards, whereas several other States of the region have not ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 54. Finally, this draft resolution again focuses upon the attack of last June, a matter which the. appropriate body of the United Nations, the Security Ccuncil, dealt with at length, and on which -it reached a consensus agreement. Nothing has happened on this matter in the real world since the Council's lengthy deliberations. No good purpose is served by harping on this issue again, as we have done too often already during this session of the Assembly: three times, I believe, during the plenary meeting, of which I am aware. At some point, the repetition of this one item ceases to be a farce only to the sponsors and becomes, in fact, a farce to the process and to the Gen- eral Assembly itself. 55. For all these reasons, the United States will vote against this draft resolution. We urge others who respect the orderly functioning and the seriousness of the General Assembly also to distance themselves from this draft res- olution.
Mr. Thorne GBR United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on behalf of 10 member States of the Euro- pean Community #6206
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the 10 member States of the Euro- pean Community. 59. In addressing ourselves to thf: draft resolution con- tained in document Al36/L.53, we agree with the position expressed in operative paragraph 2, concerning the ac- ceptance of IAEA safeguards by Israel, but we would like to underline that all States in the region should place their nuclear facilities under the same safeguards. 60. However, concerning operative paragraph I, we re- main unconvinced that the Israeli raid on the Iraqi nuclear facility can necessarily be said to have the consequences suggested in this part of. the draft resolution. Indeed, the ID members of the Community would hope that the Sta'~es of ~he region will continue te pursur. the objective of creating a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East with undiminished vigour.
Mr. Blum ISR Israel #6207
Last year, at the thirty-fifth ses- sion of the General Assembly, Israel joined the consensus in support of resolution 35/174 despite certain reserva- tions entemined by us. We did so in order to demonstrate goodwill and support for the proposal to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. 62. In addition, Israel submitted its own draft resolution stressing that it was essential for the nuclear-weapon-free zone in question to be established in a manner most likely to assure each State in the region of compliance by all other States with the terms of a convention freely negoti- ated' on the model of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco).11 63. With that in mind, Israel advocated the conclusion of a multilateral convention through direct negotiations by all States of the region. Israel was forced to withdraw its draft reso}ution because of the opposition expressed by some Arab States, led by Iraq,. to the idea of a negotiated agreement. 64. This year, Israel has again indicated in the First Committee its readiness to support the consensus on the original draft resolution, A/C.1I36/L.34, submitted by Egypt, while raising certain questions concerning the modalities proposed by the Egyptian draft resolution. 65. We all know what happened subsequently in the Committee. Qatar, acting on behalf of Syrla and Iraq, submitted amendments which were presented with the ob- vious purpose of introducing, maliciously and unnec- essarily, elements designed to cause considerable oppo- sition and reservations. A recorded vote was taken. 66. The PRESIDENT: I call on the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic on a point of order. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbi\dos, Benin, Brazil, 67. Mr. HAYDAR (Syrian Arab Republic): Just to S~ Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re- the record straight, Qatar was acting on behalf of the public, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, ~~ :~ou: .~~Ma~~~mtes~nOI..~Yri~ _"~d~~~~._. .~~ C~~.~O=:~::::::::,:~~ 70. Qatar's amendments in committee were withdrawn and then revived by Iraq in the form of draft resolution Al36/L.S3, which is now before the plenary meeting. It represents a renewed effort on the part of Iraq to shatter the consensus of the General Assembly on the establish- ment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Without a consensus there can be no way of achieving what paragraph 60 of the Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly, devoted to dis- annament, termed "the establishment of nuclear-weapon- free zones on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among States of the region" [resolution 8-1012]. 71. Iraq's rejection of Israe!'s proposal last year, coupled with the Iraqi draft resolution before us, raises grave doubts about Iraq's true intentions with regard to the es- tablishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. 72. This, of cc.. 'se, is not very surprising. Last year, Iraq refused Israel's offer to negotiate together a treaty on the=: lines of the Treaty of Tlatelolco. This year it has g(:ne further and has impaired the movement in the United Nations, however tenuous, towards an understanding to create a nuclear-weapon free zone in our region. 73. It takes much time and patience, and above all good faith, to achieve some sort of concurrence, however gen· eral, on a disarmament measure. It takes very little time, patience or talent to destroy it. This is always easy. In this, Iraq has been successful. The responsibility lies with Iraq for having prevented the General Assembly from concluding by consensus its deliberations on the item re- garding the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone attained last year.
The President #6208
The Assembly will take a deci- sion first on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 9 of its report [A1361747] and then on draft resolution A/36/L.53. 75. The First Committee adopted the draft resolution in document A/361747 without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to ~o so also?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 36/87 A).
The President #6209
We shall now vote on draft reso- lution Al36/L.53. A recorded vote has been requested. Against: Israel, United States of America. Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Belize, Canada, Cen- tral African Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Do- minican Republic, Fiji, Finlai~d, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ice- land, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand. Norway. Papua New Guinea, Pa ~uay, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The draft rt. ?lution was adopted by 107 votes to 2. with 31 abstentions (resolution 36/87 B).9
The President #6210
I shall now call on those repre- sentatives who wish to explain their vote after the vote.
Mr. Espeche Gil ARG Argentina [Spanish] #6211
T Argentine republic aid not participate in the voting Gin ill"~ft resoluLion Al36/L.53. That does not imply disaI-{J~cvaI of the ultimate aim of making the Mid- dle. East a rMuelear-weapon-free zone, since Argentina joined the consensus on the adoption of the relevant reso- lution at this session of the General Assembly. 79. Howev~r, we in no way share the principal operative criterion of the resolution, because it aims at imposing full-scope safeguards on a country by means of a General Assembly resolution. 80. Similarly, we object to the political orientation of the resolution with regard to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose ineffectiveness has already ....;.en demonstrated. 81. Finally, we wish to put on record our rejection of attacks upon nuclear facilities, which has already been ex- pressed in previous statements and votes.
Mr. Nambiar IND India #6212
India has been clear and unequivocal in its condemnation of the reprehensible, uh- provoked and unjustified military attack by Israel on the Iraqi nuclear research centre near Baghdad early in June 89. We cannot, however, fail to express our disagree- this year. We have made our position on this matter abun- ment with some of the ideas contained in the preambular dantly clear in numerous forums and more than once in part of draft resolution A/36/L.53 with respect to the the course of the present session of the General Assem- Treaty on the Non-Proliferat!on of Nuclear Weapons. We bly. We consider that the basic point at issue is the ag- consider that instrument to be discriminatory in character gression committed by Israel and its violation of the basic and therefore not conducive to the establishment of a gen- principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and the uine and lasting regime designed to prevent the prolifera- threat that such action has posed for international peace tion of nuclear weapons. For that reason, the Non- and security. ..~~:Ii::tiO: T:~_cann~~_:.::~:~ew~constit:le_th:.~. __= Nucl~ar Weapons [resolution 2373 (XXII). annex] and to full-scope and other safeguards deriving from them. Con- sistent with that position, my delegation abstained on draft resolution Al36/L.53, which has just been adopted by the General Assembly.
Mr. Lehne AUT Austria #6213
Austria's position on the Is- raeli air attack against the Iraqi nuclear installation is quite clear. The Austrian Government has strongly con- demned the Israeli action, which in its view constitutes not only a violation of basic principles of the Charter of th~ United Nations but also an assault agamst the IAEA safeguards system. Without doubt such actions are incom- patible with efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone, which must be based on the consent and good will of all States of the region. 85. On the other hand-and this is our understanding of operative paragraph 1 of the draft resolution-the incident of 7 June 19tH has underlined the urgent need for further efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation in ille Middle East, and in this context the desirability of the early establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone. We re- gret that the General Assembly at its present session was unable to take further steps in that direction. 86. As the host country of IAEA, Austria welcomes the repeated references in the resolution to the Non-Prolifera- tion Treaty and to the IAEA safeguards system We share the conviction that adequate safeguard arrangements for all nuclear installations in all States of the Middle East would greatly facilitate the establishment of a nuclear- weapon-free zone. 87. For those reasons the Austrian delegation voted in favour of draft resolution Al36/L.53.
Mr. DUARfE BRA Brazil #6214
The Brazilian delegation voted in favour of draft resolution Al36/L.53 as a whole. Brazil has supported the condemnation of the attack on Iraqi nuclear facilities as a violation of international law. Our position is very clear on that account. Brazil also supports the general concept of the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones with the consensus agreement of States in the region and with the commitment by nudear- weapon States to respect the status of such zones. By signing and ratifying the Treaty of Tlatelolco,8 which cre- ated in Latin America the first, and so far the only, such zone in the world, Brazil gave concrete expression to its position with regard to this matter. We would welcome the taking of similar steps elsewhere in the world. 91. The Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear facilities is a fact-a deplorable fact-which my Government has con- demned before at the appropriate time. In the view of my delegation, the attack should not, however, itself affect adversely the future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in the region or the prospects of the establishment of a nuclear- weapon-free zone as suggested by draft resolution A/36/ L.53. To subscribe to that opinion would be to appear to espouse a policy of defeatism, to run the risk of pursuing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Indeed, we believe that the I.sraeli attack provides an important immediate reason for ini- tiating the process of establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. In this connection, we deeply regret that the original proposal contained in document A/361747 and submitted by Egypt was not able to come to fruition this year. 92. My delegation looks forward to working on a con- structive proposal for the establishment of a nuclear- weapon-free zone in the Middle East at the next session of the General Assembly.
Mr. Pastinen FIN Finland #6215
The position of the Fin- nish Government on the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear centre is clear and has been expressed in several contexts. We concur with Security Council resolution 487 (1981) adopted on 19 June 1981. In that resolution the Security Council strongly condemned the military attack by Israel as a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct. 94. .The General Assembly has already concluded con- sideration of agenda item 130, which dealt exclusively and explicitly with that event. In addition, the attack and its consequences have been dealt with in a number of other contexts, including that of the IAEA. We therefore consider that draft resolution A/36/L.53, which has just been adopted, adds little to what has already emerged from the debate on the subject. Furthermore, we doubt that the adoption of that resolution will contribute to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. This is a goal, we believe to which we, as indeed the General Assembly as a whole, have attached and con- tinue to attach overriding importance. 95. As to operative paragraph I of the draft resolution, it is our view that the Israeli attack has, if anything, made efforts towards the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone even more urgent. While we supported draft resolu- tion A/36/L.34/Rev.l, we regret that it did not prove pos- sible at this time to adopt a substantive resolution on the subject of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
Mr. Baleta ALB Albania [French] #6216
The Albanian delegation voted in favour of draft resolution A/36/L.53 for the reasons that we gave earlier in this meeting, that is to say, specifically to condemn the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear facilities. But we wish to reaffirm that that affirmative vote in no way changes the reservations that we have always had with respect to the concept of so-called nuclear-weapon-free zones. 98. We therefore have reservations concerning the para- graphs of the resolution just adopted which refer to nuclear-weapon-free zones and the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Mrs. CASTRO de BARISH CRI Costa Rica #6217
The delegation of Costa Rica has always supported initiatives aimed at the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones throughout the world, because we are parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which prohibits nuclear weapons in Latin America, and we would wish other regions to enjoy the same safeguards. That is why we participated in the consensus by which the draft reso- lution in paragraph 9 of document A/361747 was adopted. lOO. However, my delegation abstained in the vote on draft resolution A/36/L.53 because we are not in agree- ment with the procedure by which that text was intro- duced at this stage or with the content of some of its paragraphs. We have deplored the Israeli attack on the nuclear facilities of Iraq but we do not believe that that is the only reason why the Non-Proliferation Treaty is en- dangered in that region. There are many other reasons which are not referred to in the resolution. 101. Therefore, my delegation reaffirms its full support for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
The President #6218
The Assembly will now turn its attention to agenda item 47. The report of the First Com- mittee is contained in document A/361748. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recom- mended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its re- port. A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution was adopted by 93 votes to 3. with 44 abstentions (resolution 36188).10
The President #6219
We turn next to agenda item 48. The report of the First Committee is contained in document A!361749. The Assembly will now vote on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorded vote has been re- quested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution was adopted by 116 votes to none. with 27 abstentions (resolution 36189).11
The President #6220
We now turn to agenda item 49. The report of the First Committee is contained in document A!361750. 105. The representative of Seychelles wishes to explain his delegation's position before the Assembly proceeds to take action on the draft resolution on this item.
Mr. Albert SYC Seychelles #6221
The delegation of. the Republk of Seychelles wishes to express its reservations 108. Alguments about the necessity for the harmoniza- tion of views and faulty and outmoded declarations har- bour ill-intentioned manoeuvres. 109. Foreign military exercises in the region, such as operation Bright Star, constitute a threat to the peace, se- curity and stability of the region. The concept of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean, in accordance with the Declaration contained in resolution 2832 (XXVI) of 16 December 1971, and not a zone of war, as is envisaged by some, will continue to be emphasized by the Republic of Seychelles. Tension in the region has recently been fur- ther heightened by the foreign mercenary invasion of the Republic of Seychelles on 25 November last. 110. The Republic of Seychelles appeals to the mem- bers of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean to condemn this foreign aggression against a peace-loving littoral State in the region. Ill. The Republic of Seychelles firmly believes that the sooner the conference to establish a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean is held, the sooner will views on the ques- tion be harmonized. 1I2. The PRESIDENT: The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 8 of its report in document A!361750. . 1l3. The report of the Fifth Committee on the admin- istrative and financial implications of the draft resolution is contained in document A/36/803. 114. The First Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same? liS. The PRESIDENT: I now call on the representative of India, who wishes to explain his position on the reso- lution that has just been adopted.
The draft resolution lYaS adopted (resolution 36190).
Mr. Nambiar IND India #6222
My delegation would have preferred a consensus resolution that reflected more ap- propriately the concerns of the littoral and hinterland States of the Indian Ocean to see the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace in accordance with the Declaration con- tained in resolution 2832 (XXVI). 117. As it is, we have gone along with the present con- sensus in the Ad Hoc Committee and in the First Commit- tee in the hope that the Ad Hoc Committee will in fact be able to complete its preparations to convene tire con- ference well before the first half of 1983.
The President #6223
We turn now to the report of the First Committee on agenda item 50, which is con- tained in document A/361751. The draft resolution recom- mended by the First Committee is contained in paragraph 8 of its report. 120. The report of the Fifth Committee on the admin- istrative and financial implications of the draft resolution appears in document A/36/804. 121. The First Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assertlbly wishes to do so also?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 36/91).
The President #6224
The Assembly will now con- sider the report of the First Committee on agenda item 51, which is contained in document A/361752. 123. The Assembly will now take a decision on the 13 draft resolutions recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 32 of its report [A/36/752]. 124. Draft resolution A is entitled "United Nations pro- gramme of fellowships on disarmament". The Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution A was adopted (resolution 36/92 A).
The President #6225
Draft resolution B is entitled "Report of the Disarmament Commission". The First COIpmittee adopted draft resolution B without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do likewise?
Draft resolution B was adopted (resolution 36/92 B).
The President #6226
Draft resolution C is entitled ..World Disarmament Campaign". A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution C was adopted by 143 votes to none, with 2 abstentions (resolution 36/92 C). I:!
Vote: 57/60 Consensus
The President #6227
Draft resolution D is entitled "International co-operation for disarmament". A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution D was adopted by /16 votes to none, lvith 26 abstelltions (resolution 36/92 D). 13
The President #6228
Draft resolution E is entitled "Nuclear weapons in all aspects". A recorded vote has been requested. Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: Greece, israel, Mali, Morocco, Zaire.
Vote: 57/61 Consensus
Draft resolution E was adopted'by 118 votes to 18, with 5 abstentions (resolution 36/92 E).IJ
The President #6229
Draft resolution F is entitled "Report of the Committee on Disarmament". A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution F was adopted by 136 votes to none, with 9 abstentions (resolution 36/92 F).13
The President #6230
Draft resolution G is entitled "Study on the relationship between disarmament and de- velopment". 13J. The Committee adopted the draft resolution with- out a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same?
Draft resolution G was adopted (resolution 36/92 G).
The President #6231
Draft resolution H is entitled "Status of multilateral disarmament agreements". A re- corded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution H was adopted by JJ5 votes to none, with 23 abstentions (resolution 36/92 H)"~
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution I was adopted by /2J votes to 19, with 6 abstentions (resolution 36/92 I).
The President #6232
We now turn to draft resolution J, entitled "World-wide action for collecting signatures in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, to curb the arms race and for disarmament". A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Vote: 31/37 Consensus
Draft resolution J was adopted by 78 votes to 3, with 56 abstentions (resolution 36/92 J).14
The President #6233
The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution K, entitled "Prohibition of the nuclear neutron weapon". A recorded vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution M was adopted (resolution 36/92 M).
The President #6234
I shall now caU upon those rep- resentatives who wish to explain their vote after the vote.
Mr. Ayewah NGA Nigeria #6235
I wish to make a state- ment in interpretation of resolution 36/92 A on the United Nations programme of fellowships on disarmament, which has just been adopted. 140. On 6 November my delegation was privileged to introduce in the First Committee draft resolution AI C.1I36/L.I. It was subsequently adopted by the Commit- tee by consensus on 20 November. We are encouraged to note that the General Assembly also has been able to adopt by consensus the recommendation of the First Com- mittee on the United Nations programme of fellowships contained in document A/361752. 141. The import of this decision is that the Secretary- General is authorized to make adequate arrangements re- lating to the programme for 1982, in accordance with the guidelines approved by the General Assembly at its thirty-third session. In other words, he should make the necessary arrangements to award 20 disarmament fel- lowships in 1982. . 142. However, my delegation's attention has just been drawn to document A/36/658 of 2 December 1981. cur- rently in circulation, relating to the proposed programme budget forJhe biennium 1982-1983. In this document it is proposed that the number of disarmament fellowships be reduced from 20 to 10. 143. It is, however, our understanding that the resolution just adopted enjoins the Secretary-General to make avail- able the usual 20 disarmament fellowships, to be awarded to candidates nominated by Member States in 1982.
Mr. Megawkonomos GRC Greece [French] #6236
Greece has constantly emphasized the im- portance of nuclear disarmament. The ideas it has ex- pressed are contained in resolution 36/92 E, which we have just adopted. 145. However, the resolution suffers, on the one hand, from the presence of a certain number of too wide and unbalanced elements concerning the doctrines and inten!. tions of the nuclear-weapon States and, on the other, from the absence of any reference to the principles ()f the Char- ter of the United Nations. Indeed, the principles of the Charter which condemn the threat and use of force in international relations and confirm the right to self-de- fence of all States are not mentioned in the preambular paragraphs of resolution 36/92 E. That is why, while we recognize the positive as~cts of that draft resolution, my 154. At the 40th meeting of the First Committe~, held d[:Jegation was compelled to abstain in the vote on resolu- or. 23 November of this year, my delegation's position Cli":~E..~.=.~~._~~.. =. ::. = ...=~=:=- w:sm::~:~Sh:lI .n:~~~t_i: t~~y._an:.i~s~me:_. 147. The first is resolution 36/92 I. Greece is and has always been in favour of nuclear and convr.ntional disar- mament. Thus we welcome any move to put an end to armament in general and the nuclear arms race in particu- lar, any move aimed at the ultimate objective of complete disarmament. 148. Thus we agree with the general lines of the objec- tives of the resolution just adopted. Nevertheless, we were unfortunately unable to support it because of its pro- clamatory character, which is not in our view the best approach to attain our objectives. 149. We had one more hesitation regarding this resolu- tion which concerns paragraph I. In our view, this para- graph, declaring the use of nuclear weapons a violation of the Charter and thus prohibiting it alone, leaves a serious vacuum and a vagueness of interpretation. In fact, we all know that the Charter, in its preambular part, prohibits without any exception or qualification whatsoever any use of force save in the common interest. These are the rea- sons which obliged our delegation to abstain in the voting OJ~ that resolution. 150. Finally, referring to resolution 36/92 K, which we have adopted, I should like to state again, as I said be- fore, that my country is consistently in favour of nuclear and conventional disarmament. We welcome any move towards putting an end to armaments in general, and es- pecially to the nuclear arms race, thus aiming at the ulti- mate objective of complete disarmament. 151. We are certain that continuation of either quan- titative or qualitative development of nuclear armaments will not fail eventually to bring about destructive conse- quences for the whole of humanity, but singling out, con- demning and prohibiting just one kind of nuclear weapon could in our view be interpreted as meaning, a contrario, the legalization and moral acceptance of the rest of them. 152. We firmly believe that if an international forum is to negotiate the conclusion of a convention on the prohi- bition of nuclear armaments, this should be done in a comprehensive way and should contain all types of nu- clear armaments. We have to admit that we must adopt a global approach to the question of disarmament, other- wise, in our view, we shall not be able to attain our ob- jectives.
Vote: 57/70 Consensus
Mr. Garcfa Robles MEX Mexico #6237
I should like to say a few words with re- gard to resolution 36192 H. During the consideration of the draft resolution in the First Committee. our delegation voted in favour of it when it came up for adoption. How- ever, we felt it necessary on that occasion to explain our vote so that it should be fully clear for the record that our vote in no way illtered Mexico's stand in connection with the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques adopted in New York,. on !2 October 1976, generally known as the "En-Mod" Convention.
The President #6238
The Assembly will now con- sider the report of the First Committee on agenda item 52 [A/36/753]. The draft resolution recommended by the First Committee appears in paragraph 7 of its report. 157. This draft resolution was adopted by the First Committee without a vote. May I consider that the Gen- eral Assembly also adopts it without a vote?
The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 36/93).
The President #6239
We now turn to the report of the First Committee on agenda item 53 [A/36/754]. May I invite members to turn their attention to the draft resolu- tion recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report. A recorderl vote has been requested.
A recorded vote was taken.
A recorded vote was taken.
Vote: A/361752 Consensus
The draft resolution was adopted by /45 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (resolution 36/95).15
The President #6240
It will be recalled that I an- nounced earlier. in regard to agenda item 42. that the Fifth Committee was still considering the administrative and financial implications of the draft resolution adopted by the First Committee. The Fifth Committee has finished that consideration. and its Rapporteur will now read out to the Assembly its report on agenda item 42. and also its report on agenda item 55. 163.. With regard to draft resolution A recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 38 of its report on agenda item 55 [A/36/756] the Fifth Committee decided without a vote to report to the General Assembly that if it adopts this draft resolution an additional appropriation of $.55,000 will be required under section 2B of the pro- gramme budget for the biennium 1982-I983. The conference-servicing costs, estimated not to exceed $1, 141 ,900, will be considered in the context of the con- solidated statement of conference-servicing costs for 1982 to be submitted to the General Assembly at a later stage of this session.
The President #6241
The Assembly will now take a decision on the three draft resolutions recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 14 of its report [A/36/743] on agenda item 42. We shall first take up draft resolution A. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bar- bados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kam- puchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Domin- ican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Haiti. Honduras, Hungary. Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland. Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast. Jamaica. Japan, Jordan. Kenya. Kuwait. Lao Peo- ple's Democratic Republic. Lebanon. Lesotho. Liberia. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives. Mali. Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius. Mexico, Mongolia. Morocco. Mozambique. Nepal. Netherlands, New Zealand. Nicaragua. Niger. Nigeria. Norway, Oman, Pakistan. Panama. Papua New Guinea. Paraguay, Peru, Philippines. Poland. Portugal. Qatar. Ro- mania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia. Samoa. Sao Tome and Prin- cipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal. Seychelles. Sierra Leone. Singapore, Solomon Islands. Somalia. Spain. Sri Lanka. Sudan, Suriname, SwaziIand. Sweden. Syrian Arab Re- public, Thailand. Togo, Trinidad and Tobago. Tunisia. Turkey, Uganda. Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emir- ates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northetn Ireland, United Republic of Cameroon. United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta. Uruguay. Vanuatu. Venezuela. Viet Nam. Yemen. Yugoslavia. Zaire. Zambia. Against: None. .4.bstaining: United States of America. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslo- vakia, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Gre- nada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, lib- eria, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nk~i"agua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New r;uinea, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sdnt Lu- cia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Sene- gaT, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Is- lands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and To- bago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Re- public, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia. Against: United States of America. Abstaining: Argentina, Australia, Austria. Belgium. Belize, Canada, Central African Republic. Denmark. Finland, France, Germany. Federal Republic of. Greece. Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, IsraeL Italy. Ivory Coast. Japan. Luxembourg, Netherlands. New Zea- land, Niger, Norway, Paraguay. Portugal. Spain. Sweden. Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Upper Volta, Zaire. Draft resolution B was adopied by 109 votes to I. with 33 abstelllions (resolution 36/96 B).It,
Draft resolution A was adopted by /47 votes to ·none. with / abstention (resolution 36/96 A). IS
The President #6242
Next we turn to draft resolution C. The report of the. Fifth Committee on the admin- istrative and financial implications of that draft resolution is contained in document N36/802. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Canada, Central Af- rican Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Democratic Kampuchea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equa- torial Guinea. Fiji. France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Re- public of, Ghana. Greece, Guatemala. Guyana, Honduras. Iceland. Ireland. Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast. Jamaica, Japan. Jordan. Kenya. Lesotho, Liberia. Luxembourg, Malaysia. Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius. Morocco. Netherlands. New Zealand. Niger. Nigeria. Norway. Oman. Pakistan. P'dpua New' Guinea. Paraguay. Philip- pines, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Lucia. Samoa. Saudi Ara- bia, Senegal, Sierra Leone•. Singapore. Solomon Islands. Somalia, Spain. Sudan. Suriname. Swaziland. Sweden. Thailand. Togo. Tunisia. Turkey. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. United S,tates of America. Upper Volta. Uruguay. Vanuatu. 17 Zaire. Zambia. Abstaining: Argentina, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, Cape Verde, Finland, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Nepal, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Qatar, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cam- eroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia.
Draft resolution C was adopted by 86 votes to 20, with 34 abstentions (resolution 36/96 C). 17
The President #6243
I call on the representative of the United States, who wishes to explain his vote after the vote.
Mr. Adelman USA United States of America #6244
The Assembly has just adopted one of the most important- perhaps the most important-resolutions before the thirty- sixth session of 'the General Assembly. Though this sim- ple, procedural resolution merely extends the mandate of the Group of Experts to Investigate Reports on the Al- leged Use of Chemical Weapons to complete its investiga- tion into allegations of the use of chemical and biological weapons, the implications of this move and this subject are incalculable; for the use of these barbaric weapons which have inflicted so much harm-in Laos, Kampuchea and, according to growing evidence, also in Afghanistan-which cause an early onset of violent itch- ing, vomiting, dizziness and distorted vision, eventually ending in people choking on their own blood, a most painful death-is an ominous sign of barbaric practices loose in the world. 169. This world body has recognized the repercussions of such a development. For this reason, the resolution was adopted by an overwhelming number of countries, includ- ing an overwhelming number of non-aligned countries. 170. That is altogether fitting and proper, since this is a topic of primary concern to small, non-aligned nations. These are the nations today afflicted with this inhumane practice. The poorest, the most desperate people in these non-aligned nations are precisely the ones suffering; for these weapons, outlawed by mankind and successfully banned from the battlefields of the industrialized world for over five decades, have been and are being used against unsophisticated, defenceless people, in the cam- paigns of mounting extermination in Laos, Kampuchea and, more recently, in Afghanistan. 171. Of these facts the world has taken note, and the United Nations took note, just now. by extending the mandate of the Group of Experts. 172. By so doing. the General Assembly also placed before the Group of Experts and the United Nations itself a significant challenge. Many groups and individuals around the world are watching carefully to see how this issue, of such profound importance, is handled by the Organization. 174. All three newspapers ran leading editorials about the United Nations handling of the "yellow rain" issue, and all three editorials spoke of the concern at the way the issue was being and would be handled here. 175. First. the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial en- titled, "Whitewashing yellow rain". on 23 November, which ended: "The UN investigation was stalled for months and finally sabotaged by the refusal of the Soviet Union and its partners to allow the investigators appointed by the civilized world to go to the scene of the crime. Now, as the obstnJctionists no doubt planned. a soon- to-expire mandate for the investigation team threatens to lay UN involvement in the matter to rest with noth- ing more useful than the team's cursory findings. We indeed expected this but we know as well that the UN has more need than it may think to carry this investiga- tion further. If it doesn't, it will have suffered one more black mark against whatever reputation it ha<; left for contributing to world order. We're not sure it can stand many more." 176. Secondly, the Washington Post ran its editorial, aptly entitled. "Crucial test for the United Nations", on 27 November, which ended: "The United Nations Group has so far not accom- plished much of anything. . . . Secretary-General Wald- heim must also see to it that the Group gets where it has to go. despite Soviet objections. The charges being investigated. after all, go beyond whether this or that chemical has been used. They engage nothing less than what the United Nations is all about-the international rule of law. The integrity of the international system demands that they be conclusively proved or refuted." 177. Thirdly, the relatively liberal Newsday ran an editorial on 30 November, entitled, "The United Nations' impotence in the 'yellow rain' case". This editorial pointed out that: "The USSR and its allies blocked an essential ingre- dient of the investigation-access to sites where the attacks are said to have occurred. A Soviet under- secretary-general is the official who would have had to okay the United Nations team's movement into war zones and arrange for its security. He did neither. . . . '~n unsatisfactory investigation and an inconclusive report must not be allowed to end the matter. The Gen- eral Assembly should continue the inquiry, not only to spare peasants in Indochina and Afghanistan, but also to rescue the United Nations itself from unalloyed im- potence." 178. Those three leading newspapers recognize the se- rious challenge before the United Nations, and many oth- ers do also, for the use of toxins as warfare agents in South-East Asia has grave implications for present and future arms control arrangements. As biologically pro- duced chemical substances, toxins fall within the prohibi- tions of both the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and of ag~1Jlents, signed by both the Soviet Union and Viet Nam;:and the cu~tomary international law which has de- veloped out of the former, are being flagrantly violated. i 179. To have the world realize these horrors, the United States co-operated fully over the past year with the Secre- tary-General and the Group of Experts in this investiga- tion of chemical weapons use. We have provided three formal submissions, answered questions from the Group and provided further details about those submissions. Our medical and technical experts appeared before the Group of Experts to respond to questions and to provide back- ground information and further clarification of our sub- missions of clear evidence. In this manner the United States has turned over its evidence to the Group of Ex- perts. That Group, like the United States, now has phys- ical evidence. 180. None the less, for years before the actual physical evidence was obtained, several countries, including our own, were awakening to the startling reality that the Hmong tribespeople of Laos had become targets of a cal- culated campaign of death and of terror. Reports were re- ceived from refugees and others about attacks in the re- mote hills and villages of Laos. reports that aircraft passing overhead would sometimes disperse a yellow cloud, a "yellow rain", as it came to be called, which settled to the ground and brought with it inexplicable sickness and death. These reports persisted and increased in frequency. They were amazingly consistent, whether given by farmers from Laos or Cambodia or hill tribes- men from remote parts of Afghanistan. Refugees fleeing Cambodia were recounting the same horrors, and experi- encing the same attacks as those being reported by the Hmong. Over the past two years, there have been increas- ing reports of the use of lethal and incapacitating chem- ical weapons in Afghanistan. By 1980, the evidence was too inassive, too compelling and too disturbing for the world to ignore. Last year, this body, in keeping with the central purposes of the Organization, accepted the respon- sibility to eonduct an' immediate, impartial investigation of the use of chemical weapons. This year, with further evidence accumulated, that responsibility has again been accepted by the Assembly. 181. Our objective is, quite simply, to stop these at- tacks. We shall keep this issue before the world commu- nity and on the international agenda because we believe this is the most effective way of stopping these attacks. We believe that if the facts of chemical weapons use are exposed to the world the nations now using them may be deterred from continuing such an abhorrent practice. We are striving to avoid any appearance of engaging in a propaganda campaign, since our efforts, if they are to have effectiveness, must be credible. Others must take this information as seriously as we do, and others are in! fact beginning to do so. . 182. There is every reason why this should be the case. For over 50 years, as I stated, chemical weapons have been successfully banned from the battlefields of the in- dustrialized world. What is happening today to the inno- cent people of Afghanistan and South-East Asia is not an East-West issue: it is an issue of universal importance, with particular consequences for those countries least .,. .' --~""-"-'.- , ..-......,. _--_ _- --- .". _._-_._----------~---~-_._--_._ .....~-_.,~ -
Mr. Adelman USA United States of America #6245
In conclusion, I would say that it is the response of the United Nations and States around the world which will help determine whether these attacks continue and prolif- erate, or are halted forever.
The President #6246
We shall consider next the re- port of the First Committee on agenda item 55 (A/36/756]. 186. I call on the representative of Cyprus.
Mr. Rossides CYP Cyprus #6247
The Rapporteur- of the First Committee mentioned that in regard to agenda item 55 there was a new recommendation which should be added to the other recommendations related to this item. This new recommendation is contained in document NC.l/36117. 188. I should like to explain that the study on the rela- tionship between disarmament and international security [A/36/597] contains a footnote regarding reservations by me, as a member of the Group of Experts. on the Rela- tionship between Disarmament and International Security. to the effect that I consider the conclusions incomplete and inadequate. 189. I produced complementary conclusions and recom- mendations. The fact that they are complementary was mentioned also by the Chairman of the Group when he introduced the study. He was to have read out those new, complementary conclusions so that they would become Pat:! of the record of the First Committee. However, in- stead of reading them out, he produced them in writing, thinking that that amounted to the same thing. It seems that, because of technical difficu!ties in respect to inter- pretation into the other official languages, they were not included in the record of the First Committee. Therefore it was necessary to issue a corrigendum regarding that omission and to introduce my complementary conclusions and recommendations under this item as a separate docu- ment. , 190. As a member of the Group of Experts, I felt that the conclusions were inadequate in certain respects. Be- cause of the pressure of time, they were not properly completed. I consider that my complementary conclusions are indispensable to conveying the essence of the study and its very purpose-namely, the purpose of promoting international security as the only means for halting the arms race and proceeding to disarmament, particularly at a critical time when the very survival of mankind is threatened by the mpidly escalating arms race. 191. These complementary conclusions and recommen- dations are to be found in the document that I have al- ready mentioned [A/C.1I36//7].
The President #6248
The Assembly will now take a decision on the 12 draft resolutions recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 38 of its report. 193. We shall now vote on draft resolution A, entitled "Study on conventional disarmament". The report of the Fifth Committee on the administrative and financial im- plications of that draft resolution is contained in document N36/805. A recorded vote has been requested. ama~ Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Pc'rtugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon 13- lands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, SwaziIand, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and To- bago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Cam- eroon, United Republic 'of Tanzania, United States of America, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia. Against: None. Abstaining: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Benin, Bulgaria, ByeIorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cuba, Czechoslo- vakia, Democratic Yemen, German Democratic Republic, Grenada, Hungary, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao Peo- ple's Democratic Republic, Mongolia, Mozambique. Po- land. Qatar. Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles. Ukrain- ian Soviet Socialist Republic. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. United Arab Emirates. Viet Nlim. 194. . The PRESIDENT: Draft resolution B is entitled "Conclusion of an international convention prohibiting the development. production. stockpiling and use of radi- ological weapons". The First Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to do the same? D1"l!ft resolution B ,,'as adopted (resolution 36/97 B).
Draft resolution A was adopted by 114 votes to none, with 26 abstentions (resolution 36/97 A).IS
The President #6249
We turn now to draft resolution C, entitled "Prevention of an arms race in outer space". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Algeria. Angola. Argentina, Australia, Aus- tria. Bahamas. Bahrain. Bangladesl~.. Barbados. Belgium, Belize. Benin. Bhutan. Bolivia. Brazil, Burundi, Canada. Cape Verde. Central African Republic. CHad, Chile, China. Colombia. Comoros. Congo, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea. Democratic Yemen, Denmark. Djibouti. Dominican Republic. Ecuador, Egypt. El Sal- vador. Ethiopia. Fiji. Finland. France. Gabon. Germany, Federal Republic of. Greece, Grenada. Guatemala. Guinea. Guinea-Bissau. Guyana. Haiti. Honduras, Ice- land. India. Indonesia. Iran. Iraq. Ireland, Israel. Italy. Ivory Coast. Jamaica. Japan. Jordan. Kenya. Kuwait. Lebanon. Lesotho. Liberia. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Lux- embourg. Madagascar. Malaysia. Maldives. Mali. Malta. Mauritania. Mauritius. Mexico. Morocco. Nepal, S\~eden, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago. Tunisia. Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America. Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela. Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, zambia. Against: None. Absta;ning: Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cuba, Czechoslovakia. Germ~ Dem- ocratic Republic. Hungary, Lao People's Democratic Re- public, Mongolia, Poland. Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Re- public, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Viet Nam. Draft resolution C It-yzs adopted by /29 votes to none, with 13 abstentions (resolution 36/97 C). IS
The President #6250
Draft resolution D, entitled uIn_ stitutional arrangements reiating to the process of disar- mament", was adopted by the First Committee without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolutioll D was adopted {resolution 36/97 D).
The President #6251
Draft resolution E is ent~tled ..Non-stationing of nuclear weapons on the territories of States where there are no such weapons at present". A recorded vote has been requested. III favour: Afghanistan, Angola, Argentina. Bahrain. Barbados. Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burundi. Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia. Democratic Yemen, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, German Dem- ocratic Republic, Grenada, Guinea. Guinea-Bissau. Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq. Jamaica, Jordan. Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic. Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamihiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia. Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique. Nicaragua. Niger. Nigeria. Oman, Panama. Philippines. Poland. Qatar. Romania. Rwanda, Saint Lu- cia. Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia. SGychelles, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Swaziland, Thailand. Togo. Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda,' Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon. United Re- public of Tanzania. Upper Volta. Uruguay. Vanuatu. Ven- ezuela. Viet Nam, Yemen. zambia. Against: Australia. Belgium. Canada. Denmark. France. Germany. Federal Republic of. Iceland. Italy. Japan. Luxembourg, Netherlands. New Zealand. Norway. Portugal. Spain. Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. United States of America. Abstaining: Algeria. Austria, Bahamas. Bangladesh. Belize. Brazil. Burma. Central African Republic. Colom- bia. Comoros. Costa Rica. Djibouti. Gabon. Ghana. Greece. Guatemala. H:liti. Honduras. Ireland. Israel. Ivory Coast. Kenya. Lebanon. Mauritania. Morocco.
A recorded llote l\t1S taken.
Draft resolution £ was adopted by 84 votes to 18, with 42 abstentions (resolution 36/97 £).1$
The President #6252
Draft resolution F, entitled "Confidence-building measures", was adopted without a vote in the First Committee. May I take it that the As- sembly wishes to do so also?
Draft resolution F was adopted (resolution 36/97 F).
The President #6253
Draft resolution G is entitled "Prohibition of the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes". ~A recorde1 vote has been requested. A recorded vote lms taken. In favour: Algeria, Angola, Australia, Austri~, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Be- lize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bunna, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde. Central African Republic, Chad, Chile. Co- lombia, Comoros, Congo. Costa Rica, Cyprus, Demo- cratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti. Dominican Republic. Ecuador, Egypt, El Sal- vador, Ethiopia. Fiji., Finland. Gabon. Germany. Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece. Grenada, Guatemala. Guinea. Guinea-Bissau, Guyana. Haiti. Honduras. Ice- land. Indonesia. Iran. Iraq. Ireland. Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast. Jamaica, Japan, Jordan. Kenya. Kuwait, Lebanon. Lesotho, Liberia. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Luxembourg, Madagas:~ar. Malaysia. Maldives. Mali, Malta. Mauritania, Mauritius. Mexico. Morocco. Nepal. Netherlands. New Zealand, Nicaragua. Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman. Pakistan. Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay. Peru, Philippines. Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa. Sao· Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia. Senegal. Sierra Leone. Singapore. Solo- mon Islands. Somalia. Spain. Sri Lanka. Sudan. Suri- name. Swaziland. Sweden. Syrian Arab Republic. Thailand. Togo. Trinidad and Tobago. Tunisia, Turkey. Uganda. United Arab Emirates. United Republic of Cam- eroon. United Republic of Tanzania. Upper Volta, Uru- guay, Vanuatu. Venezuela. Yemen. Yugoslavia. Zaire. Zambia. Against: Afghanistan. Bulgaria. Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cuba, Czechoslovakia. German Dem- ocratic Republic. Hungary. Lao People's Democratic Re- public. Mongolia, Poland. Seychelles. Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Viet Nam. Abstaining: Argentina. Brazil. France. India. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. United States of America.
Draft resolution G was adopted by /25 votes to /4. with 6 abstentions (resolution 36/97 G).lll
The President #6254
Draft resolution H is entitled "Study on all the aspects of regional disarmament". It was adopted without a vote in the First Committee. May I take it that the Assembly also wishes to do so?
Draft resolution H was adopted (resolution 36/97 H).
The President #6255
Draft resolution I, entitled "Strategic anns limitation talks", was adopted without a
The President #6256
Draft resolution J is entitled "Review of the membership of the Committee on Disar- mament". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Aus- tria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Bunna, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic. Chad, Chile. China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ec- uador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France. Gabon, Germany. Federal Repubiic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada. Guatemala, Guil~ea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras. Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran. Iraq, Ireland. Israel. Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica. Japan, Jordan. Kenya. Kuwait. Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Lib- yan Arab Jamahiriya. Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malay- sia. Maldives. Mali, Malta, Mauritania. Mauritius. Mex- ico. Morocco. Nepal. Netherlands, New Zealand. Nicaragua. Niger. Nigeria. Norway, Oman. Pakistan, Pan- ama. Papua New Guinea. Paraguay. Peru. Philippines, Portugal. Qatar. Romania, Rwanda. Saint Lucia. Samoa. Sao Tome and Principe. Saudi Arabia. Senegal. Seychelles. Sierra Leone. Singapore. Solomon Islands, Somalia. Spain. Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden. Syrian Arab Republic. Thailand. Togo. Trinidad and Tobago. Tunisia. Turkey. Uganda. United Arab Emir- ates. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. United Republic of Cameroon. United Republic of Tanzania. United States of America. Upper Volta, Uru- guay. Vanuatu. Venezuela. Yemen. Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia. Against: None. Abstaining: Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary. Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mongolia. Poland. Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Viet Nam.
Draft resolution J was adopted by /34 votes to none. with /2 abstentions (resolution 36/97 J).I$
The President #6257
Draft resolution K is entitled "Disarmament and international security". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded '-'Oie H~S taken. In favour: Afghanistan. Algeria. Angola. Argentina, Australia. Austria. Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh. Bar- bados. Belize. fsenin. Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil. Bulgaria, Burma. Burundi. Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. Canada. Cape Verde. Central African Republic. Chad. Chile, Colombia. Comoros. Congo. Costa Rica. Cuba, Cyprus. Czechoslovakia. Democratic Kampuchea. Demo- cratic Yemen. Denmark. Djibouti. Dominican Republic. Ecuador. Egypt. El Salvador. Ethiopia. Fiji. Finland. Gabon. German Democratic Republic. Ghana. Greece. Grenada. Guatemala. Guinea. Guinea-Bissau. Guyana. Honduras. Hungary. Iceland. India. Indonesia. Iran. Iraq. Ireland. Israel. Ivory Coast. Jamaica. Japan. Jordan. Against: None. Abstaining: Belgium, China, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ita!y, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zea- l~l1d, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
Draft resolution K was adopted by 132 votes to none, with 11 abstentions (resolution 36/97 K).IS
The President #6258
Lastly, we turn to draft resolu- tion L, entitled "Study on the relationship between disar- mament and international security". The First Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly also wishes to do so?
Draft resolution L was adopted (resolution 36/97 L).
The President #6259
I call on the representative of the German Democratic Republic for an explanation of vote.
Mr. Kahn DDR German Democratic Republic #6260
The delegation of the German Democratic Republic joined the consensus on the adoption of draft resolution I, entitled "Strategic arms limitation talks", and wishes to give the following explanation. 207. Paragraph 4 of the resolution is fully in line with the statements made with the Committee of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the States Perrties to the Warsaw Treaty which met in Bucharest on I and 2 December this year. I quote from the communique: "The States represented at the meeting unanimously support the prompt renewal of the Soviet-United States negotiations on strategic arms limitation. They consider it essential to ensure that the negotiations, drawing on all that has been achieved in this field and strictly ob- serving the principle of equality and equal security for the two sides, will lead to the limitation and n.duction of strategic arms, which would have great significance for the strengthening of international .security." [A/36/807, annex, para. 5.] 208. My delegation also attaches the utmost significance to paragraph 5 of the resolution. Situated in the heart of Europe, the German Democratic Republic takes a vital interest in the successful outcome of the talks which be- gan between the Soviet Union and the United States of America on 30 November, for which it is not the serious will of one side alone that is decisive. For that reason my delegation noted with concern what was stated only re- cently in this connection by one representative. 210. The German Democratic Republic, as well ,..~s the other States part;~5 to the Warsaw Treaty, IS deeply inter- ested in eliminating such a danger. This should be the objective to be achieved by the Geneva talks, with due account taken of all factors which determine the strategic situation of the European continent. 211. The German Democratic Republic is in favour of banning from Europe all kinds of nuclear weapqns, be they medium-range or tactical weapons.
The President #6261
We shall now consider agenda item 56. The report of the First Committee is contained in document A/361757. 213. I call on the representative of Israel, who wishes to explain his vote before the vote.
Mr. Blum ISR Israel #6262
Iraq's initiative, which gave birth to the report of the group of experts, must be seen against the background of Iraq's own quest for nuclear capability. 215. I have already provided a detailed description of Iraq's attempt to go nuclear in my statements in the Se- curity Council, tb,; plenary meeting of the General As- sembly and in the document attached to my letter of 19 October ]981 to the Secretary-General, circulated as doc- ument A/36/610-S/14732 and entitled "The Iraqi Nuclear Threat-Why Israel Had To Act". 216. The study under consideration was discriminatory in singling out Israel for investigation. There exists, of course, no United Nations study concerning the Iraqi nu- clear programme, nor can we expect official United Na- tions interest in the nuclear programme of any country in the Middle East other than Israel. The terms of reference of the group of experts were clearly prejudicial in that they required the Secretary-General to prepare a study of the "Israeli Nuclear Armament". Thus, the very formula- tion of the terms of reference made any impartial research impossible. 217. It is hardly surprising that under those terms sev- eral reputable nuclear scientist~ who were approached re- fused to participate in the work of the group of experts. 218. It is certainly interesting to note that a report which dwells upon technological and scientific aspects of nuclear capability was written by five persons, four of whom are political scientists, while the only nuclear physicist happens to be an Arab. It is also worth noting that the expert who submitted the report on behalf of the group is a well-known proponent of the development of the "Islamic bomb", and has called several times for fur- ther proliferation of nuclear weapons. Ironically, this did not prevent the group from expressing concern over the dangers of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. In the light of the composition of the group of experts and of its terms of reference, the conclusions of the report were pre- dictable. 220. The sheer hypocrisy of the draft resolution before us is manifested in the fourth preambular paragraph which expresses concern over the fact that Israel did not join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weap- ons [resolution 2327 (XXII). annex]. Nearly half of the sponsors of the draft resolution as first presented are not parties to the Treaty. Why, may I ask, does the draft reso- lution refrain from expressing concern over the fact that these sponsors are not parties to that treaty, not to speak of several other Arab countries in the Middle East? 221. Israel has repeatedly stated that the most effective way to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to the Mid- dle East is through the establishment of a nUclear-weapon- free zone in the region, modelled on the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco) which was based on the initiative of Latin American States and on direct negotiations among them. Last year we submitted to the First Committee a draft resolution 20 on this matter, but as the report of the Secretary-General indicates [A/36/43/. para. 8], our offer was rejected. Iraq took the lead among the Arab States which rejected out of hand our proposal. Its refusal was repeated this year in the deliberations of the First Com- mittee. This Iraqi draft resolution which has since been adopted, contained in document A/36/L.53, has again raised grave doubts as to whether Iraq indeed favours the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. 222. Hostile and biased initiatives-such as the Iraqi draft resolution before us-do not serve the cause of peace in the Middle East and are not intended to do so. Israel will therefore vote against this one-sided and hypo- critical draft resolution.
The President #6263
The Assembly will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 7 of its report contained in docu., ment A/36/757. 224. A separate recorded vote has been requested on op- erative paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 together. I now put to the vote operative paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the draft resolu- tion. Against: Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Can- ada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Re- public of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxem- bourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Burma, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Domin- ican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Gabon, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Lesotho, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Portugal, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Thailand, Uruguay, Zaire. Operative paragraphs 5. 6 and 7 of the draft resolution were adopted by 89 votes to 2/. with 30 abstentions. 21
Vote: 57/69 Consensus
The President #6264
The Assembly will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested. " A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Ar- gentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Be- nin, Bhutan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian So- viet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Demo- cratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Re- public, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahirya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suri- name, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Thrkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, Unn~ed Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
The draft resolution as a whole was adopted by 101 votes to 2, with 39 abstentions (resolution 36/98P'
The President #6265
We turn now to the report of the Firs~ Committee on agenda item 128 [A/36/758]. 227. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Committee in para- graph 7 of the report. A recorded vote has been re- quested.
A recorded vote was taken.
The draft resolution was adopted by 123 votes 10 none. with 21 abstentions (resolu.fion 36199j.!!'
The President #6266
We turn now to the report of the First Committee on agenda item 135 [A/36/759]. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain>j:Bar- bados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Burundi,)~ye­ lorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, ~had, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, D:em~­ cratic Yemen, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, EthIopia, Fiji, German Democratic .~epublic, Grenada, GUin~a, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao. Peo- ple's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho.. LIbyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Maldiv~s, Mah, ~alta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, ~Aongoha, Mozamblqu.e, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, ~istan,. Panam~, Peru,. PhIl- ippines, Poland, Qatar, RomaOla, Samt L~cla, Sao Tom~ and Principe, Saudi Arabia, SeycheI1~s, Sierra Leone, ~n Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland,22 Synan Arab Repubhc, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republjc, Unio": of Soviet Socialist Republics, U~ited Arab J?mlrates, Um~ed Republic of Cameroon, Umted RepublIc of Tanzan!a, Upper Volta, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, YugoslaVia, Zambia. Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, NetherIand~, Ne~ Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, UOlted. Kmgdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, UOlted States of America. Abstaining: Argentina, Austria, B.ahamas, Ba!1glade.sh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Central Afncan Repubhc, ChJle, Comoros, Costa Rica, Democratic Kampuchea, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Malaysia, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Rwan~a, Samoa, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Som~l~a, Sudan, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, TuOlsla, Zaire.
The draft resolution was adopted by 82 votes to 19, with 41 abstentions (resolution 36//00).22
The President #6267
I shall now call on those dele- gations that wish to explain their vote after the vote.
Mr. Abo. Aziz MYS Malaysia #6268
My delegation has consistently supported all measures to eliminate com- pletely the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons through the cessation of the production and the destruc- tion of the stockpiles of such.weapons. However, my d~le­ gation abstained in the votmg on the draft resolutlO!1 which has just been adopted because the thrust of thiS resolution is limited to the first use of nuclear weapons. My delegation is convinced that such a declaration will have a limited value and will sidetrack us from the final objective of the complete elimination and· prevention of the use of nuclear weapons. 232. Moreover, it is ironic to speak of the first use of nuclear weapons when in reality the first use will defi- nitely lead to second strikes and so forth,. the final re~u!t of which would be the complete destruction of our CIVI- lization.
Mr. Troyanovsky Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [Russian] #6269
An objective criterion for the evaluation of the work of any General 234. This session has taken place in conditions of a worsening international political situation and increased danger of an outbreak of nuclear war. We can say without hesitation that concern at this turn of events has been the leitmotif of the statements made by the representatives of the majority of countries at the thirty-sixth session of the General Assembly. 235. In the present tense situation, the elimination of the danger of the use of nuclear weapons and the preven- tion of nuclear war have become particularly and acutely necessary. The Soviet proposal that the General Assembly should adopt a declaration solemnly proclaiming that States and statesmen that resort first to the use of nuclear weapons will be committing the gravest crime against hu- manity was aimed at the fulfilment of that task. 236. I take this opportunity to express the Soviet dele- gation's gratitude for the support that the majority of States has given to that proposal at this session. That sup- port shows that the leaders of those countries understand the importance and timeliness of the Soviet initiative, which responds to the vital interests of ~oples and the task of eliminating the threat of war, particularly nuclear war. In supporting the adoption of this Soviet proposal the General Assembly has demonstrated the high sense of re- sponsibilityof the Member States of the United Nations with regard to the maintenance of universal peace and the strengthening of international security. 237. The declaration is in step with the times and will undoubtedly become one of the most important docu- ments of the United Nations in its ~fforts to achieve the noble aim of the Organization to save succeeding genera- tions from the scourge of a war which has no analogy in the history of mankind. The main point of the declaration is to try to ensure that no one will ever be the first to use nuclear weapons. If no one uses them first, that means that they will never he used at all. The declaration should prove a timely warning to those who support the policy of building stocks of nuclear missiles and carrying out broad-based programmes of strategic rearmament and to all those who promote the senseless doctrine of nuclear first strike, the doctrine of the possibility and the accept- ability of a "limited" nuclear war. For it is quite obvious that in our time any policy of the first use of nuclear weapons is suicidal, not only for any State or any politi- cal system, but for the whole of mankind. As has been repeatedly stated by Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, to try to beat each other in the arms race and to count on victory in a nuclear war is dangerous folly. 238. The Soviet delegation wishes to state once again that, as was noted in the communique issued by the meet- ing of the Committee of Foreign Ministers of the States Parties to the Warsaw Treaty, which was held in Bucharest on I and 2 December last, the Soviet Union and the other States of the socialist community "do not have, have not had and never will have any strategic doctrine other than that of self-defence, do not have, have not had and never will have any intention of building up the potential for a first nuclear strike. They are not striving and never will strive for military dominance. They have advocated and will continue to advocate taking disarmament measures in order to insure a military balance at a lower level and 240. The mass movement against the threat of nuclear war has always had powerful backing in the socialist countries and has enjoyed broad-based support from the non-aligned countries. Recently we have seen how this movement has encompassed Western Europe. It is begin- ning to develop in the United States as well, where there is a growing understanding of the total falsity of the doc- trine that the threat of first use of the nuclear weapon can serve as a means for maintaining peace. One would have to be very naive to believe sincerely that the threat of nuclear war can be eliminated by brandishing the nuclear weapon. It can be said rather that the doctrine of first use of the nuclear weapon is designed to serve as a means of political pressure and blackmail. 241. To strengthen peace and international security it is imperative, now more than ever, immediately to halt the arms race and to proceed towards substantive disarma- ment measures, particularly nuclear disarmament meas- ures. For many years the Soviet Union has insistently and consistently sought negotiations on nuclear disarmament and on other aspects of disarmament. We are prepared to make every effort to ensure that such negotiations are suc- cessfully concluded.
Mr. Rahman BGD Bangladesh #6270
Bangladesh has con- sistently supported all measures aimed at the total elimi- nation of nuclear-weapon stockpiling and production. With regard to the resolution just adopted, Bangladesh finds paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 acceptable. But the formula- tions of paragraphs I and 2 are not comprehensive enough and do not meet the commitment of Bangladesh to total disarmament and to the complt:te banning of the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. 243. The Bangladesh delegation has therefore abstained in the vote on the resolution contained in document A/361759.
The President #6271
We shall now consider the re- port of the First Committee on agenda item 57 IA/36/760). 245. I shall now call on the representative of Ecuador who wishes to speak in explanation of vote before the vote.
Mr. Albornoz ECU Ecuador #6272
The item on development and strengthening of good-neighbourliness between States is of great impor- tance to Ecuador and is also the very essence of the pur- poses and principles of the United Nations. During the debate in the First Committee my delegation pointed out the prime significance we attach to the practice of good- neighbourliness and peaceful coexistence between adjoin- ing States, as well as among the States of a region and among all States members of the international community. 247. My delegation joined the consensus in adopting this draft resolution in the First Committee, given the need for observing the standard of good-neighbourliness, and it will do so in this plenary meeting of the General 248. For example, it is regrettable, and perhaps signifi- cant of the present critical world situation, that all refer- ence has been deleted from the text to the concept of tt.'te peaceful settlement of disputes, which is the best ap- proach and the one most worthy of the United Nations, if countries are "to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours", as the Char- ter of the United Nations states. Furthermore, the Organ- ization must advocate peaceful methods of arriving at un- derstanding, and in no way should this forum of world aspiration to peace and creative co-operation be one for producing condemnations, confrontations and tension, whos~ prolongation may ultimately endanger world peace. 249. We would have preferred to retain the original ideas in this draft resolution concerning the need to main- tain good-neighbourliness between countries regardless of their political and social system, their creed or interna- tional orientation. Mention should have been made of the deep concern of the international community over the continuation or emergence of conflicts between States, particularly those with common borders, which endanger international peace and security and delay the prvgress to- wards a better life for neighbouring peoples. The need to eliminate psychological barriers in all areas that separate countries at present should have been stressed, in order to promote forms of co-operation between neighbouring States. It should have been stated that the development and strengthening of good-neighbourliness must contribute to the solution of problems between States, especially bor- dering States, based on the urgent establishment of a cli- mate of confidence between them, in order thus to pro- mote lasting peace by means of the peaceful settlement of disputes. The draft resolution fails to make any mention of the need to avoid international disputes or peacefully to resolve those that exist, so as to eliminate obstacles to cordial relations between neighbours. It fails to appeal to all St~tes to refrain from any action which might affect the devel,>pment of good-neighbourliness between States, or to point out that the general practice of rules of good- neighbourliness, ignoring historical, political and religious barriers, as well as the codification of such rules, would help to strengthen friendly relations and co-operation among States. 250. For us good-neighbourliness means not sending troops of occupation to an adjoining country, even under the pretext of a call from a regime manufactured by the pressure of those same troops, or with the unacceptable objective of trying to impose unfair agreements. It means being ready to sit down at the conference table in order to arrive at the peaceful settlement of disputes and, with that in view, to exchange ideas instead of missiles or bombs or actions leading to disturbances or the destabilization of governments or other displays of violence, which can never constitute a valid system of expressing political preferences. It means returning territories occupied by force and refraining from establishing settlements in them or in disputed areas, since neither armed victory nor mili- tary occupation can be the source of any right. It means that neighbouring countries should speak a language of economic and social projects for constructive action in the service of peoples, rather than a negative language of re- dundant condemnations and confrontations on the interna- tional scene. It means the use of a respectful, measured and cordial style in the drafting of international docu- ments rather than of an aggressive accumulation of in- 252. Only public opinion and the will of the people to reject all forms of violence and armed or verbal aggres- sion can guarantee permanent solutions, understandings, and lasting accords between countries, which will allow the inhabitants of each to benefit from the fruits of peace.
The President #6273
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 8 of its report. Since the First Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. may I consider that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?
The draji resolutioll was adopted (resolutioll 3()/IOI).
The President #6274
We now turn to agenda item 58. The report of the First Committee is contained in document A/361761. 255. I call on representatives who wish to explain their delegation's position before the Assembly proceeds to take action on the draft resolution.
Mr. Baleta ALB Albania [French] #6275
The Albanian delegation did not participate in the vote at the 51st meeting of the First Committee, on 3 December, on draft resolution AfC.l/L.61. It will adopt the same attitude now that that draft resolution is recom- mended to the General Assembly for adoption in para- graph 12 of the report of the First Committee [A/36/761]. Since we did not explain our position in the First Com- mittee, we should like to do so now. 257. At previous sessions we have repeatedly empha- sized-and we did so again in our statement in the debate on agenda item 58. on 2 December, at the 48th meeting of the First Committee-that we share the concern over the threat to peace and security in the world. We have g" ~n our analysis of the basic cause of that danger. WhIle stressing in particular tha~ the main enemies of peace and international security are the imperialist super-Powers and the various reactionary regimes and forces. 258. Regarding the draft resolution now before the As- sembly, we share the justified anxieties, pertinent findings and well·Jounded conclusions it contains. We also share the concern at the worsening of the international situation. In brief, we share many of the ideas and provisions con- tained in the draft resolution. 259. Nevertheless, against its wish our delegation can- not vote in favour of the draft resolution, because it con- tains other ideas and provisions that give rise to some reservations or are not acceptable to us. In order to avoid going into a 4etailed analysis at this stage I should simply like to emphasize the following. 260. Our opinion on the so-called "process of detente" in the past is different from that reflected in the draft resolution. We do not approve of appeals to permanent 261. Operative paragraph 7 contains the idea of the Se- curity Council meeting at a higher level. We do not think that this can change the course of events because we feel that the Security Council's lack of effectiveness arises not from the rank of the personalities who meet together there, but from other factors, among them the obstruc- tions caused by the aggressive and hegemonistic policy of the super-Powers. Those same Powers have adopted the idea of meetings of the Security Council at the highest level. We feel that this type of deceptive manoeuvre on the part of the super-Powers is not to be trusted. 262. We also have reservations regarding the idea of proclaiming parts of the world so-called zones of peace and nuclear-weapon-free zones. The draft resolution con- tains provisions to that effect, and we therefore maintain our reservations. 263. Regarding operative paragraph 14, we should like to emphasize that peace and security in the Mediterranean region would be greater if the majority of the littoral States undertook to counter the manoeuvres and designs of the imperialist super-Powers, particularly with respect to the presence of the American and Soviet navies. Peace and security would be better served there by refusing to grant bases and port facilities for those fleets, by refusing to accept the warships of the United States and the Soviet Union and by prohibiting them from entering or mooring in ports in Mediterranean countries on the pretext of tak- ing on supplies or of paying so-called friendly visits. 264. As in the past, we do not accept the evaluations given in the draft resolution regard~g the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, signed at Helsinki on 1 August 1975. Nor do we accept the process set.in motion by the European security con- ference. We do not expect any better '- - the Madrid meet- ing, and we cannot go along with what is said in oper- ative paragraph 13. 265. For all those reasons my delegation cannot support the adoption of the draft resolution entitled "Implementa- tion of the Declaration on the Strengthening of Interna- tional Security", and we prefer not to participate in the vote on it.
Mr. Jean Poix HTI Haiti [French] #6276
The Republic of Haiti has always been in the vanguard of all movements seeking to consolidate the sov- ereignty of States, and has never failed in its task of ad- vocating and encouraging non-intervention in internal af- fairs. In this respect, my delegation would like to pay a resounding tribute to the delegation of Guyana for the in- troduction of the draft resolution entitled "Declaration on the Inadmissability of Intervention and Interference in !pe Internal Affairs of States", which reflects the profound concern of mankind at the many practices and initiatives which are contrary to the code of conduct guaranteeing the full development and unhampered activity of the States of the world. 267. However, Section n (i) of paragraph 2 of the Decla- ration, contained in the annex, which discourages the conclusion of interlocking arrangements, casts a shadow over this picture because we know very well that the 268. My delegation, while expressing serious reserva- tions regarding the interpretation of this paragraph, will nevertheless vote in favour of the draft resolution to dem- onstrate its support for and commitment to the sacred principle of non-intervention.
The President #6277
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolutions recommended by the First Committee in paragraph 12 of its report in document A/361761. 270. I shall first put to the vote draft resolution I, en- titled "Implementation of the Declaration on the Strength- ening of International Security". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Be- lize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China. Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Ger- man Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hun- gary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's. Demo- cratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, MexiCo, Mongolia, Mo- rocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trini- dad and Tobago, Tuni'sia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet So- cialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Van- uatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia. Against: None. Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Iceland, Israel, I~ly, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zea- land, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Thrkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.
Draft resolution I was adopted by 127 votes to none, with 20 abstentions (resolution 361102)"5
The President #6278
I now put to the vote draft reso- lution 11, entitled "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States". A recorded vote has been requested. Y~men, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gennan Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ivor~ Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao -People s pemocratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagal;icar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mo- rocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seycpelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist·Republics, United Arab Emir- ates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia. Against: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Den- mark, France, Gennany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela. Abstaining: El Salvador, Finland, Greece, Guatemala, Swaziland, Turkey. 272. . The PRESIDENT: Lastly, I put to the vote draft resolution Ill, entitled "Implementation of the Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace". A re- corded vote has been requested.
Draft resolution II was adopted by 120 votes to 22, with 6 abstentions (resolution 361103)}5
A recorded vote was taken.
Draft resolution III was adopted by 143 votes to none, with 2 abstentions (resolution 36/104).15
The President #6279
I shall now call on those dele- gations that wish to explain their votes after the vote.
Mr. Voss Rubio URY Uruguay [Spanish] #6280
My delegation wishes to speak briefly in order to explain its vote on draft resolution IT, which has just been adopted. We voted in favour of it, being convinced that the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States is one of the basic pillars of relations between members of the international community. 275. My country is convinced that any violation of the principle of the inadmissibility of interference in the inter- nal affairs of States is tantamount to a threat to the free- dom of peoples, to their sovereignty, to the political inde- pendence and territorial integrity of States and to their political, economic, and social and cultural development. 276. We believe that the resolution we have adopted is a valuable contribution to the code of conduct that governs relations between States, and that is why we supported it. However, the text of this Declaration contains some state- ments with which we do not agree, because they are alien to the nature of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States, and aho contrary to the pur- poses and principles in the Charter. We refer in particular to section III Cb) of paragraph-2 of the Declaration. We cannot accept or subscribe to a paragraph which would attempt to institutionalize recourse to armed force for the attainment of any objective, however noble it might ap- pear to be. 277. With this reservation, we voted in favour of draft resolution 11.
Mr. Gauci MLT Malta #6281
My delegation voted in favour of draft resolution 11, entitled "Declaration on the Inad- missibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States", as we also did in the First Committee. We consider its adoption to be a major step forward and a comprehensive political indication of the genuine preoc- cupations of the non-aligned movement. 279. In view of the importance of the Declaration, we do not consider it the final word on the question. If the Declaration can be further improved at forthcoming ses- sions to gain even wider support, we would welcome that possibility, as we feel that the more international backing there is for the Declaration the more chance it has of being respected.
Mr. Al-Zahawi IRQ Iraq #6282
I wish to refer to the statements made this afternoon by the representative of the United States and the representative .of Israel. 282. The statement made by the representative of the United States on the Iraqi draft resolution was merely an- other effort on the part of the United States delegation to divert any criticism directed at its unruly protege, Israel, which is daily becoming more aggressive and intran- sigent. 283. As for the Israeli allegations repeated here this af- ternoon, they are simply ludicrous. To come here to speak of a demonstration of goodwill and good faith and to brand the Iraqi proposals as malicious amendments de- signed to d~stroy consensus is simply baseless and ludi- crous. It is Israel, by its own actions, that has destroyed whatever consensus there may have been in the Assembly concerning the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the region of the Middle East. 284. Israel has mounted a strong attack on the Group of Experts that prepared the Secretary-General's report con- cerning Israeli nuclear armament. It attacks the experts but it does not refute what is contained in their report. It claims, on the other hand, that the question of Israeli nu- clear armament must be seen in the context of Iraq's own nuclear capability. 285. The report of the Secretary-General [A/36/43l] quotes Zionist leaders like Katzir and it quotes respectable sources like the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. It even quotes a report of the Central Intelligence Agency. In chapter V of the annex, for example, the following ap- pears in footnote 50: "On 26 January 1978 the United States Central Intel- ligence Agency released a memorandum dated 4 Sep- tember 1974 entitled 'Prospects for Further Prolifera- tion of Nuclear Weapons' in which it stated: 'We believe that Israel already has produced nuclear weap- ons'. . . . Most recently, a former senior CIA official repeated in an ABC television programme of 27 April 1981 that he and his colleagues believed in 1968 that the 'likely case' was that the Israelis were fabricating nuclear weapons." 286. No similar assessment has ever been made of Iraq's so-called nuclear capability. The same report of the Central Intelligence Agency quoted in the report of the Group of Experts was also referred to and quoted by Mr. Ernest Lefever in his report entitled "Nuclear arms and the third world", published by the Brookings Institution of Wi.Shington, D.C., in 1979. In that report Mr. Lefever also states: I "Israel is the only State in the third world that ap- pears to have a militarily significant nuclear force of 10 or more bombs and the means to deliver them to plau- sible targets. No other threshold State is likely to ac- quire one by 1985." There is not a single reference in that report published by the Brookings Institution to any Iraqi capability in ·the nuclear field. "The former Director of the CIA has indicated that Israel now has at least a dozen nuclear weapons. There is growing Congressional discussion of the possibility that these weapons were built using missile matC(rial stolen by Israel from the United States." 288. Finally, the distinguished diplomat and former Under-Secretary in the Department of State, Mr. George Ball, in an article published in'the Washington Post under the heading, "Israel-no more blank cheques", says the following: . "When I was in the State Department In 1963 American intelligence discovered the hidden nuclear in- staIIation of Dimona, in southern Israel. After pro- tracted negotiations, our experts gained access to it. They found a French-designed reactor capable of pro- ducing enough plutonium to make one nuclear bomb a year. That was about 20 years ago. In spite of repeated requests, our Government has never again been per- mitted an inspection or given any information about the Israeli nuclear arsenal." Mr. Ball goes on to say the following: "For a nation with an atomic arsenal to destroy the nuclear facilities of another nation in order to maintain its nuclear monopoly makes a mockery of all interna- tional rules." He further states the following: "We should promptly initiate a concerted effort with the other nuclear-supplying nations to keep bombs out of the chaotic Middle East. The first step in any such programme is for Israel to get rid of its nuclear arsenal and stop making bombs. It is far too great a threat to world peace." 289. The Iraqi-initiated draft resolution submitted at this session had exactly that in mind, and we hope that the day will come when officials of the United States, even when they are stilI in office, will come to see this truth, this threat to international peace and security, and not be content with pointing it out after they leave office.
Vote: 32/413 Recorded Vote
✓ 120   ✗ 22   6 abs.
Show country votes
✓ Yes (111)
Mr. Beker ISR Israel #6283
The representative of Iraq ap- parently thinks that whoever has the last word has won the debate. That may apply to altercations in the market squares and bazaars, but we do not believe it applies to bodies such as this. 291. In speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Iraq did not mention anything that has not already been said by Iraq on dozens of occasions in the First Committee and in plenary mer~tings this year and in years gone by. The Iraqi argumeD',s have all been an- swered by the representatives of Israel, and we do not feel that we are obliged to replayc the record tape. No argu- ments, no excuses, no repetitions of Iraq's worn-out cliches, are going to absolve Iraq from responsibility for breaking the consensus of the General Assembly 9n the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
Mr. Al-Zahawi IRQ Iraq #6284
I apologize for taking the floor again. Really there is no one here who repeats cliches as much as the representative of the Zionist entity. 294~ Iraq was the one that voted for and supported all the draft resolutions that were adopted by this Assembly on the item concerning the establishment of a nuclear- weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Israel, among all the States that abstained on all these draft resolutions ex- cept for the one that was adopted by consensus last year, was the only one constrained to follow that consensus, although its intentions are very clear in the area. Its so- called goodwill. was demonstrated by the fact that it car- ried out its unprecedented criminal attack against the Iraqi safeguarded nuclear installations. 295. All these allegations'and lies about Iraqi intentions and .Iraqi facilities have been more than adequately re- futed by the Director-General of lAEA, the international organization primarily responsible for questions of nuclear proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. What the representative of Israel says here is of no value whatsoever. He may repeat it until doomsday, but nobody will take his word; everyone knows it is based on alle- gations and pure lies. NarES I AlAC.206/14. 2 The.delegations of Angola and the United Republic of Cameroon subsequently infonned the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour of operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution. 3 The delegations of Angola, Malawi and the United Republic of 5 The delegations of Angola, Malawi, Mauritius and the United Re- public of Cameroon subsequently infonned the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution. 6 See GC(XXV)/643. 7 GC(XXV)/Res/381. 8 United Nations, Treaty Series, voI. 634, No. 9068, p. 326. 9 The delegations of Angola, Malawi, Peru and the United Republic of Cameroon subsequently infonned the Secretariat that they· had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution. ID The delegations ,of Angola, Samoa, the United Republic of Cam- eroon and Vanuatu subsequently infonned the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution. 11 The delegations of Angola, the United Republic of Carneroon and Vanuatu subsequently infonned the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution. 12 The delegation of Angola subsequently infonned the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution. 13 The delegations of Angola and Vanuatu subsequently infonned the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolu- tion. 14 The delegation of Vanu~ subsequently infonned the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution and the delegation of Bangladesh that it had intended to abstain. 15 The delegation of Malawi subsequently infonned the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution. 16 The delegations of Malawi and Peru subsequently infonned the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolu- tion. 17 The delegation of Malawi subsequently infonned the Secretariat that it had intended to vot.e in favour of the draft resolution and the delegation of Vanuatu that it had intended to abstain. 18 League of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. XCIV, No. 2138, 1929, p.65. 19 The delegation of Malawi subsequently infonned the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution and the delegation of Seychelles that it had intended to abstain. 21 The delegation of Liberia subsequently infonned the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution and the delega- tion of Malawi that it had intended to abstain. 22 The delegations of Malawi and Swaziland subsequently infonned the Secretariat that they had intended to abstain in the vote on the draft resolution.
The meeting rose at 7.20 p.m.
Vote: 31/100 Consensus