A/40/PV.119 General Assembly

This morning the Assembly will consider the reports of the Second Committee on agenda items 12 and 84 (a) to (0). Mr. Lago Silva (Cuba), Rapporteur of the Second Committee, presented the reports of that Committee (A/40/1009 and Add.l and 2, A/40/989 and Add.1-14, A/40/1041, A/40/1042 and A/40/1043) and then Spoke as follows: Mr. LAGO SILVA (Cuba), Rapporteur of the Second Committee (interpretation from Spanish): I have the ho~our to present 19 reports of the Second Committee. Of the 98 draft proposals approved by the Second Committee and recommended to the General Assembly for adoption, 15 were adopted by vote. I should like to draw the Assembly's attention to the fact that, as can be seen in the draft-decision contained in document A/40/989/Add.14 relating to agenda item 84 as a whole, the Second Commitee was unable to complete its work and therefore recommends to the General Assembly that it decide to resume the work of the Second Committee for one week before the first session in 1986 of the Economic and Social Council to give careful consideration to the ways for promoting international co-operation effectively and related spheres of money, finance, debt, resource flows, trade and development and to deal with uncompleted issues relating to agenda item 84. The Second Committee adopted that decision by a recorded vote of 88 to lf with 19 abstentions. ~PRESIDENT (Interpret~tion from Spanish): If the~e is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules ef procedure, I shall consider that the General Assembly decides ,lot to discuss the reports of the Second Committee which are before us this morning. It was so decided.

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. The positions of delegations regarding the various recommendations of the Second Committee have been made clear in that Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind members that, in paragraph 7 of its decision 34/401, the General Assembly decided that, when the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, that is, either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation's vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee. May I also remind members that, also in accordance with decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. I now invite the attention of members to: the report of the Second Committee on agenda item 12, "Report of the Economic and Social Council", in documents A/40/l009 and Add.l and 2). we first turn to part I of the report of the second. Committee contained in document A/40/1009. May I take it that the General Assenbly wishes to take note of that report? It 'was so decided. - - The PRESIDLNT (interpretation from Spanish): The Assemj:)ly will nOlI take a decisi'on on the seven draft resolutions and two draft decisions contained in paragraphs 37 and 38 of part II of the report of the second Committee in document AI40/1009/11..&1 .1. In considering the other items from other Committees, the General Assembly decided that explanations of vote would be made for all the draft resolutions being considered and that they would be made either at the beginning of the votes or following them. If there is no objection we shall proceed accordingly. It was so decided.

Under paragraph 37 the Second Committee recommends adoption of draft resolution I relating to economic development projects in the occupied Palestinian territories. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, aelgium~ Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, aurundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, CaPa Verd!!, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equator ial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gabon, German DefIDcratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's DefIDcratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives f Mali f Malta f Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozan:bique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Quan, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, PhUippines, Poland, portugal, Qatar, a:>mania, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, sanoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, SwazUand, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SOviet Socialist Republic, Union of SOIliet SOcialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia Against: Israel, United States of America Abstaining: Australia, Canada, Finland, Grenada, Iceland, Norway, sweden Draft resolution I was ado resolution 40 169).* 138 votes to 2, with 7 abstentions (draft

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution 11 concerning assistance to thF.! Palestinian people. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Alger ia, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SOviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatot ial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory C(,ast, Janaica, Japa"l, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, fobngolia, fobrocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nig~r, *Subsequently the delegations of Guyana and Zimbabwe adv ised the secretar ia t that they had intended to vote in favour. Nigeria, Nort.1ay, oman, Pa~istan, Pe.nama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Baudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, SOmalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, SWeden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia Against: Israel, United States of America Abstaining: Grenada Draft resolution 11 was adopted by 145 votes to 2, with 1 abstention (resolution 40/170).*

Draft resolution III deals with the International Drinking leter SUpply and Sanitation Decade. The Second Committee recolllllends the adoption of the draft resolution. May I take it that the General AsselIbly wishes to adopt that draft resolution? Draft resolution III was adopted (resolution 40/171).

Draft resolution IV is entitled ~orld Tourism Organization". The second Committee recommends the adoption of the draft resolution. May I take it that the General AsselIbly wishes to adopt that draft resolution? Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 40/172).

Next we turn to draft resolution V dealing with international economic security. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. *Subsequently the delegations of El Salvador, Gambia and Zimbabwe advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour. In favou~; Afghanistan, AlgeLia, Angola, ~~gEntina, Bah~ain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cornoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, C~echoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Irag, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democzatic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Dominica, Finland, Gabon, Greece, Grenada, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Malaysia, Pa~aguay, Rwanda, saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Swazi1and, Sweden, Turkey, Zaire Draft resolution V was adopted by 96 votes to 19, with 28 abstentions (resolution 40/173).*

The Second Committee also recommends the adoption of draft resolution VI, which concerns co-operation between the United Nations and the Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution VI was adopted (resolution 40/174). *Subseguently the delegations of Gambia and Zimbabwe advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.

The Second Committee also \ . recommends the adoption of draft resolution VII dealing with countries stricken by desertification and drought. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution VII was adopted (resolution 40/l75).

The Assembly will now turn to the two draft decisions recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 38 of its report in document A/40/1009/Add.l. Draft decision I deals with Israeli economic practices in the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Natherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lncia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, SUdan, Surinarne, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia Against: Israel, united States of America Abstaining: Grenada, Saint Cbdstopher and Nevis Draft decision I. was adopted by 147 votes to 2, with 2 abstentions.*

Next the Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of draft decision 11, which concerns the report of the Panel of Eminent Persons established to conduct the pUblic hearings on the activities of transnational corporations in South Africa and Namibia. May I take it that the General Assembly adopts it? Draft decision II was adopted. *Subsequently the delegations of Gambia and Zimbabwe advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.

Next the A~aembly will take a decision on the six draft resolutions and three draft decisions in paragraphs 28 and 29 of part III of the repor.t of the Second Committee (A/40/l009/Add.2). In paragraph 28 the Second~Committee recommends the adoption of draft resolution I entitled "Target for world food programme pledges for the period 1987-1988". The Second Committee recommends the adoption of that draft resolutIon. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 40/176).

Next, the Second Committee recommends the adoption of draft resolution 11, dealing with co-ordination in the United Nations and the United Nations system. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution II? Draft resolution 11 was adopted (resolution 40/177).

The Second Committee also recommends the adoption of draft ~~eHo1ution Ill, which concerns strengthening the role of the United Nations in the fteld of international economic, scientifictechnological and social co-operation. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt the draft resolution? Draft resolution III was adopted (resolution 40/178).

Draft resolution IV relates to patterns of consumption: qualitative aspects of development. The Second Committee recommends its adoption. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution IV? Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 40/119).

The Second Committee also recommends the adoption of draft resolution V, entitled "Agreement between the United Nations and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization". May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution V? Draft resolution V was adopted (resolution 40/180).

Finally, we come to draft resolution VI entitled "Food and agricultural problems". The Second Committee recommends the adoption of the draft resolution. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution VI was adopted (resolution 40/181).

The Assembly will now turn to the three draft decisions recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 29 of its report (A/40/1009/Add.2). The Second Committee recommends the adoption of draft decision I, which concerns the mobilization of financial resources lor industrial development. May I take it that the General Assembly adopts the draft decision? Draft decision I was adopted. The P~SIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): Next the Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of draft decision 11, which concerns documents relating to the report of the Economic and Social Council. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt draft decision II? Draft decision 11 was adopteq.

Finally, the Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of draft decision III, entitled "Biennial programme of work for the Second Committee 1986-1987". May I take it that the General Assembly adopts it? Draft decision III was adopted.

That concludes the Assembly's consideration of agenda item 12. We now turn to the report of the Second Committee on agenda item 84: Development and international economic co-operation (A/40/989). May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to ta~e note of that report? It was so decided.

The Assembly will now turn to the report of the Second Committee on agenda item 84 (a): International Development StLategy for the Third United Nations Development Decade (A/40/989/Add.1). If any representatives wish to explain their vote on all the draft resolutions, would they do so now~ otherwise would they please explain their votes after all the votes under this item. If no representative wishes to speak in explanation of vote before the voting, the Assembly will now take a decision on the draft decision in paragraph 5 of the report of the Second Committee (A/40/989/Add.1). The Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of that draft decision. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? The draft decision was adopted.

I now call o:~ the representative of Yugoslavia, who wishes to explain his vote following the voting. Mr. GOLOS (Yugoslavia): The General Assembly has just endorsed the agreed conclusions on the review and appraisal of the implementation of the international development strategy. The Group of 77, on whose behalf I have the honour to speak, would like to compliment the Committee on the review and appraisal, and especially its Chairman, Mr. Kenneth Dadzie, on the successful conclusion of its work. (Mr. Golob, Yugoslavia) The agreed conclusions are undoubtedly the result of the serious efforts of all countries and groups of countries, especially the countries of the Group of 77. In the negotiations which led to the agreed conclusions, the Group of 77 proved its willingness and its sincere intention to collaborate with its partners from the develoPed countries in order to create an environment of understanding which it hoped would characterize the work of the Second Committee. The atmosphere which prevail~ during the work of the Review and Appraisal Committee to a certain extent spilled over to the Second Commmittee, but mainly during the general debate on the most important issues on its agenda. In spite of difficulties encountered subsequently, the Group of 77 considers that the agreed conclusions are an important step towards a better climate in multilateral dialogue on a number of issues confronting developed and developing countries alike. The agreed concluaions should contribute to further efforts by all countries in relevant international organizations to continue with the process of the implementation of the goals and objectives established by the International Development Strategy for the Third United Nations Development Decade. For their part, the developing countries will spare no effort to do their share. However, much depends on what will be done in respect of external factors which have a heavy bearing on the abilities of the developing countries to pursue their national aims. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to effect the necessary changes in existing international economic structures to make them more responsive to the development needs of the developing countries.

The Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 84 (a). (The President) We turn now to the report of the Second Committee on agenda item 84 (b) entitled -Review of the implementation of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States·, document A/40/989, Add.2. The Assembly will turn to paragraph 7 of the report of the Second Committee. The draft resolution is entitled ·Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States·. A recorded vote has been re~ .,ested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comeros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lec~tho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldivea, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria: oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao T~e and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, zimbabwe Against: United States of America Abstaining: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland The draft resolution was adopted by 134 votes to 1, with 19 abstentions (resolution 40/182).

We have thus concluded our consideration of agenda ite~ 84 (b). I invite members to turn their attention to the report of the Second Committee on agenda item 84 (c) concerning trade and development, document A/fO/S89, Add.3. The Assembly will take decisions on the 10 draft resolutions recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 71 of its report. I call on the representative of the United States to speak in explanation of vote before the voting. Mr. WALTERS (United States): The sponsors of draft resolution VI under this item are effectively as~ing the General Assembly to take a position on a bilateral trade question. We must ask why we are being pressed to act on this issue. The answer i6 clear. Whereas we should be dealing with major economic questions, which is what one expects from the Second Committee, we are obliged to deal with an essentially political issue. What we have before us is nothing ~re than an effort by the Government of Nicaragua to achieve here what it has been unable to achieve in any other united Natio~s or hemispheric forum. The United States Government believes that an honest consideration of the American trade embargo against Nicaragua must bring recognition that it responds to Nicaraguan aggression against its neighbours as well as against its own people. Ironically, the Nicaraguans and their sponsors are pursuing this draft resolution at the very time that Nicaragua is cracking do~, on what remains of civil liberties in that country and is also abandoning the Contadora process aimed at achieving a lasting peace in the region. Nicaragua's dictatorial measures are at the heart of the issue before us. Excluding them from a discussion of the United States trade measures creates a distorted and unrealistic picture. When this draft resolution was introduced in the Second Committee, the P~ited States presented a nUBber of amendments with the ultimate objective of creating a .are balanced text. The amendments sought to provide an indication of the reasons for and the e~vironment within which the United States applied its trade policies towards Central America. We deeply regret that the sponsors rejected our suggestions for informal discussions on this subject. We were even more distressed that no discussion was permitted in the Second Committee of those amendments and that therefore they were unable to lead to a more balanced text. In reality, most of the countries represented in this aall are either now engaged in trade measures for political reasons, have done so in the paet or have expressed a willingness to do so in the future. The men who lead Nicaragua, the Government of Nicaragua, themselves called for trade sanctions ag~inst the brutal Somozo regime during their own revolution. I hope that is recalled. Even the Andean Pact threatened to invoke sanctions against Somoza. I could go on with examples, but I hope that I have made my point. Of course every country believes that its trade sanction measures are justifiable; that the SPeCific case it advocates is different from the general principle. In addition, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) regulations do not preclude such measures. It is no wonder, therefore, that the General Assembly has wisely avoided trying to decide which bilateral trade policies are right and which are wrong. In effect, it has recognized that such policies are an expression of a nation's sovereign rights. Finally, the adoption of draft resolution VI will not assist the Contadora process. By co-operating uncritically with the Sandinista regime (Mr. WaIters, Un!ted States) here in the General AsBe1lbly, Member States would be giving ta:cit support ~ Nicaraguan atte~tB to abandon the Contadora process. Unwilling to make the required commitment to national reconciliation, democracy and non-intervention in the affairs of its neighbouring States, Nicaragua ~zefers to pursue unproductive actions like this resolution rather than engage in serious negotiations within the Contadora fraaework. It declined to attend the recent discussions in Cartagena concerning the future of the Contadora Group. Instead, the Sandinistas called for a six-month suspension of the Contadora negotiations. Nicaragua was the only country to vote against the Organization of American States resolution which called on Central American countries in the Contadora Group to persevere in their efforts to conclude a peace agreement. All of those factors lead the United States delegation to conclude that draft resolution VI is grossly unbalanced ana potentially damaging to the Central American peace process. We have no choice, therefore, but to vote against it and to urge others to do the same.

Draft resolution I concerns specific action related to the particular needs and problems of land-locked, developing countries. A separate vote has been requested on operative paragraph 1 of draft resolution I. Are there any objections to this proposal? As there are none, I shall put to the vote first operative paragraph 1. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahr~in, Bangladesh, Barbados, Eenin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nica~agua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United ~rab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines ~b8taining: Belgium, Burma, Cameroon, Congo, Denmar~, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Ivory Coast, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Turkey, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Operative paragraph 1 of draft resolution I was adopted by 116 votes to 1, with 29 abstentions.* *Subsequently the delegations of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour; the delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic had intended to abstain. The PRESIDE~ (interpretation from Spanish): The Assembly will nou take a deeielon on draft tesoluUon I, as a whole. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded...!.ote was taken. In favour~ Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigu~ and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Ba~gladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burtina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, canada, cape Verae, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, CMna, Colombia, COIIOlOS, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic RepUblic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, NetherlandB, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vi~t Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: None Abstaining: United States of America Draft resolution I, as a whole, was adopted b1 152 votes to, none, with 1 abstention (resolution 40/183).

We turn now to draft resolution 11, entitled "International code of conduct on the transfer of technologyW. The Second Committee adopted that craft resolution without a vote. May I consider that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution 11 was adopted (resolution 40/184).

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution Ill, entitled "Economic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countries". A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Camoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's b~~cratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Austria, Finland, Greece, Grenada, Ivory Coast, Spain, Sweden Draft resolution (resolution 40 185). 128 votes to 19, with 7 abstentions

Draft resolution IV is entitled ·Preferential Trade Area for Eastern and Southern African States·. That draft resolution was adopted by the Second Committee without a vote. May I consider that the General Assembly too wishes to adopt the draft resolution? Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 40/186).

Draft resolution V deala with the United Nations Confe~ence on Conditions for Registration of Ships. The programme budget implications of this draft resolution ate set out in the report of the Fifth Committee (A/4~/1052). The S~ond Committee adopted draft resolution V without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution V was adopted (resolution 40/187).

We shall now take a decision on draft resolution VI, entitled "Trade embargo against Nicaragua-. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, MOzambique, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New GUinea, Peru, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Gambia, Grenada, Israel, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Sierra Leone, United States of America Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Getiiany, Federal Republic of, Guate1llala, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, JaRlaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Malawi, Nepal, Netherlands, Niger, oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadlnes, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, SWazl1and, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, United KingdOll of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Zaire Draft resolution VI was adopted by 91 votes to 6, with 49 abstentions (resolution 40/188) •*

Draft resolution VII concerns the report of the Trade and Developtaent Board. The second Cae.ittee adopted draft resolution VII without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution VII was adopted (resolution 40/189) •

We turn now to draft reSOlution VIII, entitled ·Particular problems facing Zaire with regard to transport, transit and access to foreign markets·. The Second Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I consider that the General Asseably wishes to do so too? Draft resolution VIII was adopted (resolution 40/190).

We shall now take a decision on draft resolution IX, concerning reverse transfer of technology. Mr. GRECU (Romania): I wish to draw the Assembly's attention to a ~all omission on page 42 of the English text. The phrase ·on the nature· should be inserted between the words ·study,· and ·scale· on the fifth line of operative paragraph 3. The line would then read as follows: •••• experts should fOCUS, in their study, on the nature, scale and effect of such flows, ••••• *Subsequently the delegation of Belize informed the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour made. There is no change needed in the Spanish version. A recorded vote has been requested on draft resolution IX. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, canada, Cape Verde, Central African RepUblic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, CUba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicalagua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan; Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanua, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Unit~d Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, zambia, Zimbabwe Against: United States of America Abstaining: None Draft resolution IX was adopted by by 152 votes to 1, with no abstentions (resolution 40/191).

The next draft resolution concerns the United Nations Conference to Review All Aspects of the Set of MUltilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices. The Second Committee adopted draft resolution X without a vote. May I consider that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution X was adopted (resolution 40/192).

I now invite representatives to turn to the two draft decisions recommended by the second Committee in paragraph 72 of its report (A/40/989/Add.3). Draft decision I is entitled ·Protectionisn and structural adjustment·. May I consider that the General Assembly adopts that draft decision? Draft decision I was adopted.

Draft decision 11 relates to the Status of the Agreement Establishing the Common Fund for Commodities. May I take it that the General Assembly adopts that draft decision? Draft decision 11 was adopted.

I shall now call upon those delegations wishing to make statements in explanation of vote after the voting. Mr. LAZAREVIC (Yugoslavia): The Yugo~lav delegation voted in favour of draft resolution I, ·Specific action related t~ ~ne particular needs and problems of land-locked developing countries·. By virtue of its positive vote, my delegation has accepted operative paragraph 1 of that draft resolution, with the understanding that its formulation does not go beyond the stipulation contained in article 125 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of' the Sea. Mr. BERRBRA CARCERES (Honduras) (int~rpretat.ion from Spanish): Honduras will continue to support the principles set forth in draft resolution 111, WEconomic measures as a means of political and economic coercion against developing countriesw• We feel that such principlos are applicable to all and that those principles do not, as we said in the Security Council on 10 May, authorize us to exert ccerc!. , unilaterally. The same applies to draft resolution VI with r~ard to the trade embargo against Nicaragua, whi©o" deals only with effects without treating the causes, namely, the real nucleus of the political conflict between the developing countries of a given sub-region. Those are the concerns we feel with regard to this draft resolution, which goes beyond the competence of the Second Committee and the bilateral approach t~~t should be taken and, without provision for prior consultation, touch~" upon the interests of developing countries in the sub-region and attempts to make the economic integration of those countries subject to the interpretation of only one of them. In addition, th~ documentation of the Assembly itself, in the form of teports ~ the co~ntries members of the Contadora Group and the Final Act of 1985, are ignored in the draft resolution and only the Act of 1984 is mentioned. My delegation therefore did not participate in the voting on that anomalous draft resolution, which affects the normal functioning of this ~ssembly, nor in the voting on its various revisions and amendments. We feel that we must reiterate our position today with respect to our non-participation in the vote on this draft resolution, given its region~l political scope and its failure to take account of regional realities and the documentation of the United Nations itself. We should like this explanation of vote to be reflected in some manner in the record so that we are not shown as having merely been absent during ~he voting. we have stated our position clearly and fi~ly in the past and have made clear our Eeasons for disagreement yltb the text of the draft: resolution as adopted. We I would also like to say that the draft resolution, as subllitted, voted upon and adopted, cannot in any way be regarded as a text applicable to central AIIlerica, because the General Assembly will consider that matter at an appropriate time. Mrs. CASTRO de BARI!!! (Costa Rica) (interpretation frora Spanish): My delegation voted in favour of draft resolution VI on the trade eat.~rgo against Nicaragua. When the security CouncU examined this question my delegation expressed disagreement with such prac~tces and stated its opinion that they do not conttibute to a negotiated political settlement of the Central American crisis. This is our position of principle, and we therefore voted in favour of the draft resolution. Nevertheless, Ny delegation would like to state that Costa Rica does not support certain elements of the draft reSOlution. We do not think that the draft resolution adequately reflects the SUbject or its iqplications for the critical situation prevailing in Central America. In this regard the draft resolution as it standm does not completely satisfy Costa Rica, but, because of the overriding reasons I have mentioned, Rf delegation voted in favour of it. Mr. BASHIR (Pakistan): My delegation abstained in the voting on draft resolution VI, -Trade embargo against Nicaragua". My delegation agrees that unilateral trade embar~oes are in contravention of the principles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. However, by our support of the draft resolution, we did not wish to convey a lack of confidence in the Contadora peace process. The Assembly has over the past three years adopted resolutions relating to Central America by consensus, under a separate agernT~ item. It is our hope that that tradition will be maintained• abstained in the voting on operative paragra~h 1 of draft resolution I, ·Specific action related to the particular needs and problems of land-locked developing countries·. My delegation feels that only bilateral agreements should govern relations between land-locked and coastal countries, and we have always defended that position in the appropriate bodies. However, my delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution as a whole because it recognizes the special situation of land-locked States and participates in the effort of international solidarity to assist those States and thereby to offset the adverse effects of their disadvantageous geographical situation. Mr. SCHULLER (L'i1xellbourg) (interpretation from French): I should like to make a statement on behalf of the European Community. In connection witb operative paragraph 2 of draft resolution VII, -Report of the Trade and Development Board·, which the Assembly has just adopted, the members of the European Economic Community feel that in its final version, in English, that paragraph should have read: (spoke in EngliSh) ·in key issues in the field of international trade and related problems of economic development-. (continued in French) That wording is derived from the mandate of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), as set forth in General Assembly resolution 1995 (XIX), and it is that sense that we understand the text of draft resolution VII as submitted to us. Following the adoption of the resolution on the trade embargo against Nicaragua, I should like to make the following statement on behalf of the member States of the European community. Our countries regret the procedures followed in the Second Committee at the adoption of this draft resolution where the united States delegation, through a no-action motion, was prevented from presen~ing amendments to the draft resolution. A country should not generally be denied the right to submit substantive proposals for action. Since the draft resolution on the trade embargo against Nicaragua is the only resolution on the situation in Central America adopted by the fortieth session of the General Assembly, attention is drawn to only one aspect of the complex situation there. A more comprehensive view of the developments in the region Which, inter alia, was aimed at by many of the American aaendments to the present resolution, has now been set aside. Mr. TILLETT (Belize): The Belize delegation reiterates its position that the Contadora process is the desired method to bring a solution to the situation in Central America. Our support for draft resolution VI in no way reflects the policies of the Belize Government in relation to the situation in Central America or on any other matter in Central America. This vote is in relation only to the principle of embargo and the Belize delegation wishes the Assembly to take note of this. Mrs. LANDSVERK (Norway): The Norwegian delegation voted in favour of draft resolution VI contained in document A/40/989/Add.3, regretting the traa0 embargo imposed on Nicaragua. My Government is of the view that the imposition of economic sanctions will not help to solve the problems or reduce the conflicts in the region. My delegation would like to express its regret that amendments proposed by the United states were not submitted to a vote in the Second Committee but were met with a procedural motion for no action. Had they been subaitted to a vote, flY delegation would have voted in favour of most of them.

I now call on the representative of Nicaragua, who has asked to speak in exercise of the right of Mr. ICAZA GALLARD (Nicaragua) (interpretation from Spanish): I have requested to speak at this time, first of all in order most sincerely to thank the 91 countries that voted in favour of the draft resolution on the trade embargo against Nicaragua. We believe that the General Assembly has thus expressed an absolutely clear view as to the illegality, absurdity and unjustifiability of a politically-motivated trade and economic measure which violates the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States. I shall not dwell on the absence of the representative of a certain country during the voteJ he would, I believe, have done better to remain absent during the remainder of the meeting. What I wish to refer to is the statement made by the representative of the United States, who repeated the well-known accusations that have been levelled at my country and with which he attempted to justify the dirty war of aggression against Nicaragua, thus obliging us to make certain clarifications. First of all, that representative said that the amendments submitted by the United States in the Second Committee to the draft resolution on the trade embargo against Nicaragua were presented in order to balance the text of the draft. I would remind the United States representative that it was not just a group of amendments that were submitted by his country, but rather amendments and sub-amendments. It was obvious to all the members of the Committee that an attempt was being made to oblige the Committee to enter on an endless process that would prevent the Committee's reaching a decision on the draft resolution submitted by Nicaragua and the co-sponsors. The real intent of those amendments was to change the original sense of the draft resolution and, in the worst of cases, through an abusive procedure to avoid having this Assembly, as I said, reach a decision on an unjust, illegal and absurd measure, the trade embargo imposed by the United States. That is why the Committee did not allow the united States to exercise a right of veto, a right that exists only in the Security Council. Lastly, the representative of the United States said that this draft does not help Contadora. May we remind him that it is precisely the measures that are regretted in the draft resolution just adopted by 91 votes in favour that are obstacles to the Contadora process. We hOPe that the adoption of this resolution, as we said in the Committee, will prompt the Government of the United States to think not only about the serious mistake of this embargo, but also the serious mistake of its overall policy against Nicaragua, a policy of military and economic aggression Which, by violating all the principles enshrined in the Charter of this Organization, are really the main obstacle to peace-making efforts in the area. I reiterate that we have not made any attempt to single out the United States in this draft resolution: It is the United States which, in decreeing the embargo, has isolated itself internationally, and the results of the vote are extremely clear in this respect.

1 call on the representative of the United States, who has asked to speak in exercise of the right of reply. Mr. FERRER (United States of America): I believe that the comments we have just heard from the representative of Nicaragua merit a response from our delegation. His concluding remarks were that the resolution did not seek to single out the united States. I must say that that is a very interesting comment because I know of no other country which is indicated as having taken action by that resolution. The entire process, as I have understood it, the eneire discussion, has been in relation to an action taken by the United States. I should also like to address his assertion that the comment in the statement by our representative is wrong in the sense that the amendments we introduced would merely have distorted the sense of the draft resolution initially presented by the Sponsors. The statement that was made earlier by our Permanent Representative noted that the amendments were introduced in order to lead to a more balanced resolution. Our full anticipation was that there would be discussions on the amendments and, as in all negotiations of this type, some compromise understanding would be reached. Like the representative of Nicaragua, we also regret that it was necessary' to introduce those amendments during the meeting of the full Committee. Members of my delegation approached representatives of the sponsors on several occasions and suggested that we might have "informalft-informal consultations to try to seek some common understanding. Those approaches were summarily rejected. We did not seek an endless discussion in the Second Committee, but the sponsors left us no other choice but to go directly to the Committee to present our amendments. We would have thought the process much more productive had it been possible to have "informal"-informals. And if indeed, th~ s-~nsors of the draft resolution were interested only in discussing principles, we might indeed have been able to achieve a common understanding.

May I now invite members to turn their attention to the report of the Second Committee on agenda item 84 (d), entitled ·Science and technology for development" (A/40/989/Add.4). If there are no explanations of vote, the Assembly will now take a decision on the recommendations of the Second Committee contained in document A/40/989/Add.4• In paragraph 8 of the report, the Second ComMittee reeam.ends for adoption draft resolution I, which deals with the Report of the Intergnvernaental Committee on Science and Technology for Developlllent. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt that draft resolution? Draft resolution! was adopted (resolution ~0/193).

In that SaMe paragraph, the second Committee also recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of draft resolution 11, which deals with the United Nations Financing System for Science and Technology for Development. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt that draft resolution? Draft resolution 11 was adopted (resolution 40/194).

The Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 84 (d). We turn now to the report of the Second Connittee on sub-item (e) of agenda item 84, entitled -Economic and technical co-operation among developing countries (A/40/989/Add.5). If there are no explanations of vote, the Assembly will take a decision on the recommendations of the Second Committee contained in paragraph 10 of its report (A/40/989/Add.5). Draft resolution I concerns Co-operation between the United Nations and the southern African Development Co-ordination Conference. The Second Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 40/195).

Draft resolution 11 is entitled -Technical co-operation among developing countries-. The Second Ca.lttee aleo adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do so too? Draft resolution 11 was adopted (resolution 40/196).

That concludes our consideration of agenda item 84 (e). I now invite members to turn their attention to the report of the Second Committee on agenda item 84 (f) entitled ftEnvironment- (A/40/989/Add.6). The Assembly will now take a decision on the recommendations of the Seoond Committee contained in paragraphs 31 and 32 of its report (A/40/9a9/Add.6). Draft resolution I relates to the Remnants of war. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire), Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Ram, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: None Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxemboul:g, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Swederl, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United states of America Draft resolution I was adopted by 132 votes to none, with 23 abstentions (resolution 40/197).

The second recommendation in paragraph 31 comprises two draft reF-Iutions dealing with the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification. Draft resolution A concerns the Implementation and financing of the Plan of Action to Combat Desertificationr draft resolution B concerns implementation in the Sudano-Sahelian region of the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification. The Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of those draft resolutions. May I take it that the Genera~ Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolutions 11 A and B? Draft resolutions 11 A and B were adopted (resolutions 40/198 A and B).

Draft resolution III concerns Co-operation between the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) and the United Nations Environment Programme. The Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of that draft resolution. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution Ill? Draft resolution III was adopted (resolution 40/199).

The Assembly will now turn to draft resolution IV, which concerns International co-operation in the field of the environment. A separate vote has been requested on the seventh preambular part of draft resolution IV. Is there any objection to t~~t proposal? There is no objection, therefore, I shall first put that paragraph to the vote. A recorded vote was taken. In fav~r: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benio, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece. Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Ma1dives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadinea, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, united Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Belgium, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Israel, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Barbados, Brazil, Chad, Chile, China, Gabon, Italy, Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire), Japan, Luxembourg, Malawi, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Spain, Togo, Turkey, Zaire The seventh preambular paragraph of draft resolution IV W&S adopted by 123 votes to 8, with 17 abstentions.* *Subsequent1y the delegation of Djibouti advised the Secretariat that it had intended to abstain.

Draft resolution IV as a whole will now be put to the vote. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colonbia, Comoras, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, c.yprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Demcratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Ganbia, German Demcratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire), Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxenbourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozant>ique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Pan1ma, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sama, sao Tome and Principe, saudi p.rabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, SOmalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Toga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, union of Soviet Socialis\~ RePl'blics , United Arab Emirates. United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against : None Abstaining: France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Draft resolution IV, as a whole, was adopted by 149 votes to none, with 6 abstentions (resolution 40/200).

The Second Committee also recommends the adoption of the draft decisioo contained in paragraph 32 of its report (A/40/989/Add.6). May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt that draft decision? The draft decison was adopted.

That concludes our consideration of agenda item 84 (f). The General Assembly will now consider the re~rt of the second Committee on agenda item 84 (g), entitled "Human settlements" (A/40/989/Md.7). The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolutions recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 17 of its report (A/40/989/Md. 7) • Draft resolution I deals with the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territories. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programne budget impl ications of that draft resolution is cootained in document A/40/973. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria f Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austr ia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian SOviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, C~ec:hoslovakia, DertDci:'atic Kampuchea, DertDcratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ibminican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal B:!public of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic B:!pUblic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire), Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's DertDcratic B:!public, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Maxico, Mongolia, 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 Chr istopher and Nevis, saint Lucia, saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, SOmalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, To9o, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian SOviet SOcialist Republic, Union of SOviet SOcialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, zambia, Zimbabwe Against~ Israel, united States of America Abstaining: Grenada Draft resolution I was adopted by 153 votes to 2, with 1 abstention (resolution 40/201).

The second reco..ndation in paragraph 17 comprises three draft resolutions cscncerning human settlelllents. Draft resolution A deals with the r~port of the Commission on Human settlelll8nt8 w draft resolution B deals with the biennial cycle of sessions of the Commission on Human Settlements and draft resolution C is concerned with the co-ordination of huun settlements programmes within the united Nations system. The Second Committee reconmends to the General Assembly the adoption of ~08e draft resolutions. May I consider that t:l1e Assellbly wishes to adopt draft resolutions 11 A, B and C. Draft resolutions 11 A, Band C were adopted (resolutions 40/202 A, B and C).

The General Asse1!bly hall concluded its consideration of agenda item 84 (9). The General l.asellbly will now consider the report of the second COJlll1litte0 on a~nda item 84 (h), entitled "International Year of Shel~r for the Homeless· (A/40/989/Md.8) • The Assembly will n~ take a decision on the draft resolution recoumended by the second Committee in paragraph 7 of its report (A/40/989/Md. 8) • The Second Committee reconmends to the General Assembly the adoption of that draft resolution. May I tak~ it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 40/203). The PRESIDEN'.Il (interpretation from Spanish): The General Assembly has concluded its consideration of agenda item 84 (h). 'fhe Assembly will now turn to the report of the second CODIDittee on agenda item 84 (i) I entitled -Effective mobilization and integration of women in development- (A/40/989/Add .9) • The Assembly will first take a decision on the draft resolution contained in paragraph 10 of the report of the second Committee (A/40/989/Md.9). May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt that draft resolution? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 40/204).

The General Assembly will now take a decision on the draft decision recoClIllended by the second Committee in paragraph 11 of its report (A/40/989/Add.9). May I take it that the General Assenbly wishes to adopt that draft decision? The draft decision was adopted.

That concludes our consideration of agenda i tern 84 (i). The Assembly will now turn to the report of the second Committee on agenda item 34 (j), entitled -Implementation of the Substantial New Programme of Action for the 19805 for the Least Developed Countr ies". In paragraph 7 of that report the Second eo-ittee recollllends the adoption of the draft resolution entitled -Implementation of the Substantial New Progra..e of Action for the 1980s for the Least Developed Countries·. May I take it that the General As8e~ly wishes to adopt it? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 40/205).

I call on the representative of Bangladesh on a point of order. Hr. CHOWDBURY (Bangladesh): The annex to the resolution just adopted contains only ~art of the conclusions a~i recommendations contained in ~ocUllent: A/40/827. Sections A and B of that docUlllent contain the conclusions and ~~ndations of the aid-term global review meeting, but only section A is annexed to the resolution just adopted. We therefore request the Secretariat to annex section B as well. The PRESI~ (interpretation from Spanish): I thank the representative of Bangladesh. Due note has been taken of his counents and action will be taken. The Assembly h~s thus concluded its consideration of agenda ite. 84 (j). We turn our attention next to the report of the Second ComMittee on agenda ite.94 (k), entitled ·New international human order·, in document A/40/989/Add.ll. The Assembly will take a decision on the draft resolution in paragraph 5 of that report. The Second eo.mittee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of that draft resolution. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 40/206).

The Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 84 (k). (The President) We shall now consider the report of the Second Committee on agenda item 84 (1), entitled -Long-term trends in economic development-, in document A/40/989/Add.12. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 14 of that report, entitled -Long-term trends in economic development-. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bp,nin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comeros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia! Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast (Cote d'Iyoire), Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic ~~epublic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname~ Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tu~~ey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: United States of America Abstaining: Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Grenada, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Portugal, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland The draft resolution was adopted by 141 votes to 1, with 13 abstentions (resolution 40/207).

That concludes our consideration of agenda item 84 (1). We turn now to the report of the Second Committee en agenda items e4 (::), (n) and (0), entitled, respectively, "Immediate mea~ures in favour of the developing countries·, "New and renewable sources of energy", and "Development of the energy resources of developing countries", in document A/40/989/Add.13. First, the Assembly will take a decision on the draft resolution contained in paragraph 13 of that report, entitled "Development of the energy resources of developing countries". The Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of that draft resolution. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 40/208).

I now invite representatives to turn their attention to the two draft decisions recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 14 of its report (A/40/989/Add.13). Draft decision I is entitled "Report of the Secretary-General on immediate measures in favour of the developing countriesa • The Second Committee recommends its adoption to the General Assembly. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft decision I was adopted.

Draft decision 11 is entitled "Implementation of the Nairobi Programme of Action for the Development and Utilization of New and Renewable Sources of Energy". The Second ~ommittee recommends its adoption to the General Assembly. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft decision 11 was adopted.

The General Assembly has thus ooncluded its consideration of agenda items 84 (m), (n) and (0). The A~~~mbly ~ill now turn to the report of the Second Committee dealing with proposals not related to any partioular sub-item of agenda item 84 in document A/40/989/Add.l4. I call on the representative of Canada in explanation of vote before the voting. Mr. LEE (Canada): I wish to provide the explanation of vote that my delegation had asked to make before the vote on this point in the Second Committee early last Sunday morning. The subject of international co-operation in the interrelated areas of money, finance, debt, resource flows, trade and devalopment has understandably attracted much attention and discussion at this session of the General Assembly. In the Second Committee, apart from comments in the general debate and a variety of informal exchanges, much of the focus has been in the context of draf~ resolution A/C.2/40/L.5l, submitted by Yugoslavia on behalf of the Group of 77. That draft resolution posed a number of difficulties, as my delegation explained in informal consultations and in even less formal discussions. My delegation was sympathetic to what we understood to be the basic purpose, and our attention therefore focused pragmatically on specific points relating to the locus, timing, mandate and nature of such discussions, plus a number of specific drafting suggestions. For reasons we explained, our preference was for an open-ended, deliberative di5cussion during the second regular session of the Economic and Social Council, but we proved our readiness to contemplate several alternatives, including in conjunction with, albeit without prejudice to, the spring session of ECOSOC. Our participation in those negotiations waa ai~ed at achieving a combination of the MOst sensible and workable course of action in a situation of generalized support. We recognize that the text before us, which was adopted by vote in ec..ittee 11, represents an advance towards a common approach. We appreciate this development and take cor 'iderab1e satisfaction from it. At the same time, there remained a certain rigidity in regard to the locus for the discussions envisaged. It is not clear to my delegation why one or another of the several alternative proposals would not have been satisfactory. My delegation also has some concerns about the implications for ECOSOC that emerged from the discussion. In addition, my ~e1egation feels that there could be some improvement in the way this matter was handled at the time. Canada's vote on this draft decision in Committee and today reflects a positive balance of the foregoing factors, coupled with our desire to minimize polarization and encourage moves towards general agreement in this key area of international co-operation. Finally, with regard to the so-called unfinished business under item 84 referred to in paragraph 1 of the draft decision, Canada has expressed its concern over debt problems repeatedly, inclUding at this session of the General Assembly. Both the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Right Honourable Joe"Clark, spoke on the SUbject here in this Hall earlier this fall, and my delegation participated actively in the Second Committee's discussions and contacts. We remain ready to discuss these problems and of course to take appropriate actions in the appropriate places. With regard to commodities, Canada participated actively in the Second Committee's discussions and contacts and had felt that the text on which we all work£-d so hard could have been adopted today. We now hope that the additional time to be provided will allow us to hope for a general agreement. Mr. REED (United States of America): The Second Committee has spent considerable time seeking to initiate a dialogue on the issues contained in the draft decision on this item. Our delegation has stressed repeatedly our serious concern about the economic and social impact of the debt problems of developing countries. Indeed, we have been working with individual debtors and multilateral institutions to solve these problems. Considerable progress has been achieved over the past three years in addressing the immediate debt-servicing problems of developing countries. Most debtor countries have increased their exports, rescheduled loan payments and imprOVed their prospects for renewed growth. The United States has made a number of constructive proposals to deal with international financial issues, most recently at the joint meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank at Seoul, Korea, last October. Our Government is currently discussing these proposals with both developed and developing countries so that they may be refined and strengthened. Even so, problems remain, domestic reforms have been insufficient in many debtor nations, net new commercial bank lending has been sharply reduced. These and other problems need to be addressed if progress is to be sustained. In doing so, we must build upon the current debt strategy while continuing to tailor our approach to the particular circumstances of each country. The United States Secretary of the Treasury, James A. Baker III proposed such an approach in Seoul. He called it "a programme for sustained growth" and listed three essential elements: first, the adoption by principal debtor countries of comprehensive structural policies to promote growth and balance-of-payments adjustment and to reduce inflationi secondly, a continued central role for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in conjunction with increased and more effective structural and sector adjustment lending by the multilateral development banks; and, thirdly, increased lending by the private banks. Each of these elements calls for action. Debtor countries must adopt sound fiscal, monetary and exchange rate policies to reduce both external and internal imbalances. Interest rates, wages and prices must respond to market forces. More actions will be needed to mobilize domestic savings, keep those savings at home and facilitate their efficient investment in the national economy. Measures to encourage foreign direct investment, capital inflows and trade are also urgently need~d. The role of the international financial institutions is critical to this process. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) must continue to play a central role. However, increased co-ordination with the World Bank and other financial institutions will also be needed. In addition, the United States would be prepared to look seriously at the timing and scope of a general capital increase for the World Bank under certain conditions. Concern over this complex of issues is what gave rise to the draft decision before us. Unfortunately our delegation must vote "no" on the decision to reconvene the Second Committee in April. Our Government is actively seeking solutions to the problems discussed in the resolution, but the principal forums for dealing with the5e issues are the interested Governments, other institutions within (Mr. Reed, United States) the United Nations family and private financia~ institutions. Thus we believe that the Second Committee must move cautiously ~nd methodically in considering these issues. Its deliberations most promote the total effort on international financial problems. The United States of America believes that the Second Committee should avoid special or resumed sessions, especially when it has not clearly defined its procedures and objectives. The Second Committee and the General Assembly can develop a role in discussing these important issues only if they treat them in a well-disciplined manner that heightens the prospects of success while minimizing costs. Failure to do so detracts from the credibility of the United Nations system. Our delegation trusts, therefore, that the resumed April session of the Second Committee, which this body seems certain to approve, will be well-structured. Our delegation will watch preparations carefully, hoping that the Committee's efforts will be productive. o The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish): The Assembly will now take a decision on the recommendations of the Second Committee in paragraphs 27 and 28 of its report (A/40/989/Add.l4). We turn first to the draft resolution, which relates to desertification and drought. The Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly, in paragraph 27, the adoption of that draft resolution. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 40/209).

Now we turn to the draft decision in paragraph 28 of the report. The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget implications of the draft decision is in document A/40/l062. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet SOCialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Camoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominica, DOminican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic RepUblic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire), Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome ann Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist RepUblics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: United States of America Abstaining: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Grenada, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, portugal, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland The draft decision was adopted by 133 votes to 1, with 20 abstentions.

I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their vote following the voting. Mr. GOLOB (Yugoslavia): I am speaking on behalf of the Group of 77. The reports of the Second Committee on agenda item 84, "Development and international economic co-operation", have just been adopted. The General Assembly has thus concluded its action on a number of issues of great significance for the world economy, especially for the economies of the developing countries. However, the (Mr. Golob 6 Yugoslavia) Group of 11 has no reason to be satisfied with the performance of this General Assembly on those issues. It is true that some action has been ta~en. However, that action falls well short of the needs as well as the expectations of the developing countries. It is a cause of disappointment and concern that this fortieth session of the General Assembly has not been able to pronounce itself on the most important issues confronting the international community, and the developing countries in particular. The International Conference on Money and Finance for Development and the problems of external debt crisis and development are foremost among those issues. These problems, together with the critical economic situation in Africa and international trade, were the themes that dominated the general debate in the plenary meetings and in the Second Committee. However, the pronouncements of Heads of State or Government, Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Special Envoys on monetary and financial issues, as well as on the debt crisis, did not find proper reflections in the follow-up actions. Developing countries expect the General Assembly and its Second Committee to agree on the actions to be taken jointly and in the common interest, in order to alleviate the difficulties and uncertainties that debt problems exert on the development process of the developing countries, on the international financial and banking structure and, consequently, on the international economy as a whole. The Group of 77 also expected that it would be possible to take more resolute steps to mark the beginning of a coherent and concerted endeavour by all countries for long-overdue changes in international monetary and financial relationships, to institute a suitable and just system in support of a balanced and equitable world economy. The Group of 77 has shown a constructive approach and a high degree of flexibility. However, it was not possible to reach agreement on the draft (Mr. Golob, Yugoslavia) resolutions on the International Conference on Money and Finance for Development and on External Debt, because some developed countries insisted on maintaining their position and did ~10t want the General Assembly to be involved in this matter. All of the efforts of the developing countries failed to persuade t~e most important develoPed countries to recognize the need for concrete action on these issues of common concern. By refusing to deal politically with international monetary and financial problems as well as the problems of debt which have resulted in a dramatic deterioration in the overall economic and social situation in the de~eloping countries, the developed countries assume responsibility for the uncertainties which are in store for all of us. The General Assembly ought not and in fact must not be indifferent to the adverse consequences that lie ahead. As to the international monetary and financial issues, the least that the Gropp of 77 had the right to eXPect was an agreement authorizing the United Nations Secretary-General to enter into consultations at an appropriately high level on the terms of reference, the format and the time-frame of an international conference on money and finance for development. Those are the first necessary steps to start this process. Thereafter, in the light of those consultations, adequate intergovernmental machinery could be set up to start work on the preparations for such a conference. As far as the external debt crisis is concerned, the Group of 77, in its draft resolution, has suggest~ a course of action Which was confined to the need to find a mutually agreed, genuine, just, equitable and durable solution to the debt problem of the developing countries. That solution in our view should be based on the necessity to reactivate development in the developing countries and should reflect the shared responsibilities of the debtor and creditor countries. (Mr. Golob, Yugoslavia) The debt problem has already approached critical dimensions, with a profoundly adverse impact on the developing countries. The social and political costs are extremely high. We did not seek, nor did we ask, for any course of action other than one of mutual interest, that would contribute to the creation of an environment enabling developing countries to respond to their commitments. The Group of 77 earnestly hoped that it would not provoke any controversy with the draft resolution on international co-operation in the interrelated areas of money, finance, debt and trade, resource flows and development, and it hoped that the draft resolution would lend itself easily to a consensus. However, the request by the Group of 77 that the Second Committee be reconvened for 10 meetings in March 1986 to give in-d~~th'considerationand make proposals to promote international co-operation on these issues and on its timing proved to be an insurmountable obstacle. * In that situation, the Group of 77 was ready to accept a compromise text, submitted by the Vice-Chairman of the Second Committee, Mr. Sumadie Brotodiningrat of Indonesia. The text, while maintaining the proposed resumption of work of the Second Committee, moved the timing of its resumption to the date immediately prior to the first regular session of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). We had hoped that that proposal would have been acceptable to all, but it was not. In those circumstances, the Group of 77 decided to submit, with some modifications, the proposal of the Vice-Chairman in the form of a draft decision submitted to the Second Committee for action. The results are known, and have just been confirmed. The decision envisages that the Second Committee will g~ve in-depth consideration to the ways to promote effective international co-operation in the interrelated areas of money, finance, debt, resource flows, trade and development. *Mr. Agius (Malta), Vice-President, took the Chair. (Mr. Golob, Yugoslavia) It will also deal with unfinished business, that is, the draft resolutions on the International Conference on Money and Finance, on the external debt crisis and development, on commodities and on the draft resolution on debt and related issues SUbmitted by the delegation of Luxembourg on behalf of the States members of the European Economic Community. The Group of 77 is ready to use the time available from now until April for contact with partners from the developed countries solely to prepare for a productive session when the Second Committee resumes its meetings so that appropriate action may be taken within the time envisaged. I assure members that the Group of 77 is ready and will be ready to do that. We hope that our partners will reci~rocate. Mr. SCHOLLER (Luxembourg) (interpretation from French): The members of the European Community were not able to vote in favour of the draft decision which has. just been adopted by the General Assembly. ~he European Community has always participated substantive1y in the dialogue on the different interdependent items. Therefore, during the debate the European Community submitted in detail the positions of its member States on the interrelated items, and in particular on the debt problems. Its readiness for dialogue has also been reflected in its attitude throughout the work of the Second Committee and by the submission of a draft resolution on debt and related issues, which my country had the privilege of introducing on behalf of the European Community. Nevertheless, we believe that the resumption of the work of the Second Committee at the beginning of 1986 is not the best method to continue that debate. We regret that we were not able to complete our work during this session. A resumption of the meetings of the Second Committee should be envisaged only to continue deliberations on questions that cannot be dealt with satisfactorily in other United Nations bodies in the period between the sessions. It is our view that by the terms of the Charter the Economic and Social Council has the competence to consider these ~rtant issues, especially at a time when the need to revitalize the Economic and Social Council appears to be recognized by all. None the less, we are convinced of the utility of considering 'cogether the various issues m.entioned in the decision just adopted. We continue to believe that the reports of the Secretary-General on theae ~rtant issues, supplem.ente6 by other documentation mentioned in the decision, provide a v~ry useful hasis for the thorough discussion to take place on the interrelated issues of money, finance, debt, resource flows, trade and development. Our discussions should take full account of the competences of international f.inancial institutions. With regard to paragraph (d) of the decision, we are of the view that the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (m~CTAD) will be fully in line with that agency's muKl.ate. Since only UNCTAD is explicitly mentioned in the decision, we should like to recall the important role in this field of the Bretton Woods institutions. Mr. NOWORYTA (Poland): The delegation of Poland voted in favour of the draft decision concerning international co-operation in the interrelated areas of money, finance, debt, resource flows, trade and development. We attach special importance to those interrelated problems. The pr.oblem of international debt has now come into particularly sharp focus. The world economy has reached a qualitatively new phase. The situation of some developing countries could well be described as their having become the target of a form of financial ~~o-colonialism. There is, therefore, a real danger of a lasting economic decline for many countries, especially developing countries. The debt question caMOt be considered as an isolated issue. we share the opinion so clearly manifested once again during the fortieth session of the General Assenbly that issues of debt and of development are closely interrelated. That relationship requires further in-depth studies which could, and should, lead to work on formulating appropriate strategies and policies, at both the national and the inter::national levels. As a debtor country, Poland is deeply interested in finding a just and equitable solution to the debt problem, and is ready to participate in the search for such a solution. We therefore welcomed the proposals put forward in the second Committee by the Group of 77 on the following questions: an international conference on money and finance for developnent~ international co-operation in the interrelated areas of money, finance, debt, resource flows, trade and development ~ and the external debt crisis and developnent. From the very outset we sincerely expressed our readiness to engage in serious negotiations on those proposals with a view to working out substantive decisions reflecting the general concern on problems of debt and development. We have been engaged too in separate consultations aimed at broadening the programne of work of the World Institute for Development and Economic Research to include is~~Y"s of debt and developnent. However, as in the case of other proposals before the Assembly, this did not receive the necessary favourable treatment. In the light of the existing situation, developing countries have taken the only possible approach to establishing a framework for further consideration of the ways in which international co-operation in the interrelated areas of money, finance, debt, resource flows, trade and development can be pronnted effectively. The delegation of Poland considers that that proposal provides a needed way out of the difficult situation of the work of the Second Conmittee, and supported its adoption. Bearing in mind the priority given in the s tatements made by many Beads of State or Government and Foreign Ministers at this anniversary session of the General Assenbly, to the problem of ~e external debt crisis in relation to the developnent process the delegation of Poland submitted an amendment to the text proposed by the Group of 77, reflecting our concern. we coraaider that, in further discussions of the interrelated areas of money, finance, debt, resource flC7tls, trade and development, due consideration should be given to ideas and proposals submitted at this session by Heads of State or Government and Foreign Ministers, regarding, inter alia, the establishment under the Secretary-General's auspices of an inter~lational debt and development research centre. I wish in conclusion to stress once again our readiness to parti('!ipate fully in further discussions on debt and related issues and in working out comprehensive solutions. The meeting rose at 1.15 p.m.