A/37/PV.91 General Assembly

During my statement to the Assembly on 6 October [20th meeting], I referred in advan~e to the debate that was going to be devoted to the problem ofgreatest concern to the people and Govern- ment of the Comoros, that is, the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte. 2. This question, which we are diKussing today, has been on the agenda of the General Assembly since the thirty-first session and each year is the subject of a special debate. This ret1e~ts the impor- tance we all attach to the question. It also ret1e~ts our concern at the fact that thus far no obje~tive solution is in sight. I should therefore today like to outline the situation to the Assembly and demonstrate once again how a problem whi~h stemmed from an act of injustice has been exploited to the point that it constitutes an obstacle to the reuniti~ation of a people, united from its very origin by t~s of blood. I should like, with ~omplete obje~tivity, to endeavour to provide the Assembly with some information, with which, of course, some delegations here are already familiar, in order to shed further light on our dis- cuss~on. 3. On every occasion when we have spoken in this debate, either in the United Nations or in other inter- national and regional organil.ations where the que§tion is on the agenda, we have reaffirmed unambiguously and forcefu!ly that Mayotte is and will remain a Comorian land. For more than a ~entury, in fa~t, since France first colonized our ~ountry, it has never challenged nor contested the fa~t that Mayotte or any other island of our archipelago belongs to the Como- rian entity. Furthermore, suc~essive Fren~h Govern- ments, basing themselves on history, have on many occasions stressed the need to respe~t the territorial unity of a country whose homogeneous people shares the same lang~age, the same cuiture and the same religion. 4. Thus, all French laws and administrative measures ~aken during the colonial period have spe~iti~ally confirmed the unity of the Comorian an:hipelago. In the explanations of the Law of 9 May 1946 on tlK' administrative autonomy ofthe Comonan an:hipclago, it is clearly stated: "It is the Muslim religion that gives the archipelago its strong unity, reinfon:ed by a single language, Swahili." That unity was reaffirmed and .- NEW yt)RK even ~onsolidated when, on 3 January 1968, a French law gave the Comoro Ar~hipelago internal autonomy. S. When, under pressure from the people, France recognized the desire of the Comoros for indepen- dence, agreements were signed on IS June 1973, be- tween the representatives of the French Government and those of the local Comorian Government, that established the means through which the Archipelago would accede to independence. Those agreements provided, inte,. cllicI, in point number I, that a popular referendum would be organized in the Comoros and that, if the majority of the population decided in favour of independence, the results for the four islands considered together would give the General Assembly of Deputies inoffice on that date the powers of the Constituent Assembly and endow the President ofthe Council ofthe local Government with the powers and prerogutives of a Head of State. 6. Theref(~re, in accordance with the agreements of IS June 1~.'13 and the Law of 23 November 1974 organizing the ~ferendum on self-determination, the population tof the Comoros was consulted as regards its future Oil 22 December 1974. In unison, 9S per cent of the Coml()rians declared their support for the inde- pendence of their country, with 'a record turn-out of over 97 per ~ent. The answer was therefore clear. It r.emained only for the French' Parliament and Government to draw the proper conclusions from the result:s of that referendum and, purely and simply, to implement the agreements of June 1973, which were binding on the two parties. 7. Hence, the initial draft law of the French Govern- ment, introduced on 10 June 1975 in the National Assembly, rcttifying the referendum on self-deter- mination, complied with the procedures contained in the agreements of June 1973, by 'providing for the independence of the entire archipelago on the date jointly agreed on by the French Government and the territorial authorities. 8. Unfortunately, just as the wind can suddenly ~hange direction, events took quite a different tUM. Instead ofcomplying with its ~ommitments, the French Government of that time enacted, on 3 July 1975, another law whi~h we in the Como~os describe as an ignominious law, since.it undermines the original draft law whi~h ratifaes self-determination by attempting t(l attach new and unacceptable conditions to the independen~e of the Comoros, on the pretext that part of the population of Mayotte had voted against independen~e. The Comorian people was deep!y. shocked and indignant at these new provisions in- trodu~ed by France, which were contrary to its legitimate aspirations. 9. But history teaches us that no country, regard- less of its powers, ~an lastingly impose its law i\nd 11. Shortly thereafter, however, on 26 October 1975, in defiance of all laws, in defiance of the resolution and of the Charter of the United Nations, the French authorities enacted another draft law which, it is true, recognized the independence of the Comorian State, but a State which had part of its territory amputated, the island of Mayotte. Thus was the question of Mayotte born. 12. A few weeks later, this illegal and unjust stand was crystallized by the sending to Mayottc of several contingents of French legionnaires, which made the military occupation of this island and its separation from the remainder of the Comorian State a reality. 13. This brusque and forced separation of Mayotte from its sister islands was not only a harsh blow against our young State but also, and above all, against entire families which found themselves over- night arbitrarily divided and distanced from one an- other. Our country, which had always been united, had thus been Balkanized. The French authorities of the day erected an impassable barrier against Comorians from other islands who wanted to visit their friends and relatives in Mayotte. Anyone who wanted to go to Mayotte, a part of his own country, had to obtain a visa. Worse still, supporters of the unity and independence of the Comoros who resided in Mayotte were forcibly expelled and their property was seized, without compensation. 14. An appreciation of the homogeneous nature of the Comorian population and of the blood ties that have always existed between the inhabitants of the different islanas makes it easier to understand the pain that was felt and the tragedy that was experienced by people that were so attached to a closely shared social life. The harmful effects of that separation are not felt only at the human level; it has also had serious consequences on the economy of the archi- pelago. In fact, bece:t,use oftheir complementary nature, the four Comorian i~lands have an economy which 23. The Comorian Government has taken note of this good will, which we hope will facilitate the search for a rapid solution to the problem. It also reaffirms its determination to do all in its power to recover its territorial integrity. It therefore hopes that the French Government will soon translate into concrete action the statements made by the leaders of France, so that the injustice that has been caused to our country may be ended. 24. It goes without saying that the persistence of ihe problem disturbs the atmosphere of peace and tranquillity that prevails in our region. 25. The struggle that the people and Government of the Comoros have waged ceaselessly for some years now to recover their most legitimate rights is not their struggle alone. It is also that of all the peoples and countries that cherish peace and justice and respect international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Most major international organiza- tions are regularly seized of the question. Our rights and the justice of our cause are recognized and supported everywhere. I should like to take this opportunity to express the gratitude of the penpie and Government of the Comoros for the constant support that the General Assembly has given, and continues to give, to their just capse. . 26. There can be no doubt that, in restoring law and justice to our country, France, which was praised for its conduct at the time of the decolonization of its former African territories, will emerge with yet greater stature from a problem which is not in keeping with its traditions, above all since we continue to offer it the hand of friendship in order to solve the problem. 27. Moreover, the Comorian people still remembers the following words spoken by the former President ofthe French Republic, Mr. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, at a press conference on 24 October 1974: "It is an archipelago which constitutes one entity. It is a population which is homogeneous, in which there are virtually no people of French origin, or only a very small number ... Is it reasonable to imagine that one part of the archipelago should become independent and that one island, whatever feelings of sympathy we may have for the inhab- itants, should maintain a different status? "I believe that we must accept contemporary reality. The Comoros are a unity, they have always been a unity, and it is natural that they should share the same fate, even if some of them might wish for ... a different solution". •'On the occasion of the independence of a ter- ritory we should not propose to break the unity of what has always been the single archipelago of the Comoros." Ass~mbly for the first time in 1976, at the thirty-first seSSIOn. 31. Since then, the international community, which has been following this question with interest at the level of the United Nations, the Movement of Non- Aligned Countries, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the OAU, has noted with attention over the years, and from one session to the next~ ~he untiring efforts made to reach a just and honourable solution both by the parties involved, that is, France and the Comoros, and by the appropriate bodies of the institutions to which I have just referred. 32. Thus, the Ad Hoc Committee of Seven estab- lished by the OAU to follow the question of the Co- morian island of Mayotte, and of which my country, Senegal, has the honour of being a member, met last year at Moroni to see to what extent it could solve that problem. The open-minded spirit and the manifest willingness of the parties concerned to find a solution to their dispute on the basis of the mutual pnder- standing which prevailed throughout that meeting should, in ouropinion, be emphasized and encouraged. 33. Recently, at the thirteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, held in August 1982 at Niamey, the Organization of the Islamic Conference examined the various aspects of this question and adopted a resolution similar to the conclusions that were adopted by the OAU Committee [see AI371567]. The con- structive nature ofthe debates which took place in this respect lead us to believe that ajust and lasting solution of the question of the Comorian island of Mayotte is possible, and in the very near future. 34. My delegation feels that we should welcome the fact France and the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros, in a joint effort, keeping in mind both the application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and' the need to respect the principle of the im- mutability of frontiers inherited from the colonial period embodied in the Charter of the Organization of African Unity, have solemnly and resolutely under- taken to resolve the question of Mayotte in a spirit of mutual understanding. We are pleased to note that efforts have continued on both sides and that negotia- tions are actively under way. 35. The intensification of co-operation in all spheres between France and the Comoros is surely clear proof of the common desire of the parties to over- come what I would call the technical difficulties facing 41. While, for one of the parties, the return of Mayotte to the Comori~n national entity poses no difficulties and is not open to dispute, for the other party the situation appears to be complicated by the fact that certain political, legal or domestic con- stitutional requirements seem to continue to pose obstacles to the anticipated implementation of the process leading to the restoration of the territorial integrity of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Co- moros. 42. It is therefore desirable that those impediments should be removed promptly so that it would be pos- sible to put an end to a situation which, if it were to continue, would be gravely prejudicial to the territorial integrity of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros and to its sovereignty over the whole of its national territory. 43. The maintenance of the Comorian island of Mayotte outside the national community, which cannot ··We hope that the solution will be found as quickly as possible and that it will take into account the geographical, ethnic and historical links between the islands which constitute the Comoro Archi- pelago. ..... the Government of France has done nothing prejudicial to·a rapprochement between Mayotte and the other islands of the archipelago. ··Mayotte's status is a provisional one. The law adopted by the French Parliament on 24 December 1976 granted Mayotte a special status which does not close the door to any evolution." [92nd meeting, paras. 79-8J.] . 45. That is why Gabon, which holds the chairman- ship of the OAU'Ad Hoc Committee of Seven on the Comorian island of Mayotte,was encouraged to appeal to the French Government to renew its efforts and continue the dialogue which it had begun with the Moroni Government, in order to seek together the most appropriate ways and means of arriving at a definitive settlement, taking into account the legitimate rights and safeguarding the interests of all concernea, in full respect for the total sovereignty of the Comorian State over the whole of the archipelago, including the Comorian island of Mayotte. It is with a view to attaining that objective that the Ad Hoc Committee 74. France desires the development of relations of all sorts between Mayotte and the other islands of the Comoros. Within the framework of its constant thinking on the subject and showing its determination to reach a successful outcome, the French Govern- ment has just appointed a high-level envoy to study concretely the practical problems posed for the popu- lations concerned. My country is convinced that it is only through agreement that u j 11St and lasting solution can be found to this matter. 75. In the same constructive spirit, France is prepared to provide the Comorian State with the support neces- sary to enable the archipelago to develop har- moniously. The French Government naturally expects that the Comorian authorities wiii, for their part, make all necessary arrangements to bring the four islands closer together. 76. Thus, President Mitterrand said one year ago that "France has undertaken actively to seek a solu- tion to the problem of Mayotte with respect for its national law and for international law". No one can challenge the silicerity or determination of the French Government in this matter. 77. I wis~ to recall to those who are impatient at the slowness of certain developments that it is the fate of teq's of thousands of men and women which is at stake. History teaches us that hasty solutions often engender lasting conflicts. France cannot be expected to follow such a course and disregard a prin- ciple which it holds sacred-the principle of self- determination. 78. My delegation can only oppose the draft resolu- tion which is before us today. But the French Govern- ment will, steadfastly and patiently, continue its friendly and constructive dialogue with the authorities of the Islamic Federal Republic of the Comoros.

The Assembly will now take action on draft resolution A/37/L.41 and Add.1. A recorded vote has been requested.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution contained in document A/37/L.13/ Rev.1. We also have before us an amendment con- tained in document A/37/L.15/Rev.l. The report of the Fifth Committee on the administrative and financial implications of the draft resolution is contained in document A/37/687. I should also draw the attention of representatives to the notes by the Secretary-General contained in documents A/37/561and A/37/566 and Corr.l. 81. I have been requested by the sponsors to in- troduce draft resolution A/37/L.13/Rev.l. I shall con- fine my introductory remarks to the operative para- graphs of the draft resolutioIrl. 82. In paragraph I, the Assembly welcomes the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the related resolutions. As rep- resentatives are aware, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea embarked in late 1973 on its ambitious task of adopting a convention covering every aspect of the uses and resources of the sea. Throughout its nine years of negotiations, the Conference had been guided by the goal of adopting 85. How~ver, it is unacceptable to me-and I trust unaccePtable to the Assembly-that the critics of the Convention should distort the facts in order to generate opposition to it. For example, the cost of the meeting in Jamaica to be borne by the United Nations is $175,000. That is the amount which would be incurred if the meeting were to be held in New York instead of in Montego Bay. Any additional expenses involved in holding the meeting in Jamaica will be borne by the Jamaican Government. On 8 November 1982, a I ask you, Mr. President, and other representatives to judge whether it is fair for Mr. Safire of The New York Times and the editor of The Wall Street Journal to misrepresent the costs of the forthcoming meeting in Jamaica in order to stir up the opposition of their readers to the Convention. If you agree with me that it is indeed unfair, do you not 'think that these two great newspapers of this country owe to us, and to themselves, an ethical duty to print a correction? 86. Paragraph 7ofthe draft resolution would approve the assumption by the Secretary-General of the responsibilities entrusted to him under the Convention and the related resolutions. It would also approve the stationing of an adequate number of secretariat staff in Jamaica for the purpose ofservicing the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, as required by its functions and programme of work. 87. I should like to take a few moments to explain the responsibilities entrusted to the Secretary-General under the Convention and the related resolutions. I should also like to explain why we have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to station an adequate number of Secretariat staff in Jamaica. 88. The Secretary-General's note [A/37/56J] , to which I have already referred, contains a detailed exposition ofthe responsibilities entrusted to him under the Convention,3 as well as under resolutions I and 11 ofthe Conference.4 Under the Convention, the respon- sibilities of the Secretary-General may be classified under five headings. First, he has the function of a depositary. Secondly, ~e has been given the function of receiving the submission by coastal States of all charts and lists of geographical co-ordinates for the purpose of establishing the limits of their jurisdiction. Thirdly, the Secretary-General has a reporting function. Fourthly, the Secretary-General has been entrusted with certain administrative functions, such as calling for invitations for nominations and con- vening meetings of States parties. Fifthly, the Sec- retary-General can render a valuable service to Mem- ber States, especially developing coastal States, by retary-G~neral is required to service the Preparatory Commission in its task ofpreparing draft rules, regula- tions and procedures. This is an extremely important task because, among other things, a viable system for mining the resources of the deep sea-bed will comprise the provisions of the Convention and its annexes, as well as detailed rules, regulations and procedures which will have to be drafted by the Preparatory Commission. 90. Resolution 11 of the Conference was a major concession by the developing countries to the devel- oped countries. Under this resolution, the Conference has taken note of tht~ existence of a number of pioneer investors in the field of sea-betij mining. The resolution has entrusted to the Preparalor}' Commission a num- ber of executive functions in relation to such pioneer investors. The PreparatQ.ry Commission is empowered to register the pioneer investors, to allocate to them specific mine sites for the purpose of exploration, and to choose one of the two mine sites offered by the pioneer investors for the Authority. 91. Under resolution I, the Conference agreed that the Preparatory Commission shall meet at the seat of the International Sea-Bed Authority if facilities are available. As delegations know, Kingston, Jamaica, has been chosen as the seat of the Authority. We have been told by the representative of Jamaica that facili- ties are already available for the Preparatory Com- mission to meet at Kingston. In view of this and in view of the fact that the Preparatory Commission has been invested with certain executive functions in relation to pioneer investors, it is therefore neces- sary to station an adequate number of Secretariat staff in Kingston. 92. Durmg the past month, I have conducted exten- sive consultations on the draft resolution as a whole and on paragraphs 7 and 8 in particular. I should like to state for the record a number of important under- standings that were arrived at in these consultations. First, in the interest of economy and in order not to create any disincentive for States to sign and ratify the Convention at -an early date, the law of the sea sec- retariat shall be kept at its present level of staff and grades, that is to say, 18 professional substantive officers for 1983. As much as possible the expenses of the secretariat will be kept within the existing level of expenses. Secondly, the law of the sea secretariat will be a unified secretariat. Thirdly, the secretariat will have two duty stations: one in New York and the other in Kingston. Initially, each duty station will have nine professional staff. The grades ofstaffat each duty station shall be determined, on a fair and equitable basis, by the Secretary-General. The Secretary- General will also be given the discretion to vary the apportionment of staff between the two duty stations in the light of their functions and the demands for their services. Fourthly, the staff as~igned to the two duty stations will be mutually reinforcing. Fifthly, the law of the sea secretariat will continue to depend upon the other departments of the United Nations and its specialized agencies for experts in carrying out the responsibilities of the Secretary-General. 94. Paragraph 9 approves the financing of the expenses of the Preparatory Commission from the regular budget ofthe United Nations. This is in accord- ance with the decision taken by the Conference as contained in paragraph 14 of resolution I of the Con- ference. I have to explain that the decision of the Conference was based in part on a trade-offconcerning defraying the expenses ofthe Preparatory Commission from the United Nations regular budget and allowing States which will sign the Final Act but not the Con- vention to take part in the work of the Preparatory Commission as observers. The amendment contained in document A/37/L.15/Rev.1 proposes that the expenses ofthe Preparatory Commission shall be borne by the States which sign the Convention. That proposal is not consistent with the agreement contained in reso- lution I of the Conference. The proposal contained in the amendment was in fact put to the Conference and was not found acceptable. It should therefore not be resurrected here. On behalf of the sponsors of the draft resolution, I should like to address an appeal to the sponsors of the amendment not to insist on their amendment.If, however, the amendment were pressed to a vote, we would, of course, have no alternative but to vote against it. 95. In the consultations which I have conducted on the draft resolution, I suggested at the outset to all the participants t.hat our consultations should be con- ducted on the basis offour common assumptions. I was pleased that all the participants accepted them. First, since the Convention and the related resolutions have entrusted certain responsibilities to the Secretary- General, it is our shared concern that the General Assembly should provide the Secretary-General with adequate financial and administrative resources to enable him to carry out those responsibilities. Sec- ondly, in making available to the Secretary-General such administrative and financial resources, strict regard must be paid to economy and to efficiency. Thirdly, .we must avoid creating a deterrent or a disincentive for States which are in the process of making up their minds whether or not to sign and ratify the Convention. Fourthly, we must take into account the depressed economic conditions in most if 103. I should now like to add that the difficult report of the Advisory Committee nn Administrative and Budgetary Questions [A/37/7/Add./O] only reached us during the course of yesterday morning's meeting of the Fifth Committee and it has been impos- sible for us to give it the close attention it requires. As the Secretary-General's equally difficult statement on the financial implications of the draft resolution now before us [A/C.5/37/58/Rev.l] makes clear, the report of the Advisory Committee and the Secretary- General's own statement must be read not only in the light of the Convention itself, of which the final text, as amended on the basis of this summer's heavy report of the Drafting Committee, has only just be- come available, but also in the light of other docu- mentation of the Conference, notably the study on the future functions of the Secretary-General under the Convention and on the needs of countries, especially' developing countries, for information, advice and assistance under the new legal regime.S That study was prepared at the request of the Conference and of the General Assembly in its resolution 35/116 of 10 December 1980, but so far as I am aware has not been examined in depth either by the Conference or by the Assembly. Moreover, that study, which is fuller than any of the documentation submitted to the current session of the General Assembly, may itself require to be brought up to date in the light of the final text of the Convention itself. 104. As I have said, my delegation voted against the Convention and the, four formally related resolu- tions last April. We were not in any way associated with the negotiations from which emerged the text of resolution I. Paragraph 14 of that resolution lays down that the expenses of the Preparatory Commission shall be met from the regular budget of the United Nations, subject to the approval of the General Assembly-as is required, .indeed, under Article 17 of the Charter. We have never agreed to that provision, and we do not agree with it now. We see no reason why the normal practice should not be followed here, and why the expenses of the Preparatory Commission should not be met by the States most directly concerned- namely the signatories of the Convention or those that have expressed their consent to be bound by it. For that reason we support the amendment contained in document A/37/L.15/Rev.1. 105. I turn now to draft resolution A/37/L.13/Rev.1. While we recognize that it is a considerable improve-

I call on the representative of the United States of America to introduce the amendment contained in document A/37/L.15/Rev.l.

My <Jelegation has co-sponsored an amendment, A/37/ L.IS/Rev.l, to draft resolution A/37/L.13/Rev.1. Our amendment is simple in content and straightforward in concept. It does not address the many serious objections we have to other parts of the draft resolu- tion. Instead, it points to objections we would have regardless of the merits of this draft resolution. The draft resolution violates our commitment to fiscal restraint, and it does so not only by the extent of the expenditures but also, and even more seriously, by attempting to convert the expenditures of the Preparatory Commission into expenses of the United Nations itselfand assess them against the membership of the Organization. 109. As negotiations on the law of the sea wound down in April of this year, the issue of funding the Preparatory Commission was dealt with hurriedly and with insufficient reflection. Ratherthan further protract the process, the Conference adopted resolution J, which states in part that: "The expenses of the Com- mission shall be met from the regular budget of the United Nations, subject to the approval of the General Assembly". However, we believe that if Members carefully reflect upon the nature of the Preparatory Commission established by the Convention on the Law of the Sea and upon the proper limits of the financial obligati!lns undertaken by States by virtue of adherence to the Charter of the United Nations, they will agree that the proposal to finance the Preparatory Commission from the regular United Nations budget is ill advised. Our amendment is designed to correct this potentially serious mistake. 110. The Preparatory Commission is a temporary commission to formulate the rules and regulations of the two specialized agencies contemplated under the Law of the Sea Convention: the International Sea- Bed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The Authority and Tribunal ~\re 112. The second serious error is that this draft resolution calls for extravagant and unjustified expen- ditures. It provid,es for conferences and secretariat support, which for 1983 will cost $4 million in total. Because these meetings will be held away from United Nations Headquarters, the United Nations can expect to pay a higher amount than if the existing resources at Headquarters could be efficiently utilized. To ask the United Nations to pay for a preparatory commis- sion ofa separate treaty organization is wrong. To ask it to pay for an expensive conference away from established headquarters is doubly wrong and an addi- tional violation of the principle of fiscal responsibility. The United States, as the large:;t contributor to the United Nations budget, is ~eeply concerned that this principle be defended "cd respected in practice. For the General Assembiy to ask States to succumb to such a request is to ahandon that principle. 113. In concIrJsion, my delegation is convinced that the fiscal appl'oach taken by this draft resolution is a departure from both the spirit of the Charter of the United Nat~ons and acceptable international practice. Further, it ignores current economic conditions and pays little heed to fiscal restraint. The United States amendment would correct these defects. The United States reserves its legal rights and intends to examine carefully its legal obligations relevant to this draft resolution, within the framework of the Charter, should the draft resolution be adopted without our amendment. 114. My delegation urges a,i Member States to sup- port this amendment. We hope that each win objec- tively analyze the grave concerns presented by the draft resolution and give careful and responsible con- sideration to the vital issues that my delegation and the co-:;ponsors have identified.

Turkey will vote against draft resolution A/37/L.13/Rev.l, and in particular against paragraphs 2, 3 and 9. underm~ningthat treaty or defeating its object and pur- to sea-bed resources by current and future qualified pose until they express a clear and definite will to entities. Applicants would not be granted contracts refuse to ratify it. Paragraph 3 overlooks that basic based exclusively on whether they satisfied objective principle of intemationallaw land seems to assume that qualification standards. Further, the Convention would even thos,.. States that are not signatories to the create a system of privileges operating against private Convention on the Law of the Sea are ex~c!ed to mining companies. As a party to the Convention, refrain from taking action directed at undermining the the United States, through its private companies, could Conventioll or defeating its object and purpose. be denied access to deep-sea-bed minerals, and the We should like to place on record that, by accepting supranational "Enterprise", a sea-bed mining arm to paragraph 3, the General Assembly would, in our be established by the Convention, could gain a opinion, seriously violate that basic principle of inter- monopoly. national law. This paragraph also violates the very 126. Thirdly, it would not provide a decision-making basis ofintemationallaw, which ~s the well-known prin- role in the deep-sea-bed regime that fairly reflects ciple pacta sunt sen,':'!nda, by ignoring that the con- and effectively protects the political and economic sent of a State is fundamental to the intemational interests and financial contributions of participating obligations of the State pursuant to treaties. States. As the largest potential consumer of sea-bed minerals, as a country whose private firms could 119. Finally, Wf: consider paragraph 9, which invest substantial amounts in sea-bed mining, and as approves the financiny of the expenses of the Prepara- potentially the largest contributor to the International tory Commission frJm the regular budget of the Sea-.Bed Authority and the Enterprise, our political United Nations, to be contrary to the general prin- and economic interests are far-reaching. The decision- ciples of law, for it foresees the financing of the making system in the Sea-Bed Authority would not expenditures of the machinery set up in accordance reflect those realities. For example, the Convention with the relevant provisions of the Conventior. on the would make American access to sea-bed resources Law of the Sea being met also by t.hose States that are dependent on the voting power of competitors and not signatories to it, thus making participation in its on those countries that do not wish to see the re- implementation mandatory even for th@ States that sources produced. refuse to accept it. For those n}ason~,/ we urge the General Assembly to accept the amendment that we, 127. Fourthly, it would allow for amendments to together with the United States, havt.~ presented in come into force through the review process without document A/37/L.J5/Rev.1. We once again put it on the approval of all the participating States, including, record that, if th~J amendment is not adopted, the in our case, th~ advice and consent of the United Turkish Govemment reserve3 its right to refuse to States Senate. contribute to payments for expenditures originating 128. Fifthly, it would set undesirable precedents from the implementation ofthe Convention on the Law for international organizations. In addition to the prac- of the Sea. tical problems raised by the provisions setting arti- 120. It is for the reasons I have stated and because ficial production limits and mandatory transfer of the Government of Turkey has dedded not to sign or proprieta,ry technology to competitors of United States become a party to the Convention on the Law of the companies, those provisions also create undesirable Sea that the draft resolution is totally unacceptable precedents for future" international negotiations. to us. Many other provisions also create such precedents.

I shall now call on those 129. In addition to the financial aspects, the draft representatives who wish to explain their vote before resolution now before us contains other features to \ the voting on draft resolution A/37/L.l:j/Rev.1 and on whi~h the United States cannot agree. I would note, as the amendment contained in document Ai37!L.15! an example, that the draft resolution refers to the R . entry into force of the new legal regime for the uses ev.1. of the sea and its resources. While the Convention 15 122. Mr. ADELMAN (United States of America): contains new legal elements, notabUy the regime for The General Assembly is about to embark on a course the deep-sea-bed, much of the Convention is not new which my delegation feels is m·~advised and one which but rather reflects existing :.lternational law and the l .. ' In favour: Algeria, Angola, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus,'Czecho- slovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominica~ Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic ot), Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Demo- cratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongo- lia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grena- dines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trin- idad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repu-blic, Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- lics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Cameroon, United Republic ofTanzania, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against: Israel, Turkey, United States of America. Abstaining: Belgium, Ecuador, Germany, Federal Republic of, Italy, Luxembourg, Spain, Uniter] King- dom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Paragraph 2 was adopted by /34 votes to 3, with 7 abstelltions. 134. The PRESIDENT: The Assembly will next vote on paragraph 3 of draft resolution A/37/L.13/Rev.1. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Algeria, Angola, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czecho- slovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana,

The Assembly will now proceed to take a decision on draft resolution A/37/ L.13/Rev.1 and on the amendment contained in docu- ment A/37/L.15/Rev.1. The report of the Fifth Com- mittee on the administrative and financial implications of the draft resolution is contained in document A/37/ 687. In accordance with rule 90 of the rules of proce- dure, I shall first put to the vote the amendment contained in document A/37/L.15/Rev.1. A recorded vote has been requested. 144. In the meantime, the Netherlands will exert all possible ere~rts, particularly in the Preparatory Com- mission, to make the Convention generally acceptable to all countries. 145. Mr. PI~IS (France) (intelpretation from Frem:h): First of all, the French delegation would like to inform the ,General Assembly of the decision that was reached on 1December 1982-the day before yesterday-by the Council of Ministers ofthe Govern- ment of France. 146. In a few days France will sign, in Jamaica, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea-illter alia, because it considers that that Con- vention constitutes important progress towards the establishment of a new international economic order. It is p::-ecisely because we are going to sign the Convention that we attach great importance to the scope of the resolution that has just been adopted and to the effectiveness of the delicate work that 151. It was with these reservations, which we fervent- ly hope will be taken into account by the Secretary- General and the Preparatory Commission, that the French delegation voted in favour of draft resolution A/37/L.13/Rev.1, once again expressing our pleasure at the successful conclusion of the Third ITniled Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. 152, The French delegation hopes that the Pre- paratory Commission, with the support of all the competent Secretariat services, will quickly and effec- tively get to work, keeping the Organization's expen- 157. Finally, in conformity with the stand taken in the Fifth Committee at this session and while ex- pressing its full appreciation and gratitude for the efforts made by Mr. Koh, the Italian delegation still maintains reservations on the financial implications of the present resolution. The Italian Government believes that expenses involved in the follow-up of the Conference should be kept to a minimum and that convening meetings of' the Preparatory Commission and its working groups at United Nations Head- quarters, in New York, would involve lower expenses. Detailed remarks on this point have just been made by the representative of France, and we entirely agree with him. i58. However, I wish to make it clear that the position of the Italian delegation applies only to the 163. Secondly, my Government recognizes that parts of the Convention-for example, those relating to navigation, the continental shelf and pollution-are helpful and, so far as we are concerned, uncon- troversial. As regards deep sea-bed mining, including the transfer of technology, however, the provisions of the Convention are unacceptable to the United Kingdom in their present form. This view is held in common with other' major industrialized countries. We need to obtain significant and satisfactory improve- ments in these provisions, and wish to explore with others the prospects for such improvements. Mean- while, the view of my Government is that the Con- vention must not be used to divide States and that the search for consensus must continue. 164. In these circumstances, it will be under- standable to all that my delegation was not in a posi- tion to vote in favour of a resolution containing para- 169. During the course of these negotiations, my delegation made it clear that it would be unable to vote in favour of the administrative and financial paragraphs of the draft resolution to be put before the Assembly. We .made it clear at the same time, however, that we recognized the importance of the Preparatory Commission and its functions and that the United Kingdom intended to play a full part in the functioning of the Preparatory Commission. I confirm that today. 170. The conclusion we draw is that the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the Preparatory Commission and of the new Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for the Law of the Sea, at United Nations Headquarters, is a matter of prime concern to us all. This is particularly so in view of

Today the General As- sembly realized a great hope by adopting the draft

I would like to in- troduce, on behalf of the sponsors, draft resolution A/37/L.39/Rev.2, on the report of the Secretary- General on the work of the Organization [A/37/J]. In preparing this draft resolution, we are conscious' of our responsibility in these difficult times and ir.spired by the singularly important report of the Secretary-General. Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar ha~ 189. This is what I wanted to say on behalf of all the sponsors of toe draft resolution. I should like to add some observations on the subject which reflect both the position of my country and the impression that we have gathered from this year's debate in this Hall and from the wide-ranging consultations on this draft resolution. 190. Thirty-seven years after the creation of the United Nations, its effective role in maintaining inter- - national peace and security and in solving. world problems is yet to be fulfilled. It has been repeatedly stressed that the United Nations is in crisis. Yet, we believe it is not the United Nations that is in crisis. The foundation on which it was built is as strong as ever. Its purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter have lost none of their validity. This Organ- ization and no other is the global instrument for international co-operation and the preservation of peace. In fact, the need has never been greater for the United Nations to be an effective centre for the harmonization of the actions of nations in the attain- 205. Speaking personally, as a newcomer to this Organization I have been struck by many ofthe failures and difficulties identified by the Secretary-General in his report. There are others which he did not mention. One is the tendency to substitute words for constructive action, or even for an attempt to move towards constructive action. Another is the use of words as slogans without seeking to reach a common understanding of what they mean. Yet anot~er is a proliferation of resolutions, often layer upon layer of them, all dealing with the same subjects and all over- lapping one another, and in the process often obscuring the main issues. The very resolution that we have been considering today is not immune to such fau.lts. 206. As regards the report itself, the Secretary- General deserves the encouragement ofMember States to pursue the ideas outlined in it in whatever way he judges best. 207. Many of the points addressed by the Secretary- General lie within the province ofthe Security Council. I am sure that the members of the Security Council will wish to give these matters their full considera- tion. My delegation, for one, would welcome this. I am also confident that the Secretary-General will keep the General Assembly informed of what the Security Council is d'oing in this regard. 208. The present t;esolution, which, happily, has been adopted by consensus, essentially takes note of the steps which would naturally flow from the Secretary- General's report. As such, it is acceptable to us. However, that is not to say that we regard it as perfect or that every turn of phrase in it meets with our approval. Many ofthe phr.ases used are good, referring to real international problems of our day-the re- course to the threat ,or use of force, giobal economic problems, breaches of human rights, and decoloniza- tion, for example. We could ourselves have proposed amplifying and expanding some of those phrases. However, the resolution is not the proper place to pursue particular international problems which are being dealt with under other items on our agenda. 209. I conclude by commending the Secretary- General's report once again and, like him, looking forward to practical steps towards a realization of the NOTES I The delegation of Zaire subsequently informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution. 2 The deiegations of the Central Mrican Republic and Solomon Islands subsequently informed the Secretariat tI~at they had intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution. 5 Ibid., vol. XV (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.83.V.4), document A/CONF.62/L,76. 6 See Officitll Records of the United Nations Conference on the Ltill' of Tretlties, First and Second Sessions, Vienna, 26 March- 24 MClY 1968 and 9 April-22 May /969 (United Nations publication. Sales No. E.70.V.5), p. 287.