A/41/PV.101 General Assembly

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of .... "', ';, '.' procedure, I shall consider that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the Fifth Committee. "h It was so decided. ~",(J' Statements will therefore be limited to explanations oi.~r The PRESI DENT: vote. The positions of delegations regarding the various recommendations of the "'~~"' Fifth Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the -~ """\ relevant official records. May I remind members that in paragraph 7 of its decision 34/401, the Gener;~~ ~ 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, explaL~ < its vote only once, that is either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unle~~ ,~ that delegation's vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee. ~ May I also remind members that in accordance with decision 34/401 explana~i~~ ;i of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their ~ "r "I; .! :~ seats. " .l~ The Assembly will first consider the report of the Fifth Committee on agend~ item 12 (A/41/948), dealing with those chapters of the report of the Economic fni:I;I. Social Council that were allocated to the Fifth Committee. r I' ~ .,; .~, '; ~ .. ~ '; j'" " I (The Pres ident) The General Assembly will take a decision on the draft decision contained in paragraph 4 of that report. The Fifth Committee decided without objection to ~ recommend to the General Assembly the adoption of that draft decision. May I take it that the Assembly adopts the draft decision? The draft decision was adopted.

That concludes our consideration of the report of the Fifth Committee on agenda item 12. The Assembly will now consider the reports of the Fifth Committee on sub-items (a) to (f) and (i) of agenda item 18. I first invite members to turn their attention to the report of the Fifth Committee on agenda item 18 (a), entitled ·Appointment of members of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and BUdgetary Questions· (A!4l/650/Add.l). The Fifth Committee recommends in paragraph 8 of its report that the General Assembly should appoint the following persons as members of the Advisory Committee on t, t Administrative and BUdgetary Questions for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1987: Mr. Michel Brochard, Mr. Luiz 8ergio Gama Figueira, Mr. Ma Longde, Mrs. Irmeli Mustonen, Mr. Banhit Anthony Roy and Mr. Yukio Takasu. In the same paragraph the Fifth Committee also recommends that the General . Assembly should appoint Mr. U1rich Kalbitzer as a member of the Advisory Committee for a one-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1987. May I take it that the Assembly adopts those recommendations? It was so decided.

We come now to the report of the Fifth Committee on agenda item 18 (b), entitled -Appointment of members of the Committee on Contributions" (A/4l/907). In paragraph 8 of that report, the Fifth Committee recommends the appointment of the following persons as members of the Committee on Contributions for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1987: Mr. Adeito Nzangeya Babgeni, Mr. Carlos Antonio Bivero Garcia, Mr. Lance L.E. Joseph, Mr. Atilio Norberto Molteni, Mr. Dimitri Rallis, and Mr. Omar Sirry. In the same paragraph the Fifth Committee also recommends that the General Assembly should appoint Mr. Feliks Nikolaevich Kovalev and Mr. Miguel Marin Bosch as members of the Committee on Contributions for a one-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1987. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to adopt those recommendations? It was so decided.

I now invite members to turn their attention to the report of the Fifth Committee on agenda item 18 (c), entitled "Appointment of a member of the Board of Auditors" (A/4l/908). In paragraph 5 of its report, the Fifth Committee recommends that the General Assembly should appoint the Chairman of ~ J 1 the Commission of Audit of the Philippines as a member of the United Nations Board of Auditors for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 July 1987. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt that recommendation? It was so decided. J J

I now invite members to turn their attention to the report (A/4l/909) of the Fifth Committee on agenda item 18 (d), en~itled ~Confirmation of the appointment of members of the Investments Committee~. The Fifth Committee recommends in paragraph 4 of its report that the General Assembly should confirm the appointment by the Secretary-General of the fol~owing persons as me~bers of the Investments Committee for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1987: Mr. oavid Montagu, Mr. Yves Oltremare and Mr. Emmanuel ()naboe. May I take it that the Assembly adopts that recommendation? It was so decided.

We come now to the report (A/4l/9l0) of the Fifth Committee on agenda item 18 (e), dealing with the appointment of members of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal. In paragraph 4 of its report the Committee recommends that the General Assembly should appoint Mr. Jerome Ackerman and Mr. Arnold Wilfred Geoffrey Kean as members of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1987. May I take it that the Assembly adopts that recommendation? It was so decided.

Next we turn to the report (A/4l/947) of the Fifth Committee on agenda item 18 (f), concerning the appointment of members of the International Civil Service Commission and designation of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Commission. In paragraph 4 of its report the Fifth Committee recommends that the General Assembly should appoint Mr. Richard Akwei, Mrs. Turkia Oaddah, Mr. Karel Houska, Mr. Andr' Xavier Pirson and Mr. Carlos Vegega as members of the International Civil Service Commission for a four-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1987. (The President) The Committee also recommends that the General Assembly should appoint Mr. Ivan Pavlovich Aboimov and Mrs. Francesca Yetunde Emanuel for a two-year term of office beginning on 1 January 1987. Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the General Assembly should designate Mr. Richard Akwei as Chai~man of the Commission and Mr. carlos Vegega as Vice-Chairman of the Commission for four-year terms beginning on 1 January 1987. May I take it that the General Assembly approves those recommendations? It was so decided.

Finally, we turn to the report (A/41/911) of the Fifth Committee on agenda item 18 (i), which relates to the appointment of one alternate member of the united Nations Staff Pension Committee. In paragraph 4 of its report the Fifth Committee recommends the appointment of Mr. Ulrich Kalbitzer as an alternate member of the United Nations Staff Pension Committee for a term of office beginning on 1 February 1987 and ending on 31 December 1988. May I take it that the General Assembly decides to adopt that recommendation? It was so decided.

We have concluded our consideration of sub-items (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (i) of agenda item 18. I now invite members to turn their attention to the report (A/41/941) of the Fifth Committee On agenda item Ill, entitled "Programme planning". - The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 8 of its report. The Committee adopted that draft . resolution without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt it? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 41/203). The PRESIDENT' The General Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of agenda item Ill. , The Assembly will now consider the report (A/41/949) of the Fifth COmmittee on agenda item 112, entitled "Financial emergency of the united Nations ft • The Assembly will take decisions on the recommendations contained in f j I[ paragraph 7 of that report. Draft resolution A is entitled "Financial emergencyft. The Fifth COmmittee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do likewise? Draft resolution A was adopted (resolution 41/204 A). r The PRESIDENT' Draft resolution B, concerning the issue of special postage stamps, was also adopted by the Fifth COmmittee without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution B was adopted (resolution 41/204 B). The PRESIDENT, We have concluded our consideration of agenda item 112. We now turn to the report· (A/4l/950) of the Fifth committee on agenda r item 117, entitled ftPersonnel questions". The Assembly will take decisions on the recommendations contained in paragraphs 28 and 29 of that report. We shall turn first to the draft resolutions contained in paragraph 28 of the report. Draft resolution I is entitled "Respect for the privileges and immunities of officials of the United Nations and the specialized agencies and related organizations", The Fifth COmmittee adopted that draft resolution without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly adopts it? Draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 41/205). The PRESIDENTs Next we come to draft resolutions It A, B.. C and D,vhich concern personnel questions. Draft resolution 11 A is entitled "composition of the Secret.ariat lil'. '1"he Fifth Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft resolution 11 A was adopted (resolution 41/206 A). The PRESIDENTs Draft resolution II B, conce.rnlng the ~ition of tb, upper echelons of the Secretariat, was also adopted by the Fifth CQmI!Ilittee tlfitbout a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt that draft: resolution? Draft resolution 11 B was adopted (resolution 41/206 B).

Next we oome to draft resolution II C, w'hich concerns desirable ranges for the geographioal distribution of staff in the Pl'ofelllsion.al catE!9ory and above. That draft resolution was also adopted by the Fiftb ~ttte. without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the saae? Draft resolution 11 C was adopted (resolution 41/206 C).

Draft resolution II D, regarding the illlprOY8iMnt of the status of women in the Secretariat, was adopted by the Fifth eo.mittoe without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise? Draft resolution 11 D was adopted (resolution 41/206 D).

The General Assembly will now turn to three draft decisions contained in paragraph 29 of the report (A/4l/950). Draft decision I is entitled "Office of Ombudsman and streamlining of appeals procedures". It was adopted by the Fifth Committee without objection. May I consider that the General Assembly also wishes to adopt draft decision I? Draft decision I was adopted.

We turn next to draft decision II, which concerns the "Improvement of the status of women in the Secretariat". As recommended by the Fifth Committee, may I consider that the Assembly wishes to take note of paragraph 20 of the report of the Fifth Committee? Draft decision II was adopted.

Finally, we come to draft decision Ill, relating to "Amendments to the staff Rules". The Fifth Committee adopted draft decision III without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same? Draft decision III was adopted.

The Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 117. Next the Assembly will consider the report (A/41/951) of the Fifth Committee on agenda item 118, entitled "United Nations Common System·'. The Assembly will now take a decision on the recommendation of the Fifth Committee contained in paragraph 7 of its report. The draft resolution contained in that paragraph was adopted by the Fifth Committee without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 41/207).

We have thus concluded our consideration of agenda item 118. (The President) We shall now consider the report (A/4l/9S2) of the Fifth Committee on agenda item 119, entitled ·United Nations pension system-. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution contained in paragraph 8 of that report. The Fifth Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General ASsembly wishes to do likewise? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 41/208). The PRESIDENT' We have thus concluded our consideration of agenda item 119. We turn now to the report of the Fifth Committee on agenda item 110, concerning the programme budget for the biennium 1986-1987 (A/41/954). I call on the representative of Panama, who will speak on behalf of the Group of Latin ~erican and caribbean States in explanation of vote before the vote. Mr. SAMUDIO (Panama) (interpretation from Spanish). This statement relates to the report of the Fifth COmmittee (A/4l/954), and specifically to section 12, on page 9 where we see a considerable reduction in the budget for the Economic Commission for Latin America and the caribbean (ECLAC). We have received a document explaining that this reduction, totalling $6,009,500, is in accordance with the so-called criteria used by the Secretariat to adjust ECLAC's budgetary estimates. This can be justified from a financial point of view, but the Latin American and caribbean Group is concerned that if some of these economic criteria can be changed, as has happened previously, that could result in substantial budgetary decreases, gravely affecting ECLAC's operational capacity. We have observed a trend to reduce these budgets over the past five years, and therefore we are very worried that this reduction of $6,009,500 could affect ECLAC's programmes at a time when such assistance is essential. For example, there is a considerable reduction for the Central American subregion. (Mr. Samudio, Panama) If this trend continues it will be a cause of grave concern, especially in the times we are passing through now. It will have a considerable impact on our development programme, the need for statistical studies, the housing problems of our large cities and our problems to do with the standard of living and generating employment. That is why the Latin American and Caribbean Group has requested its Chairman to bring this concern to the attention of the General Assembly, so that the General Assembly may take the necessary decisions. One of the problems our Group had was that it did not have the Secretariat's explanation at the time of voting. Finally, we received a document in which we were told that the reductions would have no effect, if certain criteria were maintained. The Group's concern is that they may be variable and change. Although the Group voted in favour, it is still concerned.

The concerns mentioned by the representative of Panama will be noted and conveyed to the Secretary-General. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolutions recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 51 of its report (A/41/954). We shall begin with draft resolution I, which concerns questions relating to the programme budget for the biennium 1986-1987. Section I of draft resolution I deals with the first report of the Advisory committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions. The Fifth Committee adopted it without objection. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same? Section I of draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 41/209, sect. I).

Next we turn to section 11 of draft resolution I, dealing with the International Computing Centre: 1987 budget estimates. The Fifth Committee adopted this section without objection. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same? Section 11 of draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 41/209, sect. 11).

Next we come to section III of draft resolution I, regarding health insurance coverage for locally-recruited staff in the General Service and related categories at designated duty stations. 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, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, c8te d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic RepUblic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, 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, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Againstz Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America Abstainings Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Section III of draft resolution I was adopted by 132 votes to 10, with 3 abstentions (resolution 41/209, sect. Ill).

Now we come to section IV of draft resolution I, which concerns the hiring and use of consultant services, use of experts, consultants and participants in ad hoc expert groups and standards of accommodation for air travel. The Fifth committee adopted this section of draft resolution I without objection. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Section IV of draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 41/209, sect. IV). The PRESIDENTs Next we turn to section V of draft resolution I, dealing with the News Service of the Department of Political and Security Council Affairs. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favours Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, c8te d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, .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, oman, pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao TOme and principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Canada, Central African Republic, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Turkey Section V of draft resolution I was adopted by 124 votes to 11, with 10 abstentions (resolution 41/209, sect. V).*

We now come to section VI of draft resolution I, entitled -Loan to the united Nations Industrial Development Organization-. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, oemocratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, .Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab .Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, oman, pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, * Subsequently the delegation of Afghanistan advised the Secretariat that it had intended to vote in favour. Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao TOme and principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Againsta Australia, BUlgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Hungary, Japan, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Spain section VI of draft resolution I was adopted by 124 votes to 13, with 9 abstentions (resolution 41/209, sect. VI).

Next we come to section VII of draft resolution I, dealing with conference services, Vienna. The Fifth Committee adopted that section without objection. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise? Section VII of draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 41/209, sect. VII).

Section VIII of draft resolution I concerns Judgement No. 370 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal related to the suspension of class 12 post adjustment in New York. 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, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, OOmoros, Congo, Costa Rica, c8te d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, NOrway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao TOme and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, so~alia, spain, Sri Lanka, SUdan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrlan Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and TObago, Tunisia, TUrkey, Uganda, united Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, united States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against, BUlgaria, Byelorussian Soviet SOCialist RepUblic, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist RepUblic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Singapore Abstaining: Section VIII of draft resolution I waS adopted by 135 votes to 10, with 1 abstention (resolution 41/209, sect. VIII).

We turn now to section IX of draft resolution I, dealing with the job classification of the General Service and related categories. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, BOtswana, Brazi1, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoras, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican RepUblic, ECuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Om~n~ P~kistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Phlllpplnes, Qatar, RWanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab RepUblic, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, united Arab Emirates, united Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zaire Against: Australia, Belgium, BUlgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Germany, Federal Republic of, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Netherlands, Poland, portugal, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Afghanistan, Austria, Barbados, Canada, Congo, Fiji, France, India, Israel, Lao People's Democratic RepUblic, Lesotho, Malaysia, New Zealand, Romania, Singapore, Spain, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe Section IX of draft resolution I was adopted by 101 votes to 19, with 24 abstentions (resolution 41/209, sect. IX). We come now to section X of draft resolution I, which

deals with the salary and retirement allowance of the Secretary-General and salary and pensionable remuneration of the Director-General for oevelopment and International Economic Co-operation and of the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme. The Fifth Committee adopted section X of draft resolution I without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do the same? Section X of draft resolution I was adopted (resolution 41/209, section X).

Next, we turn to draft resolution 11, contained in paragraph 51 of the report of the Fifth Committee (A/4l/954). That draft resolution, which deals with the limitation of damages in respect of acts occurdng within the Headquarters district, was adopted by the Fifth Committee without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise? Draft resolution 11 was adopted (resolution 41/210).

We turn now to draft resolution Ill, dealing with the programme budget for the biennium 1986-1987. Draft resolution III A concerns the revised budget appropriations for the biennium 1986-1987. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Fa80, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, c~ad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, COsta Rica, ~te d Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Ye~n, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, GUinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, MalaWi, Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Maudtania, Maudtius, Mexico, ftIoroc~, Mozambi~ue, N~pal, N~W Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, papua New.Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint ~nstoPher and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa! ao Tome and Principe, SaUdi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, S~ngapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Toga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, united Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Australia, Bulgaria, Byelorussian soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Romania, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, portugal, Spain Draft resolution III A was adopted by 122 votes to 13, with 10 abstentions (resolution 41/211 A) •

We come next to draft resolution III B, concerning the revised income estimates for the biennium 1986-1987. 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, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Camer.oon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, camoros, Congo, Costa Rica, c8te d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, GUinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic RepUblic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, oman, Pakistan, panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, 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, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe BUlgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, czechosl~vakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Israel, poland, Roman1~, Ukrainian Soviet socialist Republic, Union of Soviet SocialIst Republics, united States of America Against: Germany, Federal Republic of, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Abstaining: Draft resolution III B was adopted by 132 votes to 11, with 2 abstentions (resolution 41/211 B).

Finally, we come to draft resolution III e, concerning the financing of appropriations for the year 1987. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina FasO, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, C8te d'lvoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, ojibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New' zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, panama, papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and princj.pe, 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, United Arab Emirates, united Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe Against: Australia, BUlgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Israel, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet socialist Republics, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Abstaining: Belgium, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, portugal, Spain Draft resolution III C was adopted by 123 votes to 14, with 9 abstentions (resolution 41/211 C).

The Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of agenda item 110.

I invite members to turn their attention to the draft resolution recommended by the Credentials Committee in paragraph 9 of its second I report (A/41/727/Add.l). The Credentials Committee adopted that draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to do likewise? r The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 4l/2l2).

We have thus concluded our consideration of agenda item 3.

Members will recall that chapters It II, V (section C) , VI (section D), VIII and IX of the report of the Economic and Social Council were assigned to the plenary Assembly. May I take it that the Assembly decides to take note of those chapters of the report? It was so decided.

That concludes our consideration of agenda item 12. APPOINTMENTS TO rILL VACANCIES IN SUBSIDIARY ORGANS AND OTHER APPOIN'l'MENTS APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE JOINT INSPECTION UNIT: NOTE BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY (A/4l/942/Rev.l and Rev.l/Add.l) (9) (h) APPOINTMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSIONER FOR NAMIBIA: NOTE BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (A/41/9S7)

The Assembly will turn now to agenda item 18 (g), dealing with the appointment of members of the Joint Inspection unit. I draw members' attention to document A/41/942/Rev.l and Rev.l/Add.l. As a result of consultations, including consultations with the President of the Economic and Social COuncil and with the Secretary-General in his capacity as Chairman of the Administrative Committee on Co-ordination, I have drawn up the following list of candidates for appointment as members of the Joint Inspection unit for a five-year term beginning on 1 January 1988: Mr. Mohamed Salah Eldin Ibrahim (Egypt), Mr. Nasser Kaddour (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Boris Pavlovich prokofyev (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), Mr. Siegfried Schumm (Federal Republic of Germany) and Mr. Norman Wi11iams (Panama). May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to appoint those candidates? It was so decided.

That concludes our consideration of agenda item 18 (9). We turn now to agenda item 18 (h), dealing with the apPOintment of the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia. In that connection the General Assembly has before it a note by the Secretary-General (A/4l/9S7). In his note the SecretarY-General proposes the appointment of Mr. Bernt car1sson as united Nations Commissioner for Namibia for a six-month term beginning 1 July 1987. For the interim period, the Secretary-General would request Mr. Brajesh Chandra Mishra to continue to serve as united Nations commissioner for Namibia. May I take it that the General Assembly approves that proposal? It was so decided.

I now call on the President of the united Nations Council for Namibia. Mr. ZUZE (Zambia), President of the united Nations Council for Namibia: The General Assembly has just appqinted, on the recommendation of the r SecretarY-General, Mr. Bernt Carlsson as the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia with effect from 1 July 1987. Mr. Carlsson is being released from a senior position to serve the cause of Namibia by a country that has always sympathized with and extended political, diplomatic and financial support not only to the people of Namibia but to all oppressed peoples of the world, a country that has always been ready, able and willing to come in on the side of justice, fair play and humanity. The Council for Namibia welcomes this choice with the full expectation that, with Mr. Carlsson aboard the ship of justice, the excellent co-operation that has always characterized the relationship between the Council for Namibia and the Office of the Commissioner will continue. The SecretarY-General has also requested that, in the interim, Mr. Brajesh Chandra Mishra, the current Commissioner, continue to serve in that position. Mr. Mishra has been the Commissioner for Namibia since April 1982. The Council for Namibia and Mr. Mishra worked closely together, and the Council has valued his service and, more so, his advice. Under the leadership of Mr. Mishra, the Office of the COmmissioner covered a wide range of activities, among which were a number of important executive and administrative tasks. I should like to recall the provision of assistance to Namibians though the united Nations Fund for Namibia, the mobilization of international support for Namibia by way of dissemination of information on the problems and aspirations of the Namibian people and fund-raising activities such as those for the provision of assistance to the united Nations Institute for Namibia. I also understand that in 1983 Mr. Mishra (Mr. Zuze, president, United Nations Council for Namibia) served as Secretary-General of the International Conference in support of the Struggle of the Namibian people for Independence, held in Paris. I have just taken up the office of President of the Council for Namibia, but I have been assured that Mr. Mishra discharged his responsibilities with distinction. His efforts and unqualified support for the cause of Namibia have certainly been a source of encouragement to those who are engaged in the struggle for the liberation of that Territory. His wise counselling has always been an integral part of the strategies and policies that have been formulated in furtherance of the objectives set out in Security Council resolution 435 (1978) for bringing independence to Namibia. For that, I should like, on behalf of the Council for Namibia, to extend our profound gratitude to Mr. Mishra. We shall continue to count on his valuable assistance for the duration of his term of office as United Nations Commissioner for Namibia. Mr. Mishra happens to hail from a country that has always identified itself with the Namibian people in their quest for self-determination and independence. The commitment of Mr. Mishra to the cause of Namibia is in itself a clear indication of this. As we look ahead to 1987, which will also mark the twentieth anniversary of the establishment of the united Nations Council for Namibia, we are aware that the challenges we face are formidable and multifaceted because the intransigent racist regime of South Africa will continue to place more ~bstac1es in the path of Namibia's independence. We must therefore continue to work as a team in partnership with the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. Mr. AKYOL (Turkey) (interpretation from French): We have just endorsed the nomination of Mr. Bernt Car1sson to the post of United Nations Commissioner for (Mr. Akyol, Turkey) Namibia. we would like to congratulate Mr. Carlsson on his new duties and wish him every success in the performance of his important task. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a sincere tribute to Ambassador Mishra of India, who, in the course of four consecutive terms of office, has done remarkable work as United Nations Commissioner for Namibia. Thanks to his diplomatic talent and qualities of leadership, Ambassador Mishra has discharged his responsible functions with the utmost effectiveness. His profound devotion to the cause of Namibia has been the underlying motivation for his actions throughout the course of his work. His devotion and his professional capacities have been of inestimable service to him in the performance of his functions. My delegation has had the privilege of working with him in the various bodies of the united Nations Council for Namibia and has thus been able to note and appreciate his constant devotion at all times to the ideal of a free and independent Namibia, as well as the convictions that have guided his actions on behalf of the Namibian people. Ambassador Mishra has provided the best possible co-ordination of United Nations assistance policies for Namibia. His constant efforts to mobilize growing and more generous aid, as well as his actions in defence of the natural and economic resources of Namibia, have been particularly important. We would like to thank and congratulate Ambassador Mishra for a job well done. My delegation is pleased that the United Nations will be able to draw upon the services of Ambassador Mishra for a further six months, and we would like at the same time to express every good wish for the success of his future activities. Mr. PEJIC (Yugoslavia): I have asked to speak on this occasion in order, first, to express my delegation's sincere appreciation to Mr. Brajesh Chandra Mishra, the current United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, for his dedicated work and his contribution to our joint efforts to promote the cause of (Mr. Pejic, Yugoslavia) Namibia. The post of United Nations Commissioner for Namibia is, as we all know, of exceptional importance. In the last five years, it has been in skilful and reliable hands and much has been done for the realization of varied and substantial programmes of assistance to the people of Namibia, particularly in the field of education and social development. Yugoslavia has always supported the work of the United Nations Commissioner for Nambia. In Mr. Mishra, we have had a close and trusted partner in our activities both in the United Nations Council for Namibia and in the Committee of the United Nations FUnd for Namibia, of which my country is a member. While thanking Mr. Mishra for his dedicated service, I wish him all the best and success in his future activities. May I now congratulate Mr. Bernt Carlsson on his appointment as the new United Nations Commissioner for Namibia. From what we know, we are convinced that he will continue to do his best to promote the realization of the objectives of the united Nations for the benefit of the peoples of Namibia and for Namibia's independence. In that, Mr. Carlsson can count on the full support and co-operation of my country and my delegation. Mr. OJOUDI (Algeria) (interpretation from French): The nomination of Mr. Brajesh Chandra Mishra in 1982 to the post of united Nations Commissioner for Namibia was for my delegation a cause for real satisfaction because the cause of Namibia thus came to benefit from the talents of a highly knowledgeable, skilled diplomat of conviction and from the devotion of his country, India, which brought Mr. Mishra's services to the organization. (Mr. Djoudi, Algeria) In his more than four years as united Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Mr. Mishra has fUlly justified our trust in him. Now that the end of his mission in that office is in sight, it is"a pleasant duty for my delegation to pay him a sincere and well deserved tribute for the aua1ity of the work he has accomplished, which has significantly contributed to the work of the Office and the Organization. The same is true of the skill and loyalty he has demonstrated at all times and the very great contribution - above and beyond his obligations - he has made in his efforts to ensure the day-to-day success of the United Nations Council for Namibia. The Council has benefited from the knowledge and competence of this very talented and experienced man and his total dedication to the promotion of the inalienable rights of the people of Namibia as it struggles for liberation and prepares for its national future under the leadership of the South west Africa People's Organization (Sw.APO), its sole, authentic representative. We certainly regret that our colleague must leave us in several months, and we wish him every success in his future undertakings. At the same time we assure him of the loyalty and constancy of our friendship. On this occasion my delegation wishes to express its satisfaction with the Secretary-Genera1's excellent choice after consultations of a candidate for the post of United Nations Commissioner for Namibia. We should also like to ask the Swedish delegation kindly to convey to Mr. Bernt Carlsson our warm congratulations on his unanimous election to that important position. His performance as onder-Secretary of State for Nordic Affairs in the Swedish Government guarantees his success in the post he is about to assume. We are fUlly confident of his loyalty to the cause of the Namibian people and of Sweden's firm position of support for them. Sweden has always generously supported and contributed to the efforts of SWAPO and the united Nations to relieve the sufferings of the Namibians, who have been subjected to oppression and repression, which has forced some of them to become refugees. In welcoming Mr. Bernt Carlsson we should like to assure him that our We wish him delegation will always extend to him full co-operation and support. every success in his mission. Mr. POTTS (Australia): The President of the council, Ambassador Zuze of Zambia, has already spoken, but as an active and committed member of the united Nations Council for Namibia, my delegation wishes to say a few words following the decision just adopted. Mr. Brajesh Chandra Mishra's distinguished service as the united Nations Commissioner for Namibia will come to an end on 30 June of next year. My delegation has worked closely with him during the years he has occupied that important position, which is both a symbol of the ongoing efforts of the Organization on behalf of the Namibian cause and also, and more importantly, the focal point of the United Nations material assistance to the people of Namibia, especially those who have been forced to leave their native land. In discharging his mandate, the Commissioner has naturally worked closely with the front-line States and with the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO). While scrupulously adhering to the obligations of an international civil servant, Mr. M1shra has shown the commitment to decolonization and freedom exemplified by his own country of origin - India. Mr. Mishra has been a very active Commissioner who has carried out the functions of his office - especially the thankless task of fund-raising - with dedication and perseverance. Given the political realities and difficulties (Mr. Potts, Australia) associated with the Namibia problem, his has been at times a frustrating task. My delegation would pay a tribute to the manner in which he has carried out his office and would wish him well in his retirement later next year. We look forward to Mr. Carlsson's impending assumption of the office of Commissioner and, as with the other members of the Council, shall work closely with him for the cause we all hold in common - the early and complete independence of Namibia in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Mr. BADAWI (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): We have reviewed the note of the Secretary-General on the appointment of the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia contained in document A/4l/957. In this connection, we should like to express our appreciation for Mr. Mishra's work during his term of office as United Nations Commissioner for Namibia. Re has made every effort to increase public awareness of the Namibian cause and the need to defend their interests until Namibia attains full independence in accordance with United Nations resolutions. During its membership of the Council the Egyptian delegation worked closely with Mr. Hishra, and we are very aware of his efforts as Commissioner. In addition, I have been acquainted with Mr. Mishra for a long time, since we worked together as members of our delegations at the United Nations. Thus I am familiar with his personal aualities and the efficiency with which he has discharged the functions of his important position. On behalf of Egypt, and in my own name, I wish him all success in his future undertakings. In this connection, my delegation would take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Carlsson, Swedish Under-Secretary of state, on his election as united Nations Commissioner for Namibia. We would assure him of our full readiness to co-operate with him at all times in the interest of the Namibian people. Sweden has always defended - it was among the first to do so - Namibia's right to attain its freedom, (Mr. Badawi, Egypt) and we welcome the accession of a Swedish citizen to this important position in the Commission. Mr. GHAREKHAN (Ind 18): It has been the mandate of a11 of us in the Council for Namibia to ensure that the people of that Territory will have every opportunity to develop their human and natural resources and to create a sound base for peace, progress and prosperity as an independent nation. The office of the Commissioner for Namibia is an important instrument in this regard. We warmly welcome M.r. Carlsson's appointment. We are sure that Mr. Carlsson, whose personal eminence is enhanced by the distinction his country enjoys in the international auest for Namibia's freedom, will prove a worthy successor to a worthy predecessor. My colleagues in the Council for Namibia have spoken in appreciation of Amhassador Brajesh Chandra Mishra's services as Commissioner for Namibia. My delegation fully shares those sentiments. India's commitment to the independence of Namibia is as old as our own freedom. It has been for India a matter of honour and privilege that one of our distinguished civil servants, Ambassador Mishra, waa chosen by the Assembly to Serve as Commissioner for Namibia for five successive terms. As a former Vice-President of the Council for Namibia, and as a former Permanent Representative of India to the nnited Nations in Geneva and New York, Ambassador Mishra brought to his assignment both dedication and experience. My delegation is most grateful to all our colleagues in the Council who have referred with warmth and generosity to the commitment of our Government, our people and Ambassador Mishra to the cause of the people of Namibia. (Mr. Badawi, Egypt) and we welcome the accession of a Swedish citizen to this important position in the Commission. Mr. GHAREKHAN (India): It has been the mandate of all of us in the Council for Namibia to ensure that the people of that Territory will have every opportunity to develop their human and natural resources and to create a sound base for peace, progress and prosperity as an independent nation. The office of the Commissioner for Namibia is an important instrument in this regard. We warmly welcome Mr. Carlsson's appointment. We are sure that Mr. Carlsson, whose personal eminence is enhanced by the distinction his country enjoys in the international auest for Namibia's freedom, will prove a worthy successor to a worthy predecessor. My colleagues in the Council for Namibia have spoken in appreciation of Ambassador Brajesh Chandra Mishra's services as Commissioner for Namibia. My delegation fully shares those sentiments. India's commitment to the independence of Namibia is as old as our Own freedom. It has been for India a matter of honour and privilege that one of our distinguished civil servants, Ambassador Mishra, was chosen by the Assembly to serve as Commissioner for Namibia for five successive terms. As a former Vice-President of the Council for Namibia, and as a former Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations in Geneva and New York, Ambassador Hishra brought to his assignment both dedication and experience. My delegation is most grateful to all our colleagues in the Council who have referred with warmth and generosity to the commitment of our Government, our people and Ambassador Hishrs to the cause of the people of Namibia. Mr. FERN (Sweden) I I should like to express my delegation I s satisfaction at the endorsement of Mr. Bernt Carlsson as united Nations Commissioner for Namibia. It is indeed a great honour for my country that he has been chosen for this important post with the united Nations. Let me also express our gratitude for the kind words spoken here by several representatives about Mr. Carlsson and my own country. I regard this also as an expression of support for the noble and important cause for which the Commission for Namibia is working and to which we are all committed - the independence of Namibia and its people. May I also join those speakers who have praised Mr. Mishra for his untiring work as Commissioner for Namibia. During the years he has served we have had excellent co-operation with him, and we should like to express our sincere gratitude to him and wish well in his future activities. The PRESIDENTa I should like to add my voice to those of previous speakers in welcoming the appointment of Mr. Bernt Carlsson as United Nations Commissioner for Namibia for a six-month term of office beginning on 1 July 1987 and to endorse the comments made in appreciation of the excellent work done by the outgoing United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Mr. Brajesh Chandra Mishra. The Assembly has concluded its consideration of agenda item 18 (h).

I call on the representative of Yugoslavia, who wishes to introduce draft resolution A/4l/L.42/Rev.l. Mr. DJOKIC (Yugoslavia): I have the honour to introduce the draft resolution contained in document A/4l/L.42/Rev.l relating to the united NationS Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. The Preparatory Committee held its seventh and final session in Vienna from 10 to 21 November of this year. On that occasion the Committee adopted four working papers which Bum up a year's work the aim of which was to carry out firm and all-round preparations for the Conference. We note with satisfaction that that session of the preparatory Committee took place in a working and constructive atmosphere and that there was a desire to find generally acceptable solutions to ensure that the Conference's proceedings and outcome would be successful. Draft resolution A/4l/L.42/Rev.l, which initially was prepared by the Group of 77 in Vienna, is of a procedural nature. Its preambular part points out, inter alia, that the preparatory Committee has successfully concluded its work related to the preparations for the Conference and recalls that the United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, to be held from 23 March to 10 April 1987 at Geneva, represents a (Mr. Djokic, Yugoslavia) global effort under United Nations auspices specifically for the purpose of promoting international co-operation in this field for economic and social development. In its operative part note is taken of the report adopted by the preparatory Committee for the Conference at its seventh and final session, appreciation is expressed to the Chairman and the members of the Preparatory Committee for the time and effort devoted to the preparation for the Conference) and all States are invited to participate in the Conference at an appropriately high level. In addition it would have the General Assembly decide to include in the provisional agenda of its forty-second session the item entitled ·United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy". Draft resolution A/4l/L.42/Rev.l is the result of the consultations and negotiations carried out by the oliginal sponsors of draft resolution A/4l/L.42: Australia, on behalf of the Group of Western European and other StatesJ Czechoslovakia, on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States) and Yugoslavia, on behalf of the Group of 77. However, following the official circulation of draft resolution A/4l/L.42, it became obvious that it would be appropriate to make certain changes in the text to secure the broadest possible support. The proposals made to that effect were aimed basically at omitting or slightly altering certain formulations that might cause controversies since, in the opinion of some, they contained positions of a substantive nature that would not necessarily enjoy general support. In other words, it was proposed that the draft resolution be made procedural to enable the resolution on the United Nations Conference for the promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy to be adopted by consensus this time also. (Mr. Djokic, Yugoslavia) It also transpired that, for certain reasons, Australia and a number of other Member states could no longer sponsor the draft resolution. I should like to point out, however, that even after it withdrew its sponsorship Australia, acting on behalf of that group of States, continued to co-operate very actively in the elaboration of the revised text and made a significant contribution to its successful completion. In the new circumstances, during the consultations held in the course of the past few days opinions were expressed to the effect that the most practical solution with regard to sponsorship of the draft resolution would be for Yugoslavia to submit it on its own behalf. (Mr. Djokic, Yugoslavia) The group of East-European socialist countries was thus requested to agree with that solution, which it accepted. We are grateful to that group of countries, particularly to Czechoslovakia, for that position and for their understanding. A long road has been traversed since the initiation nine years ago of action for the convening of an international conference to deal with questions of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The basic goals envisaged at that time - to create an equitable and just basis for international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, to establish principles and achieve international consensus that would serve as a basis for the promotion of co-operation in this field on a non-discriminatory basis - have lost none of their importance. It is precisely because of those goals that we and the Group of 77, which fully supports this draft resolution, attach great importance to the forthcoming Conference. We are convinced that all States Members of the Organization will invest the maximal effort to achieve those goals at the Conference. In conclusion, I should like to express the hope that this time again the General Assembly will adopt the draft resolution on this important Conference without a vote.

I call next on the representative of Austria, who wishes to introduce draft resolution A/4l/L.47. Mr. FISCHER (Austria): In a spirit of co-operation, my delegation is prepared not to press for action at this stage on the Austrian amendment to draft resolution A/4l/L.42/Rev.l, contained in document A/41/L.46, on the clear understanding that the General Assembly will act on the Austrian draft resolution contained in document A/41/L.47 in addition to acting on draft r~solution A/4l/L.42/Rev.l. (Mr. Fischer, Austria) My delegation would like now to introduce draft resolution A/4l/L.47. Austria is fully aware of the importance of the United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, to be held next year. Its importance has perhaps even increased as a result of this year's events and the experience gained in the aftermath of nuclear accidents. Austria's position on this issue is well known. In our view, it appears essential that the international community face the risks and challenges arising from the use of nuclear power for energy production. Problems that occur in connection with the question of nuclear safety must be dealt with through a common approach by the international community. Austria is therefore very satisfied at the most efficient way in which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is dealing with this matter. Indeed, we should like to see the lAEA continue to play a central role in that context. The recent debate on agenda item 14 and the adoption of resolution 41/36 bear witness to this. My GOvernment strongly believes that it is indeed in the vital interest of the international community that safety aspects be considered and taken into account whenever nuclear energy matters are being discussed. Can we afford to hide behind procedural aspects when we deal with matters as important as potential risks to the life and health of human beings? We therefore feel it is very important that the discussions during the forthcoming United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy take these considerations into account. We owe it to the public and to all those deeply concerned about the potential risks that nuclear energy poses. We owe it to all those who legitimately expect that we and their Governments will take safety aspects seriously when we discuss nuclear energy. (Mr. Pischer, Austria) Our draft resolution thus addresses the very important issue of appealing to Governments to ensure that the highest standards of safety in the design and operation of nuclear plants is applied in such a manner as to ensure that risks to life and health be minimized, if not eliminated. In underlining the importance of appealing to all Governments to take into account the legitimate interests of neighbouring countries that could be affected by transboundary effects of nuclear energy, we are led by an increasing awareness of the dangers and risks of nuclear energy expressed and felt by public opinion in almost every country. The Austrian delegation believes that the draft resolution before the Assembly speaks for itself. We hope that draft resolution A/4l/L.47 can count on the support of all Member States here present, since it reflects the legitimate conCerns of every human being. There can be no doubt that the question of the safety of nuclear plants is one of the foremost preoccupations in many countries. A draft resolution concerning the holding of an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations dealing with the promotion of international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy is yet another appropriate way to deal with these worl.d-wide preoccupations regarding the use of nuclear energy for power production. The PRESIDENTl It is my understanding that the representative of Austria is not pressing for action on the amendment contained in document A/4l/L.46. The Assembly will therefore take action on the draft resolutions contained in documents A/4l/L.42/Rev.l and L.4? We turn first to draft resolution A/4l/L.42/Rev.l. May I take it that the General Assembly wishes to adopt that draft resolution? Draft resolution A/41/L.42/Rev.l was adopted (resolution 41/212 A).

We turn now to draft resolution A/4l/L.47. A recorded vote has been requested. A recorded vote was taken. In favour: Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, BUlgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, c5te d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Kampuchea, Democratic Yemen, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, German Democratic RepUblic, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, poland, Qatar, Romania, RWanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, 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, 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 None Against: Abstaining: Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Guatemala, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Netherlands, portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, united States of America Draft resolution A/4l/L.47 was adopted by 119 votes to none, with 28 abstentions (resolution 41/212 B).

I now call upon those delegations that wish to make statements in explanation of vote after the voting. Mr. OKELY (Australia): Australia has joined many other delegations in registering an abstention in the vote on draft resolution A/4l/L.47. We have done so, I wish to emphasize, not because of lessening of our concern to see nuclear (Mr. Okely, Australia) safety matters considered in appropriate forums, but because we considered a separate resolution on nuclear safety under this agenda item to be unnecessary and inappropriate, the more so because the matter of nuclear safety already constitutes an element of the draft agenda for the United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy in 1987. Australia welcomes and strongly supports the recent efforts in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to consider and strengthen nuclear safety. We wish to see those efforts continue. My delegation joined the consensus on the procedural draft resolution, A/4l/L.42/Rev.l. In our considered view it would have been far preferable for there to have been a single draft resolution under this item that simply reported on the outcome of the preparatory process, did not address matters of substance and in no way pre-empted the course or the outcome of the Conference itself. Ms. GARCIA GUERRA (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): We are pleased that draft resolution A/4l/L.42/Rev.l has, as in past years, been adopted without a vote, following a tradition that has been followed since the inclusion of the item in the agenda of the General Assembly. The United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful uses of Nuclear Energy, to be held at the beginning of next year, is a unique opportunity to intensify international co-operation on a global scale in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. We are sorry that elements were introduced unilaterally that can not only prejudge the Conference but also raise doubts with respect to the agreement that has prevailed on this item since the Assembly began considering it. Since we feel that the submission of draft resolution A/4l/L.47 was based on reasons that do not appear to be in accordance with the goals set by the Assembly ten years ago, my delegation felt obliged to abstain in the voting on it. We (Ms. Garcia Guerra, Mexico) recognize the importance of the subject with which that draft resolution deals, but we also attach importance to the way in which the General AsSembly has been pronouncing itself with regard to the conference. Hr. LAUTENSCHLAGER (Federal Republic of Germany) I My delegat ion has not been able to support draft resolution A/4l/L.47 and abstained in the vote on it because my GOvernment holds the view that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the appropriate forum for discussions on the issues it addresses, a view that the draft resolution itself also recognizes in acknowledging the Agency's central role in this regard. We therefore were happy to support draft resolution A/4l/L.32, on the report of IAEA, which emphasizes "the need for the highest standards of safety in the design and operation of nuclear plants so as to minimize risks to life and health" and urges all States to take "the necessary measures to strengthen further the safety of nuclear installations and to minimize risks to health". My Government has been in the forefront of international endeavours aimed at ensuring that the highest standards of safety in the design and operation of nuclear plants are applied in order to minimize risks to life and health. AS is well known, Federal Chancellor Kohl was among the most active proponents of an international conference for the promotion of international co-operation on nuclear safety issues. My country played an active role during the first special session of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency in September 1986 and has signed the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological (Mr. Lautensch1ager, Federal Republic of Germany) Emergency. We have also taken an active part in the discussions aimed at improving nuclear safety standards that are being held within the framework of the IAEA. Against that background, and in view of the excellent work done by the IAEA, my Government finds it difficult to understand why it should be necessary again to emphasize in a separate resolution essentially the very point the General Assembly has already adopted by consensus in the proper context under agenda item 14 and an issue that is currently under consideration in the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We think that discussing these issues in other forums is not likely to strengthen and focus the international debate. Mr. RAMAKER (Netherlands): In explaining its abstention in the vote on draft resolution A/41/L.47, "United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy", my delegation would like first and foremost to stress the importance the Netherlands attaches to all matters concerning the safe development of nuclear energy. However, my delegation is of the opinion that the draft resolution concerning the Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy should be of a purely procedural nature. Such a procedural draft resolution, A/41/L.42/Rev.l, was just adopted without a vote. We did not feel the need for a parallel draft resolution that, in singling out and thus emphasizing the safety aspects of the production of nuclear energy, not only prejudges in a selective manner the work of the Conference but also refers to activities which, in our opinion, belong to the competence of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. It is for those reasons that the Netherlands abstained in the vote on draft resolution L.47. Mr. GODSON (United Kingdom): I wish to explain my delegation's vote on draft resolution A/4l/L.41. First, let me stress that the Go~ernment of the united Kingdom is as concerned as any that nuclear energy must be de~eloped and applied safely. The Chernobyl accident frightened the world. It illustrated that a major accident can ha~e international repercussions and it may not be confined to territorial boundaries. It also underlined the need for agreements, understandings, practices and international co-operation which will guarantee that the benefits of nuclear power are enjoyed in safety. (Mr. Godson, United Kingdom) Earlier this year work began in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the lessons to be learned from Chernobyl. Two conventions were drawn up by the Agency, one on early notification and the other on tbe provision of assistance in the event of a nuclear accident. The United Kingdom Government has signed both. Further international co-operation on nuclear safety is necessary, and we believe that the IAEA is the appropriate body in which to continue with this. Draft resolution A/4l/L.47 was introduced at a late stage in our proceedings and it is drafted in general terms that could lead to misunderstandings about the futvre of nuclear energy. While the draft resolution acknowledges the central role of the IAEA, the singling out of nuclear safety in the context of the forthcoming United Nations Conference on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy is unbalanced. Moreover, it detracts from the IA~'s consideration of the subject and overlooks more important substantive issues that will be on the agenda of the Conference. We therefore regret that a contentious draft resolution was introduced into what could, and should, have been an otherwise uncontroversial debat@. For those reasons, my delegation abstained in the vote on draft resolution A/4l/L.47. Mr. FONDER (Belgium) (interpretation from French): I should like to explain the position taken by my delegation in the vote that was just taken. The Belgian delegation has had to abstain in the vote on draft resolution A/4l/L.47 because we feel that it not only seems to prejudge selectively the work of the United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy but also could, owing to its excessively general terms that might give rise to confusion, cast doubt on the safety of the use of nuclear energy, to which my country attaches great importance. Mr. BERGH JOHANSEN (Norway): My delegation voted in favour of draft resolution A/41/L.47, which has just been adopted by the General Assembly, concerning the united ~ations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. our positive vote reflects the emphasis the Norwegian Government puts on increased safety of nuclear installations and intensified international co-operation in this field. Safety related aspects in the design and operation of nuclear plants are given special attention in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These aspects were also subject to special attention in statements made during the General Assembly's consideration of the report of the Agency. Moreover, they were given particular recognition in the resolution adopted by consensus under the Agency ite•• In light of the special role of the IAEA regarding nuclear safety and radiation protection, we would have preferred that only one procedural draft resolution had been put forward under the present agenda item. Mr. de La BAUME (France) (interpretation from French): My delegation abstained in the vote on draft resolution A/4l/L.47. We have taken this position because we believe that auestions of safety had been amply taken into account in the list of technical terms proposed for discussion in Committee II of the United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. (Mr. de La Baume, France) Hence my delegation finds it difficult to understand why some would wish to introduce a separate draft resolution on the subject. It was out of concern not to jeopardize the success of the Conference that we decided not to oppose it formally, but my delegation would have preferred one single draft resolution of a procedural nature. Hr. DJOUDI (Algeria) (interpretation from French): The Algerian delegation wishes to explain its vote on draft resolution A/4l/L.47. My delegation believes that, in keeping with tradition, agenda item 34 pertaining to the united Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy should have been dealt with in a single draft resolution adopted without a vote. We therefore feel that the submission of a draft resolution in addition to draft resolution A/4l/L.42 - that is draft resolution A/4l/L.47 - tends to undermine the significance of the consensus it had enjoyed. While draft resolution A/41/L.42 Rev. 1 i9 notable for its exclusively procedural aspects, leaving all substantive matters ouite open, draft resolution A/4l/L.47 singles out in advance a particular aspect of the Conference, one which, though important, is emphasized unduly at the expense of any other, and thus prejUdges the results of the Conference. Although we endorse the concerns voiced in draft resolution A/41/L.47, the Algerian delegation had no choice but to abstain in the vote on it. Hr. SVOBODA (Canada): Canada supported both draft resolutions: A/4l/L.42/Rev.l and A/41/L.47. As regards the latter text, I wish to remind the Assembly that Canada is a signatory to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Conventions on nuclear safety and endorses the substance of draft resolution A/4l/L.47. I must say, however, that we had reservations concerning' tbe proposal initially put forward by Austria in document A/41/L.46, which was 8ubs8qU6ntly withdrawn, based on the imbalance that theameoo.ent would have bro"ught to an essentially procedural draft resolution. We were very pleaMd therefore that the representative of Austria withdrew that propose,d amendMnt. Nevertheless, that helng said, we would have preferred only one procedural draft resolution to have gone forward on this item. The discussion of nuclear safety at the united Nations eon!ere·!n,oe for the PrOlQOtion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful UH. of Nuclear Ener9Y must not in any way detract from the work of the lAEA In that field •.00, indeted, sbould complement it. More generally, while Canada really waa prepared to agree to the adoption by consensus of the original version of the draft re801ution - A/41/L.42 as originally submitted - we supported the adoption of tbe current version today. As a supplier of nuclear technology expertis·e and uterlals, within the frll1ll8work of a comprehensive, non-proliferation Treaty, we wo1uldhoweftr have preferred the retention of the former fourth preaabular pa,ragrapb 1oIhioh rt~ada: -Reoalling that many world leaders have recently reaffirmed the continuing importance of nuolear power a8 a atource of energy for economic and social development and the need to strengthen international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy on a world-wide basis.- (A/4l!L.42) Among the world leaders issuing that reaffirNtion "as tbe PrUM Minister of Canada. On today's consensus text, Canada agreed to its ....nti.lly p.roc8'4ural formulation. We take it, however, that the final opetrative paragrapb reflects tbe recognition that the Conference must report next year to tbe Assembly and doe_ not suggest the establi8hment of a longer-term post-conference IUOhinery. Such a (Mr. Svoboda, Canada) decision would, in our view, depend on discussions and agreemen,ts reached at next year's Conference itself. 'i'," 1 might add, before concluding, that Canada had for some time been concerned at the slow pace of the preparations for the United Nations Conference for the Promotion of International Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. \ We were tberefore pleased to note the progress that the Prepa.ratory eo..U::tee at its seventh se8sion was able to ..Ice in refining procedures to be followed at the Conference and, in particular, producing papers containing possible recOlDendations and areas for aotion by the Conferenoe. we vere particul.arly gratified to note that tbe dOO'UltentaHon produced for tM- Confere,noe recogni.ed the differing recruiremnts of the various countri.s involved and the need to ta Uor co-operation to those recruir....nts. 'rhe seventh session of the preparatory COIIlIltt.. and the doou.•entation it produoed, as well a. that of the Intergove.rrwe,ntal Group of Eltperts, clearly indicate that a wide ra.nge of vi.". and reerulre'lIIJents vill be repre....nted at the Conference next March. I t would be unrealistic to expect: aqre-.nt oln every single 1ssuebefore that Conference, nevertheless, Canada believe. it vUl be ll111POrtant to focus, not on differences, but: rather on the.. Iteas vhere agrH'lH"t and prograJilllM8 are possible, so as to ensure the Conference's 8UO·0888. It 18 that spirit of co-operation which Canada will take to that gatnering.

The A8sembly has thus concluded ita C'O!ne1deration of agenda item 34 ..

I call on the representative of Sweden, who will speak on behalf of the' Nordic countries. Mr. FERM (Sweden): I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of the five Nordic countries: oenmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and sweden. The position of the Nordic countries has always been, and remains, that the the principles laid down in the Charter retain their full relevance. The principle of collective responsibility for the expenses of the Organization, embodied in Article 17, must be upheld. The Organization belongs to uS all. Every Member State is eaually responsible for ensuring its viability. The only alternative to abiding by the rules of the game is anarchy, which we can ill afford. The long-standing financial problems of the United Nations as well as the current financial crisis are the result of several factors. One is the lack of discipline in paying assessed contributions. Why is it that so many Member States that greatly benefit from the programmes of the United Nations are compounding the financial difficulties of the Organization by chronic lateness in making their payments? Another reason for the difficulties is the practice of selective withholding for political reasons of assessed contributions. That is in contravention of the Charter. It represents a problem which for a long time created difficulties f6r the United Nations. In the case of peace-keeping operations, it has placed ap additional financial burden on troop-contributing countries. ~he current crisis, however, was precipitated by legislation enacted in one major contributor State. The financial weight of that Member State as the largest contributor, combined ~ith a lack of forewarning and precision as to the exact amount of the shortfall, has greatly intensified the problems and paced the Organization in an intolerable situation. It is clear that the financial crisis cannot be exclusively ascribed to any one of the factors I have just mentioned. The crisis is the cumulative effect of withholdings by a considerable number of Member States together with late payment (Mr. Ferm, Sweden) of assessmentB. It ia in t~e interest of all countries that the poor example aet by these Member States, a.mong them the two raajor contributors, in meeting their financial obligations under the Charter should not be allowed to spread. The Nordic countries attach particular importance to the report of the Group of Righ-level Intergovernm<ental Experts. We trust that the outcome of the deliberations in the General Assembly will make a SUbstantial contribution to improvinq the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of our organization • In his report on funding prospects and economy measures for 1987, the Secretary-Gen'~Hal envisages a basically unchanged level of programme activities for budgetary purposes, whereas theexpeoted level of actual expenditures falls short of the appropriation level by some 10 per cent. The Nordic countries accept this discrepancy as a temporary measute intended to alleviate the acute financial 1 difficulties in the present abnormal situation. At the same time we wish to see a return to normal budgetary practices, or reformed practices, as soon as possible. What the Organhatio<n has been doing in 1986 and is proposing to continue to do in 1987 is tantamount to undermining futther the credibility and relevance of the current method of assessing Member states for the necessary means to finance the expenaes of the Organisation. All those that pay their assessed contributions, and particularly those few that pay in full and on time, are punished, since they are in reaU ty assuming a greater share of the expenses than their assessments This state of affairs can be accepted only in the short run. indicate. The Nordic countries are prepared, out of regrettable necessity, to endorse tbe approach auqge.tod by the S..,retary-General in paragrapbs 5 and 6 of bis :aPQsurrte's Winetrtooodu.cf~:dinlilt9tlB6e.alternative to a continuation in 1987 of the economy '''''' ""'-l We should like to point out that this type of economy (Mr. Ferm, Sweden) measures has little to do with improving efficiency or with financial reforms. on the contrary, the longer such measures are applied, the more destructive and erosive they are of the capacity of the Organization to fulfil its mandate. We attach particular importance to the words ·with judicious adjustments· (A/4l/90l, para. 5) and to the expression ·with the objective of limiting prejudice to mandated programmes and to the functioning of the Organization-. (para. 6) In that context we note the intention of the Secretary-General to consult with the relevant intergovernmental bodies on all adjustments affecting programme activities. The position of the Nordic countries is based on the belief that the chief administrative officer of the Organization has an important - indeed, decisive - role to play in the current situation, although the crisis has been caused by factors outside the control of the Secretary-General. The Nordic countries believe that one way of expressing their traditional unwavering support for the United Nations is to pay their assessed contributions to the regular budget for 1987 at the earliest possible date. The financial situaeion of the Organization will be severely strained as early as the first month of the new year. Therefore, I should like to end my statement by announcing, on behalf of the NOrdic countries, that special measures have been taken in all the Nordic countries to expedite payment of our aSSessed contributions so that they can be made in the first week of January 1987. Hr. CABRIC (Yugoslavia): For the second time in slightly more than six months, the united Nations is forced to grapple with a difficult financial crisis brought about by factors beyond its control. The gravity of the crisis is best reflected in the report submitted by the Secretary-General in document A/41/90l, in which it is stated that "~he united Nations will begin 1987 with only $10 million cash in hand, SUbstantially less than the cost of one week's operations". (A/4l/9Ql, para. 2 (a» Among developing countries it is felt that the financial crisis has already made a profound negative il'llpact on the overall functioning of the united Nations. The current session of the General Assembly itself, nearing its end under your able and skilful presidency, Sir, has taken place in the shadow of uncertainty as to the further normal functioning of the United Rations. Over and above this, the financial crisis has been used to exert pressure and to impose solutions. There is no need to make particular mention of the fact that this is contrary to the democratic principles on which the united Nations rests. As was the case at the resumed fortieth session of the General Assembly in May of this year, we are again forced to accept measures which considerably constrain the normal functioning of the united Nations, measures the Secretary-General has been compelled to undertake. The Fifth Committee was very responsible and thorough in its consideration of the necessary measures, which should save more than $67 million, the amount which was saved in 1986. (Mr. Cabric, Yugoslavia) We reluctantly support the factual findings in the report of the Fifth Committee. However, we must note that the proposed measures would not give us so much cause for concern themselves if they were not the consecruences of political pressure and behaviour inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. Some of the measures would be effective even without the crisis that has currently engulfed our Organization. What concerns us further, however, is the wording contained in the Secretary-General's report to the effect that the proposed measures will be insufficient unless the payment of the principal contributor is of the same order ~ in 1987 as it was in 1986. T.here is also the obligation mentioned in paragraph 4 of that report that all Member States pay their assessed contributions for 1987 as well as that all countries promptly pay their arrears in 1987. It is expected that implementation of the programme activities of the United Nations in accordance with the programme budget for the 1986-1987 biennium will not be adversely affected by these measures. The developing countries, the non-aligned countries and, lore believe, the majority of the Member states of the United Nations, are very concerned at the situation in which our Organization finds itself. It is not only the financial crisis that concerns us. Rather, it is the overall attitu<;te towards multilateral international activities. It is obvious that the financial crisis is intended to degrade multilateral activities and, by extension, the united Nations and its role in the solution of major international problems. It is hoped that all Member States, particularly those that have contributed most to the situation, will convey to their Governments and legislative bodies the message from the forty-first session of the General Assembly on the concern prevailing here over the future of the united Nat ions. It is also strongly believed that all Member States will meet (Mr. Cabric, Yugoslavia) their obligations, since only thus can conditions be created for the United Nations to continue to meet the expectations mankind has of it. That can be achieved only by preserving and developing in the future the basic democratic principles on which the United Nations rests. Mr. NGAIZA (United Republic of Tanzania): My delegation wishes to offer some brief observations on agenda item 140, "Current financial crisis of the United Nations". My delegation appreciates the efforts made by the Secretary-General in pursuing and further recommending economic measures to enable the organization to function under financial constraints the reasons for which that are well known to all in this Assembly. However, my delegation wishes to reiterate, as it did in the Fifth Committee, its difficulty in going along with the Secretary-GeneralIs proposal in paragraph 1 (g) of document A/4l/90l/Add.l, which proposes a change in venue of the regular session of the preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and for the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea from its established headauarters. In this regard my delegation wishes to point out that, in accordance with the relevant decisions, regular sessions of the Preparatory Commission are held at the seat of the International Sea-Bed ~uthority and that a distinction is to be nade between the Preparatory Commission's regular sessions and informal meetings the Preparatory Commission may decide to hold away from the seat of the Authority. If the Assembly endorses the Secretary-Generalis proposals as contained in document A/4l/90l/Add.l, it will be my delegation's understanding that the secretary-General will consult the Preparatory Commission before taking any action to change the venue of its meetings, and given that understanding my delegation (Mr. Ngaiza, Tanzania) will wish to know where and when the secretary-General intends to meet and consult the Commission. My delegation also wishes to refer to the economic measures applied to the construction project at the Economic Commission for Africa (RCA) in 1986. My delegation wishes to reauest the Secretary-General, while implementing economic measures in 1987, to reconsider the postponement of the ReA construction project because its continued postponement will in the final analysis lead to more expenses, since prices go up and up as the years pass. Mr. TANIGUCHI (Japan): My delegation is deeply concerned about the serious financial problems confronting the United Nations and in particular the effects of the financial crisis on the orderly functioning of the Organization. without doubt, the current crisis is a direct consequence of some Member States' withholding of and arrears in assessed contributions to the regular and peace-keeping budgets. We regret that those Member States are not fully meeting their financial obligations under the United Nations Charter. At the Same time my delegation would like to point out that the deep-rooted· and long-standing concerns expressed by many Member States over the lack of fiscal restraint, lack of rational management of resources according to the programme priority, and lack of attention to efficiency and productivity in the operation of the Organization form the background against which the current crisis should be seen. My delegation is concerned that a comprehensive solution will not be found unless political agreement among Member States on financial issues is achieved and increased efficiency and enhanced effectiveness through administrative and financial reform are realized. To this end co-operative efforts by Member States and the Secretary-General are vitally important. (Mr. Taniguchi, Japan) We note that, given the continuously serious financial shortfall, the Secretary-General has proposed to continue the economy measures introduced this year through 1987. In order to preserve the viability of the Organization, there will be no alternative for the United Nations but to reduce expenditures to the level of actual income and to ensure the orderly functioning of the Organization. My delegation appreciates and is in sympathy with the efforts the Secretary-General has made so far in seeking economies and in achieving savings in various fields. At the same time my delegation is concerned about the impact of some of those measures on the fundamental and essential goals that have been set for the united Nations. (Mr. Taniguchi, Japan) First, these economy measures were originally taken and put together as temporary and urgent measures to produce short-term savings to meet the anticipated shortfall of income in 1986. Some rationalization of activities was necessitated through the implementation of the economy measures. However, these were, in a sense, stop-gap measures and not carried out in the context of the most rational and systematic administrative reform. Prolongation of these temporary and unsystematic measures for another year will not be the best way to improve the efficiency of the Organization. AmOng these economy measures, my delegation has the most serious reservation with the prolongation of the recruitment freeze in 1987. A recruitment freeze would have significant implications for the composition of the staff in the long run, particularly in terms of geographical distribution. As the most seriously under-represented country on the United Nations staff, Japan is deeply concerned that prolongation of the freeze would reverse the progress made recently in improving geographical distribution. In recommending a staff reduction of 15 per cent in three years, the report of the Group of 18 also stressed the need to bring in new and young blood to the Organization. It would be too short-sighted and would not serve the long-term interests of the United Nations if the Organization completely closed its doors to external candidates for a long period of time. My delegation urges the Secretary-General to give special consideration to these aspects in implementing the plan and to recruit those candidates who are essential to the united Nations, including the successful candidates of already concluded competitive examinations. Among the other economy measures, there are elements which cause some concern to my delegation, including meetings relating to human rights. Despite these reservations, my delegation is prepared to go along, in principle, with the Secretary-General's proposed continuation of economy measures. (Mr. Taniguchi, Japan) The essential element underlying any measure to establish financial stability, is ,the acceptance by all Member states of their obligation to pay their assessed contributions promptly and in full. Since becoming a Member of the United Nations 30 years ago, Japan has borne an ever-increasing financial assessment and has consistently endeavoured duly to fulfil its obligations. Our steadfast commitment to the causes of the united Nations is reflected in the positive support we extend to the Organization. The United Nations is now at a critical stage. It is essential that the Organization make a serious effort to adjust to the changing conditions and needs of the international community. The Japanese delegation hopes that the United Nations will not lose the momentum it has already achieved in its efforts to implement effective administrative and financial reform so that it may continue to work for the peace and welfare of the people of the world in the years to come. Mr. WOOLCOTT (Australia): Barely Seven months have elapsed since we discussed the financial crisis at the resumed fortieth session of the General Assembly. The fact that we are called upon to address the same issues again, after such a short interval, serves to underline the serious and persistent nature of the crisis and the apparent inability so far of the Members of the united Nations to come to grips with the underlying problems. At the resumed fortieth session of the General Assembly, there was virtually unanimous agreement that the financial crisis was political in nature. The crisis has arisen out of a fundamental disagreement between Member States on a range of key issues, inclUding the budget process, priorities, the utilization of resources, and the apportionment of costs of the Organization. The crisis has been exacerbated by unilateral withholdings and late payment of assessed contributions. (Mr. Woo1cott, Australia) For a number of years those Member States that contribute most, in financial terms, to the Organization, have expressed concern over a lack of fiscal restraint and a failure to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Organization. In our view, it will not be possible to solve the current crisis until we find a way of securing broad political agreement on the major financial and administrative issues, in particular the size of the budget. A bUdget system under which the majority can prevail, at the expense of the minority, is perhaps the most important reason behind the present crisis. Australia welcomed the report of the Group of High-Level Intergovernmental Experts because its recommendations were based on a sound analysis of the underlying weaknesses of the present system. It represented a serious effort to recommend measures which would strengthen the effectiveness of the Organization and point the way out of the situation into which we had drifted. We were encouraged by the fact that an intergovernmental body had reached important conclusions and recommended constructive reforms. These reforms may not solve all our problems, but they can prOVide a framework within which we can seek a lasting solution to the current financial crisis. I should like to turn now briefly to the Secretary-General's proposed economy measures. We appreciate the very considerable difficulties under which he is forced to operate, and we recognize the pragmatic nature of his proposals. If implemented, these measures may help the Organization struggle through part of 1987, but they do not, of course, address the underlying causes of the crisis. We must hope that the establishment of improved programme bUdget machinery, responsive to both the programme needs of the Organization and to i current fiscal rea1it es, will help solve the more important long-term problems. (Mr. woolcott, Australia) In the meantime, however, it is essential that expenditure be reduced to the level of actual income and that a greater effort be made to generate savings by the elimination of obsolete, and the reduction of, marginal, non-cost-effective programmes. Modern management experience suggests that there is also much which could be done to increase productivity and to reduce the current high level of administrative overheads. In the face of the present predicament, there is no alternative to pursuing a stringent policy of genuine zero real growth in the United Nations budget. Like other delegations, we have some reservations about certain aspects of the secretary-Generalis proposals. We have all had to make sacrifices in 1986 and we will be called on to do so again in 1987. However, the human rights area has, in our view, been subjected to disproportionate cuts, both earlier this year when the Secretary-General was compelled to make cuts and now again in relation to his proposals for 1987. It needs to be understood that a real diminution of the activities of the united Nations in this area could lead to some further etosion of popular confidence in the organization• We trust that the clear signals in the Fifth Committee's report relating to the maintenance of summary records for the substantive work of the Commission on Human Rights and the bodies monitoring implementation of the four principal human rights Treaties will be heeded. Such records are essential programme elements and ensure international accountability. Moreover, the meeting time of human rights bodies should not be disproportionately cut by reductions in temporary assistance. Permanent staff should be redeployed to perform priority human rights work if temporary assistance cannot be made available for this purpose. In conclusion, let me make it clear that Australia's support for fiscal responsibility, economy and efficient programme delivery is motivated by our desire to see a stronger, more effective and more durable United Nations. We want this vital institution to survive and prosper on a sound financial and administrative base. Australia is a steadfast supporter of the multilateral system and remains firmly committed to a United Nations capable of meeting the needs of Member States. Mr. SAMUDIO (Panama) (interpretation from Spanish): The position of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States on the current financial crisis is well known to all. Hence I shall not go into details now, given the lateness of the hour. However, I wish to comment on one point in the Secretary-General's report in document A/41/90l/Add.l dealing with the calendar of conferences and certain modifications proposed in the light of the current financial crisis. I refer to the meetings of the Preparatory Commission for the International Sea-Bed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, whose meetings for 1987 have been shifted to Headquarters in New York instead of being held in Kin9ston, Jamaica, the seat of the Commission. The Preparatory Commission's headQUarters was agreed as Kingston, Jamaica, in resolution I adopted under the Convention of the (Mr. Samudio, Panama) Law of the Sea. Decisions as to where meetings of the preparatory Commission are to be held are to be taken by that intergovernmental body itself. The General Assembly has already confirmed the Commission's decision with regard to its programme of meetings, as appears in resolution 41/34. The General Assembly has also approved the calendar of conferences, including the holding of the Preparatory Commission in Kingston, Jamaica. That is why the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States firmly supports the idea of holding the Preparatory Commission's session in Kingston, Jamaica, as decided by the Commission itself and oonfirmed by the General Assembly in its resolution 41/34. We hope the Secretary-General will take into account the comments made in the Fifth Committee and that before carrying out his recommendations he will consult the intergovernmental bodies concerned on the implications of these resolutions.

I should now like to draw the attention of members to the Fifth Committee's report contained in document A/4l/953 and to the Secretary-General's report contained in document A/4l/90l and Add.l. In view of the continuing serious financial crisis facing the United Nations during the coming year, I am sure that the Assembly recognizes the need for the Secretary-General as chief administrative officer to be able to proceed with flexibility tn dealing with this serious problem. In doing so, the Secretary-General haS assured me that he will, as suggested by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 12 of the report, endeavour to limit the impact of those measures on the general level of programme delivery in view of the fact that programmes, once approved by legislative bdies, should, in principle, be implemented; and that he will also continue to examine alternative methods for making economies and, as far as possible, implement these economy measures in the context of a longer-range plan for management improvement. ~he secretary-General has a180 aeked _ to eftlPhasise that: all the naeasures he is suggesting are purely of an e_rgeney and short-term nature. purther1ilK)te, they will have no impact whatsoever on the decisions and rules approve-d by th,. Gimeral Asselllbly applying in norMl c!roulUtanoes and regarding thenor.al venue of future lIMtetings. In the light of what 1 have just said, JIIay I take it that the ASlMlIIlIbly, while recognizing that: in BOIM instanoes this could lDOdify, in part, decision. p.reviously taken, agrees that t~ Secretary-General uy proceed along the lines of the proposals contained In the report of the Secretary-O,eneral in dOCUllient A/41/901 and Add.l and take into account the relevant t.'port o·f tbe Fifth COiIIIllllitte·e on tbis item contained in document A/41/953? If 1 hear no objection, it will be 60 decided. It was 80 decided. Mr. VNlBR (Canada): 1'he delegation of Canada wishes to thank the secretary-General for the reports he has subtitted on the ourrent financial ceisis and to oommend hi" for the manner in W'hlch he has gu.lded the Organization through 19186. ~spit.. a lower than expected paylMnt frOll tM ••jot co,ntributor, deapite continued illegal withholdinga by 18 Member States,. despite outatanding contributions still owed by a majority of Mellbel' States, and despit.e foreign-exchange losses of a1Jaost '30 million, tbe Organization w111 finish 1986 with a net balance of '10 million. 'rhe Secretary-General ha.s thereforehonouee<! his CORmitment for 1986. Althouqb we have now pasaed through 1986 the Organ.bation aUll relMins been develO'plllents offering promise that the Organhationt. financial soundneSS will perilously close to bankruptcy, a8 the secret.ary-General himlll,elt notes. There have (Mr. Vaher, Canada) in the long run be restored, but in immediate terms the financial crisis has not abated. My delegation notes with concern that many Member States still owe sizable contributions to the regular bUdget, that withholdings continue, and that the financial crisis is having serious effects on programmatic output. The revised 1987 appropriation of $735 million is '85 ~illion more than projected receipts of $650 million in the same year. The secretary-General proposes bridging this gap through a continuation of the econo~ measures introduced this year, with some jUdicious adjustments. However, we note with some concern that it is unlikely that the economy measures will be sufficient to cover the entire shortfall of $85 million. We must therefore anticipate the likelihood of further restraints during 1987. (Mr. Vaher, Canada) My delegation also notes the Secretary-Genera1's appeal in paragraph 6 of document A/41/901 for flexibility to make adjustments in implementing economy measures with the objective of limiting prejudice to mandated programmes and to the functioning of the Organization. My delegation is willing to extend to the Secretary-General the full prerogatives of his position and to entrust to him the balanced, fair and orderly functioning of the Organization. While my delegation fully understands the impact that the financial crisis is having on activities and programmes and while it has therefore gone along with consensus on this item, we should like to place on record several specific reservations. We consider that the programme cuts as outlined in document A/41/901 and Add.1 could limit the already meagre support allocated for human rights activities of the United Nations. My delegation expects that in 1987, with respect to human rights activities, we shall not again have the situation outlined in paragraph 29 of document A/41/953. We trust that programmes that suffered disproportionately in 1986 will not again so suffer in 1987, but rather that efforts will be made to compensate for earlier disproportionate cuts so as to achieve some measure of equity and balance. It is important to remember that the promotion and protection of human rights is listed in the United Nations Charter as one of the four fundamental objectives of this Organization. It should also be noted that summary records are more than just a supplement •, to the activities of the human rights bodies, they indeed form a major programmatic output. In this regard, we welcome assurances by the Secretariat with respect to the provision of summary records. In this respect also we include the Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, which meets for the first time in 1987, as one of the priority human rights activities requiring summary recorrls. (Mr. Vaher, Canada) The Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada wrote to the Secretary-General on 2 December this year, mentioning that WA failure to maintain our carefully constructed mechanism for the promotion and protection of human rights would further erode public support for the Organization in Canada. ·The generous support Canadians have traditionally accorded to the united Nations is in no small measure contingent particularly upon the accomplishments of the Organization in this areaw•

The Assembly has now completed its consideration of the items listed for today's meeting. ORGANIZATION OF WORK

Since the lOOth meeting, I have pursued, as promised, intensive negotiations in an effort to reach agreement on the disposition of agenda item 38, wReview of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the united Nationsw• While I am pleased to report that substantial progress has been made, the consultation process has not yet been fully completed. Accordingly, the next meeting of the General Assembly will be announced in the Journal as soon as agenda item 38 is ready for consideration in plenary meeting. The meeting rose at 2.15 p.m.