A/41/PV.100 General Assembly

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the Second Committee which are before the Assembly 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 be~n made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official recoro,s. I remind members that under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401 the General Assembly decided that, wnen the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, &8 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. I also remind members that, in accordance with decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to la minutes ana should be made by delegations from their seats. I now invite members to turn their attention to ~he report of the Second Committee (A/4l/930 and Add.l and 2) on agenda item 12, concerning the report of the Economic and Social Council. We first turn to part I of the report (A/41/930). May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to take note of that part of the report? It was so decided.

The Assembly will now take a decision on the five draft resol~tions and four draft decisions contained in paragraphs 45 and 46 of part 11 of the report of the Second Committee (A/4l/930/Add.l). The Second Committee first recommends the adoption of draft resolution I, relating to the net transfer of resources from developing to developed countries. A recorded vote has been Leauested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Repuhlic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, German Democratic Republic~ Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraa, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao Peoplees Democrati~ Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Z~aland, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, saint Lucia l Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and principe, Saudi Arahia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Si~gapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, sudan, suriname, Swazilana, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trini.dad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, united Arab Emirates, United Repub'4.~ of Tan~ania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, y~ en, Yugo~lavia, Zambia Against: Australia, Belgium, Frahce, Germany, Federal Republic of, Italy, Luxembourg, N.etherlan~s, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nortnern Ireland, United States of America Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Spain, Sweden Abstaini~: Draft resolution I was adopted bv 125 votes to 10~ with 10 abstentions (resolution 41/180).

The Assembly will now take a decision on draf~ resolution 11, concerning assistance to the Palestinian people. A recorded vote has been reauested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, 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, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican RepUblic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eauatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, German nemocratic Republic, Germany, Federal RepUblic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraa, Ireland, Italy, 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, Morocco, Mozambiaue, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, portugal, Qatar, Romania, ~wanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, 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, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zambia Israel, uni~ed States of America A~ainst: Abstaining: Costa Rica Draft resolution It was adopted by 142 votes to 2, with 1 abstention (resolUtion 41/181).

Draft resolution 111 is entitled "Indigenous entrepreneurs in economic development". The Second Committee recommends the a~option of the draft resolution. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt that draft resolution? Draft resolution 111 was adoPte~ (resolution 41/182).

Draft resolution IV is entitled "United Nations Financing System for Science and Technology for Development". The Second Committee recommends the adoption of the draft resolution. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt that draft resolution? Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 41/183).

Next we turn to draft resolution V, dealing with the report of the Secretary-General in implementation of General Assembly resolution 40/173. A recorded vote has been reauested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: -----.-""--~ Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eauatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, 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, Solomon Islands, 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, Zambia Against: Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom of Gr.eat Britain and Northern Ireland Abctaining: Austria, Canada, Ch~le, ChinA, Cote d'Ivoire, Finland, Greece, tsrdel, Sweden, Turlcey, Unit.,d States of America Draft resolution V was adopted by 117 votes to 16, with 11 abstentions (resolution 41/184).

~he Assembly will now turn to the four draft decisions recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 46 of its report (A/41/930/A~d.l). Draft decision I is entitled ·Protection against products harmful to health and the environment". A recorded vote has been reauested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentinag Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, B~unei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Eurma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verae, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El S~lvador, Equatorial Gu~nea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraa, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jam~hiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, MongoliA, flt~rocco, Mozambiaue, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saadi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, 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, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia Against: United States of America Abstaining: Germany, Federal Republic of Draft decision 1 was adopted by 146 votes to 1, with 1 abstention.

Next the Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of draft decision 11, which concerns strengthening the work of the United Nations in integrating women effectiv~ly in economic development programmes and activities. May I take it that the Genaral Assembly adopts it? Draft decision 11 was adopted.

Draft decision III deals with the periodicity of the meetings of the Commission on Transnational Corporations. May I take it that the General Assembly adopts it? Draft decision 111 was adopted.

We now turn to draft decision IV, which deals with documents re~atirig to the report of the Economic and Social Council. May I take it that the General Assembly adopts it? Draft decision IV was acopted.

Next the Assembly will take a decision on the six draft ( resolutions and five draft decisions contained in paragraphs 39 and 40 of part 111 of the report of the Second Committee (A/4l/930/Add.2). In paragraph 39 the Second Committee first recommends the adoption of draft resolution I, entitled "Fight against locust and grasshopper infestations in Africa". 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 41/185).

Next the Second Committee recommends the adoption of draft resolution 11, dealing with the inclusion of Kiribati, Mauritania and Tuvalu in the list of the least developed countries. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution Il? Draft resolution 11 was adopted (resolution 41/186).

The Second Committee also recommends the adoption of draft resolution Ill, which concerns the proclamation of the World Decade for Cultural Development. A recorded vote has been reauested. 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 Dar~ssalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Irac, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriyu, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambiaue, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Repuplic, ~hailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Repuhlic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia united States of Ame~ica . . Against: Abstainin.i: Israel, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther~ Ireland Draft resolution 111 was adopted by 146 votes to 1, with 2 abstentions (resolution 41/187).

Draft resolution IV relates to the sessions of the Economic and Social Council and of the Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programma in 1987. The Second Committee recommends its adoption. M&y I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution IV? Draft resolution IV was adopted (resolution 41/188). The PRRSIDENT: The Second Committee also recommends the adoption of draft resolution V entitled "Tenth session of the Commission on Human Settlements". May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution V? Draft resolution V was adopted (resolution 41/189).

Finally we come to draft resolution VI, entitled "International Year of Shelter for the Homeless". The Second Committee recommends its adoption. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution VI? Draft resolution VI was adopted (resolution 41/190).

The Assembly will now turn to the five draft decisions recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 40 of its report in document A/41/930/Add.2. The Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of draft decision I which concerns countries stricken by desertification and drought in Africa. May I take it that the General Assembly adopts it? Draft decision I was adopted.

Next, the Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of draft decision 11 which concerns assistance to the drought stricken areas of Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, the Sudan and uganda. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt draft decision II? Draft decision 11 was adopted. The PRESIDE~t: The Second Committee also recommends to the General Assembly the Adoption of draft decision Ill, entitled "Drought and desertification in Mauritania". May I take it that the General Assembly adopts it? Draft decision III was adopted.

Next, the Second Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of draft decision IV, entitled "Perez-Guerrero Trust Fund for economic and technical co-operat\on among developing countries". May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt draft decision IV? Draft decision VI was adopted.

Finally, the Second Committee also recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of draft decision V, entitled "Biennial programme of work for the Second Committee for 1987-1988°. May I take it that the General Assembly adopts it? Draft decision V was adopte~.

I now call on the representative of the United States of America who has asked to explain his vote after the vote. Mr. NORRIS (United States of America): My delegation appreciates the opportunity to explain why the United States did again vote "no" on an issue related to the consolidated list of harmful products. As other delegations are aware, the United States voted against resolution 1986/72 of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) on this subject. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that we should also vote against a General Assembly decision "to endorse" the same ECOSOC resolution. Let me explain again our concerns ahout the consolidated list. The united States believes the secretary-General has done a commendable job in handling this issue over the past year.. Delegating authority to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Envi~onment programme (UNEP~ for the preparation of the consolida~ed list was wise and very important. Th~se steps should prove very useful in avoiding the duplication of effort and of respcnsibility that was ihherent in the authority put forward by the earlier General Assembly resolutions. In fact, the United States was SUfficiently satisfied with the constructive manner in which the issue was being handled by the United Nations Secretariat, WHO and UNEP, that we were prepared not to oppose continued production of the list, even though we had voted against the resolution which created the list. However, we cannot support the production by the United Nations Centre for Transnational Corporations of what was called a ftreference listft of commercial data, a separate document providing trade names, names of ma~ufacturers and other related data. We agree with the Secretary-General, who concluded in his r~port that the task of inclUding such commercial information in the list: ftwould reauire a level of effort in terms of data collection and verification which significantly exceeds the current capabilities of the United Nations, UNEP and WHO. ft But then the Economic and Social Council decided to have the commercial data specifically incorporated into the same document with the consolidated list. The working copy of the 1986 version - which we and other delegations have seen - now contains both the consolidated list and the commercial data, in a volume that is almost too large for one person to lift. That voluminous document confirms our fears about this effort. The Centre for Transnational Corporations does not have availahle to it commercial data on all manufacturers of products included in the list. The data available to the Centre, therefore, cannot help but be discriminatory against (Mr. Norris, United States) manufacturers in the western industrialized countries who are open with theil: commercial and regulatory data and are identified ift the list. At the same time it serves to protect manufacturers in socialist and developing countries that do not make information freely available about their manufacturers and regulatory actions. For example, the agricultural chemical known as 2,4-D is shown in the commercial section of the working draft, beginning at page 434, as having 47 manufacturers and some 250 trade names. ~ut those familiar with the product know that the entry is filled with errors. Major chemical companies such as DuPont, Ciba-Geigy and Eli Lilly are named as manufacturers, but we are told they do not in fact make the product. The listing for the Dow Chemical Company show~ 9 trade names. Although Dow does manufacture 2,4-D, it no longer makes any of the 9 trade names shown. Finally, the countries of the manufacturers listed for 2,4-D are primarily those of North America and Western Europe. But we are told the document omits companies known to manufacture the product in the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, the Soviet Union, Romania, China, Mexico, and some other countries. This one example alone can illustrate the concerns we have about the misleading nature of this so-called commercial information. Furthermore, we want to make it clear that neither the United States Government nor united States industry can take responsibility for the accuracy of the data that is presented in the commercial section of the document in relation to United States manufacturers or products. While we call attention to these problems in the commercial section of the new draft list, we believe it is useful to note that even the consolidated list itself is susceptible to misintarpretation. One commonly used herbicide is on the list although the mentioned controls on it do not fit the criteria at all. Furthermore, a wholly erroneous picture of a product can be obtained by a notation in the list that one or two or three countries have taken regulatory action in relation to a specific product if at the same time the list omits mentioning that 10 or 20 or even 50 other countries i~ fact have approved the use of the product without regulatory limitation, or that several other countries have tested the product and come to contrary conclusions. The manner in which the list is now framed provides only a one-sided perspective on the products that are included. If this document is to become truly useful, then we believe that more consideration must be given to the need to present a fair and balanced picture of the products mentioned. We are pleased that caveats are included in the introduction to the new list, particularly in paragraphs 7 and 12 of the introduction to the new draf~ list. We trust that the Secretariat will be taking steps beyond the mere calling of attention to problems in the list by acting to ensure t~at the list is fair, objective and truly meaningful. In sum, the United States believes the Secretary-General has dQjle a good job in implementing some very difficult resolutions adopted over the past several years on this subject. But we believe the Economic and Social Council has now gone too (Mr. Norris, united States) far in incorporating highly dubious and misleading informati~, into the text of the consolidated list, particularly the discriminatory commercial data produced by the Centre for Transnational Oorpo~ations. For this reason, my delegation voted against a decision that endorses the Economic and Social Council action. Mr. SC~ (German Democratic RepUblic) (interpretation from Russian): I wish to refer to the resolution cn international economic security adopted by 117 votes in favour. It is my honour to speak on behalf of the delegations of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, the BUlgarian people's Republic, the Hungarian people's RepUblic, the German Democratic RepUblic, the Mongolian ~eople's Republic, the Polish People's Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist RepUblics, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. The delegations of those countries consider the resolution just adopted as an important contribution to the development by the United Nations of the concept of international economic security. In our belief that concept must duly take into ~ccount the opinions and legitimate interests of all States in the sphere of the world economy and international economic relations. Of course there ar.e complex and profound differences in the positions of the various countries and groups of countries on international economic problems. However, in our opinion, it is very important, while not losing sight of those differences, to start on a joint quest for common ground in the various appro~ches to world economic problems, to strengthen trust in economic relations. If such a common denominator could be found, it would undoubtedly lead to progress in international economic co-oper.ation and development. The concept of international economic security does not eliminate or supplant the numerous usefUl Qe~isions adopted by the United Nations, some of them by consensus, concerning the restructuring of international economic relations and the establishment of a new international economic order. It is designed to impart an (Mr. Norris, United States) additional impetus to the d~bates in t~~e economic organs of the United Nations, with due regard for the economic interdependence which has risen sharply in recent years among all States, irrespective of their socio-economic system and level of development. The scope and acute~ess of the economic problems of the developing countries unquestionably require that their interests should be given special attention in the economic activities of the united Nations. Our delegations hope that the resolution adopteJ today will open the way to a broad dialogue with a view to guaranteeing stability and predictability in international economic relations, for the benefit of all countries and peoples. AS the current session has shown, that is an objective which is shared by all groups of States. We find it regrettable that, notwithstanding the efforts of the sponsors and of the overwhelming majority of delegations, a vote had to be taken on the resolution on international economic security. We hope that common sense and an awareness of the objective need for a constructive dialogue and co-operatior. ; 11 eventually prevail over short-term considerations of a circumstantial nature, and that all countries will make their contribution to the preparation of the Secretary-General's report on international economic security at the forty-second session of the General Assembly. In the preparation of that report it would be desirable to take into account the ideas expressed in the debate at the current session concerning ways of guaranteeing the economic interests of all States and the further d~velopment of co-operation among them. It would be helpful to analyse the studies of the problems of economic security which have been undertaken at various times in the governmental, business and scientific circles of various countries. Issues of economic security have alae (MI. Schumann, Ge~ Democratic Republic) been dealt with in the documents of international organizations and forums, inter alia, in the reports of the Independent commission on Problems of International Development, whose C@airman was Willy Brandt, and the Independent Commission on Problems of Disarmament and Security, presided over by the late Olof Pr. me. The SecretarY-General's report should also draw upon the existing experience of economic co-opc~'ation at the international and regional levels, as w~ll as the activities and possibilities existing in this sphere among multilateral mechanisms and forums. For their part the socialist countries for which I am speaking will continue to work constructively to ensure that the work of the United Nations on the concept of international economic security will expand and enhance the opportunities f;r mutually advantageous co-operation with a view to normalizing intelnational '!!c.onomic relations fOl: the benefit of all States. Mr. PAY!Q! (New Zealand): In explaining my delegation's support for the resolution "Inclusion of Kiribati, Mauritania and Tuvalu in the list of the least developed countries", which has just been adopted by consensus, I have the honour to make the follo~ing two statements. The first is made at the request of the Government of Kiribati. Kiribati wishes to thank formally all those delegations which assisted in the promotion of its application for least developed country status. While the status which has just been conferred on Kiribati recognizes our special needs, the Government of Kiribati remains firmly committed to working towards greater self-reliance. That principle is the basis of the national development plan of Kiribati for the period 1987 to 1991. (Mr. Schumann, German Democratic Republic) I have the honour also to make the following statement on behalf of the prime Minister of Tuvalu. Tuvalu welcomes the support and assistance given to it in joining the select but economically unfortunate group of least developed countries under the united Nations system. While m¥ GO¥ernment is pleased to receive this recognition, we will continue to make every effort to improve the living conditions of all Tuvaluans in the hope that we will eventually be able to remove ourselves from the group. Tuvalu is one of the smallest, most isolated, and most resource-poor of all countries. The nine widely scattered atolls with a total land area of only 26 square kilometres have extremely limited potential for development. The narrow economic base places severe constraints upon potential sources and levels of locally generated recurrent revenue. Increased fisheries activities and the development of other sea resources offer some prospect for the future, but at this stage remains somewhat problematic. Since achieving independence in 1978 Tuvalu has received direct budgetary support from the united Kingdom. However, it has long been recognized by both sides that annual budgetary support subscriptions with the necessary accompanying mechanisms are not the most appropriate form of assistance for sovereign States. Agreement has therefore been·. reached to phase out this form of support. In the meantime my GOvernment, with considerable assistance from our major development assistance donors - Australia, New Zealand, the united Kingdom, and the united Nations Development Programme - has been endeavouring to identify other means of ensuring Tuvalu's long-term survival. After considerable investigation it has been agreed that the best alternative is to establish a Tuvalu Trust Fund. The Fund, established by Tuvalu and other intp.rested Governments, will provide the country with a regular source of revenue. It will be held externally, managed responsibly, and thus contribute to the country's long-term financial viability. The Government of Tuvalu would see the income from the Fund as budgetary support to enable basic levels of government services and pUblic infrastructure to be maintained. In no way will this income displace Tuvalu's own efforts to raise revenue to finance recurrent activities and the development of the economy for the betterment of all Tuvaluans. A team, inclUding representatives from the United Nations Development Programme, New Zealand and the united Kingdom, has concluded that the Fund would need to total $A 27 million - approximately $US 17 million - to provide budgetary support for Tuvalu and also provide sufficient revenue to manage and maintain the Fund for the foreseeable future. Expert opinion forecasts that unless the Fund target is achieved in early 1987 the amount required will increase rapidly to approximately $US 20 million by 1989. Tuvalu seeks the financial support of Governments in establishing the Trust Fund, for without it the long-term survival of our tiny nation is under extreme threat. I hope that those nations which have been better endowed with resources will be able to contribute to the Fund in the near future and thereby provide substantive support to Tuvalu's efforts to create a resource that will ensure its long-term economic viability. Mr. OULD CHEIKH EL GAOUTHE (Mauritania) (interpretation from French): I shoulc like to take this important and timely opportunity to place on record my delegation's renewed expression of deep gratitude and heartfelt thanks to fraternal and friendly delegations for sponsoring and supporting the draft resolution on (Mr. Payton, New Zealand) Mauritania's inclusion in the list of least developed countries. I hereby assure them that Mauritania for that support feels an enormous debt of gratitude towards them and in the future will be ready to lend them every support. We are pleased to note that all our financial supporters joined in sponsoring ou~ inclusion in that list, which we sincerely hope means that they will fully support the alleviation of our heavy external debt - which has already been rescheduled within the framework of the Consultative Group on Mauritania in Paris.

That concludes our consideration of agenda item 12. We turn now to the Second Committee's report in document A/41/857/Add.2 on sub-item (b) of agenda item 79, entitled "FOod problems". The Assembly will now take a decision on the recommendation contained in paragraph 10 of that report. The draft resolution is entitled "FOod and agr~cultural problems". The Second Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 41/191).

The Assembly has concluded its oo~sideration of sub-item Cb) of agenda item 79. The Assembly will next consider the Second Committee's report in document A/4l/936 on agenda item 82, entitled "Special economic and disaster relief assistance". First, the Assembly will take a decision on the 10 draft resolutions recommended by the Second Committee in p~xagraph 46 of its report. Draft resolution I is entitled "Special ptl)grammes of economic assistance". May I take it that the General Assembly adopts it? Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 41/192). (Mr. Quld Cheikh El Gaouthe, Mauritani~)

Draft resolution 11 is entitled "Assistance to Solomon Islands·. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution 11 was adopted (resolution 41/193).

Draft resolution III is entitled ·Assistance to El Salvador·. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? Draft resolution III was adopted (resolution 41/194).

Draft resolution IV is entitled "Assistance to Uganda". 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 6 Brunei Darussalam, BUlgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, De~ocratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, 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, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italyv 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, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, poland, portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, 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, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, zimbabwe Against: United States of America Abstaining: None Draft resolution IV was adopted by 150 votes to 1 (resolution 41/195).

Draft resolution V deals with assistance for the reconstruction and development of Lebanon. M&y I consider that the General Assembly adopts draft resolution V? Draft resolution V was adopte~ (resolution 41/196).

Draft resolution VI deals with assistance to Mozambiaue. A recorded vote has been re~ested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussa1am, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Bye10russian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eauatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Rondu_as, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic RepUblic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaic3, 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, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, 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, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe united States of America ~gainst: Draft resolution VI was adopted by 152 votes to 1 (resolution 41/197).

Draft resolution VII deals with special economic assistance to Chad. May I consider that the General ASs(~bly adopts draft resolution VII? Draft resolution VII was adopted (resolution 41/198).

We turn now to draft resolution VIII which concerns special assistance to front-line States. A recorded vote has been reauested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, 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, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eauatorial 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), Iraa, Ireland, Israel, Italy, 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, Mozambiaue, Nepal, Netherlands, New zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, ~unisia, 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: None Abstaining: United States of America Draft resolution VIII was adopted by 152 votes to none, with 1 abstention (resolution 41/199). The PRRSlDENT: Draft resolution IX deals with assistance to Benin, the Central African Republic, the Comoros, Democratic Yemen, Equatorial Guinea, Djibouti, the Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Baiti, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Sierra Leone and Vanuatu. Separate votes have been reauested on the fifth, fifteenth, seventeeth and eighteenth preambular paragraphs of the draft resolution. I call upon the representative of Democratic Yemen on a point of order. Mr. AL-ASBTAL (Democratic Yemen): I want to object to that request for separate votes on particular paragraphs because this is a comprehensive draft resolution which has been worked on by all delegations and which had a consensus in the Committee.

I shall read rule 89 of rules of procedure: "A representative may move that parts of a proposal or of an amendment s~ould be voted on separately. If objection is made to the request" for division, the motion for division shall be voted upon. Permission to speak on the motion for division shall he given only to two speakers in favour and two speakers against. If the motion for division is carried, those parts of the proposal or of the amendment which are approved shall then be put to the vote as a whole. If all operative parts of the proposal or of the amendment have been rejected, the proposal or the amendment shall be considered to have been rejected as a whole." Does the representative of Democratic Yelnen formally move? Mr. AL-ASHTAL (Democratic Yemen): Yes, Sir.

Does anyone wish to oppose that motion? Mr. NORRIS (United States of America): MY delegation opposes the proposal made by the representative of Democratic Yemen. We would like to c~ll for separate votes on the fifth, fifteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth preambular paragraphs.

One more delegation may speak in favour and one more delegation may speak against the motion of the representative of Democratic Yemen. Mr. AL-MASRI (Syrian Arab RepUblic) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation supports the proposal of the representative of Democratic Yemen that no separate vote be taken on paragraphs of the draft resolution. Mr. TUAN (Liberia): I wish to support the motion of the Ambassador of Democratic Yemen that we do not take separate votes. We took hours, days, weeks, to arrive at the recommendation and there is no need now for a delegation to ask for separate votes on a draft resolution on which there is unanimity. Therefore, the motion of Democratic Yemen deserves the full support of all delegations.

One more delegation may speak against the motion now. There appears to be none, therefore I shall put the motion to the vote. I call on the representative of Argentina on a point of order. Mr. de la TORRE (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish): Mr. president, could you define clearly the motion on what we are going to vote, please?

The motion is that there should not be separate votes on the fifth, fifteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth preambular paragraphs of draft resolution IX. The motion against division has been moved by Democratic Yemen. The Assembly will now vote on the motion against division. A recorded vote has been reauested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, 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, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eauatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraa, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambiaue, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian S~viet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics9 United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, u~nuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: United States of America Abstaining: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Malawi, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland The motion against division was adopted by 122 votes to 1, with 22 abstentions.

The Assembly will now vote on draft resolution IX. A recorded vote has been reauested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, 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, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt r El Salvador, Eauatorial 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), Iraa, Ireland, Israel, Italy, 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, Mozambiaue, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, 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 Soci~list 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: None Abstaining: United states of America Draft resolution IX was adopted by 152 votes to none, with 1 abstention (resolution 41/200).

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution X, which deals with the Office of the united Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator. May I take it that the General Assembly adopts it? Draft resolution X was adopted (resolution 41/201).

I now i~.vitp representatives to turn to the draft decision recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 47 of its report (A/41/936). The draft decision is entitled "Reports of the secretary-General on international relief to Mexico and on assistance to Bangladesh". May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt the draft decision? The draft decision w~~_adopted.

I shall now call on representatives who wish to explain their votes. Mr. NORRIS (United States of America): Mr. President, the united States Government's abstention on draft resolution VIII, entitled "Special assistance to front-line States", is not to be construed as a reaction against assisting those States. Indeed, the united States and western donors have been very actively engaged in assistance to the very countries covered by this resolution. The united States is already heavily engaged and committed for the future, and in 1986 alone it provided approximately $100 million in economic and food aid to th~ front-line States, plus another $16 million in assistance to the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference. Our abstention"is based on our firm belief that in any extreme economic hardship situation envisaged by this resolution no realistic amount of aid would suffice to insulate the front-line States from the adverse effects of economic measures taken by or against South Africa. The reality of the intricate interdependence which exists among southern African states must be sauarely faced. It is unrealistic to believe that the front-line States can develop through an assistance package the capacity to overcome the eventual detrimental effect of sanctions or cQunter-sanctions, which is the real intent of this resolution. Instead, it is in our view essential to seek a more practical and positive approach. (Mr. Nor~is, United States) The President of the united States is committed to present to the next united States Congress a comprehensive, multi-year programme designed to promote econ~mic reform and development in southern Africa. Our goal is to foster greater economic activity among the front-line States and Zaire, and to craate a sound basis for a post-apartheid region - a southern Africa where democracy and respect for fundamental human rights can flourish. We believe that our approach can realistically fulfil an alternative vision of the future. We agree that the economic and political effects of apartheid in the southern Africa region must be countered - but by constructive, positive measures that make good economic sense and are feasible, not by naive attempts to isolate the southern African economies from current realities in the region. I should also like to give an explanation regarding draft resolution IX. Had my delegation been given the opportunity, we would have voted against its fifth, fifteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth preambular paragraphs. Mr. PAULSEN (Norway): The delegations of Finland, Sweden and Norway were pleased to vote in favour of the important draft resolutions rv, VI and IX in document A/4l/936. We regret that a vote was requested, since the Second Committee was able to adopt the resolutions by consensus, and we sincerely hope that today's action does not set a precedent for the General Assembly's future work. Mr. ICAZA GALLARD (Nicaragua) (interpretation from Spanish): The results of the various votes on draft resolutions on assistance to certain countries, and the unsuccessful attempt to vote separately on various paragraphs of draft resolution IX, one of which was concerned with the losses suffered by my country as a result of natural disasters, once again leaves the United States, which reQUested the separate votes, in an extremely ridiculous position. That country's position on the various votes and its breaking of the consensus in the Second Committee on all the draft resolutions is nothing more than the carrying out of a threat made in an absurd and bullying manner. in an attempt to cover up its total isolation in the Sec,)nd Committee with regard to another matter which had nothing to do with these draft resolutions on assistance. Absurd behaviour such as we have just witnessed is the result of the desperate situation in whieh Washington finds itself today, overwhelmed by a serious credibility crisis, one main cause of which is the illegality, not only under international law but under its own domestic legislation, of its policy of aggression in all areas against Nicaragua. This ridiculous behaviour also conceals a maliciousness typical of childish depravitYJ the tJnited States not only arrogates to itself the right to '7iolate international law, but is constantly seeking to dictate to international organizations what countries should or should not, in accordance with the short-term imperialist interests of the United States, receive economic co-operation assistance. Mr. AL-ASHTAL (Democratic Yemen): I wish to give a brief explanation of vote on draft resolution IX, with regard both to its substance and to my motion against division of the draft resolution for the voting. The draft resolution was the outcome of many weeks of deliberations by the Vice-ChairM~n of the Committee, with the participation of many delegations, inclUding, I suppose, thp. united States delegation. The resolution is a landmark in a sense, because for the first time the Second Committee managed to produce an omnibus resolution relating to over la countries, thereby having one resolution instead of 10 or more - something that you have asked the Chairmen of Cammittees to achieve, Mr. President. (Mr. Icaza Gallard, Nicaragua) The negotiations on the draft resolution were carried out in good faitb, and the Second Committee adopted it by consensus. At the time the United States delegation did not ask for a separate vote. It was the understanding of all those delegations that participated in tbe negotiations in the Second Committee and all those that adopted the draft resolution as it stands, that there would not be a separate vote. My delegation was ~ery surprised when the united States delegation for reasons known only to itself, did something that we had never expected - it went back on the consensus in the Second Committee. It was very surprising, because we bad an understanding, and a consensus draft, in the Second Committee. I believe the united States wanted to show its political position on this or that situation relating to this er that country, but I must say that this was not the right place to do it. ~1 ,Jelegation regrets that the United States delegation asked for separate votes, and we hail and commend all those delegations that voted against the United States' suggestion. Mr. KIBEDI (uganda): Like those who have spoken before me, my delegation is quite surprised that a resolution relating to my country and the omnibus resolutions adopted by consensus in the Second Committee have been the subject of a reauest for a separate vote here. I note that the representative of the delegation that voted against the resolution in respect of my country did not explain why that decision was taken this morning, since that decision was contrary to the position adopted by that delegation in the Second Co~~ittee. The resolution asking for assistance to Uganda imposes no obligations on any country or delegation. It does not insult anybody. It merely draws the General Assembly's attention to the situation that exists in Uganda. (Mr. Al-Ashtal, Democratic Yemen) Most countries; if not all, will be aware of uganda's history over the past 20 years, during which it has been subjected to a series of murderous regimes with no respect for human rights. The present Government, which came into power in January 1986, regards the question of human rights as being of the foremost importance. It is therefore surprising that there should be a delegation that does not appreciate the efforts that the Uganda Government is making to redress the wrongs of the people of uganda. There is no controversy involved in draft resolution IV, relating to assistance to uganda. In fact, it was drawn up following a visit by representatives of the Secretary-General, in pursuance of decision 40/453 of 17 December 1985. since no explanation has been given why there should have been a vote against this resolution, I can only conclude that there has perhaps been an expression of displeasure as to the position which the Government has taken on international issu~s. As I have said before, our Government has not got much gold or oil in the ground, but it has got principles and, at whatever cost, my Government is determined to stand on principles on all issues of international importance. In conclusion, I should like to express our gratitude to the delegations of those countries that have voted for us. We hope that in the years to come we shall strengthen our relations with all countries in the world, relations which, except with one or two, are already excellent. Mr. SCHUMANN (German Democratic Republic): I am speaking on behalf of the delegations of BUlgaria, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist RepUblic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and on behalf of my own delegation, concerning the explanation of our position on the techniaue chosen this morning with regard to the adoption of draft resolution IV, "Assistance to Uganda", draft resolution VI, "Assistance to Mozambique" and the motion of the united States with regard to the treatment of draft resolution IX. Like other delegations, the delegations on behalf of which I am speaking express their deep regret that owing to a change in the position of a single delegation it has not been possible to maintain the consensus reached in the Second Conunittee. Draft resolutions IV, "Assistance to Uganda" and VI, "Assistance to Mozambiaue", and the omnibus draft resolution IX were carefully drafted and negotiated in the Second Committee, and met with the consent of all delegations. This found its reflection in the adoption of the draft resolutions by the Second Committee on 28 November. The continuance of the process of adopting these draft resolutions by consensus should be the more understandable in that they and other draft resolutions concern special programmes of assistance to developing countries which need them, and are in some cases among the least developed countries. We hold the view that this assistance should be given in the future also on the basis of objective criteria and should not be SUbjected to biased positions. The approach chosen this morning by one delegation calls into auestion the reliability and credibility of the entire negotiation process. It is to be hoped that the selective approach adopted this morning by one delegation will be avoided in the future and that, in the interest of all the work of the united Nations with regard to economic and social auestions, it will not set a precedent for the future. Mr. RAKOTONAIVO (Madagascar) (interpretation from French): Like other delegations, the delegation of Madagascar was surprised that a separate vote was reauested on draft resolution IX in document A/4l/936. In this connection, my delegation wishes to endorse the remarks made by the representative of Democratic Yemen. The seventeenth preambular paragraph of draft resolution IX merely notes the adverse effects of the natural disasters which have stricken my country. My delegation takes note of the attitude of the country which was responsible foz the change in our proceedings.

The Assembly has concluded its consideration of agenda item 82. We now turn to the report of the Second Committee (A/4l/937) on agenda item 143, entitled "External debt crisis and development" • Dem~ratic Republic) First, the Assembly will t~ke a decision on the draft resolution recommended to the General Assembly in paragraph 13 of the report (A/41/937), which relates to strengthened international economic co-operation aimed at resolving external debt problems of developing countries. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt the draft resolution? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 41/202).

I now invite representatives to turn to the draft decision recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 14 of its report (A/41/9J7). The draft decision is entitled "External debt crisis and development and debt and related issues". May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt the draft decision? The draft decision was adopted.

I call on the representative of Yugoslavia, the Chairman of the Group of 77. Mr. PEJIC (Yugoslavia): I have asked to speak to make a brief statement on behalf of the Group of 77. All the developing countries members of the GtOUp of 77 attach great impo:tance to the adoption by consensus of the resolution on strengthened international co-operation aimed at resolving external debt problems of developing countries. I should like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to all developed countries for their positive attitude and for the efforts they have made towards reaching a consensus on this resolution. The resolution on the problem of external debt of developing countries constitutes an important step in a positive direction and we express the sincere hope that further steps will be ta~en to help resolve the crushing debt problems of developing countries. (The President) The elements agreed upon in the resolution ore of extreme importance in that respect, although the list is not complete or exhaustive. We believe that the efforts of the General Assembly in dealing with the debt issue will continue and that the constructive spirit which surrounded the negotiations on this resolution during this session of the ASsembly will continue to prevail.

The Assembly has concluded its consideration of agenda item 143. ORGANIZATION OF WORK

I should like to draw the attention of delegations to the fact that the Assembly has now concluded the. bulk of its work. The scheduling of the next and final plenary meeting will depend on the conclusion of negotiations relating to agenda item 38. I have been personally involved in those negotiations over the weekend and shall continue my efforts until we reach an agreement. For the efficient use of time and the convenience of delegations, I intend to leave the items still pending to be dealt with at our last meeting, which will be announced in the Journal. Therefore this afternoon's scheduled meeting is cancelled, and we shall meet again at a time and date to be announced in the Journal as soon as we have concluded the continuing negotiations on agenda item 38. The meeting rose at 12.05 p.m.