A/37/PV.110 General Assembly

I call on the representative of Bangladesh, who wishes to introduce draft reso- lution A/37/L.40/Rev.l.

It is a great privilege for Bangladesh, in its capacity as Chairman of the Group of 77, to introduce, on behalf of the Group, draft. resolution A/37/L.40/Rev.l! on the preparation of the United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. 3. The Assembly is aware that this important ilC~ has been on the agenda of the General Assembly at its last five sessions. General Assembly resolution 32/50, adopted unanimously on 8 December 1977, not only underlined the need for such a conference but also spelled out certain important principles for the promotion ofco-operation in this particular field. Since then, every year resolutions on this important subject have been adopted by the Assembly by consensus. Last year, by its resolution 36/78, the Assembly also, inter alia, decided that the proposed Conference would be held at Geneva from 29 August to 9 Septem- ber 1983. The Preparatory Committee that was estab- lished in accordance with the General Assembly reso- lutions had been meeting at Vienna with a view to completing the preparatory work for the holding of the Conference. 4. The Group of 77 would like to express its satis- faction at the appointment of Mr. Amrik Mehta as the Secretary-General of the Conference. It is confident that his rich and varied experience will help immensely in the realization of our common objective. Although we note this positive development, we are constrained to express our deep concern at the lack of progress in the Preparatory Committee on substantive prepara- tions, which we consider to be an essential prerequisite for ensuring the holding of a meaningful and fruitful Conference, as envisaged in General Assembly reso- lutions 32/50 and 35/112. The Committee has also failed to prepare the provisional agenda, the docu- mentation and the rules of procedure for the Con- ference. Friday, 17 December 1982, at 3.30 p.m. NEW YORK 5. The targeted date for the holding of the proposed Conference is only a few months away, and in the light of the present lack of progress at Vienna, it was keenly felt that the G~neral Assembly should give some .definite guidelines to the Preparatory Committee for the undertaking of substantive preparations for the Conference. At Vienna, the Group of 77, under the chairmanship of Mexico, after detailed consultations, prepared the first draft resolution on the subject. Here, in New York, the Group of 77, after undertaking further consultations, approved the text and authorized the delegation of Bangladesh to propose the initial draft resolution contained in document A/37/L.40. 6. After proposing the draft resolution, a broad- based, open-ended contact group of the Group of 77 undertook extensive cons~ltations with the members of other groups with a view to reaching a consensus text. The concerns and views that were expressed by the other groups were duly noted, and the Group of 77 tried as far as possible to accommodate their view- points. 7. It is unfortunate that, despite the best efforts on the part of the Group of 77, it has not been possible to arrive at a consensus text. However, in the light of our consultations, we have made significant changes in our revised draft resolution in a spirit of accom- modation. I should like to make it clear. here that the revised text we have submitted does not fully reflect the well-known position of the Group of 77 on this issue. Rather, it should be viewed as a sincere attempt on our part to meet, as far as possible, the views and concerns expressed by members of other groups, without compromising our basic stand on the issue. We sincerely hope and believe that the members of other groups will find it possible to vote in favour of the revised text before us. We are also· hopeful that members of the Preparatory Committee will make sincere efforts to speed up and complete the sub- stantive preparations for the Conference. 8. In conclusion, I should like to emphasize once again the importance which the Group of 77 attaches to a meaningful outcome of the proposed Conference. The valuable experience gained during the last three decades on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and technology needs to be shared and developed for our mutual benefit.

The initiative aimed at promoting international co-operation in the peace- ful uses ofnuclear technology and thus also at speeding up the economic growth of developing countries was launched in the General Assembly several years ago. The basic intention of that action was to lay the foundations for and define the principles of new forms of co-operation and to reach a new international consensus on which relations and co-operation in this field would be based. prolif~ration of nuclear weapons is not reflected in co-operation in the field of nuclear energy with some particularly aggressive countries whose policies threaten the independence of their neighbours and of the Middle East and southern African regions in general. Access to nuclear energy contillues to be available to these countries although, in unbiased studies prepared by the United Nations and in the eyes of the entire international community, they appear as possible possessors of nuclear weapons or as probable producers of such weapons. 13. It is completely unacceptable to consider the danger of proliferation of nudear weapons as an argument for denying ac(;ess to technology and as an obSllcle to intem@tionau co-operation in that field. n~aring in mind precisely the need to channel that co-operation into an international framework and in order to prevent its misuse, the developing countries initiated the conve:iiog of this Conference, which, we firmly believe, should establish universally acceptable principles of co-oneratian in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. This Conference should change the existing inequality of reIa~ions in that field, as well as put an end to the monopoly of a small number of countries over the technology on which the furthe~' development of so many to a great extent depends. . . 14. At the same time, we are aware ofthe high degree of interdependence whkh exists in this field. That is why we advocate the parallel promotion ofthe interests both of developing countries, the importers of equip- . ha~ the responsibility of dealing with problems in this field, as well as the duty and the instruments to carry out this task. On the bp,sis of the IAEA statute, a system of agreed international safeguards and regular control of the use of nuclear material and the facilities of individual countries applied through the Agency have been established. This is also being done on the basis of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear \Veapons [resolution 2373 (XXII), annex], a multilateral instrument applied lllrough the IAEA. Therefore, in regard to safeguards and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, established principles and systems for their application exist. On the other hand, the promotion ofco-operation and the access ofdeveloping countries to nuclear technology are curbed, which is another important-"if not the most important-aspect of IAEA's activity. 16. For these reasons, action was initiated for the convening of a United Nations conference which would give an impetus to elaborate the principles of and determine the ways and means for the promotion ofco-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. None the less, we must note that the work of the Preparatory Committee, which has not been able to determine even the agenda of the Conference during the three sessions it has held so far, is a great dis- appointment and gives rise to justified dissatisfaction on the part of developing countries. In spite of the fact that a number ofresolutions adopted by consensus by the General Assembly contain the guidelines and the framework for the work of the Preparatory Com- mittee, the attitude of developed countries in the Committee points to the lack of the political will to approach substantial preparations for the holding of the Conference. . 17. By its resolution 36/78, the General Assembly determined the date for the holding of the Confer- ence, and that date is getting very close indeed. In our view, it is necessary to speed up and complete the subitantive preparations for the Conference, with- out whi~h a successful outcome cannot be achieved. We believe, therefore, that the General Assembly, in the light of the results. of the next session of the Preparatory Committee, should take appropriate decisions in this regard. We hope and expect that, at the next session of the Preparatory Committee, it will be possible to overcome the difficulties which stand in the way of substani.ive preparations. 18. The draft resolution submitted by the Group of77, which has just been so ably introduced by its Chair- man, Mr. Sobhan, the representative of Bangladesh, constitutes in our opinion a balanced basis for the

In participating in the debate on agenda item 27, the Nigerian delegation reiterates its belief, which it has on so many occasions adverted to in this and other forums, that it is the sovereign right of every State to seek to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes within the framework of its social, political or economic possi- bilities and priorities. 21. Current experience regarding the world's supply of energy points to a direction in which neither contir.uity nor predictability can be assured. That is why, aside from reliance on hydrocarbons or fossil fuels, there is progressive resort to other new and renewable sources of energy, such as biomass, wind, solar, geothermal and so on. Within this perspective, nuclear energy has come to acquire considerable interest and attractio.l for an increasing numb~r of States. 22. The economics of power generation point to the fact that certain sources of energy are more efficient, others are less hazardous to human life and the environ- ment and otherg are more costly, while others may, on the other hand, in fact be more attractive in terms of cost-benefit analysis. Whatever the various consid- erations and motivations which might influence the ultimate decision of any State, it should be possible for that State, in the event of its adopting a nuclear option, for instance, to acquire or be guaranteed access to related technology on fair and reasonable terms and on a non-discriminatory basis. Although questions of safety for human life and the environ- ment, .both for ourselves and our descendants, currently lie at the heart of much of the nuclear debate, the decision as to whether or not to develop nuclear energy as an alt~rnative or supplementary _ source of energy should remain a sovereign decision of the interested State and not be subject to the whims of any nuclear club or cartel. 23. There is basic recognition that international co- operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy has the capacity to cor-tribute to the development efforts of States. In this connection, those States which have the technology ought to be disposed to provide assist- ance, 011' a mutually assured basis, to those States which desire to acquire such technology. It was such an understanding that motivated the General Assembly to adopt resolution 32/50, in which it elaborated a set ~o this issue. 32. Scientific data and research have proved the urgent need for nuclear power as an energy source and as an alternative or supplement to other, con- ventional energy sources. This source should be accessible to all States without exception, especially the developing countries, which often lack technucal capabilities and techniques which would enable them to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. 33. We agree that much remains to be done to develop and promote international co-operation in the field of nuclear energy. At present, there is a need for sub- stantial, long-term investments, which in turn require secure guarantees, to ensure the continued flow of materials, fuel, equipment, services and technology and make it possible to meet the needs of nuclear programmes, espedally ~hose of the developing countries. 34. In the ligh, of this, Egypt supports the convening of the United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in thle Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, which will be of special significance not only for Egypt and many other developing coun-' tries bUl also for the welfare and devel~pm~nt 0'1 the international community as a whole. Interna- tional co:operation in the peacefel uses of nuclear energy will enter a new phase with the convening of this Conference. 35. As l:. member of the Preparetol'Y Committee and an officer of the Conference, Egypt will spare no effort io ensure the sound preparation of the Con- ference so that the goal for which we are all s~riving 40. Egypt is one of the sponsors of draft resolution A/37/L.40/Rev.l, introduced by Bangladesh on behalf of the States members of the Group of 77, concerning the preparation of the Conference. We hope that the draft resolution will enjoy wide support in the General Assembly. It is worth noting that, although it does not include all the basic positions of the Group of 77 in this regard, the draft resolution takes account of numerous other views that do not affect the bp~ic positions ofthe Group. This is the result ofthe Group's desire to achieve consensus on this issue, although, regrettably, this has not been possible this year. 41. We also hope that the needs of the developing countries, which have been indicated in this debate and which will be highlighted again at the Conference, will be met in the near future.

Pakistan has always been convinced of the growing importance ofpeaceful applications of nuclear energy in the development efforts of an increasingly large number of countries, particularl~r countries of the third world. This convk- tion, which is shared by all the developing countries, is further strengthened by independent international studies and surveys regarding the role of nuclear energy in meeting world energy requurements in the future. It is for this reason that international co- operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy is vital for global progress aud the welfare of the inter- m~~ional community ~ and is therefore a subject of importance and concern to the United Nations. 43. For the promotion of international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, a great deal is expected from the United Nf·ions Conference sch~duled for 29 August to 9 ~~ptember 1983, in accordance with General Asseml ~y resolution 36/78. The General Ass~mbly has also pronounced itself, in 'ts earlier resoluti~n 32/50, on the s~ope and objectives of the Conference. That resolution affirms the prin- ciples which guide the preparations for the Con- ference. These are that the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is of great importance for the eco- nomic and social development of many countries; all States have the right, in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality, 1.0 develop their programme for the peaceful uses of nuclear technology for eco- nomic and social development, in conformity with their priorities, intelrests and needs; all States, without discrimination, should hhve access to, and should be free to acquire, ll~chnology, equipment and materials for the 'peaceful use of nuclear energy; and interna- tional co-operation in the field covered by the resolu- tion should be under agreed and appropriate inter- national safeguards applied through the If~A on a 48. Apart from the procedural aspects, the adoption of the draft resolution would help all concerned to maintain the desired emphr..sis on the objectives of the Conference, in accordance: with the principles already outlined as parameters for the promotion of interna- tional co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. We hope that the differences which have surfaced at this stage of our work will be narrowed during the future deliberations of the Preparatory Committee and that we shall achieve results which will ensure a fruitful outcome of the Conference.

The United Natimss Con- ference for the Promotion of International Co- operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy is a significant initiative which potentially could make an important contribution to improving the contri- 54. It is on the basis of these considerations that, from the outset, Indonesia endorsed the idea of con- vening the United Nations Conference for the Pro- motion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. We have always envisaged that the Conference's main objective would be the promulgation of the principles and mechanisms neces- sary to facilitate and strengthen international co- operation and thereby ensure a wide range of tech- nological transfers. It was hoped that such an approach would have the further benefit of creating a new atmosphere of mutual understanding and good will among aH nations. 55. However, the difficulties encountered in the preparatory sessions have belied these hopes and expectations. It is most disheartening that, despite the fact that the Preparatory Committee has been in session for two years now and despite the decision of the General Assembly to convene the Conference at Geneva frum 29 August to 9 September 1983, the Preparatory Committee has been unable to come to grips with such a fundamental aspect as a provisional agenda for the Conference. 56. As the report on the third session of the Pre- paratory Committee [A/37/48, part two] makes clear, there are wide divergencies in the approach to the agenda by various grolips ofStates. Some have chosen to propose an agenda that excludes any consideration of an agreement on principles to govern international co-operation in this field. In our estimation, this would perpetuate the present situation, which is charac- terized by the utilization of nuclear energy by only a limited number of States. Thus, it would (continue to hinder the satisfaction of the legitimate nuclear energy needs of developing States. 57. Others have chosen to refrain altogether from mentioning the question ofprinciples and mechanisms, according to priority to non-proliferation. Indor.esia fully shares the concern to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, has supported various interna- tional instruments on the safeguards system and is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, this issue should not be used to distract our attention from , I 5'9. It is in the context of the foregoing that my delegation is at a loss to understand the divergent positions that have been taken by groups of States, leaving the Preparato~y Committee in limbo. To break this stalemate, the Group of 77 has exerted strenuous efforts, in a spirit of compromise, to overcome the differences by taking into consideration the legitimate interests of aH groups of States. Therefore, we believe that the draft provisional agenda of the Conference submitted by the Group of 77 [ibid." part one, annex 1I1] constitutes the most viable approach to resolving this issue, as provisions contained therein most faithfully reflect the objectives of the Conference envisaged by the General Assembly. 60. The problems facing the Preparatory Committee go beyond consideration of a provisional agenda and include various procedural issues, most notably the question of reaching decisions by consensus. Indone- sia has consistently supported decision-making by consensus, since it ensures the effective implementa- tion of those decisions. However, my delegation believes that the principle of consensus should not be made the only decision-making procedure. We should continue the long-established practice ofreaching deci- sions as far as possible on the basis of consensus. But, if this is not possible, then our ov(:rriding concern should be that the reservations of a few should not block progress towards wider international co- operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, as aspired to by the majority of the international com- munity. Just as my delegation eschews rigidity on substantive issues, so it equaHy sees wisdom in adopting flexibility in our procedures also. 61. In conclusion, my delegation is convinced that the revised draft resolution will facilitate our efforts to resolve the aforementioned differences in the Preparatory Committee. It caHs for the Committee to meet at least twice and, if necessary, also to call inter-sessional meetings. Furthermore, it emphasises that the primary goals of the Conference are the establishment of universaHy acceptable principles and the exploration of ways and means of promoting international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. We believe that the revised draft resolution is fuHy consistent with the earlier decisions of the General Assembly and provides the be~ ~ pos- sible basis for the completion of preparations for the Conference within the short time available. My delegation, therefore, whole-heartedly recommends the unanimous adoption of the draft resolution by the Assembly. 62. Miss MEREGA (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish): My delegation would like to remind 65. My delegation is convinced that, in tite interest of harmony and understanding in international ~Iations, technology must b~. transf~rred in accordance with decisions in line with intemationaHy accepted prin- ciples. This in turn requires an analysis of the political and economic ~spects of the development of nuclear energy; and there must be consideration of the promo- tion of international co-operation and the role to be played by international organizations in"this field. 66. We are convinced that a code of conduct or deciaration of principles would give the developing countries the best assurances of supply in the transfer ofnuclear technoiogy for peaceful purposes and would tend to establish balance in international economic relations. The Conference to be held next year, in accordance with the objectives that the United Nations has set itself in this field, will provide the appropriate framework within which an international agreement must be reached on the principles to guide international co-operation in this area and a plan of action prepared for the application in practice of the principles con- tained in the declaration. 67. We are also convinced that international co- operation' should be pursued in keeping with the norms of the Charterofthe United Nations, the Decla- ration and the Programme of Action on the Establish- ment of a New International Economic Order and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. The Conference will strengthen efforts to achieve this. 68. So far, the preparatory work has not been suf- ficiently encouraging concerning the. attainment of the obje~tives of the Conference. For this reason, we believe that, if the Conference is to yield substantive results, the General Assembly must give precise guide- lines to the Preparatory Committee and instruct it to accelerate its work. 69. As a member of the Group of 77 and 2 State actively interested in the development and promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, Argentina

My delegation has asked to be allowed to speak in order to indicate the great importance that we attach to the United Nations Con- ference for the Promotion of International Co- operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. 71. Ever since nuclear energy became a fundamental resource in science and technolpgy, the Government of Mexico has been very active in all international meetings on this subject, starting with the first Inter- national Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy and continuing to the task being performed by the IAEA Committee on Assurances of Supply. We were also particularly active in the negotiations which led to the establishment of IAEA and of the loter-American Nuclear Energy Commission, bodies which p(omote the peaceful uses ofthe atom. We have spared no efforts in those and other contexts to ensure the establishment of the international ma- chinery needed to promote co-operation and the broadest possible exchange in this field. 72. In all these efforts, the peaceful traditions of my country have been made evident, and irf;connection with both the promotion ofthe peaceful uses ofnuclear energy aGd nuclear disarmament, Mexico has played a significant role. My country's contributions to, for example, the negotiation of the Treaty of Tlatelolco for the prohibition of nuclear weapons in Latin America, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the instruments prohibiting nuclear weapons on the sea-bed and in outer space are well known. 73. This year, my country was honoured by the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to an illustrious Mexican diplomat, Mr. Garcia Robles. 74. From the beginning, we have supported the idea of a United Nations conference on civilian uses of nuclear energy, as scheduled for 1983. Our position on nuclear energy is quite clear. We wish to promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy to the maximum, just as We wish to prevent the warlike uses of nuclear energy. We considerthe 1983 Conference to be notonly vital but also a matter of urgency. It is vital because it is increasingly clear that only at the level of a world conference can universally acceptable principles for international co-operation in this field be established; because of its importance this cannot continue to be governed solely by a smali group of countries. It is urgent owing to the regrettable failure of all the other efforts that have been made to establish efficient means and procedures to promote this form of co-operation, both within the institutional framework of the IAEA -including in the Committee on Assurances ofSupply and in other related contexts, where there have also been failures-and at the second special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament and the Second Review Conference ofthe Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 83. As we can see from the report it has submitted at this session of the Gen~ral Assembly, the Prepara- tory Committee of the Conference-did not manage to tackle the basic questions-namely, to draw up a draft agenda and rules of procedure for the Con- ference. The absence of any substantial progress in this work gives rise to concern, particularly since time is an increasingly important factor. In accordance with our position of principle on matters relating to international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclearenergy, the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries display flexibility at the meetings of the Committee and actively seek a mutually acceptable solution. 84. We believe that the agenda and rules of pro- cedure of the Conference should reflect the positions of all groups of States participating in it so that the Conference can draw up realistic measures for the further development of international co-operation in the peaceful uses ofnuclearenergy, taking into account the need to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. 85. It is on the basis of the foregoing considerations about the preparation and holding of the Conference that the Soviet delegation looks at draft resolution A/37/L.40/Rev.l. Unfortunately, we have to say that this draft resolution does not adequately reflect the need for effective preparation of the Conference. Its sponsors, to our disappointment, did not find it pos- _ sible to take into consideration the positions of all the States concerned. "The Conference, like other United Nations conferences, will provide a forum in which the widest circle of States Members of the United Nations will participate. In this connection, we are profoundly convinced that only the search for mutually acceptable decisions on the basis of consensus can guarantee the success of such a major conference. 86. But this draft resolution suffers from a one-sided approach. In it, an attempt is already being made to predetermine the results of a conference for which an agenda acceptable to all has not yet even been drafted. 89. The administrative and financial implications of that draft resolution appear in the report of the Fifth Committee [A/37/775]. A recorded vote has been requested. 93. The Ten regret that the resolution just adopted, in their view, prejudges in many respects the work of the Preparatory Committee for the Conference and might even affect the outcome of the Conference itself. We realize that the Preparatory Committee has as yet been unable to resolve problems with regard to many important issues. But we hold the view that efforts to resolve these problems should be made within the context of the preparatory process itself, and we cannot accept attempts to get around such problems through the procedures of the General As- sembly. 94. Turning to the specific issues taken up by the resolution that has just been adopted, we find that, for instance, the question ofintersessional work and other organizational matters with regard to the preparatory process should be decided' upon by the Preparatory Committee itself. On substance, as far as operative paragraph 4 is concerned, we further find the· this paragraph seeks to prejudge the work of the Prepara- tory Committee. The resolution also has other short- comings. I would also mention the importance we attach to the role of the IAEA in the preparation of the Conference. 95. Finally, the Ten are concerned that, in the context of the Conference, due consideration should also be given to non-proliferation aspects. We continue to adhere to the view that there is a need for strength- ening and developing international co-operation on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

The delegation of Finland voted against the draft resolution. 97. For almost 20 years, Finland has been a strong supporter ofthe peaceful us~s ofnuclear energy and an equally strong supporter of the international non- proliferation regime. For us, these aims go together; one cannot exist without the other. We firmly believe that these aims, which are of crucial importance for the maintenance of international peace and security, go hand in hand. The overwhelming majority of the nations present here are committed to these aims by 101. It is the consistent view of the Government of Finland that the elimination of the danger of the pro- liferation of nuclear weapons is an essential prerequi- site for enhanced international co-operation in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. While these are sometimes presented as opposing goals, they in fact complement and support each other. It is therefore of vital importance that the objective of promoting international co-operation in the transfer of nuclear materials, equipment and technology, on the one hand, and that of the strengthening of the non- proliferation regime, on the other, be pursued con- currently. Full recognition of the relationship between those two objectives wiJI be the key to the success of the Conference. 102. Finally, in spite of the circumstances in which the present resolution was adopted, my delegation hopes that the Conference can be held next year. To this end, the work of the Preparatory Committee should proceed on cOI11mon ground, with due regard for the basic issues I have referred to. The success of the Conference will be to the benefit of all, the suppliers as well as the receivers, and, ultimately, in the interest ofthe international community as a whole.

I should like to explain our negative vote on draft resolution A/37/L.40/Rev.l. 104. Many delegations here, my own among them, worked hard to develop a generally acceptable com- promise draft resolution text which could be adopted by consensus at this session. These efforts, unfor- tunately, proved fruitless. 106. The last session of the Preparatory Committee stopped short of discussing or making any recom- mendation regarding intersessional work. A number of countries, including my own, believe that, pending an agreement in the Preparatory Committee on such essen.tials as an agreed agenda and a procedural framework, moving ahead with substantive prepara- tions along other avenues is premature. Indeed, without agreed basic terms ofreference, what form and direction can these substantive preparations take? Accordingly, no recommendation on intersessional work for the Conference has yet been made by the Preparatory Committee. The present resolution dis- regards this and calls for intersessional work even in the absence of basic pre-conditions. • 107. Moreover, this resolution shifts the next meeting of the Preparatory Committee to New York, thus breaking the continuity of its deliberations and putting it at long range from national representatives and international organization staff most familiar with the matters before the Committee and most relevant to the subject of the Conference. We disagree with this move and see it too as reflecting an unwillingness to seek a mutually satisfactory course in preparing for the Conference. 108. Previous resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, each time by consensus, included language inviting and spelling out in some detail the desired contribution of the IAEA to the Conference. This resolution unaccountably goes beyond the previous ones ane adds words restricting the contribution of the Agency to its respons!bilities under its statute, implying that the Agency might otlierwise exceed its statutory bounds or that it has done so. Such a challenge arose during the last Preparatory Committee session, and my delegation replied that the statute fully underpinned the role and responsibilities being carried out by the Agency, including those pursuant to the No.n-Proliferation Treaty in the area of safe- guards. We thus consider this addition gratuitous and, in the light of the issue raised at the last session of the Preparatory Committee regarding the work of 110. As regards the budgetary implications of this item, we have already made our position clear in the Fifth Committee. S1:1ffice it to say now that it is the United States position that the necessary resources should be provided to make possible a successful conference, but these resources should be programmed from within the level of resources approved in the 1982-1983 United Nations programme budget. 111. Our views on what we could see as a workable compromise approach to the Conference are reflected in the agenda proposal put forward by several co~n­ tries, including the United States, at the recent third session of the Preparatory Committee in Vienna and are annexed to the report of that meeting. In case a compromise along those lines could not be reached, we submitted a possible alternative agenda proposal, which is also annexed to that report. This alternative approach focus~s on the substantive "aspects of the applications of nuclear energy for economic and social development, with special emphasis given to the needs ofdeveloping countries. It was proposed in case it is not possible to reach agreement on a text which includes principles and ways and means. 112. We have approached this task in a spirit of compromise. We noted, however, in our conCluding remarks to the third session of the Preparatory Com- mittee, that "an unbalanced agenda forced on any group by majority vote would only remove the incen- tives for many to continue to contribute to the prepara- tions for the Conference or, indeed, to the Conference itself' [see A/37/48, part two, annex III e, para. JJ]. 113. The passage, over the objections of ourselves and others,· of this resolution, which is aimed at prejudging decisions not yet reached by the Prepara- tory Committee on the substance of the Conference and on further substantive preparations, makes it increasingly difficult for us to justify our participation in a conference based on this resolution. view~ and interests of Member States. The rupture of consensus today, a most unwelcome development, points out the need fora reassessment ofthe situation. At the next Preparatory Committee meeting we should reflect soberly on whether it would not be more productive and globally useful to plan a conference on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy which might aim at less grandiose objectives and concentrate on more functional exchanges of views designed .to consolidate and expand the existing system ofinterna- tional njiclear co-operation. For our part, Canadian activities and efforts will be bent to these more immediate and ultimately mor~ attainable goals. •. __ • • • __ . . . . . _. 4. 118. Miss BOYD (AustraHa): Australia voted against the· draft resolution which has just been adopted by the Assembly. ~ly delegation regrets that this resolu- tion, which relates to the forthcoming Conference, ~ . 119. I should like to set out now in brief some of the more important considerations which made it impos- sible for Australia to support the text, notwithstanding our earlier support for the Conference itself. The General Assembly, in deciding to convene the Con- ference, outlined what the aims of the Conference would be, namely: the promotion of international co- operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Both during the meetings of the Preparatory Committee and in consultations on the text of document A/37/ L.40/Rev.1, some delegations have sought to expand the aims of the Conference in a manner which was not originally envisaged and is not now acceptable to other delegations. Unless consensus can be achieved on such a basic issue, there is little prospectofa successful conference. Further, there are elements in the reso- lution which seek to promote the exchange of nuclear technology without acceptance of corresponding non- proliferation conditions. This is entir~ly unacceptable to Australia.

The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic attaches great importance to the forthcoming Conference. We believe that the Conference, adequately prepared, will serve as a useful forum for the discussion of a wide range of issues pertaining to this subject and an attempt to find solutions to them. We agree that the task of the further promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy requires a world-wide approach, which is the very aim of the Conference. We are prepared to take an active part both in the preparation of the Conference and in its work. 121. None the less, we are firmly convinced that the Conference will achieve its goals only if it takes fully into account the particular need for strengthening the non-proliferation regime and the international safe- guards system for the verification of the peaceful use of nuclear installations. Both the suppliers and the recipients of nuclear materials and fuel-cycle tech- n910gy must be bound by clear-cut obligations effec- tively preventing any possibility of the misuse of those materi~ls and that technology for military purposes. Without such obligations, there would be no reliable basis for international co-operation ill the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. 122. A particularly significant role in the efforts aimed at ensuring exclusively peaceful uses of nuclear energy is played by the Treaty on the Non-Prol~feration of Nuclear Weapons, which has become one of the most universal legal instruments for the maintenance ofpeace and international security. A large number of States parties to the Treaty will take part also in the Conference. The Treaty establishes an effective policy for strengthening the safeguards relating to nuclear equipment, material and technology which over the years has fully justified itself. At the same time, it facilitates international co-operation relating to equipment, materials and scientific and techno- logical information for. the peaceful uses of nuclear energy on a non-discriminatory basis. 125. Proceeding on the basis of such considerations, my dele#!ation has carefully studied the draft resolution which ha':' just been adopted by the Assembly. We must note with regret that the majority, if not all, of the substantive suggestions and proposals put forward by a number of delegations, including mine, during the series of consultations with the sponsors of that draft resolution with a view to achieving consen- sus have not been taken into account. We are of the opinion that the requirement for intersessional work by the States members of the Preparatory Committee, as contained in paragraph 2, will lead to a protracted procedural discussion in the Committee rather than to substantive preparatory work. With regard to para- graph'4, we believe it neither necessary nor useful to prejudge the nature of the result of the Conference in the way the sponsors have done. Nor can we agree with the lessening of the importance of the contribu- tion by IAEA to the .preparatory work that follows from paragraph 7. Similarly, we experienced diffi- culties with regard to some other provisions of the resolution. As a whole, the resolution, as we see it, belittles the importance of the non~proliferation regime and of the IAEA safeguards. Accordingly, we had to vote against the draft resolution. 126. My delegation deeply regrets that the genuine efforts to reach a consensus on this most important subject proved unsuccessful. But we believe that, in the course of further preparatory work and of th~ Conference itself, the spirit of co-operation and positive efforts to find constructive and generally acceptable solutions will prevail. For our part, we are resolved to contribute to this end.

Turkey voted in favour of the draft resolution. We should like, however, to clarify our position concerning paragraph 4. It is nur understanding that universally acceptable principles for international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy are embodied within the IAEA safe- ," guards system and .the non-proliferation regime.

Yugoslavia, to- gether with other dev~loping countries members of the Group of 77, voted in favour of the draft reso- lution. We are hopeful that, on the basis of the reso- _ lution which has just been adopted, it will be possible for the Preparatory Committee to undertake sub- stantive preparations for the Conference. It is also our understanding that consideration of agenda item 27 has not ended and that, in accordance with paragraph 3 ~ of the resolution which we have just adopted, the

The' representative of Argentina has asked to explain his deiegation's posi- tion before a decision is taken with regard to this item, and I call on him now. 131. Mr. PFIRTER (Argentina) (intelpretation from Spanish): The Argentine delegation would like to state for the record that it has reservations concerning the unsatisfactory manner in which certain documents relating to the recent" crisis in the South Atlantic have been summarized in chapters 10 and 11 ofthe report of the Security Council [AI3712]. The present language does not suitably ot sufficiently reflect the content of certain important communications in which my Government, other countries, the Organization of American States and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries reported to the Security Council on their position or on their decisions in the face ofthe military aggression against Argentina and other related matters. Such omissions seriously affect the balance of the report of the Security Council and oblige us to enter this express reservation. 132. The PRESIDENT: May"[ ~ake it that the General Assembly taK(,:g note of the report of the Security Council? It was so dedded (decision 371435).

We now turn to t..he report of the Intern~tionalCourt of Justice covering the period from 1 August 1981 to 31 July 1982 [A/3714]. May I take it that the General Assembly takes note of that report? It was so decided (decision 371436).

I invite representatives to turn their attention to the draft resolution recom- * Resumed from the 45th meeting.

I call on the representative of Mexico to introduce the amendments in documents A/37/L.60 and A/37/L.61. 149.. Mr. MUNOZ LEDO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): The delegation of Mexico asked to speak to introduce formally two proposals under agenda item 12. The first [A/37/L.60] is an amend- ment to draft resolution XVI, recommended by the Third Committee in its report [A/37/745]. This amend- ment is sponsored also by the delegations of Algeria, Bolivia, Cuba and Yugoslavia and its purpose is to include a reference in operative paragraph 12 to the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Chile. 150. Year after year, the Commission on Human Rights has been extending that mandate because the situation on human rights and fundamental freedoms in Chile has not improved at all, as stated by the Special Rapporteur himself in his last report to the Assembly [A/37/564]. The veracity and impartiality of that report are unassailable and its conclusions can easily be established and even amplified by reference to information media and the copious testimony of religious, political and cultural organizations in the country itself. 151. The extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, which is the logic~l consequence of the report to which I have referred, is the business of the Commission on Hqman Rights. The proposed amend- ment does not prejudge the decision to be adopted by that body. However, if no reference is made this time to the question of the Special Rapporteur, the General Assembly will be changing the practice it has followed for the past seven years on this subject. That could be interpreted to mean that it is felt that conditions in that -country have· improved 9 which, regrettably, is not the case. It is our duty to defend human rights as far as that is possible and to ensure that repressiofi is not encouraged by any omissions on our part. The sponsors of this amendment are confident 154. The sponsors are convinced that the content of operative paragraph 7, which we are now reintro- ducing, is an essential part of the resolution. It reiterates the appeal which was made earlier by the General Assembly and by the Commission on Human Rights to the parties to the conflict in El Salvador to endeavour to bring about a peaceful settlement of the matter. Such a settlement can be achieved only by means ofnegotiations, not by the use of force. 155. The ending ofviolence in El Salvador is a matter ofparticular urgency because of the deplorable los& of human life and material damage that has occurred in that country. It is equally urgent to prevent the indefinite continuance ofthe violations offundamental rights in thatcountry, which have been clearly reflected in the report of the Special Representative .of the Commission on Human Rights [A/37/6/l]. 156. The early cessation of the conflict is also indis- pensable if we are to ensure that it does not spread beyond the borders of the country and link up with other explosive situations in the region. Interference by foreign forces must cease and dialogue must be re-established in an atmosphere free of intimidation and terror, as distinct from that prevailing today. Only in this way .can the Salvadorian people fully exercise their righ~s and determine the political and economic system which best suits their aspirations. 157. When the General Assembly votes on this amendment it will be making a choice between two possibilities: a negotiated settlement to end the conflict and the imposition of the will of one of the parties by the use of force, which would prove to be an illusion. We shall· vote either for political polarization and military violence or for reason and dialogue. The decision of the Assembly is particularly important because recent evenis have shown that the arms race and tension in the area are stili being encouraged from abroad. 158. In this connection, I should like to bring to the attention· of' the Assembly an important document which has just been signed by disiinguished world 1.66. Mr.. O'DONOVAN (Ireland): I should just like to refer to what the representative of India has just said, which I fear may have led to some misunder- standing on your part~ Sir. 167. A number of delegations in fact pu~ their names down some time ago to speak in regard to item 94 and spedfically in regard to the Third Committee repOlt on that item [A/37/693]. 168. It should be quite dear, given that there' are amendments to that rep~)rt, that delegations will, in th~ tirst place, wish to introduce eH~ir amendments, and that other delegations may, if they choose to do so~ offer their views in the debate on t.hose amend- ments. It is not a question of explanation of votes I wou~d point oat, Sir. It is a quesHon of a debate, and in that sen~·e ! fuBy agree with my colleague from India. 169. The PRESli0ENT: I am no! againsi a discussion afterwards on the amendments which have been pre- sented. I am saying that when we come to ~tem 94 we shall have the opportLnity to consider whether it is necessary to discuss those ameh<lments. As the representative of india has just indicated. the consul- tations are stiB going O.'!. As a matter of fact, I am no~, aware as yet how many represefjtat~ves lmve ind\ca~~·.i the~r desire tu speak on that particular item. So may we proceed on the understanding that when we come to that stage there will be an o~portunity to reopen the debate on those pO~Hts if the necessi~y arises<.~

My de!egation wouI1 Hkf; to speak on the amendment cC'ntained in lioeu.nent A/37/L.61, v'hich is connected wit~l agenda item £2 and which has just been introduced by the repre- sentative of Mexico. We wi~h to speak, but not in explanation of vote. So i wouk' like :, ~.·k you, Mr. President, to give us !he opportuni , 1.0 make a few ,comments on the amendm\:lnt introduced by the delegation of Mexico, and then we will offer an expla- nation of vote on the draft resolution as a whole. '173. Mr. ROSALES-RIVERA (El Salvador) (inter- pretation from Spanish).~ This afternoon we are witnesses once more of manoeuvring and manipu- lation of the human rights issue, since we have before us a proposed ame;ldment [A/37/L.6/] to a draft reso- lution adopted by the Third Committee.

The understanding is, then, that we are not reopening the debate but are permitting delegations to speak on the draft amendments which have just been introduced by the representative of Mexico. 1 take it that the Assembly agrees. 172. I shall therefore now call on those delegations that wish to explain their positions on amendments A/37/L.60 and A/37/L.61. After that, I shall call on those representatives who wish to explain their votes on the draft resolutions contained in the report of the Third Committee on item 12 [A/37/745]. I think that is clear. 175. The amendment in document A/37/L.61 is the result, in turn, of the nr-torious Franco-Mexican decIaratio,1, which has heen iepudiated by Latin America. They have now made use of this legal farce, but history has given its verdict. 176. Why is there now an attempt to manipulate the Generai Assembly, as if it were an appendage of the offidal Mexican Patty? \Vhy !s such clumsy "se be:ng .aac1~ of the ~~uman rights issue? Does not the delega- tion of Mexir....o understand that it ig increasing(y losing credibility? 'W,e understand that i:he grandiloquent words with which the drrJt has been introduced ~re empty and in.£~ncert:, and the references to the Charter and the Nobel Prizt~s were not relevant to the issue. 177. Why does the delegation of Mexico continue to take a hostile attitude towards El Salvador? \Vhy dues it not foc~s on its own natiox1al problems, which are mary; serious anrl ~rofound, ,md range from the moral sphe;e to the lack of eCvilomic and social development of th,~ irnpoverished masses? Whom does Ht wish to impress? Does the amendment in document A/37/L.61 encompass a human rights issue? Could anyone reasonably argue that it does not go into a m~tter that fans within the domestic jurisdiction of a State and is therefore subject to the sovereign decision of the Salvadorian p~ople?

I apologize for interrupting the representative of El Salvador. The representative of Mexico has asked to be allowed to speak on a point of order. I1

I .wish simply to make it clear, Sir, that you called on the representative of El Salvador, if my delegation understood correctly, to speak on the amendments recently introduced by my delegation, not to insult a people or analyse the internal probVems of a country, which are not under discussion at this time.

I am sure that the repre- sentative of El Salvador will take that position into account and confine his remarks to the subject-matter.

Mr. President, you may rest assured that we are the first to feel insulted by this way of dealing with things. 182. What we want to say is that we shall not go into the substance of the proposal because this procedure is one that we squarely reject. Whatever the merits ofthe proposal, for us it is irrelevant given the renewed attempts to manipulate the plenary Assembly although ~hat are extremely important to those that are sincere in their defence of human rights. 185. FirsL the special rapporteurs, since tl!eir appointment to investigate the question of Chile, had not succe';.ded in getting any dialogue under way with the Chilean Government, which clearly indicated the~r uselessnes§. Indeed, we could quite easily h~ve en~rusteld(he ta::.k of gathering information throug~ newspapers or interviews with political opponents to ~ member of the Secretariat. That would have avohl~d cCfi,3iderab!e exp~mditure, expenses and unnecessary financial outlay and,,-would have released frJnds which cou~d have been better used and would have been much more useful and helpful to, for example, the refugees in southern Africa, students and other equally deserving cases. 186. Secondly, since a dialogue was never started, the Third Committee, through its vote, tried 'bA) ap- proach the problem in a different way that woulci give us some dear information about the future attitude of Chile. That new approach is extremely important; in any event, there is no other apllroach at the level of the General Assembly, since cases such as those of El Salvador and Bolivia prove that certain rapporteurs are accepted. There has been such success in the case of Bolivia, for example. that we see. that country, which is still in the dock in the Commission on Human R:ghts, cheerfully becoming a sponsor of the amend- ment concerning Chile. 187. Therefore, we cannot understand the strong feelings of tho:'5e that want at all costs to impose a spec;al rapporteur who works only outside the country and whose presence works against the ~chievement of the goals we have set ourselves-that is, the imrrove- ment of a situation through complete knowledge .of the facts thanks to co-operation between the country concerned and the United Nations. 188. Furthermore, it should be recalled that the Com- mission on Human Rights can take· the necessary measures without any amendments being presented here to the draft· resolution. That Commission is capable of taking the necessary steps in the light of fresh events. 189. Consequently, we shall vote against the amend- ment because we have neither hatred nor desire for vengeance in our hearts and espouse no ideological or geopolitical ambitions. We are voting in favour ("f '95. The amendment presented by the delegation of Mexico attempts to reintroduce into the draft reso- lution adopted in the Third Committee the reference to extending the mandate of the so-called Special Rap- porteur. I wish to state that my Government has never, since its in(~:,:}ption, recognized the mandate conferred upon the so-called Special Rapporteur, for the following reasons. It is an ad causarn entity designated without the consent of my Government. The designa- tion is not in conformity with the rules established by an~ existing at the United Nations which are ofgeneral application and universal acceptance. Consequently, it constitutes a violation of the fundamental principle, embodied in the Charter, of the sovereign equality of 198. We do co-operate, and we shall continue to co-operate, with all organizations whi,;h apply an objective criterion and a general standard and which are known for their deep humanitarian spirit and for their rejection ofactivism and political demagogy in the lofty task they have been carrying out. 199. On behalf of my Government, I wish to thank ·the many countrjes which have rejected this on-goil1g, sterile campaign aimed at maintaining, with funds from the. United Nations budget to which all Member States contribute, a special entity which, I am certain, more than one of its main advocates, such as the Government of Mexico, would not be willing to have describe the internal policies of their countries-much less to examine the human rights situation there. 200. The increasingly widespread view that an end must be put to this situation, which in no way con- tributes to the prestige of the United Nations, is a clear manifestation of the rejection of these dis- criminatory practic~, which are obviously politically perverse and have dangerous implications. 20I. The valuable and authoritative views of delega- tions which have spoken in this vein during the debate in the Third Committee and here in plenary meeting constitute noteworthy positive action at a time when the majority of the States Members of the United Nations have decided to focus their anger and placate their conscienc~s by singling out only three countries -all of' which are from Latin America-as alleged violators of human right~. I am certain that in our contemporary history there has never been a case where such impudence has been revealed.. 202. Consequently, my delegation will vote against the amendment which it is sought to introduce into the draft resolution adopted in the Third Committee, as well as against draft resolution XVI as a whole, since it contains a series ofelements that are gross distortions of the real situation in my country. 20~. What we felt was wrong with the draf~ resolution on El Salvador was that, like the one on Chile., it was in its own way unbalanced and did not reflect the attempt at balance inherent in the interim report of the Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights [A/37/611, annex]. The report states: " ... the Special Representative noted a clear desire gradually to improve respect for human rights of all kinds in the country. The full and open co- operation of the Government in the implementation of the Special Representative's mandate, the assistance and facilities granted him·during his visit to t~e country, the establishment of a Human Rights Commission under the Apaneca Pact and the efforts to give impetus to the activity ofthe judiciary are some of the signs of that desire"Jibid., para. 9]. In the section on the judicial system, the Specid Representative noted the desire of the authorities to improve the criminal justice system and said that it was part of a policy aimed at improving the k':~man rights situation in the country. With respect to political violence, he noted that assassinations had declined by approximately half compared with 1981. 209. The United States suppm~'3 peaceful recon- ciliation in El Salvador. This has been our position all along. But, as we did last year, we shall oppose any call for direct negotiations as equals between the J~gitimate Government and a political front repre- senting what we feel are the unrepresentative gueru riUas. We cannot ask those who seek to pursue reform and de.mocratic order to negotiate with violent minorities trained and armed by foreign Powers. The path to peace in Central. America has been outUned by the Central American Democratic Community: a halt to the H1egal, clandestine arms movement in the region, an end to the regional arms build-up and the fostering of confidence through international super- vision .and inspection. 210. By adopting this amendment, the Assembly would be adding to· the political nature of the draft resolution before us. It is our view that draft resolu- tions on human rights coming before the Third Com- mittee should deal with· human rights questions and should not be political. Getting into the ,=!uestion of' negntiations--as this draft resolution does-is not, in our view, appro!'riate in a draft resolution before the

. My delegation listened with care and interest to the state- ment by the representative of Mexico introducing the two amendments-contained 3n documents A/37/L.60 and A/37/L.61, respectively-to the draft resolutions on Chile and El Salvador. I have no wish to encourage a long debate on the· issues raised in those amendments. Mter all, we discussed them at length in the Third Committee. I am speaking now simply because the amendment to the draft resolution on Chile seeks to change a formulation which my delegation proposed in the Committee and which the Committee subsequently approved in a vote. 213. My delegation regrets that Jhe amendment contained in document A/37/L.60 has been introduced; we regret it for two main reasons. In the first place, we regard it as generally unwelcome practice, and as unhelpful for the conduct of our business, for delega- tions to insist on voting again in plenary meeting on issues which have already been decided in committee. There may be reason to raise new issues, but that is not the case here. In the Third Committee, my delega- tion introduce.d an amendment to the las"t paragraph of the draft resolution on Chile [A/C.3/37/L.53]. That amendment had the effect of deleting any specific reference to the Special Rapporteur on Chile and leaving the question offurther action on Chile entirely to the Commission on Human Rights. That amendment was adopted by the Committee in a vote. It is therefore now included in the draft resolution before us. 214. The intention of the amendment in- document A/37/L.60 is to overturn the Committee's decision on this point. If my delegation had lost the vote in the Committee we would certainly have regretted it, but we should not have dreamed of trying again in plenary meeting, forcing delegations to vote again on the same issue; Frankly, if delegations which =Jse votes on amendments in committee insist on having them voted on again in plenary ~eeting, we might as well dis- pense with committee voting entirely. For those reasons my delegation believes the introduction of the amendment in document A/37/L.60 to be a thoroughly bad precedent. 215. Secondly, with regard to substance, that amend- ment seems to us to be even more objectionable than the text which was deleted by our amendment in the Third Committee. The United Kingdom delegation has voted for all General Assembly draft resolutions on Chile. We also voted for draft resolution A/C.3/37/ L.53 when it was adopted in the Committee. I hope 217. The sense of our amendment in the Committee, and consequently the sense of the draft resolution now before the Assembly, is simply to leave it open to the Commission to take whatever further steps on Chile it judges appropriate. This would not in any way prejudice a 'possible decision by the Commission to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur if it judged that appropriate. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that in the Committee our amendment was supported by a number of delegations that are strong supporters ofthe Special Rapporteur and the extension of his mandate. Indeed, the text of our amendment, and consequently of the second part of operative paragraph 12 of the draft resolution, was not invented by my delegation at all; it was taken word for word from the draft resolution on Chile submitted this year by the delegations of Denmark and the Netherlands [A/C.3/37/L.68]. 218. The equivalent Third Committee draft resolu- tions leave the question of further action by the Com'" mission on Human Rights entirely to the Commission. My delegation does not see why Chile should be treated differently. This Assembly has had before it a repl:irt prepared by the Special Rapporteur [A/37/ 564]. The Commission on Human Rights will have the benefit of hearing directly from the Special Rap- porteur about his views on the situation in Chile, and possibly about appropriate further steps for the United Nations to take, including the possibility of ex~ending his mandate. 219. In presenting his report to the Third Committee, the Special Rapporteur himself indicated that he would be ready to give up his position if that would facilitate co-operation.with the Chilean Government. My delegation regarJed that as a constructive ap- proach. If the Special Rapporteur is prepared to be flexible on this subject, my delegation does not see why this Assembly should seek to prejudge a decision by the Commission. 220. My delegation noted that, in introducing the amendment contained in document A/37/L.60, the representative of Mexico said that it would not in any way prejudge a decision by the Commission. If this amendment is adopted we hope that the Commis- sion will indeed regard it in that Hght. However, that does not seem to my delegation to be the sense of the amendment; rather, it suggests to my delegation an even stronger degree of prejudgement than the original text in draft resolution A/C.3/37/L.53 which the Third Committee in its wisdom decided to delete.

There are no further requests to speak in the debate on the amendments submitted by the representative of Mexico. The debate is therefore concluded, and the Assembly will now hear statements from representatives wishing to speak in explanation of vQte before the voting on all 19 draft resolutions recommended by the Third Committee under agenda item 12. 227. I would remind members that, in accordance. with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by representatives from their seats. 228. Mr. del ROSARIO CEBALLOS (Dominican Republic) (interpretation from S.fJanish): \Ve would like to state clearly and unequivocally before the Assembly that the way in which we will vote on these

The Assembly is con- sidering three draft resolutions on human rights violations. Each of them criticizes a certain country, singling it out as if the serious human rights violations that exist in so many regions of the world existed only therein. 235. The three draft resolutions refer to human rights violations in Latin American nations, and all of them call for a continuation of a practice that has proved futile, that of producing reports on the human rights situatio~in a given country. It has proved futile because such reports contain merely lists of bon'ors without offering a thorough analysis of the complexity 242. In the life of peoples-unfortunately, every- where in the world-there are violations of these principles. Among these violations, the worst is war. With conventional weapons, often highly sophisti- cated ones, which come from the death factories of the industrialized countries, the innocent lives of simple people, civilian and military, are destroyed. That is the most expedient way of denying the first of all human rights, tbe right to life. 243. The question of respect for human rights poses problems everywhere, and no country, whether higbly advanced.or economically underdev~loped,. is beyond reproach. Many of the underdeveloped countries have powerful enemies: poverty, ignorance, malnu- trition, disease and inertia. At times, the struggle

My delegation has no difficulty in joining in the consensus on draft resolution XI, on the right to education, and on draft resolution XII,~on measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities and all other forms of totalitarian ideologies and practices based on racial int9lerance, hatred and terror. The position of my Government on these two matters must be very clear to all, particularly at this very moment, when my country is going through the worst period of its history b~cause offoreign invasion and occupation. In this connection, my delega~ion feels compelled to 249. Similarly, with regard to draft resolution XII, my delegation wishes to draw the Assembly's atten- tion to the first, second and third preambular para- graphs. The first preambular paragraph recalls the principal origin of the founding of the United Nations and the fact that "the peoples expressed their resolve in the Charter of the United Nations to save future generations from the scourge of war"; the second bears in mind "the suffering, destruction and death of millions of victims of aggression, foreign occupa- tion, nazism and fascism"; and the third reaffirms "the purposes and principles laid down in the Charter, which are aimed at maintaining international peace and security [and] developing friendly relations'among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples". 250. It is well known here that the practices and policies of the invaders, whose representatives deceit- fully pretend here to be sponsors of these two draft resolutions, completely contradict their acts and deeds. My delegation therefore requests the Assembly to place on record my delegation's strong reservations about including Viet Nam as a sponsor of the two draft resolutions.

My delegation wishes to explain its vote on draft resolution XVIII. This draft resolution contains a senes of intrinsic mistakes, ranging from intervention in the internal affairs of a State to distortion of the fundamental task of the United Nations as a promoter of human rights and including politicization ofthe item to such a dangerous extent that it discredits the system,in attempting to turn resolutioJls into political pamphlets favouring extremist trends, motivated by alignment with European international movements which act in con- nivance or collusion with radical, extreme left theories. A country in our America, out of demagoguery which convinces no one, i:; 'playing their game. Therefore, El Salvador will vote against the draft resolution. 252. To adopt that position it is enough simply to recognize that the draft resolution is not impartial and that it is part of a strategic methodology which is discriminatory and is aimed only at Latin American 254. The most thorough process ofagrarian reform in Latin America is continuing. 255. In the political arena, we are firmly convinced that free elections will take place in 1984 to elect the new President of the Republic and mayors of all the municipal districts. The President of the Central Electoral Council said only a few days ago that "the new electoral law which will govern the 1984 elections will expressly invite all ideologies to participate in those elections". I stress the phrase "all ideologies". Before the eyes of the world elections took place in which ideological dispute was an element. Among other factors, that brought more than 90 per cent of the electorate to the polls. Government delegations and international organizations, as well as representa- tives of electoral boui~s, trade unions, civic and politi- cal organizations, representatives of the International Human Rights Federation, members of the European Parliament and political figures who were invited to observe the elections testified to this fact. The event was covered by 742 foreign press and broadcasting organizations, including many international television teams. The date 28 March 1982 marks an epic page in Salvadorian history. 256. Guarantees will he given that the elections scheduled for 1984 will also constitute a new plebiscite in that the parties representing various ideologies, without exception, will have an opportunity ofproving which of them the people support. Demccracy is proved at the polls, not by force or subversive action. Let whoever says' that he has the people's support prove it. The Salvad~rianpeople cannot be fooled. 257. It is absurd to try to ignore the elections of last 28 March, as the draft resolution tries to do. The final judge of the elections is the Salvadorian people itself. Why do some foreigners try in.vain to detract from the merits of the Salvadorian people? The only thing that they will attain is their rejection. 276. Costa Rica is above all interested in giving more support to those elements in our society which struggle for the improvement of their peoples, and which are actively fought by anti-democratic groups from the left and the right. We have doubts as to the impact of draft resolutions such as the ones being discussed here on El Salvador and Guatemala, in terms of any positive results-if that 'is indeed what is desired. 281. We wish our position to be perfectly clear. Costa Rica is concerned over oppression wherever it may occur. We are worried that many human beings and many peoples cannot express themselves, cannot inform themselves or associate, or that, if they do, they are imprisoned. We shall always pe against arbitrariness, be it on the side of totalitarianism or despotism, against the use of torture, violation of the physical and mental integrity of the human person, and to the deprivation of the right to self-defence and to impartial and rapid justice-

The representative of Costa Rica has exceeded the limit of 10 minutes. If she can finish her statement in one minute, I shall allow her to continue.

I thank the representative of Costa Rica for her courtesy. 290. I should like to make it clearthat, underthe rules, statements in explanation of vote are limited to 10 min- utes. I do not want to limit anyone's right to explain his vote, but if we are going to finish our session in the prescribed time, I think we must observe the rules. So I would request representatives to take note of this rule. 291. Mr. QUINONES-AMEZQUITA (Guatemala) (interpretation from Spanish): Guatemala considers the promotion of respect for human rights to be an essential instrument for the work of the United Nations. That activity must be divorced from partisan political interests. In other words, it should not serve as an instrument for some countries, acting from a position of strength, to attempt to impose their political ideology or their military or trade alliances on others. 292. If the United Nations is used, as is now being done, for pressure, as a vehicle for some countries to impose their political or ideological system on others, through assistance to political groups under the pretext of protecting human rights, the moral authority of the institution is lost, especially when the selectivity goes against Latin American nations, including the small ones, which do not have the aid of political, trade or military alliances. 293. Guatemala opposes, protests and rejects any attempt to have it condemned for violations of human rights, which it does not recognize having committed, and rejects the draft resolution concerning it. We regard the draft resolution as political and as inspired, 295. The present· Government does not wish to prolong itself in power indefinitely and has broken with the past. It has no commitment to any political party or previous Government. One of the reasons for the change of Government was precisely lack of respect" for human rights at the time. 296. Guatemala is faced with a problem of subver- sion, which has caused death, suffering and economic difficulties and has led to attempts to take power by force and not to seek power in legality, in the legiti- macy conferred only by votes. No way of learning the will of a people has been discovered other than free and pluralistic elections. The difference between the intentions of the Government and subversion is that some of us wish legal struggle but subversion wishes armed struggle; some of us want peaceful propaganda but others want violent propaganda; some of us expect everything of words and votes but others.expect everything of plots and weapons. At this new, historic stage, our country needs Guatemalans who instead of fighting will pacify; instead uf lighting fires will put them out; and instead of destroying towns will help build them. 297.. Our country has different ethnic groups, all of them descendants from the Mayas, with their own idiosyncrasies and customs, and speaking different languages. Our natives live in accordance with the customs oftheirancestors. They have chosen to remain apart from the Western way of life, in material and philosophical terms. Their values and thought patterns are an enigma to those who are not familiar with them. The Government's policy towards them should seek balance aimed at helping them and improving the quality of their life, working with them to reduce mortality rates, helping them to obtain better crops -the obvious examples,-while respecting their right to live as they wish. The present Government, as a historic step, brought persons from various ethnic groups in the country into the Council of State to present their views and help solve their problems. Any analysis of human rights that does not take national realities and the problems which give rise to subversion into account lacks objectivity and practical worth. 298. In addition to all the foregoing, we should point out that there is a violation of procedures in draft resolution XVII, recommended by the Third Com- mittee in its report [A/37/745], which we consider to be unfair, premature and political. The United Nations proposed, and Guatemala accepted, the appointment of a Special Rapporteur, who was offered all necessary co-operation in accordance with the appointing resolu- tion. That resolution contains the terms of reference: the Special Rapporteur is to prepare a thorough study on the human rights situation in Guatemala on the basis of all the information that may be considered relevant,

My delegation would like to explain its vote on the amendment contained in document A/37/L.61. In considering its approach to that amendment, the Canadian delegation was some- what perplexed. Perhaps other delegations were similarly perplexed. On the one hand, the Canadian Government remains seriously concerned at the con- tinuing violation of human rights in El Salvador; on the other hand, ifmemory serves correctly, the amend- ment is exactly the same as-indeed, it is a verbatim copy of.-a text on which the Third Committee, the substantive committee on these questions, took a clear decision only one week ago. 306. Therefore, for that procedural reason and for the substantive reason that the amendment will not contribute to a balanced text on El Salvador, my delegation will vote against the amendment contained in document A/37/L.61. .." 307. Mr. GERSHMAN (United States of America): We have already spoken today on tbe amendments contained in documents A/37/L.60 and A/37/L.61, so I will not speak again on them now. 'Ne have indicated our opposition to those amendments. We have already given our explanations of vote in the Third Committee on most of the draft resolutions: We .shall explain our vote now on only one draft resoluiion that will come before us-that was draft resolution A/C.3/. 37/L.69 and is now draft resolution XII in the report of the Third Committee [A/37/745]. 308. The United States has chosen not to break the consensus ondraft resolution XII-on nazism-despite the fact that we consider it to be, on the whole, a bad draft resolution. We should like to explain the basis for our position. 309. To the degree that the draft resolution pinpoints nazism as a central problem facing the world today, it is at best an anachronism and an absurdity; at worst, it is a propaganda initiative promoted largely by totalitarian States for the purpose of disguising their own totalitarian character. Nazism was defeated in 1945. It is no longer a major or even a minor centre of political, military or ideological power. To suggest otherwise might lead some to believe that the United Nations lives in a time-warp. The small, fragmented neo-Nazi groups that peddle their obnoxious wares in some countries today do not pose the kind ofproblems suggested in this draft resolution and in speeches by some delegations. Moreover, we do not believe that Government repression of the dissemination of ideas is an appropriate or effective way to combat. the revival of nazism or to combat other totalitarian ideologies-a course suggested in operative para- graphs 2 and 4 of the draft resolution, despite certain qualifying language. On the contrary, such an approach paragr~ph ofresolution 2839 (XXVI), which states that the General Assembly is "Firmly convinced that the best bulwark against nazism and racial discrimination is tbe establish- ment and maintenance of democratic institutions, that the existence of genuine political, social and economic democracy is an effective vaccine and an equally effective antidote against the formation or development of Nazi movements and that a political system which is based on fn!edom and t~ffective participation by the people in the conduct of publi'i affairs, and under which economic and social con- ditions are such as to ensure a decent standard of living for the population, makes it impossible for fascism, nazism or other ideologies based on terror to succeed". 311. My delegation does not welcome a propaganda exercise in which opponents of democratic values pose as opponents of totalitarian terror. We do not welcome the focus ofattention on an issue ofhistorical importance but ofmarginal contemporary significance. We do not believe in using totalitarian methods to combat totalitarian ideologies. 312. Why, then, have we not broken th6' consensus on this draft resolution? The main reason is that the language of the draft resolution allows for an inter- pretation of the problem of totalitarianism and fasd~m that is reievant to the contemporary world. Operative paragraph 1 makes it clear that it is totalitarianism itself that is being condemned first and foremost, not just some of its particular variants. Our abhorrence of all forms of totalitarianism, regardless of ideology, whether it be of the left or of the right, is clear to all delegations. While nazism is a defeated and discredited totalitarian ideclogy, totalitarianism itself remains a threat to all freedom-loving people. It is ironic, in fact, that the main contemporary totalitarian danger is the same regime that once joined with the Nazis in a pact whose signing precipitated the outbreak of the Second World War. The fact that this regime, which has remained essentially unchanged since that time, unlike nazism, now promotes and is active in promoting a draft resolution against nazism and totalitarianism should tell us something about the regime and the draft resolution. Still, we welcome the condemnation of totalitarianism by the General Assembly. 313. Moreover, we cannot disagree with the state- ment in the draft resolution that there still exist Fascist practices which jeopardize international peace and security, as well as the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Here too, however, we choose to interpret the term "Fascist" literally, not as an epithet ,or a mere term of derogation, but as a distinct political mode and ideology with historical antecedents. The basic mode is a radical rejection of the procedures and values of what is sometimes called "bourgeois" democracy and extreme revolu- tionary nationalism, a political style discussed in great depth by A. James Gregor in his important study The Fascist .Persuasion in Radical Politics. 2 This 317. For those reasons, my delegation will vote in favour of the amendment.

Political explQitation of human rights has been directed against our Islamic Republic more often than not. My delegation therefore wishes to emphasize that the affirmative votes we are going to cast on the amendments contained in documents A/37/L.60 and A/37/L.61 are with regard to their human rights impH- cations and not with regard to any political impli- cations. 319. We totally disassociate ourselves from any possible political connotations the amendments may convey. However, we have before us an article from today's edition of The New York Times, entitled "Israelis Said to Step Up Role As Arms Suppliers to Latins"-that is, Latin American countries. Infiltra- tion ofzionism-which is the same as racism-to Latin American countries is in itself a blatant violation of

With regard to draft resolution XVI, the Chilean Commission for Human Rights has pointed out that its own safety in the conduct of its work depends in no small measure on continued strong international support, particularly that of the General Assembly. The Commission also acknowledges that selectivity of United Nations censure is a valid concern; but it believes, as we do, that selectivity should be overcome not by the elimi- nation of existing measures, such as the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Chile, but, rather, by extending such mechanisms to a larger number of countries where human rights are imperilled and the situation warrants such measures. 321. With regard to draft resolution XVIII, our position on the question of El Salvador is based on the concern of mv Government over the need to find a peaceful political solution to the conflict in that country, which has -resulte<l in over 50,000 deaths in the last three years, mostly ?raong the ci', \. :an population. The increasing regionalization of the conflict, which represents a threat to world peace, mak~~s it imperative for this conflict to be resolved. Therefore, a negotiated settlement which takes into account the representative political forces is the only reasonable solution to the internal conflict in El Salvador. 322. For those reasons, my delegation will vote in favour of the amendments. 323. The PRESIDENT: We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote before the vote on agenda item 12. We shall now proceed to the vote on all the proposals before the Assembly under agenda item 12. 324. The representative of Belgium wishes to speak on a point of order, and I now call on him. 325. Mr. STEVENS (Belgium) (interpretation from French): Under rule 74 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, my delegation officially proposes that no decision be taken on the amendment [A/37/L.60] to the draft resolution on human rights in Chile, since a decision has already been taken on this matter in the Third Committee. I request that this motion be put immediately to the vote. 326. The PRE'SIDENT: Under the rules of proce- dure, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion by the representative of Belgium. 327. Mr. MUNOZ LEDO (Mexico) (in(Plpretation from Spanish): We are happy to hear the voic'- of the Belgian aelegation, which has not taken palt in the neg~tiatin~and debating process on this item. 328. The representative ofBelgiumreferred to rule 74 of the rules of procedure, which, obviously, is not 333. I call on the representative of Singapore on a point of order.

Mr. President, I think tl)l~ real is~ue here is whether or riot the point of order made by the representative of Belgium is a point of order in connection with the actual conduct of voting. His proposal is that the Assembly should not vote on the amendment contained in document A/37/L.60. Now, if members of the Assembly are of the view that the Belgian proposal is made in connection with the conduct of voting, then it is in order under rule 88. If, however, members of the Assembly are of the opposite view-that his proposal has nothing to do with the actual conduct of voting-then it is clearly outside the ambit of rule 88. So that is the issue to be put to the Assembly, not the question that you have suggested, Mr. President. 335. I seem to remember that on a previous occa- sion, when we were considering the recommendations in the Credentials Committee's report, the process of ;,.\".->..;,. ~'" _cl.. jJ~~ ~'" \':~··t .. d h countermotlon.. We merely wish to be of some Ula~... -7\.UU dK; -7\.ssenlOlY" Ul 1:S 'Own WlS om, .• as ~ sometinleSto f().llow precedents and 'Sometimes ·assistance. ftOt... But" being tmined in the law, I w()uld., with great 342.. We are in particularreferring to the :points made ~t., Mt.. ~l, ~ferto beguided bythe Legal by the 'representative 'Of Singapore, and with the C\)un~ te.)'ll wbttber ~trnot tbe point 'Of~rder ma<1e by greatest respect, because we know his worth so well. t~ ~lll~li~ i()f Belgium ~s .a po.int 'Of -urder in In 'OUT comments we are guided not so much by the ~~witb 1tbe <a:~tua'1 'COnduct'Of'V'<)tlng.andthere- headings, the subbeadingsorthe italics, because under tbre wilthm ltbe ;am.bit 'Of rolJe 88. If it is pO:5s>ible for the roles 'of procedure 'one does not need italics 10 ~ ~ C~,,~ tt> ~dvi'Se ~s this 'evening~ I should help·in inteT;pr~tation. We are ·concerned with the text be ve;ry ~~t Ifit is lllOl JP(lssib1e, I would suggest of the roles. If we understood correctly, 'the Belgian lMl ~ defer ;a ~ciSl()'fi 'On this mallet until Monday motion pUll'Grts to be grounded In rule 74 ofthe rules ~i~.. ,ofprocedure. Rule 74 is quite 'clear on this: that SUc'ti 33"7... ~ PRESIDENT: I .am .afraid we are not ~n a a motion may be made ,during the discussion Ofa.11y matter. ~ lo ~sult !the Legal Counsel -on that point, ~t 1 ~m. ~ing lo ~~ce:pt the ;argumentation ,of the 343. The -question is whether the Assembly has now ~t.a~vel()fs.inga~smce!he is Jl ~ear:nedjurist ;passed the stage6fdiscussionof 'the matter under ;a~ 'l 1ilml.~ ~ itaw<. Wee l~an 1ta\e .a ·decision ,on :(he consideration, and with the greatest 'respect we are l[)~~ !by ltbe :representative,ofBelgium.. That s~stingthattbe Assembly has done so. We have .. ~ !tit.le ~'o ~ef~ we ~y 1tlOW !hear moved -nn 'to a further stage. We have~ in our view., ~ ~ ~ tOT ;and <one more ~msl:the moved iinto the ambit ,of the provisions of rule 88 of ~" the roles.ofprocedure., namely, the conduct ofdelega- tions -during voting. The President will recall that-as ~ It.tr.. K~MA <Siett.a Leone):: il would :first ;of ~e himself said and as the record will show-on at ~ ~ ~ !Ft lislt'he lduty ·df ,every ,delegation least :two -occasions he announced that the Assembly ~ \N:) ~ ~ lthe ~dent 'S~ a-concede was in :the process of 'Voting. Therefore, the question ~ ~., MT.. ~idel1t" <h-re 1in :an titRvidious position. for the Assembly to decide is whether or not the l&!tll:., if Jl tmJ~ It'he tre!P~ntative \()f Mexico Belgian motion is in order at .all and whether it can ~1y., ltJe ~ rnot :as'tcing!forIt'he A'SSelribly It-..., like be sustained. ~ ~" He ~ ca jpl'"o:posalmade by !tbe 342t Firslofail, it cannot be sustained under rule 74 ~ ~ 8e'tgium., ~lld /be ~ lfo:r ,J! roling of the rrules nf procedure; nor can it, m our view, be ~ ~ ~. Yoo ,did mol see fit lo :give suCh sustained under role :88. In {)ur view, the motion is ~. ~'> ~ I ~1iie'Ve 1ttlat rnndei Til1e '88 :it is for the misconceived .and.ont'oforder. We do not believe that ~ IN:> ~ ~ rra~ ..on tine ;proposal 'made hy we \ougblto take any vote .or decision on ·the Belgian »e'ii~. fftrlbe ~~ clla1lenged., then d <COOrse motlona.t:a1l. P.ersonally we are in some sympathy ~~11wmUillbe IPo't ~o tibe A~mbly.. lBu't!I lean- with the motion.,bnt it was not put fOlWard in a ~~ Wbal ttheA~htyis being $"ked to 'timely manner., ifI ,may say-so. ~ ((m. It !is ~ Ttbe ~denl :to nile W'heihei the ~ !bas tm 1t"4IDl ~1blhell~ ~lld then, ,of ~urse, 345. ThePRESIDENT:Thatis whatI wasattempting !if ~ i11d~ ~ rt-0 the ~tulJlengeil, ibe Assembly to say wben !I reaCtont me 88 in connection with the ~~1iI~ ~ t&tiiSiOll iiJl tna1 tregaid. motion, not aClDal1y with the voting procedure. But, Whetberwelike1t16rno~ the two issuesare connected. ~. ~ i'fltESiJJD£Nrr:: :So i'aT" rill <co.nducting the .~~ ~~ 'Il, ~N'?'r 'b '1 ·t:~;J:-L.~ 345. Urs. WARZA~. (Morocco) (interpretation ~JI~ ..m. 4.J!K: .1'!It~1TJoJ,.'Y" i.l 1 a~ :aIWJ{ys :relWu ;on tH~ w~~.~~ty .. rr~nl'wiIling(t"fbeclui~ed., fram !F/~nch):Underrole 74 oftbe ru1esofprocedure~ iiftilwt its~. rB1tt rI tdimk ttba't 'we 'Sborildwn-rk .in I feel that the representativeof·Ghana was ,correct in ~ ami! ~~ cftre ~rem., -so far;.as ris possmle, sta~:tbaltbemotion ofBelgiumis,011t oforder. Since rin::a~1&ernul"Tm~ramiI\USe!UreT-Ules~dfrprocedure t1Jat motion refers 10 .a vote, however, J feel that it ~ ~ iUS ~ JI:0 'S0.. 11 ttbirik !itml iifw.e ftalce Jl&ciSion slmrild :be .considereu under role 79 ,of the roles of ~ tiJe~1limit!tms~ rnmite ~tihe~resenta- procedure. ThatrolewJ1lbear:you .ont, l'-!r. President, ~ ~ ~~, ttmit wifl 'Sti~ !the ;problem. Be ihas since you lmv.e mentioned role 88. ~ tttatt ~ rrwt ~ ~iml'o.n ttbe .:amendment 347. !Rule ,S8 'States tluit Jlfter the President has ~ ~ 1)JI;e~. announced "the beginning·of voting, no representative sluill interrupt the voting except on a point of order mconnattionwiththe aetual conductofihevoting-we .could .aild, \\rifh :.the 1lCtDal conduct of tbe voting, [preSent iOTffrtture. 348. The lBelgian~onis asking that we vote llotrto ¥Me onlln1lIIlendment."Thereforea voteis bein~ requested lIDO the 'Belgian motion is .quite in order ~. II flllll ~iii rjhtit ;ru1e "'i4 ~oes 1101 !permit the ~ tt0 ~1I t.mlllJl~-re titmll etW0 ~iv~ to ~ iin ~ tdf, r.mdl tt,wo <l(g1tinm., Jl rm0liimJ. Ifm- ~ d'titre~. ilt ~ IJ11Y wn&rman(iitJg titutt title ~resertnliWe tdf \lle,*ic.m ~rike ~ ibe rnwiimt<mdltibUttibe~dS~ore~e fin ~ tdf rit. ~ IT ~1' rperniit cone more tiv~ of the Philippines was quite right, but I wanted merely to point out to him that the President has not, in fact, made a ruling. 359. The PRESIDENT: The representative of Singapore is correct: when I said that I wanted to consult the Assembly I purposely did not make a ruling. The representative ofthe Philippines has rightly said that we should take a decision as to whether or not the Belgian motion is in order. 360. Mr. MUNOZ LEDO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): I should like to support wha;t was said by the representatives of Ghana and the Philip- pines. In fact, we have before us two separate ques- tions, which cannot be reduced to a single one. The first is to decide whether the Belgian proposal is in ord~.r. In our view; rule 74 does not apply because the debate has been closed. Nor is rule 19 applicable, because the competence of the Assembly to take a decision on this question is not in doubt. 361. The President has put it well: the question we must answer is whether or not we ar~ in the process of voting; then we must see what· we shall do with the vote. To save time, I would ask the President, who conducted the debate and who closed 'it and began the voting procedure, to take a decision and tell us whether or not we are in the process of voting. 362. The PRESIDENT: To cut short this long debate, I shall put it to the Assembly that, in my under- standing, we are in the process of voting. 363. Mr. KOH (Singapore): I would'point out, with all due respect, that we are all agreed that we are in the process of voting. That is not the question. The question is whether or not the propOsal made by the representative of Belgium is a point of order in connection with the conduct of the voting. Even the representative of Belgium will agree that VIe are in the process of voting and that the issue is whether or not the Assembly agrees that his proposal not to vote on the amendment in document A/37/L.60 is a proposal in connection with the actual conduct ofthe voting and can therefore be entertained under rule 88. On that point, I think the Assembly is clearly divided. 364. The PRESIDENT: The Assembly will now vote on the question whether the Belgian motion is in order. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. Infavour: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austra- lia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Dominica, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Federal RepUblic

Draft resolution II is entitled "Question ofthe intemationallegal protection ofthe human rights of individuals who are not citizens of the country in which"they live". The administrative and fina,ncial implications of this draft resolution are contained in the report of the Fifth Committee [A/37/ 756]. The Third Committee adopted this draft resolu- tion without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

Draft resolution III is entitled "Measures to improve the situation and ensure the human rights and dignity of all migrant workers". The administrative and financial implica- tions of this draft resolution are contained in the report of the Fifth Committee [A/37/756]. The draft resolution' was adopted by the Third Committee

Draft resolution XV is entitled ••Summary or arbitrary executions". In the Third Committee it was adopted without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution XV was adopted(reso!ution37/ /82).

Draft resolution XVI is entitled •• Situat~on of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Chile" . 383. In this connection, the Assembly has before it an amendment [A/37/L.60]. In accordance with rule 90 of the rules of procedure, the Assembly will vote first on that amendment. A recorded vote has been requested.

The Assembly will now vote on draft resolution XVIII, as amended. A recorded vote has been requested. II! !tn'our: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Benin, Botswana, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Mauritania? Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Spain, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo', Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yugo- slavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe. . Against: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Israel, Morocco, .:'akistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, United States of America, Uruguay. req~Jested. A recorded vote was taken. In flllJour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Austria, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Bulgaria, BYGlorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cape Verde, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ethio- pia, France, German Democr(J~ic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras,3 Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Mauritani~, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongo- lia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New G -:,ea, Poland, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Swede" Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- lics, United RepiUblic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austra- lia, Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, Dominica, El Salvador, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guate- mala, Hait-i, Indonesia, ~srael, Japan, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Morocco, New Zealand, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay. Abstaining: Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Bolivia, ~urundi, Chad, China, Colombia, Abstaining: Australia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burma, Burundi, Canada, Chad, China, Colombia, Democratic Kampu- chea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, New Zealand, Niger, Oman, Panama, Peru, Portugal~ Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Cameroon, Upper Volta, Zaire.

Finally, we come to draft resolution XIX, entitled "Human rights and mass exoduses". The Third Committee adapted this draft --esolution without a vote. May I t8ke it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

I should like briefly to explain the position of my delegation on draft resolution XIV. 399. Before doing so, I wish first and foremost, on behalfofmy Government and on behalfofthe relatives .of the missing persons in Cyprus, to express app~ ciation and gratitude to the 13 delegations which, together with my own, sponsored the draft resolution., as well as to the overwhelming number of delegations which supported it. My thanks go also to the many delegations among those which either abstained or were absent during the voting in the Third Committee but which gave us assurances that they were ready to vote in favour in the plenary Assembly. Lastly, but very specially and warmly, I wish to place on record our gratitude to the delegation of Yugoslavia for the substantive suggestions which it put forward for the improvement of the original text and which were .itaii~n issue of missing persons in Cyprus as well as regarding the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus. The fact that the Secretary-General has appointed the third member of that Committee, the establishment of which was urged by resolutions of this Assembly, proves this point beyond doubt. Furthermore, with the resolution adopted today, the Assembly-in a solemn and indisputable way-brings into focus and involves the Working Group on Enforced or Irivoluntary Disappearances of the Commission on Human Rights, another organ of the United Nations system. The validity, therefore, of the Turkish argument is as obscure as the intention behind it is transparent. . 403. Secondly, the argument has been advanced that the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus is the only competent body and that it alone should deal with this issue. Let me say, in response, that that Committee, in the 19 months since its establishment, has failed to commence its substantive work. Rightly; ther~fore, the Assembly, in its wisdom, has, in operative paragraph 1 of draft resolution XIV, invited the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disap- pearances to contribute its expertise and impartiality and co-operate in order to facilitate the effective imp~ementation of the required investigative work. 404. Thirdly, and lastly, the resolution rightly calls for the co-operation of all parties concerned-and this includes Turkey, the Government ofwhich command~ the military forces occupying a substantial part of my country, because the co-operation of those forces is- 412. Secondly, our objection to the resolution just adopted and further views on the whole question of the so-called refugees with which the text purports to deal were set forth in great detail during the Third Committee's consideration of item 90, dealing with, among other things, the report of the United Nations High·Commissi(;merfor Refugees, as well as ofitem 12. I therefore need only draw· the Assembly's attention to the relevant summary records of the Third Committee. 413. Thirdly, our position on this text should hence be seen in the light of the background information, analysis and views we advanced during the Third Committee's consideration of the aforementioned items as they relate to the question of refugees. 422. I would only add that we noted that the repre- sentative of Mexico, in introducing document A/371

My delegation voted in favour of draft resolution XVI, entitled "Situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Chile", but abstained in the voting on the amendment to operative paragraph 12. Our abstention was motivated by the fact that, although Italy is in principle in favour of the renewal ofthe Special Rapporteur's mandate, we think that a decision on this matter should be left to the Commission on Human Rights, which is the competent technical body in this field. The Italian delegation, therefore, cannot entirely agree with the wording of that paragraph as amended, inasmuch as it seeks to prejudge the decision of the Commission on Human Rights. In our opinion, the General Assembly should have indicated the renewal of the mandate as an option to be considered by the Commission on Human Rights within the framework of its in-depth study of the report.

My delegation joined in the consensus on draft reolution I as a further indication of its unequivocal support for the International Drug Abuse Control Strategy and the basic five-year programme of action.4 We note, how- ever, that funds considered necessary for the imple- mentation of the programme were not provided for in the draft. It is our sincere hope, therefore, that this will not impede the programme of work iL the field of drug abuse control during the year 1983.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of vote after the vote. I shall now call on representatives who wish to make state- ments in exercise of the right of reply. I remind the Assembly that such statements are limited to 10 min- utes and must be made by delegations from their seats. NOTES I The delegation of Viet Nam subsequently informed the Secre- tariat that it had intended to abstain in the vote on the draft resolution. 2 Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1974. 3 The delegation of Honduras subsequently informed the Secre- tariat that it had intended to vote against the draft resolution. 4 See OJficial Records oJ the Economic and Social Council. 1981. Supplement No. 4, annex 11.